CherubRam
New member
Radiometric dating: http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
jaybird
New member
i thought they got air out of the water through those slits and with no gills they have to continue to move to keep the water flowing.
sorry to all those about derailing the thread on shark breathing but im new. i remember learning the "im new" excuse at work 15 years ago, i still use it to this day.
Sharks have gills. They take in O2 from the water with their gills just like other fish.
And we know that how...?
Greg Jennings
New member
We're on the same page. They "breathe" by getting their oxygen in the way that you described with their gills
Greg Jennings
New member
I'm afraid ICR is not known for their scientific know-how.
Try this one: https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html
Or this one: http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/13/4.html
jaybird
New member
ok i had to look this up. sharks have gills but no gill covers. most fish can sit in one spot and push water down their gills with the gill covers, sharks have to be moving in order to get the water flow. so basically sharks fave turbos and other fish have belt driven blowers.
now i will throw this back on the evolution track. why did sharks not develop gill covers? maybe they are caught in original sin judgment for Jaws terrorizing that island town? that was one mean shark!
jaybird
New member
i got mixed up on the gills. that was like 20 years back in HS when i was reading about that stuff in algebra class.
Greg Jennings
New member
Good question.
Gill covers are present in "bony fish." These bony fish are not as old as the more ancient cartilaginous fishes (sharks, rays, sawfish, and skates). Still older are the jawless fishes, like hagworms. They're gross.
So sharks didn't start with them like bony fishes, and they haven't been harmed by not having gill covers over the eons so they just never developed them. Just a personal theory, but I think that's probably due to their relationships with remora fish and other tooth/gill "cleaners." These fish live around sharks and live off of the scraps and parasites they pluck from their host. This keeps the shark clean so to speak
6days
New member
Good info
No, it's not.
6days
New member
Yes... I believe I explained that to you before.Greg Jennings said:
And that is why the dating of the dino fossils is so interesting. They took samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions and received concordant results.Greg Jennings said:
C-14 Results on soft dino tissue is just one more way science helps confirm the truth of God's Word... and exposes the false beliefs in evolutionism.
Nobody said that we did.
CherubRam
New member
You are asking us to take your word over what these scientist have said. I think you are just being a nay sayer.
CherubRam
New member
He is reporting what other scientist have said.
Last edited:
6days
New member
Some have said it is cowardly for evolutionists to shy away from admitting their beliefs.....Evolutionists DO say we came from monkeys.
The late evolutionary geneticist and Nobel laureate, Hermann J. Muller, writing in the May 1957 issue of Scientific Monthly, blistered his evolutionary colleagues for making such a ridiculous assertion (Teaching that men didn't come from monkeys) rather than simply accepting the fact that monkeys gave rise to apes, which then gave rise to humans.
It is fashionable in some circles to refer slurringly to the inference that apes were ancestral to man, and to insinuate that it is more proper to say that men and apes, perhaps even men, apes, and monkeys, diverged long ago from a stem form that was more primitive than any of these. This is mere wistful thinking on the part of those who resent too vivid a visualization of their lowly origin and their present-day poor relations (84[5]:250).
Seven years later, “Mr. Evolution” himself—George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard—was equally outspoken against what he viewed as such a cowardly approach to the discussion of human evolution.
On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be descendant of any living ape—a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous (COWARDLY) if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2081[/url]
Greg Jennings
New member
Not what the massive majority of scientists say, that's for certain
Greg Jennings
New member
Your study from a creationist source isn't going to cut it. I need a real study from a real publication/organization/university.
Until you can provide proper sourcing for your claims they are nothing more than that
Darwinists love the genetic fallacy. I think they are fooled by the name.