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.
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.In science, Laws are kind of mundane.
You are about as wrong as can be. Have you ever studied design? Have you ever studied the Fibonacci numbers?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.
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.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.
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.You are about as wrong as can be. Have you ever studied design? Have you ever studied the Fibonacci numbers?
"Johannes Kepler (15711630) 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
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.
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.Is it a theory about the steps leading to my front door? What point are you trying to make there, Jazer?
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?Well I don't see why. After all, gravity is only a theory.
Does that include you?it seems like not many people know what "theory" means.
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.
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.
Oh noes! Researchers are arguing about dinosaur evolution!!!!! EVO LIES EXPOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111Evolutionists 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)
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?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.
You guys are good at asserting. Not much else. What creationist assertions have any of your sources confirmed? Answer: NONE.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.
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.This irrefutable evidence for dino to bird theory now resides in the garbage bin.
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?"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.
You continue to propagate falsehoods like this, just as you continue to try and sell your snakeoil here. It won't work.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 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.These evolutionists will continue to post outdated information because recent findings continue to falsify the many theories that glue TOE together.
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.
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 irrefutable evidence for dino to bird theory now resides in the garbage bin.
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.
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.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.
it seems like not many people know what "theory" means.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?