1.In Japan a couple of fishermen were out for a normal days work. Well, it started out normal. They were fishing using nets. They pulled the net out, ready to head back to shore, but when they pulled it up, it had a dead body wrapped up in it. It was the body of an elasmosaurus. The fishermen didn't know what it was so they took a picture of it and threw it over board. They called some scintests to tell them what it was. They showed them the picture, and it was indeed an elasmosaurus. Yes i know it wasn't a dinosaur, but it lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. The body still had a lot of flesh and skin on it when it was found. Not what you would expect from something that had been dead a million years, but I don't believe in evolution anyway. Want to know why?
1. Evolution states that the big bang was the begging of earth. There is a HUGE problem with that. Mass cannot be created or destroyed by any explosion. That's a law of physics.
2.If your an evolutionist then you believe that the earth is a million years old. Another problem. Thats based on carbon dating. Evolutionists were trying to prove that the earth is millions of years to christian scintests by using carbon dating on freshly killed clams. They expected that the carbon dating would say that they hadn't been dead for more than a day. The carbon dating results stated that the clams had been dead for 14,000,000 years. Wow. It sounds accurate to me
3.What about commits? They can only last a few thousand years before they are all melted a way. Some less than that because the crash into planets or the sun. Evolution says that commits are leftovers from the big bang. Commits can't last for millions of years.

1) This is a daily occurance. The bodies of whales, sharks, etc any large water creatures do stay in the water and float when the die and decompose. The decomposing flesh that is brought up in nets does not resemble it's original shape.

2) Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. And the theory of the Big Bang is extremely different from what you have described. Perhaps if you did some research on it, you'll understand why it's a theory.

3) Again, Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth. However, it is popularly believed that the Earth is 5-6 Billion years old, not a Million. That's an incredible difference, since we know Dinosaurs became extinct over 65 Million years ago. If you do not know the facts on what you are discussing, you probably shouldn't discuss it. The reason these things are not understood is because people like you do not bother to understand them or even get the facts right before trying to debunk them.
Lastly, can you site a source for your knowledge on Carbon Dating being incorrect? Considering the rest of your information was incorrect, there is no logical reason to believe in your credibility. As to my knowledge there is nothing wrong at all with Carbon Dating, 'creationalists' just decide that there is because it does not fit with their beliefs.

4) Comets have nothing to do with the Big Bang as far as i'm aware. But please explain to me how exactly a Comet, which is a large chunk of rock and ice, is able to 'melt away' when it is in the deep vaccum of space? They can easily last for millions of years and as a matter of fact we're pretty sure that alot we know of actually have.
Again, please state your sources and arguments for why this cannot be.



Lastly, please tell me the last time you saw a Dinosaur.
It is utter nonsense to believe that they could still exist.

Welcome to the forum.

The Big Bang was an explosion, or rather an expansion, of space itself. Mass was created from the energy that was already present.



The Earth formed a lot later, it's believed the the universe is around 13 billion years old, whereas the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. We can calculate the age of the Earth using quite a few different methods, the most substantial being Radiometric Dating.

Have you got a source for the Carbon dating error?

The comets orbiting the Sun were actually created at the same time as the Solar System it self.



Becuase you don't fully understand it yet.

Also, I have no clue how the Big Bang theory and Evolution are at all connected?

As for the Dinosaurs still living. I honestly think that a few managed to evolve into plethora of bird species we have. It's not hard the fathom that happening.

And it is proven that species of animals that existed with the dinosaurs survived whatever killed those that did not evolve into avians. Crocadilians, amphibians, turtles and tortises.. mammals...

Oh i fully believe that various creatures alive today definitely evolved from Dinosaurs. When looking at skeletal structures of Dinosaurs, even famous ones such as the good ol' T-Rex, it's impossible to miss just how close the skeleton is to that of modern day birds. Plus we know that scales were the pre-cursor to feathers, as they are indeed made of the same substance.

However, since this is more of a debate against Evolution than anything else, i don't think mozart believes that Dinosaurs evolved into our modern day birds.

it all depends on you perspective, if by alive you mean the small nimble dinos evolved into birds, then yes, if you mean in the crazy sense of they never went extinct then no.

Aye Bernsy m'dear.. but you know I always have to add another perspective into the pot at times.

Since you can't go out to the great plains of Montana and see the roaming heard of triceratops grazing on the lush grass with the buffalo... No.. in that sence, dinosaurs do no exist anymore.

DInosaurs occupied a large ecological niche. When the K-T even struck, the ecosystem couldn't support dinosaurs anymore. Thus they died. They needed too much to survive. However, animals that occupied a smaller ecological niche like birds, crocs, and mammals survived. They didn't need as much to survive, so they could survive the catastrophe. They did have major casualties. After the dinosaurs were gone, there was a large void left. Thus, the mammals quickly evolved (punctuated equilibrium) to fill the void and become the dominant organisms.

Dinosaurs are DEAD.

No comets can't. They melt by a fraction every time they orbit the sun. And I learned about the carbon 14 dating error in school. Evolution is not a fact. IT IS A THEORY! The earth is not a million years old. I have a friend that is a scientest that proved that it was not millions of years old. He wrote a book about it called "Thousands, Not Millions". And it is clear that things don't evolve. Let me tell you another story I learned from school. You know the fish that hade lobes that were 'evolving into legs' that was supposovely extinct before the dinosaurs came around? Guess what? There was a farmer somewhere in america that had been catching those for years! Explain that!

You have completely misunderstood evolution and phylogeny. The Earth is not thousands of years old and there is know evidnece and certainly not proven that it is much less than BILLIONS not just millions of years old. There is also a lot of evidence that animals evolve, particulary in molecular data. The fish you are thinking of is the coelacanth, which is found inthe Comoros Islands and Indonesia, but these are the same class (Sarcopterygii) of the fish tht gave rise to tetrapods, not the same species. If you are going to try and form an argument, get something right at least.
As relating to radiocarbon dating, you clearly never learnt enough or had a usless teacher because your whole arguemnt is completely eronious, becaue carbon dating is only used for samples upto 60000 years old.

yes, evolution is a theory just like gravity, but what the hell else is there supposed to be? evolution explanes it, perfectly, same with gravty. noone said it was a comet. the earth is not 6,000 years old, its billions of years old and unless you go to private school, whatever teacher taught you that broke the constitution. your friend the "scientist" is probably a psuedoscientist that studies bull crap like bigfoot. ther is so many reports of animals that aren't real and are really something else, after we can no longer use carbon dating (past 60,000 years) we can use radio dating. we can trace the evolution of alot of animals back, like dogs cats and most modern mammal predators. and all back to one tree dwelling mammal. there is no way earth could be thousands of years old, do you even know how long it took the first vertibretes to appear? if it were thousand of yers old earth would be uninhabital. you are wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!

Lol, thats kinda like what I said.

I think dinosaurs still exist as birds...

Yep, them and crocodilians.

If evolution is true how come monkeys aren't evolving into Humans anymore? And how come we haven't found any in-beetweens? Because evolution isn't true.

Sorry but you have just proven you know nothing about evolution, fossilisation or anything at all about science. If you are going to argue a point at least learn something first.

Dinosaurs are dead dead dead dead DEAD! They're kaput, deceased, ascended, hopped the twig, kicked the bucket, pushing up daisies. They're past their expiry date. This....is an ex-superorder.

There is absolutely no evidence for the continued existence of dinosaurs. There is a nice large amount of evidence for their total annihilation 65 MYA. How much more blatant proof are we going to have to shove under the noses of people before they accept it?

The closest things we have to dinosaurs are Crocodilia (the last surviving archosaurs) and Aves. And they are not dinosaurs.

OK, rant over. *pours cold water over head*



If ignorance is bliss then you must be very happy.

The reason is that they don't need to evolve into humans. Humans already exist. The monkeys have their ecological niches and they'll keep them unless they're forced out of them by something better, at which point they will either evolve and chase away the competition, or die out. That's life.

And we have found in-betweens. Australopithecus was just a walking ape, which evolved into what we would recognise as a human. AND we have found several possible candidates for the title of 'The Common Ancestor of humans and Chimps.' They include Dryopithecus and Aegyptopithecus. So nyeh.

OK, rant definitely over.

Wow. This fellah is persistent. First of all, let me give you the brief summary of Evolution.

Lets say theres this species of small reptiles that have a diet that consist of a certain insect. Alright, the climate patterns change and this insect either ceases to exist. These reptiles no longer have the ability to feed upon their main-meal so to speak. Lets say one in every million of these reptiles obtain a mutation which enables them to find a new meal. A longer tongue for slurping up tree-invested larvae. Well, these reptiles start to eat up all the food, while the non-mutated reptiles simply die out via malnutrition. This new species of longer-tongued reptiles "evolves" through "natural selection."

Comets begin to sublimate once they get close to the sun, otherwise they can endure for extremely long periods.


Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory; Evolution is fact.



You're right, it's 4-5 billion.

Sorry, but your friend didn't prove any thing. At best, he simply proposed another theory, one with a lot less evidence to support it.





We have witnessed evolution to take place. Just type "Peppered Moth" in to Google.

What explanation is needed? They simply didn't require any significant adaptations.



The word you're looking for is "Ape", not "Monkey"; and yes, they are still evolving.

Can I advise that you at least learn the fundamental concepts of some thing before you waste your time trying to disprove it?

but that would be too easy raptor...

Y'know, this just occurred to me....a guy who I attended a lecture by would love to meet the o/p. His name is Steve Jones.

Just an interesting fact: according to Creationism (which automatically makes it wrong), the world will be 6011 years old on the 23rd of October this year. Which is a very long way off from the (probably) actual age of the Earth.

Another sudden thought: one of the main problems with Creationist vs. Evolutionist arguments is that some people see evolution as this:
One day, a monkey was sitting chattering in a tree. Then it jumped out of the tree and landed on its feet and *poof* Ta-da! it had suddenly become a human.

no, crocodilians and dinos are to completly different things, there evolutionary path split early on.

I meant as living relatives go, they are very closely related being one of two extant archosaurs along with birds.

arent crocs bird hipped?

Don't think so, they form a differnt clade than dinos and birds.
Archosauria page on wikipedia

im sorry dude you just proved that you are retarded with that last statment. Please do yourself and everyone else a favor. Before you go talking about somthing please know alittle about it before you make an ass out of yourself like this. I research the bible and creationsim just as much as i do evolution. Research both sides before you start looking like a fool. And to anwser your question. Humans didnt come from moneys. They have a common ancestor. Yes you do find plenty of in-betweens in fossil records. Please read this before you post agian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution . If dont believe its true please enlighting us with the evidence proving its false. Thanks

you couldn't be more right. creatoinism is bullcrap. mozart, you obviously din't research the evotution side of the storey, you know why thers no "in-beatweens" is because they evolved into humans or died out, if they didn't there would be dinos running around and huge-ass hippos. your "argument" is a simple after thought, to an already wrong aspect, that is creationism. HOW the hell did you think that would hold up? my GOD laviticus was right, you made a complete retard out of yourself!

we are entitled to our beliefs, however, when one argument has been disproven multiple times, then it is time to either get a new argument or give up arguing a mute point.

Sorry but is mozart is going to argue against evolution he should at least know something about the subject rather than is completely inaccurate and misguided arguement.
Also to argue against something with huge amounts of evidence in favour of something with none is just foolish.

Well, he may just be arguing for the point of arguing...perhaps he is bored?

Then he should go and find a girlfriend.

We've found many. many inbetweens. Also-- the concepts that evolution is based on are also used in breeding animals, developing medicines, etc. We have solid proof that they're accurate because we use them as tools every day. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Folks in favor of the "Intelligent Design" theory should consider the fact that no design could be more elegant than evolution-- evolution is an intelligent design. Whoever created the universe has an infinite amount of time to work with. Why do religious people always assume that this God's work happens with a "poof", like something in a Harry Potter movie? Maybe God's miracles take a million years to unfold. People who deny evolution for religious reasons are implying that they know the speed with which God works and it's a human-type speed. How spiritually conceited to think you know God inside and out.

But mozart635 is asking a really interesting question. Why didn't all monkeys evolve into humans? Why aren't other species smarter? It's hard to believe that being more intelligent wouldn't be advantageous in every case.

These questions don't make me doubt evolution, but they make me think that I might not understand how human intelligence fits into the cosmos. It's almost impossible to think about human intelligence because we can't see the forest for the trees. When we think about intelligence, we're using our intelligence. When we hit questions like "why aren't other animals smarter?", it signals the fact that our perception of the human race and its importance is probably inaccurate.

----------------------

speaking of thinking about intelligence there's a really funny Dilbert cartoon... the caption for the cartoon is "I used to think the brain was the most interesting organ in the body, but then I thought-- look what's telling me that"

Because like a said earlier. Humans didnt come from monkeys. We all have a common ancester. But also you need to look at why would current primates NEED to be smarter. They are already smarter than most of the animal kingdom and are doing just fine. They adapted defferently than us. Theres no need to be really smart if you live in a tree your whole life. Not very many things they do need awhole lot of intelligence. While early humanoids where manely meat eaters but where not physicaly strong enough to take out larger prey. So we had to start thinking of tools and weapons we could use to do it.

exactly creationism and intelligent design is bullcrap. you know what make s intelligence?evolution. we have on common ancestor, and we also have traced the evolutionery line of all land predators, to a tree climbing animal the size a a cat (mammalalian predators).creationism is just a thought that for all we know was put in a book by some ancient fiction writer.

in order to argue you must know the facts. on both sides.

when those religious texts were penned, it was with the intent to give future generations something to control themselves and those around them with.
some of them may have been high as a kite, but we can not presume to know the minds of those now long dead writers, or whatever deity they believed they were writing for.

well thats what i am saying, we don't know. but when you going to argue you "point" know what the hell your talking about.

Dinosaurs are long gone...Simple ecology supports that FACT.

yep, dinosaurs are no longer a part of our ecosystem, we can leave it at that. i guess if you want to debate creationism over natural selectio, you can start a new thread.

what is with these creationists keep asking to find in-betweens between apes and humans.. look you bible nuts, you want evidence, just look in the mirror.. your inferior ape brains still believe in a self centered narcistic bearded jewish old man wearing white toga in the sky who created the world in 6 days knocke up a virgin, have his son died on a cross, oh wait.. he is his son...resurrected...blah.. whatever, you catch my drift.... thats the reason why monkeys today aren't evolving into humans... some of you monkeys just get left behind in the race while the elite moved on to evolve further more. you are just content on being a monkey while others strive to be human.

Mass is created by the slowing down of the revolutions of the atom in a molecule causing the molecule to bind with other molecules making the molecules heavier. The sun creates atoms of heavy hydrogen and a neutrino. The travel through space slows down the heavy hydrogen and binds to other molecules making water and on down the line to carbon based things and on and on. SO THE BIG BANG DID CREATE ALL THE STUFF YOU SEE ! ! ! YOU ARE AN . . . .

voted they're still alive.

There clearly not you know.

OH MY F-IN GOD! LMFAO! i couldn't have said it better myself! i coulda, but that was truly a show of biblical hatred.

with all the evidence supporting evolution and the big bang, and so little supporting the bible, why you still beleived some frankensence (pot) smoking hippy created earth in six days while it took BILLIONS of years to make, your obviously on frankensence as well. now go worship your wothless magical gnome named gerald. GO! before i fart in you genreal direction! silly english kiiinnnniiigits! your mother was a hamster and your fahter smelled of elderberrys! tthhhppppbbbttt!!!

I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. It could be a pleiosaurus....

No, I don't clearly know.


Love it when honesty comes out!!! Elite...

"With Descent"

No it could that would be physically impossible, the reasons are listed in various loch ness threads in the crypto and myth section.

No evidence for any of them surviving from the last 65my with the exception of birds, no evidence of any existing now = no dinosaurs.

Well alligators and crocs were around the same time as the dinosaurs. I guess you could consider them dinosaurs, although they are much smaller now.

No evidence does not mean impossibility of exsistance to me, it can mean it doesn't exsist or the evidence hasn't been found.

So to me, it's still a possibility. My worldview won't need to change if one is found, and if it's not... doesn't affect the taste of toast or the prices of tea in China for me.

And as wrong as people have been over the years (how many times have I heard "so now we need to re-evaluate" once disregarded data/lack of data?), and what was once thought extinct popping up here and there now and then... I think it's pretty possible somewhere somehow they may have continued.

They are not dinosaurs however, they lack the physical features to that make dinosaurs, dinosaurs.


It is actually very rare that an extinct species is found to be extant and ones with the features of dinosaurs would have a great deal of difficulty in remaining hidden for 65 million years. For a fish like ceolocanth it is a very different scenario. Find a fish can be more difficult but the likely hood of us finding extant dinosaurs is so remote it is considered scientifically to not be worth while even considering.

Devin Dyspepsia : I forgot to say pleiosaurus is not a dinosaur either, plesiosaurus it is a marine reptile, they are a different group.