The thing is, Jack is right. The creationist site you linked to is anti-evolution. How can it be trusted to provide an unbiased examination of the facts? Would you trust an Islamic Jihadist website to provide reliable information on Jews? I don't think so. You want an unbiased examination of evolution? Read The Language of God, by Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian geneticist. I've looked at creation websites in the past. They don't source their information and they are notorious for taking information out of context, and most do no original research. They are scientifically unreliable, but they are ideal for reinforcing anti-evolutionary notions among the uniformed.
What of the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Numerous fabrications and tampering with physical evidence by scientists who were evolutionists and felt that the end justified the means has been documented; however, micro evolution does occur within a species or a genus (but new genera and, with few exceptions, new species do not descend from a common ancestor).
In truth, many (but certainly not all) evolutionists I've debated are some of the most disingenuous people I've ever met. They've lied to my face, engaged in fallacious reasoning and ad hominem all with a nasty demeaning attitude, misrepresented the evidence knowingly, exhibited personality disorders often attended with anger management issues, etc... etc... etc...
I've gone toe to toe with atheist evolutionists who's entire life was consumed by atheism and evolutionary theory to the point of obsession reminiscent of attempting to deal with a militant terrorist Muslim... lol. It was their "religion", their belief system, their reason for living, their whole world, etc... and they were on a mission from God (so to speak) to "evangelize" the world.
But there is no doubt, when you examine all the evidence and not just the palette presented by atheist evolutionists, that God's involvement in the creation of life is the reality. That; however, doesn't translate to the earth is only 6,000 years old and Fred Flintstone used a dinosaur to pull his plow like so many of my misguided brethren believe... lol. Yabadabadoo.
In truth, many (but certainly not all) evolutionists I've debated are some of the most disingenuous people I've ever met. They've lied to my face, engaged in fallacious reasoning and ad hominem all with a nasty demeaning attitude, misrepresented the evidence knowingly, exhibited personality disorders often attended with anger management issues, etc... etc... etc...
I've gone toe to toe with atheist evolutionists who's entire life was consumed by atheism and evolutionary theory to the point of obsession reminiscent of attempting to deal with a militant terrorist Muslim... lol. It was their "religion", their belief system, their reason for living, their whole world, etc... and they were on a mission from God (so to speak) to "evangelize" the world.
But there is no doubt, when you examine all the evidence and not just the palette presented by atheist evolutionists, that God's involvement in the creation of life is the reality. That; however, doesn't translate to the earth is only 6,000 years old and Fred Flintstone used a dinosaur to pull his plow like so many of my misguided brethren believe... lol. Yabadabadoo.
A
False. I've directed you to carefully sourced scholarly creation websites that are scientifically reliable and run by PhD scientists with impeccable credentials.
So you're either lying or you never bothered to actually visit any of the websites I've referenced in my discussions with you which then is evidence that you don't care about any information that doesn't support your own beliefs which would contradict your stated intention for being here. Neither is a morally right option and both are morally bad options; but for curiosity's sake: which is it?
So you're either lying or you never bothered to actually visit any of the websites I've referenced in my discussions with you which then is evidence that you don't care about any information that doesn't support your own beliefs which would contradict your stated intention for being here. Neither is a morally right option and both are morally bad options; but for curiosity's sake: which is it?
Of course, you have proof such as to question Dr. Schweitzer's professional integrity as you have done here? So let's see it.
Now, I did question Dr. Dino's professional integrity when I referred to him as a convict. But I provided proof, as in Hovind is currently incarcerated in a federal prison after being convicted of 58 felonies.
It seems to me you are doing some bearing false witness here in biblical terms or defamation in current lingo.
Now, you say the new facts defy the presumption that the fossil is 65 million years old.
Wrong. There is no real evidence supported by reputable scientific sources that this fossil is less than 65 million years old. If you say there is, let's see that evidence in scientific journals and such.
The issue is really whether organic materials can survive for millions of years.
To get dinosaurs coexisting with man less than 6,000 years ago out of this is a full pipe of dope dream on the part of young earth creationists.
Now, I did question Dr. Dino's professional integrity when I referred to him as a convict. But I provided proof, as in Hovind is currently incarcerated in a federal prison after being convicted of 58 felonies.
It seems to me you are doing some bearing false witness here in biblical terms or defamation in current lingo.
Now, you say the new facts defy the presumption that the fossil is 65 million years old.
Wrong. There is no real evidence supported by reputable scientific sources that this fossil is less than 65 million years old. If you say there is, let's see that evidence in scientific journals and such.
The issue is really whether organic materials can survive for millions of years.
To get dinosaurs coexisting with man less than 6,000 years ago out of this is a full pipe of dope dream on the part of young earth creationists.
Dr. Schweitzer and most scientists hold to evolution and old ages of fossils while observing enough evidence to openly require them to officially question their former doctrines. Instead, her lab and other evolutionist teams are scrambling to prove soft tissues are a bacterial phenomenon. Her lab went to great effort to make sure her find was a sample contamination issue. Failing that, other labs are trying hard to make this a bacterial phenomenon. They are still denying any possibility of dinosaur soft tissues including intact blood vessels could be less than 6000 years old, insisting the evidence still leaves the fossils 65 million years old in spite of other research showing DNA can't remain intact as long as a homicide detective would like it to. That has always been the evolutionist line in the sand that doesn't move. What has been published from the evolutionist side is obvious evidence of a huge ethics problem.
I liken it to a witness that sees a murder, but refuses to testify who did it on the grounds the witness doesn't believe murder can happen. Same principle. Evolutionists (academic in particular) must lie frequently by omitting truths that offend them, turn the head, deny, avoid, or be subject to losing their tenure.
Let's start with a discussion based on ICR information and follow some citations back to science peer reviewed confirmation. I don't have time to banter back and forth comparing opinions and repetitive avoidance of evidences. Some ICR writers research science journals then summarize points. Until about 7 years ago I had accesss to my workplace library, allowed to check out practically all science journals at all related to issues I might have had to deal with. I can't do that, and won't invest in thousands of dollars in subscriptions now. I'm glad those folks have access. When we try to follow some links we won't get past an abstract until starting a subscription. If you deny the report, then cite the journal article. Each of those ICR articles are constantly subject to peer review, and criticism from evolutionists, geneticists, geologists, etc.in general who were not part of a peer review committee. That accountability is sufficient testimony, given any pattern of lying would destroy all credibility of the professionals and scientists supporting the ICR ministry. Please read and comment on article #1
Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft Tissues Yields Surprising Results
I liken it to a witness that sees a murder, but refuses to testify who did it on the grounds the witness doesn't believe murder can happen. Same principle. Evolutionists (academic in particular) must lie frequently by omitting truths that offend them, turn the head, deny, avoid, or be subject to losing their tenure.
Let's start with a discussion based on ICR information and follow some citations back to science peer reviewed confirmation. I don't have time to banter back and forth comparing opinions and repetitive avoidance of evidences. Some ICR writers research science journals then summarize points. Until about 7 years ago I had accesss to my workplace library, allowed to check out practically all science journals at all related to issues I might have had to deal with. I can't do that, and won't invest in thousands of dollars in subscriptions now. I'm glad those folks have access. When we try to follow some links we won't get past an abstract until starting a subscription. If you deny the report, then cite the journal article. Each of those ICR articles are constantly subject to peer review, and criticism from evolutionists, geneticists, geologists, etc.in general who were not part of a peer review committee. That accountability is sufficient testimony, given any pattern of lying would destroy all credibility of the professionals and scientists supporting the ICR ministry. Please read and comment on article #1
Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft Tissues Yields Surprising Results
What I see from ICR is intellectual dishonest at its finest.
The authors at ICR quote a sentence or paragraph from a reputable scientific journal and list the journal in the footnotes. That is not generally a copyright violation. But what you don't see is the entire article and the context in which the comment was made. You would have to get permission from the author in most instances to do that.
When you find the article in question in a reputable scientific journal, nowhere does it say that the author believes the dinosaur bones are less than 65 million years old or that dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
So to you and ICR I would say: C'mon man, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
The authors at ICR quote a sentence or paragraph from a reputable scientific journal and list the journal in the footnotes. That is not generally a copyright violation. But what you don't see is the entire article and the context in which the comment was made. You would have to get permission from the author in most instances to do that.
When you find the article in question in a reputable scientific journal, nowhere does it say that the author believes the dinosaur bones are less than 65 million years old or that dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
So to you and ICR I would say: C'mon man, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
C
Why do you have to trust a website to listen to an argument? I listen to people I don't trust all the time. What do you think will happen if you listen? You'll get confused and persuaded to a different view? God forbid.
I hear the same argument from Jehovah's Witnesses that come to my door. They won't read anything that not in line with their religious dogmas. It's actually a policy handed down from the Watch Tower, but many of them are afraid to take any material from you. I think it's just an irrational fear.
Yes, I've read a ton of these. I know what the other side preaches. They're all addressed in the pod cast, which you're passing on. Suit yourself.
BTW, I've gained a lot from Horner's views. He's actually corroborated what many creationists have been saying about the inflated estimations of the number of dinosaur kinds. Turns out, they're really are very few dinosaur kinds.
New Analyses Of Dinosaur Growth May Wipe Out One-third Of Species
Don't worry, no creationists are cited here. It's a very safe article for you. But it does explain how easy it would have been to fit them on the Ark.
I hear the same argument from Jehovah's Witnesses that come to my door. They won't read anything that not in line with their religious dogmas. It's actually a policy handed down from the Watch Tower, but many of them are afraid to take any material from you. I think it's just an irrational fear.
Yes, I've read a ton of these. I know what the other side preaches. They're all addressed in the pod cast, which you're passing on. Suit yourself.
BTW, I've gained a lot from Horner's views. He's actually corroborated what many creationists have been saying about the inflated estimations of the number of dinosaur kinds. Turns out, they're really are very few dinosaur kinds.
New Analyses Of Dinosaur Growth May Wipe Out One-third Of Species
Don't worry, no creationists are cited here. It's a very safe article for you. But it does explain how easy it would have been to fit them on the Ark.
C
Wow. So then why do you read my threads. I'm anti evolutionary also. Shouldn't you be hiding? Just trying to follow your logic as to why you're so closed minded in the information you take in. I would absolutely listen to a muslim and take in his view. I wouldn't visit a violent jihadist website just because I don't want to support their violence, but I would certainly listen to someone, or listen to a link that someone posted if it were relevant to a discussion.
The odd thing is, I actually became more open-minded as a christian. I can handle other views and opinions now, whereas before, I was allergic to anything that rocked my ideological boat.
Do you have any articles or shorter explanations of what he believes. I'd be happy to check out his views and see if they can be reconciled with the text. Would you be willing to do that same with the pod cast I've offered you?
Can you give me the best example of this from the top 3 creationist websites, creation.com, answersingenesis.org and icr.org. How much of a sample did you sample?
Also Cycel, have you supported any of your claims yet about the Bible teaching a solid dome? I corrected your hebrew on your last post, but haven't seen you around. Are you conceding on that debate?
The odd thing is, I actually became more open-minded as a christian. I can handle other views and opinions now, whereas before, I was allergic to anything that rocked my ideological boat.
Do you have any articles or shorter explanations of what he believes. I'd be happy to check out his views and see if they can be reconciled with the text. Would you be willing to do that same with the pod cast I've offered you?
Can you give me the best example of this from the top 3 creationist websites, creation.com, answersingenesis.org and icr.org. How much of a sample did you sample?
Also Cycel, have you supported any of your claims yet about the Bible teaching a solid dome? I corrected your hebrew on your last post, but haven't seen you around. Are you conceding on that debate?
C
My favorite logical fallacy poster strikes again. Here's yet another, which is a great example of circular reasoning.
Only sources that believe in evolution are reputable. Thus if you point to a source that disagrees with evolution, that source must not be reputable and needs to be dismissed.
This really does sum up the reasoning process of most bible skeptics and compromisers. This is what is being passed off as intellectualism, and in their minds, it's perfectly logical.
Only sources that believe in evolution are reputable. Thus if you point to a source that disagrees with evolution, that source must not be reputable and needs to be dismissed.
This really does sum up the reasoning process of most bible skeptics and compromisers. This is what is being passed off as intellectualism, and in their minds, it's perfectly logical.
Cycel probably knows that Institute for Creation Research offered Master's degrees in science up until four years ago. ICR advertised the courses with: "The goal of the ICR Graduate School is to provide teachers with the scientific knowledge necessary to actively engage their students and to prepare scientifically literate graduates." And Answers in Genesis had blurbs on their site promoting ICR's science program.
That all stopped four years ago because the Texas Higher Education Board maintained that ICR did not teach science, but instead taught young earth creationist propaganda. A federal judge agreed, decided against ICR, and also said in his opinion that ICR "is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information."
What was your question again?
I have no idea why Cycel doesn't waste a lot of time at your favorite websites.
That all stopped four years ago because the Texas Higher Education Board maintained that ICR did not teach science, but instead taught young earth creationist propaganda. A federal judge agreed, decided against ICR, and also said in his opinion that ICR "is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information."
What was your question again?
I have no idea why Cycel doesn't waste a lot of time at your favorite websites.
C
So some non-scientist board members and some non-scientists judges decided ICR phd scientists were not doing science. Hmmm. So rather than listening to ICR's arguments, just hide from them. After all judges and board members never screw anything up.
Nice logic, Jack. You have every right to hide your head in the sand. But this might be why you're getting creamed in your debates here.
Nice logic, Jack. You have every right to hide your head in the sand. But this might be why you're getting creamed in your debates here.