CherubRam
New member
I think you are confused.
Where are the Fossilized Remains of Millions of Humans from the Flood?
- Thread starter Mocking You
- Start date
I think you are confused.
HisServant
New member
Creationism is backward science.... therefore I do not hold to their position on scripture.
Science proves there is a creator... or we are the sum of a tremendous amount of dice rolls.
How God created things is beyond our scope of understanding.
Science proves there is a creator... or we are the sum of a tremendous amount of dice rolls.
How God created things is beyond our scope of understanding.
Mocking You
New member
I'm not worried about it in the least. I thought it would make for interesting discussion...on a discussion board.
TracerBullet
New member
references?
Ummhmmm yea right
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
If it's a shrimp or a chimp, I could not care less. The point is that, when it was first discovered, it was the evolutionary experts (so-called) who labelled it such and then had to backtrack.
When will you guys stop doing that? But if you do, wouldn't it be nice to have as much exposure to the recant as there is to the original embarrassing mistake? It would help others who are trying to stay informed about your flexible fairy tale.
You are trying to blame 6days for a mistake made by someone else, and then you suggest that it is his lack of education that is to blame. What a sorry bunch of truth twisters you guys are!
Please provide documentation from a peer-reviewed paper retracting your "shrimp" designation mistake - with the words "sorry, we made a mistake" in it.
Hi Again, George Affleck,
I agree with you here. No attacks on 6days and twisting words around. I've had enough of that. Where the human remains are is a good question. Have we found that many dinosaur remains also? We'll find out someday when God wants us to know, I'll bet. It's good to visit with you again.
May God Bless Your Soul!!
Michael
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Just so everybody knows, there are supposed to have been important variations in this creature - not at all a one-trick-pony. Different species of anomalacaris?
And, these variations are supposed to have evolved into existence during the so-called Cambrian explosion, and then vanished. No known ancestors or survivors. Rudyard Kipling would be proud to know that "Just So" stories are still popular.
And, these variations are supposed to have evolved into existence during the so-called Cambrian explosion, and then vanished. No known ancestors or survivors. Rudyard Kipling would be proud to know that "Just So" stories are still popular.
The details matter in science.
I doubt if they actually thought it was a shrimp. The mongraph said that it was of unknown classification, but an arthropod. Which it was. "Basilosaurus" was a whale, even if the name means "king lizard." The names tend to be descriptive in a poetic way.
It's the way science works. Constantly back-tracking, checking what we thought we knew, and making sure. It sounds a bit chaotic, but on the other hand, look what science has done.
"Embarrassing mistake" would be like Cope putting a head on the wrong end of a spine for an Elasmosaurus. (He actually did that) Of course, they do look a lot the same, both ends of the spine, but still...
Even if they had actually thought the fragment they found was from a shrimp, getting the wrong order of arthropod is probably not a bad call for having less than 1% of the body.
It's not as though he's never been warned about those guys. Yes, he probably didn't have the education to realize that they were dishonest. But at some point, one should realize that not knowing can lead one astray.
Never thought of it that way. Now that you mention it, I bet T-rex wasn't really a king, either.
The thing was described as a shrimp over 100 years ago. Considering the state of phylogenetics at the time, it's not surprising that they got the class right but the order wrong.
The complete story is here:
http://bioteaching.com/the-history-and-significance-of-anomalocaris/
It was interesting to learn that they found a new genus that evolved filter-feeding instead of predation. Not surprising since it was the largest animal of the time, and like the very large whales of our time, found filter-feeding to be a usable niche.
The complete story is here:
http://bioteaching.com/the-history-and-significance-of-anomalocaris/
It was interesting to learn that they found a new genus that evolved filter-feeding instead of predation. Not surprising since it was the largest animal of the time, and like the very large whales of our time, found filter-feeding to be a usable niche.
6days
New member
You think 'day' means billions of years..its small wonder you now think 4 years is over 100 years.
6days
New member
The Cambrian provides great evidence for the Biblical model of creation and flood. Pretty much all phyla are represented in the Cambrian. And we see features such as sophisticated and complex vision that show up with a "bang" in the fossil record surprising evolutionists. Also in support of the Biblical flood model, we see at least 95% of all fossils are marine organisms and typically found in catastrophic deposits.Just so everybody knows, there are supposed to have been important variations in this creature - not at all a one-trick-pony. Different species of anomalacaris?
And, these variations are supposed to have evolved into existence during the so-called Cambrian explosion, and then vanished. No known ancestors or survivors. Rudyard Kipling would be proud to know that "Just So" stories are still popular.
In Genesis, as the early Christians knew, it didn't mean time at all. However the word used in Genesis can mean various time periods, including "day", "my lifetime", "centuries", "extremely long periods of time", and "forever."
You've simply picked the one you like.
You were really taken on that one. The name was given in 1912 when it was first discovered. And you really have no excuse. The actual form of Anomalocaris was in popular literature decades ago; Wonderful Life, describing the fossil and the discoveries of it, was published in 1990.
.
6days
New member
Barbarian said:
In Genesis, as the early Christians knew, 'there was evening and morning...one day'.*
The word used in Genesis ch. 1 can only mean a normal day with a period of light and day. Context determines the meaning both in Hebrew and English.Barbarian said:
It seems Hebrew scholars at every major university pick the same 24 hour meaning based on context. *You simply reject God's Word that "in six days, God created the heavens and the earth".*Barbarian said:
I think that dishonest bug has got you again.Barbarian said:
ŔEVIEW.....
You said "The thing was described as a shrimp over 100 years ago."
Once again, you rely on old info. I showed you that the thing was described as a shrimp just four years ago.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Watch for a post on Dawkins and super-infinity.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Why "hundreds of millions"?
And surely you're aware that there's lots of fossilized human skeletons that have been discovered?
What proportion of humans that perished do you think would be fossilized?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actually, what is backwards is "science" that does not presuppose God exists.
All scientists—including agnostics and atheists—believe in God. They have to in order to do their work.
View attachment 20082
Why Scientists Must Believe in God, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46/1 (March 2003): 111-123.
AMR
Uh, no. No one, not scientists, not even you, "have to" believe in god, any god, for any reason.
Does a scientist from a Buddhist background have to believe in Buddha in order to do his work?