If Creation is correct, then 99% of life is arbitrary and futile. Think about it

[driewerf]

Go to Youtube, search for the user potholer54, and watch the video "Dinosaur and polystrate trees debunked". This video adequately addresses the issue of polystrate trees. Quite simply, there are no trees buried through millions of years worth of strata. Buried through thousands of years worth of strata yes, this is quite feasible and observable, but not buried through millions of years of strata as creationists have claimed.

Do you mean this one?

YouTube - Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not qualified to judge even the most elemental scientific evidences.

You mean like the smell of sweet tarhanas, Tan?

 

[Targ]

Do you mean this one?

That's the one. This forum doesn't let me link yet as I've only just signed up.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the one. This forum doesn't let me link yet as I've only just signed up.

Welcome to CF --

 

[tanzanos]

Do you mean this one?

YouTube - Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked

 

[Targ]

Welcome to CF --

Thanks.

 

[tanzanos]

That's the one. This forum doesn't let me link yet as I've only just signed up.

Welcome to CF

 

[tanzanos]

You mean like the smell of sweet tarhanas, Tan?

Instead of looking at the pictures AV, you should have been reading the story

 

[AV1611VET]

Instead of looking at the pictures AV, you should have been reading the story

3

 

[Targ]

A human skeleton was found in a T-Rex stomach.

Wait ... what?? I'd love to see the evidence for this. Could you provide the reference to the primary literature that has been written about this discovery? I really hope this is not based purely on one of those archaeology photoshop competition pictures that so many hoaxes have been based upon. I've never heard of this discovery, which leaves me feeling rather incredulous about such a story's validity. Evidence, please. Unreferenced claims simply will not do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait ... what?? I'd love to see the evidence for this. Could you provide the reference to the primary literature that has been written about this discovery? I really hope this is not based purely on one of those archaeology photoshop competition pictures that so many hoaxes have been based upon. I've never heard of this discovery, which leaves me feeling rather incredulous about such a story's validity. Evidence, please. Unreferenced claims simply will not do.

Here you go:

Scholarly descriptions of what would now be recognized as dinosaur bones first appeared in the late 17th century in England. Part of a bone, now known to have been the femur of a Megalosaurus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#cite_note-WAS97-133 was recovered from a limestone quarry at Cornwell near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, in 1676. The fragment was sent to Robert Plot, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and first curator of the Ashmolean Museum, who published a description in his Natural History of Oxfordshire in 1677. He correctly identified the bone as the lower extremity of the femur of a large animal, and recognized that it was too large to belong to any known species. He therefore concluded it to be the thigh bone of a giant human similar to those mentioned in the Bible.

SOURCE

 

[tanzanos]

3

If a picture is worth a thousand words then imagine a video (25fps).

 

[Doveaman]

Btw saying scientists throw out evidence is false.

No, they keep it locked away for the next generation to figure out.

Its just that the evidence doesent say what you would like it to.

or what scientists would like it to.

 

[Tiberius]

Here you go:

SOURCE

Gee, I read that and somehow missed the bit that dewscribed the human skeleton INSIDE the dinosaur skeleton. Maybe you didn't read the question carefully?

 

[Targ]

Here you go:

Scholarly descriptions of what would now be recognized as dinosaur bones first appeared in the late 17th century in England. Part of a bone, now known to have been the femur of a Megalosaurus, was recovered from a limestone quarry at Cornwell near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, in 1676. The fragment was sent to Robert Plot, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and first curator of the Ashmolean Museum, who published a description in his Natural History of Oxfordshire in 1677. He correctly identified the bone as the lower extremity of the femur of a large animal, and recognized that it was too large to belong to any known species. He therefore concluded it to be the thigh bone of a giant human similar to those mentioned in the Bible.

You do realise that you've just shot yourself in the foot with that argument? You've latched on to the last few sentences where it talks about how he assumed it belonged to a giant human, but failed to notice the bit that I have highlighted in bold. To summarise:

• There is no mention of T-rex here, never mind a human skeletons being found in a T-rex stomach.
• The guy who found it did not know what animal the bone belonged to, so he assumed it was a giant human. Note that: he assumed his answer, but could not say for certain. Does any evidence exist that proves his assumption it was a giant human bone? No.
• On the contrary, research carried out since then has shown it is a Megalosaurus bone.

So the answer provided is a) irrelevant to my question and b) is an example of cherry picking / quote mining. Anyone else want to have a go at justifying the claim that a human skeleton was found inside a T-rex stomach?

 

[kenblaster5000]

Well that would be good for some of us who think that there is a possibility that man and dinosaur coexisted. Not to good for the human though.

 

[tanzanos]

Well that would be good for some of us who think that there is a possibility that man and dinosaur coexisted. Not to good for the human though.

What you think has no relevance facts! Science does not work based on misconceptions and bronze age superstitions nor wanton ignorance to empirical evidences.

 

[kenblaster5000]

What you think has no relevance facts! Science does not work based on misconceptions and bronze age superstitions nor wanton ignorance to empirical evidences.

Superstitions, really? I am not saying that dinosaurs and men are proven to exist together. I was just stating a fact that if that was actually a man in the dinosaurs belly that would be empirical evidence. And how sad it would be for that man. I can say though that you certainly best me in the sarcasm department.

 

[tanzanos]

Superstitions, really? I am not saying that dinosaurs and men are proven to exist together. I was just stating a fact that if that was actually a man in the dinosaurs belly that would be empirical evidence. And how sad it would be for that man. I can say though that you certainly best me in the sarcasm department.

What is it about the 65 million years that separate dinosaurs from the first humans that you don't understand

 

[kenblaster5000]

What is it about 65 million years that separates dinosaurs from the first humans that you don't understand

I understand the data that you have but I do not trust it is accurate. Were the dinosaurs destroyed to make way for humans? In your theories, how does man come from the dinosaur and whatever animals may have existed then? 65 million years between dinosaur and man does not seem right. Too many years. Since you are so diligent yourself, try to account for those 65 million years.