Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[Subduction Zone]

Oh that's not the only issue. But it's all connected. And you aren't listening. They constantly found human bones in the same strata as australopith bones. They obviously didn't pre exist man, they existed at the same time. Johanson claimed his afarenisis species was extremely sexually dimorphic which he basically just made up to make his ideas work.

Senut and Tardieu see two forms of locomoter anatomy in the knees and elbows and favor a genetic separation of the Hadar find into two groups.

Afarenisis is probably a mixed hypodigm, and an invalid taxon.

Citation needed. That would have made international news. I am predicting you cannot support that claim either.

Until you have something more than just stories that you appear to have made up Lucy is scientific evidence for evolution. You have no response to that fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm giving you the real story, not the one we are fed by the media.

No, you appear to have gotten your stories from liars and you believed them. Once again, links or it did not happen. If you link to a known lying source you will just be laughed at.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Well, my money is with Peleg, but that article is certainly a convincing one.

Either way, in Noah's time or in Peleg's time, the earth was broken up into continents.

Yes or even around 300 million years ago?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes or even around 300 million years ago?

Not exactly.

If one year of earth's existence in the Bible is the equivalent of 2,290,456 years in the modern classroom, then 300 million years ago would be the equivalent of the year 1890.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Not exactly.

If one year of earth's existence in the Bible is the equivalent of 2,290,456 years in the modern classroom, then 300 million years ago would be the equivalent of the year 1890.

If that was true, sure. Also, if the core of the Earth was made of milk chocolate it would taste sweet!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Citation needed. That would have made international news. I am predicting you cannot support that claim either.

Until you have something more than just stories that you appear to have made up Lucy is scientific evidence for evolution. You have no response to that fact.

Nevertheless it’s still inconclusive evidence. At best it’s a wild hypothesis

 

[AV1611VET]

If that was true, sure. Also, if the core of the Earth was made of milk chocolate it would taste sweet!

We'd never know.

We'd die of solar radiation before we even had a chance to begin to find out.

But, yes.

If the core of the Earth was made of milk chocolate, it would taste sweet.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nevertheless it’s still inconclusive evidence. At best it’s a wild hypothesis

People don't really make theories based on one skeleton. For example, Lucy is really just one individual of a population of other "Lucy's", of literally hundreds of other fossil Lucy's that have been discovered to date. Lucy was the first one found, but hundreds of others of her same species have since been found which have allowed for an establishment of her species.

Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program!

But more of a larger picture goes beyond just Lucy with a fossil succession of trillions of fossils.

What is the creationists explanation for the fossil succession?

I asked av a question earlier and I could ask it here today, for people who reject evolution, why are dinosaurs only found in the Mesozoic and not the Paleozoic or cenozoic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nevertheless it’s still inconclusive evidence. At best it’s a wild hypothesis

It is only one of millions of pieces of evidence that support the theory of evolution. If that is all that we had yes then it would be a "wild hypothesis", but it isn't. The evidence for evolution is endless and it is the totality of the evidence that is used to judge whether an idea is valid or not. It is never based upon just one piece of evidence. Unfortunately for creationists the scientific evidence supports only the theory of evolution.

This is where creationists fail the honesty test. The definition of scientific evidence is very clear. It is very rational. It is very easy to understand. And it is very easy to see that there is scientific evidence for evolution. When a creationist cannot admit that observations that do follow the rules for evidence are evidence for the theory of evolution they lose the debate.

And the lack of scientific evidence for creationism is largely due to the cowardice of creation "scientists". It is rather hard to call someone a scientist when they do not follow the scientific method. The bar for scientific evidence appears to be rather low. But creationists cannot even get over that low hurdle. The first thing needed for scientific evidence is a testable hypothesis. That is a way of "putting one's money where one's mouth is". Scientists have to be so sure of their ideas that they are willing to put them to the test. The test must be based upon the merits and claims of the hypothesis, not of the supposedly perceived failure of the idea of someone else. In other words claims (which usually turn out to be false) about evolution are not evidence for creationism. It has to be judged on its own merits. That is because even if evolution is wrong that does not make creationism right.

So if you want scientific evidence for your biblical beliefs you first must find a way to test those beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

... why are dinosaurs only found in the Mesozoic and not the Paleozoic or cenozoic?

Joe: If ten thousand people work in this ten-story building, why are accountants only found on the third floor?
Tom: That's where their offices are.
Joe: But you'd think you'd see one on another floor from time to time, wouldn't you?
Tom: Out of ten thousand people?

 

[Frank Robert]

No it just depends on if you know the definition of the Hebrew word shanah and the form that was used in the scriptures for the genealogies.

One does not need to be a biblical scholar to know that there are varying interpretations among Hebrews and Christians, and many Jews accept the theory of evolution as compatible with traditional Judaism.

 

[MIDutch]

Nevertheless it’s still inconclusive evidence. At best it’s a wild hypothesis

To you and the tiny fraction of people (a minority even among Christians) who are creationists.

The vast majority of the world (including most Christians) who know about Lucy and understand evolution think differently.

 

[Frank Robert]

What is the creationists explanation for the fossil succession?

I've heard the creationist claim to have the same facts but different interpretation.

 

[MIDutch]

Joe: If ten thousand people work in this ten-story building, why are accountants only found on the third floor?
Tom: That's where their offices are.
Joe: But you'd think you'd see one on another floor from time to time, wouldn't you?
Tom: Out of ten thousand people?

If creationists ever did any actual scientific research, maybe they'd find that one example that falsifies the Theory of evolution.

150+ years later and still nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Joe: If ten thousand people work in this ten-story building, why are accountants only found on the third floor?
Tom: That's where their offices are.
Joe: But you'd think you'd see one on another floor from time to time, wouldn't you?
Tom: Out of ten thousand people?

A poor analogy results in another self refutation. Nice job AV, or should I say Genghis since that is your preferred appellation today?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've heard the creationist claim to have the same facts but different interpretation.

That is their claim. But there are rules in the sciences. To have scientific evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis. I have yet to see a proper testable hypothesis by creationists that has not been already refuted. Do you know of any?

 

[MIDutch]

I've heard the creationist claim to have the same facts but different interpretation.

And if they don't then sometimes they just fabricate "the facts":

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

 

[AV1611VET]

If creationists ever did any actual scientific research, maybe they'd find that one example that falsifies the Theory of evolution.

That's an honor reserved for Jesus, when He comes back and sets up His kingdom.

In the meantime, we can't falsify events that never happened.

It would take someone with the ability to take us back in time and show us what really occurred, as it occurred.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have yet to see a proper testable hypothesis by creationists that has not been already refuted. Do you know of any?

I sure don't know of any.

But I know Who does.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if they don't then sometimes they just fabricate "the facts":

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

As opposed to "facting" a fabrication?

Nebraska Man - Wikipedia