As it stands, your posts don’t paint a flattering picture of you. I was hoping I got it wrong, and was giving you a chance to change your mind, or explain what I was getting wrong. As it stands, it appears you knowingly hide the fact that there were much small dinosaurs and instead paint a knowingly false picture to argue against evolution.
Added in edit:
A good resource for small dinosaurs:
Just as I thought. You do know wat i am talking about but because it doesn’t match your view you just treat it like you don’t.
Thanks for that.
Richard
I was curious (and knew finches varied in size) so I did some quick research.
I was never a YEC, however several years ago I did belief that life on earth was “young” … probably due the influence of the Bible and the fact that I couldn’t get my head around the idea that life on earth could have begun millions-billions years ago.
So i used to read a lot of YEC literature re their perceived short history of life on earth.
I assumed that bcoz YECs are Christians, their quotes from various scientists would be 100% trustworthy. The possibility that they’d effectively turn scientific quotes in lies was unthinkable to me.
Eventually, I came to accept the scientific evidence that life on earth began a very long time ago, although I never accepted that natural processes were responsible for the history life on earth.
Anyhow, Roy has convinced that me that YEC quotes are definitely not trustworthy. In fact, I’m frankly shocked and appalled by how deceitful and dishonest YECs can be. I know now that one cannot trust anything they say.
We can’t prove that your words arise from any natural processes, either – you could be a cheap AI designed to be ornery and stubborn.
That’s like claiming that because you see a car go into a city on one highway and come out on a different highway then you can’t prove that the car traveled on the streets because you can’t explain how an automobile transmission works.
I know enough logic to know when you’re being inconsistent.
And when your responses always boil down to “I know better!” rather than actually addressing the issues, it serves to point up the lack of logic.
The stars don’t “include or reference God”, but they glorify Him – the scripture says so.
(Cue Richard denying that scripture matters.)
A bit more than half.
Enough to show that all existing species have likely ancestors in the record.
This reminded me of a debate quarter-final in high school state competition: the two teams were both devastating, but one thing made the difference – one team used a quote that seemed powerful but could not provide the context. It wasn’t that they had the context wrong, it was that they didn’t know what it was, which meant that they couldn’t know that the quote was making the point they were asserting. Both the other teams and the judges were aware that in fact the quote was valid for supporting the team’s argument, but the fact that they could not show that it did cost them the victory.
It is very unfortunate that trusting people like yourself are taken advantage of. As you say, you should be able to trust your Christian brothers and sisters. This is why I always assume that posters like yourself have good intentions, but perhaps have been fed misinformation by less than trustworthy people.
As the old Russian proverb goes, " doveryay, no proveryay", or “trust, but verify”. This is a good rule no matter where you are getting your information from.
Your claims don’t match reality. Or do you deny the existence of small dinosaurs?
I remember what could be called “ghost branches” in our high school biology book back in the early 1970s. I’d call the term misleading, though, at least in that case, because the text had the links shown by a line of question marks, plainly indicating that the proposed connection was uncertain.
But in university biology and when I was student teaching, those linkages were no longer “ghosts”; I don’t know if they had firmed up or been shown to be wrong, but in university there was a wall chart where every branch had a citation to papers in the literature that showed the linkage was at least probable.
So I suspect that this is an old issue that is no longer the case.
Not just dishonest, but sufficiently so that it was enough to get an F on any paper for any professor I ever studied under.
There are are rules for citations, starting with not conflating bits from different paragraphs. Even for cites like this on sites like this, they should be learned and followed.
And only cite a secondary source if you can’t find the original.
Or, as is not uncommon on the internet, isn’t “pure”, i.e. bits have been added by people who don’t know how to cite things. It’s worth checking out.
I’ve been doing it recently by asking Grok, "Did so-and-so actually write “”. It’s been able to peel out inserted or mangled phrases and always points me to the original source.
It’s not surprising, though it’s probably among the ten worst I’ve seen. I once saw a mishmash from Origin of Species that were not only separated by as much as over a hundred pages but were out of order, strung in a way to give a different impression than what Darwin’s words meant.
Wow – just . . . . Well, I’ve seen enough incompetence in over-eager novice writers of papers to see how that could happen even in absence of malice, but it’s still shocking. That kind of thing is egregious enough that some of my professors would have kicked the person out of the course for anything above a 100-level (where the offending student would have been sent to a mandatory remedial composition course).
An analogy occurs to me: it’s like the difference between knowing precisely where a group of hikers stepped on a trip vs. knowing they took a certain set of trails that go from A to B – there could be three or four different routes between A and B, and we may not even know which route(s) the group took (I was on a wilderness backpacking trip once where we split up and covered three different routes to a particular lake), but we know they went from A to B.
That brings to mind something Brian Cox (astrophysicist) once said, that the most exciting thing that can happen to a scientist is to find out he was wrong! It’s coming up against the road blocks that keeps everything on course.
Some of them don’t know what they’re doing, e.g. someone else may have cobbled quotes together, or someone copied two things together that were different, etc. Similar mistakes occur in textual transmission all the time; it’s kind of fascinating in a way to see people nowadays making the same mistakes. A fairly common one is accretion, where two quotes are separated by a comment and the comment gets later copied as part of a continuous quote; similarly comments can get added to either end.
But some people do it on purpose; I’ve learned to investigate meme images before passing them on for this very reason. I once found one that purported to be from Thomas Jefferson (perhaps the most common false source in the U.S. internet) that was actually from a historian of Jefferson who was commenting what Jefferson might have said if he’d lived in the late nineteenth century – I don’t know if that was malicious, but I think it was most likely from an eager quote-miner who wasn’t careful, saw the quote marks and Jefferson named as the source, and went with it, then others who saw the result assumed it was honest and passed it on as real.
There is no discrepancy between the statements.
Why not? We know that miniature cows that stand just three feet tall came from aurochs that grew to twice that height and more.
Besides which, averages don’t account for much – all it takes is for something to wipe out all the large varieties and the new average can be much smaller than the original.
Which is exactly what we should expect from Genesis: if things are supposed to reproduce “after their kind”, i.e. offspring resembling their parents, why would God turn around and violate that by tinkering with the system? After all, didn’t He set it up well to begin with?
About 7" in length.
We have finches here that are 3" in length (about 7cm).
Bigotry in evidence.
That dramatic change in size is easy is observed from living species known to have descended one from another.
Which ones? Wild turkeys here don’t get much bigger than 16". The ones at the university turkey research farm get over four feet.
I like the Bambiraptor.
The sad truth is that it is almost impossible to find an article on AiG or Creation-dot-com or similar sites that don’t have lies.
Those were on some of the Mediterranean islands; there were also dwarf rhinos. Unfortunately, people seem to have taken the other main approach to interacting with them (eating too many).
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
