[Dr. Boob]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

We're not the ones rebelling against our Creator. You are the one who bears the burden of proof. Besides, I grow weary of making unsaved trash like yourself look like utter fools every time the subject comes up.

As for why children resemble their parents; again, the answers are found in Genesis.

Genesis 30:37-39
And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

By showing animals rods while they mated, their offspring were born with stripes. Similarly, when my wife and I conceive sons, we can't help but look at each other. So nine months later when Rebekah bears me a new son, he resembles both of us.

The answers are all so much simpler than secular "scientists" try to make them out to be. If you would just put your faith in the Bible (KJV 1611) and stop trying to think for yourself (Proverbs 3:5), you wouldn't be putting your faith in all these silly "theories" that change year-to-year. And you people think Christianity requires blind faith!

The theory of DNA hasn't changed since its discovery in the 1980s. And in response to your passage, that means that if you mated 2 dogs, it would look like the male as the female can't see behind her. That is not true, the puppies come out all different colors and patterns.

[Jedediah]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Congratulations! You have debunked 1 fossil! Now, how about the other Archeoraptors? Or the fact that DNA shows that birds are direct descendants of reptiles? Oh right, you don't believe in DNA. In that case, explain why children always resemble their parents?

We're not the ones rebelling against our Creator. You are the one who bears the burden of proof. Besides, I grow weary of making unsaved trash like yourself look like utter fools every time the subject comes up.

As for why children resemble their parents; again, the answers are found in Genesis.

Genesis 30:37-39
And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

By showing animals rods while they mated, their offspring were born with stripes. Similarly, when my wife and I conceive sons, we can't help but look at each other. So nine months later when Rebekah bears me a new son, he resembles both of us.

The answers are all so much simpler than secular "scientists" try to make them out to be. If you would just put your faith in the Bible (KJV 1611) and stop trying to think for yourself (Proverbs 3:5), you wouldn't be putting your faith in all these silly "theories" that change year-to-year. And you people think Christianity requires blind faith!

[Dr. Boob]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

#3) The way we look is because God makes us with His own hands.

And you don't think God created a code that states we will look like? Or universal laws of physics that can't be broken except by Him?

I'd also like to throw this into the Archeoraptor conversation.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Congratulations! You have debunked 1 fossil! Now, how about the other Archeoraptors? Or the fact that DNA shows that birds are direct descendants of reptiles? Oh right, you don't believe in DNA. In that case, explain why children always resemble their parents?

#1) This is not a debate forum.

#2) DNA is not in the Bible.

#3) The way we look is because God makes us with His own hands.

[Dr. Boob]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

You're seriously going to trot out this tired, old secular myth? If you could be bothered to conduct some basic research, you would know that this "theory" has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ws3-2-2000.asp

Congratulations! You have debunked 1 fossil! Now, how about the other Archeoraptors? Or the fact that DNA shows that birds are direct descendants of reptiles? Oh right, you don't believe in DNA. In that case, explain why children always resemble their parents?

[Jedediah]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Shot yourself in the foot with that one.

I give you, archeopteryx!

A dinosaur with feathers. You may notice how much it resembles modern day birds. Notice how today's birds have scaly legs? That's because they evolved from reptiles.

And before you ask, yes, we do have fossil records of this creature.

You're seriously going to trot out this tired, old secular myth? If you could be bothered to conduct some basic research, you would know that this "theory" has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp

In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ 1

National Geographic followed the letter from Xu with this statement:

‘Xu Xing is one of the scientists who originally examined Archaeoraptor. As we go to press, researchers in the U.S. report that CT scans of the fossil seem to confirm the observations cited in his letter. Results of the Society-funded examination of Archaeoraptor and details of new techniques that revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction will be published as soon as the studies are completed.’ 2

As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, ‘almost every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.’ 3

The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out that ‘adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot.’ 4

The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg was longer than the other. ‘I wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’ Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. ‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’ 5

Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird theory, commented, ‘I don’t trust any of these specimens until I see the X-rays.’ 6 Joints and gaps in the reworked fossils are revealed with X-rays. Martin went on to say:

‘The farmers do not believe this is wrong, they look at it as restoring an art object to make it more marketable. The whole commercial market for fossils has gotten riddled with fakery.’ 7

Archaeoraptor and other Chinese fossils, such as Sinosauropteryx, have been used as ‘proof’ of evolution and thus ‘disproof’ of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. We must remember that God’s Word never changes and must therefore be the basis for all our thinking rather than the fanciful, ever-changing findings of men.

[Dr. Boob]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Transitional forms? HA!

Shot yourself in the foot with that one.

I give you, archeopteryx!

A dinosaur with feathers. You may notice how much it resembles modern day birds. Notice how today's birds have scaly legs? That's because they evolved from reptiles.

And before you ask, yes, we do have fossil records of this creature.

[God's Flaming Sword]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

If scientists achieve to create life from just some random elements in a jar, you will say that God helped them.

Scientists are liars and charlatans only out to try and make money by deluding the populace by using big word and techy sounding terms.

No one has even tried to dispute the totally independent secular scientific claims I have quoted above....if you want more proof then just Google for "Climategate".

All liars, frauds, cheats and deceivers....oh and sinners too let's not forget for denying God's existence.

[Evolution is fake]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Exactly! There is no such thing as crocoduck, so that disproves evolution. If evolution were true, there would be crocodile-duck hybrids all over waiting to be found. Transitional forms? HA!

Yeah...cause that makes sense. I found it really amusing, that you fundamental believers can never be convinced no matter how one tries. You always find a dumb excuse. When some day we find aliens you will claim that God sent them for whatever the reason might be. If scientists achieve to create life from just some random elements in a jar, you will say that God helped them. It is sad how blind you are. And now you will say that I am blind because I don't see that God helped the scientists create life in a jar, but luckily for me, that isn't the case. It is just the way it is. The laws of chemistry, physics and mathematics. This three laws are the only lawful God.

It's the same when you oppose evolution. You always want to see this transitional forms. And actually there are plenty. But everytime we find new fossils, you say: "okay you have shown us the form we wanted to see, now where is the transitional form between the new fossil and the one we compared before?" If you don't see this you are dumb and blind. The fact is that only few fossils are preserved, we are lucky that we have, what we have. And since evolution is a very slow process, the changes take long periods of time. We are evolving as we speak, juts that the changes are very small, invisible. But after 1 million years we are going to be muuuch more different that we are today. Besides, there is a tiny evolution happening while the embrio is evolving. First all of us were just one cell, but now look at us, we are human beings, the closest relatives of chimpanzees.

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

False hypothesis? What are you even talking about? There is no such thing as a "crocoduck."

Exactly! There is no such thing as crocoduck, so that disproves evolution. If evolution were true, there would be crocodile-duck hybrids all over waiting to be found. Transitional forms? HA!

[Dr. Boob]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Exactly. And due dilligence would require the stem in the calculation to accurately determine how much space an apple takes up. Maybe there is hope for you yet. I think a neuron just fired in your brain.
So you are just making this stuff up? Isn't that exactly what I said of you before? Your blind faith in heathen, prevaricating scientists is off the charts.

Try studying your false hypothesis a bit more and you will.

It's funny you would even respond to the first point, considering it has nothing to do with my original argument. Go back and read it if that confuses you.

I'm not making any of this up, all I'm saying is that because I'm not a university professor I don't exactly have access to fossil records.

False hypothesis? What are you even talking about? There is no such thing as a "crocoduck."

[God's Flaming Sword]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

It isn't 'more likely'. It's the Word of God, unrefudiateable and eternal in both its constancy and in Its Message.

All 'you lot' have is scientific theory that you take as blind truth and fact for the 3 months until a new version of it comes along and disproves the previous theory you had. Not only that, all your versions of it purported by your scientists are in constant bickering contradiction with each other. And the studies themselves contradict each other more often than they agree. Yet still you people try to shove it all down everyone else's throats.

Kind of sad when you think about it, isn't it?

Indeed Brother, so-called scientists are nothing more than liars and cheaters who make ridiculous claims to try and get rich quick...want proof of their typical contradictions?

Red Wine and Cancer:
http://cancer.about.com/od/cancerpre.../a/redwine.htm - Prevents
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ay-French.html - Causes

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

And even when all that is said and done. How is yours more likely?

Disproof evolution and we're back to a simple "we don't know". Most grownups ain't afraid to say that.

It isn't 'more likely'. It's the Word of God, unrefudiateable and eternal in both its constancy and in Its Message.

All 'you lot' have is scientific theory that you take as blind truth and fact for the 3 months until a new version of it comes along and disproves the previous theory you had. Not only that, all your versions of it purported by your scientists are in constant bickering contradiction with each other. And the studies themselves contradict each other more often than they agree. Yet still you people try to shove it all down everyone else's throats.

Kind of sad when you think about it, isn't it?

[Bible Student]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Originally Posted by Pastor Billy-Reuben

But don't you evolutionists believe that the Earth is roughly spherical? As I'm sure you know, the formula for the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2. The taller a tree grows, the larger r is, and the more surface area is available. This means even more incentive for trees to grow taller and taller.

Friend, you just shot yourself in the foot with your surface area argument, unless you are prepared to admit that the Earth is flat.


Like I said to KirovH in this very same thread when he said the very same thing, I wasn't looking for fossils when I asked that question. I'm looking for surviving descendants of two, five, or twelve celled organisms. I was wondering why all modern life either has one cell or has millions/billions/trillions of cells, and there's nothing in the middle with dozens, hundreds, or thousands of cells. There doesn't seem to be any evidence at all of any link between unicellular and massively multicellular life.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

In response to the first point, a tree isn't Earth. Thats like counting the stem of an apple in it's radius.

Exactly. And due dilligence would require the stem in the calculation to accurately determine how much space an apple takes up. Maybe there is hope for you yet. I think a neuron just fired in your brain.

In response to the second point, I'm not a biologist or a paleantologist, I don't have an fossil evidence.

So you are just making this stuff up? Isn't that exactly what I said of you before? Your blind faith in heathen, prevaricating scientists is off the charts.

At Gabriel, I fail to see what a "crocoduck" has to do with evolution.

Try studying your false hypothesis a bit more and you will.

[Dr. Boob]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

But don't you evolutionists believe that the Earth is roughly spherical? As I'm sure you know, the formula for the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2. The taller a tree grows, the larger r is, and the more surface area is available. This means even more incentive for trees to grow taller and taller.

Friend, you just shot yourself in the foot with your surface area argument, unless you are prepared to admit that the Earth is flat.


Like I said to KirovH in this very same thread when he said the very same thing, I wasn't looking for fossils when I asked that question. I'm looking for surviving descendants of two, five, or twelve celled organisms. I was wondering why all modern life either has one cell or has millions/billions/trillions of cells, and there's nothing in the middle with dozens, hundreds, or thousands of cells. There doesn't seem to be any evidence at all of any link between unicellular and massively multicellular life.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

In response to the first point, a tree isn't Earth. Thats like counting the stem of an apple in it's radius.

In response to the second point, I'm not a biologist or a paleantologist, I don't have an fossil evidence.

At Gabriel, I fail to see what a "crocoduck" has to do with evolution.