When have they ever found a T-Rex without sharp teeth?

There is evidence for evolution in fossils. For example, imprints of dinosaurs with feathers have been found. These dinosaurs did not have wings, but were quite bird-like and had feathers. These fossils show the transition from dinos to birds.

Also, there are fossils, and even some remaining species of fish that have leg-like and/or lung-like structures. Some of these can even go onto land for some time.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: RoN_Rancor ]

1. Touch? Your 'evidence' was pure postulation. You gave theories to explain your beliefs with no actual evidence to back them up. How can you "touch" the "fact" that the Universe was "made"?

2. Really? Could you explain to us exactly what about it doesn't make sense?

6. There were meat-eating creatures millions of years before the Dinosaurs.

7. Or they could have been swimming? Have you ever considered this possibility? As for the rest of this point, Fossils clearly show evidence of evolution, so you are either lying or just wrong.

8. You say the Bible has been witnessed by people here, but Evolution hasn't? Well, I counter that with the fact that the Events of the Bible have not been witnessed by any reliable witnesses, whereas Darwin's Book "Origin of Species" has been witnessed by millions. Do you see now how silly your argument was? [Mine was equally silly, I was just showing it to demonstrate that your weak line of reasoning could just as easily be turned against you.]

Pinkhaired, I noticed you still haven't responded to my post about Mitochondrial DNA as evidence for evolution. I think this is the fourth time I've asked you about it.

So you're saying that someone created god? Wow.. Isn't that kinda un christian? I expected you to answer something like Gluk said..

You really can't call bible as evidence.

And the idea of people and dinosaurs living in the same time is absurd even if dinosaurs didn't eat meat. And what happened then when the dinosaurs started to eat meat? Did they eat humans? Then how could anyone survive? And did the dinosaurs die in the big flood or were they distroyed before and why god then wanted to kill them?

I started reading your "good link" but I really was too tired to get to the end of it and I really wouldn't trust much some fanatic christian's site like that one..

I know, there is no proof of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans.
If dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and they were carnivorous then there would be human skeletons inside dinosaurs.

Pinky, do you know that there was water at the same time as dinsaurs. They could have gone into water. And dinosaurs could fall into tar pits and marshes, they would have probably tried to swim out of those.

About the T-Rexes with no teeth, can you give me a reliable source? I won't bother telling you that it happened by evolution until I am convinced it's a fact.

Not only that, but they would be found in rocks of the same age too. Guess what? They're not...

Rocks of the same age? This is pretty weird that you would believe something as foolish as the wholeold creatures in old rock stuff and evolutionary progression found in a neat liitle stack of rock strata. Truth is paleontology's "dirty little trade secret" as Jay Gould would call it is this. Their is no fossil evidence for evolution. The archeoraptyx, the reptile with feathers, doesn't have scales and in my opinion is nothing but an undersized emu. Go to www.godandscience.org for mitochondrial dna info, and see how it levels the theory of evolution. Also of particular intrest are the articles that disprove the popular descent of man theory.

Ahh... Don't you just love Fundamentalist Propaganda Sites?

Statikk, whether you like it or not, Rock Strata exist, and show evidence for evolution.

As for the Acheaopteryx, of course it didn't have scales. If it did, it wouldn't be able to fly. The evidence that points it out as a missing link between Reptiles and Birds is its bone structure and, more obviously, the fact that it had teeth...

1. No your wrong. These are what scientist found. I don't see the evolutionTheorywith any fossile evidence or anything. A million beats one guy dude.

2. What?

3. No, that's a lie. If you say it's true, can you prove it?

7. Nope, your lying and your wrong. No one has found evolution in fossils. You can't justify evolution in fossils. That's absurd and false. Nice try Rettick, not convinced.

8. Weak! You make me laugh. Weak point. Darwin'sTheories were not witnessed by millions. Bible was because they were passed down and down from generation to generation. If Darwin's evalutations were seen my millions, then it would of not of been a theory and that would of been stated in the bible. Bible tells the future. Does Darwin's evidence talks about the future of evolution? Nope, because if the future comes and they find out that his theories are wrong, then he's messed! :D

If your so smart, tell me, why did life just appear all of a sudden? What made it to become active and create life? Why aren't people and animals evolving today?

Darwin's Book is not evidence either. I find reading about it so boring. I read it before but I did get sick of it because it's unjust lies. I'm usually open-minded with it, but I just got so bored! LOL

Dinosaur prints with feathers? How do you know if wind did that and embedded into the print?

But I can explain what you said faz in private message.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]

1 It is true though. You can break up every single animal down to the orgasium where it came from that means you can break dinos down to what ever they came from.

2 It didn't, it evolved from orgasiums into bigger and bigger animals.

3 Animals Are evolving but it takes ages to evolve. Animals have to adapt to there surroundings and new prey or plant food that is evolving.

What's wrong with believing in both God and evolution? The bible didn't go into detail about evolution because it didn't really need to. It gives important lessons and information, but does not go deep into the detail of everything. Does it talk about atoms, protons, nuetrons, electrons, molecules, ect? Does it talk about the bonding of elements together to form new materials? Does it talk about DNA and heredity? Ect, ect, ect. It wasn't written to be technical so that the common person of the time couldn't understand it. It was simplified. Just because it does not mention evolution doesn't mean that that isn't how God created life. As for the whole seven days for creation, look at the definition of a day. It is the time that the earth takes to make a revolution on its axis. Before there was an earth, how long was a day? The day is just a placeholder word. It doesn't mean literally 24 hour days. It is just there to show a period of time. Doesn't it say that life was created over the period of a whole day? Well, if "day" is just a metaphor for billions of years, then it makes sense that certain creatures lived before others.

Anyway, these are just my ideas...

Rettikk the anchient dinobird thing is bullshit! Don't just say something is fundamentalist propaganda without exploring the site and mulling over what you read On the "dinobird click hear,www.GodAndscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html Read it and be objective, that's all I'm sayin'

Just to let you know there is actually 23 hours and 56 minutes in a day. :D

The adress wasn't created like last time cause I don't know that much about computers. Anyway, type the adress that was in the post above, behold and be objective!

Just because it's bullshit to YOU doesn't mean it's bullshit to other people. What you should of said was I think this dinobird thing is bullshit. How do you know it ain't bullshit just because some site says it is doesn't mean it's true it could be but it could also not be.

LOL. Archaeopteryx is far from bullshit, Stattik. The following URLs answer all the concerns of you and the creationist website you posted concerning Archaeopteryx. Read it objectively ;):

Archaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record, and
All about Archaeopteryx

I also followed your advice and searched for Mitochondrial DNA at the creationist website you linked to. What's amusing is that the site acknowledges mtDNA as a reliable method of tracing lineage, even using it to support an "Eve" hypothesis, yet doesn't extend the same acceptance of the technique when comparing chimps and humans. What am I to make of this? Scientific dishonesty doesn't strengthen my already crumbling faith in "Christian science" (an oxymoron, I might add, since it approaches an investigation with a predetermined conclusion).

Why not here? Well..I haven't got any message..

And what comes to your point on that bible has been witnessed by millions of people.. I thought you meant the people that lived in the time "where the action happened" and because they saw it they are witnesses. But you really can't know if the things that are mentioned in the bible happened or not. I don't believe that they happened. I know that you do. And you can believe, but you can't prove them right.

But what you were saying was that bible has been witnessed by millions of people who have read it after it was written? The bible was read, not witnessed. I really don't understand your point there. Also millions of people believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Though bible was passed from a generation to another that doesn't prove that it's right.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Fazerina ]

1. It was.
In England there were lots of moths, they were white (a similar colour to the trees at the time). When the industrial revolution happened the trees were turned black!
After a long time the moths turned black!
Since I'm kind of busy, I'll just leave it at 'It happened by evolution'
Then the trees turned white again after the industrial stuff toned itself down.

2. The Bible doesn't talk about mathematics, does that mean that 1+1=999?

If the trees were turned black by sulfur dioxide, wouldn't the same happen to the mothsPlus it was pretty disorientating for the moths to BE RELEASED IN THE WILD TO HIDE IN THE DAYTIME WHEN THEY ARE NOCTURNAl! Scientists have only seen a moth that was not rewleased into the wild again land on a trunk two count 'em two. After environmental laws were enforced reduceing sulfur dioxide populations of the "mnelanistic" moth plummeted by up to 80 percent in some areas. Also, the moths natural hiding spot in the canopy under thick twigs is the polar ,opposite of smack dab on a tree trunk so any malnurished and opportunistic blue jay can have a blue plate out in the open moth special

1. Proofread your posts before you post them, please, I cannot stress this enough...

2. No. Unborn moths can't be stained black while still in the eggs, but still the moths were born black.

3. What does any of this really have to do with anything?

As for Pinky's "Argument", I will refute any argument she makes, but all she's said so far has been more or less "No, you're wrong lol because the bible says something different and millions of people have read the bible so it must be true"...

I'm cristian and i believe in evolution and creation, but creation came first to path the way for evolution to take over and shape our world into what it is now. I dont believe in the 'Big Bang'.

Alcar you believe in a species changing, degeneratoring and or adapting this is microev evolving into other species is bullshit. Micro and not macro. remember that, 'cause there is a big diff. Oh, and sorry about all the typos. I just don't want to spend fiv to 50 minutes on a post

has anyone else noticed how Statikk is quick to call some one elses idea(s) bullshit? whilst we are all pretty much willing to hear eachother out first? interesting how blind faith can effect some people..they know there is no REAL proof, so they are constantly on defense, waiting to call some one elses beliefs bullshit...

Statikk, "microevolution" infers that some kind of genetic parameters exist, for which there is no evidence. If you accept the mechanics of microevolution, then what could possibly prevent such changes eventually resulting in a diverse range of species?

Often creationists wrongly assume that what we call a species is a fixed attribute. But species is a word we simply give to a group of animals that share a common genetic pool. It's an established and proven fact that DNA changes all the time. Sexual reproduction allows for a lot of variation in offspring. The basic principles of evolution are as follows:

• Within any population there is variation.
• Not all organisms within a species will reach maturity; many die before they have the chance to reproduce (thus removing their DNA from the genetic pool of the population).
• Those possessing characteristics beneficial to their survival within their environment have an increased chance of reaching maturity and producing offspring (therefore adding their DNA to the genetic pool of the population).
• The offspring will inherit those beneficial characteristics.

Creationists often wrongly believe that if such principles exist, then the whole species must evolve with each other and that no diversity is possible. Evolution relies on the isolation of groups belonging to the same species for them to diversify. There are many examples of this, often observed in birds and fish.

I agree, Disgruntled. The word "Bullshit" is often used as a substitute for actual reasoning. As are the phrases "You're not making any sense" and "You're just making a fool of yourself"...

Sydney, could you illustrate some examples on what you are talking about with the fish and birds? I am sorry about my use of profanity and defensveness. I won't do it again

Certainly Statikk. The most famous example of isolation and evolution are the finches of the Galapagos Islands.

I may not have explained isolation and evolution clearly enough in my previous post. An organism within a population who possesses characteristics beneficial to its survival will have an increased chance of producing offspring who will inherit these characteristics. Such organisms will quickly dominate their gene pool, resulting in the entire species changing with it. Let's say that these changes were happening amongst fish living in a river atop a waterfall. A group of these fish travelled down the waterfall and became isolated from the rest of the group in a deep pool a few miles down. The fish at the top of the waterfall were perfectly suited to their environment, so they didn't change. The fish in the pool below, however, had to change to suit the different environment. Over a long time, the fish in the pool below and the fish at the top of the waterfall had DNA so different that they could no longer mate with each other.

I have no idea why but that sounded like a childrens story. just change a few words and see if you can publish it but....what would be the title.

darwins theory of evolution for the youthfully inclined.

I tried to put it as simply as possible. ;)

Could'nt of said it better myself Syd ;)