Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?
techristian
Member (Idle past 3537 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 1 of 100 (8227)
04-05-2002 10:57 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-06-2002 12:50 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 3 by joz, posted 04-06-2002 1:14 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-08-2002 3:07 PM techristian has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7011 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 2 of 100 (8230)
04-06-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
04-05-2002 10:57 PM


H-J Zillmer
O dear o dear. Not a good start to the link collection. The english translation is appalling, but it at least saves one from the excruciating logic of the original. Brad, however, will feel right at home ...
Makes no archeologist or paleontologist actually thoughts on this, that to himself layer doesn't ground her under meter depths and rock must a little badly be at this theory?
All in all it is just a rehash of the useless Paluxy River "evidence."
Richard Paley
I hadn't come across him before. Very very poor science and, sadder still, very poor biblical scholarship. His article on Behemoths was quite shockingly bad. But I do love the way he brings in the chupacabra (a velociraptor wouldn't you know it?), Nessie and the Mokele-Mbembe as evidence! Read what he has to say about dinosaurs and the Tower of Babel:
Scholars theorize that some of these descendents of Noah's ark were used to aid Noah's progeny in building the Tower of Babel. After that fiasco, the Lord felt that man was clearly not worthy of associating with His most powerful creation anymore and ever since dinosaurs have been hidden from us.
This is nothing more than a simplistic fantasy with no biblical support whatever.
However, TC should visit this site - it includes a "close down Landover Baptist" page that would be an eye-opener for him.
The Canadian site is just another rehash of the Paluxy River stuff.
Sorry Dan, a very disappointing collection of links. Rather than posting just the links, why not take some of the points that are made therein and tell us why you find them convincing. That way we can engage in some discussion rather than just browsing your collection of links.
Oh but you did post one cool link - your video for "Things of the world" is really quite cool and the tune is damned catchy. My son is still singing it! Nice one.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 10:57 PM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2002 3:10 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 100 (8233)
04-06-2002 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
04-05-2002 10:57 PM


Funnily enough yes on the other two threads you posted that were identical...
Percy is there any chance of moving any meaningfull responses into one thread and closing the other 2?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 10:57 PM techristian has not replied

  
techristian
Member (Idle past 3537 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 4 of 100 (8243)
04-06-2002 2:59 PM


Mister Pamboli
How old is your son?
Anyways I heard about the man with dinosaur tracks years ago. I probably didn't find you the best link.
My own thoughts about time and space require no such evidence to prove the inerrancy of the bible. I do believe in an approx. 6000 year old earth, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GOD speaking through Moses in Genesis. The New Testament compares God to LIGHT and it is easy for me to see how the Creator moving at the speed of light could see creation as taking only 6 days. While 6 days passed for Him millions of years may have passed on earth.
If in death the spirit moves also at light speed, the confusion in some churches about SOUL SLEEP might also disappear. The spirit will be instantly with the Lord, while thousands of years may pass here before "the end of the world".
However this type of topic may be better if moved to CARBON DATING area. There are so many SUB FORUMS HERE.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 04-06-2002 5:06 PM techristian has not replied
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-07-2002 5:08 PM techristian has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4467 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 100 (8244)
04-06-2002 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mister Pamboli
04-06-2002 12:50 AM


Pam & comp.,
I have left John Morris and the idea about the geology of Texas alone. If I had been at ICR and able to reach some understanding with Cumming I think that the foot tracks would still go back to AMNH overkill but my interest in in AMNH has to do with how Croizat was treated and not how the Komodo Dragon Exhibit was poised to drag the Herp Club from Huntercounty in locmotory patterns I could not recover the specimens so jarred. But thanks for the reference.
I had started to address this issue IN BIOGEOGRAPHY by looking at the Newark Supergroup and the Creataous-Devonian view of stratigraphy against Young who seemed to be wrongly slamming creationism for a Christian purpose but the science fell to a corrleation being used to argue for tiatothere "genes for horns" despite the reasoning still being as they say at ICR that evolutionists simply stacked the exhibits and since I know something of natural history museum creation (my Grandfather and the one at Fredonia State)
the weight of my subjective knowledge of the evidence still leans in ICR's favor as I have had some communication with herptologists at AMNH alsoand my knowledge of NJ geology was for a time appreciated by the fish paleontologist AMy McCune.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-06-2002 12:50 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 6 of 100 (8249)
04-06-2002 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by techristian
04-06-2002 2:59 PM


Bare links with little supporting discussion is not popular here. So let me ask a question: How many toes do the "man tracks" have? Can you provide us an image to answer it?
Also, how come we've never found a dinosaur with human bones in its belly, or a dinosaur skeletion with a spearpoint lodged in it?
Final point, why do you feel compelled to "prove" the Bible with science?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 04-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by techristian, posted 04-06-2002 2:59 PM techristian has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3893
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 7 of 100 (8251)
04-06-2002 6:56 PM


OK, here's the main Talk.Origins page on the dino/human hoo-ha:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
There's a good supply of sub-pages there also, to click to.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7011 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 8 of 100 (8280)
04-07-2002 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by techristian
04-06-2002 2:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
Mister Pamboli How old is your son?
15 - very into video at the moment. I have to confess I thought it was quite fun, too![b] [QUOTE]Anyways I heard about the man with dinosaur tracks years ago. I probably didn't find you the best link.[/b][/QUOTE]
You know, one thing I would like to find, is an excavation report for these tracks. The researches must be written up technically somewhere?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by techristian, posted 04-06-2002 2:59 PM techristian has not replied

  
techristian
Member (Idle past 3537 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 9 of 100 (8316)
04-08-2002 10:12 AM


Here's another question. If evolution theory is more than just pseudo-science, then please show me some proof using SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Fruit fly experiments prove nothing because after your experiments are finished, you are still left with fruit flies. I have never heard of fruit flies BEING OBSERVED evolving into birds, frogs or even crickets.
Here is also a question. Can any scientist prove that evolution is 100% CORRECT or just "Darwinian fundamentalism"???
Dan
http://musicinit.com/music.html

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 04-08-2002 11:06 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 11 by nator, posted 04-08-2002 2:30 PM techristian has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 913 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 10 of 100 (8318)
04-08-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by techristian
04-08-2002 10:12 AM


We don't see evolution happening becuase it occurs
over vast amounts of time. All we can observe are
indications that it does happen.
I don't think that any scientific theory can be prooved 100%,
the best we can say is that the observable data appears to
fit the theory ... in which case the theory is likely to be largely
correct.
Perhaps it would be more constructive if you pick ONE evidence
for evolution which you doubt, and say why ... it's easier
to discuss specifics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by techristian, posted 04-08-2002 10:12 AM techristian has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1604 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 100 (8335)
04-08-2002 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by techristian
04-08-2002 10:12 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by techristian:
[b]Here's another question. If evolution theory is more than just pseudo-science, then please show me some proof using SCIENTIFIC METHOD.[/QUOTE]
First of all, the correct term to use in science is "evidence", not "proof". Proofs are what mathematicians provide with abstractions, not what scientists provide to support theories.
The reason the ToE is, indeed, science and not pseudoscience, is because it:
1) provides testable hypotheses
2) provides positive evidence
3) contains potential falsifications
Perhaps you would like to read more about what science is and what it isn't? Here are some very good explanations:
http://www.skepdic.com/science.html
http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html
http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html
"Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being
empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing
specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed
rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new
facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being
approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible.
Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text
rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creationists, for
example, make observations only to confirm infallible dogmas, not to
discover the truth about the natural world. Such theories are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our
understanding of the natural world."
quote:
Fruit fly experiments prove nothing because after your experiments are finished, you are still left with fruit flies. I have never heard of fruit flies BEING OBSERVED evolving into birds, frogs or even crickets.
There is not enought time to directly observe such large changes.
Tell me, what is the barrier which would prevent many small changes from accumulating into major changes?
quote:
Here is also a question. Can any scientist prove that evolution is 100% CORRECT or just "Darwinian fundamentalism"???
Of course no scientist would ever use the word "prove", nor would she claim that any scientific theory is 100% correct. This would violate the requirement of all scientific theories to be tentative/falsifiable.
However, one "fights sicence with science", not with unfalsifiable religious dogma.
What are your falsifications of the ToE?
[/b][/QUOTE]
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by techristian, posted 04-08-2002 10:12 AM techristian has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 12 of 100 (8339)
04-08-2002 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
04-05-2002 10:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
Ever see these links before?

I have, repeatedly. They are a gross compilation of lies, mistakes and misrepresentations largely brought forth by a liar by the name of Carl Baugh. Baugh is a self proclaimed "Ph.D." (self preclaimed because he has never been granted one by a credited school he has one form a school that he made himself)who has made this area his forte. His tracks are a combination of dinosaur tracks with other dinosuar tracks. There have even been some tracks that appear to be man made, which smacks of fraud. Please tell me that this is not what you base your belief on. Here is a decent discussion on some of the tracks
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/retrack.htm
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 10:57 PM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 8:27 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 100 (8347)
04-08-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-08-2002 3:07 PM


Just so you know, most creation scientists do not support Carl Baugh's proposed evidences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-08-2002 3:07 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-08-2002 11:35 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 15 by nator, posted 04-09-2002 8:49 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 14 of 100 (8358)
04-08-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 8:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Just so you know, most creation scientists do not support Carl Baugh's proposed evidences.
Yes, I know. I guess that the initiator of this thread did not. What really got to them (the general creationist "camp" if such a generality exists) was, I think, not so much his bogus "man-tracks", which some people in the ICR still try to use, but rather some of his nuttier theories. Did you know that Baugh (I refuse to give him his made up title) has claimed that the earth was surrounded by layers of metallic oxygen and hydrogen and that is where the water for the flood came from. Now that really would be a big bang
.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 8:27 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1604 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 100 (8374)
04-09-2002 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 8:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Just so you know, most creation scientists do not support Carl Baugh's proposed evidences.
Therein lies a major problem of Creation "science"...
There is no framework in place for anything close to meaningful peer review. There is a far too-broad standard of what is considered evidence. They will accept into their "camp", and subsequently take as an authority, almost anyone, regardless of how dubious their academic credentials, or if they speak as an expert in Biology when their degree was in hydrolics, a la Morris.
This all comes back to the fact that, to Creation scientists, it isn't the evidence found in nature that is the basis for their work. A widely-interpreted religious book is the final arbiter of their work, which goes against the basic tennets of the scientific method.
Creation "science" is religion, nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 8:27 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-09-2002 4:06 PM nator has replied
 Message 100 by Brad McFall, posted 04-25-2002 12:35 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022