It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Zip -- The dinosaurs existed. They are now extinct -- or at least the big ones are. We still have komoto dragons, alligators and crocodiles. We have lots of reptiles, which is what the dinosaurs were.

Why would anyone believe there was no coexistence of dinosaurs and humans anyway? Why is it so strange to think that they lived at the same time humans did but are now extinct -- just as many other animals are now extinct?

IMO most of them became extinct at the time of the flood. Noah took dinosaurs on the ark but he only took them by "kinds," not each and every variety of dinosaur. Perhaps lurking in the genes of some of the lizards and crocadiles and alligators are throwbacks to those dinosaurs.

I think we can get along without them, don't need them. Perhaps there are some kinds still living somewhere on the earth but they are in the ocean and we can't see them -- sea serpants or other creatures such as that.

The Bible mentions Leviathan, which some say is like a dinosaur. There's a lot of folklore about dragons and such. So who really knows how long the dinosaurs have actually been extinct -- or even if they truly are extinct.

But if they are, they are. It has nothing to do with evolution versus creation IMO. We have fossils that show man and the dinosaur coexisted. I don't believe the dinosaurs were here "billions" of years ago. I don't even think the earth was here "billions" of years ago.

Perhaps we could have a discussion on THAT -- since that is a more foundational element to this discussion, and the dinosaurs are just another red herring or distraction IMO.

There's lots and lots of reasons to believe the earth is young, and if the earth IS young then the discussion about the dinosaurs is moot. Get my drift?




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
We still have komoto dragons, alligators and crocodiles. We have lots of reptiles, which is what the dinosaurs were.

The dinosaurs were a very specialized group of reptiles, they are nothing like komodo dragons and crocodiles are not dinosaurs, tho they do 'stem' from the same group as dinosaurs.

Why would anyone believe there was no coexistence of dinosaurs and humans anyway?

Because there is no co-incidence of human and dinosaur remains, (and thats all excluding the evidence that helps determine when they existed and the times involved), nor even truly accurate descriptions of dinosaur-like monsters in man's history. There are stories about fire breathin dragons, but these don't actually resemble dinosaurs, certianly no more than they resemble big mean lizards.

IMO most of them became extinct at the time of the flood.

The evidence rather supports that there never was any flood to begin with.

Perhaps lurking in the genes of some of the lizards and crocadiles and alligators are throwbacks to those dinosaurs.

We can expect that crocodiles have more genes in common with dinosaurs than lizards, because the fossil evidence supports the theory that they are both evolved from the same group, ie, are more closely related to each other than either is to lizards. Birds should have lots of dinosaur genes in them, since they are descended from dinosaurs and have structures that, previous to birds, only dinosaurs had.

sea serpants or other creatures such as that.

Not for nothing, but there are no sea dwelling dinosaurs.

The Bible mentions Leviathan, which some say is like a dinosaur.

And those people are pretty much wrong, it doesn't resemble a dinosaur at all. Its simply a 'big ol animal'.

We have fossils that show man and the dinosaur coexisted.

There are no such fossils.

I don't believe the dinosaurs were here "billions" of years ago.

No one claims this.

There's lots and lots of reasons to believe the earth is young

Rather the evidence strongly supports that the earth is billions of years old.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Nygdan --
Well, I see I have some homework to do to document my understanding about this subject. I have seen pics of dinosaur footprints next to human footprints. Also, I understand there are many sightings of large sea creatures, Loch Ness Monster, creatures like that. Fact is there are sea creatures we have never categorized, ones that are more rare and hard to see. We don't know everything about creatures that live in the sea. I suppose we both agree that nobody really knows why the dinosaurs became extinct, or at least why so many of them did.

From my reading I also understand that the flood is documented worldwide in legends, not to mention the Flood explains the catastrophic occurrance that explains why the earth looks the way it does, why we have oil, and the so-called geologic strata. I can also put out lots of stuff that would indicate a young earth because there are many things to indicate this -- such as the earth's magnetic field for one. So I will do that, but it will have to wait until I have the time to compile my links and stuff. BTW, can you advise me how to put pics into my posts? When I bring my evidence to bear I hope I won't be jeered off the board because I'm not quoting Carl Sagon or Charles Darwin, but rather scientists who agree with my point of view. Also, birds don't come from reptiles. Otherwise we'd have at least one fossil or living creature today showing their scales gradually turning into feathers. Thanks.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Why would anyone believe there was no coexistence of dinosaurs and humans anyway? Why is it so strange to think that they lived at the same time humans did but are now extinct -- just as many other animals are now extinct?


Because when you dig down into the rocks where there are dinosaur bones, there are NO human bones. The human bones appear in rock layers that are far above the last of the dinosaur bones.

Because there aren't any ancient paintings or sculputres that depict dinosaurs. Yes, we have "fantastic animals" but they knew how to draw horses and gazelles and lions and cave bears accurately. If diplodocus had been strolling around, they'd have painted that, too.

Because the Bible has no descriptions or warnings about the raptors. It's filled with metaphors and references (even the "pre-flood" sections) about many different kinds of animals. Furthermore, there would be Jewish sayings (and sayings in other languages) about these monsters and the different kinds of them -- just as there are about the locusts and the lions and the wild donkeys and sheep and so forth.

Early people knew the difference between a donkey and a horse and asses(which aren't donkeys, BTW.) So they would have had different words for tyrannosaurus, for brachiosaurus, for apatosaurus, for hadrosaurs (the many different kinds) -- etc -- and as an important food resource, they would have been mentioned. Their suitability for sacrifice would have been noted.


IMO most of them became extinct at the time of the flood. Noah took dinosaurs on the ark but he only took them by "kinds," not each and every variety of dinosaur. Perhaps lurking in the genes of some of the lizards and crocadiles and alligators are throwbacks to those dinosaurs.


...took them on the ark and then watched as they dropped dead shortly after they landed? Before reproducing? And what about the Pleistocene megafauna (like dinofelis: www.absoluteastronomy.com... -- which, by the way, was a major predator of humans and other primates in the ancient middle east.)

Most of the "calculations" I see scramble to explain the dinosaurs and conveniently forget the other extinct animals.

The Bible mentions Leviathan, which some say is like a dinosaur. There's a lot of folklore about dragons and such. So who really knows how long the dinosaurs have actually been extinct -- or even if they truly are extinct.


But if they are, they are. It has nothing to do with evolution versus creation IMO. We have fossils that show man and the dinosaur coexisted. I don't believe the dinosaurs were here "billions" of years ago. I don't even think the earth was here "billions" of years ago.

Perhaps we could have a discussion on THAT -- since that is a more foundational element to this discussion, and the dinosaurs are just another red herring or distraction IMO.


C'mon out to West Texas; to the Big Bend area and look at all the layers of rocks. There's some supervolcanos there that filled the area with ashfalls a thousand and more feet deep (and we're talking an area well over a thousand square miles) They're interrupted by limestone (the remains of coral reefs) several hundred feet high.

Young Earthers have never been unable to explain how such formations happened (and then enough of them eroded away to form a large pile of dirt on top of that) in 6,000 years. They fall back on "magical thinking", where "it was made that way to test our faith" rather than "it formed by natural means."



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Bryd -- Just a quick post. I'm really not "boned" up so to speak on this, but off the top of my head because I'm in a hurry (I have a business in my home).

All the things you describe can be explained by the flood. The dinosaurs would be the first to go. Animals able to climb up high would have a better chance. Humans would survive in the flood longer than anything else because they would cling to floating things and come up with ingenious ways to hold on for longer.

The catastrophic worldwide flood explains every single thing we see in the terrain, and in the so-called geologic column. But I'm not prepared to go into the details on this just yet. I've done a fair amount of reading on Creation Science but I don't have a photographic memory -- anything but. And I don't know where my books are. I might not even be able to locate them. Since the Internet I don't have so many books anymore, and they get loaned out and just kind of disappear.

But I do know the creation model has a good and reasonable answer for everything we see around us.

And what do you mean about dinosaur who preyed on humans? Do you believe as I that they coexisted with man?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
resistance, there are a ton of threads that discuss the flood, but I don't think there are any official "This Thread Talks About The Flood" threads. Perhaps you should start one.

EDIT: P.S., Byrd was referring to these things eating humans:


Zip

EDIT: Whoops, yep there is a recent Flood Legend thread that is currently active.

[edit on 10/17/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
I have seen pics of dinosaur footprints next to human footprints.

They are fakes, altered by the people claiming that they were man-prints,, some are also from other animals


Also, I understand there are many sightings of large sea creatures, Loch Ness Monster, creatures like that

This is irrelevant. They are not documented as existing, nor as being dinosaurs.


Fact is there are sea creatures we have never categorized

There have never been any sea-dwelling dinosaurs, for what its worth.


From my reading I also understand that the flood is documented worldwide in legends

This is meaningless tho. Floods occur everywhere, any civilization that has a mythology/history is going to have a recollection of a big flood that nearly killed everyone in the region, because big floods do indeed occur. Global Ones, however, do not.


not to mention the Flood explains the catastrophic occurrance that explains why the earth looks the way it does

Rather it does not.

, why we have oil,

The flood legend does not explain oil deposits at all, and indeed, oil companies use geology, paleontology, and science, to find and recover oil, not the bible and creationism.


and the so-called geologic strata.

The strata in the geologic column contradict the occurance of a worldwide flood.


I can also put out lots of stuff that would indicate a young earth because there are many things to indicate this

please do so, but when you do, don't just present the ideas that we've all seen before and that have been refuted repeatedly. If I were you, I'd check the 'evidences' against a handy reference list, like this. Not saying you have to agree with the refutations there, but if you're going to present 'evidence', best to know why its rejected and explain why those 'rejections' are invalid no?


-- such as the earth's magnetic field for one

The earths magnetic field does not support a young earth. Rather, the evidence we have about geomagnetism, such as sea-floor magnetic anomolies, indicate an old earth.




BTW, can you advise me how to put pics into my posts?

Sure. Basically, all you need is the url for the picture itself (usually you can get this by right clicking on an online photo, clicking 'properties', and then cutting and pasting the url there). Once you have the url, you put 'image tags' around it, you start with, in lower case [IMG]. Then you put in the url. Then you end with [/IMG, which lets the system 'know' that you are giving it the address of a picture. You can resize images to make them fit on a page by doing this [IMG=100x200] (instead of the 'img' in the front, but you still keep the regular /img in brackets at the end).

Here is a very helpful handbook on how to do this, and other sorts of things, on ATS
Zedd's Handbook.


I'm not quoting Carl Sagon or Charles Darwin, but rather scientists who agree with my point of view.

Why not merely quote scientists who have presented good conclusions based on logical analysis of the evidence, rather than whether or not they agree with any particular point of view?


Also, birds don't come from reptiles. Otherwise we'd have at least one fossil or living creature today showing their scales gradually turning into feathers.

How can a fossil have scales on it turn into feathers? What we do have are fossils that have very primitively modified scales, then more elaborate, and then more and more feather like, and eventually dinosaurs with feathers. And along with these 'more featherlike' changes are other changes and modifications torwards 'birds'.


The dinosaurs would be the first to go. Animals able to climb up high would have a better chance.

This and related ideas are often called 'Hydrological Sorting'. Its an interesting idea, that, say, the fossil record should, if made up of drowining victims, have the better swimers corpses atop the worse swimmers corpses. Problem is, thats not the pattern in the fossil record, rather the pattern indicates that different forms of animals evolved over time.

and in the so-called geologic column. But

Why do you keep saying 'so-called'???

The catastrophic worldwide flood explains every single thing we see in the terrain

Rather it explains nothing. There is no worldwide flood deposit and there are erosional formations, like the grand canyon, that are not formed by the scouring action of floods.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The descriptions of a Great Flood that occur in cultures throughout the world place this occurance at the same time, so it WOULD indicate a worldwide flood.
Also, I'm positive there are no creatures that ever existed with partially formed feathers. Would you find this example for me, and don't say archeopteryx because it was a completely formed creature. There was no half-formed anything on this creature.

But I don't have time now.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
The descriptions of a Great Flood that occur in cultures throughout the world place this occurance at the same time, so it WOULD indicate a worldwide flood.


Technically that doesn't show evidence of a flood, but just that theres a common mythological tale that had been passed down. And though there has not been evidence of a great flood physically, there is evidence that the mediterrianian sea could have flooded when a small straight between France and Africa had eroded away in 5600 BCE, sending the oceans water into whatwould have been a large and barren below sealevel plains area. This is most likely the origin of the Great Flood tale, as for anybody living down in the sea bed that had survived, it would have seemed as if the entire world (atleast their world, in theyre paradigms) wasflooded.


Also, I'm positive there are no creatures that ever existed with partially formed feathers. Would you find this example for me, and don't say archeopteryx because it was a completely formed creature. There was no half-formed anything on this creature.


Coelurosaur

The Coelurosaur was a form of Velociraptor which was covered in Feather.

ManiRaptora

Also another form of Velociraptor which had feathers, but theyre feathers are shaped more like the Pennaceous feathers found on birds today.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
someone pointed out OIL a few posts ago. I would like to point out that OIL is made from organisms and/or trash with the combination of heat and pressure. a flood would explain oil formation, billions of years would not. everything would rot before it could be converted.

EC



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
someone pointed out OIL a few posts ago. I would like to point out that OIL is made from organisms and/or trash with the combination of heat and pressure. a flood would explain oil formation, billions of years would not. everything would rot before it could be converted.

EC



Most geologists view crude oil, like coal and natural gas, as the product of compression and heating of ancient vegetation over geological time scales. According to this theory, it is formed from the decayed remains of prehistoric marine animals and terrestrial plants. Over many centuries this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under thick sedimentary layers of material. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the remains to metamorphose, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, and then into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis. These then migrate through adjacent rock layers until they become trapped underground in porous rocks called reservoirs, forming an oil field, from which the liquid can be extracted by drilling and pumping.


Oil

Oil isnt necessarily just animals that all died together, its basically just collections of hydrocarbons and vegetation thats compressed and breaks down over time. In fact, if anything, the way rotted vegetation metamorphizes into its hydrocarbon petroleum counterpart only further fuels an older earth theory; because of the ammount of compression and time it takes, with layers and layers of earth and rock forming over it, it takes a long time.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
someone pointed out OIL a few posts ago. I would like to point out that OIL is made from organisms and/or trash with the combination of heat and pressure. a flood would explain oil formation, billions of years would not. everything would rot before it could be converted.
EC


First the process of formation of oil is still in dispute in the geologic community I believe, at least it was about two years ago. Secondly, a global flood will not produce the amount of heat nor the pressure needed.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
The descriptions of a Great Flood that occur in cultures throughout the world place this occurance at the same time, so it WOULD indicate a worldwide flood.

They don't occur at the same time, they're simply stories about how 'long long ago there was a big flood that drowned out the world'.


Also, I'm positive there are no creatures that ever existed with partially formed feathers.

The specimins are fairly new, having been discovered in the late 90's and the past few years.

Would you find this example for me

Here is the webpage for a good exhibit from a few years back that was in London.
Dino-birds at the Natural History Museum

But thats a site for the general public. The species involved in general are:
Sinornithosaurus
Sinosauropteryx
Dilong paradoxus
Caudipteryx
Cryptovolans
Epidendrosaurus
(aka Scansoriopteryx)
Protarchaeopteryx
Microraptor
Unenlagia
Shuvuuia
Beipiaosaurus


These is a wide variety of skin structures on these animals, ranging from ful blown flight feathers back down to tiny short primitive shafts of simple feather material.

Here is an intersting dinodata page:
dinodata.net...
Acording to it Rahonavis and Avimimus have anchor points for feathers, but feathers haven't been found. I had actually thought that feathers were found for Rahonavis, but there ya go.


There was no half-formed anything on this [archaeopteryx] creature.

Archaeopteryx is very much in advance I'll agree.


wolfofwar
The Coelurosaur was a form of Velociraptor which was covered in Feather.

Coelurosauria and Maniraptora is a class of dinosaurs. Coelurosaurus is a particular dinosaur but doesn't have feathers. Some Coelurosaurs (the group) are feathered. The maniraptor(a or iformes) are a group within Coelurosauria.


flood would explain oil formation

A flood would not explain oil formation, and when the petroleum industry looks for oil, they don't look for flood deposits. Oil infact isn't formed from large land animals that've been buried.

silentlonewolf
the process of formation of oil is still in dispute in the geologic community I believe

There's allways discussions and new discoveries, but the general process is understood, I wouldn't say its a mystery anyway.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

There's allways discussions and new discoveries, but the general process is understood, I wouldn't say its a mystery anyway.


Yeah to say it was in dispute was an overstatement. I just remeber a conversation I had with one of my professors a couple years back. It briefly hit on a research group that had found oil wells refilling and there was questions if it was already there and just rising from a deep reservoir or a process in the mantle. I was never able to find much information on it though.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Nygden -- There are no reptiles with half-formed feathers, except maybe as wishful thinking in your imagination. I checked out your links, and if that's all you've got for proof -- pretty sad. I thought you were a stickler for facts. There's no scales turning to feathers mentioned in anything you put up. I'm not buying the book to find out about this fossil.

Platypuses lay eggs, have a bill like a duck, and are mammals. God does not have to follow any rules that people who categorize his Creation might want Him to. These strange creatures God has made do not prove evolution. Rather they prove what a sense of humor and what an amazing imagination God has. For that matter, any animal or plant you want to study is a miracle if you start to learn about it, the things these creations are able to do, the things God made them to be able to do. Each creation of God is a "superman" of amazement in the things it's able to do. The atom itself is an amazing wonder, something we still don't understand.

So all I'm asking is for one puny little example to demonstrate this theory of evolution -- something that proves this gradualistic development of something simple into something else which developed into something else, and something else and something else.

We hear that it takes "billions of years" for evolution to occur. We also have billions of different life forms. If each one of these lifeforms took billions of years to evolve out of something else, then our earth must be a billion billion billion years old. (how old is that?)

The whole thing is ludicrous. It's a desperate and lame attempt by people to explain God away so they won't have to worry that He's looking over their shoulder and they can live their life without guilt.

Oil does not take billions of years to make. It can be made in the laboratory in several hours. The oil and coal we have are from the massive catastrophe that occurred in the flood -- whereby trees and animals and dirt and rocks were uprooted and hurled and swirled in the flood, and this went on for 40 days. Finally the flood waters receded and left this mess to settle down. During this time mountains and ravines and gullies and canyons and all sorts of things were formed on the earth. The Grand Canyon did not occur by a trickle of water or a sharp point on the glacier carving it out. One look at the rocks going straight down to the shallow water below would indicate a catastrophic earthquake to anyone not peering through "evolution tinted" glasses. The Grand Canyon was formed when the earth just split open and the plates moved apart. It's called an earthquake. You can see a mini example of what happens in such a catastrophe when you look at the results of Mt. St. Helens. The changes in the terrain around Mt. St. Helens happened in a matter of hours and days, not years. You don't need "billions of years" to change the terrain of the earth. You just need a catastrophe.

I'm not impressed by all the names of the dynosaurs you're putting out. This is the typical ploy of the evolutionists -- try to snow you with lots of long names and technical jargon. I just want to see some feathers, or better yet some scales that are startingto turn into feathers. I'm not interested in your producing for me fully formed creatures, fully complete creatures, who have feathers. I want to see a partially formed feather that's evolving over ions of time from a scale into a feather.

If evolution is as you say it is, then there must be at least one example of it in existence somewhere. I can point to examples of creationism, special creation -- because everything we see around us in nature is fully formed, indicating special creation. Evolution says things change gradually over billions of years. So show me some evidence of this theory, anything, just anything. Of course we also have the other evolution theories -- like punctuated equilibrium that says evolution did not occur gradually but in giant leaps; and the pans spermia theory of evolution or whatever it's called. You
guys can't even agree on your theory, probably because it's all in the fertile imaginations of the evolutionists. Even you can't agree how it happened, what came from what, and you have no idea at all how it could have occurred, else you'd be duplicating it in the lab. But even though you're clueless, you claim it's all "scientific."

One more thing. When the NWO comes crashing down, will you suddenly decide maybe God is real after all? Why should He listen to you then when you were on a campaign to prove he did not exist, even though Scripture says there's no excuse for anybody not to believe in Him because he proves himself in nature and Creation. I do agree. It's self-evident. Scripture says -- no excuse. Says, They became vain in their imagination and their foolish minds were darkened, and professing themselves wise they became fools, and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.

So that kind of says it.




[edit on 18-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Resistance, If oil was a proof of a world wide flood, why is oil only present in only small parts of the world? If all the life, through vegetation, fish, mammals, reptiles, and all forms of life were washed up by a worldwide deluge, would not there be evidence of petroleum under every rock, not literally speaking that is. But would there not just be huge pools everywhere, and not just in key locations around the world?

Also, as for proof about featherlike dinosaurs, I feel this site explains a good deal about it. If you need more proof, there is, but its futile to dig up all the evidence in the world to show someone with closed eyes. If you already determined you have all the facts, anything else to your paradigm is fiction.

Dinosaur and Bird Relationships



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Resistance, If oil was a proof of a world wide flood, why is oil only present in only small parts of the world? If all the life, through vegetation, fish, mammals, reptiles, and all forms of life were washed up by a worldwide deluge, would not there be evidence of petroleum under every rock, not literally speaking that is. But would there not just be huge pools everywhere, and not just in key locations around the world?

Also, as for proof about featherlike dinosaurs, I feel this site explains a good deal about it. If you need more proof, there is, but its futile to dig up all the evidence in the world to show someone with closed eyes. If you already determined you have all the facts, anything else to your paradigm is fiction.

Dinosaur and Bird Relationships



I read your article.

Dr. Jacques Gauthier, during his time as a graduate student of Professor Kevin Padian here at Berkeley, did his dissertation research on this subject, creating the first well accepted, detailed phylogeny of the diapsids. His work provided strong, compelling support for the theory that birds are theropod dinosaurs.


They even admit it's a theory. Their biggest piece of "evidence" is that birds have a kind of scale on their legs. Wow. You call that proof?

Again I say, show me one example of a scale turning into a feather. Just one.

We have millions of kinds of birds, and millions of kinds of reptiles, so surely there is at least one example of one of these reptiles turning into a bird. I won't ask you to go looking for the fossil record because that's been pretty well exhausted and nobody seriously expects to find anything there -- other than the extremely wishful thinkers who like to find fossils and imagine all kinds of things into them that aren't there, go get an artist to draw up their imaginary creatures.

But for starters, let's just see one single scale turning into one single feather. I'm not hard to please.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

So all I'm asking is for one puny little example to demonstrate this theory of evolution -- something that proves this gradualistic development of something simple into something else which developed into something else, and something else and something else.

And it has been given to you over and over again yet all you do is bring back up debunked rethoric. So since you only consider magic to be proof, how about this. Say you have created a universe and wanted a vacation. So instead of babysiting the infant universe, you instill evolution to do the work for you, much like the assembly line in a car factory. Now you just relax and admire your work.
I have no evidence for it nor do I believe in it but it does make more sense than God creating each and every aspect of life, down to every nanoparticle of every atom. Also considering the fact that this is what people would do and we are supposed to be made in his image. Now evolution works for your logic.



We hear that it takes "billions of years" for evolution to occur. We also have billions of different life forms. If each one of these lifeforms took billions of years to evolve out of something else, then our earth must be a billion billion billion years old. (how old is that?)

first of all it doesn't take evolution billions of years to occur. It is a continuous process. It has been occuring for billions of years. If you take each organism, their entire lineage and then take the next organism and do the same and say "see it took 200 million years for the earliest lifeform to get to organism A and 2 billion years for oragnism B, so in conclusion we see that it has taken 2.2 billion years. Then try to add organism C, etc." You are now terribly wrong because they were evolving at the same time.



The whole thing is ludicrous. It's a desperate and lame attempt by people to explain God away so they won't have to worry that He's looking over their shoulder and they can live their life without guilt.


Wrong again, If i could prove god exists it would make my career. The fact of the matter is most christian scientists accept evolution, the people pushing the evolution vs creationism are solely doing it for political reasons, to get religion into politics.



Oil does not take billions of years to make. It can be made in the laboratory in several hours. The oil and coal we have are from the massive catastrophe that occurred in the flood -- whereby trees and animals and dirt and rocks were uprooted and hurled and swirled in the flood, and this went on for 40 days. Finally the flood waters receded and left this mess to settle down.

So after the flood all the material was left in a few select pockets of stagnant swamp water? Also how does this explain these coal and black shale deposits are in different layers. Also, these lab made oils, due they use a mock flood or conditions following a flood to create them. I doubt it.



The Grand Canyon was formed when the earth just split open and the plates moved apart. It's called an earthquake. You can see a mini example of what happens in such a catastrophe when you look at the results of Mt. St. Helens. The changes in the terrain around Mt. St. Helens happened in a matter of hours and days, not years. You don't need "billions of years" to change the terrain of the earth. You just need a catastrophe.

This has been debunked over and over. You are comparing LOOSE volcanic ashe, with precipitates layers like Limestone and Dolostone as well as other types of rock layers but precipitates cannot occur in a flood. Two completely different enviorments.



I'm not impressed by all the names of the dynosaurs you're putting out. This is the typical ploy of the evolutionists -- try to snow you with lots of long names and technical jargon.

Actually you are the one with the ploy. You spin evidence supplied and try to discredit it without any basis.



If evolution is as you say it is, then there must be at least one example of it in existence somewhere.

Well oak species cross and create sterile hybrids. Trying to distinquish them apart is a pain for some forestry majors. There is also a fish that has fins that can walk and breath air (Mud skipper I believe). How about sickle cell anemia, and parkinsons disease. I posted links to both in another thread.



I can point to examples of creationism, special creation -- because everything we see around us in nature is fully formed, indicating special creation.
when you give the creator no limitations sure everything is created including evolution.



Evolution says things change gradually over billions of years. So show me some evidence of this theory, anything, just anything.

We have


You guys can't even agree on your theory,

Evolution is agreed on, the actual mechanisms are still being explored.



probably because it's all in the fertile imaginations of the evolutionists.

Compared to what? a 2000 book that has been copied and rewritten several times in that span. Scientist have to be creative, the only way new ideas and innovations can be explored. The evidence still supports evolution, and natural selection is still considered to be a part of it.


[edit on 18-10-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by silentlonewolf

Originally posted by resistance

So all I'm asking is for one puny little example to demonstrate this theory of evolution -- something that proves this gradualistic development of something simple into something else which developed into something else, and something else and something else.

And it has been given to you over and over again yet all you do is bring back up debunked rethoric.


All I'm asking for is one scale turning into a feather. Is that too much to ask? Heck -- I show you the entire planet and all the animals as examples of what I believe -- that they are fully complete, special creations. I ask you to show me just ONE EXAMPLE of a gradual evolution of one creature into another, a reptile into a bird, show me a scale turning into a feather -- JUST ONE EXAMPLE.

Quit crying and just prove your theory. If you have no proof, then stop lecturing me about how "unscientific" and misled I am. I got literally mountains of proof. You ain't even got a feather.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
This is becoming ridiculous. I'll respond later, but for tonight I want to focus on this comment:



It's a desperate and lame attempt by people to explain God away so they won't have to worry that He's looking over their shoulder and they can live their life without guilt.


This is a depiction of scientific minded atheists from a religious perspective. In reality, atheists fear absolutely nothing theistic. When an atheist's perception of life precludes the existence of a creator-God, then obviously, they would not fear some kind of God-inspired wrath. Logically, they would not have anything to prove or defend at this point, and any following lectures are based entirely in true and objective scientific thinking. Whether you agree with this simple knowledge or not is irrelevant to the real wisdom that backs objective understanding.

In other words, I have told you more than once that scientists have no vested interest in disproving theology, and objective (real and definitive) science speaks for itself in these matters. Dogma is not invited to the objectivity party.

Zip




top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join