New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[StolarStorm]

I've seen polls that indicate that... and to be honest I can't remember where to pull them from. I'm sure others have done so before and could probably find them if needed. I'll look around as well. But I have yet to talk to a scientist in and out of a university that has believed in YE creationism. Many are theistic, just not YE.

[Aric2000]

Just stating the truth as I see it Alamo-Girl.

I always enjoy your posts, they always make me think a bit.

Anyway, I am out of here, going to see if I can get a good deal on an 80 gig hard drive.

less then $70 for a 80 gig, I HAVE to go check it out!!

So be back in a while!!

Megahugs to you!!

[Da_Shrimp]

Nice link Alamo-Girl, thanks!

Doesn't Genesis 2 give a different order for Creation, though? How does that fit in?

[BMCDA]

Where did the big bang come from?

Why do you think it had to "come from" at all?

[AndrewC]

Isn't this a science thread?

I don't mean to intrude but this comment generated an answer which was cause for name-calling.

"It would be nice if the creationists would simply stop trying to 'witness' on the science threads. Discussions regarding a purely scientific topic do not require any input from those who have no belief (or understanding) of the scientific method. They should feel free to discuss creationism all they want on threads dedicated to that topic.".

Now you evidently desire the creationist viewpoint. I find the opinions contradictory.

[RightWingNilla]

I think I will refrain friend.

Hmm. Are you certain the evidence you have seen favors Special Creation so clearly?

[DittoJed2]

I will admit that belief in creation ultimately boils down to faith. I could be persuaded that there is a gap between verse 1 & 2 of Genesis, but not in creation. I have also not seen evidence of any remarkable flexibility in the minds of scientists. Short of God coming down and appearing before them saying "listen guys, you are way off base here" they would continue to cling to the column. I have also witnessed first-hand scientists who refuse to even admit that evolution, being a theory, is not a proven fact. It is a hypothesis that some believe makes sense. But, it is not a proven fact. Evolutionists believe evolution, on faith according to what has been drilled into their heads, and will absolutely refuse to admit the possibility of a creator. Some have, however, abandoned evolution theory and become creationists. Some have even become young earthers. Their writings on why they changed should interest all since they are clearly swimming upstream from the tide of conventional thought.

[DittoJed2]

What are you suggesting?

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

I will make these few accute observations in the article given here:

How do they know it was a carnivore for sure?
They only found a partial skeleton and filled in the rest
Cretaceous period (from a previous belief Lyelle)
they claim it is 65 million years old? How do they know?
They elaborate that this will help explain the "shifting continents, and how is that?
Every time we read an article about these creatures found or partial skeletons which is usually the case, sometimes even just a few bones, we will get so much more in the article that presumes truth. Read this article from a perspective of taking away the "geologic column" and remember that the scientists are probably bias, and see what you read. It is fascinating when you remove the pre-assumtions.
The one and only thing I got from the article is that they may have found some bones (no piuctures) and some eggs of an unknown animal.

[Ichneumon]

I cannot wait until Ichneumon shows back up and chews this little post to ribbons.

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, but I'll get to it later tonight, probably.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

I see a lot of polls. Are they accurate? That remains to be seen. Opinion polls are nothing more than opinions. All would have to vote to be accurate.

[RightWingNilla]

Now you evidently desire the creationist viewpoint. I find the opinions contradictory.

Not following.

[PatrickHenry]

Thank you for your opinion confirming the action I felt compelled to take.

[Alamo-Girl]

80 gig hugs to you and best wishes for a successful purchase!

[DittoJed2]

Well, I believe the Wooly mammoth was a type of early mammoth. Since almost everyone agrees that micro-evolution, that is variation within a kind, occurs, then the modern elephant can just be seen as a later form of mammoth.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Oh and I forgot one thing. I suspect the finders got a new grant to find more. Whatever that means.

[whattajoke]

To say Champy is "Driftwood" ignores eyewitness testimony.

Champy is/was "Driftwood" and I am ignoring all eyewitness testimony that says otherwise. I'm ignoring it just as I ignore all UFO, Yeti, Sasquatch, leprechaun, angel, ghosts, ESP, phychic, prayer-effect, and tooth fairy eyewitness accounts.

I quite vividly remember at one point I "saw" Santa Claus out my frosty window as well. I do not, however, believe in Santa Claus.

By the way, the knick-knack and tchotchke (sp) industry in the upper Burlington, VT area would like to thank you for your support.

[RightWingNilla]

Isn't this a science thread forum for discussing ideas?

Little better?

[StolarStorm]

I don't know of any other way to indicate to you what most scientists believe... without using a poll.

[Da_Shrimp]

Well, I believe the Wooly mammoth was a type of early mammoth. Since almost everyone agrees that micro-evolution, that is variation within a kind, occurs, then the modern elephant can just be seen as a later form of mammoth.

That's as may be: however, the question was about why elephant bones are never, ever found with dinosaur bones. Mammoth bones are never, ever found with dinosaur bones either. Why is that?

It's a genuine question, as I've never heard or read a Creationist argument that explains these things adequately.