I gave you one example where Creationists actually got their religious doctrine into the textbooks. I could give you a thousand of where textbooks were dumbed down or evolution simply skipped as a subject or brushed over in science classes to avoid controversy.  And you SHOULD know it, but you probably don't.



Thank God.  The whole incident made our country the laughing stock of the world.



If you don't like my condescending, arrogant attitude, imagine how I feel about yours.  And your excuse is incredibly lame..."Oh it's Rick's fault! He MADE me post..."

Hmmm thats the way I've always read the bible, no wonder I've never believed in god...I AM HIM!! ALL YOUR ASS ARE BELONG TO ME.

Now send some ARs FALs ammo, and all your teenage daughters up my way or I'll bust floods n' firestorms on your asses wit a quickness.

Hate to break it to you, GM, but that is what is known as a non sequitur.  One has nothing to do with the other.  And I didn't say it was hard to produce a transitional fossil, I said it was hard to produce ANY fossil.



ROFL, you SHOULD have just quit the argument, you are making less and less sense as you go along.  You're saying the equivalent of "One apple is hard to produce but BILLIONS of oranges are easy to believe???"



You mean like a Creationist who chokes on things that have hard, solid evidence behind them but believes that all those tens of thousands of dinosaur fossils are beached whales?  You mean a camel like that?

Your opinions have been proven to lack any basis in fact, and this is the case yet again. I am here because you insist on posting ridiculous nonsense about how the dinosaur fossils that have been found are really beached whales.



So is this like the first two times you said you were done with this thread or do you REALLY mean it this time?

[center][size=4][red]You [u]two[/u] are going to have to pay for any chairs, tables, windows, & glasses you break![/red][/size=4][/center]

Garandman,

I provide this link simply in answer to your request earlier in this thread:  "To my knowledge, the majority of "fossilized" bones are reproductions. Scientists get a single bone, or a few bones near each other in a scientific dig, and they re-create what the dinosaur looked like by MAKING the other bones. Thats not science, its fantasy. I'm open to documentary evidence that proves otherwise (website, text, etc) , but if you want to make unproven, unsupported generalizations about fossils, save your typing."

This link takes you to a location in Colorado that has provided a large number of fossils, many involving more than a couple bones.  In fact, this stegosaurus fossil is nearly complete.

http://www.dinosaurdepot.com/spike.htm

thanks. I'll take a look.

garandman

Goose -

In the website they say  -

"Sadness envelopes the crew as they realize that they must close the site before they can discover the full extent of this most exciting find. "

What does THAT mean??

The only pic I saw on the website was of something that looked a little larger than a bull. (male cow) of course, the pic gave no point of reference to compare size, so its hard to tell.

Many Christians believe in dinosaurs. I haven't seen enuf evidence to convince me.

A good friend of mine gave a presentation from Scripture and scientific sources (with a Creationist mindset) in front of the whole church proving the existence of dinosaurs.

I wasn't convinced Scripturally either.

And you'll have to take my word for this, but when I see something from Scripture, or any other truth that is irrefutable, I WILL believe it. I'm NOT just being a hard @$$ here.

[size=4][blue]
Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting  [B)]

Those Cats on AR15 were fast as lightning

In fact it was a little bit frightening

But they debated their views with expert timing

There were funky Atheists

And there were bible-thumping Christians

Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting  [B)]

Those members were fast as lightning

There was stubborn RikWriter

And righteous garandman

Where?  Where?    [B)]  [B)]

Let's get it on!  [/blue][/size=4]

Couldn't we all get along?   [:D]

-RoadDog

garandman,

This link will help you find the truth.

[url]http://www.natcenscied.org[/url]

ok, just a few things I would like to mention.
I am a christain and a creationist.  I personaly believe that christians who believe in evolution are not who they pretend to be.
 First there are two kinds of evolution.
 1. the evolution of one species into a different type of that same species.  Example: Natural selection- take the finches for example.  Surely you evelutionist know this example.  The finches with the beak size that most accomidated the type of food available during changes in the enviornment survived.    
 This happens all the time.  This does not prove that the next type of evolution is true.  It only proves that certain characteristics are weeded out because they do not aid in survival.  It does not mean that this characteristic is gone, it is probably still in the genetic code of the species and will show up still, just not as frequently.
 2. Evolution of one species into a different species.  I do not believe in this.  I have studied evolution and have seen no proof.  If you want to convince me you can try, but you will probably not succeed as I will probably not succeed in changing your mind.
 I do not agree with garandman that dinosaurs did not exist.  What I believe is that there was inadequate resources after the flood to keep them alive.
 As for the many different animals not able to live together befor the flood I disagree.  There were less humans which makes for much more space.  Especialy when you count not just living space but working and traveling space taken up by humans.  And I think that some animals have multiplied in numbers just like humans have.
 Someone mentioned an ar15 would have been created a long time ago if creation was true.  Well what about the many things like plumbing that have existed at one time, were destroyed and then took many more years to bring back?
 Mutation is another poor example of evolution.  From the studies I have read (and not by christains even) mutations rarely create something better.  Mutations usualy end up making it harder for the species mutated to survive.
 I hardly think it is embaresing to that a school alowed its students to look at different theories and judge for themselves.  Doesn't that promote critical thinking.  Unless you realy think it is easier to believe that we were created by one Omnicient being who we have no example by which to base our understanding of his ways and we are required to be accountable to instead of slowing changing or evolving over time into what we know today.  Why is it such a bad thing to teach creation in schools, afterall the bible holds many other scientifically proven facts.
 I do not think that because creation is in the bible it is not a credible theory.  I whole heartedly believe it to be fact just as many of you believe that evolution is fact.  In reality neither side can truly know by the scientific method which is true because that would require it to be repeated.  So at least for the sake of this thread attempt to treat each as a theory.
 One last thought for you evelutionist out there.  Think about this.  We think that your theory is unfounded and you think our theory is unfounded.  If christains discovered that evolution was true then all of there beliefs would be suspected.  So if evlutionist discovered that creation was true wouldn't that have the same effect on their beliefs?
 Ok so it is not so short. [:D]

I am sure none of them care one wit what you think of their Christianity.



Nothing to do with changing anyone's mind, you're simply incorrect. There is one kind of evolution, not two. The so-called "microevolution" that some creationists talk about is simply evolution, and it eventually leads to species that cannot mate with each other.  This has been observed, your disbelief in it notwithstanding.



Your disagreement affects the facts not one whit.  For a species to thrive there have to be at least several hundred invididuals in it.  For predators to thrive there have to be dozens as many prey animals as predators.  There would not be enough room on the planet for all the species of very large animals to exist at once and there would not be enough ecological niches for all the species that would have to live together at the same time in the same place.  You can choose to ignore that fact, but it doesn't change that fact.



Mutation isn't an example of evolution, it IS evolution.  Most mutations are neutral, affecting the animal not at all.  Most of the ones that do affect it affect it badly. But once in a while, a mutation that would otherwise be neutral happens to take place at a time when an ecological change makes it beneficial. That's how evolution works.

Part Two:



It's embarrassing when one of the theories is not a theory in the scientific sense, in that it has no factual evidence to back it up. Intelligent Design simply ASSUMES that only a designer could have come up with some of the features that living things have. It offers no proof, only assumptions.



That would be a misunderstanding of the scientific method as it applies to "historical sciences" such as astronomy, paleontology etc...



I can't.  The word "theory" has a scientific meaning. It's a method of explaining things that is backed up by hard evidence. Literal Biblical  Creationism is directly contradicted by the preponderance of hard evidence so it is not a theory.



Dead wrong. The VAST majority of Christians accept the reality of evolution and are able to fit it into their philosophy with no problem. It is only a minority of fundamentalists that can't handle reality.



Literal Biblical Creationism is false. There is hard evidence that, unless the world is a made-up construct with premanufactured evidence designed to fool us, the planet is several billion years old, life evolved from earlier forms to its present form, and no worldwide flood occurred anytime in the last several hundred thousand years.  So unless we find out that Satan really DID plant all those bones, there is no way that literal Biblical six-day creationism is true.

I've got it.
Fossils ARE real!!!  you can dig them up you can hold them, and they were from animals from long ago.  THAT we all MUST agree upon.

Religion doesn't mention such things because nobody cared about them (also didn't know about it, remember science in most places meant death! Talk differently from what the book said and you die, so no one dared study, besides they were too busy looking to the sky).

Those who have God in their lives believe in what they do other than science.  They are comfortable thinking that it all just appeared as one golden plan.

FINE.  I'm tired of beating a dead horse(which will later be fossilised, not resurrected.

I'm sick of these religious rantings.  They are killing US from within.  WE are working for one goal, and personal religious beliefs shouldn't get in the way... Besides all your religions are WRONG!!  Scientology is the way to go... LOL


BISHOP

Finch populations are
actually examples of balanced
polymorphism.

If you don't mind, I think we'd all love to see this.

Please describe the universe, and use 3 examples...

will post a link to a guy's web site,that grew up going to my local church,he has a doctorite in astrophysics from a university in colorado and has a pro-creation web site thats real through......

If the universe is infinitely expanding, it is just like my ex-girlfriend's ass.

My ex-girlfriend's ass was almost as big as the universe.

My ex-girlfriend was the biggest bitch in the universe.

wow
ford v chevy
colt v bushmaster
creation v evolution
arghhhhh

doesnt really matter guys.... IM GLAD THEY ARE DEAD! just look at them thar teeth..
[@:D]

How did Noah fit a bunch of [b]dinosaurs[/b] on the ark?!?


Please give us three examples of these facts from the Bible.

Still waiting for that simple calculation, Rik.

I don't mean to start another religious argument with you, but I have a question.

What happens if some laboratory resurrects a dinosaur from its DNA(a very real possibility within the next 30 years).  

My issue is with religous people who lock in their religious statements as 100% solid.  How will you adapt to the idea dinosaurs are proven to have existed?

This is only a concern to me since fanatics have been known to start a wars over religion.  I'm not saying you would be one of those, but I'm just interested in your ideas.  Also, would you mind stating your particular religious sect?

I was catholic, and went through 9 years of classes and confirmation.  The catholic church is very adaptive to scientific discoveries and changes(nowadays, didn't used to be in past centuries).  I am now an athiest, and really never believed in a god or a supernatural existance of any type.

gunman0 -

Questions are good. I LIKE questions. what i don't like are questions intended to inflame the discussion, or crafted in a derogatory fashion, which your question is NOT.

This is not primarily a religious belief. In fact, the church i just left made an official sort of statement from teh pulpit that they DO believe in dinosaurs.

For me, this is more of a Biblical issue, which is NOT the same as a religious issue, as most religions find the Bible to be an inconvenient annoyance for their agenda.

Here's my thinking on the issue, as to why i question the exisatence of dinosaurs.

1. Why would God create an animal in Genesis 1 (Creation) that he would exterminate in genesis 8 (the flood)?? That is inconsistent with the nature of God, as He reveals Himself in Scripture.

2. God told Noah to put at least two of ALL animal species on the ark, to spare them from the flood for future generations. How do you fit a T-Rex on teh ark???

3. When god finished creating, he proclaimed "Everything I've made is good." IMO, dinosaurs don't fit into my understanding of "good." personally, I look at them as poorly constructed creatures, and a bit scary lookin  [:D]

4. Dinosaurs are the mental creations of scientists whose goal was to disprove the existence of God. the vehicle for that objective was evolution. As such, ANYTHING they say is true, I take with a grain of salt.

Lastly, let me say IF they un-earth a full skeletal remains of T-Rex, I will simply believe they existed. it will not shake my faith in God, it will simply show me that I was wrong in my thinking, and teach ne I have more to learn about God Himself. IF they un-earth.......

No, what you don't like is being told you are wrong. And if I were wrong as frequently and egregiously as you, I wouldn't want to be told about it either.



That's a reason to doubt your silly literal interpretation of Genesis, not to doubt dinosaurs existed.



You have a warped and twisted view of scientists.  The scientists who originally discovered dinosaurs had no concept of what evolution was and no religious axe to grind.



They have unearthed the full skeletons of many dinosaurs. You simply ignore the facts.

Ooops, missed that part earlier.

I don't FIT into any denomination or sect within Judeo - Christian circles.

For identification purpsoes, you can think of me as a Baptist who has a number of problems with Baptist doctrine.

The simplest way to categorize me is someone who takes the Bible literally, as God inspired, and the sole rule of faith and life.

Man, WHAT is that annoying sound?/ And that stench???

I know I showered today.

Oh man do i really want to do this???? yep
From the Biblical standpoint---creation is pretty well established---the time table is what trips christians up---6 days or six million years---DOES IT MATTER? And there are a whole lot of differences between the TWO creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2....and has anyone else noticed the remarkable similarity between the creation order and the order that evolution postulates-and the idea of Pre-adamic creation is put forward by religious scholars to wind up some loose ends. From the scientific side---if you can't lick it and kick it and do it day after day...it ain't science...evolution is the
only theory that contains all of the assumed factors as we see them now. They ain't looking
for God. They are looking for facts. If we could get all the back biting and fighting out of this
discussion, you guys would probably understand that either way you look at it---God is great or the universe is REALLY complicated. And these two statements are not mutually exclusive.

Might be the sound of you lying again?



The smell of lingering dishonesty?

I agree. If there is a God (and there may be, I truly don't know) then he is great and his universe is really complicated...but also simple on a fundamental level.

Still waiting for that calculation, Rik.

Then go take a physics class. I am not going to do your legwork for you.

This never seems to end does it?

Garandman:  You'd probably be better off if you tried (and I know it would be hard) to ignore the bastard twins Rik and Bill.

They are content to do nothing less than argue every fact about God----------------creation------------salvation--------resurrection------etc etc until we who know better are blue in the face trying to prove them wrong.

Don't forget......some here on this ball we call home have given themselves over to be used as tools of the evil one.  Some of them know it and some.....well some are so blind that they know not what they do or say.

Remember that!

It is not our place to argue with infidels.  Tell them the message yes..............argue with them....no!

Satan himself, being the most powerful of all angels created, knows that his time is short and he knows what his ultimate fate will be.  In addition, satan knows the bible well and can quote its scriptures with the best of them.

The bible is Gods word to a lost and dying world.  Satan, and his followers, take that word and try to punch as many holes in it as possible.

Sadly, many of our species is so easily distracted and so easily convinced not to beleive in God, which makes it much easier to live in their sin, that they wholeheartedly accept satans lies and just as we who try to live by the bible and spread its good news, they in turn live as satan would have them live and try to spread his lies.

Quite simple really.

So RikWriter and Bill and anyone else bold enough to show their face in such a revealing light I say to you get behind me satan and be gone in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

You guys are wicked folks.

Leave em' alone Garandman.

It ain't my [i]MY[/i] legwork, sunshine.  You're the one who tossed out that little tidbit.  Back it up, or just shut up.  You and your type are all heat, no light.  Nothing but baseless logical drive-bys.  When you have to back something up, you try and put it on somebody else.

Given all of your cut-and-paste "Evolutionary Science for Dummies," I am not surprised that you fall short on substance.

Put up or shut up, like a man.  Don't hit and run like a 5 year old.

Oh X-Kill get over yourself. You're an even bigger joke than Cible with his self-important drivel.  
The fact is, there is nothing evil about the facts, what is evil is hiding from the facts...which is what you and GarandMan are doing.  Hey, if you want to live your life with your head buried in your fifth point of contact, that's your right. Just don't expect anyone who's taken a look at the world around them to agree with you.

Oh, and Cible...how do you expect me to "prove" to you that what I said about the rain condensing from the water vapor is true?  Do you want a mathematical proof? Would you understand it if I posted it?  You keep prattling on and on like a broken record, but there's nothing beneath the surface.
And of course, as usual, you're full of crap...every single answer I have given is out of my memory.  I have not cut and pasted a single thing except the URL on that other thread.
Just because you lack reading comprehension or retention doesn't mean everyone does.

I thought the Dynosar was a rocket project by the Air Force in the sixties?

Close...that was the Dyna-Soar.  It would have given us a reusable spacecraft nearly twenty years earlier than the shuttle, but it was scrapped in a political move to get Americans to the moon before the Russians.  Bad decision...if we had kept on with that project (and not lost billions of dollars to the war in Vietnam) we could have had a permanent space station by the 70s.
As much an accomplishment as project Apollo was, it wasted an entire generation of space funding on a one-shot political gimmick.  We should have gone to the moon to STAY, not to take some pictures, collect some rocks and then not go again for the last three decades.

Why do you guys keep blowing wind into this turd's salis??

The obvious Creationist rebuttal to this is that the Flood waters didn't exist in the form of vapor before they fell.  According to Genesis:

So the water came from above the "firmament".  Since this "firmament" would have to have been some sort of magical barrier, we might as well assume that the water above it was magically maintained in a liquid state.  Or it could have been snow, which melted on the way down.  Or the laws of physics operated differently at the time.  Or...

The possibilities are endless.  Since scientific knowledge is limited by our ability to observe and experiment, those who reject science will always be able to claim that there's something beyond the limits of science to justify their faith.  

Look, for example, at the webpage of "Dr. Dino" where he tries to explain why light from objects that are millions of light years away is visible in a universe that's only a few thousand years old:

[url]http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQscience2.jsp[/url]

He throws out lame excuses such as "No one can state definitively the distance to the stars" and "No one knows what light is let alone that its velocity has been the same all through time and space".  

More importantly, though, those who defend the literal truth of Genesis are really defending morality.  If God's law is the basis of morality and the Bible is the source of God's law, then discrediting the Bible opens the way to moral anarchy, which is repugnant.  So defenses of Creationism are really defenses of a deeply felt sense of morality which is beyond the scope of science.  

That's why it's largely pointless to argue with the fundamentalists.  I respect them for their faith and for the good that they do, even if their beliefs are a little odd.  (That's my take on Mormons, too, BTW. [;)])

Garandman,

Is this link anymore convincing than my last?

[url]http://www.channeloklahoma.com/okl/news/stories/news-50744920010227-090214.html[/url]

Maybe for the same reason you kept lying?

Matt, I have no problems with the Mormons...they've never tried to load up school boards and get their belief about God using them to populate other planets taught as a scientific fact or their belief that Jesus ministered to American Indians taught as historical fact.  Actually I had a very cool Mormon psychology teacher in college and every Mormon I have ever run into has seemed very nice.
I would have no problems with fundamentalist christians either if they just stopped trying to get their religious beliefs made into laws.

I think he's refering to the fact that water vapor can trap IR radiation.  I think he contends that given enough water vapor in the air for that length of time would trap enough IR radation to create a "runaway greenhouse effect" or positive feedback loop.

Just an observation;

Rik, your slip is showing.

Brawk! Why do you guys keep blowing wind in this turd's sails? BRAWK! X-Kill wanna cracker! BRAWK!

BRAWK!  LMAO!

As usual, ad nausium with the ad hominem attacks, but no facts.  No calculations, just shit talk.  Or, should I say RikTalk.  Same thing.

Post the simple calculation, Rik.  [i]If[/i] you can find it, if it is so simple, if it does support what you say, et cetera.

My "drivel" must seem irritating to you, because I ask you to back up what you say.