ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
Be posting lots of info, pics, and videos soon.
The forbidden TRUTH
- Thread starter ghostdriver
- Start date
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
And this is why you're not a scientist. You aren't knowledgeable enough to make that distinction, and I don't think you can actually process the vast amounts of time we're looking at. 100,000,000 years is a long time for evolution to run its course.
So, all species that ever existed all existed at the same time, and some of them went extinct over time? That is the dumbest shit I've heard in a while, even from you.
There's no jumping to conclusions, DNA molecular testing and fossil evidence has shown it to be true. No jumping required, it's very well documented.
Darwinism isn't a thing. Biology covers the theory of evolution, it is clearly not a religion as it doesn't have dogma and it changes its conclusions based on new evidence. Religion doesn't do that.
That's why you're doing this. You're trying to convince everyone that some thousand year old text nailed everything right, and that all sciences and evidence that proves otherwise is incorrect. It's complete bullshit. We have satellites and computers, space stations and bullet trains. Science is nailing this shit down tight, and religion has done absolutely nothing to cause innovation. You're using a computer, a marvel of science, to spew shit about science.... lol You imbecile.
No, that's not what I said. You suck at reading apparently.
I think assuming that an invisible sky daddy exists and has existed forever is stupid. How is it that the universe MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED, but god gets a free pass? It's called special pleading. Stupid ass Christians claim that everything has to have been created!!!!..... except god. God is eternal. lol
Why can't the universe be eternal? It makes far more sense than some invisible sky daddy hell bent on blaming his creations for his faulty designs....
Do you understand what 'fact' means? It means you can demonstrate what you're claiming. There are a plethora of other explanations that make less assumptions, and are based on actual facts. The creation explanation is about as crude and unscientific as it gets. There have been 1,000 creation myths, and they're all bullshit. Christianity doesn't get excluded from that list (mainly because it's just based on other religions).
Natural selection is how evolution works. It doesn't mean the strongest survive, it means the best able to adapt survives. Darwin's theopry was crude, the theory we have now is much bigger and has far more explanatory power. We use it everyday in modern biology. It's the backbone for that entire field of study, a field of study we know WORKS!!!
I don't know why you're debating this, are you trying to say all of modern biology is wrong? You don't have a chance of winning.
They've done DNA testing on them. And experts have analyzed them and found that they're related. You're not an expert, and have no knowledge of anything scientific. You've demonstrated this, time and time again with your stupid 'Darwinism' spiels, and rants about bacteria growing into people. You don't even know what evolution is.
ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
No no DNA test indicate any such thing if this was the case all scientist would agree upon these animals as the same.
Natural selection or survival of the fittest doesn't connect or explain how darwins theory of some living organism can come from nothing, transform into everything, and leave no evidence. We already concluded why your "whale theory" was incorrect.
Mankind has been around a long long time.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale_2.html
They've done DNA studies on them. The people who disagree are VERY few and far between adn usually don't post anything in peer-reviewed journals.
ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
This is what we just discussed the false whale connection this is the exact copy of national geographic in November 2001. I literally just posted to why this is completely erroneous with facts.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Why do you speak of science? We've determined that you don't understand any of these concepts, so how can you comment on things beyond your understanding? By the way, just because YOU (the scientific illiterate) say something is or is not true means nothing, because you don't understand it. Duh...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
I've demonstrated that your source is erroneous, filled with pseudo science and a pro creationism agenda. What you posted was false from a lying source. If you want to be taken seriously, you need a real science source that is peer reviewed...
ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
No we all found out what the hind bone was and what it's used for, not old legs and I then debunked the blaspheme idea of the second animal pakicetus having any connection with rodhocetus because of complete different skull shape. So there no connection in the 6 skeletons of those whales leading anyone to believe or even suggest the thought of a darwinism to be supported by science. We also don't have the bones leading up to Pakicetus those bones from this mysterious create which just appears from thin air that creates animals and humans.
ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
GOD then gave me a ignorant sinner the wisdom to tell you
"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous. The only reason GOD is before everything is because GOD is a living omnipotent being that you cannot fathom. Before the beginning GOD was."- page 43
On page 43, so you stating GOD didn't create matter and all things is impossible.
"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous. The only reason GOD is before everything is because GOD is a living omnipotent being that you cannot fathom. Before the beginning GOD was."- page 43
On page 43, so you stating GOD didn't create matter and all things is impossible.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
No. You're parroting made up bullshit that only the scientifically illiterate could fall for, much like you do when you quote scripture. When you post this type of misinformation you show us two things: how dishonest you are and how simple it is for you to fool yourself...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Here' a chance to improve your mind and cognitive skills, ask yourself why this is completely erroneous? Don't run to your favorite creationist site for the answer, you your own abilities to try if this statement is true or not, and why? It can't be simply because that person says so, and we all know you won't be able to complete this simple exercise...
Here again, ask yourself how this writer can know what anyone can and cannot fathom? That's not possible, it is only possible to gauge what oneself can fathom. So we can tell that this writer is either purposefully dishonest or an ignorant fool. Therefore, he is not a credible source for information...
Again, just because you say it's impossible doesn't make it so. By your own admission, you are nothing but an ignorant sinner...
ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
Every marine Biologist knows what the Hen bone is and what it's used for it's not legs. It's a pelvic bone designed by GOD
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp Doesn't list speculation it's listing facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus is very clear that some people THINK that, but that's not based off evidence.
Pakicetus is an extinct genus of amphibious cetacean of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to the Eocene of Pakistan.[1] The vast majority of paleontologists regard it as the most basal whale.
-If this was fact with real evidence all paleontologist would agree.
Pakicetus was originally described as being a mesonychid, but later research reclassified it as an early cetacean due to characteristic features of the inner ear found only incetaceans; namely, the large auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only. It was then believed to be descended from mesonychids, according to Gingerich & Russell 1981. However, the redescription of the primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl Indohyus, and the discovery of its cetacean-like inner ear simultaneously put an end to the idea that whales were descended from mesonychids, while demonstrating that Pakicetus, and all other cetaceans, are artiodactyls. Thus, Pakicetus represents a transitional taxon between extinct land mammals and modern cetaceans.[4]
- Gingerich again but then corrects himself when he finds what he calls "new evidence" LOL
-Gingerich also from the 2001 November issue on the walking whales LOL which
It was illustrated on the cover of Science as a semiaquatic, vaguely crocodilelike mammal, diving after fish.[5]
- LOL completely not what it looks like on wikipedia
Somewhat more complete skeletal remains were discovered in 2001, prompting the view that Pakicetus was primarily a land animal about the size of a wolf, and very similar in form to the related mesonychids. Thewissen et al. 2001 wrote that "Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."[6]
However, Thewissen et al. 2009 argued that "the orbits ... of these cetaceans were located close together on top of the skull, as is common in aquatic animals that live in water but look at emerged objects. Just like Indohyus, limb bones of pakicetids are osteosclerotic, also suggestive of aquatic habitat"[7] (since heavy bones provide ballast). "This peculiarity could indicate that Pakicetus could stand in water, almost totally immersed, without losing visual contact with the air."[8]
The Pakicetus skeleton reveals several details regarding the creature's unique senses, and provides a newfound ancestral link between terrestrial and aquatic animals. As previously mentioned, the Pakicetus' upward-facing eye placement was a significant indication of its habitat. Even more so, however, was its auditory abilities. Like all other cetaceans, Pakicetus had a thickened skull bone known as the auditory bulla, which was specialized for underwater hearing.[9] Cetaceans also all categorically exhibit a large mandibular foramen within the lower jaw, which holds a fat pack and extends towards the ear, both of which are also associated with underwater hearing. "Pakicetus is the only cetacean in which the mandibular foramen is small, as is the case in all terrestrial animals. It thus lacked the fat pad, and sounds reached its eardrum following the external auditory meatus as in terrestrial mammals. Thus the hearing mechanism of Pakicetus is the only known intermediate between that of land mammals and aquatic cetaceans."[10]With both the auditory and visual senses in mind, as well as the typical diet of Pakicetus, one might assume the creature was able to attack both aquatic and terrestrial prey from a low vantage point.
- Your basically reading this and thinking because this creature isn't just like another one, it's got to be in the middle of it evolving phase LOL
None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.) Pakicetus, which National Geographicdeclared to be a ‘walking whale,’ was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of whichPakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”[3] Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms.
Do you think the duck billed platypus turning into a complete duck?
So your'e saying GOD can't create creation and has always been? but the Universe can create and has always been? That's literally believing in something that you claim is impossible.
"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous. The only reason GOD is before everything is because GOD is a living omnipotent being that you cannot fathom. Before the beginning GOD was."- page 43
No things arent impossible because I say so. But when I told you that the Universe can't make it's self that's impossible, that's a fact. Only GOD can make something from nothing.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp Doesn't list speculation it's listing facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus is very clear that some people THINK that, but that's not based off evidence.
Pakicetus is an extinct genus of amphibious cetacean of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to the Eocene of Pakistan.[1] The vast majority of paleontologists regard it as the most basal whale.
-If this was fact with real evidence all paleontologist would agree.
Pakicetus was originally described as being a mesonychid, but later research reclassified it as an early cetacean due to characteristic features of the inner ear found only incetaceans; namely, the large auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only. It was then believed to be descended from mesonychids, according to Gingerich & Russell 1981. However, the redescription of the primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl Indohyus, and the discovery of its cetacean-like inner ear simultaneously put an end to the idea that whales were descended from mesonychids, while demonstrating that Pakicetus, and all other cetaceans, are artiodactyls. Thus, Pakicetus represents a transitional taxon between extinct land mammals and modern cetaceans.[4]
- Gingerich again but then corrects himself when he finds what he calls "new evidence" LOL
-Gingerich also from the 2001 November issue on the walking whales LOL which
It was illustrated on the cover of Science as a semiaquatic, vaguely crocodilelike mammal, diving after fish.[5]
- LOL completely not what it looks like on wikipedia
Somewhat more complete skeletal remains were discovered in 2001, prompting the view that Pakicetus was primarily a land animal about the size of a wolf, and very similar in form to the related mesonychids. Thewissen et al. 2001 wrote that "Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."[6]
However, Thewissen et al. 2009 argued that "the orbits ... of these cetaceans were located close together on top of the skull, as is common in aquatic animals that live in water but look at emerged objects. Just like Indohyus, limb bones of pakicetids are osteosclerotic, also suggestive of aquatic habitat"[7] (since heavy bones provide ballast). "This peculiarity could indicate that Pakicetus could stand in water, almost totally immersed, without losing visual contact with the air."[8]
The Pakicetus skeleton reveals several details regarding the creature's unique senses, and provides a newfound ancestral link between terrestrial and aquatic animals. As previously mentioned, the Pakicetus' upward-facing eye placement was a significant indication of its habitat. Even more so, however, was its auditory abilities. Like all other cetaceans, Pakicetus had a thickened skull bone known as the auditory bulla, which was specialized for underwater hearing.[9] Cetaceans also all categorically exhibit a large mandibular foramen within the lower jaw, which holds a fat pack and extends towards the ear, both of which are also associated with underwater hearing. "Pakicetus is the only cetacean in which the mandibular foramen is small, as is the case in all terrestrial animals. It thus lacked the fat pad, and sounds reached its eardrum following the external auditory meatus as in terrestrial mammals. Thus the hearing mechanism of Pakicetus is the only known intermediate between that of land mammals and aquatic cetaceans."[10]With both the auditory and visual senses in mind, as well as the typical diet of Pakicetus, one might assume the creature was able to attack both aquatic and terrestrial prey from a low vantage point.
- Your basically reading this and thinking because this creature isn't just like another one, it's got to be in the middle of it evolving phase LOL
None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.) Pakicetus, which National Geographicdeclared to be a ‘walking whale,’ was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of whichPakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”[3] Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms.
Do you think the duck billed platypus turning into a complete duck?
So your'e saying GOD can't create creation and has always been? but the Universe can create and has always been? That's literally believing in something that you claim is impossible.
"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous. The only reason GOD is before everything is because GOD is a living omnipotent being that you cannot fathom. Before the beginning GOD was."- page 43
I know you can't fathom the power and the glory of GOD because you like me, are a man. And no one can fathom the glory of GOD
No things arent impossible because I say so. But when I told you that the Universe can't make it's self that's impossible, that's a fact. Only GOD can make something from nothing.
MonkeyChimp
Active Member
Why is forum preaching necessary? Because reality is not understandable to the deluded. They need a medium through which communication becomes possible to those who do not realize they are being lectured. A username they can trust. Posts they understand and listen to, without knowing that truth is encountered in them.
So do God's teachers need a Username, for their truth could not be recognized directly.
So do God's teachers need a Username, for their truth could not be recognized directly.
Last edited:
ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
No idea what your saying, I'm not a teacher. I'm more like a whistle blower, don't get caught up in names or appearances or people saying they are high levels in the church there are no levels that man can decide to put over another man. Above man IS LORD JESUS CHRIST above HIM is GOD CREATOR MOST HOLY.
Also I made this account when just started to quit doing crime in my life, that's why the name is so strange. I was on some demonic stuff. 5 am
Love you who ever reads this, enjoy your life and seek repentance if you don't have a relationship yet. And stay in a relationship with repentance. Don't give up trying to quit sin.
Last edited:
MonkeyChimp
Active Member
ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
Be posting lots of info, pics, and videos soon.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
You posted an article from one scientist who is known for being a crack pot.
You might as well post an article by a Christian that says electricity is 'gods life force', it's complete bullshit. Even if the information about whales was wrong (WHICH IT ISN'T), it still wouldn't show evolution is false.
Evolution is a FACT, like it or not, no silly religion is going to change that. Christianity is no more reliable than the myths about Zeus or Odin whereas science has given us DNA testing and myriad paleontological evidence.You might as well be debating that water isn't Hydrogen and Oxygen.
You have the intellect of a child, you don't understand that things being told to you, so how could anyone expect you to defend against them?
It's like if someone told me to defend or critique this equation;
I wouldn't really know where to start, because I don't know enough about what it means or how this equation was come to.
That's you, ghost. You're trying to attack something you have no understand of, the fact that you keep saying evolution claims bacteria grew into humans is proof of your lack of understanding.
Your willful ignorance is sad indeed, Ghost. It's a shame when anyone refuses to look at actual proof because they've already got their mind made up. I cna't say I'm surprised though, Christians are pretty ignorant people, it's a requirement for having faith. You can't have a thirst for the truth, and seek religion, they're opposed to one another.
Dislexicmidget2021
Well-Known Member
I didnt present a theory of seven skeletons being the creation of ALL THINGS ,you jumped into that sinking boat quickly enough on your own though,which shows you really arent paying any honest attention to the discussion by using an Aunt Sally arguement.
It is impossible for ALL things to have come from Bacterial organisms.But certainly there is a high probability that Humans EVOLVED from the single cell organism.Creatures and life all around us have shown the stepping stones on a biological scale to which we have acquired our current state.Evolution is equal to a gradual adaptation toward the environment in which the organism lives.
You would be correct with that first sentence,it was never a process of mutation, but that of environmental adaptation over time,which is why the previous species gradually die off,because it is biological obsolete or inadequate for survival of the species.The theory I stated jumps to no conclusion,it is a demonstrable theory(do some actual research and learn for once) as opposed to CREATIONISTS point of view,which jumps to conclusions at warp speeds.
You asked me,Why do I believe in a religion with zero evidence?Im asking which religion are you reffering to with that original question.Because I've stated no faith to any religion for your question to be a valid one in the first place.
Once again wrong,there have been numerous ways of worshiping GOD and gods in mankinds history from the dawn of time.Many tribes have lived since the beginning of mankinds existential tenure and many deity's have been worshipped by those seperate gatherings of people scattered throughout the globe,each region having its own God,or INTERPRETATION of what has happened to make living in existence possible.Any religion not of christianity is considered pagan and have been quite possible in the past, existing in cultures for many years.Christianity seems to be the most contradictory of any religion that has ever surfaced in mankinds neverending hunt for spiritual truth.
Evidence of creation you say?So you expect me to just pick something that exists and view it as created by your GOD?OK,Ill choose an oak tree,,But wait, I already believe that Odin created that tree, so how can Abrahamic GOD just come along so willy nilly and have made that same tree and placed it in the same spot??But wait, Odin knows how evolution works,so guess whos "creational Kung fu" is stronger?
(där'wĭ-nĭz'əm)
n.
A THEORY of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/darwinism#ixzz337Yc6yC4
Darwinism,IS NOT a religion btw, nor is it in any way correlated to actual Satanism,just for the record.
Last edited:
ghostdriver
Well-Known Member
You guys just ignored everything I posted and replied with insults? Shows no reasoning and a illogical point of view.
Last edited: