DoomYoshi wrote:Define transitional fossil viceroy.
that would be someone ruling in the absence of an actual transitional fossil - it would have all diplomatic rights.
Moderator: Community Team
DoomYoshi wrote:Define transitional fossil viceroy.
jonesthecurl wrote:Why the figure of 6.000 years, viceroy?
Viceroy63 wrote:AAFitz wrote:Further, evolution does nothing to deny God. It at best sets up a scenario that allows that he did not have to create it. But it hardly suggests God could not have created the entire cycle of evolution, and since all scientific evidence suggests just that...Even if there is a God, that's how he did it anyways.
Until recently I also use to believe something like that. I would say to myself, "OK, God recreated this Earth 6,000 ago. But why could not evolution also be a method that God uses and used prior to 6,000 years ago. Until I realized all the evidence used by evolutionary scientist were all lies dismissed many years ago, yet they are still taught as fact today. There never has been a transitional fossil and yet evolutionary scientist continue to use the fossil records to prove that evolution is real when it is not.
PILTDOWN FORGERY
This fossil was displayed as the best transitional form between ape and man at the time. It was on displayed for more than 30 years. In 1949 experts discovered the truth that a part of an orangutan skull, The jaw part, had been attached to a human skull.
This one was advanced in 1912 and...
Dismissed in 1953
NEBRASKA MAN
This was cooked up in 1922, on the basis of a single fossil tooth. The creator of this hoax did not slack in giving it a complicated Latin name; Hesperothecus Haroldcooku. It was later discovered that the tooth actually belonged to a wild pig.
NEANDERTHAAL MAN
This one was advanced as evidence in 1856.
Dismissed in 1960.
ZINJANTROPHUS
This one was advanced as evidence in 1959.
Dismissed in 1960.
RAMAPITHECUS
This one was advanced as evidence in 1964.
Dismissed in 1979
And many more so called fossil "evidence" continues to be used to teach and advance the theory of evolution as truth when it is not.
So no; I can no longer subscribe to the theory of evolution as being any part of a God who deals in truth and not lies.
Viceroy63 wrote:AAFitz wrote:Further, evolution does nothing to deny God. It at best sets up a scenario that allows that he did not have to create it. But it hardly suggests God could not have created the entire cycle of evolution, and since all scientific evidence suggests just that...Even if there is a God, that's how he did it anyways.
Until recently I also use to believe something like that. I would say to myself, "OK, God recreated this Earth 6,000 ago. But why could not evolution also be a method that God uses and used prior to 6,000 years ago.
Viceroy63 wrote:Until I realized all the evidence used by evolutionary scientist were all lies dismissed many years ago, yet they are still taught as fact today.
Viceroy63 wrote:There never has been a transitional fossil and yet evolutionary scientist continue to use the fossil records to prove that evolution is real when it is not.
Viceroy63 wrote:PILTDOWN FORGERY
This fossil was displayed as the best transitional form between ape and man at the time. It was on displayed for more than 30 years. In 1949 experts discovered the truth that a part of an orangutan skull, The jaw part, had been attached to a human skull.
This one was advanced in 1912 and...
Dismissed in 1953
Viceroy63 wrote:NEBRASKA MAN
This was cooked up in 1922, on the basis of a single fossil tooth. The creator of this hoax did not slack in giving it a complicated Latin name; Hesperothecus Haroldcooku. It was later discovered that the tooth actually belonged to a wild pig.
Viceroy63 wrote:NEANDERTHAAL MAN
This one was advanced as evidence in 1856.
Dismissed in 1960.
Viceroy63 wrote:ZINJANTROPHUS
This one was advanced as evidence in 1959.
Dismissed in 1960.
RAMAPITHECUS
This one was advanced as evidence in 1964.
Dismissed in 1979
And many more so called fossil "evidence" continues to be used to teach and advance the theory of evolution as truth when it is not,
Viceroy63 wrote:So no; I can no longer subscribe to the theory of evolution as being any part of a God who deals in truth and not lies.
oss spy wrote:Anyone who thinks the Theory of Evolution is certifiably stupid and should be ignored. There is no debate and I wish threads like these were locked due to the misinformation and ignorance that is spread.
Viceroy63 wrote:oss spy wrote:Anyone who thinks the Theory of Evolution is certifiably stupid and should be ignored. There is no debate and I wish threads like these were locked due to the misinformation and ignorance that is spread.
If Evolution was a real science then there would not be a debate. The fact that "men of science" create false information to dupe people into believing that Evolution does happen and has happened is what the debate is really all about. If Evolution was a reality then why lie about the facts and create hoaxes to make the gullible believe that the theory of evolution is real?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Do viceroy and lionz have similar unorthodox theories in the field of neuroscience? Cellular biology? Quantum physics? Anything else?
If not, why did they pick this one as thee only one to take such radical stances?
Dukasaur wrote:People who take the (very radical) Judeo-Christian position that the Bible is to be considered literal truth rather than parable need to attack anything that disagrees with it. The Bible has no opinion on neuroscience or quantum physics, and therefore those disciplines are not under attack. The Bible does have an opinion on the origin of life, and therefore the scientific version of the origin of life is under attack.
Dukasaur wrote:Ironically, the radicals are standing on a very weak and wobbly platform when they try to build a case for a literal Bible through creation. Most (mainstream, non-radical) scholars of theology agree that Genesis clearly shows itself under critical analysis as patchwork quilt of divergent religious teachings that were only later spliced together into a single book.
Dukasaur wrote:Nothing reveals the flimsiness of this patchwork as well as the creation story itself. The first version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 1 through 2:4, is clearly inconsistent with the second version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 2:5 through 3:24.
Viceroy63 wrote:"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
-2Timothy 4:3-4
crispybits wrote:I think you may have something there Timminz. Maybe Viceroy and Lionz' science teacher was a woman, so they biblically decreed to themselves they should not listen to anything she said.
(more likely their science teachers were either inept and didn't encourage independent critical thinking or the creationist brainwashing had already got to them by that point)
Viceroy63 wrote:But some 3,000 years ago It was revealed that the Universe did have a beginning. Who could make up something like this? In no other religious book or religious writings do you see such a bold statement as...
"IN THE BEGINNING..."
Those three words alone strongly state the fact that there was a beginning to everything; That this universe did in fact begin. And this statement was only made in the Bible and 3,000 years before it could be known as truth.
[1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word. In the literary structure of six days, the creation events in the first three days are related to those in the second three.
- Code: Select all
1. light (day)/darkness (night) = 4. sun/moon
2. arrangement of water = 5. fish + birds from waters
3. a) dry land = 6. a) animals
b) vegetation b) human beings: male/female
The seventh day, on which God rests, the climax of the account, falls outside the six-day structure.
Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.
Viceroy63 wrote:"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
-2Timothy 4:3-4
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: jusplay4fun