You’re the one hung up on this. I don’t know why, seeing as how you pretty much finally admit that the notion of vegetarian dinosaurs with 6-12 inch teeth built for tearing the crap out of flesh is just plain goofy.

Krydor on June 1, 2007 at 2:22 AM

I haven’t made an opinion one way or another on this, because it’s irrelevant. You said Ham said it, busted, you said the museum says it, busted, you changed it to the overall vegetarian dino issue, which isn’t at issue, because we know they say it and you were hanging on to the coconut thing originally.

I suppose this may be a diversion to stop the bleeding on your embarrassing display here, but I’ll bite…

I think it is beyond likely, based on a report from a person who took the press tour, that either Ham or someone who directly works for this museum of the worst science on earth said that T-Rex ate coconuts.

Who exactly are we talking about here? Who took the press tour? The writer at Truthdig certainly doesn’t appear to have, and the LIE appears to have begun on May 3, by yet another creationist hating blogger, who also DID NOT go to the museum.

Please, I’m begging you to show me someone who is claiming to have actually witnessed this being said.

Again, it really won’t matter if you find someone to be claiming this because we could say “his word against Hams”, but at least it would make you look a little less dishonest. The point being, AGAIN, that we already know about Ham’s group’s dino vegetarian theory, which is what you were responding to when you attempted to smear them by bringing up the bogus coconut story. You told the untruth, that Ham himself was quoted as saying it, you then told the untruth that the museum says it (citing a liberal blogger who didn’t go to the museum, and doesn’t get specific at all in why they make their claim), and now simply because it supports your agenda you think it’s “beyond likely” that it happened? Oh okay, you win.

You’re the one hung up on this. I don’t know why, seeing as how you pretty much finally admit that the notion of vegetarian dinosaurs with 6-12 inch teeth built for tearing the crap out of flesh is just plain goofy.

You haven’t even been following this conversation, and you are a prime participant. How incredibly odd. I brought up the stupidity of Ham’s vegetarian beasties with giant fangs and sharp claws to point out how incredibly stupid the whole notion of Young Earth Creationism is. It’s my second post in this thread. That I picked something that you don’t find valid is irrelevant.

I trust the source. I retract the attribution to Ham of that particular stupidity. I do that only because the originating author did not attribute it to Ham. I have no doubt that this, or something similar, was said during the press tour. You know why? Because the other press tour reports echo what was said.

Well, seeing as how you can’t possibly form an opinion on dining habits of T-Rex, I will not retract. I don’t have to retract jack, y’see. Multiple sources, including Ham himself say that T-Rex was a vegetarian.

For like the tenth time NO ONE DENIES THIS!!! We all know that this is what Ham says, but it has nothing to do with the coconut lie, which you were very specific in pushing. After claiming there was a quote, and being busted lying, you sent us to read a comment from a liberal creationist hating blogger who made the claim that this is the museum’s explanation for the T-Rex’s teeth, but there is no evidence to support the claim, and we have Ham specifically denying ever hearing of it.

Why do you continue to mix up the “dinos were herbivores” overall claim, with your specific claim. It’s two different issues. Again, the coconut thing wasn’t simply to point out the herbivore claim, because everyone already knew about that. In fact your comment on the coconut thing was in a reply to the herbivore claim in the first place, so it couldn’t have possibly been that you were simply making it known. WE ALL ALREADY KNEW THEY BELIEVE THIS, AND THIS ISN’T SOMETHING HAM OR ANYONE DISPUTES!

Do you get this? You can’t claim to be simply revealing the herbivore view, when your coconut story was in direct reply to the herbivore view which Ham’s group is very openly stating. You’re simply trying to dance your way out of the corner you’ve been painting in to, but you can’t.

So for you to mix up lying that there is a Ham/coconut quote, then changing it to a second lie, that the museum does teach this, and now saying (in probably a half dozen different ways now):

Multiple sources, including Ham himself say that T-Rex was a vegetarian.

Is completely ridiculous. It’s not something that needs “multiple sources” to prove to anyone, because the fact that they say this IS NOT IN DISPUTE. Again, this simply was not your argument, because your coconut comment was in RESPONSE to this already known fact, that Ham and his group believe dinosaurs were vegetarians.

Hell, I’ll even grant that it was a misattribution of a direct quote on my part. Doesn’t change one single thing, does it? Wow, no! Cool.

Wow, yes! Cool. When the fact that they believe this vegetarian theory is not a secret by any means, and you simply tried to add on the kooky coconut story by lying and saying there was a direct quote, then attempting to cite a liberal blogger (who didn’t go to the museum) who makes the unsourced coconut claim. YOU were attempting to push the coconut thing, which was clearly bogus, NOT the vegetarian thing, which isn’t in dispute, not a secret, and in fact what you initially were replying to!

I wonder what this was all about. Oh, I know. It was about you assasinating my character. Retraction? Not on your life. Ham is a nut, has said similar nutty things, any of which would have sufficed that I chose one which you think is incorrect means pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Assassinating your character? Why, because you lied and continue your dishonesty even still, and I pointed it out? Remember this?

I will not be called a liar by you. When I make a mistake, I retract. When you make a mistake, you present an ad hominem and jump into denial mode.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Hmmm… sounds like another lie to me. You say you’d retract when you make a mistake. Is claiming that you have a direct quote of Ham making the coconut comment, then still trying to claim that the museum says this, then changing the subject and saying you’ve been talking about the whole vegetarian thing the entire time (which you aren’t, because we already knew it and it was actually what you were responding to), a mistake? If you don’t retract, then you’re simply lying again, because you claimed you would if you made a mistake.

And whether you think Ham has said a bunch of nutty things is not the issue and you didn’t just “choose one”, you chose a false one, and because you got thoroughly busted on it, you’ve changed it to act as if you’re simply bringing (THE KNOWN) vegetarian belief up as if it’s what you meant from the beginning. Which, one more time, is clearly crap because the OPEN vegetarian belief was what prompted you to push and hang on to the coconut thing, until being forced to abandon it, and go the route you’re attempting to now.

(Quick Krydor, here’s where you again play the victim. Act as if I’m just this big jerk calling you names, even though when someone lies it’s simply stating the obvious to point out that they are lying. Then you whine on about how you were simply presenting the fact that Ham and his group believe in a dino vegetarian theory, which any logical person can see is yet another lie, because we know this, it’s not in dispute, and it was in fact what prompted you to raise and hang on to the stupid coconut thing. I know you can’t help yourself, so go right ahead.)

Well, seeing as how you can’t possibly form an opinion on dining habits of T-Rex, I will not retract. I don’t have to retract jack, y’see. Multiple sources, including Ham himself say that T-Rex was a vegetarian.

Hell, I’ll even grant that it was a misattribution of a direct quote on my part. Doesn’t change one single thing, does it? Wow, no! Cool.

I wonder what this was all about. Oh, I know. It was about you assasinating my character. Retraction? Not on your life. Ham is a nut, has said similar nutty things, any of which would have sufficed that I chose one which you think is incorrect means pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Yes… I understand what you are saying. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I just failed to mention the smaller/simpler organisms. And it does answer the question of “if life evolved then what did the first life eat.” Its a good and intellectually honest answer.

And since we have been down this road before, you know what “my” next question would be. But not tonight my friend, I’ve got to get some sleep. *Yawn*

Jp … Blacklake is simply saying the first life was plant life, like algae for example.

If you read the article, there are much simpler autotrophs than plants, which depend on chlorophyl. Lithoautotrophs, for instance, are exclusively microbes: http://www.answers.com/topic/lithoautotroph

At any rate, I’m not saying what the first life was. I have no idea. I was just responding to Rose’s question by pointing out there are forms of life that survive on food not derived from other organisms.

Rightwinged and Krydor

Excuse me for butting in. But didn’t Ham say that the animals being vegetarians was HIS (Ham’s) theory ? I mean, that question is never addressed in the Bible. So Ham took his best guess, and maybe he is right or maybe he is wrong.

But this whole debate started because one of the museum attendants was ask why T-Rex had such big teeth if it only ate vegetables…. which is a good and legitimate question. The attendant took his best shot obviously, and said they were for opening coconuts.

What the attendant should have said, in my opinion and what I believe would have been more likely to be correct… would have been to say:

Because God knew T-Rex wasn’t ALWAYS going to be a vegetarian. God knew exactly what was going to happen, he gave all the animals what they need to survive in the world after sin entered into it.

Once again… sorry to butt in.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 10:22 PM

You aren’t butting in at all, but I still don’t even see any evidence that a museum attendant said it in the first place.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Krydor, you can take issue with the whole “dinos were all once vegetarians” claim all you want, because I don’t have a solid opinion on the matter and I am certainly not speaking for Ham and his group (as I’ve repeatedly said). So I have no reason to repudiate a claim that I never made and haven’t formed an opinion on.

My problem is, as I’ve explained repeatedly, that you saw this in the article:

In the Garden of Eden in Genesis, says Ham, when everything was still perfect, animals weren’t predators or prey

And you responded to it with this:

Elsewhere (different story on a different website), old Ham is quoted as saying the T-Rex used his teeth to open coconuts. Can I laugh openly at these people or should I pity them? Seriously, this is just too much.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM

I went out, and within a matter of seconds found that this claim was made by a liberal blogger and Ham had fully responded, saying he’d never heard that from anyone at AIG, and that they don’t even have guides (they claim said his guides are instructed to tell visitors the coconut tale).

I gave you the link:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/05/08/what-are-we-smoking/

I busted the lie (which again WASN’T yours, I said “you creationist haters love your lies” because as you know I accuse you of lying in the other thread, and in this one you are pushing what, by all accounts, is a lie that others perpetrated.

You responded, by saying:

RightWinged,

You call me a liar, and yet, and yet, his museum says just that.

Before Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, museum visitors are told, all of the dinosaurs were peaceable plant-eaters. The evidence is found in Genesis 1:30, where God gives “green herb” to every creature to eat. There were no predators. T-Rex had such big teeth, the museum explains, so it could open coconuts. Only after Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of paradise did the dinosaurs start to eat flesh. And Adam’s sin is a key component of the belief system, for in the eyes of many creationists, in order for Jesus’ death to be meaningful it had to atone for Adam’s first sin.

The problem is, that writer didn’t even go to the museum, AND IT CERTAINLY ISN’T A QUOTE from Ham. He doesn’t say where he got this information, so we’re left with the conclusion he took it from other places making the claim.

Now you want to make this about whether or not Ham believes T-Rexes were herbivores, and you can complain about that all day long and it doesn’t bother me. I take issue with you claiming that you have a quote with Ham making the coconut statement, yet you haven’t supplied it. Again, I tried to say it was others lying this time, but for you to not admit to being wrong, and say “there is no Ham quote”, then you are lying, because you claimed there WAS this mystery quote.

So at this point, even if you were to find someone that works at the museum or Ham himself supporting the claim, you still were wrong to claim to have a quote, because you obviously don’t. But again, at this point, by all acounts, the coconut thing is a fantasy cooked up by creationist haters on liberal blogs.

So while I don’t have to take back or stand behind the dino/herbivore comments (a larger issue), because they aren’t my comments or position, you can retract or not the comment about having a quote of Ham making the coconut comment if you want. But if you don’t retract then you’re still being completely dishonest… unless suddenly you’re going to pull this illusive quote out.

Again, please stop trying to mix the issue of overall herbivore dinos with a specific coconut comment. You may see them as one in the same, but they aren’t when you claim to have a specific quote. You can blast Ham for any number of reasons on the overall herbivore claim if you’d like, but don’t attack someone for something you have no evidence of them ever saying. Make sense?

Jp … Blacklake is simply saying the first life was plant life, like algae for example.

how could the very first organism have an external source of energy?

The sun was out?

Excuse me for butting in. But didn’t Ham say that the animals being vegetarians was HIS (Ham’s) theory ? I mean, that question is never addressed in the Bible. So Ham took his best guess, and maybe he is right or maybe he is wrong.

But this whole debate started because one of the museum attendants was ask why T-Rex had such big teeth if it only ate vegetables…. which is a good and legitimate question. The attendant took his best shot obviously, and said they were for opening coconuts.

What the attendant should have said, in my opinion and what I believe would have been more likely to be correct… would have been to say:

Because God knew T-Rex wasn’t ALWAYS going to be a vegetarian. God knew exactly what was going to happen, he gave all the animals what they need to survive in the world after sin entered into it.

Once again… sorry to butt in.

I’m lost here. I’ve got Ham saying that T-Rex was a vegetarian from multiple sources, including his own website. I’ve got a journalist who stands by the contention that Ham said T-Rex ate coconuts during a press gathering in the “museum”. However, I’m the liar.

Ok, here’s what I’ll do because you seem to think it’s an issue. I don’t know why, but you do. I’ll retract the T-Rex ate coconuts thing, as perhaps Ham or his staff was misrepresented in that singular instance. There is a condition, though. That condition revolves around you repudiating the notion of an exclusively vegetarian T-Rex, at any time in the history of the earth.

Because, in case you missed it, and you purposefully did, I was talking about the utter stupidity of pretending predators were herbivores. Because, you know, had I not included the contentious quote, that was the point. It’s the point you immediately ran like hell from, and continue to do so.

As per Wikipedia:

An autotroph (from the Greek autos = self and trophe = nutrition) is an organism that produces complex organic compounds from simple molecules and an external source of energy, such as light or chemical reactions of inorganic compounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotroph

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 6:33 PM

how could the very first organism have an external source of energy?

The fact that they exist today still doesn’t explain how they came to exist.

No, but it does provide an answer to your original question.

Autotroph, eh? So not only did it spontaneously generate with the ability to reproduce itself, it had to make its own food?!?1 Pretty talented little beggar.

It’s not like it’s conjecture. They still exist today. You should do a little research on lithoautotropes in particular.

In order to be a Darwinist you have to believe that the first one celled organism spontaneously generated. If so, exactly what food source was available to this organism?

As per Wikipedia:

An autotroph (from the Greek autos = self and trophe = nutrition) is an organism that produces complex organic compounds from simple molecules and an external source of energy, such as light or chemical reactions of inorganic compounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotroph

nailinmyeye, I don’t have a problem with people of faith, I have a problem of people who attempt to dress up and put lipstick on their faith and then call it science.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 31, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Your previous statement goes far beyond your statement here. While I myself have a difficult time with the conflation of faith and science, and indeed all science involves a little faith, what I take issue with is your equating those who believe in creation with truthers.

Not so, JP. The DNA evidence backs up the theory of evolution. All living things, flora and fauna, have common DNA which means we have a common origin. We humans share common DNA with primates, which means we had a common ancestor. The DNA shows where the evolutionary branches split off for various species. The more common DNA, the more recent the split. The less common DNA, the more ancient the split. DNA is not a theory, but science.

It’s also worth noting that the development of an individual human fetus itself roughly illustrates a considerable amount of the history of human evolution. Ontogeny weakly recapitulates phylogeny.

Tantor on May 31, 2007 at 11:25 AM

DNA science destroys evolutionary theory. Genetics mutations are NEVER shown to be beneficial to a species, but are ALWAYS degenerative. Genetic mutations ALWAYS result in a non-reproducing individual. The immutability of DNA does not allow for any form of macroevolution, either sudden or slow, and there isn’t the smallest shred of evidence to the contrary.

Had Darwin known then what geneticists know now, he never would have started his fantasizing theorizing regarding origins.

The argument that similary DNA proves relation of species is ridiculous. It is just as easy to say that it proves a common Creator. In appearance and internal construction, dogs and cats share an immense amount of commonality, but their DNA is vastly different. Varieties within species (breeds), no matter how different, share ALL of the DNA that determines the species. An irish wolfhound and a chihuahua are both dogs. Neither is closer to being a cat, or any other species, than the other.

It is the very coding structure of DNA that prevents “migration” of one species into another. It doesn’t happen. It NEVER happened.

Oh, and prior to Adam’s sin, no creatures on Earth were predators. Arguments about why God would create mammals with canine teeth and such can go in many directions, and noone will change their position. Maybe God, because he sees the end from the beginning, and certianly knew that Adam would sin, that the Earth would be cursed, created them that way in advance. Maybe God changed certain creatures into predators, including altering their jaws and digestive tracts, after the Curse. He’s the potter, we’re the clay. He can do that if He wants. Did He? I don’t know, just like everyone else.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 5:02 PM

And the Krydor dishonesty rolls on. So, (AS WAS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL IN MY PREVIOUS COMMENT TO YOU) you still have absolutely no support for your original claim

Elsewhere (different story on a different website), old Ham is quoted as saying the T-Rex used his teeth to open coconuts. Can I laugh openly at these people or should I pity them? Seriously, this is just too much.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM

Once more, I’m still waiting to see that quote. I’m still waiting to see the web site with that quote, etc. etc.

No, a liberal creationist hating blogger who didn’t go to the museum stating something (THAT ISN’T A QUOTE) DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

How dare you insist I retract something, when you’re lying here. Yeah, I said it. I busted you for lying in other threads, and here I’d just accused you of pushing the lies from these liberal creationist haters because it suits your agenda… but until you can supply support for your statement that Ham is quoted as making the coconut comment, YOU ARE LYING, AND YOU NEED TO MAKE THE RETRACTION.

Don’t give me this “I’m talking about the whole dinosaurs as vegetarians issue”. BULLSH**, you have been busted for your dishonesty once again. The hilarious part is that I knew you’d go there. When you’re boxed in a corner, that’s all you can do, but your comments are quite clear and specific that you said Ham was quoted as making the coconut comment yet you can’t supply any shred of evidence to support your claim.

This reminds me of liberals who claim “Bush lied on WMDs”, until faced with the reality that their guys made the same claims. Suddenly they say “well they didn’t start a war”. You can’t have it both ways.

Same goes for you here Krydor. YOU brought up the coconut thing, claiming that you knew of another site quoting Ham, you can’t change it to the overall herbivore issue now. You didn’t deliver, because YOU LIED. At first I was just chalking it up as passing off lies that agreed with you, but really you’re lying because you’ve shown no such quote, which indicates it doesn’t exist, which indicates you lied since YOU won’t retract the initial statement. The best part, you claim to be so honest that you do retract when necessary… yet you still haven’t here? Hmmmm.

Again, in plainer English: You insisted there was a Ken Ham coconut comment. Not only have you not shown it, all you’ve shown is liberal blogs making it up. You insist that his guides (which don’t exist) make the coconut case, but you supply no support. After being thoroughly busted, you change the debate to be whether or not Ham thinks dinosaurs were herbivores. And? No one said Ham didn’t think this to begin with. In fact, when you posted your original BS about the coconut, you were responding to the herbivore claim, in an effort to pile on with something you heard at a liberal blog and took at face value because it supports your agenda. Again, it’s identical to CNN, Rosie, Olbermann, etc. running liberal blog propaganda as news simply because it agrees with them.

Again Krydor, until you find this quote YOU CLAIM EXISTS by Ken Ham, YOU ARE LYING. But worse, you’ve found nothing even close to supporting your claim, despite your attempts to fuse the issue together with the overall “dinos were herbivores” claim by Ham and his group. Nice try, but anyone with an ounce of honesty and reading comprehension sees through it.