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'm gonna disagree here.Not.yet.Neat!Because there are two Antichrists coming: one a scientist and one a [false] prophet.
The scientist is going to demonstrate abiogenesis.
Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. Nkay.I don't.That is correct.You're forgetting that these "many believers in Christ and good Christian scientists" won't be here.
They will have been raptured.
I'd say that leaves the unbelieving scientists behind.
Funny this:
Funny this:
Another icon of evolution, the world famous fossil “Lucy” was found to not be in the modern human lineage at all. The interesting part of this is that this is extremely newsworthy but because it casts a very unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy in the modern human line of descent, you won’t find it widely reported except in the Darwin-denier blogs and websites. This strategy is common when embarrassing mistakes are found in widely accepted evolutionary dogma. Keep it mum and let the embarrassing news become common knowledge over a long span of time. Haeckel’s embryos are a fine example of it.
Apr. 16, 2007 0:21 | Updated Apr. 16, 2007 15:39
Israeli researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans
By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that “Lucy” – the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago – is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the “Robust hominids.”
What complete and utter nonsense, the minute before you die you will still believe they are coming and you will still be waiting.Because there are two Antichrists coming: one a scientist and one a [false] prophet.
In that case, when it does come, I'll go up ahead of those who are still alive at the time.What complete and utter nonsense, the minute before you die you will still believe they are coming and you will still be waiting.
Yes you do that.In that case, when it does come, I'll go up ahead of those who are still alive at the time.
I'm going to take that as an ignorant remark and not a veiled wish.Yes you do that.
Are you under the impression you've made a valid point? If humans existed with dinosaurs we'd find their footprints and fossils together all over the place.
The fact that creationists are clinging to these few examples (and yes there are few) amidst so many hoaxes, really makes you question; are they really doing this in the name of science and the truth, or do they have some agenda?
If evolution happened....we would see transitional fossils all over the place.
If evolution happened....we would see transitional fossils all over the place. This makes me ask; are they really doing this in the name of science and the truth, or do they have some agenda
The agenda must be, to get all these scientists together, to agree to stand by this theory, just to get under the skin of biblical creationists.
Yea, that must be it.
What do you consider to be a transitional fossil? For instance, frogs and salamanders are related, so what would a transitional fossil between them look like?
Frogs and salamanders are separate kinds. They are not related.
According to evolution, they are. What features would you accept for a transitional fossil between them?
Considering there are no transitional fossils I would consider no features between them. [/quotes]
So you don't know what a transitional fossil should look like, but you know there aren't any?
But, just for fun...who evolved into who...that is, who is further down on the tree of life? The frog or salamander?
You cannot "prove" transition with snapshots of a sequence. You can guess, surmise, extrapolate and presume, but never prove. People say "these two organisms have the same "x" or "y" therefore one is ancestor of the other. Or, this skull is similar to that one except the slope is less gradual, therefore skull "a" evolved into skull "b".You still haven't answered the question.
What do you think a transitional fossil is?
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?