[Didymus Much]

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

You're seriously going to trot out answersingenesis.org as a reliable source on anything scientific? If you could be bothered to conduct some more advanced research, you would know that of the references cited in that article, the first two are not from a published paper, but from comments in the Forum section of the magazine. The article cited for the last five references does not exist in the issue # given. The author does work for New Scientist, but as a general science writer, not an expert in the field.

Contrary to what I had been expecting, the paleontologist who made the comments actually does exist, and really does work at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He was talking solely of archeoraptor being a composite, not of all feathered dinosaur fossils being fakes. Here are some more recent discoveries from his team:



"Four-winged" Dinosaurs Reported by Chinese Scientists



A dinosaur with long display ''feathers'' on its tail

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Leviticus 11:20

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

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.

Well usually when you're mating two dogs, it's in a kennel situation, so yes, she is looking at her own kind. Also once they tie, what's stopping her from turning around and having a look at the stud? In fact I encourage it because I am breeding that stud for a reason.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Leviticus 11:20

This verse is rather curious. I can't recall of a present species of bird that creeps, "going upon all four", yet why would there be a Bible verse declaring them to be abomination if they never existed?

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

This verse is rather curious. I can't recall of a present species of bird that creeps, "going upon all four", yet why would there be a Bible verse declaring them to be abomination if they never existed?

Leviticus is not written about "the present" - through the information it does contain however, we are enabled to understand things dug up, which did exist and were recorded. We have the Biblical record, and the archæological record. They agree. False "scientists" impose some bizarre rationalisation in feigned ignorance, rejecting out-of-hand what we know to be The Truth, thereby rejecting God and choosing Hell. Jesus will watch them cook.

REVELATION 14
6 And I saw another Angel flie in the midst of heauen, hauing the euerlasting Gospel, to preach vnto them that dwel on the earth, and to euery nation, and kinred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Feare God, and giue glory to him, for the houre of his iudgement is come: and worshippe him that made heauen and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another Angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great citie, because she made all nations drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third Angel followed them, saying with a lowd voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receiue his marke in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God, which is powred out without mixture into the cup of his indignation, and hee shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy Angels, and in the presence of the Lambe:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth vp for euer and euer. And they haue no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoeuer receyueth the marke of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the Saints: Here are they that keepe the Commandements of God, and the faith of Iesus.


False science (as opposed to True Science Daniel 1:4 as inspired by God) is a part of Satan's plan for the subjection of all to his unholy will. He will fail. Generally speaking, scientists (demonic) are aware of the everlasting Gospel but reject it: they choose death.

Yes, secular "science" knowingly rejects this ministry. They know what they are doing. They are educated, usually have a reasonable knowledge of theology, and are willful to deliver the rule of Satan, ciphers that they are of the antichrist. Their fate will endure: witness the blasphemies of Leningrad State University (as it was), Caltech and the JPL, every secular pre-school centre. We already know the result!

"Give me the child and I will give you the man" - what other outcome would be expected?

REVELATION 19
1 And after these things I heard a great voyce of much people in heauen, saying, Alleluia: saluation, and glorie, and honour, and power vnto the Lord our God:
2 For true and righteous are his iudgements, for hee hath iudged the great whore which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath auenged the blood of his seruants at her hand.
3 And againe they sayd, Alleluia: and her smoke rose vp for euer & euer.

[Dr. Boob]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Leviticus is not written about "the present" - through the information it does contain however, we are enabled to understand things dug up, which did exist and were recorded. We have the Biblical record, and the archæological record. They agree. False "scientists" impose some bizarre rationalisation in feigned ignorance, rejecting out-of-hand what we know to be The Truth, thereby rejecting God and choosing Hell. Jesus will watch them cook.

REVELATION 14
6 And I saw another Angel flie in the midst of heauen, hauing the euerlasting Gospel, to preach vnto them that dwel on the earth, and to euery nation, and kinred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Feare God, and giue glory to him, for the houre of his iudgement is come: and worshippe him that made heauen and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another Angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great citie, because she made all nations drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third Angel followed them, saying with a lowd voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receiue his marke in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God, which is powred out without mixture into the cup of his indignation, and hee shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy Angels, and in the presence of the Lambe:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth vp for euer and euer. And they haue no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoeuer receyueth the marke of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the Saints: Here are they that keepe the Commandements of God, and the faith of Iesus.


False science (as opposed to True Science Daniel 1:4 as inspired by God) is a part of Satan's plan for the subjection of all to his unholy will. He will fail. Generally speaking, scientists (demonic) are aware of the everlasting Gospel but reject it: they choose death.

Yes, secular "science" knowingly rejects this ministry. They know what they are doing. They are educated, usually have a reasonable knowledge of theology, and are willful to deliver the rule of Satan, ciphers that they are of the antichrist. Their fate will endure: witness the blasphemies of Leningrad State University (as it was), Caltech and the JPL, every secular pre-school centre. We already know the result!

"Give me the child and I will give you the man" - what other outcome would be expected?

REVELATION 19
1 And after these things I heard a great voyce of much people in heauen, saying, Alleluia: saluation, and glorie, and honour, and power vnto the Lord our God:
2 For true and righteous are his iudgements, for hee hath iudged the great whore which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath auenged the blood of his seruants at her hand.
3 And againe they sayd, Alleluia: and her smoke rose vp for euer & euer.

You do realize that a reptile isn't a bird right? And I know what you're thinking, something along the lines of "humans aren't monkeys!! you just proved yourself wrong!" We aren't monkeys, we just evolved from them. Same goes for the reptile-bird relationship.

[Godsgrace]

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?

What on God's green earth are you talking about??

Scientists lie ALL THE TIME, and it amazes me that so many people buy there nonsense. Archeoraptor? Thats obviously a made-up word... "archeo" is from the Greek archaios, ancient < archē, the beginning ... "raptor" is from Latin: plunderer, from rapere, to take by force... So, archeoraptor is ancient rapist?? What does that have to do with birds, or reptiles, or dinosaurs? To me it sounds like it's more pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo...

Yes, DNA is in birds; what does that prove? According to you, we evolved from: Birds>reptiles>children>Parents...

I see; that makes perfect sense now!

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

You do realize that a reptile isn't a bird right? And I know what you're thinking, something along the lines of "humans aren't monkeys!! you just proved yourself wrong!" We aren't monkeys, we just evolved from them. Same goes for the reptile-bird relationship.

I didn't mention reptiles, birds, humans or monkeys.

Scientists sometimes do: they assert that

humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys
birds are NOT reptiles
dinosaurs are NOT reptiles

Have you read any of their literature on the subject?

The theory of DNA hasn't changed since its discovery in the 1980s.

Yes it has.

1944 DNA proposed as the carrier of genetic information [Avery]
1953 three-strand model proposed [Pauling]
1953 another triple strand model proposed [Watson & Crick]
1953 paired base model proposed [Watson & Crick]
1953 double helix model proposed [Watson & Crick]

so that's 5 different theories and it's only 1953!

Perhaps you would like to read more about this?

The Landover Pastoral team do actually know what they're talking about, and the peer reviewed material published by Landover Creation Scientists is not done in a vacuum cf. the thought bubble you appear to inhabit.

Additional material HERE

One source is reliable, the other false. In order to decide you need to read both.

[MajorDays]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Sharks didn't evolve to walk on land over time because they had other fish that kept swimming to eat and they specialized in hunting them down...there are plenty of fish in the sea so to speak and evolution isn't a guided process so that one species that made it on land did so by chance, a very very low chance, so sharks just never did it. Those fish didn't get eaten by birds because birds didn't exist at that time to eat them. Birds, along with everything that lives out of water evolved from that ancestor.

[God's Flaming Sword]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Sharks didn't evolve to walk on land over time because they had other fish that kept swimming to eat and they specialized in hunting them down...there are plenty of fish in the sea so to speak and evolution isn't a guided process so that one species that made it on land did so by chance, a very very low chance, so sharks just never did it. Those fish didn't get eaten by birds because birds didn't exist at that time to eat them. Birds, along with everything that lives out of water evolved from that ancestor.

My oh my..are the heathens still banging on about this?

I gave proof positive in post number 723 that secualr scientists are liars and cheats yet the gullible pagans are ever ready to lap up the nonsense they spout because of the void in their lives without the Lord there to fill it with his Glory!!

Read Genesis 1:1 onwards - it says:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is
Genesis 1:20 And in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Does it say anywhere in there that God created some slime or some ooze and walked away for a few million years and left the planet to get on with things for itself? No it does not. The Lord has a perfect plan for all the living animals on earth which he created.

[Godsgrace]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Sharks didn't evolve to walk on land over time because they had other fish that kept swimming to eat and they specialized in hunting them down...there are plenty of fish in the sea so to speak and evolution isn't a guided process so that one species that made it on land did so by chance, a very very low chance, so sharks just never did it. Those fish didn't get eaten by birds because birds didn't exist at that time to eat them. Birds, along with everything that lives out of water evolved from that ancestor.

I am absolutely befuddled by what you're trying to say.

There are ABSOLUTELY birds that eat fish... haven't you ever heard of a pelican?

[Sheldon the Swede]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I didn't mention reptiles, birds, humans or monkeys.

Scientists sometimes do: they assert that

humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys
birds are NOT reptiles
dinosaurs are NOT reptiles

Have you read any of their literature on the subject?

Yes it has.

1944 DNA proposed as the carrier of genetic information [Avery]
1953 three-strand model proposed [Pauling]
1953 another triple strand model proposed [Watson & Crick]
1953 paired base model proposed [Watson & Crick]
1953 double helix model proposed [Watson & Crick]

so that's 5 different theories and it's only 1953!

Perhaps you would like to read more about this?

The Landover Pastoral team do actually know what they're talking about, and the peer reviewed material published by Landover Creation Scientists is not done in a vacuum cf. the thought bubble you appear to inhabit.

Additional material HERE

One source is reliable, the other false. In order to decide you need to read both.

The 'theories' of DNA that was proposed in 1953 were not all different theories, only on the shape of DNA that they were searching, DNA is carrier of genetic information, is a dubble helix and has a paired base model. The other two were other theories proposed by others who were incorrect.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

The 'theories' of DNA that was proposed in 1953 were not all different theories, only on the shape of DNA that they were searching, DNA is carrier of genetic information, is a dubble helix and has a paired base model. The other two were other theories proposed by others who were incorrect.

DNA is a hoax. This is how it really works: PROOF: Genetics are nonsense. Just look around during sex!.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

The 'theories' of DNA that was proposed in 1953 were not all different theories, only on the shape of DNA that they were searching, DNA is carrier of genetic information, is a dubble helix and has a paired base model. The other two were other theories proposed by others who were incorrect.

The list of false theories I gave actually started in 1944. I am not saying that any of them are correct however, I'm just saying what they are.

(the paired base model was rejected in 1953)

[Sheldon the Swede]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

DNA is a hoax. This is how it really works: PROOF: Genetics are nonsense. Just look around during sex!.

Your famous proofs are worthless and points to nothing but ridicule statements.

What about people who has sex with animals (I don't support this act, but let's take it as a example), what about that? Will they have weird children as you say? If people watch an animal during sex, will they have animal-like children?

No, that's ridiculous, you have nothing that proves this crazy idea, exept some crazy story about a certain Jacob or something.

Genetic has been proven by many experiments and observations, look it up, I don't have to point it out when this information is right in front of you.

And those experiments are a bit more proffessional than watching two animals breeding. Maybe you do it all the time, but real scientists don't.