Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creation Museum Marries Adam, Eve and Dinosaurs
ABC News ^ | May 25, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-359 next last
To: fortheDeclaration
"Can you point to anything in existance that is changing from one species to another species?"

Individual organisms do not change. Populations of organisms change. If you cull any small bit of information from this post, let it be that. After all, you are clearly different from your father, as your father was different from his.

This "transitional" tag attached to fossils is only an affair of humanity. Quoth Wikipedia: "According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight."

Finally, I have a question of my own: Did you read the article itself, or just the summary?
51 posted on 05/26/2007 2:13:18 PM PDT by Boxen (Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
"And yet Saint Augustine of Hippo disgreed with you about whether the first chapters of Genesis were literal, or figurative."

And Jesus disagreed with St. Augustine about whether the first two chapters of Genesis were literal. I'll stick with Jesus.

52 posted on 05/26/2007 2:29:09 PM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FelixFelicis
"...that God created the earth and its geological formations to “appear” billions of years old. My prof said essentially that the God Christians believe in does not aim to deceive and that a notion like this is an insult to everyone’s intelligence."

So if God created Adam as a full grown man this was meant to deceive? If God did create Adam as a mature man, why couldn't he do the same with the universe?

53 posted on 05/26/2007 2:34:21 PM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

“Look at the bright side.
Their children won’t be able to compete with ours for jobs requiring real science.”

My son’s about the graduate UCLA with a Physics Degree. Four more kids in the pipeline. Watch out!


54 posted on 05/26/2007 3:05:23 PM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Bridge

“It is extremely interesting that Americans feel so different about this issue. Is it possible that the resticted access to information (i.e. through homeschooling) of certain levels of the American population leaves many people unknowing?”

We feel different about this issue because we are hugely Christian country. Europe is a post-Christian continent.

As for restricted access to information, I suggest you suffer from that in your government schools. How much creation science evidence were you offered? Did you get to hear a debate? Did you get to read anything that questioned Darwinism? Were any of the weaknesses of Darwinian theory exposed? If not, you were brainwashed.


55 posted on 05/26/2007 3:11:41 PM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

I find this funny. When I attended public school four years ago, there was only one paragraph about evolution in my high school biology textbook.

Evolution in public schools is a non-issue. It is nothing more than a proxy battle between opposing dogmas: ardent, unwavering Atheism, and ardent unwavering Christianity. Both sides are certain that they are correct, and neither is willing to concede.

I do not think that creationism belongs in the science classroom. Evolution is clearly superior in the evidence department, and that’s where it counts. But then again, I do not think it would do any great disservice to students who will likely continue on into careers that have nothing to do with fossils or phylogeny. Ultimately, what is taught in the classroom is of small importance.

The crux of my opinion: it is up to individual jurisdictions to decide what should and should not be taught.

Creationism cannot stand up to genuine scientific scrutiny, and it is this gambit of science that is infinitely more important than what is taught in some grade six science curriculum. This is why creationism will never be taken seriously outside of religious circles.


56 posted on 05/26/2007 3:45:04 PM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: joebuck
And Jesus disagreed with St. Augustine about whether the first two chapters of Genesis were literal. I'll stick with Jesus.

We have the writings of St Augustine. We do not have the writings of Jesus

57 posted on 05/26/2007 3:48:44 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (The winnah ... and new heavyweight champion of The View: Elisabeth Haaaasellllllbeck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

An interesting propaganda piece that is heavy on opinion and light on evidence.

No one contests that Tiktaalik was fish. What is important is that it has characteristics that are similar to that tetrapods.


58 posted on 05/26/2007 3:51:31 PM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
"We have the writings of St Augustine. We do not have the writings of Jesus"

We have the words of both.

59 posted on 05/26/2007 3:53:04 PM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Hoof Hearted
Or are you saying that even though they disagree with each other, they all have equal validity?

I hear this complaint all the time, usually from those who are trying to persuade people the Bible is unreliable.

Some are worded better than others, but the same ideas are presented. The 4 standards in English Bibles are King James, New King James, New American Standard and the New International Version. Most churches will teach from one version while many of the parishioners have one of the other three versions in their lap.

Subtle nuances are very different from disagreements. Disagreements convey a different idea, whereas what you find in the 4 main English translations is different wording expressing the same ideas.

The main English translations have been thoroughly combed by the best Religious & Secular scholars.

60 posted on 05/26/2007 4:19:47 PM PDT by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
How about tissue?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

61 posted on 05/26/2007 5:09:18 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: celmak
How about tissue?

From the article:

Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation. ...

If protein sequences can be identified, they can be compared to those of living animals. This might allow a better understanding of how different groups of animals are related.

If protein sequences can be identified...

Either way, 70 million years old does not lend much support to either young earth creation or coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

62 posted on 05/26/2007 5:18:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Tissue...Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone

Yeh, sure.

63 posted on 05/26/2007 5:27:35 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
So maybe you can explain something else from the article:

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation],"

But then again, there is alot more faith that Evo's have than Bible Believers.

64 posted on 05/26/2007 5:32:14 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Coyoteman
By the way, here is your bone:

The skeleton in which the medullary bone was found..."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue_2.html

65 posted on 05/26/2007 6:14:08 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
We feel different about this issue because we are hugely Christian country. Europe is a post-Christian continent.

Nope. You just think that you live on a more Christan continent than we Europeans do. It is a silly self-suggestion. At first sight we could get the impression that Americans are indeed more religious than Europeans. De facto in your country some (not all) people simply make more noise about their Christianity with big TV-shows and disgusting public commitments about the most private experiences. Many of your politicians have to turn their churchgoing into a public act to be elected. We European Christians do not demand such from our leaders nor do we live our religiousness in the public.

Why?

Because it is simply unchristian. I recommend the reading of your bible:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Mattew 6 (to me and my Christian life much more important than the Genesis)

As for restricted access to information, I suggest you suffer from that in your government schools. How much creation science evidence were you offered? Did you get to hear a debate? Did you get to read anything that questioned Darwinism? Were any of the weaknesses of Darwinian theory exposed? If not, you were brainwashed.

Well I send my kids on a private catholic school in Germany. They are of course taught about the Genesis just like I have been in the 70ties. I followed the debate in the US since many years because I read some American newspapers and I join American websites like here on FR. Since the so called "creation science evidence" is extremely funny for someone with a engineering and mathematical background like me, I could laugh about it if it would not be the other way around as you write it. Such dissemination through i.e. "homeschooling" families leads to brainwashed kids that believe into myths (I do not say Genesis is a myth, but it is senseless to lock it on details) that do not make any sense. Limited access to free information leaves for sure many children in a mental dungeon in your country. Being a real Christian means to have a choice. It is quite simple - for having the choice you need the whole information for the whole image. Those poor kids only possess over the information the spiritual leaders of their parents selected for them. Since the end of the cold war we find museums whose expositions are obviously pure propaganda-shows without any reference to reality only in North Korea. It is a tragedy to me that America has now joined into this exclusive club.

Guess what - such has to do with freedom. :(

I would think about it.

66 posted on 05/26/2007 6:47:38 PM PDT by Atlantic Bridge (In varietate concordia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

“Creationism cannot stand up to genuine scientific scrutiny, and it is this gambit of science that is infinitely more important than what is taught in some grade six science curriculum. This is why creationism will never be taken seriously outside of religious circles.”

Evolution is what cannot stand up to genuine scientific scrutiny, IMO.

As for your “one chapter of evolution in your whole school career” experience, it wasn’t mine! Evolution was propounded frequently, not just in science books, but also in literature and history/social studies courses.


67 posted on 05/26/2007 7:57:31 PM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Bridge

I call Europe post-Christian because, by there own surveys, there are few professing Christians there. Also, church attendance is very low. So I don’t state it as an opinion, but as a measurable fact.

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

I am glad your kids, in private Catholic school, are going to apparently get both sides of the issue. It is nice to at least get some equal time!

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


68 posted on 05/26/2007 8:01:44 PM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Not only that, but in the 1930s it was common for high priced restaurants to serve Mammoth meat- recovered from under Ice in Siberia.

I have been told that Creationism is a combination of special creation and special delivery. A significant part of the science in evolution is how species are distributed, and specifically how they are not distributed (kangaroos not in South America). A large part of Darwin’s research had to do with how long various species’ seeds would be viable when soaked in water, and the new information from ocean currents then becomeing available from Royal Navy surveys. The information was gathered and of military significance when wind and water were major sources of power, but when steam power became common, there was little advantage to restricting access to wind and current data.

For a very low rate, you can have access to the Proceedings of the Royal Society where much of Darwin’s, Lord Kelvin’s, Reynolds’ and others.


69 posted on 05/26/2007 8:16:02 PM PDT by donmeaker (You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
They are ultimately appallingly stupid.
70 posted on 05/26/2007 8:25:45 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: saganite

” They don’t believe it will be found in ancient fables though. They keep an open mind about such things.”


I’m sorry, but I find that statement incongruous. It’s nonsensical.


71 posted on 05/26/2007 8:33:06 PM PDT by MacDorcha (Peace is not the highest goal - freedom is. -LachlanMinnesota)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
I call Europe post-Christian because, by there own surveys, there are few professing Christians there.

Well you should know that being a member in one of the big christian churches costs lots of money in Germany. Due to Adolf Hitler (yes that was indeed his crazy idea - he made a treaty with the church in 1933 - 1934, the so called "Reichskonkordat") we Germans have to pay a church tax. Therefore the people who are left in the two big churches must have some reason for it, since they have to pay each year a impressive sum of money for their membership to Christendom. Here are a few numbers about the important confessions in Germany (from the CIA-factbook):

Protestant 34%, Roman Catholic 34%, Muslim 3.7%, unaffiliated or other 28.3%

At last we have 68 % of people who declare themselves as Christians and who pay each month lots of money for it (9% out of the high German income tax). You should admit that this number is simply too high that you have any right to speak about a "post-Christian" continent.

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.

72 posted on 05/27/2007 1:16:57 AM PDT by Atlantic Bridge (In varietate concordia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Yes, and the article I sent you stated that fossils had bones in them.

So, the fossils do support the Creationist view that dinoeours lived with man, they are not just stone, but contain actual bones in them.

There's nothing unique about the specimen other than the fact that it's the first that's been examined really well," Horner concluded. Other dinosaurs, in other words, are probably similarly preserved.

73 posted on 05/27/2007 5:42:17 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
An interesting propaganda piece that is heavy on opinion and light on evidence. No one contests that Tiktaalik was fish. What is important is that it has characteristics that are similar to that tetrapods.

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

If the Tikaalik is a fish, then whatever other characteristics it has are irrelevant.

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

But ofcourse, the Evolutionists howl that this is an unfair demand.

That is why you guys start talking about leaps between species, to explain away the fact that you cannot find such a mutation that developed into a higher, more developed species.

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)

74 posted on 05/27/2007 6:15:10 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
Can you point to anything in existance that is changing from one species to another species?" Individual organisms do not change. Populations of organisms change. If you cull any small bit of information from this post, let it be that. After all, you are clearly different from your father, as your father was different from his.

Double-talk.

We are different within the same species-man.

What evolutionists have to show is a change from one species into another higher one for evolution to be true.

Creationists never argue against changes within species, but that even with those changes, they stay in their own 'kind' (birds are still birds, fish still fish, men are still men)

This "transitional" tag attached to fossils is only an affair of humanity. Quoth Wikipedia: "According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight."

LOL!

I like how you guys like to readjust the critera to make it fit your own system.

For it to be hindsight, you would have to show that the species changed from one species to another, not conjecture about it might have happened!

Evolution is species changing into other species of a higher order.

You have to show that is even possible, no less that it actually happened.

All you guys do is find a species that has some unusual charateristics for that species and start making up stories on how it became that way.

You are not proving anything, which is what science is suppose to do, you are just 'begging the question', saying 'evolution is true and here is how it must have happened.

Evolutionists and Creationists share one attribute-faith.

Finally, I have a question of my own: Did you read the article itself, or just the summary?

I read the link you gave me.

Now unless you can show that the fish was in a stage of transition,(a semi-fish), it is just another meaningless evolutionist attempt to cover up their lack of true evidence.

I bet you were really disappointed when you found out that those 'feathers' on that dinosaur were not really feathers.

But even if they had been, so what?

It would not have proven that dinosaurs' morphed into birds.

75 posted on 05/27/2007 6:28:59 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Oh, that’s right, you guys like to start with everything already existing and just ‘evolving’.

Nope. Scientists don’t make unwarranted assumptions. Science is still looking for the answer of creation. They don’t believe it will be found in ancient fables though. They keep an open mind about such things. I guess that’s why religion appeals to so many. Someones scribblings can be declared the final word on a subject and no further analysis needs to be applied.

No, a scientist has to work with God has given him to work with, creation.

The evolutionist wants to work with the given and ignore the ultimate question, how did anything get here.

As for those scribblings, they are far more accurate than anything that any evolutionist has conjectured about.

A evolutionists is not basing his views on objective factual science, since there is no evidence for evolution.

Nothing is moving from one species to another higher one.

Nothing has been found in the fossil record that shows anything like that ever occuring.

So the evolutionist is left with his faith, that the Bible is wrong and he is right, and the hope that there is no final judgement.

76 posted on 05/27/2007 6:34:20 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
gave you existent dinosaur bones, something you said couldn't exist. True. I was not aware of those. But the article does not support your idea that they are of the same age as humans (ca. 5000 years). And this article shows they are about 69.1 ± 0.3 million years old. It also shows that: Microbeam PIXE has revealed that calcium and phosphorus are at reasonably expected concentrations in the analyzed dinosaur bone samples. However, significant amounts of iron, zinc, manganese, barium and strontium have been observed to be distributed throughout all dinosaur bone thin sections analyzed. Concentrations of many of these elements are at least an order of magnitude higher than those in modern reptilian and mammalian bones [emphasis added]. You still can't place humans and dinosaurs in the same time frame.

Those dates are assumptions by the evolutionists, believing that is when dinosaurs existed.

However, the issue of diagenesis, or the chemical changes that occur to fossil bone after it is buried (dissolution, recrystallization, replacement of bone by other minerals) raises doubts as to the value of the isotopic signal to interpret the physiology of ancient animals and the environmental constraints they lived under. The inherent assumption of stable istope anaylsis of ancient bone is that apatitic fossils are isotopically unaltered. This notion has been challenged by several scientists whose conclusions undermine current interpretations of dinosaur physiology and paleoenvironmental reconstructions based on stable isotope analysis.

77 posted on 05/27/2007 7:17:53 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You use the paragraph beginning " However, the issue of diagenesis, or the chemical changes..." to show that the dating of those bones is incorrect, and that they are not about 69.1 ± 0.3 million years old.

Nice try. Read the article more closely.

Here is the pertinent passage:

A best age estimate is given at 69.1 ± 0.3 Ma using the weighted mean from K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar analyses from several tephra units that bracket the dinosaur-bearing horizons.

They are not dating the bones, so the paragraph you quoted to show that chemical changes in the bones makes dating them inaccurate does not even apply.

They are dating tephra layers (volcanic ash) above and below the layers which contain the bones.

Conclusion: the bones are not contemporaneous with humans. They are off by about 69 million years.

78 posted on 05/27/2007 7:56:36 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“What evolutionists have to show is a change from one species into another higher one for evolution to be true.”

What exactly is a “higher” species?

“Evolution is species changing into other species of a higher order.”

Again, what do you mean by “higher order”?

“Now unless you can show that the fish was in a stage of transition,(a semi-fish), it is just another meaningless evolutionist attempt to cover up their lack of true evidence.”

Tell me, what characteristics would this “semi-fish” have?


79 posted on 05/27/2007 8:59:49 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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

“Evolution is what cannot stand up to genuine scientific scrutiny, IMO.”

Really? Why do you think that?


80 posted on 05/27/2007 9:01:45 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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

“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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: saganite
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.

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
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.

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-359 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson