Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is something he avoids like the plague. Posting picture of fossils that he himself claims are millions of years old whilst at the same time, claiming that the planet is only 6,000 years old.
What can one say other than...
WHAT A PLONKER!!!
I laughed at this one. When is he/she/whatever going to catch on that I don't believe the dates given by evolutionists concerning the fossils they find. That's why I frequently use such phrases as 'supposedly millions of yrs old" or 'reputed to be".
Think he will ever catch on? (Not unless he reads this post ).
[quote=KCfromNC;10952448]Is what a tiger or not a tiger? Like evolution predicts, there's probably not a simple answer since descent with modification doesn't produce strict boundaries between species, either in the fossil record or in modern times. You're the one caught up on having sharp dividing lines on the animals you think were poofed into existence 5000 years ago, not me.[quote]
Hint: the evolutionists who found the fossil said...it's a 'tiger'.
God didn't 'poof' anything into existence with magic. He did it with His Almighty power. I have seen what He can do and so have many of my companions in the faith. I don't believe any skeptics word on this issue.
Is there someone here suggesting that kids used to ride a dino to school? Or that the Flintstones are divine messengers of some god?
When explaining evolution to theists I usually stress the time factor and show an analogy, which shows how you can develop from the word cat to the word dog, simply by changing one letter at a time:
cat - hat - bat - bad - bag - big - dig - dog
This shows three things:
You can evolve from different contents to the next by gradual changes.
You can evolve not by chance but rather meaningful, gradual variations.
Sometimes one or more steps are sidesteps, showing nature is not intelligent.
Is this correct in its usage?
@Rifleman: Thank you for the wonderful and concise explanation of transitional forms. Am I allowed to use this as a quote?
I laughed at this one. When is he/she/whatever going to catch on that I don't believe the dates given by evolutionists concerning the fossils they find. That's why I frequently use such phrases as 'supposedly millions of yrs old" or 'reputed to be".
...but you don't use phrases like that do you? What you use are phrases like:
Quote: Once again, there appears to be no evolutionary change despite the millions of yrs between the fossil and the living offspring. (post 322)
...and if you don't believe the claims that fossils are millions of years old, why are you pasting picture of fossils from a book that actually says that the fossils are millions of years old. What you are effectively saying is that you don't actually believe the source that you are using to support your argument.
I ask again,if you believe the fossils are only 6,000 years old, why are you expecting any great evolutionary change?
Short wide teeth and shorter legs are a unique combination
Two stunning fossils of the sabre-toothed tiger are forcing palaeontologists to reassess the big cat that became extinct more than 11,000 years ago.
Amateur fossil collectors discovered a completely new type while searching a mining fissure in central Florida.
"The find is the most interesting fossil carnivore discovery since 1970," says Larry Dean Martin, senior curator of palaeontology at Kansas University's Natural History Museum.
Dr Martin is an authority on sabre-toothed cats and believes the two fossilised animals represent a completely new species of sabre-toothed tiger.
He said the "xenosmilus" - the proposed name for the new find - will force researchers to rewrite the textbooks on the extinct animal. Different categories
"It appears to be a new design of sabre-toothed cat," Dr Martin explained. "The diversity of sabre-toothed cats in North America has changed by one-third."
Before the discovery, the cats fell into two categories based on their upper canines.
Shades of the Coelacanth, Tuatara, etc. What are they going to do when the discover the remains of a human inside the belly of a T-Rex?
Do you think then that they will bit the bullet and admit that evolution was a wrong interpretation of science?
...but you don't use phrases like that do you? What you use are phrases like:
Quote: Once again, there appears to be no evolutionary change despite the millions of yrs between the fossil and the living offspring. (post 322)
...and if you don't believe the claims that fossils are millions of years old, why are you pasting picture of fossils from a book that actually says that the fossils are millions of years old?
No, shallow one; it is EVOLUTIONISTS who say the fossils are millions of yrs old. Must I say 'supposedly' with every single quote or have you ignored most of the photo/insert quotes that I have posted?
You are a dishonest person. Here is just one of my statements concerning the photo/inserted quotes:"Compare it what is supposed to be the 12 million yr old ancestor":
Would you please sign off city-data.com and go post on some other website?
Last edited by Calypsis4; 09-28-2009 at 09:02 AM..
Reason: addition
No, shallow one; it is EVOLUTIONISTS who say the fossils are millions of yrs old. Must I say 'supposedly' with every single quote or have you ignored most of the photo/insert quotes that I have posted?
You are a dishonest person. Here is just one of my statements concerning the photo/inserted quotes:"Compare it what is supposed to be the 12 million yr old ancestor":
Would you please sign off city-data.com and go post on some other website?
Wow, why don't you go somewhere else. I read through most of this thread and you seem to be the one throwing insults out on every rebuttal. What's your problem exactly? Why so hostile?
Hint: the evolutionists who found the fossil said...it's a 'tiger'.
So? I really don't see your point here. The fossil remains come from a group of tigers that no longer exists. The modern tigers are different from the older ones due to evolution. What's the problem?
It's like insisting that humans are primates as if that was some sort of mystery to biologists. I have no idea what you think you're proving.
Quote:
God didn't 'poof' anything into existence with magic. He did it with His Almighty power. I have seen what He can do and so have many of my companions in the faith. I don't believe any skeptics word on this issue.
Good for you. You still haven't explained how that's any different than magic, though.
And again, why are you claiming that these fossils are older than what you believe is the age of the universe?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
No magic. God's power
