As a long-time Texan myself... Eek!

http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/17/meet-flintstones/

Well, I'm one who believes in the young earth theory...  and I'm also from Texas    So, my question is, who has proven conclusively that humans did not live with dinosaurs?  We certainly have a lot of old stories about dragons, even fire breathing dragons & the knights of old...  the article mentions evolution & millions of years - actually evolutionists usually say that change happened over millions to billions of years...  since you seem to be horrified by the notion that many Texans believe that dinosaurs & humans existed together, here are some questions I have for you (not original from me...)  Just curious because evolution is taught as gospel in most educational institutions & even your reaction to the article shows how many people mock the "young earth" or  "creationist's" viewpoint.  Most people who talk about evolution lump micro-evolution & macro-evolution into the same category.  There is no question about there being micro-evolution - just look at the different types of dogs; or the changes in beaks of the finches that Darwin noticed in the Galapagos Islands - that does happen all the time.  I will always remember raising the fruit flies in biology class in the 7th grade...  so....  I'd also like the answers to the following questions  

And a big question I have always wondered about...  how did 2 of the same entities evolve exactly the same at the same time in order to pro-create?  In all my reading, I've never seen that answered...

Questions for Evolutionists
Written by: Walt Brown

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. The following questions were distributed to the 750-plus people who attended my debate at Winona State University in Winona, Minnesota, on January 9, 1993.  Questions added since the debate remarked with an asterisk (*).

  1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
  2. Where did matter come from?
  3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
  4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
  5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
  6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
  7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
  8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
  9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
 13. When, where, why, and how did:
         * Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
         * Single-celled animals evolve?
         * Fish change to amphibians?
         * Amphibians change to reptiles
         * Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
         * How did the intermediate forms live?
 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
         * Whales evolve?
         * Sea horses evolve?
         * Bats evolve?
         * Eyes evolve?
         * Ears evolve?
         * Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
         * The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
         * The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
         * The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
         * DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
         * The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
         * The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
         * The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
         * The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
         * The immune system or the need for it? 16.There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
 16. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
 17. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
 18. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
 19. *How did thought evolve?
 20. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
 21. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
 22. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
 23. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
 24. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
 25.

     *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

     After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
 26.

     Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
 27. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
 28. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
 29. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
 30. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
 31. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
         * It is all they have been taught.
         * They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
         * They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
         * They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
         * Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
 32. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
 33. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
 34. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
 35. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Sassy, although it's obvious to anyone here who cares to look that I enjoy the heck out of arguing with deniers, conspiracy theorists, cranks, or whatever you want to call them, I think you've vastly overestimated the amount of energy I'm willing to dedicate in one fell swoop. The list of questions you've cut and pasted, most of which aren't really even germane to evolution, appear to me to be more an effort to overwhelm with volume rather than an honest attempt at debate.

Creationism/Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that declares without proof or method that science is inadequate to explain existence and that supernatural causes must be considered. For a debate to be useful, there have to be two reasonable points of view being argued that have evidence to support them. The evidence doesn't have to be of identical quality on each side, of course, but it should at least be somewhere in the same ball park. This is where we have a problem. There are simply no real proofs or evidence to support creationism.

You knew I wasn't going to dedicate the time and effort that would be required to address all that, didn't you? Drop two or three of those questions on me sometime, though, and I'll likely bite. Better still, you could provide a credible alternative theory to evolution, supported by reasonable evidence.

In the meantime, if you really want response to some of those questions, I'll answer your cut and paste with a link, and you can trudge through it all at your leisure:

An Index to Creationist Claims

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

It's bedtime for Bonzo (me) here, so until tomorrow, you take care and sleep well, Sassy.

Night night.

Creationism/Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that declares without proof or method that science is inadequate to explain existence and that supernatural causes must be considered. For a debate to be useful, there have to be two reasonable points of view being argued that have evidence to support them. The evidence doesn't have to be of identical quality on each side, of course, but it should at least be somewhere in the same ball park. This is where we have a problem. There are simply no real proofs or evidence to support creationism.

And no, Raindog, I didn't expect or think that you'd answer any of those questions because evolutionists don't & can't answer them either - theirs is a faith in billions & billions of years of unprovable hypotheses & speculation, of countless debunked examples ie some that I posted - "Lucy, piltdown man, vestigial organs, etc" - I just thought that maybe, just maybe, you or someone else reading the questions would say "hey, how could that have happened?" 

I did ask one specific question "how did 2 of the same entities evolve at the same time to be able to pro-create?"  And while were at it "Where did time, space & matter come from?"  That's another good question that I've never seen answered by evolutionists - all I see is what you did, discount the creationist/intelligent design believers.  Evolution is just as big a step of faith as believing in a "creator" & if there was more intellectual honesty, scientists & those who have been brainwashed to believe in "billions & billions of years, something came out of nothing" would admit that they are taking that on "faith" with no provable facts other than micro-evolution. 

And yes, it is getting late, I will look at your link tomorrow & I sincerely hope that there is more "proof" than what I've read to date from the evolutionists.  Usually, when I hear an evolutionist debate or read their "support" or "proof" I just have to shake my head in wonder & laugh because it is such a preposterous leap of faith!   

Okay, here's a question for both of you.

IF dinosaurs and man coexisted WHY are dinosaurs extinct and man still in existence?

Seems like I've read in several places...people believe what they want to believe...not what is true.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a Texan too (though as it relates to this thread, I'm not so sure I want to admit it).

Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM
Okay, here's a question for both of you.

IF dinosaurs and man coexisted WHY are dinosaurs extinct and man still in existence?

Hunted them to extinction?  Global warming caused from the first cave man fire, and mans huge desire to leave the biggest ... hugest ... carbon footprint.    

I'm currently now a Texan. If I got into a line, I would be behind Ms Sassy.

What about the Aligator? I have heard many many times the Aligator was hanging back in the time of the Dinasour and its still around.

DARWINISM
Darwin's theory brings one to have to support eugenics. Which like Hitler feels that those deemed "less than" or the bottom of the the social group should be done away with so as not to pollute the gene pool. To do away with the weak and inferior in order to make the species stronger. That is the end result of what Darwin believed.

Although it  wasn't necessarily Darwin's  purpose from the beginning, but that was implied in his theory, and explicitly stated in various passages from his personal writings.

Darwins work came down to him tryng to prove during a time of slavery, why white people are more superior.

The reason I point this out no one wants to discuss Darwins motives, just his evolution.

Nuh uh. No way. I'm going to have to walk away from this discussion with you, Sassy. Sorry.

I'm well aware that I push hard enough sometimes on this forum that I come off as shrill and sarcastic at times, a price I'm usually more than willing to pay for the fun of argument, but I'm not going to add "bully" to that description. Call me a sexist, but I'm particularly loathe to bully and browbeat a woman. I'm aware that, for at least a couple of folks in here, I walk the razor-edge of being persona non grata, and not only do I want to cross that line entirely and make everyone angry needlessly, but heck, I'm probably going to need y'alls help at times when my build starts.

I will, for decorum's sake, illustrate my position by very briefly addressing one of the two questions you posed to me. Since they are actually posed from some third person, let me speak to the original author rather than to you.
_______________

Q: "Where did time, space & matter come from?"

Here you've given me two choices. I can either assume that you're a completely un-selfconscious charlatan, and are throwing a blatant and obvious red herring at me, meant to divert attention away from the issue, or that you are exhibiting a terrible and fundamental ignorance of evolutionary theory and basic biology. Either way, the chances of reasonable debate are non-existent.

Short Answer: This question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution.

It has no more bearing on biology than the thread-count of the sheets on my bed do.
_______________

I refuse to be put in the position of having to address a member of this forum in such a way. I'm not a bully, and I'm not a jerk.

So okay, I quit. I lose. You're the winner.

Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM

Okay, here's a question for both of you.

IF dinosaurs and man coexisted WHY are dinosaurs extinct and man still in existence?

Dinosaurs went extinct somewhere in the neighborhood of 66 million years ago. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

I don't claim they coexisted, so the question doesn't apply.

Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM

Seems like I've read in several places...people believe what they want to believe...not what is true.

I'm sure that applies to me too in as far as personal matters, relationships, etc. Science doesn't require "belief", though. It follows observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM

Oh, and by the way, I'm a Texan too (though as it relates to this thread, I'm not so sure I want to admit it).

I'm headed down to Austin shortly myself, so I'll be rejoining the ranks soon. Three, four months. Lookin' forward to it.

Quote from: StinkerBell on February 20, 2010, 09:31:03 AM

DARWINISM
Darwin's theory brings one to have to support eugenics. Which like Hitler feels that those deemed "less than" or the bottom of the the social group should be done away with so as not to pollute the gene pool. To do away with the weak and inferior in order to make the species stronger. That is the end result of what Darwin believed.

In his opposition to slavery, and by pointing out that all humans are a single species, Darwin went a long way toward eliminating the ancient evil of racism and its modern incarnation, eugenics.

Here we go:

"   1.  Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).

   2. Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html

It doesn't matter how many rock-solid arguments you put out for creationism, if a person is not seeking the truth they will not find it. "Those who have ears, let them hear.." Believing in the Creator does take faith, and there is no solid evidence of His existence for those who haven't yet entered into a true relationship with Him. On the flip side, for those who believe, EVERYTHING speaks of the existence of God.

God does not wish for us to have complete, scientific evidence of His existence. Where would the opportunity for faith be, or rather, what would be the point of human life? "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?

Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 10:23:58 AM

Nuh uh. No way. I'm going to have to walk away from this discussion with you, Sassy. Sorry.

I'm well aware that I push hard enough sometimes on this forum that I come off as shrill and sarcastic at times, a price I'm usually more than willing to pay for the fun of argument, but I'm not going to add "bully" to that description. Call me a sexist, but I'm particularly loathe to bully and browbeat a woman. I'm aware that, for at least a couple of folks in here, I walk the razor-edge of being persona non grata, and not only do I want to cross that line entirely and make everyone angry needlessly, but heck, I'm probably going to need y'alls help at times when my build starts.  

I'm pretty tough when it comes to debate, especially on a subject that I feel very strongly about.  Besides, I'm used to debating Glenn  

Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 10:23:58 AM
I will, for decorum's sake, illustrate my position by very briefly addressing one of the two questions you posed to me. Since they are actually posed from some third person, let me speak to the original author rather than to you.  

These are my own questions - that no one ever seems to answer - and all your bluster doesn't scare me or cause me to back off from wanting an answer...
_______________

Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 10:23:58 AM
Q: "Where did time, space & matter come from?"

Here you've given me two choices. I can either assume that you're a completely un-selfconscious charlatan, and are throwing a blatant and obvious red herring at me, meant to divert attention away from the issue, or that you are exhibiting a terrible and fundamental ignorance of evolutionary theory and basic biology. Either way, the chances of reasonable debate are non-existent.  

Short Answer: This question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution.

It has no more bearing on biology than the thread-count of the sheets on my bed do.

 not so fast!  In order to have evolution or any type of biology, you MUST have time, space & matter - why would you call me an "un-selfconcious charlatan" for asking that question?  In all evolutionary arguments, time "millions/billions" of years are required to produce change...  space is required... and matter is required...  can you prove how these occurred?  I've studied a lot of biology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, evolution, creationism...  a lot of evolutionists believe that "something came out of nothing" - that is a belief not proof - it is speculation that is taken on faith to support the evolutionist's argument.  Can you prove to me how they came into being?  Because all the rest of your or any evolutionist's argument is based on the reality that there is time, space & matter...  so, who is the charlatan?  Me, for believing in creation by "faith" or you believing in evolution by "faith"?

_______________

Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 10:23:58 AM
I refuse to be put in the position of having to address a member of this forum in such a way. I'm not a bully, and I'm not a jerk.

So okay, I quit. I lose. You're the winner.

Not fair, that offends me more than you answering my legitimate questions     BTW, I am really interested in knowing how the 1st "couple" (whatever type of creature that "evolved" 1st) evolved over time, at the same time, as male & female, in order to be able to perfectly pro-create at the right time, to even want, or know to pro-create (instinct??  intelligence??  desire? where did that come from?).  You can honestly tell me with a straight face that biological adaptation or mutations are so smart that over millions of years they would be able to perfectly coordinate this ability at the same time in order to keep that particular adaptation in existence?  

Please don't ruin your reputation for erudite arguments by failing to answer these questions...  I am truly serious, I would like a sensible response that gives more proof than "faith" in millions & billions of years, intelligent adaptations/mutations or "Mother Nature."

matter that 'contains' life is fundamentally different than the rest of matter in the universe

entropy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

simply stated

'everything eventually tends to go to a state of randomness'

But if you are talking about life, more order is created over time without apparent increase in the entropy of the environment

thus life is 'anti-entropy' and fundamentally different that any other matter known

this is all the proof I need to know that there is something that has created life and that it cannot be just a random collection of molecules getting together to form a living cell.

Nothing else in the known universe creates increasing order

randomness does not create order

'scientists' that believe in evolution ignore this fundamental flaw in their theory


oh and btw Darwin was a racist
here is the full title that is usually not quoted

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/preface.html

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

and yes he was talking about the common use of the word "race" even as applied to humans

Dang, Windpower.. there you caught RainDog perusing and promoting racist information and topics again.... 

I'm trying not to get sucked into this debate, but I can't help but make a few comments.

First I don't have enough knowledge to debate either side, but I do have some observations vis a vis the "young earth" believers.

We have the distinction in Greater Cincinnati of having the Creation "Museum" (my quotes) near by.  They, of course, are young earth folks and believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

As I understand it, they go into the debate with the presupposition that all answers are in Genesis as far as the beginning of human, animal, and plant life are concerned.  Their web site is "Answers in Genesis."

Secondly, their definition of answers is that one can literally determine time and existance from that biblical source.  They use it as literal human history.

So with those precursors, God created humans first, so since dinosaurs existed and they were animals, then humans and dinosaurs existed together.  Pretty straight forward, if their presuppositions are correct.

That's where we part ways.  I am a man of faith, but don't believe that the biblical canon was ever intended as a history record.  There is certainly history in there, but not the full and complete history of mankind.  

The bible is all about the mighty acts of God in history and not a history text, or a biology text, or an archeological text.  Literal intrepretations have caused a bunch of problems over the centuries.

I am not aware of any evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.  And if any evidence did exist, I don't see why any credible scientist would not accept it.

To me, the whole argument is not an either/or choice.  I equally object to only teaching about evolution in schools or only teaching about creationism.

Why can't we all just get along?  

And BTW, religious studies have not been banned in our schools.

Quote from: Windpower on February 20, 2010, 01:56:28 PM
matter that 'contains' life is fundamentally different than the rest of matter in the universe

entropy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

simply stated

'everything eventually tends to go to a state of randomness'

But if you are talking about life, more order is created over time without apparent increase in the entropy of the environment

thus life is 'anti-entropy' and fundamentally different that any other matter known

this is all the proof I need to know that there is something that has created life and that it cannot be just a random collection of molecules getting together to form a living cell.

Nothing else in the known universe creates increasing order

randomness does not create order

'scientists' that believe in evolution ignore this fundamental flaw in their theory


oh and btw Darwin was a racist
here is the full title that is usually not quoted

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/preface.html

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

and yes he was talking about the common use of the word "race" even as applied to humans

touche'

Heck... let's just focus on this one:

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

Regardless of where life came from... how did it start?

Trying to grasp the context of infinity with regards to time boggles my mind.  

Poppy, just a couple questions for you - historically, the Sumerians, Babylonians & Egyptians have carvings & writings that portray dinosaurs...  Greek mythology speaks of dragons & in the stories of the knights of old they fight fire breathing dragons.  The book of Job in the Bible speaks about leviathan, behemoth.  In the book of Genesis, humans were created last.

"Dinosaur" Names, Then and Now
Name and date first written in the Bible    Scientific Name (best estimate) and date the name appeared
tanniyn (dragon)    before 1400 BC    dinosaur    1841 AD
behemoth    before 1400 BC    brachiosaurus    1903 AD
Leviathan    before 1400 BC    kronosaurus    1901 AD

How we got these new names is interesting. In 1822, Mary Ann Mantell became the first person to discover and correctly identify a strange bone as part of a large, unknown reptile. Her husband, Dr. Gideon Mantell, later named this creature an "Iguanodon." From that time forward, these forgotten animals were given names chosen by the people who rediscovered them. Of course, the Bible, written between approximately 1450 BC and 95 AD, does not include any of these names.

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24

   * It "eats grass like an ox."
   * It "moves his tail like a cedar." (In Hebrew, this literally reads, "he lets hang his tail like a cedar.")
   * Its "bones are like beams of bronze,
     His ribs like bars of iron."
   * "He is the first of the ways of God."
   * "He lies under the lotus trees,
     In a covert of reeds and marsh."    

Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listing—just enough to make the point.

   * "No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up."
   * "Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?"
   * "His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted."
   * "His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth."
   * "Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins."
   * "On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear."
   * Leviathan "played" in the "great and wide sea" (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26—get the exact sense by reading them yourself).
   * Leviathan is a "reptile [a] that is in the sea." (Isaiah 27:1)

     [a] Note: The word translated "reptile" here is the Hebrew word tanniyn. This shows that "Leviathan" was also a "tanniyn" (dragon).    http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

con't on to next posting

And to continue "on-topic" concerning dinosaurs living at the same time as humans...

   * "What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?"

   * The prevailing evolutionary explanation for why dinosaurs disappeared is that the impact from a massive meteorite threw up so much dust that the skies darkened, causing the climate to cool and the vegetation sustaining the giant, coldblooded herbivores to die. Then, with widespread starvation among the herbivores, carnivores were left without adequate prey on which to survive.

   * However, one evolutionary book on dinosaurs explains the many problems associated with such dinosaur extinction theories: "Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions [of dinosaurs and other animals] at one particular point in [history]? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land-dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists."[97]

   * But one such explanation does exist, according to creationist scientists. Like evolutionists, creationists believe that the dinosaurs became extinct as a consequence of some major catastrophe. But while most evolutionists believe this catastrophe may have been a colossal meteor collision with earth, creationists believe it to be the cataclysmic, worldwide deluge known as the Genesis flood.

   * A recent discovery of thousands of fossilized dinosaur eggs shows that dinosaur eggs were only about the size of little grapefruits (including species which grew up to 50 feet long).[98] So from a creationist perspective, very young (thus very small) dinosaurs could have been taken aboard Noah's ark with ample room to spare, but not have survived as long in the new environment following the Genesis flood. (Interestingly, it is acknowledged by evolutionists that the eggs were rapidly buried in silt from a flood.[99])

   * After the Flood, the land animals that survived on the ark would have found their new world to be much different than the one before. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) the destruction of habitats, (3) man hunting for food, and (4) other catastrophes, many species of animals would have continued to eventually die out even after the Flood. Today numerous animal species become extinct every year — extinction seems to be the rule in earth history.[100] Thus, the group of animals now called dinosaurs could have simply died out in addition to the other animals that became extinct after the Flood.

   * As described in the previous section, many sea creatures would have died out during the Genesis flood, but some would have survived. In addition, all of the land animals outside of the ark would have died, but the representatives of many of the kinds that survived on the ark would have continued to live in the new world after the Flood. Indeed, these points alone explain satisfactorily, as noted above, "the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals."

   * It can thus be seen that although evolutionists believe "no such one explanation exists," they probably have not considered the creation model, which can satisfactorily explain the observed data surrounding the extinction of the dinosaurs and other animals.

   * Is there a dinosaur/dragon relationship? Clearly, it seems far-fetched, at first, to imagine dinosaurs living alongside mankind. After all, Hollywood films such as Jurassic Park portray dinosaurs as vicious predators who ruled the earth. But, actually, even evolutionists believe that most dinosaurs were not the vicious predators often pictured, but rather, just vegetarians or scavengers! In fact, the American Museum of Natural History acknowledges that, based on the evidence to date, meateating dinosaurs such as T. rex, the most famous of all fearsome dinosaurs, may not have been the ferocious predators often imagined: "While the Tyrannosaurus rex is posed as if it is stalking prey, we do not in fact know for sure whether meateating dinosaurs such as this were active hunters — tracking down, attacking, and killing prey — or scavengers, feeding on the carcasses of other dinosaurs."[101] Significantly, many animals today that might look like vicious killers are often not.[102]

   * Since it is known that dinosaurs indeed lived alongside other mammals in the past, there is no reason to assume that dinosaurs could not have been contemporaries with mankind as well.[103] Stories abound of ancient legends of dragons, sea serpents, and monsters, such as the Beowulf epic, and St. George and the Dragon. Tales of enormous fire-breathing monsters can be found in diverse parts of the world. Interestingly, ancient depictions of these dragons tend to exhibit one recurring observation: they bear a remarkable resemblance to today's dinosaur fossil reconstructions. Indeed, the article on dragons in the 1949 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica noted that dinosaurs are "astonishingly dragon-like." The most recent edition of the Encyclopedia notes that the belief in dragons "apparently arose without the slightest knowledge on the part of the ancients of the gigantic, prehistoric, dragon-like reptiles [dinosaurs]."[104]

   * It may simply be a coincidence that, before dinosaur bones were discovered about 150 years ago, ancient people depicted creatures which highly resemble today's fossil dinosaur reconstructions. But is it necessarily a coincidence? Is it possible that such drawings and stories have a basis in real past encounters with dinosaurs, suggesting that at least some dinosaurs might have been contemporaries with mankind in the past? Even the biblical Book of Job describes some creatures whose descriptions strongly resemble a dinosaur (Job 40:15–24; Job 41). Scholars have suggested that Job may be the oldest book of the Bible; perhaps he was an eyewitness to these animals. This is one of the very few animals in the Bible that is singled out for such a detailed description, suggesting that Job knew what this animal looked like and lived alongside it.

Breathing Fire

   * That large dragon-like creatures (dinosaurs) once roamed the earth is certainly evidenced by the fossil record. But breathing fire? Surely preposterous. Even if dragon stories do have basis in real past encounters with dinosaurs, it is likely these accounts have also accumulated some mythical elements over the centuries, such as breathing fire. But consider these bizarre facts:

         o Some dinosaurs (specifically the Lambeo-saurus) are particularly notable for the hatchet-shaped hollow bony crest on top of their skulls. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes this crest as containing "complex chamber extensions of the breathing passage between the nostrils and the [main tube by which air enters the lungs]." The article notes that "the function of these chambers is not known," although various uses have been suggested.[105]

         o One possibility is that these complex breathing chambers may have been similar in concept to the reaction chamber of an insect called the bombardier beetle. This little beetle is endowed with an ability to imitate exploding gunpowder. Little sacs at the tip of its abdomen spray a noxious fluid at boiling-hot temperatures. The fluid itself consists of toxins called quinones that react explosively (at an estimated rate of 500 bursts per second) in an internal "combustion" chamber with hydrogen peroxide, which is also produced by the beetle and stored in a separate body compartment.[106]

   * With complex chambers in their breathing passages, could certain dinosaurs have had the same kind of defense system operating from their heads as the bombardier beetle (i.e., some type of fire-breathing capabilities)? To date, there has been no other definitive explanation for these dinosaurs' strange head-crest chambers.

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_dino.asp

Quote from: StinkerBell on February 20, 2010, 12:52:06 PM
Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?

Science does not deal with matters of ultimate origins. These are philosophical or religious questions. Once again, this question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution. The claim of God as cause, which I assume is what you're getting at, raises the question of what caused God. If God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 03:47:58 PM

Quote from: StinkerBell on February 20, 2010, 12:52:06 PM
Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?

Science does not deal with matters of ultimate origins. These are philosophical or religious questions. Once again, this question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution. The claim of God as cause, which I assume is what you're getting at, raises the question of what caused God. If God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

Raindog, you keep mentioning "science" & evidence supporting evolution...  please, I beg of you, post some of the valid evidence supporting evolution...  not speculation, not assumptions based on millions & billions of years that no one can prove, not theories, not hypotheses - what is the REAL evidence?  And how has it been "scientifically" proven? 

Seems to me that the current "science" is based on assumptions that all the laws of time, space & matter have been the same from the beginning...  how can that be proven?  Faith?  So I choose to believe in a Creator who is the great "I AM" - who always was, is & will always be.  Do you believe in the "Cosmos" or what? 

Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 12:57:27 PM

 not so fast!  In order to have evolution or any type of biology, you MUST have time, space & matter - why would you call me an "un-selfconcious charlatan" for asking that question?  In all evolutionary arguments, time "millions/billions" of years are required to produce change...  space is required... and matter is required...  can you prove how these occurred?  I've studied a lot of biology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, evolution, creationism...  a lot of evolutionists believe that "something came out of nothing" - that is a belief not proof - it is speculation that is taken on faith to support the evolutionist's argument.  Can you prove to me how they came into being?  Because all the rest of your or any evolutionist's argument is based on the reality that there is time, space & matter...  so, who is the charlatan?  Me, for believing in creation by "faith" or you believing in evolution by "faith"?

I didn't call you an un-selfconscious charlatan. I was speaking of the original author of that ridiculous list of questions, in an attempt to illustrate why there was no real response but disdain, and why I really didn't want to be forced into doing the same with a member of this forum.

The argument that evolution somehow claims "something from nothing" is a full on straw man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is expanded daily. Belief in evolution does not require faith at all, as long as you are willing to spend the time studying it.

Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 12:57:27 PM

Not fair, that offends me more than you answering my legitimate questions     BTW, I am really interested in knowing how the 1st "couple" (whatever type of creature that "evolved" 1st) evolved over time, at the same time, as male & female, in order to be able to perfectly pro-create at the right time, to even want, or know to pro-create

You assume a jump to males and females from no sexual reproduction at all. It is a huge, slow, diverse range of thousands of different reproduction mechanisms, but I'll gladly disrespect and compact it down nearly to the point of silliness for brevity's sake:

First there were simple asexually reproducing organisms that found benefits from swapping genes (as bacteria still do today) Then full-fledged sexual reproduction without sexes (The sending out of spores, as amoebas and slime molds still do today). Then slow differentiation between sex cells but not individuals. Then slow differentiation between individuals to specialize in having one or the other sex. Then to ever greater differences between males and females that we find in vertebrates, and mammals, such as ourselves.

Happy with that? No, I didn't think so. I'm not a biologist, so my understanding is only basic.

Problem is, I think you're assuming the question to be unanswerable, which it isn't, and would reject even the most comprehensive explanation offered.

Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 12:57:27 PM

Please don't ruin your reputation for erudite arguments...

Gee, thanks! 

Quote from: Windpower on February 20, 2010, 01:56:28 PM

entropy:

This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems. The fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease. And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them.

Quote from: Windpower on February 20, 2010, 01:56:28 PM

oh and btw Darwin was a racist

The mention of "favored races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. There is no moral judgment involved.

Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 03:57:05 PM

Raindog, you keep mentioning "science" & evidence supporting evolution...  please, I beg of you, post some of the valid evidence supporting evolution...  not speculation, not assumptions based on millions & billions of years that no one can prove, not theories, not hypotheses - what is the REAL evidence?  And how has it been "scientifically" proven? 

Hey, y'all have had me peckin' away at this for a little while now. I know it's Saturday and all, but I have a couple of things I gotta run do.

Real evidence? Look up these terms:

"Fossil evidence", "Homologies", "Distribution in time and space", and "evidence by example" as they relate to the theory of evolution.

Okay? That'll scratch the surface.

Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 03:57:05 PM

Seems to me that the current "science" is based on assumptions that all the laws of time, space & matter have been the same from the beginning...  how can that be proven?  Faith?  So I choose to believe in a Creator who is the great "I AM" - who always was, is & will always be.  Do you believe in the "Cosmos" or what? 

Now I know I'm burned out. It's not you, it's me, but I don't know what to say to that. Hopefully I'll heal. 

Catch ya later!