Posted on 01/26/2013 8:46:52 AM PST by bray
Why does the teaching of Christ become any less valid when the creation story changes? "By your fruits you shall know them"! Does that ring a bell? Where have I said Christians must be ignored? The "holes" you claim is just your pride refusing to see. You do a disservice to Christians by making them live a lie about how we got here. God is much bigger than any book Man has written about him, and now that Mankind has actually stepped upon another world in the heavens it's about time his religion caught up!
And I’m repeating by saying this, bud, you don’t have to. Look at the citations. Wiki has nothing to do with them.
Where is the missing link from ape to man you speak of?
Pray for America
They posted it and then it turns out to be a fraud. Should I do more of them or is one fraud enough? Now where is the missing link?
Pray for America
Looks like another fake and it is the first example cited:
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html
Perhaps there is an actual transitional fossil that wasn’t doctored.
Let’s get this straight, the more frauds and fakes found in evolution the stronger evolution becomes. By the looks of it evolution is really really strong by your definition.
Yes, let’s play although your mind has long been made up so no amount of fraud or fakes will shake your faith in atheism.
Pray for America
Overwhelmingly, species disappear from the fossil record in the same form that they appear in the fossil record. Even archaeopteryx is not exempt. All examples of it look the same.
The fossil record demonstrates stasis in species; the exact opposite of what Darwin predicted.
This is what lead Gould to postulate macroevolution.
I don't and I'm a very science oriented person. Science as represented in the mass media is particularly suspect.
LOL! You may want to look in the mirror.
I have been on the net for years and yours is the cheapest of thug tactics. Try again.
LOL! You may want to look in the mirror.
I have been on the net for years and yours is the cheapest of thug tactics. Try again.
Wiki !?
So if wiki says it, it must be true even if they omit all the facts.
Take the Evos best case,Archaeopteryx .DNA may improve a creatures ability to survive but will not transform it from a cold blooded species into a warm blooded one . There may be variation within a species but a snake will never become an elephant.
Your random chance dictates only 3 outcomes, something, nothing or a nutated freakish disaster. So there must be just as many mutated freak fossils as there are formed ones in the fossil record. Where are they? There are none.
Then there is the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how miraculously darwinism violates it with impunity.
No transitional state between scales and feathers exists in the fossil record and there is no solid science that excludes other theories:
“There is still no overall consensus amongst biologists on either the original function of feathers or the origin of flight. The earlier, more obvious, explanations focused on the two major current functions of feathers: as aerofoils . . . and as insulation. More recently, dissatisfaction with these ideas led to hypotheses based on more specialized functions, such as display and fighting. “
Department of Zoology at Oxford University
Darwin,Marx,Nietzsche,Heidegger,Eliot,Satre,Camus.All these ragamuffins chose the godless universe as their starting point,their Master Premise.Their theology.Freud the atheist blathered on about the two revolutions and Russell yet a third..The anthropic principle and ID has reversed these now antiquated ancient beliefs.
There is no link for flowers. They just showed up all at once. I think God created flowers after He created Eve. :) Just a pleasant thought.
LOL! I’m not sure where I place the Twin Cities Creation Science Association in the pantheon of discovery, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that their “research†ignores the findings of Creation Ministries’ John Safarti who claims that archeopteryx is in fact a bird, and not a transitional. Oh noes! Creationists disagree?! A number of archeopteryx fossils have been discovered - have they all been modified as fakes? What of other feathered dinosaurs that have been discovered that predate archeopteryx? Are they fakes, too?
yeah well nobody fact checks the citations either
My point is that even Darwin asked where all of these mutated disasters were in the fossil record. The odds of not finding them are too astronomical to not have thousands of these mutants.
The only statistical explanation is there are none and all mutations killed the individuals leaving no transitory species or evolution.
Time for you Darwinists to prove your theory!
Pray for America
“The museum granted Spetner two very small samples of the fossil surface; one from the “wing” area and the other as a control remote from the “wing” area. A scanning electron microscope analysis carried out at the Weizman Institute showed that the control sample was clean crystalline limestone as one would expect but that from the “wing” area was amorphous; X-ray luminescence analysis revealed that it had a strange composition. Suspicions that it was indeed the glue and limestone mixture which had been suggested, were close to being confirmed. Yet another sample was necessary to be sure the first sample was truly representative and not an artifact. The museum refused all further testing”
How many fakes and frauds are ok with you? It was done to try to make a reptile into a bird/reptile or vice/versa. Now where is your proof? Name one transitory species or fossil? I am sure that question will bring more thug tactics.
What percentage of any given species is successfully fossilized, found and studied?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.