Evolution and you?

[Protoevangel]

I came in with an observation. Nothing anti-creationist about it. Then ArmyMatt and I got into a discussion. Clandestine might not have been the correct word to use, but in all reality I was trying to invoke humor to keep the mood as light as possible. However, claiming that all peer reviewers are pushing an agenda does still seem like one believe modern biology is of clandestine origins.

Well, they are pushing an agenda. An agenda they genuinely believe is right. I push an agenda as well, actually I push several. Me campaigning against abortion is not a conspiracy. Neither is the push for evolution to be taught in schools. I happen to respect what they are doing, while I disagree with it.

All I'm asking for is respect in the discussion, leaving behind the absurd conspiracy theorist claims. Believing differently, and wanting those beliefs to be spread, is not equal to a conspiracy theory.

I trust that you can grasp the difference.



I find your confusion of disagreement and lack of respect discouraging.[/QUOTE]
"Probably ok guys" does not in any way equate to respect for holiness.

 

[Dorothea]

dp

 

[Dorothea]

Many other creatures may be within this realm...be it with dragons or types of dinosaurs thought to be extinct. On Dinosaurs, some feel that the creatures went extinct--though I'm open to the fact that they could still be alive, with most dying out in the flood and others surviving still. There's still debate on whether the dinosaurs existed in this age or the age before the flood. From what I can see, in my understanding, I think dinosaurs existed in the age prior to the Flood and after...but in the age after the Flood, the environment may've been radically different and too much for the dinosaurs to really handle---thus causing their extinction. For those believing in a Global Flood, be it with large local floods happening worldwide/collectively covering the Globe or with the entire planet being covered in water, there's a view that the Ice Age happened after the Flood and the Dinosaurs passed away. For a good article on such, one can go online and investigate the following:

[/LIST]For those who are of the mindset that Dinosaurs died off long before the Flood ever occurred...and that its not necessary to look for evidence of them in the Bible in order to believe that they existed, they seem to have some valid nuggets of truth as well. For reference:

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I do think the large ones died out and some smaller ones survived, such as the ancestors of the crocodile and shark. Have there been human bones found in the location of where the dinos were? I haven't heard there were. I realize there were mammoths, though. I have seen the pictures, of course, of people hunting them. I understand they are the modern elephants' ancestors.

I can see the reasoning on your two paragraphs above. I'm open to that.

 

[Crawdad]

Well, they are pushing an agenda. An agenda they genuinely believe is right. I push an agenda as well, actually I push several. Me campaigning against abortion is not a conspiracy. Neither is the push for evolution to be taught in schools. I happen to respect what they are doing, while I disagree with it.

All I'm asking for is respect in the discussion, leaving behind the absurd conspiracy theorist claims. Believing differently, and wanting those beliefs to be spread, is not equal to a conspiracy theory.

I trust that you can grasp the difference.

I havn't even been talking about teaching evolution is public schools. Im simply talking about scientists adhering to the scientific method and peer review process. Just saying that scientists test in a manner that fulfills their preconceived notions rather than following the scientific method smells a lot like a conspiracy theory. Especially when presented with no evidence. If you have a better word for it then let me know and I will be happy to use it.

Again, I personally know conspiracy theorists. They call themselves conspiracy theorists. Thats not an insult. These people I know and respect (on everything except the conspiracy they are pushing). Chill out, broski.

"Probably ok guys" does not in any way equate to respect for holiness.

You are the fist person I have ever spoken to who considers "ok guy" an insult. If you dont see the humor in that then this conversation makes a lot more sense now.

"Ok guys" might not equate respect, but is doesnt equate disrespect, or lack of respect. I can venerate the saints and church fathers and still think they can be jerks. St. Constantine was a murderer after all.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

So animals evolved, humans never did...and we assume or know this how??? And how do we know the Fall changed anything about animals? And how do we know they are extinct primates, not a stage of evolution toward man? And if these primates were extinct, why do we not find more of them? Why do we find evidence of a lifeform far more advanced than simple primates today?

DNA sequencing from a 38,000-year-old bone fragment of a Neanderthal femur found in Crotia in 1980 showed Neanderthals and modern humans share about 99.5% of their DNA. Many Neanderthal excavation sites had simple tools, necklaces, hearths, and other very human objects that are hardly the trappings of extinct monkeys.

If the Lord used evolution to jumpstart man in his development from one form to another, I don't see how that would be a problem for the Biblical text when considering the ways that the Lord already showed ability to do so.


Others often trip over evolution simply because in their minds, they automatically equate any form of evolutionary theory to how agnostics/secular evolutionists see it...as if the world is simply NATURALISTIC and simply happening. But naturalistic evolution is foolish in light of the nature of the Lord.

God's hand involved always makes the difference. Lets assume that evolution is totally random. To we , who are fallible humans, it is completely random. But to God it's completely non-random..as He may've orchestrated something with a grander scheme in mind. And in our own terms, when He does do something we cannot explain, its a miracle.

Where I stand, considering all that we deem to be random in the cosmos....if it really is God intervening, then what we see as random, God sees as not so "random".

To us, it may've been spontaneous....and the way one thing jumped to another may make no natural sense to us--especially when it seems that the new creation has components involved that all needed each other to work perfectly.

But again, to God, its not some "random" gig.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I guess at this point I'm not willing to ignore these things and use Genesis, which was written many, many centuries (theoretically) after Adam and Eve, by Moses and his contemporaries. I have a tough time trusting Israelite scribes over science in matters of science. I just don't use the Bible as a science text and don't think it's prudent personally.

If I may say..

It seems safe to say thatall knowledge is not found in scripture. God's Word does not show ALGERBRA, Physics, Aeronautics or any other science we use today. Yet we know that the Word is not exhaustive on all issues. ...

As said best by another, “Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.” ( -Will Durant, US historian…1885 – 1981)..and it doesn’t seem as if we need to trip, as if anyone has gained the lock on truth….for we’re to be actively LEARNING as much as we may seek to be teaching…as “The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out.” ( Proverbs 18:15 ). The Bible is not God…nor does the Bible contain all of God’s knowledge. For while the Bible gives principles that apply to every situation, it does not explicitly give us all the information we need to daily live our lives. I think part of the problem is that some Christians take the saying “the Bible says it, that settles it, I believe it” to extremes.

Though the statement is absolutely true/should reflect how we view the Bible, God’s Word does not instruct us to abandon our brains or ignore our experiences. And when science confirms/harmonizes with what the Word says, there should be no issue..

Accepting scientific evidence that seems to support evolutionary thought doesn't mean that one must automatically be opposed to the Genesis Account of God creating all.

IMHO, the reality is that there is much info/evidence for evolution (IMHO) and believing such does not mean that one doesn't believe in the Scriptures....but rather that they simply feel that the Genesis account was explaninging things to people in their specific culture in terms they'd understand...and not all factors/info were exhaustively shown by the writers.

Nearly all Christians hold to the view of progressive revelation....meaning that God started simple w/ humanity and moved forward with more detail, knowing that certain things would need to be conveyed a certain way to get a job done. For some examples, consider how you talk to your children...or how I talk to my 5yr old sister in simple terms that she can understand and identify with. When my sister is 20yrs, of course it'd be insulting to speak to her as I do now when she's 5...as her understanding is more developed.

For another example......I recall an incident happening in another country--- South America, I believe....where there were doctors working with some primitive tribes who had a very high infant death rate. They tried to explain to the midwives how they needed to wash before assisting in a birth on account of germs. However, the people had no idea what they were talking about and would not heed the advice.

Finally, in desperation, they used the people's own spiritual outlook by telling them that by going through a special ritual of hand washing they would ward off the evil spirits that were causing the deaths of the infants. For that was something they could identify withj and it worked. Now, was it true in an absolute sense? Of course not....but nonetheless, it became a vehicle to get these people to do what they needed to do to save lives.

And likewise, so it can be seen with the scriptures. For Humanity was much younger when Genesis was written and did not have the benefit of thousands of years of change in their perspective. One often assumes that they would even understand or be helped what what concerned them by telling them the whole evolutionary story...but these people lived in constant fear of impending anarchy, invading armies, disease, starvation, weather, wild animals and many other dangers. Truly, they were far more at the mercy of the elements than you and I are.

The Story of Genesis tells the story of a God who was in complete control of all things...and things came about as a result of this God's power. God used their understanding of the world that was based on their observation of the world around them to teach them these things. What possible good would it have been to tell them things they could not possibly understand or relate to? That would hardly give them any sense of security in following this God. Look at your own life now. What you understand about God now and life with Him is going to be quite different to what you will know in 30 years. For God meets us where we're at, coming down to our level. And thus, the truths conveyed by the Genesis account are what we need to know and believe.

 

[Protoevangel]

I havn't even been talking about teaching evolution is public schools. Im simply talking about scientists adhering to the scientific method and peer review process. Just saying that scientists test in a manner that fulfills their preconceived notions rather than following the scientific method smells a lot like a conspiracy theory. Especially when presented with no evidence. If you have a better word for it then let me know and I will be happy to use it.

Again, I personally know conspiracy theorists. They call themselves conspiracy theorists. Thats not an insult. These people I know and respect (on everything except the conspiracy they are pushing). Chill out, broski.

Calling a conspiracy theorist a conspiracy theorist may not be an insult. Throwing it around on people who disagree with your conclusions, is. Any normally adjusted adult should be able to grasp that very simple concept without having to have it repeated to them ad nauseum.

You are the fist person I have ever spoken to who considers "ok guy" an insult. If you dont see the humor in that then this conversation makes a lot more sense now.

"Ok guys" might not equate respect, but is doesnt equate disrespect, or lack of respect. I can venerate the saints and church fathers and still think they can be jerks. St. Constantine was a murderer after all.

Highlight mine.

That's all I was saying. Veneration is not just something you do before an Icon. Any Orthodox should understand that.

Now do you really want to keep arguing? Because all you have to do is start showing a modicum of respect... Leave behind the "conspiracy theorist" claims... and I'm happy to forget this.

 

[Crawdad]

Calling a conspiracy theorist a conspiracy theorist may not be an insult. Throwing it around on people who disagree with your conclusions, is. Any normally adjusted adult should be able to grasp that very simple concept without having to have it repeated to them ad nauseum.

Throwing it around? I referred to the concept once and then explained, ad nauseum, exactly why I chose that phrasing. Again, if you have a better word Ill be happy to use it.

The bolded part is fantastic. "Throwing" around conspiracy theorists is a big deal but making snide and outlandish claims about psychology is like, totally not immature. Good one.

Highlight mine.

That's all I was saying. Veneration is not just something you do before an Icon. Any Orthodox should understand that.

Now do you really want to keep arguing? Because all you have to do is start showing a modicum of respect... Leave behind the "conspiracy theorist" claims... and I'm happy to forget this.

I do understand that, which is why I have respect fot the holy fathers.

Sir, you replied to me first. I didnt pick this argument. If you don't think I'm not being respectful enough for your taste then you don't have to speak to me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It leans heavily in evolutions favor because evolution is actual science, creationism is not.

Also, a theory and a law are not mutually exclusive. A law is simply a body of observations but doesnt explain why they happen. Theories are the explanation part of laws. We can observe that things adapt and change the theory of evolution explains, with evidence, why and how that happens.

Most people test with their conclusions in mind? Says who?

Yes, creationism is completely shot down to all those who dont push conspiracy theories.

yes you can observe adaptation, you cannot, however observe one species changing into another. you cannot prove or test that fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians into dinos, dinos to birds, etc.

people test with their minds made up ahead of time. when I look at the world, I don't see evolution the way you do, and I have a ton of buddies who try to show me that evolution works. it's the same thing when atheists see a miracle. since they already have it in their head that there is nothing supernatural, a supernatural reason for the miracle does not even enter their mind. this is how everyone thinks. evolutionists are just as biased and conspiratory as the rest of us.

so no, it is not shot down.

 

[Crawdad]

yes you can observe adaptation, you cannot, however observe one species changing into another. you cannot prove or test that fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians into dinos, dinos to birds, etc.

We have instances of observed speciation in bacteria, mosquitoes, and fruit flies.

Can you prove man evolved exactly how science thinks it does? No, I would gather in this juncture that it would be hard. But we certainly have evidence that it happened close to that way.

people test with their minds made up ahead of time. when I look at the world, I don't see evolution the way you do, and I have a ton of buddies who try to show me that evolution works. it's the same thing when atheists see a miracle. since they already have it in their head that there is nothing supernatural, a supernatural reason for the miracle does not even enter their mind. this is how everyone thinks. evolutionists are just as biased and conspiratory as the rest of us.

Thats not how peer reviewed tests are conducted. You do know that "evolutionists" come form all sorts of backgrounds, right?

so no, it is not shot down.

Ok, its not shut down, it just has zero scientific evidence.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I do think the large ones died out and some smaller ones survived, such as the ancestors of the crocodile and shark. .

Some other ones to consider would be the Komodo Dragon (deadliest lizard alive)--and other things such as deep sea fish of various kinds.

Have there been human bones found in the location of where the dinos were?

I haven't heard there were.

In 1971 a heavy equipment operator made a startling discovery in a layer of Dakota Sandstone which is part of the Lower Cretaceous strata. The Lower Cretaceous strata is known for its dinosaur fossils and according to the evolutionary time table and is supposedly 140 million years old. This is the same rock strata where numerous dinosaur fossils have been found at Dinosaur National Monument. The skeletons of ten perfectly modern human beings were found fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone. At least four of the individuals were female, one was an infant, and the rest were men. The amazing thing is that some the fossils were articulated or found in their natural body positions which indicates they were quickly buried by some sort of catastrophic flood and mud slide.

Additionally, ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and other such illustrations also have been found throughout the world that point to a time when dinosaurs and humans once roamed this Earth together. One cannot help but wonder, if they never did coexist (as evolutionists would have us believe), what logical explanation can be given for the existence of hundreds of dragon legends, and the thousands of artifacts that either describe or depict these creatures hundreds or thousands of years before modern man began learning about dinosaurs as a result of the fossil record.

Apart from that, the only thing that comes to mind is the accounts of what is known as Megalania..the largest prehistoric Monitor Lizard in existence...and still rumored to be alive in the Australian Bush.

Monsters we met: MEGALANIA​

That said, if I may say, I don't know if the question "Are human and dinosaur fossils found together" is always the best one to ask. The same goes for the question many ask when saying dinosaurs/humans couldn't have lived together when asking “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” .​

The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) ( see Andrew Snelling's book “Where are All the Human Fossils?,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 14[1]:28-33, December 1991-February 1992. p.g 30). Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. Perhaps it'd be good to see that the real question is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?,” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?” Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Consider: Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.​

I realize there were mammoths, though. I have seen the pictures, of course, of people hunting them. I understand they are the modern elephants' ancestors.

Giant Bears and Giant Sloths as well as Sabertooths are some of the other pictures involved as well....everything was massive back in the day.​

Turns out others are even saying that there's evidence for noting that Unicorns were descended from a species of Rhino​

I can see the reasoning on your two paragraphs above. I'm open to that​

Thanks for sharing the thoughts you did, as it gives much to think about...​

 

[ArmyMatt]

We have instances of observed speciation in bacteria, mosquitoes, and fruit flies.

Can you prove man evolved exactly how science thinks it does? No, I would gather in this juncture that it would be hard. But we certainly have evidence that it happened close to that way.



Thats not how peer reviewed tests are conducted. You do know that "evolutionists" come form all sorts of backgrounds, right?



Ok, its not shut down, it just has zero scientific evidence.

again, you cannot prove it, but you treat it as proven fact. I am not saying young earth creation should be taught in schools. you have evidence because that's how you chose to see what you are looking at. the day that a fly turns into something other than a fly randomly without man doing anything, is the day I will believe it.

that is how peer review is done when you are trained to think a certain way since birth, and any alternative equally unproven point of view is labeled as either false or stupid.

I am sure that a creation scientist finds plenty of scientiffic evidence to support what he/she believes.

 

[Crawdad]

again, you cannot prove it, but you treat it as proven fact. I am not saying young earth creation should be taught in schools. you have evidence because that's how you chose to see what you are looking at. the day that a fly turns into something other than a fly randomly without man doing anything, is the day I will believe it.

Im not treating it as fact. It could very well be proven wrong tomorrow. But with the loads of evidence it has thats not looking like its going to be that case.

that is how peer review is done when you are trained to think a certain way since birth, and any alternative equally unproven point of view is labeled as either false or stupid.

Trained to think a certain way since birth? What? Proto, I hope your are paying attention.

Let me explain how peer review works: You do a test that comes up with a conclusion. Say that boiling water kills bacteria. Then a peer (science guy) uses the same method to review your findings. If they conduct the same test in the same way, and recieve the same findings then it bolsters your hypothesis. If a huge chuck on the scientific community does the same thing then your hypotesis graduates to a theory and becomes valid. In other words, the whole point of peer review is to disprove the theory.

When you are mixing gasses together to see the result your childhood "training" doesnt even come into effect. A 7/8ths wrench only fits a 7/8ths nut no matter how you think babies are made.

No one has labeled anything creationists false, its just that creationists have not submitted anything that passes peer review.

I am sure that a creation scientist finds plenty of scientiffic evidence to support what he/she believes.

They try.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Im not treating it as fact. It could very well be proven wrong tomorrow. But with the loads of evidence it has thats not looking like its going to be that case.




Trained to think a certain way since birth? What? Proto, I hope your are paying attention.

Let me explain how peer review works: You do a test that comes up with a conclusion. Say that boiling water kills bacteria. Then a peer (science guy) uses the same method to review your findings. If they conduct the same test in the same way, and recieve the sdame findinings then it bolsters your hypothesis. If a huge chuck on the scientific community does the same thing then your hypotesis graduates to a theory and becomes valid. In other words, the whole point of peer review is to disprove the theory.

When you are mixing gasses together to see the result your childhood "training" doesnt even come into effect. A 7/8ths wrench only fits a 7/8ths nut no matter how you think babies are made.

No one has labeled anything creationists false, its just that creationists have not submitted anything that passes peer review.



They try.

right, so you say with your mouth it is not fact, but treat it as though it is. seems like a cop out to sound open minded.

I get how peer review works, but you cannot peer review macroevolution. you cannot peer review some fly evolving into anything other than a fly, like I said, when it happens, I will gladly concede.

there is no need for the sarcasm. you don't know what I have studied or have not, or why I have rejected anything you believe to be false.

 

[Crawdad]

right, so you say with your mouth it is not fact, but treat it as though it is. seems like a cop out to sound open minded.

I treat it as a theory with loads of evidence. Mainly because it is a theory with loads of evidence.

I get how peer review works, but you cannot peer review macroevolution. you cannot peer review some fly evolving into anything other than a fly, like I said, when it happens, I will gladly concede.

We have witnessed, in a lab, different species of flies evolve into different species of flies. You said you cant observe a species evolving into a different species. Its happened.

Macroevolution is not a scientific term.

Environments change and groups adapt to fit those environment. A group of animal- lets call them flurbs- exists on a island. This island gets flooded and it separates this group into two groups a thousand miles apart. So now we have flub A and flub B.

Flurb A's environment its hotter and wetter. Fub b's is colder and dryer. They each adapt differently. Over a long time and after different food sources rise and fall Flurb A and flirb B will have adapted to their respective environments so much that they cannot produce viable offspring with each other. Adaptation resulting in "macroevolution".

there is no need for the sarcasm. you don't know what I have studied or have not, or why I have rejected anything you believe to be false.

I wasnt being sarcastic.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I treat it as a theory with loads of evidence. Mainly because it is a theory with loads of evidence.




We have witnessed, in a lab, different species of flies evolve into different species of flies. You said you cant observe a species evolving into a different species. Its happened.

Macroevolution is not a scientific term.

Environments change and groups adapt to fit those environment. A group of animal- lets call them flurbs- exists on a island. This island gets flooded and it separates this group into two groups a thousand miles apart. So now we have flub A and flub B.

Flurb A's environment its hotter and wetter. Fub b's is colder and dryer. They each adapt differently. Over a long time and after different food sources rise and fall Flurb A and flirb B will have adapted to their respective environments so much that they cannot produce viable offspring with each other. Adaptation resulting in "macroevolution".



I wasnt being sarcastic.

yeah, but they are still flies, and humans guided the experiment. if it were too happen out there in nature, and a fly became something other than a fly, I would believe in a heartbeat.

I used macro because microevolution is observable and testable. no one denies that animals change to adapt ( like a ll the finches Darwin observed). where most folks like me take issue, is what I said before, changing randomly in nature from one thing to another. so when the fly becomes something other than I fly, I'll have no problem.

 

[Crawdad]

yeah, but they are still flies, and humans guided the experiment. if it were too happen out there in nature, and a fly became something other than a fly, I would believe in a heartbeat.

Yes, they were still flies, but different species of flies. You said that we cannot observe a species change into another species. Yet here we are, observing it. That was only one test. Mosquitos and bacteria (and I think beetles) were observed in nature.

I used macro because microevolution is observable and testable. no one denies that animals change to adapt ( like a ll the finches Darwin observed). where most folks like me take issue, is what I said before, changing randomly in nature from one thing to another. so when the fly becomes something other than I fly, I'll have no problem.

So what mechanism is in place that would stop a fly from becoming another something other than a fly?

 

[Dorothea]

Some other ones to consider would be the Komodo Dragon (deadliest lizard alive)--and other things such as deep sea fish of various kinds.

In 1971 a heavy equipment operator made a startling discovery in a layer of Dakota Sandstone which is part of the Lower Cretaceous strata. The Lower Cretaceous strata is known for its dinosaur fossils and according to the evolutionary time table and is supposedly 140 million years old. This is the same rock strata where numerous dinosaur fossils have been found at Dinosaur National Monument. The skeletons of ten perfectly modern human beings were found fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone. At least four of the individuals were female, one was an infant, and the rest were men. The amazing thing is that some the fossils were articulated or found in their natural body positions which indicates they were quickly buried by some sort of catastrophic flood and mud slide.

Additionally, ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and other such illustrations also have been found throughout the world that point to a time when dinosaurs and humans once roamed this Earth together. One cannot help but wonder, if they never did coexist (as evolutionists would have us believe), what logical explanation can be given for the existence of hundreds of dragon legends, and the thousands of artifacts that either describe or depict these creatures hundreds or thousands of years before modern man began learning about dinosaurs as a result of the fossil record.

Apart from that, the only thing that comes to mind is the accounts of what is known as Megalania..the largest prehistoric Monitor Lizard in existence...and still rumored to be alive in the Australian Bush.

Monsters we met: MEGALANIA​

That said, if I may say, I don't know if the question "Are human and dinosaur fossils found together" is always the best one to ask. The same goes for the question many ask when saying dinosaurs/humans couldn't have lived together when asking “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” .​

The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) ( see Andrew Snelling's book “Where are All the Human Fossils?,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 14[1]:28-33, December 1991-February 1992. p.g 30). Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. Perhaps it'd be good to see that the real question is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?,” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?” Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Consider: Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.
Giant Bears and Giant Sloths as well as Sabertooths are some of the other pictures involved as well....everything was massive back in the day.​

Turns out others are even saying that there's evidence for noting that Unicorns were descended from a species of Rhino
Thanks for sharing the thoughts you did, as it gives much to think about...​

Thanks for the info. I know lizards are ancient, and so what you said about the Komodo dragon doesn't surprise me. So, there is that question of the prehistoric animals living on earth after the Fall, then. There hasn't been evidence of any of the large, like T-Rex's living at that time when the human bones were discovered, was it? Also, was there dating on that that maybe the human bones found at that dino National Monument were at the same time or maybe later?

 

[Kristos]

Throwing it around? I referred to the concept once and then explained, ad nauseum, exactly why I chose that phrasing. Again, if you have a better word Ill be happy to use it.

The bolded part is fantastic. "Throwing" around conspiracy theorists is a big deal but making snide and outlandish claims about psychology is like, totally not immature. Good one.



I do understand that, which is why I have respect fot the holy fathers.

Sir, you replied to me first. I didnt pick this argument. If you don't think I'm not being respectful enough for your taste then you don't have to speak to me.

Welcome to TAW where the best way to illustrate your point is by making personal attacks against those who disagree with you! Enjoy

 

[Crawdad]

Welcome to TAW where the best way to illustrate your point is by making personal attacks against those who disagree with you! Enjoy

I hear sarcasm also works well.