Dinosaurs or really big chickens

  • Thread starter Thread starter Swamp_Yankee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hear what you’re saying, ed; and I would add that in my own case, with many, many discussions with Darwinists over the years, a good many of them simply will not brook any argument about Darwinian evolution—you try it, and they will get just as violent and wrathful as any Muslim extremist ready to fly airplanes into buildings. They react to this affront rather like fanatical followers of a religion, rather than dispassionate scientists.

You don’t dare say one word against the One True Holy Faith (Darwinian Evolution) or the Divine Prophet (Charlie Darwin himself) unless you want to subject yourself to snide ridicule at the very least, or abusive attacks on your intelligence at the worst.
 
I hear what you’re saying, ed; and I would add that in my own case, with many, many discussions with Darwinists over the years, a good many of them simply will not brook any argument about Darwinian evolution—you try it, and they will get just as violent and wrathful as any Muslim extremist ready to fly airplanes into buildings. They react to this affront rather like fanatical followers of a religion, rather than dispassionate scientists.

You don’t dare say one word against the One True Holy Faith (Darwinian Evolution) or the Divine Prophet (Charlie Darwin himself) unless you want to subject yourself to snide ridicule at the very least, or abusive attacks on your intelligence at the worst.
But the thing that those Darwinians can’t fathom is that even if evolution is true exactly as they claim, it in no way precludes God. Just because mutations are random to them doesn’t mean they are random to God. What they don’t understand is that God could have, if he had indeed willed to do so, set up the initial conditions of the world 14 billion years ago to arrive at exactly the God-chosen point we are at today, right down to the color of a particular Darwinist’s eyes, and the number of hairs on his particular Darwinist head.

Just because they can’t fathom it doesn’t mean God couldn’t do it.
 
I know it, Mike, and that’s something I’ve never understood either. The only explanation I can come up with is that they have, like I said, replaced religious faith in God with religious faith in Darwinism, and any opposing idea that tries to place God back into the equation will be met with rabid resistance, because to those people, “God” brings to mind outlandish ideas of ignorance, superstition, and oppression, as opposed to their concept of the bright, shining rational sensibility of “science”.
 
I hear what you’re saying, ed; and I would add that in my own case, with many, many discussions with Darwinists over the years, a good many of them simply will not brook any argument about Darwinian evolution—you try it, and they will get just as violent and wrathful as any Muslim extremist ready to fly airplanes into buildings. They react to this affront rather like fanatical followers of a religion, rather than dispassionate scientists.

You don’t dare say one word against the One True Holy Faith (Darwinian Evolution) or the Divine Prophet (Charlie Darwin himself) unless you want to subject yourself to snide ridicule at the very least, or abusive attacks on your intelligence at the worst.
That is a sad fact Wolseley. I think that they tend to be as short-sighted as some of the more extreme creationists (not all of course!).

Unfortunately they have subscribed to a history that puts all of the blame for humanities ills at the hands of the world’s religions, yet at the same time they believe that humanity has the answers for all of our problems through purely manmade means.

These individuals have differing philosophies, some from the political left, some from the political right, some not political at all. Yet, it is telling that even they need a creation story of some sort. So they use the one from science and chalk it up to pure randomness.

Think about it. To follow this line of belief and credit humanity with the ability to do such great things - yet your very existence is based on a chain of vastly unlikely random events.
 
But the thing is, when you tell people that don’t believe that God created the heavens and the earth, they still want you to accept theistic evolution at the very least. Basically, they’ll say: “OK, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that your book of myths (the Bible) has some truth to it. But (watch for it), this part called Genesis is not talking about 24 hour days, it’s talking about millions of years.” And when anyone says, “No, God can create man out of the dust of the earth and breathe life into his nostrils.” The reply is - that’s ridiculous and they start calling you names: “irrational,” “willfully ignorant,” "fundamentalist - which means willing to kill lots of people over your beliefs, and other things.

They want to make sure that they get the evolutionary foot in the door so they can tell you other nonsense. Look at it this way. Prior to Charles Darwin, if you asked someone why didn’t they believe in God, what would they say? After Charles Darwin, they can and do say: “The evidence points to a natural (no God required) origin for human beings.” Followed by: “Get your stupid myths and superstitions away from me.”

God bless,
Ed
 
But the thing is, when you tell people that don’t believe that God created the heavens and the earth, they still want you to accept theistic evolution at the very least. Basically, they’ll say: “OK, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that your book of myths (the Bible) has some truth to it. But (watch for it), this part called Genesis is not talking about 24 hour days, it’s talking about millions of years.” And when anyone says, “No, God can create man out of the dust of the earth and breathe life into his nostrils.” The reply is - that’s ridiculous and they start calling you names: “irrational,” “willfully ignorant,” "fundamentalist - which means willing to kill lots of people over your beliefs, and other things.

They want to make sure that they get the evolutionary foot in the door so they can tell you other nonsense. Look at it this way. Prior to Charles Darwin, if you asked someone why didn’t they believe in God, what would they say? After Charles Darwin, they can and do say: “The evidence points to a natural (no God required) origin for human beings.” Followed by: “Get your stupid myths and superstitions away from me.”
And we have to be prepared to answer such arguments. Claiming that evolution removes God from the picture is like claiming the discovery of a wrench and a screwdriver is proof that the existence of automobiles can be explained without recourse to believing in humans.

We are in an era where we cannot ignore objective science, but must deal with it. And we can, because truth cannot contradict truth. Fides et Ratio, it’s ours, we own it.
 
I’ve been doing some Googling regarding the articles above regarding the blood cells and tissue that Mary Schweitzer found in the T-Rex bone, and it’s interesting reading. The latest article I could find is dated two moths ago, and can be found here: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/13/MNGVGP7VCQ1.DTL&type=science

Most of the articles date from 2005…a few here and there from 2006; after that, not much.

I wonder why? Every one of those articles comments that what Schweitzer found stands the whole paleontological chronology on its ear, but nothing much is being said. But then, I came across statements in some of the articles like these:
(Regarding the finding of soft tissue and blood cells in the T-Rex specimen) "I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible. I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’ "
All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. “The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur,” she wrote in a 1997 paper.

That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines. Horner and others regarded Schweitzer’s research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner, "most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, ‘I just don’t believe it.’ She was having a hard time publishing in journals.
Or in other words, Schweitzer is getting the same type of reception that Charles Darwin once did…the Darwinists are being presented with possible evidence that turns their whole worldview on its head, and they don’t like it one bit.
 
But the thing is, when you tell people that don’t believe that God created the heavens and the earth, they still want you to accept theistic evolution at the very least. Basically, they’ll say: “OK, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that your book of myths (the Bible) has some truth to it. But (watch for it), this part called Genesis is not talking about 24 hour days, it’s talking about millions of years.” And when anyone says, “No, God can create man out of the dust of the earth and breathe life into his nostrils.” The reply is - that’s ridiculous and they start calling you names: “irrational,” “willfully ignorant,” "fundamentalist - which means willing to kill lots of people over your beliefs, and other things.

They want to make sure that they get the evolutionary foot in the door so they can tell you other nonsense. Look at it this way. Prior to Charles Darwin, if you asked someone why didn’t they believe in God, what would they say? After Charles Darwin, they can and do say: “The evidence points to a natural (no God required) origin for human beings.” Followed by: “Get your stupid myths and superstitions away from me.”

God bless,
Ed
Ed, you might know something about this:

Didn’t Darwin himself reject all of his “origin of species” theories in favor of Divine Creation before he died?
 
Ed, you might know something about this:

Didn’t Darwin himself reject all of his “origin of species” theories in favor of Divine Creation before he died?
I don’t know. I’ve heard yes and no.

God bless,
Ed
 
I don’t think you can have it both ways (Adam and Eve coming from super evolved Apes) God didn’t need evolution to create anything !👍
 
As you probably read, a few months ago that an article came out linking chicken with the T-Rex. The DNA are uncanny. If that is true, then eating a chicken is like eating a T-Rex.

It seem to me that God’s will is at work here. Any comments.
 
As you probably read, a few months ago that an article came out linking chicken with the T-Rex. The DNA are uncanny. If that is true, then eating a chicken is like eating a T-Rex.

It seem to me that God’s will is at work here. Any comments.
eh?
 
As you probably read, a few months ago that an article came out linking chicken with the T-Rex. The DNA are uncanny. If that is true, then eating a chicken is like eating a T-Rex.

It seem to me that God’s will is at work here. Any comments.
Dinosaurs are tasty:D
 
As you probably read, a few months ago that an article came out linking chicken with the T-Rex. The DNA are uncanny. If that is true, then eating a chicken is like eating a T-Rex.

It seem to me that God’s will is at work here. Any comments.
Yeah some of the (poor white trash) cavemen would eat fried dinosaur Gizzards.🙂
 
What it all boils down to is that nobody was there, and nobody can say for sure what exactly happened. You will run into people who will swear that life began in some “primordial sea”, where “just the right combination” of chemicals in a “soup” just somehow happened to “produce life”.

Well, maybe. But do we have any samples of this “soup” to test this theory? No. Can it be reproduced in a lab? No. Has anybody ever witnessed this transformation take place? No.
Soup’s up!

Now, I’ll be perfectly honest – I don’t know what kickstarted life as we know it. I think, however, that answering ‘God’ is only extending the problem, pushing it back one step further – but let’s not get into that.

I do not think that it’s a stretch or wrong for a theist to point to evolution and say ‘this is the best explanation we have for how God did it’. After all, we’re talking about an omnipotent being; sure, God could’ve created the earth with fake dinosaur bones buried beneath the surface, but I can’t for the life of me think of why a deity with a reputation as a straight man rather than a practical joker would do such a thing.

It’s no belittling of omnipotence to think God played by the rules he created in the development of life. And it does not conflict with the idea of human ensoulment – again, omnipotence to the rescue! Maybe he saw a couple of apes and decided to kick them into being something more.

VociMike, thanks for being the voice of sanity in this thread. Though I’d certainly love to find out what T. Rex’s white meat tastes like 😃
 
I do not think that it’s a stretch or wrong for a theist to point to evolution and say ‘this is the best explanation we have for how God did it’. After all, we’re talking about an omnipotent being; sure, God could’ve created the earth with fake dinosaur bones buried beneath the surface, but I can’t for the life of me think of why a deity with a reputation as a straight man rather than a practical joker would do such a thing.
That’s right. If we believe a literalist reading of Genesis then we have to believe one of three things, all of which are IMO completely unacceptable:
  1. That God went to extraordinary lengths to hide the creation he spelled out in Genesis, and to substitute a different, fake creation story as revealed in the physical evidence.
  2. That humans are incapable of applying their God-given intellect to gain real knowledge about the world around them. That the world we live in is fundamentally unknowable, and even worse, fundamentally deceiving (because it strongly appears to be knowable).
  3. That all scientists who are involved in any of the fields that relate to the distant past, e.g. cosmology, palentology, paleobiology, anthropology, etc, are lying, either to themselves or to us. Some, maybe (humans being human), but all? In all those different disciplines? That’s the classic overarching conspiracy claim. They’re all lying!
It’s no belittling of omnipotence to think God played by the rules he created in the development of life. And it does not conflict with the idea of human ensoulment – again, omnipotence to the rescue! Maybe he saw a couple of apes and decided to kick them into being something more.
“Gee, those apes down there look interesting! Wonder what they’d be like with souls?” 😛

Now come on, a fair telling of the theistic view is that God knew all along exactly the human creatures he wanted to create, and set things in motion to arrive at that exact end, in a way that also demonstrated his creative artistry for all generations who learned to read the signs.
VociMike, thanks for being the voice of sanity in this thread. Though I’d certainly love to find out what T. Rex’s white meat tastes like 😃
Hey, all it takes are a few ancient mosquitos trapped in amber, right? 🙂
 
But you still have to concede that what they used in the experiments is still only what they think the “primordial soup” consisted of. Nobody knows for sure, because nobody has any samples from the time. It is, at best, an educated guess.
Now, I’ll be perfectly honest – I don’t know what kickstarted life as we know it. I think, however, that answering ‘God’ is only extending the problem, pushing it back one step further – but let’s not get into that.
You can get into a “chain of mirrors” aspect with any of these debates…take it all the way back to the “primordial soup”, and that’s dandy, but where did the primary elements come from? “Gas and dust as it coalesced in space.” Fine. Where did the gas and dust come from? “Leftover materials from the Big Bang.” Okay. What caused the Big Bang? “We don’t know.” Ah.

What it boils down to is no matter which way you look at it, there’s always something that was always “just there” to start all this stuff in motion. Science usually gives it some name like “Primary elementary particles” or some such; Christians usually refer to it as Deity.
I do not think that it’s a stretch or wrong for a theist to point to evolution and say ‘this is the best explanation we have for how God did it’. After all, we’re talking about an omnipotent being
I agree. He could very well have done it that way, even with the inherent problems in Darwinian theory. And there’s nothing to stop any Christian from accepting that viewpoint. But there’s also an equally legitimate viewpoint which looks at the whole rig with a healthy dose of skepticism, for religious, philosophical, and yes, even scientific reasons.
sure, God could’ve created the earth with fake dinosaur bones buried beneath the surface, but I can’t for the life of me think of why a deity with a reputation as a straight man rather than a practical joker would do such a thing.
Now it’s my turn to engage in some speculation. Who’s to say that God didn’t create an entire creation, which, for whatever reason, He later allowed to be destroyed by whatever cataclysm you choose, and then built a new one on top of the ruins of the old? This would fit in with the theory of “mass extinctions” every so often ( Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, Cretaceous, and at the present time, Quaternary, as I recall), and would likewise explain why we dig these bones up that obviously did once belong to living creatures.

However, we also don’t know what the atmospheric conditions were like during these previous “creations”, any more than we really know what the “primordial soup” consisted of. Maybe there was more nitrogen in the air; maybe there was more atmospheric pressure; maybe there was a permanant overcast and less solar radiation. Nobody knows. Maybe God re-configured the whole works to accomodate mankind when He decided to create man.

And then later on, we dig this stuff up and conclude that it’s part of the creation we now presently occupy, never recognizing that what we’re finding had nothing to do with what we’re now living in, and in our error, we extrapolate backwards the present conditions and assume it was always similar to the way it is now.

(shrug) Just speculation. Sort of like primordial soup. 😉
It’s no belittling of omnipotence to think God played by the rules he created in the development of life. And it does not conflict with the idea of human ensoulment – again, omnipotence to the rescue! Maybe he saw a couple of apes and decided to kick them into being something more.
Maybe. Or maybe those “hominid species” are nothing more than extinct species of ape that had nothing to do with humans.
VociMike, thanks for being the voice of sanity in this thread. Though I’d certainly love to find out what T. Rex’s white meat tastes like 😃
You’d be better off eating Apaotosaurus…we have always traditionally stuck to consuming plant-eaters (cows, swine, mammoths) instead of predators (wolves, lions, tigers). 🙂
 
Dinosaurs existed (and maybe some still do). That is a fact.

Evolution is a myth. Dinosaurs have nothing to do with evolution, which is just an explanation for creation without a Creator. Evolution is NOT science. I have devised a little experiment that you can conduct yourself:
Code:
Take a photograph that is out of focus.  Make a copy of it on a photocopy machine.  Then make a copy of the copy, and keep copying the last copy.  As each copy introduces random errors to the original, see how long it takes for the photo to become clearer and clearer.  That is how evolution is supposed to work:  random errors perfect the original product.  Isn't science wonderful?
Radio carbon is not a reliable dating system for very old items. There are many examples of fairly recent pieces being dated 20,000 years old. Radio carbon dating is based on the ASSUMPTION that what we can measure over a few thousand years can be extrapolated over millions of years. This ASSUMES that environmental conditions are static (were always as they are today), which is not what Genesis says.

Dates like 65 millions years ago are wild speculations by evolutionists. Dates like this are necessary to believe the evolutionary myth. There are a few dozen methods for dating artifacts, besides carbon 14. They are ignored because the tend to give much more recent dates for these artifacts, and thereford do not fit the evolutionary model. So if you chose the evidence that supports your theory, and reject the evidence that disproves it, you can pretty much prove anything.

No animal ever evolved from another animal. There are variations whithin species. Look at all the variations in dogs. They didn’t evolve from one another. The human race shows variation, some of us have light skin, some dark. Some have blond hair, some black, and some have no hair. We didn’t evolve. We are variations of the same species. Evolution is behind such racist philosophies as Nazism.

The only reason for believing in evolution today is to justify your disbelief in a Creator. When you disblieve the obvious, you are liable to fall for the ridiculous.

ابو كمون
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top