Is it a hoax?

[USincognito]

Do you realize your error now?

Jellyfish have left fossil imprints. Stomatolites are far older and they have left fossils. Fossils are not limited to hard body parts.

Don't forget trace fossils.

 

[Skreeper]

Good observation. Jesus put the face napkin "in it's place", but likely wore the linen wrap as he would have needed to cover himself with something when he appeared to Mary. Of course the fact of a separate cloth for covering the face of the dead blows the Shroud of Turin, which has a facial image on the shroud itself, out of the water.

I still don't see any evidence in that picture that "someone arose". If we assume that a dead body was in there someone could have just carried the body.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I still don't see any evidence in that picture that "someone arose".

You are not expected to.

 

[USincognito]

It is interesting to know that Darwin, in later life, regretted writing his book and said that his theory was "the unborn idea of a young man." If that is what the founder of Evolution said, then that must put a bit of dent in it.

Darwin was not St. Paul nor were his writings epistles. The science stands on evidence, not the musings of a man.

 

[pitabread]

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades.

The validity of a scientific theory isn't dependent on popular support of the general public. Plus, the support for YECism has been on a downward trend in the U.S. for a couple decades now, and based on age demographics will continue that downward trend in the future.

 

[USincognito]

In actual fact that although there are many scientific indications supporting Evolution there are crucial areas where science has no answer and in fact, science is silent. One example is that there are no "inbetween" species between plants and animals,animals and humans, and different evolutionary stages of human development. All science can come up with is a couple of bone fragments on which they have built a whole species of human. It was discovered later that the bone came from a pig and not a human at all.

Your urban legend version of Nebraska "man" is incorrect. H haroldcookii was never claimed to be a human ancestor and the "Nebraska man and his family" drawing was done by a newspaper artist, not a scientist. Osborne himself was very critical of the drawing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Someone arose here:

Unlike my footprint picture, your claim can't be concluded from the available evidence.

To compare, your claim is the equivalent of:

=> an interdimensional unicorn appeared on the beach, put the cocktail there and then disappeared again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Someone left a piece of cloth behind.

Yes, indeed.

Good catch.

There was a napkin there too (not shown).

A professional waiter will tell you that, when you leave your table because you're done, you crumple the napkin and leave it there.

If you're intending to come back, you fold or wrap the napkin neatly and place it to the side.

John 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

 

[pitabread]

an interdimensional unicorn appeared on the beach, put the cocktail there and then disappeared again.

This happened to you too???? Man, I thought I was the only one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unlike my footprint picture, your claim can't be concluded from the available evidence.

Then you'd better conclude it some other way -- like by faith.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO. Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species. It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven. Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time? Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.

Evolution is philosophy (or, even a faith/religion) disguised as science. It demands to be science by intellectual and social force, in fact, and most of what we are told is programmable philosophy that depends on our faith and support to provide credibility. Evolution is a relatively new concept that alleges to explain the entire history of Earth's (by the theory of [macro]evolution) 4,500,000,000 year history. This in and of itself is absurd just based on the magnitude of error spread over billions of years, but it doesn't stop an entire paradigm being built from the absurdity.

Hoax? If you believed it in the first place, you may come to that conclusion in about 50-100 years when another philosophy of life comes about.

Now, which tree of life are you talking about? The irony is that the people who consider themselves "elites" - those who can pay $20,000 for a 10-page book with the secrets of the galaxy, for example - do not believe in evolution at all. They believe in the sacredness of algebra and geometry, energy flow, and dimensional alignment for the purposes of ascension, not evolution - a different tree of life most all people actually know about (and much closer to the real tree of life - Christ.) You may have heard of "Christ-Consciousness," which is a gross marginalization of what is actually being sought; it is still the superficial version of historical spirituality reserved for the plebs.


Evolution is also, and especially for the plebs. The book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Darwin provided the same type of philosophy and justification for rape/genocide/murder/death/exploitation/slavery as the West accuses of communism. If one dissects the theory in its scientific and mathematical detail, one realizes that it is an incredibly inelegant philosophy which is why it requires so much explanation for so many of its details. In 1950, scientists and laypersons alike were still using On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life to justify discrimination, racism and behavior we would consider publicly consider abhorrent (up to 2001; 2007.) But, evolution works: it is not, however, the unique solution to the origin of species, especially origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Then presumably a historian can't talk abot the American civil war, or, better yet, first century Palestine.

I agree.

Most true historical data becomes spoils of war - saved in vaults, tablets, hidden in mountains and bases. What we get is an incredibly diluted distortion of the truth - as determined by other highly subjective sources. (This also includes mathematics, and technology.) You have to pay money (e.g. university, or privatized secondary instruction) in order to get more morsels of the truth behind paradigms.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is philosophy (or, even a faith/religion) disguised as science.

Yeah, this is wrong and consequently everything stemming from this premise is also wrong.

Evolution is a useful, applied science; yes, even the 'macroevolution' bits of it that give so many creationists fits.

It's why it's not going away, despite all the creationist bluster that keeps being posted on this forum.

 

[SkyWriting]

The validity of a scientific theory isn't dependent on popular support of the general public. Plus, the support for YECism has been on a downward trend in the U.S. for a couple decades now, and based on age demographics will continue that downward trend in the future.

So the level of debate will drop below 40%. I agree.
If support levels are not important, why are you referring to them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't forget trace fossils.

The jellyfish fossils were examples of one sort of trace fossils. Their bodies were not preserved at all, just their imprint in the sediments.

 

[lesliedellow]

So the level of debate will drop below 40%. I agree.
If support levels are not important, why are you referring to them?

Once America catches up with the rest of the world, there will be nothing to debate, will there?

 

[SkyWriting]

Historical claim: there was an ancient Roman settlement in the area where I live in Belgium.

Proof: last year, during digging works for a new building in that very region, the ruins of an ancient Roman villa were uncovered. Roman coins, Roman art, Roman pottery, Roman mozaics,.... All right there in the ground. When dated, it matches the period of the settlement.

The conclusions drawn from the dig may be a mistake. The area dug for the
foundations of one building does not confirm a settlement.

 

[SkyWriting]

Once America catches up with the rest of the world, there will be nothing to debate, will there?

Again relying on popular opinion?
Will they vote on you being right?
We all long for the day when
a majority of people don't think we
are crazy. But will that change us?

 

[lesliedellow]

Again relying on popular opinion?
Will they vote on you being right?
We all look forward to such love.

I don't have to rely upon public opinion. I have got the almost unanimous opinion of biologists world wide to go on. That sort of unanimity amongst people qualified to evaluate the evidence does not arise out of nowhere. The only get out open to creationists is to postulate a grand conspiracy theory amongst all the world's scientists, and, like all conspiracy theories, it is barking mad.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't have to rely upon public opinion. I have got the almost unanimous opinion of biologists world wide to go on. That sort of unanimity amongst people qualified to evaluate the evidence does not arise out of nowhere. The only get out open to creationists is to postulate a grand conspiracy theory amongst all the world's scientists, and, like all conspiracy theories, it is barking mad.

Well you brought up the YEC stats as if it mattered to you.
That's why I asked.