Evolution Vs. Creation

[mcbr4481]

One big question seems to linger for me, If we and other species have evolved then why can't they find any skeletons of this evolution? If we evolved from apes there should be millions of skeletons in which we weren't human yet but not ape. there should be some inbetween and we have never found any! there should be millions and millions of them, but there just isnt... So can Evolution really be true with the lack of evidence?

[joer]

mcbr4481 wrote:

So can Evolution really be true with the lack of evidence?

The answer is Yes! Evolution is part of Creation. So they both exist mcbr4481.

God is Love and Science is the discovering Love’s myriad of expression. Logic is like science and computers… garbage in garbage out. The assumptions you make to which you apply logic must be something worthy of applying logic to in order to get something of value out of it. Reality is based on our conceptual frames of reference. And as our concept of God approaches the reality of God's Love so does our Reality approach that which is of God.

For example, just as Robert Sarmast appears to be on the verge of discovering the REAL Garden of Eden so does science continue to salvage myth to reality. Genesis and Science synthesize into our new reality which you have noticed is fleeting. But that is not a problem. For each new evolution of reality we find is more suited to serve us in our needs in time and space while approximating God’s Love in eternity.

http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/

There is no doubt in the minds of those involved in the project that Atlantis/Eden has indeed been discovered. Robert Sarmast May 24, 2007

Jose wrote:

Panza llena, corazon contento

I say:

Entre menos burros mas olotes.

[Beto]

The recent findings of giant feathered dinosaurs call for a reassessment of dinosaur/bird evolution theory. This is what science does. There's a lot of scientist bashing going out there, but they're the ones doing all the digging. If that means proving themselves wrong at times, so be it. It's better to have a new fact, than a flawed theory (mind you, I said "flawed").

[joer]

The recent findings of giant feathered dinosaurs call for a reassessment of dinosaur/bird evolution theory. This is what science does. There's a lot of scientist bashing going out there, but they're the ones doing all the digging. If that means proving themselves wrong at times, so be it. It's better to have a new fact, than a flawed theory (mind you, I said "flawed").

Exactly, Beto! True Dat.

[micatala]

Moderator Reminder

The recent findings of giant feathered dinosaurs call for a reassessment of dinosaur/bird evolution theory. This is what science does. There's a lot of scientist bashing going out there, but they're the ones doing all the digging. If that means proving themselves wrong at times, so be it. It's better to have a new fact, than a flawed theory (mind you, I said "flawed").

Exactly, Beto! True Dat.

Just a reminder that 'unproductive one-liners' are against the rules.

[Beto]

Moderator Reminder

The recent findings of giant feathered dinosaurs call for a reassessment of dinosaur/bird evolution theory. This is what science does. There's a lot of scientist bashing going out there, but they're the ones doing all the digging. If that means proving themselves wrong at times, so be it. It's better to have a new fact, than a flawed theory (mind you, I said "flawed").

Exactly, Beto! True Dat.

Just a reminder that 'unproductive one-liners' are against the rules.

How do we simply agree with a statement? We can't? I think it's rather polite and uplifting, thus most productive.

[joer]

O.K. Micatala! Normally that would be all I would say in response to your warning. But I don't want to get called on a one liner foul again. SO I'll add a little more and try to make it pertinent to the subject of the thread, the moderator response and get the intention of my post across in an acceptable and courteous manner.

I respect the evolution of the understanding and enforcement of the rules as interpreted by the moderators of this site because I am truly grateful for the service they offer to maintain the continued smooth functioning of this avenue of expression for myself and those involved, regardless of the reason a rule was created for in the first place.

Thank You Micatala for your fine action that is representative of the subject at hand at the same time.

God Bless You Micatala and your moderator associates or if you don't believe in God May Good Will be your constant companion.

Thanks for the kudos Beto.

[randallsnowb]

I forgot about other animals

Plenty of fossils show transitions for animals we have today.

One of the best examples i can think of is the archaeopteryx. This was a dinosaur with feathers and wings. It doesn't take a huge mental leap to understand that there is obviosuly an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.

Some animals are extremely slow at evolution, becuase they have a great design. Crocodiles are virtually unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs, but you can still some some alterations. For one the size.

Just look for the information and you will find it. I hope you become enlightened soon enough

Show me this "dinosaur" and prove to me that we did not just put them together the way we wanted to. They have already found out the the t-rex's little arms were incorrect. So, using dinosaurs is not good enough. Who knows what all has happened behind closed doors.

[Chimp]

No rearranging here...all smooshed on the same rock.

[Beto]

It seems to me the new findings in China are even better. The dinosaurs don't appear to have a whole body of feathers, just a few on the forward limbs if I'm not mistaken. To appeal to the opposite sex one might guess. These work even better for me as transitional samples.

[Jose]

Even T. rex is now thought to have had little feathery bits on it as a kid. Adults lost the feathers...prob'ly made 'em too hot. I think it's starting to look like many of the dinos in the general clan of bipedal types were feathered. Mostly, as you've said, Beto, large feathers that look like wing feathers were restricted to the arms, or possibly arms, legs, and tail. The rest was downy single-barb feathery things, more like fur--or maybe more like those goofy chickens you see at the state fair that have down feathers all over, with no flight feathers anywhere.

And yes--the "Chinasaurs" are great samples.