To a chimpanzee, Einstein would be talking nonsense
Back in time some religions told us the earth was sitting on something, for example Atlas’s shoulder.
Job 26.7 tells us " God stretches the Northern sky over the empty space and hangs the earth on nothing" That is a pretty bold and scientific explanation, there is much scientific facts in the Bible if you open your mind to it
Here is a treat I found, there is nothing better than people of all walks coming together in prayer and song
This is my kind of church
If talking about GOD being the creator is consider a joke, You must also consider Human evolution as a joke. There are so many unresolved issues about Human evolution that it has become a joke
Australopithecus sediba included a strange mix of both modern Homo and ape-like australopith features
Around 2 million years ago, the first humans evolved from australopiths, our smaller-brained ape-like ancestors. Back in 2008, researchers found two skeletons in South Africa from the ape-like Australopithecus sediba . A male and female skeleton, called MH1 and MH2, were buried together, and further excavations revealed an infant and another partial adult skeleton nearby. All of the remains dated back to around 1.8 to 1.9 million years old. These skeletons began to raise questions about what we really know about human evolution and Homo origins.
The researchers published their results in the journal Science in 2010, writing:
<https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1184944
Until this discovery, researchers had assumed that Lucy, the remains, more than 3 million years old, of an Australopithecus afarensis female found in 1974, represented either our direct evolutionary ancestor or else a very close ancestor. But Lucy’s skeleton was found in Ethiopia, about 4,000 miles away from the A. sediba remains uncovered in South Africa.
Immediately, i09 explains, researchers began to second guess whether Homo emerged from East Africa after all. Our origins instead may be more southerly. Now, a new slew of studies published by the same research team in Science answers some questions about what our ancestor was like while also opening up some new mysteries. The New Scientist gives a run down of the “bizarre mosaic” of qualities resembling both Homo and Australopithecus africanus (another South African species that lived around 2 to 3 million years ago) that a closer examination of the A. sediba specimens revealed.
The Homo-like traits included:
And the ape-like traits were:
Where A. sediba fits into the evolutionary tree is still under debate. Based upon studied of the specimens’ teeth, it does not appear that A. sediba evolved from A. afarensis (Lucy) in East Africa. Instead, the New Scientist writes, A. africanus seems to be the most likely ancestral candidate.
National Geographic points out that the questions surrounding A. sediba , such as why it seemed to return to the trees after it first evolved to walk on the ground and where it fits in on the human evolution puzzle, are far from resolved.
Human evolution did happen, but not in the way people think. Looking at the world today from 100 years ago, it’s obvious that humans have evolved.
I would consider us being planted here by some ancient alien race more likely then some of the evolution theories
Evolution works well as a theory until you get to humans,
Who would be opposed to a movie that brings to our attention the horrors of human trafficking
Disney
Netflix
Amazon
Hollywood
Mainstream Media
This is the society you get when people turn away from God
It appears that many people are shanking in their boots because they are a part of this problem
Some science suggest the whole process started with fish, you see the problem here
Walking independently evolved several times in fish, making it an example of evolutionary convergence (similar traits that evolve independently, like wings in bats and birds). The evolution of walking in fish is rare though. There are more than 30,000 species of fish as we know them today (not in the evolutionary sense), of which only a handful can “walk”.
Sarcopterygians differ from other types of fish in several important ways. For example, our fins (limbs) have bony supports and muscular lobes that allow us to move on land.
This adaptation is thought to have been crucial for tetrapod (amphibians, mammals, reptiles and birds) evolution during our transition from water to land in the Late Devonian period, some 375 million years ago. Many of the genes involved in forming limbs and digits in tetrapods are also found in water-bound sarcopterygians like lungfish, which indicates these traits evolved in our ancient common ancestor.
We don’t know which species this ancestor was, but it probably looked similar to the coelacanth, which has a rich fossil record and is a “living fossil” that today inhabits the West Indian Ocean and Indonesia.
Walking sarcopterygian fish are either extinct, like Tiktaalik, or so highly evolved that we don’t recognise them as fish any longer (tetrapods).
Eben Alexander says he has.
Two things spring to mind, 1st his medical colleagues don’t dispute his account of his flat-lining and subsequent awakening - the 2nd is - well he’s selling the story.
Must start writing a book - think I’ll get TWB to do the foreword 
Evolution, 1st proposed by Darwin maybe 150 yrs back, is what I’d call “natural law” - or law of nature.
In nature the rule of thumb is survival of species - plants, mammals, reptiles - all of nature adhere to this rule.
To best survive many species adapt to their environment, some fish take on camouflage, mammals develop strong limbs for the jungle etc etc.
Humans developed according to natural law - our ancestor - Neanderthals - then homo sapiens.
Yet there was a leap - these Homo Sapiens developed something outside of nature - described as ‘wisdom’ or ‘wise’ - thus the meaning of the word ‘Sapiens’
Edit: Btw - we humans are not Homo Sapiens, we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens - a sub species of the 1st - so when did this happen, or rather I wonder how/why, what influence did evolution play - how did that leap comply with the law of nature?
A lot of information is to be taken in when it comes to science, it has become a mind-numbing experience
Are there any transitional fossils from Animals to human.
150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don’t Help Darwin
“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.
https://www.icr.org/article/a-150-years-later-fossils-still-dont-help-darwin
Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years. However, just as Cambrian invertebrates have no ancestors, there are no transitional links indicating that an evolution occurred between these invertebrates and fish. It should be noted that invertebrates and fish have enormous structural differences. Invertebrates have their hard tissues outside their bodies, whereas fish are vertebrates that have theirs on the inside. Such an enormous “evolution” would have taken billions of steps to be completed and there should be billions of transitional forms displaying them.
According to the hypothetical scenario of “from sea to land”, some fish felt the need to pass from sea to land because of feeding problems. This claim is “supported” by such speculative drawings.
Evolutionists have been digging fossil strata for about 140 years looking for these hypothetical forms. They have found millions of invertebrate fossils and millions of fish fossils; yet nobody has ever found even one that is midway between them.
An evolutionist paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, admits a similar fact in an article titled “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes”:
All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armour? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?39
The evolutionary scenario goes one step further and argues that fish, who evolved from invertebrates then transformed into amphibians. But this scenario also lacks evidence. There is not even a single fossil verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed.
Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary palaeontologist and authority on vertebrate palaeontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that “The early reptiles were very different from amphibians and their ancestors have not been found yet.” In his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in 1997, he admits that “We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians.”40 Two evolutionist paleontologists, Colbert and Morales, comment on the three basic classes of amphibians-frogs, salamanders, and caecilians:
At this point, it’s not worth posting my discoveries on Human Evolution. It’s also sad that scientists knew about certain discrepancies in Human Evolution but continued to promote the theory in hopes that new discoveries will settle those discrepancies.
It is better for me to stick to my faith during these uncertain times.
Edit: I must add the following
In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.
In terms of mitochondrial haplogroups, the mt-MRCA is situated at the divergence of macro-haplogroup L into L0 and L1–6. As of 2013, estimates on the age of this split ranged at around 155,000 years ago,[note 3] consistent with a date later than the speciation of Homo sapiens but earlier than the recent out-of-Africa dispersal.[4][1][5]
The male analog to the “Mitochondrial Eve” is the “Y-chromosomal Adam” (or Y-MRCA), the individual from whom all living humans are patrilineally descended. As the identity of both matrilineal and patrilineal MRCAs is dependent on genealogical history (pedigree collapse), they need not have lived at the same time. As of 2013, estimates for the age Y-MRCA are subject to substantial uncertainty, with a wide range of times from 180,000 to 580,000 years ago[6][7][8] (with an estimated age of between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the estimate for mt-MRCA.).[2][9]
In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA , informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam ) is the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living humans are descended. He is the most recent male from whom all living humans are descended through an unbroken line of their male ancestors. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living human males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as “Mitochondrial Eve” (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the most recent woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally. As with “Mitochondrial Eve”, the title of “Y-chromosomal Adam” is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but can advance over the course of human history as paternal lineages become extinct.
The Bible provides a reliable history of the universe and the events described in the Bible, particularly in the early chapters of Genesis, providing a framework through which we can interpret science and history… Oooook… So lets take that as Gospel…
Please explain to me how the Bible and all of you that follow it believe Genesis to be fact??
Christianity estimates Creation at ~4000BC… Yet the Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) and Mitochondrial Eve (mt-MRCA) from the most recent common ancestor dates back somewhere between 120k and 156k years ago… 2 + 2 = …Fish…
Posting great swathes of plagiarised information on Evolution with out any due-diligence is not helping your case against the make believe and myth contained in either Testaments of the Bible…
It is better for you to stick to your belief in Easter Bunny during these uncertain times…
@Dennis3450 To approximately 75% of the current Global population…
Einstein would be talking nonsense…
You treat some mythological beliefs as fact and others as fiction… Strange…
" God stretches the Northern sky over the empty space and hangs the earth on nothing"
You cannot be serious… How is this a Bold and Scientific explanation… Chicken Little said that the sky was falling… So this must be an Insightful and Prudential exposition…
What would have given this verse a lot more credibility at that time is if it mentioned the Northern and the Southern Skies… Knowledge of an opposing Hemisphere (Sun) was recorded as far back as 450 BC by the Phoenicians… Biblical descriptions of events are always so sectarian…
While I find the behaviour of these companies (and spineless celebrities) you have listed atrocious at best…
The Clergy haven’t exactly been without Sin inside the horrors of Child Abuse……
In fact the failure of many of the devotedly Religious has been front and centre over the last two centuries for many, many violations against children who’s care has been entrusted to the Church…
This is the society you get when people turn away from God…… You might need to rethink this statement a little more…
As I stated earlier, I am not offended by other people’s beliefs, but you seem to be.
In any case, I got all the information and understanding I needed, so I’m moving on from this topic, God Bless. 
Sorry you cannot see the significance of such a revelation, as it is calling out the mythological beliefs of the time
That is a Strawman argument,
How about we stick to current times and subject, if there are any Clergy protesting this movie then please share
Not only is there nothing to rethink, but I will also double down on that statement
Praying for you
We had a wonderful church service today, there was so much praying for either other the preacher never got a chance to give his sermon,
People of different walks and races coming together with love for each other
who could be against this, I guess we no who
@Dennis3450 You may want to deflect away from inconvenient facts…As usual… But this is still happening and confirmed by the Church as late as 2020…
Very current times indeed… (See Below)
On 3 October 2021, an independent commission set up by the Bishops’ Conference of France released a report[205] estimating that the ranks of the 115,000 Catholic priests and other religious officials in France since the 1950s have included about 3,000 abusers.[206][207] The report estimates that 216,000 children were abused by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2020, and that accounting for abuse by other Catholic church employees increases the total number to around 330,000.[208] Around 80% of the victims were boys.[209]
And Please… Find another fall back accusation… Strawman argument is so disingenuous especially when I’m the only one presenting researchable facts…
FWIW… I am in total agreeance with your stand against those that are attempting to downplay and block the Sound of Freedom documentary… It appears this issue runs deep into the core of Celebrity and the Global Elite… The Religious and Heathen are both involved in this human tragedy…
There you go once again… Only the believers of faith can be holier than the… What rubbish…
You don’t have to believe in something just to be a kind, considerate, compassionate and cooperative global citizen… This us against them ideology is what makes religion so alarming to Atheists…
As I have asked over and over in this thread, prove the existence of God… Any God and this debate is over…
You believe in ancient scripts, Jesus and a God… Atheists don’t care… It doesn’t change the rules and culture we live by… The religious attempting to justify the existence of an unproven, unseen all powerful creator is completely irrational in the twenty first century.
You accused me of believing in the Big Bang… Subscription to proven Scientific theories is not a belief system… It’s an ever evolving comprehension of what is tangible in the world we live in… Made more and more accurate as Mankind’s knowledge and understanding develops…
Not some scripture that includes understanding and Wisdom at a particular point in time…" Righto… We’ve leant enough… Quick… Wright it down…"
As I have asked over and over in this thread, prove the existence of God… Any God and this debate is over…
I think it is better to do your own personal research from the outside and deep inside of this matter, because now you would find peace in your decision and understand that it is better not to disturb others who have a different belief, this will give you complete peace of mind and your decisions in this matter.