R
rossum
Guest
In the large, yes. Over the short distances involved in parallax measurements it is known to sufficient accuracy.
Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts
- Status
F
Freddy
Guest
Gosh, do you think they forgot to take that into account? What a bunch of dummies! Maybe they actually are out by a factor of a few million.Freddy:
Strawman number 1. Trig is fine if applied to Euclidean space, i.e., flat.
Edit: No, hang on. They didn’t. Lots of information out there like this to show that these scientific types aren’t as dumb as you might think: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIARAF&usg=AOvVaw2L40xbPZQDPQPrY7zlYBFY
What a relief! All the different methods of measurement seem to align. Lucky us, eh?
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Why not post a picture of an ebola virus instead…?
I think your post could be better written as: I don’t understand how evolution comes up with pretty birds so God must have done it. That’s a primary school argument.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Take what into account? You must mean the absence of the predicted evidence in the fossil record. Stay focused, Fred and give us that explanation. Or do you just need more time?
F
Freddy
Guest
How can you ask that when it was a direct answer to your quoted post?Freddy:
Take what into account?
Curved space. They take that into account when they work out distances using paralax. So the distances are quite accurate. And align with other methods used to determine distance. Which then tells us that stars are a tad older than a few thousand years.
O
o_mlly
Guest
… and that explains the absence of transitional fossils on earth? Focus, Fred.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
No. But you were casting doubts on the age of stars upstream (post 1704?). You must have forgotten - although the thread has been self explanatory all the way through to this point.Freddy:
… and that explains the absence of transitional fossils on earth?
Now it has been shown that there are methods and means to determine their distances, and therefore their ages. That’s what it explains. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
R
rossum
Guest
Wrong again I’m afraid. Tiktaalik was predicted and was found by following the predictions on environment and age.
Where do you predict we will find the fossils of Nephilim?
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
How did RMNS design this?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I estimate that it would take way more than three random mutations to create this variation from a more typical fish.
The designs of nature are not purely pragmatic as might be imagined if natural selection were truly the mighty force that R. Dawkins and others imagine it to be.
This design is highly ornamental and not practical.
Children, in their simplicity and innocence, can marvel at creatures. I think that grown-ups too often become cynical and skeptical and lose their sense of wonder and amazement.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I estimate that it would take way more than three random mutations to create this variation from a more typical fish.
The designs of nature are not purely pragmatic as might be imagined if natural selection were truly the mighty force that R. Dawkins and others imagine it to be.
This design is highly ornamental and not practical.
Children, in their simplicity and innocence, can marvel at creatures. I think that grown-ups too often become cynical and skeptical and lose their sense of wonder and amazement.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
It didn’t. The word “design” is wrong. It wasn’t designed, it evolved. To get an idea of how it evolved, look other species in the same genus, and known clades ancestral to that genus.
Evolution is descent with modification, so in order to understand how something evolved, you need to look at its ancestors and how they differed from the species in question.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Fred, please read what was posted. If “casting doubts” means acknowledging against your claim of “certainty” that the present science, as is all science, on the the distance to the stars is provisional then yes.
Now, where are those missing fossils? I know, I know … you just need more time.
R
rossum
Guest
You mean the fossils of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Mrs. Seth etc? Yes, they are indeed missing.
O
o_mlly
Guest
One usually finds in the ambiguous exactly that for which they were looking. Tiktaalik is just such a find. Even evo’s walk away from the claim. But if you also wish to make another leap of faith again, that’s up to you.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Wrong again. Just more silly and childish defections. Where in the Bible did a prediction that these fossils would one day be found? Oh, nowhere. Do you know why? THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. And neither is evolution theory a science.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Without extraordinary means to preserve the remains of the deceased, they return to dust.
After the sin of Genesis 3, Almighty God promised Adam that he would return to dust. “…until you return to the ground from which you were taken. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:19).
Therefore, I expect no fossil of Adam. I expect that Adam returned to dust. Adam lived before Noah’s flood.
Why do we have the preservation of billions of fossils that didn’t disintegrate into dust?
Could it be the rapid burial from Noah’s flood? We might yet find human remains in those lower layers. It would be a remarkable find.
The geologic record shows thousands of feet / meters of sediment from the Cambrian to the Pliocene with smooth boundaries between the layers and no significant erosional surfaces to be found. Most of the world’s fossils are in these layers.
Almighty God saw that the ancient world was corrupt and made a plan. He told Noah and eight were saved aboard the ark. It seems remarkable but that’s the Genesis record that we have and it’s not wholly unjustified by the thick layers of sediment and fossils.
There are some objections of scientists but not all explanations of scientists are consistent with the evidence and other scientists.
R
rossum
Guest
False. Your sources are lying to you again. Tiktaalik was pinned down by age and the environment in which it would have lived. The team looked in rocks of the right age range and that were formed in the expected environment – shallow waters. After two or three years searching, Tiktaalik was found.
R
rossum
Guest
So, Noah’s Flood falsified God’s prediction that bones would return to dust. A lot of water can make God wrong? Hmmm… I suggest that you have a discussion with a theologian on that one.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Some human remains have returned to dust. Other human remains have been mumified, frozen, embalmed and otherwise preserved. It’s not an obstacle to Biblical veracity.
You know it is important to preserve the meanining of words like “sin”. Sin is a transgression against the will of God.
Some want to erode the meaning of the word “sin”. See this example regarding chocolate pudding.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Here’s another example:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Source: http://joytomyheart.com/
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
More like propped up rather than pinned down.
- Status