but what about the dinosaurs running out of air?????? some dinosaurs that are much much larger than horses, had the same sized nostrils as them. perharps the atmosphere was different when there were many dinosaurs roaming the earth. in some fossilzed amber, the air bubbles in them have revealed that there was 50% more oxygen than today. perhaps the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere killed off most of the dinosaurs.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
why have there been reports of dinosaurs still being alive?

Things like the loch ness monster and mokele membe are not reported as dinosaurs, they're reported as monsters. Once people found out abot dinosaurs, some people started saying 'maybe those things are dinosaurs'.

So we have reports of monsters because people think that they see things all the time. And some people call them dinosaurs because to some people, if its big and has scales, its a dinosaur.

Joshm2u
some dinosaurs that are much much larger than horses, had the same sized nostrils as them. perharps the atmosphere was different when there were many dinosaurs roaming the earth. in some fossilzed amber, the air bubbles in them have revealed that there was 50% more oxygen than today

Its pretty silly to think that if we increase the oxygen content of something's air supply that it would grow to gigantic sizes. There's no reason to think this and if anything the evidence suggests that it doesn't happen. What study reveals this about the fossilized amber?

I remember reading online that if oxygen levels in pre-historic times were much higher than the current levels, then there would be global forest fires.
Giving the giant dinos 50% more oxygen would not permit any kind of forest life.

The "global forest fire" is a good arguement that I am not positive how to answer. Although I can say that according to some the Earth was much different back then and there were no storms or lightning. Instead plants retained water from underground. Apparently in those days that is where most of Earth's water was. That could help prevent some of the forest fires perhaps.

Giving the giant dinos 50% more oxygen would not permit any kind of forest life.

well I would have to disagree on that statement. just because there is highger percentage of oxygen does not mean that CO2 could not be present. it simply means that there was more oxygen in the atmosphere.
which could have been caused by a few things.
either there was more oxygen present in the past, or there was greater air pressure.

me believing in the bible would come to the conclusion that the canopy theory probably made it possible for greater airpressure and greater oxygen ratio.
I take that theory by faith, there is no way to prove or disprove that there was ever a canopy. but I do believe that with good research, the canopy theory does make it possible to dinosaurs to have lived as well as larger plants and animals.

there have been huge animals found other than dinosaurs, how did they get so big?

I believe, according to the bible that there was a canopy of some form of water above the atmosphere, that would pressuize the atmosphere giving hyperbarric conditions here on earth as well as blocking all harmful rays from the sun. that would also explain why man used to live to be almost 1,000 according to the bible.

but I must point out like I try to do in every one of my posts. I take the bible totally by faith and believe it from cover to cover.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
just because there is highger percentage of oxygen does not mean that CO2 could not be present.

I didn't mean that CO2 wouldn't be present. I meant that forest life would not survive due to the global forest fires.
When oxygen levels rise the conditions for combustion are greatly enhanced.
It would be impossible for a Brachiosaurus to require a 50% higher level of oxygen. The Earth would fry under that condition.

well think of it this way, try to think from all sides of this.

either greater percentage in oxygen ratio
or
just greater airpressure which could explain higher oxygen ratio.

how are forest fires started?, what I mean is by what kind of radiation? light radiation, UV, Gamma, Xray.

because if they are started by anything else but pure light, I believe that the bible gives a great explanation as to why there could have been a higher oxygen ratio without the problem of forest fires and such.

the bible teaches what is called to canopy theory. to us its a theory, but to the bible, its a fact. I believe in this theory along with many other people who read and understand the bible. the bible teaches that there was a layer of water above the atmosphere, I dont know how thick or what form, but im guessing it would be ice suspended by the magnetic field by what it called the meisner effect.
this canopy would block all forms of radiation and let only light through. also pressurizing earths atmosphere probably to almost 30 PSI rather than what we have today (14.7PSI)
this would make breathing easier, healing a lot faster, and this would also allow dinosaurs (dragons) to live longer as well as grow to be bigger.

this can be explained by the bible, I mean this is scientific, the only thing we are unsure of, is if it really happened, and that is why I have to close with this statement, the bible has to be taken by faith. I believe the bible and I think that it gives a great explanation as to how the earth was originally and how things like dinosaurs got to live and grow to be so big.

just another way to look at this picture.

thanks

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
The "global forest fire" is a good arguement that I am not positive how to answer. Although I can say that according to some the Earth was much different back then and there were no storms or lightning.

How would that happen? Physics and electricity are just not working? I'd be very skeptical of anyone claiming that sort of thing.

Instead plants retained water from underground. Apparently in those days that is where most of Earth's water was.

The evidence speaks against this. Sea levels infact were much higher in the mesozoic (no icecaps), there wasn't even more water stored underground.

That could help prevent some of the forest fires perhaps.

There is no need to hypothesize these things because there was not a 50% higher oxygen level back then.

evolution cruncher
because if they are started by anything else but pure light, I believe that the bible gives a great explanation as to why there could have been a higher oxygen ratio without the problem of forest fires and such.

? We haven't even established that there is a higher ratio, and between volcanoes and lightening there is plenty of stuff to start the fires. Look at california and western forest fires nowadays and try to imagine 50% more oxygen fuel concentrations. Also, oxygen is damaging to lung tissues, far from growing to giants, anything from back then would be having problems.

the bible teaches what is called to canopy theory. to us its a theory, but to the bible, its a fact

This is not in the bible, its an addition to the bible, an attempt to find a 'source' for the flood water. Its also bunkum. You cannot have that much water suspended in vapour canopy in the first place. It will also block out sunlight and affect plant life. It will also create immpossible to survive atmospheric pressures on the surface of the earth. And even tho it can't sit in the atmosphere in the first place, if it ever came down in torrents of rain, it'd be horrible, people calculated the energetic release from that much water falling from that height, it boils it all away, you don't get rain, you giant giant world (and ark) destroying blasts of super-heated steam.

this can be explained by the bible, I mean this is scientific, the only thing we are unsure of, is if it really happened,

All evidence points to it not only never having existed, but being immpossible anyways.

You cannot mix Evolution theory "mesozoic" with Creation theory. They are 2 completely different theories. In creation theory there is no such thing as a million years in terms of the world or universe. Basically you should read my thread called A Summary of 6000 Years to find out one opinion of what the theory states. Furthermore I was just rambling on with my "forest fire" speech. I was mainly attempting to reason. Now you have made good points to combat my side of the story, however without scientific testing or any professional testing on the topic who's to say what the truth is about Oxygen levels. We can merely ponder. I think based on the testing toward Evolution we can become quite sertain that epochs that far back will mainly be studied with mere ponders and assumptions. And I do realize that you wrote of scientific testing that shows Oxygen damages lung tissue. However until testing is done with a complete Earthly environment with every possible combination of gasses and other things this study would be held to... "in the lab room this would seem to be the case". And that is hardly a tough arguement to crack for an experienced lawyer, or anyone with tough argueing capabilities.

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
You cannot mix Evolution theory "mesozoic" with Creation theory.

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

In creation theory there is no such thing as a million years in terms of the world or universe.

Call it what you want but the evidence supports higher sea levels in the past due to the lack of polar ice caps.

without scientific testing or any professional testing on the topic who's to say what the truth is about Oxygen levels.

Its pretty simple really. Without any evidence for there being 50% 'more' oxygen, you cannot state that there was 50% more oxygen.

I think based on the testing toward Evolution we can become quite sertain that epochs that far back will mainly be studied with mere ponders and assumptions.

They aren't. Look at the research, its not a 'soft science'.

And I do realize that you wrote of scientific testing that shows Oxygen damages lung tissue. However until testing is done with a complete Earthly environment with every possible combination of gasses and other things this study would be held to... "in the lab room this would seem to be the case".

What? Thats absurd. We don't need to have an entire planet with '50% more oxygen' to be able to clearly see that increased levels of oxygen don't result in giants. What does it matter that its in a lab? The analogy and extrapolation fits until someone can demonstrate that it doesn't.

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

well neithier is evolution if you want to make that statement. evolution assumes that life can spontaneously generate. they havent even proved that yet. Miller and Urey showed that life cannot evolve without oxygen and if you have oxygen the product oxydizes. plus without oxygen you cant have ozone, and ozone destroys amonia which is one of the gases Miller and Urey used. we have only observed life coming from life. we have never observed animals changing into different Kind of animals. it is assumed to happen.

it is assumed that both spontaneous generation and macro evolution have taken place long ago. it is assumed. there has never been an observation. that is not scientific.

also the Evolution theory does not give a good explanation to how the universe began, the big bang is the best theory I can find and yet it is not even a good theory, then stellar and chemical evolution have to take place in order to get the earth here with all of its chemicals and revolving around the sun.

people try to say that Cosmic, Stelllar and Chemical Evolution are not a part of the evolution theory, when is fact it has to be, because without the sun life could not exist, without chemicals, life could not exist, and without having an origin to the entire universe, life would not exist.

no I think evolution starts from the big bang which is said to have occurred about 20 billion years ago.

I believe (along with Dr Hovind and many other people) that evolution is not a part of science. you have to believe that animals produced different KINDS of animals in the past, also that life came fro non-living material, and that the stars evolved to include our sun because without that life cannot exist, also that the chemicals had to evolve somehow (cant fuse past iron, how did all the other ones get here) and the origin of time space and matter, because without all three of those, life would not exist.
you have to take those into consideration when you consider the evolution theory. yes I understand that they are not a part of biological evolution, but you need to answer those in order to have life.

this is not just my opinion but many others as well. I dont care if people believe that Dr Hovind is a liar. I dont and I think he does a great job at showing people Gods word and showing how the evolution theory cannot be tied in with the bible and that evolution along with creation are both religious beliefs. you have to believe that God made everything just like you have to believe what I mentioned earlier in this post. you have to belive that evolution took place, there is no way to know, you have to assume it all happened.

I strongly disagree with anyone who disagrees with this post. (at least the steps that evolution has to take un order to get life here)

im not trying to tell anyone that they are wrong, im simply saying that this is the way I see it and I dont see any other way to look at this problem

thanks

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
evolution assumes that life can spontaneously generate.

Evolutionary biology makes no assumptions about the origins of life. Life clearly exists, and evolutionary biology is the study of it. Organic chemists other reserachers are reseraching the origins of life, but its a seperate science, seperate theory, and does not effect evolutionary biolofy.

Miller and Urey showed that life cannot evolve without oxygen and if you have oxygen the product oxydizes.

The miller and urey experiment showed, contrary to what everyone thought, that precursors to life such as amino acids can indeed be formed spontaneously and inorganically. It also showed that the environment of the experiments isn't a life-producing environment.

we have never observed animals changing into different Kind of animals.

There is no such thing as a 'Kind' of animal. It has no biological reality. We observe speciation. The species barrier is the only real biological barrier, there is no 'kind' barrrier. It also just doesn't make sense to say that populations can't change into other 'kinds' of animals. We can see that populations can change, and there is no reason to say that there is a 'Kind' limit to this.

it is assumed to happen.

Speciation occurs. Populations evolve. Along with that, we can see in the fossil record a pattern that conforms to precisely what we'd expect if these ongoing and observed processes in living populations was given long stretches of time to act. I agree that we can't say that we've observed dinosaurs evolve into birds, even tho the fossil record supports this with a stunning degree of detail.

it is assumed that both spontaneous generation and macro evolution have taken place long ago. it is assumed. there has never been an observation. that is not scientific.

Its perfectly scientific. We don't observe electrons rushing thru copper wires, we don't observe lots of things. Most things in science we can only 'observe' indirectly. The fact remains that our hypotheses about them work very well. We can't see the things that make up atoms, but that doesn't stop nukes from going off. We've never witnessed dinosaurs even existing, and yet we have this fossil record that indicates that they did.

, the big bang is the best theory I can find and yet it is not even a good theory,

Inflation Theory is a good, well supported theory.

Darwinian evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of life nor the origins of the universe. They're all seperate theories. True enough, if the universe never existed then there wouldn't be things evolving, but evolutionary theory is no more dependant upon Inflation Theory than the various chemical theories are, or any more than the Theory of Gravity is, or any other scientific theory.

people try to say that Cosmic, Stelllar and Chemical Evolution are not a part of the evolution theory, when is fact it has to be, because without the sun life could not exist, without chemicals, life could not exist, and without having an origin to the entire universe, life would not exist.

It doesn't matter. Life does exist. Evolutionary theory is merely a description of how life evolves, its independant of origins of the universe, sun, earth, etc, just like theories of mechanics are independant of it.

. yes I understand that they are not a part of biological evolution, but you need to answer those in order to have life.

And every other scientific theory. By this argument we shouldn't be able to have design schools that build planes, because there can't be a theory of lift, or Radios can't be said to be picking up waves, because electro-magnetic theory doesn't account for the existance of the universe.

I think he does a great job at showing people Gods word and showing how the evolution theory cannot be tied in with the bible and that evolution along with creation are both religious beliefs.

I'd like to hear what specific arguements of hovinds you find convincing.

[edit on 28-7-2005 by Nygdan]

Evolutionary biology makes no assumptions about the origins of life. Life clearly exists, and evolutionary biology is the study of it. Organic chemists other reserachers are reseraching the origins of life, but its a seperate science, seperate theory, and does not effect evolutionary biolofy.

oh yes it does, it makes the assumption that humans can ultimately evolve from bacteria or something other than a human, or even that any living thing can evolve into something other than its kind or come from something other than its kind. this has never been observed, they say that it [must] have happened. therefore that proves it. this is not called science that is called having faith.

the only evolution observed is micro evolution and that is biblical. that is the only kind of evolution that the bible agrees with.
you have to have faith that the stars evolved, you have to have faith that the chemicals evolved, you have to have faith that life can get started by non-living material. you have to have faith that bacteria, over billions of years can evolve into everything we see today.

[edit on 30-7-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the only evolution observed is micro evolution and that is biblical. that is the only kind of evolution that the bible agrees with.

no it isn't...micro evolution isn't even hinted at in the bible...

micro/macro evolution is pseudo-science, it's an imaginary line that creationists drew in the sand when they realized that they could no longer deny the fact that populations of organizms addapt and change to suit their environment.

in reality there is asolutly no reason (other than magic) why "micro"evolution would stop short of "macro" evolution....none whatsoever...

no it isn't...micro evolution isn't even hinted at in the bible...

well first of all, it doesnt say micro evolution in the bible.

ok so you are saying that a horse and a zebra are not the same KIND of animal?
and you are also saying that a dog and a wolf are not the same KIND of animal?

they can still mate and bring forth. and the bible says that they will bring forth after their KIND (not species). so yes the bible does agree with Mirco Evolution, all micro Evo is, is just a variation. but a dog and a wolf are still a dog.
the horse and the zebra are still a horse.

the bible has no problem with micro evolution. its just a variation.


and I dont think any creationist will disagree with adaptations or natural selection. neither of those two processes will caue bacteria to turn into a human no matter how much time given to do so.

see the way I see it. time seems to be the god of evolution, without time, things cannot get better.

there is a line between Micro and Macro and the line is; macro has never been observed. micro has.

it is assumed that macro happened, if macro didnt happen, how did we get all of these different kinds of animals and plants? the only other option would be that God created everything.
and thats the problem.

of course this is just my own conclusion

[edit on 30-7-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]

ok so you are saying that a horse and a zebra are not the same KIND of animal?
and you are also saying that a dog and a wolf are not the same KIND of animal?

they can still mate and bring forth. and the bible says that they will bring forth after their KIND (not species). so yes the bible does agree with Mirco Evolution, all micro Evo is, is just a variation. but a dog and a wolf are still a dog.
the horse and the zebra are still a horse.

okay, fair enough....i must admit that i have never really thought about it quite like that before...

but i still can't understand why micro evolution would stop short af macro evolution.....

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
it makes the assumption that humans can ultimately evolve from bacteria or something other than a human, or even that any living thing can evolve into something other than its kind or come from something other than its kind.

Thats not an assumption, its a conclusion of the application of the theories.

this has never been observed, they say that it [must] have happened.

No they don't. Science doesn't say that it absolutely had to happen any particular way. Current hypotheses about human evolution are just that, hypotheses, not assumptions and not absolute statements. The hypothesis that man evolved from apes is an extremely well suported hypothesis, and for all the years that its been around a serious refutation of it has never occured. Therefore, its considered to be a Theory. But even still, its never presented as a Fact and isn't expected to be perceived as a fact.

the only evolution observed is micro evolution and that is biblical.

Micorevolution is not in the bible. The bible has the old concept of organisms, that populations follow a 'type' and that there are 'kinds' of animals. This is wrong, kinds do not exist, and populations of species are not arranged as 'types'.
Furthermore, there is no difference between micro-evolution and 'macro-evolution'. Microevolution is 'change within species'. Macroevolution is the changing of one species into another. Both have been observed. And no one has observed any limits to evolution that would prevent an organism from crossing a 'kind' barrier even if one did exist. Without having any evidence that says that evolution is limited in that way, it simply doesn't make sense to say that it infact is, especially when there is evidence that there is no such limitation.

ok so you are saying that a horse and a zebra are not the same KIND of animal?
and you are also saying that a dog and a wolf are not the same KIND of animal?

I'd go with that, yes, they are not the same Kind, because there is no such thing as kind. A species of Dog is closely related to a species of Wolf, moreso that to a species of Cat. But 'more closely related' isn't a useful definition of 'Kind', and the very fact that one is discussing how the relative relationships is already stating that evolution between these supposed "Kinds" has occured.

In biology, there are mechanisms that 'limit' species, that form species barriers and hold the speicies intact. There are no such things beyond the level of species, there are no Kinds.

so yes the bible does agree with Mirco Evolution

The bring forth statement is not nearly enough to show that the bible is agreeing with microevolution. The entire concept of animals at the time that the bible was written up until darwin was completely different from the modern conception anyway. People back then thought of species as representing types, not as variable populations of organisms all changing according to natural selection and fitness to their environment. The bible simply does not have any such concept. It has the old concept, and the very use of the term Kind demonstrates that.

neither of those two processes will caue bacteria to turn into a human no matter how much time given to do so.

That it cannot happen has certainly never been demonstrated and the evidence that we do indicates that not only can it happen but that it infact did.

time seems to be the god of evolution, without time, things cannot get better.

Evolution, not being a religion, has nothing to do with gods or anything like that. And evolution has nothing to do with things getting 'better'. Populations of organisms are variable and that variation is acted upon by natural selection, and this leads to changes that can be adaptive and speciation. Thats got nothing to do with getting 'better'.

there is a line between Micro and Macro and the line is; macro has never been observed. micro has

Macro-evolution has been observed to occur, both in the lab and in the field. Macroevolution is, if anything, the evolution of new species. THis happens. There are no limits once speciation can occur, and there was never any reason to think that speciation couldn't occur in the first place. We know populations evolve, that they can change over time. Doesn't matter if its supposedly big or supposedly small changes.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Nygdan]

URN.
most people never think of it that way, they think that the word species and the word kind are the same thing when its not.
Micro Evolution has always been observed. Macro evolution is taken by faith, the textbooks say that it must have happened, only because thats the only way to get everything here without help from God. (at least that the way I see it)

No they don't. Science doesn't say that it absolutely had to happen any particular way.

why do the textbooks say that the first selfreplicating systems must have emerged in the organic soup. according to teh evolution theory, life had to get started and life had to evolve by the process of macro evolution. how else would we get the different KINDS of organisms? it had to have been macro evolution. even though we have never observed it. thats why I say that evolution (excluding Micro evolution) requires faith.

In biology, there are mechanisms that 'limit' species, that form species barriers and hold the speicies intact. There are no such things beyond the level of species, there are no Kinds.

ok let me try to get you to understand me. there is a DOG KIND and there is a CAT KIND.
the DOG KIND can have many different species within that KIND, kinda like a network, you can have one network address but many different host addresses. thats probably not a good anaology but its the only one I can think of right now.
THE CAT KIND can have many different species within that CAT KIND.

now let me explain to you how the bible agrees with micro evolution.
the bible says that "they will bring forth after their KIND. so when it says KIND, it means that the CAT KIND will always produce a cat. maybe a different species of cat but its still a CAT KIND. same thing with the DOG KIND. the DOG will always produce a DOG KIND, you will never get a CAT KIND from a DOG KIND or vise versa.
another example is corn, you will always get corn when you grow corn. you can even crossbreed corn with other species of corn but you will always get corn. you will never get a tomatoe or a bunny or a hamster from that corn stalk. you will always get corn. the farmers depend on this because if they dont get what they plant, they arent going to get anywhere in life.

I think you get my point on this KIND topic.

That it cannot happen has certainly never been demonstrated and the evidence that we do indicates that not only can it happen but that it infact did.

and what evidence is that? you cant prove that we came from bacteria. you have to believe that it happened, there is no way to know.

Evolution, not being a religion, has nothing to do with gods or anything like that.

time my friend, time. see time seems to be the god of evolution, because without a lot of time, evolution cant happen. you can make anything you want into a god. time can be a god if you want it to be. and thats exactly what the evolutionist depends on, is time. first of all, without millions of years, the theory looks really dumb. without millions of years, the thought of bacteria turning into a human over time looks dumb, and without millions of years,

Populations of organisms are variable and that variation is acted upon by natural selection

ok I can agree to a certain extent. but are you believing that natural selection can turn a bacteria into a human over millions of years?
natural selection selects, its kinda like quality control.


EC