D
DerelictJunction
Guest
I didn't say Christ or you were dishonest, so why would you imply that I did?
Upvote
0
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.
I didn't say Christ or you were dishonest, so why would you imply that I did?Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Why do I see a trend here?
I didn't say Christ ...
Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Why do I see a trend here?
So you approve of the dishonest misrepresentation of science?
OK I'll take it slowly for you.Did I say you did?
Since you are again implying dishonesty among paleontologists, explain how that update should be considered dishonest.What was that animal that was recently discovered that made you guys update your software because you thought it was long gone?
Was it that Coelacanth or that Tiktok thing? or something?
Maybe it was smallpox.
OK I'll take it slowly for you.
You quoted one word, "dishonesty", and attributed that quote to me.
You then quoted a verse in which Christ was called a deceiver by Jewish leaders.
Then you said you see a trend.
By that you implied that I said you were dishonest and you were comparable with Christ.
I did not call you dishonest, so I wondered why you would imply that. Was it some way of counting coup on this forum as if no one would notice the duplicity?
I thought Christians were required to welcome criticism of their anti-Christian behavior no matter where it came from. Are you losing your fight with the flesh?Go pout somewhere else, will you please?
If I can't ask a simple question that requires only a number as an answer, that's sad.
This conversation is entering the infantile stage, IMO, and getting out of hand.
The best way I can see is to go to read-only until this inquisition evaporates.
So, you found what you expected and rejected it because...... you didn't like it?
What would change your belief? I am guessing that physical evidence would not... yet you still ask for physical evidence... why is that?
Maybe not, but its very close to every graduation. It is a rich fossil record. If you were shown every graduation in a fossil, would that change your mind?
No one is claiming that every graduation is present in the discovered fossil record. For the mammal-reptile transition it is very close, however... that is clearly not enough for you. Taken with all the other evidence, the inference is very clear. I would suggest that you reject this conclusion because of your beliefs and asking for evidence is just a dodge.
What was that animal that was recently discovered that made you guys update your software because you thought it was long gone?
Was it that Coelacanth or that Tiktok thing? or something?
I did not see the answers to what I was saying to show the sequences of transitions, so the site wasn't showing it though I was told to look at it to find that.
If there is enough transitions for evolution from kind to kind, from reptiles to mammals as discussed with me, I could expect it represented in fossils with there already being an abundance of fossils that are found.
It is easy to throw an accusation that another is not willing to look at evidence because of belief already had so securely.
The modern species of coelacanth is not found anywhere in the fossil record.
Coelacanth is a taxonomic order of fish that includes over 100 fossil and living species.
The coelacanths ... were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period.
That's like saying Windows 8 is not found anywhere in computer museums.
I already explained why.
I already explained why.
Do you really think that's an explanation?
You have this animal that scientists say went extinct.
Do you really think that's an explanation?
You have this animal that scientists say went extinct.
Then one is found, and PR department tacks on the word "modern" to cover up their gaff.
That is a direct deliberate degradation of the scientific community, not to mention an exceedingly untrue statement.
I gather you will post an apology?
Here's my apology:
Much of modern science today is antibiblical and is influenced by the muse of science, which is one of Satan's powerful angels.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
I can't describe his infrastructure, but if I had to, I would say it goes:
Satan, then his nine muses, then [whatever].
IMO, the tares are (or have now) outgrowing the wheat, and one of scientists' jobs is to sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible.
Just my opinion.
Oh, wait.
You wanted an apology.
No thanks.
I'm not going to by hypocritical about this.
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?