Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[Schroeder]

Archaeopteryx is the earliest and most 'primative' uncovered avian, and has many saurian characteristics, not least of which is a bony tail, three-clawed wings, and a toothed beak. I'd like to point out that I do not go against the scientific consensus when I say that the Archaeopteryx fossils are not birds in the modern sense.
From Wikipedia:
[/color][/color]The Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, with features clearly intermediate between those of modern reptiles and birds.
From Talk Origins:
[Archaeopteryx] retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition.

I'll grant that Archaeopteryx is technically a bird simply because it has feathers. But it is nevertheless still a transitional species.
Question: do you deny that birds evolved from dinosaurs (or, technically, are dinosaurs)?

they did not. for one most went exstinct from asteriod or whatever, which would kill off any birds if they were around. to say this impact killed off 99.8 percent of life and say we have what we have seems strange. everything would evolve completly different but the fossils dont show this. and there are birds that date before the supposed transitional of this one. is there proof that trees and plants grew or repopulated without birds help. just seems to me they paint a VERY vague picture of life in this time so we do not see a lot of potential problems. Or did the trees and plants adapt to the new species of birds. not sure how this was done. Or why it was doen seesm to make them weaker to depend on another organism to survive instead of just staying the way they were and not needing them.

 

[c'mon sense]

to say this impact killed off 99.8 percent of life and say we have what we have seems strange. everything would evolve completly different but the fossils dont show this.

No, it's not strange at all. If you're talking about the Cretaceous extinction event, then 99.8% is an exageration. Also, the extinction was not instantaneous and though it brought about the end of the dinosaurs, it helped other species diversify, most notably mammalian species, which were quick to fill the vacancies created by the dinosaur's demise - so much so that many of the dinosaur body-forms have their mammalian versions (due to convergent evolution).

 

[Handmaided]

A motto can be either true or untrue. The Bible says the Earth stands still and the sun moves. Thusly, your motto would be one of untruth.

<H4 style="MARGIN: auto 0in">Beast you have taken scripture out of context. "Earth stands still and the sun moves" Please read the entire scripture below where you pulled your misinformation from, it was a supernatural event that God carried out. No where in the Bible does it says that the earth stands still and the sun moves around it.



Joshua 10

1WHEN ADONI-ZEDEK king of Jerusalem heard how Joshua had taken Ai and had utterly destroyed it, doing to Jericho and its king as he had done to Ai and its king, and how the residents of Gibeon had made peace with Israel and were among them,
2He feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, like one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were mighty.
3So Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem sent to Hoham king of Hebron, to Piram king of Jarmuth, to Japhia king of Lachish, and to Debir king of Eglon, saying,
4Come up to me and help me, and let us smite Gibeon, for it has made peace with Joshua and with the Israelites.
5Then the five kings of the Amorites--the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon--gathered their forces and went up with all their armies and encamped before Gibeon to fight against it.
6And the men of Gibeon sent to Joshua at the camp in Gilgal, saying, Do not relax your hand from your servants; come up to us quickly and save us and help us, for all the kings of the Amorites who dwell in the hill country are gathered against us.
7So Joshua went up from Gilgal, he and all the warriors with him and all the mighty men of valor.
8And the Lord said to Joshua, Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hand; there shall not a man of them stand before you.
9So Joshua came upon them suddenly, having gone up from Gilgal all night.
10And the Lord caused [the enemies] to panic before Israel, who slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon and chased them along the way that goes up to Beth-horon and smote them as far as Azekah and Makkedah.
11As they fled before Israel, while they were descending [the pass] to Beth-horon, the Lord cast great stones from the heavens on them as far as Azekah, killing them. More died because of the hailstones than the Israelites slew with the sword.
12Then Joshua spoke to the Lord on the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, be silent and stand still at Gibeon, and you, moon, in the Valley of Ajalon!
13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance upon their enemies. Is not this written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heavens and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
14There was no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man. For the Lord fought for Israel.
15Then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.
16Those five kings fled and hid themselves in the cave of Makkedah.
17And it was told Joshua, The five kings are hidden in the cave at Makkedah.
18Joshua said, Roll great stones to the cave's mouth, and set men to guard them.
19But do not stay. Pursue your enemies and fall upon their rear; do not allow them to enter their cities, for the Lord your God has given them into your hand.
20When Joshua and the Israelites had ended slaying them until they were wiped out and the remnant remaining of them had entered into fortified cities,
21All the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace; none moved his tongue against any of the Israelites.
22Then said Joshua, Open the mouth of the cave and bring out those five kings to me from the cave.
23They brought the five kings out of the cave to him--the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon.
24When they brought out those kings to Joshua, [he] called for all the Israelites and told the commanders of the men of war who went with him, Come, put your feet on the necks of these kings. And they came and put their feet on the [kings'] necks.
25Joshua said to them, Fear not nor be dismayed; be strong and of good courage. For thus shall the Lord do to all your enemies against whom you fight.
26Afterward Joshua smote and slew them and hanged their bodies on five trees, and they hung on the trees until evening.
27At sunset Joshua ordered and they took the bodies down from the trees and cast them into the cave where the kings had hidden and laid great stones on the cave's mouth, which remain to this very day.
28Joshua took Makkedah that day and smote it and its king with the sword and utterly destroyed everyone in it. He left none remaining. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.(A)
29Then Joshua and all Israel went from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked Libnah.
30And the Lord gave it also and its king into Israel's hands, and Joshua smote it with the sword, and all the people in it. He left none remaining in it. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.
31And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish and encamped against it and attacked it.
32And the Lord delivered Lachish into the hands of Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day and smote it with the sword, and all the people in it, as he had done to Libnah.
33Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish, and Joshua smote him and his people--until he had left none remaining.
34From Lachish Joshua and all Israel went on to Eglon, laid siege to it, and attacked it.
35And they took it that day and smote it with the sword and utterly destroyed all who were in it that day, as he had done to Lachish.
36Then Joshua with all Israel went up from Eglon to Hebron, and they attacked it
37And took it and smote it with the sword, and its king and all its towns and everyone in it. He left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it and all its people.
38And Joshua and all Israel with him returned to Debir and attacked it.
39And he took it, with its king and all its towns, and they smote them with the sword and utterly destroyed everyone in it. He left none remaining. As he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and its king.
40So Joshua smote all the land, the hill country, the South, the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the [a]Lord, the God of Israel, commanded.(B)
41And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even to Gaza, and all the country of Goshen even to Gibeon.
42Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.
43And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.

Footnotes:

1. Joshua 10:40 As the presence of "the Prince of the Lord's host" (Josh. 5:13-15) indicates, the Lord will take part in this conflict not as an ally or an adversary but as Commander In Chief. It is not Israel's quarrel, in which they are to ask divine assistance. It is the Lord's own quarrel, and Israel and Joshua are but a division in His host. The wars of Israel in Canaan are always presented by the Old Testament as "the wars of the Lord." The conquest of Canaan is too often treated as an enterprise of the Israelites, carried out with great cruelties, for which they claimed divine sanction. The Old Testament presents the matter in an entirely different light. The Lord fights for His own right hand, and Israel is but a fragment of His army. "The sun stood still"(Josh. 10:13), the stars in their courses fought against His foes (Judg. 5:20) (Charles Ellicott, A Bible Commentary).

</H4>

 

[Dannager]

Beast you have taken scripture out of context. "Earth stands still and the sun moves"Please read the entire scripture below where you pulled your misinformation from, it was a supernatural event that God carried out.No where in the Bible does it says that the earth stands still and the sun moves around it.

Congratulations, you have missed the point! The passage you highlighted isn't about the earth standing still and the sun moving, Hadnmaided, it's about the sun standing still and the earth moving. Read the passage that you italicized below, Handmaided. Read it. Now read it agian. And again. Can you see how this passage emphasizes an exception to the normal course of events, an exception that notes that for this short period of time the sun stood still, as though the sun normally moves about the earth? Here, I'll post it again, and bold my own little section, one that speaks volumes.

13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance upon their enemies. Is not this written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heavens and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14There was no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man. For the Lord fought for Israel.

 

[c'mon sense]

Can you see how this passage emphasizes an exception to the normal course of events, an exception that notes that for this short period of time the sun stood still, as though the sun normally moves about the earth?

that doesn't prove anything. Colloquially people even today refer to the sun as moving, even if (virtually) everybody knows it ain't so. That is not to say the Bible is right or wrong, it's simply not a science book and shouldn't be treated as such. Trying to prove the Bible right or wrong in such matters is equally counter-productive and it just makes people who attempt it look ridiculous.

 

[Loudmouth]

that doesn't prove anything. Colloquially people even today refer to the sun as moving, even if (virtually) everybody knows it ain't so. That is not to say the Bible is right or wrong, it's simply not a science book and shouldn't be treated as such. Trying to prove the Bible right or wrong in such matters is equally counter-productive and it just makes people who attempt it look ridiculous.

To be even fairer, this was not how the founding father of Protestantism viewed it. Upon being asked about geocentrism and Copernicus, Martin Luther had this to say:

"So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."
​

Joshua asked God to stop the Sun, not the Earth. They literally interpretted the Bible as saying that the Earth moved about the Earth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

they did not.

They did not what?

for one most went exstinct from asteriod or whatever, which would kill off any birds if they were around.

The asteroid lowered the Earth's temperature and killed off large, terrestrial, cold-blooded animals, since they were the ones most deterimentally affected by the climate change. Besides, a global extinction, â la the Biblical flood, would kill of all life, even aquatic life. Microscopic organisms may, nay will, survive, but macroscopic organisms would die out.
So my point is: the asteroid changed the Earth's climate in such a way as to cause the mass extinction of the theropod dinosaurs (save for the Aves), but not as devastating as you claim.

to say this impact killed off 99.8 percent of life and say we have what we have seems strange.

Indeed. That is why noone says this.

everything would evolve completly different but the fossils dont show this.

Surely this is evidence against the Biblical flood?

and there are birds that date before the supposed transitional of this one.

Unjustified assertion. The Archaeopteryx is the olderst known Avian.
This and this.

is there proof that trees and plants grew or repopulated without birds help.

Yes. Plant life is rarely, if ever, totally dependant on birds for reproduction.

just seems to me they paint a VERY vague picture of life in this time so we do not see a lot of potential problems.

Whereas your Bible is chock full of detail.

Or did the trees and plants adapt to the new species of birds.

Some did. Most remain as they were. Note that birds are very much adapted to trees and other high plant-life, not the other way around. You mustn't put the cart before the horse, mon ami.

not sure how this was done.

The phenomenon is called Evolution. You might want to read up on it before you post in a Crevo forum.

Or why it was doen seesm to make them weaker to depend on another organism to survive instead of just staying the way they were and not needing them.

That sentence makes so little grammatical sense I actually cannot read it. Please rephrase.
And learn to spell.

Colloquially people even today refer to the sun as moving, even if (virtually) everybody knows it ain't so.

Actually, the Sun is hurtling through the universe, relative to the center of gravity of the Virgo Cluster (or another large cosmic structure)

 

[c'mon sense]

To be even fairer, this was not how the founding father of Protestantism viewed it. Upon being asked about geocentrism and Copernicus, Martin Luther had this to say:

"So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."​

Joshua asked God to stop the Sun, not the Earth. They literally interpretted the Bible as saying that the Earth moved about the Earth.

This, this is brilliant in making a point that people should accomodate scientific truth rather than clutch to their prefered interpretations of the Bible, which haven't stood the test of reality and which prove that the Bible simply has no say with regard to the workings of nature and that its scope is of a different order entirely.

Of course people held that the Sun was revolving around the Earth. Their incomplete observation seemed to validate the Bible, which was based itself on earth-bound observation. But Copernicus came up with a model that worked for all observed phenomena without, at the same time, conflicting with the reality as perceived from earth, but rather exposing it for what it was - an appearance.

 

[Dannager]

that doesn't prove anything. Colloquially people even today refer to the sun as moving, even if (virtually) everybody knows it ain't so. That is not to say the Bible is right or wrong, it's simply not a science book and shouldn't be treated as such. Trying to prove the Bible right or wrong in such matters is equally counter-productive and it just makes people who attempt it look ridiculous.

Of course. I'm only out to show that a literal reading of the Bible is ridiculous, not to shred its credibility to pieces entirely.

 

[ReverendDG]

For how long?
what does how long have to do with it? plants need some sort of sun light to live, so some other source of light, unless its exactly like sun light wouldn't work


Ya --- I heard that a bomb was dropped that killed thousands --- can you believe that?
Umm ok? i don't get it? what does a nuclear bomb have to do with a man killing people with an asses jawbone?
you think the fact that a thousand people dying from something is amazing to me? then you have no clue at all what i meant, the fact that a MAN killed a thousand people with a jawbone is absurd, but you believe this because its in a book with a talking snake and plants that did not die even though they had no source of energy to proccess
i find it amazing that fundies believe the samson story as true, even though its exactly like the hercules story, in fact herc is better he is half god like jesus
i mean come on people try to cripple herc just like they try to cripple samson and both die in the end

i vote willful ignorence and just plain stubborness and illogic


Nope --- you didn't read that --- not from an authorized Bible, anyway.
oh i'm sorry, i read it wrong, the offspring were striped not the parents from the branchs, you know thats even more absurd and foolish
by the way i'm reading the crappy unreliable kjv, if you knew the history of the kjv, you would find it awful too

38And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
let me ask you; do you believe this is possible? do you really believe that animals that are near sticks will produce striped offspring? or is this a folk myth that people 3 thousand years in the past believed like they thought mice came from dirty sheets or maggots came from rotting meat?

​

That's true --- but in the Bible --- the reality preceded the belief.

might as well repeat myself: willful ignorance and adament belief in something doesn't make it true
where is your evidence for this claim?

 

[ReverendDG]

they did not. for one most went exstinct from asteriod or whatever, which would kill off any birds if they were around. to say this impact killed off 99.8 percent of life and say we have what we have seems strange. everything would evolve completly different but the fossils dont show this. and there are birds that date before the supposed transitional of this one. is there proof that trees and plants grew or repopulated without birds help. just seems to me they paint a VERY vague picture of life in this time so we do not see a lot of potential problems. Or did the trees and plants adapt to the new species of birds. not sure how this was done. Or why it was doen seesm to make them weaker to depend on another organism to survive instead of just staying the way they were and not needing them.

\
I'm confused who said that the KT event killed 99.8% of life off?
its more like 60%-80% of life not almost all of it

your argument fails on the fact that you have no clue about this event, so yes it would be vague but its not anyones fault but your own for not reading about it very well
the fact is fruit based distribution of seeds is better than the old way of doing things, seeds being taken to new places were the plant can grow in a better enviriment means survival to continue the spieces

 

[Aron-Ra]

I should be very glad to debate formally, with any evolutionist, as long as the particular subject is one I am familiar with.

Then why did you ignore my challenge without so much as a reason why?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'd be happy to hear your proofs.

Alright then, name it. What would satisfactorily convince you?

Archaeopteryx is a bird, not a reptile or a half-bird, half-reptile. (If you question this, than you question the majority of scientists who specialize in bird evolution who met at the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference.)

No, they agree with me unanemously. Birds are now considered the sole surviving lineage of dinosaurs because it is no longer possible to define those traits common to all dinosaurs collectively -without describing birds at the same time. The same is true when you get into the specific sub-groups of dinosaurs like coelosaurs, therapods, or maniraptors. Each of those sub-categories also inevitably describes birds as well. But interestingly enough, all modern birds -be they paleognaths or neognathes, or even one of the extinct lines from the Cretaceous, -all of them can be described collectively using characters not shared by Archaeopteryx or Rahonavis. You see, the progression to "true" birds was a surprisingly slow one, and Archaeopteryx was by no means complete!

Some may think that the presence of teeth prove its relation to reptiles. This is not the only fossil bird to have teeth and many reptiles don't have teeth. (Crocodiles are the only reptilian group to consistently have well-developed teeth.)

No, birds are reptiles right now, in that they are diapsids. The word, "reptile" has been rendered meaningless in systematics and isn't being used much anymore. And apart from only one other line of archosaurs (pterosaurs) anapsids are the only "reptiles" I've ever heard of to show any lineage without teeth. Do you consider cotylosaurs "reptiles"?

An evolutionist, Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution has called evolution of birds from theropods 'one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age&#8212;the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.'

Dr David Menton (retired), was Associate Professor of Anatomy at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri. He tested feathers and scales, finding their lack of similarity (see earlier post).

And as I said, since the discoveries of Sinornithosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, and Microraptor, and new data for Dinonychus, therozinosaurs, dromaeosaurs, and ovaraptors, these people have been forced to change their minds -especially when weighed against new revelations in "evo devo", a new field of evolutionary development. Because now the similarities in some lineages are so profound that these people have no way of telling dinosaurs and birds apart anymore. Nor can you I'll bet. But just to prove it, let me ask you to detemine which is which. What is a dinosaur? And what is a bird?

 

[Aron-Ra]

why should we think this version is the correct one. just because it was dated before the other. you do this just because it fits your thinking. BUT you have no proof what so ever to make this claim. FUNNY how you do this when it comes to the bible.

I make this claim because these earlier stories aren't just older than the Biblical versions, they were written by the same culture too!

 

[Aron-Ra]

your so full of it when it comes to the bible. what you say is almost a flat lie.

What is an "almost lie"? Is it too true to be a lie? Not untrue enough to call it that?

there is no since in even trying to talk scripture with you when you are so obviously biased toward it. it proves right when you give a post like this and write it SO vaguely. i can say the same post dealing with the theory of evolution.

No you couldn't, and I wasn't being vague.

i have watched a lot of PBS and history channel and science ect shows to know what you say is wrong. and even in there very biased opinion of it and frankely poor understanding of basics shows it did happen. and if what evidence we havce doesnt confirm the scriptures then it is clear as i said there is NO clear evidnece for most of history. that is a FACT.

And I've taken college courses taught by Biblical scholars and using texts written by other Biblical scholars, and I've even chatted online with Rabbinical scholars as well as archaeologists and geologists just within your own religion, and they're the ones who told me all this in the first place. The fact that I have done more research than just watching TV shouldn't mean I'm"full of it". Yours is the blinding bias, sir. I once believed in the historicity of the Bible too, but I've been researching it much more deeply than you for a very long time and its just not possible to believe in its "absolute" accuracy anymore. It is plainly evident now that much of it never happened at all, and we can't be sure if any of it did. I realize you don't like it and don't want to believe it, but that's the way it is, and that is the expert opinion from authorities on the matter.

 

[Schroeder]

What is an "almost lie"? Is it too true to be a lie? Not untrue enough to call it that?
No you couldn't, and I wasn't being vague.
And I've taken college courses taught by Biblical scholars and using texts written by other Biblical scholars, and I've even chatted online with Rabbinical scholars as well as archaeologists and geologists just within your own religion, and they're the ones who told me all this in the first place. The fact that I have done more research than just watching TV shouldn't mean I'm"full of it". Yours is the blinding bias, sir. I once believed in the historicity of the Bible too, but I've been researching it much more deeply than you for a very long time and its just not possible to believe in its "absolute" accuracy anymore. It is plainly evident now that much of it never happened at all, and we can't be sure if any of it did. I realize you don't like it and don't want to believe it, but that's the way it is, and that is the expert opinion from authorities on the matter.

the problem being you can find the ones that will go with your side of it very easy. there are plenty of so called religious christians who distort what is shown. no different then me finding scientist that argue against the theory. but i would guess you would say they were not very good scientist and not to be listened to. BUT me saying that to you on the flip side does not apply does it because you said you went to college and spoke to the ones who know the truth. i am just being a pain and do not think i could convince you other wise so good luck in life. It might be better to look for truths rather then untruths in life. look for good instead of whats bad or wrong. if you always are looking for the negative then that is what your find.

 

[Aron-Ra]

the problem being you can find the ones that will go with your side of it very easy. there are plenty of so called religious christians who distort what is shown. no different then me finding scientist that argue against the theory. but i would guess you would say they were not very good scientist and not to be listened to. BUT me saying that to you on the flip side does not apply does it because you said you went to college and spoke to the ones who know the truth. i am just being a pain and do not think i could convince you other wise so good luck in life. It might be better to look for truths rather then untruths in life. look for good instead of whats bad or wrong. if you always are looking for the negative then that is what your find.

Try this; look for what is true -whether it is "good" or not. Find ways to find out how accurate your beliefs are, ways that don't depend on faith, but which can be verified objectively, and remain objective always. Just remember, where God and religion is concerned, there is no absolute truth, everyone is wrong including the few who managed to get some of it right. The trick is to find out where the errors are and correct them. If you assume infallable truth to begin with, then your perspective can never improve.

 

[Handmaided]

No brother Dannager you missed the point. Beast was misqouting scripture to support his point. The problem is he misqouted and took it out of context. I gave everyone the scripture in full context where he got his misinformation. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth, it was a supernatural event. I think you need to read what Beast wrote.

In Christ,
Handmaiden

 

[Loudmouth]

No brother Dannager you missed the point. Beast was misqouting scripture to support his point. The problem is he misqouted and took it out of context. I gave everyone the scripture in full context where he got his misinformation. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth, it was a supernatural event. I think you need to read what Beast wrote.

In Christ,
Handmaiden

Do you also think that Martin Luther misinterpretted scripture? He used the Joshua account as "proof" that the Sun went around the Earth.

 

[Handmaided]

Do you also think that Martin Luther misinterpretted scripture? He used the Joshua account as "proof" that the Sun went around the Earth.

Do you mean Martin Luther King the civil rights activist from the 1960's, or Martin Luther the German Monk reformist who lived from 1483-1546?