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.
Well if a fossil is just a fossil. How is it now you are saying a fossil is showing us an evolutionary link? It appears a fossil is more then just a fossil to you. And that is why you are pushing the evolutionary link. Of course, a fossil is just a fossil to you if it helps support the Biblical account. Then I guess they have less value.
And what proof can you offer that these fossils are really 90 million years old? I see people throwing out numbers like this all the time. Yet you know such numbers are based on assumptions only. Why do you keep suggesting they are facts? And your ministry of truth, suggesting they have the inside track on accurate fossil time is more of a joke then real science. Their numbers have been all over the charts, and they only agree on one. When it suits their fancy. I could do better by spinning the bottle.
Your belief that the fossil record is fundamental to understanding evolution, was a belief that has been dismissed by Henry Gee who is the Senior Editor of Nature. You see your living in the past, and still believe the errors of the past. Gee will tell you, those who try to arrange fossils in sequence that purports to tell a story about how evolution occurred. Are basically those who pratice unscientific methods. So when you say the fossil record is fundamental to understanding evolution. You are still holding on to old past beliefs. Yet these beliefs are now being refuted by your own people.
The Bible tells us that snakes did not always crawl on their belly. The fossil find only helps to confirm that belief. And the first Book of the Scriptures told us this 3,000 years ago. Science has only come to that understanding in recent years.
The bible wasn't begun to be written until around the 8-7th century bce my friend.
Well if a fossil is just a fossil. How is it now you are saying a fossil is showing us an evolutionary link? It appears a fossil is more then just a fossil to you. And that is why you are pushing the evolutionary link. Of course, a fossil is just a fossil to you if it helps support the Biblical account. Then I guess they have less value.
And what proof can you offer that these fossils are really 90 million years old? I see people throwing out numbers like this all the time. Yet you know such numbers are based on assumptions only. Why do you keep suggesting they are facts? And your ministry of truth, suggesting they have the inside track on accurate fossil time is more of a joke then real science. Their numbers have been all over the charts, and they only agree on one. When it suits their fancy. I could do better by spinning the bottle.
Your belief that the fossil record is fundamental to understanding evolution, was a belief that has been dismissed by Henry Gee who is the Senior Editor of Nature. You see your living in the past, and still believe the errors of the past. Gee will tell you, those who try to arrange fossils in sequence that purports to tell a story about how evolution occurred. Are basically those who pratice unscientific methods. So when you say the fossil record is fundamental to understanding evolution. You are still holding on to old past beliefs. Yet these beliefs are now being refuted by your own people.
The Bible tells us that snakes did not always crawl on their belly. The fossil find only helps to confirm that belief. And the first Book of the Scriptures told us this 3,000 years ago. Science has only come to that understanding in recent years.
Campbell,
You are not interested in anything I have given you. The links have lots of information. I will go with science over the Bible for information. Science has much more to say then a Bible story about a serpent with legs. If you want to believe what you want that is fine. I have given you lots of information. I do think that for you to take a fossil and only see one part of the picture is cherry picking. A fossil with legs and ignore what many scientists have said. More then one fossil has been found and scientists have come to the same conclusions.
What to do ? Go with fossils that have been found and dated and studied by scientists who came to many of the same conclusions, or go with a fossil and a bible story.
So now I will politely bow out of this conversation because I am now spinning my wheels. You and I just need to agree to disagree.
You are not interested in anything I have given you. The links have lots of information. I will go with science over the Bible for information. Science has much more to say then a Bible story about a serpent with legs. If you want to believe what you want that is fine. I have given you lots of information. I do think that for you to take a fossil and only see one part of the picture is cherry picking. A fossil with legs and ignore what many scientists have said. More then one fossil has been found and scientists have come to the same conclusions.
What to do ? Go with fossils that have been found and dated and studied by scientists who came to many of the same conclusions, or go with a fossil and a bible story.
So now I will politely bow out of this conversation because I am now spinning my wheels. You and I just need to agree to disagree.
Jazzy Campbell never takes any evidence that isn't biblically related into his mind. He is an atypical Evangelical...he needs to believe fully so won't even look into things that question his belief...because if he does then his faith will be totally shaken. I mean the guy quotes Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke as experts for god's sakes lol.
Jazzy Campbell never takes any evidence that isn't biblically related into his mind. He is an atypical Evangelical...he needs to believe fully so won't even look into things that question his belief...because if he does then his faith will be totally shaken. I mean the guy quotes Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke as experts for god's sakes lol.
lol I agree..... I just don't understand people who just talk in circles. Where is the thinking? Its like saying something is red despite all the evidence that says its blue. It just boggles my mind......
I mean the guy quotes Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke as experts for god's sakes lol.
....but only when what they say supports his belief. When Wyatt claims that he found the ark in Turkey, Campo considers him a charlatan, because Campo doesn't want the ark to be in Turkey. When Wyatt claims to have found the Red Sea crossing, Campo considers him an expert....because Campo want's the crossing to be where Wyatt said it was.
Round & round we go, where we'll stop, Tommy always knows
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Well if a fossil is just a fossil. How is it now you are saying a fossil is showing us an evolutionary link?
rflmn's comments: By a bit of simple observation of comparative physiology perhaps? Knowing it's approximate age from where it was found permanently recorded in the geo-strata perhaps? With both eyes and mind fully engaged and open?
Nahhhh... what would honest observation and an ability to synthesize new information tell anyone after all?
And what proof can you offer that these fossils are really 90 million years old?
Oh. You missed all our other posts on aging technologies then? OK.
I see people throwing out numbers like this all the time.
I haven't seen anyone honestly just "throwing numbers out"; well, except you.
Yet you know such numbers are based on assumptions only. Why do you keep suggesting they are facts? And your ministry of truth, suggesting they have the inside track on accurate fossil time is more of a joke then real science. Their numbers have been all over the charts, and they only agree on one. When it suits their fancy. I could do better by spinning the bottle.
You already are spinning that bottle. The Bottle of God's Truth. Proven to all of us time and again.
Your belief that the fossil record is fundamental to understanding evolution, was a belief that has been dismissed by Henry Gee who is the Senior Editor of Nature. You see your living in the past, and still believe the errors of the past.
Hardly what he said and of course you know it. For our more honest and open-minded readers here: Gee just presented the case that the time-honored search for a "transitional" is not longer needed nor valid, since we have, among other things, inarguable DNA tracking that shows us FAR MORE than, say, the development of a tail over long Evolutionary timeframes, gleened from fossilized records.
Now we can see the previously unseeable, and thus can track minutia that, of course, prove Evolution beyond any doubt.
Gee will tell you, those who try to arrange fossils in sequence that purports to tell a story about how evolution occurred.
Of course no-one does that any more, and haven't for many years. Gee's thesis was, in fact, aimed at Christians rather than scientists. He hardly needs to update those already in the know; it's the hopelessly stuck minds that need to be pulled from the mud.
You're hopelessly out of date (or rather, the soggy websites you inhabit). But since it's new to you, of course you have to flaunt it as though you actually discovered something valuable and new and proving of a God.
Are basically those who pratice unscientific methods.
Agreed. Fortunately, scientists don't follow this process without the attendant DNA maps now available in so many cases.
So when you say the fossil record is fundamental to understanding evolution. You are still holding on to old past beliefs. Yet these beliefs are now being refuted by your own people.
There's that stupid "Appeal to Authority" again ; the silly assumption that all scientists agree with you. BTW, the fossil record is still highly valuable as a confirmation of the Greater Fact of Evolution. We now know what to expect in what we might find out there. And lo and behold, as with your new snake "find", our ideas are always proven out.
The Bible tells us that snakes did not always crawl on their belly. The fossil find only helps to confirm that belief. And the first Book of the Scriptures told us this 3,000 years ago. Science has only come to that understanding in recent years.
You missed my comment that the physiology for an upright walker requires some specific forms, didn't you? As always, you simplify the truth until it's unrecognizable. In essence, your poorly thought-out theories suck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzymom
Campbell,
You are not interested in anything I have given you. The links have lots of information. I will go with science over the Bible for information. Science has much more to say then a Bible story about a serpent with legs. If you want to believe what you want that is fine. I have given you lots of information. I do think that for you to take a fossil and only see one part of the picture is cherry picking. A fossil with legs and ignore what many scientists have said. More then one fossil has been found and scientists have come to the same conclusions.
What to do ? Go with fossils that have been found and dated and studied by scientists who came to many of the same conclusions, or go with a fossil and a bible story.
So now I will politely bow out of this conversation because I am now spinning my wheels. You and I just need to agree to disagree.
No need to agree with anything Tom says, JM. He's forever lost in his own mind. The truth?
Remember, in this case, that Tom's OP post does nothing to support his idea. Rather it's confirmed and believable time stamp fully disproves his belief in a literal bible. So that's the part he denies and calls assumptive, fully allowing all the rest of the story.
And of course, his biblical time frame is also impossible(see my post about the Hindi dance history; Tom didn't respond, as he didn't on my inquiry about ancient Chinese writings).
Hmmm... does anyone else smell that odd smell in here again?
Yet the fact remains, snakes do take dirt and dust into their mouths. And they do this as a necessary part of survival. Inside the roof of their mouths are two cavities known as Jacobson's organ. As they crawl, they take in dirt with their tongue and put it in this cavity in order to smell their surroundings. While it is true they don't eat dirt in order to gain nourishment, they do take dirt and dust into their mouths for survival.
The amount of self-made contradictions you're willing to be deluded with, is absolutely mind-boggling and it hurt my head so much reading it, that I had to get on here (despite all the evidence shown against you) pointing you to some other glaring discrepancies you chose to ignore.
Yes, snakes do take dirt and dust into their mouths. Only just as much your (human) olfactory system would, though. You sound like a snake would dig their tongue into the ground and get in a whole lot of soil into their mouth, to survive. Tsk tsk... Humans (or mammals) are no different from snakes for the fact that they both use "air particles" to smell. In a human, the "air particles" go through the nostrils and hit the olfactory nerves, whereas in a snake, the same is established when they put their smelling apparatus (tongue) out to hit the same "air particles".
So, if you are willing to believe snakes take dirt in, you should also be willing to acknowledge that you yourself do just the same too.
Here are some bonus questions I'd like to know, if you have the time:
1. Why would your god create nostrils on snakes but have them use their tongues to smell?
2. How do water-snakes survive underwater? I mean, where's the dust they so need, according to you?
3. If snakes eat dirt and dust, what is the rationale behind other creatures (chimpanzees, elephants, bats, parrots, worms etc.) who eat dirt (real dirt)? Why are they condemned and where in the bible is it?
4. Snakes aren't the only creatures who stick their tongues out to smell, some lizards do too. So, tell me Campbell34, where in the garden of eden was the Komodo Dragon? And, whose apples did he bite?
Campbell34: I didn't "assume" the age of the dinosaurs. Their fossils are found in strata which has been dated, using radioactive isotopes with suitably long half-lives, to 65 million years and older, all over the world. Simply because it doesn't agree with your Biblical viewpoint on everything doesn't make it untrue. I suppose you have some absurd explanation for this, such as Satan placing the fossils in the strata in order to fool us, or that the science is wrong because it conflicts with Scripture, but that won't hold water to a rational person.
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.
Round & round we go, where we'll stop, Tommy always knows
Proven to all of us time and again.
; the silly assumption that all scientists agree with you. BTW, the fossil record is still highly valuable as a confirmation of the Greater Fact of Evolution. We now know what to expect in what we might find out there. And lo and behold, as with your new snake "find", our ideas are always proven out.
