Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[b]Job 38:16 (King James Version)
16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?Not known until the 20th century with the aid of a submersible: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/printtopic.asp?ItemId=944
Job 25:5 (King James Version)
5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.Not discovered until the 17th century by Galileo Galilei: http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/science/astronomy/biography/index.htm
Job 26:7 (King James Version)
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.Discovered the law of gravity in 1666 A.D. six thousand years after the writer of the book of Job:
http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112388/newton.htmIsaiah 40:22 (King James Version)
22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:Thousands of years before Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) and Copernicus theorized and/or discovered that the earth was round, the Bible revealed it:
http://octopus.gma.org/space1/nav_map.html
http://www.polskiinternet.com/english/nicolascopernicus.html [/B]
Irrefutable?
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveSo how is the Earth hanging on nothing, hanging would imply that it is stationary and not hurtling through space hundreds of thousands miles per hour.
Job 26:7 (King James Version)
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveLast time we checked the earth was a sphere not a circle, now the Flat Earth Society thinks its a circle which after all is a two dimensional object. 😉
Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version)
22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
OPPS, didn't I just refute your irrefutable stuff 😱
Archaeoraptor hoax update—National Geographic recants!
http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp
A WHALE of a TALE, or The Dilemma of Dolphins and Duckbills!
Originally posted by JesusIsAlivePlease Die, Happy Valentine's Day JIA 😈
[b]Archaeoraptor hoax update—National Geographic recants!http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp
A WHALE of a TALE, or The Dilemma of Dolphins and Duckbills!
A Plethora of Missing Evidence
"If you were to ask an evolutionist, "Are YOU SURE whales and dolphins used to be LAND ANIMALS ?" he would probably answer, "SURE, we're sure!" If you asked next, "But do you have any PROOF?' His answer would be .... but let's quote from some answers to just such questions.
"After adapting to life on land, the ancestors of porpoises, for reasons no one knows, went back to the sea. This happened about fifty million years ago; and just what the land animal was like no one can be sure, for the 'missing links' in its evolution are lost beneath the sea. IT IS CERTAIN, however, that the land mammal went through a long process of readapting to life in the water." ("Porpoises, Our Friends in the Sea," Robert Conly, National Geographic, p.404-406, Sept. 1966.)
How about that? How would you like to be tried in court by that kind of "evidence?"
First you're told, in definite, positive terms, these creatures DID EVOLVE from land animals. WHAT KIND of land animals? No one knows. Where is the EVIDENCE? It's nonexistent. Missing. How can they be so SURE? Well -- they just ARE!
One evolutionist admitted, "As the science of oceanography progresses, we may find the whales' complete skeletal record in the oceans' bottoms. Until then the guesses are further apart than those for man's evolutionary record." (Man and Dolphin, John C. Kelly, p. 181.)
Notice it carefully. The ideas about man's evolution are, admittedly, GUESSES. And some of the guesses are pretty wild. But, admits evolution -- the guesses concerning the past "development" of whales are even WILDER!
That's really crawling out on a limb. Or, perhaps we should say, a flipper."
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive😆
[b]A Plethora of Missing Evidence"If you were to ask an evolutionist, "Are YOU SURE whales and dolphins used to be LAND ANIMALS ?" he would probably answer, "SURE, we're sure!" If you asked next, "But do you have any PROOF?' His answer would be .... but let's quote from some answers to just such questions.
"After adapting to life on land, the ancestors of porpoises, for reasons no one knows, went back to the sea. This happened about fifty million years ago; and just what the land animal was like no one can be sure, for the 'missing links' in its evolution are lost beneath the sea. IT IS CERTAIN, however, that the land mammal went through a long process of readapting to life in the water." ("Porpoises, Our Friends in the Sea," Robert Conly, National Geographic, p.404-406, Sept. 1966.)
How about that? How would you like to be tried in court by that kind of "evidence?"
First you're told, in definite, positive terms, these creatures DID EVOLVE from land animals. WHAT KIND of land animals? No one knows. Where is the EVIDENCE? It's nonexistent. Missing. How can they be so SURE? Well -- they just ARE!
One evolutionist admitted, "As the science of oceanography progresses, we may find the whales' complete skeletal record in the oceans' bottoms. Until then the guesses are further apart than those for man's evolutionary record." (Man and Dolphin, John C. Kelly, p. 181.)
Notice it carefully. The ideas about man's evolution are, admittedly, GUESSES. And some of the guesses are pretty wild. But, admits evolution -- the guesses concerning the past "development" of whales are even WILDER!
That's really crawling out on a limb. Or, perhaps we should say, a flipper."
Originally posted by Da Pittman
😆
Hey, Da Pittman, did you know that there are people who believe that men were made from dirt, and they have no proof of this at all? They simply got it from a story in a book that their mom and dad told then was the truth, and there's no proof for that ether. 😱 That's really crawling out on a limb.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[b]A Plethora of Missing Evidence"If you were to ask an evolutionist, "Are YOU SURE whales and dolphins used to be LAND ANIMALS ?" he would probably answer, "SURE, we're sure!" If you asked next, "But do you have any PROOF?' His answer would be .... but let's quote from some answers to just such questions.
"After adapting to life on land, the ancestors of porpoises, for reasons no one knows, went back to the sea. This happened about fifty million years ago; and just what the land animal was like no one can be sure, for the 'missing links' in its evolution are lost beneath the sea. IT IS CERTAIN, however, that the land mammal went through a long process of readapting to life in the water." ("Porpoises, Our Friends in the Sea," Robert Conly, National Geographic, p.404-406, Sept. 1966.)
How about that? How would you like to be tried in court by that kind of "evidence?"
First you're told, in definite, positive terms, these creatures DID EVOLVE from land animals. WHAT KIND of land animals? No one knows. Where is the EVIDENCE? It's nonexistent. Missing. How can they be so SURE? Well -- they just ARE!
One evolutionist admitted, "As the science of oceanography progresses, we may find the whales' complete skeletal record in the oceans' bottoms. Until then the guesses are further apart than those for man's evolutionary record." (Man and Dolphin, John C. Kelly, p. 181.)
Notice it carefully. The ideas about man's evolution are, admittedly, GUESSES. And some of the guesses are pretty wild. But, admits evolution -- the guesses concerning the past "development" of whales are even WILDER!
That's really crawling out on a limb. Or, perhaps we should say, a flipper."
One of the most interesting things I have found about evolution:
If you follow the genes (and yes, love that JIA is using stuff from the 60s) you get "bears" going into the water and becoming aquatic mammals.
However, genetic evidence shows that, after going into the water, some of these "whales" came back to land and became "hippos".
It is called the "whippo" hypothesis in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way.
I think it is amazing 🙂
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[b]A Plethora of Missing Evidence"If you were to ask an evolutionist, "Are YOU SURE whales and dolphins used to be LAND ANIMALS ?" he would probably answer, "SURE, we're sure!" If you asked next, "But do you have any PROOF?' His answer would be .... but let's quote from some answers to just such questions.
"After adapting to life on land, the ancestors of porpoises, for reasons no one knows, went back to the sea. This happened about fifty million years ago; and just what the land animal was like no one can be sure, for the 'missing links' in its evolution are lost beneath the sea. IT IS CERTAIN, however, that the land mammal went through a long process of readapting to life in the water." ("Porpoises, Our Friends in the Sea," Robert Conly, National Geographic, p.404-406, Sept. 1966.)
How about that? How would you like to be tried in court by that kind of "evidence?"
First you're told, in definite, positive terms, these creatures DID EVOLVE from land animals. WHAT KIND of land animals? No one knows. Where is the EVIDENCE? It's nonexistent. Missing. How can they be so SURE? Well -- they just ARE!
One evolutionist admitted, "As the science of oceanography progresses, we may find the whales' complete skeletal record in the oceans' bottoms. Until then the guesses are further apart than those for man's evolutionary record." (Man and Dolphin, John C. Kelly, p. 181.)
Notice it carefully. The ideas about man's evolution are, admittedly, GUESSES. And some of the guesses are pretty wild. But, admits evolution -- the guesses concerning the past "development" of whales are even WILDER!
That's really crawling out on a limb. Or, perhaps we should say, a flipper."
Scientists know for a fact, through DNA, that pigs and hippos are the closest living relatives of whales. In fact cows are closer to whales than they are to horses, so they deduced that whales evolved from split-hooved mammals.
Pigs are not aquatic, hippos are semi-aquatic, so in this progression whales are obviously the next step.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
OGC
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Archaeoraptor hoax update—National Geographic recants!
What say you AngryManatee? This was your ace in the hole as it were.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Scientists know for a fact, through DNA, that pigs and hippos are the closest living relatives of whales. In fact cows are closer to whales than they are to horses, so they deduced that whales evolved from split-hooved mammals.Pigs are not aquatic, hippos are semi-aquatic, so in this progression whales are obviously the next step.
Are there any intermediate fossils linking hippos and whales?