skips714

Is this website run by stupid atheists ? Is it because belief in evolution is about lying ? Why do people who don't believe there is a God stoop to such dishonesty ? Will these atheists now claim they don't believe evolution ?

Accordingly, Alan Feduccia wrote in Discovery magazine that Liaoningornis invalidates the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs.42 Eoalulavis is another fossil that has invalidated evolutionist claims about Archaeopteryx. At 120 million years old, it is 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, but its wing structure is the same, and it still seen in some modern species of birds. This proves that 120 million years ago, creatures no different from present-day birds flew through the air.

One clear proof that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form between reptiles and birds came from a fossil found in China in the year 2000. Named Longisquama, it was the fossil of a bird that lived in Central Asia 220 million years ago. The well-known magazines Science and Nature, as well as BBC television, reported about this fossil that the entire body of the fossil—estimated to have lived 220 million years ago— was covered in feathers, had a furcula like present-day birds (as well as Archaeopteryx), and that its feathers had hollow shafts.

This invalidates the claims that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of present-day birds. The fossil discovered is 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx—in other words, it existed with fully avian features 75 million years before the creature that evolutionists claimed to have been the forerunner of birds.

So it became clear that Archaeopteryx and other archaic birds were not transitional forms. Their fossils did not demonstrate that various bird species evolved from one another. On the contrary, they proved that modern-day birds and some species of birds like Archaeopteryx lived together.

In short, some characteristics of Archaeopteryx show that this creature was no transitional form. And now two noted proponents of the theory of evolution—paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge of Harvard University—have acknowledged that Archaeopteryx was never a transitional form but a so-called “mosaic” creature with several different characteristics.

I was watching a local atheism show and one of the commentators made this comment..

"You know what nature is , nature is a man sees a tree and they go cut it down and make a desk, That's what nature is."

Better yet , why do atheists lie about it , besides they're cowards of the truth.

The IBMR publishes yearly figures for religions (and non religions) around the globe. Their latest numbers, hot off the press (Jan. 2012) show some interesting trends.

Atheism is in Decline

In 1970 atheists (those avowing there is no God) numbered 166 million worldwide; that was almost one-in-twenty—4.5% of the globe’s population. By 2012 atheists’ number is estimated at 137 million. That’s a decline of almost 30 million. Since world population is growing, atheists’ share declined to less than one-in-fifty—under 2% in 2012. Put differently, every 24 hours there are 800 fewer atheists in the world! Atheism is in decline.

During the period of 2007 to 2012, the atheist community made a concerted effort to spread atheism through means of the internet. However, leading atheist websites have seen plunges in web traffic during this same period and during the first half of 2012.

If people are a branch of reptiles , i.e, mammals from reptiles. And reptiles are capable of birthing young without a male and female present, Then why is a virgin mammal birth a religious idea and not an evolutionary possibility. and I said "possibility",

OK I need to stop being stoned when I do this.

parthenogenesis has been demonstrated as a possibility in female human embryos.Just not continued viability.