Skip to comments.ammonite fossils in Mount Everest and crocodiles NOW in the Sahara - evolution censors fooled
Posted on 12/06/2004 3:59:43 PM PST by Truth666
December 6, 2004, 9:45 P.M : the first channel of German television shows the premiere for the film "Time journeys", by Adam White and Sara Ford, supposed to be one more in the series of latest documentaries using the latest computer technology to cover-up the evolution hoax.
But this time something unprecedented happened : an audience of more than 3 million gets the chance to be informed about some of the latest facts exposing evolution, that the censors managed to hide so far.
The film starts by asking two of those facts. How comes you finf
- ammonite fossils near the top of Mount Everest, and
- crocodiles (a new species discovered in 2002, much smaller than the Nile crocodiles) living in the middle of the Sahara.
If you keep trying to expose the fraud of evolution, you're only going to make the Devil mad.
Doh! I suppose that for some these facts must be absolutely mindboggling.
But only to the uneducated would these facts appear to contradict evolution. In fact they support it 100%, so whoever you are, you should blow off so hard.
Thyat should have been "NOT blow off so hard".
It's not really breaking news that we find giant seashell fossils in the middle of west Texas, for example.
I have a whole box full of fossilized sharks teeth I found on the eastern shore of lake Huron.
"flat earthers" - are they the same people that hide the findings on top of Mt. Everest ?
Convinced me! Now I'm gonna put on my aluminum foil hat so the aliens can't read my mind.
I don't get it... How do Ammonite fossils in the Himilayans disprove evolution? Surely, you do realize that when the Amonites were plentiful, according to scientists, the Himilayan mountains did not exist yet. That was about 500 million years ago. Much more recently (I forget exactly when), India supposedly crashed into Asia, resulting in the relatively brand-new mountain range rising up, lifting sedimentary rocks formed on the ocean floor to heights over 25000 feet.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how biblical literalists explain fossilized sea creatures 29,000 feet up.
Oh, and you do realize that the Sahara was recently quite moist, don't you?
Or to find ammonite fossils on top of Mount Everest, which was once on the bottom of a tropical sea, as were ALL the Himalayan Mountains.
As for Saharan crocs, as recently as a few thousand years ago, during the great glaciations, the Sahara was a well watered place, a huge granary in fact, and supported very large human populations, and had wetlands and everflowiing streams. It would have been astonishing indeed if there were NOT crocs living there under those conditions.
All in all, a big "duh"!
What??? You mean my ancestors weren't hanging from the trees? Ohhhh, the humanity! Are we seeing idiocy as its evolving???
Satan's Tin-Foil Underground. Hopefully, we can abbreviate that in some way that's *not* rude. :^D
Great, so you will provide me with what google didn't : a page exlpaining the Sahara crocodiles with evolution ...
Saharan crocs don't really link up with evolution. They are too recent, and probably died off as the Sahara died out. But some may still live.
Maybe you ought to hone your Googling skills, as I found this very interesting item:
Um.... an Irish woman discovered them crocs.
The Sahara desert as we know it is only a few thousand years old. What's your point?
My 10 yr old asked me the other day, "Dad, what's the biggest flood Nevada ever had?"
Wise old Dad thinks for a bit then says, "Probably in 1983 / 84. We had a good El Nino going if I remember right."
"No, Dad. Try when the whole state was under water!"
Oh really? How? Prove it.
Basic geology should be a core requirement for high school. It really should.
I don't think I'll even try to "prove" anything to you as your argumentative approach indicates that you are closed minded on this subject and you only want to engge me in a futile and time-wasting exchange.
I think if you peruse the posintgs on this thread, you can see the gist of my thought, shared widely by others, it appears.
Makes you kinda glad that Columbus set off on his foolhardy journey to the edge of the earth doesn't it?
You can add the atheists and evilutionists to that list. I'd be glad to see those pukes vanish.
As I expected. Another closed minded evilutionist with sh!t for brains.
That was uncalled for and goes outside the bounds of acceptable comment on this board. You are risking much.
We know that since 1933, and evolution theory also, right ?
Thanks for the ping, but the lead article is a tragically ill-informed bit of drivel. I don't think I should ping the list for this one.
Yeah, you've got a point - now that I read it again, it is pretty sad.
John, the THEORY of evolution has thus far been unable to produce FACTS to support it. But please inform us all when it does.
So tell me, who was Cains wife?
You see, there are a few problems with the story of Adam and Eve as well.
Really doing your bit to maintain the image of Bible-Believing Christians
Really doing you bit to maintain the image of Bible-Believing Christians
Perhaps evolution is a theory, but creationism is even less than that. Not only can't creationism produce PROOF to the standard "beyond any doubt whatsover even in the most dedicated opponent" demanded of evolutionists, it has trouble producing mere evidence, relying instead on holy writ.
This thread contains some of the weakest thinking on the subject I have ever seen. Some pro-creationist argument at least has a semblance of cogency, but that has not been in evidence here today.
The Flood put them there, of course. ;)
Not to take your post too seriously (recognizing the winkie), One really must wonder how long it would take the slow moving sea creatures to climb from the Bay of Bengal to the heights of Everest.
I think the current rate measured is about a quarter inch per year (or four years per inch). Making the probably unsafe assumption that the rate has been constant for the past N years:
4 (year/inch) * (12 inches/foot) * 29,035 (feet) = 1,393,680 years
Of course, that's an absurdly rough calculation, but I think it's around the right order of magnitude.
... but to help the brain washed public (any child is able to understand that only zombies can swallow a story of an ammonite being raised from sea level to 7000 meters altitude, proudly keeping its form and balance on top of the world ...) on this subject, the film makers found also a good example. It was presented also right at the beginning of the film. A plane crashing in a New Zealand glacier, does that ring a bell ?
I found a "New Coke" can along the highway the other day.
Rather straightforward explanation for that.
I don't agree with all premises of evolutionary theory. But you are confusing plate tectonics with evolution - two very different subjects.
But, then again, you confuse a lot of things.
I'm a little confused here... do you think the measurements showing the height of Mt Everest constantly increasing have been falsified?
That's irrelevant for this issue
Forgive me, for I haven't seen the documentary myself. Could you elaborate on what your objection is?
It's all clearly stated in the sequence I wrote above in this thread. If you don't understand a particular step in that sequence, please state it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.