Do you believe that the dinosaurs died before the flood?

[UTEOTW]

Let's actually bring that over here just to make it easy for the reader to see. It is very short, but it gets the major concepts across. We would need a library to go into detail.

Maybe this would be easier to give an example.

If you take a look at whales, you will see some of the pieces of evidence that lead towards evolution. A key thing to remember is that it is the whole of the data and not just any piece that is key.

Whales are mammals. They breathe air. They produce milk. They give birth to live offspring instead of laying eggs. During their development, whale embryoes have rear legs which disappear before birth. This is an example of ontogeny or developmental evidence for evolution. Sometimes the programmed cell death that should eliminate the legs fails to act and a whale will be born with rear legs. THis is another bit of evidence and are called atavisms.

Now, since the sea mammals have genes for making legs and most other mammals live on land, it was predicted that ancestors of whales should be found in the fossil record that are intermediate between whales and land dwelling animals. And this prediction came true. Some of these animals are Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, Ambulocetus, and Basilosaurus. So there is an example of the predictive power of evolution. It also opens up another line of evidence, the fossil record.

Now, once we found the fossil record for whales, we discovered that whales evolved from hooved animals. So we make another prediction. If you genetically test whales and various animals, you should find that whales are the closest to other hooved animals, specifically the even toed ungulates. When we did the actual genetic testing, whales did indeed test to be most closely related to animals such as pigs and camels. (Such a relationship would never be predicted by the "kinds" concept!) So this is another successful preddiction.

It is also an example of a couple of more kinds of evidence. The first is the relationships shown by geneticis. The second is extremely important. It is the twin nested heirarchy. This is how evolutionary trees produced by independent means point to the same conclusion.

You should see now how evolution makes successful predictions. Next let's talk about falsifiable.

I mentioned ontogeny and development. Falsification would come by finding development that does not make sense. Legs on a shark embryo, for example. Lactal nipples on a developing amphibian would be another.

Atavisms - This could be falsified by having animals born with atavistic feature that would not be expected. For example if a mammal were to be born with atavistic feathers, this could not be explained.

I'll stop here on falsification for succinctness. I can elaborate if needed.

The things such as I have mentioned are also tests for evolution. Beyond this, you can test and observe the mechanisms even if you cannot observe the long-term outcome in your life time. For example, we have observed many species developing new genes and new features through mutation. This and the other mechanisms can be observed and tested.

 

[JGrubbs]

All that "junk" about whales evolving from hooved animals is just a bunch of theories, there is now sound proof for evolution. Evolution concept of theories that can't be proven, it is not science and it is not factual. Evolution is all based on the antichrist lies of Darwin, I can't believe there are those on a Christian forum who continue to promote these antichrist lies.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
All that "junk" about whales evolving from hooved animals is just a bunch of theories, there is now sound proof for evolution. Evolution concept of theories that can't be proven, it is not science and it is not factual. Evolution is all based on the antichrist lies of Darwin, I can't believe there are those on a Christian forum who continue to promote these antichrist lies.

Fine, then what is your testable, predictive, falsifiable theory about why whales have legs during developmental stages, why some whales are born with fully devloped hind legs, why whales have pseudogenes for a land-dwelling animal type of olfactory system, why whales have a vestigal pelvis and vestigal feet and ankles in their flippers, why whales genetically test as being closely related to even-toed hooved animals, and why there is a fossil record that connects through a series of intermediates from modern whales back through to land dwelling even toed hooved animals.

I'm waiting.

I'd also like your response to how your orignal claims on lizards and dinosaurs can be true based on the posted data concerning growth patterns, the triradiate pelvis, teeth, skulls, locomaotion and metabolism. Can you refute the claims or do you admit that your source was not being honest with the data?

 

[JGrubbs]

You have yet to show any proof for your claims, just theories and opinions from evolutionists. Even your "growth patterns" are based on theories and opinions from fossils that may or may not be the dinos the evolutionst claim they are. How many times have them been wrong about their "man made" missing link fossils?

I believe the Bible, God created all of the animals during the literal 6 days of creation and that was it! He didn't need evolution to "improve" his creation, or to help it to adapt!

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
You have yet to show any proof for your claims, just theories and opinions from evolutionists. Even your "growth patterns" are based on theories and opinions from fossils that may or may not be the dinos the evolutionst claim they are. How many times have them been wrong about their "man made" missing link fossils?

Your assertions....your burden of proof. Show me that the FACTS listed above about the physical differences between lizards and dinosaurs are based just on "theories and opinions" and not on good old fashioned observations. Show me to be wrong. Show me where lizards really do have triradiate pelvis. Show me where lizards have thecodont teeth. Show were these FACTS are incorrect. Support your assertions!

And just what "'man made' missing link fossils" are you asserting are being used to support the theory of evolution at this time?

And, again, just what is your testable, falsifiable, predictive theory to expain what we see?

 

[JGrubbs]

Sorry, I'm not a "researcher" like yourself, so I don't have the time to study all of the evolutionist teachings from Berkeley and the other secular sources of the antichrist "science" of the theory of evolution. I will have to pass on the debate.

I believe the world to be around 6,000 years old, and I believe that most of the dinosaurs died from natural causes, while others may be related to the modern day lizards. I choose to believe some things on simple faith.

 

[JGrubbs]

In order form something to qualify as science it must follow the Scientific Method. In any scientific endeavor there must be repeated experimentation. If an experiment cannot be done, an idea (no matter how wild it is or seems) is just that, an idea. A person can look at the supposed "evidence for evolution", but unless he or she can do the same in an experiment, it is just a belief, which makes it religion.

For example:

1. Evolutionists believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. That is a belief/faith only because no one can take a dinosaur and have it give birth to a bird.

2. Evolutionists believe that man came from some primate ancestor. That is a belief/faith only because no one can take an ancestral primate, (monkey, ape, chimp...) and have it give birth to a man.

The same scientific method must be followed on any and all examples of so-called evolution. If people will be intellectually honest, they will be forced to admit they do not have any experimentation. All they have is interpretation of the past. Which by definition, if it cannot be repeated, is only a belief. Evolutionists must believe in millions of miracles to believe evolution.

Source: http://www.creationseminar.net/does_this_matter.htm

 

[UTEOTW]

You accept things that are demonstrated to not be true. You then claim that you cannot be bothered to look at the claims, even though I have spelled out for you a number of the major differences right here for you. It only takes 1- 2 minutes to read. Less time than it took you to post a reply. You make claims that you cannot and will not defend.

Now I have no problems with those who believe in a young earth based solely on their faith. I applaud their faith. But I have a very strong opinion against those who claim that the data also shows the earth to be young. You have made claims along those lines and have shown yourself unable and unwilling to defend such claims. If you cannot defend them and if you will not learn the facts to see if the claims are even true, then you should not make the claims. You have no way of knowing if they are factual and can be easily deluded by those making false claims because you cannot identify them.

If you faith tells you to accept a young earth, then do so. But please learn a little about the subject before claiming that the data backs you up. It does not.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
In order form something to qualify as science it must follow the Scientific Method. In any scientific endeavor there must be repeated experimentation. If an experiment cannot be done, an idea (no matter how wild it is or seems) is just that, an idea. A person can look at the supposed "evidence for evolution", but unless he or she can do the same in an experiment, it is just a belief, which makes it religion.

For example:

1. Evolutionists believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. That is a belief/faith only because no one can take a dinosaur and have it give birth to a bird.

2. Evolutionists believe that man came from some primate ancestor. That is a belief/faith only because no one can take an ancestral primate, (monkey, ape, chimp...) and have it give birth to a man.

The same scientific method must be followed on any and all examples of so-called evolution. If people will be intellectually honest, they will be forced to admit they do not have any experimentation. All they have is interpretation of the past. Which by definition, if it cannot be repeated, is only a belief. Evolutionists must believe in millions of miracles to believe evolution.

Source: http://www.creationseminar.net/does_this_matter.htm

I have addressed this already. Please show the errors in my logic if you disagree.

" Scientific method has been around for centuries ... Maybe you could practice it.

... Evolution has never been tested according to the standard of scientific method."

False assertion.

For giggles, let's Google "scientific method." The first hit is

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

It states the scientific method as follows.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

So let's see how evolution stacks up.

Step 1. I have given you a partial list of observations above. So check.

Step 2. Well, we hypothesize that these observations seem to show that all life may be related. So we will go with that as a hypthesis. New life forms can develop from other life forms.

Step 3. Now the fun begins. Let's look at a few examples.

Take whales for example. They are sea dwelling mammals. During their development, they have cute little legs and feet that emerge and then are reabsorbed. Sometimes this programmed cell death does not occur and the whales are born with full on rear legs. Well, we'll predict that whales have a land dwelling ancestor and we should be able to find fossil of such. And we do. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and many others. Well, once we have the fossils we see that they show whales evolving from ungulates. So if we test modern ungulates we should find them closely related to whales. We test and they are. Now, if whales came from land animals, they then once had a functional sense of smell. We might be able to find the remains of the genes for this system. And guess what, whales have scores of pseudogenes of a sense of smell just like what the land animals to which it is related have.

Man has traits that makes us another ape. There should be links between us and the other apes. And there are. (For a whole thread on the genetic links see http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? ) Some of the links are genetic. We find shared pseudogenes and retroviral inserts and transposons between man and the other apes. We have a rich fosil record leading back to common ancestors.

The fossil record shows the horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. We predict that genetics should show the same link. And it does.

Darwin even predicted that there must be a means for carrying the instructions for making life. Last century we found it, DNA.

So, evolution passes the thrid step with flying colors. This third step is where we really spend all of our time in debates.

Step 4. Well here we refine our theory as we make more observations and we see how different scientists support different notions with new discoveries. Some ideas are cast off in favor of new ones, such as cladogenesis replacing orthogenesis for the most part, but such is the process. We have lab experiments where rapid evolution can be observed. Evolution meets the criteria of the fourth stage.

So we see, contrary to your assertion, that evolution does follow the scientific method. Perhaps someone has tried to deceive you. Why would anyone promoting the "truth" need to do such.</font>[/QUOTE]http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/16.html#000228

 

[JGrubbs]

I could care less about your "facts", anyone can make anything into the "facts" they want when it comes to the antichrist teachings of evolution. What you call "facts" I call theories and opinons.

I believe evolution has been a disease that has plagued our nation, through teaching a lack of respect for human life, it has led to murders, abortions, euthanasia, etc. Your "facts" will never change my opinion!

 

[UTEOTW]

"I could care less about your "facts", anyone can make anything into the "facts" they want when it comes to the antichrist teachings of evolution. What you call "facts" I call theories and opinons."

Then prove it. Show where the observations about major physical differences between lizards and dinosaurs are not as I have shown. Put your money where your mouth is.

The fact is that you cannot do so or you would have done so by now. You KNOW your position is incorrect.

"I believe evolution has been a disease that has plagued our nation, through teaching a lack of respect for human life, it has led to murders, abortions, euthanasia, etc. Your "facts" will never change my opinion!"

YE is the disease. It leads to people claiming to be Christian leaders to attempt to lie to and delude millions of followers in a process that direct causes believers to leave the church and unbelievers to be made thoroughly resistent to being reached. It is a tool of the devil himself to do harm to the church, to cause the lost to be unreachable and to divide believers.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I have a hard time believing anyone would continue to use Embryology or vestigial characteristics or organs as proof of evolution. Embryos are programmed with the full DNA of the adult animal from the time of conception. Any similarity to other creatures or evolutionary development is pure coincidence. As far as whales with legs or vestigial leg bones, that issue has been raised and refuted time and again.

UTEOTW even mentions the fossils of Pakicetus. When discovered in 1994 pakicetus was thought to be an amphibious mammal and the "missing link" between whales and land mammals. Now that more complete skeletons have been found it is known to be a land mammal.

Http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

Here is another link about the whale embryonic development

Http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp

It says in part:

I knew, of course, that some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. I knew that evolutionists generally claim that these small, yet purposeful structures are vestigial ('left-over') organs. They choose to believe that each bone of the pair is all that is left of the pelvic bone of the whale's ancestor which, according to evolutionary doctrine, once walked and ran on land. They believe this even though these strips of bone have a known function, differ in males and females, and are not even attached to the vertebral column. I also knew that people are sometimes born with abnormalities such as an extra finger, or an extra rib, but no evolutionist claims that we evolved from a six-fingered ancestor. Whales could be born with a little extra lump of bone which evolutionists therefore insisted was a throwback corresponding to a second limb bone.

Here is another link that refutes embryology, this one from a Ph.D. that teaches biology at Berkeley no less.

http://trueorigin.org/unseatng.asp

 

[UTEOTW]

"Embryos are programmed with the full DNA of the adult animal from the time of conception. Any similarity to other creatures or evolutionary development is pure coincidence."

It is "pure coincidence" that whales go through a developmental stage with hind legs and feet which are then reabsorbed before birth? That is quite an unsubtantiated assertion! So we should just accept this as the way things are?

"As far as whales with legs or vestigial leg bones, that issue has been raised and refuted time and again."

Tell us again then why some whales should be born with atavistic legs?

I think you may also need to look up the definition of vestigal. It means that something has a more complex formulation than is necessary for its task. The pelvis in a whale is much more complicated than need be for its simple tasks of today. The best explanation is that it is derived from a pelvis used for walking. If invented from scratch, it would have been much more simple.

"Here is another link about the whale embryonic development

Http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp"

I cannot find anything about development in there. It does mention atavisms though. They seems to have searched to hard for something that was already found. See the following paper for pictures.

Andrews, R. C. (1921) "A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale." Amer. Mus. Novitates. No. 9. June 3, 1921.

If you notice, this has been around for over 80 years. They should have know of it by now. There are many other sources which I will not list here though I can if you are interested. Real whales with real hind legs. Not the scraps of bone AIG could find.

"I also knew that people are sometimes born with abnormalities such as an extra finger, or an extra rib, but no evolutionist claims that we evolved from a six-fingered ancestor."

You already have instructions for making a finger and rib. Having an extra is not too complicated. Why should a whale have instructions for making hind legs?

 

[just-want-peace]

UTEOTW sez:

Are you ever going to back this claim up by showing me how I am wrong in my claims that evolution offers a testable, falsifiable, predictive theory?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/37/2.html#000016

Are you ever going to offer such a theory of your own?

You have obviously NOT read all of any my posts! I posit NO, NADA, ZILCH theories!!!

The one point I keep harping on is "There is no physical evidence to prove EITHER (get that, EITHER) side."Please don't refer to all your tomes of dissertation as facts, as they are beliefs that are determined by you & your evolutionists cohorts, based on the evolutionary bias toward evidence that is so far from exact as to be open to a much different interpretation that the evolutionary concept.

Therefore, I have NO theory!! I simply choose to believe that what God wrote in Genesis is true, pure & simple, as opposed to what man says via science.

Following is part of my post on the page you refer to, and neither have you answered my questions

just-want-peace sez:

I ask the question again that I asked long ago and never received an answer.
"What is the bedrock fact(s) that you have upon which you base your belief of evolution. Not the data, but the "ROCK" upon which, (if proven wrong evolution would disappear even as a theory), the foundation exists?"

Up front I'll admit that there is no "bedrock" in science for the "6 day" creation belief (as far as I know anyway), but my belief in this is not "science", but the Word of God.

So unless you can furnish that "undisputed foundation rock" for evolution, then it's just a matter of which you trust more, God or science!

Well, you did answer, but it did not answer the asked question!
UTEOTW sez:

"What is the bedrock fact(s) that you have upon which you base your belief of evolution. Not the data, but the "ROCK" upon which, (if proven wrong evolution would disappear even as a theory), the foundation exists?"

It IS the data. How can there be anything else? Just as chemistry and physics and geology all rest on their data.

(Answer bolded by me)

Data has to have some foundation before it means anything. So this is a non-answer!

And the fact that you cannot give a basis for your belief that is non-contestable proves that you are relying on assumption and the word of others AND BLIND FAITH for the sustinance of these beliefs. This is why I did not answer you earlier, it's a total waste of time, and I am no longer interested in simply going back and forth when neither of us are going to change the belief of the other, in spite of the multitudes of epistles you have "penned"!!

JGrubbs sez:

I believe evolution has been a disease that has plagued our nation, through teaching a lack of respect for human life, it has led to murders, abortions, euthanasia, etc. Your "facts" will never change my opinion!

Once again B-I-N-G-O

 

[UTEOTW]

Then your question has no meaning and is unanswerable. It is as if I asked you how you know that you live in South Carolina but said that you could not refer to maps or signs or your drviers license or any other piece of data. Science rests on the facts. The facts show that our universe is 13.7 billion years old, that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that all life on earth is related through common descent. Take that away and your question is without substance.

 

[UTEOTW]

Getting back to the subject...

The claim was made that today's reptiles are dinosaurs that no longer grow as large because of shorter lifetimes. Several objections were raised including several physical differences and that most lizards actually stop growing at some point.

But let's focus on one specific physical trait and use layman's terms. In lizards the pelvis has pieces that point in twop different directions while in dinosaurs the pelvis has an additional piece that means that it points in three different directions. Therefore lizards cannot be little dinosaurs.

Now I see three possible responses here.

1. You could admit that your reference was incorrect and the lizards are not really little dinosaurs.

2. You could do a little research and show that the pelvis of a dinosaur only actually points in two directions.

3. You could do a little research and show that the pelvis of a lizard really points in three directions.

I feel that I can safely predict that you will neither address the factual concerns here not admit that the YE source was blatently incorrect.

If you respond at all...

I can also predict that no matter how many YE claims are shown to be built on feet of clay, and did you ever give a long list of such dubious claims on the other thread, you will not admit the errors nor change your mind on their truthfulness. You do not even seem interested in attempting to defend your faulty assertions.

 

[billwald]

Do we live in a physical universe or a mystical/magical universe that only exists in God's mind?

In other words, when God created the universe did he create (independant) matter or did he write a computer program? Do we only exist because God continually thinks about us? If God took a micro second vacation would we disappear?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

If God took a micro second vacation and we dissapeared and he came back on the job and we were all back again, would we be able to tell it had happened?

Since time is an invention of God's and He exists eternally outside of time, is the idea of His taking a micro-second vacation even conceivable?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

If God's vacation were a microsecond or an eternity, would we be able to tell the difference?

One of the coolest things about God in my opinion is that he is not bound by our concept of time. He can come and go through time as he pleases.

From a physical standpoint the miracles dealing with time (Stood still for Joshua [Josh 10], moved backwards for Hezekiah [II Kings 20]). Can you imagine the implications of these events in the world of physics. Did the rotation of the earth stop? Certainly we have an awesome God.

 

[P_Barnes]

If God exists "outside of time" then how could He have had the time to create time?