← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 18710 | Posts: 38 | Started: 2005-06-18
2005-06-18 09:56 | User Profile
[I]Interesting news, and "Creation-Evolution Headlines" offers a very reasonable commentary:[/I]
[url]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200506.htm[/url]
[COLOR=Purple][B][SIZE=4]Did Fossils Inspire Thunderbird Legends? [/SIZE]
06/17/2005[/B]
Adrienne Major thinks that the Lakota got their legend of the Thunderbird from looking at fossil pterosaurs in the badlands. Her speculation is explored in [I]National Geographic News[/I]. Major thinks other world legends have their origin in fossils that ancient people observed. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue][B][U]This hypothesis is no less speculative than the one by creationists that the Lakota saw live pterosaurs and the Chinese saw live dinosaurs[/U]. Evolutionists would never consider such an idea, because they have their own myths. They are wedded to the tale that dinosaurs and pterosaurs died out long before man appeared. Do they know this for a fact? No; they were not there, for one thing, and their prior commitment to evolutionary theory dictates how all data are to be interpreted. The discovery of flexible blood vessels in a T. rex recently (see 03/24/2005) shows the extent of their commitment; rather than consider the obvious, that this unfossilized material could not be 70 million years old, they adjusted their assumptions to fit their myth.
[U]Were the Chinese and the Lakota skilled in paleontological interpretation of disarticulated bones? Would it not be more plausible to suggest that perhaps they saw some of these creatures before the last ones died out[/U]? It would seem more likely that the fearsome appearance of imposing live creatures would generate better myths than would dead bones to untrained eyes. [/B] [/COLOR]
[I]The early Nordic epic "Beowulf" might also contain such references, [B]Grendel[/B] et al...[/I]
Petr
2005-06-18 10:38 | User Profile
Ah, it is always amusing to hear from the scientifically illiterate. Good for a laugh at least. There's no hope of convincing someone of their own ignorance when it would require effort and study on their own part to realize that they are ignorant, and the likelihood of them undertaking the effort is small.
The Thunderbird is probably just a myth, a story, and no more "real" than dragons. However, if you want more probable sources for the Thunderbird myth, the Teratorn is the most likely candidate since it actually is a bird. Best preservered examples are from South America, but species of Teratorn also inhabited North America during the last Ice Age. Wiki entry below appears to apply to the Argentian species in particular:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratorn[/url]
Argentavis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from Teratorn) Giant Teratorn Conservation status: Fossil Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Aves Order: Ciconiiformes Family: Teratornithidae Genus: Argentavis Binomial name Argentavis magnificens
Argentavis magnificens is an extinct bird from the late Miocene (23 - 5 million years before present) of South America. It is the largest flying bird ever discovered, and is sometimes known as the Giant Teratorn.
Physical characteristics
* wingspan: 8 m
* wing load: 1E2 Pa (estimated)
* length: 3.5 m
* height: 2 m
* weight: 80-100 kg (estimated)
For comparison, the living bird with the largest wingspan is the Wandering Albatross (Diomedea exulans), and it reaches 3.5 m. Since A. magnificens was believed to be a land bird, another good point of comparison is the Andean Condor, Vultur gryphus, which some believe is a relative of Argentavis. This bird has a wingspan of about 3 m and is among the largest land birds.
The heaviest extant flying bird is not heavier than 20 kg (several contenders, among which the European Bustard Otis tarda and the African Kori Bustard (Ardeotis kori)). [edit]
Behaviour
As with all extinct species not much can be known about the Giant Teratorn's behaviour. From the size and structure of its wings it is inferred that A. magnificens flew mainly by soaring, using flapping flight only during short periods. It is probable that it used thermal currents and the prevailing westerly winds that swept across the region (there were no important mountains in South America at the time) . It has been estimated ([1] ([url]http://www.ciencias.uma.es/publicaciones/encuentros/ENCUENTROS64/aves.html[/url]) (Spanish)) that the minimal velocity for the wing of A. magnificens is about 11 m/s or 40 km/h.
2005-06-18 11:22 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][B][I] - "Ah, it is always amusing to hear from the scientifically illiterate. Good for a laugh at least. There's no hope of convincing someone of their own ignorance when it would require effort and study on their own part to realize that they are ignorant, and the likelihood of them undertaking the effort is small."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Empty pretensions of elitism, just what fanatical evos like to dish out when they cannot come up with any real counter-arguments.
(JUST WHAT THE HECK MAKES LAYMEN LIKE YOU "SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE" WHILE WE ARE NOT?)
Are you also ready to mock [I]National Geographic [/I] (that usually subscribes to Darwinian dogma lock-stock and barrel) for giving air-time for these theories?
Petr
2005-06-18 11:33 | User Profile
Petr, there's no point with arguing with you on scientific issues since you always approach them with a religious frame of mind.
If you want to present the scientific evidence for the recent existence of pterosaurs ("Petr-saurs"?), please do so.
2005-06-18 11:43 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][I][B] - "Petr, there's no point with arguing with you on scientific issues since you always approach them with a religious frame of mind."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
Not true, this is merely your own prejudices speaking. Besides, you are trying to slip in that [I]grotesquely self-serving [/I] evolutionist definition of science - that their position is [B]synonymous[/B] with "rationality" and that religious people are somehow categarically incapable of real scholarship.
Do you have any (relevant, biological/geological) scientific training yourself?
I'd say that tales THROUGHOUT THE WORLD about dragon-like creatures contitute a tangible scientific evidence for the recent existence of dinosaurs, juts like amazingly similar tales about a huge deluge from all over the world are a concrete evidence of the great flood.
Petr
2005-06-18 12:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Not true, this is merely your own prejudices speaking. Besides, you are trying to slip in that [I]grotesquely self-serving [/I] evolutionist definition of science No, sorry, not the "evolutionist" definition of science - the actual definition of science. I'm sorry if you can't deal with the facts - you might want to complain to the scientists for actually upholding their own standards when dealing with scientific subjects.
- that their position is [B]synonymous[/B] with "rationality" and that religious people are somehow categarically incapable of real scholarship. Thank you for proving my point. You cannot present an actual scientific argument of any kind; you don't even appear to know what one is. Instead, you go straight for the ad hominem/strawman attack, putting words in my mouth.
Religious people are not incapable of being scientists, but they cannot approach scientific questions from a religious frame of mind - or to be more specific, from a literalist religious frame of mind. There are plenty of religious people who are scientists. But they obey the same rules of evidence and procedure that all other scientists obey. And the "evidence" you present obeys none of these rules.
I'd say that tales THROUGHOUT THE WORLD about dragon-like creatures contitute a tangible scientific evidence for the recent existence of dinosaurs, Petr, have you bothered to actually look at pictures of non-European dragons? Chinese dragons are different. Middle Eastern dragons are different (the dragons of Babylon in particular look like some weird kind of four legged mammal). Even European dragons vary wildly in size and shape depending on artist and period. "Dragon" was just a generic term used for any unknown monster ("here be dragons"). Some have two legs, some four legs, or no legs, some have wings, some do not, some fly, some do not, some breathe fire, some do not, some have scales, others have feathers, or fur. There is no "there" there in regards to dragons - it's a catch all term.> juts like amazingly similar tales about a huge deluge from all over the world are a concrete evidence of the great flood. No, that's concrete evidence that people tell stories. Stories that get passed on and adopted by wildly different people, none of whom ever experienced a worldwide flood. A worldwide flood would have left a bit more concrete evidence than that - evidence in the rocks and soil that we could find and measure, just as geologists have done with shifts in the earth's magnetic pole, or with iridium layers left from major meteor strikes, like that which is alleged to have wiped out the dinosaurs. These are major worldwide geologic events which leave a permanent record; the Great Flood is nowhere to be found in this very same record.
That's solid science, Petr. What you are talking about are folk tales - a worthy subject, studied by ethnologists, anthropologists, mythologists, theologians, and the like. But not the same thing as a science that can tell us anything useful about the age of the earth or its geology.
Again, as I expected, you present no actual scientific evidence of anything.
As for scientific background, I have some, but anyone can fib on the internet so I won't bother asking you for yours.
2005-06-18 13:16 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "Thank you for proving my point. You cannot present an actual scientific argument of any kind; you don't even appear to know what one is. Instead, you go straight for the ad hominem/strawman attack, putting words in my mouth."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
I'm not putting words into your mouth, I was just describing a common evolutionist jargon that your comments resembled. You were making a categorical distinction between faith and science, and at least very strongly imply that belief in evolution/naturalism equals rationalism - see below.
(Without an act of [B]faith[/B], we couldnt even be certain that there exists a world outside out own minds...)
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Religious people are not incapable of being scientists, but they cannot approach scientific questions from a religious frame of mind - or to be more specific, from a literalist religious frame of mind. "[/I][/B][/COLOR]
It's time for you to realize that ALL people are religious, in one way or another. It is [I]an impossibility, an abstract chimera[/I], to be able to think in a completely "secular" way. Call it [B]an illusion of pure reason[/B].
Many evolutionists are [I]religiously anti-theistic[/I], and this religion reflects heavily on their research, like when Richard Dawkins tells his students that they must piously drive away all ideas entering their minds on how biological systems might be products of design! His lesser minions share this attitude:
[COLOR=Blue]Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
[B]ââ¬ËEven if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalisticââ¬â¢[/B]
[I]Todd, S.C., correspondence to [I]Nature[/I] 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.[/I][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/todd.asp[/url]
Is this really scientific or [I]religious [/I] attitude? Anti-creationist Michael Ruse would (in a sudden burst of sincerity) seems to opt for the latter:
[COLOR=Indigo][B]ââ¬ËEvolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion ââ¬â a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint ââ¬â and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it ââ¬â the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
ââ¬Ëââ¬Â¦ Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.ââ¬â¢[/B]
Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ââ¬Ëbalanced treatmentââ¬â¢ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.
[I]Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. [/I] [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/ruse.asp[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Petr, have you bothered to actually look at pictures of non-European dragons? Chinese dragons are different. Middle Eastern dragons are different (the dragons of Babylon in particular look like some weird kind of four legged mammal). Even European dragons vary wildly in size and shape depending on artist and period. "Dragon" was just a generic term used for any unknown monster ("here be dragons"). Some have two legs, some four legs, or no legs, some have wings, some do not, some fly, some do not, some breathe fire, some do not, some have scales, others have feathers, or fur. There is no "there" there in regards to dragons - it's a catch all term."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
All this is [B]totally irrelevant[/B]. What is significant is the fact of regular occurrence of reptile-like giant monsters. It would be silly to expect exact biological descriptions in folk tales, who will always add some aesthetic flourishes.
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "No, that's concrete evidence that people tell stories. "[/I][/B][/COLOR]
The ruins of Troy might have never been found if Heinrich Schliemann had adopted such a smug attitude towards Iliad (which was mostly considered to be just a colorful fairytale without historical substance back in his days).
[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "That's solid science, Petr. What you are talking about are folk tales - a worthy subject, studied by ethnologists, anthropologists, mythologists, theologians, and the like. But not the same thing as a science that can tell us anything useful about the age of the earth or its geology."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
Anthropology, ethnology[I] et al [/I] [B]are[/B] solid sciences. You are making an artificial distinction here - what can biology or geology tell us, say, about the early Egyptian culture? Probably they could give us [I]hints[/I] to be interpreted by ethnologists, just like folktales can give us [I]hints[/I] on biological matters like dinosaurs.
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "As for scientific background, I have some, but anyone can fib on the internet so I won't bother asking you for yours."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
What is this "some"? People who enter a debate with a pompous attitude of sneering at "scientific illiterates" should be able to show some credits of their own.
Petr
2005-06-18 17:10 | User Profile
Scientists are ignorant. Bible thumpers know everything without a shred of evidence except their book and wishful thinking.
2005-06-18 17:36 | User Profile
And madrussian also thinks that you cannot be a "scientist" unless you blindly subscribe to Darwinian dogma. He himself sure ain't no scientist.
Petr
2005-06-18 17:55 | User Profile
About two years ago I saw and old photo (and I do mean old) of four men per side holding the extended wings of this big bird with two men in the center holding the dead bird upright, according to what it said the bird was a so called Thunderbird.
I don't know if the photo was real or not but it did look real to me, it looks like it was taken out in the wood in the mountains somewhere.
Come to think about it I am not sure that it said that it was a Thunderbird, maybe it didn't have anything about it.
I'll see if I can find it again, unless someone here knows what I am talking about and can post it.
2005-06-19 03:20 | User Profile
[img]http://www.burlingtonnews.net/Pteradactyl3.jpg[/img]
2005-06-19 03:28 | User Profile
[img]http://www.talkingpix.co.uk/King%20Kong.jpg[/img]
2005-06-19 03:30 | User Profile
So can you name at least one scientist who believes in Biblical fairy tales, Petr? Put up or shut up :whstl:
2005-06-19 04:48 | User Profile
Close Howard but no cigar, the one I saw is about the size of the one in the photo but it was taken in the woods and on a hill.
2005-06-19 05:56 | User Profile
[img]http://www.virtualtoychest.com/dinoriders/dinoriderspterodactlyboxfc.jpg[/img]
2005-06-19 08:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Biblical fairy tales[/QUOTE]
Oxymoron.
2005-06-19 09:26 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][I][B] - "So can you name at least one scientist who believes in Biblical fairy tales, Petr? Put up or shut up"[/B][/I][/COLOR]
Strawman request. Make it much, much more specific.
Petr
2005-06-19 21:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Oxymoron.[/QUOTE] Redundant?
2005-06-19 21:19 | User Profile
Huh, Petr? :blink:
2005-06-19 22:12 | User Profile
grep14w, madrussian,
Fundies cannot consider that the Bible might not be 100% true. It would be too painful for them to think that for even a second. They have to reject any evidence or facts presented to them if the latter contradict the Bible.
At the same time, so-called creation "scientists" never offer any evidence of their own. If the Bible were 100% true, there would be an enormous amount of unmistakable proof for events such as the Great Flood. But that flood never happened, so the evidence isn't there. Here's an excellent letter that discusses this:
Don Martin:
Personally, I have said many times that I would welcome ANY evidence of the existence of any god, and I have even specified indirect evidence that would be quite convincing, not only to myself, but (I suspect) to all the wicked atheists here: the residue of the Noachan Flood. It avoids the problem of "how can there be physical evidence for a spiritual being?" by focussing on one instance in which that spiritual being supposedly interacted physically with the physical world in a way that would have produced distinctive physical consequences. While we have seen fundies claim that their god is so deceitful as to cover his tracks, I, for one, would presume that such a dishonest being is unworthy of being taken seriously, much less of worship.
**I do not concern myself here with the issue of the needed two additional hydrospheres of water and its drainage out of Earth's gravity well, nor with the necessary consequences resulting therefrom by operation of the laws of physics: the atmospheric pressure resulting from a "vapor canopy" that would prevent the existence of life as we know it, the heat release from the condensation of that much water that would be sufficient to melt lead anywhere in the atmosphere, etc. are very serious impediments to the veracity of the story**, but most, if not all, fundies lack sufficient knowledge of physics to be able to follow the reasoning. It only confuses them, leading them to drag out yet another version of the Deceitful God, who, they claim, sets the laws of physics aside his wonders to perform. Instead, I simply take the Genesis account at its face value, looking at the effects that much water falling at that rate would inescapably have upon the face of the Earth.
We have an account of a global flood directly produced by Yahweh in the Bible. Given the fact that we have information, presumably from a source inspired by omniscience, of the extent of the flood ("over the highest mountains," or roughly 30,000 feet above present sea level) and of the time of the rain (40 days and 40 nights = 40 24-hour days = 960 hours), it is easy to calculate the rate of the rainfall: 30,000/960 = 31.25 feet of water fell per hour. That is a little more than six inches of rainfall per minute.
I would think that "gullywasher" fails to do this rate justice, inasmuch as that term is applied to rainfalls of one or two inches per hour. Suffice it to say that this rain would wash away pretty much any particles smaller than Volkswagens and deposit all of this in a single stratum covering the low-lying areas world-wide.
**We know from geology that floods leave evidence in direct proportion to their size (this stratum would, for instance, be far thicker than any other ever created and would cover all the area on Earth with its thickness varying in inverse proportion to altitude), and we further know from the mechanics of disposition of suspended solids in fluids the type and extent of the stratum that would be laid down by a global flood. Those larger particles would lie at the bottom of the stratum, with progressively smaller bits covering them. In addition to that, the contents of that stratum, particularly in the region of shorelines where the braking effect of standing water would cause the flow to drop much of its initial load, the remains of ALL creatures mingled together under optimal conditions for fossilization (heavy sedimentation at great depths, with the finest materials thickly sealing the top) are known: in short, a universal unique event would produce a universal unique outcome -- a stratum like no other in the geologic column.**
Such a stratum would furnish perfectly good indirect evidence for the existence of this Yahweh person, just as tracings on a photographic plate tell us of subatomic particles or the behavior of objects in space tells us of the existence of enormous gravitational forces explicable only by the presence of a black hole.
So show us this stratum. That would be evidence.
Source: [url]http://www.skeptictank.org/showme.htm?FACTNet[/url]
The author of the letter is exactly right on all points.
Well, creationists? Where is the geological stratum left by the Great Flood?
2005-06-19 22:56 | User Profile
That looks to me more like a Cuban combat fighter plane, we are kind of backwards you know hahahaahahahaha.
2005-06-21 04:58 | User Profile
Just is case you are interested, there has actually been some very solid geological work done on "big floods" that stands the test of science pretty well. Check the ICR, one of their big honchos (forget his name) studies just that.
Trouble is, for the Creationist battling it out in the land of science, the extrapolation from that into other fields has, to put it mildly, a lot of holes.
So, flood evidence is around plentifully. The hard thing to prove under the rigor of most scientific "discoveries" is that they all happened the same six weeks some thousands of years ago. The record is clear that significant floods in closely associated time frames have been cross checked and found.
The research continues of course, in efforts to both prove and disprove the correlation. Yes, agendas proliferate. That has always been true in science. It is the rare man who can stay apolitical throughout.
[QUOTE=grep14w]No, sorry, not the "evolutionist" definition of science - the actual definition of science. I'm sorry if you can't deal with the facts - you might want to complain to the scientists for actually upholding their own standards when dealing with scientific subjects. Thank you for proving my point. You cannot present an actual scientific argument of any kind; you don't even appear to know what one is. Instead, you go straight for the ad hominem/strawman attack, putting words in my mouth.
Religious people are not incapable of being scientists, but they cannot approach scientific questions from a religious frame of mind - or to be more specific, from a literalist religious frame of mind. There are plenty of religious people who are scientists. But they obey the same rules of evidence and procedure that all other scientists obey. And the "evidence" you present obeys none of these rules. Petr, have you bothered to actually look at pictures of non-European dragons? Chinese dragons are different. Middle Eastern dragons are different (the dragons of Babylon in particular look like some weird kind of four legged mammal). Even European dragons vary wildly in size and shape depending on artist and period. "Dragon" was just a generic term used for any unknown monster ("here be dragons"). Some have two legs, some four legs, or no legs, some have wings, some do not, some fly, some do not, some breathe fire, some do not, some have scales, others have feathers, or fur. There is no "there" there in regards to dragons - it's a catch all term.No, that's concrete evidence that people tell stories. Stories that get passed on and adopted by wildly different people, none of whom ever experienced a worldwide flood. A worldwide flood would have left a bit more concrete evidence than that - evidence in the rocks and soil that we could find and measure, just as geologists have done with shifts in the earth's magnetic pole, or with iridium layers left from major meteor strikes, like that which is alleged to have wiped out the dinosaurs. These are major worldwide geologic events which leave a permanent record; the Great Flood is nowhere to be found in this very same record.
That's solid science, Petr. What you are talking about are folk tales - a worthy subject, studied by ethnologists, anthropologists, mythologists, theologians, and the like. But not the same thing as a science that can tell us anything useful about the age of the earth or its geology.
Again, as I expected, you present no actual scientific evidence of anything.
As for scientific background, I have some, but anyone can fib on the internet so I won't bother asking you for yours.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-21 06:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.][img]http://www.burlingtonnews.net/Pteradactyl3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
This picture provides evidence that modern humans are aware of the one-time existence of pterodactyls. Why should ancient depictions of dragons be any different?
2005-06-21 06:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Well, creationists? Where is the geological stratum left by the Great Flood?[/QUOTE]
Could you answer these questions in order?
1) What kind of rock are fossils usually found in?
2) How much of that rock is there?
3) How is that rock created?
4) What is the rate that this rock is created?
5) What is the rate that this rock is destroyed (erosion)?
6) Then how do you account for the existence of so much of this rock with fossils?
2005-06-21 13:49 | User Profile
Petrsaurs clearly coexisted with humans. We have proof positive on this very thread.
2005-06-21 15:41 | User Profile
The American Indians were painting drawings of the Thunderbird before they knew anything about the Petrsours, so where did they get the idea of the thunderbird unless at one time they saw it? :clap:
2005-06-21 15:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Could you answer these questions in order?
1) What kind of rock are fossils usually found in? Sedimentary rock.
2) How much of that rock is there? It's about 5% of the earth's crust (5% by volume, I suppose).
3) How is that rock created? For the most part, minerals in a suspension (e.g., seawater) settle over time, are buried by other particles, and eventually become buried deeply enough that the pressure and heat can cause cementation.
4) What is the rate that this rock is created? It varies, of course, depending on the availability and rate of deposition of sediment. But in general it's extremely slow.
5) What is the rate that this rock is destroyed (erosion)? The erosion of sedimentary rocks exposed to the surface should vary greatly depending on local surface conditions. But once buried sufficiently deeply, there should be little to no mechanical erosion -- mostly just compression. Sedimentary rocks also tend to be resistant to chemical degradation. That's why geological strata from local floods and other events are well-preserved over such long time periods.
6) Then how do you account for the existence of so much of this rock with fossils?[/QUOTE]See the answer to (5).
Now, could you please answer my question? Where is the stratum from the Great Flood? It should be exceedingly obvious to geologists.
2005-06-21 15:58 | User Profile
[quote=Angeleyes]]Just is case you are interested, there has actually been some very solid geological work done on "big floods" that stands the test of science pretty well. Check the ICR, one of their big honchos (forget his name) studies just that. Strata from floods are found by geologists all the time, but the stratum from the Great Flood would have to be enormously thick (though the exact thickness would vary depending on altitude). It would be entirely obvious to geologists. It would be an entirely unique stratum, as the author of the above letter correctly points out. Remember: We're talking about a flood so huge that even the mountaintops were covered! The evidence it would leave would be unmistakeable.
The Great Flood is an ancient Jewish myth. It never happened. There was never any wooden boat stuffed with Asian and Indian elephants, giraffes, pork tapeworms, beef tapeworms, 300,000 species of beetles, etc., etc. The idea is absolutely, positively ludicrous to anyone who hasn't been hypnotized by Biblical mythology.
2005-06-21 17:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Sedimentary rock.
Your answers are sufficiently non-rigorous, as to avoid the direction the questions were designed to take you.
The sedimentary rock is mostly in the upper portion of the crust, covering all the Earth's land surface (except were erosion has exposed the underlaying non-sedimentary rock). This rock is created by water deposits, as the name implies. It is not created at all on dry land, accept as new land displaces water. According to popular geology, this land usually results from sea floors being pushed up above sea level.
Evolutionists believe that all the Earth's surface was covered by water. The biggest difference in the Evolutionist and Creationist views is that Evolutionists don't believe that this was all at once.
My scientifically-based observatoin is that the rate of erosion of sedimentary rock is much greater than the rate that which this rock is pushed above sea level. It's similar to the species problem, of species observed becoming extinct, but no real new species have ever been observed to appear. Extrapolate backwards, and you don't get the Evolutionists' scenario of history.
2005-06-23 20:15 | User Profile
Did I say anything about an ark? I was talking about a flood, but since it was from a book I read two years ago, I have maxed out my conversation here on this topic. I also do not feel as strongly as the author about defending the position. Not being a geologist, I know my limitations. :cry:
[QUOTE=Angler]Strata from floods are found by geologists all the time, but the stratum from the Great Flood would have to be enormously thick (though the exact thickness would vary depending on altitude). It would be entirely obvious to geologists. It would be an entirely unique stratum, as the author of the above letter correctly points out. Remember: We're talking about a flood so huge that even the mountaintops were covered! The evidence it would leave would be unmistakeable.
The Great Flood is an ancient Jewish myth. It never happened. There was never any wooden boat stuffed with Asian and Indian elephants, giraffes, pork tapeworms, beef tapeworms, 300,000 species of beetles, etc., etc. The idea is absolutely, positively ludicrous to anyone who hasn't been hypnotized by Biblical mythology.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-24 04:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]About two years ago I saw and old photo (and I do mean old) of four men per side holding the extended wings of this big bird with two men in the center holding the dead bird upright, according to what it said the bird was a so called Thunderbird.
I don't know if the photo was real or not but it did look real to me, it looks like it was taken out in the wood in the mountains somewhere.
Come to think about it I am not sure that it said that it was a Thunderbird, maybe it didn't have anything about it.
I'll see if I can find it again, unless someone here knows what I am talking about and can post it.[/QUOTE] is this it?[img]http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Content/Images/Journal/1999/Autumn/Thunderbird/Arizona_Thunderbird.gif[/img] i found it here : [url="http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/1999/Autumn/Thunderbird/"]http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/1999/Autumn/Thunderbird/[/url]
2005-08-14 12:39 | User Profile
I can't help myself. So many evangelical evolutionists and so little time.
These deeply religious atheists say that all the scientists agree with them; well hey I can see why they would want to pretend that is the way things are. The truth of course is very different and it is not even in the same universe let alone ball park.
From [url]http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html[/url] [font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]
| [img]http://www.christiananswers.net/0.gif[/img] | [img]http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/test-tube-rack.jpg[/img] |
[/size][/font]
[list] [][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Gerald E. Aardsma* (physicist and radiocarbon dating) [/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Louis Agassiz* (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Alexander Arndt* (analytical chemist, etc.) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/arndt-a.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Steven A. Austin* (geologist and coal formation expert) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/austin-sa.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Charles Babbage* (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Francis Bacon* (developed the Scientific Method)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Thomas G. Barnes* (physicist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/barnes-tg.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Robert Boyle* (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Wernher von Braun* (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]David Brewster* (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Arthur V. Chadwick* (geologist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/chadwick.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Melvin Alonzo Cook* (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/cook-ma.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Georges Cuvier* (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Humphry Davy* (helped develop science of thermokinetics)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Donald B. DeYoung* (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/deyoung-db.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Henri Fabre* (helped develop science of insect entomology)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Michael Faraday* (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Danny R. Faulkner* (astronomer) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/faulkner-dr.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Ambrose Fleming* (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Robert V. Gentry* (physicist and chemist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/gentry-rv.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Duane T. Gish* (biochemist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/gish-dt.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]John Grebe* (chemist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/grebe-j.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Joseph Henry* (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]William Herschel* (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]George F. Howe* (botanist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/howe-gf.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]D. Russell Humphreys* (award-winning physicist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/humphreys-dr.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]James P. Joule* (developed reversible thermodynamics)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Johann Kepler* (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]John W. Klotz* (geneticist and biologist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/klotz-jw.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Leonid Korochkin* (geneticist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/korochkin-l.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Lane P. Lester* (geneticist and biologist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/lester-lp.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Carolus Linnaeus* (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Joseph Lister* (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Frank L. Marsh* (biologist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/marsh-fl.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Matthew Maury* (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]James Clerk Maxwell* (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Gregor Mendel* (founded the modern science of genetics)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Samuel F. B. Morse* (invented the telegraph)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Isaac Newton* (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Gary E. Parker* (biologist and paleontologist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/parker-ge.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Blaise Pascal* (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Louis Pasteur* (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]William Ramsay* (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]John Ray* (helped develop science of biology and natural science)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Lord Rayleigh* (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Bernhard Riemann* (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]James Simpson* (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Nicholas Steno* (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]George Stokes* (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Charles B. Thaxton* (chemist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/thaxton-cb.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]William Thompson* (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Larry Vardiman* (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/vardiman-l.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Leonardo da Vinci* (helped develop science of hydraulics)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Rudolf Virchow* (helped develop science of pathology)[/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]A.J. (Monty) White* (chemist) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/white-aj.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]A.E. Wilder-Smith* (chemist and pharmacology expert) [[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/wilder-smith-ae.html"]more info[/url]][/size][/font]
[][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]John Woodward* (helped develop the science of paleontology)[/size][/font] [/list]
2005-08-14 12:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]So can you name at least one scientist who believes in Biblical fairy tales, Petr? Put up or shut up :whstl:[/QUOTE] If you want some fairy tales listen to some religious atheists. Lets start with Richard Dawkins saying that he could design a better eye than Nature did. Now that is chutzpah and that is propounding a fairy tale and some even less flattering terms come to mind though they would be harsh not to mention vulgar.
2005-08-14 12:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]At the same time, so-called creation "scientists" never offer any evidence of their own.[/QUOTE] Stop right there and lets set something right. You can lose those scare quotes around scientists right now. There have been and are bona fide scientists with real degrees from reputable colleges who reject your Evolutionist religion. You might not like it and in fact I am sure you hate it but they do exist.
2005-08-14 13:19 | User Profile
Welcome to the board, aimshi. I just noticed that you've resurrected this thread. To be honest I'm rather tired of this topic, but since you're new, I should give you the courtesy of addressing what you've just posted.
Regarding that list of scientists above...for starters, you can remove all scientists on that list who lived prior to the discovery of several key fossils or DNA, since they didn't have enough knowledge to make an informed decision. It's kind of like the way Isaac Newton, brilliant though he was, didn't have a clue about relativity or quantum theory. We now know that Newtonian mechanics is wrong and is only an approximation to reality, but of course Newton couldn't have known that.
Second, if you compare the total list of scientists worldwide with the number of creationists, you soon realize just how marginalized creation "science" really is.
Third, the reason I use the quotes is not because there aren't creationists without science degrees (though many are from questionable programs of study), but because those people never provide any solid evidence for creationism. No evidence? No logical proof? No science.
Every single creation scientist has a emotional, fundamentalist-religious bias. Evolutionists come from all religious backgrounds, all over the word. That tells the whole story right there. When you want to believe something, you don't consider all the angles. I know that doesn't apply to me because I was a Christian for ~30 years, and never once during that time did I consider evolution a threat to my faith. I'd always considered the book of Genesis to be akin to one of Jesus' parables: a fictional tale inspired by God to teach a moral lesson. The majority of Christians around the world agree. Creationism is mainly an American phenomenon.
2005-08-14 13:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Welcome to the board, aimshi. I just noticed that you've resurrected this thread. To be honest I'm rather tired of this topic, but since you're new, I should give you the courtesy of addressing what you've just posted. Thank you Angler.
Regarding that list of scientists above...for starters, you can remove all scientists on that list who lived prior to the discovery of several key fossils or DNA, since they didn't have enough knowledge to make an informed decision. It's kind of like the way Isaac Newton, brilliant though he was, didn't have a clue about relativity or quantum theory. We now know that Newtonian mechanics is wrong and is only an approximation to reality, but of course Newton couldn't have known that. Even after removing them we still have scientists who do not share your faith in Evolutionism or its prophets. Second, if you compare the total list of scientists worldwide with the number of creationists, you soon realize just how marginalized creation "science" really is. Though this is not really true first let me point out how weak this argument is even if the assumption is accepted at face value. Last time I checked science is not a democracy and popularity does not equal factuality.
Not only is your argument weak but it is counterproductive for you because it can and will backfire. Let me turn it around right now.
"If you compare the total list of historians worldwide who reject "Holocaust Denial" as bogus with those who don't, you soon realize just how marginalized Revisionism is."
"If you compare the total list of scientists in the West who say white racialism lacks scientific basis with those who agree with you, you soon realize just how out of step with science you are as a racist."
This is one reason I find your arguments so funny. Even here in the West you can find way more scientists TODAY who consider Intelligent Design respectable as opposed to scientists who would endorse your beliefs about Jews. Someone with your beliefs is in no position to play the game of "The Majority Is On My Side And You're Just A Kook!".
Back to your assumption that evo-skepticism is somehow antiquated or limited to a small minority of scientists worldwide well that is just not true. Here is a quote from the very secular Richard Milton:
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]"Darwinism has never had much [url="http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/appeal.html"]appeal[/url] for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never [url="http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/appeal.html"]appealed[/url] much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." [/size][/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][size=+0]Richard Milton, [url="http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering.html"]Shattering the Myths of Darwinism[/url] (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 277.[/size][/font]
Third, the reason I use the quotes is not because there aren't creationists without science degrees (though many are from questionable programs of study), but because those people never provide any solid evidence for creationism. No evidence? No logical proof? No science. You should actually read what they say instead of what Evolutionist clergy say about them. They most definitely do provide evidence and I have seen much of it. As for "proof" well we are dealing with science here and hopefully you know how that goes. Every single creation scientist has a emotional, fundamentalist-religious bias. I have read and even met many evo-skeptics, creationists and Intelligent Design theorists who most certainly are not fundamentalists. I was just reading an excellent book by the biochemist, Michael Behe and to call him a fundie would be just funny. He had no emotional problem with evolution and believed it all his life. That is until reading Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by agnostic Michael Denton, which lit up the fire of skepticism inside and got him to question his Evolutionist beliefs. He now has sympathy for Intelligent Design not out of religious close mindedness but just the opposite - hard skepticism.
Evolutionists come from all religious backgrounds, all over the word. Like it or not people who reject the Evolutionist faith also come from many different religious and cultural backgrounds all over the world. That tells the whole story right there. When you want to believe something, you don't consider all the angles. Well see above, lots of scientists would tell you the same thing regarding your beliefs with regard to race and Jews. The majority of Christians around the world agree. Creationism is mainly an American phenomenon.[/QUOTE] That is far from true. That is an Evolutionist myth which does not hold up to real world examination. There are more creationists outside America than within it. See the quote above by Richard Milton, who by the way is an AGNOSTIC? He's not lying either. Change "American" to "Western" and "Creationism" to "Darwinism" and your statement would be accurate. Also the more liberal and secular people are the more likely they will believe in Evolution. Liberalism, Secularism, Evolutionism...They are common religious tendencies that tend to group together. You really should check out that book, *Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. *
2005-08-14 14:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=aimshi]Thank you Angler. Even after removing them we still have scientists who do not share your faith in Evolutionism or its prophets. It's not "faith," though. It's based on hard evidence from fossils and DNA. "Faith" is belief in the absence of evidence.
Though this is not really true first let me point out how weak this argument is even if the assumption is accepted at face value. Last time I checked science is not a democracy and popularity does not equal factuality. Well, that's true, of course. But you have to remember that we're talking about science here, not politics. Science is based on empirical evidence, since that's what's used to confirm or refute theories. Scientific results are shared in journals and debated by people from all nations, cultures, and religions. When so many experts from so many different walks of life agree on something as on evolution, there must be a reason for it.
Not only is your argument weak but it is counterproductive for you because it can and will backfire. Let me turn it around right now. Well, my argument by itself didn't prove anything, of course. I'm tacitly relying on the physical evidence.
"If you compare the total list of historians worldwide who reject "Holocaust Denial" as bogus with those who don't, you soon realize just how marginalized Revisionism is." I don't feel qualified to comment on Holocaust revisionism, as I'm not much of a historian. I will say that I find it suspicious that Jews feel the need to suppress debate on the subject. But I think it's clear that the Jews were persecuted during WWII, and many were executed. (That doesn't excuse the Jews' other crimes, of course.)
"If you compare the total list of scientists in the West who say white racialism lacks scientific basis with those who agree with you, you soon realize just how out of step with science you are as a racist." Actually, the scientific basis of racism is extraordinarily strong -- the scientists (in this case, psychologists) just keep quiet about it. I have read psychological literature on the black-white IQ difference, for example, and among psychometricians there is no dispute hat it exists. Most also believe that it is due at least in part to genetics. And regarding other racial differences, no one in the medical community, for example, denies that blacks are more likely than whites to suffer strokes, etc.
This is one reason I find your arguments so funny. Even here in the West you can find way more scientists TODAY who consider Intelligent Design respectable as opposed to scientists who would endorse your beliefs about Jews. Someone with your beliefs is in no position to play the game of "The Majority Is On My Side And You're Just A Kook!". Well, again, we're comparing apples and oranges here. Science is science and politics is politics. The latter is in many ways much more complicated and much less quantifiable. Much of what I might say about Jews -- e.g., "they support Israel over America" -- is actually quite sloppy, but that's because of the limitations of language and the fact that Jews really aren't a monolithic group (no large group of humans is).
Still, you're right that "the majority is on my side" is not an argument in itself. But there's a reason why the majority is on my side, and that's the evidence. There is no easily available empirical evidence that Jews tend to conspire and subvert their host nations; you can't really "see" that Jews are doing that with your own eyes. But you can see fossils, DNA sequencing that shows progressive mutations, etc.
Back to your assumption that evo-skepticism is somehow antiquated or limited to a small minority of scientists worldwide well that is just not true. No, it is true. For example:
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." Source: [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm[/url]
But that doesn't mean all evolutionists don't believe in God. You might find this article interesting:
[url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html]Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say[/url]
They most definitely do provide evidence and I have seen much of it. Has the worldwide scientific community evaluated it? What did they think?
Like it or not people who reject the Evolutionist faith also come from many different religious and cultural backgrounds all over the world. But are they qualified scientists? I know there are Hindus, African bushmen, fundamentalist Muslims, etc., who all believe in various creation stories. But how many, say, Japanese scientists (who aren't religious fundamentalists) reject evolution? I still say that if you show me a creationist, I'll show you a religious fundamentalist. Not just "religious person" -- religious fundamentalist. Usually that means someone who takes the Bible or Koran 100% literally, including all of the many contradictions in each.
Also: Remember, it's not "faith" if it has evidence to back it up. If you want to read about the evidence, I recommend the best site on the web on the subject:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[/url]
Also worth looking at (some might be old/broken):
[url]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2[/url] [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/[/url] [url]http://www.nps.gov/arch/[/url] [url]http://www.santafe.edu/projects/evca/[/url] [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Science&cat=Anthropology_and_Archaeology[/url] [url]http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/transfos.htm[/url] [url]http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html[/url] [url]http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm[/url] [url]http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/yec.html[/url] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/08/08/nmar708.html[/url] [url]http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution1_files/hominids_horiz.jpg[/url] [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85090[/url] [url]http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html[/url] [url]http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=519696[/url] [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html[/url] [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html[/url] [url]http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=111638&page=3&pp=25#57[/url] [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html[/url] [url]http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html[/url] [url]http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm[/url] [url]http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=114290&page=1&pp=40[/url] [url]http://www.talkreason.org/[/url] [url]http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html[/url] [url]http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcamoeba.asp[/url] [url]http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html[/url] [url]http://www.berea.edu/SpecialProject/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp[/url] [url]http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html[/url] [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html[/url] [url]http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/?page=2[/url] [url]http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html[/url] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3792209.stm[/url] [url]http://www.physorg.com/news4258.html[/url] [url]http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html[/url] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050602/sc_nm/science_cavebear_dc[/url] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050602/sc_afp/ussciencepaleontology[/url] [url]http://www.skeptictank.org/showme.htm?FACTNet[/url] [url]http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=127978&page=1&pp=25[/url] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050704/ap_on_sc/shrinking_lotuses[/url] [url]http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-1630-1827_1738195,00.html[/url] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050717/sc_afp/chinaanimalselephant_050717075953[/url]
2005-08-14 16:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]is this it?[img]http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Content/Images/Journal/1999/Autumn/Thunderbird/Arizona_Thunderbird.gif[/img] i found it here : [url="http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/1999/Autumn/Thunderbird/"]http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/1999/Autumn/Thunderbird/[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks Blue that's the one.