Dinosaurs - Not extinct?

[Kookaburra]

I saw a documentary on that, a while back...maybe 3, 4 months? Very interesting...some details were innacurate, but interesting.
Do most evolutionists contradict themselves or is it only the ones on tv?

 

[MSBS]

Contradict themselves in what way? Kind of hard to answer the question when you aren't specific.

 

[Kookaburra]

Oh, just the dates + time periods.
I think the narrator was one messed up dude...he looked like he hadn't slept for a week and was on heavy medication....
Firstly, he started off with a broad pan of the Grand Canyon, then of someplace near Mt. St. Helens, and he showed the layers of the former compared to the latter, and said how one took millions of years and the other only took a couple hours....
It all really confoozled me.

 

[Chris H]

Kookaburra, your using an ad hominim attack, which is Latin for "attacking the man." Your talking about one narrator on one program that you didn't understand and juding all people, Christian and non-Christian who believe in evolution in the same light.

It would help if you read a few books and got a basic knowledge of what evolution is before you decide to critique it.

Where would you like to start on dates and time periods? What specific questions do you have?

Chris

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Kookaburra
Oh, just the dates + time periods.
I think the narrator was one messed up dude...he looked like he hadn't slept for a week and was on heavy medication....
Firstly, he started off with a broad pan of the Grand Canyon, then of someplace near Mt. St. Helens, and he showed the layers of the former compared to the latter, and said how one took millions of years and the other only took a couple hours....
It all really confoozled me.

 

Hmmm....are you sure that wasn't a creationist video?  The geological strata vs. depositation at Mt. St. Helens is usually used to try and disprove some aspects of dating done by geologists.  Your confusion might lie in a misunderstanding about the intent of the video.

 

[Kookaburra]

No, it was quite evolutionist. I don't think it was theistic evolutionist either, because they had some pretty anti-christianity barbs thrown in there.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Kookaburra
No, it was quite evolutionist. I don't think it was theistic evolutionist either, because they had some pretty anti-christianity barbs thrown in there.

So what specific questions do you have about evolution??

Or creation for that matter.

Chris

 

[Kookaburra]

I have virtually no questions on either; as I would prefer to read it from a more reliable ( as in, they're a little more consistant ) source, ie a history book, science book, etc...that presents both the Creationist and Evolutionist view.

Oh, also...I suggest you evolutionists read Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, + Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael Behe...if you're interested. I think the second is more for those who are ULTRA, ultra scientific, etc.

 

[Chris H]

Michal Behe accepts the idea of common descent. He accepts that man evolved from an apelike/homminid ancestor. Michael Behe accepts that all life on earth started about three and a half billion years ago.

There is a great deal in his book to like and enjoy.

Have you read his book, Kooabura? He is a devout roman catholic Christian who loves God very much from what I understand.

Let me know when you get finished with his writings and we can debate a few fine points he may have gotten wrong.

In Christ our Savior

Christopher

 

[Chris H]

I've also read Darwin on Trial. It was one of the pivotal works in my acceptance of thiestic evolution.

In Christ Jesus our Lord

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Theres also a Talk.Design website that is a companion site to Talk.Origins which has some interesting stuff on Behe.

In Christ Jesus, raised from the dead on the third day

Christopher

 

[Chris H]

Also, Johnson was quite sharply criticized by the faculty of Calvin College (a christian college here in the U.S. in Michigan) about some of his scientific errors he made there during a debate with Niles Elderidge.

In Christ, The only begotton son of God

Christopher

 

[Chris H]

Speaking of Niles Elderidge, if it's available in Austrailia you might want to try reading "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism."

It might help you frame the different ideas in the evolution/creation debate a little bit more clearly.

In Christ, Who sent the Holy Spirit From Heaven

Christopher

 

[Chris H]

One of the things that helped me was also meeting real Christians who believed in evolution and remained real Christians. I don't thin accepting common Descent and evolutionary biology means that you have to give up your faith.

With the love of Jesus

Christopher

 

[Dorothyne]

Well I have read all of your information here and I just had to laugh. Really, the person that is reading the evolution propoganda can u find any scientist to agree with it at all. Don't u think it is interesting that all the people that suppy so called proof of this are never the people that study that field? There is a reason why any scientist that studies and field will never say that the proof is in his field. The reason is because it is not.

 

[MSBS]

Kookaburra, those two people and their books are well known by "evolutionists" (whatever that means) and their arguments have been pretty well refuted-- check here for some in depth analysis of their arguments:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html

on another track, I would suggest the book Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.  Dr. Miller is a christian that is also a biology professor.  It has an excellent overview of the theory of evolution and then goes on to discuss it from a christian perspective.  It's an excellent book.

 

[Chris H]

I'm sure that Niles Elderidge, who I belive is the curator of the American Museum of natural history and a distinguised Paleontologist will be quite suprised to find that the evidence for evolution is not in his field.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Dorothyne
. Don't u think it is interesting that all the people that suppy so called proof of this are never the people that study that field? . The reason is because it is not.

Why then do 99.9% of Geologists belive in an old earth?

Why then do 99.9% of Biologists accept some form of evolution?

Why are the people who actually study the evidence, getting their hands dirty in the field, the ones who actually believe it?

Christopher

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Corey
Dinosaurs are alive and well...we just call them birds.

Dinosaurs are alive and well. I just call them people who still believe in evolution.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by npetreley
Dinosaurs are alive and well. I just call them people who still believe in evolution.

Ah, yes! The sarcastic ad hominum in place of evidence or rational thought.

I truely wish we had a few die hard thinking YEC's here. I really do. It would make things SOOO much more interesting.

Chris