What of the dinosaurs?

[dalconn]

Science can't explain how the Golden Plover can migrate from alaska to hawaii over 2500 miles of ocean without a compass or radar. This bird gains the exact amount of weight to have enough energy to complete the non-stop trip without being too heavy to finish the trip...you can't make this stuff up folks

 

[JackH]

What about dinosaurs and cavemen living millions of years ago?

13. Zircon crystals deep beneath the Earth's surface prove the Earth to be appx. 6000 years old.

That's quite some list, and most of them made me laugh.

So ICR paid close to two million bucks for your "proof" is the way I heard it. And yet produced no articles about the "proof" in any reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals and such, that I am aware of.

I'm curious as to why whenever there are clips on the national news or articles in major newspapers pertaining to new dinosaur fossils being discovered and they say the fossils are billions of years old, there is no disclaimer. You know, like "Of course we all know this can't be true because zircon crystals deep beneath the earth's surface prove the earth to be approximately 6000 years old."

 

[JackH]

Perished in the flood........

Are you saying that this proves that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?

Even most YECs have given up on that.

But please keep posting this on thread after thread. I like it.

 

[Calminian]

That's quite some list, and most of them made me laugh.

So ICR paid close to two million bucks for your "proof" is the way I heard it. And yet produced no articles about the "proof" in any reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals and such, that I am aware of.

I'm curious as to why whenever there are clips on the national news or articles in major newspapers pertaining to new dinosaur fossils being discovered and they say the fossils are billions of years old, there is no disclaimer. You know, like "Of course we all know this can't be true because zircon crystals deep beneath the earth's surface prove the earth to be approximately 6000 years old."

Because that would indicate the billions of years model was not true. They're sincere in what they say, they just want to cling to their own religious dogmas. All of us are religious and opinionated at some level. If anything challenges our worldview, we defensive and manifest in that many ways. With some, it manifests nervous laughter.

 

[Calminian]

Are you saying that this proves that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?

Even most YECs have given up on that.

But please keep posting this on thread after thread. I like it.

Others resort to insults.

 

[JackH]

Kent Hovind is a total imbecile. I'd love to go through his video and pick apart the hundreds of errors and lies, but I do not feel like vomiting tonight. There are numerous critiques of Ken Hovind on the internet, all backed by actual science.

It never fails.

Every time a thread like this comes up somebody posts a link to a Kent Hovind video, probably the worst source anybody could use to support anything.

Why, I would suspect that some of these people who admire Kent Hovind visit him at the federal prison in Atlanta where he is incarcerated.

 

[Calminian]

Everyone notice the tactics of the skeptics above. No dialog no reasoning just pure vitriolic demagoguery. It never fails. They literally have nothing to say.

I will say this about Kent Hovind. I don't agree with every argument he's made, nor his taxation views, but I'm very impressed with this son, Eric. I think kids are good indicators of the parents character, and Eric has honored his father well, taking over his ministry. Initially he did his father's seminars and basically spoke his father's words verbatim. He's now involved in several ministries including the Genesis 3D movie. Say what you will about Kent, he appears to have been a great father. My guess is he's twice the father Jack is.

 

[Percepi]

Percpi, let's start with something simple, do we know yet know how the sun shines so bright day in and day out? I don't want to hear some gas story, or nothing explainable, no one has touched the sun, no one can experiments on the sun, if we get close we get burned.

You're convinced the only way we can tell what the sun is made up of is if we are able to physically touch it. There are other ways of understanding what the sun is made of. Instead of rejecting the science outright based on a preconceived basis that we can not draw conclusions through use of tools, you should actually study how we came to know what the sun is made of.

Everyone can experiment that there's gravity, who made these laws of gravity?

You're assuming gravity was made.

Who made these laws of the universe?

You're assuming the laws of the universe were made.

Not knowing =/= GOD DID IT.

I don't want to hear some three minute bang story, we can try to compromise with a superior "scientist" story, and let him tell it, but when we can't even get to mars yet.. Then we can move to Dino..

This statement is just asinine. Everything you said is unrelated to evidence. You're essentially saying, "I don't understand it, therefore I won't try to understand it."

So what is the falsifiability of the theory of evolution? You know the statement that is derived from the principle upon which the theory is validated to demonstrate that if proven truth then the theory is false.

I believe the biggest thing that would disprove evolution would be a lack of transitional fossils. We have many transitional fossils though, even though creationists like to argue that they're not transitional - just similar. We would not find any similarities between differing species' DNA, and keep in mind that the number of Chromosomes animals and plants have does not define how closely related they are, but rather DNA sequence.

I would buy that if the Spirit was flesh, or rather mass. However, on the other hand they claim that man did not originate from a single set of procreators, or the 'Adam&Eve' doctrine of creationist. So while they dismiss 'Adam&Eve' doctrine of creationist, they themselves establish a single set of procreators unless they are now claiming mass mutations , so what kind of BS is that?

You're stepping into the realm of abiogenesis, not evolution. Without understanding even the most basic principles of how cells first formed, it would be impossible for me to explain how communities can evolve together in such a primitive state.

I would buy that if the Spirit was flesh, or rather mass. However, on the other hand they claim that man did not originate from a single set of procreators, or the 'Adam&Eve' doctrine of creationist. So while they dismiss 'Adam&Eve' doctrine of creationist, they themselves establish a single set of procreators unless they are now claiming mass mutations , so what kind of BS is that?

Evolution is falsifiable. It's just so well supported that you can't find one way to disprove it entirely. You would have to disprove many things before you could consider evolution to be entirely false. But since evolution is so well supported, you're going to have a very hard time with that.

If a dog gave birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution. If we could not duplicate "micro" evolution, that would disprove macro evolution. Macro-evolution is proven through numerous other means other than direct observation, but it is based off of micro-evolution. Without micro-evolution, macro-evolution would be undoubtedly false. All proofs of evolution, if proven wrong, would disprove evolution.

While science is a discipline for the principles that govern and regulate our physical world which are based upon physical evidence and validation whereas religion is discipline for the principles that provide and protect our moral and social values of equity and justice.

So what? Science does not dictate morality. It is merely a process in which we observe reality. If people want to use science for evil, then it's the individual's philosophy that must be challenged. Religion can be used to dictate morality and social values. But so can general philosophy not associated with gods.

To find a bunch of different type of monkeys, and put them next to a human is just not working for me, no one can watch a monkey "evolve" in to a human, not even half of that to a ape.

This is why we use various different methods to verify evolution. Evolution isn't based solely on the similarities of fossils.

It's a "theory" for a reason.

Please, learn what a scientific theory is. I honestly don't want to explain it yet again...

A scientific theory is NOT a hunch or guess.

Not to be sarcastic but what are we going to evolve to next? Robots right? Monkeys to bots... Com'on, this stuff is scifi...

Robots aren't organic, living, beings. So no, that's just stupid. You're attacking a strawman.

Jesus did a lot of miracles... I'm one of them, walked on water, fed multitudes with one loaf, turned water to wine, raised the dead, healed the blind, none of this is explainable...

None of it is provable either.

You want to talk about how evolution can't be proven, but then you accept what Jesus supposedly did without proof...

And I know what you're wanting to say, "Well you accept evolution without proof." Wrong, I accept evolution because of the proof you reject.

The Bible never lies.. Hold it up for the pinnacle of morality, good and bad, knowing the difference...

Can you prove the Bible never lies?

And morality isn't something that physically exists. Morality is a concept that has evolved with humans. We can actually observe different species of apes in which they possess different forms of morality. Some species are incredibly violent, whereas other species punish or ostracize those who go against what the "norm" is. Morality evolves in the same way God once deemed slavery to be okay, but changed his mind as society decided to ban slavery.

Did these monkeys know the difference? When did they then? Why don't I see atheist monkeys?

I don't know if monkeys are theists or atheists. I would imagine atheists since there's no evidence they believe in a god - but we just don't know.

With thought, peace, truth, care, compassion, love, understanding of everything the Holy Spirit delivers...

Or it's something we've naturally conceptualized.

[video=youtube;EWxCM6llL60]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWxCM6llL60[/video]

 

[dcontroversal]

Others resort to insults.

No doubt for sure.....and what he accused me of I did not say nor imply......he needs to go back to his "box" and keep flipping burgers......

I always thought that they kept Jack (in) the box!

 

[JackH]

Because that would indicate the billions of years model was not true.

So then, it would appear you are saying that this is some grand conspiracy by the major TV networks and newspapers to suppress the truth that the world is really 6000 years old.

Is that correct?

That sounds like something Kent Hovind would say. He's big on New World Order conspiracies like the one about our government carrying out the Oklahoma City bombing.

 

[JackH]

.....and what he accused me of I did not say nor imply.....

The only thing I accused you of is posting that Paluxy image again and again.

And your motivation for doing so is what again?

 

[Brainfreeze]

You're convinced the only way we can tell what the sun is made up of is if we are able to physically touch it. There are other ways of understanding what the sun is made of. Instead of rejecting the science outright based on a preconceived basis that we can not draw conclusions through use of tools, you should actually study how we came to know what the sun is made of.



You're assuming gravity was made.



You're assuming the laws of the universe were made.

Not knowing =/= GOD DID IT.



This statement is just asinine. Everything you said is unrelated to evidence. You're essentially saying, "I don't understand it, therefore I won't try to understand it."



I believe the biggest thing that would disprove evolution would be a lack of transitional fossils. We have many transitional fossils though, even though creationists like to argue that they're not transitional - just similar. We would not find any similarities between differing species' DNA, and keep in mind that the number of Chromosomes animals and plants have does not define how closely related they are, but rather DNA sequence.



You're stepping into the realm of abiogenesis, not evolution. Without understanding even the most basic principles of how cells first formed, it would be impossible for me to explain how communities can evolve together in such a primitive state.



Evolution is falsifiable. It's just so well supported that you can't find one way to disprove it entirely. You would have to disprove many things before you could consider evolution to be entirely false. But since evolution is so well supported, you're going to have a very hard time with that.

If a dog gave birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution. If we could not duplicate "micro" evolution, that would disprove macro evolution. Macro-evolution is proven through numerous other means other than direct observation, but it is based off of micro-evolution. Without micro-evolution, macro-evolution would be undoubtedly false. All proofs of evolution, if proven wrong, would disprove evolution.



So what? Science does not dictate morality. It is merely a process in which we observe reality. If people want to use science for evil, then it's the individual's philosophy that must be challenged. Religion can be used to dictate morality and social values. But so can general philosophy not associated with gods.



This is why we use various different methods to verify evolution. Evolution isn't based solely on the similarities of fossils.



Please, learn what a scientific theory is. I honestly don't want to explain it yet again...

A scientific theory is NOT a hunch or guess.



Robots aren't organic, living, beings. So no, that's just stupid. You're attacking a strawman.



None of it is provable either.

You want to talk about how evolution can't be proven, but then you accept what Jesus supposedly did without proof...

And I know what you're wanting to say, "Well you accept evolution without proof." Wrong, I accept evolution because of the proof you reject.



Can you prove the Bible never lies?

And morality isn't something that physically exists. Morality is a concept that has evolved with humans. We can actually observe different species of apes in which they possess different forms of morality. Some species are incredibly violent, whereas other species punish or ostracize those who go against what the "norm" is. Morality evolves in the same way God once deemed slavery to be okay, but changed his mind as society decided to ban slavery.



I don't know if monkeys are theists or atheists. I would imagine atheists since there's no evidence they believe in a god - but we just don't know.



Or it's something we've naturally conceptualized.

[video=youtube;EWxCM6llL60]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWxCM6llL60[/video]

I'm one of Gods miracles Percpi, are you saying I'm not? Read some of my post, I've explained this pretty articulately, I shouldn't be alive, I am. I've changed overnight, explain this with your science, you can't, God does the unexplainable .. You answered a lot of my questions with (we don't know), so in this age with all we do know, and can't disprove God, what does that tell you? There are also scientist that do believe exactly as I do (without knowing) " take the guy that created the MRI machine, that we can detect cancer Mr. Damadian" there are plenty out there that are silent about it because they don't want to be ostracized and penalized for there beliefs, it's a injustice, and wrong. If you think monkeys are atheist, your wrong, their just Gods creations.

 

[Brainfreeze]

A monkey cannot plan a fund raiser, a monkey acts on survival skills, of course there is order, as there are more dominant ones. When in the wild monkeys do what they do naturally, no good or bad, just surviving monkeys... Now if we want to pull one out of the bunch and train him emotions, it's something that is taught, the monkey still doesn't have morals, there are monkeys that flip out on care takers all the time, it's not their natural habitat, this is far proof from evolution.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Forget Kent Hovind and the Creationist academic groups for a moment. Not saying they are bad or wrong, but forget about them for just a moment.

The key to proving the Dinosaurs are not millions of years old and figuring their place out in the timescale is quite simple. The creatures are written about in the classical to medieval to renaissance histories in a historical/naturalistic context. These creatures are written about and depicted throughout known provable history by a multitude of sources of varying backgrounds and ideologies. For supporting proofs these creatures are depicted throughout various geographic locales well before the word "dinosaur" was even coined and well before the Old Earth Mythology was invented.

No atheist or skeptic or Old Earth Myther can debunk or overthrow this fact.

 

[Calminian]

....I believe the biggest thing that would disprove evolution would be a lack of transitional fossils. We have many transitional fossils though, even though creationists like to argue that they're not transitional - just similar. We would not find any similarities between differing species' DNA, and keep in mind that the number of Chromosomes animals and plants have does not define how closely related they are, but rather DNA sequence.

Please enlighten us into what you believe are transitional forms. I'm sure you can give hundreds, but, give us the top 5 and let's discuss.

You're stepping into the realm of abiogenesis, not evolution. Without understanding even the most basic principles of how cells first formed, it would be impossible for me to explain how communities can evolve together in such a primitive state.

But the 2 are inseparable. Why would you want to separate them? Seems evolutionists want to keep these separate for the mere reason they can't explain how this could possibly happen.

 

[Jason0047]

That's quite some list, and most of them made me laugh.

So ICR paid close to two million bucks for your "proof" is the way I heard it. And yet produced no articles about the "proof" in any reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals and such, that I am aware of.

I'm curious as to why whenever there are clips on the national news or articles in major newspapers pertaining to new dinosaur fossils being discovered and they say the fossils are billions of years old, there is no disclaimer. You know, like "Of course we all know this can't be true because zircon crystals deep beneath the earth's surface prove the earth to be approximately 6000 years old."

Your not getting it. You can't see it because you don't have faith on God's Word on this topic. Read Hebrews 11 on what the definition of faith is. What your proposing is the exact opposite of that. In other words, you can't cram outside ideas and try to make them fit into the Bible, my friend.

 

[Kerry]

Going out on a limb here, but Dinosaurs are preAdamic. They existed in an age before Adam and were destroyed by God.

If you look at the creation series in Genesis there is a gap. In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, Right.

But the Earth became void and full of darkness. The language in the manuscripts means that God allowed the the sun to shine,not created but allowed. Everything that God created in Genesis was good so how did the Earth become void and full of darkness.

The stuff that Scientist are digging up and attributing to evolution is what was here before Adam and is does not compute so they tie it to evolution which is a perceivable explanation, but science cannot produce evidence of evolution they say it takes billions of years which is false and teach it to our children in school. The stuff they dig up is stuff that was going on this Earth before Adam, so Ancient aliens can make money and deceive you. This is referred to in the bible and is the time that Lucifer rebelled against God and became Satan.

 

[Tintin]

No, Kerry, no. The Gap Theory and its ilk aren't biblically-sound theories.

 

[Kerry]

No, Kerry, no. The Gap Theory and its ilk aren't biblically-sound theories.

Just curious Tin, what your explaination on how the Earth became void and full of darkness. Then I'm going to throw sumpin else at you. 4,000 years from Adam till Christ, go through the begat s and do the math. A day unto the Lord is as a thousand years. Jesus is called SUN not SON as He is but referred to as the SUN of righteousness meaning light.

On the fouth Daqy the Sun was allowed to shine and the moon at noight which is a reflection of the Sun. Are you with me then say amen or good bye.

Any way a day is as a thousand years, four thousand years and Christ came and created the church which is a reflection of the SON. So in affect The son came on the fourth day and created they church to shine in the darkness.

On the seventh day God rested, It has been a little over 6,000 years since Adam and God rests when His Kingdom is setup on Earth, which will be the seventh day. Your thoughts if you please.

 

[Kerry]

Man I can't type.