The Lie Crumbles - Evolution

[Bronzesnake]

Hi.

Just wanted to share some amazing true news with you.
Evolution is one of those topics that can truly divide people.
People on both sides can become very defensive, and so I'm posting some shocking news here, and I pray it is received in the manner which it is intended. I believe Christians should become very excited about this.

This is actually old news. But it's old news which has been buried, and purposefully hidden from the world.
It is only since the computer age has hit our homes that these kind of stories are beginning to come to light.

There is a place called Acambaro in Mexico.
The most amazing discoveries have come from this little town, and yet I'll bet no one here knows anything about it.

What if someone proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans?
What if someone proved beyond any shadow of doubt that dinosaurs lived a s little as three to four thousand years ago? How would that affect your world view?

Here is a startling quote from a web site, which I will link to following...

In 1945 Waldemar Julsrud, a German immigrant and knowledgeable archeologist, discovered clay figurines buried at the foot of El Toro Mountain on the outskirts of Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico. Eventually over 33,000 ceramic figurines were found near El Toro as well as Chivo Mountain on the other side of town. Similar artifacts found in the area are identified with the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 BC to 200 AD).

Here is the link -[link removed]

These figurines are amazing! Knowing that if samples were taken to be carbon dated, any lab in the world would refuse to do tests if they were told ahead of time what the samples represented. So, samples were send to several of the world's best labs for dating.

Here are more quotes from the same site as prior quote -

Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC. These results were subsequently withdrawn when it was learned that some of the samples were from dinosaurs. Gee, what a surprise..

In 1990 an investigation was conducted by Neal Steedy, an independent archeologist who's livelihood depends on contract work from the Mexican government. He arbitrarily selected an excavation site considerably removed from the Julsrud site. Chards were found but no figurines. He commissioned radiocarbon tests for samples from the Julsrud Collection which produced a range of dates from 4000 to 1500 years ago

Go to the site, and read he entire history of these figurines before you make your mind up as to weather they are real or not.

Here is a link, which shows very old depictions of dinosaurs...
[link removed]

If we are honestly looking for THE truth, then we should be very excited about such discoveries.

Add these early depictions and figurines to the new that scientists have found - "Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous—to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.
It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousand years old.
In a recent article,1 scientists from Montana State University, seemingly struggling to allow professional caution to restrain their obvious excitement at the findings, report on the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that traces of real blood from a T. rex have actually been found."

Link - [link removed]

Just sayin...

John

 

[Enquirer]

Check out the following ... simply amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF7JUdWOwRw

 

[River Jordan]

So based on the same level of evidence, don't we also have to conclude that Minotaurs, elves, fairies, Griffins, mermaids, and just about every other mythical creature are also real?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I don't know why the only viable refutation of evolution is young earth creationism, a belief system just as riddled with errors and based on equally faulty premises. All of our geological studies have indicated the earth is indeed very, very old, most particularly the ice core samples we've taken that go back millions of years. This is the problem with treating the Bible as the one book that contains all truth. The book of nature is just as much a divine revelation as the Bible is and what it has to teach us should not be ignored. It tells us about ice ages that endured thousands of years, magnetic polar shifts, major tectonic upheavals, and most importantly, the sudden extinction of dinosaurs millions of years before man appeared on this earth.

To say, "but that's not what the Bible says" is absolutely absurd and it's what I'm referring to when I speak of Christian fundamentalists. It makes us all look like kooks. So just stop!

 

[Madad21]

It warms the heart to see another thread on evolution, every Christian forum needs one really gets the juices flowing, enjoying the debate here excellent stuff.

I personally believe in the new earth theory, I dont have any real reason for that, havent felt the need to investigate further though I am aware of some of the other theory's, but something about them just dont seem to ring true with scripture. Im a real stickler for scripture (hey that almost rhymes)

Good to see ya Vale blessings!

 

[Bronzesnake]

So based on the same level of evidence, don't we also have to conclude that Minotaurs, elves, fairies, Griffins, mermaids, and just about every other mythical creature are also real?

It's pretty easy to discern really. There are actual examples which have been dug up, and dated to thousands of years, as far as my post.
I have yet to see any real evidence for any of the examples you mentioned, so I am of the mindset, where I don't put much stock in any "proof" for creation, or evolution until I see credible evidence for it.
Which is why I brought the subject up.
Are you suggesting dinosaurs are mythical creatures? Or, is your reply targeting another post?

Thanks for your time.

John

 

[Tex]

Ceramic figurines made by people that look like dinosaurs, therefore they lived at the same time.

Ceramic figurines made by people that look like Zeus, therefore they lived at the same time.

 

[Bronzesnake]

I don't know why the only viable refutation of evolution is young earth creationism, a belief system just as riddled with errors and based on equally faulty premises. All of our geological studies have indicated the earth is indeed very, very old, most particularly the ice core samples we've taken that go back millions of years. This is the problem with treating the Bible as the one book that contains all truth. The book of nature is just as much a divine revelation as the Bible is and what it has to teach us should not be ignored. It tells us about ice ages that endured thousands of years, magnetic polar shifts, major tectonic upheavals, and most importantly, the sudden extinction of dinosaurs millions of years before man appeared on this earth.

To say, "but that's not what the Bible says" is absolutely absurd and it's what I'm referring to when I speak of Christian fundamentalists. It makes us all look like kooks. So just stop!

Hello.
You seem to be assuming I am against science. I am most assuredly not. I have seen a very curious thing where it comes to the debate - creation vs evolution. For unknown reasons, a lot of people believe "science" is synonymous with the study of evolution.
I very often see remarks such as "well, REAL scientists, don't believe in children's stories, or, REAL scientists believe in reality" which is very curious. It assumes creationists base their own scientific conclusions, on the Bible. I'm sorry to burst that bubble however, what is really being debated quite often are differing world views.

Telling a creationists to "just stop" is actually not a scientific rebuttal either my friend.
If you want to discuss the actual science behind the hypothesis of evolution, I am very happy to oblige. However, if you really want to stifle debate, by simply inferring that you know the REAL truth, then how are we to learn from one another?
Healthy debate is what North America is supposed to be all about. The forefathers fled places in Europe because of this very same problem.

I'm willing to put forth some questions and if you feel up to it, we can start a mutually respectful discussion from there ok?

So my first question is this - can you show me even a single example from anywhere on the planet, which shows one species slowly, over time, going from a simple example, say the first so called "simple" cell, and becoming a more complex example of a totally new species (not change within a species) through a series of graduated, transitional changes which lead to masses of new genetic information, which has the end result - a brand new species?

OK, next - you stated the following -

All of our geological studies have indicated the earth is indeed very, very old

So, it would be helpful if you could be specific. Which geological studies are you referring to - what dating method, or methods are you referring to?

To another science. astronomy. Could you please help solve the formation of stars problem. How did the first star form, and how did subsequent stars form?

Most people do not know that no one, not a single person, has EVER actually seen a star being born. Yes, this is yet another huge lie being indoctrinated to our children by "real" scientists.
First of all, no one has been able to work out how stars even form! No explanation, no model has been brought forth showing how "real" scientists believe gas is able to collapse into a solid!

An evolution scientist once said that by modern calculations, stars can in deed be formed. When asked to elaborate, he went on to say that it is possible that if twenty stars in close proximity were to explode it would, by their calculations, have enough energy to produce a new star!! Does anyone see the pink elephant flying around the room?
So, you need to have TWENTY stars die to form ONE new star!!

Martin Harwit, Faculty Emeritus at Cornell University was quoted stating the following -

The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form!
That was from Science Magazine
Volume 231 March 1986

What a stunning admission!
The next time someone says that we see stars forming in "star nurseries" please be sure to correct him/her.

What is the basis for their belief?
Well, here's what is happening. Some evolutionists will write an article, for example. The article will say, "we see star nurseries, and there are baby stars being formed there"
That is a heavy statement right? Ya, it is. However, it is not based on any scientific studies. Some one will see a bright spot and proclaim "a star is forming"
However all we truly know based on observation is that there is a bright spot. This is more likely a star dying going Nova or Super Nova. It could also most definitely be that some dust has moved and a star which was hidden behind this dust cloud, can now be seen!

If we consider every "fact" that we know about stars, the disheartening news for the evolutionists is that one nagging problem...nobody has EVER seen a single star forming!
If we take the scientific calculations of scientists who state it takes TWENTY stars to produce enough energy to make ONE star.

I think this should be enough to start a healthy, respectful debate.
We'll start out with these simple examples, and work our way further, and further into more detailed discussions. For example; we can get into which one of several mass extinction of the dinosaurs you are referring to, and what the scientific studies using the scientific method have concluded.

We can stick with geology if you are more comfortable with that. Then we could get into the true facts, starting with the Grand Canyon. How is it that each layer, which evolutionists tell us took millions of years, has no geological features, showing for example, the effects of millions of years of rain in between these ancient layers? No hills? no mountains" no SOIL??!! What?
These layers are flatter then on a plate my friends, but evolutionists expect us to believe each layer represents millions of years of evolution. Sorry, I do not wanna drink that kool-aid!

We have an awesome opportunity here in North America. We have a real opportunity to study Mount St Helens, and actually use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and we can come to real conclusions, and not "our" conclusions.
That volcano tore open a perfect representation of Mini Grand Canyon. It has exactly the same layers as the G.C. It has flat layers, and a total lack of soil between the layers, and it gives us extra information! We saw what looked like an alien landscape surrounding the G.C. where trees would be found buried in millions of years of evolutionary dogma. You never heard any legitimate conclusions as to why these anomalies were there? But now we can see for ourselves, in real time exactly how this tree mystery occurred.
The trees were torn off the mountain, and sent whizzing down her busted back, at remarkable speeds!
At M.S.H. we see how trees were supplanted through layers of real sedimentary layers. The trees were seen sinking in the new, soft layers which had formed almost instantly! Evolutionists scientists told us that fossilized trees we saw beneath forests, were solid proof that millions, and billions of years of successive layers being laid down, one ancient layer upon another!
But because of M.S.H. we now know without any doubt, that those so called ancient layers, and fossilized trees, some upside down I might add, we simply trees which cam to settle in lakes, and after a year or two, they became totally water logged and simply sunk, and whatever end went downward first, ended up sticking into the muddy, layers on the lake bed, and viola! An ancient geographical example proving millions of years of evolution! NOT!

M.S.H. carved out an almost exact copy of the G.C. in miniature. Every feature seen after this devastating volcano, would have been perfect examples of evolution at work, over billions of years, if it had not happened in modern times!
That should raise huge red flags for any evolution minded people, who are simply after THE TRUTH and not MY TRUTH.
I was an evolutionists many years ago, until I started doing my own research. I was adamant that I would allow the evidence, the facts, take me wherever they were going, be it Darwinian Evolution, or Punctuated Equilibrium, or angry man Dawkins flying spaghetti men. The evidence, the FACTS lead me straight to Jesus Christ.

So, to put at least one of your assertions to bed about me - no, I did not base my beliefs on the Bible, I based my conclusions on the very same weapons evolutionists are using to drag as many of us as they can away from God - I used science, and common sense.
Once I understood what I was dealing with, I most certainly began relying on the word of my God. I would be a complete fool if I ignored God's Word after learning the truth.
Quite often when I debate an evolutionist, the person will attempt to stack the deck against me by saying something like - "ok, if we're going to debate evolution seriously, you have to leave the Bible out of the debate" Ha, ha, I don't think so. Who would leave God out of any battle, spiritual or physical. It's like me saying, ok we can debate creation but no Darwinian Hypothesizing!

Take care
John


I hope

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Ceramic figurines made by people that look like dinosaurs, therefore they lived at the same time.

Ceramic figurines made by people that look like Zeus, therefore they lived at the same time.

Well if fake ceramics disprove anything, then so does fake transitional fossils... or?

 

[Bronzesnake]

Well if fake ceramics disprove anything, then so does fake transitional fossils... or?

ok my friend.
I see where you're coming from now.
What is your opinion, if you have one, in relation to the dating shenanigans? Multiple samples sent to labs proved the samples taken from the "dinosaur" figures were thousands of years old. However, once these labs were informed the dates they came up with were from dinosaur figures, they suddenly made a curious admission - to paraphrase, "oh our dating techniques are flawed and cannot be trusted" Hmmm, very interesting. No matter which way we look at this example, we seem to benefit. On one hand, if these multiple labs, using the exact same scientific dating methods are telling us the truth - then we at last have got them to admit their dating methods are a sham. On the other hand, if their dating methods are correct, then these figures are actually thousands of years old, and they absolutely prove humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and the ridiculously long ages given from evolution science cannot be accurate.

Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC. These results were subsequently withdrawn when it was learned that some of the samples were from dinosaurs.

It's very obvious that given the details of these figures, one would have to be purposefully ignorant in believing that it would be profitable for a scammer to not only spend more than he/she could ever earn in wood costs alone. But also, they add extra man power, and man hours burying tens of thousands of these figures so the scam can be believed. You did read the entire story right? These figures were found virtually everywhere. When the people who were trying to educate a world dominated by a very few evolutionists at the top of the establishments of higher learning, they decided to prove one way or an other if such rebuttal (if simply saying "not real" is even considered a true rebuttal) could stand up to reality.

So, a decision to dig beneath the police chief's own home was made to see if any figures could be found there. If figures were found there, it would be devastating to those who plugged their ears, and hid their eyes with their hands, and simply proclaimed "nah - nah - nah - nah - naah"
So guess what? Ya, that's right, figures of dinosaurs were found beneath the chief of police's home.

They falsified the claim that Julsrud manufactured the figurines, by excavating under the house of the Chief of Police, which was built 25 years before the Julsrud arrived in Mexico

I'm here for honest, open debate or discussion. Not to play games.
If you can be more specific than to simply look at some pretty solid, overwhelming evidence and just arbitrarily reply "fake" without any true rebuttal, using intelligence and contrary evidence from which to bass your position, then we can be mature and have adult correspondence.

Also, your comment about fake transitional makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I never claimed transitional fossils were "fake" I'm saying none exist.
I have debated evolutionists for many years now, and whenever I ask to see any true examples of macro evolution, I can be most assured to either be presented with examples of micro evolution, where the inference is that if you provide enough examples of micro evolution, that somehow translates to macro evolution.

So, if you, or anyone else can show me anything other than change within a species, I would be very excited to debate.

Really what we have to ask ourselves when we engage in these discussions, and debates is, are we here to have an honest, open minded
discussion where we are willing to follow the evidence wherever it may take us in order to get as close to "the" truth as possible, which is forums such as this one, and many others are here for.
or, are we here here to show ourselves, and others that we believe in evolution, or creation in spite of what evidence may be presented to prove the contrary.

Thanks for your time.
Take care.

For those who want more information on anything related to this topic, I'm always glad to discuss.

John

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Hello.
You seem to be assuming I am against science. I am most assuredly not. I have seen a very curious thing where it comes to the debate - creation vs evolution. For unknown reasons, a lot of people believe "science" is synonymous with the study of evolution.
I very often see remarks such as "well, REAL scientists, don't believe in children's stories, or, REAL scientists believe in reality" which is very curious. It assumes creationists base their own scientific conclusions, on the Bible. I'm sorry to burst that bubble however, what is really being debated quite often are differing world views.

I know you're new here and are not yet familiar with my beliefs, but I've repeatedly argued against science being made the dedicated slave of evolution. Science is an investigation of evidence that's available to everyone. Intelligent Design scientists are just as valid as any other scientists, pursuing the theory that a higher intelligence is responsible for creating the universe and life. It's materialists who claim that science is at loggerheads with faith, but I've never made that claim, in fact I've contended mightily against it.

Telling a creationists to "just stop" is actually not a scientific rebuttal either my friend.

I'm telling a young earth creationist to just stop. I'm a creationist, but not the kind that blinds myself to what science reveals about our planet, that it's existed 4.54 billion years, not 6500.


If you want to discuss the actual science behind the hypothesis of evolution, I am very happy to oblige. However, if you really want to stifle debate, by simply inferring that you know the REAL truth, then how are we to learn from one another?
Healthy debate is what North America is supposed to be all about. The forefathers fled places in Europe because of this very same problem.

I love debate amongst rational, well founded schools of thought. I think that kooky beliefs based on a literalist interpretation of the Bible do nothing to serve a mutual pursuit of knowledge.



So my first question is this - can you show me even a single example from anywhere on the planet, which shows one species slowly, over time, going from a simple example, say the first so called "simple" cell, and becoming a more complex example of a totally new species (not change within a species) through a series of graduated, transitional changes which lead to masses of new genetic information, which has the end result - a brand new species?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? When did I EVER argue the merits of evolution? I'm not arguing any further because you aren't even reading what I actually post.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

ok my friend.
I see where you're coming from now.
What is your opinion, if you have one, in relation to the dating shenanigans? Multiple samples sent to labs proved the samples taken from the "dinosaur" figures were thousands of years old. However, once these labs were informed the dates they came up with were from dinosaur figures, they suddenly made a curious admission - to paraphrase, "oh our dating techniques are flawed and cannot be trusted" Hmmm, very interesting. No matter which way we look at this example, we seem to benefit. On one hand, if these multiple labs, using the exact same scientific dating methods are telling us the truth - then we at last have got them to admit their dating methods are a sham. On the other hand, if their dating methods are correct, then these figures are actually thousands of years old, and they absolutely prove humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and the ridiculously long ages given from evolution science cannot be accurate.

Exactly! When using "fakes" is the argument used, then it is only valid when used against creationists, when the placement of fossils in strata is used, then again, it only works one-way. Dating methods... again, only dates that agree with the evolutionary timescale are considered valid... and so on it goes. All the while the general public is duped into believing that evolution has all the "facts" on its side...

I'm telling a young earth creationist to just stop. I'm a creationist, but not the kind that blinds myself to what science reveals about our planet, that it's existed 4.54 billion years, not 6500

Oh...so you are telling creationist what they should or should not say... not based on what the scientific consensus dictates, but on your opinion of where to draw the imaginary line between science and faith.

Not full of yourself are you Vale?

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello TVOT.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? When did I EVER argue the merits of evolution? I'm not arguing any further because you aren't even reading what I actually post.

Yes, after attempting to follow your convoluted nonsense, I agree.
I don't want to "argue" with you either.

I do not take orders from people who demand that I leave the Bible out of the debate.
I do not demand they leave Darwinian evolution out, so don't ask me to leave God out.
It baffles me that people actually believe fallible man knows better than God, how the earth was formed.
And it baffles me even more, when someone claims to believe in God, but they don't believe His version of how He created everything.

So, I will not be "arguing" with TVOT, because his posts are extremely convoluted, and all over the place.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Hello TVOT.

Yes, after attempting to follow your convoluted nonsense, I agree.
I don't want to "argue" with you either.

I do not take orders from people who demand that I leave the Bible out of the debate.
I do not demand they leave Darwinian evolution out, so don't ask me to leave God out.
It baffles me that people actually believe fallible man knows better than God, how the earth was formed.
And it baffles me even more, when someone claims to believe in God, but they don't believe His version of how He created everything.

So, I will not be "arguing" with TVOT, because his posts are extremely convoluted, and all over the place.

Nobody demanded you keep the Bible out of the debate.
Nobody demanded you leave God out.
And it isn't "His" version of how He created everything we're debating, it's yours. Unless you truly are conceited enough to think everyone who disagrees with you disagrees with God.

And far from being "convoluted" my point was simple. Young earth creationism isn't the only alternative to the lies of evolution. Maybe convoluted just means you can't address a very succinct and pithy point.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

And it isn't "His" version of how He created everything we're debating, it's yours. Unless you truly are conceited enough to think everyone who disagrees with you disagrees with God.

Well who's "version" is this:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

And who's "version" is this:

"All of our geological studies have indicated the earth is indeed very, very old, most particularly the ice core samples we've taken that go back millions of years."

 

[Bronzesnake]

Well who's "version" is this:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

And who's "version" is this:

"All of our geological studies have indicated the earth is indeed very, very old, most particularly the ice core samples we've taken that go back millions of years."

Very nice!

 

[Rocky Wiley]

John,
There is very little doubt that science proves your point. What is surprising is that many (most) Christians can not accept this because they have been taught a falsehood since they first stepped into Sunday school.
The bible is all about the covenant God made with man, not about the creation of the world. It started with Adam and his descendants and then later the new covenant replaced the old, but not for just one group of people but for all people of faith. The term heaven and earth is used throughout the bible to refer to that covenant. So when God created heaven and earth, it was the covenant he was referring to. When Jesus said “heaven and earth shall pass away” he meant the covenant that existed when he walked with us. In the book of Revelation, John saw a ‘new heaven and earth’ the one that we live in today, for the ‘old had passed away’. Of course there is a lot more to study than just these points, so if interested you might check out this site:
http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Introduction_to_Covenant_Creation

Gen_1:1 In the beginning GodH430 created the heaven and the earth.

bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

The Hebrew word ‘bara’ baw-raw - can never mean to create something from nothing. As in sculpture, there is always a substance to be influenced.

Adam was the first man with whom God made the covenant, not the first man to walk on earth.

Have a blessed day!

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Sure Rocky, the Bible does not say that God created the universe from nothing. What it does say is that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. So do we go from that and conclude that Adam was not the first man to walk on earth?

Genesis 1 gives an account of how God created the "visible" universe. It lists light, darkness, land, water, vegetation, birds in the expanse of the sky, water teeming with fishes, wild animals, livestock and mankind all being created in a period of six days. How that can possibly be interpreted as a covenant is beyond me. Unless of course someone is out looking for an alternative interpretation of what God clearly said transpired.

Besides.. how can "heaven and earth" that Jesus spoke of refer to the old covenant in the Gospels also refer to the "covenant" established in Genesis. The old covenant did not exist during the time of Adam:

"It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today". (Deut 5:3)

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hi Rocky.

Just to quote you -

In the book of Revelation, John saw a ‘new heaven and earth’ the one that we live in today, for the ‘old had passed away’.

The "New" Heaven and Earth.
Jesus tells us exactly what this "new" Heaven and Earth are in Revelation 21.
After the thousand years rein, and after the final defeat of satan, and his followers. Jesus destroys the cursed universe, The "heavens" or, space - is rolled up - like a scroll is rolled up. Earth, and everything cursed which existed on Earth, is destroyed with fire. Then God creates a "new" Heaven and Earth. This new Heaven and Earth, must be just like the original creation, prior to the curse.
Revelation - 21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

So, Rocky, when you make a statement such as this one, which you also made -

but not for just one group of people but for all people of faith

I am concerned, because you do not specify what you mean by "all" people of faith. Are you suggesting that all religions, and all beliefs, such as people who believe we are all gods, or people who believe in evolution, or people who believe in Satanism etc. will all be saved and enter into this new Heaven and Earth for eternity with God the Father and Jesus Christ seated on His right side?
What's the point of Christ's dying on the cross?
If "all" faiths are accepted, then Jesus lied to us.
What you are proposing is a doctrine of demons my friend, and you had better ask almighty God - the ONE true God for forgiveness, and for truth and wisdom, because if what I am reading is as you believe, then someone has planted an evil seed in your mind, and it appears to have taken root.
Here is decisive proof that when you, or, anyone else says "all" faiths and beliefs will be accepted in the end, that you are dead wrong, because Jesus Christ tells us what happens to ALL who do not believe in Him (Jesus Christ) - the Bible tells us over and over again, that there is NO way to get to Heaven, accept through Jesus Christ PERIOD.
Anyone who believes otherwise is doomed. But please, don't take MY word for it, here is what God says -

6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

If I were to believe you, the ALL FAITH will be saved - But if I believe Jesus, which I do, then ONLY those who believe in HIM will be saved. What you are suggesting is extremely evil, and leads to eternal damnation Rocky. We simply cannot waver away from the TRUTH of Jesus Rocky. JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY Rocky.
I am seriously concerned for your salvation, because you most likely believe what you are saying is true. You most likely are coming from a place where you believe you are honestly bringing hope to people. But you are wrong Rocky. There is still time to correct yourself Rocky, but know this - If you chose to continue believing what you are stating here, you are heading to an ETERNAL prison of ETERNAL torment. Inescapable torment Rocky. Is that what you are willing to risk? Do you have children? are you so certain that the very specific words from God Himself are either wrong, or have been misunderstood, and some human you know, or have read about, has the REAL interpretation? Are you willing to risk the eternal destination of your children, or loved ones?

Rocky, please just keep it simple. Jesus is telling it simple so that everyone who reads can understand ok? There is no secret meaning. There is no ulterior message, which only some specially trained, or secretly bless few understand. Jesus says it just like it is ok Rocky.
I pray to Jesus, that His word will be accepted by you, just as we all see, and read it Rocky. God bless you.

OK, I started this thread to discuss creation and evolution. Not to get into theological debate. If you want to further this discussion, I suggest you start a new thread in the appropriate section..

I am interested in a scientific discussion here.

 

[River Jordan]

It's pretty easy to discern really. There are actual examples which have been dug up, and dated to thousands of years, as far as my post.
I have yet to see any real evidence for any of the examples you mentioned, so I am of the mindset, where I don't put much stock in any "proof" for creation, or evolution until I see credible evidence for it.
Which is why I brought the subject up.
Are you suggesting dinosaurs are mythical creatures? Or, is your reply targeting another post?

I don't think you understood the point. If your basis for concluding something is true is "people carved figurines" or "people drew pictures", then by the same token we must conclude that fairies, elves, minotaurs, griffins, and a host of other such creatures existed alongside humans.

I mean, if your standard of evidence for "people coexisted with dinosaurs" is some drawings and/or figurines....well, that seems like a pretty low standard of evidence to me.