Poll: Evolution and the other side

Serge A. Storms

New member
Oct 7, 2009
641
0
0
I can tell it's going to be an awesome thread because it went from 13 to 14 pages in the time it took for me to scroll through the first page and it started with a Dr. Dino link, plus it looks like there's even a few all-caps and "stream of thought" posts.

OP: I'm not saying that every creationist is an idiot, that would be very ignorant on my part; I'm saying that you might be a few fries short of a happy meal if you can read or watch Dr. Dino and not notice your chain being yanked.
 

Galite

New member
Sep 11, 2011
24
0
0
AlexNora said:
my friendly evolutionist would you mind telling me

want to research it now? try this link.

http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/debates/
If you want to be taken seriously two things, don't use Kent Hovind as a source and don't call people evolutionists. Citing Kent hovind is akin to citing a janitor on the topic of biological evolution, he has never actually taught science, his only diploma is from a diploma mill and his "theory" for the "global flood" is laughable at best. I find it's odd that you say not to debate the video when the person you are citing only has talent for debate. Live debate is a terrible way to argue a point there is no time to research and refute the ample amount of bullshit that creationists tend to spew.

Now as for research yes I have. I have seen many of "Dr." Kent Hovind's and other apologists videos. I've read books by creationists of a couple different faiths. They are by and large the most unconvincing things I have ever read, mostly because I learned about evolution before I even cared about the god debate.

Now can you honestly say the same for evolution? Keep in mind if you confuse evolution with Abiogenesis it will be a moot point.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Thaliur said:
monfang said:
So, a book where it is explicitly stated that the belief in griphons and the like originated (much like dragons) from bones of prehistoric creatures mistaken for and partially misassembled as mythical creatures proves that these creatures really existed because you think the author didn't want to tell the readers that the creatures were alive at the time the stories about them were written because you believe that this is true?
Yes, a book where it is stated that the Greeks supposedly had great paleontologists who, during the Greco-Roman era, were supposedly able to figure out dinosaur behavior without the aid of computers that we only recently been able to think of though the use of Computer simulations. and NOWHERE else had anyone else had even the thought of such a thing possible.

Her statements requires that the Greeks and Romans had knowledge that we only recently figured out though machines. Something I call a stretch of the imagination.
Thaliur said:
The Greeks and Romans might have... you know, guessed? Also, no one I ever heard of "figured out" gryphon behaviour. Apparently, the knowledge of these early paleontologists wasn't that amazing. They dug up some old bones, misinterpreted them and made up stories about their origin. Not exactly scientific, but at least they didn't outright ignore, reject and condemn any evidence that might counter their assumptions. The Greeks created the basic principles of modern science after all. So, thinking about it, you are currently ignoring about two millenia of developments in philosophy, science, mathematics and technology. Leave your desk now, as I said before, you are not allowed to use 21st-century technology anymore!
Yes, the Greeks and Romans guessed about things that we only recently guessed about? How do you explain how they were able to do so much better than we are comparatively? They could figure out that the Griffins lived in nests, laid eggs and guarded them. Rather than seeing the bones and coming up with a mythical creature (like they did with elephant bones and the Giants) they treated them as if they were living creatures. Greek scientists said that though they don't believe in giants, they believe firmly in Griffins.

How is that possible if both ideas of them come from recovered bones? And where is the other evidence of these bones? The buildings where they were gathered and studied. Pictures of them pulling bones from the gold sands were they said they guarded gold? So far, I haven't seen any. It is a stretch of the imagination to say that the Greeks were so much better at what we do without computers. (Just on studying bones. They were better at building things.)
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
AMMO Kid said:
A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons? We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet. We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago... 50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear. I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...
I didn't want to reply to this thread because I've been replying to far too much of these kinds of threads, but as I study archaeology, when I read this, I almost got a heart-attack. Not to mention that I come from Croatia, where the most Neanderthal bones have been found (in Krapina, and other sites, such as the Vindija cave). Unless you give me some really, and I mean REALLY, good source for this what you wrote, I feel an obligation to correct you on this matter. I will not argue about creationism or anything else you believe (I of course think creationism has little to do with science) because it's not my field of study, but this is.

The Neanderthals existed somewhere between 150 000 and 30 000 years ago (with various other dates, going as far as 5-600 000 as the first proto-neanderthal features, but setting the farthest date somewhere to 200 000 years ago. Their full name is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (making Neanderthals our ... relatives, to simplify. We still have not reached the concesus over whether we mixed with them at some point in history, although there are indication that we did, such as the Lapedo child ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapedo_child ) where some scientists believe that the skeleton has both modern human AND Neanderthal features, making the child a probable evidence of breeding between us and Neanderthals, but some scientists say the skeleton does not have Neanderthal features. Still, the theory about homo sapiens sapiens (us) and homo sapiens neanderthalensis breeding exists). By finding the Neanderthal hyoid bone in the Kebara cave, we know that they had the ability to talk (whether they did talk or not, we can't know, but they had the biological ability too do so. I also mentioned Kebara because it has one of the best preserved Neanderthal skeleton which you can see here [http://www.donsmaps.com/neanderthalskeletons.html]. It's also one of the proofs that the Neanderthals buried their dead). Wikipedia article has tons of good sources so here you go, a list of some web-pages where you can learn more about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy
http://archaeology.about.com/od/hominidancestors/a/neander.htm
http://www.culturenet.hr/default.aspx?id=23639&pregled=1&datum=9.1.2009%2015:00:13
http://www.paleoanthro.org/dissertations/krapina-bibliography.pdf (a huge list of books about Neanderthals)
And so on, I could google it for you for the next three hours.

Lucy is an Australopithecus Afarensis, 3.2 million years old and it has nothing to do with Neanderthals specifically. If its dating has been changed without any of our professor telling us about it, I'd need some hard evidence of it, from a reputable source and scientific research. Here's the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus) for you to start.

Also, another wiki page that might be interesting to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

We can argue that's not much, but ask any archaeologist or anthropologist and they'll tell you that it's a miracle that much survived. Bones of the dead people don't just end up in the ground and "pop-up" anywhere as you wish; there are millions of factors that influence the preservation of fossils (dinosaurs had much more time to fossilize properly, and are much deeper, not influenced by the weather, geology and human interference). Few month ago I was on a dig of an medieval graveyard and the ground is so horrible that it decomposed most of the bones that were only few hundred years old. I would touch the bone with my tools and the bone just fell apart, if the bone was preserved in the first place. The ground consisted of such materials that it decomposed the wooden coffin, clothes and most of the bones altogether (not to mention that people living in the 12th century didn't really have excellent healthcare and people were probably weak and sickly, hence the weak bones, on top of the acidic earth). To find bones that are thousands of years old, let alone hundreds of thousands or millions; it's pure luck. Even if there are more, how will you locate them? Prior to the neolithic (arguably, eneolithic), people did not build graveyards and necropolis'. Prior to Neanderthals, they didn't even bury the dead. Up until few hundred thousand years, the body would be left somewhere, eaten by animals and decomposed naturally. Lucy was so preserved only because of the volcanic earth where she died, because no one lived on top of it, because no one worked on the land and because animals didn't get to it. Who knows, there may have been fossils beneath every major city, but they are now long gone. There may have been fossils on our arable lands; they too are long gone now. What about the rising of the sea levels? There are thousands of underwater caves and possibly sites that were once above water and probably served to early humans, but we can't explore them now (and even if we do, there's little chance we will find preserved bones). What about natural processes in general? Rain, floods, rivers, landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, storms? Finding stuff in the ground might sound easy, but it is not. The further back we go into the past, the harder it gets. All this that we did find is an extraordinary thing to have in our museums and institutes, and it's a shame that people believe it's useless. Just one skull can tell us thousands of things about the people that inhabited the world before us, even more so today with our excellent technology. I've visited the Prehistory Museum in France (in the "capital of prehistory", Les-Eyzies de Tayac); just that one museum is full of thousands of fossil remains, more than you can explore. Unfortunately, yes, bones do disappear. They are not made of diamond, they are organic matter that rots in the ground. Not even the best coffins protected the bones of people that died and were buried 500 hundred years ago, let alone the ones that were left in the open, God knows where in the middle of the savannah, 2 million years ago and hundreds of thousands of natural processes and human interferences went over them.

Also, dinosaur bones are not billions of years old; Earth is "only" 4 billion years old, and dinosaurs lived between 230 and 65 million years ago. If "dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago" was just a hyperbole, then disregard this.

Anyway, I wrote this because I want people to know things that scientists worked hard to reach. All this knowledge is here and at your disposal, if you want it. I hope you will learn something new from this and be a more educated person; there's nothing wrong in not knowing something and then learning it. I strive to do so every single day.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
monfang said:
Actually, it has everything to do about it. Abiogenisis is the theory that life started suddenly and without any outside trigger. If that theory is shown to be false then Macroevolution gets a lot of questions thrown at it.
Not really. Evolutionary theory works just fine regardless of how life first got started. Proving that life started with god going "Live, I command you! LIIIIVE!" doesn't have any impact on whether species change over time and how that process happens. If aliens were to show up today and drop off a new species, we would expect evolution to apply to that species just as it applies to everything else.

Yay, someone brought that up. Lets talk about Hominini. First off, lets understand what this discovery did to the Scientific community. Up till then, it was thought that Humans and Apes shared a common grandfather in the evolutionary tree. It's why we share about 98% of our DNA with them. However, Arti changed that by pushing the common ancestor back many millions of years and throwing a question at the vitality of the 98%.
How does finding evidence of a common ancestor--thought to be the cause of the similarity in DNA--raise questions about the 'vitality' (do you by any chance mean 'validity'?) of that similarity?
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
BrassButtons said:
monfang said:
Actually, it has everything to do about it. Abiogenisis is the theory that life started suddenly and without any outside trigger. If that theory is shown to be false then Macroevolution gets a lot of questions thrown at it.
Not really. Evolutionary theory works just fine regardless of how life first got started. Proving that life started with god going "Live, I command you! LIIIIVE!" doesn't have any impact on whether species change over time and how that process happens. If aliens were to show up today and drop off a new species, we would expect evolution to apply to that species just as it applies to everything else.
I agree with you. If the theory of evolution was just reliant on natural selection then Creationists and Evolutionists would agree! Both sides know that the idea is sound in science. That?s why we have different breeds of dogs, horses, pigeons, corn, and roses. The problem comes from what is taught in American Schools is not limited to natural selection. It includes the origin of life, creative mutations, and long ages.

If you look at a college text book on the subject, that's all they yammer on about. Audesirk and Audesirk, Biology: Life on Earth (5th edition) 1996, page xx Unit 3, Chapters 14-17. And 17 falsely interprets Dr Millers experiment as the proof that abiogenisis is possible.

Roohk and Karpoff, Introducing Biology, (3rd edition), 1990, page vi has a chapter called "Early Theories of the Origin of Life" and Cliff?s Notes on Biology (let?s face it, that?s what kids really read) Chapter 13 "The Origin and Evolution of Life"

If you can agree with me, that the chapters about abiogenisis need to be taken out of the books on Evolution, then I will shut up about Abiogenisis until someone else brings it up.
Yay, someone brought that up. Lets talk about Hominini. First off, lets understand what this discovery did to the Scientific community. Up till then, it was thought that Humans and Apes shared a common grandfather in the evolutionary tree. It's why we share about 98% of our DNA with them. However, Arti changed that by pushing the common ancestor back many millions of years and throwing a question at the vitality of the 98%.
How does finding evidence of a common ancestor--thought to be the cause of the similarity in DNA--raise questions about the 'vitality' (do you by any chance mean 'validity'?) of that similarity?[/quote] Yes, thank you. Validity. And I say it because Arti as Hominini is sometimes called, pushes back the speculated age of the common ancestor between chimps and humans. By doing so, it questions whether the 98% similarity is too high. If we share a great-great-great-grandfather instead of just a grand father. our similarity should be much lower. So I'm sure that soon, we will hear about how the number has changed to like a 90% or such.
 

Alleged_Alec

New member
Sep 2, 2008
796
0
0
monfang said:
BrassButtons said:
If you look at a college text book on the subject, that's all they yammer on about. Audesirk and Audesirk, Biology: Life on Earth (5th edition) 1996, page xx Unit 3, Chapters 14-17. And 17 falsely interprets Dr Millers experiment as the proof that abiogenisis is possible.

Roohk and Karpoff, Introducing Biology, (3rd edition), 1990, page vi has a chapter called "Early Theories of the Origin of Life" and Cliff?s Notes on Biology (let?s face it, that?s what kids really read) Chapter 13 "The Origin and Evolution of Life"

Yeah. Because Textbook from the mid-90's are a really good source to use nowadays in a constantly changing science.
 

Phoenixlight

New member
Aug 24, 2008
1,169
0
0
Nope but then again I don't really believe in the theory of evolution, yeah peop could have evolved like that but no one realy knows. At least with Global Warming we can be pretty sure that we're right.
 

Redweaver

New member
Apr 1, 2009
96
0
0
As soon as "creationists" learn what evidence actually is, we might be able to have this discussion. I've yet to see any real evidence from them.

If you need to know what evidence is and how it works, talk to a lawyer.

As Mr. Montoya would say: "You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 

Fudd

New member
Nov 9, 2010
58
0
0
And of course no YECs actually want to step up and discuss why their interpretation of Genesis is as wrong as their understanding of evolution. A shame. I mean, you'd think they would actually be interested in learning something about the text they claim to revere.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
monfang said:
Yes, the Greeks and Romans guessed about things that we only recently guessed about? How do you explain how they were able to do so much better than we are comparatively? They could figure out that the Griffins lived in nests, laid eggs and guarded them. Rather than seeing the bones and coming up with a mythical creature (like they did with elephant bones and the Giants) they treated them as if they were living creatures. Greek scientists said that though they don't believe in giants, they believe firmly in Griffins.
Yes, you are right. I checked recently published papers about gryphon behaviour, and the ancient Greeks had much better knowledge about them. Obviously the stories must be true then. I mean, come on, how can modern scientists just say that they were mythical creatures if the Greeks clearly described their way of life and their behaviour? Just like all the biology papers about the evolution and psychology of tribbles must be complete bullshit. We can read all about them in the Memory Alpha wiki, after all. Also, historians' accounts of the Cybertron civil war are obviously flawed since they tell nothing about the events that were shown in the game, right?

How is that possible if both ideas of them come from recovered bones? And where is the other evidence of these bones? The buildings where they were gathered and studied. Pictures of them pulling bones from the gold sands were they said they guarded gold? So far, I haven't seen any. It is a stretch of the imagination to say that the Greeks were so much better at what we do without computers. (Just on studying bones. They were better at building things.)
Oh, so true. Of course, if no museum containing accurately assembled skeletons of gryphons was found, they must have been alive in ancient Greece. After all, in our natural history museums not a single skeleton or specimen of any species that exists right now can be found. Also, I've never seen a captured Leprechaun, so they obviously exist, too.

Also, please stop removing the post number every time you quote me. I get the feeling you do that on purpose hoping that I don't realise you replied, thus can not reply myself so you can proclaim victory because I "refuse to answer".
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
monfang said:
I agree with you. If the theory of evolution was just reliant on natural selection then Creationists and Evolutionists would agree! Both sides know that the idea is sound in science. That?s why we have different breeds of dogs, horses, pigeons, corn, and roses. The problem comes from what is taught in American Schools is not limited to natural selection. It includes the origin of life, creative mutations, and long ages.
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated. If textbooks are including the origin of life as part of Evolutionary Theory, then those textbooks are wrong.

Yes, thank you. Validity. And I say it because Arti as Hominini is sometimes called, pushes back the speculated age of the common ancestor between chimps and humans. By doing so, it questions whether the 98% similarity is too high. If we share a great-great-great-grandfather instead of just a grand father. our similarity should be much lower. So I'm sure that soon, we will hear about how the number has changed to like a 90% or such.
report
First, apparently it's 'Ardi', not 'Arti'. Which is an important distinction when trying to look him up on Google :D Second, it appears that Ardi is not a common ancestor of chimps and human, and that he lived more recently than the most recent common ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardi).

Even if he was thought to be a common ancestor, he is 4.4 million years old, and the similarity in DNA between humans and chimps suggests that "the Pan/Homo divergence occurred no more than 6.3 million years ago and probably less than 5.4 million years ago" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini). So no, his discovery does not mean that a 98% similarity is too high.
 

Kataskopo

New member
Dec 18, 2009
121
0
0
monfang said:
Kataskopo said:
I love how people believe stuff that can be easily refutable with a google search.
Just heard it from a guy in a video, and yep, it must be true and I wont even try to validate those assertions.

People, you have an obligation to seek the truth in your life, or at least try to not be wrong. Don't you doubt yourself?
Don't you think "huh, you know what, I "may" be wrong, I'm gonna check some stuff to see what this ruckus is all about."

I love too how people mistake abiogenesis (the study of how life came to being) with evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to being.
Actually, it has everything to do about it. Abiogenisis is the theory that life started suddenly and without any outside trigger. If that theory is shown to be false then Macroevolution gets a lot of questions thrown at it. Because by proven Abiogenisis false, it shows that an outside source had to seed the Earth with preexisting life. Such as God.
Glad you said that! Because Abiogenesis is not what you said, mind you. It is "... the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes".

Suddenly, you say. Yes, why not? The conditions were right for the creation of amino acids, and the subsequent organization into proteins and cells.
Outside trigger? Why do you need an outside trigger?

Please, stop asking that because they are not needed for the creation of life.

Yes, yes, because if abiogenesis is false, it automatically defaults to god, right? There could be no other way, like panspermia or exogeina.

And all right, let's imagine what you say it's right. Does it automatically means that creationism is right? Why? You haven't put forward any valid argument for your "theory", just trying to punch holes in evolution and abiogenesis.

And no, for christ sake, EVOLUTION IS NOT THE SAME AS ABIOGENESIS, AND IT DOESN'T GET "THROWN A LOT OF QUESTIONS"
Tell me, please, which parts would be compromised of the Theory of Evolution would be compromised if abiogenesis were false?

Here's a good essay (scroll down) http://darwiniana.org/abiogenesis.htm
 

catalyst8

New member
Oct 29, 2008
374
0
0
lotr rocks 0 said:
catalyst8 said:
lotr rocks 0 said:
Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.
Spot on. Also "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious[...]".
Paul Bell, MENSA Magazine 2002 regarding 43 studies examining correlations between high IQ, good education, & little or no religious belief.
Just replying to this to post this link here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/In-US-atheists-know-religion-better-than-believers.-Is-that-bad

it contains the actual questions in this quiz that I was talking about. I took it just now and scored 26/32 or 81%, but I should have done slightly better. This is still far above the average score. Just thought maybe some people would be interested to try it themselves.

Also the article is from a Christian source, so if even they're questioning their sheep's faith, you know it must be true!
I'd heard that, but never seen the quiz before - 94% with 30/32, not being from the US I was unsure about their Supreme Court rulings. I must take issue with a few of the questions because they contain errors.

Zeus is not "King of the gods" in Hellenism, he's 'Father of the gods'. That's a serious error.

Buddhism isn't a religion because the Buddha isn't considered to be a god, but a spiritual philosopher. Again that's a fundamental mistake.

The questions regarding atheism & agnosticism are misleading. I might be splitting hairs here, but they imply a decision made without regard to evidence or the lack thereof. Technically The Scientific Method is agnostic due to the burden of proof on the claimant, but an absence of proof not necessarily proving a negative.

It's deeply ironic & very telling that a quiz made by Christians to determine how educated someone is about religion isn't well informed enough to be correct.
 

icaritos

New member
Apr 15, 2009
222
0
0
monfang said:
I'm going to start with the video first.

IT'S A JOKE!

Seriously, you couldn't pick it up that it was a joke? If you did your research you would see that the owner of the site held a contest for the funniest explanation of evolution. That one won.

Now for my proof:

Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."

Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.

The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.

Claim two: Scientists hide facts and lie.

Proof two A: In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Proof two B: Also, personal option that I have gathered based on listening to the people ramble on.

Claim Three: Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings

Proof Three: Lets start with the Griffin. That's right, that half bird half lion creature.. is really different than what you believe. First off, as apposed to other creatures of the time, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands.

Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.

Now look up the Protoceratops. Or let me do it for you: http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Protoceratops012.jpg

Beak, claw. And the researcher goes on to talk about how the creature was treated differently than other 'mythical' animals. You can read all about it here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8f.htm#footnote1

For the rest, read here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

Any questions?
Are you mental? Do you even know where lava comes from? Just because it erupted 50 years in the past it doesn't mean the rocks existed for much much longer.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Thaliur said:
monfang said:
Yes, the Greeks and Romans guessed about things that we only recently guessed about? How do you explain how they were able to do so much better than we are comparatively? They could figure out that the Griffins lived in nests, laid eggs and guarded them. Rather than seeing the bones and coming up with a mythical creature (like they did with elephant bones and the Giants) they treated them as if they were living creatures. Greek scientists said that though they don't believe in giants, they believe firmly in Griffins.
Yes, you are right. I checked recently published papers about gryphon behaviour, and the ancient Greeks had much better knowledge about them. Obviously the stories must be true then. I mean, come on, how can modern scientists just say that they were mythical creatures if the Greeks clearly described their way of life and their behaviour? Just like all the biology papers about the evolution and psychology of tribbles must be complete bullshit.

How is that possible if both ideas of them come from recovered bones? And where is the other evidence of these bones? The buildings where they were gathered and studied. Pictures of them pulling bones from the gold sands were they said they guarded gold? So far, I haven't seen any. It is a stretch of the imagination to say that the Greeks were so much better at what we do without computers. (Just on studying bones. They were better at building things.)
Oh, so true. Of course, if no museum containing accurately assembled skeletons of gryphons was found, they must have been alive in ancient Greece. After all, in our natural history museums not a single skeleton or specimen of any species that exists right now can be found. Also, I've never seen a captured Leprechaun, so they obviously exist, too.

Also, please stop removing the post number every time you quote me. I get the feeling you do that on purpose hoping that I don't realise you replied, thus can not reply myself so you can proclaim victory because I "refuse to answer".
I don't know how to add post numbers so when I type in between your quotes, it gets messed up. I'll stop that.

Now, you are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that Mayor is the only person to ever come up with the idea that the Greeks were studying bones. I have never heard about anyone else even thinking of that idea. It's radial thinking that is only used to explain how the Greeks could do what they did.

The point I am trying to make is that these creatures are the only ones to be so detailed. Their discriptions match our modern models for the creatures that we only formed though simulations using bones and advanced computers. They did it ether using their own imaginations or perhaps they truely saw it.

Read Flavius Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, translated by F. C. Conybeare, volume I, book III.XLVIII., 1921, p. 333.
As to the gold which the griffins dig up, there are rocks which are spotted with drops of gold as with sparks, which this creature can quarry because of the strength of its beak. ?For these animals do exist in India? he said, ?and are held in veneration as being sacred to the Sun ; and the Indian artists, when they represent the Sun, yoke four of them abreast to draw the images ; and in size and strength they resemble lions, but having this advantage over them that they have wings, they will attack them, and they get the better of elephants and of dragons. But they have no great power of flying, not more than have birds of short flight; for they are not winged as is proper with birds, but the palms of their feet are webbed with red membranes, such that they are able to revolve them, and make a flight and fight in the air; and the tiger alone is beyond their powers of attack, because in swiftness it rivals the winds.
No great power of flying. They are not winged. The man speaks about how it is able to fight dragons, elephants and tigers and win. Mine gold with it's beak. (Or perhap it is carving out a nest in stone like a woodpecker with wood.) I hope you understand that the Griffins that are seen in games like WoW is not the Greek Griffin.

That's all that I can find on the subject. You make your final point which I believe will go back to your prior point and I will wash my hand on the subject.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
icaritos said:
monfang said:
I'm going to start with the video first.

IT'S A JOKE!

Seriously, you couldn't pick it up that it was a joke? If you did your research you would see that the owner of the site held a contest for the funniest explanation of evolution. That one won.

Now for my proof:

Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."

Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.

The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.

Claim two: Scientists hide facts and lie.

Proof two A: In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Proof two B: Also, personal option that I have gathered based on listening to the people ramble on.

Claim Three: Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings

Proof Three: Lets start with the Griffin. That's right, that half bird half lion creature.. is really different than what you believe. First off, as apposed to other creatures of the time, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands.

Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.

Now look up the Protoceratops. Or let me do it for you: http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Protoceratops012.jpg

Beak, claw. And the researcher goes on to talk about how the creature was treated differently than other 'mythical' animals. You can read all about it here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8f.htm#footnote1

For the rest, read here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

Any questions?
Are you mental? Do you even know where lava comes from? Just because it erupted 50 years in the past it doesn't mean the rocks existed for much much longer.
What you aren't catching is that the lava was tested. Not the rocks. The lava was tested using the method of testing lava formations and it was found to be WAY off.
 

Ancientgamer

New member
Jan 16, 2009
1,346
0
0
I have studied creationist science, for years in fact. And I have found it has no merit beyond the creativity it took people to come up with the claims. But I also strongly disapprove of people who deliberately try to pass on such claims. It takes no effort to make such spurious claims, much much rigor to define legitimate scientific answers. To this end Creationists seem to mistake simple attrition with making a point.
 

Zaverexus

New member
Jul 5, 2010
934
0
0
I spent a semester of school with the rest of my class watching videos and reading and debating and hearing from all of the proponents.
And never once did I hear for creationism what any even marginally intelligent sentient creature would call "evidence".
People should not try to point back to the same 2000 year old book and try to rebrand it as science.