Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Heissonear]

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.

Minus the input from God's Word and the Holy Spirit.

For some reason the godless lack understanding of how Intelligent God was when He Created this world with apparent age.

Men of reasoning about physical artifacts is not "we finally understand" how things came about. Misunderstanding that they have place their faith in Earth processes, artifacts in strata, and wholesale belief on mutation, adaptation, and natural selection of life over geologic time. Meanwhile possessing extreme quantitatively less faith and understanding in what He has done, with void admiration on what really happened in the magnitude of His wisdom and creative ability.

In logic that would be missing the primary parameters of the equation but still pushing the equal button.

 

[Calminian]

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.

Yes, this is all part of the field of baraminology. There are some bears, for instance, that can interbreed, and some that can't. But the are other bears that link them, being able to breed with each of the species that can't breed with one another.

I think it's very obvious what has happened. As species get more isolated, they lose the information necessary to make viable offspring. But that doesn't mean they haven't descended from an original kind, and these link species demonstrate this.

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.

No your concept of what baraminology is flawed. It is a method to determine what animals have descended from the original created kinds. The key to understanding this is to find hybrid links between them. If A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, then A and C are also related and have come from the same original ancestor. The fact that they've devolved and lost some abilities doesn't change that.

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?

Archeopteryx is a bird through and through, in fact, he was a power flyer.

See: Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”

Yes, they had teeth, in accordance with their kind, but that's common with mammals, reptiles and others. Some have teeth, some don't. Some have attributes that others don't.

But your larger points is that obvious different kinds of animals share common attributes. And I agree. But that can also be the mark of a common Designer. Different car makes also share common attributes.

In fact, I actually think that this speaks to a Designer much more than evolution. Take for instance marine animals like dolphins, sharks and ichthyosaurs. These are remarkably similar. Just look at their body designs. Yet they are about as far apart biologically as can be. It would seem very intuitive, therefore, the similarities come form design rather than random chance processes.

 

[dougangel]

Hang on

""Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago(at the end of the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million years.""

This is what Evolutionists teach.

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

There's around 10 different species of Dinosaurs here drawn modelled or sculptured from ancient man .
If you look at how well some of them are recreated. Recreating the fossils dug in the ground Just doesn't cut it as an plausible answer. Also the amount of different species.

Evolutionists you need to explain this. There is so much misinformation out there about the dating of things.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hang on

""Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago(at the end of the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million years.""

This is what Evolutionists teach.

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

There's around 10 different species of Dinosaurs here drawn modelled or sculptured from ancient man .
If you look at how well some of them are recreated. Recreating the fossils dug in the ground Just doesn't cut it as an plausible answer. Also the amount of different species.

Evolutionists you need to explain this. There is so much misinformation out there about the dating of things.

It's nothing to do with the dating of things. It to do with ancient people finding skeletons of dinosaurs and, with them not knowing what they were, attributed fanciful designs to them. The griffon for example is a misinterpretation of the skeleton of a protoceratops.

 

[-57]

It's nothing to do with the dating of things. It to do with ancient people finding skeletons of dinosaurs and, with them not knowing what they were, attributed fanciful designs to them. The griffon for example is a misinterpretation of the skeleton of a protoceratops.

So, these ancient people just went out and found these dinosaur fossils just sitting on top of the ground.....or did they painstakingly chip away the surrounding rock from the fossils?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, these ancient people just went out and found these dinosaur fossils just sitting on top of the ground.....or did they painstakingly chip away the surrounding rock from the fossils?

Considering most of these mythical animals came from areas such as Chine and the Middle East, aka areas with desert? Definitely the former.

 

[-57]

Considering most of these mythical animals came from areas such as Chine and the Middle East, aka areas with desert? Definitely the former.

For the sake of the argument....we'll throw them out. There are still many more you'll need to explain away that were not from China or the middle east deserts.

 

[dougangel]

It's nothing to do with the dating of things. It to do with ancient people finding skeletons of dinosaurs and, with them not knowing what they were, attributed fanciful designs to them. The griffon for example is a misinterpretation of the skeleton of a protoceratops.

Oh boy. That's what the threads about. Evolutionist's have put a date on when the dinosaurs went extinct. And a date of what period they lived. So evolutionists are saying man wasn't around at the time. Well we all know your number. Your not going to be objective or scientific, no matter what evidence is shown too you.

 

[cifi]

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

Hahah - that's pretty much what evolution is all about. The fact that you don't know this shows you've never actually bothered to read up on it, and are just content with making arm chair observations about things you've read in passing, rather than actually become educated on the topic.
Here's an easy to read link I found you, top result in a google search for "how does evolution work"
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution1.htm

Minus the input from God's Word and the Holy Spirit.

For some reason the godless lack understanding of how Intelligent God was when He Created this world with apparent age.

Men of reasoning about physical artifacts is not "we finally understand" how things came about. Misunderstanding that they have place their faith in Earth processes, artifacts in strata, and wholesale belief on mutation, adaptation, and natural selection of life over geologic time. Meanwhile possessing extreme quantitatively less faith and understanding in what He has done, with void admiration on what really happened in the magnitude of His wisdom and creative ability.

In logic that would be missing the primary parameters of the equation but still pushing the equal button.

Pretty much 90% of what you post is just "Oh you have all this 'knowledge' and 'evidence' but because you don't have God, it means nothing." This is a completely empty, unproductive statement, I could just replace "God" with "Allah" or "Zeus" and fire it right back at you.

Yes, this is all part of the field of baraminology. There are some bears, for instance, that can interbreed, and some that can't. But the are other bears that link them, being able to breed with each of the species that can't breed with one another.

I think it's very obvious what has happened. As species get more isolated, they lose the information necessary to make viable offspring. But that doesn't mean they haven't descended from an original kind, and these link species demonstrate this.



No your concept of what baraminology is flawed. It is a method to determine what animals have descended from the original created kinds. The key to understanding this is to find hybrid links between them. If A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, then A and C are also related and have come from the same original ancestor. The fact that they've devolved and lost some abilities doesn't change that.



Archeopteryx is a bird through and through, in fact, he was a power flyer.

See: Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”

Yes, they had teeth, in accordance with their kind, but that's common with mammals, reptiles and others. Some have teeth, some don't. Some have attributes that others don't.

But your larger points is that obvious different kinds of animals share common attributes. And I agree. But that can also be the mark of a common Designer. Different car makes also share common attributes.

In fact, I actually think that this speaks to a Designer much more than evolution. Take for instance marine animals like dolphins, sharks and ichthyosaurs. These are remarkably similar. Just look at their body designs. Yet they are about as far apart biologically as can be. It would seem very intuitive, therefore, the similarities come form design rather than random chance processes.

Creationists are very insistent on these "kinds" but give no scientific definition for what constitutes a "kind" and what these made-up barriers are that prevent one "kind" from eventually becoming another "kind", given enough time.

The internal similarity between vastly different looking creatures, actually supports evolution, showing a common ancestry... you'd know that if you bothered to learn about it.

So, these ancient people just went out and found these dinosaur fossils just sitting on top of the ground.....or did they painstakingly chip away the surrounding rock from the fossils?

I believe this has already been dealt with by another poster - he said he went down the river and easily collected entire fossils himself, and easy to assemble since the whole animal is preserved. If he can do that in this day and age when people have already been taking them for hundreds of years, most certainly ancient people could have.

You find a small beast preserved in rock, you immediately wonder where it's mother is and how big it is.

 

[USincognito]

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

It's a made up, non-scientific term, not a technical one.

"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,

Oh come now. Why limit "kind" to horsies, moo cows and kitty cats? What "kind" are the following and why?


Shiitake mushroom.
White truffle.
Bakers yeast.

Lilac.
Apple tree.
Saguaro cactus.

Scarab beetle.
Tarantula.
Blue crab.

Little neck clam.
Humbolt squid.
Banana slug.

Dimetrodon.
Thylacine.
Confuciusornis.

The question is really simple. Can you show any scientific observable evidence that one kind of animal became another kind of animal?

Why don't you tell us, precisely, what you mean by this? Because if you mean something like an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies, that would actually falsify evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Much depends on what you mean by observations, US.

I'm using the scientific definition and I am sure we agree on it.

I know many anti-evolution keep insisting evolution is invalid because it cannot be observed.

That's because they don't understand what a scientific observation is. For them, unless an iguana hatches a clutch of puppies on a lab table before their eyes, it's not an observation. They don't get that fossils are observations and measurements and comparisons are experiments. They don't get that genetic sequencing is an observation and building phylogenies from the sequences is an experiment.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, this is all part of the field of baraminology. There are some bears, for instance, that can interbreed, and some that can't. But the are other bears that link them, being able to breed with each of the species that can't breed with one another.

I think it's very obvious what has happened. As species get more isolated, they lose the information necessary to make viable offspring. But that doesn't mean they haven't descended from an original kind, and these link species demonstrate this.

What about bears that cannot breed or even hybridise with any other bear species? Evolution has a perfectly sound explanation.

In addition you have begun to use the concept of gain and loss of information, can you please explain how it is measured? Because mutation is a perfectly functional source of change in the genome, yet ID and other creationists are usually dissatisfied with it as source of their concept of information.

Here are some examples, please explain how the information loss or gain is measured:
CGGATTACTACCTTAA
CGGATTATTACTACCTTAA
CGGATTATCACTACCTTAA
CGGATTACACTACCTTAA
CGGATTACACTATTAA
CGGATTACACTAATTAA
CGGATTACACTAACTTAA
CGGATTACACTACCTTAA

No your concept of what baraminology is flawed. It is a method to determine what animals have descended from the original created kinds. The key to understanding this is to find hybrid links between them. If A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, then A and C are also related and have come from the same original ancestor. The fact that they've devolved and lost some abilities doesn't change that.

What if A and D cannot hybridise? And what if B and C are extinct before humans discover A and D?

Archeopteryx is a bird through and through, in fact, he was a power flyer.

See: Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”

Yes, they had teeth, in accordance with their kind, but that's common with mammals, reptiles and others. Some have teeth, some don't. Some have attributes that others don't.

But your larger points is that obvious different kinds of animals share common attributes. And I agree. But that can also be the mark of a common Designer. Different car makes also share common attributes.

In fact, I actually think that this speaks to a Designer much more than evolution. Take for instance marine animals like dolphins, sharks and ichthyosaurs. These are remarkably similar. Just look at their body designs. Yet they are about as far apart biologically as can be. It would seem very intuitive, therefore, the similarities come form design rather than random chance processes.

It's a bird through and thorugh... with teeth and a long flexible tail. The point that is forever ignored by the "common designer" hypothesis is that it isn't just the common traits in transitional species, it's the pattern of transitions. There is no reason for a weird variant of a bird not to have mammal features or insect traits, yet they only appear to transition with theropod dinosaurs. There's no reason for a dolphin not to have gills or to have the electrical senses of a fish, yet they have mammal traits.

 

[USincognito]

""Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago(at the end of the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million years.""

There's around 10 different species of Dinosaurs here drawn modelled or sculptured from ancient man .

There really aren't. Fun Fact #2 however, finding a 150 year old dinosaur skeleton would not effect evolution as much as finding a fossilized dinosaur in Permian strata.

 

[dougangel]

View attachment 167261



There really aren't. Fun Fact #2 however, finding a 150 year old dinosaur skeleton would not effect evolution as much as finding a fossilized dinosaur in Permian strata.

Well I said around 10. It was a quick rough guess. That's why I said around.
I didn't see a stegosaurus named there ?
How many are they naming on that site then ?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

That's got nothing to do with my question. But if you want to discuss that particular question, you can take it on to the thread I started "Scientists misrepresenting the data w/regards to YEC". I'll happily discuss it there.

I see that Dougie declined your invitation.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

You do realise scientists can be wrong ?
In the 1950's and 60' You were laughed at if you mentioned the big bang in academic circles.
That steady state was known to be the correct theory. That is the universe was always there. That's what Stephen Hawking's is renown for. Reproving the big bang theory.

I see only 1 correct statement, and 5 false statements. Worse than average even for a creationist.

One hint; There was a pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one by Penzias and Wilson detailing the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation observations, and one by Dicke, Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their discovery.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

We can remove life, we cannot insert it.

You never worked in a hospital. You never read the scientific literature; (3 out of 16,200 recent articles)

Puchta, H., & Fauser, F. (2014). Synthetic nucleases for genome engineering in plants: prospects for a bright future. The Plant Journal, 78(5), 727-741.

Lindgren, C., Mordenfeld, A., & Hallman, M. (2012). A Prospective 1‐Year Clinical and Radiographic Study of Implants Placed after Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Synthetic Biphasic Calcium Phosphate or Deproteinized Bovine Bone. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 14(1), 41-50.

Joshi, N., Reverte-Vinaixa, M., Díaz-Ferreiro, E. W., & Domínguez-Oronoz, R. (2012). Synthetic Resorbable Scaffolds for the Treatment of Isolated Patellofemoral Cartilage Defects in Young Patients Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Evaluation. The American journal of sports medicine, 40(6), 1289-1295.

Three out of 16,800 recent articles;

Cavadas, P. C., Thione, A., Carballeira, A., & Dominguez, P. C. (2013). Lymphedema after upper limb transplantation: scintigraphic study in 3 patients. Annals of plastic surgery, 71(1), 114-117.

Murphy, B. D., Zuker, R. M., & Borschel, G. H. (2013). Vascularized composite allotransplantation: an update on medical and surgical progress and remaining challenges. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 66(11), 1449-1455.

Diaz‐Siso, J. R., Bueno, E. M., Sisk, G. C., Marty, F. M., Pomahac, B., & Tullius, S. G. (2013). Vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation–state of the art. Clinical transplantation, 27(3), 330-337.

And so on ...

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

"Most commentators who commented on these passages concluded they were real animals, regardless of what typological message they were being used for."

No they do not. Most creationists must, otherwise their game is exposed as as a scam. For example, Leviathan was the latinized word for "Lotan."

For a cogent discussion by real experts, I recommend;

Pope, Marvin H.
1965 “Job: A new translation with Introduction and Commentary” Anchor Bible Vol. 15, New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Dahood, Mitchell
1965 "Psalms I, 1-50: Introduction, Translation and Notes" New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 “Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Revised” Oxford University Press

Jewish Publication Society
2004 “The Jewish Study Bible: TANAKA translation” Oxford University Press.

Kramer, Samuel Noah
1972 "Sumerian Mythology: A study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C." OP 1961 New York: University of Pennsylvania Press/ Harper.

Mayor, Adrienne
2000 "The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times" Princeton University Press

Slifkin, Natan
2007 “Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

Mayor isn't a biblical scholar, but I recommend her regardless. Rabbi Slifkin brings a very Orthodox Jewish scholarship I found refreshing. The Jewish Publication Society translation notes are the product of a large number of Hebrew experts. They are rather over cautious, but even they reject the absurdity that two "monsters" were the hundreds of thousands of dinosaur species.

 

[dougangel]

I see only 1 correct statement, and 5 false statements. Worse than average even for a creationist.

One hint; There was a pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one by Penzias and Wilson detailing the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation observations, and one by Dicke, Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their discovery.

I do know who they are.

When Hawking began his graduate studies, there was much debate in the physics community about the prevailing theories of the creation of the universe: the Big Bang and the Steady State theories. Inspired by Roger Penrose's theorem of a spacetime singularity in the centre of black holes, Hawking applied the same thinking to the entire universe, and during 1965 wrote his thesis on this topic. There were other positive developments: Hawking received a research fellowship at Gonville and Caius College. He obtained his PhD degree in cosmology in March 1966, and his essay entitled "Singularities and the Geometry of Space-Time" shared top honours with one by Penrose to win that year's prestigious Adams Prize.
Stephen Hawking's first major scientific work was published with Roger Penrose (a physicist very famous in his own right) and George Ellis (not as famous as Penrose and Hawking, but still very well known), during the period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past. This landmark is now known as the "singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding, being about as close as we can get to a mathematical rationalization for the Big Bang Theory

In 1965 Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories were testing a sensitive horn antenna which was designed for detecting low levels of microwave radiation. They discovered a low level of microwave background "noise", like the low level of electrical noise which might produce "snow" on a television screen. After unsuccessful attempts to eliminate it, they pointed their antenna to another part of the sky to check whether the "noise" was coming from space, and got the same kind of signal. Being persuaded that the noise was in their instrument, they took other, more sophisticated steps to eliminate the noise, such as cooling their detector to low temperatures.

Finding no explanations for the origin of the noise, they finally concluded that it was indeed coming from space, but that it was the same from all directions. It was a distribution of microwave radiation which matched a blackbody curve for a radiator at about 2.7 Kelvins.

After all their efforts to eliminate the "noise" signal, they found that a group at Princeton had predicted that there would be a residual microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang and were planning an experiment to try to detect it. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their discovery.

Stephen hawking, worked out the Mathematical theory of the big bang. Giving Eisenstein theories beauty.
Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson found analogue evidence of the 2.7 degrees radiation heat noise from the big bang.
Therefore providing evidence of the big bang. And rightly receiving the Nobel prize for it even though they didn't know what it was at first.

I already knew all this. Not sure why your giving me hints.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh boy. That's what the threads about. Evolutionist's have put a date on when the dinosaurs went extinct. And a date of what period they lived. So evolutionists are saying man wasn't around at the time. Well we all know your number. Your not going to be objective or scientific, no matter what evidence is shown too you.

But there is ZERO evidence of humans existing with dinosaurs. There are no human fossils past the KT boundary in the Cretaceous, Jurassic and Triassic fossil layers.