Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

Caid Ivik · February 10, 2003

In decade even humans cannot change their adaptability. Enviroment adapts anything, but it lasts centuries and usually with replaced, not changed kinds. Do you think all surviving dinos quickly became smaller because it was giving them an advantage? Also why do you think that official aging is so reliable? I think it's like a scientific dogma that dinos lived 100 millions of years before us. There were found skeletons of humans and them in same geological depth. Also you why would you say that myths about dragons, yetis etc. cannot be true? Imagine it, dragons were powerful carnivores, which scared old humans, which eliminated them in some kind of permanent "crusade" (most dragon-slayers were knights also, also in Bible are ment Leviathans). Laugh at this if you want, but I think: "without wind even leaf won't move".

Acriku · February 10, 2003

Heh emprworm, nothing to reply to it but slander? DODGE ;)

Human beings have changed a lot over time. In the 1800's men were averagely 5 foot, 5 foot 1, and now the average is 5 foot 9. A decade wouldn't do too much because when the mutation occurs (averagely one or two per offspring) and is inherited, it takes quite a bit of generations for it to show up.

I don't understand what you mean by surviving dinos? Like alligators?

The official aging is so reliable, because our cells have time clocks. After so much time, they shut down. In the 1800's when there were diseases rampant, if you stayed healthy you would live to about 72. If you stayed healthy currently, you would be expected to live to the same average.

Where is proof of these fossils of man and dino together? Basic paleontology tells you that the fossils of dinosaurs date back ~64-100 million years ago, and the latest man fossil is only 7-8 million years ago. So I think they did not coexist :)

I don't say there is no such thing as dragons, or yetis, but I can say that because of extreme lack of evidence, it is highly unlikely. A leaf would fall even if there was no wind, shown in experiments with 0 air pressure tubes and a feather falling back and forth in it as it is turned upside down.

emprworm · February 10, 2003

Heh emprworm, nothing to reply to it but slander? DODGE ;)
Human beings have changed a lot over time. In the 1800's men were averagely 5 foot, 5 foot 1, and now the average is 5 foot 9. A decade wouldn't do too much because when the mutation occurs (averagely one or two per offspring) and is inherited, it takes quite a bit of generations for it to show up.
I don't understand what you mean by surviving dinos? Like alligators?
The official aging is so reliable, because our cells have time clocks. After so much time, they shut down. In the 1800's when there were diseases rampant, if you stayed healthy you would live to about 72. If you stayed healthy currently, you would be expected to live to the same average.
Where is proof of these fossils of man and dino together? Basic paleontology tells you that the fossils of dinosaurs date back ~64-100 million years ago, and the latest man fossil is only 7-8 million years ago. So I think they did not coexist :)
I don't say there is no such thing as dragons, or yetis, but I can say that because of extreme lack of evidence, it is highly unlikely. A leaf would fall even if there was no wind, shown in experiments with 0 air pressure tubes and a feather falling back and forth in it as it is turned upside down.

DODGE? The only one dodging by failing to provide evidence to support the claim of macro-evolution is Acriku. You have the burden of proof, not I. It is not my job to disprove macro-evolution, it is your job to prove it.

Acriku · February 10, 2003

So why say anything? Oh yeah, to spam. Please refrain from spamming in this thread, I find it easy to believe that the author of this thread would agree.

Anyways, I have provided proof, and you simply deny it.

emprworm · February 10, 2003

oh, seriously, i want to read the proof. maybe i missed it. could you please post the link to the post that contains the proof? Then I will be happy to consider it. thanks.

Acriku · February 10, 2003

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ And please read some it before arguing about it.

To avoid a possible argument, using the link http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp ... Goto http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

emprworm · February 10, 2003

i already refuted those "29 evidences" in a past thread. got anything else?

Acriku · February 10, 2003

Heh that's a laugh. I don't remember this, could you post it again oh Mr. Genius-who-is-the-first-person-to-refute-all-of-it

emprworm · February 10, 2003

sure let me try to dig it up.

and also, if you have proof for macro-evolution, it shouldn't take a 5 billion six hundred and ninety eight thousand four hundred and thirty seven page shotgun-blast diatribe. Just the simple obvious proof that pure science demands is sufficient. The sheer plethora of babble is enough to refute the "proof" in itself.

To show already existing proof of something usually takes all of ....what.....one page?

emprworm · February 11, 2003

ok, as promised:

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?action=display;board=2;threadid=7938;start=240#msg120722

Acriku · February 11, 2003

emprworm, surely you know science isn't a sentence or two about this, and a sentence or two about that, and it's proven. Of course not! Evidence must be explained to the exact detail, lest the community not find it enough explanation with according evidence. If it is too much for you, then I guess you will have to take my word for it. If not, read it. I am still reading it, so it won't take you just a night. This is a debate, so read the evidence and debate.

emprworm · February 11, 2003

if its too much for you to not sift through that universal, galactic heap of rhetoric to find simply:

Species A mutated into Species B, here is the empirical observational data, as this event was observed.

All I want from you is the following two pieces of information:

Species A

Species B

Is that too much to ask? Don't make me sift through that 1 Septillion word stack of mincemeat

Acriku · February 11, 2003

I gave you proof, and now it's not good enough? Please emprworm, your personal views are affecting your ability to objectively analyze the proof I have pointed the way to you. Macroevolution is impossible to prove by empirical "observational" data, but then again we can "observe" the earth and derive conclusions from it. Our past is lying all around us, and specialists are learning much from it.

sneezer3 · February 11, 2003

Just want to make something clear. i can't quote anything because it is copyrighted.

one more thing. i can't go into details for three reasons.

*1: I don't know enough about the Subject(s) to make very good arguements.

*2 Its copyrighted.

*3 Its hard to make an arguement agenst a hole site. takes way to much time.

ok. lets get to it.

#1 i'd like to start with the charter.(on the website.)

See this chart!

This does not mean a thing. Macro evelution is not proven. this is what your set out to do.

See this chart!

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=4

Basicly what he does here is puts prediction with prediction with prediction. and says "What if they all matched up?" However, i remind you that you can get parshelly build houses and line them all up and say "What if one came from the other and they all matched up? One house from the other!"

I would not cllarfy his claims on there as "evedence" of any kind.

#2: Read #1 and see the chart. he basicly does just what i said here in the first few sentances. tryes to match them all up.

#3: Doing the same thing again.

#4 Read the first sentance. Dr Kent Hovine explans that Dionsaurs are in the Bible as i have said before. I also point out the Past attempts. they go crazy when they find a fossil these days. but all of them have been debunked in a matter of time after they where found.

#5 No Diffrant then the above really.

Thats preety much the best i can do cansidering its copyrighted.

I gave you proof, and now it's not good enough?

That is not proof enough for it to be tought as a "fact". The Reilgion of Evolutionism should be tought along with the othters. it is no better then them they censore stuff out of the science books to the contrary.

Acriku, i very strongly recomend you see some of his videos online that are downloadable. and tottely free.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=seminar_online

emprworm · February 11, 2003

. Macroevolution is impossible to prove by empirical "observational" data

you said it.

sneezer3 · February 11, 2003

. Macroevolution is impossible to prove by empirical "observational" data
you said it.

Which is my point why it shouldn't be stuffed up kids thoats as a "fact" take it or leave it.

There is not enough evedence behind it.

Acriku · February 11, 2003

Sneezer I would not use drdino.com as a source, as "dr" dino has been proven wrong many times, and is basically an embarrassment ... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/faq/scifaq3.html

That chart is bogus, even the writer of it says so! It was a humor act, as said... http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/chromosome.html

Seriously sneezer, if you are going to debate, please use credible sources, not obviously biased "proof" that is nothing more than logical fallacies.

That is not proof enough for it to be tought as a "fact". The Reilgion of Evolutionism should be tought along with the othters. it is no better then them they censore stuff out of the science books to the contrary.

Why is that not enough proof? It proves it, so...now we have to go further beyond proving it right? Evolutionism is not a religion, and should not be taught along with the others (for many reasons, such as ... it isn't science?), it is better than them because it does not require blind faith, absolute undeniability, and accepts change over time as discoveres are discovered.

And no, I'd rather not waste my time downloading a file from drdino.com because the files are huge, over 100 mb! And even then, he wouldn't have any proof that he doesn't use on his website, which would be easier and faster.

Now sneezer, the sites you are using are extremely bad, I know you can find better websites out there.

As for emprworm, quoting out of context, and then replying to it, is looked down upon. It is impossible to be observed for us, because we live not a century! It's no wonder we couldn't observe macroevolution in our time, so this isn't even an argument. This proves nothing.

Sneezer, it isn't stuffed down anyone's throats, I don't even remember learning about it in biology in any detail, but in advanced placement biology the whole course is centered around evolution, because, well, it's proven. Lol :) Oh and there is enough evidence behind it.

I think I'm doing pretty well by myself, for now, because of the ignorance of the opposition, lack of knowledge is bad my friends. You see something that you think goes against all you have been taught, and you fight it without reason and without giving a budge - no matter how much it is shown to be proven, and no matter how much of your "proofs" is refuted. Look at it objectively, and you will find an answer.

emprworm · February 11, 2003

As for emprworm, quoting out of context, and then replying to it, is looked down upon. It is impossible to be observed for us, because we live not a century! It's no wonder we couldn't observe macroevolution in our time, so this isn't even an argument. This proves nothing.

exactly- evolution proves nothing.

one species evolving into another should be easily observed in smaller organisms in a 100 year time span. no observations = proves nothing.

Dr. Hovind has a point.

Acriku · February 11, 2003

If you are going to be childish and put words in my mouth, don't bother posting in here. Surely you are not running out of things to debate that you must stoop that low?

Why would a small organism have significantly less time to evolve into another species? This is pure speculation, and based on false knowledge. Mutations and sexual recombination doesn't speed up for small organisms, please! Evolution is a gradual process. If you want to argue or debate or discuss, please provide something worth doing so.

emprworm · February 11, 2003

well obviously Acriku, since we are talking about speculation, and since no one has been here witnessing the planet for 4.5 billion years (assuming that is even the right age of the earth)...that is all it is....pure speculation. I am still waiting for you to declare these variables:

Observed:

Species A evolves into Species B.

Anything less than OBSERVED is *not* proof. (see: scientific method). And of all the tens of thousands of species of life on earth, I am only asking you demonstrate one of them. Not too hard for someone who proclaims evolution of species is an empirical fact...right?

After all...it IS evolution of species you are claiming....?? RIGHT?

THen post me the proof, else admit your faith and be done with it.

Acriku · February 11, 2003

Since evolution cannot be observed because the time spans are too long, therefore it cannot be scientific. This, of course, is the old logical trick of setting up a self-serving definition. Scientific theories deal all the time with things we cannot observe, like, gravity, electrons, electric fields, viruses, and so on. On the basis of these theories predictions are made which lead to observable results which will enable the theories to be confirmed or falsified. In this sense, evolution is thoroughly scientific. It leads to predictions which can be checked against the fossil record. A single finding, well confirmed, could destroy the case for evolution (e.g., a vertebrate skeleton in the pre-Cambrian rocks). That has never happened in the thousands of inspections which occur.

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/creation.htm

"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Isn't it true that evolution as a theory cannot be observed or tested? No, this is not true. The very rapid evolution of viruses and bacteria can be easily observed. Example: Antibiotic resistant strains of many types of bacteria have evolved from strains that were very susceptible to these same antibiotics. For additional info, visit Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics. Also, several speciation events (instances of one species evolving into another) involving multicellular organisms have been observed and documented! To learn about these, click here: Observed Instances of Speciation. In addition, molecular test results and findings, in both plants and animals, support evolution.

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

And so another trick is tried by emprworm. Let us see what he comes up for us later. :)

emprworm · February 11, 2003

you remind me of sneezer. he posts links to jack chick, you post links to talk.origins.

lol, you 2 are very similar in a way.

I maintain my position:

to him who declares evolution of SPECIES a fact, he must show the simple empirical evidence of one species evolving into another- even on a very simple level (not a frog into a cow...duh!)...

the Scientific Method contains the necessary requirements for proof.

until those requirements are met, to declare it proof is scientifically unsound. -- even if you have to come up with a 100,000+ word document that dances around the issue and lacks that one single centerpiece: proof.

SurlyPIG · February 11, 2003

This does not mean a thing. Macro evelution is not proven. this is what your set out to do.

See this chart!

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=4

Basicly what he does here is puts prediction with prediction with prediction. and says "What if they all matched up?" However, i remind you that you can get parshelly build houses and line them all up and say "What if one came from the other and they all matched up? One house from the other!"

Why does that matter? All it does is compare the number of chromosomes of different species. That doesn't mean a thing...It's what's INSIDE the chromosomes, and the traits the chromosomes carry.

To postulate that organisms with the same #of chromosomes should be the same would be like saying that every file on a computer the same size as something else should be the same...

This guy says, "Chimp and tobacco each have 48 chromosomes - Twins!"

That would be like me saying, "File A is a high resolution, three dimensional picture of geodesic sphere. File B is 30 minutes of streaming audio of a man farting. Both are 2048kb in size. Twins!"

emprworm · February 11, 2003

To postulate that organisms with the same #of chromosomes should be the same would be like saying that every file on a computer the same size as something else should be the same...
This guy says, "Chimp and tobacco each have 48 chromosomes - Twins!"

yet that is basically what evolution does in its entirety.

Ape = bipedal

homosapien = bipedal

TWINS! (errr...well not quite but close)

the second most complex component of a human being is the eye (second to the brain). The eye of an ape is nothing like the eye of a human, not even remote. the closest thing to a human eye is the eye of an octopus. Another pothole in the megalithic ancient stone highway known as "evolution"

Caid Ivik · February 11, 2003

Heh emprworm, nothing to reply to it but slander? DODGE ;)
Human beings have changed a lot over time. In the 1800's men were averagely 5 foot, 5 foot 1, and now the average is 5 foot 9. A decade wouldn't do too much because when the mutation occurs (averagely one or two per offspring) and is inherited, it takes quite a bit of generations for it to show up.
I don't understand what you mean by surviving dinos? Like alligators?
The official aging is so reliable, because our cells have time clocks. After so much time, they shut down. In the 1800's when there were diseases rampant, if you stayed healthy you would live to about 72. If you stayed healthy currently, you would be expected to live to the same average.
Where is proof of these fossils of man and dino together? Basic paleontology tells you that the fossils of dinosaurs date back ~64-100 million years ago, and the latest man fossil is only 7-8 million years ago. So I think they did not coexist :)
I don't say there is no such thing as dragons, or yetis, but I can say that because of extreme lack of evidence, it is highly unlikely. A leaf would fall even if there was no wind, shown in experiments with 0 air pressure tubes and a feather falling back and forth in it as it is turned upside down.

That you call a change? Statistics of height? Than I can say that I am a new kind because I am higher than my mother. That is no proof of evolution. Mutation is every time someone is born, yes, but most changes of mankind are made by their own actions. If we live longer than before 200 years it isn't because we have mutated, but because we have made some progress in medicine. But look at any animal. How they've changed? Also it is true that bacteries mutate faster than animals. So why there are more insect kinds than bacterias? And how is it possible that if all dinos died they were able to evolve into crocodile? Evolution is too slow to create new generation of lifeforms if such crash as then occurs. It is a moment, but some years without sun would decimate any living thing very quickly.

BASIC PALEONTOLOGY HAS SHOWED THAT EVERY SLIME IS OLD 25 000 YEARS! And now, call it reliable...

Also I was saying about dragons they were hunted and extinct, like we talk about mammoths. I can't send you all books about those finds of dinos in same geological depth with human skeletons (also about only 20 000 years old), but it is true fact, not just my rumor. It could be done by erosion, I don't know, but it was found. Everything it's just a theory. Don't be too dogmatic, Acriku, complex evolution is a theory, not fact.

Leaf would fall in nature from tree, but not move if you'll place it into vacuum without any outer influence and kinetic energy. Same for your secular world.

Sign In

Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

Recommended Posts

Caid Ivik

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

sneezer3

emprworm

sneezer3

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

SurlyPIG

emprworm

Caid Ivik

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information