New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

Then why do you believe new species can be formed from another similar one? Why not just blindly assume they're randomly similar cuz God said so?

If the word species means a new family to you ,I disagree with how you use the word. I don't believe a family can create a new family but I do believe a family can create a new breed within the family.

I'm talking solely about new species. Why do you think a new similar species can from from a similar species but think the idea of that happening with humans is wacky? How do scientific principles skip over certain species?

Because humans are unique,and we can do things that is not even close to possible for any other creature.

We have DNA that is similar but we are miles apart from each other. Besides what i know of mutations they can not do what evolutionist need them to do.

Humans are humans,we can't even be sure that some of these earlier humans were not a product of their enviornment or they inbred to a point of extinction.there are so many unanswered questions.

 

[JScott]

Well i have read they were deeply rooted i am not certain because i have done no dental exams on a t-rex. Some people say their teeth are two thirds in the jaw bone but look at their teeth and they have little arms. I can't see those theeth grabbing a big dinosaur and ripping it apart because the teeth couldn't support that pressure and having short front arms i just don't buy them being a predator.

Look.

Tyrannosaurus: Hyena of the Cretaceous | Dinosaur Tracking

So are the dinosaurs as old as evolutionist say ?

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved


Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News


March 24, 2005

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved

Hmm ?????????

Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery (How did Dinosaur soft tissue survive millions of years?)
Discover ^ | 10/3/2009

Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 729 PM by SeekAndFind

Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma. She just looks and wonders, pokes and prods, following her scientific curiosity. That has allowed her to see things other paleontologists have missed—and potentially to shatter fundamental assumptions about how much we can learn from the past. If biological tissue can last through the fossilization process, it could open a window through time, showing not just how extinct animals evolved but how they lived each day. "Fossils have richer stories to tell—about the lub-dub of dinosaur life—than we have been willing to listen to," says Robert T. Bakker, curator of paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. "This is one spectacular proof of that."

At the same time, the contents of those T. rex bones have also electrified some creationists, who interpret Schweitzer's findings as evidence that Earth is not nearly as old as scientists claim. "I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious," wrote Carl Wieland on the Answers in Genesis Web site last year. "This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most."

Rhetoric like this has put Schweitzer at the center of a raging cultural controversy, because she is not just a pioneering paleontologist but also an evangelical Christian. That fact alone has prompted some prominent paleontologists to be even more skeptical about her scientific research. Some creationists have questioned her work from the other direction, pressing her to refute Darwinian evolution. But in her religious life, Schweitzer is no more of an ideologue than she is in her scientific career. In both realms, she operates with a simple but powerful consistency: The best way to understand the glory of the world is to open your eyes and take an honest look at what is out there.

Funny, rhetoric ? it's not rhetoric it's obvious because soft tissue can't last as long as evolutionist the dinosaurs went extinct.

Yep those are some big teeth. But the size of the teeth don't prove your point.

Looking at pictures of the skulls with the teeth and trying to account for the gums they don't look like they're strongly rooted.it does not look like a t-rex could be attacking a 7 to 10 ton dinosaur without losing those teeth. Not to mention it is only theory that once they lose their teeth they just grew new ones.

Do you think if you grew much bigger teeth do you think you could subdue another human without the help of arms just those teeth ?

The teeth I showed have about 12 inches of root. Not sure how gums come into play when the teeth are placed so deeply into the jaws. Saber Tooth cats also had huge fangs. You think they lost those? Theyre not near as deep as a T Rexs' teeth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yep those are some big teeth. But the size of the teeth don't prove your point.

Looking at pictures of the skulls with the teeth and trying to account for the gums they don't look like they're strongly rooted.it does not look like a t-rex could be attacking a 7 to 10 ton dinosaur without losing those teeth. Not to mention it is only theory that once they lose their teeth they just grew new ones.

Do you think if you grew much bigger teeth do you think you could subdue another human without the help of arms just those teeth ?

The teeth I showed have about 12 inches of root. Not sure how gums come into play when the teeth are placed so deeply into the jaws. Saber Tooth cats also had huge fangs. You think they lost those? Theyre not near as deep as a T Rexs' teeth.

The largest average size T-rex tooth is a total of 9 inches,the longest ever recorded is 13 inches.

Or atleast that is what i read.

 

[HUGGY]

This just in....

Hawkings makes it clear... NO GOD!

Watched it Sunday night...Curiosity....on Discovery

This time S. Hawkings beats around no bushes. He disproves the existance of God scientifically.

His logic is that there was no "time" before the big bang therefore no "time" for God to exist in.

Sorry God Squad.. it has been proven...No God...period!

Curiosity "Did God Create the Universe?"

 

[Youwerecreated]

This just in....

Hawkings makes it clear... NO GOD!

Watched it Sunday night...Curiosity....on Discovery

This time S. Hawkings beats around no bushes. He disproves the existance of God scientifically.

His logic is that there was no "time" before the big bang therefore no "time" for God to exist in.

Sorry God Squad.. it has been proven...No God...period!

Curiosity "Did God Create the Universe?"

That genius,Hawking theorised on the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God created time as we know of it.

 

[Woyzeck]

Because most of your theory is based on terms and definitions and very little evidence supports your theory. Especially the evidence we can observe.

Stop blaming your own ignorance of evolution on words. You can keep jamming your fingers in your ears all you want, but I've already shown you evidence for evolution. Saying there is none is just purposely being ignorant so you can believe your crockpot theory which as Si Modo as been saying as no place in science.

Ignorance of your vocabulary after what i did for a living.

Your lack of understanding about biology doesn't really reflect favorably on what you did for a living.

 

[Woyzeck]

Really, vague ? boxer is a breed how is that vague ?

That's not how you've been referring about breed.

I think i have many times.

Then this detour on breeds is entirely irrelevant because breeds of that sort are not prime examples of evolution via natural selection. There are no "breeds" in the wild.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Stop blaming your own ignorance of evolution on words. You can keep jamming your fingers in your ears all you want, but I've already shown you evidence for evolution. Saying there is none is just purposely being ignorant so you can believe your crockpot theory which as Si Modo as been saying as no place in science.

Ignorance of your vocabulary after what i did for a living.

Your lack of understanding about biology doesn't really reflect favorably on what you did for a living.

That may be true,I have simply eliminated the word games. Over time you will see.

 

[HUGGY]

This just in....

Hawkings makes it clear... NO GOD!

Watched it Sunday night...Curiosity....on Discovery

This time S. Hawkings beats around no bushes. He disproves the existance of God scientifically.

His logic is that there was no "time" before the big bang therefore no "time" for God to exist in.

Sorry God Squad.. it has been proven...No God...period!

Curiosity "Did God Create the Universe?"

That genius,Hawking theorised on the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God created time as we know of it.

That genius Hawkings is absolutely correct. There are without any reasonable doubt millions of planets with life. The big question as it relates to humans is WHEN these life forms existed/exists as it is clear that collisions affecting their home planet could happen at any time and wipe out billions of years of evolution. What is certainly a very small population is advanced life capable of traveling at or near light speed with a need to escape a world they have depleted of it's resources or one that is in imminent peril from a sun near it's end or a planet that is about to collide with another object making their planet unlivable.

Unlike many that hope to find another intelligent extraterrestrial species ...I find that possibility dangerous. There is nothing about us that indicates that "intelligence" means anything but highly adaptive predators with no goals other than to serve their own self interests. With most of the humans on this planet believing in fantasy all powerful beings it is difficult to equate "intelligence" with wisdom. Going with the model we represent I would have to believe that aliens are crazy and stupid. If they are anything like us a small degree of advancement over our development could easily land us on their menu.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This just in....

Hawkings makes it clear... NO GOD!

Watched it Sunday night...Curiosity....on Discovery

This time S. Hawkings beats around no bushes. He disproves the existance of God scientifically.

His logic is that there was no "time" before the big bang therefore no "time" for God to exist in.

Sorry God Squad.. it has been proven...No God...period!

Curiosity "Did God Create the Universe?"

That genius,Hawking theorised on the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God created time as we know of it.

That genius Hawkings is absolutely correct. There are without any reasonable doubt millions of planets with life. The big question as it relates to humans is WHEN these life forms existed/exists as it is clear that collisions affecting their home planet could happen at any time and wipe out billions of years of evolution. What is certainly a very small population is advanced life capable of traveling at or near light speed with a need to escape a world they have depleted of it's resources or one that is in imminent peril from a sun near it's end or a planet that is about to collide with another object making their planet unlivable.

Unlike many that hope to find another intelligent extraterrestrial species ...I find that possibility dangerous. There is nothing about us that indicates that "intelligence" means anything but highly adaptive predators with no goals other than to serve their own self interests. With most of the humans on this planet believing in fantasy all powerful beings it is difficult to equate "intelligence" with wisdom. Going with the model we represent I would have to believe that aliens are crazy and stupid. If they are anything like us a small degree of advancement over our development could easily land us on their menu.

Huggy,Huggy,time to get up .

 

[Woyzeck]

Ignorance of your vocabulary after what i did for a living.

Your lack of understanding about biology doesn't really reflect favorably on what you did for a living.

That may be true,I have simply eliminated the word games. Over time you will see.

There weren't any word games. Just insistence on your vaguely defined terms which have no merit.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's not how you've been referring about breed.

I think i have many times.

Then this detour on breeds is entirely irrelevant because breeds of that sort are not prime examples of evolution via natural selection. There are no "breeds" in the wild.

So you're gonna ignore the obvious to accept your theory ? There most certainly are breeds in all families of the wild.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your lack of understanding about biology doesn't really reflect favorably on what you did for a living.

That may be true,I have simply eliminated the word games. Over time you will see.

There weren't any word games. Just insistence on your vaguely defined terms which have no merit.

I'll ask you one more time is it vague to identify an animal with the name of the breed ? Does that not simplify thimgs ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am on my bike ride , and its hard to read my smart phone so I will talk to you in little while.

 

[Woyzeck]

I think i have many times.

Then this detour on breeds is entirely irrelevant because breeds of that sort are not prime examples of evolution via natural selection. There are no "breeds" in the wild.

So you're gonna ignore the obvious to accept your theory ? There most certainly are breeds in all families of the wild.

How on earth would that disprove evolution?

 

[Woyzeck]

That may be true,I have simply eliminated the word games. Over time you will see.

There weren't any word games. Just insistence on your vaguely defined terms which have no merit.

I'll ask you one more time is it vague to identify an animal with the name of the breed ? Does that not simplify thimgs ?

No, there's no reason to identify them with a 'breed.' Animals are identified by species, and then subspecies if that applies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then this detour on breeds is entirely irrelevant because breeds of that sort are not prime examples of evolution via natural selection. There are no "breeds" in the wild.

So you're gonna ignore the obvious to accept your theory ? There most certainly are breeds in all families of the wild.

How on earth would that disprove evolution?

I didn't say that,but to explain your theory you have to disregard an easy way to identfy an animal.

Example, would you say my Canidae or my dog ?


If you want to be specific;
Would you say my canine lupus or my grey wolf ?

It is just plain silly the word game your side plays ,and thats exactly how the game is played .That is how they try to build support for their theory,it's obvious to the ones that use ANY KIND of common sense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There weren't any word games. Just insistence on your vaguely defined terms which have no merit.

I'll ask you one more time is it vague to identify an animal with the name of the breed ? Does that not simplify thimgs ?

No, there's no reason to identify them with a 'breed.' Animals are identified by species, and then subspecies if that applies.

Oh boy nice theory.

 

[Woyzeck]

So you're gonna ignore the obvious to accept your theory ? There most certainly are breeds in all families of the wild.

How on earth would that disprove evolution?

I didn't say that,but to explain your theory you have to disregard an easy way to identfy an animal.

Example, would you say my Canidae or my dog ?


If you want to be specific;
Would you say my canine lupus or my grey wolf ?

It is just plain silly the word game your side plays ,and thats exactly how the game is played .That is how they try to build support for their theory,it's obvious to the ones that use ANY KIND of common sense.

Species name exist generally because the word for 'dog,' for example, isn't the same word in another language. Species name exist to give universality to the names. I don't see what on earth this has to do with evolution at all. The evidence and support for evolution (and I have presented much evidence in the course of this thread) is not "built-in" with word games. Naming systems existed and were developing well before Darwin's time.

By the way, you wouldn't say Canidae for dog, because that's the family name, not the species name.

 

[Woyzeck]

I'll ask you one more time is it vague to identify an animal with the name of the breed ? Does that not simplify thimgs ?

No, there's no reason to identify them with a 'breed.' Animals are identified by species, and then subspecies if that applies.

Oh boy nice theory.

Biological and taxonomical naming is a now a theory? Carl Linnaeus will be most surprised.