Creation vs. Evolution (Earth, Eden, genesis, eternal, bible)

[painted wolf]

Inca-
Take a better look at both pictures and you will see that they are the same... I spoted it without haveing to look side by side... but as the bottle nose whale is very rare I can imagine people back in the day may not have known what it was... education and avalibility of information being what it was... 8)

my argument on pterosaurs is based on actual fossils... Sordes pilosus was preserved with its wing membrain and hair... and not just one specimin of this remarkable pterosaur either...

As for making the gigantopitihicus a hominid... There are several distinctions between the teeth of apes and the teeth of hominids... thats one of the main reason the Hoax of the Piltown man was discovered... gigantopiticus has ape teeth most closely resembling Gorillas... Australopithicus by comparison has human teeth...

its funny how you damn a reconstruction into an ape as faulty because they are using limited fossils but champion an eaven more tennuous reconstruction into a hominid.... hypocracy?

and no.. we would not reconstruct Gorrilla as a carnivore... there are several features of the teeth that point to herbivory including micro wear patterns on the teeth that can only happin while chewing on plant matter

These same silly arguments... (comparitive anatomy, microscopic study of wear patterns and actual analysys of fossil remains) are used in University

Acturally the website in question sugested that they had covered up the fact that (the very famous) Komodo Dragon is indeed a living dinosaur... it is not...

the differences between Dinosaurs and Lizards (all othe reptiles for that matter) (lets take your Komodo Dragon for instance) are numerous....

1> gate... the lizard and all reptiles for that matter are sprawlers.. with ther legs out to thier sides, Dinosaurs were more like birds and mammals in that thier legs were fully erect and positioned under thier bodies.
2> ankles... the ankles of the dinosaur are hinged in a single plane like those of birds... lizards and other reptiles are hinged in bend
3> stance dinosaurs are ditigrade as opposed the reptiles that are plantigrade...

I can go on and on and list the full hundred or so differences but I want to keep this as short as possible...

>>Yet baboons, chimps, orangutangos and all apes who were less "evolved" managed tu survive man and even continue to be with us!<<

you obviously don't really understand the concept of evolution and adaptation...
it isn't the most advanced species surviving... its the best adapted species...

we can not fill the eccological nieces that they fill in todays world... we can't eat the same foods, swing through the trees (dispite what Tarzan says) or other wise live like them... we do not compete with them....

They are best evolved for thier lifestyle... now on to hominids... we did compete ammongst ourselves... we hunted the same animals, lived in the same environments and frankly those who had the best tecnology won... we had the most advanced wepons so we killed off the compitition.

Just like we are killing off all the other animals we compete with... wolves, big cats, california condors, sharks and other predators...

I don't base my arguments on the bible... I'm not christian, I'm native american and so I don't have to worry about being bogged down by a faith that has to prove its true or it looses its ability to command...
Protestants who believed in witches? who couldn't feed themselves without our help? I'm not getting the superiority of the Protestants out of this.... not that it matters this issue isn't about bashing religions just discussing crationism and evolution...

so if I were you I'd be careful of the religous/ethnic slurs...

wa:-do

ps.. of cource I can go into the beauty parlor and find a picture of someone with ape features.... we are apes! *sigh*

runt- maybe he just wants the post points :lol:

[painted wolf]

Inca-
Take a better look at both pictures and you will see that they are the same... I spoted it without haveing to look side by side... but as the bottle nose whale is very rare I can imagine people back in the day may not have known what it was... education and avalibility of information being what it was... 8)

my argument on pterosaurs is based on actual fossils... Sordes pilosus was preserved with its wing membrain and hair... and not just one specimin of this remarkable pterosaur either...

As for making the gigantopitihicus a hominid... There are several distinctions between the teeth of apes and the teeth of hominids... thats one of the main reason the Hoax of the Piltown man was discovered... gigantopiticus has ape teeth most closely resembling Gorillas... Australopithicus by comparison has human teeth...

its funny how you damn a reconstruction into an ape as faulty because they are using limited fossils but champion an eaven more tennuous reconstruction into a hominid.... hypocracy?

and no.. we would not reconstruct Gorrilla as a carnivore... there are several features of the teeth that point to herbivory including micro wear patterns on the teeth that can only happin while chewing on plant matter

These same silly arguments... (comparitive anatomy, microscopic study of wear patterns and actual analysys of fossil remains) are used in University

Acturally the website in question sugested that they had covered up the fact that (the very famous) Komodo Dragon is indeed a living dinosaur... it is not...

the differences between Dinosaurs and Lizards (all othe reptiles for that matter) (lets take your Komodo Dragon for instance) are numerous....

1> gate... the lizard and all reptiles for that matter are sprawlers.. with ther legs out to thier sides, Dinosaurs were more like birds and mammals in that thier legs were fully erect and positioned under thier bodies.
2> ankles... the ankles of the dinosaur are hinged in a single plane like those of birds... lizards and other reptiles are hinged in bend
3> stance dinosaurs are ditigrade as opposed the reptiles that are plantigrade...

I can go on and on and list the full hundred or so differences but I want to keep this as short as possible...

>>Yet baboons, chimps, orangutangos and all apes who were less "evolved" managed tu survive man and even continue to be with us!<<

you obviously don't really understand the concept of evolution and adaptation...
it isn't the most advanced species surviving... its the best adapted species...

we can not fill the eccological nieces that they fill in todays world... we can't eat the same foods, swing through the trees (dispite what Tarzan says) or other wise live like them... we do not compete with them....

They are best evolved for thier lifestyle... now on to hominids... we did compete ammongst ourselves... we hunted the same animals, lived in the same environments and frankly those who had the best tecnology won... we had the most advanced wepons so we killed off the compitition.

Just like we are killing off all the other animals we compete with... wolves, big cats, california condors, sharks and other predators...

I don't base my arguments on the bible... I'm not christian, I'm native american and so I don't have to worry about being bogged down by a faith that has to prove its true or it looses its ability to command...
Protestants who believed in witches? who couldn't feed themselves without our help? I'm not getting the superiority of the Protestants out of this.... not that it matters this issue isn't about bashing religions just discussing crationism and evolution...

so if I were you I'd be careful of the religous/ethnic slurs...

wa:-do

ps.. of cource I can go into the beauty parlor and find a picture of someone with ape features.... we are apes! *sigh*

runt- maybe he just wants the post points :lol:

[inca]

You talk as if we really know how do dinosaurs looked like. We're learning to know what they were. The color is usually speculation, we suppose the T-Rex had feathers; we don't if they acted like carnivorous beasts or like modern birds eating corpses, I am aware of this. You're using different names to say the same as I did, I said "skilled" animals and you say "adapted". Adaptation -I repeat again- does not tranform a being into another as scientists have declared. The coming of human beings could've eliminate all apes indeed but just eliminate ALL THE SPECIMENS OF HALF-MEN (how convinient!). I understood what you said since the beginning. You're not saying nothing new, just repeating like others have said since Darwin. That's your faith. There's no science in this. YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE HOMO SAPIENS OR AUSTRALOPITHECUS DESTROYED THEM ALL. IN fact there are doubts all over the place, every year they keep on coming with new names. And the "procedure" is usually saying the dates are older and older in order to give "more credit", the older fossil and the usual stuff.
Fragments of a bone or fragments of a teeth or skull are difficult to be interpreted but not a complete human femur.
Celecanthus was considered an extinted animal until it was discovered never changed into other specie. It's better trust in animals discovered alived than trusting in an interpretation of a fossil. We still can find giant squids and octopus right?

[inca]

You talk as if we really know how do dinosaurs looked like. We're learning to know what they were. The color is usually speculation, we suppose the T-Rex had feathers; we don't if they acted like carnivorous beasts or like modern birds eating corpses, I am aware of this. You're using different names to say the same as I did, I said "skilled" animals and you say "adapted". Adaptation -I repeat again- does not tranform a being into another as scientists have declared. The coming of human beings could've eliminate all apes indeed but just eliminate ALL THE SPECIMENS OF HALF-MEN (how convinient!). I understood what you said since the beginning. You're not saying nothing new, just repeating like others have said since Darwin. That's your faith. There's no science in this. YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE HOMO SAPIENS OR AUSTRALOPITHECUS DESTROYED THEM ALL. IN fact there are doubts all over the place, every year they keep on coming with new names. And the "procedure" is usually saying the dates are older and older in order to give "more credit", the older fossil and the usual stuff.
Fragments of a bone or fragments of a teeth or skull are difficult to be interpreted but not a complete human femur.
Celecanthus was considered an extinted animal until it was discovered never changed into other specie. It's better trust in animals discovered alived than trusting in an interpretation of a fossil. We still can find giant squids and octopus right?

[inca]

If Creationist believe dragon of komodo is a relative of the dinosaurs is their problem. Bible never said the modern definitions. The word in Hebrew is just "taniyim" regarding big monsters. It doesn't matter to me if they were killed in Deluge time, if they survive til Middle Ages or until now. That's beating around the bush and probably you're right saying Komodo Dragon is not the same as dinosaur species. In that sense I think they are wrong because they think God should've preserved them as specie in Noah's ark (which is another issue). Yet, I said I'm not creationist. They have some points which are correct and others which are incorrect. If the evidence show (or would show) a meteor wiped them out in other times, it would mean God allowed their dissapearence and actually is allowing the dissapearence of other species. Yet our theme is evolution and evolution means the transformation of a specie into another completely different.That is forbidden by genetic law. So, I really think we understood each other and we're spinning around in circles.
Well, I think if you confuse a plesiosaur with a bottlenose whale it's something of your personal perspective. Fishermen indeed knew that whale at the time and all whales have some distinct. You're assuming fishermen were ignorant to dismiss the discovery. Convenient again. You're smarter than them who witness the creature alive. BRAVO!
The same thing about the "adaptation" thing. You say the teeth of giganto.. was like a gorilla. Then you say he probably didn't survive because lack of that adaptation... but gorilla survived. Why would men had to destroy them or why did they dissapear if they were not eating the same things we did? All your arguments are based upon dogmas repeated over and over. That ain't science. That's your faith and it's my duty to point out those beliefs in case someone comes here and says "this is science".

[inca]

If Creationist believe dragon of komodo is a relative of the dinosaurs is their problem. Bible never said the modern definitions. The word in Hebrew is just "taniyim" regarding big monsters. It doesn't matter to me if they were killed in Deluge time, if they survive til Middle Ages or until now. That's beating around the bush and probably you're right saying Komodo Dragon is not the same as dinosaur species. In that sense I think they are wrong because they think God should've preserved them as specie in Noah's ark (which is another issue). Yet, I said I'm not creationist. They have some points which are correct and others which are incorrect. If the evidence show (or would show) a meteor wiped them out in other times, it would mean God allowed their dissapearence and actually is allowing the dissapearence of other species. Yet our theme is evolution and evolution means the transformation of a specie into another completely different.That is forbidden by genetic law. So, I really think we understood each other and we're spinning around in circles.
Well, I think if you confuse a plesiosaur with a bottlenose whale it's something of your personal perspective. Fishermen indeed knew that whale at the time and all whales have some distinct. You're assuming fishermen were ignorant to dismiss the discovery. Convenient again. You're smarter than them who witness the creature alive. BRAVO!
The same thing about the "adaptation" thing. You say the teeth of giganto.. was like a gorilla. Then you say he probably didn't survive because lack of that adaptation... but gorilla survived. Why would men had to destroy them or why did they dissapear if they were not eating the same things we did? All your arguments are based upon dogmas repeated over and over. That ain't science. That's your faith and it's my duty to point out those beliefs in case someone comes here and says "this is science".

[inca]

In fact, you said you accepted evolution because you though it has sense. Now, it seems to me you want to ERASE from your memory the evidence against cos it doesn't fit in your puzzle. In extreme narrow minded attitude you wanna convince us the animal alive was a whale with 20 feet NECK and a NUMBER OF LEGS on it? Or you wanna also hide the evidence of another creature (no, not in too old times but in 1970 in Massachussets) or even the other one?:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq..._1/Cryptid.htm
It really doesn't matter the classification. It just a sample of evidence how come the pieces in scientific dogma are not complete. It's not Creationists' duty to explain their existence in first place. That's science duty.
In fact I have arguments to explain why those fossils-alive are always present in the sea or in a lake or rivers and not on the ground .... but that's another issue.
I'm no defender of a particular faith. I know the Protestants errors. I was just explaining to the other Catholic participant how come religious concepts and superficial science knowledge ain't enough and can be deceiving. That's why I examine absolutely everything not to fall into the dogmatism of ones and others.
And oh, please, don't talk to me about gorillas. The scientists weren't even aware of its existence until recently. It was part of "mythological" fairy tales. You need to have a sense of time every time you mention the anaylisis of teeth , or even what we call archeology, paleonthology, geology, etc. If I keep on explaining the whole thing you'll discover even THE ANALYSIS are usually wrong or based upon an already existing criteria...or interpretation. Would you want me to discuss the issue ad infinitum? No way!

[inca]

In fact, you said you accepted evolution because you though it has sense. Now, it seems to me you want to ERASE from your memory the evidence against cos it doesn't fit in your puzzle. In extreme narrow minded attitude you wanna convince us the animal alive was a whale with 20 feet NECK and a NUMBER OF LEGS on it? Or you wanna also hide the evidence of another creature (no, not in too old times but in 1970 in Massachussets) or even the other one?:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq..._1/Cryptid.htm
It really doesn't matter the classification. It just a sample of evidence how come the pieces in scientific dogma are not complete. It's not Creationists' duty to explain their existence in first place. That's science duty.
In fact I have arguments to explain why those fossils-alive are always present in the sea or in a lake or rivers and not on the ground .... but that's another issue.
I'm no defender of a particular faith. I know the Protestants errors. I was just explaining to the other Catholic participant how come religious concepts and superficial science knowledge ain't enough and can be deceiving. That's why I examine absolutely everything not to fall into the dogmatism of ones and others.
And oh, please, don't talk to me about gorillas. The scientists weren't even aware of its existence until recently. It was part of "mythological" fairy tales. You need to have a sense of time every time you mention the anaylisis of teeth , or even what we call archeology, paleonthology, geology, etc. If I keep on explaining the whole thing you'll discover even THE ANALYSIS are usually wrong or based upon an already existing criteria...or interpretation. Would you want me to discuss the issue ad infinitum? No way!

[CJW]

Just to be clear, evolutionism vs. creationism is generally not a scientific debate. It is a historical debate. E.g. just as you can neither "observe" the historical figure Caesar nor put him in a test-tube and physically prove he existed at a given time such proofs fail with respect to the historical debate in evolutionism. A historical debate is not less than a scientific debate and often incorporates "some science" but it is not a scientific debate itself. Maintaining that it is "science" typically just makes it pseudo-science. Being honest and keeping science and history separate (as separate ways of dealing with the truth) with each informing the other somewhat, is probably for the best. Note that self defined scientists have a natural tendency to make everything a scientific issue and never admit to the limitations of science when it comes to history and/or mythological narratives. In this failure a new sort of mythological narrative has developed in which the stories read, "Once upon a time, a group of fish jumped out of the sea, killing themselves enough times that they randomly grew one leg that their mommy Nature selected for them, then another leg, then another leg, then a lung.... and so on, until eventually they walked away."

Whether true or not or partially true, this is another type of mythology and historical narrative, NOT science.

[CJW]

Just to be clear, evolutionism vs. creationism is generally not a scientific debate. It is a historical debate. E.g. just as you can neither "observe" the historical figure Caesar nor put him in a test-tube and physically prove he existed at a given time such proofs fail with respect to the historical debate in evolutionism. A historical debate is not less than a scientific debate and often incorporates "some science" but it is not a scientific debate itself. Maintaining that it is "science" typically just makes it pseudo-science. Being honest and keeping science and history separate (as separate ways of dealing with the truth) with each informing the other somewhat, is probably for the best. Note that self defined scientists have a natural tendency to make everything a scientific issue and never admit to the limitations of science when it comes to history and/or mythological narratives. In this failure a new sort of mythological narrative has developed in which the stories read, "Once upon a time, a group of fish jumped out of the sea, killing themselves enough times that they randomly grew one leg that their mommy Nature selected for them, then another leg, then another leg, then a lung.... and so on, until eventually they walked away."

Whether true or not or partially true, this is another type of mythology and historical narrative, NOT science.