Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?

[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 falsificationsPerhaps 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.htmlhttp://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"

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
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.

---

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? 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.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.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.At best, Creationist peer-review is philosophical or Theological in nature, not scientific.------------------
"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"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]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.[/QUOTE]

​

Why? Please explain.

​

quote:

---

Also, it's not neccesarily even likely that dinasaurs would often eat humans (most animals are afraid of humans).

---

​

Well, we have killed off all of those animals which weren't afraid of humans, so we have been an environmental selective pressure which has produced animals which are more skittish of humans.

​

The prediction of Evolutionary theory would then be that if there was a population of animals which had not had contact with humans, they would not be afraid. Well, guess what? Head on down to the Galapagos and other extremely remote places where humans have never lived, and you can walk right up to all of the animals. They have no fear. Score another borne-out predition of the ToE.

​

OTOH, there are plenty of predators, such a tigers, large snakes and lions, which are currently known to catch and eat humans. Why would it be any different for even larger predators such as carniverous dinos to catch and eat humans?

​

Why aren't there ANY fossils of dinosaurs with ANY large mammal fossils inside them? There are fossils of dinosaurs with other dinos inside, but not a single one with large mammal fossils inside. Why?

​

quote:

---

Even if a dinasaur had eaten a human just previous to the flood, there is no guarantee that that dinausaur would be fossilized.

---

​

What is your evidence for the flood?

​

Here's a question:

​

Why do we not find any flowering plants in the lowest/earliest geologic layers? They are only found higher/later. Flowering plants include many species of plants, including all grasses and all deciduous trees. Did the all of the flowering grasses and trees run for high ground when the rains started to fall?

​

[QUOTE]And even if a dinasaur who had eaten a human WAS fossilized, the odds are it will never be discovered.[/b]

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"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.

---

I have another question.If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, then why don't we find human artifacts made from dinosaur bone and skin? We have things made from whalebone, horsebone, elephant hide, snakeskin, buffalo hide, ivory, tortiseshell, etc. etc. Some of these items are tens of thousands of years old. Why no dinobone?

quote:

---

And the preoccupation with personalities and motivations reminds one of a knitting circle.

---

Now, now, let's not get into gender stereotyping, please.Some of the most scheming and political people I have ever known have been men, and that kind of activity definitely requires more than a little attention to personalities and motivations.AND, some of the most political, backbiting places on earth are universities. Not all of them, but some university departments could give Fortune 500 boardrooms a run for their money in the political power-play area.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-16-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by techristian:
[B]Ok here is your answer Mark.First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !
Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS ![/QUOTE]So, does this mean that you accept that new species can emerge? Perhaps you could define both "kind" and "species" for us.Specifically, I would like to understand exactly what criterion to use to tell one "kind" from another. I already know the criterion with which to identify different species, but I am wondering if you do.For example, you essentially say above that "a salamander is a salamander." Well, is a "cat a cat"? Are Bengal tigers and my housecats the same "kind"? Are Chimps and Orangutans the same "kind"? How about Bonobo Chimps and humans? Are bats and eagles the same "fowl" kind (the Bible defines them both as "fowl")?Please relieve my confusion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Now, now, let's not get into gender stereotyping, please.

​

Some of the most scheming and political people I have ever known have been men, and that kind of activity definitely requires more than a little attention to personalities and motivations.

---

​

Now, now, let's not get into gender stereotyping, please.
Some of the best knitters I have ever known have been men, including my father (who knitted me a wonderful Guernsey when I was at university), and, of course, Kaffe Fassett.

---

LOL!But the question is, did your father knit in a circle with other knitters, preoccupied with people personalities and motivations?