Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Loudmouth]

No more then you can provide evidence that they are transitional.

They have a mixture of features from earlier and later species. They are transitional by definition.

There is more then one pea in a pod and there are more theories to explain what we find in the natural evidence other then just Darwin's theory.

And yet you can't supply that theory with supporting evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yet the Bible has remained unchanged for over 3500 years. Maybe more people understand more then what it use to be.

The Bible is the word of men, not the word of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For Creationist the extinction of Coelophysis was very important. Not so important for the Evolutionist who does not see any new beginning with the Coelophysis.

I have never heard a creationist say anything about Coelophysis being important in any way at all. It seems you may be conflating your own version of creationism with that of all creationists.

I thought we already did this. I was talking about Edwin H Colbert, according to Wiki: "His fieldwork in Antarctica in 1969 helped solidify the acceptance of continental drift, by finding a 220-million-year-old fossil of a Lystrosaurus." I suppose this is history now and his work is outdated so people do not pay as much attention to his books as they use to. Still his discovery had a lot to do with the acceptance of the continental drift theory. He provided some of the early evidence for the theory.

But that merely "helped solidify". That was not your claim. The slam dunk for plate tectonics was the magnetic mapping of the ocean floor:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

I made it clear that I was joking about how you can buy forgeries. Ebay sells lots and lots of forgeries. You can buy all the stone arrow heads you would ever want, but when you get them you will find tool marks from modern tools. They do not even try to make them look real. Although I hear of people what will clean up the tool marks and bury them in the back yard for the winter, then dig them up in the spring and take them out and sell them as the real thing.

In Darwin's day people manufactured forgeries to profit off of Darwin's theory. Even Darwin was selling books and making a nice living off of trying to promote a theory he learned from his Grandfather. When someone is making money you can be sure that others are going to try to jump on their bandwagon and cash in on the profit.

There of course have been some people that have done so in the past. And archaeologists have learned to be very careful when using local help. But that still does not answer my question. Were you joking when you included the Ica Stones at the start of this thread? The "dinosaur" ones have been known to have been forgeries for quite some time now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet the Bible has remained unchanged for over 3500 years. Maybe more people understand more then what it use to be.

And that is a fault of the Bible. It can be shown to have hundreds of self contradictions. Science has self correcting mechanisms, that is why it is always advancing. Not having self correcting mechanisms for the Bible means that people are stuck with its errors.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

You still can't explain why the small dinosaurs did not survive.

How much of the species to ever live are now extinct? Is it so hard to believe that they just died off like many other species? I would say climate change and hunting had a huge part in it.

 

[Loudmouth]

How much of the species to ever live are now extinct? Is it so hard to believe that they just died off like many other species? I would say climate change and hunting had a huge part in it.

Many species died off in several extinction events. The Permian/Triassic was probably the worst one.

Why is it so hard to believe that a major extinction event was caused by a massive meteor impact 65 million years ago?

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Many species died off in several extinction events. The Permian/Triassic was probably the worst one.

Why is it so hard to believe that a major extinction event was caused by a massive meteor impact 65 million years ago?

Because it's not in scripture. It's my stance that the strata was not layed out over billions of years but by one massive event, the flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because it's not in scripture. It's my stance that the strata was not layed out over billions of years but by one massive event, the flood.

The map is not the territory.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

The map is not the territory.

What?

 

[Loudmouth]

What?

I have a map that says there is a 6 mile high mountain in the middle of Kansas.

I go to Kansas and see that there is no 6 mile high mountain anywhere in the state.

Which is wrong. The map or the territory?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Yet the Bible has remained unchanged for over 3500 years. Maybe more people understand more then what it use to be.

Have you read any biblical studies? I would suggest you try;

Friedman, Richard Elliott
1987 "Who Wrote the Bible?" New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Jenkins, Philip
2010 “Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years” New York: HarperCollins

Maccoby, Hyam
1986 "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" San Francisco: HarperCollins/Barnes and Noble

Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God 2nd ed.” Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

How much of the species to ever live are now extinct? Is it so hard to believe that they just died off like many other species? I would say climate change and hunting had a huge part in it.

This is an excellent one frame summary. (And even though is only a few years old, it is due for an up-date).

 

[JacksBratt]

Yet the Bible has remained unchanged for over 3500 years. Maybe more people understand more then what it use to be.

I believe that in the end, this changing science will come to rest on the same place as the unchanging truth of the word of God.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evolution is a theory. Science is the method.

I agree, evolution is a theory. However, it is taught as fact in grade schools and post secondary schools of all levels.
Anyone of any accreditation, that proposes any other theory on the origin of life as we know it is ridiculed, slandered, mocked and can lose funding, accreditation, employment or ranking in this world of "changing science".

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree, evolution is a theory. However, it is taught as fact in grade schools and post secondary schools of all levels.

It is taught as a well supported theory, just like all of the other theories that are taught in science class.

Anyone of any accreditation, that proposes any other theory on the origin of life as we know it is ridiculed, slandered, mocked and can lose funding, accreditation, employment or ranking in this world of "changing science".

First, evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.

Second, religious beliefs are not scientific theories. When you present religious beliefs in science class, you should be criticized.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree, evolution is a theory. However, it is taught as fact in grade schools and post secondary schools of all levels.
Anyone of any accreditation, that proposes any other theory on the origin of life as we know it is ridiculed, slandered, mocked and can lose funding, accreditation, employment or ranking in this world of "changing science".

You should know by now that in the scientific sense, theory means the best explanation for something. You're using theory in the colloquial sense.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe that in the end, this changing science will come to rest on the same place as the unchanging truth of the word of God.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I agree, evolution is a theory. However, it is taught as fact in grade schools and post secondary schools of all levels.

From the National Academies of Science:
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

 

[JacksBratt]

They have a mixture of features from earlier and later species. They are transitional by definition.

See, this is where you lose me for good. Two creatures with similar features are therefore transitional. With that line of thinking there is no confusion of how someone would claim all living things came from common ancestors. All creatures have some sort of lung or gills. All have some sort of vision. All have some sort of way to get around and all these things are similar to other creatures methods. Then you say that they are transitional.

However, there is no way to prove it. It is a suggestion, a guess, an extrapolation. It is not proof. Animals having similar features do not prove that they are related, it may make a good assumption but it also suggests a common designer and Intelligent design.

 

[bhsmte]

From the National Academies of Science:
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

IMO, what I quoted from your source below, is what causes so much confusion with those, who either don't understand science, or simply need to deny science.

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."