Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Jokes backfire when one forgets who the gullible person is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Can you explain the Dino figurines.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes.
Evolution is a change in the gene pool. As you age, your genes don’t change.I think the confusion is in agreeing what is changing over time and what can be produced as a result of that change.
For instance...I've changed over time. I've gotten older, I've acquired more knowledge, I've gained scars. You would certainly say that I've evolved from a child into an adult - one can hope- but would you say I'm the same person?
It is my understanding abiogenesis is not a scientific theory; it has not been proven nor disproven.
CuriouSTEM - Biogenesis vs. Abiogenesis
Currently, there are two theories about how life originally formed in the universe: abiogenesis and biogenesis. The precursor to the theory of abiogenesis was originally posited by Aristotle in the 4th century.
www.curioustem.org
The person I was responding to was Christian, and the Christian God has not been observed by science. I was only applying the same standard to his God that he applied to evolution.
Again; I was applying the same standard to his claim that he was applying to someone else’s claim.
AIG and you are assuming an unknown alternative to the natural deposition of varves without any evidence that they are not deposited naturally as annual deposition in lakes as is happening today.
Dino figurines made by humans do not exist. There are many figurines of various large beasts such as bears, rhinos, or elephants. The carvings are often symbolic and abstract, and not recognizable as dinosaurs.
Though there are quite a few fraudulent carvings around.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
They do. And they are bears ...
They have beeb dated to 2500 years ago.
There are over 33,000 of these
There are other depictions that people have made showing dinosaurs.
God described a plant eating dinosaur in Job 40.
Bears are not dinosaurs
Bears yes no dinosaurs. Please document your foolish claim
None exist except for your imagination. Please document.
False
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
You were the one that mentioned bears.
www.Discovery.Global
Enter the exciting world of Discoveries! You will discover articles and videos of Bible Prophecy, Dinosaurs, Biblical Discoveries, Geology, Evolution and much more!
McBell
Unbound
How exactly, did a group who denies dating techniques figure out how old they are?You were the one that mentioned bears.
www.Discovery.Global
Enter the exciting world of Discoveries! You will discover articles and videos of Bible Prophecy, Dinosaurs, Biblical Discoveries, Geology, Evolution and much more!www.discovery.global
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
C-14 is okay up to about 3500 years then the flood's effects distort results.
So 2500 year old is okay.
McBell
Unbound
I thought you claimed the flood was 4500 years ago?
What happened in that thousand year discrepancy?
No legitimate ancient carvings of dinosaurs are known to exist.
If they are bears then they are not dinosaurs.
But you don't believe in dating. Funny how it is correct for you and not for others. You don't even see the inconsistency do you.
Where? Show me. No creationist ever has.
Show me. No creationist ever has. Or do you mean science movies and comic books.
The Bible describes a hippopotamus.
Carbon 14 dating is good dating things as old as 50,000 years. Your claim is based on what appears to be your bias to see dating support your view, but obviously that position cannot be sustained by the evidence.
Besides, you disavow all dating, even that you are using under misguided attempts to support your position.
You seem to want to have it both ways. How logical is that?
He finally posted a link which apparently he didn't bother to read because he keeps claiming 33,000 dinosaur figurines but the article says 33,000 figurines many of which are dinosaurs. How many is many? And the article has no pictures of these supposed clay figurines, they have one picture of what looks like plastic figurines.
As you may have recognized and well know, it is not uncommon to find that the person offering sources to support their position of belief have not actually read the source. That seems to be true of much of social media and not just isolated to creationists. Though they are a long time superuser of the technique.
I'll have to look for the link. I think that it is an obvious flaw of weak positions to assume that if a link is available, then the material linked is legitimate and doesn't require review. Noting the irony that a lot of valid contradictory evidence is also available via links.
It is certainly evidence that this rule against assumptions is a bad rule and isn't being applied objectively or justly. A rather biased application of a meaningless rule.
I had to look it up myself. The Acámbaro figures! The nature of the evidence being offered is pretty sad. Fraudulent. Fakes. I would expect evidence of the highest caliber. Not straws to be grasped at desperately flailing and flopping about.
Wikipedia has pictures for visually oriented birds and rabbits.
Acámbaro figures - Wikipedia.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And it is a triceratops for all the world to see.Apparently, triceratops had a standard transmission.
And human feet.
Or a Bearded Dragon.
Apparently, triceratops had a standard transmission.
And human feet.
I think that is from a documentary series I saw once. It's called the Flintstones.