Leftover Turkey? Turn It Into Oil!

<table width="100%" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" bgcolor='#FFFFFF' >
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="center">
<table width="505" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td style="background-color:#FFFFFF;border-top:0px solid #000000;border-bottom:1px solid #FFFFFF;text-align:center;" align="center"><span style="font-size:10px; color:#999999;line-height:200%;font-family:verdana;text-decoration:none;">Email not displaying correctly? <a href='http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/e/288636/xdrtdddt/'>View it in your browser.</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"><center>
<IMG src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/288636/header.gif" alt="Creation Science Evangelism" width="505" height="64" BORDER="0" align="center" usemap="#Map">
</center></td>
</tr>
</table>
<table width="505" cellpadding="7" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="border-left:2px solid #00913E; border-right:2px solid #00913E; border-bottom:2px solid #00913E">
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="font-size:12px;color:#000000;line-height:120%;font-family:trebuchet ms;"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism..cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/shopping.php"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/288636/promo.jpg" alt="Christmas Gifts" width="487" height="137" border="0"></a><br>
<br>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:#e5f4eb; ">
<tr>
<td><div align="left"><strong>[color:"#046716" size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]<a href="#article">Article</a></font><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> | [color:"#046716"]<a href="#resources">Resources</a></font></font></strong> <strong><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">| [color:"#046716"]<a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/articles.php">More Articles</a> </font></font></strong></div></td>
<td><div align="right"><strong><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href='http://www.forwardtomyfriend.com/zdt6t/b755c04978193e1387b5ea59ff0aaf92/'>Forward to a Friend</a></font></strong></div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px;">
<p><strong> <a name="article"></a>Article          </strong></p>
</div><div style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px;">
<h1 style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:14px; color:#046716">Leftover Turkey? Turn It Into Oil! </h1>
<a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=40"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/288636/story1.gif" alt="Turkey Into Oil" width="104" height="86" hspace="10" vspace="5" border="0" align="left"></a>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In 1971 scientists learned how to turn sewage into oil in just twenty minutes using heat and pressure. Now, a lab in Texas shows that even the scraps from your Thanksgiving turkey is a great way to make oil in just half an hour.<br>
<br>
Evolutionists suggest that oil comes from organic material, such as dinosaurs, that were buried and compressed for millions of years under immense pressure. However, more laboratory research continues to prove that it can be formed in much shorter amounts of time.<br>
<br>
Creationists agree that oil came from organic material, but it was during Noah's Flood that billions of plants and animals were buried by mud and water squishing them into oil. This happened just 4,400 years ago, not millions of years ago. <a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=40">Click here to view a one-and-a-half minute video about the formation of oil in the earth and in the lab</a>. <br>
<br>
The presence of oil in the earth is just more proof that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and that the evolution theory is last century's "leftovers." For many more evidences check out our DVD on <em><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?&id=440">The Age of the Earth</a></em>. <br>
<br>
</font></p>
</div>
<br>
<div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px;">
<p><strong> <a name="resources"></a>Related Resources            </strong></p>
<table width="100%" border="0">
<tr>
<td width="120"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?&id=440"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/288636/pd1.gif" alt="The Age of the Earth" width="74" height="105" border="0"></a></td>
<td width="120"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism..cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=830"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/288636/pd2..gif" alt="Creation Seminar Set" width="74" height="105" border="0"></a></td>
<td width="120"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism..cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?&id=207"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/288636/pd3.gif" alt="The Young Earth" width="73" height="105" border="0"></a></td>
<td width="120"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism..cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?&id=753"><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/email/288636/pd4.gif" alt="http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?&id=753" width="73" height="105" border="0"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?&id=440"><em>Age of the Earth</em> <br>
DVD - $17.95 </a></font></strong></td>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=830"><em>Creation Seminar</em> <br>
Set - $75 </a></font></strong></td>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?&id=207"><em>The Young Earth<br>
</em>- $14.50 </a></font></strong></td>
<td valign="top"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?&id=753">10 Poster Set <br>
- $19.95</a> </font></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top"><div align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Order online or call 877-479-3466 to order by phone.</font></strong></div></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
<strong>[color:"#333333" size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Creation Science Evangelism<br>
29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, FL 32503 <br>
877-479-3466 | www.drdino.com</font></strong><br>
<br>

</span></td>
</tr>
</table>
<map name="Map"><area shape="rect" coords="8,2,180,64" href="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/l/288636/xdrtdddt/www.drdino.com" alt="Creation Science Evangelism">
</map><img src="http://creationscienceevangelism.cmail5.com/o/288636/xdrtdddt/o.gif" width="1" height="1" border="0">

They were . . . squished into oil.

Pardon me, I need to stop rolling on the floor laughing. Have these guys ever set foot in a high school science class? It beggars belief. Please tell me how science has got it so very, very wrong. Maybe you can then explain to me how white is black, black is white, and the tooth fairy is real.

Oh no, I'd forgotten it's that stupid idiot Hovind again.

According to Dave E. Matson:

The amount of coal and oil existing today greatly exceeds what could have been produced by decaying plants and animals in a few thousand years. It is naive to think that today's coal and oil came from the buried remains of Noah's antediluvian world. Most creationists simply have no idea how much raw material would have been required, especially for the oil deposits.

Because coal and oil are important economic resources, geologists have worked hard to estimate how much of these resources exist. The creationist writer Morton cites data published by Hunt indicating that the carbon in the coal alone is 50 times that in the entire present biosphere!...And the carbon in all oil deposits is 666 times that in the entire present biosphere! That in oil shales and other sedimentary rocks (which Morton doesn't mention!) is 40,000 times that in the present biosphere. And that doesn't count the enormous quantities of carbonates, much in the form of fossil shells. The Livingstone Limestone in the Canadian Rockies contains at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates!

(Sonleitner, 1991, file=MOVIE6B.WP)

Just how thick did Dr. Hovind say that antediluvian vegetation was?

In doing your math, be sure to allow plenty of open space for grasslands, so that the buffalo, horses, and numerous other grazers, past and present, have plenty of space for their herds. Be sure to have plenty of deserts or near-deserts for your reptiles. Most of them require a dry environment. You will also need plenty of marshy tundra pasture for your mammoths and other pre-flood, cold-adapted grazers.

Really Russ, how many people do you expect are going to hoover up this bilge?

We'll be rich!

Oil is actually formed from decayed organic matter, it is a scientific fact, Maybe you missed that class.

Coal is something else altogether. If you squish coal hard enough it turns into diamond, not oil. The oil gets squished out I guess.

Linda, how much poop do you estimate you have thus generated in your lifetime so far, as one tiny person? A ton? 10 tons? Guesstimate -2-4 pounds per day times 365 days a year times 32 years or so...

wow, you are quite the organic sludge producer. Ever thought of going into business?

Don't use matches in the bathtub when you fart either... you could burn your lips!

You know, I've often wondered why someone doesn't simply harness all the methane in Nebraska. They could probably heat and light all the homes in Omaha with it endlessly.. there is one thing Nebraska is famous for, and that is it's methane levels. Just think, you were weaned on it.

Some problems with the YEC global flood model:

As my above post stated, one of the biggest problems for flood geology is the sheer QUANTITY of biologically derived material buried in the earth. Coal and oil are only two kinds of biologically derived materials. If you add up the sheer mass of compressed material (that we know about) you quickly come to the conclusion that the surface of the earth is not large enough to accommodate all of those lifeforms at the same time. Do you know what limestone is made of?

The reason all of that fits into the earth now is because it is both compressed and it is buried in depth. As soon as you have to take into account that all of the things that comprise coal and oil had to at one point in time, at effectivly the same time, be alive and growing on the surface of the earth, the idea that they were all killed and deposited quickly is instantly falsified by the fact that there is simply not enough room.

Creationists also need to get their stories straight. In response to this, some creationists have said that oil is not biological in origin but rather that it somehow is created deep within the earth. This has also been falsified but it goes to show you that even some creationists realise that the quantity of material formed by biomass in the earth is a killer for flood geology.

There are other problems with flood geology, such as how large structures of evaporite minerals could make layers during the flood. Evaporites are types of rock created by evaporation. You can evaporate a whole lake of very "salty" water and get mere millimeters of salt or gypsum to accumulate. Some large evaporite layers are dozens of meters tall.

You could say that the flood receeded and allowed time to evaporate before returning but that would not be consistent. Remember the Bible says that there was only one flood. There is also problem considering the amount of time it would take to produce these layers in the earth that are then buried by even more layers that have different properties that take time that just simply cannot fit into a year time frame.

There is also genetic evidence -- or should I say lack thereof, for a global flood. If the Biblical Flood had happened, there would have been a bottleneck event in EVERY species of living thing and all pointing to exactly the same period; also, that bottleneck would be almost yesterday as gentic time goes.

Geneticists can see bottle neck events in some species, but they are all at different times and most are tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the past. The genetic information shows that there has not been a single unique bottleneck event affecting all species. Hence, no global flood that wiped out all but two of every "kind."

More evidence from geology:

Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column are vastly older than the Biblical flood. My sister-in-law, who is a geologist, told me that measures of cosmic ray bombardment are particularly helpful in her field, because this can show how long something like the surface of a glacier has been exposed to the air. Again, no evidence here that everything was covered by a global flood a few thousand years ago.

Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.

Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.

Coprolites – Coprolites, which are fossilized turds, are preserved throughout the fossil record. How does a flood have animals constantly crapping in the midst of a flood after they are exterminated?

Detailed layering – How could a global flood create thousands of layers seen in several geologic formations, each of which requires a different depositional environment?

There are many more "silver-bullet" evidences that disprove a global flood. What I listed here are merely some of them. Can any creationists here explain ANY of them without resorting to "it's all lies"?

This video touches upon some of these subjects and should be carefully considered:



<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UtFjGvf6QFg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UtFjGvf6QFg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Sorry, I truly do hate to get deeply involved in this, and I won't because I know the uselessness of trying to change a well held, even if truly baseless, opinion. But there is just so much obvious error here i cannot help but just shake my head as i read this.



yada yada yada...


Which proves what? that life existed before the flood? Where did you ever get the idea that all life lived and nothing died until there was a flood? certainly not from the bible. What on earth does limestone have to do do with it? Is there some rule that says limestone is related to organic matter dying in a flood? Do calcium and limestone in the earth only exist where people or animals have died? I don't understand why you are constantly making this reference.



oh baloney. there is a limestone quarry just a few miles from me and the limestone is quite accessible. It is not always buried 'in depth'. There was lots of limestone where i grew up too. Limestone, shale, all full of fossils of stuff that died not very long ago. But the rock itself is not all composed from dead animals. It most certainly exists on it's own. just like iron or quartz.



not enough room? really i don't get it. who is making the assumption again that all things dead died at one time? I think if you read the bible you'll actually see civilization rise for a good few thousand years before it fell and the flood happened. are you saying Linda, the people and animals were immortal prior to the flood? Do you have the ability to see the amount of stuff. people. plants. animals by the zillions altogether that has become just America, China, Europe in the past few hundred years? We'll be leaving behind quite a bit of trash just in the next decade. Mountains and mountains of trash and methane generating stuff. Are people and other life prior to our current civilization exempt from this? why? Maybe someday there will even be a great oil field under Manhattan island. Probably New Jersey actually. gotta wonder where all the sewage goes don't you?

But the fact remains, there is no logical reason to assume that limestone, just as one example, cannot exist as it's own entity. Other forms of earth and rock do. why pick on limestone? I really liked soapstone as a kid myself. Did i ever tell you I was going to be a geologist? that was my dream as a kid.really, no kidding. I really don't know much about it, extended like, but... i would spend hours upon hours hunting for rocks as a kid. I had quite a collection. many fossils. Limestone is common as dirt. It is dirt, pretty much. A special type of dirt, like clay. Have you ever noticed how rocks move upward in the ground? Organic matter and dirt move downward while rocks and pebbles move upward. It's really weird. You'd think it would be the other way around. Maybe the rock isn't actually moving, maybe the dirt is just always getting washed down deeper. compressing.... ever see a tree turn to dirt? it only takes a year or two in damp weather to do that. I actually use the rotten loam from inside dead tree stumps to fertilize my flower beds and potted plants. it's great stuff. there sure are a lot of dead trees around here. I don't think they all die at one time though. They are always dying. they are always sprouting too.

Does anyone know if the earth is always getting bigger from so many trees dying all over the place? Leaves turning to mulch year after year. I have always wondered about that.




chock it up to people love to argue. But oil is decayed organic matter. Thus the methane smell of an oil field and a diesel engine.



Why do they call it Salt Lake City? Did you know Utah was once covered with ocean water? Where do you think that puts Arizona? Ocean front property? Does salt only exist in salt water? how do you know? Do you know for sure or are you guessing? Were the oceans always as salty as they are today? Did salt exist first as a compound mineral or were the oceans salty first? How do you know? Or are you just guessing? Did you know there is a pllar of salt in the middle east that the arabs swear is Lot's wife?

yada yada...


Right. So why are you trying? Were all living things immortal before the flood?

yada yada...


Right. But if you had read the bible you would have realized that only 'unclean' animals were paired. Should have done that before trying to make a thesis of the idea.


Wow, it's as though you want to attribute every geological formation ever seen to the flood.


yada yada...


wow again. why do we have to attribute everything to the flood? Ice floats you know... maybe the algae had a birds eye view of the flood. Before it snowed again anyway. Reallly though, I hope you are not trying to say that glacial surface ice is thousands of years old. The ice at the center maybe... but not the surface ice dear. it snows, it melts, it snows , it melts, it freezes again. It compresses again.. you know, that has been going on for a while. Either I am misunderstanding the point you are trying to make here or this idea is completely lost in a flurry or the warm summer sun. Might be more proof of the error of different types of dating though. Because that's quite a quantum leap you are taking, assuming ice never melts or it never snows, and then saying a certain glacier surface has been exposed to air for thousands of years. Which piece, where exactly? I'd love to know.

There's no talk of an ice age in the bible anyway so the middle east apparently wasn't affected. you'll never prove it or disprove it, all you can do is guess. as usual, i would expect you to guess in ways that favor your opinion. But it's highly unlikely the equator was ever covered in ice either.

I have an idea about wooly mammoths found frozen in ice though... there was a flood of enormous proportions and the warm water overtook the wooly mammoths, and froze quickly... because it was already cold where the wooly mammoth lived. that's why he was wooly.

Just out of curiousity, do you know the relationship between lots of readily available limestone and glaciers?


ahem, flying dinsosaurs/reptiles still exist.


lots of mollusks and other sea life. Maybe there was a lot of water. Did you know that the bible says that exactly? First there was water, and then there was dry land. Haven't they found even a fossilized lily pad or something though? I can't imagine God made the dogs and cats to swim and then migrated them to the dry land either, so at least we are in agreement about mammals coming later.

yada yada...


I still am not privy to your logic of all things being due to or caused by the flood. Yiou are aware that dry land and oceans both existed prior to the flood right?


I dunno. I doubt they had a sewage tank on the ark though. You know, in New York city, London even, as late as the turn of the 20th century, you had to watch where you walked because people dumped their turds right out the window. very unsanitary.

But I don't think the flood lasted that long anyway, if it did the animals probably would have died on the ark simply from starvation. But you are stuck on thinking that everything is attributed to that one event again. I'd let go of the idea. It's illogical and i can't figure out why you keep bringing it up. If you go by what the bible says, you'll see that most of your musings are really just that... musings, very unbiblical so not really a good argument at all.

Did you know a 7 month old cat... kitten... is capable of having a seven kitten litter? Calculate. It doesn't take very long to reestablish lots of pooping species. species that even bury their poop so it doesn't wash away, or God forbid, get stepped on by an unsuspecting nomad.....



who said it did? more of the same... let go of the idea that the flood is responsible for everything. Where did you get that idea anyway?


I wish you could explain them, really I do.

Honestly.

but that's the theory of evolution in a nutshell... grab an idea out of the air and make it fly no matter what.

just a song and a dance. you fiddle, you dance too.

I have better things to do. If the bible were as full of such nonsense and illogical ramblings as you have posted here i can assure you... I would have never bothered with it myself. egads, what a lot of pecking at the board here just because one person is stuck on the idea that all geological formations are a result of a flood.

tell me Linda, was the earth itself created because of the flood too?

Now you hopefully understand why I, or anyone else for that matter except Russ, God bless him, do not respond to most of your posts. They are generally formed from a logic that only you comprehend. It took me close to two dumb hours to just reiterate the methane of this one.

Get unstuck, for your own benefit, please. try a parasite cleanse or something. Maybe you'll find a fossil or at least a prototype or 30 dozen

Russ my computer has problems playing these videos. Can you link off to another site, or summarise in your own words? I'd be quite interested to find out why a "NASA engineer" decided to become a creationist, if indeed these are his real qualifications. It might be something as pedestrian as him being uncomfortable with scientific atheism, which I can understand; as I said earlier, in some ways dogmatic skepticism and creationism are two sides of the same coin. So he flipped LOL. Was he going to give a presentation on how the universe is only a few thousand years old?

SS, I see no mention in your post of why there is no genetic bottleneck of all animals at the time of the Biblical flood. Is this because "scientists are liars," or do you have a credible alternative explanation?

Are you also telling me that you are not a young earth creationist? You and Russ haven't made this very clear. Most people who are willing enough to dismiss heaps of scientific fact and evidence to believe that the story of Noah and the flood are true, are usually also willing enough to dismiss all evidence that the earth is old. I am particularly puzzled as to why Russ keeps making posts that advocate a young earth, if he does not believe this himself. That's the whole basis of the opening post in this thread -- they are trying to address the fact that oil and coal take time to form, and that there is too much carbon from organic material locked within the earth to account for all conceivable living things in the past few thousand years (not to mention the fact that all that carbon would have serious consequences for climate and life on earth -- a reason, perhaps, why so many creationists also seem to be global warming deniers).

So are you telling me that you accept that all that carbon has come from creatures living on the earth for millions of years? How does that fit in with your idea of creation then? Are you telling me that you accept what coal, oil and limestone are -- but you refuse to believe that organisms have changed over time, and perhaps even deny there is a fossil record? This gets curiouser and curiouser.

This also makes it hard for me to follow what you have said, but I will try. I'll repeat, there are a lot of people being paid a lot of money by companies around the world to calculate how much fossil fuel is left to use. You seem to be trying to tell me that people leave a lot of waste behind. What's that got to do with it? Do you think they don't take into consideration the amount of organic waste that organisms currently living on earth produce? What's more, people have only existed in the blink of an eye on a geological timescale, so I am puzzled as to why you seem to be suggesting that any waste we generate now has anything to do with the carbon in the earth.

I also wonder if you know what limestone is? It is a sedimentary rock consisting mainly of calcium that was deposited by the remains of marine animals. There's a heckuva lot of it; and in places it has been carved into spectacular cave systems, which takes rather a long time. A young earth creationist would have trouble explaining how it was produced in a few thousand years and then how all those caves were carved, thinks me.

As for these ideas of rocks moving up, soil moving down, and, er, the earth getting bigger from things dying . . . I don't know how much of this you mean seriously and how much of it is just bizarre humour, but I think I'll leave it at that.

About dating glaciers using cosmic ray measurements -- you are presumably aware that it doesn't snow all the time, everywhere there is a glacier? Sure they develop layers; they also get eroded. For a period of time, they are exposed to the air. You can also study the different layers to see how things have changed with time. You can also look at how long rock was exposed, using this technique; this is one way scientists are trying to measure precisely how long there has been a permanent ice sheet covering Antarctica.

What do you believe I am trying to prove or disprove? I am lost myself because I'm not sure how old you think the earth actually is.

Before you talk about woolly mammoths, you need to do some research. Bodies have been found that have been partially eaten by predators, which would be rather inconsistent with them all being quickly killed by a flood.

Would you like to tell me something about limestone and glaciers? That's fine but check the facts first please because I will do this myself. What point would you like to make?

Would you, er . . . like to tell me where flying dinosaurs/reptiles exist? Is Hovind keeping some in his dinosaur theme park? Does Ken Ham have some on hand in his creation museum?

You still haven't answered the question: If there was a Biblical flood, how do you explain the way fossils are sorted in the geologic record? "All fossils are fake" is as much of a cop-out as "all scientists are liars."

You have also not explained why corprolites continued to be produced during and after the flood. If animal populations were bottlenecked, it would have taken time for populations to re-establish. That's assuming that they were able to swim over to Australia and the Americas, in some cases en masse -- guess those kangaroos and wallabies liked it better Down Under than anywhere else?

A logic that only I comprehend? I'll say no more. I don't think "logic" is at home here much of the time, though I do try to introduce some where I can.

Linda, first off, the only thing I think you are trying to prove, is that you are very smart. I would tend to disagree with that. What I think you are trying to disprove, is God and the bible, I would also disagree with that. I think, you will go to just about any length, no matter how ridiculous or erroneous or biased, to try to justify yourself in those two areas.

I do not believe the earth is young Linda, and have never said so. I do believe what the bible says is more accurate, in that, a thousand years is like a day to the Lord. Perhaps even, 10 thousand years. I don't know for sure and will never claim to. However, man's presence on the earth can probably be calculated to a certain proximity within the model of young earth creationists. I actually don't read a lot of that material, because it truly does not inteest me. I enjoy many of the actual facts that people like Ken Hovind provide, but theory is theory whether for creation or against. And being so smart, you should realize that.

the bible says, line 1, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form and void. We are not told how much time elapses between that event and the time when God began to create life on earth. The earth is probably very old Linda. We do not have a first 'day' until there is light.

Theory means essentially, maybe, but also maybe not. Theory is something that has never been proven. It's an (hopefully) educated guess. Unlike much of your posturing.

Perhaps Russ posts this type of material simply because it is available. As I mentioned there are other things, which are not theory but fact, contained within much of Hovind's work, which really are quite interesting.

Bottlenecking? Linda, any scientist that will try to tell you he knows for sure about anything of this nature... I would be very careful of him. It's highly unlikely scientists can trace genetic codes to that extent, in reality. Things may appear a certain way when looked at from a certain way, but even appearances are not always solid fact, especially concerning claims of this nature. But, like yourself, they do make many claims and hope those claims will be accepted.But as i told you, read the bible, genesis. Only unclean animals were paired. I don't think wooly made it to the ark.

Linda, but before you start laughing again at every item that you disagree with for whatever reason, I suggest you do some research, and better even, some real life obvservation.

Where ever there are glaciers, it snows linda, and also the wind can be quite fierce. If that were not so, there would not be snow there. it's a no brainer.

There is no reason to believe that all limestone is/was deposited by the remains of marine animals. I never said that. I said quite the opposite. As someone who believes in evolution, you should easily understand that it is more likely all this calcium helped create life, the reverse of what you are saying. Earth creatures are formed partly from this calcium, just like you and your bones, as you eat it. God did create man from the earth, the bible does tell us that quite directly.

All sorts of strange things exist, have existed, Linda. Today, yesterday, forever. Always have, always will. There is evidence of flying dinosaurs still today, youtube is a great place to go looking for stuff like that, people from all over the workld have posted strange sightings of all sorts of stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m07c4mmG-50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CukO1xwwliw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivcmwEFrFVQ&feature=related

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...;amp;ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us

The internet provides all sorts of interesting info, plenty of photos too, don't ignore them. Though i realize your desire is to laugh and disbelieve anything that doesn't fit your currently held world view, i highly recommned you take a more serious look into these things. your laughter fails quite quickly in the fcae of the experiences and proof that others provide.

Personally Linda, i take a much simpler view of things than you. I know, yes know for sure, that with God anything is possible. anything. Way beyond even my imagination. I cannot say for sure where this came from or where that came from a lot of the time, and i won't even try if I don't have solid proof. You seem to want to put everything neatly, or not so neatly, into a box, even when the fit is terrible, and you'll never do that. No one will. I don't understand why you are trying so hard. It really is ok to say, I don't know. In fact, it's the only honest answer a lot of the time. Man is not that smart Linda. Given all of his science and imagination, he can use the materials of this erath for his own creations, reassamble, disassemble, but he has never been able to recreate any of it on his own. For instance H2O, a seemingly rather simple concotion. But man cannot create it. He doesn't know how. He can only use what is already available.

Of course wooly mammoths were eaten by predators. Only you are suggesting everything died in the flood. I tell you again, as i told you before, just like the fossil record also, not everything is a result of the flood. life existed before the flood. Death existed before the flood.

You have to at least try a little bit to remember what someone told you already because repeating things all the time for you is very frustrating. I have even told you that previously. maybe that is a big part of the problem. My daughter has a really bad memory too, but I am acutely aware that she is also very selective in what she chooses to remember and what she chooses to forget. perhaps a lot like you in regard to your discussions here. Really, I don't believe my daughter ever fiorgets a thing. She just pretends when it's convenient.

Rocks do move upward in the earth linda. try gardening sometime and getting rid of the rocks in your garden. It's impossible. they are always popping up from deeper down. you can only clear rocks for a season, a few months, at a time. And yes, it is a serious question, it does seem the earth must be getting just ever so bigger all the time from things living, growing dying. I'm surprised you laugh. You believe everyting was immortal before the flood but have difficulty with this?

There was a great flood, or something, Linda. There is evidence of the sea covering much of the earth if not all of it, at some point. It's a well well proven scientific fact. you'll never argue against that fact no matter how hard you try. Why you haven't stumbled into information about this I have no idea, except either you do not research at all, or you are very selective.

I have some Himalayan sea salt on the table. salt that is actually quite old, true sea salt from a time when the seas even covered the Himalayan mountains.

Christians, just like evolutionists, Linda, say and do a lot of wierd stuff. They are as human as anyone and they make mistakes just like anyone else. I don't think a lot of professed Christians even know the Lord very well, but ,hopefully, at least they are trying.

The problem with te larger part of your arguments is your attempt to put Christians in a box also. dumb move.

It's the equivalent of me trying to put evolutionists into a box. They'll never all fit in the same one so I won't bother.

There's a little bit of truth everywhere. You have to learn to make well informed judgements yourself. Yourself. not posturing because so and so said this or that and so there fore it means everyone believes it. It doesn't work that way. What is even true for you today, very true, probably often would not hold a speck of dirt for someone on the other side of the globe a lot of the time.

if you try to just work with real facts, real numbers, you will make a lot more progress. it's ok to shelve the the rest of 'theory' onto the back burner till it proves itself. Truth, will always prove itself in time. What cannot be proven, is still just an idea that was simply presented by someone somewhere. It won't change my life. Or yours, in reality.

The twisting and turning, misquoting and biased misleading you currently do is not productive except to create unproductive arguments and waste a lot of your time. You must have an awful lot of spare time on your hands to be able to sit here day after day and present the baseless and often random ideas you do is all i can say.

If Russ wants to post his creationist info, so what? There is a lot of good info in the stuff he makes available. You are blessed by his making this website available, to learn about heavy metal poisoning and other stuff even if you disagree with some it. Imagine what it was like 10 years ago for Russ and his mercury awareness quest.

What have you contiributed thus far to the world and the bettering of people lives, Linda?

Your incessant mocking, jeering, anti-christian God hating rhetoric is pitiful.

Most sincerely, through it all, your time consuming unfounded arguments, arguments many qualified weel studied scientists would reel in laughter over I assure you, you have made me more awre than ever of the stupidity of many propopnents of evolution.

I cannot believe you even take the time to post many of your ideas, They are so off the edge, beyond ridiculous and yet you claim to have so much knowledge of everything, including the bible. Really Linda, to an onlooker there is a problem here, with you, and your claims, and notably your not very well hidden hatred and disdain of anything or anyone christian.

I realize you came here claiming to have had psychological problems in the past, and this is not a dig, but... you should seruiously consider more counseling. If this is your approach to the rest of life, you are in serious trouble.

I'm in two minds here. I can reply to your comments about creation and evolution, which is what this thread is about. However, I also think that these last posts are so full of insults and condescending, highly personal remarks that to carry on this conversation would be moot. In fact, I'm finished with it. Think about how you're addressing people before you post here. In my opinion you are abusing the freedom here to consistently offend other posters, especially those who have challenged your beliefs.

You laugh and jeer at anything, anything that is contrary to your world view. So, it's ok for you but it's not ok for anyone to ever point out your errors, your statements?

don't expect a standing ovation.

you are wrong 90% of the time and cry in between rounds because people disagree with you and point out your errors.

You really should stop. It's disgusting already. You are constantly offended ... unfortunately Linda, you yourself have never once owned up to constantly offending.

I doubt Russ will ever say very much to me about it after the way you and Pwcca and a few others have relentlessly insulted him for weeks. I am quite kind in comparison. At least my 'insults' are based on fact. If you are truly offended by my comments, why do you continue to post rubbish that tempts replies that offend you?

I think you enjoy it.

You post garbage, you get a bad response. You cry not fair, hey quit calling me stupid, hey quit saying i didn't reseach that.. don't insult me... is this some sort of game you like to play? well ok, so lets play. Later though, I do have some fossil hunting to do here...

I mean really, give us all a break please, you've been doing thisfor weeks.

What are you angry at now anyway? the fact that it really does snow where there are glaciers? the fact that there was life, and death before the flood? the fact that himalayan sea salt exists? The fact that strange creatures still exist? The fact that I reiterated your oft declared hate and disdain of Christians and God, the bible? Or the fact that you have self-professed mental problems from time to time? What?

Which of the above are not true Linda? Why do facts bother you so much?

aren't these a few of your comments just from this thread Linda?


exactly who do you think you are kidding with your oh pity me I am such a nice person routine?

You are not a nice person Linda.

Don't expect to be treated like one. maybe in your make believe world christians are pushovers that you can lie to all day and walk all over while you laugh. But the internet Linda, just a connection, but it's a part of the real world, hard to believe because your just sitting there in your chair, but it's fact.

You are not a nice person Linda, you are also really dumb. every single post you make in these types of discussions... you add stuff into them that no one has said, as if they have said it, as if they implied it, when they never did. LINDA,
THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR REASONING AND COMPREHENSION. get the message already.

asinine, yes, asinine, comments like this have defined you quite well by now, Linda.

don't expect pity.

double asinine coming from a person who makes statements like... 'it doesn't snow everywhere there are glaciers'.

Linda, does a bear poo in the woods?

have you ever heard the story of the siberians who drilled a deep deep hole and human voices? they say it was screams from hell.

here's a tape recording, they lowered a microphone down there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYAxMQVH6z0

maybe that's where all the oil comes from.

here's a couple more strange ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oeE23DjrFc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-HSu5QUZYc&feature=related

one time, about 10 years ago I personally caught a fish on the James River in Richmond VA It was caught pretty good and didn't survive. It was a scaled fish, about 16 inches big. We ate it, it was ok. I looked and looked in books to find out what exactly it was, all I can say is it resembled something that was suppose to be extinct a long time ago.

if you need a picture of snow falling in antarctica, let me know.

if your internet connection is too slow for youtube, no excuse, use the library that's what it's there for. It would be a good experience for you anyway. They have a lot of books too.

I'm sorry you seem to be so worked up about this but if you need me to point out what it was you said, and have just said recently, that I think is beyond the pale, here it is.











How dare you make such a comment.





I have not called you stupid, nor will you find me calling anyone stupid on a forum. You seem to think it's OK to do this yourself though.



Notice in my post about Hovind, I made no personal remarks to Russ himself, did not call him stupid, and I then went on to qualify why I thought what Hovind was saying was bilge. This is debating. If someone challenegd what I said in a similar way I would not be offended. What is not acceptable is the personal comments you are making about me, not what you are saying that is actually factual and on topic.





If you flame me like this again I will report it to Russ and put him in no doubt that I will not tolerate being spoken to in this way by anyone on a forum.

I am not worked up, why are you so upset. go ahead report it. We'll both pretend in the meantime that russ doesn't read the board daily himself. You are so funny.

Listen, if you don't like being spoken to in certain ways, i suggest you refrain from doing it yourself.

It doesn't bother me a bit, if you want to talk that way fine, i can talk the same way.

just to be sure we are on the same page and communicating...



Linda, when you call someone's post idiotic in whatever form you decide to do that, you are calling the poster an idiot, even though in this case you try to make it look as though your remarks are directed at Hovind. But fact is, Russ posted the stuff, and your comments most certainly are directed at him, for the post, or in certain cases I have posted stuff and you have done the same thing. It's not hard to read between the lines Linda.

No double standards Linda, do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.

quit crying. it's embarrassing.

I haven't noticed that anyone is challenged. Your ideas aren't very impressive. Your jeering and mocking is obnoxious though. I donlt think doing that is enough to make you look smart though. Just more avoiding of the issues on your end.

Want to go another round? Avoid the real issues, like, um, how come you never directly answer anyone's points with factual evidence?

did you like the pterosaur? did you listen to the screams from hell?

Where does this factual evidence put the timeline and other ideas of evolution?

what the heck is this?
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/toadxmtcku.jpg">
Good thing they found it before it became a fossil and the evolutionists pinned a 20 million year old date it on huh? Some lady actually found 3 of these dead on a road about 6 months ago, they all got hit by cars trying to save each other apparently. No one has any idea what it is.

But I bet you know what it is. what is it Linda? Please, educate my mind.

My part in this discussion with you is at an end. Whatever Russ may say or believe, he at least knows how to conduct himself in a debate without slinging playground insults. I am not a masochist, I have some self-respect, and I am not going to repeatedly subject myself to personal insults here. If no moderators are here to give you a warning then I will restrict my posts to people who can conduct discussions without name-calling.

I think you would prefer not to answer my posts because they provide too much factual information that unarguably put your opinions to shame.

Listen, about name calling and playground insults,,, you really should stop, I agree. Calling someones posts idiotic via a 3rd person, is the same as doing it to them, no matter how you choose to look at it. It says, your opinion, which is approximately the same as this guy's, is idiotic, you are an idiot just like this guy if you agree with him. Is that too difficult to understand? Also, what makes you so sure Ken Hovind or his son don't read Russ's board? Hasn't Russ pointed out that they are friends of his? If I see you do it again I will be right back here to do the same to you again ok? Eventually I know you will get the message. I cannot really speak for him, but it would appear russ is being extremely patient with you and simply bearing through your daily insults. I give him much credit for that. But it's probably only because he is the board owner that he has chosen not to publicly deride you as you do to others. I would not act ths way at my own website either, it's extremely uncomely. I would have told you to take a hike quite a while ago to be honest.... I would have told you to come back when you can respect other people's opinions without deriding them all the time, without reason... I would have told you to come back when you can prove you have truly investigated the claims because your current state of derision at anything or anyone that differs from your position is obnoxious and unproductive, and completely uncalled for considering so many of the ideas you fuel your derision with are much sounder than the opinions you present yourself.

Hope you liked the pterosaur anyway. He'll eat your boots. good luck arguing that one. I imagine we'll be seeing more of these types of photos over the next few years now that everyone finally has a digital camera. Youtube, a blessing in disguise, who ever though I'd say that?

There is not a single thread in this section where you are not taking direct jabs at Hovind or some other creationist, creationists or christians in general Linda.

For your information, there are others, like myself for instance, who are interested in hovind's material much more than your unending negative spurious and misinformed opinions, manifested in selective self reinforcement, illogic, vigilantly dense half aware lame rebuttals and evasive non sequitur stock responses including poorly analyzed counter examples in flawed support all thereof.

but we never get a chance to actually discuss anything here because of you and the amount of time and energy it takes to assuage your fragile ego.

Is that your purpose here? to simply waste everyone's time with ridiculous opinions and spurious innuendo? Is this an effort on your part to keep the real facts that really do disprove evolution and it's timeline from being seen by others? It sure does look that way. And it's nothing new, the proponents of evolution have been doing exactly that for quite some time. Exactly what their or your purpose is I really don't know, aside from outright deceit. But it's nothing new, and we're well aware of it. It's such an old technique there's actually a name for it, I forget what it is though but I could look it up.

Personally, I would never listen to anabody who posted a crappy ol picture a Bin Laden chewin up and spittin out ma head,
and then lied about it.
Shows no class.
Linda, just google Bill Hicks for his take on evolution, too much swearin on it for me to post the link, it's dang funny.
Some people got too much time on their hands.

Lied?

where? link please.

brutally honest sometimes, yes, a liar, no.

why did those get deleted anyway? they were so funny. there were 40 people up there all the time viewing those cartoons. I'd say they went over quite well if only 2 or 3 people out of 40 or more complained.

I still have them y'know... i thought the who died and made you king one was superb. wanna see it again, Elvis? I can make more even, those photo montages are pretty quick, I can whip one fo those out in about 20 minutes, 30 minutes max. Considering the impact, I'd say that's pretty good. I should use them more often considering it takes a good couple hours just to address one of Linda's long illogical posts verbally. Maybe I will.

I think you guys are just jealous really I do, you don't have a single thing to battle that type of thing with because it's a lot more pwoerful than your nonsensical jibber jabber and so you get all whacked out into your it's not fair mode.

Don't you guys get tired of requiring handicap points from everyone all the time? When oh when are you going to step up to the plate?

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/ibuquvvcxi.gif">

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kulqijnziz.gif">

Elvis it's so good to see you. Where y'all been? Please come see us on the mercury forum, this is no place to hang out.

I think I'm going to strictly lilmit my posts in this area from now on, though it's difficult to resist pointing out the absurdity of some creationist claims when they are posted. It isn't a fair playing field, as anyone will see. Posts can be deleted without warning or explanation, and apparently it's OK to tell people they are dumb and assinine without fear of even a warning. In a way it's quite clever -- it insures that anyone posting the facts about evolution is eventually going to get railroaded out.

I'm not even going to read what's being written here anymore, this thread has totally lost the plot anyway. Come post on the mercury forum and let us know how you are doing?

Hehehe, that's rich!

No, I'd say your posts simply aren't worth replying to given your inability to refrain from emotional outbursts, from spam posting and otherwise your insulting, condescending demeanor towards pretty much anyone who so much as dares to disagree with your belief system.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark as to how you are going to reply to the above statement.

More hostility!

As long as you're a creationist, yep. This too has been proven by the board's powers that be.

The title of this entire forum is indeed very misleading.

If ya lie about one thing, y'all are gonna lie about anathing.
Thanks for the belly laugh about bein jealous, Sicky.
Thanks for the kindly sentiments Linda, but right now i got bigger fish to fry than amalgam illness, so I guess I must be ok, it's this dang world right now causin me grief, but I ain't gonna curse it without givin it a good fight.
I will say, though, creation is a powerful ineresting story but lockin horns ( heh heh) ain't gonna lead to productive and creative conversation. I think the only thing anabodys gonna find here is a fight..
Waste a time, n'est-ce pas?
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/byebye.gif" alt="" />

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/nryiygypko.gif">

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/nautrgppgw.jpg">

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/nvejavzfvp.gif">

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jnrgznmuwn.gif">

Yawn

Well said.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/sqnanikzzu.jpg"> <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jedavhjzaz.gif">

Anthony Flew, life long atheist and evolutionist, through years of scientific study finds the evidences lead him to design. Copied and pasted from "The Scientific World is Turning To God".

[color:"black"] [/color] "As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (1)

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (2)

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (3)

The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation. The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopaedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. (4)

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. (5) Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:


"What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." (6)

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7)

Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew's acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings. In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them. The final turning point in that process was a discussion organised by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003. Flew participated together with author Roy Abraham Varghese, Israeli physicist and molecular biologist Gerald Schroeder, and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane. Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favour of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents' arguments, and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion. In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazine Philosophy Now, he recommended Schroeder's book "The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth" and Varghese's book "The Wonderful World."(8) During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind (9), and also on the video "Has Science Discovered God?," he openly stated that he believed in intelligent design.

The "Intelligence Pervading the Universe" and the Collapse of Atheism

In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Antony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse being undergone by atheism. Modern science has revealed the existence of an "intelligence pervading the universe," thus leaving atheism out of the equation.

In his book "The Hidden Face of God," Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes:

"A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom." (10)

Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom.

Shorter version info on another link:
http://www.religionandspirituality.com/currentEvents/view.php?StoryID=20071102-041755-2904r

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/exztganswj.gif">

Taking the p*ss again sosick.....hmm. Guess I'm not seeing the funny side of it right now. I thought the copied and pasted article on the atheist was a good one. Sorry it didn't measure up, but can't please everybody.

Oh, and thought I'd add this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkCLnCsNty8&feature=related to add to the other youtubes I enjoyed. Thanx for posting them and the pics, very interesting. Have been looking at different ones for most of the evening.

Bex, thanks for posting this article. I'm going to get the books these scientists wrote.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" />

um hmm, enjoyed your article very much Bex.

I am reiterating, quantum mechanics does actually prove that God spoke this world into existence. The cartoon was made before you posted, I should have posted it sooner.

I have come to the conclusion that lutionists do watch cartoons but don't do very well in intricate verbal dialogue so I have been talking to them in pictures. If you don't show them pictures they just argue forever. when you show them pictures they still get offended but they are quieter about it. Something about the image, it makes an imprint, they remember it longer too.

I told this bunch 5 or 6 months ago that quantum mechanics had proved God as far as many scientists were concernd but they laughed at me then, they are still laughing. So, I laugh too, but for different reasons. I think computational science is way out of their league.

The pterodactyl over NY is superb isn't it?

Did you listen to the one where the russian scientists loweed the microphone into the 14 kilometer deep hole and heard human screams and yelling? Either there is a very starnge secret russian project going on for years down there or, it's actually hell. that is a real recording btw, and a real story as told by the scientists who were there themselves.

Some interesting ideas here Bex. I despise the dogmatic atheist ideology. However, I think it's important to be aware of what happened to Flew, and how an old and confused man was manipulated into letting his name be put on a book not written by him and claiming to overturn decades of his beliefs.

The following review of his book, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, can be found here http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html I will paste part of it that explains what happened. The creationist establishment and the dogmatic atheists are playing a big game of ping-pong and anything and anybody is fair game.

"Antony Flew's Bogus Book" by Richard Carrier

I'm mentioned considerably in a recent article in the New York Times Magazine about Antony Flew's new book. Fans will want to know about this, and hear some of the backstory from me, filling in some of the blanks left by the article, which was good but inevitably brief for so complicated a story. So here you go.

The Times Article

The article in question, by Mark Oppenheimer, is "The Turning of an Atheist" (New York Times Magazine, 4 November 2007, pp. 36-41). I had known of this article for over a month, as I communicated extensively with Oppenheimer (and the NYT fact-checking office), but I was politely asked not to discuss it until it appeared. Oppenheimer also procured for me an early galley proof of Flew's new "book," There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind ("co-authored" by Roy Abraham Varghese), which I was able to read a month ago and comment on for Oppenheimer (many of my fans have asked me if I knew of this book, and in fact I had already read it, I just could not discuss it until now).

As also reported by the Associated Press years ago, I'm well known for my correspondence with Flew on the matter of his conversion from weak atheism to strong Deism, and anyone who wants the full story about that can read my article on the subject (which has numerous subsequent updates appended to it): Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of (2004). Now, after reading "Flew's" new book, I was appalled at how badly argued it was, and how obviously it was not written in his style or idiom, but in that of contemporary Christian apologetics (like someone attempting a poor imitation of the style and approach of a Lee Strobel or Gary Habermas). Moreover, from crucial omissions (and distortions of history) it was clear the author could not have been Flew. Unless Flew had gone completely insane.

But I was certain another author was to blame, and not lunacy. And now my suspicions have been confirmed. This book is being promoted as "former atheist" Antony Flew's "long awaited" explanation of why he converted, but it is now known that Flew did not write any of it, and in fact recalls almost none of its contents. Indeed, Flew openly confessed to Oppenheimer that he didn't write a word of it. Oppenheimer also confirmed that Flew apparently knows (or remembers) little of its contents and almost none of the authors or works cited in it, despite the publisher's assurance that he signed off on it (though as Oppenheimer reports, even his publisher confesses doubts about Flew's ability to remember essential details, and it seems evident now that Flew's failing memory is clinically serious).

In my opinion the book's arguments are so fallacious and cheaply composed I doubt Flew would have signed off on it in sound mind, and Oppenheimer comes to much the same conclusion. It seems Flew simply trusted Varghese and didn't even read the book being published in his name. And even if he had, he is clearly incapable now of even remembering what it said. The book's actual author turns out to be an evangelical preacher named Bob Hostetler (who has also written several books with Josh McDowell), with considerable assistance from this book's co-author, evangelical promoter and businessman Roy Abraham Varghese.

However, I don't completely believe the story they told Oppenheimer. The style of the chapters attributed to Flew differs so much from the portions explicitly written by Varghese (such as a lengthy preface), that I suspect Hostetler was responsible for much more than the publisher claims. Whether that's so or not, this is a hack Christian tract, not formal or competent philosophy, nor anything from the mind of Antony Flew. Consequently I won't provide anything like an extensive review of this terrible (and quite bogus) book . . .

A few more quibbles here.

"Leading atheist?" People know about Richard Dawkins. (Personally I can't stand him.) Most had never heard of Mr. Flew until this book was promoted by fundamentalists. Hmmmm.

And about his (or whoever's) observations and conclusions. Not very rational; in effect, many of them reflect the logical fallacy of the argument from incredulity: "I can't believe such a thing could be, so therefore it can't be." People used to fear lightning, thunder and eclipses until they understood what they were. They were attributed to the gods. Arguing for creation is nothing different really. I'm not saying that everything can be boiled down to what can concretely be shown and proved by known scientific methods, but I also think that nature and natural phenomena deserve more consideration than simply, "God did it."

Back to being rational. If I said, "It is raining outside. My dinner tastes good," then that is certainly not irrational, but it is a non-sequitur. If I were trying to convince you that I was eating a delicious meal, and I tried to use the fact that it is raining outside as proof, then you would rightly consider the argument illogical.

In the same way, "the fact that nature obeys rational and ordered laws, the fact that we are intelligently organised and purpose-driven beings, and the very existence of nature itself," (ignoring that the first two are open to subjective interpretation) and "the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence" are non-sequiturs. It isn't necessarily irrational to put them together in the same paragraph, but to imply that the first three somehow imply the last is illogical. The last is a statement that is logically independent of the first three.

Why does nature have to imply a creationist god anyway? I personally believe in the transcendent, I believe in chi, and that there are other things at work of which we know little -- but these things do not point me toward a god who created everything either.

At any rate, "Flew's" book does not advocate a young earth and I don't see an indication that it says anything contrary to evolution. The approach of this book is largely deistic, which is hardly an ideology espoused by any of the creationists here.

The irrational hatred of God of many proponents of evolution tends to blind them to the realities, and achievements, of the rest of science. Computational science, eg; quantum mechanics/physics has given us most of the technology we see today wheras evolution has given us nothing. Evolutionists do not comprehend most science beyond Newtonian science. It is very evident.

Edward Teller was a leader in this field. He was a Jew, born in Hungary, schooled in Germany, and later a Jewish refugee who sought asylum outside of Germany after the Nazis took over. He eventually came to the United States. He died recently, in 2003.

He was honored by his country of birth, Hungary, in 2001. At that ceremony, he made this statement:

After the gleaming gold medal with his name engraved on the back was placed around his neck, Teller thanked Prime Minister Orban, and also recognized his fellow Hungarian scientists and their contributions to modern science. "The 20th century was the most remarkable period in scientific discovery. But, I would have liked to have been born a quarter century earlier," said Teller. "In science, what was impossible 50 years ago is now reality. Then, if a scientist believed in God, he had to admit God was unimportant. But through quantum mechanics, we know that creation is never complete." "The next century is unpredictable," he continued. "Further knowledge for everybody’s benefit; that is my high aim for the next century. I pray, wish and ask for your success."

Edward Teller, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, believed in God, and Edward Teller prayed.

Hi Sosick, Sorry about that! I misinterpreted the post (which is something easily done on here).

I have used the picture psychology before myself on another forum lol. But in all seriousness, I think that some of those pictures, as have others that Russ posted, speak louder than words and for me? They are uplifting and confirm me even more in my convictions. I don't "need" them, because for me the evidence for design for me is a no brainer. But it's just the icing on the cake.

I would not like to be someone who had access to this kind of information (particularly a scientist) and rejected every opportunity to consider design. Death would be a frightening thing. That's just my opinion.

Oh yes, I have heard that russian recording and have it saved on my computer. I found it highly disturbing! In fact, when I heard the sounds, it reminded me of the sound of people in a HUGE crowd at once in unison, just as they would at a football match, except it was a sound of horror.

I tend to believe it is real. I know this, the men who were involved were warned about this leaking out to others and once it did, suddenly there were others saying "oh it was just a hoax". There is a very strong argument for it being true, when a young guy who had an old recording from his father (who knew one of the guys that was there), had given this recording to the Christian radio show going at the time.

The interesting thing is, they say the hole that was drilled was quickly capped up and the exploration was never finished and the hole never filled back in....

I remember when I heard the recording, I was uncertain because of the arguments of true or hoax and I prayed a strong prayer to God to somehow confirm it either way and something VERY strange happened which I won't go into. But it gave me a "hell" of a fright. Something I did not expect, considering I am not one to get quick or obvious answers.

At any rate, I tend to believe it's true but either way, again I don't require that for my faith. But it is a very disturbing and thought provoking recording.

One thing I have also noticed. Whatever is put on the net, even if is absolutely true, it is inevitable that a cry of "hoax" will soon follow. It was interesting because there was (and is) a Russian recording of a 16 year old girl being exorcised in a Russian Orthodox church. One of the very few that has gotten out. This again is highly disturbing and apparently totally genuine. Been on here for sometime now. However, there was onetime when I was in a debate on "yahoo answers/questions" with a few atheists and I put a link to this recording up.

Every since i did that? Someone has now typed up a response to this on the net to deny it's authenticity, even though the man who recorded this can be reached via email and was there at the time it took place and verifies it....

And no matter what is handed to them? They will deny it. One guy laughed at this recording because it was so eerie and real, he said "Oh it's funny, it's too realistic, so it's gotta be a hollywood recording" and I remember thinking "If it had sounded more like the girls' own voice a bit more often? He'd have laughed at that and said it was not even demonic. It's also interesting that the hollywood recording studios actually copy reality. This is how they do those demonic recordings, based on real life.

So again, even though there are hoaxes and I don't believe anything that comes my way, I'd be very very careful to so quickly disregard these things too readily. Certainly it is a gift when God allows the supernatural to occur, when He's already provided abundent evidence of His reality in the world around us (in my eyes). So they are, as the bible says "Without excuse".

The pterodactyl was another wonderful pic I've added to my computer. I'd really like to know the source of that. I have sent it to a friend here in NZ, who is a creationist and travels around the country to schools. They are called "Dinosaur Rock". You can check them out online (Darryn and Jacky). They are very interested in all these kinds of things.

Why are people here assuming that there is an unwritten rule saying that a scientist must be an atheist? There are many scientists who are theists. You will have a very hard time, however, finding scientists who are young earth creationists, or old earth creationists who deny evolution. There are simply too many facts, too much evidence, pointing to the earth being old and life evolving. It isn't too hard to weave those basic things into any kind of religious or spiritual ideology.

Hi Laura, no problem! Glad it came in handy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Pictures are the easiest things in the world to fake. How do you prove anything about a photo on the internet, one way or the other? Better evidence is needed.

I think the idea of living pterodactyls is frankly insane. I do believe it's possible that there are creatures on the earth which have not been "discovered" by science, i.e. "bigfoot." But even if the Loch Ness Monster were proved to exist, how is this evidence for creation? So some "primitive" creatures survived in an ecological niche? There's nothing contrary to evolution here. It's creationists looking around trying to find "proof" that evolution is wrong, along the lines of Hovind claiming that fire-breathing dragons must exist because Revelation says so.

And how is "possession" evidence for creation?

Hi Linda, I copied and pasted the article for anybody's interest, take it how you want. They'll be plenty of rebuttals, the internet is vast and there are a lot of people for and against on both sides. I expect that. It was also on renowned Journalists's "Michael Brown" website www.spiritdaily.com. This guy goes into everything in depth before posting, checking out every source.

however here is another link re anthony flew
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-deal-with-anthony-flews.html

I do not know however (though I was expecting this) that Flew was of unsound mind and it is obvious he does not believe in any "personal God", nor an afterlife, but put simply through his scientific studies, he has formed the opinion that life could not have arrived through chance, but rather designed via intelligence, considering the vast information within the genetic code, which make any computer we have today look like nothing in comparison.

I don't see what is addle brained about reaching that conclusion. I think it is reasonable and logical to consider that if the genetic code itself is beyond any computer we have today in information and nobody can doubt the intelligence required to build these, that intelligence just "might" have been behind life itself? It's funny how human beings have within us so many various creative abilities.

I saw that you laughed at Russ' post on the "oil", but II considered the irony that one evolution belief is that we come from primordial soup and somehow that is suddenly "logical". Whatever, the truth regarding Flew's book? and the ping pong arguments in regards to it? Certainly, there are scientists who have been "evolutionists" who through their science came to a belief in God.

There are plenty of Christians who lost their faith by believing in evolution. But it is also very interesting that when they get the chance to hear both sides, there have been many converts from that alone.

You cannot reconcile a belief in the GOd of the bible with Evolution Linda. The God of the bible is the Creator, evolution doesn't even come into the picture. God MADE man in His own Image and likness. He did not evolve man in His own image and likeness. THe world did not evolve through millions of years of death and suffering. Rather sin brought death and suffering into this world.

This is what the bible teaches, so either one throws away his/her bible and accepts the evolutionary teaching, or they accept God's word. I believe God's word can be put to the test and I have not been disappointed.

What does possession have to do with creation? Sorry you found it off topic, I thought it was interesting to include a bit of the paranormal and supernatural. I actually don't find it outside from creation, as the demon is already mentioned in Genesis (the book of creation). So perhaps it was only of interest to those who already believe.

Actually, photos are not that easy to fake. There is a big difference between clean original material and enhanced or pasted/layered effects. Anyone, anyone, with experience in photgraphy, digital or silver based, knows this and can tell the difference. If photos are so easy to fake, why haven't you done it yet?

Like most evolutionists, you could see a pterodactyl land on your rooftop and still not believe it. Your desire to not believe is very strong. I realize you also do not believe most of quantum mechanics. Yet, there you are pecking at a computer keyboard, a gift of computational science. Mostly, it is hard to believe that you have difficulty believing it. Because you rely on it.

Evolution is reminiscent of the dark ages of science. The amount of censorship and fraud it takes to maintain itself is enormous.

There's nothing contrary to evolution here? I suggest you check your dates. Perhaps you somehow have missed the fact that evolutionists automatically paste 10 and 25 million year old dates on most every bone or fossil they find? And they haven't got a whif of proof that it is really so. They have only the desire for it to be so. Really, they'd be quite lucky to find anything at all that old on this earth. Things have a way of decomposing in much less time than that. It's easily observable. why haven't evolutionists observed that fact? They don't want to. Even rocks crumble in time. Observable time. The elements wear and tear at them, buried or otherwise. Dogs come along and dig stuff up. Bacteria eat organic matter, it decomposes. Floods earthquakes volcanos are numerous. The earth heaves. the earth compresses. The earth moves. The earth collapses. Mountains rise, mountains shatter. water erodes. Why haven't evolutionists observed those facts? They don't want to. They might lose their job. Evolution is a major perpetrated fraud.

The earth is not static. comprehend that. fact.

Edward Teller also said this:

Of the attributes of God, I feel most strongly about His knowing all secrets. About an everlasting God, the most appealing is that it suggests that there will be always more secrets to be discovered through never-ending surprises.

So...you think the idea of living pterodactyls is frankly insane....yet then you go onto say you're willing to accept a living dinosaur like "loch ness" could still be alive today or even the idea of bigfoot.....anybody else see the contradiction here?

Like you are doing in regard to pterosaurs and trilobites and other stuff, you mean?


Like you fear the idea of God you mean? And attribute all sorts of nasty qualities to him as a result?

I don't know who this guy Flew is, but surely, his mind was/is sounder than yours Linda. Just tally his achievements next to yours as proof. I fear going back to pointing out to you that you have often professed seeking counseling and using psychotropic drugs because I realize this is a point of offense and weakness to you. But the point does need to be made when you accuse others of being weak minded or unstable.

Bex there is so much conradiction here that it is at the point of insanity almost. It's been pointed out to her time and again but she refuses to acknowledge it. She even starts crying at a certain point if you point too much out at one time.

Mercola posted some info on those studies where words/sound can affect matter... water, blessing food, praying etc. That make be an interesting point to take up, he has it neatly notated with photos at the mercola site already.

The pterosaurs are definitely real btw.

I have to go for now, see ya later. be blessed.

Bex I have to say it's refreshing to talk here with someone who sticks to the point and does not insult. This is more like how a proper debate ought to be.

Be aware, though, of what I was pointing out about Flew. It's impossible to really know what he is thinking. He is certainly not the person he was because he has dementia and his memory is shot. He did not write that book, though his name is on it, so when you discuss the beliefs it contains I think it's misleading to attribute them to him. That's what the creationists who wrote it for him want you to do. There's something pretty despicable in wheeling out an invalid so that you can manipulate him for your own purposes.

I've been talking with Russ about this idea that life is irreducibly complex. First of all, I will again add the caveat that abiogenesis -- the theory that life arose from organic material -- is not actually part of the theory of evolution, and in itself neither validates nor invalidates it. But what abiogenesis says is that the very beginnings of life were molecues that were self-replicating. Not cells, not nuclei, not even DNA. Something very, very basic. If you actually look into the research that has been done on this, it does not seem so implausible. Am I going to insist that this is the way life began? No. There isn't a whole lot of evidence for the way life began and it seems to me that there are lots of possibilities, some of which no one has even thought of yet. Abiogenesis is one possibility. You can believe a god created life in the very beginning too, lots of people do.

You also present the false dichotomy that is heard from many fundamentalists: that either the Bible is factually true, or it is entirely false and gets thrown out altogether. There are many people in the world -- the majority of Christians in fact -- who have no trouble reconciling faith in God with more of a metaphorical understanding of the Bible. What you demand is that every word in it be taken literally. Unfortunately this means trying to shoehorn a lot of observable reality into this very narrow view, and forcing the facts to conform to your world view. This is what so-called creation "scientists" do and by doing so they invalidate themselves as scientists, because true scientists do not attempt to fit what they observe into a pre-determined idea.

SS, do you know how fossils are dated? You are now trying to claim that "evolutionists" are guilty of the same error -- that they want to shoehorn observable reality into a narrow predetermined view. Why? I have no "need" to "believe in" evolution. There are simply mountains of facts that point to the earth being old, and life having evolved. If it's there in front of my eyes then I see no logical reason to try to deny it.

If you are going to claim that radioisotope dating is wrong, then can you explain how so? Can you explain how fossils are found in undisturbed layers of rock, volcanic ash, etc, that are underneath other layers of rock that are millions of years old? You do understand that by its very nature (of being rock), a fossil does not decompose? You understand the processes by which fossils can be made, presumably? This isn't rocket science. And rocks erode at observable rates too, depending on their composition and condition, though only if they are exposed to weathering or subduction or somesuch process. What do you mean, evolutionists have not observed this? They have also observed that some rocks are older than others. They can date them. They can date the fossils in the rocks. Some are older than others. I don't see a logical point here. Evolutionists don't paste 10-million year old dates on everything. If they did, they would not be studying how the human race evolved in the past few million years would they?

Bex, nice point about the logic in me talking about bigfoot. I just refer you back to evidence. There's a lot of evidence that something like bigfoot exists in various areas around the world. That maybe the Loch Ness monster exists. I say the idea of a pterosaur is insane because I see no evidence there, just some pictures (my husband, an amateur photographer, will tell you how very easy it is to fake a picture) and some creationists desperately wanting to show the world that dinosaurs are still alive. If anyone offers better evidence then I'll take it into account. Though remember, it's entirely possible for creatures to survive relatively unchanged in ecological niches. Crocodiles and scorpions, for example, have existed more or less as they are for many millions of years.

SS I do not fear the idea of a god. I just decided that the belief in an anthropomorphic single creator of everything doesn't fit my world view. And I'll remind you that I told you I would not engage in discussions with you if you make personal comments. Accusing me of being unstable, needing counselling, relying on psych meds, etc is again beyond the pale. I don't give a damn what else you have to say about anything but you leave personal matters out of it, understand? I don't come on here making pot-shots at your personality but you seem to think it's OK to do this to others. Do it again and don't expect another word from me, I've had enough of it.

BTW attacking your opponent, rather than their argument, is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. People often resort to it when they can't find a way to address the argument itself.

Hi Linda, thanks.

Ok, about Flew? I can too say that the evolutionists would want us all to believe that he was incompetent and mentally deficient, so it was "forced" upon him. I don't buy into this either Linda. If you read the other link I gave, that has been spoken about already.

I believe in a creator being yes. I call this creator "God" and believe in the person of Jesus Christ. I certainly do NOT expect people do believe what I do. However, the bible is very clear too and Christ said "If they believe not Moses, how will they believe that one rose from the dead". The first part of the bible is actually crucial to the second. And this is referred to in the new testament a number of times, they all tie in. Christ did not die on the cross for evolved ape like creatures. He died because sin entered the world. This is the entire point of being a Christian and where original sin came from (first two parents). If you deny the first part of the bible, you automatically discredit the second. They both complement eachother. We also await the time where the earth will be renewed, similar to how it was in the beginning. This is one of the promises in the bible. God did not create a fallen world with death and suffering, we did through sin.

So that is the point I was making. I know full well there are many people out there that are Christians and believe in evolution. I admire their faith! But I do not admire their lack of trust in God's word in the first book of the bible. But that is their choice. Nowhere in the world around me do I observe any signs of evolution or feel any sway from the truths in the bible.

In fact Linda, evolutionists already fit the world into their pre-conceived idea. So your comments that fundamentalists do this, is once again turned back on the evolutionist who even though has not found a missing link, continues to say "it must be out there". He cannot and will not consider the idea of "perhaps it's not been found because they might not exist?". They have attempted to fit anything they can into their pre-conceived world view and this includes their dating methods (radio-metric dating etc), which are FAR from infallible. Snails etc - shells been dated at thousands of years old! Seals likewise and other creatures who have been grossly exaggerated showing serious faults with carbon dating. Radiometric dating is even worse for 3 reasons. Nobody knows what conditions were like at the beginning or during ageing and whether there were additional or subtracting factors which could also could seriously affect ageing. The greatest accelerent to carbon and radio metric dating is water! Stalactite and stalagmite formations have been shown to occur rapidly within decades in caves and elsewhere and not over thousands or milions of years! These are just some examples of commonly erroneous dating.

Dr Gary Parker an ex evolutionist said that as a student his professor admitted during lectures on dating that ALL dating methods had serious drawbacks which were frequently covered up. He said, if the creationists knew about this, they would have a field day. But, urged his evolutionist students to "Keep the faith". Thereby admitting that evolution had no scientific basis, but was in reality a belief.

Linda, what evidence does Loch Ness and Bigfoot have that a pterosaur doesn't have? Let me know....sightings? pictures? um....we do know they did exist right? So how is it totally impossible that there are NONE alive today? There are vast areas of our planet uninhabited by man, completely unexplored. There have indeed been sightings in these tropic/humid areas by people, but do we take notice? Or is it that the idea of any fossilised creatures being alive at all today just sounds "too weird" therefore it cannot be so? It's only weird because it's not commonly seen. I haven't seen one, I don't know it exists, but there are compelling sightings by seemingly sane people to make one think "it might be possible, we have the fossils, we know they "did" exist, could any still be alive today?".

Many animals have become extinct, but we have evidence they existed. Some are very rare and becoming extinct, and many more are continually be discovered. It's neverending.

However, in none of these discoveries has there been found yet a transitional form with one kind becoming another. Nothing. Every ancient fossil is in keeping with exactly what we see today. Granted, they've given it a good go with the false horse evolution theory, and ape to man theory, but they've yet to come up with any fossil proof and as of now? THe missing link, remains "missing".

I'll have a look at your link about Mr. Flew. I don't think that his deism is all that relevant to the creation/evolution debate, but I found it interesting that he was being used in that way.

I don't think pterosaurs are all that relevant either. Scorpions and crocodiles have existed since before the dinosaurs and you don't see scientists trying to hide them under a carpet. Yes I think many creatures remain to be discovered, though the obviously fake pictures that have been posted here are . . . well, let's say they lighten things up.

OK, missing link. Old terminology, no longer used by scientists. All forms are transitional forms because evolution is an ongoing process. More fossils are found all the time and more pieces of the jigsaw are filled in. It's a fortuitous set of circumstances in which a body is fossilised, and preserved, and found, but nevertheless the pieces keep coming in. I've documented a series of transitional fossils for whales elsewhere in this forum, if Russ hasn't decided to delete it yet. There's a good number of them for hominids as well. The problem is that a creationist can always look at two transitionals and say " where's the one in between." When one is found, they want what's in between it and the others. Infinite regression. Presumably you also look at homo erectus and say it's an ape, and at a neanderthal and say it's a human, yes? Or how else would you classify those?

For your examples about how dating is wrong, be it radioisotope dating or dating of rock formations, can you please give links or some other kind of verifiable evidence? You've made quite a number of assertions but I see no proof for them here. I've seen similar claims on creationist websites and when they actually do give enough verifiable detail, they've turned out to have the facts wrong.

If Dr. Gary Parker is an ex evolutionist, presumably he is a creationist. I don't doubt that he is caricaturing other "evolutionists" he knew. BTW I don't like the term "evolutionist." It's only creationists who tend to use it because attaching "-ist" to it makes it sound like a religious dogma itself. I repeat, I feel no "need" to "believe." I make my decisions based on the evidence, which does not require me to claim that conspiracies exist amongst scientists or that most of what they tell us is wrong, or that the physical evidence which I've seen and touched myself is all hoaxes. I know a few scientists. They are intelligent people who themselves are not hoaxers, and frankly it's impossible for them to do what they do and be completely fooled somehow. I don't think Russ wants to look up Glenn Morton http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm but maybe you will. He was a creationist petroleum engineer who saw the Bible as literal fact, and had great difficulty reconciling this with what he observed in his day-to-day work. He's found some interesting ways of joining the two together in his mind, but it required leaving young-earthism behind.

I'm not entirely sure where others stand on this issue here because they haven't clarified by saying how old they think the earth is. Do you think it's about 6000 years old? And if so, maybe you can address some points about the supposed Biblical flood?

Just to throw in my own two cents here..

Evolution does not equate atheism. Heck! Atheism existed before evolution had even been discovered, so they're definitely not one in the same. Not only are they not the same, but lumping them together in one category is so far removed from the truth as to be ridiculous.

Good job engaging in a codial debate, Bex! I mean it. It's a surprising change from the norm here, where posts can get deleted simply for not bowing down to Christian supremacy or where flames get permitted so long as you are a Christian supremist. I may not agree with what you're saying on the subject, but I respect you immensely for your ability to actually have a debate and still be human about it.

I don't know about this Flew fellow so I have to stay out of this part of the debate, but I will add the following.

There's a trend here amongst the Fundamentalist Christians to turn the accusations aimed at them back onto their adversaries - by calling evolution a religion. This couldn't be further from the truth. As I've stated in another thread, evolution (even if it's completely incorrect) is a pretty boring explanation as to how we got here. Nobody believes it because they have a yearning desire for it to be true. They believe it because - again, whether it's true or completely false - it makes logical sense to them. Conversely, Christianity offers hope, salvation and eternal life. Even if Christianity is true, the vast majority of people who believe in it will only do so for emotional reasons, not because they've "done their homework" (to quote an exorbitantly overused expression by another poster here.)

For this reason, it would behoove posters wishing to defend creation arguments not to continually accost evolutionists with the "You only believe it because you want to" phrase. No evolutionist would cling to their ideals because they stubbornly just want it to be true so badly. It's a boring explanation (despite that it's the best one currently available.) It's also impossible to be a religion because it's a scientific model. Even if gravity were disproved tomorrow, nobody who currently accepts it does so out of a yearning, emotional desire, out of a need for it to be true. They do so because to them it makes sense. Besides, it's not like there are Gravity Disciples or some Priesthood to the Almighty Theory of Gravitation. This is because science has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, science is not religion therefore evolution (EVEN IF IT IS WRONG) is in no way a religious concept.

So if you want to refute evolution, fantastic. Knock yourself out. Just use rational arguments toward that endeavor. Saying evolution is a religion only discredits yourself and weakens your own argument.

No, wrong. A Christian is someone who believes, truly in Jesus Christ. Do you want to explain how it is possible to be a Christian with a metaphorical view of the bible? A metaphorical Christian maybe.

And you keep using the word fundamentalist, but I am not sure you are even applying it correctly. Maybe you should explain. I am not a fundamentalist Christian by any definition of the word... neither is Russ by his professed statements, and Bex, well I really don't know. Bex is Catholic so she probably isn't a fundamentalist Christian either.




funny, your statement describes evolutionists quite well. It even describes a lot of your own statements and ideas. there's plenty of proof right on this page.



Yes indeed. we start with an assumed timeline of say, this item being 1 million years old, and we tie everything else in around that. No matter which method of dating is used.

Not very scientific. sorry. I am surprised you didn't know that.



Because they do not want people to believe that God spoke the world into existence, that God created man, that God is good, and that God is present. They do not want to discuss things like sin and hell. They would prefer people believed they are decended from animals. I am surprised you didn't know that either.




yes you do. It invalidates God and the bible for you.



So, why on earth are you taking so long to present all these facts? You spend days and days arguing here but never present facts. It's a big problem with your argument Linda.



I addressed that above.




You do understand that by it's very nature of being a fossil it is subject to erosion, corrosion, wear and tear, compression and upheaval just like any other rock? Can you logically explain how certain rocks are deemed to have been static in position and protected when the earth and rocks in every other place are constantly moving and shifting and eroding?



No they would not. So in order to study how the human race evolved in the past few million years they had to first paste dates of 10 million years on dinosaur bones and other things.



tell your husband to fake a picture then, submit as evidence of something to say, oh some UFO guys, scientists somewhere, whatever, and see if he gets away with it. there is always a seam in a faked photo. Always. Your husband is very much an amatuer if he made that comment.



well hallalujah, it that acknowledgment of a sort? It's not difficult to see to why people would want to kill every pterosaur or raptor in sight is it? they are very dangerous creatures.




whatever.




No. it's not. Since you do not ever ever provide any real evidence of anything, but only personal comment, your comments must be judged in the same way you judge others, whether they are here at this board today, or whether it is information, evidence or science presented by someone else that is posted here. Your comments and opinions Linda, are in no way less subject to the same scrutiny that you offer to others. I suggest you look again at your very first post in this thread.




oooh huffy.




Yes you do. And then you email your friends to be your little pitbulls for you too. oooh scarwy.



I know. I suggest you take a look at your very first post in this thread again. And the other threads. and then read some of your comments over again. Because you do an awful lot of name calling.

Most sincerely, I am not sure I am talking to a sane person here. And sincerely, i do question your sanity and am trying to figure out exactly where your mind is at. There is a disconnect somewhere. A reasonable person would have admitted long ago to making insults if they had done it as often as you do.

I know I have is insulted you a few times linda. But only after you have taken a few too many cheap potshots yourself.

You deserved the insults. You begged for them.

And... If you continue calling me SS, that's fine but I will also continue calling you Lindaloution. I am not stupid Linda. And if you think i don't understand the dig, which you and Elvis have been at for months I might remind you, mostly simply because I am a professed Christian so you find that nickname amusing... , I have been quite patient.....well like I said there is a disconnect in your mentality that sees only the wrong doing or perceived wrong doing of others. You are quite an angel in your own eyes aren't you?

I have told you alreday... and it should not be difficult to understand... when you insult and call people names whose beliefs are relatively the same as mine, something you are well aware of, you may as well be calling me those names. Your excuses are nonsense. You know exactly what you are doing when you make those types of comments. And, if you truly do not know what you are doing when you make those comments, you might well be a sociopath. I am not sure which of the above you are, because by your own statements here, you are actually a sociopath or psychopath who does not recognize when you do harm to others. I would rather prefer that were not true but you keep insisting it is.

Pwcca, thank you. I could be more cordial, but when is creation/evolution debates ever that nice?

Hmmm, I don't think I called evolution a religion this time? I called it a belief, but kept the word "religion" out due to the lack of "deities"...but I do not believe it is science no. Sorry if I called it a religion, I did not mean to offend your sensibilities <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Evolution need not equal atheism, it can lead to atheism for sure. As creation can lead to "christianity" or another faith. Flew was both atheist/evolutionist, which is why I used both terms for him. We have plenty of theistic evolutionists in my church believe it or not and creationists.

To label people being Christians because they have "emotional reasons" is a strange thing to say. I actually find my emotions are deadened and have been for years. I've come to this faith through I believe a call / infusion from the Holy spirit. I honestly believe that there is no other way one can come to God unless they are open and called . I've been involved heavily into all kinds of occultism, God wasn't really on my radar. I had a vague belief in Him, but much more than that happened to take that further! Russ himself has pointed his reasons out for becoming a Christian. If you wish to discount that and scoff because he admits it was not for emotional reasons, then so be it. His experience is his, as mine is mine. Occultism actually had more emotional appeal to me than God, because it tantalised my curiosities and flesh, yet gave me no answers. I don't see why a door needs to be slammed in the face of intelligent design because it might lead someone to "Christianity".

Another one that is used to describe why we believe in God is "it's a crutch"........when I've never seen so many wounded sick people on here with all kinds of crutches they're using to stand "upright"....does that make the "Crutches" invalid? or "unscientific?", not necessarily, especially if they heal. I don't see how those excuses can be used to describe why people become Christians. In fact, it's FAR deeper than this.

I think I am getting the message loud and clear how you feel about Christianity and have seen it on many posts that I've read on this thread and certainly in my own life, emotions couldn't possibly come into it, I come from a secular country. Faith is a gift and a battle!

Anyway, I've just used up all this to defend once again my faith which is a great opportunity, but in you wanting these religious arguments kept out of it, doesn't yield much validility in the face of you continuing to use patrosning comments in an attempt to explain it away....contradiction in terms.

By the way Linda, Russ has provided you a smorgus board of links, youtubes, pics throughout this thread to such a degree, that I'm astounded! I have worked my way through this thread and seen what he's provided and you asking for more..... And is it even worth trying? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I think the only people who will benefit from the work he's given here are those searching for answers and wish to hear the creation account. And that's rewarding in itself. I do not believe Linda that I or anybody else can possibly do much better than what has already been provided personally. But I'll address your post after this one.

Sosick, yes I am a young earth creationist. I do most definitely believe in the time scale from the bible, tracing back through the generations. I'm not saying everybody else has to believe this, Im not saying "my view" is absolute, but that's where Im at right now. I'm open to consider a longer time for sure.

(my answers are in bold).

I'll have a look at your link about Mr. Flew. I don't think that his deism is all that relevant to the creation/evolution debate, but I found it interesting that he was being used in that way.

I think it is very relevant, he's one of the leading evolutionists and has been for years. This is a major breakthrough if it causes people to consider intelligence/design as well as their other theories.

I don't think pterosaurs are all that relevant either. Scorpions and crocodiles have existed since before the dinosaurs and you don't see scientists trying to hide them under a carpet. Yes I think many creatures remain to be discovered, though the obviously fake pictures that have been posted here are . . . well, let's say they lighten things up.

They'd have a few problems hiding them under the carpet, they're too common and well known for those games <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Are the pictures really fake linda?...I can't be certain..can you?

OK, missing link. Old terminology, no longer used by scientists. All forms are transitional forms because evolution is an ongoing process. More fossils are found all the time and more pieces of the jigsaw are filled in. It's a fortuitous set of circumstances in which a body is fossilised, and preserved, and found, but nevertheless the pieces keep coming in. I've documented a series of transitional fossils for whales elsewhere in this forum, if Russ hasn't decided to delete it yet. There's a good number of them for hominids as well. The problem is that a creationist can always look at two transitionals and say " where's the one in between." When one is found, they want what's in between it and the others. Infinite regression. Presumably you also look at homo erectus and say it's an ape, and at a neanderthal and say it's a human, yes? Or how else would you classify those?

Missing link, old terminology same old story. Transitional forms? so now it's the old "well it happened so slowly we can't really observe it" (the other one was punctuated equilibrium, happening so fast we were unable to see it). Just give me an example of an animal that hasn't always been or looked as it does today. Every fossil of any animal you see today, no matter how old has not shown to be anything else,....other than what we see today...where is the mystery? The ape to man creatures would never hold up in a court of law. Even by evolutionists. The differences with Neanderthals are still in the range of modern humans, despite claims that attempt to prove otherwise. Like the horse theory.

For your examples about how dating is wrong, be it radioisotope dating or dating of rock formations, can you please give links or some other kind of verifiable evidence? You've made quite a number of assertions but I see no proof for them here. I've seen similar claims on creationist websites and when they actually do give enough verifiable detail, they've turned out to have the facts wrong.

Which facts did they get wrong?

If Dr. Gary Parker is an ex evolutionist, presumably he is a creationist. I don't doubt that he is caricaturing other "evolutionists" he knew. BTW I don't like the term "evolutionist." It's only creationists who tend to use it because attaching "-ist" to it makes it sound like a religious dogma itself. I repeat, I feel no "need" to "believe." I make my decisions based on the evidence, which does not require me to claim that conspiracies exist amongst scientists or that most of what they tell us is wrong, or that the physical evidence which I've seen and touched myself is all hoaxes. I know a few scientists. They are intelligent people who themselves are not hoaxers, and frankly it's impossible for them to do what they do and be completely fooled somehow. I don't think Russ wants to look up Glenn Morton http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm but maybe you will. He was a creationist petroleum engineer who saw the Bible as literal fact, and had great difficulty reconciling this with what he observed in his day-to-day work. He's found some interesting ways of joining the two together in his mind, but it required leaving young-earthism behind.

Oh ok, so I can't use missing link and I've got to stop using "evolutionist" now too....do you think you could get a wee bit less precious in me using apparently "outdated" terms describing much the same thing? So you've seen evidence in the flesh? What is it? I've touched just one of many sulfur balls gathered from the areas of ancient Sodom and Gommorah, not quite what you'd get to see anywhere else. Was able to still light them

Thank you for the link, I'll look into it and have a read. Open mindedness is appreciated and where the evidence leads is the key.

I'm not entirely sure where others stand on this issue here because they haven't clarified by saying how old they think the earth is. Do you think it's about 6000 years old? And if so, maybe you can address some points about the supposed Biblical flood?

Yes, I personally do believe in a young earth. What points would you like me to address re the flood? I personally believe that it occured around 4000 years ago.....I believe the account in the bible for sure. I also know that there are many cultures around the world who haven't even read a bible, but share a very similar (almost identical) account of a man, a boat, and animals and the rest of mankind being wiped out. In fact, there is MUCH to be said for "so called" legends, particularly when they are shared all over the world in differing cultures.....our ancestory/history speaks volumes from people that really were there!

[b]Re the link you gave me to the long age theory of the earth? It's interesting.....but so are the short age earth theories and which one do I find more compelling? It's fine for this guy to feel that the evidence he comes up with forces him to reassess some of his ideas IF in fact he's gotten his facts straight. Because I've heard the opposite of scientists still hanging onto the long earth theory and finding they had to change their view based on what they were finding. Surely it's a case of interpretation of the evidences? God spoke and it was....he admits that to an extent, but I wonder how much power and might he's giving over to the elements, rather than the creator. Jesus was able to quiet the storms in an instant just by giving the word, having complete dominion over the earth and the sea.....Whether the creator took six literal days to do this, or 6 thousand years, it's His business. Instant miracles are not above or outside his abilities or agenda. Unfortunately we too often try to fit God into the scope of our own limited intellect, especially if we find it just too hard to believe[b]

[b] I don't know about anybody else, but I am far from impressed by the inability of many degreed academics to express themselves simply. It's often a cover up for confusion, uncertainty, agendas and bias, which simplicity tends to unmask. Simplicity of expression is the ultimate act of intelligence, e.g. Einstein! Often the use of long words and impressive terminology is their way of dazzling the listener, whilst boosting the ego and covering up discrepancies and is a well used ploy. I always admire those who are highly intelligent and qualified who manage to break things down for the layperson without having to resort to pontificating. There are scientists on both sides of these debates who can fall into the same trap. No way are any of them infallible, but I admire their depth of learning, study and achievements in many areas.[b]

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/nknnqvbkek.gif">

OK So Sick, to you a true Christian is someone who thinks that the Bible is literal, word-for-word fact. We're clear on that at least, though it means that millions of people in the world who believe in God, Jesus and the Bible -- thinking that maybe more than one interpretation of it may exist -- are wrong. Clear on that too.

The reality I observe is that the earth is old and that life has lived and evolved on it. I wouldn't define that as a narrow world view exactly, just a description of the evidence in it, but if you want to disagree that's of course your prerogative.

Archaeologists do not assume timelines. There are many different ways of dating a site and a find and no scientist uses just one. If you don't know what they are then I can link to some sites, or you could try having a look at some archaeology books. People here keep asking me "where's the evidence," though I've given plenty in various places on this forum. I am not here to provide a science curriculum or to write a library of information, though I'm more than happy to point you toward anything that's relevant, if you are willing to look at it before you decide it's all lies.

You are still equating evolution with atheism. This only fits your view if millions of so-called Christians in the world are not Christians at all because they do not think that every world in the Bible is literal fact. You seem to want to characterise me as someone who hates God and the Bible. I simply do not accept them as they are in Christianity as part of my personal belief system, though there is much to be learned from them and much truth in them. This is different from hatred and hostility. What I really have no truck with is where these beliefs are promoted in spite of the reality that looks us in the face every day.

Rocks move and shift and erode yes, but at different rates. There are some rocks that are still billions of years old because by happy chance they have not been eroded, subducted, metamorphosed, etc. These processes are not happening actively to all the rocks in the world all the time. Some are simply in geologically inactive places, under the earth where they are not being eroded, just moving a few centimeters every year as the tectonic plates shift.

My husband is not in the business of faking pictures but we both use Photoshop. Why do you think there has to be a seam in a fake photo? You can do all kinds of fantastic things digitally with photos and make them look real. You can also set your subject up however you want when photographing, in order to achieve a certain effect. Photos of anything are simply not enough proof in themselves, though they can lend weight to a larger body of evidence.

Finally, I didn't expect to have to do this, but I'm going to explain as clearly as possible what forum and debate etiquette are about. In a debate I will shoot down evidence that is erroneous. If I'm feeling particularly frustrated I might do something like call Hovind a stupid idiot. He has a lot to answer for and he's a snake oil salesman with fake credentials. I make no comments about people who choose, for whatever reasons, to agree with what he says. I have also made no personal comments to you though believe me you've given me more ammo than I could fill a whole arsenal with. Why? Because I am here to debate ideas, not to tear people down and take cheap shots at them. What is a cheap shot? Using personal knowledge you gained about me from the mercury forum and continually presenting it here as "evidence" that I'm crazy. If you seriously can't understand why someone might object to you throwing their history of psych med use publicly in their face and telling them they're a fruit loop, then I don't know what to say, I'd expect most people to have got the point by now. The sorts of things you've been saying to me would have got you thrown off every other forum I know of. Go join some and try talking to people there in the same way, maybe you will learn something.

Finally, I have been calling you SS because it is an abbreviation, no other reason. I don't understand why that is being taken as an insult but if you prefer not to be addressed in that way then all you need to do is say so.

Bex would you mind using the quote facility here instead of putting your comments in bold? The effect is a bit like being shouted at.

I think you may find that Antony Flew is not the "leading" evolutionist he's been made out to be. Most people have never heard of him. Now if Richard Dawkins, young and completely sound of mind, had a Pauline conversion, then believe me there would be a big stir. I'm also not convinced of Flew's state of mind, or what he's allowed creationists to write in his name, but I don't know why any of this should be considered a "breakthrough." Like I said, atheists and creationists are playing ping-pong and each side is as dogmatic as the other, trying to convert people and score victories.

If you are going to talk about ID as a theory, can you present some evidence for it, other than the Bible says so, or the argument from incredulity?

You keep saying you don't see transitional forms. There are many in the fossil record. I did say I gave some examples in other places here. Here is one I gave about the whale.

The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is now quite detailed. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.

a. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).

b. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).

c. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).

d. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.

e. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).

f. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).

The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).

Where would you draw the line between human and ape? You seem to be claiming that neanderthals were humans, though this again involved throwing out archaeological evidence and claiming that the dating methods scientists use are erroneous and even deliberate hoaxes to mislead everybody. Can you explain how that may be? And how would you classify homo erectus or homo habilis? When did God create them?

You asked about wrong facts that I've found on creationist websites. I've seen more examples than I can count of creationists like Hovind demonstrating that they don't know much about science, but I'll give you an example from the Answers in Genesis site. Criticising Hovind is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.

Ken Ham & friends on AiG present “research” from a book by Russell Humphreys, claiming to address the question of why we receive light from stars that are billions of light years away, if the universe is young. Humphreys says that the earth is near the center of the universe, at the bottom of a deep gravitational well. Relativistic effects result in billions of years passing in the rest of the universe while only thousands pass near the earth. This explains how multibillion-year-old stars and galaxies can exist in a universe only a few thousand years old. You’ve got to hand it to him, it’s imaginative at least, but it’s also impossible.

Gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. However, what we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) is that such time dilation is minor. According to astronomoers there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. Let me know if I need to define what a red shift is.

Humphreys tries to use clocks in the earth's frame of reference. But the cosmos is much older than the earth. Judging from the heavy elements in the sun and the rest of the solar system, our sun is a second-generation star at least. Billions of years must have passed for the first stars to have formed, shone, and become novas, for the gasses from those novas to have gathered into new star systems, and for the earth to form and cool in one such system. The billions of years before the earth are not accounted for in Humphreys' model.

Humphreys's theory assumes that the earth is in a huge gravity well. The evidence contradicts this assumption. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted.

This is one example of young earth creationism from astronomy. There are others that can be found from many other scientific disciplines. Often people making claims like "blood has been found in unfossilised dinosaur bones" turn out to have researched no more deeply than popular magazine articles and often have never looked at the scientific studies which they are misquoting.

What point would I like you to address about the flood? Let's start with a few basic ones. What happened to all the plants on the earth while they were covered in water all that time? (Hint: I can tell you what happens to my houseplants when I overwater them and stick them in a dark place out of the sun.) What about all the insects? Were you aware that a conservative estimate for the number of species of cockroach is 4,000? What about amoebas, paramecia, and all those other microscopic critters, what happened to them? Also, where did all the water come from, and where did it go? The creationist leaders used to advocate something called the vapour canopy theory but in recent years they seem to have decided to put it to the side. There are hundreds of other feasibility questions but let's just start with these.

I wouldn't argue with what you say about scientists at the end of your post, until the very last sentence. Whose depth of learning, study and achievements do you admire? Not those of archaeologists, geologists, astronomers, biologists or physicists, to name a few. You are essentially accusing them of either lying, or being duped in some grand conspiracy. Who are the scientists you do admire?

By the way, a comment about the links and videos that Russ posts here. I am being quite honest in saying that my computer will not play the videos. But what I've also explained before is that it is really not acceptable in a debate to post a link and expect someone to debate against a whole website or video. It requires virtually no work from the person posting, and it demands a huge amount of work from the debate opponent. It is more fair to everyone if the points that each person makes are debated. That is why I talked in my own words here about Humphreys' ideas regarding cosmology, rather than posting links to websites. I told Russ that if he's going to keep telling me to debate entire websites, I will simply tell him to debate websites of my own choosing which already do just that, and neither of us is going to get anywhere. I did ask him to summarise these videos in his own words but he hasn't done so yet. I also ignored a chunk of what SoSick posted because I will not respond to posts full of insults, no matter what else they contain.

Actually Linda, if it's all the same, I prefer the usage of the bold feature as Bex has done above. It's simply a personal preference on my part -- it really makes reading easier for me. My Lyme Disease together with the metal toxicity issues has caused vision problems and sequencing problems in my silly old brain. Bex's post was very easy for me to read because of the bold lettering.

I was under the impression that in the internet world, shouting is revealed by using all caps. Tthe bold lettering feature, however, can be used for emphasis to help delineate responses to posts. Perhaps I'm using outdated internet etiquette.

Anyway, anything that can make reading easier, is great in my book.

Hugs,
SomedaySoon (Sharon)

And I said this where? Where did I make this so clear? As usual, you are stretchng and twisting.

In an ideal situation, probably any Christian would tell you the bible is literal truth... in an ideal situation. However, in reality anyone who has ever done a serious serious study of the bible in any form we have available today, can only say... for the most part. That of course, assumes a real relationship with the living God and Jesus Christ, to verify the experiences and truths. It's also important to know the history of bible translation and word forms, from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, to English.

Personally, I learn something new everytime I read it. My interpretation, which does hold generally to most common accepted interpretations, is also affected by my personal situation on a day to day basis. I think most real christians, that is, those with a real relationship with the living God and Jesus Christ, will agree with that as well. That is why it's often called 'The Living Word'. I think there is even a bible that uses that name.



In regard to historical digs, civilizations, of course not. History itself provides a timeline. In regard to dinosaur bones, trilobites, whatever along those lines... I think you had better research how timelines are established for those things. It is always assumed that they are millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years old, with no actual evidence whatsoever to verify those claims. If you want to keep arguing otherwise, I suppose that is your perogative. But it's useless because it's a well known fact that the dates of certain items are assumed, a guess, and that all other found items are measured according to that assumed criteria. Study the history of carbon dating for instance.




I don't recall ever mentioning atheism. stretchng and twisting again. Quit trying to fit everything into your box. There are many faithful God fearing people who are very confused about the issue I can assure you. Everyone is at a certain place in their walk with God. Russ, Bex, me, we may all claim to know God, but... more than likely, our experiences differ. We know it's the same God because of certain traits, because of the way the bible also defines him... But... someone not as far along in their walk who has been previously greatly influenced by secular teachings may still be working this out. It doesn't mean they are not saved even... it just means God has not yet revealed certain things to them. But he will. This is exactly why young people are more prone to believe secular teachings than older more mature Christians. Everything takes time, and God truly does work with us on a one to one basis, he knows our hearts, our questions, our doubts. It often takes years to work certain situations out. But you'll find, remarkably, it always happens. Once saved always saved, I am a big believer in that, from personal experience as well as the testimony of others. i didn't always believe that, it took time and experience for me to come to full understanding of that one item. People wander off, get involved with weird stuff, bad stuff even... you know what? the day always comes when Jesus is right there to right that person and bring them back to the fold. Always. once saved. always saved. but everyone is in a different place in their walk. If you love him, he knows that. Love really, the most important thing. he looks right through us like a piece of glass, he knows our hearts. If you don't love him, well he knows that also and chances are you aren't really saved even if you have been baptised 90 times. Baptism won't save anyone. Loving God saves everyone who does, baptism or not.




Keep in mind, your reality may not be shared by everyone else. If you do not hate God then i would suggest you refrain from the viscious attacks on His character that you are so prone to. I can easily see that you do not know him and I always chock it up to that. The problem is, you are not aware that you don't know him.



billions huh? and you got this information where?



lemme try to remember.. I've got 2 years of photo and darkroom technique plus two years of studio photography at one of the best art schools on the planet, a year or so of previous employment with a well known major corporation as a professional photo retoucher, 3 years or so of experience running an award winning digital art website, and you are going to teach me?

I think you are more than just a bit out of your league here. As I said before, try it for real and see where you get. I know anyone can fake a photo Linda. I also know a really good fake is a heck of lot more involved than you seem to want to make it appear. When you have made your fake photo, please, post it here and please include all the corresponding photos that you took that day as corroborating evidence. If you could show the original on the original smartdisk or 35mm film itself that would also be most helpful.



thanks, but I don't think you are in a position to teach etiquette.



Well.. I don't really believe you Linda. Do you abbreviate everyone elses names too? no, you don't... I don't need to say anything Linda, your insensitivity on this point speaks for itself. But you know what? if you lived near me and called me that on a daily basis... I would have broke your nose a long a time ago. Really, not kidding. To remind you daily, whenever you looked in the mirror, to respect others.

For abbreviating your internet ID handle!?!

How ... Christian of you.

Pwcca, i realize you have some really offbeat opinions. But just because you don't see it as enormously racially charged doesn't mean the majority of the rest of the planet agrees with you.

Do I need to remind you of the great offense taken when i shortened your name to Pwcc? You guys and your double standards are really adding up. Hey, you know... what goes around comes around. Don't complain about your deleted posts either.

burn your crosses in your own backyard, high priestess. burn them in mine and you'll get more than a broken nose.

Yes very Christian of me.

I seem to be forever offending people's fragile sensibilities on here. Now it's the bold feature. Actually shouting on here is when you use caps, not bold. I have not got the hang of quoting each and every paragraph on here. Bear with me. Sharon, I'd be happy to continue in bold <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Anthony Flew is most definitely one of the leading past evolutionists/atheists, this is well known.

As for Richard Dawkins? I would not call him of "sound mind" I've seen the guy. Not impressed. Ever seen a liar in action? Watch the expressions and body language. They had to stop a taping of him after being cornered by a creationist with a very direct question. He sat and couldn't answer and had to stop the cameras, so he could compose himself and redirect the interview.

If you want to show me pictures, you can put them up here yourself. I could not locate them on the information you gave. But hoping they are not nice neat pics based on artists' imaginations (not interested), because that should not be compared with the actual bones found.

I see no evidence, but simply quotes with assumptions. Nice neat stories for readers? but what about the technical details of the research, including its limitations...(my answers in bold, hope others aren't offended <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

(a) - Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).

Unfortunately, Pakicetus was only known from some cheek and lower jaw, so there was insufficient basis for knowing whether its locomotion was transitional. Only the stippled parts of the skull represent actual fossil evidence, whilst the rest is "reconstructed". New discoveries have blown away this imaginative "reconstruction". A prominent whale expert, Thewissen and colleagues unearthed some more bones of "Pakicetus" and published their work in the journal "Nature". "All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals and....indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground". This is very different from Gingerich's picture of an aquatic

b) Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).

Critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from a non-swimming and land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing. Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil: "Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpreations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis". Finally, it is dated more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than indisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales.

c. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).

Indocetus ramani is known only from partial remains, including the skull, pelvic bones, vertebrae, and parts of hind limb bones. This tells us little to nothing.

d. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.

As in "modern" whales, the so-called legs help with reproduction and have nothing to do with feet. The designation of the rear appendages as vestigial legs is based purely on the assumption of evolutionary change.

e. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).

Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales". Small hind limbs (possibly used during copulation), according even to other evolutionists (e.g. Philip Gingerich) "It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper.

f. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).

The far forward position of the blowhole on this fossil simply show the past variety among baleen whales. The rib bones to vertebrae attachments and length of arm bones are more impressive but there is no indication of them in "older" as well as "later" whales, so no hint of real transition .

The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).

It is deceptive to call Artiocetus and Rodhocetus primitive whales. While they may both have been largely aquatic, both have substantial limbs. The fact that their ankle bones show artiodactyl traits only shows a relationship if one assumes evolution.

]The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realised by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper" "We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals (i.e., carnivores and ungulates) and the whales.[/i]

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, evolution reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith.

[b]A Whale of a Tale?[b]
<img src="http://www.acsonline.org/education/images/whalemail-sm.gif">

I've called Sunshine SS before as well but if it adds to your vision of me as an evil nutter then by all means think the worst.

For anyone disputing dating methods of rocks and fossils, this is a short, simple web page that gives a good basic summary: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html Here is part of what it says, particularly relevant to this discussion:



No one here has yet tried to explain exactly how radiometric dating is erroneous to the colossal degree that it dates things to being millions of years old when they are only 6000.

How is it stretching and twisting to summarise what you said about interpretations of the Bible as excluding the majority of Christians in the world? They accept evolution and an old earth. They see parts of the Bible as allegory or metaphor -- words that are not synonymous with lies, but different ways of seeing and understanding. And they may even reject some of the Bible, having been written by men of a past culture, as irrelevant to life today. Presumably you do this as well, unless you are striving to live according to every rule in Leviticus? Why must the creation story in Genesis be literal? Jesus spoke in parables; does it follow that they must have literally happened as well, or could there be a deeper truth that was meant to be learned from them?

Yes some rocks have been dated as being a few billion years old. Radioisotope dating is the main method used. You can also use paleomagnetics, which looks at the orientation of the magnetic crystals in rocks, reflecting changes in the strength and orientation of earth's magnetic field over time. I was reading an article on the BBC news site today about a meteorite from the moon that has been dated by modern methods which involve measuring the ratio of uranium and lead atoms in the rock's phosphate minerals. This rock was ejected as basalt from the moon 4.35 billion years ago. It's helping scientists come to a better understanding of how the earth and moon were actually formed and what the conditions on them were when they were very young.

Please, do we really need to argue about faking photos? There's any number of things that can be done to them at any stage in processing. Photos simply are not clear evidence of anything, in and of themselves.

My etiquette on forums is very good almost all of the time. Sometimes everyone, even moderators, lets things slip that they shouldn't. But on the whole I stick to the subject, do not make generalisations about people's personalities, state of sanity, or degree of godliness. You don't like the fact that I am questioning your faith and beliefs but that's what happens in forums like this. It may be uncomfortable but it isn't rude. Like I said, take your style of personal address to another forum and see how long you last there before you get booted off. You're living a charmed life here because you are free to say what you want. It does not reflect well on you when you abuse that freedom.

You're going by the assumption that it simply "rained". In actual fact, the "fountains of the great deep" opened up, so the event was far more catastrophic even than a long term deluge of rain. The fountains of the deep burst through from miles below the earth's surface, which they split apart in unprecedented upheavals - e.g. an area the size of Washington state on the seabed off the US coast has been found with 1000 extinct volcanoes to give us a faint idea of the upheavals at the time of the flood.

As for plants and insects, colossal areas of vegetation stripped and ripped up by the flood, some hundreds of feet thick floated around the earth carrying and distributing insects and seeds. So what is the problem? Do you envision some kind of perfect sea of water with no floating debris? lol, this can hardly be compared to you over watering a house plant in isolation. Think of the masses of rich vegetation in abundence, particularly then as with everything else! As far as I know, all plants have seeds which have strong survival characteristics.

I hope I've explained plant and insect survival and registribution worldwide, through floating on vast areas of flood debri. Cockroaches by the way can survive almost anything (we have them here in abundance).

By the way, marine fossils have been found in abundance near the top of Mount Everest, indicating (with vast under water canyons larger than the Grand Canyon), the tremendous world wide upheavals.

Where did the water go? The water is in the oceans! and if the earth's land masses were all levelled out, the whole world would be under 2 miles deep water. Don't you live near the sea? Or if you do.....you don't seem to know much about it. The answer is all around you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

QUOTES FROM EMINENT EVOLUTIONISTS:

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. and the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, toomaking, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter" - Lyall Watson. ('The Water People' - science Digest, Vol 90, May 1982, p.44).

"Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology makrs it is man's hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no." - Robert B.Eckhardt ('Population genetics and human origins', scientific American, Vol 226 (1), January 1972, p.94.

Tell me Linda, do you draw any line between apes or humans? or are you simply convinced they're part of your ancestory, and willing to close the gap at all costs? even though parrots have a better brain and vocal range than any ape could hope for.

The "ape-man" claims are often based on fragmentary remains which are more open to interpretation, but when more bones are found, the specimens are found to be either man or non-man (e.g. australophithecine), neither transitional nor "mosaic". E.g. analysis of a number of characteristics shows that H.ergaster, H. eretus, H. heidelbergensis, and H. neanderthalensis were most likely racial variants of modern man, while H rudolfensis and H. habilis were just types of australopithecines.

Evolution emphasises physical and especially DNA similarities between human and other living organisms, and this is alleged to be evidence for evolution. However, again this is not a direct finding, but an interpretation of data. A common designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data.

It's already done. Sunshine may bear with it for a bit Linda, but don't be too surprised if you end up getting called PP or worse in return. And please don't act offended.

I wasn't aware that christians disputed evidence of fossils.

Who? where? No long breathed opinions, I want names please.

It was always my understanding Christians enjoyed looking at them as much as anyone else.

Why do you keep saying that everything died in the flood all at one time? Is that something put out there by evolutionists for not too smart people to pick up and go around repeating so that they look foolish? Linda, I repeat, living things were not immortal prior to the flood. Find me one single REAL Christian, not a metaphorical christian, who believes that all living things were immortal before the flood and everything died for the first time in the flood. The only ones who are saying that are people like you Linda, not Christians. As far as I know. find me one Christian who believes that, just one, please. If you are continuing to use this as a subtle way fo saying Christians are so stupid they believe... dada dada... well it's not working but it is making you look lok as foollish as the idea. I can't believe you believe that Linda. The bible is full of names of people who died long before the flood. We can assume their goats died too. You should read it sometime.

Linda, I realize you are more knowledgable than anyone about most things, including Christians and their beliefs. Perhaps you can explain to me why I do not know a single Christian who believes in evolution? And I know thousands upon thousands, really I do.

You are the only one arguing about fake photos. I said, if you are so sure it's so easy, then do it. Please, just do it. End of argument.

Your etiquette is terrible Linda, you don't realize that obviously but it really is. I've even noticed in post after post how frustrated Russ has become with you. It's there for anyone to see Linda. Your hooting and hollering and verbal smearing of Christians has quite a long history here by now. A bit hard to deny I think. You are the last person who should be judging others.. You seem to be at the point of frustrating Bex to the point of bristling also. Let's not forget how she ended up here... by you going to the mercury forum and taking cheap pot shots at me even there... it backfired didn't it?

Linda, you might not have too much trouble deceiving yourself, it's obviously a well established pattern of thought for you. However, things may look different from someone else's perspective. Bear that in mind.

***

BEX... what do you think happened to the rest of those raggedy skeletons? Do you think, God forbid, they ... they... they...decomposed? how is that possible? I mean... plastic takes a couple thousand years to decompose right? so shouldn't bones and shells last 250 million years?

You know. when treasure hunters go digging, in the sea, on land, it extremely rare for them to find items in perfect condition. It does happen now and then, but it's rare after a few hundred years. And a lot of stuff they find is enclosed. sealed more or less in boxes. Metals of sorts... decomposed and corroded, well worn after a few hundred years, even less. Water tends to seep into everything everywhere and salt water is especially corrosive. I actually have a friend who does that for a living and he gave me a bit of education about it a few years ago, So, Bex, how do you magine that steel, gold, silver, iron, copper, all of them corrode in the environment in a relatively short time historically speaking, and yet bones and fossils last 250 million years?

Linda, dear linda, since time immemorial Christians have been arguing about interpretation. It's why there are different denominations. But there are some basic truths that all Christians share, even if they don't go to church. The main of those is a belief in God and his ominpresence and power. Second to that is that Jesus is the son of God, that God sent him, he died for our sins, and rose from the dead.

What Christian argue about more than anything else, is literal translation, meaning the word forms as taken and interpreted from the original Hebrew Aramaic or Greek. Hebrew sometimes offers a few different variations of interpretation on a word, a slight change in the form of an hebrew letter for instance, can change the enire meaning of the word. There is also some contention about certain interpretations of the Catholic church in the first millenia.

But irregardless of all that, God lives and Jesus continues to save, and in the end minor differences of opinion really don't matter.

If you want to start tossing the ideas of liberal late 20th century Christians onboard, I'll stop you right here. They are a class of Christian all by themselves whose disagreemnts with the majority, large majority mind you, of Christian churches, has pretty much left them separated from that majority who do intepret the bible mainly in common. I am not going to begin a discussion about that with you because you still do not know the basics of Christian beliefs, even though you think you do. But Linda, it's obvious that you do not. Your view of christianity appears to be strongly colored by your emotions and personal desires of what Christianity should be, not really what it is.

After you have spent about 2-3 years attending church, any church except a liberal broken off branch, and have spent likewise the same amount of time in Sunday school, learning, not trying to teach everyone... learning... then I would be happy to discuss these things with you.

The raggedy skeleton miracle of long age survivial rate is due to.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" /> preservatives! Same as the blood and muscle tissue found in recently unearthed dinosaur bones in Alaska! Afterall, dinosaurs lived 60 million years ago....God forbid that they might just have existed with......man... Definitely it's preservatives.

It is quite something that there are over 250 flood legends around the world, all different cultures/languages. Eerily similar account of the bible.

Wonderful stuff when you start going back through history and find out just what has been passed down by our ancestors....could it be that they might just have more knowledge of the long distant past than the modern day evolutionists?

Stalactites, some nearly a metre long, were discovered in the basement of an American Museum. Any coal or gold miner will tell you of having to regularly break off stalactites and stalagmites in underground mine tunnels. The long age myths regarding both of these formations are just that! "myths". as one observer put it "Were the Museum stalactites suspended in space for millions of years before the museum came along" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. It seems that PHD evolutionists don't know as much about these formations as PHD (ie. post hole diggers) miners

funny.



Really? i didn't hear about that one. Do you have a link, is it available on the net? My daughter would love to see that too.



oh yeah I know. you have to be blind deaf and dumb to ignore it all.



I don't know. I am not sure it's all so wonderful, the passed down things.... like parasites... but 2 or 3 generations ago people lived very much in an information vaccuum compared to us. So, it was a lot easier for evolutionists and others to spread their nonsense, insist it was true and rely on the fact that very few people would have the time inclination and resources to actually research their baloney.

What is the lifespan of a piece of baloney? do you know? Like, if it stays dry, but what if it gets wet?



yeah, plenty of caves around here... drip drip drip...





makes perfect sense to me. They were just waiting for the museum to evolve.



let's not forget the common tourists. I think their photos are all fakes though. It's especially suspicious when they are viewing images right in the camera itself.

One time I found this really weird rock as akid... couldn't figure out what is was... I was about 9 years old... so I go into the house with it and show it to my mom who was standing in thhe kitchen cooking something... she looks at it for about 30 seconds and she starts screaming at me... 'Get that out of here!!! It's a piece of dog poo!!'

Funny. It was dog poo I guess. half fossilized dog poo. Half fossilized doesn't quite cut it for the desk you know...


eeeeeew

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/
Check out the dinosaur (T.Rex) findings. Also, Kent Hovind mentions this in "Lies in the Textbooks" (2003).

Gotta wonder how old that poop really was though sosick, did you think about the significance of what you were carrying? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/pirate.gif" alt="" /> You know, it's interesting, because they've found fossilised dinosaur poop too and analysed the content and found.....grass and other vegetation/plants....especially from the T.Rex....yet some of the types of plant they found were not supposed to be around 65 millions years ago. hmmm.

Do the evolutionists want everybody to keep the childbook image of a cute little boat with two giraffe heads popping out the top and a tubby Father Christmas type Noah on deck in their minds when considering the flood?

Has anybody heard the much more realistic version? Has any Christian really ever said that every single living creature outside of the ark was destroyed? This is mistaken. In fact, God's intention was to wipe the corrupt human beings at that time and start anew, apart from Noah and family. Many sea creatures would have survived this, and certainly Noah did not need a two by two following of fish walking up into the ark...the ocean took care of them. He had an aquarian right outside his front door.

Here is a pdf link that I think is well worth viewing for those who are interested to hear the realistic version of events.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf

No, I threw it away. My mother was really upset i had brought that into the house. I think it was really just a year or two old Bex, but had been manipulated into a very suspicious and intriguing place by some devious evolutionist hating pooch where it calcified quickly.

I grew up in upstate NY, there is a lot of lime and shale up there, zillions of fossils. It's probably more difficult to go rock hunting up there and not find a fossil than it is to find one. One time I found a really nice one, a big Trilobite type thing, probably two inches big. I showed it to my mom, and being school age and having heard all the evolution stuff and supposed ages of trilobites... I showed it again to my mom.

that time I said to her... don't you think I could sell this for some real money... these things are a million years old. She said to me that day... 'don't believe that crap.'

So I went through life equating evolution and crap with half fosslized dog poop I guess.

funny thing is, she wasn't a Christian. She thought Jesus was baloney. How can it be Bex? I thought only Christians thought evolution was baloney.

I am really confused at this point Bex.

I have real difficulty with that Bex, can you explain it again please?

Hi, sorry I should have gone into that more. Linda's earlier quote from evolutionists regarding sealife and the snigger about us believing that they simply "drowned" in the flood needs to be explained.

Much of the sealife would have survived the flood obviously, but those that were killed very suddenly due to the catastrophic speed, becoming trapped under sediment, (sometimes hundreds of feet thick) racing, covering and compressing at explosive speed. E.g. Grand Canyon was ripped out in a matter of hours, some say minutes. In fact, after the Mt St Helen's eruption in the 1980s, a mini grand canyon was formed 1/40th size in a matter of hours, hundreds of feet high with thousands of self sorting layers rapidly formed. So much for the evolutionary idea of millions of years formation and erosion!

But back to the sealife. There are fish fossils that show clear evidence of having been buried quickly by water-born sediments which sealed them off from the air swiftly before they could decay, preserving each perfectly in rapidly hardening sandstone. One is in the act of swallowing a victim and another is giving birth. The third, a jelly fish, which literally melts away in days, is one of millions found scattered over thousands of square kilometres in South Australia, fossilised rapdily into sandstone after a massive flood.

Noah only needed to take one pair of every land breathing animal into the ark. And each animal did not have to be "adults" either. They laugh at the idea of dinosaurs on the ark, but don't seem to understand that dinosaurs like anything else, take many many years to get to the size they are capable of reaching (like crocs who just keep growing). Very easily dealt with, get a young dinosaur or a baby (or eggs). No sweat. I have no issue believing dinosaurs were on the ark at all. There have also been sightings of land breathing dinosaurs too, not just "nesse", so certainly it is possible.

Sounds like a relative of mine. Same thing, thinks Evolution is rubbish but is indifferent to Christ. I know Christian evolutionists too, who do not believe in the first story of the bible, yet believe in Christ. I wonder how that works in their minds, considering the second half of the bible actually connects fully to the first (creation).

It is a gift of faith here? I wish I understood too. The reasonings of each person's mind and heart is a real mystery.

oh.

It was actually the part about fish being able to survive in so much water that I couldn't understand. Like how? Wouldn't they drown like everything else? That is the part I had difficulty with. I had some fish in an aquarium and when I finally got around to putting water in there, I noticed they were dead, I still cannot figure it out.

Just kidding bex.

One time though really, when hurricane Andrew went through Florida. I was living on the Florida west coast and was renting this garage where I would airbrush stuff for some company. I was in there when the storm blew over. The place had aluminun walls. The storm was ferocious. The water came right up to the pavement on my lower level, there was a loft where I stayed listening to the awesomeness of the storm. When all was said and done, there was quite a bit of flooding around outside. And there were fish everywhere, in the parking lot, swimming in the ditches, everywhere, all alive. Not really relevant but I thought tha was really neat. Some of those storms will even pick up fish, frogs, whatever, and distribute them 25 miles away, even further. they get tales of frogs dropping out of the sky in various places during storms.

My personal op on dinos surviving the flood... i think the flood actually killed most of them. I don't think they were on the ark by any great measure. But, the flying ones did survive. Chances are excellent, in the event of a global castrophe of that nature, there was one or two last high mountains sticking up still at some point, and it was probably covered with flying creatures that needed relief from flying. So was the ark i magine, it's roof.

Could explain Linda's bottle neck idea. the few that made it met on the last mountain top and ... well, the birds and the bees thing.. you know....

did you know that ants can actually survive underwater for quite some length of time? Don't ever bother trying to drown out an ant infestation, it won't work.

roots in the ground and floating debris would have survived a flood btw. That's even a great way to start a clone from a plant you really like and want more of. Just cut off some branches and stick them in water and they'll set roots. I have a whole bunch right here.

It's the most amzing thing... if the garden floods, which it does from time to time, all these unspent seeds from prior years start coming up afterward. They love the soaking. I have gotten plenty of volunteer lettuce in my time that way. Tomatoes too.

Maybe linda's plants died because they needed love.

More than anything Bex, I think Linda really doesn't comprehend how awesome God is and all the unimaginable things he does. things waaaay beyond our imaginations. she thinks that's a joke.

But it's not.

Christians who believe in Jesus and also evolution. I actualy do not know any but it's hard to imagine they don''t exist. Must be a difficult walk, not seeing him as your creator/maker though. For me, in my relationship with him, that's essential. He made me, he can heal me etc. But you know, simply believing in Jesus to a small extent won't save anyone either. Even the devil believes in God, and shudders.

Is this death by posting? I'd love to address many of the points here but I'm going to be very busy for a number of days. If you'd honestly like me to carry on the debate then I'm going to ask y'all to slow it down here. Otherwise I will have to be selective about what I respond to as I work my way through here because I'm not going to have the time to write long posts. Thankfully I don't actually have hours on end to sit in the house being depressed anymore -- my life is finally taking a turn for the better.

There was most certainly no "great offense" taken when you abbreviated my handle. Elvis seemed mildly offended - and he said something toward that end. I, however, did not say a word about it.


I don't have any deleted posts.


I'm not a woman. And my religion doesn't have the title priest or priestess. We also don't burn crosses, we put them up in our house - it's a religious symbol predating Christianity by many tens of thousands of years, one which is connected to the constellations.

Bex a number of the conclusions in your "whale of a tale" post are rather spurious, for example the claim that whales were always aquatic and evolutionists, for their own nefarious reasons, decided to show otherwise. The responses to the fossil evidence you posted are clearly from a creationist. Can you tell me who it was and what book or website please, so I can look into it and find out how much of what they say is based on the facts.

Richard Dawkins . . . I don't like his ideas any more than I like those of creationists. But is he senile or otherwise mentally impaired? No. He's just spiritually bankrupt, which goes with the definition of being a dogmatic skeptical atheist. Please give me the details of how he was "defeated" by a creationist. Sounds like a piece of propaganda from a creationist website but I'd like to look into it.

I've said here before that creationists and atheists like Dawkins are two sides of the same coin in a way. Each ideology puts the nature of reality into neatly defined boundaries. For the skeptical atheist, you simply rule out everything that cannot be empirically proved through the 5 senses using science. The paranormal, spirituality, anything of that nature is unprovable and therefore a delusion. So you conveniently forget about it, and may even look down your nose at the "fools" who believe in what's called "woo-woo."

Creationists believe that something is so because it says so in the Bible. Anything else is a delusion, a lie, a hoax, no matter how much "evidence" is there for it. So you conveniently forget about it, and may even look down your nose at the "fools" who believe the grand science conspiracy and are going to hell for not believing literally in the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What there is little room for in either ideology is the admission that "we don't know." Not knowing can be uncomfortable and it can be frightening. It's certainly not a secure, reassuring position to be in. It also means considering all possibilities, even ones you might want to reject, and never being 100% certain about anything. What this does do is create an open mind that is willing to look objectively at evidence, explore, learn, and try to discover more about how the universe really works. It's hard to do this when you feel so sure of a paradigm that you are unwilling to acknowledge existing evidence, whether it be of the paranormal or of evolution.

lol!

Yes, about the flooding. Apparently after floods, it's astounding what comes out from it. Insects galore too! crawling out from every nook and cranny, when you think how is this possible? An insect will actually take quite a long time to drown and they are tough critters, which is why we all have so much trouble getting rid of them. I cannot imagine how much was erupted during the flood....just imagine what was floating around (repulsive). Actually in a way the insects would have thrived.



I have no issue believing the bible, it does not contradict what I observe in the world around me at all. Everybody has a choice however. Yes, even the demons believe and they tremble! The pride of the academic is the easiest area for them to work with. Even Christ said "Professing to be wise, they become fools".

Don't think you both are out of the water so to speak. I'll get back to talking about the flood once I've had a chance to reply to other issues here.

Regarding the "evolutionist quotes" Bex. Do you know who these people are, and the contexts from which these quotes were taken?

This is something called quote mining and some people spend a long time doing this is an attempt to "prove" that evolutionists don't even believe what they are saying. On the very face of it this is just plain silly. Many of these are prominent scientists who very clearly accept evolution as fact. Why would they then go around saying that it isn't true? Stephen Jay Gould is one who is continually quoted out of context by creationists and he has expressed his frustration about this a number of times.

It's like the example I gave of cosmology here. You might like it on the face of things. It has a scientific ring. It seems to be evidence for what you believe. But if you actually check out the details you find errors. Often you find that the "evolutionist" is criticising an aspect of the way evolution works, rather than the theory itself. Often you will find that it is a scientist saying that we haven't gathered a lot of evidence yet; these quotes tend to be outdated because since they were said there has indeed been more evidence found. Look at the ones you gave here. 1982. 1972 -- as old as I am for goodness sake. Other times you'll find that a few sentences have been lifted out of a large paragraph, and in the process the context has been totally changed. What sort of a practice is this by people whose religion tells them to be honest?

You can look here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html for more details about how scientists are quote mined. It's another example of the ping-pong I keep talking about. And most people understand that just because someone says something is so, does not necessarily make it so anyway. You look at the facts and the evidence.

Where do I draw the line between ape and human? Why does there need to be a line? It's a progression. I'm not ashamed to own anything as an ancestor, why should I be? Evolution is a remarkable process and every organism is unique and fascinating. You are again making claims here without providing evidence for them. Who says that the hominids you listed were variants of modern humans? Which creationist is this now, and how do you know they know what they are talking about? Do you ever question what they are telling you Bex? They are not experts in these subjects, they are "interpreting" for you. Please be sure, when you list claims like this, to provide some kind of a link so that I can see for myself what the basis for them is, and then I can address that.

Sorry but I've been thinking about this quite a lot this morning and I really needed to ask some questions here. I'll try to limit them to what's been mentioned already.

I just can't get over this idea, for a start, that an omniscient God (presumably you believe he is all-knowing and all-seeing) would decide he'd made a mistake and wipe out almost every living thing on earth, including plants and animals that presumably could not have been morally good or evil as such. Didn't he know from the start that people would behave in a way he didn't like, and why didn't he do anything about it before he decided to kill them? Was every single person in the world apart from Noah and his family evil enough to deserve to be drowned in a flood?

Genesis 7:19-23 explicitly says what happened during the flood. It says, "and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." How were there creatures surviving on floating vegetation when the Bible says everything not inside the ark was killed? How else can you possibly read this?

Can someone here address the diversity of insect life on earth if there was a flood? So it makes sense that all of the approximately 850,000 species of insects on earth are descended from those who survived the flood either on floating mats of vegetation or on the ark as accidental passengers?

In fact, the vast majority of insect species and in some cases entire families and even orders could not have survived a year of flood on floating vegetation and many, perhaps the majority of species could not have survived the flood either on or off the ark.

Consider the 1500 species of the order Ephemeroptera (mayflies), which only live in fresh water and in which the adult lives only 1 day or less (some only live 90 minutes) during which time it must mate and lay eggs. Even if they somehow survived the salty flood water, (which most could not), they will be greatly spread out by the flood. How will they find their mates and where will they lay their eggs? There are many other insect species that only live in fresh water during parts of their life cycle. How will they survive the flood?

Then there are the social insects such as bees, ants and wasps,that require a queen and a colony. All those yellow jacket wasps I used to see flying around in the autumn will die by winter. They are workers; the queen and colonies only survive in holes in the ground. How will they survive a worldwide flood on floating vegetation? In Missouri we had large wasps called sand hornets or more properly cicada killer wasps. They dig their burrows in sand or soft earth and lay their eggs in locusts that they have killed. The adults do not survive over winter. How will their eggs survive a worldwide flood? You can usually wash them out with a garden hose if you want to.

The caterpillar of the monarch butterfly only lives on living milkweed plants, Monarchs go through more than one life cycle a year and the adults only feed on nectar. While many species of lepidoptera eat various plants, many others eat only specific plants, even if the caterpillars survived somehow, how would cocoons survive, and even if they did how would the adults find other adults to mate with and where would they lay their eggs? Generally, all these life cycles are complete in a year or less and in many cases much less. Many of these butterflies and moths are quite fragile. Many other insects require specific living plants or animals for parts of their life cycles. What about all those insects that feed on nectar from living flowers during parts of their life cycles? How would they survive a year on floating vegetation?

Consider parasitic wasps known as chalcids.

Below is a quote about them from

http://res2.agr.ca/ecorc/apss/chalintr.htm



Chalchids don't sound like they would do too well on floating vegetation for a year.

How about desert insects and arachnids that are adapted to live in very dry climates? Do you really think they could all survive for a year in water on floating vegetation?

There are also the cicadas, like the so-called 17 year locusts, that live most of their lives in the ground under a tree, then emerge, live for a short while, mate and lay their eggs in the branches of a tree. After a few days or weeks the eggs hatch and the larvae drop to the ground to live under the tree till the next cycle. They need healthy trees that will live until the next cycle. How did they survive a worldwide flood that supposedly rearranged all the world's geology on floating vegetation? What about all the other insects that require mature living trees for their life cycles? How could they have survived after the flood?

There are huge numbers of parasitic insects and invertebrates that require specialized animal hosts for at least part of their annual life cycle. Do you think those poor animals on the ark were carrying all the parasites of their respective 'kinds'? Did the humans carry all the fleas and ticks and other insect parasites that plague mankind? What about all the other invertebrate parasites, such as liver flukes and blood flukes, some of which are fatal? Did the animals and people on the ark carry all these parasites?

These are only a few examples. I am sure that anyone with knowledge of entomology can think of many, many more.

A few other questions about what's been said here.

Bex, you seem to be claiming that God inundated the world with all the water in the oceans -- is this where the 40 days' and 40 nights' rain came from -- and in that case, where's the global layer of salt that would be left behind? Can you present a geological model for how the water in the oceans would rise up and either condense in the sky to form as clouds and rain back down, or rise up and just sweep over the world?

How did all the freshwater species of fish survive?

Bex, can you give specific references for these examples you give of fossils forming in catastrophic circumstances? Sometimes this does happen but I'd like to look up your examples; names of areas would be nice for a start, and maybe a year in which the fossils were found. We'll leave the claim of the Grand Canyon being formed in minutes or hours for another discussion. There are as many questions I'd ask you there as there are for the flood, starting with how you think angular conformities could have formed in that timeframe.

I still haven't seen anyone explain why there is no genetic bottleneck in all species at the time of the flood, when almost every living thing was supposedly destroyed. Are the geneticists lying along with the rest of all the scientists then?

More to the point about seashells on top of mountains. You will notice that they are not found in one layer where all shells and fossils are mixed, as you would expect to see from one global flood event. Instead, the shells and fossils can be found deep into the rock of the mountain itself, in many different kinds of strata, some of which can only be formed by anhydrous (without water) processes. Geology can explain this by uplift: the shells and fossils were deposited in their respective strata over millions of years and were then uplifted by geological processes. This is how the Himalayas continue to be formed today: the India plate is subducting under the Asian plate and this is pushing the mountains up. How does the creation model explain these phenomena in a more convincing way? And why are the shells and fossils layered in the same specific way that they are layered across the world, trilobites never mixing with mammals for example? We don't see mixing occurring in this way, nor do we see some kind of "sorting" where the heaviest creatures would have sunk to the bottom.

There really are hundreds more questions to ask about this but I'll stop here and give people a chance to explain.

Whale transitional forms . . .

Guess I had more time today than I thought. The record really needs to be put straight here.

If you are interested in whale transitional forms and why there is good evidence for such a complete spectrum, there are many websites to look at. A particularly good one is here http://www.fsteiger.com/whales.html It seems to me that whoever's comments you posted about whale forms, Bex, are trying to say that the earlier forms are walking animals not whales, and the later forms are whales -- nothing in between. They carp on missing bones because none of the skeletons is complete. They are not looking at the whole picture and comparing the skeletons to each other, and to those of modern whales, as this website explains. What's more, the information they give is questionable and I can show you some of it which is wrong.

For example, the most complete ambulocetus skeleton in 1994 consisted of parts of the skull and jaw, a number of vertebrae, some ribs and nearly complete front and hind limbs. The large limb bones were fully capable of supporting the animal's weight on land, and were also capable of paddling it through the water using an up-and-down motion of the spine. Annalisa Bert has said (you can see here http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n3_v145/ai_14769408) that ambulocetus is "a very significant discovery. It shows us for the first time a whale that had well developed hind limbs. It's very clear this animal was using its hind limbs in locomotion."

Let's look at the quotation you gave from her in its proper context: "…Thewissen et al. [i.e. the paper announcing Amulocetus] provide some solid comparative data to support their conclusions regarding the evolution of locomotion in whales; however, a well-corroborated phylogenetic context with which to interpret these character transformations would greatly enhance its utility. For example, since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis."

You can find this here http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html along with information about the real ambulocetus skeletons. More of the skeleton with the "missing pelvic girdle" was later found, as this web page explains:



Sarfati is presumably the author of the piece you were quoting from.

This is just one example from the fossil list. I can exhaustively go through them all if you want. Like I said, though, the thing to keep in mind is that you need to look at the whole transition spectrum. What we see is a gradual transition from living life on land to being fully aquatic, with the limbs atrophying accordingly -- and limbs were not the only aspect that changed. No one "believes this on faith." The evidence is there.

I was raised as a Christian and I also studied science like everyone else in school. I read books, went to museums, visited areas of amazing geological activity past and present. When I was young the two never clashed. I got the message of Jesus and the New Testament, the beatitudes, the parables -- great stuff. It's timeless and universal and nothing is going to negate that. What particular points are you hanging on that you believe must be conditional to the Old Testament?

I guess we just glossed over inconsistencies and saw them as unimportant in the grand scheme of things. If the New Testament is teaching a person how to live a good life, then why should anyone quibble about insignificant facts?

The problem is maybe that I think more deeply; and especially when I became educated about other religions and mythology, I couldn't square it with Christianity and I had to change my world view. I won't go into that because I know how people here feel about it. Maybe it is what they fear will happen if they start to consider that evolution is possible. I don't think that needs to be the case at all, it depends purely upon the individual. I have to say that the pursuit of truth is one of the most essential things in my life and the more clarity I have, the better. I can't ever go back to belonging to one religion and narrowing my views in that way, but religion does not necessarily equal spirituality or even truth. There are many ways to the truth and it's delightful learning about them.

Linda,

Here are some responses to your questions.



The Bible says that God "repented" creating mankind, not that He didn't know what was going to happen beforehand. There is an important distinction here.

Furthermore, these actions taken by God are not for the purpose of destroying things that He simply does not like. It's about removing things from His creation that are destructive and harmful. This is why sin is bad; Because it destroys and harms others. All elements of the creation are intended to work together for the greater good, not for destruction.

Now, back to the word "repented":

The word repented is defined in Strong's as:

"naw-kham'
A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self)."

This word denotes an emotion of the soul that He experienced in response to mankind's evil actions.

Emotions generally occur in response to an event, not in anticipation of it. For example, I know that my friend will die one day. That does not mean that I grieve now for their death, but I will in the time that it happens.

There is a lot more that could be said about this, but I'll leave it here for now hoping you grasp this concept.

Pertaining to Noah deserving to live and everyone else deserving to die...

Here is the verse:

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
—Genesis 6:1-9

The answer to your second question is, "yes", every person except Noah were "only evil continually" (destructive) and according to the judgment of God, were worthy of death.

Also, the phrase "perfect in his generations" means that Noah's was the only family that had not been contaminated with the DNA of the fallen angels. The Bible goes on to accurately predict that this activity would continue again later in the Earthen timeline.

To better understand the deep implications of these things, it's important to have some significant background in this area. The best lecture I've seen that properly explains it so far is provided by Missler. Here is a link to the video:

Return of the Nephilim, Chuck Missler

This is one of the most interesting passages in the Bible speaking about the intermingling of the seed of angels with the seed of men. This "intermingling" is where the idea of demigods came from in Greek literature and is written as a literal event and described in great detail in the writings of Plato.

This intermingling is also dealt with by prominent figures today and is described as a currently unfolding event. Here are videos that speak more about this very interesting subject:

Missler: Return of the Nephilim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o289i_eS8q4

The Sons of God and Biblical Prophecy, Michael Heiser

David Flynn
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nis4YoYqJdc&feature=related

Nephilim Rising
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YPZXi4n8-58&feature=related

This intermingling is—as understandably bazaar as it sounds—probably happening today and is known as the "alien abduction" phenomenon. There should, therefore, be no surprise when these alleged event are almost always related to sexuality.

A rapidly increasing number of people are making the connection between these two phenomenon (so-called "aliens" and fallen angels).

A YouTube search on the word Nephilim will reveal a host of videos that cover this subject, although not all are accurate Biblically, many are working to make this connection between "aliens" and fallen angels and will help you get a small glimpse of what the future may hold in your lifetime. Studying Biblical prophecy will help tremendously in this regard.

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

Finally, one thing I have learned while studying the Bible is that God often groups together key phrases that disclaim and limit or expand the subject at hand. For example, read this passage:

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
—Genesis 6:17

Notice the refining structure that qualifies recent statements. This is a common and useful literary device and needs to be understood to properly interpret the Bible.

Here, He qualifies those to be destroyed:

(1) Flesh
(2) wherein is the breath of life
-- AND --
(3) everything that is "IN" the Earth.

(This translation is pretty universally consistent.)

Note that if this were not itself disclaimed, then it would contradict the fact that Noah would be saved, so be aware of this common literary device.

This is either an expansion or contraction of the earlier statement:

"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
—Genesis 6:7

So now we only are left with the task to identify the "creeping thing" and the "fowls of the air".

When you consider that varieties of animals are diversified base "kinds", you can then understand that only 2 of each "kind" were taken upon the ark, and then you can grasp the actual feasibility of this task. It now makes much more sense.

This is exactly why Bible "study" is important.

In my personal experience, each time in my life that I believed that I had found a Biblical contradiction or error, when I studied it out, I found that I was only making assumptions about the text based on my initial understanding or emotional projection. A deeper look always made the text clear and inerrant; Yes, always.



Just to be clear, you can now see that you are doing what I just spoke about, namely, you are projecting information that is not there (The Bible does not say that "everything" not inside the ark was killed.).



There is a simple explanation for this.

"Kinds" of creatures change over time according to their "predisposed genetic ability" (no new information is added over time). This ability to change over time is a built-in feature of these machines.

Mankind likes to categorize things into groups. The concept of "species" is just a name for a type of group. As the specifications for each group tighten, the "number" of existing "species" increases. For this reason, it's easy to see two things:

(1) The "kinds" of creatures described in the Bible spans many species, so the base number of "kinds" is much smaller then the number of "species" (you seem to be assuming that they are closely related), and

(2) This "tight" categorization is a device used to attempt to discredit creationism through its implications (the very ones that you just encountered).

This should be no surprise.

Tight categorization is a device also used to make it appear that certain drugs have less harmful side effects than they really do. It is also used extensively to attempt to discredit the fact that autism is caused primarily by mercury.

Confessions of an RX Drug Pusher

It would be useful to think long and hard about the process of "kinds" diversifying into varieties being apart from man-defined "species".

Interestingly, we both agree that this process continues today. What we don't agree on is this:

That you believe beneficial mutations—as rare as they are—can account entirely for highly complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

On the other hand, I believe that this potential for diversification already exists within the DNA of the machine.

The former belief is mathematically impossible. The latter is evidential.

So, this "diversity" forms by processes that you already believe in, only the source of the process is in debate (intelligence vs. error) in this context.

This answer accounts to and answers for about 80% of your post.



This is quite simple to understand...

"...all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
—Genesis 7:11-12

In short, underground water sources and rain were significant sources of the floodwater.



The simple fact here is that the interpretation of the "fossil record" is based on huge and extremely antiquated assumptions.

Now, this is where we delve into the area of human personality and basic human psychology, and this is consistently where you seem to get quite lost in our conversations.

If you do some research on the subject, you will discover:

• The Tomato Effect
• Shoe-Fitting Fluoroscope
• The Greenhouse Whoops

...And countless other mistakes, misunderstandings and enormous assumptions throughout human history.

The so-called fossil record is no exception, and it is the theory upon which you base your question.

Here's a more intelligent explanation of what happened.

The great flood laid down numerous and massive layers of sediment in a relatively short time. Also, the "rocks" that you speak of are younger than some of the antiquated "scientific" assumptions would say they are.

There is much evidence for this, but some can be found here:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Also, you often make references to scientists lying in response to my conspiratorial views, but I never said this in the way you imply (strawman?). Yes, a few scientists do lie and take bribes just as in any other industry, but the real cover up is at a higher level and is based on a combination of:

(1) tagging propaganda as "established science",

(2) human social pressure, and

(3) funding funneling, which is: providing funding only for research that supports your presumptions—or better yet—your financial interests. This is known to occur surprisingly often. (See this example: Haley on Autism. Notice that all NIH funding was pulled for mercury when Haley discovered it's connection to autism which would undermine the extremely lucrative pharmaceutical vaccine industry and open the door to massive litigation.

The Haley videos (watch them all) cover several points pertaining to coverups ("admitting there is a problem") to funding funneling. The bottom line here is that there is a lie being told for financial gain. Call it what you will. I call it a conspiracy because that is the proper name when more than one person is involved in this type of activity: It's a legal term.

Also, you cannot underestimate the power of human social pressure. It is used extensively in advertising, for example. This fact alone deserves much consideration as does the fact that all humans are subject to social pressure; even scientists.



Again, this is answered by my statements on short-term sedimentation. The original concept about elevated sea fossils remains a powerful statement in favor of a global flood.


[color:"brown"]Please take time to carefully watch all of the videos that I have posted. They expand on my answers to your questions very thoroughly.[/color]

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the links Russ, my daughter will especially enjoy those.

Well, I think it's apparent that God himself at least is able to admit his mistakes. Perhaps we should all take a hint from that.

I wonder if evolutionists have ever seen photos of floods, say like Katrina down in new orleans a couple years ago, the Tsunami in indonesia, two recent big events there... I wonder if they have ever noticed the abundance of floating debris during a flood, just like Bex mentioned above.

Aside from insects that actually go into dormancy below the earth, which would have survived a flood assuming the area they were at wasn't covered by a landslide or mudslide... so many others would have actually had a hey day. Floating dead animals and people to eat and lay their eggs in, floating wood to nest in... I don't see a single whiff of evidence for anti-flood theory evolution ther at all. quite the opposite.

Parasitic wasps, those are so gross they make the catapillar get all swelled up, we get them in catapillars in the garden all the time. I know a little bit about bugs from so much gardening, and you know bugs... if their favorite food or host isn't avialable, their favorite dill plant (swallow tail catapillars love dill) for instance... their favorite catapillar (parasitic wasps love swallow tail and monarch catapillars), well if their favorite isn't available they will eat just about anything or lay their eggs just about anywhere instead. I have seen it happen time and time again. You can easily bet your house and savings that bugs, even catapillars fed on floating dead plants, animals and people during an event as big as a worldwide flood.

A lot of non-christians also say... what kind of God is a loving God that would kill people in a flood, that would send people to hell? Those are probably the two most common retorts of the anti-God crowd. Thing is, you'll notice that God admitted his mistake, first about mankind and the violence that mankind engendered... then about his decison to do the flood, it caused him so much grief albeit mankind was so destructive and murderous.. but you know the same is true today.

God doesn't send people to hell, they choose hell instead of him. Hell is simply a place where God is not. So, it has a rough reputation... well God has nothing to do with it and that's probably why. It's where the souls who don't want God's dominion over them all are and well, they are a rough crowd. So be it. God in his omnipresent power, can see ahead... but God gives everyone a chance still. Even if he sees that a certain soul is destined for hell, that soul still has a chance to redeem himself, an entire lifetime, to prove God wrong. God admits his mistakes if he feels he's made one. And he doesn't pre-judge anyone, he gives everyone a chance.

What I do not understand is why the anti-God crowd so adamantly makes those statements about hell. hell is just the name of a place where you can go instead of being with God where God dwells. It's just the name of a place. Like New york, London, Heaven and ... Hell. Anyone can go there. Anyone can go to heaven too. There are differnt laws in each place though be aware of that, New York, London, Heaven, Hell, they all have different govts, different presidents, different laws stuff like that.

Just applying some logic here Russ -- if God knew, before he even created humankind, that there would come a time when all of them apart from 8 people would be so evil that they deserved to die, why would he go ahead and create them in such a way that this would inevitably come to pass? Being a loving and just God, presumably he would decide to avoid this whole situation from the start? And why was it also just to kill them in such a way as to also wipe out most of the rest of the innocent life on earth? It makes no sense to me. But I have no wish to labour this point, I'd rather talk about the scientific feasibility, or lack thereof, of the ideas posted here.

OK, so it seems that your interpretation of the Bible allows for the insects on floating vegetation mats. Is this what you believe happened? What about all the microscopic organisms and parasites, including those that are lethal to their host organisms? Did they hitch a ride on the two of every kind?

Also clear on how you are defining "kind" as meaning something more general than what we categorise as a species. Does this mean you are also advocating the extremely rapid "microevolution" that would give rise to hundreds of thousands of new species in a few thousand years? Bear in mind that no evolutionist thinks this is possible; do you have evidence or a model that can show how it happens?

Can you explain how what you are saying accounts for 80% of my post? Which post exactly? I've posted a number of questions here and I've also shown you in the past few days how creationists make scientific errors, accidental or deliberate, and quote scientists out of context. How does your post address that?

So you're saying that a significant amount of fresh water mixed with the salt water of the oceans. In that case, all of the fish apart from those specially adapted to brackish water would have had problems; can you explain this?

How were underground water sources involved in the flood? What caused them to burst out of the earth? There are some significant scientific problems with this. Where, also, did enough rain for a continuous 40 days and nights come from?

I think a couple of people here misunderstand what "genetic bottleneck" means. It's got nothing to do with fossils. Here is what an online genetics encyclopedia says about a genetic, or population, bottleneck:



A genetic bottleneck is not seen in all living species at a concurrent point in time. This would be essential evidence for a worldwide flood that killed all but two of every "kind."



There is no evidence of this on the sea floors. A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] According to them, a worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

You have also not addressed why fossils are "sorted" in such a precise order all over the world. They are not mixed together in one thick stratum of sedimentary rock. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?

Why are no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata? If, at the time of the flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils? Didn't they all die toegther?

How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:

Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
Beaches.
Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]

How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood? They are also found within the mountains that you say are such good evidence for the flood.



Are you referring to radioisotope dating? If so, how is it in error? If not, explain what you are talking about please?



For the nth time, I do not rebut entire videos or websites. I have explained my reasons for this a number of times. Buddika's 300 creationist lies index -- have you been there yet? She's already gone to the trouble of pointing out all the errors in Hovind's claims anyway. We are discussing with each other here and responding to what each person says.

You still have not told me how old you think the earth is. You say it's older than 6000 years but I see a lot of evidence that you don't believe it's billions of years old either.

You should study the life cycle of salmon for just an hour or so Linda. That's just one example of a fish, born in fresh water, which migrates to the salty sea, then back to fresh water again to breed. Most fish can tolerate brackish water for a while. Whales swim inland and are even found in rivers from time to time. If you have an aquarium with fresh water fish at home, you should always add some sea salt to it, they will be healthier. Those are all facts.

Highly unlikely organic matter would not have decomposed in a relatively short time, a few years only, in the sea. Some fish eat vegetation only, many are carnivores, even cannibals, eating their own young, like trout. If you've ever watched catfish feed you'll know them as the vaccum cleaners of the oceans, and fresh waters also. They will eatt just about anything, crabs and lobsters love to eat dead stuff.

Answer, the fish ate it up. in fact, they feasted. Have no doubt about it. The organic matter, tree trunks etc, decomposed if it didn't get eaten.

Plenty of dinosaur fossils have been found buried only a few or several feet deep, on the earth. Bones wouldn't have lasted more than a decade or 3 in the sea. If you've ever gone sea shell hunting you will know that shells that no longer contain a living creature, get worn away by the sea quite quckly. The only time you can ever really find a perfect speciman is when you find a shell that is only a few months old. After a few years of being tossed around on the floor, they get all smoothed out, they lose their points, they crack etc.

all of these things are pretty basic common and pragmatic knowledge that a lot of 12 year olds already know. I do not understand why you consistently question things that have such obvious answers. Have you never spent any time actually thinking about these questions you ask? The answers are plain as day.

there may be no evidence of a flood in ice cores because ice floats, obvious answer again, one I already gave you. did you forget already? . The rains or snows of a flood are no different than the rains or snows happening today.

I'd say most likely... parasites and the like hitched a ride on their hosts by the hundreds of thousands Linda, obvious answer again. It's the same today if a body dies... the worms don't start crawling out you know.... they eat the body. Obvious answer again.

you really need to do some thinking.

Who said the earth was overpopulated at the time of the flood? Certainly not the bible. You should read it some time.

Why do you ask the same questions over and over again? Would you like it if a student did that to you in a classroom? Probably, you'd have him him stand in the hall to do some thinking on his own for an hour wouldn't you?

Because some fish can adapt to both fresh and salt water conditions, does not mean that all can. Go buy yourself some fish for a marine aquarium, put them in fresh water, and observe how long they live.

John Woodmorappe, a YEC, predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. He wrote, "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows evidence to the contrary. Living genera (plural of genus)become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more or less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments.

Plenty of dinosaur bones have been found at the very surface of the earth. They got there by erosion. The rock they are found in dates consistently with the rest of the worldwide geologic column. It isn't that the bones were always at the surface, it's that the rock originally above them has disappeared. I haven't seen anyone here who can explain this yet by any other idea than that radioisotope dating is erroneous (no proof here yet) or that scientists are liars.

I'm not sure what point you are making about shells in the sea, and sea creatures. You are aware of fossils, yes? Would you like me to link you to some sites that explain how they are formed, what the circumstances and processes are?

What does the fact that ice floats have to do with ice cores? Presumably you understand that ice cores are drilled from compacted layers of snow on land and not icebergs? If you have a 40,000 year old ice core from Greenland, and there was a global flood, you would expect to see sediment from it there. It isn't.

You also understand that there are parasites that are lethal to humans and animals, and that these would have had to have been present? You are telling me that the creatures on the ark, including only 8 humans, had to serve as living hosts for viruses, bacteria, fungi, and other microorganisms capable of producing pathologically based ailments -- and every single creature carrying them lived?

If the answers are as plain as day, then give them to me. I keep asking questions here because no one has answered them. If you are going to advocate a YEC model then it needs to be able to explain all the available data, including the questions I have posted here, and those are a very small sampling of what I could be asking. If a lot of 12 year olds know the answers to them then presumably you do too.

A world wide flood would have resulted in brackish water, neither fresh nor fully ocean salty. Whay are you suggesting otherwise? Kind of a no brainer there Linda. another obvious answer item.


anyway, haven't read the rest, just hopped back because I wanted to mention in the above post that drought, not flood conditions, kill more parasitic insects than anything else. In a flkood rats, parasitic insects, they do catch rides on floating debris and eat the dead stuff without flinching. Pterodactyls too btw.

Maybe that is why God told Noah to stay in ark for so long after the flood. The earth was probably crawling with vermin for awhile until things dried up a bit.

Personally, I think Mr Woodmorappe is making the same wrong assumption you are, that fish cannot swim and survive a flood. Don't assume that just because someone is a creationist every christian will agree with him. Just because evolutionists do that doesn't mean Christians do.

Some interesting fish facts:
First, fish can swim. they can survive under water for years and years.
Fish tend to cluster near their favorite food sources and habitats, if you've noticed. Maybe you have never noticed, maybe Mr Woodmorappe has never noticed. but, anyone who has lived near water and done a fair amount of fishing knows this. That's how you catch fish. if you want grouper, you go to a certain area. If you want tuna, you go to a different area. Same with flounder, any fish, including fresh water fish. at any rate, even during a flood you can assume you had pockets of very deep water, pockets of shallow water near where mountain tops were... pockets of very fresh water and even pockets of still very salty water in areas where there were heavy mineral deposits. Overall, you would have had brackish water, but amidst all that would have also been plenty of habitat to support any species of aquatic life.

I think you have to assume that all dinosaur bones are buried very very deep to make the statement you did above concerning that. There isn't any real reason to make that statement otherwise. So that has to be called an assumption, a rough guess.

There's a guy in one of the western US states that makes a living digging up dinosaur bones of all sorts, and selling them to the general public for instance. i should find that for you, i am pretty sure I read it in some newspaper on the web not too long ago. Anyway, the bones are not real deep, and there just happen to be whole bunches on his property. He has the museums up in arms. But it's his property and he can do what he wants with it so they cannot stop him from digging and selling the stuff to whoever he wants.

Rock just doesn't simply 'disappear' btw. Most dinosaur bones I've read about are not found in rock. They are found in dirt. they are found after floods a lot of the time too, when a few feet of surface layer gets washed away. just a few feet under the surface a lot of the time, not a dozen or even 3 dozen, not even 3 hundred.

think about shells in the ocean Linda. Perhaps you have never spent any length of time near the sea. I am making a point that things decompose, erode and corrode rather quickly in the sea.

Well, assuming that ice cores are ONLY drilled from ice on land and NOT from glaciers, we won't argue about it, still doesn't matter. Ice is Ice whether on land or on sea. it floats. Please remember also that the earth is not static, that includes things on the earth, like ice. Which could have drifted in from anywhere as well as have been formed from compacted snow. I am not going to tell you that again. Another no brainer, sorry. Do an experiment. Put an ice cube in a glass and then pour water into the glas and see what happens. Them empty the glass and see what happens. Isn't Greenland called Green for a reason anyway? It wasn't always covered in snow year round. Only the past 500-600 years if I have my dates correct. i think the Scandinavians actually named it didn't they? set up colonies there and actually farmed for quite a while until the global warming stopped and started staying cold a lot more? It's highly unlikely any ice in greenland is actually 40,000 years old anyway. ask an old time Scandinavian Greenland farmer.

I do not understand your hangup with parasites now. Is it very difficult to understand that these pests live in dead and decaying flesh and other organic matter? Really, you must have seen pictures of Katrina even in England, the tsunamis in indonesia. Imagine that on a global scale. Not a pretty sight. when you were taught about Naoh and the ark as a kid, they left the gory parts out. They didn't show the dead bloated bodies floating by. they didn;t show the ark ramming into big big floating tress and limbs. They didn't show the bloated elephants, deer, tigers, rats, snakes, the still live water sankes, the still live vultures standing on the floating bloated carcases pecking at their eyeballs. The moss covered floating wood.. covered with ants... Picture it. You have to let go of your metaphorical fairy tale view of the bible, really you do. it's extremely unrealistic. Most likely, the people and animals on the ark carried their norm of bacteria and not much past that. The bubonic plague still exists you know. people still die of it. It's not as common as it once was but it's still out there. Rats carry a lot of illnesses. mosquitos too. Birds... dead bodies... you do know why people bury or burn their dead right?

Linda, in regard to the things above that I have said the answers are plain as day... if you cannot see the answers to the most basic things Linda, which I have given you AGAIN in this post... all of my explaining, or anyone elses, still won't help. And trying to discuss things like 'bottlenecking' with someone who cannot comprehend that fish swim and ice floats.. why would I even bother? Why would anyone? Honestly, how mundane and simple do you need things to be in order to grasp them? Are you completely unaware of the world around you? Don't you understand that fish swim? why not? Don't you understand that fish eat things in the water? why not? Do you think some guy goes out into the ocean and feeds the fish with fishfood from walmart every evening? Don't you comprehend that ice floats? Why not? Don't you believe that people are digging up bones and fossils everyday? Why not? Don't you know that you can find lots of fossils just laying in a field, up for grabs? Why not? Have you never seen a dead squirrel or cat with bugs crawling all over it? Why not? Everyone else has. Do you ever step outside your door? why not? You have already been given the answers numerous times, not only by me and you are still asking the same questions. do you need me to just quote what's already been said? how do i know you'll be able to read it now when you apparently weren't able to read it before?

These items:

fish swim (my cat knows this)
fish eat (my cat knows this)
Ice floats (my cat might know this)
Bugs eat dead stuff and even live in it. (my cat knows this)
Debris from trees and grasses, their seeds etc, also float (my cat knows this) and take root elsewhere later. Roots don't always die underwater.
Dinosaur (and other animal or human) bones are not always buried very deep. (my cat knows this)
Fossils are everywhere water is or has been, they form quite quickly when there is a lot of lime around (you can try that at home. slake some lime, put some marble dust in there or some calcium powder, anything really, crushed rock of any sort works best, and you will have a fossil in a few hours.)
Sea shells erode and become smooth in the sea, just like rocks also bone (eg; that's called sand eventually)
Driftwood makes great firewood to cook with and keep warm (we didn't cover that but now we don't have to)

maybe there are more I forget... anyway linda, those items really are done. Redundantly done. If you don't believe what we've been telling you about those items, you can easily test and observe any of them, perhaps with the exception of owning a dinosaur bone innudated piece of property, yourself, in your own kitchen if you'd like.

Greenland is an interesting subject btw. Adds a bit of contention to Al Gore's glogal warming crusade. I do wonder why these facts are being ignored in that regard>

anyway, here are a couple Greenland links:

The Greenland Vikings
http://www.holloworbs.com/Greenland_vikings.htm

Climate and history - the Westvikings' saga:
Climate and History of the West Vikings

and don't forget, ice also melts. (My cat knows ice cream melts)

It melts quite quickly in water above 36-40 degrees. In order for water from a catastrophic flood to freeze quickly enough so that the already existing ice did not melt, surface temperatures in places would have had to been something like 150 degrees below zero or more (somewhere around there) which would cause the water to freeze instantly rather that wash away everything in it's path. For the amount of water we're talking about, quite likely the temperature would have to be much colder even than that.

At certain tolerable temperatures, you can experiment with that. At about 10 degrees below zero, if you take a glass of water outside into that freezing cold, toss the water into the air, the droplets will freeze before they hit the goround. I have experienced that personally. if you let the glass of water sit ther it will freeze as chunk in a couple hours, maybe a bit less. But it has to be at least that cold, to do that to the amount of water that a normal table glass can hold.

Here are links to the websites of the guys that dig and selldinosaur bones to the general public;

World's Largest Dealer of Jurassic Age Dinosaur Bones
http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino_jurassicbones.htm


Dinosaur Safaris Inc
http://www.dinosaursafaris.com/

It's been a while since i read that and I forgot, they don't always own the property they dig on... a lot of the time they are contracted by other peopel who stumbled upon dinosaur bones on theor property and so they go to those places too. where they find one, they often find more.

A comment on their registration page (you can join them if you'd like) says this:

Too many bones found and we need your help to get them out
So come join us !!!

Here are links to the websites of the guys that dig and sell dinosaur bones to the general public;

World's Largest Dealer of Jurassic Age Dinosaur Bones
http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino_jurassicbones.htm


Dinosaur Safaris Inc
http://www.dinosaursafaris.com/

It's been a while since i read that and I forgot, they don't always own the property they dig on... a lot of the time they are contracted by other peopel who stumbled upon dinosaur bones on theor property and so they go to those places too. where they find one, they often find more.

A comment on their registration page (you can join them if you'd like) says this:

Too many bones found and we need your help to get them out
So come join us !!!

SoSick I think you've missed a few of my points. You cannot expect freshwater fish to survive a year in salt water, or vice-versa. Try getting those marine fish, put them in a brackish aquarium instead of a purely fresh water one, and then observe how long they live. I think you'll find you quickly end up with a lot of expensive dead fish.

You claim that pockets of fresh water would have existed during the flood. I understand that flood waters covered the entire earth. Especially with this fountains of the deep/water bursting up idea, how would the waters not have mixed? Can you give a model that explains this?

I was also making a point about the composition of the sea floors and how they do not reflect evidence for a flood. Can you please address the following:


What you said was:


Are you suggesting that no fish at all died during the flood, not even due to natural processes such as ageing? The quote I presented above refers to the bodies of fish that died at that time, and how they ought to be mixed with the bodies of other creatures such as trilobites, if the creatures were contemporary. Instead, what we see on the seafloor, as on land, is precise fossil sorting.


Radioisotope dating is not a rough guess. There are relative methods of dating the rock in which a fossil is found, and also absolute methods. The absolute methods include radioisotope dating, paleomagnetic dating (which I explained earlier), and thermo-luminescence dating (quartz exposure to heat). The relative dating methods can complement these in many ways. Can you explain how these methods are erroneous?


Irrelevant. How is this evidence for creationism?


Technically they are eroded and deposited by wind or water. Same result.


Cite an example I can look up then.


See comments above about erosion.


Let me try to get this straight: are you telling me that it's impossible for marine fossils to have formed? How do you explain the millions of marine fossils found in sedimentary rocks then? How do you explain the existence of the entire Burgess Shale Formation? Do we close our eyes and wish it away? Did a band of renegade scientists plant the fake evidence there in the cover of darkness?


It's been snowing in Greenland off and on for well over 40,000 years. The ice accumulated there is not floating around like an iceberg would do. And yes there are glaciers and yes they move, but at known rates. My sister-in-law is a glaciologist and she studies these things. She goes to Iceland a few times a year to take measurements and study the geological processes there. I assure you she does not think it's futile because ice floats and glaciers move.

from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core


Can you give me your reasons for disagreeing with the above, and why you reject the dating of a Greenland ice core to 40,000 years? Are the scientists just lying again?


It's just one example of feasibility that I picked to discuss. If the creatures living on the earth now are all related to the few that survived the flood, then all existing viruses, bacteria, parasites, and other microorganisms must have survived -- either as species, or some higher order in Russ' grand scheme of things. Some of these need specific host organisms to survive. So the humans and animals on the ark must have hosted them. Some of these cause disease and death. Yet all the creatures from the ark must have survived. I'm not talking about the organisms that live on corpses. You are presumably aware that there are many parasites that require a living organism in which to live, such as flukes and tapeworms?


You haven't actually explained anything. And your refusal to engage with the fact that there is no global genetic bottleneck of all living things is a dodge.

Regarding your list at the end of your post. Ice floats -- so what? Fossils are dug up -- so what? They can be faked -- so what? None of these things has anything to do with disproving evolution. If you disagree with the ways that fossils, ice cores, and sea floor samples are dated then you need to explain how they are wrong. You also need to explain how the YEC model covers all the facts, including the feasibility of the flood (plenty more questions there; I can start asking them but I thought I'd give people a chance to engage with what I've already posted first), and where the geological evidence for it is.

It isn't just a matter of what you personally believe. If I lived in certain states in the US then there would be people on the school board trying to force science teachers to teach my daughter this pseudoscience and say that it is a viable alternative theory to old earth and evolution. That means the facts need to be accurate (which they are not -- see my post to Bex re:ambulocetus, and Humphrey's attempts at explaining the light from stars), and they need to explain the observable evidence at least as well as existing scientific theories. That means answering the questions I am posing here. I'm afraid remarks like "ice floats" don't go very far in that direction.

Linda, I know what you mean about "death by posting". I have just gotten on and it's a deluge....no pun intended <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

At any rate, I don't want to get into too much of the emotional arguments about God, because it seems obvious you wish to refer to Him as cruel or "half witted" at any opportunity. Somewhat similar to what I've seen you do to creationists. Is this a way of discrediting the character/personality of the person in an attempt to put more credence on your rebuttals? anyway, I'll move on.



First, I'll be using a very accurate/loyal bible. "The Holy Bible" translated from the latin vulgate in the light of the hebrew and greek by Ronald Knox.

Genesis 7: 19-23 "Higher and higher the waters rose above the ground, till all the high mountains under the heaven disappeared; the flood stood fifteen cubits higher than the mountains it covered. All mortal things that moved on earth were drowned, birds and cattle and wild beasts, and all the creeping things of earth, and all mankind; all that lived and moved on the earth perished together".

Did God mean by everything that he did not leave one stone unturned? Perhaps so. But does this mean that all insects were destroyed? No. Here we have this quote which shows God most definitey had insects (creeping things) very much in mind in his post flood survival plan:

Genesis 9: 13 - 14 "That very day, Noe and his sons, Sem, Cham and Japheth, his wife, and the three wives of his sons, took refuse in the Ark' and with them all the different kinds of wild beasts, of cattle, of creeping things of earth etc etc.

By the way, notice that God did not make mention of ALL sea-creatures being destroyed? He only mentioned that which dwelt (moved) upon the earth, rather than that which swam in the oceans.

The ark was a vast vessel, 515 feet! 3 stories. You have a problem with how the ark would have held so many creatures, but this is hardly a problem for the ark, and definitely not a problem for God. Having dominion over the earth and sea and all that dwells upon it. One pair (male and female) of every living creature was all that was required. It was NOT required that every living creature be in adult form, nor would it have been impossible for God to have held them in a state of semi - hibernation for the time on the ark. Consider eggs, caccoons, lavae, hives, young or even babies of all types of creatures, rather than the large or more aged adults (hardly ideal to choose them). The insects that came on the animals themselves! The immensity of the ark, the chambers, everything on and in that ark did not take Noah and his sons year or two to build! One should consider what must have gone into this and the ridicule they received because of it (much like what we receive today, interesting that).

You speak suddenly about the enormous diversity and complexity of the insects, almost unwittingly betraying your evolutionary idea that all these things (along with plant life, animals and humans) started by chance random processes or "single celled organisms". Be careful Linda, you are close to making unconscious admissions. If to you, all life, universe, solar system, planets/planetry alignment, gravity, balance, seasons, food, animal life, human beings in all it's mind blowing wonder, can all occur out of mere chance and random processes, I hardly think that the insect life on a vast vessel with room to spare, should be so comparatively difficult to imagine! In fact, it takes more faith to believe what you do than what I do!

It is unbelieveable what unbelievers have to believe in order to be unbelievers.

Don't put words in my mouth Bex. I said I don't understand why all people on the world apart from 8 had to die, along with so much of the rest of the innocent life on earth. I also said that an omniscient God would have foreseen this and presumably prevented it from happening in the first place. Instead of assuming that God must be cruel, you could assume that he is not omniscient, as SoSick seems to think (she says that God makes mistakes) or that the people were really especially evil in some way unknown to us today (as Russ seems to think -- ask him to explain his angel DNA idea, I have no idea what that's all about). If creationists are anything, it is imaginative.

OK so you, like Russ, believe that Noah took insects on board the ark. Do you believe that he managed to gather up all 850,000 species; or did he have some "kinds" that later hyper-evolved into the 850,000 species we see today?

How did he get penguins on board if they were in Antarctica? How did he get the dodo on board if it was isolated on an island? It would be difficult to see how these species could have been living near Noah. Emperor penguins, for example, need a cold climate in which to live. Dodos were highly vulnerable to predators that did not exist on the islands on which they evolved. And where did Noah get food like bamboo for the pandas? Why did the koalas go to Australia after the flood was over, and nowhere else -- and how did they get there?

We can talk later about the logistical problems of the ark itself. There is a limit to how big you can build a wooden ship before the timbers pull apart from the sheer weight, which is why people started building them out of metal as soon as they learned how.

You seem to be referring back to abiogenesis at the end of your post. It neither proves nor disproves evolution in and of itself. Remember, also, that as far as my personal views go, I said I found it plausible -- possible. That doesn't mean I "believe" in it, and I also do not see why the only other alternative has to be creation by God. There's plenty of evidence for evolution and an old earth, very little for how life actually started. That's what makes it such a fascinating subject for study.

I have been waiting for people to answer various questions I have posted, before I go on to post more. In order for the YEC model to be a viable one that can compete with old earth and evolution, it needs to be able to explain the evidence. I'll summarise:

Why is there no evidence for a global flood in sea floor samples or ice cores?

Why is there no evidence of a genetic bottleneck that affected all living species at the same time in the past?

Why are creationists getting their facts wrong, i.e. about the reasons why starlight reaching us appears to be so old, and ambulocetus fossils? Why do they quote mine scientists? I gave an example of that here and I could follow it up with many others.

How are absolute dating methods in error? I refer to radioisotope dating, paleomagnetic dating, and thermo-luminescence dating.

If there was a global flood, how can you explain the fact that fossils are sorted in a specific order all over the world? Why are there no dinosaur fossils mixed with mammal fossils?

What were the "fountains of the deep" and what is the model for where they came from, what they did, and where they went afterward? I've heard different sketchy ideas from everyone here but I have seen no real attempt at a clear explanation.

What is the evidence that species like homo erectus and homo habilis were "just apes" and neanderthals were humans? This is not what genetics tells us -- see the post I gave from the online genetics encyclopedia about population bottlenecks.

Why are there seashells not only on the tops of (some, not all) mountains, but inside them as well -- stratified in lithified sedimentary rock? How did they get up there during the flood? All the clam fossils are more than a year old, and some are 20-30 years old. How did they get shifted thousands of miles up, and why were they deposited on the mountains and not evenly in the valleys as well? If you say that the water was turbulent enough to do this, what is the geological model that explains how this happened? This would have mixed the salt water with the fresh leaving no pockets of fresh water for freshwater fish; and the mud stirred up would have been a problem as well. There are other potential problems but I'll wait to hear about what people think the fountains of the deep were before I ask more questions on this.

I thought this would be enough for people to be getting on with. If no answers are forthcoming though, I will assume that no one here is able to offer them and I will move on to a new set of questions.

I've missed a few of your points huh? Well, that's reassuring.

Pockets of very very fresh water would have existed, of course. And salty too. But you'll need a pretty big aquarium to make a model of that nature. You'll could install underground fresh water springs, jusy like the kind that exist on the earth in nature.. sounds expensive, like the tyranosauras rex you are building for your fake photos... but I am sure you can do it. If anyone can do it, you can.

I have already addressed the rest of your post in previous posts. If you want to unarguably disprove any of the examples I have given, please do so. Unarguably though. Show that ice does not float or melt, prove unarguably that the snow and ice on Greenland is 40,000 years old, show that insects and parasites do not cling and live inside floating debris, show that dinsoaur bones are all faked if they don't fit your presumptions, show that show that bones and shells and fossils are capable of being tossed about the ocean floor for millions of years without turning to sand. There may have been more i forget.

Just do do that, quit arguing.

Too simple an idea for ya huh, ice floats? what about ice melts? that must really tie your brain up in a knot.


Really though if all goes well, high schools will be forced to start including more of the easier understandable parts of quantum mechanics and I guess, even though you'll be standing there yelling 'Pseudoscience' the rest of the world will move on without you.

Creationism won't ever be fully accpeted by anyone without personal proof that God himself exists, big no brainer there... evolution really has no basis outside of theory at all.. and well. quantum mechanics does already prove intelligent design and other dimensions, so that'll be the end of it. you can name your intelligent designer yourself if you don't like the name of the Christian one.

I can just see all the evolutionist teachers with their picket signs yelling 'Quantum mechanics is psuedo science!! Give us more money!! We are smarter than everyone!!!'.

Yeah, that'll really help your reputation.

How?

a.) It was a worldwide flood. It covered everything.
b.) With fountains of the deep exploding -- whatever they may be -- the water would have been turbulently mixing.


This has nothing to do with ice cores.


I gave details here of how ice cores are dated.


I've shown what the problems are for some creatures with this model, but we seem to have moved on the the belief anyway that they were all in the ark and not on floating vegetation.


You appeared to be trying to give me examples of dinosaur bones found in dirt. I asked you for a citation. You need to be able to back up the claims you make. "I read somewhere . . ." is not good evidence in a debate.


They don't get tossed around. For goodness sake, go educate yourself about how fossils are formed. Not many people debate their actual existence.


Yes, there was a whole set of questions pertinent to the legitimacy of creation "theory" in my previous post which you have not addressed.


Please explain to me what creationism has to do with quantum mechanics.

from the American Geological Institute: Learning about Fossils http://www.k5geosource.org/content/dd/fossil/pg2.html

How do fossils form?

Living things are made up of chemical compounds, most of which are organic compounds. Organic compounds consist mainly of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. After a plant or animal dies, it decomposes. As organisms decompose, their organic compounds change into simpler compounds like carbon dioxide and water. Decomposition is fastest when the organisms are in water that contains dissolved oxygen. Organisms can also decompose even without oxygen. Some kinds of bacteria feed on plant and animal tissues even though there is no oxygen. These are called anaerobic ("no air") bacteria. Sooner or later, almost all organic matter from plants and animals decays. Decay slows down only when the organic matter is buried in very fine mud. That seals the organic matter off from water with oxygen.

The soft parts of an organism decompose the fastest. You know how little time it takes for food to spoil and rot in warm weather when it is not in the refrigerator. Bones and shells decompose much more slowly. Over long times, their mineral materials dissolve. That can happen rapidly when the shells and bones lie on the ground surface or on the sea bottom. If the shell or bone is buried in sediment, it dissolves more slowly. Shells are preserved without being dissolved only when they are buried in sediments that consist of calcium carbonate minerals, like limestones. The woody parts of plants that consist mostly of cellulose and lignin decompose much more slowly than the softer parts.

Most animals become fossilized by being buried in sediment. For them to be fossilized, they have to be buried and leave an imprint before they decompose. Animals without skeletons are seldom fossilized, because they decompose so quickly. Animals with hard skeletons are much easier to fossilize. The most common fossils are shells of marine animals like clams, snails, or corals. Insects, with thin outside skeletons of chitin, are not as easy to fossilize. Sometimes an insect is trapped in sticky material, resin, which comes out of some kinds of trees. The resin then hardens to a material called amber. The insect fossil is preserved in the amber, often perfectly.

Sometimes the actual shell or bone is preserved. Usually, however, you see only its imprint. If it resists being dissolved for a long enough time, the sediment around it turns into rock. Then, even though the shell or bone dissolves, the imprint is preserved. When a hammer splits the rock open, the fracture might pass through the imprint, and you see a fossil.

Under what conditions do fossils form?

For a fossil to form, several conditions have to be met. First of all, the animal had to live in the given area! Animals live in many environments on Earth, but not everywhere. The water above many lake bottoms and many areas of the deep ocean bottom are stagnant. The bottom water is never exchanged with surface waters, so the water contains no dissolved oxygen. Animals cannot live without oxygen, so no animals live there. In these situations, the only possibility of fossilization is if a fish or other swimming animal dies in oxygen-rich waters above, sinks down into the stagnant muddy bottom, and is buried by sediments.

Most environments on the land surface are populated with animals. Fossilization on land is very uncommon, however, because most areas of the land are being eroded. Unless there is deposition, fossils cannot be preserved. Deposition on land is common only in river valleys. Fossils are fairly common in sediments deposited on river floodplains. Some ocean environments that support animal life are exposed to very strong currents and waves. After a shelled animal dies, the strong water motions cause the hard body parts to be broken and worn. Often the shells end up just as rounded grains of sand or gravel, which no longer look like fossils.

For animals without skeletons, like worms or jellyfish, fossilization is a very rare event. When paleontologists find a well-preserved fossil of a soft-bodied animal, it's an occasion for celebration. For a soft-bodied animal to be fossilized, its body must be protected from decomposition. The body is usually exposed to air and water with a lot of oxygen, so it decomposes rapidly.The animal is likely to be fossilized only if it is buried soon after it dies (or when it is buried alive!). Even then, it is likely to decompose, because water that seeps through the sediment around it usually is rich in oxygen. Sometimes, however, the body is buried rapidly by fine mud. Water seeps through mud much more slowly than through sand, so the body does not decompose as fast. Mud often contains a lot of other organic matter as well, and that uses up oxygen faster. Some animal bodies then escape decomposition. Under just the right conditions, a delicate impression of the animal might be preserved.

Paleontologists are sure that the fossil record is biased. That means that some kinds of organisms are much scarcer as fossils than they were when they were alive. Other kinds of organisms are much better represented by fossils. Animals with hard shells and skeletons are represented well in the fossil record. On the other hand, soft-bodied animals are probably represented very poorly. It's likely that most soft-bodied species that ever existed are gone forever without a trace. Land animals are probably very poorly represented as well. For example, most animals that are now alive, or ever have lived, are insects, but the fossil record of insects is poor.

How can we tell how old rocks are?

Knowing the fossil record lets a geoscientist place a particular fossiliferous rock layer into the scale of geologic time. But the time scale given by fossils is only a relative scale, because it does not give the age of the rock in years, only its age relative to other layers. Long after the relative time scale was worked out from fossils, geologists developed methods for finding the absolute ages of rocks, in years before the present. These methods involve radioactivity. Here's how one of the important ones works.

Some minerals contain atoms of the radioactive chemical element uranium. Now and then, an atom of uranium self-destructs to form an atom of lead. Scientists know the rate of self-destruction. They grind up a rock to collect tiny grains of minerals that started out containing some uranium but no lead. Then they use a very sensitive instrument, called a mass spectrometer, to measure how much of the uranium has been changed to lead. Using some simple mathematics, they can figure out how long ago the mineral first formed. It is possible to date rocks as old as four billion years this way.

Absolute dating of rocks has provided many "tie points" for the relative time scale developed from fossils. The result is an absolute time scale. When you collect a fossil from a rock, you can place it in the relative time scale. Then you also know about how old it is in years (or usually millions, or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of years).

I already did, in the posts about Edward Teller. Quantum mechanics proves, not theory now, PROVES without a doubt, that yes, GOD could have spoken, SPOKEN this world and everything in it, into existence. Except for the the relentess unending, and unproven mind you, arguments from evolutionists like you, there is actually no other argument about it. So... the only argument to it, is unproven, just as you are doing here.

I prefer the proven science if you don't mind.

Your other post about fossils just above this contains quite a bit of information comfirming what I have alreday told you in my other posts. I suggest you read it and be sure that you understand it.

I think uranium dating has been disproven to quite an extent though. Something about lives and half lives of uranium and other radioactive material leaving fingerprints of recent activity... I forget it's been a long time since I have looked into that, but anyway it's been disproven to quite an extent.

You'll have to excuse my delays at answering these back log of posts. I had been away for the day (bad mistake), and other personal (health) circumstances does NOT make for much energy to catch up on longwinded posts on a creation/evolution debate forum in a prescribed time frame. I also play auntie babysitter to 3 kids and spend time on the other forum which is my favourite. Energies do go elsewhere! But as these arguments seem to be going in neverending cycles, I probably haven't missed much. I can imagine it's been repeated ad nauseum in past posts.

Hope it's not taken as a white flag of surrender towards the argument! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/surrender.gif" alt="" />

Good to see you back on Russ!

Linda,

Now I'm reasonably sure about what I've suspected all along; That you don't read the answers that I post in response to your questions. You have a long history of repeating the same arguments over and over even after I've addressed them.



I've dealt with this already in response to you in the past Linda.

Nevertheless...

You're own preconceived ideas (emotional projection) are preventing you from understanding how this works.

In short, God does know all from beginning to end. I call this entire universe and all the dimensions therein "God's shoebox project."

Now, scientists generally believe that there exists between 11 and 30 dimensions, and this information is perfectly supported by the Bible. Examples are the testimonies about angelic beings appearing and disappearing and the concept of possession. These are examples of cross-dimensional phenomenon.

Your presumption about God deciding to prevent these things from happening is another vast assumption that is being formed out of your lack of understanding about the Bible and therefore God's purposes in this project of His.

God—for His purposes—does not interfere with our own freewill and therefore does not prevent people from becoming evil (destructive). He only prevents those evil ones from causing more suffering on the good ones than the good ones can handle.

As far as God destroying the innocent, I also already dealt with this question previously and directly to you.

God does not destroy the innocent. In Noah's case, God saved the only people left on earth who's thoughts were not "only evil continually".

To understand the big picture Linda (and I've explained this all before to you), In the big picture, this life is a filter to separate the good from the evil. Also, we are here to make a decision to believe God or to not believe God.

To believe in God (in this context) means to have faith in Him, but faith is not what you believe it is.

Faith is not blind obedience. It is the ability to form a relationship based on intellect (which is normally followed by very positive emotion).

Faith is based on evidence and is the foundation of any relationship. Without faith, you cannot have a beneficial relationship with anyone. Faith is essential for this, but faith is based on evidence.

Nevertheless, there are those who will not choose to develop this relationship with God (it takes work), and therefore, God will not choose to develop a relationship with them.

Theories like evolution are myths designed by evil people who hate God so much that they deliberately try to prevent others from having a relationship with God. They do this by teaching fairy tales that—if believed—logically prevent a relationship with God.

Now, there is a lot of understanding that could be taught here, and this is not a shallow subject, but you have to grasp the ideas first before you can put them to the test. You don't have to believe them at first, you just have to comprehend them, then you can move on to determining if they are true.

So, to answer your question (again), God has no interest in "preventing" bad things from happening if people don't want God to be a part of their lives. He will not interfere with your own free will unless your free will harms one of His own beyond their ability to cope with it.

God offers a contract—an agreement—that you can accept or reject. You accept the agreement by believing that Christ is God's redeemer for our destructive nature (sin). If you reject God's agreement, you're on your own. Nearly all Christians have been on both sides of this fence. They (should) understand the difference.

When a society prevents God's terms of this contact from being posted on the wall of schools, for example, you will see a continual decline in the quality of life of a society, as we are currently experiencing.

People call this refusal to explore Biblical evidences intellectualism. God calls it rebellion, and rebellion is just like trying to swim upriver when the cookout is downstream. At its core, it's just pretty darn stupid, and certainly unproductive, but actually very destructive to society, again, as we are experiencing.

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."
—Matthew 13:24-30

The tares are ultimately offspring of the fallen angels. As bazaar as this may sound, we're living in a day when the truth is right under your nose; for those who have an ear.



Wow, talk about a strawman argument. I'm going to start calling you on these Linda because you have a long history of doing it and I've been very lenient about it in the past.

I dealt with this in my previous post. Refer to it for the real answers. In reference to "hyper": Note that preprogrammed adaptation occurs more quickly than evolution would like to believe. Think in terms of Thoroughbred breeding.



This was dealt with previously in this...

The Bible talks about the destruction of:

...all flesh, wherein is the breath of life...
—Gen 6:17

and this does not include all life on Earth, not by huge margin.

These qualifiers cannot be ignored when discovering what was taken on the ark and what was not.

You have to remember that considerable periods of time have elapsed since the flood, and this time provides plenty of time for the built-in (created) adaptive abilities of these animals to reemerge.

With this in mind, you can see that pandas may not have been aboard. It is very possible that only the parent "kind" which is related to pandas were aboard. It is then possible that this particular kinds' intelligently-programmed adaptive ability enabled them to reemerge with the same attributes. It is also very likely that, if they were aboard, that they were likely able to eat things besides what you believe they currently eat today.

In short, if you can place your assumptions and projections aside long enough to take an objective view at the flood event, it is perfectly sensible and has much supporting evidence.



No, really there isn't any evidence for evolution, only massive speculation and enormous assumptions.

What we do find is an abrupt appearance, which diametrically opposes the myth of evolution.

Also, irreducible complexity is an attribute that we not only find in innumerable appearance throughout nature, but it does offer yet another enormous blow to the "cell-to-man" brand of evolutionary myths.

Simply put, these complex features have no use when only their components exist and therefore would be considered a harmful mutation leading to the destruction of the mutation. Ironically, to use this argument to support evolution is really intellectually dishonest to the core. (See the single bullet theory )



[color:"brown"]Strawman Alert[/color]

We've already dealt with this. I've explained both why I don't believe in a young Earth (although I admit that there are some very compelling scientific arguments supporting it) and why I believe the Bible does not make this claim, and I have already answered these questions.



What exactly are you expecting to find on the sea floor relating to a flood?



Again, we're not talking about all living species. First, we're talking about "kinds".

Secondly, it appears that you are expecting to find something interesting in this regard.
What other evidence are you hoping to find?

Do you have another projected idea about the way fossils should look? Are you blinding having faith in what pop science is currently telling you?

There are many issues to consider here including the accuracy of dating, the lie concerning the so-called "fossil record", and much more. So, for example, if the so-called "fossil record" is not complete, how to we make a judgment as to genetic bottlenecks?

This is simply not intellectually honest.



The problem here is that the methods are—at the very least, and by the admission of the proponents themselves—"very fragile" and they can easily be used to misrepresent the data or misused to arrive at horribly inaccurate data. There are numerous examples of this happening involving fraud and plain old "incompetence". Honestly, this is old news. Why do we keep coming back to this?



This is simply not true.

Of all the digs and research worldwide, there are sorted fossils in only a very small handful of places. This is a fact and is strong evidence—a fatal blow really—against the concept of a "fossil record". People really need to do only a small amount of homework on this point to see how deceptive this "fossil record" myth really is and how it has been used to falsely support the evolution myth for their own purposes and financial gain.



These are deep sources of fresh water. These exists the world over and are well known to be enormous sources of fresh water.

One of the largest is under one of the driest places on Earth: The Arabah Desert, which is one of the places that will become a lush farming zone shortly before the second coming of Christ. In fact, this transformation has already begun. I strongly suggest that everyone research this for themselves and prepare for the return of Messiah.



You're using myth to qualify myth.

The problem here is very easy to see, and that is that evolutionists have very interesting ways of classifying fossils. Remember, how complete mythical ideas are created about of teeth or parts of a skull.

Evolutionists make huge assumptions to support their faith, especially in this area. Search "Piltdown Man".

Very simply, categorization is the issue here. There is a long, sloppy and even fraudulent history of evolutionists offering these types of snake oil arguments.



I've offered explanations for these things previously but they continue to be ignored.


I'd also like to respond to the derogatory remarks that you (Linda) and PWCCA have made about me, particularly making comments about this being a biased forum and that I'm unfair.

What's amazing here is that I pay for, manage, moderate, and otherwise maintain this forum and freely allow you to display your opinions and religious ideas here that are in direct opposition to my own and yet you both bash me for being unfair.

I'm really not sure what you think is unfair. I guess I'll allow the many onlookers who read this to not only judge our individual character by our conduct, but to decide if they believe I'm unfair.

Amazing

How exactly does quantum mechanics prove creationism SoSick? And if you believe God spoke everything into existence, why is quantum mechanics necessary for this? In fact, why do "creation scientists" try to apply any science to it at all, if presumably God can do whatever he wants?


I said in my previous post that saying "I read somewhere . . . " is not valid evidence in a debate. If you are going to make a claim that scientists have got it all wrong then you need to substantiate that. Why not look into it again if you've forgotten, and give me a link.

OK Russ, so you are saying that people in Noah's time became evil of their own free will, and that God does not interfere with free will. This is one possible interpretation and I don't see how it's more or less valid than others I've heard, so fair enough. My personal point of view is that I don't believe anyone is 100% evil and I'd have a hard time believing that all but 8 of the people on earth were so evil that they deserved to die. But we're purely in the realm of speculation here and there's no science involved. Your concept of the transcendent, and mine, are very different from each other so please don't try to explain God to me, it's quite honestly a waste of your time.


There's a problem here though. You have told me that "kinds" refers, in your opinion, to a more general classification than what we define as species. This necessitates extremely rapid evolution after the flood. Such rapid evolution has not been observed in the evidence from the geologic column, nor has it been revealed through phylogenetics. Breeding thoroughbreds amounts to changes within species only. How do you get thousands of completely new species of animals in just a few thousand years?


By "considerable periods," would you accept 18-25 million years ago? That is when molecular studies estimate that giant pandas diverged from the bear line, as you can read here http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/2695/genetics.html


Are you again saying that there are no transitional forms? I gave a series of transitional forms for the whale. Ambulocetus is a good example of a transitional form.

We've talked about Behe's idea of irreducible complexity. I've given you a model of how a mousetrap can be reduced in its parts and still work, though Behe claimed that this is impossible. I've also given you a series of examples of the most simple to the most complex eye and explained how evolution could have gone through these steps; organisms which possess each of these kinds of eye can still be found today. Every example that creationists have given of a supposedly irreducibly complex system has been refuted. Behe does not have a leg to stand on. The atom used to be considered irreducibly complex. There was a time when people didn't even know that atoms exist. Science marches on and we learn more all the time. If we decide to stop at some point, say "this is irreducibly complex, God did it," and leave it at that, how are people going to learn anything?


Actually you have not said how old you think the earth is. Why not just tell me? Give me a number? Then everyone here will better understand your position.

What are the scientific arguments for a young earth that you find compelling?

About a genetic bottleneck. I posted an explanation of this but neither you nor SoSick appear to have read it. It's got nothing to do with fossils. And species or "kinds," it doesn't matter, because you are analysing genes and using them to look back in time. You can see from this process when bottlenecks occurred that caused the loss of genetic diversity. Even if all living animals evolved from a few "kinds," that would have been a bottleneck that is reflected in the genes of everything alive today. It isn't there.

What is the "lie" about the fossil record and can you give evidence of it?

And again, an assertion that the three methods of absolute dating of rocks is erroneous. Unless you give evidence of this and explain how it is erroneous, what you are saying amounts to no more than "it's all lies." I'm not sure why you think I'm going to accept this as an explanation for the specific things I've been asking you and everyone else here.


Because no one has given a satisfactory answer.

Yet again, you assert that the sorting of fossils is a lie. Evidence please? And don't just tell me to go look at Hovind's website or post another video link that I will not watch. Give me a specific bit of information I can check out for myself, as I have been doing here to support my own claims.

Can you give me a model, for instance, that explains how a) there is enough fresh water underground to cover the earth in water a few miles deep, and b) what the geological process was that caused it to come out? If it broke forth in torrents then there are some scientific problems with this, but I'm still not sure how anyone here would explain what happened.

About classifying homo erectus, neanderthal, etc. I don't expect you to be aware that an analysis of human genes gives approximate dates for when we and our ancestors branched off from various species, because you did not read my post about genetic bottlenecks. But this is the data we have. Fossils are not needed here but they do fit the dates. You do a disservice to scientists by accusing them of making huge assumptions about a few teeth or parts of a skull. They have other fossils to refer to as well and they can fit puzzle pieces together. There is also the date of the rocks in which the fossils are found. If you want to refute any of this then please cite specific examples. The vagueness of the assertions in this post is tedious.

Derogatory remarks about you? Only that a couple of things have happened that I do perceive as unfair. One of my posts appears to have been deleted by you without warning or explanation, and the thread locked. I refer to the "Evolution of Man Disproved in 50 . . ." thread. Second, SoSick has been allowed to post things like "you are dumb" and "you have been on psych meds, you need counselling," to me -- in other words, she can insult me to her heart's content -- without fear of a warning. So if I decided to get into a slagging-off match with her and return tit for tat that would be OK with you would it? I honestly think some basic rules of conduct are needed particularly on a forum like this, where tempers can sometimes get frayed.

If you no longer want to pay for this area of the forum and would rather that "evolutionists" were not posting their views, that is completely your call. You can make this a creationists' corner if you want. I'm just here because there appears to be no one else around who wants to challenge creationist claims in any substantial way and at the moment I am free to do so.

???AGAIN???





Give you a link, Linda? Why? Expect you would read and comprehend? You make all sorts of statements without providing links, why is that not allowed for anyone else? Really it's so very evident that you care very ltittle about actual knowledge and facts but simply love to argue. I truly pray you never ever get a job teaching your nonsense to children. I will pray Linda, and you will never teach again. Perhaps that will help you believe, in time.

All of your redundant and often illogical questions have been redundantly answered by me, by Russ, by Bex....

This is like having a conversation with Gumby.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jedavhjzaz.gif">

Are you again saying that there are? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776/
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm

When one tries to use variations within a kind to describe evolution, they run into some very big moral problems. If someone really believes that apes are related to human beings, and so closely,(sharing a common ancestor) - then one must wonder why the word "bestiality" is used to describe someone who engages in such a "perversion". Sorry for the offensive nature of this, but let's get real here. Why is it suddenly repugnant and a moral issue when it comes to human- animal/ ape copulation? How can evolutionists possibly make this distinction on one hand (instinctively) and then grossly contradict this on the other when describing us as not much more than advanced ape like creatures? I think we all know why. Inside every human being is the infused knowledge of being separate from the animals in that we are made in the image of God, not a beast. We KNOW we are not animals and instinctively are repelled and for very good reason, (unless one is morally very sick). Those that enage in these acts are known as perverts. But why are they perverts? Perverting from what? we're all just animals right? It makes me wonder how they can distinguish so suddenly and clearly the grave differences between apes and mankind, but close the gap right up when it comes to evolution. It's all about a total distinction between man and beast that evolutionists refuse to make, unless of course something like this comes up <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> So the contradictions are laughable and on reflection, more than a little disturbing!

ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS:

(N.B. ALL FOLLOWING QUOTATIONS ARE FROM EMINENT EVOLUTIONISTS:)

PRIMITIVE - MODERN PLANTS MISSING
"Supposedly somewhere within the group called algae lay the sources of the higher plants, the vascular groups. Whatever these ancestors may have been, they seem to have been irrevocably lost in the vastness of time" - Everette C Olson (The evolution of life, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 155).

.....I think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation - Prof E.J.H.Corner (Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, A.M. Macleod and L.S. Cobley).

SINGLE CELLS - INVERTEBRATES MISSING
"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon" - Niles Elderedge (Quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other problems, by Luther D.Sunderland, Master book Publishers, Santee, California, p.45).

....extensive searches by palaeontologists have failed to reveal the Precambrian strata rich in fossils of multicellular animals (the ancestors of the many Cambrian animals) which Darwin believed must somewhere exist" - Richard E. Leakey (Same as Ref 18, p.163).

FISH - AMPHIBIANS MISSING
...there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world" - Gordon Rattray Taylor (The Great Evolution Mystery).

"Although this transition (from fish to amphibian) doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no known fossil record of these stages" - Kraig Adler (Encylopedia of Reptiles and Amphibians, Equinox, Oxford, p.4.).

AMPHIBIANS - REPTILES MISSING
"Unfortunately, not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles" - Robert L. Carroll (Problems of Origin of Reptiles, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosphical Society, p393.)

"The reptiles arose from amphibians of some kind, but the details of their early history are not clearly understood and current ideas about them are in a state of flux" - Angus d'A. Bellairs (Encylopedia of Reptiles & Amphibians, Equinox, Oxford p.60)

REPTILES - BIRDS MISSING
"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved" - W.E. Swinton (Chapter 1, in Biology & Comparative Physiology of Birds, A.J. Marshall (editor), Academic Press, New York, Vol 1, p.1.)

"Feathers are unique to birds and no known structure intermediate between scales and feathers has been identified" - J. Alan Feduccia (The Age of Birds, Harvard University Press, p.52).

REPTILES - MAMMALS MISSING
"The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma" - Roger Lewin (Bones Of Mammals, ancestor Fleshed Out. Science Vol 212, p.1492)

"Nor is there any fossil evidence of any consequences about their (the echidna and platypus) ancestors. So we have virtually nothing to help us link these creatures to any group of fossil reptiles" - David Attenborough (Life on Earth: A natural History, Reader's Digest/Collins, London, p.238).

LAND MAMMALS - SEA MAMMALS MISSING
....."we have no certain knowledge of their origin (the cetaceans), for the earliest-known fossils from the Eocene are already unmistakably whales and we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference" - L. Harrison Mathews (The Natural History Of the Whale, Columbia Uni, Press, New York, p.23).

"we are ignorant of their terrestrial forebears (cetaceans and sirenians) and cannot be sure of their place of origin" - Alfred Sherwood Romer (vertebrae Paleontology, University of Chicago Press, p.339).

NON-FLYING MAMMALS - BATS MISSING
....."all fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor" - John E. Hill andJames D. Smith (Bats: A natural History, Rigby Publishers, Adelaide, p.33).

"unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats. - Richard E. Leakey (Footnote in The Illustrated Origin of Species, abridged by R.E. Leakey, Faber and Faber Ltd London, p.128).

APES - HUMAN BEINGS MISSING
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter" - Lyall Watson ('The Water People', Science Digest Vol 90, May 1982 p.44)

"Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one of whose morphology marks it is man's hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no'. ('Population genetics and human origins', Scientific American, Vol 226, p.94).

THE EVOLUTIONISTS' DILEMMA
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assurely does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain' and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" - Charles Darwin , Origin of Species, 6th ed., ch 10, para. 1).

"the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is interence, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils" - Stephen J.Gould, Natural History, Vol 86, No. 5, p.4).

Ever since Charles Darwin wrote in his 'Origin of Species in 1859, evolutionists have been searching for the transitional fossils which his theory demands. But although millions of fossils have been discovered and identified, those 'missing links' have not turned up.

This presents evolutionists with a dilemma: did evolution take place graudally? or did it happen at all? Evolutionists are bitterly divided, with some clinging to Darwin's gradualistic theory, and other suggesting a new theory - punctuated equilibrium - meaning that evolution proceded in 'jumps', leaving no transitional forms. The problem wtih this new theory is that, like the Darwinian theory, there is no evidence to support it!

However, there is an explanation which fits the facts perfectly - the biblical account of special creation! The book of Genesis records that living things came into existence through acts of creation (Genesis chapter one). There is potential for wide variation within these 'kinds', but there are strict boundary lines between the types which cannot be crossed. Thousands of scientists have rejected evolution entirely and become creationists, and many ofthem have written books and papers demonstrating the superiority of the creationist view over all theories of evolution.

Recommended reading"

Stones and Bones (E. Wieland)
Refuting Evolution (Jonathon Sarfati)

No SoSick, you have not explained how quantum mechanics relates to creationism, other than saying something about how it was somehow involved with how God poofed everything into being. Where does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle fit into this for example?

Over and over what I am reading here is people making vague assertions, not bothering to back them up with evidence or even a citation from a website or a link or a study, and then telling me they are tired of me telling them they have not actually given any evidence or explained anything. As I said earlier, if there are no forthcoming answers to the set of questions I gave a few posts back, then I will assume no one here is capable of answering them. It's OK, the creationist leaders can't do it either and they're the supposed experts.

Bex let's start with your "Whale of a Tale" article. I don't know why the 1994 bit is still there because it was invalidated when the pelvis of the ambulocetus fossil was actually found. Interestingly, there is a 2002 addendum that says that none of the material found has been subjected to peer review. This is incorrect. The discoveries were mentioned in scientific literature in 1998, photos were available on Thewissen's website in 1999, and the paper was published in Nature (a peer-reviewed journal) in 2001.

As for Batten's claims that ambulocetus was purely a land animal and not a whale, he's wrong there too. He clearly hasn't looked at the actual evidence. The nature of ambulocetus as a transitional form, and the features that make it both a whale and one that lived in water most of the time, are discussed here http://smithlifescience.com/WhaleEvolution.htm



Just a quick note on this passage you give about humans and beasts (judiciously ignoring the author's strange fascination with having sex with them). Believing that humans are separate from animals and that animals are lesser than us, is one way of looking at things but it isn't the only way. I believe that all life is unified, unique, and deserving of respect. More of a Native American philosophy than a fundamentalist Biblical one I guess you could say. I don't have any moral or philosophical trouble in thinking that humans evolved from other forms, and I have never been known to call any other creature a "brute" or a "beast." By saying humans evolved from an apelike ancestor, we are not saying humans ARE apes. We are something new and unique. Again, no evidence here for creation or against evolution.

Right, my computer has crashed twice while I’ve been talking about these quote-mined quotes. If I ever see another one I’m going to thrash it within an inch of its life LOL.

Bex, just a few posts back I told you about these. I gave you a link that gives them in abundance and explains how they have been taken out of context. I showed you here myself, using a quotation given from one of the scientists investigating the ambulocetus evidence. And yet you post a whole slew of them here. Have you investigated a single one yourself?

Keep in mind that scientists who accept evolution as fact (99.9% of them) do not walk around “tripping themselves up” by saying it’s nonsense. If they are criticising, it’s going to be an aspect of the way evolutionary theory works, not the whole theory itself. If they say there is a lack of evidence, they mean just that. They might be hoping someone goes out and finds it, which is often the case – note that these “lack of evidence” quotes are usually decades old (Darwin’s, over 150 years). And again, a lack of evidence e.g. in the fossil record of a species does not mean that the entire theory of evolution has been dealt a fatal blow.

Many of the quotes here do not have dates, which is telling. Some do not give their authors. I will choose a few to deal with. In fact I have these just about memorised because it’s the third flipping time I’ve typed this.

About the quote from Professor Corner. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._H._Corner



Corner is saying that evolution is the best model we have that fits the evidence – and much of that evidence is still being discovered, in the form of new species. Keep in mind that this quote is from 1961. New living species and new fossils are being discovered all the time, and genetics is also giving us a wealth of information.

Another quote from your source:


I was able to find the date for this quote. It is 1960. Swinton was writing 16 years before Ostrom's (1976) seminal work on the relationships between Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs. His comments are no longer representative of current thinking on the origin of birds, nor the ancestry of Archaeopteryx.

And the much-maligned Stephen J. Gould. I told you he was a favourite target of creationist quote-mining, much to his annoyance. Did you scan down your list and notice that there he is, in this one? Bearing in mind that I told you he’s complained about being quoted out of context, did you make any attempt to check out the context of this quote?

He and Niles Eldredge are known for a theory called punctuated equilibrium. It is one model for one way evolution might work and it has been much-debated. Creationists like to think that its existence alone necessitates that there are major problems with evolution and that evolutionists themselves say there are no transitional fossils. Here is what Gould had to say about this in 1981, in an article titled “Evolution as Fact and Theory”:



Gould, in this article and many more over the next twenty years, consistently and extensively explained his position and the evidence for evolution, including transitional forms found in the fossil record. The constant abuse of the body of Gould's life's work in the face of this is not merely dishonest, it is despicable.

Finally, you (or your source) said:


Then please tell me how it explains the answers to the questions I summarised a few posts back.

Linda, honey,

if you are expecting anyone here to give you the college or university education you pretend to already have, you are very likely in the very wrong place.

Try the library. I will repeat for the very very last time... if you are unable to comprehend that ice floats, that ice melts... if you are going to argue against the most simple, the most basic, the most obvious things... it is not possible to have a rational conversation with you about more complicated things.

Try the library. I will repeat that a few times right here in this post so that you don't have to ask again and again and again and so that I do not have to repeat again and again and again later.

Try the library.

Try the library.

Try the library.

Try the library.

As concerns fakes.. you are a fake. I will repeat that here a few times so that I don't have to repeat it again and again later.

You are a fake.

You are a fake.

You are a fake.

Leave me alone. You scare me. I hope it's not contagious, whatever it is you've got. Maybe a parasite cleanse would help. Use a lot of wormwood.

Bex's quotes are not out of context. You have a real obvious comprehension problem. Thanks for adding this to the mix though: The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.

It would be really nice if the rest of us could have a real discussion here without you jumping in to trash everyone all the time. Can't you possibly find something better to occupy your time with? This arguing about everything over and over again, simply because YOU don't understand something is really obnoxious.

It is very apparent that Linda cannot read. Is anyone else in agreement with me that it is well past time to move forward already?

Goodnight Linda, sweet dreams.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jedavhjzaz.gif">

The library is not going to explain to me how quantum physics is involved in creationism. I suspect you're not explaining to me yourself because you don't actually know anything about quantum physics, let alone how it relates to creationism. You're quite welcome to prove me wrong.

I also told you that floating ice has nothing to do with ice cores. I fail to understand why you keep repeating this like a mantra, as if it proves or disporves anything.

I've just shown how Bex's quotes are either out of context or outdated. I've shown how her Whale of a Tale source is wrong.

It's up to you whether you reply to me or not. All I'm asking for is answers to the questions I posed about how creationism explains certain phenomena that existing scientific models already explain quite well, like seashells IN (as well as on) mountaintops.

If you want to discuss these nonsensical ideas without someone raining logic on your parade then I suggest you either PM each other or get Russ to turn this into the creationists corner. People were throwing creationist ideas at me when I first joined here and I quickly had enough of listening to them without refuting them. If you don't like the fact that I'm clued up about creationist claims now then you can blame the people on the mercury forum who were making them to me in the first place, before I had any interest in the subject at all.

I asked you to leave me alone Linda, I am done arguing with you.

Russ, it would be real nice if we could actually have a discussion here. I, for instance am sincerely interested in knowing more about Hovind's ideas, and I am aware you know him however well but still, and your feeling on the young earth stuff, or Bex's.

Unfortunately it's not at all possible. Just a view of this thread for instance will prove that anytime anyone posts something here Linda comes along with her long winded generally baseless highly biased opinionated arguments and no real discussion ever takes place because of the repitition needed to satisfy her, which thus far has not been successful either because she doesn't study or read or comprehend what she reads. or quite simply, is impossible to satisfy.

SoSick, no one has directly answered the questions I posted. How is it opinionated to say that there is no evidence of a global flood in sea or ice core samples, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck? And how does "ice floats and melts" address this in any way? I want to know how a model that is supposedly as viable as old earth and evolution can explain these things. This is what people want to teach children in schools. It needs to make sense and explain the actual evidence.

Russ seems to have decided to allow dissent here. If people post claims from creationists like Hovind, then others can come here and explain how they are wrong, or at least question. If he wants to disallow this then that's his call. Presumably you all are secure enough in your beliefs to feel you can defend them adequately when they are challenged? But if this becomes a creationists-only area then I will of course follow the rules and stop posting here. All I am trying to do is get explanations from people about how the claims posted here can actually fit the evidence. If that's too tall an order then perhaps the model needs to be revisited and revised.

The continually negative and contentious responses are very uninspiring.

She has made herself quite clear by now. No answer will satisfy her. She is not interested in facts or any ideas outside of her own and has repeatedly asserted herself on this point. She has repeatedly also asserted that she will continue and continue to ask the same redundant questions regardless of how many times they have been addressed by others.

It really is time to move forward.

That's fine, if people are tired of me asking them. There have been no satisfactory answers here, no models proposed for how various geological features came to exist (or not) on a young earth or from a global flood. I'm sorry these are vexing points but they need to be asked of a "theory" that people want taught in schools as an alternative to the existing ones. Do you think intelligent high school students with a decent science education are not going to be asking them as well -- or is it the idea that we don't educate them in science so that they never ask these inconvenient questions in the first place?

Should I ask about the feasible size of the ark? Some more questions about the flood and geology? Or we could move on to Bex's assertion that the Grand Canyon could have been carved in a very short time. I'd still like to hear evidence for how the geologic column and fossil sorting are fakes or lies, and how radioisotope dating is wrong, because these things strongly underpin scientific theories about the old earth and evolution. C'mon guys, if you've got good evidence against them you can shut me up.

Do you promise?

I am curious what sort of administrator response (or lack thereof) this will receive.

First, before judgement is laid, I wish to make it known that I am not a Christian and do not believe in Creationism in the same vein as the Christian Fundamentalists of this forum. May these words hereby, henceforth and forthwith prove me to be an infidel blasphemer.

... you know, that way it'll be easier to punish me while others go unreprimanded ...

So here goes.

Ya'll ready?

Russ? You're an idiot.

Linda? Go to hell. You suck.

Hey Elvis, ya reading dude? You're so dumb and have no education and clearly need to start ingesting exorbitant volumes of medication.

Dumb dumb dumb.

That's what you all are. Because I decided you are. Because I am so holier than thou.

The End.

(Please do me a favor of proving my point by reprimanding me while others are permitted to say what they want so long as they are a Christian. Honestly. I WANT you to prove your hypocricy.)

I think your hopes of being viewed as a non-biased mediator disappeared quite some time ago when it became apparent that you only popped in to defend any and all non-Christians or other persons promoting generally unaccepted immoral behavior and thus use the opportunity for your own 5 minutes of Christian bashing.

Did you have any facts or research you wanted to add to the creation/evolution forum or did you just want to take another opportune moment to do some christian bashing again, Pwcca?

I hope you have gotten it all off your chest for today.

This is actually dishonest, going back through posts, you will see links given to you, quotes given to you with references. Not everytime, but many times and I've seen things repeated ad nauseum also. You yourself have not exactly given back ups to all the info in your posts either. I missed some of your info from your posts because Linda, you love to address lots and lots of things in long winded posts, knowing full well that not everybody can go through it all and satisfy you with a detailed answer. Bombardment its called. The amount of different stuff you'll throw into one post is ridiculous, seriously. Go have a look at your post, the geologic column will be thrown up, the flood, the ark, the grand canyon, fossils, anything and everything. How very easy to throw all this into one post, sit back and rub your hands whilst other people have to work their way through it and try to answer "which POINT?". You yourself have complained about this previously. Linda, put aside your personal hang ups about Dr Kent Hovind and DEAL WITH THE ISSUES convincingly presented on his classic tape "LIES IN THE TEXTBOOKS" , where all of these things you mention are EFFECTIVELY dealt with. Why do you suppose that his offer of 250,000 US, for ONE convincing proof for evolution remains unclaimed. If he is such a scientific ignoramus and is simply an idiot as you claim, why is it he is willing to debate more than one evolutionist at a time? Yet very rarely do any of them take up his offer? Please don't use the ongoing excuses to discredit him personally by referring to him as an idiot. The issues are the key and it should be very easy for any evolutionist (particulary when more than one is debating him) to make him look like the idiot you claim he is. Yet, they can't.

Any fossil evidence the evolutionist finds in his/her mind WILL be a transitional form, rather than another example of variety within a kind. It is simply an opinion Linda and this is all I see from the links you give me, just their interpreations to make the fossil an earlier form of what we see today, rather than another variety. Whatever is missing off those fossils, can be pretty significant and should not be privy to the manipulation by the evolutionist. There are so many variations of animals of every kind, that when you consider marine life alone, it is vast. Because a mammal like a whale lives souly in the water, or a seal can live in both, do you suggest these must have evolved? Can you NEVER accept an animal or mammal for exactly what it is? This is the problem, the evolutionist has already decided it's an earlier form of the animal, rather than considering it maybe another variety of marine life - the fact that Crocodiles can walk out of the water and swim in the water does not mean crocs every did anything different or ever WILL do anything different and if you found a fossil resembling a croc, but without legs, perhaps you'd say that this is the same animal and it's simply evolved legs? Once again, I say you do NOT know this. Whales cannot live out of water. Does this mean any animal that resembles a whale in anyway, but had any legs actually lost those legs later and became what it is today? Do you EVER consider different varieties of animals for what they are? There are so many animals today of different varieties, with or without legs, it makes no sense to say they lost their legs because..... or they gained legs because....... It is down to "Im bias, I cannot accept any animals for what they are, so they will be transitional forms because I say so", rather than different varieties of marine life. You've already formed an opinion. So if you dig up an animal that may have become extinct, will it instead be an earlier form of an animal that it resembles today?

HEre is the problem, interpretation of data fits within the bias of those interpreting it Linda. You are bias yourself. Here is a comment that is clearly evident of this bias.



Yet, notice your faith in evolution, even though there is actually no conclusive evidence, just interpretation. We actually do not know if any animal was anything else, other than what it is. You cannot just dig up a fossil and decide "oh this must be an earlier form of a whale"....ever thought it's another variety of mammal? You guys are incapable of thinking anything else because you WANT evolution at all costs. Nobody knows that anything has been anything else. Fossils tell you one thing linda, "they died". Do you know if the fossil had any offspring? Did the fossil wake up and say "I'm 300 millions years of age, I lost these legs later on when I decided I didn't need them anymore". Or is it the evolutionist putting words in the mouth of the fossil and filling in the gaps himself? I think so! Frankly Linda, the past hoaxes do not give evolution much credence and your faith in them today shows that this does not even make you consider the games they are capable of playing or what they will do to fit anything into their preconceived ideas. Fossils don't prove a thing, other than it lived once and it died. They are the ones saying it became something else, it lost this or it gained this. The fossil itself doesn't actually have any say in the matter, it's a transitional form whether it likes it or not, because the evolutionist said so. Not actually a variety of animal in its own right.

The links ARE missing Linda - you talk about my apparently outdated quotes and it is interesting that one of the fathers of the evolution belief "Charles Darwin" was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:

"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Is it any different in todays times? Dr Colin Patterson (1933 - 1998), senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, worote a book Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms (;) which I have yet to see Linda, sosick's photos have more credence than the cartoons and quotes you have so much faith in) He wrote:

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.....I will lay it on the line - there is not ONE such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument".

By the way, the comment about the "author's fasination in having s*x with them reflects the games you play on here. Talk about deliberately taking it out of context to hit back. Fasination? Hmmm, I don't think I have mentioned it before, was a pretty small paragraph too and simply stated the obvious.

So, you think we're a unique being now? That we aren't really advanced apes, but we evolved from a common ancestor and we're just "unique" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Yes, we most definitely are unique, at least you've admitted that. Funny how you can make the transition of beast and human when it suits. One must wonder what made human beings what we are today, and the apes what they are? I wonder who or what this common ancestor was......and if you dig anything up, be it resembling ape or human or variety of either, will they tell you? Or will you simply speak for the dead?

Linda, all breeders do is select from the information ALREADY PRESENT

So I'll simply turn this around. Again, no evidence for evolution or against Creation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Very simple.

Bex, you actually have attempted to give evidence in a meaningful way. You have cited websites and links that I could check out. True, you have regurgiposted a whole list of quote mines that you don't seem to have read, but I honestly admire the fact that you've tried to back up what you say. As I said before, it's been enjoyable talking to you. So maybe I should have said you were the exception here when I said the posts were vague; you did force people to start being more specific in their claims and we had something substantial to talk about. And if you want more evidence, or a link, for something I say, then please ask. I try to provide these but if more are needed then I will oblige. I have no desire or need for obfuscation. I don't want to confuse anyone or blind them with science; I want them to understand how it explains the evidence we see.

I'm also trying to address most everything I see in posts, and I'm talking to three people at once here, which is probably why my own posts get so long. It isn't honestly what I want, because inevitably some of it is going to be glossed over if not ignored when people reply. What should we focus on? I'll say what I would like, narrowed down from what I've been talking about myself. If people here say that fossil sorting and dating amount to lies and fakes, then I want to see evidence for that. Specific examples. And scientific reasons for why radioisotope dating is so very, very inaccurate that it gives dates which are millions of years too old.

Further on, you seem to be saying that fossils are examples of specific animals that died . . . relatively recently? So ambulocetus and archaeopteryx were recent animals that happened to resemble whales and birds. This line of reasoning further suggests that evolutionists have a pre-existing desire to bash God and the Bible at any cost, which includes faking evidence, lying, and telling everyone that fossils are evidence of evolution when they aren't necessarily.

The error here is that evolutionists do not have this pre-existing burning desire to "believe." This point has been made before, but when talking to people who do have this need to believe, it's perhaps asking you to get into a different mindset in order to understand. Speaking for myself, I look at the actual evidence and let it lead me. The question is, then, what is the evidence?

Scientists do not just dig up fossils and make guesses about them, which is what you seem to believe. The rock in which the fossil was found is dated, which gives an idea of when the organism died and places it within the geologic column, for which there are known series of dates. If the fossil itself is more recent than 40,000 years, it can be carbon dated. There are also many fossils existing already of different species, spectrums which usually include the species of the fossil itself, plus those from which it evolved, and species that in turn it gave rise to. Furthermore, these are layered in the fossil record so that you will see earlier species lower down and later species higher up, consistently, with no mixing. All of these puzzle pieces are compared with each other. Experts spend years studying the characteristics of each species and how these can be studied in fossils.

Finally, transitional fossils are named as such because they display characteristics of both the species that came before and after and yet themselves are neither but something in between. This data is arrived at via the methods discussed above. Archaeopteryx, for example, is dated by the rock in which it is found and comparatively through the fossil record as having lived concurrently with theropods, and not long before the appearance of what we begin to classify as modern birds. It has characteristics of each. This is the definition of a transitional fossil. Though as I've said, technically all fossils are transitional, because evolution does not stop.

About the author of your bestiality quote . . . I was simply making an observation. He could have said that he thought humans cannot be "brutes" like animals, that they were created to have mastery over them, that humans are the only beings that have souls . . . not that I agree with this myself, but I think that's the sort of thing he was driving at. He seemed to want to talk about sex with animals for some reason. Why that enters into it I don't know, but I find it bizarre.

What's wrong with saying we're unique? We are a species called homo sapiens. No scientist is going to tell you we are apes, though they will tell you we evolved from apelike creatures. All species are unique, whatever they are, because of their nature as a species. As I said, it does not bother me that my ancestors were not humans like me. I find it fascinating and wonderful.

You said:


Point being-? These are human-made changes within a species. Over time you might end up with new species, as probably happened with the wolf and the dog. Whether this happens through random mutations, the influence of morphic fields, human intervention, or even the guiding hand of God, it is still evolution in progress.

[color:"brown"]I'll do ya' one better.[/color] <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twoandtwo.gif" alt="" />

I'll repost your entire post here so you get double the exposure.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/babypacifier.gif" alt="" />

You see PWCCA, I learned a long time ago that when people say bad things about other people, it is not a reflection on the person being spoken about. It is actually a reflection on the person doing the speaking.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mirrormirror.gif" alt="" />

I don't want to reprimand you or threaten banning you because you actually contribute useful information to this forum (usually). Whether or not I agree with it (which I usually don't) is immaterial.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/zzz.gif" alt="" />

I did threaten to ban BrownCoat because (as I explained twice before), they made 6 posts to the system and 5 of them were nothing but trolling and the other one was a single sentence of agreement with someone in a controversy (a subversive form of trolling). You see, in online moderator talk, that kind of activity is useless and harmful and is not tolerated on most worthy forum systems.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/quickdraw.gif" alt="" />

I don't allow trolling on my forum. It's that simple, and even though BrownCoat called me an idiot, I still didn't ban them. I just gave them a warning. Had they begun to contribute useful content, they would have had no further threat of being banned even though they would obviously disagree with all of my positions. Furthermore, I have not even deleted their useless and derogatory comments towards me.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/vacuuming.gif" alt="" />

I'm honestly surprised at your conduct and ill-logic in saying the things you are saying and doing the things you are doing, nevertheless, there's no need to worry. You're under no threat of being banned, unless of course, you start trolling and don't stop after I warn you.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/copper.gif" alt="" />

If nothing else, you are an outstanding source of entertainment.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/junkfood.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/reallymad.gif" alt="" />

All the best.

Russ, all I'm after is seeing a little respect requested by the powers-that-be here. Namely, yourself. The reason being, as on just about every other forum across the internet, I want to see name calling forbidden. I don't want to see people called an idiot or told they lack an education or that they need to take medication. Not only do I not want to see these things, I don't want to see them said

every

single

post

by the same poster time and time again.

It's rude, offensive, and the only reason it continues is because it's allowed. When the same poster was posting anonymously to use her juvenile insult posting tactics, these conveniently came to an end the moment you disallowed anonymous posting. Things have really improved since then. Now they just have one more step to go before this place resembles something like a bona fide discussion board.

No one's asking you to be a policeman. I think it's appalingly obvious when it's time to intervene. When someone says "I will punch you" or "You're an idiot with no education," etc.

But I'll aree with what you've said about the person who continually posts the insults here, Russ.

Russ said:

Funny.

Gosh, are you talking about me Pwcca?

If you could only find a post where I called someone an idiot you might actually look like an honest person for a few moments. I can point some out where Linda has done it. perhaps yourself and Elvis the equivalent also.

You know, no one has ever said anything to you.... but it actually is not possible to post a picture anonymously using the forum, so you might want to rethink that a little bit... I know... why didn't anyone say anything?? Because it's so funny you all for fell for it probably. heh I must admit...

Here try this on for size:

Russ, all I'm after is seeing a little respect requested by the powers-that-be here. Namely, yourself. The reason being, as on just about every other forum across the internet, I want to see name calling forbidden. I don't want to see people called an idiot or told they lack an education or that they need to take medication. Not only do I not want to see these things, I don't want to see them said

every

single

post

by the same poster time and time again.

It's rude, offensive, and the only reason it continues is because it's allowed. When the same poster was posting anonymously to use her juvenile insult posting tactics, these conveniently came to an end the moment you disallowed anonymous posting. Things have really improved since then. Now they just have one more step to go before this place resembles something like a bona fide discussion board.

No one's asking you to be a policeman. I think it's appalingly obvious when it's time to intervene. When someone says "You are a Christian bigot" or "You are unfair" or "Do not ever present an opposing argument to Linda or repeat what she has said' etc.

But I'll aree with what you've said about the person who continually posts the insults here, Russ.


If the shoe fits, wear it.

Here's another joke:

Bex, you actually have attempted to give evidence in a meaningful way. You have cited websites and links that I could check out. True, you have regurgiposted a whole list of quote mines that you don't seem to have read, but I honestly admire the fact that you've tried to back up what you say. As I said before, it's been enjoyable talking to you. So maybe I should have said you were the exception here when I said the posts were vague; you did force people to start being more specific in their claims and we had something substantial to talk about.


Right. heh. Russ, very vague posts, all of them. You never give any evidence in a meaningful way. What is your problem, buddy? All your posts are very vague. Mine too. You should at least provide a link once in a while.

Bex, quit regurgitating. Just make stuff up.

heh I think I will be laughing about that one all evening.

what a farce.

One thing life has taught me Pwcca, is that people are not stupid.

The may be uneducated, they may be misinformed... they may be underachievers who lack drive to succeed... they are often manipulative, they are sometimes even dangerous.

But with the rare exception, people are not stupid.

so.. search the board well and find me just one single post where i called someone stupid or an idiot unless it a mimick or play on a previous comment doing exactly that from that person, because I actually hate when people do that to others.

Good luck. Because I do not ever call anyone stupid or an idiot. The last time I did do it I was around 13 years old. Quite a while ago.

Another thing life has taught me, is that when a person consistently calls other people stupid, an idiot, or ignorant... it's most always a sign of their own ignorance, and arrogance.

Hi Linda, thanks but I don't think any post is going to satisfy you to be honest. And I did indeed read the "mine quotes" as you call them. But I most definitely have not superceded Russ in providing information/links/resources.

Because the word evolution has actually been soiled by bias assumptions of our ancient origins/past, it has bad connotations attached to it. So when you use this word to describe the obvious (variation - micro evolution) to me there is a sense of deviousness involved, which is why it's not a term we like to use due to how it's been used to describe mere assumptions of our past.

Because the evolutionist believes in processes that take place over billions of years from single celled organisms, to the incredible complexity we see today. When you try and use the word evolution on the agreed variation observations, it is a clever way to fit that word in there and hopefully all the other connotations attached with it (single celled organsims, big bang, primordial soup etc) will hopefully be accepted as well. The more a person associates the word evolution with truth -variation, the more likely they'll be to assume evolution on a whole.

When you describe an observable fact like variation within a kind, human intervention in breeding to bring out desired traits and call it evolution, to me it's quite clever in a sense. Use the word to describe something true, to hook others into the rest that comes along with it.

All the stuff we've been saying and seeing all along is now having the word evolution applied to it.

Just because the science arena right now has evolution ruling, does not mean they are right about our origins, right about we're we going as a "species", or correct in their interpretations of the past based on fossil findings of the present.

Any fossils found, do not have a label attached to them. The evolutionist is the one who puts the label on them. There is quite a lot of manipulation here towards the layperson.

We can disagree fully on our beginnings, that I feel is most definitely down to faith because nobody here saw it or filmed it. And we obviously don't disagree on the obvious - micro evolution (variation), but again this is NOT one kind becoming something else. In fact, micro evolution is a contradicotry and unsatisfactory term. This is limited to shuffling or loss of genetic information NOT added genetic information that evolution requires.

It makes no sense when there are ancient fossils of animals and plants that look no different than they do today...The fossilised Koelruteria leaf was found in "Pliocene" depsoites at Willershausen, Germany. Fossil seed pods of this genus are also found in the USA in deposits allegedly 50 millions years old. Today this plant lives in its natural state only in China, Japan and Korea.... The fossil and the modern plant are one and the same, "after their kind". No evolution has taken place.



If they don't make guesses about them Linda, what are they making? They didn't dig it up with data attached. In regards to fossils? All we know is the fossils are there - we don't know their parents or offspring (if any) The rest is fiction, pure fantasy or guess work presented as fact.

Circular reasoning is totally unacceptable as an argument - e.g "The layers are dated by their index fossils and the fossils are dated by their surrounding layers" - is as silly as a dog chasing its tail - yet many people fall for it. Radiometric dating is not acceptable as a 'back-up' as it is less than 50% reiable having serious well-known flaws, concealed from the public by academics with an agenda that has little to do with truth! Flaws included total ignorance of conditions at start and during datings (nobody there!) Falsely assuming things were always the same!

There is no complete or near complete geological column anywhere except in text books! Layers form and sort rapidly by hydrologic sorting (lab proven). 85% of earth layers don't even have 3 layers in 'correct' geological order (ie.Cretaceous/Jurassic/Cambrian/Permaian/Carboniferous/Devonian/Silurian/Ordovian/Cambrian). It was a hoax perpetrated by Charles Lyell and perpetuated by evolutionists. At St Mt Helens in 1980, as I have mentioned before, there was, in a matter of hours, gouged out a rapidly softly stratified canyon 600' high! called "the little Grand Canyon' (witnessed and recorded on film) The world-wide energy resources (oil/coal/gas) were quickly formed from vast quantities of Flood-stripped vegetation being sealed in by up to mile-high self sorted sedimentary layers. These created the required conditions of pressure and self-generating heat (like compost?)

Here is the evolution belief - The Grand Canyon was formed by a little water (Coloradio River) over a lot of time (millions of years) N.B> The Grand Canyon, long regarded as a "showpiece" for evolution is now seen as a monument to a great catastophe by many.

Here is the creation belief - the grand canyon was formed by a lot of water (vast lake emptied through a burst spillway) over very little time! And based on the observable present with the "little grand Canyon" it makes perfect sence.

River details: Enter canyon at 2800' drops to 1800 over 270 miles. as the Canyon sides rise to 4000, how could the river erode up hill? Erosion absence in individual layers, shows all strata formed together. Delta absence but huge dirt removal shows widespread dispersal. Side anyons at both acute and obtuse angles, suggest huge 'forward' flows and raging 'back flows'! Oldest strata found on top suggests quick strata formation (as at Mt. St Helens) shoreline evidence on canyon top suggests a vast and ancient lake exploded through a spillway at tremendous speed.


Yu talk about archaeopteryx as being evidence for evolution? "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earthbound feathered dinosaur. But it's not. IT IS A BIRD, A PERCHING BIRD, and no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that" (Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds). Every single feature (e.g. wings, claws, beak, teeth) is found on existing or extinct birds.

Reptiles could never evolve into birds. It is genetically impossible. Reptiles have 4 legs. Birds have 2 wings and 2 legs! How will the reptile survive the supposed transitional stage when its fore-arms are half leg/half wing, when it can neither walk run nor fly? Insurmountable problems exclude evolution as follows:
1) The reptile and bird lungs are totally different
2) Modern birds are found in layers with or below dinosaur fossils.
3) Scales and feather are attached to the body differently and are genetically vastly different.
4) Birds have 4 chambered heart; most reptiles have 3.
5)reptiles lay leathery eggs unlike birds.
6)birds have hollow bones. Reptiles don't!
(NB there are dozens of other radical differences, e.g. tail, hip bones, reproduction etc, No fossil evidence exists for any transition from reptile to bird.

PS, I was the author of the bestiality comments Linda, nobody else. So I take your comments as personal. I did not mention it for any "deviant" reason.

Calling me "dumb" and "fake" don't count then SoSick? You seem to have a selective memory.

And yes, if you can find one instance where I called someone on the forum an idiot, post it and show everyone. I don't do that kind of thing.

No post is going to satisfy me until the fundamental questions I asked are answered, because at the moment those questions are invalidating just about everything the creationists here are saying. You have taken those points up in your previous post though, so we can look at that in a minute.

Also, my sincere apologies about the animals passage you wrote. If I’d realised you’d written it yourself I would certainly have been more tactful about what I said. I won’t refer to it again, I will stick to discussing the science of evolution.

Most of what you say that the beginning of your post is a re-assertion that scientists are making arbitrary guesses about fossils, and that these guesses are made according to a pre-determined “need to believe” in evolution. I addressed both of these points in my previous post. What we again need to talk about is how fossils are dated. Firstly, though, I’ll just say that I don’t like the term “microevolution” either. And that yes, whether or not something is a species is a decision made by scientists, not one that is determined in an absolute way. However, scientists do have classification systems based on the range of differences in organisms. For example, the lion and the tiger are going to be more closely related in the classification system than the lion and the amoeba.

I’m not familiar with the plant example you gave, but I gave you some myself: the crocodile and the scorpion. They have not essentially changed either, and they have been around even longer than 50 million years; they pre-date the dinosaurs. The vast majority of other species have changed, if they managed to avoid extinction. The question that then needs to be asked is, why not crocodiles and scorpions? One reason is because they are so perfectly adapted to their ecological niches. Any mutations that occur detract from this and are eliminated. There’s simply nowhere for them to go, from an evolutionary standpoint, unless their habitat changes. You can see an example of this with mammals. The first ones appeared when the dinosaurs ruled the earth. They remained more or less unchanged – small and nocturnal – for 20 million years. Once the dinosaurs were extinct they, like many other species, began to evolve rapidly because new ecological niches opened up that were previously monopolised by the dinosaurs.

Another reason is because certain species are so readily adaptable, and can live and thrive in many different places. The cockroach for one, which people agreed here is a pretty ubiquitous creature. You can read more about “living fossils” in this article, which is easily accessible to the layperson: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg16422094.900 “The Creatures Time Forgot”

Many scientists define evolution as the change in the frequency of alleles over time. This doesn’t specify what is driving the process, though most scientists will tell you it’s random mutations and natural selection working on them. Personally I think there’s room here for exploration and discovery, but looking at the evidence I don’t see how you could deny that life has existed and changed on earth for billions of years. Let’s talk more about the evidence then, and how it is analysed.

You said:

Which makes me wonder if you read the example from my own quote which you posted just above this. I explained why studying fossils is not just guessing. Scientists always look to date the rock in which the fossil was found and usually are able to do so through radioisotope methods. Also, some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means. Finally, as a point about scientists having a “need to believe” in evolution, you might be interested to know that the geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution. By Christian creationist geologists. Look up William Smith.


Incorrect. The Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota and southern Canada is one example of a place where the geological column is complete. As for places where the geological column is incomplete, Karen Bartelt explains here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt3.html


You said:

IF ANYTHING IN YOUR POST NEEDS EVIDENCE IT IS THIS. I have said that radioisotope dating is a major underpinning of paleontology, geology, and other scientific disciplines. You are telling me it is wrong and giving me a figure out of the ether. Who said this and what was their basis for it? I can make up figures too. Would you believe me?


The geological column is never out of order in areas that have not been greatly disturbed by earthquakes or other great forces within the earth. It’s not hard to see why creationists would want to try to discredit Lyell, who greatly influenced Darwin. Tell me where you got your 85% figure from and give me an example of a place where the geological column is out of order, and the area has been undisturbed by geomorphological processes. Layers of delicate, undisturbed sedimentary rock would do nicely.

You’ve brought up points about the Grand Canyon again but this is going to necessitate quite a lengthy discussion involving various aspects of geology. You said my posts are too long. Why don’t we put this to the side for now and deal with the other issues we are discussing at the moment. I’ll take your archaeopteryx points next because they are pretty easily addressed.

Your source mentions Alan Feduccia. He is considered to be “on the fringe,” i.e. most scientists do not agree with his ideas. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s wrong, but that his ideas need to be viewed with caution because many other “world authorities” in the subject disagree with him. At any rate, as I’ve said before, scientists who disagree in these areas are disagreeing about ways that evolution occurred; they are not questioning the theory itself. Here is what Feduccia said:


Carrying on, you said:

This is the much-repeated creationist mantra, “What use is half a wing/eye/etc”.

Here are some uses for “half a wing.”

In insects, half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of water (Marden and Kramer 1995; Kramer and Marden 1997; Thomas et al. 2000).

In larger animals, half a wing is useful for gliding. Flying squirrels and lemurs have skin between their legs which assists with this.

In immature chickens, wing-flapping enhances hindl imb traction, allowing the chickens to ascend steeper inclines. This function could be an intermediate to the original flight of birds. (Dial 2003)

In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.


O'Connor, PM and LPA Claessens (2005). Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Nature 436, 253-256.

From the abstract:


There’s a lot of scientific jargon here, but what this study is saying is that these specialisations imply the existence of avian lung-type characteristics in theropod dinosaurs, indicating that flow-through ventilation of the lung is not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod characteristic. In other words, you can’t assume that the dinosaurs from which archaeopteryx evolved had lungs that were the same as those of modern reptiles. The lungs of theropods already had some birdlike characteristics. It’s not difficult to imagine how these would have continued to evolve in archaeopteryx.


This is an outright lie. Unless, of course, you can give me a specific example of where this is the case. The world of science will reel in shock.

To make a long story short, why don’t you actually read about archaeopteryx yourself and you will see why it is a good example of a transitional fossil, and how it shares characteristics of birds and reptiles. Try looking here, “All About Archaeopteryx” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html It lists characteristics of each that archaeopteryx shared.

Bex, when are you going to stop pasting quotes from creationist websites and say something that reflects your own thinking on these subjects? For every claim from people like Gish, Ham and Hovind, there are scientists who have refuted them. Please, at least try checking the veracity of these claims yourself before you give them as evidence for anything.

One of the most important points I've been attempting to convey all along is this:

When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well.

This distraction—in order to be effective—must be so overwhelming in quantity so as to cause the one being deceived (the target) to completely forget the basic facts of the lie—the fundamentals. The target must be continuously distracted from the obvious fundamental truth because if they were allowed to think about it for enough time, they would realize how obvious it is that they are being lied to. Of course, this is much easier to accomplish if the target is a willing subject, in which case you only need to appeal to the predispositions of the victim, and these predispositions themselves can be shaped through youthful conditioning.

This tactic of "distraction" is what I call "magic" because it is the same tactic used my magicians.

Magicians (illusionists) make you look over "there" so you don't consider the obvious thing that must be going on over "here". They do this to create an illusion. The marketing of evolution uses this very tactic to promote it's wares for the ultimate profit of its promoters (covered in another thread).

With this in mind, let's reexamine is the fundamental truth in this entire discussion about evolution.

Here is the distraction:

We have been told about about butterflies and moths and cosmic molecules and signaling molecules and transitional forms and mutations over and over again, but the simple, fundamental problem with the logic behind both rock-to-cell and cell-to-man evolution is this:

Science—being at its core, the discovery of the rules of nature—has not discovered rules that would facilitate the formation of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines from known matter. In fact, science has not even begun to approach the level of discovery that would be required to facilitate even the smallest steps of evolution.

Let me give you an example and attempt to make this concept clear.

There are rules that exist in nature that consistently cause hydrogen and oxygen molecules to bond. These rules are well-known and act very consistently. (See Hydrogen Bond)

They are relatively simple rules (to the chemist anyway) that cause many known reactions to occur between hydrogen and other compounds. These rules are so well known that it is possible to predict how hydrogen will react in a given chemical environment.

Now, we also know the resulting condition brought about by these rules, and that is—these rules that cause these simple bonds do not cause the formation of complex machines. We know this because our level of understanding of these rules—which is so thorough that it allows us to make accurate predictions about hydrogen bonding—understands what their limits are.

To attempt to simplify this concept even further, lets say you have a lego set, and in this set there are only 20 types of blocks. Now there are most certainly rules associated with each type of block that dictate how these blocks join together.

With these rules in place, there are many wonderful things that you can make, but you will never be able to make a book with turning pages and intelligible type on each page. It's impossible to do because you are limited by the rules that govern how each type of block can fit together, and by the block shape, size, and color itself.

Now, we have to bring this example into a more biological scope.

We would all agree that the pieces of matter that are the building blocks of a human body can be fit together to make a human body. We all would agree that this is so because we can see human bodies and we can see that they are made of of all these natural "lego" blocks.

But then, when we translate this example from the realm of the lego to the realm of biological life, we are no longer asking the question:

Can these building blocks be put together to create a human body?

Instead, we are asking the question:

What is the process that put these building blocks together?

And so, that is the subject of evolution: the process.

In our example about the lego blocks, there was clearly an intelligent being assembling the parts together and anyone who would see a small toy house built out of lego blocks would have to agree that this house did not form in the lego shipping container while the container was being delivered to someone's house. It was assembled by an external intelligence—an intelligence external to the house itself.

We would all agree that no matter how much the shipping container was shaken, even if it was shaken for decades, a beautiful toy house will never self-assemble.

Now, the really interesting part to consider is this following idea:

The rules that allow a house to assemble are already in place, they do exist.. In other words, we know that you can create a toy house from the parts, and we know this because the rules that allow the pieces to come together will allow this (we've tried it and seen the house we've built), but what we learn when we shake the shipping container for decades and never see a house form teaches us that these rules which cause the pieces to come together are simply not enough in-and-of-themselves to form the house. This process—shaking—just doesn't do it. There must be something more.

So we have to ask ourselves:

What kind of rules would have to exist in order for this shaking process (a "random" process) to form something complex, like a toy house?

Well, we might need to make legos that have some kind of special snapping hinge on them so that certain types of the 20 lego blocks only join together a certain way. Of course, this hinge would have to be perfectly designed to work and join and not break under the conditions of the shaking. There might also need to be another kind of connector on another kind of lego block that allows a different kind of block to join together a certain way, again, carefully designed so it will work in the particular environment it is in but without breaking.

Now this process of developing these hinges and connectors in just the right places and at just the right angles to allow lego blocks to join together to form a toy house when they are all put into a shipping container and shaken together would be a daunting task, in fact, it may be very nearly impossible because not only do the legos have to fit together the right way to make a house, with the random process of shaking their container, there is no guarantee that they will join in just the right places, in the right order, with the right force to form the toy house, and all this without breaking.

However, you say, with all these hinges and connectors, you would certainly end up with something that has some degree of complexity, and this is most certainly the case. You would likely end up with something that is agreeably complex to some degree, but you would virtually never end up with something that is complex and symmetrical. Yes, you may end up with 3 or 4 parts (simple) that join together in a symmetrical fashion, but the probability that the 5th or 6th part is going to join together in just the right fashion so as to make the resulting structure symmetrical diminishes exponentially with each new part.

Now, lets say we were really smart and wanted to join parts together using random processes (shaking) that would end up with a structure that would be able to reproduce new items just like itself. Well, this would be no easy task.

We should be able to see that one approach to solving this reproduction problem would be to build a toy house that contains a device that shakes a shipping container that contains lego blocks that eventually comes together by itself to form a toy house that contains a shipping container that contains lego blocks that eventually comes together by itself to form a toy house; and so on.

Now, using this demonstration using simple lego blocks that have a few associated rules, any intelligent person can see that accomplishing the task described above is virtually impossible. But even while we view the impossibility of this task, we have to consider one thing that was necessary to make this valiant effort possible:

We have to consider the fact that, throughout this entire process, there was an intelligence outside the device that was designing and then building the whole thing, and even with all this intelligence, this was a virtually impossible task.

At this point, an evolutionist would likely say that increasing the number of the types (or shapes) of lego blocks and increasing the number of hinges (rules governing processes) would increase the likelihood of producing a complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machine.

The fundamental problem with this assumption is this:

Increasing the number of hinges actually decreases the likelihood of symmetry because now lego blocks can be joined at many more angles than before. This makes naturally-occurring symmetry far less likely.

But what if we increased the number and types of lego blocks that are in the shipping container. That would surely increase the likelihood of symmetry, right?

No. In fact, this also dramatically decreases the likelihood of symmetry because now there are even more chances that each block will be joined in a non-symmetrical way, and on top of this, each new block that is joined creates more opportunity for asymmetry (non-symmetry).

So, if you follow this example to the biological level and apply many types of elements and many type bonding rules for these small parts, the chance of symmetry occurring decreases exponentially and rapidly fades into oblivion.

The clear and simple conclusion is that it takes a very intelligent being to take building blocks that have numerous and flexible connection options to make complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

But now for the fun part: Magic.

The countless arguments that attempt to pull us away from these basic, fundamental truths—as contrived and inaccurate as so many of them are in reality—don't matter because of this simple premise of logic:

If it takes 3 steps to get from A to D (A->B, B->C, C->D) and if you can never take the first step (A->B), then all the other steps you dream about, wish for, or imagine don't matter one bit. The fact is, you're never going to get to B, much less D.

Because of the lack of bonding rules that support those that would be required for self-assembly, evolution could never even get off the ground. The only explanation is an intelligence that is external to the machine.

People who fall into the trap of evolutionary thinking are generally what are called emotionally-based—that is, they make a higher ratio of decisions based on emotions than do intellectually-based people. These emotionally-based people are just the kind of people who are able to be distracted by the magic of evolution's so-called details, and this causes them to forget the fundamentals.

Don't forget the fundamentals.

Now, there are so many other fundamental problems with evolution that people don't often talk about because they're caught up in the magic. One of them is transitional forms.

Fossils clearly show an abrupt appearance of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines. This is crystal-clear evidence of intelligent design.

If evolution is occurring, then all fossils are transitional forms, and if this is the case, and if symmetry formed over time, why is there an ominous lack of non-symmetrical complex animals. How on Earth can you explain all this amazing and abrupt symmetry.

You can't because there is no natural explanation. There is only extremely frail speculation by emotionally-based evolutionists who continue to attempt to drown themselves in the magic to help themselves forget about the logic and reason staring them bluntly in the face.


"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
—Luke 10:21


Children often see logic that evades the aged soul.

I'm not actually here to satisfy you Linda, people are here to give both sides of the argument. Your side is not the first and final say on the matter, however much you believe it to be so.



Apology accepted.



Linda, through many of my past posts, I have typed my own comments, have you misinterpreted it as all being copied and pasted? I feel as though I'm repeating myself ad nauseum here. There is nothing wrong with copying/pasting or getting information from books, plus adding your own comments through when you feel like it....I cannot figure out why you're accusing me of something that everybody including you does. I guess this is how you win arguments? Baiting people and using up a lot of energy doing so.



You speak as though the fly is surviving in an unfinished state of transition without considering the wings are exactly right for the needs of the fly. You've already decided that this is "half a wing" without considering the fact it cannot be "half" of anything if it's to be fully functional to the fly, because "half" insinuates a state of incompletion. Animals or insects that do not have their full faculties are sitting ducks literally. They do not last long in the wild. it's simply designed that way for the needs of the fly, rather than being in any kind of state of "transition". This is what I mean by indoctrination. Half a wing, is an attempt so say their wings are not fully formed/half finished, how do you know this? THere are wings of all different shapes/sizes and designs, perfectly suited to the animals needs. Once again, we have a variant of insect/animal deliberately misinterpretated and put across as a case for evolution.



They do not have half a wing. They are fully functioning as they are, without any sign of a halfway evolved structure, as you are attempting to make out here, which is what evolutionists have to do. Flying squirrels have a blanket skin stretched between their front and hind legs. As flying squirrels leap out of a treetop and spread out their four limbs, they look like Aladdin's magic carpet, gliding gracefully across the nighttime sky. Miraculously, flying squirrels are able to maneuver in mid-air and steer toward their desired destinations. And you want to compare this with......"half a wing" congrats on pulling out all stops, this makes your arguments even more questionable and desperate.

A gliding stage is not intermediate between a land animal and a flier. Gliders either have even longer wings than fliers (compare a glider's wingspan with an airplane's, or the wingspan of birds like the albatross which spend much time gliding), or have a wide membrane which is quite different from a wing (note the shape of a hang-glider or a flying squirrel). Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.



Or, the chicken could simply be designed just as it is as another variety of farm bird. Here again we have a theory attempting to be put across as fact. Chickens do quite nicely as they are and can indeed fly when they require it, but they are barnyard birds, suited for the farm, rather than the tree tops.

The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the ribcage during falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (emus will run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional, allowing these birds to move their wings?



Penguins "wings" are more aptly described as flippers designed exactly for swimming (flying through water in a sense). I cannot honesty see your points here in respect to this ludicrous claim of dinosaur to bird evolution. Talk about pulling out all stops. Any winged flightless birds are not evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution Linda. And no amount of flapping and 'winging it" will make that transition realistic or even possible/probable

DID BIRDS REALLY EVOLVE INTO DINOSAURS OR ANYTHING ELSE?, CHECK OUT THIS LINK ALSO:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinobird.html



Also known as the North Dakota Column, this is claimed to contain the entire geologic column. The total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing. Such large amounts of sedimentation are possible during a year-long global Flood, because it was laid down sideways making it quite possible to lay down such large amounts of sediment very quickly, the main factors being available sediment and the rate of current flow.

Now it does have rocks labeled as all ten ages, but some interesting data can be found in, The Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.. The Williston Basin is part of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.

Here is how they labeled some these strata:

Hay River Embayment (van Hees, 1964) - a depositional area northwest of the Peace-Athabasca Arch, developed on the Interior Platform, containing remnants of rocks that have been interpreted as being equivalent to Lower and Middle Cambrian units of central Alberta. The rocks have not been dated, and some of the strata may be younger than here interpreted. The embayment extends westward into the mountains of northeastern British Columbia. This indicates that when lacking fossils, they find rocks that they can interpret as equivalent to the rocks they are dating, so as to set a geologic age. Biostratigraphy according to Williston Basin, "biostratigraphy based on pollen and spores has been used to determine the age of the coal beds." [7] Other fossils include shells and fish but many layers have few if any fossils. In general these layers have not been dated by fossils. Furthermore, there is little reference to radiometric dates beyond the pre-Cambrian. The one set that is mentioned produced inconsistent results.

Local lithostratigraphy and sedimentology are generally well known. However, the paucity of reliable radiometric dates and the absence of biostratigraphic control has hindered correlation within and between the assemblages and precluded accurate dating of each assemblage.
There are several other cases where poor or no biostratigraphic data is mentioned, as well as no reference to radiometric dates. As a result it seems that many of these strata were assigned geologic ages based on comparing rocks. Then the comparisons were interpreted based on the geological column. They seem to be assuming that because of the geologic column, the gaps must contain ages for which they have no fossils

The conclusion that they have a complete geologic column in this area is based on the assumption of the existence of the geologic column. This is circular reasoning.

If that is not enough there is a place where a rock layer labeled Devonian can be found between rock layers labeled Carboniferous. Devonian is alleged to be older than Carboniferous, but this would suggest that they are really the same age.

Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.

Morton's claim - "A detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota.’[5]
Is it misleading? http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp



LOL, vice versa, you provide arguments that agree with your own bias, so you really need to quit accusing people of what you are doing constantly on here. Nobody ever sees any solid evidence. There should be, you're claiming it's science, where are the visuals evidences? No cartoons please.

In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

Radiometric Dating uses the following three primary assumptions in determining age:

Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. As I previously mentioned, we know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.

For example, the existence of short, half-life polonium halos in rock are evidence of rapid formation of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two "mutually-exclusive" facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwater’s otherwise the dating will absolutely be useless. It is very difficult for one to argue the system has never been contaminated through ground water leaching.
Furthermore, since the dynamic Flood of Noah's day covered the entire globe, what rock could have escaped its effects?

Assumption Three :No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals, which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava), can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.

This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes, which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

The problem with all of this, of course, is that if your original assumption is flawed then the dates you get mean absolutely nothing. As there is with so much about the theory of evolution, there is circular reasoning involved in radiometric dating as it uses the geologic column to verify it's age.

The smallest steps in evolution, point mutations, isn't where our knowledge is lacking. There's plenty about evolution we do not know, there's always lots to learn in science, but claims that we know almost nothing cannot be considered accurate.


There's nothing magic about evolution. At heart it's just very complex chemistry.


That's correct.


An interesting question, but I think your real point is that if the evolutionary origin of symmetric body plans can't be explained, then God must have done it. But the whole history of science is one of figuring out things we didn't previously know. At every stage of scientific progress, including the current one, there have been tons of scientific mysteries. For example, it might have been said, "There's no explanation for lightning, therefore God did it," or "There's no explanation for the northern lights, therefore God did it," or "We don't know what keeps the planets in their orbits, therefore God did it." The list of solved scientific mysteries is nearly endless, and not one of them has ended with, "Well, what do you know, God did do it!"

--Percy

Could you explain this further? "chemical complexity" that apparently isn't "magic" can occur and is responsible for what we observe around us....that somehow all this arrived from ....single celled organisms?? that somehow had all the necessary information for life itself....(how?) to begin the process of evolution which seemed to have a mind of its own, life and intellect. All that was required was just billions of years to allow this to come to fruition...that somehow everything can be traced back to chance or an inanimate process? Something that we were not there to see ourselves, with no known record of this (in oral or recorded history) other than what the modern day scientists are telling us. If that's not magic or miraculous? I don't know what is.

First of all, you or myself do not know if all fossils are transitional forms. Again, a fossil does not tell you anything other than it "died". The scientist is the one placing the label, not the fossil.

God must of done it? That is based on my "faith", yes. But in plain observation shows me that random chance and lots of time just don't cut it, rather I see intent, intelligence and life in everything around me reproducing after its own kind, as it has always done through history. All require the input of life in order to begin and all that life produces to survive and be sustained. To remove one of these necessities? Would not enable life to exist, let alone be sustained. Everything is somehow in a state of balance, perfectly orchestrated to compliment the other in such a way as to make even the most hardened atheist wonder....Take one of these life necessities away and watch what happens to everything else. It dies! Everything requires the other. How do you explain that these chance beginnings are responsible for this?

All this can be put down to some lucky chance random processes, with no real intent or intelligence/life/purpose? I'll stick with my belief of a divine author/creator thank you, it makes so much more sense when you consider all things in life require an author and producer as a rule.

Keep searching, that's good. It is healthy to do that, regardless of belief. But I think one should be careful also not to be so cocksure with this opposing view of denying any sign that might point to possible design at all costs because one might not wish to accept the implications. One can be willing to hold onto evolution at all costs, irrespective of anything. Is it really worth gambling with the possiblity of a soul to do that? Seriously, if you guys are right, nobody wins in the end, death. But if we are right? That holds very serious and possible eternal consequences and it amazes me that people hold so much faith in fallible human beings (scientists) who are constantly changing their ideas or contradicting eachother (either on the same side or opposing side) and have yet to answer the riddles of the universe and make ongoing human errors throughout.

Seriously, the world around us is far more than we can imagine and to put it down to chance, based on everything around us, is not exacty logical either!



I'm interested in hearing what "mysteries" have been solved and how you're so certain there's been no hand of the divine involved. I'm not sure whether the evolution scientist is even CLOSE to having the answers, let alone the layperson. They can have guesses based on their observations, but their answers unfortunately lean toward bias and the fact that their opinions seem to be the only thing evolving - doesn't lend your comments here much validility! However, it maybe a comforting thought!

Percy,

I understand your position about people saying "God did it." Yes, this has happened throughout history because people will quickly arrive at their conclusions. But, there is an enormous difference here, and it is this:

We already know enough to know not to say, "evolution did it."

As hard as it may be to believe, there is an enormous medical and educational fraud that has been perpetrated (for the sake of money) that has kept you from hearing the other side of the story. You have not been presented all of the evidence.

I grew up in a medical family, have been in the herbal/nutritional industry for over 10 years. I have studied the lies told by mainstream media since about 1990 and I have concluded that the lies that are sold to us as truth from newspapers to textbooks to the nightly news is astounding and very hard for most to believe. I didn't accept it for years until I experienced it a number of times myself (it took a while because I am by nature skeptical).

Are you aware of the many evolutionary frauds that have been uncovered?

Do you know about the moths that were glued to the trees?

Why weren't you told about these things?

Let me tell you, it a fascinating study, and just because you sound like you've only had only minimal exposure to it, let me post some links for you to check out:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Deadly Immunity

New Age Bible Versions

The Conspiracy Thread

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

The Lincoln Assassination and the Jesuit Connection, Jon Eric Phelps (MP3)

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs

Kennedy On Secret Societies

Bush Nazi Family Ties

Loose Change

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

One Nation Under Siege

Our Solor System

From Freedom To Fascism

Biological Warfare: Experiments On the American People

Confessions of An Ex-RX Drug Pusher

The Government Always Tells the Truth

The New Order of Barbarians

Return of the Nephilim, Chuck Missler


I know there's a lot to digest here, but for those who have an ear, it's well worth the time.

Russ, I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. People aren't here to debate entire websites with you. Most of us have dipped into the kinds of things you listed. I watched pieces of the very first Hovind video you linked for me, I've seen plenty of his ideas since, and they are scientific gobbledygook.

If you feel any of these sites contain points relevant to this discussion then please summarise those points here, along with the evidence for them. This includes glued moths and evolutionary frauds.

Bex, you essentially asked “what use is half a wing”? The examples I gave you could be interpreted as “half a wing,” i.e. they are not fully-formed wings. Creatures do not suddenly evolve half-parts that are not useful to them either as limbs or wings. Such unbeneficial mutations would lead to the death of the organism. However, we do see gradual changes in the morphology of species over time in the fossil record, such as the incremental disappearance of limbs in the whale. Flightless birds have other uses for their wings. The penguin is a wonderful example of how a bird that once flew, now has a new and very useful function for those wings, which have evolved into flippers. I’m not arguing that vestigial wings are functionless, and lack of functionality is not part of the definition of a vestigial organ.

Why do scientists say that penguins’ flippers used to be wings? The fossil record.

Fossil Penguins: A Journey to the Bottom of the World


You said:

You need to give citations when making assertions like this, but I think I found where you got it from – Henry Morris, “What is Creation Science?”, 1987.

There is absolutely no geologist who believes that the geological column must be 100 miles thick. There were some calculations made which added from around the world in many different basins what the thickest sediment of each age were. For example (numbers and places made up) they might take 20,000 feet of Cambrian strata from the Arbuckle mountains and add that to 25,000 feet of Ordovician strata from Bolivia etc. This then adds to 100 miles. However, this is taking the most rapid sedimentation rates found on earth and saying those rates must be found all over the earth everywhere. The Mississippi River and the Amazon river pour lots of sediment into a limited area. The rate of deposition is quite high. It is higher at the mouth of the
Mississippi than anywhere along the east coast of the United States. Yet every day new sediment is deposited at both places. Both places have an entire record of sediment for the past 2 million years. The Mississippi mouth has about 5000 feet and the Georges Bank region off Massachusetts has only about 100 feet (See Geological Studies of the COST Nos. G-1 and G-2 Wells United States NOrth Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf US Geological Survey Circular 861, p. 46.)


Lesson one: stop using sources that are decades old.

from Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology; December 1999; v. 47; no. 4; p. 534-547


This area is now well-studied because people are prospecting for oil there.

Lesson two: Morris doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Radiometric dating next. It’s getting tedious to laboriously refute your pasted links from creationist websites.Here is a pasted link of my own that answers Morris’ perceived problems with potassium-argon dating.


What’s more, RATE was a team of creationists with legitimate credentials who set out to attack the validity of radiometric dating. They ended up having to admit that large amounts of radioactive decay had occurred and have been trying to come up with a YEC explanation for this. You can read about them here.

Morris states, rightly, that there can be some problems with getting an accurate radiometric result. These potential problems are recognised and provision is made for them. No geologist takes a single sample from a single rock and assumes a completely accurate date from it. You can read about radiometric dating at Wikipedia:


If radiometric dating were as wildly inaccurate as Morris seems to want to claim, then there should be nothing but random scatter showing up on radiometric graphs. On the contrary, the dates agree with each other quite well and most anomalous dates, which are rare, are due to a variety of possible errors. Does Morris think that geologists are not aware of this?

from Consistent Radiometric Dates:



Addressing Morris’ comments about pseudo-isochrons, a geologist has given me the following information:

He also adds, about isochron dating:


Radiometric dating is one of the best methods there is of obtaining geological dates. For a more detailed explanation of how it works, including graphs which plot dates obtained by these methods, then please have a look at any of the links provided here.

How did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

Tell me, i want to know.

I insist you tell me.

If we're talking science here (and I hope we are), then a scientific hypothesis is either sufficiently supported by evidence to be successfully replicated and eventually accepted as theory, or it isn't (or it could be in the process of accumulating evidence). Failed hypotheses are not "magic". It sounds like you believe that evolution should be considered a failed hypothesis rather than an accepted theory, and if that's so then the way to make your case is by examination of the supporting evidence to show how it is insufficient or perhaps misinterpreted.


I was just agreeing with Russ's brief statement about fossils, but the more accurate way of stating this principle is that all species, except those that go extinct, are transitional. This is because of imperfect reproduction - the next generation never receives a perfect copy of the genome of the previous generation.

Much of your skepticism appears to be fueled by what you see as the unlikelihood of random processes creating and evolving life, and if randomness were all that were involved then you'd be right. But randomness is only seen in reproduction, which is the imperfect copying of the genome from one generation to the next that I just mentioned. Selection operating on variation, both pre-existing and new due to mutation, is the real engine behind evolution, and it is believed to have played a significant role in the origin of life, too.


All scientific things we know began as things we did not know, i.e., mysteries, though we don't have to use that term if you don't like it. But what was wrong with the three examples I already provided, lightning, northern lights and gravity as the force guiding the planets? At one time these were all attributed to the divine.

There is no scientific way to be certain that there's no hand of the divine involved. In science there's no way to be certain of anything, as tentativity is a prime tenet of science. But what we can say is that from a scientific perspective the divine has no supporting evidence, indeed not even any definition or description, and certainly no scientific evidence of its involvement in any natural phenomena.

--Percy

True, but the "we" you're referring to is Biblical literalists, not the scientific community. Not that there aren't some scientists who aren't also Biblical literalists, a number estimated to be around 1% of the scientific community, but the vast preponderance of scientific opinion disagrees with Biblical literalists. The objections to evolution are social/religious, not scientific.


I would never have guessed. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />


To address this concern you need only ask yourself what your answer would be to someone trying to persuade you of the falsity of Christianity because of the many Christian frauds.


Wow, a veritable cornucopia of fringe ideas!

--Percy

Pardon me for interrupting here. I know folks are trying to have a serious conversation or debate . . . but, ROFL!!!

I laughed so hard at this that I choked on my tea and scared the living daylights out of my betta fish. The poor dearie nearly hopped out of his bowl here on the desk. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laughroll.gif" alt="" />

I know, and those are serious questions Sharon.

How did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

watch Linda try to skate by that one.

are you going to answer the question, Linda? How can you try to prove evolution is superior to creation when you will not even address the basics of creation and the miracles that Jesus performed?

why is this such a one sided discussion anyway?

Answer the question Linda, how did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

I'm new to this forum, so with the request to respond to the inquiry about Jesus I'm wondering, do you guys try to stay on-topic here? I thought this was a science thread about evolutionary issues.

--Percy

What is the name of the forum Percy?

Hows the weather on your end of the mountain?

well, back to the topic.

How did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

The name of the forum is "Creation and Evolution", and the resurrection doesn't seem related to the creation/evolution debate. This particular thread, while it has drifted somewhat from the origin of oil, is about the evidence for evolution. The resurrection seems off-topic for this thread no matter how you look at it.

But I'm new here, just figuring things out. If any topic is valid anywhere, fine. How about Petrino skipping to Arkansas?


White.

--Percy

You may believe in the resurrection, or not. It is a religious belief, not a verifiable scientific fact; and as such, I don't see how it relates in any way to evolution.

Are there any verifiable scientific facts in creationism? I keep asking for evidence of a global flood but no one has presented any yet. I've pointed out to you a number of places where it is lacking.

Percy, this is sort of an "anything goes" place. No admins, no OT. You've got to work to get the focus back sometimes <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

How can the ressurection not possibly be related to creation?

Jesus is God's first born son.

Do you think he evolved from a fish?

Actually Linda, you have been given numerous examples of flood related information.

I don't think you comprehend it though.

The science behind the examples of flood artifacts and whathaveyous that you have been given NUMEROUS times is quite a bit more solid than any of the so-called evidence for evolution you have presented.

If, IF, you were able to present a single hard unarguable fact for evolution you would have been able to stop arguing quite some time ago.

But that hasn't happened. so either you are trying to deceive everyone else with your junk science or you are continually trying to somehow convince yourself.

because you sure have not made a dent toward convincing me.

Cold and snowy in NH huh? yeah, Jesus said it's going to a VERY cold and snowy winter. he told me that a couple months ago. It's still actually still autumn you know, not officially winter yet. you might want to batten the hatches.

I think the theory of global warming has a lot to do with how cold its going to get this winter. That one really has me convinced. Especially when I read in the newspaper that it has been snowing in parts of India the past couple winters for the first time in many many years.

Did you know there is a dent in our universe? they just learned that a couple days ago. Blows away a lot of previously conceived space theory.

Well, back to topic.

How did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

If you want to think about how that is related to evolution for a little bit, I am patient and will wait for a reply.

The question that follows that is; How did Jesus turn water into wine? You might want to study ahead for that one.

A gift for Linda

Our Solor System


<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/arroweater.gif" alt="" />

Hi Russ,

You posted that video once already a couple weeks ago.

Since you initiated this thread, what do you see as the focus of discussion? Evolution? Age of the Earth? Origin of oil? Origin of the solar system? The great flood? Darned if I can figure it out.

--Percy

Linda doesn't usually actually check out the links and rarely watches the videos so you have to keep posting the same stuff back to her because she keeps asking the same questions or asserting the same 'you never explained this' tactic even though it was explained.

she was probabkly just doing that again today.

SoSick, apparently in response to what I said about lack of flood evidence from a 40,000 year old ice core -- which I posted information about regarding how it is dated and the kind of information it holds -- you said that ice floats and melts. Maybe I didn't understand what you were getting at. Would you like to explain further?

I also said that seabeds contain fossils sorted in the same way they are on land. Cores from them do not contain the huge layer of sediment you would expect to see from a flood, nor do they contain the mix of dead creatures you would also expect to see. As above, so below: datable layers containing fossils.

I've explained why I don't refute entiure websites and I think that's fair. I don't ask anyone here to do that. In a debate you present opinions or ideas to each other and discuss them. If there is a website with one or two ideas you find interesting and relevant to this discussion, then by all means post them.

You are mixing theology with science as well. There are many Christians who accept evolution and they believe in the things you are listing. Why don't you check out RAZD's definition of evolution, which he provided for you on another thread, and explain how that relates to the miracles of Jesus.

Of course I am mixing theology with science. How do we approach a discussion of Naoh's ark and the flood otherwise?

There is absolutely no way Linda, that if a world wide flood of immense proportions occured, that it would not have melted or at minimum, caused the floating movement of, any, even massive chunk of ice pre-existing on this earth. The glaciers do not simply exist in places because the air temperature is cold there. the water temperature has to also be considered, streams, like the gulf stream, do move and affect water temperatues in various places for instance. If a flood occured, any 'streams' of that nature would have been rendered insignificant, more probably non-existent, for a period of time. You might consider even that some of the glaciers are actually remnants of the flood, a result and remainder of it.

There is no argument among geololgists that sea water covered a good portion of the planet at some time in the past. Himalayan sea salt is an excellent example of proof of that. Fossils of deep sea life are found in extreme places. the timeline is thrown off quite a bit once it encapsulates the needed lingth of time for 'evolution' to take place though. Do you truly believe that the Himalayan sea salt sitting on my kitchen table is hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years old?

Sediment gets washed away by floods generally, not vice versa. So I am not real sure you can even consider a static model of any sort in that respect. try diuping a pile of mud into a puddle while it's still raining, raining hard and see if anything at all is left in the morning. It will probably actually end up half a mile down the road. Imagine that on a large scale. the most i think you can hope for are areas of dried up seabed in enclosed valleys where things clustered in a last attempt to survive (because they did not move on when waters were still deep enough) but died when the waters receded.

there are many Christians who accept evolution. i would argue however that they are not Christians but simply like to call themselves that for some strange reason. they are theists of some sort i guess or claim to be. Maybe a different religion... but the bible clearly teaches that God created life, not that it evolved. so they actually lose any hope of their true christianity right there in the first sentence. Jesus is the son of God, the bible speaks often of God creating and God knowing persons even before they were born. There isn't much room for evolution in there.

though you may say 'many' believe that, many many more Christians believe that God created life, spoke this world into existence. the evolutionist 'christians' really are a minority in the category, and outside of their minority category are viewed with huge disdain by the rest of the christian community.

You should try to at least answer the question 'how did Jesus raise himself from the dead?' I am not making a joke, this actually leads to some very interesting places that seem to be being overlooked.

It's difficult to respond to this unless you can give me more clarity on what it is you personally believe about the flood.

How old do you think the earth is?
At what point were all living things created on it?
Do you believe the fossil record could have existed before the flood, or were all fossils deposited in the flood?
Did mountains like Everest exist before the flood?
Where do extinct creatures like dinosaurs fit into the picture?

I can base my answers on yours, thanks.

Gen:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..

The earth may be only 7000 yrs old, it may be much much older, I really have no idea. That's what the bible says above about the first acts of creation concerning the earth... it was void and without form... darkness was upon the face of the deep... void and without form... the earth when it was first created was not the earth as we know it today according to the bible... the deep/// the deep what? space? possibly I guess. None of us willl ever really know in this lifetime. The earth, without form and void, could have existed for a thousand years, possibly aeons before God moved into the next act of creation, we aren't given specific dates. If you need a perfect answer on that one, you'll have to ask the only witness, God himself. All you can really get from that passage is that the matter which formed the earth existed somewhere in space.

Gen 2 ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

etc etc you can read the rest read of Genesis at home.


If the fossil 'record' exists now, it existed before the flood. why would anyone ask such a simple obvious question? Is the idea of pre-flood and post-flood fossilization a problem? It's the same earth.

Of course mountains like Everest existed before the flood. You are aware of Mt Ararat right?

I think a lot of extinct creatures were killed by human beings Linda. Some may have died out for other unknown reasons, lack of habitat, who knows, some may of been killed by the flood. hard to say. But, i think being killed by human beings is a top of the list item, same then as it is now.

I would prefer not to rehash these points if you don't mind, you argue the same points every day if given an opportunity. I think we all know your (non) views on those points (you love to argue endlessly) quite well by now.

I was asking ... how did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

He didn’t. The reason being, Jesus is nothing more than a plagiarized mythological character extracted from numerous religions, all of which predate Christianity by several centuries, including (but not limited to) such personas as Dionysus, Osiris and Attis.

Unsurprisingly, the cross of the zodiac (a symbol plagiarized many centuries later by Christianity) is one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the twelve major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the twelve months of the year, the four seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes. The term zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified as figures or animals. In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving movements and relationships – myths which far predate Christianity by hundreds of thousands of years.

The sun, with its life giving and saving qualities, was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god (later tuned into the Christian god). God’s sun, the light of the world, the savior of human kind. All of these ideas were supplanted from far more ancient religions and into Christianity. This is precisely why there is absolutely zero factual evidence for the existence of a Jesus Christ outside the Bible. Historically speaking, it is infinitely more easy to prove the existence of, say, Julius Caesar (or many other identities from similar eras) than Jesus Christ. This is because he was neither a charlatan nor an amateur poseur such as “David Koresh”; rather, he never existed at all - he was a copied persona from a multitude of pagan belief systems and compounded into one ideal. From virgin birth to the three Wise Men to a death followed by the resurrection, and even the dates of the holidays Easter and Christmas, all were ideas thought up long before the character Jesus Christ was plagiarized into existence.

Ok... I see linda is going to skate this question so I appreciate the sincere response Pwwca.

But... if Jesus never really existed why is he mentioned, ever so briefly in roman history? why is he mentioned for instance, if I remember correctly, in writings by someone named 'Pontius Pilate' who actually seems to have lived and left a bit of record to roman history? Of course Julius Caeser is written about quite a bit more, he was Caeser after all so he is written about more than anyone of the era.

What about the apostles though... John, Mark, James, Paul... Peter? None of them existed either or were the tales they told simply complete nonsense from the get go? Did they get together and conspire these stories?

The cross is a very old symbol I agree. I think the Christians picked it up not because of it's prior signifigance to other cultures or religions (keep in mind that life was different then, the world much much smaller in an informational sense) but to symbolize the cross Jesus was crucified on and also to symbolize the crosses they were being crucified on. Crucifixion was one of the ways the romans killed slaves. saying christians 'plagiarized' it is like saying mathematics plagiarized it. It's one of the most common geometric symbols, like a circle, square, triangle, or simply, a line.

I'm not skating the question. There's just no ice here to skate on. The resurrection of Jesus is not a verifiable historical fact and as such, people are free to believe or disbelieve it. I'm still not clear on what you think this has to do with evolution. Evolution explains how life on earth has changed since it began. Or, to be more accurate, you can choose one of the definitions RAZD has presented to you.

OK so you are saying it's possible that the earth could be 4.3 billion years old. Presumably I can skip the YEC rebuttals with you then.



Because many creationists claim that the entire fossil record was deposited in the flood. They claim that every species that ever existed on earth, was alive up to the point of the flood. Apparently this is not what you think either. So you are looking at some of the scientific evidence.



Some creationists also believe that tall mountains did not exist before the flood, and that the cataclysmic events during the flood caused them to rise.

You don't seem to be very aware of the sorts of things your fellow creationists believe, including so-called leaders in the field. For a theory that is supposed to be sound enough to be taught alongside, or in place of, evolution, it's a pretty patchwork of inconsistencies.



The problem here is the fossil record, which you admit could have existed before the flood. So there's no reason for you to believe that the fossils ought to be mixed together instead of sorted. Why is it, then, that most extinct species are found deeper in the fossil record than hominid fossils, in rocks that have been dated to a few billions of years old in some cases? This would seem to be pretty clear evidence against humans causing all the extinctions unless a) you can explain why the fossil record shows specific sorting everywhere apart from where geological processes have disturbed the strata; and b) you can do better than Henry Morris at trying to explain how radiometric dating is flawed.



You mean you prefer not to be shown how these claims are scientifically inconsistent? If you want to find the truth, you look at the evidence.

I'm sorry Linda. But I learned more about life and truth in one moment, than I ever did in 17 years of schooling, when I was saved by our living God, through Jesus Christ.

You want to argue about what you perceive as scientific fact all day long. But you ignore the actual fact that there is more real evidence for God, through Jesus, than any of the numerous conjectures you use to ignore him.

I want you to actually provide some evidence that creationism, which people want taught in public schools, is at least as good an explanation as the theory of evolution. One of the first requirements is that it needs to marry with what we understand to be scientific facts. What you are doing is ignoring the fossil record, ignoring the ways we date it and the geological column, and then claiming that there is more evidence for God -- and presumably creationism -- than anything else.

I could use the same willful blindness and bizarre logic to say that the tooth fairy exists and that the world was sneezed up by the Great Green Arkleseizure. Ignore everything that seems to you to be fact, for lo this is so because I say so.

Some people may want creationism taught in public schools, I personally do not support that idea. The teaching is only as good as the teacher so a lot of room would be available there for error trying to teach that in a public school. However, neither should evolution be taught as a scientific fact. I have no problem with either being mentioned briefly since either one or the other are believed to be true depending on who you speak to. In order to mention creationism, the Christian version, other creation stories from other religions also need to mentioned. I truly do believe in comprehensive education, especially in the public schools.

You are using willful blindness and bizarre logic to say that the tooth fairy exists and that the world was sneezed up by the great whoknowswhateape, aomeba or trilobite.

Just because a fossil record exists is hardly proof that creation did not happen. Logically, it is proof that it did happen, it is proof of life.

Ignoring accounts and factual records of christian history is hardly the way to win a creation/evolution debate.

Though i've been called a bigot and whoknows what here how many times, i think it's pretty obvious who the bigots are since they refuse to even explore that facts on the other side of the argument.

RAZD has explained the ways "evolution" is defined better than I could. I hope you've taken note. Evolution itself, that life has changed over time, is not in dispute by scientists. The theory of evolution explains those changes by the processes of mutation and natural selection. You're telling me a "brief mention" of it in a science class is OK, when it is a fundamental part of so many scientific disciplines?



The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as fact. You would be hard-pressed indeed to find a biologist or geologist who rejected it outright. The people who do reject it tend to betray fundamental scientific ignorance and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one who wasn't a religious fundamentalist. So a lot really does depend on who you speak to, but I know which group of people are qualified to be setting the science curriculum.



None of them have any more place in a science classroom than creationism does. On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".



But the sorting of that record, and the dating of the strata, are crucial elements. The fossil record directly contradicts the idea that God simultaneously created all life that ever existed on earth. It is compelling evidence that life evolved.



I fail to see any relevance between Christian history and the issue of evolution.



What facts-?

See Mithraism:


Merry Christmas ...

Also see Hinduism and the concept of sin.

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

You will encounter variations of the spiritual dimension within all religions, and many similarities as well as contrasts. In science, quantum mechanics actually works with that.

However, I would suggest you stick with what is actually known factually. Within Christianity, the apostles and early church are an excellent place to start. You can continue to deny they exist, but history states otherwise.

Hello again SoSIck


The problem is that there are facts of evolution, there are the facts that the theory of evolution is based on, the evidence of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Speciation has been observed. These are facts, not theory, not fantasy, not falsehood.

The problem is that the theory of evolution explains these facts, just as other scientific theories in other sciences explain the evidence those sciences are based on. The science of evolution demonstrates how well the theory explains these facts.

But then, you have already demonstrated\admitted that you have no idea what evolution really is haven't you?


Funny how you demonstrate it once again. It's like you can't help yourself.


Of course that is a possibility. Now let's test that concept. When does the fossil record say that creation occurred - at what level? How many "kinds" were involved? (What's a "kind?)


So the fact that Jerusalem exists proves what? It proves that Jerusalem exists. We can validate that with other historical evidence, so this information is trivial as an addition to knowledge.

The fact that Kansas exists must also prove that the Wizard of Oz is true to eh?


When you behave like a bigot you should expect people to notice.

As far as facts that support concepts go, finding facts that appear to support a concept is trivial, like the existence of Jerusalem. I can use a roadmap as evidence that the world is flat, I can use sunrise and sunset as evidence that the earth is at the center of the universe orbited by the sun, planets and stars. I can use fresh lava as evidence that the earth is young.

The existing of supporting evidence on its own does not validate a concept. The real issue, the test of ideas is how you deal with evidence that invalidates the concept.

We don't believe in a flat or geocentric earth because there is evidence that invalidates those ideas. Likewise there is evidence that the earth is old - how do you deal with that? Evidence of young parts of the earth do not invalidate the fact that the earth is old, but the evidence of old parts of the earth do invalidate the concept of a young earth, just as much as the flat or geocentric earth are invalidated concepts.

So if you want to discuss facts we need to specify that the important ones to discuss are the ones that invalidate concepts, the others are trivial and a waste of time.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Thanks for the reply SoSick


Can I quote you on that? Are yyou now saying that all religions are equally valid?

So other churches with variations in spiritual dimensions are just demonstrating the diversity of belief, and the concept of "so-called" churches and "so-called" christians is not a reflection on their spiritual dimension? The catholic church is just another dimension?


There is independent historical record of Gautama Buddha and concern about the crowd that was gathering to meet with him.

Can you provide similar independent (non-christian) historical evidence?

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

To the people that believe them, all religions are equally valid RAZD. All people are essentially equal in their ability to have spiritual experiences. The bible even speaks of many other gods that are worshipped by other cultures. to those other cultures, their gods and their spiritual experiences with them are quite valid.

Yes Buddha was a real guy, just like Jesus was a real guy.

As I mentioned above there are notes about Jesus and his followers in Roman history. The jews also have notes in their history about him. The NT is a collection of writings from his first followers.

There's actually quite a bit of stuff.

Yes, you can quote me on that btw. Quantum mechanics works with dimensions and energy and matter. It's proved all sorts of stuff that people wouldn't otherwise believe could be possible. elementary school children are starting to experiment with it on a simple level. I don't remember where I read it but it was recently, about some school kids and two bowls of rice... I will try to remember and find that for you. essentially, they turned the rice into wine (started anyway) by telling it they loved it everyday. the other bowl of rice, they told it they hated it everyday and it rotted. took them 30 days or so to get it going. Jesus turned water into wine in a few minutes.

Energy affects matter RAZD. God is spirit. God is love.

You are the one arguing for evolution RAZD, not me. If Jerusalum is trivial across the board, since you left that wide open... use the same logic when you try to make one fossil or another a key in your evolutionary theory.

Because according to what you just said, as far as facts that support concepts go, finding facts that appear to support a concept is trivial, like the existence of fossils.

SoSick, I think the rice was within water in sealed jars, and the idea was to see what effect the words and attention would have on the water and thus what was in the water. This is described in a book Sunshine lent me called The Hidden Messages in Water by Masaru Emoto.While I personally find this interesting though, I don't see how it logically has anything directly to do with God, or with evolution for that matter.

RAZD said:

The existence of Jerusalem does not invalidate evolution. If Jesus were a historical figure, that does not invalidate evolution. The history of the tribes of Israel does not invalidate it. So discussing these things in a debate about evolution is trivial and a waste of time.

The existence of fossils is much more pertinent to a discussion of evolution, as are the places in which they are found. Would you like to make a point about how you think fossils invalidate evolution?

The rice thing was just a few weeks ago so i doubt it's been written about and published in a book yet. Maybe someone else has done it too. well, proof that it's replicable how about that.

Linda I have never seen so much illogic spouted as truth in my life. I don't expect you make any logical correlations at ths point.

The only thing I am convinced of so far is that both you and your friend RAZD are bonafide nutjobs.

As has been pointed out, ad hominem remarks tend to surface when the poster is unable to refute or to add any meaningful points of their own. RAZD and I have been trying to focus on the science here, as presumably you believe in "creation science." Any theory worth its salt needs to be able to explain evidence that would appear to invalidate it, and there are truckloads for creationism.

Why don't you answer my questions about the flood? I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

Linda, you are insane. Your friend RAZD is insane.

the only thing either of you have proven is a blatant disregard for fact and every other discipline.

The both of you have done nothing except provide an exceptionally strong argument for the delusional propensity of eviloution as a social science.

And unless you start backing these kinds of statements up with evidence, then they are empty rants. Show either of us how we are deluded please. I think RAZD has actually called you on that count a few times, based on various things you have said.

Thank you SoSick for the kind response.

So you disagree with the poster that said that "so-called churches" (link provided by the poster) and "so-called christians" were hypocrites eh? Now you say they all have valid beliefs. Glad you cleared that up. Do have a single valid statement left in The cost of Evolution, and other things, or failing that, one that you will stand by?


I'd like some references for the non-christian sources (ie unbiased) ones. References also to be non-christian please. Just curious, as I've never heard of any such elsewhere.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Thank you SoSick for another kind response.

To quote from the Russ Tanner Manifesto (posted in many places, repetition being another common tactic of distraction, and thus easy to find)
(Color/bold added for emPHAsis. Note that Russ then goes on to describe common creationist methodology rife with distractions and void of factuality)

Aren't you getting a little desperate SoSick, when you need to portray several people as being insane? Of course another choice is that we are right and you are wrong, but incapable of recognizing that (for any one of several reasons).

Yet geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy confirm a very old earth, evolution does happen, has been observed ...

Evolution is a natural science while the social sciences include disciplines like anthropology, economics, education, geography, history, law, linguistics, political science, psychology, and sociology. It looks like, once again, you are confused about what evolution is, the process, the theory, and the science. Or in denial.

Let me refer to this definition again:
And note that the distinction between delusion/2 and delusion/3 is the denial of invalidating evidence (which needs to have been presented),

... and you have yet to provide a single fact to back up your position on any argument I have seen.

For information from yet another discipline, please see cognitive dissonance:
Of course a simple way to discount the information is to decide that all the people telling it are insane.

By the way, I'm new here so I was wondering what the 5 stars under my name (vs 2 under yours) mean? Just curious, as I haven't been here that long.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]