An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[PLAYER57832]

No, because science and religion, faith are fundamentally different. Science is based on evidence.
Faith is based on belief, where the evidence ends.

Science actually uses both, as does religion, but not in the way you describe. For science to advance requires someone to have the imagination to think up new ideas and then the faith to follow through and see if the result is as they imagine.

You and Viceroy actually make a similar error. He assumes that because a particular scientist is stuck on an idea, then it must reflect all of science and all of science refuses to accept opposition. In fact, the opposite is true. Similarly, you have somehow convinced yourself that once people have faith, they basically stop thinking and analyzing and comparing. Neither is really true.

I agree that scientific/philosophical inquiry reaches a point, after which either (1) a conclusion can become 'sound' through one's faith in it, or (2) the conclusion remains unknown in soundness---which for many is not satisfactory. People prefer seemingly sound conclusions, rather than being prodded into accepting the vagueness of those conclusions.

Pretty much the opposite of what I said.

Proof is proof, not faith. It is only when there is no proof that faith comes into play in science.
However, many charletans and well intentioned misguided individuals do take advantage of the difficulty in understanding some aspects of science to put forward their "answers".

For example, when Montesquieu wrote of the necessity of checks and balances for a democratic government, he could not prove that such a form government would be superior to the governments of his times (17th century). However, if he maintained that his view was the correct one, then this would be done on the basis of faith.

Of course, we would agree with Montesquieu on his checks and balances doctrine because we enjoy the position of hindsight. Even our belief in the importance of checks and balances maintains the validity/soundness of such a doctrine.

Sort of, but with no where near the basis of anything called scientific fact. These are merely ideas that presuppose other ideas and therefore a reasonable result. Many, many external conditions are necessary to even get to the point where such a system is even relevant, never mind possible or better than something else.

Our current state shows how fallible this system was/is, among other issues.

Arguments which exhort policy X in the name of the "common good," "national security," "public safety," or the ever nefarious "helping others," similarly rely upon faith in their final conclusion. If questioned about the problem of #2, they might say, "Never mind the uncertainty and the potential unintended consequences. Policy X is the correct choice." (I wonder: who fits that description?)

Not so.

See, there is such a thing as fact and science. Science relies upon tested and reproducible results. Vaccines work. Promoting a public vaccination campaign helps keep people well (generally.. not going to get into the caveats, just making the point). An idea like “free markets” is, however something ephemeral. It is based upon human behavior, which is predicated upon various outside conditions. Not so vaccines.

This is why science must be the root of any economy, fundamentally, because it is not changeable, is not based on one’s views or political position. It simply IS.

[PLAYER57832]

Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).

[Viceroy63]

Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).

Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive. That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.

Since recent archeological evidence suggest that Dinosaurs are even today still among us in remote parts of the world, they why are they not evolved? Why are they described the same way even after millions of years of evolution?

Why is it that there is no Dinosaur bones where we Find the Woolly Mammoth?

Could it be possible that theory is based on a misrepresentation of the Facts?

The only place where you find the geological sedimentary column, as shown in text books, is only in the text books. When geologist look at the sedimentary column they only find segments of it at a time. This geologist freely admit. They put the column together to fit their ideas of the theory and not to fit any facts. As I explained in an earlier comment, the reason why all the bones are found in their sections is because of the way that the sediments settle after a violent world wide flood. Those human skeletons (10 persons) were in fact held down by some kind of a land slide when the Flood occurred. Everything else just settled at it's only pace. That is why you don't find any Shoe crabs with the Dinosaurs or with the Woolly Mammoth at the top of the Column yet they are also still alive today.

If evolution were a fact instead of a theory then you would not only expect to see dinosaur bones at the level where you find mammals but also more evolved and adapted dinosaurs right there alongside of the other mammals as well. Along with alligators and crocodiles and all of those creatures which we see at the bottom of the column and are still alive today. But we do not see them, Why?

Thus the existence of any kind of a dinosaur today lays to rest the theory of evolution simply on the merit that we don't see it happening in the geological or archeological records. We should have found the evidence of intermediate species by now and not archeological proof that dinosaurs and mankind live alongside of each other and unchanged for over 65 million years. That just doesn't make sense for a theory that can't answer that question. I hope this makes it clear. And this is just one point of logical reasoning for why Evolution simply has never happened.

[AndyDufresne]

Sometimes, when I read Viceroy's post, I pretend he is the Futurama character that introduces the Scary Door.




--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).

Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive.

No, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on death at all. It depends on some species passing on differing genes to their progeny. That can happen for a variety of reasons, including just pure random chance. (which, note, means more than just mathematical randomness, by-the-way, it means just that we cannot predict and maybe do not understand the mechanism -- aka "God did it" is plausible, just not something scientists will say because it cannot be proven, they would head that under "don't know or "random"). The process happens very slowly when there is no change, but if a population is isolated, say on an island, by a landslide or other event, it can happen whilst the main population is quite thriving.

Further, just because some individuals are doing better and passing on new genes, it is not given that the old examples will die off necessarily. They could survive just by chance, just because they happened to be on the edge of the population, somehow wound up surving despite the harsh competition. Think of blacksmiths and horse and buggy purveyors. Once each were extremely critical to civilization. Now, they are few and far between. They were absolutely out-competed, BUT... did they completely disappear? No! Some serve groups like the Amish that want the old technology, some have become artists. They are far fewer, but not utterly gone. In fact, numbers have grown again slightly in recent times. That is very similar to what happens in evolution. It is why we have Ceolocanths, Nautilus, sharks, etc... even though most of their ancient, close relatives have long since gone.

Here is another way to look at it.
In our culture, a woman takes her husband's name. If she has no brothers, that might mean the end of the name, but if she has brothers, it will continue. Even if all the males having a particular name die, there is no gaurantee that it will end the name. A sister might have a child on her own, or may marry someone who takes her name, either because that is the cultural norm there or, maybe because a particular name is so common that people are being encouraged to take another. Each of these situations is analogous to somethign that happens with mutations and evolution.

In other words, it is a “straw man” argument… an argument that is false, but presented as if it were a real and true argument to give the appearance of considering the opposition.

That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.

Again, no. That is sort of the “kindergarten” version, something said loosely in general context because they don’t want to take the time to go into full details. The details are understood by most educated adults. Specifically, its probable a LOT of things contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. No one seriously thinks, at least today, that all dinosaurs were instantly killed off at exactly 65 million years ago. However, around then we see a huge change in the fossil compositions. I won’t get into the whole bit because you have a tendency to ignore anything not feeding into your ideas, but the truth is that even the “quickest” scenarios have dinosaurs persisting for a long while after that. We don’t know exactly because just not finding dinosaur fossils doesn’t mean they were truly gone, it just means that none died in a way that lead to fossil preservation. However, what we do see is that there were lots and lots of dinosaurs and then none or almost none. The change happened around 65 million years ago. There is evidence of at least one major geologic cataclysm at about that time, so the idea that the 2 things.. the demise of the dinosaurs and the meteor hitting is a reasonable idea. However, it wasn’t as if it hit them all on the head. The most prominent scenario I have read recently is that this meteor and probably volcanic activity, too lead to a “dramatic” change in climate. Note that geologically, “dramatic” could mean hundreds of years, even millennia. Anyway, all that is theory and the exact reason the dinosaurs died is debated. When they died off is ALSO debated, though your creationist friends are unlikely to point that out. It is very possible that dinosaurs persisted long after. Its slightly possible they persisted into the time of humans (not very likely, but there is a slight chance).

Whether dinosaurs died or not, though is actually irrelevant. We have entirely different species today. The Bible does not talk of dinosaurs living and then being replaced by modern species. It talks of just modern species. Whatever happened with the dinosaurs predates the known times in the Bible. Of course, God knew how he created the Earth, but let me ask you. If God were to say to the people who would become Jews that these species around came from other creatures, how, exactly would they understand that? And, what would be the purpose of that understanding? In a time when many people believed the Earth to be flat (not all, but some ancient Jews did believe that) because of what they saw, when they had an utterly different understanding of time than we, the story we read is what they could have understood.

Since recent archeological evidence suggest that Dinosaurs are even today still among us in remote parts of the world, they why are they not evolved? Why are they described the same way even after millions of years of evolution?

IF they exist, then it would be because they were isolated, similar to how the Coelacanth survived. The other possibility is how we still have horseshoe crabs.. that they just had a “successful” body type. Having a “successful” body type does not preclude change in progeny, but it just makes it less likely.

Why is it that there is no Dinosaur bones where we Find the Woolly Mammoth?

Because woolly Mammoths lived long after the time of dinosaurs. Also, the climate was very different… ergo the woolly bit. In fact, woolly mammoths very much did live with humans.

Could it be possible that theory is based on a misrepresentation of the Facts?

Sure, but you have to show that this is the case. So far, you have not done that.

The only place where you find the geological sedimentary column, as shown in text books, is only in the text books.

Where did you get that idea? Actually, you can see geologic layers in many road cuts in CA and other mountainous areas. When we probe the depths of the ocean and lack sediments, we see various layers. In fact, go anywhere and take a log core sample and you will see definite layers. Oh, almost forgot.. the canyons. They give a nice, clear, vegetation-free look. Geologists love deserts because they can see the geology without having a bunch of vegetation obscuring it.

When geologist look at the sedimentary column they only find segments of it at a time. This geologist freely admit. They put the column together to fit their ideas of the theory and not to fit any facts.

OH.. OK, started to answer before I had read down.
No, actually geologists are very cautious about suggesting that layers not connected are formed together. When we show kids how this works, we can use blankets and layer cakes. Try it! Take a layer of chocolate, a layer of frosting or another type of cake.. repeat in any order you wish. Make 3 (or break into 3 good sized sections). First, tear the cake in the middle. This is similar to an earth quake. Take your hand and yank out some of the middle of another, leaving just the bottom layer. That is what a river does over a very, very long period of time (sometimes wind does this also, but rivers tend to be quicker). Take the last and fold it, then twist. Those are all simple examples, without huge complications like heat that changes the rock, multiple twists and fracturing, etc.

Anyway, if you look at the layers of earth/rock in a particular area, that is what you will see. Is that, alone, proof? No. To get into the real proof, though requires chemistry and some other techniques I don’t have time to explain… and that, to be honest, likely require a lot of education you are unlikely to have. The bottom line is that Some formations are pretty clear and obvious. Even young earth creationists don’t really deny that the layers on each side of the Grand Canyon match, for example. They just try to claim they were all made at the same time. In many other cases, the story is much more complicated and not entirely understood. There is a book about the Marble Mountains in CA called “The Klamath Knot”. It is called that because there were so many different things happening to that landform that untangling it is like untangling a knot. But, just like a knot of string, you start with one, known point and work your way until you have undone all the tangles. In that case, I believe there are still some sort of mysteries. That is, no… saying “oh , well, God just did it” doesn’t work, but did this piece metamorphise with this other piece, etc, etc.. the exact details are not necessarily fully known, (and actually, they might be by now.. the book is decades old).

As I explained in an earlier comment, the reason why all the bones are found in their sections is because of the way that the sediments settle after a violent world wide flood.

You have “explained” that, but the facts don’t match your explanation. Floods leave specific kinds of traces. In fact, floods are one of the easiest things to decipher, right along with volcanic eruptions. They leave definite traces and give a pretty firm universal dating mechanism, because each flood will have a very different sediment composition. There were cases of fossils shifted by floods. I would have to read the exact report you have read to know where they erred, but many times young earthers try to claim that old bones uncovered and relocated were aged the same as other, fresh bones. However, wear patterns and other evidence shows that is not the case.

Those human skeletons (10 persons) were in fact held down by some kind of a land slide when the Flood occurred. Everything else just settled at it's only pace. That is why you don't find any Shoe crabs with the Dinosaurs or with the Woolly Mammoth at the top of the Column yet they are also still alive today.

I have no idea what article you think proves this, but it mixes up a good deal false information with some truths.

If evolution were a fact instead of a theory then you would not only expect to see dinosaur bones at the level where you find mammals but also more evolved and adapted dinosaurs right there alongside of the other mammals as well. Along with alligators and crocodiles and all of those creatures which we see at the bottom of the column and are still alive today. But we do not see them, Why?

You do see very primitive mammals alive with dinosaurs. I have no idea what you mean by we would see “more evolved and adapted dinosaurs”. We do see a wide range of different dinosaurs, and the emergence of a few mammal predecessors.

I am not versed in Alligator phylogeny or fossils, so I don’t know when they emerged. Not sure why you think this is a critical point, though.

Thus the existence of any kind of a dinosaur today lays to rest the theory of evolution simply on the merit that we don't see it happening in the geological or archeological records. We should have found the evidence of intermediate species by now and not archeological proof that dinosaurs and mankind live alongside of each other and unchanged for over 65 million years. That just doesn't make sense for a theory that can't answer that question. I hope this makes it clear. And this is just one point of logical reasoning for why Evolution simply has never happened.

Almost nothing in this last paragraph is correct.

Let me explain something to you. If you want to refure the theory of evolution, you truly need to begin with actually understanding the theory of evolution, not some creationist young earth fiction being taught by evolution opponents.

[Viceroy63]

Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).

Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive.

No, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on death at all. It depends on some species passing on differing genes to their progeny. That can happen for a variety of reasons, including just pure random chance. (which, note, means more than just mathematical randomness, by-the-way, it means just that we cannot predict and maybe do not understand the mechanism -- aka "God did it" is plausible, just not something scientists will say because it cannot be proven, they would head that under "don't know or "random"). The process happens very slowly when there is no change, but if a population is isolated, say on an island, by a landslide or other event, it can happen whilst the main population is quite thriving.

Further, just because some individuals are doing better and passing on new genes, it is not given that the old examples will die off necessarily. They could survive just by chance, just because they happened to be on the edge of the population, somehow wound up surving despite the harsh competition. Think of blacksmiths and horse and buggy purveyors. Once each were extremely critical to civilization. Now, they are few and far between. They were absolutely out-competed, BUT... did they completely disappear? No! Some serve groups like the Amish that want the old technology, some have become artists. They are far fewer, but not utterly gone. In fact, numbers have grown again slightly in recent times. That is very similar to what happens in evolution. It is why we have Ceolocanths, Nautilus, sharks, etc... even though most of their ancient, close relatives have long since gone.

Here is another way to look at it.
In our culture, a woman takes her husband's name. If she has no brothers, that might mean the end of the name, but if she has brothers, it will continue. Even if all the males having a particular name die, there is no gaurantee that it will end the name. A sister might have a child on her own, or may marry someone who takes her name, either because that is the cultural norm there or, maybe because a particular name is so common that people are being encouraged to take another. Each of these situations is analogous to somethign that happens with mutations and evolution.

In other words, it is a “straw man” argument… an argument that is false, but presented as if it were a real and true argument to give the appearance of considering the opposition.

Time index: 55 seconds into the clip...
"Darwin made it clear that Natural Selection can only succeed if the changes provide an advantage in the survival of the species."

Time Index: 1:45 Minutes, into the clip...
"Each Change in evolution, according to Darwins Theory, must provide some kind of advantage to the species."

[I am not making this up. These are words from real scientist and learned individuals and not just me!]

Time index: 2:40 Minutes into the Clip...
"Natural Selection only selects for a functional advantage. In most cases Natural Selection actually eliminates things"

Time Index: 4:45 minutes into the clip...
'Scott Minnich" Researched the Flagellum Bacterial Motor for over 20 years. And he states clearly that the Motor could not have evolved. Thus claiming that the theory of Evolution could not have created/produce this motor.

This is not just my idea or thoughts. This is the consensus of many scientist in the field. And this Video is full of such statements.

The Explanation provided why evolution is not possible is clear to understand when you consider and compare the construction of a house (Time Index: 6:20) to the complicated species in question. All materials and tools must already exist and the construction or evolution needs to follow a plan. Evolution does neither of these but works after the facts.

[PLAYER57832]

Viceroy, did you even READ what I wrote, because I addressed most of what you claim is new information already.
Also, I have no audio on my computer right now, so write out what you want me to know.

Time index: 55 seconds into the clip...
"Darwin made it clear that Natural Selection can only succeed if the changes provide an advantage in the survival of the species."

That is the definition of Natural Selection, that species with an advantage will outcompete those without. However, natural selection is only one part of evolution.

Darwin thought evolution was more linear (more direct) than it is, he also thought it would take much less time than it does. He was wrong about those pieces, and other bits. Just because he was the first to publish the ideas doesn’t mean the theory has gone unchanged. Science evolves.

Time Index: 1:45 Minutes, into the clip...
"Each Change in evolution, according to Darwins Theory, must provide some kind of advantage to the species."

[I am not making this up. These are words from real scientist and learned individuals and not just me!]

Well, I meet your “real scientist” , since I happen to be a published scientist..a nd raise you one without any effort. (Neoteny, a few others who are ALSO scientists, real ones with real publications recognized outside of the IRC)… see I happen to be a published scientist.
And, in addition to our personal knowledge (you missed that "personal" bit before), we tend to cite scientists who have real degrees in the field they are studying and who are published in reputable science publications, not just local newspapers and the like.
Whoever this guy is, he is not correct. In most cases, yes, changes will mean improvement, but not always. Also, a point you keep ignoring.. “improved” under some conditions might well mean “death” if the situation changes. Just as an example, not many bass survive well once a dam has burst.

Time index: 2:40 Minutes into the Clip...
"Natural Selection only selects for a functional advantage. In most cases Natural Selection actually eliminates things"

Ah, this old saw.
No, that is wrong. No such preconditions exist. Not sure who thought this would pass muster… well, it doesn’t in the real scientific world.

Time Index: 4:45 minutes into the clip...
'Scott Minnich" Researched the Flagellum Bacterial Motor for over 20 years. And he states clearly that the Motor could not have evolved. Thus claiming that the theory of Evolution could not have created/produce this motor.

OK, I am not even going to bother looking this up, I will just take it at face value.
20 years of study proves… NOTHING, absolutely nothing.
Further, that might be this guys’ opinion, but it is absolutely not a widely accepted view. Also, even if it were true, it would not disprove the theory of evolution. At absolute best, it would possibly prove that evolution did not happen in that particular instance. But, to disprove evolution, you would have to disprove ALL the cases, ALL the evidence, not just pick out a few pieces you think might indicate something.

Oh, and a far more likely scenario is that this guy is just plain wrong. Most folks associated with the young earth creationists are just plain wrong.

This is not just my idea or thoughts. This is the consensus of many scientist in the field. And this Video is full of such statements.

Correction, it is the “consensus” of a few scientists associated with the anti-evolution movement, many of whom are not actually studied in anything to do with biology or paleogeology.

The Explanation provided why evolution is not possible is clear to understand when you consider and compare the construction of a house (Time Index: 6:20) to the complicated species in question. All materials and tools must already exist and the construction or evolution needs to follow a plan. Evolution does neither of these but works after the facts.

No, its clear , yet again, that you know nothing at all of evolution..

[Viceroy63]

No, its clear , yet again, that you know nothing at all of evolution..

The fossil records speaks for itself! I only present the evidence that you choose to ignore.

[tzor]

Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive. That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.

Evolution is not "dependent on death" with the exception that immortal beings obviously don't evolve. But it is dependent on birth (and in fact sexual reproduction helps the process along). "Survival of the fittest" (a really poor choice by Darwin as it should be survival of the most adapted; not always the fittest) is a way to show how species change over time, but that in and of itself isn't completely evolution.

There are species that predate the dinosaurs that are still around and common today. Evolution doesn't demand that the dinosaurs died, the lack of real evidence to indicate they have been around recently is the evidence to suggest that they died. Evolution doesn't demand that the woolly mammoths die either. Somewhere there may be a woolly mammoth, or a dinosaur, or one of those other animals that are currently not commonly seen, rarely seen or just plain old seen. There are animals that exist only on Australia.

[Viceroy63]

There are species that predate the dinosaurs that are still around and common today. Evolution doesn't demand that the dinosaurs died, the lack of real evidence to indicate they have been around recently is the evidence to suggest that they died. Evolution doesn't demand that the woolly mammoths die either. Somewhere there may be a woolly mammoth, or a dinosaur, or one of those other animals that are currently not commonly seen, rarely seen or just plain old seen. There are animals that exist only on Australia.

That is almost like my point exactly. But why then do we not see evidence of these species in the Sedimentary Column? Where we see mankind and other mammals, we don't see dinosaurs reptiles with men as well? Why should that be? And more to the point that I was making, Why don't we also see more evolved or better adapted species after 65 supposedly million years of Dinosaur evolution? Or did they stop evolving and produced no more mutations or promutations of different dinosaurs for 65 million years? A dinosaur from Roman times look a lot like they did 65 million years ago.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

As to the lack of evidence of the continual existence of the dinosaurs, that is for everyone to judge for themselves. I am sure that all of those people who have seen the "Loche Ness Monster" or "Champ" in the USA Lake Champ, are well convinced that they were witness to a living dinosaur. The literally thousands of photo's and Video's are not what I would refer to as a lack of evidence. There is more going on then meets the eye!

[PLAYER57832]

No, its clear , yet again, that you know nothing at all of evolution..

The fossil records speaks for itself! I only present the evidence that you choose to ignore.

Oh bull.
Most of what you present wouldn't refute evolution even if it were true --- presence of dinosaurs with humans was your most recent effort, the idea that this or that fossil is a fraud or that this or that idea about a particular species is now known to be wrong. NONE of that, as you claim disproves evolution. That you think it does shows incredible misunderstanding of evolution and science in general.

A lot of the "evidence" you present has been disproven, not ignored. Scientists tend not to spend a lot of time debating folks who want to claim "Newton was just wrong". Creationists are given FAR more attention than their due because so many fall back on "its religion". That is utter bunk, but it is the claim.

[PLAYER57832]

There are species that predate the dinosaurs that are still around and common today. Evolution doesn't demand that the dinosaurs died, the lack of real evidence to indicate they have been around recently is the evidence to suggest that they died. Evolution doesn't demand that the woolly mammoths die either. Somewhere there may be a woolly mammoth, or a dinosaur, or one of those other animals that are currently not commonly seen, rarely seen or just plain old seen. There are animals that exist only on Australia.

That is almost like my point exactly. But why then do we not see evidence of these species in the Sedimentary Column? Where we see mankind and other mammals, we don't see dinosaurs reptiles with men as well? Why should that be?

Uh, no. Now you are taking evidence for evolution and trying to claim it is proof of the failure of the theory of evolution? Even ICR doesn't stoop that low, Viceroy.

Tzor is not almost making your point exactly, he is trying, once again, to show you why your ideas are just not even close to being real. That they are NOT seen together is evidence that they did not actually live together in any significant numbers, despite claims to the contary. If dinosaurs did exist, it would be just one more anomolous animal, not a reworking of evolution.

The evidence that is lacking that WOULD be needed is not seeing a few living dinosaurs today, or in the relatively recent past, but to see a full fledged human being or evidence of humans at the time of dinosaurs, well before the time we know humans appeared (note that there is definitely room for error in that "known time", but not enough to allow for humans at the time of T-rex, sorry).

You can make a LOT of wrong assumptions when you start out thinking you "know the truth". That is why scientists don't do that. REAL scientists don't, anway. Creationists/young earth scientists make all kinds of claims and don't bother to verify if the facts actually match.

And more to the point that I was making, Why don't we also see more evolved or better adapted species after 65 supposedly million years of Dinosaur evolution? Or did they stop evolving and produced no more mutations or promutations of different dinosaurs for 65 million years? A dinosaur from Roman times look a lot like they did 65 million years ago.

LOL…
You want us to prove why what you think happened just did not fit your model?

Begin with the “dinosaurs” alive in Roman times would have been called “birds”. This is because they DID evolve. Not much is mentioned about dinosaurs after 65 million years because, well, there is basically no evidence after that point. Some small residual populations likely existed. In fact, I am not going to bother doing the google search, but I would not be surprised to find several species of dinosaurs absolutely did persist after that point. HOWEVER, the point is that most did die off and left ecological “openings” into which the mammals were able to move.

Contrary to your ideas of “always moving forward”, the dinosaurs’ sheer size and conditions at the time meant that while mammals were around in small numbers as small little vole-LIKE creatures (not voles, just might have looked roughly similar), it was not until the dinosaurs left that these little mammals could breed and spread enough to allow for the evolution that eventually led to most modern life.

Oh, and that was not the only transition.. things happened in the oceans, with reptiles, etc, etc, some at the same time, some before.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

As to the lack of evidence of the continual existence of the dinosaurs, that is for everyone to judge for themselves. I am sure that all of those people who have seen the "Loche Ness Monster" or "Champ" in the USA Lake Champ, are well convinced that they were witness to a living dinosaur. The literally thousands of photo's and Video's are not what I would refer to as a lack of evidence. There is more going on then meets the eye!

Give it a rest already. Now you are just being truly stupid. I, tzor, Andy – basically everyone who has posted here in the past few pages has addressed this point quite well.

I mean … Loch Ness, Lake Champ…. REALLY?

[crispybits]

Player has already covered it in detail, but I just ave to say that I find the irony delicious that someone who claims that so much is a hoax would use Nessie, possibly the most hoaxed story on the planet, as evidence for their case

[Lootifer]

I almost want to put on a "creationist" hat and try and argue for Viceroys point because he is doing such a spectactularly shit job of it....


Almost.

[PLAYER57832]

I almost want to put on a "creationist" hat and try and argue for Viceroys point because he is doing such a spectactularly shit job of it....


Almost.

Yeah, he is sounding more and more like just an idiot, not someone who actually believes what he is saying. Even lionz did a better job than him... and Lionz mostly just wanted to post pictures and ask more questions.

EXCEPT.. make no mistake, there are plenty of Americans who believe things very much like what Viceroy is putting forth, and their numbers are growing, not shrinking. PLUS.. they tend to vote.

[crispybits]

Player has already covered it in detail, but I just ave to say that I find the irony delicious that someone who claims that so much is a hoax would use Nessie, possibly the most hoaxed story on the planet, as evidence for their case

I feel I should apologise for this. Nessie is only the third most hoaxed story on the planet, behind bigfoot and aliens...

I almost want to put on a "creationist" hat and try and argue for Viceroys point because he is doing such a spectactularly shit job of it....


Almost.

Yeah, he is sounding more and more like just an idiot, not someone who actually believes what he is saying. Even lionz did a better job than him... and Lionz mostly just wanted to post pictures and ask more questions.

EXCEPT.. make no mistake, there are plenty of Americans who believe things very much like what Viceroy is putting forth, and their numbers are growing, not shrinking. PLUS.. they tend to vote.

Indeedy - and to boot...



(I'm resorting to mostly image based posts as it makes it easier on them to speak in their language, after all why read a bunch of complicated stuff that actually explains everything when you can have pictures right?)

[PLAYER57832]

LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

[chang50]

LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

[PLAYER57832]

LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

Its not "brainwashing" per se. They are thinking human beings. It is really no different from people who grew up in the 1400's who often thought the world was flat... they just did not have evidence to the contrary and it really did not matter much to their daily lives.

And.. the implication is that the internet, absent any check on credibility, is the most dangerous invention of all time.

[chang50]

LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

Its not "brainwashing" per se. They are thinking human beings. It is really no different from people who grew up in the 1400's who often thought the world was flat... they just did not have evidence to the contrary and it really did not matter much to their daily lives.

And.. the implication is that the internet, absent any check on credibility, is the most dangerous invention of all time.

Interesting,I agree the internet can be dangerous especially to world views that cannot stand up to close scrutiny like creationism.Some like Thunderf00t think the internet is where religions come to die..it's food for thought at least.

[PLAYER57832]

LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

Its not "brainwashing" per se. They are thinking human beings. It is really no different from people who grew up in the 1400's who often thought the world was flat... they just did not have evidence to the contrary and it really did not matter much to their daily lives.

And.. the implication is that the internet, absent any check on credibility, is the most dangerous invention of all time.

Interesting,I agree the internet can be dangerous especially to world views that cannot stand up to close scrutiny like creationism.Some like Thunderf00t think the internet is where religions come to die..it's food for thought at least.

No, because no one is required to do more than check into the links of people who think just like them. Google searches will even do the "favor" or tailoring results that a person likes, so Viceroy won't find anything by real evolutions for maybe 20 pages or so. And, there are plenty of creationist websites out there that give the illusion of veracity.

Its partly flat out lying... not worrying about verification, and just putting down whatever. Partly, its psychology. You look at hundred cites that say essentially the same thing and you begin to think "hey, this really DOES make sense... why else would all these people agree? It really doesn't matter if they are all using the same skewed source or no source at all, or are utterly misrepresenting sources. (Creation “scientists” like to cite evolution proponents out of context and claim the evolutionary expert really agrees with the creation “scientist”).

This happens in a LOT of fronts, by the way… it is why our political climate is so divisive and why so many people plain refuse to listen to opposition.. they are never, ever forced to even HEAR real opposition. They hear, instead, a bunch of straw man arguments that are put forward to give the illusion of considering the opposition.. pretty much like Viceroy’s claim about living dinosaurs. He could care less how many times we point out that living dinosaurs won’t disprove evolution, he keeps saying it. In his case, I suspect he is just game-playing, but true believers will say that, and basically turn away from the argument and go back to their source which will verify for them that the person to whom they are speaking is just wrong about this and evolution really does depend on things like creatures dying, that mutations must mean loss of information and that any transition fossil is just showing microevolution or is plain faked. We see the same thing in debates over things like minimum wage, socialized medicine, even pollution impacts.

[crispybits]

I forget if it was Dawkins or someone else but I remember watching a debate in which someone said that they really didn't like the way Google and Amazon and their ilk do the "If you liked this... you might also like this" or tailored searches kind of thing. They said that what these sites should do is suggest things that are massively different to the things you've previously clicked on in order to give you fresh perspectives and new experiences as often as possible. I have to say I agree.

Also, it might surprise Viceroy and some others to learn that I have looked into creationism independently of the discussions I've had on here - not because I ever expected to believe it or anything like that, but because if I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues. Actually, maybe that deserves a little repitition....

If I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues.

If I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues.

If I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues.

If I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues.

(maybe they could do evolution the same courtesy)

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, that's why I speant a good part of 2 years reading essentially everything the Institute for Creation Research put out.

And... why I grew from tolerant to plain outright angry. Despite all claims, don't believe for a SECOND that religion is really behind all this. Sure, many players are "true believers" of Christianity, but the backers and originators... are either solely extremely sloppy and very stupid scientists or they are flat out liars and decievers.

One cannot truly follow Christ AND be a constant purveyor of falsehood. mistakes, erors, sure. We are human, and to be human is to err. However, so many errors that are so systematic and careful manner that they simply have to be intentional ... no way!

[Dukasaur]

The following is an excerpt from the article "Are the Ica Stones fake or real?" This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/icastones.php

Are the Ica Stones fake or real?
Author: Christopher J. E. Johnson
Published: Sept 12, 2011

In some of our CLE seminars, I show pictures of large stones with drawings carved into them called "Ica Stones." Originally collected by a man named Dr. Javier Cabrera, these Ica Stones portray clear and detailed dinosaurs, as well as complex medical surgery, and other devices such as telescopes and magnifying glasses.

To take an absolute stance that they are all real or all fake would not be wise because there are some fakes out there, but vice versa, just because some fakes and frauds have been made, doesn't mean the real ones are discredited. However, there are many evolutionists that take the position that they are all fakes and frauds because one of these stones being real would disrupt the entire evolution religion, and that is a scary thought for many people who scoff at the Bible.

There are many articles and documentaries made that have, in their own words, "proven" these Ica Stones to be fakes, but the whole truth is not told. [Viceroy63: if something is a half truth, then it is a whole "LIE!"] Most of these shows and documents are simply not well-researched because there is a presuppositional bias that wants to prove them fraudulent. For example, a man by the name of Philip Coppens wrote an article on his website that attempts to squelch any credibility to the Ica Stones, but the extent of his research is seen in his labeling of Dr. Cabrera's father:

Dr. Cabrera's father's name is Dom Pedro. This may not seem that important, but I say this to emphasize the lack of research that is being done, and this is but one of many such mistakes in articles written on the subject of the Ica Stones. [Viceroy63: To not really look into a subject and then post it as truth or self evident, is a "LIE!"]

[Note:]
For a fraud to carry on from one generation to the next is a very Mayor undertaking for a small town community where every knows your business even before God Himself knows it. I know this because I live in a small town. This is truly an elaborate hoax???
-Viceroy63

Those that say all the Ica Stones are fake have to find a way around the scientific and archeological evidence. For example, these stones were first discovered and reported by the Spanish in 1535.

"Father Simon, a Jesuit missionary, accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast and recorded his amazement upon viewing the stones. In 1562, Spanish explorers sent some of the stones back to Spain."

[Note:]
Ah yes, 1562; Of course! That was the year that the "Dentist Drill" was invented???
-Viceroy63

Are we to believe that 500 years ago someone, living in South America, was carving thousands of these stones, just to fool the evolutionists? However, they must believe such things in order to reconcile their theory with the evidence.

[Note]
Man, are those evolutionist smart. Even 500 years ago, they were already plotting the debunking of these Ica stones as fackes!
-Viceroy63

In 1967, Dr. Cabrera picked 33 stones out of his collection and sent them to Maurico Hochshild Mining Company in Lima, Peru to be examined for age, and test to see if they had been recently deposited by a grave-robber who was carving them just to make extra money. Eric Wolf, geologist who worked at the MHMC laboratory sent back his signed analysis which read:

"The stones are covered with a fine patina of natural oxidation which also covers the grooves, by which age should be able to be deduced..."

Erich von Daniken analyzed these stones on a microscopic level, and found the following:

"Right angled clean scratches showed on the new stone under the microscope, whereas microorganisms could be seen in the grooves of Cabrera's stones under a fine glaze... that was the tiny major difference between genuine and false stones."

Though shows, like NOVA, will attempt to convince an audience that the stones' cuts have been made recently, F.G. Hawley, an experienced chemist and archaeologist, said:

"Many [artifacts] in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years."

[Note]
How Shocking that LIES would be spread on the airwaves influencing the minds and thoughts of our little children to believe in a LIE!
-Viceroy63

Under microscopic analysis, we can see that the real Ica Stones can be verified. Yet, commonly, evolutionists will still attack the authenticity of the Ica Stones without the evidence, and commonly I find they do not provide any references to what they are talking about.

Another common evidence used against the Ica Stones is the farmer Uchuya, who was said to be making the stones and selling them to tourists. However, before we analyze this story, let's assume it to be true for the moment.

If it is true that he is making some stones and selling them, does that account for the stones found 500 years ago? Do his fake stones account for all the Ica Stones discovered over the past few decades? Using this admission of forgery does not disprove the Ica Stones altogether.

This is about the same as someone taking a picture of a stick in the water, claiming it as a picture of the Lochness monster, and then when it is proven fraudulent, the evolutionists will jump on it and say that all accounts are disproven because one person lied. (This is also called a "false dilemma" logical fallacy, claiming they're either all real or all fake.) This emphasis on forgeries, without considering all the evidence, is an immature childish tactic used to persuade an audience, not a method used by researchers seeking the truth.

In addition, Dr. Cabrera alone had over 11,000 stones in his collection, so where is the gigantic crater that would be required to have dug up that many stones? And how could these two people have done all this by themselves without anyone noticing? Hamilton Forman, archaeologist researching the Ica Stones, said:

"If one family did this, they must have had an army of elves helping them."

A Peruvian jail sentence is almost the same as an American death sentence. They don't feed you. They don't cloth you. They don't help you in any way. If your family does not come to give you food and assistance, you will die in a Peruvian jail. Selling Peruvian treasures without government authorization is against the law, so when police officers brought in Irma and Basilio, both said they make the stones and sell them, because if the two confessed to digging up the stones and selling them, they would be immediately thrown in Peruvian jail. [Viceroy63: Sure they did! That makes perfect sense when you put it like that??? ]

Even Philip Coppens, who writes against the authenticity of the Ica Stones, wrote:

"When von Däniken visited the farmer in 1973, Uschuya confirmed to him that he had faked the stones; but later on, in an interview with the German journalist Andreas Fischer, Uschuya claimed the opposite. They were genuine, he insisted, and he admitted to a hoax to [u][b]avoid imprisonment."

[Note:]
Oh, Come on People; Does any reasonably intelligent person really believe that any police, any where on the planet, would try to coerce a confession from a suspect? Ha, ha, ha, Get real???
-Viceroy63

There is still a lot to be learned by the Ica Stones, but few people are willing to pay for the research because, after all, these stones completely destroy the general theory of evolution.

Who would want to pay for research that destroys the only presupposition evolutionists have to help them reject true Biblical history?

If the skeptics would do a little research, they wouldn't have to be so skeptical.

Man, that is some pretty use of colour! The juxtaposition of the red lines and the blue lines is absolutely brilliant! You have a great career as an artist ahead of you!

[Dukasaur]

[quote="crispybits"]
Gotta love it!