KFC: Sorry about the gender confusion. My bad.

neither fish nor crocodiles are now nor have they ever been dinosaurs. oh ya? Really? Link and what do you say about this: Link *BTW it's from the evolutionist's side I got these. This has nothing to do with us creationists.

All that proves is that you have poor comprehension skills. The first article clear says they are NOT dinosaur bones.

The group had traveled to the site—one of the richest fossil beds in Africa—to search for dinosaurs. But it was immediately clear that the giant jawbones had not come from a dinosaur, Sereno said.

Both of them are just articles about crocs that lived in the dinosaur era.

You were doing great until you hit this point and made the mistake of confusing creationism with young Earthers.

Well true, but I figured that KFC was probably in that crowd too. If you are going to take the bible literally why not be consistent?


MasonM

While I am still not convinced that macroevolution has ever happened (no, I don't accpet extrapolations of microevolution as evidence),

Saying that you except the existence of microevolution and you can't extrapolate it to macroevolution is a bit like saying "I've seen many 5 minute short films. I accept that they are possible but I can't see how you can think just because you can make a 5 minute film that you can make a feature length film with a bigger film reel and a bigger budget. Talk about taking extrapolation too far. It's pure crazy talk!"

It seems to be incredulity at a reasonably logical conclusion. Look what we have done to the shape of dogs in just a few hundred years. Are you really saying that going from one species to another is a unreasonable extrapolation given much larger time scales? To define one group of animals as a seperate species they simply have to be different enough so they can't breed. With Lions and Tigers (as previously mentioned) they are still in grey area but in practice they are unlikely to breed (being on seperate continents) but really the final change might be a simple as a single mutation; a far smaller change than all the morphological differences between Lions and Tigers. For example there a several important chemicals (proteins) involved with conception that if changed would mean two diverging species would no longer be able to breed. Sometimes the change might be something less fundamental (molecular) like differently shaped genital or something. My point is large physical changes, like with dogs, and pontetial changes that would prevent breeding have been observed. You don't need to see the entire process of speciation (which would be take FAAAR too long)to say that we have strong evidence for macroevolution.

I hope I haven't come off as partronising because I know you're an intelligent person. It is that very fact that weirds me out because it seems like such a small step from believing in microevolution to believing in macroevolution. To me it is really the same thing on a different scale, and the distinction is a needless and arbitary one.

The true fact is, there really is no evidence against creation.

It depends on how literallly you interpret the bible. If you want to believe that complex animals were just created out of thin air in 6 days then there is a lot of evidence against that. If you believe that god made the world to make it look as though there was evolution from simple organisms to complex ones over millions of years then no. Yes you are right and I was wrong. Creation, by its nature, is simple not falsifiable.

Ok, I've found proof that science is wrong!

Is it just me or is that girl kinda hot

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Monday, July 10, 2006Really?

yes really, where it says.......

The giant creature, which lived 110 million years ago, during the Middle Cretaceous

Besides, you didn't really address the article, you are just saying....."my evidence is saying otherwise."

it's funny you don't point out the "lie" that crocs are not dinos

there is no lie for bakerstreet to refute. crocodiles may have shared the planet with living dinosaurs but are distinctly different from dinosaurs (as are birds...crocodiles' closest living relatives).

as suggested earlier, you can resolve your confusion easily enuff by simply researching physiologic differences between dinosaurs and archosaurs.

Both of them are just articles about crocs that lived in the dinosaur era.

yes, Crocs are reptiles, dinos are reptiles. The only reason you may not think of them as dinos is they are not extinct. But they did live during the time of the dinos that we know.....and they live among us today.

To argue this is really pointless anyhow. I was just putting that in because someone said Crocs were not dinos. I've always believed they were....but again it's my word against yours and it's really a pointless arguement. I'm not claiming to be an expert here on dinos or crocs, but just sharing a link from the Evolutionist's side. I'm sure AiG has stuff on this as well, but it's not worth arguing about for me.

It depends on how literallly you interpret the bible. If you want to believe that complex animals were just created out of thin air in 6 days then there is a lot of evidence against that

Then by all means share this evidence. Because I know nothing of any evidence that proves creation wrong. Were you there?

myriad extent modern species predate or were contemporaries of dinosaurs. surely you don't consider cockroaches or ceolecanths dinosaurs?

"dinosaur 3 entries found for dinosaur. To select an entry, click on it. Main Entry: di·no·saur Pronunciation: 'dI-n&-"sor Function: noun Etymology: New Latin Dinosaurus, genus name, from Greek deinos terrifying + sauros lizard -- more at DIRE 1 : any of a group (Dinosauria) of extinct often very large chiefly terrestrial carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the Mesozoic era 2 : any of various large extinct reptiles (as ichthyosaurs) other than the true dinosaurs 3 : one that is impractically large, out-of-date, or obsolete - di·no·sau·ri·an /"dI-n&-'sor-E-&n/ adjective - di·no·sau·ric /-'sor-ik/ adjective"

There's no lie to refute. You just made up your definition of dinosaur just like you make up stuff all the time. Just like you made up the fact that we can't have 4,000 year old bones because they'd rot. I saw some some people on the history channel today trying to prove an ancient city was Sodom, and it was full of bones that they, themselves, declared dated to 4,000-5,000 years ago. Crocs are as much dinosaurs as you are your own primate ancestors.

Hovind is a sham, and if you can't look at him and see that, and see how he is adding to creationism with what amounts to science fiction, then there's little I can do to reason with you. If you want to add giant frozen ice balls falling from outer space, freezing mammoths while they are standing up, fine, but he's nuts, and you make yourself nutty by attaching your argument to him. If you want to align with people who speak falsehood in God's name, then roll the dice and take your chances.

That's the last time I waste an hour posting a reply to you only to have you ignore most of it. I challenged you to explain one of your quotes that supposedly proved that evolution couldn't be valid, and you ignored it. I pointed out the 4,000 year old bone thing and you ignored it. I have pointed out numerous problems with what you post and you just say the same things you said to begin with.

There's no point in continuing, because you are just sticking your fingers in your ears and reasserting the same tired myths. You'd think that creationists who claim to be tired of being stereotyped would try not to behave in stereotypical ways, but I guess not. You've done nothing but affirm my view that creationists aren't interested in anything that doesn't agree with their beliefs, and will ignore any fact that they can't twist.

I'll leave this for other people to continue, if there is anyone who can tolerate such behavior.

Crocs are reptiles, dinos are reptiles

modern humans are primates. chimps are primates.

The only reason you may not think of them as dinos is they are not extinct

you think there's no difference between chimps and humans because neither is extinct?

no I didn't Baker, did you not read what I said....

The only reason you may not think of them as dinos is they are not extinct.

you like to twist and turn what I say.

That's the last time I waste an hour posting a reply to you only to have you ignore most of it. I challenged you to explain one of your quotes that supposedly proved that evolution couldn't be valid, and you ignored it. I pointed out the 4,000 year old bone thing and you ignored it. I have pointed out numerous problems with what you post and you just say the same things you said to begin with.

you've got to be kidding? I haven't ignored anything on purpose any more than you have. You write so much I havn't been able to keep up but I have been responding to what I can in the little time I have. I'm sorry if it's not to your liking. Give it to me plain and simple again. If you want me to answer a particlular question, post it. I'll answer it.

I still haven't read all today and yesterday's entries because I've been gone and I came back to quite a few to answer. Sorry it it wasn't enough but this is my 7th reply tonight and it's been to answer the objections made just today.

I could repeat all you said to me as well Baker. Just face it, we're not going to convince each other. You have your fingers in your ears as well.

Somewhere along the line you made a comment (I think on your blog) that it's the creationists that attack the evolutionist remember?

Well look at our two blogs. Mine was on evolution....not evolutionists. Yours was on Creationists not on creation. Notice anything?

The debate here is usually set up as pitting creationism (that is, an ideology) against evolution (no ism, therefore a fact). No matter what the evidence may be, an ideology (especially a religous ideology) can never be fact in a debate conducted under scientific rules. Scientific materialists actually see the issue that way and so they naturally frame the debate in those terms. We should insist that an ism be put on both words or neither. Let the debate be between the competing facts (creation and evolution) or the competing ideologies (creationism and evolutionism). Better still, let it be between theism and materialism. What started this all? What was active in the beginning, God or matter? That frames the question correctly and levels the playing field.

From Ken Ham

Are dinosaurs really extinct?
One cannot prove an organism is extinct without having knowledge of every part of the earth’s surface simultaneously. Experts have been embarrassed when, after having declared animals extinct, they were discovered alive and well. For example, explorers recently found elephants in Nepal that have many features of mammoths.62

Scientists in Australia found some living trees that they thought had become extinct with the dinosaurs. One scientist said, ‘ … it was like finding a “live dinosaur.”’63,64 When scientists find animals or plants they thought were extinct long ago, they call them ‘living fossils.’ There are hundreds of ‘living fossils,’ a big embarrassment for those who believe in millions of years of earth history.65

Explorers and natives in Africa have reported sighting dinosaur-like creatures, even recently.66–68 These have usually been confined to out-of-the-way places such as lakes deep in the Congo jungles. Descriptions certainly fit those of dinosaurs.69

Cave paintings by native Americans seem to depict a dinosaur70—scientists accept the mammoth drawings in the cave, so why not the dinosaur drawings? Evolutionary indoctrination that man did not live at the same time as dinosaurs stops most scientists from even considering that the drawings are of dinosaurs.

It certainly would be no embarrassment to a creationist if someone discovered a dinosaur living in a jungle. However, this should embarrass evolutionists.

Come on. Do you believe in Bigfoot? No, you can't prove a negative without being omnipotent, BUT you do the same thing when you brush off the existence of other Gods that people believe devoutly in. Do you believe that aliens kidnap people by default because you can't prove that they don't exist?

No, you require proof of their existence. That's the trouble with this argument. I post an argument, and you just disagree. It's like some sad remake of the Monty Python argument sketch. I say there are 4,000 year old bones, and you say no there aren't. If you need for there to be to prove your archeological evidence of the Bible, though, you'll embrace them without a doubt.

It wouldn't embarass evolutionists if someone found a dinosaur, hell, for years creationists denied the EXISTENCE of dinosaurs, saying that the evidence was just stuff the devil left laying around to make Christians doubt. Hovind hasn't embarassed anyone but himself and his followers, they are just to blinded to see it.

I have waited patently to BE embarassed. I've waited for SOMETHING outside the kind of thing we get from alien conspiracy people, and you aren't offering it. You post some preacher's opinion and then demand I disprove it.

Like I said, so long as you are unwilling to even acknoledge when you twist facts and state outright lies, I can't discuss it with you. So long as you can just invent a world off the top of your head and then demand people prove you wrong, you're no better than people demanding proof that the Loch Ness moster doesn't exist.

"Better still, let it be between theism and materialism. What started this all? What was active in the beginning, God or matter? That frames the question correctly and levels the playing field."

I don't care what you think anymore, frankly, and I leave it for anyone else reading to decide if I have been close-minded to your points. 90% of the time I am arguing AGAINST atheistic evolution, so you aren't going to find anyone more sympathetic to your points than me, unless you do what creationists do and just preach to the choir.

I don't have any bibilical mandate to show you the truth. People like Hovind state that they are trying to spread the truth, and then just ridicule and ignore people that differ with them. They openly impose interpretations of the Bible that their fellow creationists can't even tolerate, for which there is no basis whatsoever.

I would just suggest you consider seriously what 'bearing false witness' means. It isn't just in court against other people. So long as you refuse to check the validity of the points you make and pass on other people's falsehoods without caring if they are true, you won't woo anyone toward your beliefs.

Like Mr. Anonymous above, you've spent a lot of time building up perspectives that crumble. Why? Because to stand they need for there to be no 4,000 year old bones, so you just go ahead and say there aren't any. You need for there to be no transitional fossils, so you just say there aren't any.

You NEED for there to be no physical substance to the theory of evolution, so you'll just ignore what there is, or make it into something you can use. You NEED the playing field artificially leveled by making evolution into a religion, because then you can laugh and say that no one is more right or wrong than anyone else. The theory of evolution isn't a religion, though, you just need for it to be.

There's no way to deal with someone like that, and it just affirms what people believe about creationists as a whole. Sadly, people like myself who DO believe that God created the universe, and who DO appreciate what science has discovered in terms of evolution have to pay for that stigma every time we discuss our ideas with atheistic evolutionists. Thanks heaps.

Cave paintings by native Americans seem to depict a dinosaur70—scientists accept the mammoth drawings in the cave, so why not the dinosaur drawings? Evolutionary indoctrination that man did not live at the same time as dinosaurs stops most scientists from even considering that the drawings are of dinosaurs.

I'm not familiar with the particular example. Do you have a link to a reputable image?

dinosaurs as a lifeform are incidentally defined by extinction (as are dodos). what truly distinguishes them uniquely from all other types of beings is their physiology (itself a product of their unique genetic coding).

cavewall paintings are now generally conceded to be abstract representations of visions experienced by tribal peoples in trance states.