Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Camphell it is really pathetic my science teach doesn't believe in evolution and she gives no scientific reasons she says because the bible says it isn't then when people say the schools priest says he agrees and doesn't contradict she ok however she always knew the theory and its a sound theory. There is no proof against it or it wouldn't still be a theory that 90% of scientist believe in. You need to stop with your close mind and open your mind to the theory
Im a strong atheist at that and right now you sound like a 10 year old kid that has no clue what his talking about no offence
and pls. dinosaur is the greatest science fiction ever... for me.
I was just dumbfounded when I read that you didn't believe in dinosaurs on one of your earlier posts. I've never even heard of anyone who doesn't believe in dinosaurs. If you don't mind my asking, what has led you to this conclusion? I'm really interested in paleontology so I've been to alot of museums and I've seen a very large number of displays. My home state of Montana has been a source of some very impressive fossil discoveries of dinosaurs and there's alot of them on display at Montana State University. If you don't believe that these animals even existed then how can you explain the thousands of complete or almost complete fossilized remains? Because dinosaurs existed for such a long time the world's natural history museums are filled with them.
THE NEW THEOLOGY -- chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi-080120evolution-story,0,4515517.story - broken link)
this is what i was talking about where a reader commented that why won't evolution and creation compromise... that disregarding one from the other is "irresponsible intelligence"... my belief is that God created EVERYTHING .. that evolution merely explains the hows and whys of God's creation.. which incidentally i know that there are aspects of some things that even scientists are stumped as to how and why it happens... and pls. dinosaur is the greatest science fiction ever... for me.
So far as I see it, if the creation side would put forth scientific endeavors behind their work instead of false assertions than I wouldn't have a problem reconciling with it. The fact is that the IDers/Creationists put forth not a single penny into scientific research. All they do is simply "reinterpret" scientific findings to their Biblical worldview and state that it fits so perfectly. The problem is that you can't just go around changing things to suit your beliefs because it makes you comfortable. Well, you can, but you can't call it science. I don't like the fact that fire burns, but I'm not going to reinterpret the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and neurology to say that fire no longer burns people. I can do that, but it wouldn't have any scientific basis of support and no one would take me seriously.
Your belief that every animal is a transional is just a belief. It is not a fact. And that is the problem with Evolution. A Theory taught as fact by some, yet more myth than science. You say Dinosaurs evoloved into feathered animals. What do you base that on? The fossils you named such as
Tiktaalik, Archaeoptyrex. You call them Transionals, based on what? Do you have any idea how many times Evolutionist have called different species transionals only to be proven wrong time and time again. And now we have a whole new list. How many times do they have to lie to you before you say enought is enought? And the fossil record cannot be used to support evolution, because it does not show evolution. Your fossil Evolution is based on imignation, not evidence presented. And you say no one in the fossil community would try to portray animals mixed together. That not true, for when they thought they had a real transional it was splashed all over the pages of National Geographic. It's going to take a lot more than your imagination and fake fossils to torpedo my arguements.
Yes if you beilve everything that disagrees with your agrument is fake then yes there is no way we can win.
the fossils that supports evolution are ones found before darwins time.
and evolution has never been proven wrong and wrong again. It twisted a little but nothing more and, it's how most theories becomes laws. main idea then little tweets.
and the thing that has been proven wrong over and over again is christianity
Moses wasnt a peaceful guy most scriptures and historains say today he was a military commander, as bible scriptures quote the bible. Isralies werent slaves they were a hired militia. "and the islaries marched out of egypt"
the Church has been wrong over and over again with science as well, as history. what happen to Galleio hmm do u still believe the world is the center of the universe. mybe christains should torture and house arrest people who disagree with their ideas again.
Last edited by .....think; 05-06-2008 at 04:57 PM..
montanaguy: it all boils down to my belief in God. if i believe dinosaurs existed billion years ago, then it means that they were the very 1st inhabitants ever on earth? and that WE all come from dinosaurs then? that dinosaur evolved into apes that evolved into mAN? i mean WTF!!! to the nth power and degree!! and ultimately: SHOW ME THE piece of ASTEROID THAT HIT THE EARTH !! (not the remaining rich elements from asteroid. that is retarded.) that drove these mighty power dinosaurs into extinction... until then.. i believe in GOD.. creator of EVERYTHING.
oh im also curious how the theory of evolution explained how all the animals existing now and those that are extinct came/evolved to be.. also the plants,trees and all living things... also why has the asteroids not hit the earth for so long? also why are all living things ONLY evolved here on earth... and none on other planets?
and... if dinosaurs REALLY existed.. how did they evolved? from where? coz that is one humongous evolution! from an atomic particle... hahahaha. you were questioning how adam and eve just came to be... so now i am questioning the evolutionists how dinosaurs came to be.
Camphell it is really pathetic my science teach doesn't believe in evolution and she gives no scientific reasons she says because the bible says it isn't then when people say the schools priest says he agrees and doesn't contradict she ok however she always knew the theory and its a sound theory. There is no proof against it or it wouldn't still be a theory that 90% of scientist believe in. You need to stop with your close mind and open your mind to the theory
Im a strong atheist at that and right now you sound like a 10 year old kid that has no clue what his talking about no offence
Well if I really closed my mind and could just filter out all the other evidence that the courts will not allow in the classroom, I might agree with you. Yet the fact remains the Bible is being proven historically, and much of what is stated in the Bible can nolonger be denied by the skeptics. Evolution on the other hand has put forth much evidence for their theory that has been proven to be fake. And it appears that fake evidence just keeps coming. I know nothing about your teacher, or what a priest may say. Yet I Know that there is a great deal of historical evidence from ancient tribal people, who have shown us in their art work that they were use to seeing dinosaurs. And that is why we have pictures from them describing such. The Bible speaks of Dinosaurs as well, and it is the Bible that agrees with those ancient people. Evolution refutes the Biblical accounts, and that ancient art because just those two sources alone refute Evolution. Evolutionist will hand you a skull and tell you this skull is an obvious transional. And they will have you believe that based on nothing but their imigination. Yet, we have pictures of dinosaurs from ancient people, and discriptions of dinosaurs from the Bibical account, and that you don't believe. I'm sorry, but I grew up long time ago. Only blind faith believers still embrace Evolution. The courts may of stopped evidence like this from reaching the classroom, but they have not been able to stop independant thinking.
Evolution can only be pushed by the use of strong arm tatics, and censorship by court mandates. If put to a vote, the American people would allow both sides to be discussed in the classroom.
Any progress on your work here? It's been more than a week - how about just showing us the findings you've made so far showing that each of these fossils is a fake or fraud.
Well as you know Rhodesia man was shown to be fully human and not a transional, the belief that he was millions of years old has been proven to be false. Then there was the Neanderals listed in your link, under letters J-K and L they were believed to be part of the human evolution link, yet DNA proved that they had nothing to do with humans. Now there is Africanus, another one on your list. And another one that Evolutionist stated is a transional in human Evolution. However as it turns out, Australopithecus had an imperfectly evolved stabilizing mechanism. Robin Crompton who is a computer specialist has demonstrated that this kind of "compound" walking styles is not possible in the studies he made in 1996. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk fully upright or fully on its four feet. A living style is the midst is not possible because of higher energy consumption. Therefore, Australopithecus can not be a half-bipedal animal as opposed to the claims of evolutionist. AUSTRALOPITHECUS IS AN ORDINARY APE THAT CAN ONLY STAND ON ALL FOURS.
Campbell... I already debunked your version of transitionals in a prior post. No two species will converge. An already existent horse will not look like an already existent dog. It would completely ruin the theory of evolution, and I imagine a myriad of other sciences, if we were to find such a thing. What you fail to understand, Campbell, is that you are skewing what the word transitional means so that you can put yourself into a nice little comfort zone so that you never have to admit that your maligned version of evolution is true.
Rather, why don't you do something productive with your life and read Origin of Species to find out what evolution really states. All you've done this entire time is produce one garbage statement after another that neither I nor anyone else has posited as a true, rational notion of how evolution works.
The fact is, Campbell, is that there is such a thing called convergent evolution. While this means that things like legs may develop separately in separate species we shouldn't find occurrences of this happening and the two different species having IDENTICAL leg formations. Rather, if we did find two species with very similar legs we would know they came from a common ancestor with that same leg in my mind and so on and so forth. Your claim that somehow the genetic pool just drifts randomly between two modern-day species to produce a mix is so horrendously sick it's embarassing. If there is indeed a chance that his may happen you would have a sterile creature (like a mule) as a result and so the lineage would not persist.
Do some basic learning about how evolution works, Campbell. It's not my imagination that every creature is a transitional. If you knew anything about how the theory worked at all you'd realize how ignorant you are to it. I'm telling you, Campbell, you're getting awfully close to trolling now. It's getting pretty pathetic.
Ok, I'm doing some basic learning and reading from the publication Evolution.
Now according to these Evolutionist, long ago a land mammal walked down to the sea and somehow lost all of his legs and vital systems. And then became adapted to marine existence. WOW. Sure makes me not to want to go swimming anymore.
Now can you tell me, did this land mammal lose his legs and vital systems in one day, or one month, or one year? Because if it did't happen really fast, you would have one strange looking land mammal swimming around out there. And you have already stated we would not expect to see anything in the fossil record that would look like two species merging together. I mean really. We have gone from a four hundred pound four legged land mammal, to a 60 ton whale. I would think there would have to be some obvious changes. And if that were the case, why would we not see these changes in the fossil record? And how long would it take for this kind of evolution? One day, or one million years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
