It's not an experiment, merely an observation.  Fact: they existed. Theory: Homo sapien was more adaptable and was able to survive.  Supporting evidence: We're alive today and they are dead.

Ugh....the point is that they CHANGED significantly.  You mentioned the whale in your article did you not?  A four legged land animal returns to the sea and develops flippers, a blowhole, in fact, a whole new body structure and way of life.  THAT IS EVOLUTION!  Ancestors are technically the animal of their day.  The ancestor of a horse was a small dog sized creature...it was the horse of its day.  Through evolution it has become larger and our beast of burden. Now, go back far enough and everything starts to converge to a common ancestor.  If you want to get technical...everything is everything else, just different, because we come from the same source, that primal sealife billions of years ago.  We're all made up of cells, cells can live individually....we're just a cluster of a bunch of little organisms all working together when you think about it.  So yes, in some respect we've always been what we've always been because every form of life originated from the same thing- one little bunch of cells in an ancient ocean.

The fossil record shows transitions between different forms of life.  A small feathered dinosaur...bird ancestor.  A weird fish with legs...amphibian ancestor.  It's right there in the rock.

 

Because you don't let anyone change it.  You want me to take up the pen and add a few chapters?  I'll be more than happy to do that. Make it a little clearer and easier to read.

Apparently evolution is inconsistent with scripture and radiometric dating.  I'm sure there are other things as well. 

I think that is why science is great.  It's willing to change according to evidence...find something new, change your understanding.  It's fascinating, really.

Obviously that if you believe anything differently from the Christian viewpoint then you become this man's property.  That would include a lot of people.

Funny, I always thought that if I could get someone to believe everything in a book in spite of free thinking and questioning, that I could own them.  Like putting a ring in a bull's nose, so to speak.

~Zoo 

Hopefully that's somewhat coherent...I'm really tired.

Where are you getting this from?  Is this the Archaeoraptor hoax?  Phoney Feathered Fossil?  Years ago National Geographic came with with a nice fancy cover with a Dino with colorful feathers attached saying we are confident now that dinos turned into birds.  Months later they had to retract in a much smaller article (of course) saying it was a fraud.  This time they included no fancy artwork.   You may want to check the March 2000 issue.  From AIG's site explaining this fraud:

As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, ‘almost every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.’ ³

The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out that ‘adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot.’ ⁴

The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg was longer than the other. ‘I wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’ Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. ‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’ ⁵

Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird theory, commented, ‘I don’t trust any of these specimens until I see the X-rays.’ ⁶ Joints and gaps in the reworked fossils are revealed with X-rays. Martin went on to say:

Here's the link with about 20 articles just under the heading "Do Birds Really Evolve From Dinosaurs?" 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp#birds

KFC,

Even if you were somehow able to falsify all the evidence for evolution science would still not be able to consider biblical creation as a scientific explanation. Your only hurting your faith by trying to marry the two.  

If science is able to explain anything about God then how something as complex as god came about must be answered, what don't you understand about this? God must remain outside of what science can deal with or he is no better of an explanation for existence than random chance. Any argument over how complexity can't arise by chance would have to explain where God came from.  It's the same as saying the intelligent designers were aliens, well who designed the aliens? If God doesn't fall outside of the explainable, then he must have a designer, and so on and so on until we end up with something that just is.

I have read about "microevolution" before. But Creationists have never explained what exactly stops "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution".

Does G-d intervene just before two populations evolve enough to become two distinct species?

Why does He not intervene when it happens in a lab? (Or for that matter, why does He not intervene when it happens in nature and is being observed?)

 

If Creationists reject facts, what is there about Creationism that is worth learning? Why would I deliberately let people lie to me?

Whence do Creationists take their (false) information? The Bible does not say that the world is only a few thousand years old. Bereshith makes no statements about how old (geologically and biologically) the earth was when G-d created it. Do you have another source?

I'm not saying that the Bible (or my collection of French-language Smurf comic books) is right about the history of the world. But I do want to know which part of the Bible (or of any Smurf comic book) specifically says that the world G-d created was NOT several million years old at the time He created it.

G-d created, according to the Bible (although my Smurf comic books don't mention it, so it could be wrong), Adam, a man, not a child. Adam was obviously not a toddler but was created with an adult body. Scientific measurements would have shown, perhaps, that Adam was, say, 20 years old after creation.

How do you KNOW that the world G-d created was not one that was several million years old? How do you KNOW that the animals G-d created where not the result of evolution? And how do you KNOW that that same animal population has not continued to evolve ever since?

The Bible doesn't tell you any of those things.

You ASSUME that the Bible is correct AND that anything created by G-d has all attributes but an age. The first is faith,  the second is invented knowledge about G-d that no man can possibly have (because G-d cannot be understood by man).

You also ASSUME that what G-d created does not come with its own history.

You claim that the Bible is true, without proof or verifiable experiments, and you make claims that the Bible doesn't support. It's no wonder Creationism is not a science. The data you use in your research has not been shown to be true or relevant and the information you get from it contains lots of assumed facts that your own data does not confirm.

It's a good thing Creationism is no longer taught to children. It would destroy their ability to understand science and theology for good.

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

But Creationists hardly "reject" an origin of life from non-life. Creationists claim that life originated from G-d, who is very much "non-life" in the biological sense. The theory of evolution does not make any statement about where life comes from.

 

Java man was a true man, a true homo sapien only dubois decided to name him homo erectus. The science community bought into it. Today, we know better.
Fact is Leakey found a true ape remains and mistakenly called it ape-girl, Lucy. Again, the science community believed and today we know better.

The Holy Book tells us that "In the beginning" God created each to his own kind and the genetics barrier demonstrates that apes and man...never the twain shall meet!
This is why Evolutionists have absolutely no evidence of ape-people.



A bipedal ape is a pretty good indicator that the ape could stand and walk on two legs. It was like that from "the beginning."

KFC posts:

Exactly, and this is what keepsdriving the Evolutionists to come up with new ideas to support Godless molecules to man theory.





Where's the solid evidence of this significant change? Especially physical change? I understand that those human skulls of so long ago are the same shape and size as ours today. Sure, Our knowledge of things has improved, but not our mental capacity itself. All mankind from the beginning had intelligence far in advance of any animal in the world.

The mind and intelligence as well as human speech of man is a great unanswerable hurdle for Evolutionists. It isn't for Creationists...the isolation of groups and the differences of language happened as a result of Babel.



When someone describes a small feathered dinosaur..bird ancestor...or half-men/half -ape creatures...one immediately gets a picture in their mind that comes from the art world in an effort of proving Macro-Evolution as sceinfitic fact. From a few bones or a couple of teeth, they come up with a creature....very imaginative indeed...some have scales, some leathery skin...different colors, the finished work is given to the public for consumption, hook, line and sinker! Plastic molds are made and set up in museums. Movies get made and hoorah!...everybody believes! In reality, no one can tell what the owner of the bones or the teeth looked like. No one, neither scientist or the greatest artist can tell what covered the bones...yet, the older they believe the specimen to be,the more ape-like they draw the figure!

I agree Stubby.  Because it's faith and we can't

1.test it

2. verify it

3. repeat it.

I'm not marrying the two at all.  I think those that do believe in theistic Evolution and I don't agree with them.  No, all I'm saying is that I believe that the FACTS are consistent with the biblical account of beginnings.  That's all.  I do believe we have to have Faith to believe it.  But I also believe you have to have Faith to believe in what these Evolutionists are saying as well when it comes to THEIR interpretation of the FACTS.  Check out the comments...."Scientists believe......"So and so thinks."   These are not facts, but interpretation

I'll say again, my problem is NOT with the facts.  It's with the interpretation of the facts. 

 

STUBBYFINGER POSTS:

I realize you addressed this to KFC, but I would like to add my 2 cents worth.

Biblical creation is not nor ever was meant as scientific explanation per se.
Sacred Scripture is God's plan of salvation to man. Becasue Sacred Scripture is inspired by God, it's God's Word, it teaches without error the truths God intened to reveal for the sake of our salvation. The truth is expressed in various literary forms such as history, prophecy, poetry, law, proverbs, stories of actual events that explain ultimate reality, legends that convey a moral, fables that teach a lesson, and parablesthat illustrate a moral or religious lesson.


Re: hurting our faith by marrying the two...

I believe there is no inherent conflict between science and the religion of Christianity and specifically Catholicism, the one true Faith of Christianity. Not only does science notcontradict religion, but religion can and has shed new light on our knowledge since the source of all knowledge is God. I think this whole idea of pitting religion against science as mutaually incompatible is pure bunk.

The fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential to the rise of science. Have you ever studied Alfred North Whitehead, a philosopher and mathematician who credited medieval theology for the rise of science? He pointed out the insistence on the "rationality of God" which produced the belief that "the search of nature could only result in the vindication of the Faith." He happens to be 100% correct.

HOW many times do I have to say that we DON'T reject facts?  It's NOT the facts.  It's the interpretation of the facts that we have a problem with.  I'm afraid it's evolutionary Science that is lying to you.  That's why they keep changing things.  Only a liar has to do this.  Facts are facts.  You can't change facts.  But look at the hoaxes that have gone on thru the years, verified by the Evolutionists themselves as frauds to try and point you against Creationism.  Why is that? Also, many of them disagree on many of their own points. 

The bible says......"in the beginning, God created." 

Now, if that is the beginning of history....let me ask you this.  What do Scientists mean when they speak of "pre-historic" anything? 

And since you like Smurf so much....let me ask another question.

What color does a Smurf turn when you choke him?

 

 

 

 

 

If it is as lula pointed out, and science can only vindicate your faith, how weak is your faith that it must be vindicated?

If you start with the answer then the evidence can only be interpreted one way. How can putting blinders on lead you to the truth? And if you already know the answer why would you need to gather evidence? In fact studying the origins of life without the bible is a complete waste of time isn't it? I could think of a dozen other fields we could do away with as well.

As long as science makes no observation that conflicts with scripture no conflict at all. oh wait that's not science.

You gals are like a comedy team. That link KFC left is hilarious, it reads like a children's book.

 

Here's a little something from the University of California Museum of Paleontology.  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html  Quite informative really.

Human skulls are usually very similar.  That's why they're you know, called human skulls...because they're human and they're going to be pretty similar.  We've found bipedal apes...that leads us to theorize that something similar to that preceeded us.

Speech is easy.  Just vocalizations that became more sophisticated.  Vervet monkeys have almost 40 very specific vocalizations.   We've just gotten better at it.

As for our mind?  Well that was the only advantage we ever had.  If we were stupid we'd have been long dead by now.  We were selected for our intelligence and ingenuity.  From the basic tools that chimpanzees use, to the very computer you're typing on.

Want to know something fun?  We get can get feather, skin, and hair imprints because they can "fossilize" as well.  Using pieces of bone we can reconstruct the entire creature using proportions and symmetry.  The color is really the only thing we're guessing on.

If we can get a person's skull we can accurately recreate the face with forensic imaging technology these days.   it's pretty neat.

 

Hey look, finally a little backup...thanks stubby and Leauki.

~Zoo

no, you can interpret it different ways.  I remember hearing about how dinosaur bones have been dug up with flesh still attached, even in some cases red blood vessels.  One lady who was involved in the find made mention that this made more sense now with a young earth belief because how could they find bones with flesh on them 65 million years later?  Bones cannot last 65 million years and not rot.  How does flesh not rot or blood vessels not rot?

The answer she got back went something like this..."there most likely is some unknown process involved that doesn't break down." 

See that's the interpretation.  I would say, it was God who created this dinosaur only about 10,000 years or so ago and died out a few thousand years later.  DNA is self destructing and can only survive at the most 100,000 years. 

We have the facts.  We both have the dino bones with flesh  and blood vessels still attached on it.  Yet one interpretation says it's indicative of a young earth and another is indicative of being old but for some reason just not breaking down like it should.  Who's got the blinders on?

Another example might be seeing T-Rex on Jurassic Park.  We see there this dino is a meat eater but yet scripture is quite clear that the animals were plant eaters.  Interpretation or fact? 

See Stubby you shouldn't say this because it creates a double sided argument.  I can say the same about you.  From my POV I could say you can't see because you have Evolutionary Blinders on.  You're putting your trust in men instead of God.

A couple things came to mind when I read this.  First of all, you could not have had time to read these links to any depth or thought because of the timing involved.  Second of all, I'm glad you could laugh (in some regards) as a cheerful heart is like good medicine.

Another thing.........they laughed at Noah just as well when he said on a dry and dusty day....."get in the boat, judgment is coming.  For 120 years he said....."get in the boat, judgment is coming."  "GET IN THE BOAT, JUDGMENT IS COMING! 

They laughed and laughed................... until it rained. 

 

 

...still it took 120 years. You can see how one begins to doubt the crazy old man wanting you to get into his boat.

You're not supposed to get into strange boats with strange men...or so I was told. Maybe that was a car...either way.

~Zoo

Ok, read the article.  Long on opinion, not alot of facts here except took a look at the 1860 fossil they claim.  I also see some of this pointing to a same designer.  Of course, not inconsistent to what I believe. 

If there was a real conclusive transitional fossil, then there would be no creation/evolution debate because creationism would be dead.    I don't know what transitional fossil from 1860 they're  talking about- although a fossil from 1860 sounds sketchy since thats from the time of Darwin, and he never concluded that any transitional fossil had been found (thats what made him doubt his own theory).  He even said himself, that in order for him to be right a transitional fossil had to be found.  All of a sudden a year after the book they find this fossil? Don't you think this would have been all over the news with him jumping up and down?  Up until his death none had been found so not sure what they're talking about here. 

It's funny how nobody ever found a transitional fossil before Darwin's publication, but after that time people find all kinds of "evidences." its like UFO sightings, you'll see it if you really believe it's there, and like I've said,  they've all been proven to be hoaxes by their own side. 

BTW  Zoo...have you ever heard of a Prof Phillip Johnson coming out of Berkley (secular school) as a Creationist?  He's written quite a few books.  I've got  "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds."  Pretty catchy title huh? 

No feedback on the National Geographic Hoax?  Did you know about it?   There are a tons of these -rush to publish a new finding story- out there only to find out they are frauds. 

well we're supposed to be listening to God, not man.  Can you imagine how embarrasing it would have been for someone to get into Noah's boat?  Nobody wants to be laughed at or scorned so we'd rather fear men than fear God.  Do you suppose that's what God meant in Rev 21 when he said the "fearful" will not enter heaven? 

 

You don't look for things you already have KFC, if we can can't agree on this basic fact then 1+1=3 in your reality and we have no common ground on which to base a discussion.

Nobodies ever found any dinosaur flesh KFC. The did find a fossil with the impression of skin around the bone, giving them a 3D image of how much flesh was around the bones. That allowed them to get a better picture of what the dinosaur looked like rather that just guessing based on the anatomy of current reptiles.

Have you ever interpreted a scientific finding in a way that conflicts with scripture? I'll answer that for you, no of course you haven't. You leave no possibility for the words of man to conflict with what you believe to be the perfect word of God. That is the very meaning of "having blinders on". I on the other hand pray all the time to be proven wrong.

I have actually spent a lot of time on that site. I am still looking for answers after all.

No it would just be another hoax. 

Fact is, evolution is a theory, subject to peer review and cross examination by scientists who have essentially dedicated their entire professional careers to this topic. At present, evolution is the best theory out there. With time, it may indeed be proven false, or more likely certain aspects of it refined. However it does not contradict the existence of God, nor does it try to explain whether or not there was a creator (as other fine users here have already stated)

What it does do is make an attempt at explaining how part of our complicated universe works. At present, hundreds of years of research conducted by tens of thousands of scientists across the planet consistently point to the fact that the earth is indeed billions of years old. As to how old exactly it is, is still open to debate and trying to be determined. But the research and findings of scientists into the subject is consistently open to cross-examination and peer review.

That is the key- peer-review. Folks with credentials constantly reviewing and cross examining the work of their peers. That is how scientific consensus is reached. It is how we split the atom, landed on the moon, and eliminated entire diseases that in past ages were seen as God's punishment instead of the micro-organisms they really were!