Evolution is a Fact

[Nathan Poe]

I'm still in a state of shock over the utter illogic of the dinosaurs and navel argument.

Logic can take a hike -- clearly for some, it already has.

 

[Wedjat]

I'm still in a state of shock over the utter illogic of the dinosaurs and navel argument.

Just get a blanket and keep your feet up, things will be alright, avoid physical and emotional stress, as well as food or drink for the time being. Keep someone nearby to keep an eye on your condition and contact emergency services.

 

[hangback]

I'm still in a state of shock over the utter illogic of the dinosaurs and navel argument.

When it comes to creationism you should never be shocked, they will say and do anything (no matter how crazy) to defend the beliefs of their parents, absolutely nothing is sacred, denial of everything that tells them that their parents got it wrong is the uppermost thing in their minds, all of which is perfectly understandable.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

1. Big
2. Scaly
3. Fire-breathing
4. Wing-a-lings
5. Navel
6. Big Beefy Arm.

Epic. So freaking epic.

And one cool thing about the Trog is that we've got some of its tracks preserved in some lacustrin deposits. From these traces we can tell one important thing: The Trogdor comes in the NIIIIIIIIGHT.

 

[TheReasoner]

Logic can take a hike -- clearly for some, it already has.

Sometimes, around some people on these boards, I feel like this guy:

By which I mean that compared to them even a human with what I'd consider moderate logic and reasoning ability seems positively Vulcan.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sometimes, around some people on these boards, I feel like this guy:

By which I mean that compared to them even a human with what I'd consider moderate logic and reasoning ability seems positively Vulcan.

 

[Hawk007]

is it not possible for them to find fossils as well and use that for inspiration? no the only possible answer is that they lived side by side with dinosaurs lol!

By attacking Evolution, your also attacking the methodology that led to it. In essence your attacking science. Good luck with that.

Are you serious, you believe 2000 years ago they had the means to excavate bones and put them together the way they do it? If that was the case, why was it then that there was so little know about dinos if they have been excavating them for thousands of years? I am pretty sure they found bones, but to put them together, I will be very very surprised....

Maybe, attacking the fairytales told by scientist, but fortunately science do not always get involved in trying to replace God, so they have brought great things to the society and some bad things for those who enjoy power!

I do not need luck, I have Jesus!

 

[Hawk007]

There are so many logic leaps in this statement I don't even know where to start.

You do realise that even if dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago, that in no way prevents the earth and things in it from being older than that?

I believe if you deny the facts that these artifacts represent dinosaurs and that there was no way for people of that age able to put together bones with the assistance of all types of technology used today to see what type of dinosaur the bones represent, then my friend your leap in logic is way greater than mine will ever be!

Show me one evolutionist that will put his name to a statement that says dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago, as far as I know the going trend is 65 million years ago the dinos died out.......so who is lying in the evolutionist camp?
Anyway, my point is, if they are so wrong with their dating how can we trust any dating done by scientist? They could be off by billions of years....

 

[TheReasoner]

Maybe, attacking the fairytales told by scientist, but fortunately science do not always get involved in trying to replace God, so they have brought great things to the society and some bad things for those who enjoy power!

I do not need luck, I have Jesus!

Jesus has nothing to do with evolution. Look, I get it. I understand where you're coming from, but I am certain we'd have a LOT more Christians in the west and the US if people with your position opened your eyes to God's wonderful creation instead of blocking out facts on account of them not fitting with your subjective interpretation of a parable.

I'm back at university getting a new master's degree in nanotechnology. It's fast paced, packed with a lot of very interesting science. And the more I learn abut quantum mechanics and other physics the more certain I am that God is real. But it has also lead to another thing: I am more and more certain that the creationist position is false beyond belief. I won't go into it all now, but I sure do see why a lot of really intelligent people with higher education abandon Christianity. From my experience that has not so much to do with the science, but a whole lot to do with YOU. They abandon Christianity - in many cases - simply because you have managed to convince them that Christianity equals young earth creationism. When they then through their work discover that there is absolutely no way that the YEC hypothesis is correct they abandon the faith as a whole because of the association with yec that you have managed to create.

Science is not about replacing God. It never has been. Oh sure, some people like Richard Dawkins make it out to be so. But then again some people like Rasputin (who is a very clear example) are Christians who make Christianity out to be about replacing or killing God. So I don't feel there's much to any argument surrounding that premise.
In fact, as a believer, I would say that the opposite is true.
If God exists (and I am sure He does) then any research into something He created cannot disprove Him or even come close. In fact objective analysis of creation will - if God exists - eventually only point to Him. Hence all that can come from science is a confirmation of God's existence - or at least a strengthening of His position among informed human beings. And in addition to that it can - and has - clear(ed) up a few misconceptions about the bible. Take for example flat worlders. They still exist, and the basis for their argument is the same you yecs use. The bible - when interpreted a certain way - says the world is flat. (I can provide verses and analysis of the hebrew supporting their position if you wish.) That idea has been disproven thoroughly however, and we can easily see that their interpretation of the biblical verses in question was horribly flawed. The same is true for yec. It's disproven, for it to be true God would have had to lie with the intent to deceive us through His own creation, and I do not think He would be that malicious. I do believe He exists for various reasons however, so the only remaining conclusion is that the YEC interpretation of the creation parable was and is terribly flawed.

As I said I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, which makes me furious when ideas and ideologies that tear people away from Jesus gain a foothold among Christians. Our task here is to spread love and bring people to know Jesus so they can have the peace and love He has given us. All else is secondary, hence even holding a belief like YEC may be alright, but trying to equate it with Christianity is only harmful as it drives people away from Christ. Away from salvation. This is one reason why I have come to see the YEC movement as anti-kingdom to be honest. I consider it to be harmful through and through.

 

[USincognito]

Hawk, did you miss my response about Ooparts in post #371?

 

[hangback]

I agree 100% with the above from faith guardian, read your bibles and leave the science to science why try to mix the two? after all science has nothing to do with religion one deals in reality the other in faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm starting to think the same of responses to the village idiot that I do when people watching a slasher flick they've seen 50 times already still yell at the characters not to go into a room where the killer is.

Be careful now --- I've seen one "slasher flick" 42 times --- and I still yell, "Get out of there!"

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm still in a state of shock over the utter illogic of the dinosaurs and navel argument.

Let's see if you prefer to stay in shock or not.

Please answer these simple questions:

1. Do dinosaurs have a navel?
2. If one did, would that discredit evolution?
   
3. Have you ever heard that dinosaurs are mentioned in the book of Job; specifically Behemoth and Leviathan?

How you answer these are important, and I would really like to know what your answers are.

You don't need to stay in shock, you can Google around and readily see that Behemoth and Leviathan are taught as being dinosaurs in the book of Job.

I have a feeling though, you knew this already.

This should not have caught anyone by surprise --- we put our beliefs right up in the storefront window for the whole world to see.

And if you're truly a student, like your name implies, you would have known this already.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Let's see if you prefer to stay in shock or not.

Please answer these simple questions:

1. Do dinosaurs have a navel?
2. If one did, would that discredit evolution?
   
3. Have you ever heard that dinosaurs are mentioned in the book of Job; specifically Behemoth and Leviathan?

How you answer these are important, and I would really like to know what your answers are.

See, AV, what you've done there is construct a flawed "test".

Indeed if a dino had a navel it would call into question the classification of dinosaurs and our understanding of reptilian biology as it applies to dinosaurs. (Note: it would not necessarily discredit all of evolution. It would be a serious question to biology, however.)

But more importantly: you cannot prove that Leviathan and Behemoth are actual dinosaurs.

If you wish to take their descriptions as such then you must address every single mention of mythical beasts or hyperbolically described beasts in every single work of literature both fact and fiction and explain why they are not "dinosaurs".

I recommend you start with the Medieval Bestiary (LINK).

Tackle the GRIFFIN first or the DRAGON if you wish.

Now clearly because these were "recorded" we must assume that they were all literal and actual creatures that existed contemporarily with the authors and further that the authors could in no way have been mistaken.

Because people who put things on paper can never make errors.

But possilby most importantly of all: if behemoth is described to have a navel it is likely not a reptile, and based on the extensive amount we know about biology and dinosaurs based on their bones (and the fact that we find dinosaur eggs as a previous poster noted) indicates that the burden of proving behemoth to be a dinosaur is stacked against you. But it is still YOUR burden.

It would be as if I asked you to prove Jesus wasn't a tree-sloth. And when you pointed out descriptions of Jesus in the bible I then went on to claim that therefore all of biology is wrong because clearly if Jesus was a tree sloth he shouldn't look and talk and act like a human.

You don't need to stay in shock, you can Google around and readily see that Behemoth and Leviathan are taught as being dinosaurs in the book of Job.

Many things are "taught" about the Bible. But biology doesn't rely on literary devices from books parts of which are of unknown origin and authorship.

This should not have caught anyone by surprise --- we put our beliefs right up in the storefront window for the whole world to see.

Yes. But don't mistake "display" for "make a convincing point".

 

[Hawk007]

I'm starting to think the same of responses to the village idiot that I do when people watching a slasher flick they've seen 50 times already still yell at the characters not to go into a room where the killer is.



There goes my irony meter.

Actually, if you had any knowledge on the subject, you'd realize that Creationists citing supposed Ooparts make them look stupid. Why you ask? Because many of the ones they cite have been promoted by Michael Cremo who claims the Earth is billions of years old, and humans have been around all that time. So who is right? Creationists who claim dinosaurs walked with man 4,000 years ago or Michael Cremo who claims man walked with dinosaurs 10s of millions of years ago? The answer is both are wrong.

While dinosaurs died out at the end of the Cretaceous, it wouldn't effect evolution one bit if they were still alive 2000 years ago. What would effect evolution is if humans were alive 65,000,000 years ago. That being the case, if one is using Ooparts to counter evolution, Cremo actually has the "stonger" argument.

Finally, since you seem to think the images of dinosaurs represent something humans saw, would you similarly agree that humans encountered Nagas, Lamias, Satyrs, Centaurs, Shedu, Harpies, etc. etc.?

Hi,

I have responded to another post which basically answers yours as well......if you can show me the fossils found of Nagas, Lamias, etc I believe they truly existed, but the dinos on ancient artifacts is familiar to the dino fossils found in that same area..........

These artifacts are evidence that evolutionist do not always speak the truth, it is making a joke about the dating methods , they bargained on their millions and millions of years to make evolution possible. Adaptation to environment for survival will always be there, so small changes in animals are possible, for example weather and food source is probably the biggest reason for changes in an animal.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's see if you prefer to stay in shock or not.

Please answer these simple questions:

1. Do dinosaurs have a navel?
2. If one did, would that discredit evolution?
   
3. Have you ever heard that dinosaurs are mentioned in the book of Job; specifically Behemoth and Leviathan?

How you answer these are important, and I would really like to know what your answers are.

1. Don't know.
2. No. It would just mean that Dinos were placental mammals. This would turn the field of paleontology completely on its ear, but is not related to evolution.
3. I've heard it, but so what? Whether or not behemoth or leviathan were referring to dinosaurs is debatable.

 

[Ursie]

Why is it that those that support the theory of evolution always begin with the assertion that anyone who disagrees with them must be an uneducated moron? There is a great deal of research on the proof available for creation, without the inclusion of the biblical record. There are a multitude of PHds out there who are fully convinced, based on the scientific evidence of the fact that the universe is the result of intelligent design. Many of these are not even believers in the bible!

You spout 'facts' about evolution, though none of them prove macro evolution. No one argues that micro evolution happens. But there is literally NO proof of one species becoming the next. Furthermore, there is not a single viable or provable explantion for where everything came from in the first place, besides God. Many, many scientists have turned away from crazy theories such as the Big Bang because they have realized that such a scenario is insupportable. I am no scientist, but I can say that I've seen 'science' change dramatically over the course of my life and have realized that whatever they may say is 'proven' is up for grabs until the next guy 'disproves' it.

The Bible, however, keeps gaining more and more ground with archealogical discoveries mounting proof upon proof that it is historically accurate. You may wish to thumb your nose at creationist, that is your choice, but the God and Creator of the Universe will have the last word and you will bow the knee.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why is it that those that support the theory of evolution always begin with the assertion that anyone who disagrees with them must be an uneducated moron? There is a great deal of research on the proof available for creation, without the inclusion of the biblical record. There are a multitude of PHds out there who are fully convinced, based on the scientific evidence of the fact that the universe is the result of intelligent design. Many of these are not even believers in the bible!

You spout 'facts' about evolution, though none of them prove macro evolution. No one argues that micro evolution happens. But there is literally NO proof of one species becoming the next. Furthermore, there is not a single viable or provable explantion for where everything came from in the first place, besides God. Many, many scientists have turned away from crazy theories such as the Big Bang because they have realized that such a scenario is insupportable. I am no scientist, but I can say that I've seen 'science' change dramatically over the course of my life and have realized that whatever they may say is 'proven' is up for grabs until the next guy 'disproves' it.

The Bible, however, keeps gaining more and more ground with archealogical discoveries mounting proof upon proof that it is historically accurate. You may wish to thumb your nose at creationist, that is your choice, but the God and Creator of the Universe will have the last word and you will bow the knee.

This posts is so full of errors and misrepresentation that I dont even know where to start. I can only recommend that you study what evolution theory really says and what is proven and what is not proven.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is a great starting point.

 

[Ursie]

I disagree, but I'm sure that lumps me into the moron pile. I submit that the belief system (and yes, evolution requires far more faith that creation ever will) is what is full of errors.

As to your recommendation, I will respectfully decline. I see no point in studying the arguments for evolution which are created by biased evolutionists. At least the creationist honestly tell you that they are not objective. We proudly tell you that the basis for our belief is the bible. Evolutionists rant and rave about their objectivity but never once look at the situation from the creation perspective. I have been educated in this country and have had as much evolution learning as I care to receive. Thank you.

 

[Ursie]

Oh, and while we're making recommendations, feel free to visit the sites below for a different scientific point of view.

The Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics