I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!I believe in creation and adaptation of a given species. But this dude would not sway me if I was an evolutionist. Your bolded comments are a hoot.
More tedious debate on evolution vs. cerationism. From what I hear most scientific evidence backs up evolution. I tend to believe in divinly guided evolution. But, so long as we agree that God was the director of our creation, does it really matter how He went about it? I have no problem with people who believe in some form of creationism, nor do I care if this popular view is presented in schools, so long as you present the mainstream scientific view (evolution) as the mainstream scientific view. But is it really that important whether God created the world in seven literal days or 15 billion years?
"Isn't it perfectly reasonable that a human who found a large tooth would dream up dragons?"
One of the strange things I found about dragons, is there is more to the legends than typically assumed. From about 1500 and earlier, there are direct witnesses which often read like: "on the 13th of May, Hans of Lieder was walking the road to Liederhaus at about noon and saw a large dragon dead in a field. He...." Such stories (history?) are more widespread, specific (date, time and witness) and universal than most realize. They don't read exactly like legends--unless of course you assume a priori they are impossible. The idea that dragons and dinosaurs are the same actually makes a lot of sense...unless you insist on having an evolutionary perspective.
Yikes. Maybe Farah needs to call Art Bell. Pterodactyls in Africa?
He's like this on many issues. A nice man, it appears, but a noodle.
(And I'm a barking moonbat 6-day creationist, too!)
I looked through a college level biology text recently that was admitedly by leftists pushing an evolutionary point of view. Which is fine, but for any attempt at even explaining the unknowns of biogenesis, which otherwise, given the marvelous complexity of their material one would think that question should just naturally arise....
Farah is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and not just on this issue. WorldNet Daily, while having some decent columns by good writers, is often an embarrassment. I don't even go there anymore.
And they tramped it down very well too.
Frankly, creation theory might have had a chance without that 6000 year garbage.
The Word says it is so.
Even if I didn't believe the Word it is a matter of simple observation for me.
There is no way I can reason that all things i.e. everything just happened.
The basic tenets of scientific observation rule out the very notion.
Now do I believe that species adapt? Yes, I do.
Survival of the fitest? Yes, I do.
Evidence for evolution that wasn't called in:
Introduction:
How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: "Well, now you have two gaps where you only had one before! You are losing ground!"
One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure” (Gish 1985: 78-9).
snip
Conclusion: Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. We have seen that there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals. The power of evidence from independent areas of study that support the same conclusion makes refutation by special creation scenarios, personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, or "intelligent design" scenarious entirely unreasonable. The only plausible scientific conclusion is that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals. So no matter how much anti-evolutionists rant about how impossible it is for land-dwelling, furry mammals to evolve into fully aquatic whales, the evidence itself shouts them down. This is the power of using mutually reinforcing, independent lines of evidence. I hope that it will become a major weapon to strike down groundless anti-evolutionist objections and to support evolutionary thinking in the general public. This is how real science works, and we must emphasize the process of scientific inference as we point out the conclusions that scientists draw from the evidence - that the concordant predictions from independent fields of scientific study confirm the same pattern of whale ancestry.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!I have to give credit where credit is due. It's a good analysis.