Scientists find first bird beak.

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Why? Their definition of Human (descendant of Adam) is false since Adam was made long BEFORE any other living creature. Genesis 2:4-7 The ToE is the biggest Satanic bamboozle of all time. Occam's Razor cuts apart any other view since we INHERITED our superior intelligence from Adam, who was made like God. Genesis 3:22

BTW, Jesus is the Creator of NOTCH2NL genes. John 1:3

BABELFISH TRANSLATION: "I have NO ANSWER for the MOUNTAINS of EVIDENCE that completely DISPROVES my BARE and UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS that I WISH to be TRUE but deep down, know isn't even remotely the case... so I'll just keep on asserting rubbish to avoid confronting reality, and perhaps it'll all just go away..."

 

[Aman777]

BABELFISH TRANSLATION: "I have NO ANSWER for the MOUNTAINS of EVIDENCE that completely DISPROVES my BARE and UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS that I WISH to be TRUE but deep down, know isn't even remotely the case... so I'll just keep on asserting rubbish to avoid confronting reality, and perhaps it'll all just go away..."

Occam's Razor on all of your long, drawn out foolishness. One MUST inherit the intelligence of his parents since intelligence does not evolve. IF it did, we could close the schools...idgit.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Occam's Razor on all of your long, drawn out foolishness. One MUST inherit the intelligence of his parents since intelligence does not evolve. IF it did, we could close the schools...idgit.

-_- that doesn't make sense, since the capacity to learn and knowledge itself are two different things. Humans are born with the capacity to learn, but we aren't born with knowledge and it wouldn't make any biological sense to be born with the same knowledge as one's parents.

Also, look up Robert Tryon's Rat Experiment, in which rats were bred on the basis of how well they could complete a maze. It has been demonstrable that intelligence was a trait one could breed for since the 1940s.

Again, what is inherited is the capacity to learn, not the information learned by the previous generation. We all need to learn how to speak, but some are better at it than others.

 

[Aman777]

-_- that doesn't make sense, since the capacity to learn and knowledge itself are two different things. Humans are born with the capacity to learn, but we aren't born with knowledge and it wouldn't make any biological sense to be born with the same knowledge as one's parents.

Amen and only Humans have this ability since we inherited it from Adam. Genesis 3:22 IF evolution of Humans was true, then Humans would be getting smarter and smarter but we're not.

Also, look up Robert Tryon's Rat Experiment, in which rats were bred on the basis of how well they could complete a maze. It has been demonstrable that intelligence was a trait one could breed for since the 1940s.

Humans are not rats and did not evolve from rats but were made with an intelligence like God's billions of years before rats. The reason we live in flesh is because some 12k years ago Adam and Eve sinned and lost their image like God and were made in the likeness of sinful flesh, as were prehistoric people.

Again, what is inherited is the capacity to learn, not the information learned by the previous generation. We all need to learn how to speak, but some are better at it than others.

Amen. What we inherit from our parents determines our ability to learn and we have lost the ability to do many things over time. A good example is the "blessing" where the father told the son what he would become in the future. As we near the end we will become much more violent. 2Ti 3:1-3:5

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Occam's Razor on all of your long, drawn out foolishness. One MUST inherit the intelligence of his parents since intelligence does not evolve. IF it did, we could close the schools...idgit.

You seriously expect everyone to believe that Occam's Razor would fabricate an entire swathe of extra unfounded, unevidenced supernatural supposition that creates more question than it answers?? That's a FAIL! on your part to understand the application of Occam's Razor. You should go read up on it again, then read up and study it again for good measure, then don't use it anyway because you'll still fail to grasp the concept.

This is how it works:

When we are faced with two possible scenarios - For example, first scenario, our intelligence is the result of evolutionary processes that we understand happens naturally, and we can and have seen occur through this process repeatedly and verifiably time and time again

-~= Or =~-

Second scenario, A magical and unseen entity created a human genetically identical to modern day humans some 24 billion years ago in some other unknown dimension that somehow had a different intelligence that for some unknown reason couldn't have occurred naturally, even though everything we know and have evidence for says it does, was then kept in said parallel universe until the actual universe we do know exists matched the conditions for this unknown dimension man to pop out and start interbreeding with the then modern humans whose genome then matched perfectly with dimension man who was created 24 billion years ahead of time, complete with all the same ERVs that show we have common ancestry with other apes and further, other life on this planet.

Which of the two scenarios would require less assumptions? Why, Occam's Razor would say the First Scenario requires less assumptions and therefore the second scenario can be discarded - there's no assumed creator, no assumed alternative dimension, no assumed parallel dimension man, no assumed deposition of said parallel dimension man into this universe, no assumed higher intelligence that would somehow be there without the genetics required of it to support this intelligence, no support system to keep said parallel dimension man in his dimension for 24 billion years, and so on.

Your position, Aman, is the definition of "untenable" - the 'idgit' in this conversation is not me, I'm sorry the truth of this conversation is uncomfortable for you and your belief system...

 

[Abraxos]

Evolutionists need to get their stories straight again, because it's a bit awkward when paleontologists found duck fossils millions of years older than this Ichthyornis, according to their own evolutionary time-frame. Not only ducks but sparrows as well.

If it looks like a duck quacks like a duck it's a duck.

Nope, no such thing has happened. You're just wishful thinking now.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Happy to oblige the ignorant.

Ducks "dated" 110 million years ago:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-dinosaurs.html

Sparrows "dated" 121 million years old:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3762626.stm

Finding fossils of modern day animals (not only birds) is more common than what the neo-darwinists have people believe. If it looks like a duck quacks like a duck... it's a feathered dinosaur?

 

[Herman Hedning]

Happy to oblige the ignorant.

Ducks "dated" 110 million years ago:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-dinosaurs.html

From that article: "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."

Sparrows "dated" 121 million years old:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3762626.stm

Nowhere in that article is sparrow mentioned. What is mentioned is how the animal is different from modern songbirds:

This maturity means the bird must have been "prococial".

Prococial birds - like chickens, ducks and ostriches - produce young which are immediately competent: they have downy feathers, can run about and feed themselves almost as soon as they hatch.

"Altricial" birds on the other hand, like all songbirds, are born completely helpless, naked and blind. They require devoted care from their parents in order to survive.​

Finding fossils of modern day animals (not only birds) is more common than what the neo-darwinists have people believe. If it looks like a duck quacks like a duck... it's a feathered dinosaur?

Or, maybe what is being found are fossils with features similar to modern day animals. Ever thought of that?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Happy to oblige the ignorant.

Ducks "dated" 110 million years ago:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-dinosaurs.html

From your reference:

"Almost a Duck
It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."​

so, the paleontologists who study the subject matter pointed out that it isn't a duck. I'm going with those who would know on this one (keeping in mind some of these Scientists are Christian and believe that Jesus died for their sins), not a random off the internet who has a vested interest in protecting his personal beliefs.

Sparrows "dated" 121 million years old:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3762626.stm

This article says no such thing about Sparrows being found - it's talking about arboreal nesting bird developing fully formed, which is something not found in most modern arboreal nesting birds.

Finding fossils of modern day animals (not only birds) is more common than what the neo-darwinists have people believe. If it looks like a duck quacks like a duck... it's a feathered dinosaur?

There's no doubting that some species have remained the same for hundreds of millions of years unchanged, some species of fish and shark come to mind, but to throw a blanket declaration that any and all modern species were around since the beginning and that scientists are for some reason lying about this is outright false - so at the risk of pointing out the obvious dishonesty from a Christian, I'll give you another chance to demonstrate your position to not be dishonest. Were your posts dishonest to say Ducks and Sparrows in their current form were around a hundred or so million years ago, or could you have made a genuine mistake about the science?

 

[Aman777]

This is how it works:

When we are faced with two possible scenarios - For example, first scenario, our intelligence is the result of evolutionary processes that we understand happens naturally, and we can and have seen occur through this process repeatedly and verifiably time and time again

False, since Human intelligence does not evolve over time. If it did, Einstein's descendants would be the smartest people on Earth. NO one can explain the process by which God's superior intelligence (Gen 3:22) gets placed inside the Human brain except by inheritance...and it cannot be repeated in Humans, according to science. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Second scenario, A magical and unseen entity created a human genetically identical to modern day humans some 24 billion years ago in some other unknown dimension

False, since He told us the entire story in Genesis One. Your problem is that you have chosen to reject His Truth because you THINK you are smarter than God. Amen?

Which of the two scenarios would require less assumptions

Mine of course since God created Adam with an intelligence like His and ALL Humans (descendants of Adam) have inherited this intelligence which is the greatest in the Cosmos. No magical evolution needed. Occam's razor on unproven changeable Theories made up by godless men who wish to eliminate God from His Own Creation.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

False, since Human intelligence does not evolve over time. If it did, Einstein's descendants would be the smartest people on Earth. NO one can explain the process by which God's superior intelligence (Gen 3:22) gets placed inside the Human brain except by inheritance...and it cannot be repeated in Humans, according to science. Amen?

False, since He told us the entire story in Genesis One. Your problem is that you have chosen to reject His Truth because you THINK you are smarter than God. Amen?

Mine of course since God created Adam with an intelligence like His and ALL Humans (descendants of Adam) have inherited this intelligence which is the greatest in the Cosmos. No magical evolution needed. Occam's razor on unproven changeable Theories made up by godless men who wish to eliminate God from His Own Creation.

First, Clearly you fail at Occam's Razor. Second, Continuing to assert stupidity either through monumental ignorance, or deliberate misrepresentation isn't making your case any better.

Next, I accept your challenge that A) your God Exists, and B) that I think I'm smarter than your God - therefore I suggest we (as in myself and your God) ask each other a series of questions here on this forum to see who is smarter. Of course, a non-answer will be considered a tacit admission of a fail. He can ask me his questions (though if he exists, there likely won't be any questions he could ask me that he doesn't already know the answer to, but I imagine he might ask me questions that would educate me about him), Accordingly, my two questions to start are:

A) What is the credit card number of my partner's Visa?
B) What is the square root of 9​

Now, your God will need to answer this challenge, not you. You can pray to him or otherwise plead your case, though I will accept you writing on his behalf if he gives you information that he knows would demonstrate to me unequivocally that you are indeed speaking on his behalf. If not, then either he doesn't care about either of us, or he doesn't exist. I guess we'll soon find out if your God cares enough to exist for you.

 

[Aman777]

Of course, a non-answer will be considered a tacit admission of a fail.

Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

I leave you in His Hands.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

I leave you in His Hands.

"The more likely we are to assume that the solution comes from the outside, the less likely we are to solve our problems ourselves." - Carl Sagan​

...and I'll take that as a win.

 

[AV1611VET]

"The more likely we are to assume that the solution comes from the outside, the less likely we are to solve our problems ourselves." - Carl Sagan​

...and I'll take that as a win.