Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nope. There is no speeding up, only expansion as new stars are added. I believe it is God-energy that is causing the expansion:Then you believe it is God-energy that is causing the expansion of the universe to speed up?
Nope. I think scientific theories have the power to alter our perception of reality.You think science has the power to alter reality?
Nope. I think scientific theories have the power to alter our perception of reality.
That's why we need the Bible to keep it real.
Nope. I think scientific theories have the power to alter our perception of reality.
That's why we need the Bible to keep it real.
Does good science contradict the biblical record of history?
*The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.* -- (Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).
If the science contradicts history, the science is bad. It's that simple.
How is it evidence of God? Why are transitional fossils evidence of God?
How does "God did it" explain why we can find fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features, but not bird and mammal features? How does "God did it" explain why humans and mice are genetically equidistant from lizards. Explain how this is evidence for God.
There are transitionals for all of the ones you have mentioned.
Why would "God's own orderliness" just happen to exactly mimic the orderliness that evolution would produce?
Show me a placental mammal that lays leathery eggs like a reptile does. Show me a rodent that has a cloaca like reptiles do.
Here is Turkana Boy, a nearly complete H. erectus specimen. This is the skull.
Notice the lack of a forehead, as in other apes. Notice the big brow ridges, again like other apes. Notice the forward jutting lower jaw. Again, like other apes. How is this not transitional?
What are your criteria for that determination? Good design is characterized by simplicity, durability, ease of construction, and ease of repair.The fossils are not the evidence of creation from the Creator, but are evidence of earlier living forms. All living forms show design.
Close scrutiny of living things shows that the "designer" does not "go back to the drawing board" for new forms, but tinkers with the related forms. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for instance travels from the brain down into the chest where it loops around the aortic arch leaving the heart and then turns back into the neck where it envervates the larynx. Any engineer submitting such a ridiculous design would be fired, but it makes perfect sense in the context of evolutionary theory.The amazing design is evidence of creation from the Creator.
No! The fossils show evidence of deposition of extremely long periods of time, and so does geology. For instance the Capitan Reef formation in the Guadalupe Mountains could not have been formed in a catastrophe but must have take considerable time to grow from coral deposits, be buried, and then uplifted and eroded. The Karoo formation is of such size that the number of organisms in this one single deposit would have been impossible for the Earth to support simultaneously and so must have been deposited over an extremely long time.The fossils show evidence of great catastrophe that explains fossilization.
But I can point out evidence supporting geological and biological theory. Your opinion is supported only by wishful think... er ... faith.It is still your own opinion with which you go on about mixtures of features regarding individual creatures with the features of their own kind.
Reptiles and mammals share many traits.Any of the mammals are not with any reptile part.
And those groupings are evidence of lines of descent, forming as they do, nested hierarchies that are not found in human design, architecture and engineering.Humans and other creatures equally distant from lizards is evidence of organized grouping.
That is a monstrous untruth, indicating abysmal ignorance, serious dementia, or egregious perversity.No, there are not transitional forms showing biological evolution.
Theories explain observation. The observation comes first, at least in science. In religion the explanation precedes the observation and any observation that the religious explanation cannot account for is simply ignored.The orderliness was showing before evolution was conjectured. Evolution did not first come up with seeing things that way.
So some mammals lay eggs, like reptiles, and in some mammals the eggs develop internally and the undeveloped embryos with no placental support are forced into the world to be protected by the marsupial pouch. It is almost as if we had a snapshot of an egg-laying reptile changing by degrees into a placental mammal.You are being shifty. You were talking about mammals. Here you change to say you are talking about placental mammals. Of course monotremes are not placental mammals. There are other mammals that are truly mammals, and not placental mammals, you know.
And "no clear transition" is just what any reasonable person would expect from evolution.Which are in the human category? Just F and onward. The gap shows in the very sequence you showed, no clear transition.
The fossils are not the evidence of creation from the Creator, but are evidence of earlier living forms. All living forms show design. The amazing design is evidence of creation from the Creator. The fossils show evidence of great catastrophe that explains fossilization.
It is still your own opinion with which you go on about mixtures of features regarding individual creatures with the features of their own kind. Any of the mammals are not with any reptile part.
Humans and other creatures equally distant from lizards is evidence of organized grouping.
No, there are not transitional forms showing biological evolution.
The orderliness was showing before evolution was conjectured. Evolution did not first come up with seeing things that way.
You are being shifty. You were talking about mammals. Here you change to say you are talking about placental mammals. Of course monotremes are not placental mammals. There are other mammals that are truly mammals, and not placental mammals, you know.
We have already been over this.
Which are in the human category? Just F and onward. The gap shows in the very sequence you showed, no clear transition.
The fossils are not the evidence of creation from the Creator, but are evidence of earlier living forms. All living forms show design. The amazing design is evidence of creation from the Creator. The fossils show evidence of great catastrophe that explains fossilization.
It is still your own opinion with which you go on about mixtures of features regarding individual creatures with the features of their own kind. Any of the mammals are not with any reptile part.
Humans and other creatures equally distant from lizards is evidence of organized grouping.
No, there are not transitional forms showing biological evolution.
The orderliness was showing before evolution was conjectured. Evolution did not first come up with seeing things that way.
You are being shifty. You were talking about mammals. Here you change to say you are talking about placental mammals. Of course monotremes are not placental mammals. There are other mammals that are truly mammals, and not placental mammals, you know.
Which are in the human category? Just F and onward. The gap shows in the very sequence you showed, no clear transition.
As I say its all a matter of personal opinion and interpretation.
The so called transitions from ape to human are no more than variations in apes and humans.
There has always been disputes about what makes a ape like creature have some human like features and therefore be a transitional for ape to human. Most of the time it is evolutionists trying to elevate apes into humans and downgrade humans down to apes.
Recent discoveries have shown that there is a lot of variation withing the humanoid species and many different species that have been classed as transitionals are actually just variation with the one species that is humans.
This is the same for apes which also accounts for the lack of fossils that have never been attributed to ancient apes of our more modern ones rather that them being attributed to ape man ancestors.
A lot of it comes down to the interpretation of a couple of features. Often the minor human feature on an ape is elevated but the many ape like features are ignored so that a transitional can be made.
It can also come down to reconstruction and modern techniques are showing that some were over enthusiastic to make transitional features than what was really there. At the end of the day more and more evidence is coming out that there was just one human species with great variation and one ape line with great variation.
But to speak of just the skulls as was asked, notice apes all have muzzles, humans do not.
Apes do not have foreheads or the shape of their skulls anywhere in the range of human skulls. The various human skulls have foreheads, even if with some sloping more than others, the skull shapes are close to be grouped within a common range, to be considered human.
I commend you for hour patience,Loudmouth.
Surely if these blokes studied the subject, they'd not make such beginners errors?
I commend you for hour patience,Loudmouth.
Surely if these blokes studied the subject, they'd not make such beginners errors?
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?