T
Techno2000
Guest
So everything about evolution is just speculation…right ?
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
How condescending 
J
JesusReigns
Guest
We are very blessed Dinosaurs arent walking around today (if they existed) because if they did then we would be trying them down and experimentting relentlessly… Oh wait… We already do that with the animals today… Can we all atleast agree that God gave us dominion over animals? Because if we can, then we can most definitely begin to prove without a doubt (if you believe Genesis) that the humans by God were given control what was just made. I guess what I’m saying is that if there was some wild dinosaur land long before Adam and eve, then we’d also have to say that animals had some kind of control or natural order of things long before the humans. And then Adam comes along and says “hey I’ll name ya guys” 
it all begins to get very far fetched…
it all begins to get very far fetched…
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Up here in Canada, it’s been observed that Polar Bears have mated with Grizzly Bears, with their offspring containing a mix of traits of both bears. it’s been theorized that Polar Bears are migrating south due to melting ice in the Arctic, resulting in their liaisons. It’s been confirmed that “Grolar Bears” are fertile, as a “second generation” Grolar Bear was found in 2010.
If the ice melting theory is true, we’re witnessing some high quality evolutionary process right here in Canada. Polar Bears are adapting by migrating, and starting to mate with Grizzly Bears. Centuries and/or millennia from now, Grolar Bears could become more prevalent, and have the adaptability to survive in Albertan forests or the frozen waters of the Arctic.They could survive either increased global temperature, or another ice age - unlike their parents, who could only survive one of those a piece (for example, Grizzly bears might survive in the Arctic, but it would be incredibly difficult for them).
“Life finds a way” - Ian Malcom.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
The earth is 4 billion years old and it appears that dinosaurs generally died out 65 million years ago… but I wouldn’t say it’s IMPOSSIBLE that some specimens survived past that point. If nothing else, it’s generally accepted that modern birds evolved from certain branches of dinosaur.
E
edwest211
Guest
Evolution states humans and apes had a common ancestor, which is an assumption only.
Hominids were animals.
Last common ancestor of humans and apes weighed about five kilograms
New research suggests that the last common ancestor of apes -- including great apes and humans -- was much smaller than previously thought, about the size of a gibbon. The findings, published today in the journal Nature Communications, are fundamental to understanding the evolution of the human...
www.sciencedaily.com
Hominids were animals.
E
edwest211
Guest
Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Researchers have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight -- and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
www.sciencedaily.com
T
Techno2000
Guest
Nonsense, anything is possible with evolution … just give it time. :crazy_face:
M
misstherese
Guest
No, they formed no part of her beautification because she could not physically write them, since she was bedridden and very weak. She had a friend write it for her while she spoke, so it’s still her words. It wasn’t apart of her beautification because of this.
It would be very hard to make up a whole book that aligns with Catholic teachings this well.
It would be very hard to make up a whole book that aligns with Catholic teachings this well.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Skeptics want to say he dreamed up all this stuff.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Unlikely for those who have actually read her books.
M
misstherese
Guest
Yeah, again, because she didn’t physically write them, it was hard to discern who it came from. The person who wrote them down was a German poet, so I could see why they would think it was embellished.
But I do think God revealed these things to her for a reason (for the good of souls) and I do not think He would let those visions be embellished to the point where it was inaccurate.
But I do think God revealed these things to her for a reason (for the good of souls) and I do not think He would let those visions be embellished to the point where it was inaccurate.
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
That is absurd. Saying God did not do something is not the same as saying He could not have done so. Saying God is a Father is not limiting God.
This is a very strange argument:
“If you say Scripture is true than you are limiting God!”
What?
This is a very strange argument:
“If you say Scripture is true than you are limiting God!”
What?
R
rossum
Guest
Sorry ed, that paper was refuted the same year. Oh… your YEC source “forgot” to tell you that.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Does This sound like pious fiction using typology, metaphor and numerous literary devices…
When the executioners had nailed the right hand of our Lord, they perceived that his left hand did not reach the hole they had bored to receive the nail, therefore they tied ropes to his left arm, and having steadied their feet against the cross, pulled the left hand violently until it reached the place prepared for it. This dreadful process caused our Lord indescribable agony, his breast heaved, and his legs were quite contracted. They again knelt upon him, tied down his arms, and drove the second nail into his left hand; his blood flowed afresh, and his feeble groans were once more heard between the blows of the hammer, but nothing could move the hard-hearted executioners to the slightest pity.
http://www.jesus-passion.com/THE_PASSION_3.5.htm#CHAPTER XXXVIII
When the executioners had nailed the right hand of our Lord, they perceived that his left hand did not reach the hole they had bored to receive the nail, therefore they tied ropes to his left arm, and having steadied their feet against the cross, pulled the left hand violently until it reached the place prepared for it. This dreadful process caused our Lord indescribable agony, his breast heaved, and his legs were quite contracted. They again knelt upon him, tied down his arms, and drove the second nail into his left hand; his blood flowed afresh, and his feeble groans were once more heard between the blows of the hammer, but nothing could move the hard-hearted executioners to the slightest pity.
http://www.jesus-passion.com/THE_PASSION_3.5.htm#CHAPTER XXXVIII
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Oh no! Where am I. 
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Which bit of that post do you claim absurdity for?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
You’re in my computer, of course.Oh no! Where am I.
Isn’t that where everyone else here lives? 
M
MJDorry
Guest
Of course there’s no transitional species! A transition does not a species make. I suppose to can try to imagine a chimera of a being that is half its ancestor and half its modern offspring, but that’s not how the theory of evolution actually works, and people who think that are the reason evolutionary scientists continue to treat the uneducated with disdain. Get the claim right first, and then investigate.
If there were a transitional species, it would look exactly like its own species. How close do we have to get to the middle between a parent species and an evolved one, here? Because then we can start playing the regress game. For every transitional species we identify, we have to find two more transitional species between each of those. Two species become three; three species become five; five species become nine. When exactly does it end for you? What satisfies the proof you need?
You don’t see transitional adaptations. If a species needs to adapt for the color red, you don’t see fifty generations of transition from low opacity pink through higher intensities of red. No, either full on red emerges as a trait because that’s what needs to happen now, or it doesn’t and those non-adapted members of the species die. That’s how demand works. If you have piercings and tattoos all over your body and you where grungy leather, but you need a job in a corporate office, you don’t change a little bit every day. You get your shit together that night and walk in the next morning a changed person.
If there were a transitional species, it would look exactly like its own species. How close do we have to get to the middle between a parent species and an evolved one, here? Because then we can start playing the regress game. For every transitional species we identify, we have to find two more transitional species between each of those. Two species become three; three species become five; five species become nine. When exactly does it end for you? What satisfies the proof you need?
You don’t see transitional adaptations. If a species needs to adapt for the color red, you don’t see fifty generations of transition from low opacity pink through higher intensities of red. No, either full on red emerges as a trait because that’s what needs to happen now, or it doesn’t and those non-adapted members of the species die. That’s how demand works. If you have piercings and tattoos all over your body and you where grungy leather, but you need a job in a corporate office, you don’t change a little bit every day. You get your shit together that night and walk in the next morning a changed person.
Last edited:
- Status