Dinosaurs...and Noah's Ark....

Alessandro said:

The last so called dinosaur sightings were around the late-teen hundreds, some claim they still exist in uninhabited/unexplored areas, such as deep jungles etc.

Click to expand...

Can you provide sources on these, please? The last stories involving areas where dinos could live were Edgar Rice Burroughs and others in the late 1800s. But real dinosaur sitings? And none of the people had a gun to hand to shoot the think and bring the trophy back? What rotten luck!

You really can not just make statements like this as fact without providing back up support.

Tell you the truth, that is what I came across some time ago, forgot where I read that, sorry, I'll try to find out though.

lucaspa said:

From Cuozzo "Every cave that we visited and every decorated cave that the public is allowed to tour will "mammal" you to death. I mean all they will show you are mammals. This doesn’t mean that down some other passageway reptiles can’t be found. Where they take you there are no drawings or carvings of reptiles. It’s as reptiles never existed. We know that this is not true because we still have reptiles today. Snakes, lizards, turtles, alligators, and tuataras are all part of our modern fauna, but conspicuously absent from cave drawings. The cave painters and engravers surely had reptiles in their age."

Cuozzo apparently never noticed that the cave drawings are of prey animals. It never occurs to him that the large mammals are drawn because these are the animals hunted.

But, Pudmuddle, if mammoths are a "walking grocery" as you state, then Iguanodon is an even better grocery. And Iguanodon lived all thru Europe. So, why aren't there equal numbers of mammoth and Iguanodon pictures? Cuozzo's idea is that all the reptiles/dinos are in segregated areas down side passages? WHY?

Also, Cuozzo is looking at the the dirt thrown up by the several times DAILY use of the caves by internal combustion engines. He apparently doesn't consider that the cave art was done by one or two shamans only a couple of times a year or less. Only done when it was necessary to call the game when it had become scarce.

If Cuozzo makes dental diagnoses like he hypothesized here, I'd love to see what his malpractice insurance payments are! He must overlook hundreds of complications because he never considers alternate possibilities.

OTOH, it's possible that Cuozzo is very good at doublethink: he actually does make alternative hypotheses in his professional life but doesn't in his personal devotional life.

Click to expand...

I think it's more than a little insulting of you to attack the devotional life of someone you don't even know.

"MacDonald went back to college in his early 30's to complete a degree in geology while maintaining a family life with a wife and three children. Although he was first interested in seismology, a joint decision with his wife (who also wanted to go back to school) caused both of them to attend New Mexico State University (NMSU) in Las Cruces. NMSU lacked seismology in their department, consequently he switched to historical geology and paleontology, then went into science education."
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ENVS/research/ichnology/IN99-EARTH'~1.HTM

So, he has a degree in geology and as such is probably not a real scientist in your mind. Can one be a creationist and a paleontoligist?
Probably has a lousy devotional life, too
Last I knew Jerry Mcdonald was a old earth creationist. He wrote a rather lengthy book on the references to dinosuars in Job.

and then there is the red blood cells question:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325RBCs.asp

I would find it very difficult to believe that any Old Earth Creationist would believe that dinosaurs existed alongside humans. If you have any evidence of someone holding these two beliefs, I would like to see it. The reason you never see it is that the only ones who believe that dinosaurs lived alongside humans are those who insist that they must have lived within the last 6,000 years. I have never heard of anyone *not* bound and tied to that young earth philosophy believing in young dinosaurs.

pudmuddle said:

and then there is the red blood cells question:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325RBCs.asp

Click to expand...

What is very telling about that whole article is that the very first part of it involves an interview with the scientist who supposedly found the red blood cells, and he indicated most definitely that they were NOT red blood cells.

Alessandro said:

The last so called dinosaur sightings were around the late-teen hundreds

Click to expand...

Like lucaspa, I would like to see a source for this.

some claim they still exist in uninhabited/unexplored areas, such as deep jungles etc.

Click to expand...

If you're talking about Mokele-mbembe then I would like to hear your explaination as to how a whole population of sauropod dinosaurs could survive in a very dense jungle in the middle of the Congo without the governments of Congo or the Republic of Congo (that's the new name of Zaire, right?) knowing?

Also, of all the expeditions that have been sent to find it (many in the 1980's) the only evidence I've seen of it were a picture of a bump in a lake (which in itself negates the possibility of it being a sauropod) and a strange sound they recorded. Absolutely nothing convincing.

That is why it is still unclear.

I do believe that dinosaurs co existed with man, the Bible mentions creatures that resemble dinosaurs. Ancient Chinese cultures have so called dragons which are basically dinosaurs, just a different term used to describe them.

1. Are we sure that all dinosaurs laid eggs? How can we we possibly know? The assumption that they did falls apart.

For example, some snakes and salamanders bear live young. Why wasn't the same true about some dinos?

Let's be picky, It's true that dinos don't have navels. At this point all they have are bones. How do we know that they didn't have navels?

Concerning Job 40:16, the word "navel" is only found in the KJV. Is "navel" the best translation?

2. If we allow that leviathan and behemoth might be "garbled descriptions", again, why must they be garbled descriptions of today's animals? Why isn't the behemoth a garbled description of the apatosaurus?

3. Why aren't there paintings? a. Maybe there are, we just haven't found them (or are hiding them to suit our purpose). b. Maybe they eroded with time.

=========================
From another Christian observer, If the Bible says Jesus turned water into wine and sound science says that water does not become wine, whom do we believe?

"In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them..." Ex 20:11 (NASB)

But in the absence of any solid evidence *for* recent dinosaurs, why should we believe they existed?

Here is the real question: if you did not believe in a young earth, but instead believed in an old earth (billions of years), and were provided all the evidence we have today, what would you think most likely?

If you are honest with yourself, I am fairly sure you would have to say that you would believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and did not live recently. This means that the only reason you believe in recent dinosaurs is *because* you believe in a young earth, and so *must* believe that way. So, you don't have evidence on your side, you have a Biblical interpretation on your side which dictates your beliefs about God's Creation.

So, if your interpretation happens to be wrong, and the majority of Christians who believe in an old earth are correct, then all these other "dependent" beliefs are almost assuredly wrong as well.

bjh said:

1. Are we sure that all dinosaurs laid eggs? How can we we possibly know? The assumption that they did falls apart.

For example, some snakes and salamanders bear live young. Why wasn't the same true about some dinos?

Click to expand...

Since you later say that you think behemoth is an Apatosaurus I suppose I should break it to you that we have found sauropod eggs. Many of them. Also, I don't believe that the said snakes and salamanders have navels either.

Let's be picky, It's true that dinos don't have navels. At this point all they have are bones. How do we know that they didn't have navels?

Click to expand...

Why would they have navels? They grew up in eggs and hence had no umbilical cord. Now you're just making things up in order to protect your theory.

Concerning Job 40:16, the word "navel" is only found in the KJV. Is "navel" the best translation?

Click to expand...

Is "tail" the best translation? Anyway, some YECs (*cough* Hovind) say to read the KJV.

2. If we allow that leviathan and behemoth might be "garbled descriptions", again, why must they be garbled descriptions of today's animals? Why isn't the behemoth a garbled description of the apatosaurus?

Click to expand...

So it describes a sauropod even though it couldn't possibly be a sauropod? You're actually willing to go to these lengths in order to protect yourself from the possibility that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible?

1) Behemoth is said to have lived (or spent much of its time) in the water. The parts about the Jordan flowing in its mouth and about laying among the lotus flowers give this away.

2) Sauropods could not have possibly been aquatic. Sauropod teeth are completely inadequate for feeding on aquatic plants (they are peg-like), sauropods have feet inadequate for living on muddy earth (they are small and compact hence more mass per square inch), and, most importantly, sauropods would not have been able to breath if they stood in water (the water pressure would have kept their lungs from working; it's analogous to breathing through a hose from the bottom of a pool. Don't try it!)

3) Behemoth could not have been a sauropod. Very simple.

3. Why aren't there paintings? a. Maybe there are, we just haven't found them

Click to expand...

True, but then again there are also no records of dinosaurs living with man.

(or are hiding them to suit our purpose)

Click to expand...

Wow! And maybe the evidence falsifying God has been hidden by Christian scientists

See what this can lead to?

b. Maybe they eroded with time.

Click to expand...

But the mammoth ones didn't?

From another Christian observer, If the Bible says Jesus turned water into wine and sound science says that water does not become wine, whom do we believe?

Click to expand...

lucaspa has dealt with this idea several times in regard to the resurrection.

pudmuddle said:

I think it's more than a little insulting of you to attack the devotional life of someone you don't even know.

Click to expand...

Nice attempt to get around the point. Cuozzo is putting his personal devotional life out there for all of us to see; he makes it public! Looking at what Cuozzo makes public, it is obvious that he does not look for alternative hypotheses. You haven't disputed that. What I am wondering is whether Cuozzo does the same thing in his professional life as a dentist. I do know thru my teaching of medical doctors and dentists that making alternative hypotheses is essential to their professional success. It is when they do not make and look for alternative hypotheses in diagnoses and complications that they end up with cases in Morbitity and Mortality conferences.

So, you have it backwards. If I am attacking anything (which I'm not), it is Cuozzo's competence as a dentist.

"MacDonald went back to college in his early 30's to complete a degree in geology while maintaining a family life with a wife and three children. Although he was first interested in seismology, a joint decision with his wife (who also wanted to go back to school) caused both of them to attend New Mexico State University (NMSU) in Las Cruces. NMSU lacked seismology in their department, consequently he switched to historical geology and paleontology, then went into science education."
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ENVS/research/ichnology/IN99-EARTH'~1.HTM

So, he has a degree in geology and as such is probably not a real scientist in your mind. Can one be a creationist and a paleontoligist?

Click to expand...

We were talking about Cuozzo. Where did MacDonald come from?

Claims are taken one at a time. Someone on the other board posted a site where a team of creationists unearthed a very large hadrosaur (Edmontosaurus) and found skin impressions. I have no reason to doubt their paleontological skills or the validity of the hadrosaur skin impressions (especially since they correspond to skin impressions of hadrosaurs). So, the bones are from a very large hadrosaur and the skin had scales. Those claims are fine. The team also made separate claims about evolutionary relationships, namely, that evolutionists thought Edmontosaurus was an ancestor to birds. That claim is totally false.

Oh, I see, MacDonald is the guy who discovered tracks.

Pudmuddle, with all due respect, you need to learn to parse sentences better. Look up "parse" if it is not familiar to you. At the website it says
"His perseverance paid off, when, in June 1987, he uncovered one of the best collections (quantitatively and qualitatively) of Permian vertebrate tracks in the world."

This is not the same as saying he found the longest dino tracks ever.

So, we have separate claims: 1) whatever claims MacDonald made about the Permian tracks and 2) MacDonald's claims that Behemoth and Leviathan are dinos.

Now, what you are doing is using the Argument from Authority. I am supposed to believe MacDonald because he is a paleontologist. But that isn't how it works. Who he is isn't important; the important thing is what the data is.

Now, if you had read thru the book review a bit farther, you would have seen that MacDonald may have a couple of problems, both professional and personal as it relates to professional.

1 "Unfortunately, he does not include a bibliography of peer-reviewed literature dealing with professional appraisal of his discovered material."

This is professional in that it is poor scholarship.

2. "His self-professed sensitivity to criticism also highlights the importance to ichnologists (or scientists in general) to keep themselves separate themselves from the results of their work, a good reminder to all of us when we find ourselves feeling embattled over whether a worm turned one way or another 400 million years ago."

This is personal that affects his profession. It is also just what you are doing. MacDonald takes criticism of the results of his work as criticism of him as a person. I criticize Cuozzo for the results of his work -- failure to consider alternative hypotheses -- and you take that as criticism of Cuozzo as a person.

You must separate yourself from your ideas and methodology. Otherwise we end up fighting duels and never making any progress on sorting out reality.

Now, what we are discussing are two claims:
1. That the descriptions of behemoth and leviathan fit dinos or aquatic reptiles.
2. That the the pictures are really of dinos.

So far you haven't addressed any of my arguments concerning that.

I assume you will get to those eventually.

pudmuddle said:

and then there is the red blood cells question:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325RBCs.asp

Click to expand...

Every Christian should be deeply saddened at this article for the misreprentation by people who call themselves Christian.

What we have here are the people who actually did the work, looked at specimens trying to describe the specimens to people who have never looked at the specimens. And then the AiG people try to say that the scientists are lying! Because the truth upsets their misrepresentation and argument for young fossils.

Heme is a molecule comprising several 5-member rings (4 carbon and 1 nitrogen in each ring) with iron in the center. It is a relatively small molecule as biological molecules go, having a molecular weight of about 250. Go to http://wunmr.wustl.edu/EduDev/LabTutorials/Hemoglobin/MetalComplexinBlood.html and Figure 4 to see the heme group.

Figure 4 also shows the heme attached to the histidine residue of the protein. So, the protein can break down but the heme doesn't have to degrade. The covalent bonds of the atoms of the heme group are very stable. This means that it can persist for tens of millions of years if it is not exposed to highly acidic or basic conditions. After all, the carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen bonds in oil are stable for millions of years. Same bonds here.

1. Horner is right. Basic chemistry tells you that you can have heme groups but not intact red blood cells. You may have the fossilized RBCs and still have the heme present.

2. The immunologist is right. Heme itself is not going to be immunogenic. Every vertebrate species has it. However, when the protein broke down, the histidine and a couple of more amino acids attached to the histidine would have persisted. Now you have a different situtation. Those amino acids will give the heme a different 3D shape than current globins (which have a couple hundred amino acids). So, yes, I can easily see an immune response being mounted.

" To suggest that 3–4 amino acids may have given a response specific to that protein is mindblowing. There would have to be far more specificity (i.e. a specific sequence) than that."

He obviously hasn't heard of immune reactions to hyaluronic acid. HA is found in synovial fluid. It only has 2-3 amino acids attached. Yet these 2-3 amino acids are enough for chick HA to cause immune reactions in humans when chick HA is injected into the knee as Synvisc. Immune responses is one of the documented side effects of Synvisc.

First AiG misrepresents what the paper says. The scientists who wrote the paper try politely to correct them. Then AiG says that they are wrong. All the while AiG itself has never looked at the specimens or any other similar specimens .

Pudmuddle, you want me to believe MacDonald because he is the paleontologist. Yet here AiG won't believe the paleontologist or the immunologist.

Can you say i-n-c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-t?

bjh said:

1. Are we sure that all dinosaurs laid eggs? How can we we possibly know? The assumption that they did falls apart.

For example, some snakes and salamanders bear live young. Why wasn't the same true about some dinos?

Click to expand...

1. We've found eggs of many species of dinosaurs. Besides, to have a navel means having a placenta (the navel is when the umbilical cord is cut). Placentas are a mammalian feature.

2. When snakes and salamanders bear live young, it is simply because the eggs hatch within the body. No placenta. No navel.

Let's be picky, It's true that dinos don't have navels. At this point all they have are bones. How do we know that they didn't have navels?

Click to expand...

Discovery of dino eggs.

2. If we allow that leviathan and behemoth might be "garbled descriptions", again, why must they be garbled descriptions of today's animals? Why isn't the behemoth a garbled description of the apatosaurus?

Click to expand...

1. Because it doesn't fit it, either.
2. If you allow garbled descriptions, then you have two competing hypotheses with insufficient data. Neither can be shown to be wrong. Unless you can falsify that the descriptions do not apply to contemporary animals, you can't claim they are of dinos. You lose your evidence.

3. Why aren't there paintings? a. Maybe there are, we just haven't found them (or are hiding them to suit our purpose). b. Maybe they eroded with time.

Click to expand...

a. Who could be hiding them? Are we back to the whole conspiracy argument? Science isn't well-organized enough to have such a conspiracy. Besides, remember that at the time the cave paintings were first discovered -- early 1800s -- most scientists were creationists. They would have fit the theory.

b. Why only the dino pictures eroded with time and all the mammalian pictures survive? The pictures of mammals are all jumbled together -- elk and bear and mammoth. No segregation. Just all the large prey animals for humans put up together. So you wouldn't put up Iguanodon? If you hunt mammoths, then you certainly hunt Iguanodon.

From another Christian observer, If the Bible says Jesus turned water into wine and sound science says that water does not become wine, whom do we believe?

Click to expand...

I've dealt with this. This is based on a misrepresentation of what science is and how it works. Have you read my response? If so, then you know the answer. You have to show my answer to be wrong to continue to use the argument. If not, then read it. If you don't want to go back and read it, would you like me to deal with this here?

"In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them..." Ex 20:11 (NASB)

Click to expand...

That is an interpolation by the redactor of the Pentateuch. He inserted that so that the 6 day justification of the Sabbath in Genesis 1 (written after the original Exodus) would be inserted into Exodus to complete the justification. Take 20:11 out and see if the commandment of the Sabbath still works. It does.

lucaspa said:

Nice attempt to get around the point. Cuozzo is putting his personal devotional life out there for all of us to see; he makes it public! Looking at what Cuozzo makes public, it is obvious that he does not look for alternative hypotheses. You haven't disputed that. What I am wondering is whether Cuozzo does the same thing in his professional life as a dentist. I do know thru my teaching of medical doctors and dentists that making alternative hypotheses is essential to their professional success. It is when they do not make and look for alternative hypotheses in diagnoses and complications that they end up with cases in Morbitity and Mortality conferences.

So, you have it backwards. If I am attacking anything (which I'm not), it is Cuozzo's competence as a dentist.

Click to expand...

What hypotheses are we talking about? The cave drawings or something else?
Do evolutionists look at creationists alternatives to their veiws? I don't think so.
You have attacked Cuozzo multiple times, on every level.

lucaspa said:

We were talking about Cuozzo. Where did MacDonald come from?

Click to expand...

You asked who I was talking about. I'm providing the information you requested.

lucaspa said:

Claims are taken one at a time. Someone on the other board posted a site where a team of creationists unearthed a very large hadrosaur (Edmontosaurus) and found skin impressions. I have no reason to doubt their paleontological skills or the validity of the hadrosaur skin impressions (especially since they correspond to skin impressions of hadrosaurs). So, the bones are from a very large hadrosaur and the skin had scales. Those claims are fine. The team also made separate claims about evolutionary relationships, namely, that evolutionists thought Edmontosaurus was an ancestor to birds. That claim is totally false.

Click to expand...

We were talking about Cuozzo and Mcdonald. Where did all this come from?

lucaspa said:

Oh, I see, MacDonald is the guy who discovered tracks..

Click to expand...

I knew you'd figure it out eventually

lucaspa said:

Pudmuddle, with all due respect, you need to learn to parse sentences better. Look up "parse" if it is not familiar to you. At the website it says
"His perseverance paid off, when, in June 1987, he uncovered one of the best collections (quantitatively and qualitatively) of Permian vertebrate tracks in the world."

This is not the same as saying he found the longest dino tracks ever..

Click to expand...

Please excuse my ignorance. I was posting from memory. My answers here are mostly off the cuff. If I had time to look everything up, I'm sure I could present a better arguement, but alas, there are only so many hours in a day and I have more important things to do

lucaspa said:

So, we have separate claims: 1) whatever claims MacDonald made about the Permian tracks and 2) MacDonald's claims that Behemoth and Leviathan are dinos.

Now, what you are doing is using the Argument from Authority. I am supposed to believe MacDonald because he is a paleontologist. But that isn't how it works. Who he is isn't important; the important thing is what the data is..

Click to expand...

I never said you have to believe him. I'm just presenting the evidence that he is a paleontologist, because you said he was not a scientist.

lucaspa said:

Now, if you had read thru the book review a bit farther, you would have seen that MacDonald may have a couple of problems, both professional and personal as it relates to professional.

1 "Unfortunately, he does not include a bibliography of peer-reviewed literature dealing with professional appraisal of his discovered material."

This is professional in that it is poor scholarship.

2. "His self-professed sensitivity to criticism also highlights the importance to ichnologists (or scientists in general) to keep themselves separate themselves from the results of their work, a good reminder to all of us when we find ourselves feeling embattled over whether a worm turned one way or another 400 million years ago."

This is personal that affects his profession. It is also just what you are doing. MacDonald takes criticism of the results of his work as criticism of him as a person. I criticize Cuozzo for the results of his work -- failure to consider alternative hypotheses -- and you take that as criticism of Cuozzo as a person.

You must separate yourself from your ideas and methodology. Otherwise we end up fighting duels and never making any progress on sorting out reality.

Now, what we are discussing are two claims:
1. That the descriptions of behemoth and leviathan fit dinos or aquatic reptiles.
2. That the the pictures are really of dinos.

So far you haven't addressed any of my arguments concerning that.

I assume you will get to those eventually.

Click to expand...

Everyone takes criticism personally. Some just admit it. I'll get to them when I have more time.

Once again I present these two sites:

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/history/history.htm

I can guarantee you all one thing: if there was any credible evidence for the existence of dinosaurs in the last few thousand years, there would be a LOT of people besides creationists presenting the evidence. The fact that it is only those who *already believe* that dinosaurs recently existed who are finding the evidence (or interpreting the images) is telling.

Just like those who already believe in life coming from outer space believe the crop circles are real. They see the same evidence, but their preconceived belief so warps their judgment as to make them accept evidence that they would never accept, absent the belief. (This is not true of the scientific community as a whole for the reasons I set out in my "Problem with Creation Science" thread).

When the totality of the evidence is reviewed, the possibility that dinosaurs lived recently is so small (I would say non-existent, but I hate absolutes), that you would have to already believe the fact to believe it has been proven, if that makes sense.

My friend creationists are not the only ones supporting this kind of claim.

A Sumerian story dating back to 2000BC or more, tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.

That is one.