What proof would you need?

[Jazer]

In science, Laws are kind of mundane.

For a non theist perhaps. Yet in the Bible David talks about his love for the law. He understood that the Law of God was there to give him protection & shelter so he could prosper. God really does love us and care about each and every one of us so that He wants what is best for us. Even to the point were Jesus was willing to sacrifice Himself for our sake.

 

[Jazer]

How about 3, or 40 or 10? What make a number "spiritual?" The fact is, we are pattern seeking mammals, and the only importance a number has is the distinction we attach to it.

You are about as wrong as can be. Have you ever studied design? Have you ever studied the Fibonacci numbers?

"Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) proves that the golden ratio is the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers, and describes the golden ratio as a "precious jewel": "Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel." These two treasures are combined in the Kepler triangle." wiki

You can call the Divine Ratio the Golden Ratio if you want. But you are still talking about the same thing. It is all a question of how much you have discovered and how much you have learned. Sense we all come into this world not knowing anything. (1,2,3,5,8 ...) To build anything you have to use this ratio. 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/8

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

For a non theist perhaps. Yet in the Bible David talks about his love for the law. He understood that the Law of God was there to give him protection & shelter so he could prosper. God really does love us and care about each and every one of us so that He wants what is best for us. Even to the point were Jesus was willing to sacrifice Himself for our sake.

Temporarily "sacrificing" yourself/son is hardly impressive, and actually, quite insincere. And if your god/s actually loved and cared for us, there would be no pain and suffering.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

You are about as wrong as can be. Have you ever studied design? Have you ever studied the Fibonacci numbers?

"Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) proves that the golden ratio is the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers, and describes the golden ratio as a "precious jewel": "Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel." These two treasures are combined in the Kepler triangle." wiki

You can call the Divine Ratio the Golden Ratio if you want. But you are still talking about the same thing. It is all a question of how much you have discovered and how much you have learned. Sense we all come into this world not knowing anything. (1,2,3,5,8 ...) To build anything you have to use this ratio. 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/8

So what is your definition of "spiritual" and what constitutes a number as such? We are pattern seeking mammals, pure and simple. It is us who confer significance upon numbers, nothing more.

 

[Tiberius]

Gravity is sort of like marriage. At first you think you feel a real pull, but then it turns out you were pushed into it.

And this only shows that you know very little about how gravity works.

 

[Jazer]

Is it a theory about the steps leading to my front door? What point are you trying to make there, Jazer?

Your steps would qualify. I am sure if you hired me to build you a new set of steps and I did not use the right math you would be more then a little upset. The tread and the riser has to add up to 18 inches. Or as close to it as you can get. Whatever you design and build has to follow the right math. You can not just wing it. I had that problem once. The guy wanted to draw pretty pictures and expected me to to build it. That can not always be done. The design has to be based on sound math. A lot of evolution is based on pretty pictures of things that would never work in the real world. Their understanding of design is so limited that they break to many of the known laws and rules. It would never fly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well I don't see why. After all, gravity is only a theory.

So gravity was tested and passed all known tests in a laboratory and now qualifies as a theory? else you wouldn't believe in it?

Is water flow just a theory?

 

[Tiberius]

it seems like not many people know what "theory" means.

 

[AV1611VET]

it seems like not many people know what "theory" means.

Does that include you?

 

[Astridhere]

Right they find a tiny fossil in China with a bird like dinosaur and now all of a sudden dinos were birds and had feathers. That is not a Knee Jerk? Sometimes the fossils they find and the conclusions they draw are a long shot to say the least.

Evolutionists do not appear to be up to date with the latest Jazer. It is not only creationists that dispute the bird to dinosaur theory. Well credentialed evolutionists are now seeing that the dino to bird theory is wrong.

Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
Dinosaur 'feathers' are no such thing › News in Science (ABC Science)



The knee jerk reaction is that archie was the intermediate and was set on a pedastal of irrefutable evidence for the transition of dinosaur to bird. This is one of the fossils shoved in creationists faces for decades. Now this theory is falsified. Do evolutionists admit a falsification. No, rather they now look for another non plausible theory to justify evolution. That is knee jerk science.

Biblical Creationists, on the other hand, have always asserted that there is no common ancestor between dinosaurs and the bird kind. Your researchers have validated and continue to confirm creationist assertions, even with their assumptions of TOE. Now evo researchers will toddle off and find another theory as to what birds may have descended from and when. This is of no concern to us creationists as whatever is put forward will again be falsified in time.

This irrefutable evidence for dino to bird theory now resides in the garbage bin.

However, it is well defined that many evolutionists can and will not accept the findings of their own evolutionary researchers or are simply way out of date with recent findings. Evolutionists can throw out any evo books that are more than 5 years old. They are outdated and much of their contents have been falsified by their own research.

The findings of modern bird footprints dated to 212mya is just one of many concerning findings for evolutionists. There are many more that falsify the current dino to bird theory.

These evolutionists will continue to post outdated information because recent findings continue to falsify the many theories that glue TOE together.

 

[Astridhere]

They all adhere to their assertions like glue; you are correct. As a famous poster here once said, "Creationists can't all be right, but they can all be wrong." But scientists do not change theories or even hypotheses in a "knee jerk" fashion... they change them in response to new data or new analyses of old data. Something that glue-like creationists like yourself refuse to do. That is why you will never be right about anything.
No creationists do not change their views in the individual camps. Apart from erectus, you find one camp that has changed it predictions. How about you start with YECS. I have spoken to many changes eg birds, tetrapods. Now you put up more than hot air.

LOL! This made me laugh! You have just highlighted your inability to deal with reality, since you will not change your position even when reality dictates you do so. You can keep your **ha,ha** "Truth." It is nothing but snakeoil.


Well that's good because you have called yourself a scientist split rock.. You are a scientists basing your arguments on out dated information. You are not fit to call yourself a scientist. In fact the information yiou post is so outdated I don't think you should even consider yourself an evolutionist as yu have no idea or knowledge of the latest research coming from your own field.

As you can see all your woffle has come to nothing. You are the joke. You had best suck this up and deal with it.

 

[Split Rock]

Evolutionists do not appear to be up to date with the latest Jazer. It is not only creationists that dispute the bird to dinosaur theory. Well credentialed evolutionists are now seeing that the dino to bird theory is wrong.

Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
Dinosaur 'feathers' are no such thing › News in Science (ABC Science)

Oh noes! Researchers are arguing about dinosaur evolution!!!!! EVO LIES EXPOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
That's how we do things in science. We discuss. How you guys do things is to assert and demand.

The knee jerk reaction is that archie was the intermediate and was set on a pedastal of irrefutable evidence for the transition of dinosaur to bird. This is one of the fossils shoved in creationists faces for decades. Now this theory is falsified. Do evolutionists admit a falsification. No, rather they now look for another non plausible theory to justify evolution. That is knee jerk science.

No one you quote claims that archie is not an intermediate, nor even that it is not evidence of the common ancestry of birds and dinosaurs. Do you even read your own sources?

Biblical Creationists, on the other hand, have always asserted that there is no common ancestor between dinosaurs and the bird kind. Your researchers have validated and continue to confirm creationist assertions, even with their assumptions of TOE. Now evo researchers will toddle off and find another theory as to what birds may have descended from and when. This is of no concern to us creationists as whatever is put forward will again be falsified in time.

You guys are good at asserting. Not much else. What creationist assertions have any of your sources confirmed? Answer: NONE.

This irrefutable evidence for dino to bird theory now resides in the garbage bin.

Not at all, though you would like to believe so. Reminds me of the ever repeating claims of creationists that evolution is on its last legs.

However, it is well defined that many evolutionists can and will not accept the findings of their own evolutionary researchers or are simply way out of date with recent findings. Evolutionists can throw out any evo books that are more than 5 years old. They are outdated and much of their contents have been falsified by their own research.

As scientific progress continues, we learn more and more and refine our theories. What do you guys do? You fossilize yourselves into old ideas already falsified back in the 19th century. Who is the one is is "outdated?"

The findings of modern bird footprints dated to 212mya is just one of many concerning findings for evolutionists. There are many more that falsify the current dino to bird theory.

You continue to propagate falsehoods like this, just as you continue to try and sell your snakeoil here. It won't work.

These evolutionists will continue to post outdated information because recent findings continue to falsify the many theories that glue TOE together.

You haven't found anything to falsify the TOE. You are the one who is "outdated." Maybe you should go hunt for witches too, while you're at it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionists do not appear to be up to date with the latest Jazer. It is not only creationists that dispute the bird to dinosaur theory. Well credentialed evolutionists are now seeing that the dino to bird theory is wrong.

So what would a real transitional look like, Astrid? What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as a transitional between modern birds and non-avian dinosaurs?

The knee jerk reaction is that archie was the intermediate and was set on a pedastal of irrefutable evidence for the transition of dinosaur to bird.

And it still is. Archie has avian features not found in other dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaur features not found in modern birds. It is an intermediate. Always was and still is.

This irrefutable evidence for dino to bird theory now resides in the garbage bin.

This is false.

The findings of modern bird footprints dated to 212mya is just one of many concerning findings for evolutionists. There are many more that falsify the current dino to bird theory.

How did you determine that these footprints were made by a modern bird species? How large was its beak? Did it even have a beak? Please, do tell.

 

[Loudmouth]

As you can see all your woffle has come to nothing. You are the joke. You had best suck this up and deal with it.

So one moment you complain that scientists do not change their views in the light of new evidence, and then the very next moment you complain that scientists change their views in the light of new evidence. Go figure.

 

[Astridhere]

it seems like not many people know what "theory" means.

Evolutionists do not know what a theory means most of all. That is why they call the garbage bin of falsified irrefutable evidence past, a fact.

Perhaps you can answer the quandry of how your fossil evidence supports ancestry to chimp like as well a ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp?

Loudmouth has gone on and on about my putting up a description of an intermediate.

Now I again challenge you evolutionists to do the same thing yourselves. After all this is your scenario of human evolution.

Go on...give us creationists a description of what an intermediate before the rise of modern man should look like as we evolved from some kind of ape?

Given you have no idea what the comon ancestor looked like you are going to have fun. Are intermediates supposed to have a mix of chimp/human characteristics now that your researchers know the common ancestor was not chimp-like? Perhaps you wil go with ape like. In this case which ape? Mankind shares more morphology with an orangutan than a chimp.

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray

African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray - International - Scotsman.com



Homo Erectus is much more primitive than once thought due to new finding on sexual dimorphism akin to Gorillas.


New fossils reveal different theory on human ancestors - CNN.com


There is no order in the fossil record of human ancestry at all.

The Supposed Evolution of the Human Skull

You evolutionists also have no fossil evidence to demonstrate chimp ancestry back to any common human/chimp ancestor.

You go right ahead and defend your science. None of you will be able to is my expectation. I predict more excuses and no resolution.

Evolutionists all like to sprooke about the huge amount of evidence you have to support evolution. However you evolutionists are unable to put any substance to just one line of evidence re human ancestry.

At present the research supports creationist paradigms.

Homo erectus is very primitive and ape like. I have already spoken to Turkana Boy and his ape features that demonstrate discontinuity with mankind. Huge ape like sexual dimorphism further supports my claim. Habilis was not the ancestor of erectus as the two coexisted for millions of years apparently and according to your current thinking. Now you need another ancestor 2-3mya. Was it Lucy, Afarensis? Lucy is a 3.5ft ape with curved fingers and likely not the maker of the Laetoli footprints. It is also unlikely that the human femor and human metatarsel belonged to her.

Now you or any evo please tell me what you look for in human intermediates that suggest mankind evolved from a question mark.

Please put some substance behind your claims, otherwise creationists are going to win this round on human ancestry to a question mark....by miles.

 

[sandwiches]

Most of these things can be reverse engineered using God's creations, none are of any spiritual value, all are inferior (yes even the high-tech, state of the art winery)and not worthy of worship, we invented science too.

We invented science. It's a weird way of wording this but sure... I'll take it. Thank you. Point remains that faith isn't used in anything we do in our normal lives. Not even driving to church, listening to the sermon, service, or mass through the microphone and speakers, sitting on the pews glued and varnished with modern chemicals, etc.

 

[sandwiches]

God gave us math and without math you have no computer.
A computer in a way is a discovery of what God Created.

What we need to learn first from the Bible is that there are two realms of existence:
The physical (our temporary realm) and the spiritual (our eternal realm).

Binary: of or pertaining to a system of numerical notation to the base 2.

No. What you first need to do is show us that the spiritual exists. Then we can move on.

At any rate, it wasn't God that gave us math. It was people working and figuring things out through logic and reasoning using their brains. Now, if you can show me where God gave us math, that'd be great.

 

[Astridhere]

Oh noes! Researchers are arguing about dinosaur evolution!!!!! EVO LIES EXPOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
That's how we do things in science. We discuss. How you guys do things is to assert and demand.



No one you quote claims that archie is not an intermediate, nor even that it is not evidence of the common ancestry of birds and dinosaurs. Do you even read your own sources?
You had best read the articles again. How can you be educated when your comprehension skills are so lacking split rock. You appear unable to comprehend and assimilate simple information. I will clarify for you below seeing as you are unable to do so for yourself.


You guys are good at asserting. Not much else. What creationist assertions have any of your sources confirmed? Answer: NONE.
I have split rock. You are just wasting thread space to hear your own voice over and over.

Remember my speaking to Junk DNA and all the woffle about its junkyness supporting evolution. Falsified in favour of creationist predictions that non coding dna will be found to have function. This has been validated and continues to be. Remember no intermdiates validated by your inablility to provide substance to your fossils re human ancestry. I have also posted research re diamond dating and young earth, and links to flood geology and other evidences for biblical creation. Your constant requests for me to speak to information already provided is a evolutionists ploy to frustrate discussions, appear to have something to say when you haven't, and clearly substantial proof that your memory retention is challenged at best.


Not at all, though you would like to believe so. Reminds me of the ever repeating claims of creationists that evolution is on its last legs.

Your name is woffle.

As scientific progress continues, we learn more and more and refine our theories. What do you guys do? You fossilize yourselves into old ideas already falsified back in the 19th century. Who is the one is is "outdated?"
Frustrating pointless uneducated banter is all you can offer. The bird evolution I have discussed for pages is just one example. Your memory does not retain information for more than 5 minutes.

You continue to propagate falsehoods like this, just as you continue to try and sell your snakeoil here. It won't work.
You are the only one that is unable to understand the research your own researchers support. You are the only one living with Alice in Wonderland. Your own evo scientists accept they have problems. Hence you are not even fit to be called scientists shadow.

You haven't found anything to falsify the TOE. You are the one who is "outdated." Maybe you should go hunt for witches too, while you're at it.

I do have fun with you. Like playing with kitty cats that meow without substance. It is fun

Seeing as you entire post is nothing more than uneducated woffle I will provide something more simplistic so you can see what my initial links were suggesting quite plainly to anyone with intelligence.


Instead, a newfound fossil from China suggests Archaeopteryx was not a bird after all, but one of many birdlike dinosaurs, a finding that could force scientists to rethink much of what they thought they knew about the origin and evolution of birds.
Archaeopteryx may not have been a bird, but just a feathery dinosaur - CSMonitor.com


'Oldest bird' Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch in controversial new study


Archaeopteryx, supposedly the oldest and most primitive bird on Earth, might not have been a bird after all, scientists say.
The controversial claim, if confirmed, is something of a bombshell for researchers who have viewed the evolution of birds and feathered flight through the lens of the species since it was discovered 150 years ago.
The finding leaves palaeontologists in the awkward position of having to identify another creature as the oldest and original avian on which to base the story of birdlife.
'Oldest bird' Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch in controversial new study | Science | The Guardian

So how long are you going to demonstrate your ignorance. Arch is no longer an intermediate dino to bird form and has been knocked off its perch well and truly.

Please stop wasting my and other creationists time.

You seem to be the only evolutionist that cannot accept your own evolutionary findings ..Alice.

 

[sandwiches]

Seeing as you entire post is nothing more than uneducated woffle I will provide something more simplistic so you can see what my initial links were suggesting quite plainly to anyone with intelligence.


Instead, a newfound fossil from China suggests Archaeopteryx was not a bird after all, but one of many birdlike dinosaurs, a finding that could force scientists to rethink much of what they thought they knew about the origin and evolution of birds.
Archaeopteryx may not have been a bird, but just a feathery dinosaur - CSMonitor.com


'Oldest bird' Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch in controversial new study


Archaeopteryx, supposedly the oldest and most primitive bird on Earth, might not have been a bird after all, scientists say.
The controversial claim, if confirmed, is something of a bombshell for researchers who have viewed the evolution of birds and feathered flight through the lens of the species since it was discovered 150 years ago.
The finding leaves palaeontologists in the awkward position of having to identify another creature as the oldest and original avian on which to base the story of birdlife.
'Oldest bird' Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch in controversial new study | Science | The Guardian

So how long are you going to demonstrate your ignorance. Arch is no longer an intermediate dino to bird form and has been knocked off its perch well and truly.

Please stop wasting my and other creationists time.

You seem to be the only evolutionist that cannot accept your own evolutionary findings ..Alice.

A lot of yakking and yapping but no one but what is this meant to prove? So what if the Archaeopteryx wasn't one of modern birds' ancestors? What do you think this shows?

Edit: What's funny is that on one of those articles (Not the Christian Science Monitor, of course) it says:
"Witmer adds that with Archaeopteryx dethroned, more recently discovered fossils, including Epidexipteryx, Jeholornis and Sapeornis, become candidates for the world's oldest bird."

 

[Astridhere]

So what would a real transitional look like, Astrid? What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as a transitional between modern birds and non-avian dinosaurs?



And it still is. Archie has avian features not found in other dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaur features not found in modern birds. It is an intermediate. Always was and still is.

Arch used to be the missing link. It now isn't. That is the fact and that is the change. Deal with it.

This is false.

How would you know? Based on what? Your irrefutable flavour of the month I suppose!

How did you determine that these footprints were made by a modern bird species? How large was its beak? Did it even have a beak? Please, do tell.

See more questions and an inability to accept that huge changes occur, your irrefutable evidences are constantly falsified in favour of more non plausible evolutionary theories which are just as likely to be rubbish. Deal with it Loudmouth. This is a fact not an assertion.

Will you please explain what an intermediate is supposed to look like?

Will you please explain how fossil evidence supports ancestry to a chimp like ancestor and also an ancestor unlike a chimp?

All you can do is ask questions of creationists about your own science. Why is this? My guess is becuae you cannot answer them with any substance yourself.

You give us a demo on what evos suggest an intermediate human ape should look like.

Don't forget Orangs share more morpholgy with mankind than chimps. You had better explain this away also with a hand wave of convergent, parallel evolution and God only knows what else.

I'll say it again you have no idea what a common ancestor looks likes. It is therefore impossible for you to give a description of any substance.

Do not avoid this Loudmouth. Don't keep asking me questions about this rubbish when you are unable to answer anything yourelf on the science you support. You have a lot to ask but no answers to provide to defend this science of yours.

I have posed you two questions. You have been unable to answer one of them thus far for days and can only go on and on and on with more questions at me about your own evo science.

You have a go and let's see what you have to say..if anything!