Please answer these queatsiosn Faith.

1: if Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx look identical except Compsognathus didn’t have feathers, how where the fossil Archaeopteryx identified as Archaeopteryx that also lacked preservation of feathers? Surely they would have been assumed to have been Compsognathus, since no trace of feathers existed on 4 of the 6 specimens, and Compsognathus was Identified form the SAME location.

2: What Scientists actually declared Archaeopteryx a hoax, and why is it that even most Creation scientists accept Archaeopteryx as NOT a hoax?

3: You claim that evolutionists never revise there position, in light of new evidence, whereas Creation Scientists do. You likewise claim that Creationists do what evolutionists are suppose to do. Then why is it that Creationists are renown for their use of old, outdated arguments, and never, ever revise there arguments or pit fourth new theories, when evolutionists do all the time? Likewise, how do you account for the several revisions in recent years form evolutionists? Creationists use these revisions in the theory of evolution to show how weak the theory is since it needs adjustment! despite the fact that almost all scientific theories need adjustment over time! Can you prove that evolutionists DONT revise there standings and theories an creationist do?

4: If dinosaurs were warm blooded, does this really prove evolution? Likewise, if cold blooded, would it prove creation? why cant one be a creationist and accept dinosaurs as warm Blooded?

5: Corollary to 4, why cant one be a creationist and believe that Dinosaurs where Birds. Note: I didn’t say evolved into Birds, I said WHERE Birds. with over 86000 known Bird types currently in existence, and several known Ground Birds, why is it out of the question for velociraptor to have been a Bird?

6: why, if dinosaurs where cold-Blooded reptiles, are they build for speed and agility? surely you realise that large-bodied animals like Velociraptor, who stood 4 feet high and was 6 feet long, or Deinonychus, which was about the same height, would have had to spend long periods of time resting and moving slowly since they would lack the energy reserves, yet there bodies, with there legs positioned directly beneath there bodies, and there streamline shape, seems to suggest they where built for locomotion. why build an animal with a body that would require a massive energy reserve, only really possible in a warm-blooded animal, then make them cold-Blooded?

7:what evidence do you have that they where cold-blooded? Histological evidence shows Harvestan canals that appear in about the same number as warm blooded animals for the Theropods, even as adults. ( Unlike Hadrosaurs which seem to have warm-blooded harvestan canals as juveniles and cold-blooded style as they grew older.)

8: Why do you insist that evolutionist are only trying to do away with God as the creator, and try to make this a battle between Atheism and Theism? I mean, surely you realise that all the posters here are Christian, and a good many accept evolutionary theory. right or wrong, the theory is not intrinsically Atheistic, and arguing against atheism and claiming Atheism is the only reason people believe in evolution seems incompatible with the many devout believers who accept evolution. So why do you believe evolution is necessarily atheistic? Note: I am not asking for a long diatribe on evolution-eliminating-a- creator, nor on various religions, nor on other claims about how it is an extant theory designed to eliminate God, just how you account for the number of Christians who accept evolution and are clearly not Atheists.

9: why is it you post either incomplete or irrelevant information? When asked for evidence OF Creationism, you wither post things that yield no real benefit to the discussion ( such as the interview above) or else resort to an attack on evolution. The only creation evidence you have yet displayed has been so vague and lacking in detail as not to be convincing, since we don’t know WHAT rocks you where speaking of. Can you show actal evidence of Creation? without it just being an attack on evolution?

10: You do realise that attacking evolution doesn’t help, right? let me explain. Most of what you have done is to try to prove evolution is false, this by default would prove Creationism in your lien of thought. The trouble is, this is a false method of proving anything. even if evolution where disproven, the theory of special Creation would not be proven. There are alternatives to these two options you know. So, rather than expend energy trying to disprove evolution solely, why not try to prove Creationism. especially since you claim that Creationism explains the Data better. Please show me HOW it explains the data better.

11: Gradualism in evolution is not the only form of evolutionary theory or thought. why is it, then, that you seem ignorant, despite repeated mentions of the current understanding of evolution, of this fact? why is it that you assume slow, steady change with time is the whole of evolutionary theory, so that you can point to the fossil record with species seemingly static for millions of years, and claim that this proves evolution did not happen? Surely you realise that this is anticipated by Punctuated equilibrium, which is the current model, in which transitional forms appear after generations of stasis in any given species. since the gradual evolution that is ongoing is not really what current evolutionary thought predicts, why is it that you continue to use it as if disproving Darwinian Gradualism disproves evolution, while not accounting for the fact that most biologists no longer hold to this view?

12: God Said to seek knowledge and Understanding, yet all you seek to do is prove a preconceived notion. This also is spoken against in the Bible. How much of evolutionary theory do you really know? even without believing it, you should at least read UP ON THE SUBJECT BEFORE SPEAKING OF IT. So, I ask again, how much do you know of evolutionary theory? reading books by creationists doesn’t give you a good broad base of understanding.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004

Answers

Response to QUEATSIIONS FAITH DIDNT ANSWSER

1 John 3

1. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.

1. I'm not sure this was a question, excellent blatent statment though. 2. I have never heard of that specific example, and admitently I can not help you there. 3. I present to you, Micro evolution, creationists once condemed it along with Macro evolution, it is now totally accepted by creationists, I for one have never heard an argument for Evolution that can site research from within the last twenty years. For the revisals, I say that evolutionists have their back against the wall, the age of the earth to evolutioists doubles about ever ten years, in an attempt to justify the outrageous statistics required to fifill before evolution is even a considerable theory. I don't think that a theory needing revision to be possible after one hundred and fifty years of trying to prove it could still be considered valid, after a while a theory dies, evolution is postmordum. 4. I have no problem considering dinorsaurs warm blooded, excpt that besides the fact taht it matches evoltionary theory, we have no reason to believe that is true. 5. I suppose it is entirely valid hypothesis tha I am willing to consider. 6. Prehaps they were birds, that would answer all the questions posed. 7. I believe that from previous responses theres no reason for me to answer that. 8. The same way I account for the large number of "Christians" who are divorcing their wives, or husbands, commiting atrocities, and simply are not living a Christ like life. They arn't real, or have been decieved, (surely this isn't shocking, I would be lieing if I said my mind isn't polerized) 9. The simple fact is there is no more scientific evidense for creation than there is for evolution. It is unprovable by definition. 10. see above 11. Because theories such as punctuated equalibrium have no scientific backround except for the fact that they answer the questions in the fossil record, but are not supported by any facts. Nor is this true with Neo Darwinism. 12. I have read many books on both subjects, and I enjoy books that claim to be bias the most because I tend to get the most effective arguments, and complete information.

My turn, Why does it matter? Faith with out deeds is nothing, so why are you wasting your time arguing about this, we are all one family in Christ, and I believe rather than aruging over small issues, we should be focusing on how we can show people the way to the Way Truth, and Life that is found in Jesus Christ. I used to really be into the Creation?Evolution debate, but now all I use it for is to help prove a God must exist. Jesus is life. Focus yours on it!

-- NotABrainDeadChristian (fireproof7689@adelphia.net), December 08, 2004.

I meant htis for Faith, the poster, not faith, as in the religious Faith. And we argue over it because Faith ( the person) keeps harping on it, sayign no real Christain can accept evolutioary theory, and everyone who does is not a true Christain, while making blatabtly ignorant statements about the theories she tries to argue, clealry demonstratign on her paert both arrogance and ignorance.

Just check the other evolution threads...

---

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 14, 2005.

---

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 08, 2004.