A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

Ok, but what about raptors? THey were fairly small. saying no dinosaurs were taken is not probable. Another thing. Fish and wales werent taken right? Well what about swimming dinosaurs? Why did they vanish while wales and sharks and other sea life didnt?

 

You must of missed one of my last post in which an interview of five top evolution scientist stated that they could not produce or show a single picture of anything that could be considered a trans species fossile. Perhaps they shouled of talked to you.

 

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/debates/debate023.htm

 

KatieGrace,
Religion does not say that humans appeared out of thin air. Please don't be so ignorant! The Bible gives no scientific details on how planets are formed, how life is formed, or how species evolve. Why would it? The Bible is about who made us, why he made us, and how he made us; it is not about the physical processes by which planets and life are formed — that is merely a technicality of the universe and has no bearing on why our universe was created.

Everyone,
Why is everyone talking about dinosaurs? Could someone please explain the relevance of dinosaurs to this discussion?

 

dinosaurs are sweet

 

yeah, when you tell a CHristian that the universe was created out of a bigbang they will say, well God set the bigbang in motion, but they will still say that evolution is absurd. i dont get that.

 

Raptors? Those things were agressive! They'd rip the whole place appart!

About dinosaurs that live in the water,there may be some of them still. Maybe the Nisse (sp?) legend is true...

 

My fault:
(written by Ryu on the 5th page of this thread)

 

I would appreciate it if you could concede that I made a number of good points. The fact that the thread has now gone onto dinosaurs on the ark indicates that you have very little to go on.

 

As for the big bang theory, the last I heard of that (at least 5 years ago), they no longer believe the big bang was the start of the universe, but is more likely to be just one of an infinite series of big bangs that occur when two membranes collide. Or something.

Anyway, my point is that the universe is probably infinitely long, and had no beginning.

 

You still can't seem to tell me what a trans-species is.

That book by Sunderland is just a load of bull. The example of horse evolution he presented to Eldridge was over-simplified to a straight line, rightly prompting Eldridge to call it "lamentable."

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/equid2t.gif

That is a rough estimate of the pattern of horse evolution, not a straight line.
Sunderland states that he asked Eldridge about scales turning into feathers, while in the transcript no such question was asked, but a comment was made. He calls the geological column mythical. The geological column is something any geologist can tell you or show you about, and it is no more mythical than the ground under my feet. ALSO, he dismisses population genetics (including Hardy-Weinburg genetics) as "so-called." If you really want to learn about population genetics, I can show you in a lab in about a week with very little problem.

Here are some links for transtional species:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales

Yeah. Regardless of what this creationist author had to say (who was not a scientist, by the way) there is plenty of evidence for all kinds of evolution, and plenty of transitional fossils. To deny evolution is to deny a demonstrable truth about the nature of the universe.

 

These are not creationist authors, these were the best of the best full blown believers in evolution. And they still believe in evolution. And it is they who are saying there is nothing in the fossile record to demonstrate evolution.

 

Perhaps this has already been asked (I haven't finished reading the entire thread yet, but wanted to post this before I forgot), but could you point me to where you read about this? Discoveries of this nature fascinate me, and must surely have been covered in National Geographic, Time, Scientific American, or some other well-known journal.

And yet, a Google search only turns up this forum and a single other Biblical page of highly questionable reliability.

 

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Of course it would come back as 500,000 years old...if the clay used to make the vase was 500,000 years old! Think about it! Carbon-14 dating can only be used on organic materials.

 

The guy who interviewed them and wrote a book about it is a creationist author. He was an engineer (not a scientist) who went around giving speeches about creationism and why it should be taught in school (which is dumb, 'cause it isn't a scientific theory). At least two of the people he interviewed (the two I could find) said that he had taken their words out of context and used that to skew the meaning they were trying to get across.

Not only that, but this was all done when? 1978? Look at the links I posted and then tell my what makes you think there are no transitional fossils.

 

It's true that there are some assumption in science, but there are also consequences when one chooses the wrong set of assumptions.

Radioactive decay is the heat source of the earth's interior. If decay rates had been much higher in the past, the earth would have been much hotter, hot enough that life wouldn't have arose. There are consequences to saying the decay rates were orders if magnitude higher in the past, which creationists aren't aware of.

It's convenient to say the earth is young because the decay rates were higher in the past, but that explanation is not consistent with observed facts about the earth and its temperature today.

The fact that we find only the isotopes with the longest decay times (tens of millions of years or more) on earth tells us that the earth is very old (billions of years). The isotopes with short half-lives are not found on earth because the earth has been around long enough for them to decay completely.

An exception is C-14 which has a short half-life but is continually generated in the upper atmosphere. That's why we still find short-lived C-14 on earth.

 

There is no convincing evidence of Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat. I was curious about this at one time, but people have run out of places to look on that mountain. It's been surveyed by people and imaged by satellites. If something were there, it would have been found by now.

People have seen ledges of the mountain sticking out of the snow and confused it with a structure. Also, if there was a boat sitting on that mountain all this time, it would have been crushed by the movement of ice, snow, and glaciers up there over thousands of years.

There are so many farces on the web about the ark that it's depressing. One Turkish group even made a tourist resort out of one of the sites. There is also another ground-level site that people claim is Noah's ark. It's nothing more than a geologic outcrop that has an oval shape. One of the tourist places had a mineral from the site analyzed and it showed some titanium. They immediately concluded that Noah made special titanium alloy parts. Titanium is found in minerals naturally.

 

Creationists like to pick contention points about evolution, but there are many more problems with believing life was created 6000 years ago than with evolution. Creationists don't like to talk about those contention points, however.

Talk-origins is always a good place to start:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

An article about the soft tissue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

The bone fossilized on the outside but some of the inner contents didn't fossilize as they normally do. It's conceivable that could happen in a large bone such as a thigh bone of a dinosaur like they found where there's a lot of volume on the inside.

 

This is not the geologic outcroping or a tourist destination,the real Ark is on the North Slope of the mountain. Turkey does not allow western explorers on that side of the mountain. They have a GPS fix on two objects the same 2 objects two other Americans claim they had seen. Moslem nations control two of the most important sites that would prove the Bible, yet not wanting to give any substance to Jewish belief, they will not allow Christian nations axcess to these areas. If these sites are not valid, why are the Moslem nations barring western nations from seeing them? Mt Sinia in Saudia Arabia is also another site that western nations and Jews are barred from seeing. Western nations can go almost anywhere in these countries except these sensitive religious sites. WHY? We have eyewitiness accounts now of both sites and they are telling the same story, these religious objects and places are real and they are there. The Ark is stuck in a glacier and this is a glacier that has almost no movement to it. Just like the discovered Ice man found in Europe, the Ark has survived, only broken in two.