"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:HZUEb.42959$dP1.168255@newsc.telia.net...

"Rubystars" <windstorm@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:X1PEb.114$vq.63581240@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:p7CEb.39065$mU6.141055@newsb.telia.net...

"Rubystars" <windstorm@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:R09Eb.163$5G4.81399963@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

"Banky Bruce" <bankybruce@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8jq1uv8oq00eju4gkgj4jiuhnqnha2905n@4ax.com...

My apologies if this has been posted previously, but I just

finished

listening to the debate between Massimo Pigliucci vs Kent Hovind

(one

of them) and had to take a look at this crap.

The main page has a standing offer of $250k to "anyone who can

give

any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My

$250,000

offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing

more

than a religious belief. "

This ***** is comical...

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=3


Baxter - ABD

It would be even more comical if he didn't have such a large

following.

I

think it's really sad that so many people are lured in by his

promises

of

creationism being compatible with science.

This is why evolution would be so comical, however I would find this

rather

pityful.

Why do you feel that evolution isn't science?

It's also sad that he can use some really strange explanations

as

"Dinosaurs were just big lizards in the garden of Eden because

lizards

never

stop growing." and people eat it up.

Does not sound strange to me, scientifically he reasoning can not be
questioned. But then evolutionists have not much in common with

sceince.

I think you need to read this entire page:
http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionVCreation/elementaryfaq.msnw

Hmm, membership pending....

Should be fun :)

Synaptic Synapsid helped me find the answer to that particular Hovind

claim.

"There are several anatomical differences between dinosaurs and

They're simply two different types of reptiles. For more information,

please

check out SynapticSynapsid's dinosaur evolution FAQ. While it's true

that

a

lizard grows throughout its lifetime, there's no evidence that any

lizards

ever grew to the gigantic proportions of sauropods.

Still sounds logical to me, if they grow throughout their lifetime and

they

would live hundreds of years, they would get pretty big, won't they?

That still doesn't account for the anatomical differences between lizards
and dinosaurs. There were no thirty foot geckos, there were no collossal
chameleons, there were no super skinks. If they were just lizards then we
would be finding identical lizards to today but in gigantic sizes.

Instead we find dinosaurs with all these other anatomical differences,

of them (such as T Rex) closer to birds in their skeletons than to

The difference in how lizards and dinosaurs grow is in the rate at

which

they grow, and how they deposit bone.

Lizards, being unqualified ectotherms (without a way to make their own
heat), grow slowly, taking years to reach sexual maturity. They also

not

deposit fibrolamellar bone, a dense, interwoven tissue indicative of

fast

growth and high basal metabolism. Lizards also do not form large

of

Haversian canals, (Channels running through a bone in which blood

vessels

and nerves are located), which are another indicator, though not
unambiguous, of higher metabolism and growth rates."

Alright we actually do not know exactly how dinosaurs were bodywise, we

have

some skeletons and some eggs as well I believe.

That gives a huge amount of information on their bodies. Don't forget we
also have footprints and feather impressions of dinosaurs, and I'm pretty
sure I've heard of skin imprints and coprolites from dinosaurs too, but I
don't remember where at the moment.

Atmospheric it is not the
same either, this can have caused some adjustments to the environment

(micro

evolution).

Oxygen does make a difference, but that doesn't mean that if you keep a
lizard alive for a few hundred years oxygen would make it turn into a
sauropod. One thing you forgot is that adult lizards don't grow at the

rate that young lizards do. This would put a limit on their size fairly
quickly, I would think. You reach the adult size of, maybe six feet for an
iguana, and after that, the iguana would grow very slowly.

Also do not forget that evolutionists HAVE to question the
creational view to continue upholding that they are right. So they will
always find something to fight back with, what I mean is that this is

hardly

objective premises.

They don't have to necessarily say anything about the "creational" view.
They get their evidence from nature itself. The "creational" view is false
because it doesn't stand up to the evidence of the natural world.

does.

-Rubystars

"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:HZUEb.42959$dP1.168255@newsc.telia.net...

"Rubystars" <windstorm@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:X1PEb.114$vq.63581240@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:p7CEb.39065$mU6.141055@newsb.telia.net...

"Rubystars" <windstorm@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:R09Eb.163$5G4.81399963@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

"Banky Bruce" <bankybruce@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8jq1uv8oq00eju4gkgj4jiuhnqnha2905n@4ax.com...

My apologies if this has been posted previously, but I just

finished

listening to the debate between Massimo Pigliucci vs Kent Hovind

(one

of them) and had to take a look at this crap.

The main page has a standing offer of $250k to "anyone who can

give

any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My

$250,000

offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing

more

than a religious belief. "

This ***** is comical...

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=3


Baxter - ABD

It would be even more comical if he didn't have such a large

following.

I

think it's really sad that so many people are lured in by his

promises

of

creationism being compatible with science.

This is why evolution would be so comical, however I would find this

rather

pityful.

Why do you feel that evolution isn't science?

It's also sad that he can use some really strange explanations

as

"Dinosaurs were just big lizards in the garden of Eden because

lizards

never

stop growing." and people eat it up.

Does not sound strange to me, scientifically he reasoning can not be
questioned. But then evolutionists have not much in common with

sceince.

I think you need to read this entire page:
http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionVCreation/elementaryfaq.msnw

Hmm, membership pending....

Should be fun :)

Synaptic Synapsid helped me find the answer to that particular Hovind

claim.

"There are several anatomical differences between dinosaurs and

They're simply two different types of reptiles. For more information,

please

check out SynapticSynapsid's dinosaur evolution FAQ. While it's true

that

a

lizard grows throughout its lifetime, there's no evidence that any

lizards

ever grew to the gigantic proportions of sauropods.

Still sounds logical to me, if they grow throughout their lifetime and

they

would live hundreds of years, they would get pretty big, won't they?

That still doesn't account for the anatomical differences between lizards
and dinosaurs. There were no thirty foot geckos, there were no collossal
chameleons, there were no super skinks. If they were just lizards then we
would be finding identical lizards to today but in gigantic sizes.

Instead we find dinosaurs with all these other anatomical differences,

of them (such as T Rex) closer to birds in their skeletons than to

The difference in how lizards and dinosaurs grow is in the rate at

which

they grow, and how they deposit bone.

Lizards, being unqualified ectotherms (without a way to make their own
heat), grow slowly, taking years to reach sexual maturity. They also

not

deposit fibrolamellar bone, a dense, interwoven tissue indicative of

fast

growth and high basal metabolism. Lizards also do not form large

of

Haversian canals, (Channels running through a bone in which blood

vessels

and nerves are located), which are another indicator, though not
unambiguous, of higher metabolism and growth rates."

Alright we actually do not know exactly how dinosaurs were bodywise, we

have

some skeletons and some eggs as well I believe.

That gives a huge amount of information on their bodies. Don't forget we
also have footprints and feather impressions of dinosaurs, and I'm pretty
sure I've heard of skin imprints and coprolites from dinosaurs too, but I
don't remember where at the moment.

Atmospheric it is not the
same either, this can have caused some adjustments to the environment

(micro

evolution).

Oxygen does make a difference, but that doesn't mean that if you keep a
lizard alive for a few hundred years oxygen would make it turn into a
sauropod. One thing you forgot is that adult lizards don't grow at the

rate that young lizards do. This would put a limit on their size fairly
quickly, I would think. You reach the adult size of, maybe six feet for an
iguana, and after that, the iguana would grow very slowly.

Also do not forget that evolutionists HAVE to question the
creational view to continue upholding that they are right. So they will
always find something to fight back with, what I mean is that this is

hardly

objective premises.

They don't have to necessarily say anything about the "creational" view.
They get their evidence from nature itself. The "creational" view is false
because it doesn't stand up to the evidence of the natural world.

does.

-Rubystars