The evolution thread

Not to mention that dinos can't survive without their own whole ecology, plant-eaters, predators, preys, parasites etc. Such ecological systems are impossible to hide completely. In other words, if alive dinos exists today, they're would be in zoos and biology books like all other species, for example birds.

How do you know what dinos needs to survive if you deny that they exist? Do you have this knowlage because you saw bones of one in the museum?

Your reactions tells me exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along. Your evolution is your religion, and that's fine, just don't call it science. Because a real scientist will investigate the facts and draw conclusions, whereas you already have your conclusion and deny facts that don't fit it.
You do exactly what you accused me of doing!

What facts?  Second hand accounts?  Fuzzy pictures? Proven Fakes?

Show me where those links have facts.  

Find a winged Dragon skeleton, the remains of a dinosaur.  

There is a difference between accepting fact and theory and falling for someone's delusion.  You need something better than:

"Me and Earl was walking along and saw something in the air,  Wasn't sure what it was but we talked about it and figured it was one of them pterodactyls".

Quote from: "MaDeR"

Not to mention that dinos can't survive without their own whole ecology, plant-eaters, predators, preys, parasites etc. Such ecological systems are impossible to hide completely. In other words, if alive dinos exists today, they're would be in zoos and biology books like all other species, for example birds.

How do you know what dinos needs to survive if you deny that they exist? Do you have this knowlage because you saw bones of one in the museum?

Look, a few vague photos is not going to disprove a theory that stands on solid ground of testable, repeatable evidence. And even so, if a few dinosaurs survived, so what? That doesn't falsify evolution. We found surviving Coelacanths, which were thought to have been extinct since the time of the dinosaurs. Evolution doesn't mandate that all species change radically. If a species occupies a niche with little competition, and its environment doesn't change, it could easily undergo very little evolution for millions of years. Sharks, many species of reptiles, many unicellular organisms, have all changed very little for tens of millions of years. So what?

No. It is simply laughable that you think a scientific theory would be threatened by barely, if at all credible reports of sea monsters.

Why is it laughable?

You believe that you come from a space rock and you think sighting of a dinosaur is laughable?

Do you even think before you write?

Quote from: "dysfunction"

No. It is simply laughable that you think a scientific theory would be threatened by barely, if at all credible reports of sea monsters.

Why is it laughable?

You believe that you come from a space rock and you think sighting of a dinosaur is laughable?

Do you even think before you write?

Sighting a dinosaur is not laughable. Believing that vague sightings prove anything is.

And again, I don't believe I came from a space rock, or any kind of rock for that matter. I explained abiogenesis to you, and yet you still latch on to the rock thing in an attempt to make me look silly. Rocks are not involved, rather the building of more and more complex organic structures through chemistry until reproduction can begin. After that, evolution takes over.

And again, I don't believe I came from a space rock, or any kind of rock for that matter. I explained abiogenesis to you, and yet you still latch on to the rock thing in an attempt to make me look silly. Rocks are not involved, rather the building of more and more complex organic structures through chemistry until reproduction can begin. After that, evolution takes over.

Didn't you say that aminoacids from which your abiogenesis started were deposited on Earth by an asteroid? Since aminoacids cannot fly or survive in space they were probably enclosed in rocky shell of an asteroid, so if it wasn't for the the asteroid's rocky shell you'd have no abiogenesis and no evolution. Hence: you come from a space rock, accept it and get over it.

Little google, before you can argue about evolution, you must first prove that you understand it; what the theory of evolution states, what it predicts, etc.

The Origin of Life is a misnomer. Evolution has never claimed to have an answer to the beginnings of life, but merely given explanation to the observable fact that lifeforms change. There is more evidence backing up and a better understanding of the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity.

Not to mention that many of the dating methods you try so hard (and fail) to debunk and decry have been used to accurately date religious artifacts, confirming [and in some cases, officially (as in, coming to a result recognized by The Church) impugn] their authenticity.

Other points of interest:
-There isn't enough water on Earth (even in the ice caps) to flood the entire world. Not to mention the lack of flood myths in ancient cultures not affected by some major flood, and the fact that no single vessel could carry and/or sustain all life on Earth. Even the flying animals couldn't flying for 40 days straight, especially not in a constant downpour, and all life needs food, which would be difficult to harvest on a boat.

-The air would be so saturated with water by that amount of rain for that duration that it would drown any living creature unable to breathe in water.

- If you plan on ever explaining the Grand Canyon, then just refute all of the dinosaur, geology, dendrology stuff by saying that God created a universe that would appear, in every sense, to be older than it actually was.

-If you look at other cultures and civilizations (ones that predate Judaism) you'll see similar myths; not proving that they happened (because there are a wide array of differences and they'd have some s'plainin' to do), but proving that these are basic questions inherent to the human condition: Where did we come from? Why does "this" happen? What comes after we die? What does it all mean, where are we going?

I'm agnostic, and look at the Bible in a historical context, I look at the books REMOVED from the Bible as proof that MAN intended for the followers to take it literally so as to prevent them from gaining and seeking out knowledge, from questioning things, and to keep them "in their place."

Look, a few vague photos is not going to disprove a theory that stands on solid ground of testable, repeatable evidence. And even so, if a few dinosaurs survived, so what? That doesn't falsify evolution. We found surviving Coelacanths, which were thought to have been extinct since the time of the dinosaurs. Evolution doesn't mandate that all species change radically. If a species occupies a niche with little competition, and its environment doesn't change, it could easily undergo very little evolution for millions of years. Sharks, many species of reptiles, many unicellular organisms, have all changed very little for tens of millions of years. So what?

You should probably review you theory once again, especially its timeline, and don't forget to look up the reason why mamals' evolution took off, and the reason why dino fossils are found in lower layers of strata.

Hence: you come from a space rock, accept it and get over it.

Reduce any complex theory to simpleton terms and it will sound silly.

"You think an invisible force keeps you on the ground"

"You think you come from a white, sticky fluid filled with tiny little creatures that make their way through a tunnel and race to be the first one to make it to an egg? Like a chicken egg?"

"You think men come from dust and clay and women come from the first man's rib?"

"You think that the one and only reason people experience any bad in their life is because thousands of years ago two people ate an apple because a snake told them to?"

"You think an invisible force keeps you on the ground"

"You think you come from a white, sticky fluid filled with tiny little creatures that make their way through a tunnel and race to be the first one to make it to an egg? Like a chicken egg?"

"You think men come from dust and clay and women come from the first man's rib?"

"You think that the one and only reason people experience any bad in their life is because thousands of years ago two people ate an apple because a snake told them to?"

Exactly right.

Little google, before you can argue about evolution, you must first prove that you understand it; what the theory of evolution states, what it predicts, etc.

The Origin of Life is a misnomer. Evolution has never claimed to have an answer to the beginnings of life, but merely given explanation to the observable fact that lifeforms change. There is more evidence backing up and a better understanding of the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity.

Not to mention that many of the dating methods you try so hard (and fail) to debunk and decry have been used to accurately date religious artifacts, confirming [and in some cases, officially (as in, coming to a result recognized by The Church) impugn] their authenticity.

Other points of interest:
-There isn't enough water on Earth (even in the ice caps) to flood the entire world. Not to mention the lack of flood myths in ancient cultures not affected by some major flood, and the fact that no single vessel could carry and/or sustain all life on Earth. Even the flying animals couldn't flying for 40 days straight, especially not in a constant downpour, and all life needs food, which would be difficult to harvest on a boat.

-The air would be so saturated with water by that amount of rain for that duration that it would drown any living creature unable to breathe in water.

- If you plan on ever explaining the Grand Canyon, then just refute all of the dinosaur, geology, dendrology stuff by saying that God created a universe that would appear, in every sense, to be older than it actually was.

-If you look at other cultures and civilizations (ones that predate Judaism) you'll see similar myths; not proving that they happened (because there are a wide array of differences and they'd have some s'plainin' to do), but proving that these are basic questions inherent to the human condition: Where did we come from? Why does "this" happen? What comes after we die? What does it all mean, where are we going?

I'm agnostic, and look at the Bible in a historical context, I look at the books REMOVED from the Bible as proof that MAN intended for the followers to take it literally so as to prevent them from gaining and seeking out knowledge, from questioning things, and to keep them "in their place."

All your point are common atheistic misunderstandings and have been addressed by me and other creationists on internet sites, books, and journal publications.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

And again, I don't believe I came from a space rock, or any kind of rock for that matter. I explained abiogenesis to you, and yet you still latch on to the rock thing in an attempt to make me look silly. Rocks are not involved, rather the building of more and more complex organic structures through chemistry until reproduction can begin. After that, evolution takes over.

Didn't you say that aminoacids from which your abiogenesis started were deposited on Earth by an asteroid? Since aminoacids cannot fly or survive in space they were probably enclosed in rocky shell of an asteroid, so if it wasn't for the the asteroid's rocky shell you'd have no abiogenesis and no evolution. Hence: you come from a space rock, accept it and get over it.

I didn't say the amino acids that eventually formed life came from space rocks, merely that since amino acids have been found on space rocks, we know that complex organic molecules can form outside of the presence of life.

Your evolution is your religion,

Don't try to bringing things that you don't understand to your level.

How do you know what dinos needs to survive if you deny that they exist?

I deny modern sightings of dinos, not existence of dinos milion years ago.

Do you have this knowlage because you saw bones of one in the museum?

This is that we pay paleontologists for. To have knowledge about certain things.

You believe that you come from a space rock and you think sighting of a dinosaur is laughable?

No strawman, no. Bad googleSearch, baaad.

Because a real scientist will investigate the facts and draw conclusions,

I'm not a sciencist. I simply trust science, because it works.

Because where I can check, there is truth. And I trust them when I have not time, moneys, patience etc. to check other things.

Because science have many autocontrol mechanisms. Things like cold fusion, N-rays or last fraud with Korean cloning are disclosed by sciencists.

And I don't see biology as exception. Biology stands similiar scrutinize as any other field of sciene, no more, no less. Same standards of quality apply. That is why I find funny that you post your antiscientific rants on internet, using computer.

Basically, fudamentalists tell us that science does not work with technical measures possible only thanks to fact that science works.

And when against hundred years of gathering knowledge, against hard work of hundred thousands sciencists on whole world, against scientific rules, scientific scrunity and scientific standards stands some fudamentalists with their self-contradicting, very outdated Holy Books, I can only laugh.

All your point are common atheistic misunderstandings and have been addressed by me and other creationists on internet sites, books, and journal publications.

A) Since evolution does not contradict God (only one interpretation of the Bible), it is not inherently atheistic.

2) Could you address them, or at least give me links to where all of my points were addressed?

F) I think you missed the fact that I was comparing your summation of the misunderstanding of evolution to that of a simpleton's, and that anything can sound ridiculous if explained by someone who doesn't even have a grasp of a basic understanding of what he's talking about, even something that is sound and makes perfect sense when described by someone who has a deep understanding of the topic at hand.

6c) I, unlike you, understand both the theory of evolution and the declaration of creationism (since it is no way a theory). You really shouldn't be in this thread until you learn what it states.

And what do you say to the tens (if not hundreds) of millions of Christians (and all their denominations) who do believe in an Old Earth, and evolution, and God?

What do you think of Catholics and The Pope?

Exactly right.

So maybe you should try using some other tactic in you arguments...

Quote from: "dysfunction"

No. It is simply laughable that you think a scientific theory would be threatened by barely, if at all credible reports of sea monsters.

Why is it laughable?

You believe that you come from a space rock and you think sighting of a dinosaur is laughable?

Do you even think before you write?

If you read what was written, Dysfunction does not say the sighting is laughable, Dys says that the fact that you think the theory would be threatened by the sighting is laughable.  Science adapts to the facts.  Prove the existance and science will find a way to adjust to it.  

So If it rained for 40 days and covered the mountains by 16 cubits, (that's 362 inches per hour by the way...A pretty good storm) how did the animals on the Arc breathe?  Not just because of the rain in the air, but because the air is really thin above Mt. Everest, climbers die fairly quickly without 02 tanks.

How did the sea creatures not explode? (Most salt water fish can not live in fresh water, their high saline content causes them to absorb too much water and their cells rupture)

What did the cats and other meat eaters eat? (Out side of fairy tales, meat eaters do not do well on hay, they don't have the guts for it).  Sure, you can say "God changed them so they could", but if He's going through that much trouble, why not just let them breathe water?

Exactly.  Googlesearch clearly does not understand what science is.

Science doesn't say "this is how the world is and we're going to write it in stone".  - That's religion that says that.

Science says "with the evidence that we've gathered - this is the best explenation that explains how all that evidence came to be".  Unlike religion, science doesn't come up with conclusions without evidence and when evidence comes up suggesting a different theory - science is happy to change.  Science actually seeks the truth while religion says "This is truth".  How arrogant to assume that humans know the truth about the world.

*My* religion doesn't say the world will stay as it is and that it's written in stone.

But does it that God exists and "he" is responsible for the world?

Yes, but the Qu'ran never says that things stayed as they were since the days of creation, I believe in the big bang and evolution ( but not from apes to humans), as they do not contradict the Qu'ran. One of God's names, as I've said before, is The Evolver, and there's reason to believe that the big bang itself is mentioned in the Qu'ran. In fact advancement of knowledge and science is very much encouraged in Islam .

Dear little EnCrypto, you claimed to understand creationism better than me, and yet you don't know answers to such simple questions? Fine, I will educate you.

Other points of interest:
-There isn't enough water on Earth (even in the ice caps) to flood the entire world.

Only if you assume preflood world' topography was the same as it is now. I assume it wasn't.

Not to mention the lack of flood myths in ancient cultures not affected by some major flood, and the fact that no single vessel could carry and/or sustain all life on Earth.

That's not true. There are dosens of flood legends in many cultures. Arc contained a pair of each kind of animal, not every possible variation.

Even the flying animals couldn't flying for 40 days straight, especially not in a constant downpour, and all life needs food, which would be difficult to harvest on a boat.

Hmm, Noah probably brought a couple of things with him to feed himself and animals, don't you think?

-The air would be so saturated with water by that amount of rain for that duration that it would drown any living creature unable to breathe in water.

This question shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of creationism. Most water came from under the crust, not in form of rain. Two years back in Portland Oregon it rained for 60+ consecutive days, non-stop, and noone drowned from breathing

- If you plan on ever explaining the Grand Canyon, then just refute all of the dinosaur, geology, dendrology stuff by saying that God created a universe that would appear, in every sense, to be older than it actually was.

And if you believe that river carved that canyon, you better check the elevations of the river and canyon, make a chart and put on it elevations from the beginning of that river all the way to the end of canyon. And since you "understand both the theory of evolution and the declaration of creationism" you should discover a very interesting fact. And while you do that keep in mind that river do not flow uphill

So If it rained for 40 days and covered the mountains by 16 cubits, (that's 362 inches per hour by the way...A pretty good storm) how did the animals on the Arc breathe?  Not just because of the rain in the air, but because the air is really thin above Mt. Everest, climbers die fairly quickly without 02 tanks.

There was no Mt.Everest, or any high mountans for that matter. Earth was a lot different back then.

How did the sea creatures not explode? (Most salt water fish can not live in fresh water, their high saline content causes them to absorb too much water and their cells rupture)

Again, you assume flood was fresh water for some reason, most of water came from under the crust, where its been sitting, disolving a bunch of salts.

What did the cats and other meat eaters eat? (Out side of fairy tales, meat eaters do not do well on hay, they don't have the guts for it).  Sure, you can say "God changed them so they could", but if He's going through that much trouble, why not just let them breathe water?

You probably haven't been around animals much, have you? Or been very hungry yourself. When I was 15 my grandma had a cat, forgot the name of it, but that cat prefered cucumbers and bananas to meat, and was completely healthy.

Growing somewhat tired of the repetitiveness of this "debate", I'm just going to point out that everything you've said, googleSearch, is utterly ridiculous.

Agreed, we need a smarter creationist.

Agreed, we need a smarter creationist.

lol oxymoron.

HEY!!!

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Agreed, we need a smarter creationist.

lol oxymoron.

It's funny, I met one on digg.com and exchanged a bunch of emails with him. Smart guy, but he wasn't a typical YEC (young-earth creationist), he admitted that the Earth at least had 'the appearance of age" and that the Bible didn't necessarily have to be taken literally. We ended up debating concepts of "information" and "specified/irreducible complexity", that's why most of the things in my first post in this thread had to do with that sort of thing.

I don't really get the six day thing, I mean, it doesn't explicitly say 6 days by our perception, it could be something far more cosmic ( ie a cycle of a much larger object, not the sun). Or that a massive amount of years in our time is a day in God's.

BTW don't I count as a 'smart creationist'?

No, what you need is to pull you heads out of your asses and look around, there are other possibilities in life. You know, think outside the box (well in your case it's outside your ass).


I see no furthur point in talking to people who attck the messenger instead of the message.

Oh, so we're the ones that need to pull our heads out of our asses, eh?