Dinosaurs and Man

[98cwitr]

A whale? you may want to read it again, I haven't heard of any type of whale that his back has rows of shields, tightly sealed together, each so close to the next that no air can pass between, or the sparks of fire shoot out of his mouth, and smoke pours from his nostrils, it also appears that while this creatures home is the sea, he can traverse on land because his undersides are like jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud, and that he laughs at the rattling of the lance, which would mean he's not afraid of being attacked on land by a horse and rider.......not to many whales I've seen walking on land. I don't know how people post u-tube vids, if someone can tell me I will

You copy and paste the link in the post.

Honestly, I think that references to Leviathans are refences to Satan:
Job 3
8 May those who curse days[a] curse that day,
those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.
9 May its morning stars become dark;
may it wait for daylight in vain
and not see the first rays of dawn,
10 for it did not shut the doors of the womb on me
to hide trouble from my eyes.

Isaiah 27:1
[ Deliverance of Israel ] In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword— his fierce, great and powerful sword— Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.

biology - Leviathan

Maybe we've got a Leviathan in Loch Ness

 

[Hupomone10]

I have not read about this issue before. But do you know if it's a constant increase? Because we know the amount of liquid water on earth has increased and decreased many times throughout the earths history. Decreasing would naturally make the oceans more salty (simple science)

So do you know that it's a constant increase in salt that has been going on for 4.6 billion years? and if you know that, how do you know it?

You are confusing me with this apparent misunderstanding of the earth as a closed system. The amount of water on earth hasn't increased and decreased; it has nowhere to go. The earth is a contained system. It only evaporates, condenses, and freezes.

When water freezes, salt freezes with it, the salt doesn't come out of the ice and concentrate in the liquid water. When water evaporates, salt stays in the liquid, but the vapor comes back down.

The only way for salt to be increasing due to vaporization would be if the vapor coming down was being frozen, and then the polar ice caps would be increasing constantly. I think we both know that isn't happening.

You bring up an interesting point in suggesting that no one knows whether salt has been increasing during the entire time the earth has been here. We don't. It is increasing now, by samples taken now short time periods apart. If it is increasing during short periods, it is simple science that it must also increase over long periods. Ocean salt only increases by being washed out of land masses into the oceans. That is what I was referring to. It doesn't increase by water evaporating because, like I said, earth is a closed system. Therefore, it can only be increasing because there has not been enough time elapsed for equilibrium to have been reached. This is simple science, and simple math.

We know for a fact that the earth is around 4.5-4.6 billion years old due to radioactive decay. We know that dinosaurs lived about 65 million years ago due to radiometric dating.

These things are not debatable. It's facts.

I said your above point is an interesting point, because just as no one was around millions of years ago to measure the salt content, in the same way no one was around to measure radioactive decay rate millions of years ago either. I understand where you're coming from, but I cannot accept it as a fact, but mere opinion that the earth is billions of years old for the same reason you reject or doubt the evidence I gave concerning the salt content increasing. Your first response was to propose a theory that could explain it away, but it uses the very thing that can explain away the other theory you take as fact - isotope decay. We only know the rate it decays today, not in the past.

Likewise, it is not a fact that dinosaurs are millions of years old. We merely know that we have dinosaur fossils which prove they existed. Theorizing when they existed is exactly that - a theory, not a fact.

Science does not have faith

When science proposes a philosophy of life evolving from nothing, they now have faith. Faith in the belief that life came from nothing. Remember, they weren't there to observe, using your previous reasoning. For science to be true science and not operate by faith, they would have to have no beliefs in origins, and merely investigate all theories with equal objectivity. Is that what you observe the scientific community doing?

But you have to understand that all fossils are really transitional fossils. You and me right now are a part of a transition. It's not like evolution starts and stops at different species. It's one long process that just keeps going on and on.

I'm condensing your response because your entire argument is trying to avoid the question. First, by attempting to redefine transitional forms, and later by not providing what I asked - examples of them. This is exactly what wikipedia does, the last source someone sent me to when I asked this question; and don't feel bad, he couldn't offer any examples of transitional fossils either, and a brilliant person also (not that you aren't also ). Wikipedia merely redefined transitional form, and then tried to show how there were examples under their new definition, just as you are doing. We both know this is because there are no transitional form fossils, therefore the definition has to be changed.

So, let me be clear what I am asking for so we don't get caught in the semantics of the term "transitional form."

What I am not asking for: fossils with completely formed and functional appendages (I think I made this clear before), some more simple, some more complex.

What I am asking for: fossils of animals with partially-evolved features.

Fossils of animals with partially-evolved feathers rather than fully formed ones. If the feather evolved as evolutionary theory says, then this process took millions of years, millions of transitional generations, and there should be a smattering of fossils showing these transitional stages.

Fossils of the formation of the shaft of the feather, before the actual feather began to develop. Then shafts with the first mutations of feather.

Fossils of sea creatures with partly formed fins, and nubs before that, since evolution doesn't presuppose the sudden occurrence of fully formed appendages.

Fossils of the first formation of eye sockets, moving toward the future animal that would have a fully formed eye. Fossils with any in-between stages of eye development at all. Please show me some of these to support your faith in this belief.

And upon the failure to do this, please explain why you would believe this, and why you believe that even if these mutations could start - a partially formed nub, the start of a limb - why you would believe that life would favor that nub such that it would be passed on to succeeding generations?

And when you think about this, realize that it doesn't take one offspring having this in order for it to be favored by the species to accept it and pass it on. Even one fossil would be nice, but it doesn't take one offspring to accomplish this. It takes multiple, thousands, millions of offspring having that same mutation and no different mutation and passing it on to their offspring, in order for it to be favored as a common trait. And you can believe this? You have greater faith than I do, my friend.

Please stop hem-hawing and provide the examples, or honestly admit that there are none.

If you believe all humans are sinner from birth, and that you are depraved, then in my eyes it sure is sad.

It is sad, and it is accurate. It is helpful if it explains things and helps people understand life and understand themselves. The truth that the Reactor #4 Fuel Pool in Japan is out of water is sad. Indeed, it is sad. But it doesn’t help for me to try to convince myself that it’s actually full, or that no one can know the water level, so why worry about it.

We shouldn't make the assumption that it's God just because we don't know. But that's just my opinion and i don't wanna offend anyone

To the objective non-believer, it is not an assumption, it is an admitted theory. It is admitted that life might have happened by a Designer or Creator, just as it is a theory, howbeit with less support, that it all happened by chance without any design at all.

After the non-believer allows that little bit of objectivity into his thinking, the Designer can use that. He begins to reveal Himself to the objective person who is finally willing to face the truth. And in the light of that revelation, the person begins to see his own sinfulness and failure to live up to the perfect holy standard of the Designer, God.

It is then that God, because He is love, comes to the rescue of the helpess creation. He shows him that He, God, has already done all that is needed to provide for his complete forgiveness and freedom from sin - in His Son and the complete work of His Son on the Cross.

In the face of such love and such a complete salvation, the objective former skeptic and scoffer now embraces Jesus the savior with loving faith, and God declares him completely not guilty, justified, and his sins covered. He even provides for his release from the power those sins had over him by the work of the Cross, such that by living life by faith he may find continuing and continual freedom from the sins that formerly plagued and even addicted him.

The result is a peace that truly passes all understanding.

That is what the Christian life is all about. I cannot understand why anyone who understands the gospel and the loving God who accomplished it would not immediately reach out and embrace it.

But that's just me. It happens every day. Some will see, many won't.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

What do you mean by "partially evolved"?
some of the best examples to have been found in recent years are various fossils that show characteristics of both dinosaurs (scales, teeth, claws on all 4 appendages) and birds (beaks and feathers)

Someone help me out here. My linguistic skills are obviously lacking. I've tried to explain this multiple times, and he cannot understand that I am asking for the fossil evidence for the evolution of these features he just listed above; some evidence that they didn't just show up one day fully formed in an animal that is supposedly evolving.

Dark one,
Put on your thinking cap for just a moment; you don't even have to tell anyone here you did so. The examples you used are of animals with fully formed scales, fully developed teeth, fully complete claws, fully developed beaks, fully developed feathers.

It's easy to look at creatures that have some fully-formed features of another species and come to the conclusion that they evolved from a common ancestor or from one another. It's another thing to provide the evidence that these features themselves indeed evolved.

I am asking you to provide more than faith in a "hypothesis". I'm asking you (again) for the fossil evidence of these scales, teeth, claws, beaks, feathers, as they evolved.

If you cannot do so, it is evidence that they were always fully formed, and it is evidence against their evolution from non-existence to fully-formed completion.

Yeah okay. You are right. Every scientist on this earth are just lying when they say Evolution is real. Even all the Christian scientists. They are all lying. Even the Pope are lying when he says evolution is no longer just a theory. He's lying... Happy now?

No, IMHO they are deceived. There is a big difference in intent between lying and being deceived. You are degenerating into exaggeration. It is becoming increasingly obvious that I cannot have a serious and sincere conversation with you about this. Your emotions are too much involved.

Let's for the sake of argument say that there actually is a God. What makes you think that god is actually the god of the bible?

I'll settle for that first part right now, the entertaining of the possibility that there is a God. That's good enough to think on for a while. We can discuss the rest later if you're still interested.

Also any chance you could make your responses more efficient and make them shorter? If not, every post will take up a full page

This is what I'm talking about with the emotions. You should ask yourself why my responses are causing you to resort to criticism and sarcasm rather than just simply providing what I have asked for at least 3 or 4 times now or simply being honest and admitting that there aren't any.

It's time to put up or shut up. Show the evidence, or admit that you have faith in a philosophy/hypothesis with gaping holes in it, that you intend to believe anyway.

"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."
- Jesus Christ, John 6:45

H.

 

[Hupomone10]

listen. I know exactly what you are asking about,

I think you probably do, and realize that you are against the wall having no real evidence to support it and must either change the subject or redefine what I am asking you for.

but the question indicates you don't understand evolution.

No. It indicates that you either do not understand the question or are avoiding it. I probably understood evolution before you were even born, based on the arguments I'm hearing from you. Not a judgment, just an observation.

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two.

No, that is what you have been led to believe that it means so that the lack of transitional fossils can be explained away. Remember, scientists and teachers fully committed to the philosophy of evolution have a vested interest in explaining the missing fossils.

Aside from that, your definition of a transitional fossil has never been what I have been asking you to produce evidence of. I am fully aware that there are photos of humans, monkeys, platypus, drawings of archeopteryx.

It's funny how the people who actually know what they are talking about accept evolution.

It's also funny how people write long explanations to explain away their inability to answer a question or show adequate evidence of what they asserted previously.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

Nobody on the Baptist forum cares what the Pope says; why do you? You keep bringing him up.

And stop using dirty tricks such as calling me emotional, because I am not. Lean up at the things you say, rather then slander

See what I mean about the emotion?

I'm talking for the sake of argument. Are you saying I can't ask you how you go from believing there is a god to believing the God of the bible is true, simply because I do not actually believe in God?

I consider it off-topic for this thread. It is a topic in itself. I remember all too well how as a skeptic I used to go from topic to topic when challenging religious people. When I ran into a wall on one point, I merely changed the subject and went from topic to topic.

I'm sorry, but that's bull

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm content to allow the readers to decide. Let them see that your continual attempts at avoiding the issue and inability to show evidence of evolution of these features and appendages should throw doubt in their minds as to whether they ever in fact did evolve, or rather, as the evidence (and lack of evidence) supports, were created fully formed and fully functional.

After making a comment about my page long posts, you have written another long dissertation that amounts to nothing more than avoiding the fact that you cannot show any examples to answer my question, evidence which should be abundant if it is a "fact" as you assert. That is good enough for me.

I actually have followed this for many years and knew before I asked you that there was no evidence in this particular area. The discovery of this was one of the things that began to help raise the curtain of evolutionary blindness from my own eyes. I am glad for your sake that we are here where we are, so that you may see that you indeed cannot show the evidence, even if it means you get a little emotional about it.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

YouTube - Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils)

There ya go. Can i help you with anything else kind sir?

Thank you for going to Answers In Genesis and at least looking.

Just in case in your haste you failed to read it: here is the article that went with the above picture you got from their site:

"Almost every secular biology textbook today includes a section on vestigial structures—structures that are supposed remnants from ancestors that have lost their original function or capacity. This teaching is based on an assumption that is then passed off as science, an assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. But using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals only with things that are observable in the present.

The figure on the left shows the supposed vestigial pelvis of a whale. Even though it has a clear reproductive function, evolutionists call it a left-over from a time when whales walked on land. The caption under the figure says that the pelvic bones “show structural change over time.” A bone itself cannot show structural change—that change must be inferred from the assumed ancestors and assumed ancestral function. This is a textbook example of assumption passing as fact."

Vestigial Structures - Answers in Genesis

 

[Hupomone10]

YouTube - Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/whale-vestigial-structure.jpg

There ya go. Can i help you with anything else kind sir?

Yes the bones there are a mystery. That is good, as far as evidence of the possibility that it is left over from evolution.

If that is the best you have, and you are willing to anchor your faith in evolution entirely on such evidence as this, that is ok - for you. But one fossil with bones inside that can't be accounted for is not sufficient evidence to call a hypothesis a fact and anchor one's faith unless there is a strong need to believe that. Evolutionists need to believe this, and so they do.

But, again, you have failed to provide even one fossil with partially formed limbs. I may be getting old, but my eyes can detect on this creature in the graphic fully formed eyes, fully formed fins, fully formed teeth, as a matter of fact, everything in this creature is fully formed, and in addition it has this one thing that we don't know why it's there so we assume one hypothesis is the reason for it and call the hypothesis a fact.

I see it differently. If it were evolution, then evolution would have gotten rid of this set of useless bones millions of years ago. But that's neither here nor there.

Thank you for the effort you have placed into looking hard into finding evidence that if the creatures evolved then their features evolved and trying to find fossils to support that.

You as a true evolution-believer have seriously tried and tried in vain to find them. Thank you, for in your failure to do so this reinforces my opinion that not only does it not make sense that unintelligent nature would favor such a thing, there is no evidence that it did.

Evolutionists need to believe this, and so they do, with whatever scant evidence they can find. Once again, to my shame, I realize that the evolutionist atheist has more faith in what he believes than I do, and with much less evidence.

"Then He (Jesus) said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
(John 20:27-29)

 

[Hupomone10]

IS EVOLUTION SCIENTIFICALLY DERIVED?

1. Scientific hypotheses are based upon observed phenomena.

2. Evolution explains the origin of life.

3. Life has not been observed spontaneously arising.

4. Therefore, evolution is not a scientifically derived hypothesis.


IS EVOLUTION PHILOSOPHY?

1. Naturalistic philosophy explains the existence of all things in terms of natural phenomena and chance occurrences.

2. Therefore, life must exist as a result of natural processes and chance occurrences - evolution.

- "The Creation - Evolution Controversy", R. L. Wysong


The person who believes in macro-evolution believes a philosophy. Because of their faith in that philosophy, they are therefore persons of faith even though they may criticize others of a different faith.

The only agnostic or atheist who can claim NOT to be driven by faith is the one who espouses neither evolution nor creation, but equally considers both.

H.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Yes, of course there were dinosaurs, saber-toothed cats, and giant sloths aboard the Ark, and an Allosaurus fragilis ate Noah, a saber-toothed cat ate Noah’s wife, and a giant sloth tore to pieces the rest of Noah’s family. Humanity was annihilated and we exist only in our imaginations. On the other hand, perhaps a spaceship came to the earth and dropped off another family and we are all the descendants of that family from outer space.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'm not sure what you are looking for but ICR and Answers In Genesis have well educated scientists on staff and froma all various fields of science. I would start there.

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has a lengthy history of falsifying the facts regarding the “scientists” on their staff and the facts about the approximately 65 other “scientists” who have earned a Ph.D. and who believe in young-earth creationism. Moreover, the ICR believes that we should all believe these 65 or so “scientists” instead of the several million scientists around the world who have earned a Ph.D. and who disagree based upon extremely massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the ICR fails to tell the public that every one of those “scientists” who believe in young-earth creationism do so for religious reasons and, because of their religious beliefs, they interpret their data to make it lineup with their religious views rather than interpret it objectively. Furthermore, they consistently fail to inform the public that the very large majority of today’s scholars of Genesis believe, based upon 200 years of literary studies, that Genesis 1-11 belongs to a genre of literature other than the historical narrative, and that to interpret it as an historical narrative is to make shipwreck of sound hermeneutics. In other words, the ICR has consistently ignored the Biblical teaching that Christians are to tell the truth rather than misrepresent the facts.

The folks at Answers in Genesis habitually talk from both sides of their mouth; on the one side assailing the theory of evolution as though it is a doctrine of the devil himself, and on the other side strenuously arguing for the theory of evolution (not just microevolution—but macroevolution on a grand scale) in order to account for the two million genetically discreet populations of animals now on the earth, and the tens of thousands of genetically discreet populations of animals on the earth after the flood but now extinct. Moreover, they do this knowing that such a rapid rate of evolution is genetically impossible.

Should Christians seek to learn about evolutionary biology from organizations whose purpose is to defend their archaic interpretation of Genesis 1-11, or should a Christian seek to learn about evolutionary biology from evolutionary biologists who are internationally known for their academic excellence in their field?

 

[realtruth101]

I completely agree with princetonguy. And for the record I do think evolution and religion can co-exist. Lots of people believe evolution is a part of gods plan

Yes it can! just as some churches have homosexual pastors, and no longer use the bible as the guide for their faith.....It can be done! but its far from being true

 

[Hupomone10]

It's not a anyone fault if he or she is born homosexual though. It's all a part of gods plan

Actually, if evolution were the true mechanism by which things came about, the homosexual would have been naturally selected out long ago, as one who cannot reproduce themselves.

It is one of the clearest examples of the fallacy of this philosophy.

Those who by their very "nature" don't reproduce themselves would have been eliminated.

I'm sorry you are getting upset, and I'm sorry you view me as a narrow-minded person; but I am only trying to help you in your quest to determine what makes us tick. I think it's important to show you that it's not just blind faith in a God we cannot see, but that faith is based on evidence and revealed facts, and that you yourself are a man of faith and trust in things that others consider blindly accepting things that cannot be proven and even contradict.

We have been on evolution because that's the nature of this particular thread. Many disagree with my position, such as Princeton Guy. But please look beyond this issue of evolution, and look for instance at some of the things PrincetonGuy and I believe in common.

I think you would like corresponding back and forth with him. He is a very intelligent man and perhaps one of the most researched, studied, and educated ones on here. Ask him some other questions. I think he will respond back. I think I've taken you as far as I can on this issue, regarding my perspective toward it anyway. Maybe others can help.

Blessings,
H.

 

[new_wine]

I know from the time I was a little boy I was born heterosexual. I never made a choice.

Girls were pretty, they had sweet voices and they made me happy to be around.

I had no choice.

I would think that's how it was with most heterosexuals. I've never heard a discussion once of some straight people thinking, boy I would like to try some of that gay sex stuff.

Or maybe I don't hang out with the right folk?

 

[ddrgkd]

Homosexuality is just a sin and a person is born into sin. It's just wrong, there’s no excuse for it.

 

[new_wine]

Adultery and sex outside of marriage is a sin too,

But I don't see too many Christian folks talking about that half as much as being gay.

But then I don't see many people up in arms about divorce for reasons other than adultery and remarriage while their spouses are still alive.

Both are sins too.

But those gays, their sin is worse right?

No. It is all sin.

Homosexuality is just a sin and a person is born into sin. It's just wrong, there’s no excuse for it.

 

[ddrgkd]

Adultery and sex outside of marriage is a sin too,

But I don't see too many Christian folks talking about that half as much as being gay.

But then I don't see many people up in arms about divorce for reasons other than adultery and remarriage while their spouses are still alive.

Both are sins too.

But those gays, their sin is worse right?

No. It is all sin.

Your right it's all sin. my point exactly. one sin to God is just as bad as another.

 

[ddrgkd]

It's not wrong. God created homosexuality. How else did it get created? God created everything right? even if it was created by man, it would still indirectly be him that created it as he created the human brain

God created homosexuality is like saying God created stealing or lying. What God did do is give us a choice to do right or wrong.

 

[the particular baptist]

Well who created homosexuality, stealing or and lying?

Man by nature is spiritually dead, depraved, and capable of unspeakable things. If you have a copy of Holy Scripture i recommend Romans chapter 1, followed by the rest of the book.

 

[realtruth101]

It's not a anyone fault if he or she is born homosexual though. It's all a part of gods plan

having been gay I can assure you, it is a very strong deception, and most never make it out of this strong delusion, but I have and it is very much like an anorexic, her mind tells her she's fat, her eyes tell her she's fat, every fiber of her body is in on the deception, her best friends can tell her, your skin on bones, eat something! and she will not believe them. The same is true with homosexuality, your mind tells you lies, your eyes tell you lies, every fiber in your body is in on the deception, and nomatter who tells you that it can all be changed, you refuse to believe them. I have made the trip and looking back I can hardly believe how deceived I had been. I don't even desire the things I used to, I am a new creation in Christ, and I really feel sorry for those who can't see the truth.....Its satans most powerful deception, because it feels like its a part of you, it feels like thats who you are, and to think that it would be possible to be completely changed seems impossible. But it isn't

 

[new_wine]

Well if I didn't choose to be heterosexual how did I become one?

I never said one day, I'm going to like girls. Never once. I just did. It was part of who I was. There was no thought should I like that boy more than that girl. They had me from the get go.

So if I didn't choose how did it happen?

God created homosexuality is like saying God created stealing or lying. What God did do is give us a choice to do right or wrong.

 

[ddrgkd]

I have read it. But god created everything in this world right? He have created a mind that was able to commit these actions. ontop of that, he's omnipotent. He knows the future and the past. So he would have forseen this issue when he first created man right?

God did create everything, it appears that your trying to say God created evil but He didn't. It's not a Creation it's a way of doing thing's, It's a choice. Have you asked Christ for Salvation?