News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

<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.