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

[Chalnoth]

If you are going to ask questions about something the Bible does not talk about, then why come to a christian forum?

This is not the area for discussing the Bible. There are other areas on christianforums.com for those discussions.

 

[Chalnoth]

I do not understand where your going with this, so I am going to answer your qestion.

A dinosaur is a skelton or a fossilized skelton that they find in the ground.

Er, only a tiny fraction of the fossils found in the ground are considered to be dinosaurs.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I do not understand where your going with this, so I am going to answer your qestion.

A dinosaur is a skelton or a fossilized skelton that they find in the ground.

So these are dinosaurs then?

How about these?

Thank you, John. You've just given the criteria to classify Archaeopteryx, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Rahonavis, Enantiornis, Confusiousornis, Titanis walleri, teratorns, and every other long extinct bird out there -as dinosaurs. Of course that same criteria would also demand that neanderthals, wooly mammoths, and sabre-toothed tigers and early humans be considered dinosaurs too. Perhaps you should be a bit more specific?

 

[Pesto]

A dinosaur is a skelton or a fossilized skelton that they find in the ground.

My grandfather died a few years ago, and now fits that definition. Would you consider my grandfather a dinosaur?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

My grandfather died a few years ago, and now fits that definition. Would you consider my grandfather a dinosaur?

How old was he when he died? I mean, we always said Ms. Rush, our 8th grade English teacher, was a dinosaur. She herself said she was older than dirt, so there you have it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

My grandfather died a few years ago, and now fits that definition. Would you consider my grandfather a dinosaur?

Evidently, JohnR7 thinks any fossilized skeleton counts as a dinosaur. If she didn't fossilize, she isn't a dinosaur. If it doesn't have a skeleton, it isn't a dinosaur either.

Of course, he failed to specify whether that be an endoskeleton or an exoskeleton, so I guess he thinks this is a dinosaur too.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Evidently, JohnR7 thinks any fossilized skeleton counts as a dinosaur. If she didn't fossilize, she isn't a dinosaur. If it doesn't have a skeleton, it isn't a dinosaur either.

Of course, he failed to specify whether that be an endoskeleton or an exoskeleton, so I guess he thinks this is a dinosaur too.

"this" doesn't have and antecedent, so we don't know if the referent is on the left or right. And with John, we know we have to be very careful clarifying things so he can know what he should appropriately ignore.

 

[Aron-Ra]

"this" doesn't have and antecedent, so we don't know if the referent is on the left or right. And with John, we know we have to be very careful clarifying things so he can know what he should appropriately ignore.

Good point. The blonde in the black dress is definitely not a dinosaur in anyone's book. But "this" mixoptericean eurypterid fossil could be considered a dinosaur according to JohnR7's laughably inadequate criteria.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Good point. The blonde in the black dress is definitely not a dinosaur in anyone's book. But "this" mixoptericean eurypterid fossil could be considered a dinosaur according to JohnR7's laughably inadequate criteria.

I know and you know the blond on the left couldn't be considered a dinosaur, but I was also considering the fact that she has an endoskeleton and the one on the right has an exoskeleton, and he would come at you from that angle.

 

[JohnR7]

So these are dinosaurs then?

Dinosaurs are skeltons or fossilized skeltons. But not all skeltons or fossilized skeltons are dinosaurs. For example, people are not dinosaurs. Dogs are not dinosaurs and so on.

every other long extinct bird out there -as dinosaurs.

I never said anything about "long extinct". What would I know about that? If something were long and extinct then why would their skelton still be around? It would have desolved and rotted away by now.

 

[JohnR7]

JohnR7's laughably inadequate criteria.

You can laugh if you want, but I am just going by what I know to be true. Why should I trust you to tell me anything?
Can you give me a reason why I should trust you to tell me something that I do not already know is true?

 

[JohnR7]

This is not the area for discussing the Bible. There are other areas on christianforums.com for those discussions.

There is no ban on the Bible here. This is a Christian web site and they do not ban the Bible.

We are restricted in that we can not talk to people the way Jesus talked to people. If we quote the Bible we have to qualify who the Bible is talking to. We can not quote the Bible out of context.

For example I can not tell you that you are wretched, poor, blind and naked. But I can quote the scripture and we are to try to give the context of who Jesus is talking to in this scripture. In this case He is talking to the church of the Laodiceans.

Rev. 3:17
Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked--

 

[Chalnoth]

Of course there's no ban on the Bible here. But the Bible is not supposed to be the subject of discussion here. This is the Creation and Evolution forum. If you want to discuss the Bible, there are other forums for that (such as origins theology).

 

[MarkT]

I've learned a long time ago that if I just tell you [creationists] the answers, you'll simply ignore them without a thought. But I can ask you the questions, and they can't be answered from the creationist perspective. Were creationists accountable, then they could do as I do and honestly, systematically and properly address every point, query or challenge ignoring none. Of course were you to do that you couldn't remain creationist very long.

But we can't answer your questions scientifically and neither can you if you want to be honest about it. I don't think anyone can. The evidence for evolution is nonexistent. The arguments for natural selection and mutation fail. For example, we can and do coexist with other species, the great apes for instance. The environment doesn't make it impossible for men and apes to coexist so natural selection doesn't work on either man or beast. Apparently the limb we branched from is supposed to look more ape like. Again, it appears natural selection did not have any significant impact on the great apes which still look ape like. How do we know what kind of creature it was when we look at fossils? Why don't we assume ape evolution? I would think that a population of apes that could only walk on two feet would be at a disadvantage compared to the apes that could run on all fours. Running on all fours would be an advantage when being chased by other animals. It would make sense, therefore, that the ones who couldn't run on all fours would disappear. Speed and agility and having tree climbing ability would seem to be better adaptations than walking upright.

 

[Aron-Ra]

But we can't answer your questions scientifically and neither can you if you want to be honest about it. I don't think anyone can.

I am always honest, and yes I can answer these questions scientifically. So could you if you dare. The question was simple enough; "what is a dinosaur?" Given some contemplation, I'm sure you could come up with an answer to that, one that is verifiably accurate -even if you don't like it.

The evidence for evolution is nonexistent.

You misspelled 'extensive.' The fact that we can and have directly observed it, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field many times is evidence that exists. There is a whole lot more than that, but you appear to be in denial, so we'll just start with this little bit.

The arguments for natural selection and mutation fail.

These also have been demonstrated in predictable, even reproduceable fashion.

For example, we can and do coexist with other species, the great apes for instance. The environment doesn't make it impossible for men and apes to coexist so natural selection doesn't work on either man or beast.

Natural selection is working on all apes simultaneously all the time.

Apparently the limb we branched from is supposed to look more ape like. Again, it appears natural selection did not have any significant impact on the great apes which still look ape like.

The word, "ape" is synonemous with Hominoid, a classification which includes humans. "Great" apes are defined as any member of the familiy, Hominidae, and that includes us as well as the other apes you know about, and a whole lot more which are now extinct.

How do we know what kind of creature it was when we look at fossils?

Due to an in-depth study of anatomy and anthropometry.

Why don't we assume ape evolution?

Because we can demonstrate and trace it? No assumptions necessary.

I would think that a population of apes that could only walk on two feet would be at a disadvantage compared to the apes that could run on all fours.

Now try running on all fours while carrying infants, food and tools in your hands.

Running on all fours would be an advantage when being chased by other animals.

Standing up allows you to see them from further away.

It would make sense, therefore, that the ones who couldn't run on all fours would disappear. Speed and agility and having tree climbing ability would seem to be better adaptations than walking upright.

The principle difference is communal society, everyone looking out for the others, and aiding each other in times need. That trait guarantees enormous selective potential.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Dinosaurs are skeltons or fossilized skeltons. But not all skeltons or fossilized skeltons are dinosaurs. For example, people are not dinosaurs. Dogs are not dinosaurs and so on.

If you want to tell me what a dinosaur is not, we could be here for years. Tell me what a dinosaur IS. I'll give you a hint; dinosaurs differ from dogs and people in that all mammals are synapsids, but dinosaurs are diapsids. That means they have two temporal fenstra where we have only one. Another way to put that is that synapsids should not be considered reptiles even if you're talking about dimetrodon. All true "reptiles" are diapsid. More specifically, imagine that all diapsid "reptiles" fell into one of two directions. On one side, you have Lepidosaurs (plesiosaurs, ichyosaurs, lizards & snakes) and on the other, you have archosaurs. Phytosaurs, pterosaurs, crocodilians, and dinosaurs, (including birds) fall into this group. The trick is in recognizing the traits which identify any particular lineage as belonging to which parent classifications. What that means is that in order to define what a dinosaur is, you're going to have to give a complete character analysis of those traits common to all dinosaurs collectively. This is the only way you could determine whether a new fossil find could be considered a dinosaur or not. The problem is, its impossible to define dinosaurs without describing birds at the same time.

I never said anything about "long extinct". What would I know about that? If something were long and extinct then why would their skelton still be around? It would have desolved and rotted away by now.

...and replaced by minerals in a process known as fossilization. Only things which are "long extinct", or at least 'died long ago' would be fossilized.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You can laugh if you want, but I am just going by what I know to be true. Why should I trust you to tell me anything?

Don't. Challenge me instead, and see if I don't come through for you.

Can you give me a reason why I should trust you to tell me something that I do not already know is true?

Well, there is my track record of consistently having done so in the past.

 

[MarkT]

Chalnoth

I have a cosmological question for you if you wouldn't mind.

If something is 13 billion light years away, are we looking at the light that left that object 13 billion years ago? If so, then when we look at all the objects in the sky, are we not looking at everything that happened in the past all at once? It would not make sense then to say that this thing, say a galaxy that looks like it's headed towards us, that we can see, will one day collide with our galaxy or have an effect on our galaxy since what we can see was 'then' and what we are is 'now'. We are the result of that. In other words, we're the present. What we can see out there is the past. I think there's about as much danger of falling into a black hole, for example, as there is of falling into the past. All the objects out there are past events; our past. Actually I think you could say 'time' as a horizon of the past events represented by the objects is speeding away from us. You can't go 'out there' because 'out there' is the past. Space is right 'here'. So time is expanding, not space. What if in the past, a day was as a thousand years. 'Out there' time would appear to be expanded.

Gravity has nothing to do with it. Imagine if we could look back into the past and see all the people who ever lived at once. There's Caesar 10 feet away. Nero, 9 feet away. Attila, 8 ft., Columbus, 5 ft. George Washington, 3 ft. Does seeing the past mean we will all meet one day? No. Only the things that exist in our space time can affect us. If the Andromeda Galaxy as it appears out there moving towards us existed 2 million years ago, then perhaps the same galaxy is passing through the Milky Way today.

 

[Chalnoth]

The evidence for evolution is nonexistent.

Here's a little bit of evidence for evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It's a long essay, and dense with a variety of different pieces of evidence.

For example, we can and do coexist with other species, the great apes for instance.

Nowhere does evolution suggest that all populations should follow the exact same evolutionary path. Quite the opposite in fact: the entire purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain the diversity of life on Earth. The theory of evolution predicts you will see a great variety of life forms, and that it will be possible to classify those life forms into a strict nested hierarchy (this is a fancy way of saying that all descendents of a species will still retain traits of the parent species, while making modifications of their own, but not ever borrowing modifications from a cousin species).

I would think that a population of apes that could only walk on two feet would be at a disadvantage compared to the apes that could run on all fours.

That depends upon the environment. Our ape cousins, the gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans all life in forest areas. It is believed (partially based upon fossil evidence) that our ancestors left the forest, and made a living in the plains. Now, all of the great apes are capable of bipedal motion, so it would have been a small change to convert to all bipedal motion. And our ancestors would have found it to be beneficial on the plains where they could see further to detect danger or prey sooner. Since there would have been few or no trees to climb, they wouldn't have found climbing to be particularly useful.

Anyway, please, before making any more horribly incorrect statements about evolution, read up on the subject. At the very least you should understand the theories which you are attacking. Here's a decent documentary that goes over some of the current theories and evidence:
http://www.becominghuman.org/

 

[Chalnoth]

If something is 13 billion light years away, are we looking at the light that left that object 13 billion years ago? If so, then when we look at all the objects in the sky, are we not looking at everything that happened in the past all at once?

Well, I don't know what you mean by all at once here. You can, after all, see the light from stars at the same time that you see light from the moon, but the moon is a mere 6 light seconds away, while the nearest star is something like 3 light years away.

It would not make sense then to say that this thing, say a galaxy that looks like it's headed towards us, that we can see, will one day collide with our galaxy or have an effect on our galaxy since what we can see was 'then' and what we are is 'now'.

Well, we can say something rather significant about the motions of galaxies. Andromeda, which will collide with the Milky Way in something like 3 billion years (certainly long enough not to worry about), is operating under the measured theory of gravity. Just as we can predict the paths of planets, asteroids, satellites, and probes that we send throughout the solar system, it is relatively easy to predict the path of a galaxy. Since the Andromeda galaxy is a mere 2.5 million light years away, but won't collide with us for another 3 billion, the fact that we are seeing the Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million years in the past hardly makes any difference.

What if in the past, a day was as a thousand years. 'Out there' time would appear to be expanded.

Well, except that in observing the past, we've rather directly measured that the laws of physics have been very close to the same for the past 13.7 billion years. The basic argument is that we have a large number of experiments which all corroborate one another. If you'd like more info, all you need do is ask.