|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
Just so you know, most creation scientists do not support Carl Baugh's proposed evidences.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: I don't think it's true that Creation scientists don't care about what kind of evidence they let in. This is from Answers in Genesis. "Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter." (Hehe, I'm sure you'll disagree with AiG's opinion here that Kent Hovind is a talented creationist speaker, but I'm sure you get the point.) Here we have a large Creationist organization gently dismissing Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, and Wyatt. Quicksink often posts a site in which a creationist organization critiques Russel Humphrey's Cosmological Theory. Also Creation scientists operate (I believe two) magazines that are peer-reviewed. Although you may not believe that creation scientists are the best peer-reviewers, I don't think you are correct in saying that Creation scientists will accept any evidence.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
I'll go ahead and answer this one:
"Now answer my question: why aren't there human bones found inside dinosaur ribcages?" First of all, it is very possible, even likely, that humans and carnivorous dinasaurs lived in seperate ecological zones. Also, it's not neccesarily even likely that dinasaurs would often eat humans (most animals are afraid of humans). Even if a dinasaur had eaten a human just previous to the flood, there is no guarantee that that dinausaur would be fossilized. And even if a dinasaur who had eaten a human WAS fossilized, the odds are it will never be discovered.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
It seems likely to me that humans would tend to live in different areas as opposed to living where supposedly blood-thirsty dinasaurs were roaming.
Also, I thought that the general consensus was that these reported "footprints" are fakes or something like that. Have I yet made any indication that I support Carl Baugh's findings and the like?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"That is hardly evidence. On the other hand if we look around today, we do find humans living not far from mammal predators and there is frequent interaction. Even in the ocean we find sharks with human remains and other artifacts in their stomachs. Seems to me the best assumption would be that humans and predatory dinosaurs would LIKELY have existed in the same environment. Even if it were to hunt the same prey."
Fine, but even with your assumption granted, it would not be likely that we would find human remains inside of dinasaurs. "Indeed that is the consensus. You were however suggesting that humans and dinos were contemoraneous. We are just asking for evidence of this. So far you have not offered any." Although I didn't really suggest it, it is my opinion that humans and dinos lived at the same time. However, you must realize that I was not attempting to offer evidence of this occuring. I was simply trying to give you a plausible solution to the question of, if indeed humans and dinos lived at the same time, why don't we find human remains in dinasaur ribcages? Whether or not I offered a plausible solution is of course your opinion, but it is a bit of a straw man for you to try to attack my solution based on evidence in which I have acknowledged is most likely faulty.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"Creationists reject any evidence that contradicts Creationism. In fact, AiG considers the automatic rejection of any Old Earth evidence so important they mention that it is necessary in their statement of faith:"
Well, creationists think that any evidence that contradicts creationism is being interpreted wrongly. "AiG is the perfect example of a Creationist organization that is not interested in evidence, but only wants to promote YEC views regardless of what the truth might be. According to that quote, if God Himself descended from Heaven and told the AiG crew they were wrong, they would be obligated to ignore Him and continue their work. That is what a SoF is. No evidence of any kind will ever convince AiG because they aren't interested in evidence, and so Creationism is itself a religion and AiG is hawking a new subgroup of Christianity, in which the Bible itself is elevated to near Godhood." Creationists are interested in evidence, they just happen to think that all evidence interpreted correctly will support the bible. "As for Hovind, if they rebuked the fellow, what does that say about him?" Well, I don't personally recall ever supporting Hovind or his actions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"You just said that most animals are afraid of humans. Dinosaurs would have to be hunting humans already before people would begin actively avoiding them. It seems that both of your replies are contradictory. Also humans would have had to come down from their hideouts to gather food and move across the continent."
Yeah, you're right, I did sort of contradict myself. However, it seems to me that EITHER dinasaurs were bloodthirsty, thus humans stayed away, OR dinasaurs were not bloodthirsty, thus humans did not have to worry about such things. Also, I must reemphasize that EVEN if dinasaurs ate humans relatively often, it is unlikely that such evidence would be preserved in the fossil record and even more unlikely that humans would discover it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"I maintain my disagreement"
No suprise here! "I still contend it would be inevitable that people would be eaten if they were contemporaries with the dinosaurs, just as it is inevitable that people would have eaten dinosaurs, and we would find their remains at archealogical sites." Well, I never said that dinasaurs NEVER ate people, just that such an event was very unlikely, coupled with the unlikliness of fossilization of such an event. Also, any civilization that was post-flood would not eat dinasaurs. And there is no way of knowing what people 6000 years ago would of eaten. "But let's set aside the 'human hideout' concept and widen the question a little more. Why aren't we finding bones from mountain goats, horses, camels, pronghorns, rabbits, birds, deer, mice, voles (for the procomposagnathids and ceoleophysis) wildcats, wolves, mammoths, elk, bears etc. in dinosaur bellies? In fact, every extant large land animal that I can think of is post-Cretaceous. Imagine, not one of them being represented inside a dinosaur ribcage!" Before evaluating the question further, I would like to know, How often are remains found inside dinasaur ribcages?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"While I am encouraged that these folks are being seen as the nutcases they are, what about the grandfather of the modern Creation "science" movement, Henry Morris?"
What exactly about Henry Morris compels you to believe that he is a nutcase? "He expounds on all sorts of topics, such as Biology, Geology, and Astrophysics, as if he was an expert, yet his degree is in Hydrolics." That doesn't mean he can't pontificate on other topics, it just means that one should be skeptical of what he says on these topics. "Creationist peer-review is not scientific peer-review. If they want to be considered real, professional scientists, then they should be able to get their work published in real, professional scientific journals." Duh, don't you know about the Grand Evilutionist Conspiracy? "Of course, their work is based on a a particular interpretation religious book, and not emperical evidence found in nature, so it cannot, by definition, be considered scientific." Yes, they do base their work on a particular preconcieved notion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: Yeah, but after those first few weeks, we're hardened into debating machines like myself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024