There are always hoaxes...it's bound to happen. Luckily we've figured that out. Teaches people to stop jumping to conclusions.

There have been religious hoaxes too, but that doesn't mean you should automatically discredit the entire institution, does it?




If you didn't like that one link...try this one. It addresses the transitional fossil issue very well. In fact, probably the best setup I've seen so far online. WWW Link


Hope that clears it up.

~Zoo

Until you stop saying things like that you reject millions of years earth history. It's a fact that you reject. Hence you reject facts.

You do reject facts. And you can get as angry about it as you like, but you do reject facts.

 

Yes, but the problem is they keep doing it...like pasting feathers on dinos and trying to create a link.....

It's not a fact.  That's why Scientists CAN'T agree on the age of the earth.  It's a belief.  Can you verify it?  Test it? Repeat it?  No to all three.  It HAS to be belief then.  You cannot show me one FACT that says the earth is 65 million years.  It's a belief.

Evolutionary Scientists will agree they can't go back that far in dating the earth.  It's an educated guess therefore it's a belief. 

I can say the same to the Christians when they say:  "God created man"  or "God created Dinosaurs"   For us, this is also a belief.  We cannot verify, test or repeat it.  So for us, it's a belief, not a fact....even tho in our minds (as in the Evolutionists, I'm sure) looking at the scriptures it's as good as facts to us.

One day, I'm most certain, this will all be cleared up.  But for now the debate rages on.  From a Christian POV I believe it's much more than a debate about Evolution vs Creation. That's a smokescreen.  I believe it's a war for men's souls and we're just getting caught up in what we see.  The real worki is being done out of our sight.  Sort of like looking at the beautiful tomatoes on the vine.  The real work was done underneath the soil.  We need to look at the root.  When in doubt always go to the source. 

That's why Christ kept saying, don't walk by sight, rather walk by faith.  He didn't teach many heavenly things because we have a hard enough time with the earthly things that were taught all thru scripture. 

 

 

Stubby:

I don't see it that way.  We both see it's 2 right?  We agree.  We see the answer is two but we both arrive at different interpretations on how we got to two.  You may believe that it was the evolutionary process that brought us to this conclusion, and I believe it was the hand of God that brought us to two.   But we are in agreement with the fact that the end result is two.

The words of man do definitely conflict with God, so when it does conflict, I side with God's word always.  If that's your definition of having blinders on......so be it.  I do, at tmes, walk by faith, instead of sight....but that does not mean, I believe in "blind faith." 

My faith is based on the evidence I see all around me.  I didn't see God's hand on the day of creation putting everything in its place but I believe he did much the same as Evolutionists believe in their Evolutionary theory.  They, too, did NOT see the origin of man therefore they too have to go out on faith based on the words of men. 

ok, fair enough. I didn't know that.  I was only going on listing the site and you coming on fairly quickly saying the site was laughable so I thought how could you say this?  There is so much information on there, I have yet to really make a dent there.  I really don't visit there that much but do on occasion for research.  I do know they get 50,000 hits a day.  So there are many people looking into AIG especially since the new Museum was built last Spring. 

We should never be done learning.  I love to learn and I look for something everyday to learn new.  I've learned alot from talking on this forum over the last two years.  That's why I enjoy discussing such things. 

 

 

 

 

 

Even without the feathers the bone structure is eerily similar.(hollow bones are of particular note)

Check out that link, by the way...it's got loads of info. Including the theropod to bird crossover.

~Zoo

Thanks for the link Zoo. I'm very familiar with Talk Origins.

Now what you said here goes back to my original article regarding Homology.  Remember?  You, as an Evolutionist, look at this as proof of a common ancestor and I, as a Christian look at this as proof of a common designer. 

This is why I gave you those lists of what creationists accept vs what creationists reject. You're talking about homology even though I'm not sure you  understand this concept.  An
evolutionist sees homology and says "ah ha! common ancestor!"   But a creationist sees homology and says "ah ha! common designer!"   How do you scientifically prove which is true if all you do is look at how "eerily similar" they are?

Talk origins is an activist site for evolutionists. they exist for the sole purpose of casting doubt on creationism.  It's not a reliable scientific source.  It's good for ideas but you better be prepared to back it up with facts if you cite it. 

My son said to tell you this:

If he doubts the fact that evolution supports racism, then he disagrees with some prominent evolutionists. Evolution says that we came from monkeys. Black people are closer to monkeys than white people in color and even facial structure. This makes them more closely related to monkeys than white people. That would mean that whites are more evolved than blacks, and blacks are more inferior than whites. It doesn't take a genius to understand that concept. There is no basis for any type of morality, self worth, or concept of truth in the evolutionary paradigm.

The list a good many sources and go over a lot of facts.  It is a counter argument to creationism.  Not only does it refute creationist claims, it supports evolution with a good many pieces of evidence.  It does what anyone would do, makes a point and lays out the supporting evidence. 

Did you check out the reference page for that essay?  It's right here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs  It contains around 90 sources...I think that would be sufficient for a well reasoned argument, don't you agree?

(That's exactly the argument a racist would use.)

Hey, here's something interesting.  Did you know that in evolution there is no superiority?  Nothing is "better" than something else.  Everything evolves according to it's environment and the stresses exacted unto it.

A dog is no "better" than a worm, for instance.  The dog is indeed more advanced than the worm, but saying it is a "higher" lifeform is misleading.  In the dark ground, that worm is a perfect creature.  Up here on the surface in the dog's habitat(usually with people) it is the perfect creature.  In our offices and houses and cities we are the perfect creature.  Up in the air and trees, the birds are perfect.  It's all relative to environment.  Place a human at the South Pole with nothing but the clothes on their back and they'll be dead within the hour...however, the penguins down there will be just fine.  Penguins are better than humans?  Well, in that environment they are.   All organisms evolve according to their environmental pressures and in doing so fill a particular place that allows them to survive and thrive.  This specialization can also be carried out to such an extent as to show animals that are highly specialized for a certain lifestyle...pollinators such as bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds are great examples.

 

People didn't come from monkeys, we came from a common ancestor of apes.   That common ancestor was located in Africa...when people journeyed out of Africa and into Europe and Asia, the sun was less intense and the skin color lightened because the dark pigment wasn't needed.  People in Africa evolved according to the requirements of their normally hot and arid environment.  Dark skin=no sunburn.  Europe and Asia have less sunlight intensity and had no need for the elevated melanin levels, although melanin is activated and makes you turn a nice bronze color when in the sunlight regularly.

Blacks are no closer to apes than whites are or Asians or hispanics for that matter.  We all have the same compatible DNA....scientifically speaking of course.

 

Racism already existed long before the "monkey to man" idea(as it is so grossly misrepresented).  Of course racists may use evolution in some weird way to assert their right as a "superior" race.  However, as the above quote says, "There is no basis for any type of morality, self worth, or concept of truth in the evolutionary paradigm."  If there is no basis for morality, self worth, or concept of truth in the evolutionary theory...then there's no possible way it could be racist.  It is neutral. 

Evolution does not support anything besides evolution.  Scientific theory does not have an agenda, it is completely objective.

Saying evolution supports racism is like saying atomic theory supports murder. (Hydrogen bomb anyone?)

~Zoo

Lula posts:

Here's why Christians know the Holy Bible cannot contradict with science.

God is the principal Author of Scripture, is omniscient, Truth Itslef and free from all error. God is also the Creator of the universe and all that is in it including nature time, space and matter. We have faith in the trustworthiness of God as a reliable witness to Creation!

Artisym posts #61

Assuming it's macro-evolution that you are talking about....

There is nothing about Macro-Evolution that is an established fact...There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Evolution is an unproven theory that is all too often taught as a fact of science in schools and is assumed to be fact ofscience by most uninformed people.




Since we can't prove Macro-Evolutiion, it is intellectual presumption to talk of the evolution of the universe and of the earth in terms of billions of years old.
There simply is no sufficient evidence to prove the earth is billions of years old. The problem is when a scientist raises such doubts he's denunciated from the Evolution camp.

Artisym posts #61

Assuming it's macro-evolution that you are talking about....

There is nothing about Macro-Evolution that is an established fact...There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Evolution is an unproven theory that is all too often taught as a fact of science in schools and is assumed to be fact ofscience by most uninformed people.




Since we can't prove Macro-Evolutiion, it is intellectual presumption to talk of the evolution of the universe and of the earth in terms of billions of years old.
There simply is no sufficient evidence to prove the earth is billions of years old. The problem is when a scientist raises such doubts he's denunciated from the Evolution camp.

There is...you just cover your ears and hum to yourself when it's being explained or else try everything in your power to poke holes in it and cast doubt about it.  That seems to be the creationist way...try to discredit something and people will have to believe God took time out of his busy schedule and created every single tiny thing the way it is today.  Nevermind that fossils exist in the first place showing that there are a lot of things that are already dead...dead and gone long, long, long, long before humans walked this earth.

~Zoo

No Zoo,   What you just described is what shows like "The Simpsons" are telling you.  This is how the media portrays Christians.  I saw a  TV clip of the Christian depicted on this Show putting his hands over the eyes of his young children's eyes so they won't read the labels (opinions) of the Evolutionists.  This is a false depiction, btw. 

Just GIVE ME ONE FACT that says the world is billions of years old.  ONE.  That's all I ask.  Don't give me what Scientists THINK or BELIEVE.  I want nothing but FACTS. 

Can you do that?  If not, you have to admit you have faith in this the same way that I have faith in Creationism.

 You cannot back this  ALL up with FACT.  Fossils exist.  Yes, fact.  They were alive, and now dead.  Yes, fact.   Long, long, long, before humans walked the earth?  NO, belief.

 

Except in your religion huh?  You believe truth without evidence.

We have evidence with our truth...data indicates that the earth is much older than a few thousand years.  Good ol' geology has done quite well with that. 

Well, KFC...when you find fossilized humans in the same level as fossilized dinosaurs then you win.

However, there are several strata in the earth's crust that ONLY CONTAIN specific time related organisms.  From giant dragonflies, to towering dinosaurs, to freaky plants...these things did not coexist alongside people because fossils don't occur at the same time in the same layer of rock.

If you think people could conceivably live alongside dinosaurs then I give up...because it's obvious that no reason will permeate the barrier you have constructed around yourself.

~Zoo

LOL. Good episode.

KFC, as a passionate and nearing on rabid supporter of The Simpsons, I must defend the shows honor by pointing out that The Simpsons portrays Christians in many different ways, including some that are very flattering. The entire show is over-the-top by nature, but it's not anti-Christian or anti-religion by any stretch of the imagination.

no.  First of all we're talking Science.  So don't go down that bunny trail Zoo.  But since you did.......I've already told you that if we can't test, verify it or re-create it then it's belief....whether it be Science or Religion.  So that's the line drawn for both.

Our truth?  What is that?  Is that a FACT or OPINION? 

It's not about winning Zoo.  It's about being true to the facts and not getting caught up in opinion.  It's all about being critical thinkers.  There's alot written about this from both sides but both sides have to go on belief (as far as I know). 

From a parental POV I was always asking, are my kids being taught the truth or is it opinion or even lies?  I believe they are teaching lies.  I believe that this movie Expelled is going to show how the other side "surpresses" the truth.   Darwin was accused  of that by his own wife. 

Why? 

So I better be careful what I say here huh TW....lol. 

I'm not going after the Simpson's per se since I've not really watched it.  I'm familiar with it but barely.   When Zoo made the comment (see above) it reminded me of that one clip (that you're familiar with) and while I would have to admit probably to some degree that Christians can be like that it's not fair to those of us who really are able to debate the other side intelligently (well at least I like to think so...lol). 

I'll take your word for the rest since I'm not an authority on the Simpsons at all.  I'm glad to see it's not anti-Christian or religion then.