Those pics were fucked.
Did the fall kill them? Or lack of oxygen? because there doesn't seem to be much burnt bodies?
I know that this is continuing off topic but let's address a couple of things first.
There are two main forms of science. Operational science which is based upon conclusions from repeated experimentation and historical science which is based upon analysis of evidence and then applying a series of assumptions to determine the historical account. The problem with all historical sciences is that conclusions cannot be repeated in an experiment as whatever is in question has already happened sometime in the past.
Here is one of the core issues with evolution. There is no known genetic process that adds new information to the genetic code that would be required to create new functions in any organism.
From a geological perspective we are also told that coal takes millions of years to develop yet in a lab with the right conditions ( ridiculous pressure) you can make brown coal in about a week and black coal within a month. This has implications for potential age of items found within coal deposits.
Just three items to think about there.
Hey bazza, not disputing that genetic mutations happen all the time, it's just that as observed they result in a loss of information not a gain.
As for coal I believe the timescale for coal formation is based on how deep coal is found underground, and because it is so deep it must be really old.
How is the point wrong @bazza? What is the mutation process you are referring to that results in a gain of new information
The list of examples could go on and on, but consider this. Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations - a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
Ok @bazza I'll leave it with this final thought.
What you have referred to sounds like basic genetic decay. Random changes to individual "letters" in genetic code which in most cases result in no functional change in the organism, in other cases you end up with destructive variation such as cancers and other genetic disorders.
The new information I'm referring to is about adding complete structures such as how could a fish move from having gills to obtain oxygen to having lungs capable of breathing air. There is more to it than this but this is the general idea.
I don't expect that this would change your views or many others who read this, but there are people who are using a little more than an unfounded belief in a flying spaghetti monster to base their belief on.
creationism
After that it would have been hypoxia within about 10-15 seconds. Not really an instant death.
Is complete
I dont think thats true, they just tell you that to make you feel better about it.
It would have taken about 127 seconds to fall to 8000 feet its possible to remain concious for this amout of time from decompression.
Officially black-listing vodka from my drinks menu...
Stupid putang Russians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?