Scientists find first bird beak.

[dad]

.. Even if we couldn't date a fossil (of course, we can though), the simple fact that they are still in a sequence where everything we know is derived from an ancestral species will never be found earlier in the sequence than what it came from, I know given your propensity for fanciful versions of reality, You will never disprove it.

Yes there is a sequence. Of course. Once the nature changed so that most life could start leaving fossil remains (rather than just a few types of creatures, presumably before the changed nature)--we would start to see a sequence of animals that now left fossil remains. If the whole time period was small, then the meaning of that fossil record would have very different meaning than your baseless religion advocates.

The time to believe something is when you have evidence to support it, Unless of course, you don't care about what is actually true.

When you get evidence that the state/nature on earth was the same, then get back to us then.

says the christian, who is one of thousands upon thousands of denominations who all believe different things while claiming themselves to be the only "Real" Christians...

False. I am not in a denomination at all. I am not very interested in what a denomination says about what the bile says! As for 'real' Christians I would hoe they try to believe the bile also. If they do not, I don't care what they say of course.

They have a religion that came before any version of your religion did, it has a more plausible theology which better matches what Science has found out about reality and it amply accommodates your religion as a subset of theirs.

I have no religion. God's word came up long ago. Nothing predates it (not just the written form)

No origin stories, just what the evidence indicates.

All evidence completely agrees with me and the bible. Your religion has just mucked about with the evidences in a fanatical godless attempt to sully it and deceive people.

none have been confirmed. It must be hard to comprehend that writers of the new testament had access to all the old testament writings and wrote their narratives deades, if not centuries after the fact, and could easily put forth a narrative that matched some,

If you knew what you were talking about, we could talk.
Old wives tales don't make the grade for this thread.

but the simple fact is there's no evidence outside these stories that any prophecy was fulfilled.

I do not see the great temple in Jerusalem today that used to be there, do you? That is evidence it is...well not there anymore.

I'm doubtful there was even a "Jesus"

Ha. Lurkers see what we are dealing with here?

So the Creator of the Universe is a Mysogynist then?

If He hated and mistrusted women why would He created them? Inventing silly concepts and words to try to smear the Almighty is knavish.

Point out where these laws were repealed then.

If an angel directed by God let down all sorts of unclean meat in a blanket and told Peter to eat...how would that mean we still were prohibited to eat it?

Rich, coming from you. So you agree then that Matthew 5:18 is still in effect, therefore all the old laws still apply. Thanks for the concession.

The law is a term. It does not refer to old laws for ancient Israel. Jesus came to fulfill the law, which He did, by fulfilling the prophesies.

The old ten commandments never saved one person. Ever. They are great advice....but merely served to show man always fell short on his own without God. That doesn't mean we should not try to obey them as best we can, but it does mean they won't save us.

Why would you assume Zeus exists so you can go to him with an open heart to see if he's real? Point stands.

Zeus was likely an old manifestation/representation of Satan. Why would I doubt the reality of either good or evil spirits???

Billions of people have come and gone not knowing your God - so if he exists then Yes.

So what? Billions of babies also probably died. Every one of them gets a chance. This world is not the only game in town. I would think in the future, hell would be for the devil and his angels, and some who have had the opportunity to accept Jesus...but utterly rejected Him.

well, given his word is still filtered through fallible men

God is soo great He can even use infallible men to get His word to man.

, I don't see how it follows that Christians who accept the science don't also believe the bible. You're skirting the issue.

I accept science. I accept the bible. I do not accept so called science, that is a phony, and not really any science at all. The so called sciences that deal in origins/evoluton etc.

except it doesn't convey any science. If you take the bible literally, then it's even worse then because it doesn't conform to the science.

The science in the bible is so far superior to manscience of the present nature on earth, that you can not even recognize it.

Well, if you nail your flag to that mast, then we already know your literal interpretation is wrong. In fact, it's so wrong that it's not even wrong.

Your religious and baseless opinion is wrong. I am bang on.

Perfect! Then we're good! We don't have to accept any bible/qur'an/torah/the vedas/homer's iliad, etc. we can just do our thing in our own moral way and sort it out once we're raised after the real God (if any) shows up!

No. Our eternal destiny is determined by one thing only...how we react to Jesus. All others that came before or after are thieves and robbers.

The Scientific Method is by far the most reliable method by which we come to the truth of things.

It is a biased little short sighted, pig headed little religious method that religiously omits God and truth, and reliably cannot come to any knowledge of the truth.

Your God doesn't seem to know this, which is why non-believers are the fastest growing demographic in a majority of today's societies

More fulfilled prophesy...ho hum. By the way, other prophesies say that in the end, untold multitudes would be saved, including all that will be left of Israel. Later still ALL on earth will know about Him.

Nonsense. there's no evidence of a fall, or sin either.

In what...a lab??! Ha. Your baseless guess as to why evil and sin exists and when it got here has no merit whatsoever or no evidence.

Pretty much all the other religions say the opposite and that your religion is the phony.

That shows they are all wrong. The evidence mounts.

Again, how do we tell the difference? You all have no more evidence for your respective religion than each other - you've just bathed yourself in the delusion that there is more for yours than there is for theirs, it just isn't the case.

The bible says if we try Him we will know.

so you agree Eve is in hell then?

No. Why would she be?

On Scripture I have to disagree, there's a variety of versions of the bible, not all of them are the same - I am pretty sure (though not 100%) that pretty much all versions of the bible have references to chapters either not included, or that have been lost. If God wrote the bible as you claim, then why does his word refer to verses not included? Did God make a mistake, or did he miss something in edit?

Jesus read Scripture and it was well known even then. He also promised He would send His Spirit to some to be able to remember and get it right. Any books that never made it into the hall of fame of the bible doesn't matter. It may have some good stuff, but it cannot overrule the known Scripture. Some of it may even be a fraud...who knows. We do not need it.

 

[Brightmoon]

(Sigh) ...no!

 

[Heissonear]

Scientists find the first bird beak, right under their noses

YaleNews
Search form
Search

By Jim Shelton
may 2, 2018
Researchers have pieced together the three-dimensional skull of an iconic, toothed bird that represents a pivotal moment in the transition from dinosaurs to modern-day birds.

Ichthyornis dispar holds a key position in the evolutionary trail that leads from dinosaurian species to today’s avians. It lived nearly 100 million years ago in North America, looked something like a toothy seabird, and drew the attention of such famous naturalists as Yale’s O.C. Marsh (who first named and described it) and Charles Darwin.

Yet despite the existence of partial specimens of Ichthyornis dispar, there has been no significant new skull material beyond the fragmentary remains first found in the 1870s. Now, a Yale-led team reports on new specimens with three-dimensional cranial remains — including one example of a complete skull and two previously overlooked cranial elements that were part of the original specimen at Yale — that reveal new details about one of the most striking transformations in evolutionary history.

“Right under our noses this whole time was an amazing, transitional bird,” said Yale paleontologist Bhart-Anjan Bhullar, principal investigator of a study published in the journal Nature. “It has a modern-looking brain along with a remarkably dinosaurian jaw muscle configuration.”

Perhaps most interesting of all, Bhullar said, is that Ichthyornis dispar shows us what the bird beak looked like as it first appeared in nature.

At its origin, the beak was a precision grasping mechanism that served as a surrogate hand as the hands transformed into wings.

bhart-anjan bhullar

“The first beak was a horn-covered pincer tip at the end of the jaw,” said Bhullar, who is an assistant professor and assistant curator in geology and geophysics. “The remainder of the jaw was filled with teeth. At its origin, the beak was a precision grasping mechanism that served as a surrogate hand as the hands transformed into wings.”

The research team conducted its analysis using CT-scan technology, combined with specimens from the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History; the Sternberg Museum of Natural History in Hays, Kan.; the Alabama Museum of Natural History; the University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute; and the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research.

Co-lead authors of the new study are Daniel Field of the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath and Michael Hanson of Yale. Co-authors are David Burnham of the University of Kansas, Laura Wilson and Kristopher Super of Fort Hays State University, Dana Ehret of the Alabama Museum of Natural History, and Jun Ebersole of the McWane Science Center.

“The fossil record provides our only direct evidence of the evolutionary transformations that have given rise to modern forms,” said Field. “This extraordinary new specimen reveals the surprisingly late retention of dinosaur-like features in the skull of Ichthyornis — one of the closest-known relatives of modern birds from the Age of Reptiles.”

The researchers said their findings offer new insight into how modern birds’ skulls eventually formed. Along with its transitional beak, Ichthyornis dispar had a brain similar to modern birds but a temporal region of the skull that was strikingly like that of a dinosaur — indicating that during the evolution of birds, the brain transformed first while the remainder of the skull remained more primitive and dinosaur-like.

“Ichthyornis would have looked very similar to today’s seabirds, probably very much like a gull or tern,” said Hanson. “The teeth probably would not have been visible unless the mouth was open but covered with some sort of lip-like, extra-oral tissue.”

In recent years Bhullar’s lab has produced a large body of research on various aspects of vertebrate skulls, often zeroing in on the origins of the avian beak. “Each new discovery has reinforced our previous conclusions. The skull of Ichthyornis even substantiates our molecular finding that the beak and palate are patterned by the same genes,” Bhullar said. “The story of the evolution of birds, the most species-rich group of vertebrates on land, is one of the most important in all of history. It is, after all, still the age of dinosaurs.”

The research was supported, in part, by Yale University, the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, the University of Bath, the Alexander Wetmore Memorial Research Award, the Stephen J. Gould Award, and grants from the National Science Foundation, the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies, the Evolving Earth Foundation, and the Frank M. Chapman Memorial Fund.

This is prime conjecture, that geologists are matured in.

Put this evidence within current paleontology text. What will the evidence do?

Will it show one sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time?

Nope.

Paleontology books are absent of such fossil record evidence. Zip. Zero evidence one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

There can be grand celebrations by geologists full of conjecture, without having complete evidence, only partial evidence to stand on and make grand claims that Evolution of creatures on Earth happened.

The fossil record proves evolution never happened. It is right in front of their nose but their faith that creatures evolved has them. And their conjecture abounds.

The information presented in the OP is prime conjecture.

 

[Heissonear]

The strawman that you call "my" fable, is not reflective of what I actually accept as true.

Go back to the OP and geologic science foundation presented. You stray far.

The OP information is but another promotion of conjecture by geologists.

It is under your nose to notice that they Are Still Trying To Find The Fossil Record Sequence To Prove Evolution Happened.

They have but fragments of fossil remains but make grand claims based on conjecture. Their belief evolution of Creatures occurred.

Under everybodies nose is fossil record evidence of zero evidence that one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. Emphasize zero. Zip.

The fossil record proves evolution never happened. Look again. A world full of billions of fossils and zero evidence that one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. Zero evidence evolution occurred.

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually the fossil record of Cerion mollusks does show the kind of gradual changes you’re asking about as these animals lived in a place that had annual varves for 10s of thousands of years

Besides the so called “ gaps in the fossil record” can be filled in with genetics.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes there is a sequence. Of course. Once the nature changed so that most life could start leaving fossil remains (rather than just a few types of creatures, presumably before the changed nature)--we would start to see a sequence of animals that now left fossil remains. If the whole time period was small, then the meaning of that fossil record would have very different meaning than your baseless religion advocates.

Great! Now, where's your evidence? Because all the evidence we do have shows a very old earth and billions of years.

When you get evidence that the state/nature on earth was the same, then get back to us then.

Right after you give us a reason to think it was any different because everything we see shows earth to be billions of years old.

False. I am not in a denomination at all. I am not very interested in what a denomination says about what the bile says! As for 'real' Christians I would hoe they try to believe the bile also. If they do not, I don't care what they say of course.

Ahh, so you're your own kind of Christian (though not a denomination of Christianity)? Got it. Hey Everyone! There's a new Denomination in town!!

I have no religion. God's word came up long ago. Nothing predates it (not just the written form)

Heaps do. Zoroastrianism, Hindus, Roman Gods, Greek Gods, Sumerian Gods, Egyptian Gods. they all predate yours.

All evidence completely agrees with me and the bible. Your religion has just mucked about with the evidences in a fanatical godless attempt to sully it and deceive people.

LOLOLOLOL! Show us how the evidence agrees with you and the bible! Pick something and we'll discuss it.

If you knew what you were talking about, we could talk.
Old wives tales don't make the grade for this thread.

...let alone those prophecy fables of yours...

I do not see the great temple in Jerusalem today that used to be there, do you? That is evidence it is...well not there anymore.

Not that I looked, what's does that have to do with anything?

Ha. Lurkers see what we are dealing with here?

Didn't think you had anything... Yes lurkers, If God cares and wanted a relationship with me, then he'd make himself known - so either he doesn't care for a relationship with me, or he doesn't exist.

If He hated and mistrusted women why would He created them? Inventing silly concepts and words to try to smear the Almighty is knavish.

...because he doesn't want men marrying men? Why did he create all the other beasts for man to rule over and subdue? I agree it makes no sense but I don't follow it so it isn't for me to come up with apologetics for it... and You denigrating other religions and faiths with silly concepts and words is likewise knavish. odd that you're so put out when your own religion is treated with the same disregard with which you treat other religions, and for that matter even other versions of your own religion.

If an angel directed by God let down all sorts of unclean meat in a blanket and told Peter to eat...how would that mean we still were prohibited to eat it?

are you asking me to make sense of your interpretation of your religion? By the way, if you could show an angel as classically represented (you know, with gaffing great bird wings), then you'd instantly throw a spanner in the works for Evolution, because such a thing can't exist.

The law is a term. It does not refer to old laws for ancient Israel. Jesus came to fulfill the law, which He did, by fulfilling the prophesies.

The old ten commandments never saved one person. Ever. They are great advice....but merely served to show man always fell short on his own without God. That doesn't mean we should not try to obey them as best we can, but it does mean they won't save us.

so you have a fancy interpretation of a plain reading of the bible? Is it your own interpretation, or did you have someone come up with it for you?

"17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Jesus, Matthew 5:17-19​

Nope! definitely says "Till heaven and earth pass" and is referencing "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments", that's a fail, and these commandments would indicate he speaks of the jewish laws, which are to be upheld "till heaven and earth pass" from what Jesus says.... unless of course God's Word isn't clear and plain?

Admit it, a normal reading says you have to keep to all the old commandments - earth has yet to pass, I'm afraid. It seems I know which end is up and it is you who doesn't.

Zeus was likely an old manifestation/representation of Satan. Why would I doubt the reality of either good or evil spirits???

Show this to be the case then, because again, all the evidence we have shows your religion to be the last in a long line of religions where one of them "evolved" to eventually become the one you believe in.

So what? Billions of babies also probably died. Every one of them gets a chance. This world is not the only game in town. I would think in the future, hell would be for the devil and his angels, and some who have had the opportunity to accept Jesus...but utterly rejected Him.

Well, if he turns up then I'd certainly believe in him - if he can explain the bible away then I'll worship him as he wants me to, for sure.

God is soo great He can even use infallible men to get His word to man.

Great! as long as it wasn't perfect though, because the evidence shows otherwise.

I accept science. I accept the bible. I do not accept so called science, that is a phony, and not really any science at all. The so called sciences that deal in origins/evoluton etc.

...which is science. your refusal to accept that is yours alone.

The science in the bible is so far superior to manscience of the present nature on earth, that you can not even recognize it.

demonstrate it. In all your time here, you;ve utterly failed to do this. What use is this "superior scientific knowledge" if it isn't recognisable? Hint: it isn't.

Your religious and baseless opinion is wrong. I am bang on.

Again, Demonstrate it! Just asserting I'm wrong doesn't make all the evidence and facts go away. You're living a delusion.

No. Our eternal destiny is determined by one thing only...how we react to Jesus. All others that came before or after are thieves and robbers.

You keep giving contradictory statements at a faster rate than your interpretation of your bible does.

Bugeyes: "It's already too late given the vast majority of the worlds population that has already come and gone with no knowledge of your God."
Dad: "Oh? What if they got a chance to hear after? I mean what about babies that had no chance to hear? You thought they (such as the murdered innocents from abortion) were doomed?! No."
Bugeyes: " lol! Well, what will your God do with all the rational thinking people who earnestly tried, but couldn't find the evidence to believe him from among all the Gods and religions ever presented?"
Dad: "He will give us a chance to decide I would think. Even those who may not be great thinkers."
Bugeyes: "Perfect! Then we're good! We don't have to accept any bible/qur'an/torah/the vedas/homer's iliad, etc. we can just do our thing in our own moral way and sort it out once we're raised after the real God (if any) shows up!"
Dad: "No. Our eternal destiny is determined by one thing only...how we react to Jesus. All others that came before or after are thieves and robbers."​

We have no reason to accept your claim of Jesus over all the other God(s) ever presented. Many other religions have as strong a case as you do, and often even stronger given your insistence that all of reality is somehow fake.

It is a biased little short sighted, pig headed little religious method that religiously omits God and truth, and reliably cannot come to any knowledge of the truth.

All you have to do is Demonstrate it, and it will all go away. It's an easy fix if you're right. I suspect though, even you know your position is untenable.

More fulfilled prophesy...ho hum. By the way, other prophesies say that in the end, untold multitudes would be saved, including all that will be left of Israel. Later still ALL on earth will know about Him.

Good luck with that. Excuse me while I get on with reality.

In what...a lab??! Ha. Your baseless guess as to why evil and sin exists and when it got here has no merit whatsoever or no evidence.

Sin is something specific to your religion for which I don't partake. Evil is a subjective thing which varies from case to case depending on your point of view. For example, someone who is in a position of power who orders subjects to sacrifice their children would be evil. Ordering to commit or committing themselves Genocide and Infanticide is evil, etc.

I'm sure you and your twisted interpretation of your religion insists that such evil things as "evolution" and other life preserving knowledge, and the people who accept this science, as "Evil". see?

That shows they are all wrong. The evidence mounts.

Just as you prove them right, their evidence mounts.

The bible says if we try Him we will know.

well, it's wrong. I tried on numerous times and I still don't know.

No. Why would she be?

because she died spiritually and physically after having condemned Adam and all of humanity to a fallen world, getting us kicked out of the Garden (or so your religion says) - or was the Serpent correct that she wouldn't die after all? Nowhere was Eve ever forgiven for her sins now, was she? If she was, then how do you know?

Jesus read Scripture and it was well known even then. He also promised He would send His Spirit to some to be able to remember and get it right. Any books that never made it into the hall of fame of the bible doesn't matter. It may have some good stuff, but it cannot overrule the known Scripture. Some of it may even be a fraud...who knows. We do not need it.

Great! I'm glad to hear you concede the Bible isn't the perfect word of God. This obviously means we can ignore it as literal inerrancy and read it as allegory on every point where it disagrees with what your God's supposed creation tells us - that is, the universe is around 13.8 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, all life is a product of evolution in a branching tree of life (and if you insist, web of life early on), etc. Welcome to the world of Rational Thinking Dad!

Congratulations, You FINALLY Made it @dad !

 

[DogmaHunter]

Go back to the OP and geologic science foundation presented. You stray far.

The OP information is but another promotion of conjecture by geologists.

It is under your nose to notice that they Are Still Trying To Find The Fossil Record Sequence To Prove Evolution Happened.

They have but fragments of fossil remains but make grand claims based on conjecture. Their belief evolution of Creatures occurred.

Under everybodies nose is fossil record evidence of zero evidence that one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. Emphasize zero. Zip.

The fossil record proves evolution never happened. Look again. A world full of billions of fossils and zero evidence that one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. Zero evidence evolution occurred.

The fact of the matter is that if all fossils would instantly disappear, evolution theory would still be the extremely solid model that it is, due to the genetic evidence alone.

And there isn't a single fossil which contradicts this model.

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually the fossil record of Cerion mollusks does show the kind of gradual changes you’re asking about as these animals lived in a place that had annual varves for 10s of thousands of years

Besides the so called “ gaps in the fossil record” can be filled in with genetics.

 

[Aman777]

Besides the so called “ gaps in the fossil record” can be filled in with genetics.

Not in the case of Humans since Adam lived for billions of years before the first creature was created and brought forth from water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not in the case of Humans since Adam lived for billions of years before the first creature was created and brought forth from water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

Unadulterated rubbish.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Amen. I call them Trumpers. They're proof that some can live without a heart.

Hey! We agree on something.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I've just gotten through this thread.

I think this thread more than any other is example of how 'Joyously Undefeated Dad' has had his posterior handed to him on a plate over and over. I tip my hat to Bugeyedcreepy. While others have made good contributions, BEC has posted some really well written and informative posts, that just leave Dad floundering in his wake.

Among the many splendored things that Dad simply doesn't understand is that you don't have to admit that you're defeated, or stop posting, to be defeated. You can be defeated when you simply aren't able to address an argument, but pretend that you are.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I've just gotten through this thread.

I think this thread more than any other is example of how 'Joyously Undefeated Dad' has had his posterior handed to him on a plate over and over. I tip my hat to Bugeyedcreepy. While others have made good contributions, BEC has posted some really well written and informative posts, that just leave Dad floundering in his wake.

Among the many splendored things that Dad simply doesn't understand is that you don't have to admit that you're defeated, or stop posting, to be defeated. You can be defeated when you simply aren't able to address an argument, but pretend that you are.

oh awww..... You're too kind, I'm speechless...

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
Not in the case of Humans since Adam lived for billions of years before the first creature was created and brought forth from water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

Unadulterated rubbish.

Not according to Science which AGREES with Genesis 2:4-7 which shows that Adam was made at the beginning of the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain. Later, on the same 3rd Day, the present Cosmos/Heaven was made. Genesis 2:4

We know it was late on the 3rd Day since the first Stars lit up on the next Day, the 4th Day. Genesis 1:16. It was less than 1 Billion years AFTER the beginning of our cosmos that the first Stars lit up. IOW, Adam was made BEFORE the big bang. That is God's Truth Scripturally AND Scientifically. Amen?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Not according to Science which AGREES with Genesis 2:4-7 which shows that Adam was made at the beginning of the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain. Later, on the same 3rd Day, the present Cosmos/Heaven was made. Genesis 2:4

Really? Can you give references to scientific papers showing that Adam was made at the beginning of the third day?

Note: There is a difference between Bible passages, particularly those subjected to wild interpretation, and scientific papers.

 

[Aman777]

Really? Can you give references to scientific papers showing that Adam was made at the beginning of the third day?

Of course not since Adam was made BEFORE the big bang of our cosmos. Some may stick their heads in the sand but that does NOT change the Truth of the fact that Adam was made Billions of years BEFORE prehistoric people. Amen?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Of course not since Adam was made BEFORE the big bang of our cosmos. Some may stick their heads in the sand but that does NOT change the Truth of the fact that Adam was made Billions of years BEFORE prehistoric people. Amen?

So, your claim that science supports Adam being made on the 3rd day is based on ... what exactly?

BTW: Giving 'Truth' a capital letter doesn't make what you are saying true.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not according to Science which AGREES with Genesis 2:4-7 which shows that Adam was made at the beginning of the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain. Later, on the same 3rd Day, the present Cosmos/Heaven was made. Genesis 2:4

We know it was late on the 3rd Day since the first Stars lit up on the next Day, the 4th Day. Genesis 1:16. It was less than 1 Billion years AFTER the beginning of our cosmos that the first Stars lit up. IOW, Adam was made BEFORE the big bang. That is God's Truth Scripturally AND Scientifically. Amen?

<DarthVaderBreath> ....The Delusion is STRONG In This One.... </DarthVaderBreath>

I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to accept you actually believe that poppycock... Surely, you Have to know you're way out deep on this?

So, your claim that science supports Adam being made on the 3rd day is based on ... what exactly?

Delusion, didn't you know?

BTW: Giving 'Truth' a capital letter doesn't make what you are saying true.

When you can delude yourself into believing what he posts, then 'Truth' with a capital 'T' is really a secret gateway to a whole new dimension of delusion - who cares about facts, evidence, observation and what is actually true when you have a superpower like That...

 

[Aman777]

So, your claim that science supports Adam being made on the 3rd day is based on ... what exactly?

It's the only way to have God's superior intelligence.

Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man (Hebrew-Adam) is become as One of Us, (God the Trinity) to know good and evil:

The difference between Humans (descendants of Adam) and animals is that animals cannot judge with the ability to reason, see the future, nor speak. Humans have INHERITED their superior intelligence from Adam who was made to be immortal. Intelligence is acquired from one's parents according to Science and does NOT evolve. Knowledge changes over time but not to ability to know both good and evil. Adam's sin was small indeed, when measured against yours and mine.

BTW: Giving 'Truth' a capital letter doesn't make what you are saying true.

It does to me since Truth is the name of Jesus Christ, who said:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life:

Anything wrong with capitalizing the name of our Creator?

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
Not according to Science which AGREES with Genesis 2:4-7 which shows that Adam was made at the beginning of the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain.

I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to accept you actually believe that poppycock... Surely, you Have to know you're way out deep on this?

Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Adam's Earth was made the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:9-10

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

On this 3rd Day, BEFORE plants herbs and rain and before man was made....

Gen 2:7 ¶ And the LORD God formed man (Heb-Adam) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now, can you tell us what Day Adam was made? Remember that the plants herbs and trees were made AFTER Adam was made and they were also made on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12