There’s a link below for starters, folks.
Watch it first, and then go on with your reckoning.
It goes by the title:
The Fossil Record, Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D.
It can be be seen on YouTube.com at this address:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … mmngKew5EE
I’ll check in from time to time, beginning in a few hours ... the twinkling of an eye in evolutionary time.
Typical religionist propaganda.
If you want to see direct evidence of evolution, pick 100 different species. Examine each member of each species through 100,000 generations. Take note of the first one that changes.
If you then want to understand why we can't find all the fossils to present absolute proof of a species change at a particular time, continue the above experiment by waiting 5 million years and challenge someone to find the fossilized bones of that first creature you found to exhibit any change.
Or you could just breed dogs, using yourself to represent the changing environmental challenges animals face. Maybe you decide you want a smaller doberman; odds are you can produce a viable animal only 1/2 the size using only 1000 dogs to start with and running the test for only 100 generations. Simply kill every pup that grows beyond a certain (ever changing) size. Make sure that only small pups mate with small pups.
You will have (artificially) reproduced the same result that nature can and done it in far less time. You can even watch each generation and see the change. You won't have a new species yet, but now think about doing it for 100,000 generations.
Hey wilderness. I'm not anti evolution, but that isn't the best example. You are still left with a doberman. And there is no reason to believe you would ever create a separate and unique species.
I don't know that it is possible to easily refute intelligent design. Not until science can find irrefutable evidence. I'm not even sure that's possible.
So all this time The Flintstones was documentary?
In the bible god creates everything in six days. In genesis - we are told - the planets and stars are just points of light affixed to the inside of a dome called the firmament. THIS IS THE WORD OF YOUR GOD. DO NOT TRY AND REINTERPRET THE WORDS OF YOUR GOD TO FIT WHAT WE NOW KNOW. We now know that some of those points of light are stars many times more massive than our sun. Antares - for instance - is tens of thousands of times more massive. So why did god put so much effort into creating Antares? Intelligent design? I don't think so. Creationism? Definitely not. Religion: devolution of the human intellect? Most definitely.
its interesting to put our ideas over Gods.
heres a few conjectures in support of other heavenly bodies:
a) the universe is so big maybe its what God intends for our amusement which has to last forever
b)God enjoys such things to 'blind' the eyes of carnal thinking man
c) The heavens display Gods handiwork and i suppose he is pleased with all of it.
d) we may find out there is more to afterlife than we can ever imagine
You assume EVERYTHING was created in 6 days, but what if, God creating the heaven and earth (singular) did not include other galaxies at that time. What if God is still creating amusing trinkets even today or what if the amusing trinkets already created are producing byproducts of their creation?
If you read closely in Genesis chapter 1 the things created refer to our universe, our sun and the stars we see, and our earth.
The ifs are hypothetical
You are absolutely right... I am now a believer in intelligent design. Thank you so much for opening my eyes.
Did you watch the video para? Compelling stuff that was...How could you NOT be swayed?
you're gonna spoil the dimples putting your tongue like that!
He has a point... why does evolution only occur in remote areas with specialized environments and living conditions that are unique to that area alone? Isn't it convenient that scientists have difficulty finding these areas with terrain so difficult to transverse that members of a species would be isolated from others of that same species?
No, I don't think he has a point.
This guy is a known and provable liar with no credibility at all.
Bad track record, bad place to look of any real information is with a known liar with a barrow to push.
To base an argument on this is to hang your hat in the air.
is that a known and provable liar from your interpretation or is this fellow proved as such by a less biased multitude?
If the area isn't remote and is quite livable then people have been living there for thousands of years. Plowing the land, looking at the funny bones and throwing them away, using them for jewelry.
Of course, isolation from other members of the same species is one of the accepted and well understood "tools" of evolution as well. It is why Darwin found so many odd species on the Galapagos and why Australia is full of weird creatures. A part of it is that a different environment requires different attributes to survive. Small areas can suffer violently quick ecological changes, maybe from a volcano or earthquake and evolution will then occur at a quicker pace. I wonder why the speaker didn't explain that? It really is well understood.
Just a couple of thoughts...
Evolution doesn't only occur in isolated areas with specialized living conditions, it occurs faster in isolated areas with specialized living conditions. Thus you have animals like sharks, horseshoe crabs, and crocodiles that have remained virtually the same (with minor variation in size and appearance - Megalodon anyone?) for hundreds of millions of years because their habitat has remained virtually the same for hundreds of millions of years, while another population (the last common ancestor of chimps and humans) split into two - one remaining in the forests, the other being pushed onto the savanna - and turned into two distinct species in a mere 4-8 million years.
ETA: LOL, whoops, I should have read farther down the thread, Melissa! Nice summary: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1782802
What's with the 'remote areas' line of reasoning? Are you saying that if they found evidence for evolution in, say, Central Park that you'd be more inclined to believe it?
Many Creationists/Intelligent Design theorists continue to manipulate people by only accepting specific science fields that can possibly support their train of thought.
It's nothing more than a clever disguise, specifically designed to invoke, the "shock and awe" effect, which brings about the fascination emotion.
They want you to be awe struck, so you will buy into the theory proposed. It doesn't actually have any evidence and I've sat through some of the links the religious have brought forth, just to see what isn't accepted or is left out.
Don Patton is a young-earth creationist who, along with Carl Baugh, is known as a proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas.
Patton has claimed Ph.D. candidacy in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. According to Glen Kuban:
When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the [1989 Bible-Science] conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away." Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. 
Glen Kuban has written more extensively on Patton's claimed degrees in his articles on the Paluxy "man-tracks".
Just another religious liar.
This is along the lines where this "scientist" in Northern Europe (forgot where and the gut's name) last year made the claim that gravity is an illusion. You're right, earnest, before anyone makes an outragious claim accompanied by a link to some "scientits" or other so called expert, their credentials need to be checked out first.
And that's no guarantee. Even some with "credentials" have been pretty flaky. Even a so-called "scientist" can lose their scientific acumen. I've seen it happen.
Besides credentials, you might want to check out what their peers say, too.
And even that is not a perfect method.
The "Clovis first" debacle in North American anthropology had scientists afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon. If no one ever dug there, then proof would never have been found to overcome the "Clovis first" limitation.
Science by intimidation? So, peers may have egos and are prejudiced with them.
Another example comes from a Dr. Eugene Shinn ("honorary" PhD in geology). I put "honorary" in quotes because of his dishonorable approach. He started out with a bachelors degree in biology, working for USGS, and became the poster-child for geologists on the subject of the Bimini "road" structure.
His original article indicated that the beach rock blocks were oriented in varying directions, inconsistent with an entirely natural formation--suggestive of an artificial structure. Every subsequent article on the subject, he changed his facts! In every succeeding article, he indicated that all (100%) of the blocks were oriented toward the sea, indicating an entirely natural structure. He lied!
Science by dishonesty? He got his "honorary" PhD after years of writing this stuff. He was a celebrity and loving every bit of it. His ego would not let him jeopardize his moment under the sun. And his new "peers," real geologists, applauded him for it. Of course, they didn't know the truth behind him fudging the data. So, even peers can be fooled.
Credentials, input from peers,... What can we depend upon?
Well, just as a scientist studies nature, we can take it all with a grain of salt. Hold our information as possible facts, and our hypotheses as possible truths and see if they work. Testing, testing, always testing to see if they are still true. And we can take what we hear from others and see if it makes sense from our own experience and knowledge.
If we each remain humble, keep learning more, then we become more capable of discerning garbage from something valuable. Don't rely too heavily on papers that can be forged or gained dishonestly.
And this goes for questioning our own knowledge. Nothing we hold sacred should be held that way. In the final analysis, we should always be open to learn.
Try looking at the title again naysayers, and come back with some Fossil EVIDENCE to support Evolution.
I'm going to bed; I have an exam tomorrow.
I hope it isn't an exam for geology, biology, paleontology, or archaeology!
Good night, and good luck with your exam and don't forget to wear the tinfoil hat.
Seriously? I set up a perfect pass and no one will catch the damn ball and run with it…
@Melissa…(who is both passing and receiving)
You just provided a perfect example of WHY species evolve and why it happens quickly. One of the underlying principles of evolution is that change happens when it needs to happen. If a species exists for countless generations unchanged, then it is probably very close to perfectly adapted to it’s environment. The reason that sharks and crocodiles are largely considered “living fossils” is because they are already the biggest baddest mo fo’s in their surroundings.
However, when a species finds itself suddenly facing new environmental challenges (such as changes in food supply or environment) those members of the species that are best suited for the new environment live to breed and mate with other animals equally well suited. Those not suited die before breeding.
There are several examples of this… including a phenomenon called island gigantism. Where animals devoid of natural preditiors no longer need the protection that is afforded by small size and grow consistently larger with each generation… thus usually moving up the food chain.
Evidently, this guy's PhD is in education - not in geology or paleontology.
I doubt he has a Phd in anything habee, the claims he make about working as a professional in Australia are dubious at best too. I live here, and I have only seen him in a comedy send-up!
Interesting evidence, Melissa. But your point? I'd like to know.
I can see similarities and differences. But these are hardly "fossil." They look recent (not petrified or otherwise ancient).
Oh, sorry. Really really old evidence of a theory is always better than new evidence. Dogs evolved from wolves... ergo, evolution exists. Sorry if you didn't catch the point. Exactly what time frame are we looking at here for ancient proof that something that is currently happening exists?
how do we know that dogs evolved from wolves? Did not the egyptians have cats and dogs, are not dogs mentioned throughout the bible? If we want to talk similarities, there is only so much that can be done with skeletal arrangement, that is to say, the hip bones connected to the leg bone and the leg bone connected to the knee bone, etc.. large canine teeth must surely be common throughout all the animals that rend flesh to eat. Evolution in this respect seems to draw its conclusions from similarities and pushes it into its forum when really design aspects are common to all things of similar genre.
the engine is connected to the transmission and the transmission connected to the axles and the axles connected to the wheels but did the volkswagen evolve from rolls royce or is it just designing differences.
Timothy, a controversial title! Well done! You've got us there.
Now, get real.
Fossil evidence 4 creation? Come on! The entire universe is evidence of creation, but not the half-baked silliness spouted by the "creation" pseudo-science crowd.
First of all, I'm a Christian and I've done a lot of comparative religion studies in my 61 years. But I've also clocked several thousand hours studying science, too -- computer science (my specialty), astronomy, astrophysics, geology, anthropology, archaeology, meteorology, oceanography, physics, chemistry, mathematics (gotta love that non-linear stuff and calculus), logic, and a whole lot more.
The trouble with the "creation science" gang is laziness, perhaps a touch of stupidity, and the arrogance of thinking they know-it-all.
On biblical interpretation, do they think their take is equal to that of God? I hope not. But what does that tell you? If their interpretation is not perfect, then why do they act as if it is? Simple answer: ego (arrogance).
Look around you. This civilization is built on the fruits of science. If science was half as incompetent as "creation scientists" make it out to be, then we'd still be hacking out a meager living as hunter-gatherers.
Ignoring science is ignoring reality. And what does that spell? Delusion.
Spend a few weeks studying this website: http://www.talkorigins.org
"Creation scientists" are being lazy because they have stopped looking for Truth. They think they already have it all. And that's arrogance. Some scientists do this, too, but that's their problem. But most scientists do pretty good in their chosen field. Don't ignore reality. And of course, don't ignore the Bible, like some of these jokers.
The Bible's Hidden Wisdom
Here's a quote from my upcoming book that applies here:
"If deciphering wisdom hidden in the Bible elicits the very thing the Bible is hoping we will achieve--humility under God--then one can easily assume that every effort would have been made to hide a great amount of wisdom therein."
"Creation scientists" are wrong. Nearly every argument of theirs I've read about creation was meant to protect their shallow interpretation of the Bible and to bolster their quaint idiocy that the universe is 6000 years old. Science has disproved that notion from several thousand different angles. Get over it. They've lost! But that has nothing to do with the Bible's truth. It remains untouched.
Faith is quite different from stubborn belief in a falsehood.
There is a biblical timeline compatible with those of science. And there is a great deal more wisdom where that came from. But the "creation scientists" are ignoring it all. And it is quite stupid to follow one's ego. I think we've all done enough of that.
Oh yeah the biblical timeline - like the messiah was prophesied to arrive in the seventy-seventh generation since adam. That prophesy was made by a Jew and the Jews are still awaiting their messiah - so where does that leave your time-line; or your bible for that matter.
As an evolutionary biologist I feel that I am more qualified to write on the matter than Dr. Don Patton pHD. Or at least equally!
Fossil evidence is very sketchy,because the conditions required for fossils to form are rarely found. Therefore fossils will never accurately record evolutionary changes because there are too few fossils to compare. To make the jump to saying that because of this God created life is tenuous to say the least.
I'm not saying that God didn't create life, but to use this as an example is quite absurd.
Evolution is a valid process and can be observed easiest with organisms which reproduce rapidly and have a short lifespan. Fruit flies, mosquitoes, bacteria, viruses.... All clearly evolve, and no one in their right mind could deny that when faced with the evidence. Those who say evolution does not happen are not aware of the facts.
Whether man came from the trees, from amphibians, fish etc is a little harder to prove because records have yet to be found, and are unlikely to be. We are, after all talking hundreds of millions of years after all. Just because this evidence cannot be easily found, it does not mean that it is evidence for creationism.
To believe that man came ultimately from single celled organisms or from divine creation takes faith to believe. Only one however has some scientific evidence to back it up.
You know most of us who believe in God do not dis-believe in Evolution.
We simply do not believe it is, as you all say it is.
We understand evolution within a species for traits and minor advancements and changes...
but that doesn't make one species rising from another species through evolution, real.
There is a difference.
Well Tim, you know the faithful, "Evolutionists", will never accept anything that doesn't conform to their belief system.
So do not worry too much about the fiathful Leftists... they are cultists of the highest order.
This coming from a guy who is religious and political fanatic and not even science graduate. Point taken.
I agree with you 100%, although speciation does occur in nature. Darwins finches are a good case in point, where environmental pressures cause species to adapt to new niches to the point where the differences between them become so great that they can be classified as different species, ultimately incapable of cross breeding.
It is a little harder to believe that say, an ape can evolve into a human, and considerably more difficult to prove! As to whether that actually happened is another matter entirely
How goes the job as High Priest EG?
You seem to love the job... I am glad you found your niche.
Sorry you cannot understand. It must be very frustrating for you.
Tell us wot god sed.
I understand just fine EG.
That is how I know it takes as much faith to believe in Evolution as espoused by the leftists, as it takes to believe in religion.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "FAITH".
Not really. Sorry you do not understand that we have recreated speciation in a laboratory and have millions of pieces of evidence.
This is not the same as majik Fascist Juju religion you have FAITH in.
It must be very frustrating that some people make rational decisions and believe things based on facts instead of wot god sed.
Welcome to the wonderful world of REALITY.
yah i am always amazed when scientists make stuff from nothing, especially when they have recreated the primal ooze experiment and brought forth life. I really enjoy it when science have all these observed facts but cannot explain where they came from.
I am completely in awe that they suspect a big bang just because the universe is expanding and i love it when some people say there is nothing beyond the universe and yet the universe is expanding into something.
I totally enjoyed to read that in order to measure light, 2 machines had to be used, thus the observations from the 1 machine were overwritten by the observations of the 2 machine, perhaps we need many more machines...
welcome to the world of blind faith... I'd like to be there with you but.. God is telling the absolute truth
Scientists don't make stuff up and they can explain where their observations come from.
up to a point, yes they can ... cough cough, explain.
We have heard of many proclaimed intelligent men proven wrong or they barked up the wrong tree. There have been books written by charlatans, goofs and false teachers. Books have been updated over the years. Scientific data has always changed. History has been recorded by the victors as the saying goes.
Me and my house, will serve the Lord
Why? Why is harder to believe that finches can evolve into separate species than that mankind can?
Are we not both animals? Do we not both exist in changing environments? Do we not both carry basically the same DNA chemical scheme?
What is it that makes it possible for finches to evolve but not homo sapiens (outside of the word of the bible, of course).
Erm. No difference to me. its all the same. but the reply was to someone who did have trouble believing it.
No point in trying to be conciliatory with TM. He is dead set in his refusal to consider the possibility of macroevolution, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. He's much more likely to use your choice of the words "harder to believe" as "proof" of his peculiar notion that macroevolution is a faith-based belief just like intelligent design.
Because we - to a very large extent - adapt our environment (by creating micro-climates in our houses and apartments) to suit us. We also change the climate in ways that doesn't suit us; but that's another argument.
And houses, fire, and central air have always been around. Along with grocery stores and automobiles. God made them... which always confused me about Eve... why didn't she just go to walmart if she wanted an apple so much.... why did she have to go to that tree? Was her Prius out of gas?
That might be a good argument if we did'nt see humanity evolving in just the last few hundred years. Or if, as Melissa succinctly points out if we had been doing that for the past million years.
Changing the climate could well end up evolving us due to our own actions. Will our bodies learn, through multiple generations, to change the breathing reflex caused by levels of CO2?
so did evolution place seeds on vegetation? because it seems much more like intelligent design.
Dr. Patton is talking as any typical minister does during their sermon to convince his congregation about the work of God. It also sound like he is in church preaching his message. His degree clearly states what his background is and it is definitely not in paleontology or any other sciences.
All the excerpts he presented in his slides are at least 30 years old. They are outdated snippets he is using to present his view like most ministers use the scriptures to bring a point across to their congregation. I am such there are statements before and after these excerpts that state to the contrary of what the excerpts are saying.
There are no physical evidence or have never ever been any physical evidence for creation by a supernatural entity. The Bible is the one and only evidence of a creator as some people believe it to be.
Thank you all for participating.
Let me qualify where I stand - very briefly ( I still have an appointment with that exam).
I believe in a Creator, but like Lone77star and others, however I do not personally subscribe to the 6000 year-old earth claim. Neither does the Mormon faith; Mormons are taught that God’s heavenly time is not the same as our earthly time, and I won’t squabble about the number crunching.
My convictions arise from what I SEE, GATHER (as in credible information through various means), and SENSE, i.e.: my personal faith = my “study in comprehension” mingled actively with my conscience (and I say conscience so as to not start a digressive argument with those who do not believe in the eternal human spirit, as a noun).
I have another valuable educational link to a site where a Professor gives his analysis on the validity of Creationist views as opposed to the scientific disqualification of Evolutionist claims.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resou … evolution/ .
It includes discussions on the fruit fly, micro-evolution (downward-evolution) and vertical-evolution (non-existant upward-evolution), thermodynamics including the principles behind the physical law of Entropy, and other EVIDENTIARY topics. At roughly 5000 words, this studycan be eye-opening for many. I also includes these two quotes, the latter which basically wraps up his thesis:
- “A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
Reference 1: Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
- “The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.”
Have a nice day, people.
Liars for Jesus (TM)
Little wonder your beliefs cause so many wars and conflicts.
Sorry you cannot understand science. It must be very frustrating for you. You are quite happy wearing majik underpants to ward off evil spirits and have no trouble believing black people are black because they fought on the wrong side against Jesus in the planet we were sent from, but you cannot accept evolution?
Back to plastering around more condescension, are you?
No - just being truthful. Sorry the truth is so offensive. Why not attack some more proven scientific facts to defend your nonsensical religion? That will probably make you feel good about yourself.
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
Henry M. Morris is a hydraulic engineer, one I am glad never worked on any hydraulics I had to stand under!
Another young earth apologist with zero credibility.
You know how to pick em!
In 1963 Morris and nine others founded the Creation Research Society.
I guess ya just can't trust those founding members
That is an interesting take for someone who tried to make out that I was not a foundation member of CBMC for weeks when you found you couldn't win a point and as usual resorted to personal vilification.
How hypocritical is that?
Not hypocritical at all, if they ever answer my flood of emails about you, with your smiley hub pages pic, i will post the response, but i guess you are dead to them.
I would certainly enjoy being dead to them.
No...... what is astonishing is that you would go to so much trouble and bark up the wrong tree for months trying to find any ad hominem attack you could make stick with no results again!
You are a laugh a minute!
Youtube videos, institute of creation links and 6k year old earth claims. *sigh*
I can never understand why people argue or try and state their case over evolution or creationism. Why does it have to be one or the other for Christ's sake? ( excuse the pun!) What if, for example, God made the Earth in 6 days or whatever, planted the seeds of life and we have evolved since! We have adapted to our environment if necessary, thats why it only happens in certain places around the world. For example crocs and Kimodo dragons never evolved they are still the same, but humans and others have, purely because of their environment. So what if Dinosaurs walked around at the same time as humans? We are talking millions of years here! bound to have overlapped at some stage! The Roman soldiers were found to have pictures of Stegosauraus and Triceratops on their shields and swords! Fact! We think we know it all, and in fact we know nothing. Creationism and Evolution are part and parcel of the same thing, a garden will grow and evolve and so do we, not hard to understand!
Rubbish. Roman soldiers with Stegosaurus shields?
Dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans emerged.
There was no overlap.
Maybe you should check it out, I have read about it. Why is it so hard to believe? We have rhinos, we have elephants, why not the remnants of other extinct creatures? that is your opinion, I have mine, but that wasn't the point, my point was why argue about evolution or creationism?
No - this is not my opinion.
There was no overlap. Dinosaurs died out well before humans emerged
This is fact.
Please stop speaking nonsense at me.
Why don't you "check it out" instead of believing garbage with no evidence.
You seem to have your mind set on believing you are right. There is no reason to be rude. Here is your evidence, but no doubt you won't believe it either. I have read about these finds before, not just here.
This is a lie by religious nuts.
Now go check it out properly.
What on earth has religion got to do with it? I believe in evolution! so you are saying that real archaeologists are liars?
They are religious liars pretending to be archaeologists.
The name of the site might give you an idea genesispark.
Dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans emerged.
You are being lazy. Now go actually check it out.
The facts are in the pictures of the ruins not by the site that they are on. I have read this before in archaeolical magazines, not a religious site. I appreciate your opinion, so please appreciate mine. that's all I have to say.
I do not appreciate your opinion. Why should I? - it is nonsense. Please go "check it out," properly instead of whining that I do not appreciate your nonsense.
Dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans emerged.
I don't understand the argument of Humans and Dinosaurs existing at the same time? Are they trying to prove the earth isn't as old as it actually is? Or that humans have been around many, many more years than we think. In either case, it isn't helping support the "proof of the bible" case.
These same people who argue for this sort of "proof", are the same one that would argue against say...the body of Jesus being found, or documents that went against the bible. They have already done these things. Just look at the amount of text out there that is "biblical" in nature and yet wasn't included in the Canon, because it didn't match or flow with the text chosen.
The former. People who claim dinosaurs and modern humans shared the earth together are Young Earth Creationists, who generally believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old and dinosaurs died out in the Flood. (Some groups argue they stuck around longer than that, but the Flood theory is the most common in my experience.)
But it doesn't help that argument at all. If all the dinosaurs were killed in the flood...what about all of the other animals...Noah was to put two of each kind on the Ark and that would have included Dinosaurs. Even if they were considered unclean, that still doesn't match the bible. 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean, both male and female. We should still have dinosaurs around if that is the case.
I think the usual argument is that there wasn't enough room on the ark for them, which, of course, totally ignores the fact that the massive sauropods, tyrannosaurids, and their ilk were the exception rather than the rule and most dinosaurs were actually rather small. But concepts like "facts" and "evidence" are clearly foreign to a Young Earth Creationist in the first place, so I'm not sure why we should expect their concept of a "hypothesis" to be any better.
Not enough room? Why would they argue this. According to the bible, God said 2 of every animal...not 2 of every animal except....This argument doesn't add up either. The dimensions of the ark were given to Noah by God for this very purpose. Why would he leave out part of the animals? God's gripe was against Humans not animals.
That's not proof of co-existance. Fossils of dinosaurs existed back in the day these pics were painted, if the cave paintings are not fakes that is. And no doubt even more fossils were around at the time. Not sure about the pictures of fire breathing dragons though.
the point I was trying to make was the ancient people must have known about them, if not lived at the same time. I just think that we don't know everything yet, I remember reading it in an archaological magazine. Wish I hadn't joined in now! lol
Hi Nell, always nice to have you around! Don’t let these bulldogs hound you; I appreciate your contributions, they make people think, and that moves along the whole ball of wax. Thank you for linking www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm, it is quite interesting stuff to look at.
While I do not have a firm position on whether “dinosaurs” were coexisting with humans at any time, I am satisfied with the evidence that there were large “beasts” in the wilderness’ of recorded history. I am open however to the possibility that some of those depictions seen on ancient artifacts are ART, even if to only frighten their enemies.
We're talking billions of years actually, but dinosaurs and modern humans never shared the Earth together, unless you're counting birds as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs (with the exception of the line that had turned into birds) died out about 65 million ago, at a time when the ancestor of humans (and all modern primates) was a furry little guy about the size of a squirrel:
Modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years.
There is a creationist museum in the US, which has a model of a dinosaur with a saddle on its back, suggesting that ancient man rode them like horses. As dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, whilst modern man is at the most 200,000 years old, this proves how laughable the creationist view of life is. Perhaps too many people have grown up watching the Flintstones and believe it was a documentary. Such believers even suggest that dinosaurs became extinct because they couldn't fit onto the ark. Fairy tales have no place in archaeology. It is such ignorance which is likely to turn people away from religion, rather than bringing them to it.
http://www.avantnews.com/news/35092-cre … aur-saddle
From Bill Hicks...
“You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "Uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the f***ing Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus...with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big f***ing lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.”
LOL. to preempt the response. the Leviathan mentioned in Job as a scaly huge beast that lives in the depths was most likely a crocodile, not a plesiosaur. The behemoth sounds very similar to an elephant or mammoth. AS for dinosaurs not fitting into the arc, i'm not surprised, as with two of every animal crammed into a boat of 40 cubits there wouldn't even be room for Noah!
"...Or you could just breed dogs, using yourself to represent the changing environmental challenges animals face. Maybe you decide you want a smaller doberman; odds are you can produce a viable animal only 1/2 the size using only 1000 dogs to start with and running the test for only 100 generations. Simply kill every pup that grows beyond a certain (ever changing) size. Make sure that only small pups mate with small pups."
Good point. Let's see.....
Dogs that believe in evolution:
Dogs that do not believe in evolution:
To those first three dogs, I say Ahhhhh! To the second - Everyone has the right to be ugly, but these dogs abuse this right. What were people thinking of, by creating such creatures?
What!? Are you implying that God didn't make them that way? That they evolved to that state through a selection process performed by His creatures?
The 2nd group of hounds makes you think maybe some people just shouldn't be allowed to own Photoshop.
Of course, we probably could breed hounds with Billy-Bob teeth if we wanted to. Poor hounds.
When walking with a friend and her dog, I casually mentioned that I could see the wolf in the dog. My friend had no idea what I meant, and asked what dogs have to do with wolves. I was amazed, but explained that dogs were originally wolves, and that it is through breeding at human hands, that all dog breeds have been created. My friend has had many different breeds of dogs, yet this fact had escaped her. So much so, that she refused to believe me. In the end, we agreed to disagree. Some people take information for granted, whilst others have remained unaware of it.
I don't buy either side. I think we were dumped here by aliens who knew we would stink up their planet if left in tact lol.
All right, well to estimate a RUNNING TALLY right now:
- There is still no FOSSIL evidence for evolution, because nobody can find it anywhere (yet, as they say, unless they think up a reason why they don’t think they need to anymore) …
- Nobody has addressed the physical LAW of entropy to explain why it “doesn’t apply” to evolution like it applies to everything else in the universe.
- The “evolution” of fruit-flies and hound-dogs still does meet “new-species” type criteria to deem the changes which have taken place are indeed anything more than either a down-grade mutation, OR a temporary distortion, albeit sometimes fanciful, of the original design.
:: VERSUS ::
- Lengthy records of paleontological research still clearly only declare that, while many species have thrived on this earth in ages past, distinct paleontological FOSSIL identifiers and numerous shared-uniqueness’ have perfectly run the entire course and time-period of that species’ history. NO GRADUAL FLUCTUATIONS IN FOSSIL FEATURES HAVE BEEN FOUND; there has only been found "sudden" changes in paleontological features, which only support a "Special Design" theory.
RESULT TO DATE:
Science ITSELF supports the theory of Intelligent Design, which supports the theory of a Supreme Creator, which supports the theory of Special Creation, which uses the same physical LAWS as we all do.
So who cares if the earth is more than 6000 earth-years old? Our Creator is Immortal (and so are our spirits, I might add).
I have to drive my Mom about 80 miles (one-way) for my Niece’s Birthday Party in a few hours so, I’ll be gone all day Saturday and, most of the day on Sunday (the Sabbath).
Enjoy the weekend folks.
Arguing with a creationist about evolution is difficult because the time frame they can envisage is just a few thousand years - while evolution takes place over millions of years.
Creationists are what they are because they cannot think or imagine far enough to see a bigger picture, or see a bigger world picture with themselves in it, they see as a self surrounded by the world.
Evolution has passed them by in more ways than one, this makes them a kind of sub-species similar in a way to the Neanderthals, and like that race they will co-exist for a while then disappear.
Nice theory! I hope it doesn't take too long otherwise they will have wiped out most of us.
arguing with someone who thinks (hockey team name here) will win the stanley cup over (different hockey team name here) can be difficult also, even if (whatever hockey team) has won it so many times before.
Arguing quantum mathematics with a normal mathematics dude is often frustrating also
Archeologist differ about ancient stuff
governments differ about policies, what action to take and so on
environmentalists clash with capitalists over old growth trees
Some people prefer fords over chevies, while some really dig mazdas
Lets face it, its human nature for everyone to have a belief in many things and opposition of opinion happens in every field of expertise and amateur vocation. So man up and stop whining because you think your ideas are the only ones.
Christians are entitled to their opinions also and just because you choose to be aggressive or bullyish isn't going to make (hockey team name here) win Stanlies cup.
So you believe what scientists say even though they have shown flaws in the past and are flawed, that's cool. But your talking geography in the math dept.
Scientists have no opinion about Christ coming back or about sin or about repentence and relationship with God, so whatcha doin in here?
just causing conflict and war
Here is a link from a Hubber I just discovered, posted as new information, or "Common Sense" information. I hope this informative Hub gets read by all the evolutionists out there.
8 Scientific Facts that Prove Macro-Evolution Is Beyond Absurd!
http://karatekidjmt.hubpages.com/hub/8- … ond-Absurd
by thetruthhurts2009 9 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by Captain Redbeard 7 years ago
Is there room for evolution and Christian belief? Where Christians can't deny the age of the planet, Evolutionist can't prove the jumps they believe in. As far as I know there is no mixed belief system out there but there seems to be people with this mixed belief. Thoughts?
by Obscure_Treasures 7 years ago
plz tell me
by yankeeintexas 5 years ago
How is evolution proven as fact, or is it?
by Eng.M 9 years ago
with no assumptions madecould anyone write links to some experiments and results those agreed to be prooving natural selection mechanismsI believe we went through this before but with no satsifactory experimental proofs for me at leastthe only thing evolutionist insist on is because some creatures...
by Ron Karn 7 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis from where to begin, with an answer to this question. My research has led...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|