This game is played with hundreds of packs of cards and hundreds of people.

i dunno bout splainin evolution but it's surely more than enuff cause to revise the first principle of algren's aphorism as follows: never play poker with a guy named toblerone

I've observed the transformation of humans to dinosaurs quite a few times.

i dunno bout splainin evolution but it's surely more than enuff cause to revise the first principle of algren's aphorism as follows: never play poker with a guy named toblerone

Oh I don't, I'm such a novice at it you'd probably win a lot of money off me!

BTW I'm taking KFC's silence as a sign I've converted him to Darwinism

One has to wonder why, in the absense of physical substance or actual evidence (the missing link) ,is evolution not somewhat faith-based? Perhaps it is because having faith in the theory of a missing link is more acceptable than having faith in an intelligent designer?

No evidence of evolution. That is just plain bull there is plenty of supporting evidence:

1. In older strata you find less complex lifeforms. You never find a layer with a more complex lifeforms than the young layers above it.

2. We've observe microevolution in many situations. There many naturalistic situation (Trinidadian guppies, moth coulour changes during the industrial revolution) not mention many computer simulations the reveal that given the premises put forward by Darwin evolution must occur. Those premises are:
a) You have a breeding population
There is variation in the population
c) Variation can be inherited
d) That variation causes a differential in survival rates
then you will get evolution.

3. We have found numerous genetic mechanisms that can lead to physical changes that will lead to new species.

4. All life we know of on earth has the same arbitary genetic code and use amino-acids of the same "handedness". The is no good reason for this unless you assume every living thing is related. Their is no good reason why a creator should make it this way.

5. There are many aspects fo physiology that you be hard to explain if they were design by a supposedly hyper-intelligent creator. Why are the photoreceptor of the eye wired up so the nerve pass IN FRONT of the receptors? Why can't spinal nerves in higher organisms repair themselves? When you look at it there a many things about the body an intelligent engineer wouldn't do.

BTW the idea of a "missing link" is a classic sign you really don't understand evolution, paleontology or genetics well enough to be critisising it. Firstly fossilisation is an extremely rare event and the their in little to no chance of finding every trasitional form. Besides that the "missing link" is based on the outmoded idea that a transitional form would be an exact intermediate between different species. Genetic simply doesn't work like that. That being said as far as human ancestor go we have found many species that look like they could be direct ancestors. The current theory is that speciation occurs over geologically very short periods of time. There are gaps in the record, but that is only to be expected since fossilisation is so rare. The chances of catching a species in the act of changing into another is impossibly small. Speciation isn't a discrete event but something that is smeared out over a long period of time. For example Lions and Tigers can produce offspring, however they tend to be sterile (depending on the sex).

That is just a small part of the evidence for evolution. More to the point is no evidence against evolution, merely incredulity of people that don't bother to understand it. The is plenty of evidence AGAINST creationism however, to believe in creationism you would have to stop believing in many we supported scientific theories. You would have to believe light is slower then it is because if the universe is only 6000 years old the light from other galaxies wouldn't have time to reach us. You would have to overturn ideas about radioactive decay for the same reason.

BTW I'm taking KFC's silence as a sign I've converted him to Darwinism

nice try....first I'm a she and second I've been gone all weekend.

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.

The is plenty of evidence AGAINST creationism however, to believe in creationism you would have to stop believing in many we supported scientific theories. You would have to believe light is slower then it is because if the universe is only 6000 years old the light from other galaxies wouldn't have time to reach us. You would have to overturn ideas about radioactive decay for the same reason.

You were doing great until you hit this point and made the mistake of confusing creationism with young Earthers. While I am still not convinced that macroevolution has ever happened (no, I don't accpet extrapolations of microevolution as evidence), I am not a young Earther. You mixed two different schools here and lost a bit of ground. The true fact is, there really is no evidence against creation.

Hehe, so in one fell swoop KFC offers evidence stating that the world is at least 135 million years old, and that crocodiles have evolved. Keep em comin!

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

Creationists have become comfortable passing along other people's falsehoods without checking into them. That, I am sorry to say, IS lying when you can find out differently and just opt not to. You promoted Hovind to people saying that he backed up what he said with evidence. Then, when you are faced with the fact that he doesn't you distance yourself, claiming now he's not your go-to guy. You've done

First off, I have not distanced myself from Hovind. He is not my main source of info. I had a student here that graduated #1 in her class, a foreign student from Bulgaria. She sat in stoney silence watching one of his tapes. I know evolutionists hate him because he makes them look stupid. We were all laughing, but she was not. I thought she may have been offended. He's sarcastic which I think it's a bit much but I'm telling you he made sense to her. She read Steven Hawking and Darwin in her spare time with Science as her major. She was an atheistic evolutionist. She dropped it after she watched him, because he said some things that made absolute sense to her. I don't know exactly what it was but she is now majoring in something entirely different as a result.

You've shown a handful, and I've shown you that MAINSTREAM creationism uses lies and misinformation constantly.

I could give you a ton, but what is that going to prove? Tit for tat? I'm not into that. Have you ever heard of Danny Phillips?
He was a 15 year old HS junior from Denver who dared grab the "microphone" of the evoutionists. His class was assigned to watch a NOVA program produced with government funds which stated the usual evolutionary story as fact and the story went something like this...."The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan.......From these one celled organisims evolved all life on earth.

Science education encourages students to memorize this doctrine and repeat it as fact. Danny fought this. He knew that this claim of molecule to man evolution went far beyond the scientific evidence (a lie). So he wrote a lengthy paper criticizing the NOVA program as propaganda. School admins at first agreed that he had a point and they decided to withdraw the NOVA program from its curriculum. That set off a media firestorm.

He was making a reasonable point. The doctrine that some known process of evolution turned a protozoan into a human is a philosophical assumption not something that can be confirmed by experiement or by historical studies of the fossil record. But the Darwinists were furiated that the admins seriously considered any dissent from the evolutionary education here. They flooded the city's newspapers with letters. Some of the letters were so venomous that the editorial page editor of the Denver Post admitted that her liberal faith had been shaken. She wrote that "these defenders of intellectual freedom behaved in fact, just like a bunch of conservative Christians. Their's was a different kind of fundamentalism, but no less dogmatic and no less intolerant."

His story appeared on CBS and an experienced Darwinist debater named Eugenie Scott was careful to cast Danny as the opponent of learning. She argued, "If Danny Phillips doesn't want to learn evolution....that's his own business. But his views should not prevail for 80,000 students who need to learn evolution to be educated." So when does questioning evolution make you an enemy of education? Don't mess with it is the theme here.

When Danny got a chance to speak he was reported only in a local paper. He said, "Students' minds are to be kept open and not limited by a set of beliefs." He had, for a second, a chance or partial success in getting past the microphone that only belongs to the evolutionists. There is no equal play here. It's an uphill battle for the "other side."

He challanged evolutionary naturalism on two grounds. It is religious dogma and it isn't supported by the weight of scientific evidence. The admins were impressed by his arguments but his case ended like so many others. He lost because the power is on the other side. Civil liberties lawyers threatened to bring an expensive lawsuit and the school board capitulated to them. But he was successful because his challenge to evolutionary orthodoxy got a lot of press. Some was favorable.

The uproar so upset science educators that they brought out a really big gun to silence the HS student. Bruce Alberts who was the president of the National Academy of Sciences personally responded to Danny in an editorial published in the Denver Post. The NAS is the mosst prestigious organization of scientists in the US so this guy effectively would be the official voice of the scientific establishment.

You can check area Denver newspaper stories on this as well as local radio and TV. It was all over the place. See especially Janet Bingham, "Boy Crusades Alone; Evolution Research Won Panel's Rspect," The Denver Post, Aug 3, 1996 p.B1

Sue O'Brien, "Zealots Rage from Left, Too," The Denver Post, Aug 18, p.F1

Scott made her quted comment on CBS program Sundy Morning on Sept 22, 1996.

I even have a full text of the NOVA introduction to this video called "The Miracle of Life."

and Baker....it's full of LIES.

Really?

really.

as noted in the first article to which you linked:

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.


""We had never seen anything like it," he said. "The snout and teeth were designed for grabbing prey—fish, turtles, and dinosaurs that strayed too close."

Other massive crocodiles have been reported, but Sarcosuchus imperator is the most complete specimen found so far and among the largest crocodilians that ever lived."

for further confirmation, please research the unique differences between archosaurs (the lineage of crocodiles and birds) and dinosaurs.

Hehe, so in one fell swoop KFC offers evidence stating that the world is at least 135 million years old, and that crocodiles have evolved. Keep em comin!

nice try Baker,

hmmm it's funny you don't point out the "lie" that crocs are not dinos tho now do you? You say you don't have a side, but are you fooling yourself? How can you say that when you call creationists liars? Aren't you lying when you say you haven't sided with either? I don't hear you calling evolutionists liars. So I would say by your writing that you have indeed found your comfort zone.

let's not get into controversial dating techniques. I do not agree with the dating. In fact check this out...especially for you....

Link

notice again, how they keep changing the dates. You can never hang your hat on this stuff. It's like shifting sand. But you know what? The dates/geneologies in the bible....never change....and the stuff they dig up all over kingdom come.....verifies these dates. I say that is solid ground.

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

Thank you Mason!!!


(((((((((((M)))))))))))

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

I can't get into this because of my very slow dial up. But I have to say Science is not wrong. There is a whole lot of evidence out there and even a false theory is likely to be suported by some of it. Nothing is true just because some big shot says it is.

Science would never go far wrong if direct and conclusive experimental tests were always possible. Sometimes only very limited tests can be made, and not all the tests will agree. In that case conclusions may be based on the opinion of the experts who arrive at their judgment by a process of debate and negotiation.

Every disputed matter has a problem of bias on both sides. Bible believers may be reluctant to credit evidence that seems to contradict some passage in the Bible and atheists may be reluctant to credit evidence that seems to suggest that natural selection can't do all Darwin claimed for it. Business owners don't like to believe facts that may hurt their business. Zealots for consumer protection my exaggerate the conclusions of a single study that confirms their worst suspicions about business. Scientists may be biased in favor of theories that make their work important and tend to increase their funding. This is all too common. I think we need to acknowledge and recognize bias and get beyond it to evaluate the evidence fairly.

The is plenty of evidence AGAINST creationism however, to believe in creationism you would have to stop believing in many we supported scientific theories. You would have to believe light is slower then it is because if the universe is only 6000 years old the light from other galaxies wouldn't have time to reach us

I don't even know who said this...got it from Mason,

from a creationist standpoint we know that God created all things with age. The trees and animals were made with maturity. Adam and Eve were man and woman not babies. We think the same with light. God sent light and that was also done the same way.

But there is NO evidence against creationism. None. If so, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Notice you said, "theories" A theory is just that, unproven. How can you say that creation was disproven by unproven theory? Sounds like a dud to me......

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.