Dinosaurs, Evolution and Creation

How does creation explain dinosaurs? I'd just like to know that much. If they existed at the same time as humans (which is what I think the Bible is saying) then we should not be here. Early humans would have been no match for any kind of dinosaur. There is not a single fossile of a human from the same time period as a dinasaur, but we have many fossiles of dinosaurs themselves. How does Creationism counter this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats an answer I'd like to know too. Do creationists even acknowledge the existence of the dinosaurs?

I was browsing through Christiananswers.net and they attempt to refute the theory that stars existed millions of years before the earth, simply because the story of Genesis mentions that the earth was made first.
Thats right, all that scientific study that has determined that stars existed long before the earth is apparently "new age" and "false" because of Genesis. No scientific theory to back it up, no evidence, its says so in the Bible and thats that apparently.

Check it out for yourself:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/made-of-stardust.html

I laughed my head off when I first read it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, Christiananswers.net has to be the biggest joke I've seen. Sorry if that offends anyone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After reading that article, I have to wonder how they sleep at night. First of all, not all elements that we have discovered are naturally occuring, a large number of them have been artificially created in labratories, and have never been found outside of them.

The evidence against their idea that the Earth was created before the stars is enormous. Countless dating techniques and tests have been used, and while we still do not know the exact age of the universe, we do know it is much older than Earth. What they are suggesting is that the Earth was created from, essentially, nothing and that afterwards the entire universe, with its countless stars and many billions of galaxies was created around it. And they call the "New Age movement" mystical and strange...

*sits back and waits for tony1*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"And they call the "New Age movement" mystical and strange..."

You said it. Personally I have got a little tired from them. When you need to explain the most obvious things. Sure evolution theory has its flaws, but they are only slight glitches. When maybe some small parts of it may be wrong(especially in dating) the bigger picture is quite clear. Maybe man lived 10 000 000 years ago, who knows??!!, but tht doesn' t disprove tht it evolved right? Maybe there was an advanced civilization 15 000 years ago, but it needed to evolve from somewhere also.

Those creationists allways attack on these minor flaws, not seeing or not wanting to see the bigger picture.

I think tht you would have slight difficulty to prove to smone tht 2X2=4 and I know and have seen the equaliation where 2X2 is proved to be 5. But it is yust a "visual" trick to laugh on, those fundies take things like it seriouslly.
Take tony' s crap theory for instance.

I think tht I can spend my time more productive on things tht are more important, than proving to smone tht 2x2=4

Bye!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
How does creation explain dinosaurs?*

Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
(Job 40:15-18, KJV).

There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom you have made to play therein.
(Psalms 104:26, KJV).

*Early humans would have been no match for any kind of dinosaur.*

Says who?

*There is not a single fossile of a human from the same time period as a dinasaur, but we have many fossiles of dinosaurs themselves. How does Creationism counter this? *

How do you know?
Since you assume that humans did not coexist with dinosaurs, then any fossils of either will automatically be described as non-contemporaneous with the other.

*The evidence against their idea that the Earth was created before the stars is enormous.*

Enormity does not equate to veracity.
Keep in mind that the scientific method is dependent on observation, and no human being was there to observe the creation of the stars, or the Earth, for that matter.

*Originally posted by Avatar
Sure evolution theory has its flaws, but they are only slight glitches.*

Whether it is true at all is a "slight glitch?"

*Take tony' s crap theory for instance.*

So where is all the crap, or the compost, from 4.6 billion years?
Don't try the "it disappeared" argument, since even dung beetles aren't little magicians.

Keep in mind that even if the total quantity of crap added only one hundredth of a millimeter of thickness to the earth's crust per year, you have to explain where 46,000 meters of crap went.

 

tony1:

How does creation explain dinosaurs?* (reply to)

That description could be about anything, an elephant for example. The Leviathan could easily be taken to describe a giant squid.

Says who?

Any sane person I should think. I doubt a wooden club and a couple stones will kill a pair of Velociraptors...

How do you know?
Since you assume that humans did not coexist with dinosaurs, then any fossils of either will automatically be described as non-contemporaneous with the other.

If someone found a fossile of a human being and was accuratly dated using several methods to the same time period as the countless dinosaur fossiles we have dug up, I will be convinced. Until then, I will assume humans did not evolve until after the dinosaurs became extinct.

Enormity does not equate to veracity.
Keep in mind that the scientific method is dependent on observation, and no human being was there to observe the creation of the stars, or the Earth, for that matter.

Yes, scientific method is dependant on observation, but one does not have to observe a cup falling off a table to observe the effects of it's contents spilling on the floor. You could just as easily walk into the room after the cup has fallen and accuratly assume it has fallen from the table and shattered as it hit the floor. The same it is for the universe.

Whether it is true at all is a "slight glitch?"

That "slight glitch" is inherent in all creation/origin theories we currently have, and so it can be ignored for the purpose of this discussion.

Keep in mind that even if the total quantity of crap added only one hundredth of a millimeter of thickness to the earth's crust per year, you have to explain where 46,000 meters of crap went.

What is creationism's answer to this problem? Since we have already accuratly established the Earth's age to be much more than 6000 years, I would like to know how the thoery of creationism deals with this "crap issue". Or are you planning to sidestep that question as well?

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
That description could be about anything, an elephant for example.*

Yeah, elephants are well known for having tails the size of a cedar.

He moves his tail like a cedar:...
(Job 40:17, KJV).

*The Leviathan could easily be taken to describe a giant squid.*

Not quite.

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
(Job 41:1,2, KJV).

Since when do giant squid have noses?

*Any sane person I should think. I doubt a wooden club and a couple stones will kill a pair of Velociraptors...*

Aside from the fact that it is obvious that you've watching the various Jurassic Park movies (fiction, btw) along with The Flintstones, you perhaps haven't heard of spears.

*If someone found a fossile of a human being and was accuratly dated using several methods to the same time period as the countless dinosaur fossiles we have dug up, I will be convinced.*

"accurately" dated!
LOL!
No evolutionist will "accurately" date a human fossil to the same time period as a dinosaur fossil.
The pressure to produce numbers that support the ToE is too much for mere mortals to resist.
Just look at how your brain has been warped by only 11 years of school.

*Until then, I will assume humans did not evolve until after the dinosaurs became extinct.*

You wouldn't have assumed that except that your science teachers have been telling you that for the last few years.

*Yes, scientific method is dependant on observation, but one does not have to observe a cup falling off a table to observe the effects of it's contents spilling on the floor. You could just as easily walk into the room after the cup has fallen and accuratly assume it has fallen from the table and shattered as it hit the floor. The same it is for the universe.*

You'd be wrong if someone dropped it.

*What is creationism's answer to this problem? Since we have already accuratly established the Earth's age to be much more than 6000 years, I would like to know how the thoery of creationism deals with this "crap issue".*

No one on your side of the debate has established anything other than gullibility yet.
Therefore, I only need to demonstrate the actual observations that support my point, rather than having to "prove" your points, too.
My theory predicts about a meter of crap, humus, etc.
That's what the observations are.

BTW, trying to suggest that I can't demonstrate where 460,000 meters of crap only establishes that you can't explain it either.

 

You must be joking. People could not compete with Velociraptors. That is a lie from Jurassic Park. Just completely ignore the fact that no renderings exist of such dinosaurs and the lack of a reason for their quick demise. 6,000 years may seem like a long time, but that is a failing of Tony1's perception.

You ignore blatant facts again. No human has been found in a sediment layer anywhere near a dinosaur. You knew what he meant and yet you chose stupidity. I can only hope that you are a statistical outlier, or there are some bad things in store for this world.

Spears would be insufficient, their tips also not found in a any fossil. To believe that would be denying reality.

Except that humans recorded history long before that imaginary 6,000 year point. Oops, I guess there were people that must have seen creation. Interesting that they say nothing of it.

At this point I can only believe that you are either blind or ignorant. Every time we explain this and yet you come back with this stupid position. From this evidence I observe that you are incapable of learning.

 

Aside from the fact that it is obvious that you've watching the various Jurassic Park movies (fiction, btw) along with The Flintstones, you perhaps haven't heard of spears.

Yeah, I'm sure they would be very successful in throwing spears at velociraptors with thick repilian skin.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL!
No evolutionist will "accurately" date a human fossil to the same time period as a dinosaur fossil.
The pressure to produce numbers that support the ToE is too much for mere mortals to resist.
Just look at how your brain has been warped by only 11 years of school.

I will take your attempt at an insult as your way of saying "Good point"

My theory predicts about a meter of crap, humus, etc.
That's what the observations are.

Oh sure, your "theory" may happen to agree with one observation of the modern world. However, what about the one about the age of the Earth? I would think that's a rather important one...

BTW, trying to suggest that I can't demonstrate where 460,000 meters of crap only establishes that you can't explain it either.

We have already explained it, you have not listened. So now I'm giving you a chance, obviously you have no idea and that's ok. Sometimes you just have to admit you don't know, now would be one of those times tony.

 

*Originally posted by Teg
People could not compete with Velociraptors.*

I admit that you'd be paralyzed with fear and stupidity, but I wouldn't go as far as to say the rest of the world is at as low a level as you are.

*Spears would be insufficient, their tips also not found in a any fossil.*

Why would they be?
Who goes hunting during a flood?

*Except that humans recorded history long before that imaginary 6,000 year point*

Riiiiiiight.
And where did they hide such awesome writings?

*Every time we explain this*

Now one has "explained" it.
All anyone has done is come with some lame schoolboy fiction which doesn't cut it in the real world.

Your "explanation" is that it disappeared.
Well, I suspect that your brains have disappeared.

Even one hundredth of a millimeter of dirt per year adds up to 46,000 meters of missing stuff in 4,600,000,000 years.
I realize that you are far too dense to grasp this, but others can see the problem.

*Originally posted by Xelios
I will take your attempt at an insult as your way of saying "Good point" *

LOL!
You're just as dense as Teg.
No evolutionist will do anything but discard dating results that place man contemporaneously with dinosaurs.
Too many lies have been told and too much face stands to be lost.
Evolutionists are going to ride the crashing plane to a fiery death, rather than bail out and admit error now.

*Oh sure, your "theory" may happen to agree with one observation of the modern world. However, what about the one about the age of the Earth?*

Got 'em both covered.
You've got nothing.

*We have already explained it*

"It disappeared" isn't an explanation.

 

Got 'em both covered.

That's where you're mistaken.

 

poor response Tony1

*Originally posted by Teg
People could not compete with Velociraptors.*

Tony1 replied:
I admit that you'd be paralyzed with fear and stupidity, but I wouldn't go as far as to say the rest of the world is at as low a level as you are.


Using cheap insults as a response is just plain desperate. Teg had a valid point, humans wouldnt have been capable of competing with velociraptors, not to mention a T-rex and whatever else that would turn up on a cavemans doorstep.


*Except that humans recorded history long before that imaginary 6,000 year point*

Tony1 replied:
Riiiiiiight.
And where did they hide such awesome writings?


There are some new radical theories about the age of the pyramids. An archaeologist called Graham Hancock has a theory that the pyramids could be as old as 10,500 BC.
Geologists have looked at the Sphynx and discovered the shape of it has been affected by water erosion, not sand erosion. Water hasnt been present in Egypt for many thousands of years, which suggests that the Sphynx must be much older than was presently thought.


Tony1:
LOL!
You're just as dense as Teg.
No evolutionist will do anything but discard dating results that place man contemporaneously with dinosaurs.


What dating results are these? Are there some books and websites that confirm this?

 

Tony seems to think science is just some big conspiracy. To me that suggests he is unsure of the validity of his own beliefs, and is attempting to "rule out" any others to convince himself his is the right one. I guess what he doesn't realize is his belief can be ruled out as well.

 

A little epoch in history known as the Copper Age, the Egyptians and the Sumerians.

For this conspiracy to work historians have to be in on it. Scientists, historians, all television channels except the literal bible bashing channels, every person at every level of government, every school official excepting a single college in America, every piece of matter on the planet, and in general most people. Whew, that would be one massive conspiracy. I don't think you really thought this one through.

That is fascinating. I have always suspected a connection between the Egyptian pyramids and the Mayan temples. This new evidence would seem to open the window a bit more for the journey. Coco found in mummies is another strong sign. Perhaps Quetzalcoatl was an Egyptian. Think also of the fact that this creature had attributes of multiple animals. This would also suggest a stronger relation between the Aztecs and the ancestors of the Mayan empire.

I have often asked the same question. He has yet to answer.

 

What dating results are these? Are there some books and websites that confirm this?

No doubt there are "obvious clues all over the Bible" to answer that too, of course in an 850 page book you can piece together enough words (or "clues" as KB likes to call them) to support any arguement you can think of. After all, it's the Bible, it doesn't have to make sense. :bugeye:

 

Back to the original topic...

<i>Parody:</i>
How do you explain Komodo Dragons (or Anacondas/ Lions/ Tigers/ Bears/ fill-in-your-favorite-huge-carnivore) ? I'd just like to know that much? If they existed at the same time as humans (which is what I think has been proven) then we should not be here. Pre-gunpowder humans would have been no match for this kind of predator.

<i>Moral:</i>
In general (case you hadn't noticed) humans general try to AVOID living in areas where there are big predators! Besides that, most animals (even meet-eating ones) are fearful of humans. (Despite Hollywood's claims to the contrary) Very few predators would even try to hunt an uninjured animal, much less a human.

<i>Parody:</i>
There is not a single fossil of a human next to a Komodo Dragon, therefore I refuse to believe that they existed at the same time.

Define "time period." Of course, it doesn't help when they assign any rock with a human in it to "time period" A and any rock with a dinosaur in it to the mutually exclusive "time period" B. That sort of prevents things like that from happening.

If you mean why haven't dinosaurs and humans been found right next to each other, then I point you to my above parody, and also the earlier mentioned fact that HUMANS TEND TO AVOID AREAS WHERE PREDATORS HUNT! It sort of helps the whole survival thing, you know? Living in a Velociraptor's hunting territory is generally considered bad form, and is not likely to gain you many friends or any popularity.

By pointing out the obvious logical fallicies involved. (see above)

~Caleb

 

In general (case you hadn't noticed) humans general try to AVOID living in areas where there are big predators! Besides that, most animals (even meet-eating ones) are fearful of humans. (Despite Hollywood's claims to the contrary) Very few predators would even try to hunt an uninjured animal, much less a human.

All evidence so far points against dinosaurs such as T-Rex's and Velociraptors as being scavangers. And I find it rather odd that we haven't found even a fragment of a bone that belongs to a human from the same time period as the dinosaurs, considering we're dealing with a timespan of about 100 millions years, if not more.

Do you honestly believe we would be this primitive if we have been alive for more than 165 million years?

There is not a single fossil of a human next to a Komodo Dragon, therefore I refuse to believe that they existed at the same time.

The fossile does not phisically have to be right beside a dinosaur to suggest it existed at the same time. I would accept it as fact if one were found in the same geological layer as the dinosaurs, or if several dating techniques verified it to be about 65 million years old. Furthermore, any humans that lived at the time of the dinosaurs would have been wiped out along with them in the extinction-level meteor impact.

If you mean why haven't dinosaurs and humans been found right next to each other....

No, time period as in the same time period as the dinosaurs lived. Ie. the same geological layer as them, the same carbon dating results as a dinosaur bone, the same argon-40 results as a dinosaur bone etc.

Living in a Velociraptor's hunting territory is generally considered bad form, and is not likely to gain you many friends or any popularity.

Humans could not have completely avoided their predators, I have no doubt they would not run into a Velociraptors nest screaming "Eat me", but they would have had to have interacted very much over the tens of millions of years we're talking about here.

By pointing out the obvious logical fallicies involved.

Those were hardly logical fallicies. More like misinterpretation.

 

Who says we're primitive? More importantly, who says we've been around for 165 million years?!? Dinosaurs were around a 5-6,000 years ago.

I agree. I wasn't sure what you were saying, so I was trying to cover all the bases. There have been people here before who went so far as to demand a dinosaur skeleton with a human skeleton <i>inside</i> it! Ludicrous, really, since predators don't usually eat much of the skeleton anyway. Nor do they swallow there prey whole.

Actually, I posted documented evidence here before of undisturbed human fossils being found in CAMBRIAN rocks (which is supposed to be long before dinosaurs!) Also, a hammer was found in Cretacaceous rocks. Barring the theory that dinosaurs were smart enough to build hammers, that should be enough right there.

What about when those dating techniques date living clams to be billions of years old?

"time of the dinosaurs" refers (in my mind) to be before the flood, i.e 5-6,000 yaers ago. I don't know for sure if Noah's flood was caused in part by a large impact (I tend to think its rather likely) but you're right. No one would have survived a world-wide flood if God hadn't commanded Noah to build an ark.

Here, I regret, I must LOL! Evolutionists don't even think Carbon dating works beyond 50,000 years!!! much less 50 million!!! Do I have to teach you about your own theory before I teach you about mine?

<i>Boring Lecture Paragraph:</i>
Carbon 14 dating is used to measure the ratio of the C14 isotope to the normal C12 molecule in what was was once living matter. This is because living matter takes in C14 from the atmosphere, but dead matter doesn't. As the C14 decays into C12, the ratio between them varies. Since the half-life of C14 is about 5,000 years or so, scientists <i>claim</i> the method is accurate to ten half-lives, or about 50,000 yrs. They also believe that dinosaurs lived more than a thousand times earlier than that, so quite obviously, they do not accept that the C14 dating technique would even apply to dinosaur bones. Besides that, you can't even use C14 dating on fossils because there is supposedly no organic material leftover from the original animal. Everything has lithified (turned into stone).

Anyway, C14 dates are <i>claimed</i>, like I said, to go back 50,000 years, but they can only be calibrated by other sources back to around 4-5,000 years, since that is when our first records of written history AND our longest tree ring sequences go back to. Now, it was based on these other sources (especially the amount of C14 in tree rings) that C14 dating was recently re-callibrated and "corrected". If it had to be "corrected" by other sources, that shows that C14 dating is not inherently correct -- it needs to be calibrated. If the source of calibration goes back only to 4-5,000 years, then the dates beyond that haven't been calibrated yet, and should be seen as unreliable. BTW, let me reitterate that C14 CAN be used as an accurate dating method WHEN it can be calibrated (about 4-5,000 years).

Even though C14 doesn't generally work on fossils, dinosaur bones (and many other fossils) often have a thin layer of <i>carbon film</i> coating them, believed to be the decayed remains of the soft tissues. Since this is organic material, theoretically, we should be able to carbon date it. The worse that could happen is that it is so old there is apperently no carbon 14 left to measure, which would yield an age of infinity, meaning, of course, that the material is too old to be measured. This is what the evolutionists would expect, of course. But when the experiment was actually done, this is not what was found.

Here's a chart that gives the interesting carbon dating results:
You can find the whole website (which has other evidence of human-dinosaur coexistence) here:
http://www.worldbydesign.org/evidenc.htm

<img src = "http://www.worldbydesign.org/graphics/table3.gif">

~Caleb

 

"time of the dinosaurs" refers (in my mind) to be before the flood, i.e 5-6,000 yaers ago. I don't know for sure if Noah's flood was caused in part by a large impact (I tend to think its rather likely) but you're right. No one would have survived a world-wide flood if God hadn't commanded Noah to build an ark. "

That flood you are refering has been scientifically proved and everithing is right with it, but where do you get tht (i assume so) dinosaurs lived 7000 years ago????? no such late findings have been found(carbon dating says yourself is valid and precise up to 50 000 years). And more- flood at the time of the Noah(there are many other names fr him in many different cultures) wasn't world wide. It covered only a large area around Meditarian sea. For those who were at the centre of it it really seemed as a world wide catastroph, but not for whole world.

While I don't reject the possibility tht people lived in one time with some recent dinosaurs(who knows?), and people weren't so primitive(recent cave findings in SAfrica; Atlantis ), why didn't Noah then take(by your theory) some dinosaurs in his ship???

Bye!