Man and dinosaur coexisting

[JacksBratt]

Based on what evidence?

There is no evidence for my prediction. It is based on faith and the fact that science is always learning new information and changing. I will stand on the scriptures of the Holy Bible long before I will place any trust in the words of man. Where one contradicts the other, I will choose God's word.

I also predict that in the near future, the proverbial lid is going to get blown off the whole way we look at the universe through science. Knowledge is increasing rapidly and soon we will see inter dimensional phenomena and other events that will rock the world of science as events in the category of supernatural are going to become more and more evident. Bit by bit by bit like boiling a frog in a pot of water slowly from luke warm to roaring boil. Only those with a finger on the pulse of this world and another finger in their Bible will be any the wiser.

 

[JacksBratt]

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word."

This is correct. In theory, water should boil at a lower temperature if the barometric pressure is lower. Do the experiment and the theory becomes fact.

The term "theory" in the evolutionary sense was changed so that scientists could call it a theory but present it as a fact. It's a forked tongue. Evolution is only a theory, not fact.

Everyone who is not an expert and trained in evolutionary double speak, understand the definition to be as shown below.
When people call evolution a theory, we think in the mindset of this definition while the experts are actually stating that evolution is fact. Which it is not. Evolution is a way to explain the existence of all life on this planet while avoiding the need for a creator, God, Intelligent Design.

theory
noun the·o·ry \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word."

This is correct. In theory, water should boil at a lower temperature if the barometric pressure is lower. Do the experiment and the theory becomes fact.

The term "theory" in the evolutionary sense was changed so that scientists could call it a theory but present it as a fact. It's a forked tongue. Evolution is only a theory, not fact.

Everyone who is not an expert and trained in evolutionary double speak, understand the definition to be as shown below.
When people call evolution a theory, we think in the mindset of this definition while the experts are actually stating that evolution is fact. Which it is not. Evolution is a way to explain the existence of all life on this planet while avoiding the need for a creator, God, Intelligent Design.

theory
noun the·o·ry \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Bull-spit.
Scientists did not change the term theory, or whatever crackpot conspiracy you've come up with. Evolution theory explains the facts, and the facts are that the theory of evolution explains the diversification of all life from ancestral organisms.
It is not, and I repeat: it is NOT a way to explain the existence of all life on this planet while 'avoiding the need for a creator'. Evolution theory can work perfectly fine with or without God.

 

[Loudmouth]

See, this is where you lose me for good. Two creatures with similar features are therefore transitional.

What did you think a transitional fossil is? A fossil that shares no resemblance with any other species?

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

With that line of thinking there is no confusion of how someone would claim all living things came from common ancestors. All creatures have some sort of lung or gills. All have some sort of vision. All have some sort of way to get around and all these things are similar to other creatures methods. Then you say that they are transitional.

We are looking for a very specific mixture of features, not just some sort of feature.

However, there is no way to prove it. It is a suggestion, a guess, an extrapolation. It is not proof. Animals having similar features do not prove that they are related, it may make a good assumption but it also suggests a common designer and Intelligent design.

It is evidence. When we only see the mixture of features that evolution predicts we should see, that is evidence in support of the theory. Evolution predicts that there were species with a mixture of ape and human features. We find those fossils. Evolution predicts that there were no species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. We don't find fossils with a mixture of bird and mammal features.

It is the ability to predict what fossils will look like that matters. Creationism isn't able to do that. Evolution is.

 

[Loudmouth]

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word."

This is correct. In theory, water should boil at a lower temperature if the barometric pressure is lower. Do the experiment and the theory becomes fact.

False. It is still a theory, a theory where boiling point is caused by intermolecular forces described by the theory of atoms and quantum theory.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

First is part of a well known fraud series.

Second is a hippo or Rhino with decorations, you will notice all others have those same 'plates' and are decoration not part of the animal, plus the proportions are all wrong.

third first thing that comes to mind is giraffes we know they use their necks like that during fighting for females.

on rest, I suspec that there are some legit pictures of dinosaurs and such, after all we found bones, why wouldn't people in the past have not found them, worshiped them as gods or something.

 

[loveofourlord]

Best example of how ancient man saw dinosaur bones and created myths is he griffon, the area that the myth originates is one of the best known areas for protoceratops, wich have a large body, shoulder bones that look like wing emplacements, the beak of a raptor like bird.

No evidence of them ever existing with man, but quiet possibly people thought they still existed, as the idea of extinction wasn't known back then.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

I've heard the idea that some of those were actually older gods, especially if you use the original words for some, and it's a poetic story a play of some sort showing god defeating the gods of the past, or as we would likly believe the false gods, the thing acts more like a play then historical events.

 

[Loudmouth]

I will stand on the scriptures of the Holy Bible long before I will place any trust in the words of man.

The Bible is the words of men.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And yet you can't supply that theory with supporting evidence.

That is not really my job description. All I can do is say it is broken and needs fixed and it is up to the experts in that field to figure out what is broken and how to fix it. If they can not figure it out then they do not know what they are doing. Maybe we need to find someone better qualified for the job. If I were to go to a customers house and their ceiling was on their dinning room table, the last thing they want to hear is it looks fine to me, I do not see a problem. They want to know if I can find the water leak, fix it and repair the damage and what it is going to cost them and when I can get the job done. They want everything restored back to the condition that it was intended and designed to be. We all know the condition our eco systems are in and we know that they needed repaired and restored to God's plan and purpose. But instead of resolving the issues Sciences seems to be doing all they can to make it worse. In stead of giving us healthy food to eat it looks like they are busy giving us food that is NOT healthy and is harmful to our health.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not really my job description.

Yeah, it is. You were the one who claimed that there were other theories, so it is up to you to back your statement up with evidence or retract it.
"There is more then one pea in a pod and there are more theories to explain what we find in the natural evidence other then just Darwin's theory."--Joshua 1 9

Are you retracting that statement? Are you admitting that Darwin's theory is the only valid theory currently being used?

All I can do is say it is broken and needs fixed and it is up to the experts in that field to figure out what is broken and how to fix it.

But you can't say how it is broken or what needs fixed, right?

If I were to go to a customers house and their ceiling was on their dinning room table, the last thing they want to hear is it looks fine to me, I do not see a problem.

That's not what you are doing. If we are using your analogy, you go to a customer's house and claim their house is broken, but can't show them a single thing that is broken.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But you can't say how it is broken or what needs fixed, right?

I am a carpenter not a biologist. It is not my job to fix the eco systems, it is my job to repair and remodel and renovate buildings. A good example would be the Mesopotamian marshes in southern Iraq, that were drained by Saddam Hussein. Now they have made some attempts to restore them back to the way they were before Saddam began to tamper with them. Still a lot of that will be straightened out during the 1,000 year reign of Christ. For now we know that God will destroy those that destroy the earth. We now live in a time of testing to see if we will be good stewards over what God gives us to take care of.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am a carpenter not a biologist. It is not my job to fix the eco systems,

We are talking about the theory of evolution, not the ecosystem.

Want to try that again?

 

[-57]

The Bible is the words of men.

Way to much prophecy to be the words of men.
Sure, men penned it...wrote it down...but it is quite clear that God supervised it.

....and God said.....He didn't use evolutionism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

but can't show them a single thing that is broken.

That is exactly what happened. I do not know why their ceiling was on their dining room table. I could not find a leak anywhere. My only guess was that the grout in the shower was not sealed so I sealed it with silicone. Then I repaired the ceiling and collected my money. I never heard from them again so I am hoping that fixed the problem. It was a new home where sometimes the workmanship was not the best. I use to make a pretty good living off of making repairs on new homes like that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

We are talking about the theory of evolution, not the ecosystem.

Evolution is the ecosystem.
The WHOLE biodiverse eco system evolves together.
I thought you knew a little bit about evolution.

Do you know anything about Ecology at all? Let me help you with this: "Evolution is a process that changes populations of organisms over time". "Darwin proposed (in 1859) that differential survival and reproduction of individuals would produce changes in species populations over time. That is the environment acting on variations among individuals in populations would result in adaption of the populations to the environments." (Manuel C. Molles, Jr.)

 

[joshua 1 9]

....and God said.....He didn't use evolutionism.

God uses evolution, it would appear that the evolutionists do not have much of a clue as to what evolution is. Just run a google search and you will get many many definitions as to what evolution is. Some say it is a process, some say it is a model, some say it is a theory, one guy says it is a fact and a theory. You would think that maybe they would get something right but they keep fighting with each other over what it is and how to define it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Joshua, the fact a scientific concept has to be revised says nothing about its validity. Many scientific concepts we accept as valid have had to be revised as we obtain new knowledge. Also, Wiki is snot always the most reliable source to use. That is well-known and documented enough to the extent that many professors will not accept references to Wiki in student papers.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have trouble with your above comment, Joshua. You say you can't prove they are transitional fossils, right? What is your evidence here? Why is it the scientists say otherwise? What is their evidence? Either you are far smarter that any of the scientists here, or you really don't know the subject matter. I'm inclined to put my bets on the latter.

 

[Butterfly99]

For real what I don't understand is why reasonable ppl even bother arguing with folks who seem to think The Flintstones depicted reality.