Man and dinosaur coexisting

[kk4mds]

This is not going to be very in depth. (Father of two little boys)

The myth of evolution has been used to promote the belief that man and dinosaur lived millions of years apart. It's my opinion that the bible clearly teaches that we both lived together. (Job 40:15-24) and (Job 41:1-34). And the evidence we find today very strongly supports that the bible is correct as usual. It's important to remember that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't even discovered until the 1800's. And if that's the case then why does pretty much every culture in the world have legends of great dragons? I wanted to post about all the evidence that supports man and dinosaur coexisting. It's my view that man and dinosaur lived together before and after the great flood. But eventually died off because of climate change do to the great flood and being hunted by man.

Ancient evidence:
Remember what I said before, that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't discovered until the 1800's. So then why are there so many ancient carvings and art depicting what are clear images of dinosaurs hundreds to thousands of years before the first fossil discovery? Even some including man riding on the backs of dinosaurs.

I don't have the time to talk about each one of these pictures but I assure you every one of these is from before the first fossil was discovered.

Soft tissue:
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty. They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.
It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.

Would love to here people views. Again sorry this isn't nearly as in depth as I would have wished. Got two children under 5 and a wife at work.

Evolution is, of course, not myth, but science based on observation an logic. Like every other facet of science it is subject to continual scrutiny in efforts to invalidate it as a theory.

The citations from Job could refer to several animals extant at that time. However, it must be remembered that Tanakh was never meant to be either a history book nor a science book. While some of the stories may be based on actual events, it does not matter and is, at best, historical fiction used to teach a lesson, ala Aesop, but much more profound. The moral and ethical teachings are valid, as is the science of today.

In the 13th century, Rambam, revered as one of the greatest of biblical scholars, wrote, "You will certainly not doubt the necessity of studying astronomy and physics, if you are desirous of comprehending the relation between the world and Providence as it is in reality, and not according to imagination." The short version is that there is no conflict between science and belief in G-d nor between science and what G-d teaches us.

By the way, I would be interested in the sources of the pictures that you posted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

what on earth ? You main point in that post was.

""Maybe you could actually say what scientific evidence all scientists all over the world are missing when they look at the evidence and data that tells them world is over 4.5 billion years old when it should be 6000 years old.""

I'm pointing out that the main scientific consensus can be wrong
And I gave you and example of the majority of scientists being wrong. That is on topic of what you said. LOL

No, it isn't. Pointing out that something CAN wrong, doesn't mean it IS wrong. Big difference.

 

[dougangel]

Evolution is, of course, not myth, but science based on observation an logic. Like every other facet of science it is subject to continual scrutiny in efforts to invalidate it as a theory.

The citations from Job could refer to several animals extant at that time. However, it must be remembered that Tanakh was never meant to be either a history book nor a science book. While some of the stories may be based on actual events, it does not matter and is, at best, historical fiction used to teach a lesson, ala Aesop, but much more profound. The moral and ethical teachings are valid, as is the science of today.

In the 13th century, Rambam, revered as one of the greatest of biblical scholars, wrote, "You will certainly not doubt the necessity of studying astronomy and physics, if you are desirous of comprehending the relation between the world and Providence as it is in reality, and not according to imagination." The short version is that there is no conflict between science and belief in G-d nor between science and what G-d teaches us.

By the way, I would be interested in the sources of the pictures that you posted.

http://larshaukeland.com/bits-pieces/scientific-articles/ancient-dinosaur-depictions/

 

[Calminian]

Evolution is, of course, not myth, but science based on observation an logic. Like every other facet of science it is subject to continual scrutiny in efforts to invalidate it as a theory.

Ray Comfort blew this notion out of the water. Here Ray goes to the UCLA and the USC campuses to interview science majors and professors. Turns out they couldn't name a single instance where evolution is observed. It's hilarious. The fact is, these evolutionists are as religious as anyone else.

The citations from Job could refer to several animals extant at that time. However, it must be remembered that Tanakh was never meant to be either a history book nor a science book. While some of the stories may be based on actual events, it does not matter and is, at best, historical fiction used to teach a lesson, ala Aesop, but much more profound....

What animals extant during that day would fit the descriptions, though? You have a tail like a tree on an vegetarian animal, who could cross raging rivers, and roam to the mountains to eat. That excludes every modern animal to be sure.

In the 13th century, Rambam, revered as one of the greatest of biblical scholars, wrote, "You will certainly not doubt the necessity of studying astronomy and physics, if you are desirous of comprehending the relation between the world and Providence as it is in reality, and not according to imagination." The short version is that there is no conflict between science and belief in G-d nor between science and what G-d teaches us.....

And, if I'm not mistaken, Rambam believed in literal creation days.
Creation Days and Orthodox Jewish Tradition

And BTW, this argument you're using above can also be used to argue against the Resurrection. Do you side with modern medical science, and deny the Resurrection? At least a "literal" Resurrection?

 

[USincognito]

What???

Obviously the Taung child died before sexual maturity. Is that your point?

Gary, you've been doing this longer than any of us and are fully aware of how much semantics and word twisting pays a role in the Creationist debate arsenal. That's why I noted that I hate "all fossils are transitional" without context.

Getting back to Taung, as I said, his specimen is a transitional fossil because he comes from a transitional population and his particular fossil meets the criteria for transitional that most people are talking about when they use that appellation - exhibiting the characteristics of two taxa above the species level.

Individuals can then represent transitional populations and have defined transitional characteristics, but don't represent a transitional themselves because they died before sexual maturity or, in the case of some populations, went extinct. There really are no transitional late-Cretaceous sauropods for example.

That's all I'm saying. A little bit of context to preemtively cut off tired and insipid Creationist retorts like "you can't know if that individual reproduced", etc.

 

[USincognito]

You do realise scientists can be wrong ?

Yeah, but here's the thing about evidence for an old earth and deep time - there has never been a revision downward. Every refinement of our knowledge has increased the age of the earth to where it is now about 4.5 billion. There is ZERO indication from anything we have ever known about anything ever that we would suddenly realize we've been wrong about it by six orders of magnitude.

 

[Calminian]

I think the author of this thread needs to read a biblical scholar commentary of Job! Literalising biblical metaphors never gets you anywhere. Leviathan and Behemoth are symbols of the destructive chaos in nature. They represent the mystery of when God lets nature go "bad", and the immense power of both beasts and storms and the chaos of the sea. They're symbols. Images. Emotion generating pictures of power and chaos. Not literal! I wish Christians would stop coming to the bible with some kind of post-Darwin paranoia, with creationist-glasses on, skimming through the bible and plucking bits of it out of context, out of good hermeneutics, out of history, and just suddenly twisting words to say what they *think* it means to support their whacko, anti-science positions.

So you think you have better hermeneutics because you conclude Leviathan and Behemoth were metaphors, while all the other animals listed before them were literal? That's seems a very difficult argument to make. Most commentators who commented on these passages concluded they were real animals, regardless of what typological message they were being used for.

Also, regarding the scholars, what view of creation are they starting with when they approach the text? This is extremely important, since they may be opening the text with a bias of evolutionary timelines. Henry Morris pointe out that many of these scholars had to preclude dinosaurs as an explanation, not because of the text itself, but because of their expectance of millions of years.

 

[Calminian]

Yeah, but here's the thing about evidence for an old earth and deep time - there has never been a revision downward. Every refinement of our knowledge has increased the age of the earth to where it is now about 4.5 billion. There is ZERO indication from anything we have ever known about anything ever that we would suddenly realize we've been wrong about it by six orders of magnitude.

Yeah, but isn't that merely because the same old assumptions of anti-supernatalism haven't changed? If you think about it, science, as a basic practice, must assume the absence of a non-uniform creative act in the past. It's kind of like the wine that Jesus created. It would have been assumed to be old by an atheist observing the finished product. Base on his anti-supernatural beliefs, he would have to assume all the eye-witnesses were lying, and the wine was made naturally.

There's no way for science to detect creative miracles in the past. It must assume they didn't happen. But assuming something didn't happen isn't proof it didn't happen. And there's no way to scientifically test for the existence of miracles. Even if one were directly observed, it would have to be classified as an anomaly, not a break in natural law.

You have to admit, it's a very tricky subject. Even Hume, to my knowledge never attempted to use science to disprove miracles.

 

[USincognito]

Ray Comfort blew this notion out of the water. Here Ray goes to the UCLA and the USC campuses to interview science majors and professors. Turns out they couldn't name a single instance where evolution is observed. It's hilarious.

Not as hilarious as the rubes who take Bananaman and his ambush "interviews" seriously. He didn't ask them for "instances of evolution" (whatever that means). He asked for "changes between kind" which is nonsense and why everyone asked was taken aback.

 

[USincognito]

Yeah, but isn't that merely because the same old assumptions...

Assumptions! POOF!

 

[James1985]

While I unfortunately don't have time to read all 17 pages of this thread (wish I had caught it much earlier) I feel I should point out that this whole initial conversation/debate could have been resolved much more quickly; the reason being, the whole initial premise is just flat-out, undeniably wrong.

Ancient evidence:
Remember what I said before, that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't discovered until the 1800's. So then why are there so many ancient carvings and art depicting what are clear images of dinosaurs hundreds to thousands of years before the first fossil discovery?

The first dinosaur fossils were not discovered in the 1800's, but during a time when the victors of wars were determined by who carried a bigger stick. The 1800's were just when modern Palaeontology started and fossils were officially recorded, categorized, and studied under a formalized scientific system.
I personally went canoeing through an 80 mile stretch down the South Saskatchewan River; mostly through Alberta and ending in the province of Saskatchewan. During the 3 or 4 areas we landed and set-up camp in the desert, we hiked-out just a couple miles into the desert mountains where I personally found (and kept a few) countless dinosaur fossils, and even found an entire, large, fully-formed dinosaur skeleton in a rock-bed wall.

The fact is, if I can walk 2 or 3 miles into the desert and find fully-formed skeletons of giant dragon-like creatures, obviously any primitive people could too. It's simply impossible that "dragon skeletons" weren't found thousands of times by people all over the world, and viola:
Swift Eagle: "Hey Running Bear, look, I found a dead dragon beast!"
Running Bear: "By the great mountain spirits, I wonder the live ones are hiding!?!?"

 

[Shemjaza]

Ray Comfort blew this notion out of the water. Here Ray goes to the UCLA and the USC campuses to interview science majors and professors. Turns out they couldn't name a single instance where evolution is observed. It's hilarious. The fact is, these evolutionists are as religious as anyone else.

You'll excuse me if I'm dubious of any interview Ray Comfort posts:

That's completely separate from the fact that vague terms like "Kind" are nonsense at best and dishonestly begging the question at worst.

 

[Hoghead1]

Much depends on what you mean by observations, US. More than one laboratory experiment has been done where evolution has been artificially created in the lab. I can send you some references if you want. Since I didn't see the interview,I don't know what was said. I know many anti-evolution keep insisting evolution is invalid because it cannot be observed. Well, when you look at the fossils, these are actually snap shots of evolution. If your honest about your own experience of yourself, you will find you are in continual evolution. moment to moment you are a new person. The self is the name for a society of perishing occasions. Of course, someone might argue al you are experiencing here is micro-evolution. But I say that is still evolution and you directly experiencing it. And it is arbitrary to stop this process of change at some arbitrary point and say there is no way one species can change so much that it becomes another species. It's always interesting to me how anti-evolutionary people try and invalidate evolution because they claim no one can observe it and then turn around and insist as indisputable fact God created the world in six days, when their is absolutely no way any one ever directly observed that, either.

 

[JacksBratt]

Then what processes aren't chemical?

Life is not chemical. It requires chemical, physical and biological components in place to function.

With life we cannot create it. Life is not quantifiable. It is a force that man enjoys while it is here and we mourn when it is gone. It is a gift from the creator and we only have it for so long.

That just means that we lack the chemical tools to create life. There was a time that we couldn't produce lightning, but now we can. Did that mean that lightning used to be magic, but became physics after that?

We lack the chemicals tools to create life? Tell me what chemical difference is there between a living and dead amoebae or any organism. We lack the spiritual power and authority to create life or control it in any way. We could have a perfectly healthy organism with all the necessary components to live and still lack the ability to bring it to life.
It is arrogant to believe otherwise.

Comparing life to lightening is just a perfect display of your lack of understanding of the magnitude of the difference between the two. Like an earthworm trying to understand calculus.

You are using an argument from ignorance, a very popular argument among theists as of late.

So I am ignorant to believe that we will never create life from no life? Or is it the people who believe that they will some day grasp the knowledge and ability to create the most precious and powerful force in the universe. This is a power that only God has. It is arrogant to believe that we will ever come remotely close to this ability.

 

[JacksBratt]

I try not to deal in universal negative claims. Especially ones without any support.

Show me when man creates life from a non living material and I won't be negative. Can you jump to the top of the empire state building.... nope. That is negative and true. It would also be easier for you to do that feat than it would to create life.

Polymerase chain reaction. It's used like every day in DNA labs all across the world.
Protein Chemical Synthesis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2845543/

No,no, no... you cannot cheat. You need to start with the raw materials. Like building a car with a lump of iron ore, some chalcopyrite, galena, graphite ore, petroleum products, bauxite, and other raw materials. Not starting with some tires, an engine, wires and a chassis and motor train. Your getting a head start that was not afforded to "Mr. I'm the first life form" that formed by accident in this puddle.

We know how stars work, yet we have yet to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction here on earth.

And, we know how wood burns, ice forms, rain forms, gills work, kidneys work, even conception... Yet we don't know how to create life from non life. You have just described a nuclear reaction which pales in comparison to creating life.

No, I was hoping to educate you. You should know by now (if you have been involved in the creation/evolution debate for any length of time that evolution is NOT abiogenesis.)

But I already told you that I know that evolution avoids the real "ORIGIN" of all species. You tell me this animal came from that animal that came from this animal and so on and so on. UNTIL the very first living organism. Then you state "well, no we don't deal with where that guy came from....but the second one came from him yep yep it sure as shoot'n came from him, where ever he came from... but that's not our problem."

Based on what you said in your previous post, you DO.

A Punjab tribe warrior can go his whole life and not know where life came from . Knowledge of the origin of life is not a perquisite for living life. The fact that my belief has a premise for the origin of all life only gives it integrity. Having a theory of how all species got here with out any idea, claim or even desire to explain how organism number one came to be, shows total lack of integrity. Like I said, You puff up your chest and state "we know where the origin of species came from" AH ya starting at organism number TWO.

What area?

Oh. So now you hit me with evolutionist question number 673-4B Where your opponent tells you that they also have training in Science and you want to find out which discipline, level of education or how many letters they have after their name. This is so your answer can be the standard "well your discipline of science is not adequate enough to deal with the complexities of evolutionary physics, biological complexities or chemical reactions". Then right me off as a non expert and thus not qualified to be your opponent in the argument.

Let's just say that I apply chemical, physical and thermodynamic principals to various sample types in test work as part of a research team.
I don't ask such questions as I don't care what your discipline is as it is totally unimportant to the argument or your ability to argue and debate any subject.

 

[JacksBratt]

Much depends on what you mean by observations, US. More than one laboratory experiment has been done where evolution has been artificially created in the lab. I can send you some references if you want. Since I didn't see the interview,I don't know what was said. I know many anti-evolution keep insisting evolution is invalid because it cannot be observed. Well, when you look at the fossils, these are actually snap shots of evolution. If your honest about your own experience of yourself, you will find you are in continual evolution. moment to moment you are a new person. The self is the name for a society of perishing occasions. Of course, someone might argue al you are experiencing here is micro-evolution. But I say that is still evolution and you directly experiencing it. And it is arbitrary to stop this process of change at some arbitrary point and say there is no way one species can change so much that it becomes another species. It's always interesting to me how anti-evolutionary people try and invalidate evolution because they claim no one can observe it and then turn around and insist as indisputable fact God created the world in six days, when their is absolutely no way any one ever directly observed that, either.

First:
If I took 100 snapshots, just random shots, angles and subject matter, of a football game or basketball game or any event, could you tell me, 100% for sure the score at the end of those games? Who won, who was injured and how?

Secondly:
If, moment by moment I am a new person, what part of me is my character and personality. They say every cell in our body is replaced in a six month period (we'll go with that as I've heard different time frames) So, how can I still be the same person if my total body is different. Does this not necessitate a spirit or soul?

Thirdly: Does that fit the definition of evolution? My body changing constantly? Not only am I still the same species but I am the same organism. What has evolved?

Fourthly: Your statement of nobody observing creation while we state that nobody observed evolution. Doesn't that just back up the fact that both are based on faith?

 

[cifi]

First:
If I took 100 snapshots, just random shots, angles and subject matter, of a football game or basketball game or any event, could you tell me, 100% for sure the score at the end of those games? Who won, who was injured and how?

You're right! Scientists are still debating exactly how player A got hurt, and if player B really was responsible for the winning goal.

What they're not debating is what type of game was played, you can clearly identify this as "football" from the 100 snapshots. We know this because we can see how many individuals there are because they all have unique numbers and can be accounted for. We can see the type of ball, the arrangement of the goal posts, etc. That's a lot of information, enough to conclude it's football.

What you're trying to say is - if player A was injured by a tackle and not a sprained ankle - we should throw out the entire notion that a football game was even played! Maybe we're wrong! Maybe it's basket ball!!

Secondly:
If, moment by moment I am a new person, what part of me is my character and personality. They say every cell in our body is replaced in a six month period (we'll go with that as I've heard different time frames) So, how can I still be the same person if my total body is different. Does this not necessitate a spirit or soul?

"I can't understand it, therefore it's magic."

Over six months I replace each part of my Ridgeback 29" Mountain Bike. When I'm done it still has all the features it did before. Must be magic!

If your memories are formed by synaptic pathways, which themselves are formed of cells, and the cells are replaced but their arrangement is maintained - you still have the same memories.

Thirdly: Does that fit the definition of evolution? My body changing constantly? Not only am I still the same species but I am the same organism. What has evolved?

Ok, let me break this to you - evolution takes a long, long time. Reeeeeaaaaallllly long. Longer than you observe within your life time using the "I have to see happen right in front of me" approach. (Which, by the way - can't be applied to creation either, so why are you using it?)

The changes you're looking for are in the mixing of genetic material, when species mate. Very slight variations are introduced. Eventually the variations that cause the creature to survive longer than its brothers and sisters win out because those creatures live long enough to breed again. Evolution happens at the population level. Very very small changes, over very very long amounts of time.

Fourthly: Your statement of nobody observing creation while we state that nobody observed evolution. Doesn't that just back up the fact that both are based on faith?

Evolution has just a liiiiiitle bit more evidence on its side when it comes to backing up the claim though.

Enough of this - let's turn the tables around - how about we start showing all the mountains of evidence for creation, and the rigorous scientific processes it went through to validate it?

 

[Calminian]

Not as hilarious as the rubes who take Bananaman and his ambush "interviews" seriously. He didn't ask them for "instances of evolution" (whatever that means). He asked for "changes between kind" which is nonsense and why everyone asked was taken aback.

But all offspring are different from their parents. Do you think that's evolution? If so, why don't scientists merely cite this?

 

[Calminian]

You'll excuse me if I'm dubious of any interview Ray Comfort posts:

That's completely separate from the fact that vague terms like "Kind" are nonsense at best and dishonestly begging the question at worst.

You should take the time to look into this creationist argument. Baraminology is the technical term.

"Kinds" could be boiled down to animals that create offspring with one another. Dogs and wolves, for instance, would be the same kind of animal, in fact all modern dogs are said to have descended from the gray wolf. When God created the animals, he created them to reproduce after their kind. Dogs come in many shapes and sizes but they are all dogs. They are one kind of animal.

The question is really simple. Can you show any scientific observable evidence that one kind of animal became another kind of animal? Or do you just believe it, based on faith?

Some in the video cited Darwin's finches, but Darwin's finches wouldn't qualify, because they can all produce hybrid offspring. They have diversity, much like dogs have diversity, but they are still finches and can interbreed, if the right conditions were presented. They are still the same kind of animal.

So the question above still remains.

 

[Shemjaza]

You should take the time to look into this creationist argument. Baraminology is the technical term.

"Kinds" could be boiled down to animals that create offspring with one another. Dogs and wolves, for instance, would be the same kind of animal, in fact all modern dogs are said to have descended from the gray wolf. When God created the animals, he created them to reproduce after their kind. Dogs come in many shapes and sizes but they are all dogs. They are one kind of animal.

The question is really simple. Can you show any scientific observable evidence that one kind of animal became another kind of animal? Or do you just believe it, based on faith?

Some in the video cited Darwin's finches, but Darwin's finches wouldn't qualify, because they can all produce hybrid offspring. They have diversity, much like dogs have diversity, but they are still finches and can interbreed, if the right conditions were presented. They are still the same kind of animal.

So the question above still remains.

Are you aware of the phenomenon of ring species?
In essence:
Species A can breed with Species B can breed with Species C can breed with Species D... however Species D and Species A can not breed with one another.

Now I imagine your concept of a Baramin would allow for A, B, C and D to be in a single Baramin... but what if B and C were to go extinct, suddenly we have species A and Species D who cannot reproduce, so your definition is flawed as a method of defining if two species are related.

This isn't some made up story, ring species exist and species do go extinct.

In addition, what about older fossils that show less clear distinction between groups? The Archeopteryx has many traits associated with birds, but also many traits that are much more like typical theropod dinosaurs. What is it?