New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[PatrickHenry]

What makes sense is that mutations tend to have their limits.

Yes, they do. But only in the sense that the mutated offspring of a particular creature can't be all that different from the parent. Quite so. Micro-evolution. But when that process is continued over thousands and millions of generations, those little changes can add up to be a considerable difference. Again, what conceivable mechanism (except extinction) would intervene to prevent this from happening?

[VadeRetro]

The return of the Creator will do it.

If "omnipresent" means what I think it does, He's not supposed to have ever left the building.

[VadeRetro]

I have a feeling we're once again seeing a genuine(?) misunderstanding of what evolution says about how the changes happen.

[general_re]

The return of the Creator will do it.

I think we may safely presume that He will do a better job of explaining why the evidence is the way it is than His proxies have thus far managed to do. In the mean time, we continue plugging away as best we can ;)

[DittoJed2]

Score one for Reason, Ping!

[DittoJed2]

Thank you.

[DittoJed2]

I hope the information posted has been helpful.

[DittoJed2]

And no other living creature looks like a giraffe, but that doesn't make the giraffe a dinosaur.

[AndrewC]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

There is the big news, at least as considered by its authors.

[Physicist]

you aren't going to have a human (this is gross) having sex with a chimp and have a huepansee.

Of course, that is perfectly consistent with evolution.

That is my definition of "kind".

Before you seemed to say that "kind" referred to "family". Now you say it's "species". But this gets back to why I asked you about bears. Different species of bears can reportedly produce viable offspring with each other...but not always. So how many "kinds" of bear are there?

Then, too, there are many different "kinds" of ant, even within the same colony! They can't all produce viable offspring with each other. It's not a definition that is very easily applied.

Worst of all, it leaves you with the problem of how Noah got all those species of beetles onto the Ark.

You aren't going to have lizards mating with birds and coming up with a transitional species.

That's good, because it would fly in the face of evolution if they could. Once again, you aren't debunking evolution, but rather your misconceptions about it.

[Alamo-Girl]

DittoJed2, Amen! to your statement: The return of the Creator will do it.

Vade, without getting into the previous debate again - it is commonly understood by those of us who believe the Bible is inerrant that "all that there is" was made by Jesus Christ (John 1:3) --- i.e. the Father made all things by Jesus (Hebrews 1:2) --- who entered the physical realm once and will return. (Acts 1:11)

The Father and Jesus are One (John 10:30) - Jesus left to return to heaven, so that the Holy Spirit could come (John 16:7)

Hence, with the Trinity - the statement "that He never left the building," and "the Creator will return" are both true.

[Alamo-Girl]

I think the information has been extremely helpful! And the debate has been very informative!!!

It's been a long time on this forum since these types of arguments have been discussed. And since many conservatives are Christian (and some fundamentalist) it is particularly helpful to Lurkers to see the points and the counter-points presented by other conservatives.

Again, thank you!

[DittoJed2]

Well, balrog666 just added Menton's name to the list as someone with impecable credentials who is belittled (personally) by the evolution crowd. I revise the post where I say he wasn't attacked. Because he did an experiment with a modern reptile (not the only reason he has for disbelieving scales can become feathers) he is called an "idiot." How nice.

[DittoJed2]

Does evolution or does it not postulate that man slowly evolved from apes (or an ape-like ancestor which we share with apes). I believe I have seen a ton of drawings like that.

[AndrewC]

Please be aware that many of us are checking off many boxes concerning behavior and attitude from lists established prior to a certain date. The pattern looks very much the same.

[DittoJed2]

If you are going to introduce individual persons as evidence, you have made the argument by definition ad hominem. If you claim X and Y are great scientists and support creationism, then the only reasonable rebuttal is 'X and Y are not great scientists'. I agree ad hominems are in general unacceptable, but if a positive ad hominem is introduced as evidence for a point, a negative ad hominem in rebuttal is only to be expected.

The individual was brought up in response to a specific request that suggested that results can not be argued with and implied the worldview of Darwinism brought about those results. Worldviews are held by people. The person wanted one major medical breakthrough, and I gave her one by a Dr. with a creationist worldview. His breakthrough did not come through as a result of assuming that animals and humans are related.

Regarding the rest of the posts regarding Damadian, they were in response to attacks on him as a "crank" just like Behe is a "joke" and Menton is an "idiot."

Regarding the individuals: Behe's Darwin's Black Box book is unconvincing and sloppy. However, I am familiar with his previous physical chemistry work on DNA, and it was scientifically rigorous. Damadian's 1972 patent does not include an NMR imager as it is understood by either the NMR or the more general imaging community.
Behe's book is unconvincing to some, probably including yourself. I have heard other PhDs say that it is solid work.

Damadian's patent was for a device. He was also the one who apparently built the first machine. The implication was that he was making claims on work that he did not perform. The record shows he was working on the technology, and the Supreme Court backs him up.

[Right Wing Professor]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

There is the big news, at least as considered by its authors.

It's the same nonsense we demolished about two months ago. It's based on the unfounded assumption that helium diffuses easily in zircons. It doesn't. A recent paper found a activation energy for helium diffusion of 44 kcal/mol., and a closure temperature of 190 C. (The closure temperature is the temperature below which diffusion is negligible). A zircon which has not been exposed to temperatures above 190C should retain its helium.

He diffusion and (U-Th)/He thermochronometry of zircon: initial results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte. Reiners, Peter W.; Farley, Kenneth A.; Hickes, Hunter J. Department of Geology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. Tectonophysics (2002), 349(1-4), 297-308.

[DittoJed2]

EXPRESSED DOUBT. EXPRESSED DOUBT. Doesn't say what their whole worldview is, just EXPRESSED DOUBT. Sheesh!!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers! I forgot to make one other point in post 1871. Sorry about that.

As Creator of ”all that there is” there is nothing of which anything can exist but Himself. Thus, as the Scriptures say in Acts 17:28 “For in him we live, and move, and have our being”

[f.Christian]

Did you here about the new bumper sticker with a pic of hilliary on it ... I luv country music ?