Man and dinosaur coexisting

[joshua 1 9]

Have you read any biblical studies? I would suggest you try;

No, I just read the Bible. I am not really interested in what anyone else has to say about the Bible. Although I am interested to hear about the work that God is doing in the lives of others.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

I may not know the subject matter at all. But my guess is I know the subject matter better then 97% of the people living in the world today. (Note: I did not say USA, I said World) So if I do not know anything about the subject of Evolution then you have a LONG way to go to educate a LOT of people.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have trouble with your above comment, Joshua. You say you can't prove they are transitional fossils, right? What is your evidence here?

What evidence do you have that there are transitional fossils within a species. Evolution is just a process of the species fine tuning itself to the environment. "The environment acting on variations among individuals in populations that result in their adaptation to the environment." Manuel C Molles Jr.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The Bible is the word of men, not the word of God.

Jesus was the Word of God that became Flesh. He set an example for us and He showed us how we are to live.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Jesus was the Word of God that became Flesh. He set an example for us and He showed us how we are to live.

That doesn't change the fact that nothing in the Bible was written by God. All of it was written by men.

 

[Hoghead1]

Many people have trouble understanding what is theory is. A theory is a theory, whether it is true or false. A theory is basically two or more assumptions linked together, period. Hence, arguing whether evolution is a fact or theory seriously misunderstands how the term theory is best used.

 

[Hoghead1]

Saying that Jesus is the Word of God has nothing to do with the authority of Scripture. If anything, it challenges the common tendency to call Scripture the Word of God. In Scripture, Word (capital W) is used only I n regard to Christ. It appear to me to be to be a bad case of bibliolatry to call the Bible the Word (capital W) of God. The real issue here is whether the Bible proves to be a reliable geophysical witness. Ever since they discovered the world is round and goes around the sun, the answer has been no. In fact, the Genesis account is internally inconsistent, presenting two highly contradictory chronologies of creation. And that's nothing new; that has been a standard claim in biblical studies for years and years.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

Does evolution explain where life came from in the first place? NO
Does it explain how a brand new little spark of life became able to duplicate itself? NO
Does it explain that after this miracle of a blip of life some how replicated it had the ability to eat? NO
Does it explain how after a good meal and more replicating, by some miracle, it split into O2 breathing animals and CO2 breathing plants? NO
Somewhere along the line this asexual little organism thought it would be better to have male and female and each one evolved to fit absolutely perfectly with the male or female of it's own kind..... mind boggling. Not to mention that an asexual organism stands much more chance of surviving over the years because you don't have to have anymore than just one lonely soul to regenerate the species. With male and female, you could have thousands of males and no female and your species is toast.
Evolution has too many NO's, I don't know's, and holes in it not to be a faith. More faith than I have.
It explains what a group of men and women "believe" happened based on a bunch of bones that show only a static example of an animal that once lived and died. There is no possible way to look at an old bone and another similar bone and state that this bone came from that bones great grandfather because they are similar.
It is not observable, testable or repeatable. It fails as facts other than animals lived and died.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Does evolution explain where life came from in the first place? NO
Does it explain how a brand new little spark of life became able to duplicate itself? NO
Does it explain that after this miracle of a blip of life some how replicated it had the ability to eat? NO
Does it explain how after a good meal and more replicating, by some miracle, it split into O2 breathing animals and CO2 breathing plants? NO
Somewhere along the line this asexual little organism thought it would be better to have male and female and each one evolved to fit absolutely perfectly with the male or female of it's own kind..... mind boggling. Not to mention that an asexual organism stands much more chance of surviving over the years because you don't have to have anymore than just one lonely soul to regenerate the species. With male and female, you could have thousands of males and no female and your species is toast.
Evolution has too many NO's, I don't know's, and holes in it not to be a faith. More faith than I have.
It explains what a group of men and women "believe" happened based on a bunch of bones that show only a static example of an animal that once lived and died. There is no possible way to look at an old bone and another similar bone and state that this bone came from that bones great grandfather because they are similar.
It is not observable, testable or repeatable. It fails as facts other than animals lived and died.

All of the things you said evolution says 'no' to are things that are not important to evolution. God could have made the world and planted the seed for a common ancestor and evolution would still be an accurate description for the diversification of life.
You're just projecting your own idiosyncrasies about the world on to the theory of evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That doesn't change the fact that nothing in the Bible was written by God. All of it was written by men.

Of course that is the whole point: What God is able to do in and through men. He can do it Himself without using us, but it brings Him more Honor and Glory that He is able to do the work He is doing in and though men and women today. He can even do amazing things in and through you in your life. As they say God will give to you want He can get through you to others.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course that is the whole point: What God is able to do in and through men. He can do it Himself without using us, but it brings Him more Honor and Glory that He is able to do the work He is doing in and though men and women today. He can even do amazing things in and through you in your life. As they say God will give to you want He can get through you to others.

For a being that is supposed to omnipotent and all knowing, that's ridiculously constrictive.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is true that the classical model of God argued God was omnipotent. However, even the church fathers killed this with a million qualifiers. St. Thomas Aquinas argued God is omnipotent and then provided a cannot-do list for God: God cannot change or violate the laws of geometry, God cannot feel emotion, God cannot change, God cannot experience suffering, etc. Contemporary theology takes issue with the concept of divine omnipotence. One major thinker, Charles Hartshorne, wrote a work titled something like "Divine Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes." I can go into more detail if you want.
Also, before providing an arbitrary list of NO's for evolution, at least check out the literature. All thse issues have been already addressed in the literature. Please read and study the basic texts, before you jump into he state of the art.

 

[Queller]

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.

Really? The first fossil discoveries were written about by Xenophanes (570-480 BC), Herodotus (484-425 BC), Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), and Strabo (64 BC-24 AD) more than 2,000 years ago.

Also, what makes you think that other ancient peoples couldn't find fossils and attempt to recreate what the original animals looked like?

 

[Queller]

There is no evidence that anyone before the 1800 had the ability to put the fossils together to see what they would have looked like.

There is no evidence against the idea either.

 

[Queller]

Radiometric dating just like much of the evidence that supports evolution has too many assumptions.
Assumption 1. The rate of decay has always been the same.

Not an assumption. Scientists know there are small changes to decay rates and know how to test for and adjust for them. (Those change are incredibly small though and don't affect the dates given by radiometric dating). http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

Assumption 2. Elements have not been affected by outside forces.

Not an assumption. Scientists know that elements may be affected by outside sources and know how to test for that. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html

Assumption 3. No daughter element existed at the beginning.

Not an assumption. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html

Also another problem. different radiometric methods often drastically disagree with one another. Some rocks in Hawaii that were known to only be around 200 years old rendered a date of 160 million to 3 billion when dated. ( Funkhouser and Naughton, page 4601)

Sigh. Try not to use sources that are not nearly 50 years old. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

 

[Queller]

You have been educated already that Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

I didn't know Adam and Eve's bodies had been examined in a lab. Do you have a link?

So did God create the Earth likewise.

Making Him a Deceiver far greater than Satan, if true.

If you could have approached Eve a day after she was created she would exhibit apparent age.

Would she have also exhibit apparent history? Would she have scars? Would her teeth be ground from years of chewing? Would the soles of her feet be callused as if from years of walking?

The earth has this apparent history. Why?

It is the same when you look at the Earth. It appears to have natural age.

It also appears to have natural history. Please explain why.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

No, I just read the Bible. I am not really interested in what anyone else has to say about the Bible. Although I am interested to hear about the work that God is doing in the lives of others.

So you are that smart? Wow. That must hurt.

 

[Queller]

In your eyes. And on paper or pixels. But not in rock record sequences that show transition from one creature to the next, part by part that shows evidence of Evolution. That is too odd, Sir. Too remarkable. So you resort that all fossils are transitional. In your eyes you game what is missing. Like others before you it requires faith to accept Evolution.

Please define transitional fossil and give a specific example of what you would consider a transitional fossil. What would it look like? What features would it have?

 

[Queller]

Yet the Bible has remained unchanged for over 3500 years.

Interesting claim given that the Bible didn't exist until a couple of hundred years AD. Not to mention that there are different versions of the Bible, some with more books than others.

 

[Queller]

No more then you can provide evidence that they are transitional. 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.

Can you please define "transitional fossil" and give a specific example of what a transitional fossil would look like?