Hellbender

I voted for the third option. It could go either way, and I think that the fight was supposed to set Spino up as an even more terrifying villain than the Tyranno (think, hell, I know). Jurassic park has never concerned itself too much with facts. Velociraptor was a tiny carnivore, and they have it more like a Utahraptor (which, coincidentally, was just discovered a little after JP was made). Spinosaurus was a little longer than Tyrannosaurus, but, like other Spinosaurid theropods (like Irritator, Baryonyx), it had weak jaws for a carnivore, and was very gracile. Plus, paloeontologists are starting to think it may have had a hump instead of a sail. The spines that stick up are less like the spines supporting say, Dimetrodon's sail, but more like the ones supporting a camel's hump. Its fossils are found in modern Egypt, a desert, so this makes further sense. Also hadrosaur named Ouranosaurus lived at the same place and time, and shared the same spines. So I couldn't imagine a skinny, humped, weak-jawed dinosaur being that formidable. Back to the point, if Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus ever met, the stronger Tyrannosaurus would be my bet, but who knows?

Yeah, its tough sometimes to determine this. I go by the splitter taxonomy becuase they are quite different, even though their brain capacity is well within the modern range.

I'll ask again, if there is supposedly no evidence for evolution, then why are scientists still hanging on to it, and why am I sitting here defending it? Science is about describing the natural universe in the most accurate way possible. If a hypothesis doesn't stand up to testing (as you think evolution apparently didn't in the days of its inception) it is thrown out. Why does the scientific method make an exception for evolution?

Lots of these indeed are frauds, but how does this invalidate evolution? Hoaxes like the piltdown man were done as a cheap ploy to make money, knowing that public interest in such a thing would be very high. They were always discovered as fakes by scientists, who simply said, "we were mistaken, sorry" and washed their hands of it. Scientists are only human after all. And as far as I know, Homo heidelbergensis is not a hoax. Its not just some claim; evolution is a fact. Its also a theory. "Evolutionists" decline debating with creationists for a lot of reasons. Creationists like Duane Gish are more charismatic than most scientists. Debating evolution is difficult becuase it is so complicated and hard to get across to laypeople in a limited amount of time. Creationists usually stock the audience with other creationists who aren't there to learn something; they are just there to hear the "blasphemous doctrine" of evolution take a beating by a smooth talker like Gish. If the situations were reversed, would you gladly go into debates with "evolutionists"?

Sigh, if we don't do it, he will walk away thinking he proved a forum of "evolutionists" wrong. I agree with you, though.

Two YEC debates at the same time! It must be my birthday!

Or be asked to go back into time and then sit there for millions of years to watch ardipithecus change into a human.

I might see the Episode 3, but just becuase I am such a big star wars fan, and I am hoping against hope it won't go the way of Episodes 1 and 2. (Translation, I hope it won't totally suck)

This is the question we all should ask in the first place, in every debate with creationists.

I don't remember ever having a bomb scare in my school (aside from drills). Scary.

hey, no actually you countered all the points that I couldn't/didn't feel like, and you countered the saturn rings point better than I could have. How did you know how to post the not equal to symbol? I am asking because I don't.

I hear the sound of a horn being tooted by a penguin, coming from the North.

we did, but we were just having a laugh. Sorry. I will remember you said this. Whenever you remember, we will be here. Talkorigins has some good stuff. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html The faq is a good place to start. After you read that try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ OKay here's another site to aimed at educating people about common and uncommon logical fallacies: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

I apologize for the confusion then. What is your school's website? First of all, Hovind's education is not adequate. He basically has no education, apart from High school, as far as I, and the scientific community is concerned. Lets get off Hovind. He is an embarassment even to other creationist. Second, I am an ardent anti-YEC, and I have researched Hovind, been to his website, and critically evaluated his claims on my own. I have a lot of knowledge in paleontology, and biology in general and I can say that his claims are completely irrational to the point of being downright silly. Please back up your claims that his evidence is proven, instead of merely stating as such. The burden of proof is on you. Translation: "His education on the matter, and the fact that he knows nothing about what he claims to be so educated in doesn't matter to me because he says things that I agree with." If you want to overturn a theory that has withstood more than a century of scientific scrutiny, which is every year getting more and more evidence to support it, being a real PhD might be a good start at doing so. A lot of us here are scientists, aspiring scientists, or have a strong interest in science. Evaluating evidence is what we do; the fact that we naturally promote theories supported by evidence that don't coincide with your preconcieved religious notions doesn't mean that we are sticking our head in the sand. In other words, the "evidence" for biblical creation has been evaluated, and it is false. Okay, now we are off to a good start. This point was already dealt with by me, and much better by Dak. Please, besides the fact that a global flood is impossible, we know this is not the case. See above. They are? Someone else with more extensive knowledge on this, want to help me? So how did the moon magically get back to where it is now? And you believe that our species was contemporeous (sp) with the dinosaurs (something supported by no evidence), then why weren't we supposedly killed by the moon too? Wait, so gravity gets weaker over time now? Simple; there aren't a set number of comets in our solar system. We don't know how many there are, and it is completely possible that new ones come from somewhere in the universe every once and a while for us to see. I find the idea of a YEC who finds the Argmentum ad Ignorantium fallacy distateful extremely ironic. First off, it is accurate, and second, it is not the only dating method scientists use. They aren't 100% accurate, but they come very close. Such mistakes such as this come about by creationists deliberately applying the dating technique in a imcompetant manner. The Sahara hasn't always been a desert, for one. Second, I was not aware of the fact that deserts constantly grow. Not true. Evidence? The existance of oil and how it is formed is perfectly explainable by science. The fact that you need to throw tired old bible stories into the equation changes nothing. I could continue, and probably will, but I don't know if there is limits on post size, and I am tired.

ah ok, thanks for the info.

ok. That part is pretty funny too. I guess I have to ask (not you, specifically, just brainstorming), if evolution supposedly has absolutely no evidence to support it, then why is 99% of the scientific community still hanging on to it? Given the self-correcting nature of science, this doesn't logically follow. PS what does "lolly roffles" mean?

True, but if his previous posts are any indication, that was a logical assumption for me to make. The fact that he is obviously a creationist was not what I based my statement on.

Scientifical??

A more elaborate way of putting my response above, that the world is not in a state of stasis. Good job. I don't really see this happening, man. He is just going to come back to scream that "evolution is false, I have all this evidence...blah blah blah" you'd think, given that creationists (anti-evolution creationists, in case anyone is keeping track) use these logical fallacies all the freaking time, that they would already be aquainted with them .

I don't think I have ever contributed to this thread, but I do have a sense of humor. Things You'll Never Hear a Redneck Say... I'll take Shakespeare for 1000, Alex. Duct tape won't fix that. Honey, I think we should sell the pickup and buy a family sedan. Come to think of it, I'll have a Heineken. We don't keep firearms in this house. Has anybody seen the sideburns trimmer? You can't feed that to the dog. I thought Graceland was tacky. No kids in the back of the pickup, it's just not safe. Wrestling's fake. Honey, did you mail that donation to Greenpeace? We're vegetarians. Do you think my gut is too big? I'll have grapefruit and grapes instead of biscuits and gravy. Honey, we don't need another dog. Who gives a crap who won the Civil War? Give me the small bag of pork rinds. Too many deer heads detract from the decor. Spittin' is such a nasty habit. I just couldn't find a thing at Wal-Mart today. Checkmate. She's too young to be wearing a bikini. Does the salad bar have bean sprouts? Hey, here's an episode of "Hee Haw" that we haven't seen. I don't have a favorite college team. Be sure to bring my salad dressing on the side. You ALL. Those shorts ought to be a little longer, Darla. Nope, no more for me. I'm drivin' tonight. I guess I find this funny because people like this are everywhere where I live .

so natural processes like evolution suddenly hit a wall and stop? There is lots of evidence for "macroevolution". It did, and continues to, happen. You are talking of the Paluxy tracks right? They are a pure hoax, there is nothing more to say. I'm sure this mystery guy of yours knew this as well. Scientists have better things to do than examine every piece of "evidence" creationists put forth. Are you alright? There really isn't any evidence, all creationist do is find "problems" with evolution theory (or make up problems, more often than not), and then conclude that creationism wins by default. Care to provide some examples proving otherwise? How come there are no articles written by creationists in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which is not what you would expect if it was as "scientifically proved" as you say. (I sense the "global evolutionist conspiracy" argument coming... ) Who says that population growth has to be constant? If the world was in stasis, maybe, but I see you conveniently didn't consider this fact. Hmm what are these "scientifical evidences"? What is the random guess? Evolution? Creationism is the random guess, evolution started as a hypothesis (educated guess) to an accurate description of the mechanisms (theory). Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Its not just some "random guess". Thats not how science works, and I am appalled that a poster on a science forum knows nothing about the scientific method. Well, not that appalled. Since public school systems teach evolution, and not christian creation myth, I doubt you learned this in Bio class. I could point you to a lot of sites with lots of evidence, but your mind is already made up, so I am not going to bother. Since the burden of proof is on you, I challenge you to provide evidence for your stupid creation myth.

hmm I wonder why that is? Because maybe its not a test at all, but a cheap publicity ploy? We already outlined why it is exactly this, and nothing more. Care to provide any arguments saying otherwise? You can't be serious. First of all, a nurse degree is a lot less in depth than a doctorate, you know. Thats like comparing apples to oranges. It takes almost a decade to fully get a PhD in some cases. How can anyone possibly get accredited PhD credentials in 2 weeks? They can't. Yeah he still got it, from a unaccredited diploma mill that once operated out of a hotel. So it amounts to basically nothing. One look at anything Hovind writes shows he knows absolutely nothing about Dinosaurs. Come on, a supposed PhD that goes by the name "Dr. Dino" still thinks that plesiosaurs are dinosaurs. Get real.

Every university-level science class I have taken has a few token students who have trouble understanding the material. Its not their fault, really, just be patient and learn try and supplement the class with other matieral.

Okay, its just that in earlier posts, it seemed that you were using astrology and astronomy interchangeably. Astronomy is a legit study; astrology is pure pseudoscience, yet you refer to it in your posts like its not. That was my first objection with this discussion.