Man and dinosaur coexisting

[JacksBratt]

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.

 

[USincognito]

Funny this:

Let me see if I'm getting your point. One study showed the Au. afarensis is a population of hominids that were cousins to the human ancestral line, not a directly ancestral population of hominids and....

Can you help us out here?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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.”

So, this is about Dinosaura how?

The actual article you are promoting is not at all what you have presented,

Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen
2007 "Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths" PNAS 2007 104 (16) 6568-6572

It is freely available. Anybody can read it. Few will have learned to understand it.

Start a new thread just on the Australopithecus and Homo genus.

 

[BrriKerr]

Because there are two Antichrists coming: one a scientist and one a [false] prophet.

What complete and utter nonsense, the minute before you die you will still believe they are coming and you will still be waiting.

 

[AV1611VET]

What complete and utter nonsense, the minute before you die you will still believe they are coming and you will still be waiting.

In that case, when it does come, I'll go up ahead of those who are still alive at the time.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

 

[BrriKerr]

In that case, when it does come, I'll go up ahead of those who are still alive at the time.

Yes you do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes you do that.

I'm going to take that as an ignorant remark and not a veiled wish.

You're welcome.

 

[-57]

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. This makes me ask; are they really doing this in the name of science and the truth, or do they have some agenda

 

[lasthero]

If evolution happened....we would see transitional fossils all over the place.

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?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

 

[-57]

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.

Yup, like all the climate change scientist getting together and spreading a false truth. The seem to be doing what the evo-minded scientist have done.

 

[bhsmte]

Yup, like all the climate change scientist getting together and spreading a false truth. The seem to be doing what the evo-minded scientist have done.

Cool.

 

[-57]

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.

 

[lasthero]

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?

 

[-57]

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.

But, just for fun...who evolved into who...that is, who is further down on the tree of life?

 

[lasthero]

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?

 

[bhsmte]

Pretty hilarious, isn't it?

 

[-57]

But, just for fun...who evolved into who...that is, who is further down on the tree of life? The frog or salamander?

 

[lasthero]

But, just for fun...who evolved into who...that is, who is further down on the tree of life? The frog or salamander?

You still haven't answered the question.

What do you think a transitional fossil is?

 

[JacksBratt]

You still haven't answered the question.

What do you think a transitional fossil is?

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".
The "Therefore" is not a fact but a presumption. In fact it can never be proven.
That would be like seeing a man in a room with a smoking gun in his hand and a dead man on the floor. You charge him with murder due to the "smoking" gun. All the while the dead man died of a stab wound......and you missed the open window behind the corps because it wasn't in the picture.