Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[james bond]

No Judgement Day. No life before birth, no life after death. Sorry but the universe doesn't care a whit about us.

The universe and the Earth, and most people in it, but some people who love us do. Most importantly, God does because of what?

>>The Bible is a compilation of oral traditions written down and edited over the years by people with an agenda. You can try and understand the history and context of the Bible or you can just say it is the word of God and leave it at that. Choose.<<

That's wrong.

 

[alang1216]

The universe and the Earth, and most people in it, but some people who love us do. Most importantly, God does because of what?

If I showed my family the same kind of love I'd be in jail.

>>The Bible is a compilation of oral traditions written down and edited over the years by people with an agenda. You can try and understand the history and context of the Bible or you can just say it is the word of God and leave it at that. Choose.<<

That's wrong.

I'll stand by it until I see evidence to the contrary. That is how we differ, you'll stand on your faith and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

 

[james bond]

If I showed my family the same kind of love I'd be in jail.


I'll stand by it until I see evidence to the contrary. That is how we differ, you'll stand on your faith and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Oh my . I think you just said if you showed the same kind of love as God, then you'd be in jail. That's a quote for an atheist lifetime.

I gave you plenty of hard evidence to the contrary. I don't think you'll believe even when the evidence pops up of humans living with dinosaurs.

Here is what the atheist scientists said about it again for those who missed it --

Dawkins has gone cuckoo, cuckoo as he has further added:

'Wasn’t it faintly depressing for a scientist in the 21st century to find himself arguing the case for evolution? “There’s an aspect of that,” he says. “But I don’t want to put that in a too depressing, negative way. It’s a challenge — a cheerful sort of challenge because it’s so thrilling and exciting.” When he wrote The God Delusion his stated aim was to convert everybody who read it to atheism. With the new book it is to shake some sense into creationists: “I suppose anybody who reads it should no longer be capable of thinking evolution isn’t a fact,” he says, perhaps rather optimistically, I think. “I’d like to think there’s got to be something wrong with people who finish the book and don’t think that.”

I’m afraid he’s destined to be disappointed, as down deep he himself knows. There’s an hilarious transcript in Chapter 7 of a televised conversation he once had with someone called Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America (in his Waspy, amusing way he points out that Wright’s “opinion that ‘The morning-after Pill is a paedophile’s best friend’ gives a fair idea of her powers of reasoning”). Anyway, Wright is asking Dawkins to “show me the evidence of the in-between stages from one species to another”, and Dawkins is telling her over and over again to visit any natural history museum and look at the fossils. But Wright is having none of it: “If evolution has had the actual evidence then it would be displayed in museums, not just illustrations,” she says.

It’s hopeless. And Dawkins concedes that, “[Wright] certainly wouldn’t read the book and even if she did read it, it wouldn’t make any difference. Nothing is going to change the mind of somebody who is so doggedly certain ... I think you have to make a real distinction between people who are religious in the sense that your vicar or bishop is religious but accept that evolution as scientific and people like Wendy Wright, who think the world is 6,000 years old, which is flat contradictory to every scrap of evidence we’ve got. That does drive me to despair because nothing’s going to shift those people.” Nevertheless, he’s optimistic that, “many people just don’t know what the facts are. They are simply uneducated. And that’s a fault of us as scientists for not going out there and communicating with them.”'

Richard Dawkins to prove once and for all that humans did not walk with dinosaurs

Richard Dawkins wants to provel that humans did not walk with dinosaurs

news.jornal.us

If Dawkins is dead now, he will be screaming his arse off and knowing he was wrong.

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is a compilation of oral traditions written down and edited over the years by people with an agenda. You can try and understand the history and context of the Bible or you can just say it is the word of God and leave it at that. Choose.

You're dead to me.

 

[alang1216]

Oh my . I think you just said if you showed the same kind of love as God, then you'd be in jail. That's a quote for an atheist lifetime.

How many innocent babies did he order to be killed? Hint: Joshua and Jericho or King David and the plague.

I gave you plenty of hard evidence to the contrary. I don't think you'll believe even when the evidence pops up of humans living with dinosaurs.

You have given me zero evidence. You said the chalk beds are the result of a flood but provided nothing to back that up.

Here is what the atheist scientists said about it again for those who missed it --

You are guilty of exactly the same thing. You ignore any evidence you're shown (e.g., birds with teeth and long, lizard-like tails).

 

[james bond]

I may be a dumbass but at least I'm educated enough to know that chalk is form of limestone.

I'm happy you admitted you are a dumbass, but you still don't know the diff between chalk and limestone .

"The key difference between limestone and chalk is that the limestone contains both minerals, calcite, and aragonite whereas chalk is a form of limestone which contains calcite.

Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock. It mainly contains different crystal forms of calcium carbonate. Therefore this mineral is highly alkaline. Chalk is a form of limestone. It has many favorable properties, which we will discuss below. Although it is a form of limestone, 99% of this mineral contains calcite type crystal form."

Next, I ♥ for you to admit that you are an atheist POS.

 

[alang1216]

I'm happy you admitted you are a dumbass, but you still don't know the diff between chalk and limestone .

"The key difference between limestone and chalk is that the limestone contains both minerals, calcite, and aragonite whereas chalk is a form of limestone which contains calcite.

Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock. It mainly contains different crystal forms of calcium carbonate. Therefore this mineral is highly alkaline. Chalk is a form of limestone. It has many favorable properties, which we will discuss below. Although it is a form of limestone, 99% of this mineral contains calcite type crystal form."

I do know the difference thank you, what I don't know is what you think the significance of the differences are? You also have not explained why the same flood would deposit chalk in one place and limestone in another?

Next, I ♥ for you to admit that you are an atheist POS.

WWJS?

 

[james bond]

How many innocent babies did he order to be killed? Hint: Joshua and Jericho or King David and the plague.


You have given me zero evidence. You said the chalk beds are the result of a flood but provided nothing to back that up.


You are guilty of exactly the same thing. You ignore any evidence you're shown (e.g., birds with teeth and long, lizard-like tails).

Last point first. My evidence shows what you are alluding to is false as birds lived with dinosaurs and that's hard evidence, but the evos are ignoring it.

My other point is I think the atheist scientists don't exactly say "Birds are dinosaurs." They just wrote papers to allude to it like what you just presented. OTOH, I presented the hard evidence of birds living with dinosaurs but the atheist scientists deny it and ignore the hard evidence. Common for the atheists here until they die and realize they were wrong.

 

[james bond]

WWJS?

You just can't help talking about religion. Here are a couple of examples:

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalm 14:1

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ..." Romans 1:18-32

Then there is the prophecy of WWJD.

 

[alang1216]

Last point first. My evidence shows what you are alluding to is false as birds lived with dinosaurs and that's hard evidence, but the evos are ignoring it.

My other point is I think the atheist scientists don't exactly say "Birds are dinosaurs." They just wrote papers to allude to it like what you just presented. OTOH, I presented the hard evidence of birds living with dinosaurs but the atheist scientists deny it and ignore the hard evidence. Common for the atheists here until they die and realize they were wrong.

Paleontology and geology says that dinos lived for a few hundred million years (whether you believe it or not). What is undeniable is that the dino of the oldest rocks are not the same as the dinos of the younger rocks. It is clear to paleontologists that dinos evolved into other dinos, some of the later ones being birds.

You don't believe me I know but saying birds lived with dinos is evidence against evolution is completely, 100% wrong.

 

[alang1216]

You just can't help talking about religion.

You keep bringing into a discussion of science claiming it is a science textbook.

 

[james bond]

You don't believe me I know but saying birds lived with dinos is evidence against evolution is completely, 100% wrong.

Birds lived with dinos b/c the fossil evidence proves it. The atheist scientists are ignoring this evidence in order to get money by writing papers like I linked. You even explained it yourself that it alludes to birds being dinosaurs. What you can't figure out is the atheist scientists are doing it for the money and recognition. I'm just doing this gig here b/c God wants me to continue. Originally, I wanted to provide the creation science POV, but it got tiresome after over a year. Yet, I think I am am influencing the believers as well as the non-believers that science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book. OTOH, there is no science with evolution. It's just a bunch of BS papers atheist scientists wrote to get funding and fame. They're not like the creation scientists who made solid contributions to science. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that evolution can be destroyed and it has been through creation evidence and the wrongness of the 1956 dating, i.e. no clean room and wrong assumptions like how much radioisotopes were present in the space material at the beginning. You should be embarrassed writing what you did above as you are a fat liar.

 

[james bond]

You keep bringing into a discussion of science claiming it is a science textbook.

As usual, you get things backwards. Should you even belong to the General Discussion section that you put us into lol?

 

[alang1216]

As usual, you get things backwards. Should you even belong to the General Discussion section that you put us into lol?

Maybe you should stop using the term 'atheist scientist' in science forums?

 

[james bond]

Maybe you should stop using the term 'atheist scientist' in science forums?

Should I say death science? Atheist science is atheism just like death is revelation (he said smugly).

 

[james bond]

How many innocent babies did he order to be killed? Hint: Joshua and Jericho or King David and the plague.

The Wrath of God killed everyone on the planet, including innocent babies and children. He killed all with the global flood because the majority of people became evil and a threat to harm the innocent. God thought this was better than having the guilty kill the innocents including babies and children.

The second end of the world will happen with the fire in the sky and the return of Jesus. The believers will be saved and rise to meet the Lord. Chances are we'll miss the second coming, but it could happen in the next moment. Only God the Father knows when this will happen. Will it be because of evil people harming the innocent? I don't think so. It could be due to the rise in atheism -- 10 facts about atheists. Not even close to 33% right now, but check out Europe. What about China and the Soviet Union. 33% of the world is my swag as to when God will take action.

 

[alang1216]

The Wrath of God killed everyone on the planet, including innocent babies and children.

That's as wrathful as you can get. I can't help wonder why you assume your afterlife will be any better than this one? Same God and he may envision heaven and hell very differently than you envision them.

 

[james bond]

That's as wrathful as you can get. I can't help wonder why you assume your afterlife will be any better than this one? Same God and he may envision heaven and hell very differently than you envision them.

It's in the Bible like duh . The word “heaven” is found 276 times in the New Testament alone. I won't describe it for you as the Bible states you will be able to view it from where you end up. Would you like to know how it will be for you? It's in the smileys here to name a few...

 

[alang1216]

It's in the Bible like duh . The word “heaven” is found 276 times in the New Testament alone. I won't describe it for you as the Bible states you will be able to view it from where you end up. Would you like to know how it will be for you? It's in the smileys here to name a few...

Is it in the OT or just the NT? Did God send Jesus to condemn us to hell? Sounds truly wrathful to me.

 

[james bond]

Is it in the OT or just the NT? Did God send Jesus to condemn us to hell? Sounds truly wrathful to me.

Why don't you read the Bible to answer your question? What did the OT people had to believe?

Today, you can believe Jesus will come again to condemn you, atheists and the unforgiven to the Lake of Fire. It should be wrathful for it is the Wrath of God the Father. That would be the first true thing you said in a while.