Dinosaurs...?

[miamited]

Hi Greg,

I'm sure you find that a great video testimony to evolution. Guess what? All that is explained in your video that took billions of years, my God created near instantaneously. Each created as it's own kind.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

BTW, doesn't your mind ask even the easiest questions that arise from these 'facts'.

The vid opens with the statment that a 'simple chemical circumstance led to one of the great moments in the history of our planet'. Gosh, my mind just screams to me that if it was such a 'simple chemical circumstance', why can't we, educated with all the knowledge of generations of chemical engineers and university taught scientists, reproduce that 'simple chemical circumstance'. What is it about the opening claim of this vid that we seem so unable to reproduce? Of course, if we can't reproduce the 'simple chemical circumstance' how do we then lay the next building block of this tale? If we can't take these simple molecules that are attracted and repelled by water and reproduce that first step of life, then how do we then prove that they became oxygen breathing organisms? So, you see, sure if we delete the first claim we can believe all that follows, but we can't because all that follows rests on the foundation of the first 'fact'.

Is your mind really that simple that you can't see the glaring contradictions of this vid?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Greg1234]

Hi Greg,

I'm sure you find that a great video testimony to evolution. Guess what? All that is explained in your video that took billions of years, my God created near instantaneously. Each created as it's own kind.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I never said I believed in materialistic tenets or its animation. Darwinism itself has already been falsified but materialists can simply fall back into the belief that life can be generated randomly. However, instead of going back to using terms like "this arose randomly" they continue to use "this evolved."

 

[Greg1234]

BTW, doesn't your mind ask even the easiest questions that arise from these 'facts'.

The vid opens with the statment that a 'simple chemical circumstance led to one of the great moments in the history of our planet'. Gosh, my mind just screams to me that if it was such a 'simple chemical circumstance', why can't we, educated with all the knowledge of generations of chemical engineers and university taught scientists, reproduce that 'simple chemical circumstance'. What is it about the opening claim of this vid that we seem so unable to reproduce? Of course, if we can't reproduce the 'simple chemical circumstance' how do we then lay the next building block of this tale? If we can't take these simple molecules that are attracted and repelled by water and reproduce that first step of life, then how do we then prove that they became oxygen breathing organisms? So, you see, sure if we delete the first claim we can believe all that follows, but we can't because all that follows rests on the foundation of the first 'fact'.

Is your mind really that simple that you can't see the glaring contradictions of this vid?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Again, it's materialism's story. Organisms possess a program for limited adaptation using its reproductive faculties. Cars, though using a different method, employ the same principle- limited adaptation through an intelligent mechanism. So you could essentially make a vid for either system.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

And thank you for admitting that you manufactured the evidence you referred to in claiming:

"and - most damningly - these "footprints" were found among American Indian carvings."

Actually the article which provided the photos mentioned that:

The prints shown by Ingalls are also very similar to similarly styalized "human" prints from the neighboring state of Illinois, where they occur with many indisputed native American carvings (Wagner 2003)​

No the bible does not teach that all were vegetarians. But it does teach that death entered as a result of sin.

I didn't suggest all animals were herbivors before the Fall, Answersingenesis.com did. Death has been around since the begining of life too.

God will never die. In the first chapter we have the spiritual creation of life. There's no death there either. In the beginning of Genesis 2 you have man created from his spiritual basis and here he is immortal. This is due to him retaining core spiritual attributes while created in flesh.

You do realise we were originally talking about dinosaurs? Answersingenesis.com tried to answer the question "What lessons can we learn from Dinosaur?" The lesson (apparently) is that the dinosaurs died because of human sin:

When we see the bones of dinosaurs, we can be reminded that death was not a part of the original creation. Death is actually an intruder, entering when the first man disobeyed God. The Bible tells us that because we are all descendants of Adam, we too have sinned ... We can also be reminded that God, who made all things, including the dinosaurs, is also a judge of His creation. He judged Adam’s rebellion by cursing the world with death.​

-----------

So Chanya, if you reading this Creationists apparently think:

a) Humans lived along dinosaurs.
b) All dinosaurs ate plants - including ones such as T-rex, Allosaurus and veloceraptors.
c) They started eating each other because of the Fall, since eating meat is evil.
d) They died because of human sin. God judged the world and decided to wipe them out because humans are evil.
e) All of this is in the Bible.

Makes sense ...

 

[Biblewriter]

Actually the article which provided the photos mentioned that:

The prints shown by Ingalls are also very similar to similarly styalized "human" prints from the neighboring state of Illinois, where they occur with many indisputed native American carvings (Wagner 2003)​

I checked your link and saw that this was indeed in the article you linked to. But it was not in the original Scientific American article. The article you linked to does not even pretend to be a reproduction of the original article, although it refers to it and quotes a few excerpts from it. Instead, it was written in an attempt to discredit the original article. The author whose article you linked to (whose name is Glen J. Kuban) admitted that the original author (who was named Albert G. Ingalls) had stated that these prints "have been found in a number of states," Then quoted him as saying "from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains." But the writer of article you linked to admitted to having simply assumed that the photographs (which, by the way, did indeed come from the Scientific American article) were photographs of prints that occurred in Kentucky. Then he added the observation that "The prints shown by Ingalls are also very similar to similarly styalized "human" prints from the neighboring state of Illinois, where they occur with many indisputed native American carvings."

This is nothing more or less than an unethical attempt to marginalize the original article with assumed data that has zero basis in fact and zero significance, even if it were based in fact. For the "indisputed... carvings" he referred to did not even come from the same state as the location he assumed for the photographs. If you had read the article you linked to more carefully, I do not think you would have made the mistake of saying, "and - most damningly - these 'footprints' were found among American Indian carvings. Hardly evidence."

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The article you linked to does not even pretend to be a reproduction of the original article, although it refers to it and quotes a few excerpts from it. Instead, it was written in an attempt to discredit the original article.

Well yes, it's a rebuttal article, not the original. I'm not quite sure why they need one, considering it's quite obvious these aren't footprints.

The author whose article you linked to (whose name is Glen J. Kuban) admitted that the original author (who was named Albert G. Ingalls) had stated that these prints "have been found in a number of states," Then quoted him as saying "from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains." But the writer of article you linked to admitted to having simply assumed that the photographs (which, by the way, did indeed come from the Scientific American article) were photographs of prints that occurred in Kentucky.

Do you mean this?

Ingalls begins his essay by suggesting that prints "similar to those shown above" have been found in a number of states, "from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains." ... But again, no specific locality information, geologic data, or photos are provided for any of these sites, except for the photos at the beginning of the article, which apparently are from the Berea, Kentucky area.
​

The writer of the rebuttal article (Kuban) is questioning whether the Scientific American writer (Ingalls) had the either the right photos or the right location. If he didn't, then Ingalls - the man who assumes these are footprints - would be in the wrong.

This is nothing more or less than an unethical attempt to marginalize the original article with assumed data that has zero basis in fact and zero significance, even if it were based in fact.

Again, it's a rebuttal article. That doesn't make it unethical.

 

[Chanya]

So, it's very possible that the large dinosaurs were various kinds of reptiles who had just grown for hundreds of years.

And this is easier for you to believe than that dinosaurs really did live 65 million years ago? Which is more likely? Btw, the notion that dinosaurs are lizard belongs somewhere in the mid 20th century or earlier, and the notion that they are current lizards who got large by growing for hundreds of years is the most biologically insane statement I've ever heard in my life. Good luck with that fairly tale, let me know when you are ready to learn something about the real world and what dinosaurs really are/were.

 

[Biblewriter]

Well yes, it's a rebuttal article, not the original. I'm not quite sure why they need one, considering it's quite obvious these aren't footprints.



Do you mean this?

If you had read the article carefully, you woud know that this is true. The part you quoted says this. He has zero evidence for his assumption. That is what the word "apparently" highlighted ir boldface and red means. But he said it twice. The other place was "Evidently these represent the Kentucky prints most discussed in the article, although the captions do not indicate the site location." Here he explicitly says that he does not know that the photographs are of the Kentucky prints.

Ingalls begins his essay by suggesting that prints "similar to those shown above" have been found in a number of states, "from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains." ... But again, no specific locality information, geologic data, or photos are provided for any of these sites, except for the photos at the beginning of the article, which apparently are from the Berea, Kentucky area.
​

The writer of the rebuttal article (Kuban) is questioning whether the Scientific American writer (Ingalls) had the either the right photos or the right location. If he didn't, then Ingalls - the man who assumes these are footprints - would be in the wrong.


Again, it's a rebuttal article. That doesn't make it unethical.

Writing a rebuttal article is not unethical. But attempting to augment that rebuttal with data whose only basis for implying it is significant is an assumption, is scientifically unethical.
This led to your error of saying "and - most damningly - these 'footprints' were found among American Indian carvings." I am persuaded this non-fact was an idea intentionally planted in the minds of readers by the author of the rebuttal. That is why it was unethical.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

He has zero evidence for his assumption. That is what the word "apparently" highlighted ir boldface and red means. But he said it twice. The other place was "Evidently these represent the Kentucky prints most discussed in the article, although the captions do not indicate the site location." Here he explicitly says that he does not know that the photographs are of the Kentucky prints.

But again, IF the prints aren't from Kentucky this would be the fault of the Scientific American writer (Ingalls) rather than the fault of the rebuttal writer (Kuban). It would be Ingalls who failed to provide the correct data.

I think we're beating a dead horse here. It's quite obvious that the 'footprints' from either the 1940 Scientific American article or the Creation Museum are not actually human footprints at all. The only reason they were ever considered 'evidence' is because the rocks themselves were old - which isn't a very logical conclusion.

Or to put it another way, if I carved the initials "NSP" into a 500-year old tree, would this prove I am over 500 years old?

 

[KerrMetric]

I was precisely correct in stating that the underlying assumption of Carbon 14 dating is that the earth has always been receiving the same amount of cosmic radiation from outer space that it is now receiving. The basic assumption is that the fraction of atmospheric carbon that is the Carbon 14 isotope is constant. But that basic assumption has an underlying assumption that is not necessarily correct.

Here is one word for you - CALIBRATION.

 

[Papias]

Biblewriter wrote:

But the evidence I did give is overwhelming evidence that men and dinosaurs once cohabited this earth. You claim this evidence has been debunked. I answer that the video that I posted successfully debunks this alleged debunking.

Um, no, the video is the same type of special pleading seen over and over on the paluxy tracks. NSP has done a good job of helping to explain why the features you have mentioned can't be claimed to be footprints. Not only have many experts looked at these and all concluded that they are dinosaur tracks, but even AnswerSINgenesis agrees they are dinosaur tracks. That's because they've recognized that a creationist touting these clear and obvious hoaxes is an embarrassment to the person making the claim, as well as both Christianity and creationism.

Dinosaur pursuit?

You hammer is a well known, laughable hoax too:


Here is a discussion of the evidence.

The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact


As before, even creationsits agree that the evidence shows that it's just a recently made hammer.

We know that there was a different Carbon 14 fraction in the atmosphere some time ago because Carbon 14 dating begins to differ significantly from tree ring dating on wood that is more than about three thousand years old.

As Kerrmetric (who actually understands this stuff) already pointed out, C-14 is reliable because it has proven itself reliable in thousands of tests, after being first calibrated. You can see this yourself in the graph here. Here it is, showing that carbon-14 is confirmed, in sample after sample, by many different tests, including tree rings, coral, formenifera, etc.

Biblewriter, I'm glad that we agree on the overall age of the earth.

Anyone how doubts the reliability of the dating methods needs to answer this question:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"

Papias

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Mod Hat On

This thread is closed by request of the OP