Creation Museum Marries Adam, Eve and Dinosaurs

To: fortheDeclaration

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.... who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creation more than the Creator, who is blessed forever Amen. (Rom.1:22,25)"

Cute, but also irrelevant.

"Actually, the article that your side put out was long on conjecture and short on fact."

You didn't even read my article, you read the summary.

"Find something that is moving from one species to another, that would be true transitional stage."

Tell me, what would something that is moving from "one species to another" look like?

81 posted on 05/27/2007 9:10:39 AM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)

You know, the whole missing link thing.

82 posted on 05/27/2007 9:44:21 AM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)

To: Atlantic Bridge

I appreciate the statistics from the CIA world fact book re: the percentage of Christians. However, I don’t agree with you that someone who pays their church tax to a particular denomination are Christians just because of it. I mean, they have to pay it, right? I’d look more at church attendance, or personal profession.

“If you are going to ignore the “details” of Scripture, as you recommend, which ones are you going to ignore?”

-In example statements about time, numbers and stuff like that.

“Your suggest I read the Bible. I suggest you believe it! All of it, that is. Apparently, you at least believe parts.”

-I believe into most parts.

This is where I challenge you. Why do you pick the parts you like and disregard the others? By what standard? Why would God tell the truth about some things and not others? Can God lie?

If He did not make the world in six days, then why did He say that he did?

83 posted on 05/27/2007 9:50:08 AM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)

“You know...”

No, I don’t. Could you be more specific?

84 posted on 05/27/2007 10:27:30 AM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)

To: fortheDeclaration

Man has been exploring the cosmos for centuries and is still coming to an understanding about the structure of the Universe. The theory of evolution is only around 150 years old yet Creationists want to discard the fledgling theory because it doesn’t suit their religious convictions. We’ve been here before, “the earth is flat”, “the earth is the center of the universe”, etc etc. Modern day creationists are the remnant of the religious tyrants who tried to stand in the way of science before and your fate will be the same. Humiliation and marginalization in the face of the scientific reality of the theory of evolution.

85 posted on 05/27/2007 11:09:00 AM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)

To: Coyoteman; fortheDeclaration

Forget the bones, forget the fossils. Mitochondrial DNA doesn’t support 5,000 year old humans. Simply no case for it. Unless of course the rules of DNA shifted magically - probably not.

86 posted on 05/27/2007 11:19:40 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)

Mitochondrial DNA doesn’t support 5,000 year old humans.

Correct. There is a good case from southern Alaska with an individual dated at 10,300 years. The fun part is that individual's mtDNA is found in living individuals stretching on the west coasts of both North and South America.

This also argues against the idea of a global flood, as there is no trace of Noah type mtDNA in the New World.

87 posted on 05/27/2007 11:31:40 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

There is a project (forget who runs it) to go around the world and sample DNA from “local” people to trace the paths of the humans in migration. Shoould be interesting when it gets published.

88 posted on 05/27/2007 12:20:30 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)

This is where I challenge you. Why do you pick the parts you like and disregard the others? By what standard? Why would God tell the truth about some things and not others? Can God lie? If He did not make the world in six days, then why did He say that he did?

Again I recommend the bible. Peter said i.e. in his second letter:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

This was said in another coherence of course, but it shows that God is not restricted to short periods or explanations just that they are understandable for mankind. I am quite sure that all those time codes are just symbolic. The bible is no technical handbook to explain complex events like the evolution. If we check the Genesis on its basic statements we will find out that on one hand most of it correspond with the consolidated findings of modern science*. And I am not speaking about American "creation science" or whatever. On the other hand we are going see that all those things are shortened and not detailed. It is obvious that God does not see it as important to explain to us why he did this or that. It was important to him to give us the lesson with the tree of cognition.

The only standart to disregard some details of the bible and to focus on other things that are important is the wonderful brain that our Lord gave to us. He gifted us with the wonder of intelligence. We simply have to use it.

Therefore this funny show ("creation museum") in your country is a blind alley, since it is a complete contradiction to our assured knowlege.

* i.e. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth And the earth was without form, and void...

However, I don’t agree with you that someone who pays their church tax to a particular denomination are Christians just because of it. I mean, they have to pay it, right? I’d look more at church attendance, or personal profession.

They do not have to pay it if they are leaving the church. This is the reason why the church in Germany was loosing that many members in the recent years (those 28.3% that are unaffiliated or other). The people who are "offical" churchmembers here in Germany spend a average 500 Euros a year for their membership if they are taxpayers. 500 Euros are quite a sum to me for being a member in a club you are not interested in.

P.S. Have a nice pentecost over there. :)

89 posted on 05/27/2007 6:30:00 PM PDT by Atlantic Bridge (In varietate concordia!)

You asked me to be more specific. We have not found the missing link from whatever ape-like creature to mankind.

Or any links between other alleged transformations, i.e., dinosaurs to birds.

All differentiation within species is a matter of genetic information being removed, not added. “Devolution,” I guess you could call it.

There is no inter-species breeding.

The greatest scientific minds have been trying so, so hard to prove evolution. I wish they would devote their time and talent to better pursuits. There is a lot of scientific work and discovery to be done.

90 posted on 05/27/2007 8:05:42 PM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)

To: Atlantic Bridge

Thank you for your kind wishes, Atlantic Bridge.

That fact that God is not subject to time as we are - He transcends all things - does not mean to me that he can’t accurately describe a day.

“And the morning and the evening were the first day,” etc. Very literal. Not poetic, not allegory. Just a simple statement.

Creation of this great Earth out of nothing is a miracle. We cannot do it ourselves. We can’t make anything out of nothing.

We can not walk on water, nor turn water into wine. We can not part the Red Sea.

We can not raise the dead.

God can. He is not bound by any scientific rules any more than He is bound by time.

91 posted on 05/27/2007 8:09:19 PM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)

You asked me to be more specific. We have not found the missing link from whatever ape-like creature to mankind.
Or any links between other alleged transformations, i.e., dinosaurs to birds.
All differentiation within species is a matter of genetic information being removed, not added. “Devolution,” I guess you could call it.

There is no inter-species breeding.

You are wrong pretty much across the board.

First, there is no such thing as "the missing link." That is a popular term, not a scientific term. What we have in science is a lot of what can be called "transitionals." Even this term is misapplied, as everything is a transitional between past and future generations. Do you really think the penguin is a finished product? That in a few tens of thousands of years penguins will not be more adapted to an aquatic lifestyle?

But transitionals in the ape-like critter to mankind? See the information at the end of this post.

Second, no "links" (transitionals) at all? Try this link. There is more information here than you will be able to handle, and it shows transitionals are common.

Third, you claim "differentiation" can only come about by removing, not adding, genetic information. How about changing genetic information? Ever think of that? Or does that not fit with your religious belief? (Google sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia for examples of genetic change, if not genetic addition.)

Next, you claim there is " no inter-species breeding." Are you aware that lion and tigers (different species) can interbreed? And that dogs and wolves and coyotes (all different species) can interbreed? And that female horses and male donkeys can interbreed (that's where mules come from)? So, you are shot down on this point too, eh?

You seem to be getting your scientific information from creationist websites. Don't you realize they are lying to you?

As promised above, the following is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

92 posted on 05/27/2007 9:19:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

Thanks for your reply. You obviously put a lot of effort into it, and are communicating instead of being negative or whatever, which I appreciate.

I learned Darwinist/evolutionary theory throughout my public school education. Also, in my family, we were not of us into “creation science.” So it’s not like I come out of the block as a creationist, here, I didn’t change my mind until I became a Christian when I was 21.

I guess I’ll just have to disagree with you. I do believe, if evolution is true, that there should be transitional life forms or at least fossils. As one example, I do believe, that if modern day birds are the result of evolutionary changes from dinosaurs, there should be some type of half birds/half dinos in the fossil record. I guess you don’t think that’s necessarily so, but I do.

I guess the skulls you’ve posted are supposed to be transitional from ape to man? I think the data can be interpreted differently; I’m sure it is. I had to smile about its own disclaimer: it’s their “best guess!” I know you are familiar with the many big announcements about such “missing links,” so far always disproven in a short time. We can have different skull shapes, even between races, and that does not mean we have evolved from apes.

As for “ligers,” that is to say, lions and tigers interbreeding, yes, I know, but their offspring can’t reproduce. It stops there. Same with horses and donkeys, right, I know. So that to me is not scientific evidence of evolution, rather, creationist evidence of God make each type of animal after its own kind. Dogs are an easy example. I doubt there were Great Danes and poodles on the ark. Just a “dog,” ancestor of wolves, coyotes, and common dogs. Species can differentiate - we can breed for certain traits, obviously, using genetic selection - but we can’t change them into new species, even when we try very, very hard.

Yes, I think penguins are a finished product. I think men are a finished product. We are more technologically advanced than our forebears, because we have built up a gradual knowledge over time and recorded it and used it as a starting point, building upon past knowledge and accomplishments. But I think our ancestors were just as smart and just as human as we are. Archeological evidence certainly supports me there.

I don’t know very much about changing genetic info. I suppose we do that in labs with genetic engineering. That is not, however, proof of evolution either. Evolution should not require men in white coats! It’s supposed to happen naturally. Mutations are always negative. They never improve a species - make it faster, smarter, what have you. They are a genetic defect.

I do, now, get a lot of information from creationist textbooks, particularly the Apologia series by Dr. Wile, which I use in my home school. He does teach what the theory of evolution is, however, he teaches that it is false. I find his textbooks fascinating, because in public school you never even got two sides to the story. It was all evolution, evolution, evolution.

93 posted on 05/28/2007 2:08:13 PM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)

Thanks for your reply. You obviously put a lot of effort into it, and are communicating instead of being negative or whatever, which I appreciate.

You were polite, so you deserved a polite reply.

Please check the link I posted again. You might have missed it, but that link by former FR poster Ichneumon, contained some 70 pages (on my browser) of evidence pertaining to transitionals. One of the sections of that post deals with the theropod dinosaur to bird evolutionary transition. It also included a cladogram with a lot of details. I am reproducing that below:

You write, "there should be transitional life forms or at least fossils;" well, they are there but you have to be willing to at least look at the link.

I guess the skulls you’ve posted are supposed to be transitional from ape to man? I think the data can be interpreted differently; I’m sure it is.

It is interpreted differently by those who can't accept what the data are saying for religious reasons. Scientists are in general agreement with that series of skulls, with the provision that there are bound to be additions, improvements, and lots of additional data in the future.

I had to smile about its own disclaimer: it’s their “best guess!” I know you are familiar with the many big announcements about such “missing links,” so far always disproven in a short time. We can have different skull shapes, even between races, and that does not mean we have evolved from apes.

The "best guess" of an expert is taken to be pretty significant. For example, in court testimony, qualified experts are allowed to speculate in ways that laymen are not.

"Missing link" is not a good term. I know the newspapers and magazines love it, but scientists do not. That may be what is misleading you. There are a lot of fossils that have been found that fit on or near the ape-like to human path. Scientists are busy working out the details, and are gradually getting closer to figuring it out.

Funny you should mention skulls--that's one of my fields (I am an archaeologist, with a considerable amount of training in fossil man, evolution, osteology, human races, etc.). I am familiar with cranial differences between the races, as well as most of the major specimens of fossil man. If you were to see the skulls and fossils scattered around a desk, you would probably arrange them in the same order as scientists just based on the morphological characteristics. Its not rocket science to arrange from smaller to larger with cranial size, as well as from more to less rugged in mandible and tooth morphology.

As for “ligers,” that is to say, lions and tigers interbreeding, yes, I know, but their offspring can’t reproduce. It stops there. Same with horses and donkeys, right, I know.

But the offspring of dogs and wolves can reproduce.

So that to me is not scientific evidence of evolution, rather, creationist evidence of God make each type of animal after its own kind. Dogs are an easy example. I doubt there were Great Danes and poodles on the ark. Just a “dog,” ancestor of wolves, coyotes, and common dogs. Species can differentiate - we can breed for certain traits, obviously, using genetic selection - but we can’t change them into new species, even when we try very, very hard.

You are getting away from science here. Science has found no evidence of an ark or a global flood.

Yes, I think penguins are a finished product. I think men are a finished product.

Penguins? Check back in a few tens of thousands of years and you will see significant differences. Humans finished? My aching back disagrees. We were originally quadrupeds, and the change to upright posture was a hit-and-miss proposition.

We are more technologically advanced than our forebears, because we have built up a gradual knowledge over time and recorded it and used it as a starting point, building upon past knowledge and accomplishments. But I think our ancestors were just as smart and just as human as we are. Archeological evidence certainly supports me there.

Archaeological evidence shows little significant change in humans for some 40-50,000 years. Prior to that there were major changes in locomotion, brain size, technology and other areas.

Mutations are not always negative (that is a creationist talking point). Mutations are simply a change. Some changes are beneficial, some are harmful, and most are neutral. Why would you consider the change in skin color as early humans migrated from Africa through southern Europe and into northern Europe to be a negative? The lighter skin color allowed more Vitamin D to be produced in the skin to match the reduced intensity of the sun at higher latitudes. that seems to me to be a beneficial mutation, rather than a negative one. There are a lot of other examples of beneficial mutations if you look.

Better be careful, as the creationist sources have a nasty habit of misrepresenting science to make it come out the way they want. They will omit inconvenient facts, distort what they can omit, and overall do the type of science one would expect from comic books. (Oh, wait! One of them does do comic books!) If you teach that type of "science" as real science you will be doing a great disservice to your students.

You probably should cross check anything the creationist textbooks and websites say. Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims is a good, easy to use, reference.

As an example, your statement that "Mutations are always negative" is contradicted by this article: Claim CB101: Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful. Take a look.

94 posted on 05/28/2007 2:53:52 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

Forget the bones, forget the fossils. Mitochondrial DNA doesn’t support 5,000 year old humans. Simply no case for it. Unless of course the rules of DNA shifted magically - probably not.

Another unproven assertion.

And how did this complex DNA to be from simple, one celled creatures?(never mind where they came from, life from non-life,the evolutionist claims that he is not required to answer that)

Oh, says the evolutionist, we can't explain that, but we know that it did.

Save it for the Great White Throne Judgement (Rev.20), it will be interesting to see how it plays before your Creator.

But God, the scientists said you didn't exist....

95 posted on 05/29/2007 5:22:21 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)

Actually, this theory is quite older than just the last couple of centuries, it goes back ancient days.

As for scientific discoveries, many of them have come from those who believed in a Creator God, so save the nonsense it is an 'either science or faith issue'.

Evolution is not science (on the Macro level-origins), since science in its correct methodology, observation and experimentation, can only explain what is, not how it came about.

It is evolution that wants to be a substitute for faith pretending that is 'objective' but when it leaves its correct field,with its limits, it is itself based on faith, just like the Creationists.

96 posted on 05/29/2007 5:29:31 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)

To: fortheDeclaration

Sorry bub. mtDNA IN HUMANS - which what I was referring to DOES NOT support 5,000 year old species. I was NOT discussing animals. The subject was how old the human race was and if they existed with dino’s. Typical ID response - off point.

97 posted on 05/29/2007 5:33:33 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)

"You still can't place humans and dinosaurs in the same time frame...."

Honestly, I am a Christian....and I can't believe this conversation is taking place....

It is undeniable the the earth is more than 5000 years old....and it is clear humans did not coexist with the Dino's....

I believe the heavens and the earth were created by God...some call it it Intelligent Design....but please, we have to stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole....when it doesn't fit....it just doesn't fit...

98 posted on 05/29/2007 5:47:18 AM PDT by PigRigger (Donate to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org - The Troops have our front covered, let's guard their backs!)

Sorry bud, nothing that the evolutionists have come up has proven anything older than 6,000 years-period-and you know it!

So stop making claims that you know are not true.

Typical evolutionist assertions with no facts to support them.

99 posted on 05/29/2007 7:54:31 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)

Flaws in the Neandertal mtDNA Interpretation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/mtdna.asp

100 posted on 05/29/2007 8:02:00 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794