Co-Existence of Man and Dinosaurs

[Live4Him]

Okay now, in "Probability of God", we've addressed the lack of a scientific explanation for the origins of the singularity, thus increasing the probability of some god, whether or not it is the God of the Bible.
And, in "Where is the energy?", we've addressed the lack of a fuel source for the stars to burn for the billions of years needed the naturalists' religion.

After that, in "Name that animal!", we presented Biblical support for the coexistence of man and dinosaurs. This naturally led to the issue of other sources of evidence for the existence of man and dinosaurs. Thus, the reason for this post.

UNFOSSILIZED DINO BONES & DNA

Dinosaur Blood in UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bone?

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/bones.jsp

Dinosaur bones yield blood protein
Mary Schweitzer of Montana State University in Bozeman was inspired in her quest for
ancient proteins by an exceptionally well-preserved tyrannosaur skeleton. 'In parts it
was almost indistinguishable from modern bone, with no mineral infilling,' she says. A
dense outer layer of bone seems to have stopped water diffusing in, limiting
fossilisation of the interior. Schweitzer used high-performance liquid chromatography to
identify organic materials in the bone. This suggested proteins and nucleic acids were
present. The sandstone matrix that had contained the fossil showed no such
compounds.
-- New Scientist, 21 Jun 97, Volume 154, Issue 2087.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/dna.jsp

Dinosaurs bones retrieved from a coal mine have given up some of their secrets to
scientists at Brigham Young University in Utah. Scott Woodward and his team have
extracted short stretches of the dinosaur's DNA

If dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, how is it that the dinosaur bone that Mary found is unfossilized? Furthermore, how is it that there is still partial DNA material within the bones? DNA breaks down quickly, and will be nothing more than fragments within a few thousand years.

Tomas Lindahl has said:
deprived of the repair mechanisms provided in living cells, fully
hydrated DNA is spontaneously degraded to short fragments over
a time period of several thousand years at moderate temperatures
Lindahl, T. 1993. Nature 362: 709-15.

http://www.discover.com/cover_story/9801-3.html#4
It [DNA] is such a fragile molecule, they argue, that it can't hold up for
more than 100,000 years, even in amber.

It seems that dinosaurs could NOT have lived millions of years ago if their DNA is still around today.


DINO & HUMAN TRACKS

Pictures speak louder than words. Here are some pictures of both Dinosaurs and Human tracks side by side, and even on top of one another.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-overlay-animation.gif
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-all-14.jpg

Here are pictures / reports of dinosaur figurines from Mexico, which were made more than 1000 years ago.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm#photo

Here is dinosaur art, from Peru more than 1000 years ago.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm


TIME OF FOSSILIZATION & COALIFICATION

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm
Fossilized Hammer
This unique iron hammer with partially coalified wooden handle was found in Lower Cretaceous Limestone, supposedly 140 million years old (the time of the dinosaurs). According to evolutionary theory, this hammer must have been made by dinosaurs.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils.htm
Rapid Petrifaction
The cowboy leg inside this boot is fossilized. This dramatic example demonstrates that it does not take millions, thousands or even hundreds of years to form fossils.

CONCLUSION

Coalification and fossilization occurs at a much more rapid pace than proposed by naturalists. Thus, this is not a good indication of the passage of time. Dinosaur and human tracks exist in the same strata of rock. This indicates co-existence of dinosaurs and man. This is in agreement with the Biblical passage in Job, which most people who voted felt was a description of a dinosaur. And, with parts of dinosaur DNA surviving to this time, it scientifically provides empirical evidence for a short period of time since their demise. This is obviously significantly less than a million years, much less the 65 millions of years proposed by naturalists.

 

[williamwbishop]

That was worth reading, just for the laugh I got after. Seriously, do you really think that if you write the word CONCLUSION and list the posits before it, that someone will mistake it for logic? Such leaps of FAITH, disregarding both common sense and reason are as far as you can get from logic. Those sites have been debunked so many times that it's incredible that you would even post them with a straight face. Maybe you were hoping for some new posters who hadn't been around and wouldn't bother to look too closely?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Live4Him
CONCLUSION

Your discussion of "where's the energy" exposed you as a libelous fool.
Your comic "Biblical support for the coexistence of man and dinosaurs" was worthless.
Your pathetic efforts in proving the historicity of the Exodus were a joke.
And now, your silly resurrection of Paluxy shows you to be consistent.

So tell me, what was the date of the world-wide Flood?

 

[Vienna]

Originally posted by Live4Him

we presented Biblical support for the coexistence of man and dinosaurs.
Yep of course I believe it, sure I do. Christians always try to cover up blunders. This time it's because the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs.

Oh by the way, I've heard that a double decker bus has been spotted abandoned on the moon. Kids will do anything for a laugh these days, but they're not half as entertaining as christians.

 

[Jaxom]

The three previous threads speak for themselves. You'll need to actually provide some hard evidence that hasnt been debunked in the past to follow through.

Did you ever post that thread on why paleontologists are in error dating materials? Be sure to post it in Earth Science, where it can be properly argued if you haven't yet. And don't use carbon dating as an excuse, I want a breakdown of all the dating methods that are used and why they're faulty.

 

[Voodoo Child]

Oh ye Gods. I'm about an inch away from whatsup style abusive caps.

Okay now, in "Probability of God", we've addressed the lack of a scientific explanation for the origins of the singularity

Considering there is no possible way to investigate anything before time, space and the unvierse that is not surprising. How does this increase the likelihood of a God? Also there is the question of whether the singularity <i>needs</i> an origin.
The whole thing is rather confusing since you are arguing BBC and YEC and they are not compatible.

After that, in "Name that animal!", we presented Biblical support for the coexistence of man and dinosaurs. This naturally led to the issue of other sources of evidence for the existence of man and dinosaurs. Thus, the reason for this post.

Your arguments were eviscerated. Have a look. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=244314#post244314 <i>I</i> posted the "evidence" to dispute your claims.

"Dinosaur Blood in UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bone?"

Partially fossilised. What prevented fossilisation was the impermeability of the bone which resulted in the usually fine preservation of the proteins.

deprived of the repair mechanisms provided in living cells, fully hydrated DNA is spontaneously degraded to short fragments over a time period of several thousand years at moderate temperatures

Was it fully hydrated? Was it at moderate temps? Besides, the DNA they extracted WAS highly degraded: "The longest sequence they extracted is 174 base pairs, with only 134 pairs useful for genetic analysis,"

It [DNA] is such a fragile molecule, they argue, that it can't hold up for
more than 100,000 years, even in amber.

Which is directly contradicted by your source: "The oldest DNA yet extracted comes from a weevil trapped in amber 120 million years ago."

f dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, how is it that the dinosaur bone that Mary found is unfossilized?... DNA breaks down quickly, and will be nothing more than fragments within a few thousand years.

Partially fossilised. The missing premise to your argument is that nothing unfossilised can survive several million years. Also it was not confirmed that it was DNA(first link) and second it would be highly degraded if it was.

Art from Peru:

http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html

You can also see Ica stones of a heart transplant.

Mexico:

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999october/october1999.htm#acambaro

Sound highly dubious, no?

See CA's paluxy link for the footprints. Did you actually visit the link I posted in 'name that animal'?

The fossilised cowboy boot etc. have no references, and haven't been dated. Even money that some of them are fraudulent. You should research the difference between fossilization and petrification. P is involved in fossilisation but things can petrify in hundred or so years. Those evil Satano-geologists don't think that all petrified things are from MYA. I shouldn't think this would constitute the downfall of modern science.

Coalification and fossilization occurs at a much more rapid pace than proposed by naturalists.

Naturalists is the wrong word. Many, if not most, modern geologists are theists. They are quite happy with the rate of fossilisation, thank you very much. I'm not a geologist or a palaeontologist, so post in the science forums for a better critique.

Dinosaur and human tracks exist in the same strata of rock.

Nuh-uh. See above

This is in agreement with the Biblical passage in Job, which most people who voted felt was a description of a dinosaur. And, with parts of dinosaur DNA surviving to this time, it scientifically provides empirical evidence for a short period of time since their demise. This is obviously significantly les

Actually, at time of posting it was tied with "other". Also, at the time of posting "people think..." is not a good way to start an argument. Nor, did your poll ask whether they actually thought the description was based in reality. The idea that it was a dinosaur got a good kicking by that agent of Satan who goes by the name Raithere.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16005&perpage=20&pagenumber=5

Having answered that I'm a little closer to dementia.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Live4Him
Okay now, in "Probability of God", we've addressed the lack of a scientific explanation for the origins of the singularity, thus increasing the probability of some god, whether or not it is the God of the Bible.

Your ignorance is not an argument for a "lack of scientific explanation". I offered several scientific explanations, only one of which you even attempted to counter and that not very effectively. Are you going to dodge the issues in this thread as well so that you can assure yourself that you have come to the proper conclusion? I'm just wondering if I should waste my time here with you.

And, in "Where is the energy?", we've addressed the lack of a fuel source for the stars to burn for the billions of years needed the naturalists' religion.

Once again in this thread you fail to address the issues and evidence that was brought to your attention. There seems to be a trend here...

After that, in "Name that animal!", we presented Biblical support for the coexistence of man and dinosaurs. This naturally led to the issue of other sources of evidence for the existence of man and dinosaurs.

See comments above regarding the other threads. Are you just looking for a place to evangelize the creationist myth or are you actually going to debate one of these issues?

If dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, how is it that the dinosaur bone that Mary found is unfossilized?

No big mystery here. The incomplete fossilization was explained in the article you quoted, "A dense outer layer of bone seems to have stopped water diffusing in, limiting fossilisation of the interior."

Furthermore, how is it that there is still partial DNA material within the bones? DNA breaks down quickly, and will be nothing more than fragments within a few thousand years.

You'll note that the article said " Despite some claimed successes, no one has yet convinced the majority of scientists that they have recovered recognisable dinosaur DNA. But this month a team of researchers from Montana reports that they have extracted other biochemicals, including proteins and haem compounds, and possibly nucleic acids from unusually well-preserved bones of Tyrannosaurus rex." No one has said that proteins and nucleic acids could not survive.

It seems that dinosaurs could NOT have lived millions of years ago if their DNA is still around today.

Based upon what evidence?

Pictures speak louder than words. Here are some pictures of both Dinosaurs and Human tracks side by side, and even on top of one another.

:sigh: This is such a trite argument. Every such case has been soundly refuted except in those instances where the exact site location has never been revealed by the creationists who "discovered" them and thus cannot be refuted.

Here are pictures / reports of dinosaur figurines from Mexico, which were made more than 1000 years ago.

I keep getting a "contact" refused error when I try to get to this site. Suffice it to say that such artwork is typically either simply a poor representation of animals that lived at the time or are drawings of mythological fantasies. Or do you propose that the Egyptians must have actually seen creatures with human bodies and animal heads?

This unique iron hammer with partially coalified wooden handle was found in Lower Cretaceous Limestone, supposedly 140 million years old (the time of the dinosaurs).

The iron hammer with the burned handle and the boot, have obviously been partially coated by limestone deposits. Such accretions build up rather rapidly (you'll notice then around a dripping faucet or a teapot that hasn't been cleaned in a while). This is NOT the same thing as fossilization.

Of course, if these were actually examples of some sort of hyper-fossilization the creationists could shatter the current scientific theory regarding fossilization simply by offering them up to scientific analysis. That they have not only suggests that either they have not been brought forward for analysis or that the analysis demonstrated that they are what I indicated previously.

Coalification and fossilization occurs at a much more rapid pace than proposed by naturalists.

Pure presumption. All evidence indicates that these things take quite a long time under normal conditions.

Dinosaur and human tracks exist in the same strata of rock.

Another unfounded claim.

This is in agreement with the Biblical passage in Job, which most people who voted felt was a description of a dinosaur.

As I pointed out in that thread your synopsis of the Biblical passage was deliberately skewed to support that perception. The actual passage describes a hippo.

And, with parts of dinosaur DNA surviving to this time, it scientifically provides empirical evidence for a short period of time since their demise.

Not at all (see above).

Your argument is very weak and I find your conclusion to be unfounded.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Voodoo Child
that agent of Satan who goes by the name Raithere.

I prefer Lucifer, the dawn-star.

The angel of light; who knew that mankind was more than God ever dreamed. Who had the courage to stand against God's desire to keep us all stupid and subservient by inspiring us towards knowledge, leading us out of our coddled and sycophantic infancy in Eden and into a challenging and rewarding existence and the infinite possibilities beyond.

Lucifer: a cursed Biblical reflection of the celebrated Prometheus.

Metaphorically, of course.

~Raithere

 

[Live4Him]

Well, for the most part, the responses were as I expected. Most of them were derogatory attacks lacking in empirical evidence. I will handle the two that differed (Voodoo Child and Raithere) in separate posts, addressing each issue independently. For the rest of the posters, what you basically admitted was that your beliefs lacked a significant foundation to dispute the empirical facts. In short, you are naturalist fanatics. I'm not trying to be derogatory here, but I'm simply stating that you are fanatical in your beliefs of natural origins, even when empirical evidence is against you. And this is the claim that most naturalists attempt to pin on Christians.


Jaxom,

Did you ever post that thread on why paleontologists are in error dating materials?

No, I haven't. I've got it ready, but it is way down the list of issues that I plan to address. I've got five "offense" issues that needs to come before this issue. So, it will probably take more than a week to get to it.

Be sure to post it in Earth Science, where it can be properly argued if you haven't yet.

No can do. While it is a scientific issue, it has greater religious implications than scientific implications.

If radiometric dating is erroneous, then from the Earth Science perspective, it is simply a science that will be discarded or reanalyzed. But, from the Religious perspective, it destroys the idea of "millions and billions of years" and thus invalidates the probability of naturalism.

If the moderators feel the need to censor the topic on this forum, then that is their choice. All it reveals is their insecurity of their beliefs. However, once they do, I will continue posting summaries of previous posts including the fact that they felt the need to silence all empirical evidence against naturalism.

However, feel free to invite any and all on the Earth Science forum to this forum, EVEN if they are scientists. Then we could REALLY have a good discussion.


And don't use carbon dating as an excuse, I want a breakdown of all the dating methods that are used and why they're faulty.

Why not? I guess you realize that C14 dating is not always reliable. Yet, my focus on this subject is long-term dating methods, most notably K-Ar. But... lets save that for when the subject is addressed.

In case you are wondering, I'm walking down the naturalists' philosophy, starting from the origins of the Big Bang (15 billions years ago), and continuing through evolution and then to morals of naturalists (i.e. current time).

There is plenty of scientific evidence against the naturalists' philosophy.

 

[Zero]

Oh in the name of sweet Isis, please refrain from getting the same fate as whatsupyall.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Voodoo Child

Oh ye Gods. I'm about an inch away from whatsup style abusive caps.

So, you admit that you are no different than whatsup? A person's real character is revealed when that person is put under pressure. And you are admitting a similarity.


Considering there is no possible way to investigate anything before time, space and the unvierse

Don't forget, it is extremely difficult all subjects that are in the distant past (i.e. 100+ years). And it gets even more difficult when there is no written record. Yet, naturalists ignore that fact of life when they present "scientific" evidence for their naturalistic beliefs.


The whole thing is rather confusing since you are arguing BBC and YEC and they are not compatible.

The Naturalists (a religion based upon the belief in natural causes of everything observed) propose the Bib Bang Creation (BBC) as the origin of life as we know it. Many Christians propose YEC (Young Earth Creation) as the origin of life as we know it. And no, they are not compatible.

In my posts, I'm exposing the scientific flaws in the BB (Big Bang) model. I find that if I only use YEC (i.e. "Christian") web sites, they get discounted due to the source. Thus, I seek out BBC/naturalist web sites (or news organizations posting reports from those sources) to present the empirical facts. Once I point out the facts in these articles, then I continue with my argument.

Thus, I'm extracting empirical facts from sources that should be hostile to my position. This way, no one can argue about the validity of the facts. (i.e. I'm making it as tough on myself as possible.)


Was it fully hydrated? Was it at moderate temps? Besides, the DNA they extracted WAS highly degraded: "The longest sequence they extracted is 174 base pairs, with only 134 pairs useful for genetic analysis,"

Of course it was fully hydrated! It WAS a living dinosaur just before it died. And of course it was highly degraded. Utilizing the opinion that I've put forward, (i.e. Dinos died approximately 4000 years ago), then one WOULD expect a highly degraded DNA string, especially considering the fact presented by Thomas Lindahl.


It [DNA] is such a fragile molecule, they argue, that it can't hold up for
more than 100,000 years, even in amber.
Which is directly contradicted by your source: "The oldest DNA yet extracted comes from a weevil trapped in amber 120 million years ago."

Lets separate out the empirical facts from the opinion.
1) DNA is very fragile. It quickly breaks down, leaving only fragments after a few thousand years.
2) DNA has been extracted from a weevil trapped in amber.

Now, lets present the opinions.
1) DNA won't survive for more than 100,000 years.
2) The weevil is 120 million years old.

Now, we will extrapolate the valid opinions.

It is very unlikely that DNA will quickly break down for 1000+ years, and then it will lock in that state of disrepair for the next 60,000 times as long of a period. Why should the breakdown process completely stop? It is not logical.

It is logically possible for the breakdown process to slow down as time passed. Or, it could speed up. But, it is unreasonable for the process to completely stop for the next 120 million years.

On the other hand, it IS logical to believe that the DNA extracted is less than 10,000 years old. And if so, then the YEC (Young Earth Creation) model is correct.


The missing premise to your argument is that nothing unfossilised can survive several million years. Also it was not confirmed that it was DNA(first link) and second it would be highly degraded if it was.

You are partially correct. I did not list the premise that nothing unfossilized could survive for 65+ million years. Yet, it was one of my premises.

Fossils, from living animals in the past, are part of the process of life. And as life, they break down when there is not a repair mechanism in place to repair the damage. Thus, it is impossible for previously living cells to prevent this breakdown from occurring. I will grant you that the breakdown process could be slowed down. But not stopped like it would need to be for this 65+ million year old bone.


Also it was not confirmed that it was DNA(first link) and second it would be highly degraded if it was.

Blood and blood plasma contain DNA. The newscientist article specified it as blood plasma. Thus, it has been confirmed that DNA was present. The article stated that "recognizable dinosaur DNA" has not been found. It doesn't say that DNA was not present.

Art from Peru: http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html
Since Cabrera's stones come from some mystery cave which has never been identified, much less excavated, there is no way to date them.

Actually, this is false or misleading. Lets look at a quote from the source that I gave.

Dr. Cabrera has obtained test results from the University of Bonn in Germany, the University of Lima, and an engineering laboratory in Lima all of which confirmed a patina which they say is "indicative of great age."

Patina often forms in caves on objects. Unless it has been artificially induced, it always indicates an old date, even though undatable. The Univ of Lima study confirmed the patina was not of a recent origin (i.e. it was not artificially induced). Thus, it would need to be over 160 years (i.e. the beginning of our current knowledge of dinosaurs).

This is why I prefer straight empirical facts. Then, I can evaluate the information on my own. And, when I catch an author in a lie (like the Peru Art author), when he misrepresented the facts, then his entire position is called into question. He stated that the art was undateable. This is both true and misleading. It is true that an exact date cannot be obtained. But, it is misleading because it CAN be determined the art is older than the knowledge they should contain.

When a person feels the need to misrepresent the facts, it tells me they believe their position to be too weak to stand without the lies.

As Vinny (from My Cousin Vinny) says "I've got no more use for THIS guy."


I'm not a geologist or a palaeontologist, so post in the science forums for a better critique.

The "Where's the Energy?" post that was moved to the Astronomy forum didn't get any better responses. There were only three posts (other than mine) from after the move by one of the moderators on this forum. And, it was almost exclusively mockery. It lacked the debates of the empirical evidence that I prefer.


See CA's paluxy link for the footprints. Did you actually visit the link I posted in 'name that animal'?

Of course I've read bible.ca's link. I'm the one that posted it.

No, I did not see a link by you on the other thread. When the thread turns to simple name calling, I quit reading the thread. However, having seen the tracks, no amount of logic will refute the evidence that I can see with my own eyes. Now, if they want to argue that the tracks were of a much higher strata, or some similar empirical fact, then I will entertain their arguments.


The fossilised cowboy boot etc. have no references, and haven't been dated.

I'm sorry, but I don't need a scientific study to tell me that a "fossilized cowboy boot" is less that a few thousand years old, which is much less than the "required time" for normal fossilization according to naturalists.


Naturalists is the wrong word. Many, if not most, modern geologists are theists.

Well, this is your opinion, but I'm looking for empirical facts to discuss. You (nor has anybody) polled the religious views of any world group. Yet, the beliefs that we are discussing are from the naturalist philosophy.


Live4Him: most people who voted felt was a description of a dinosaur.
Actually, at time of posting it was tied with "other".

Nope. Prior to the source being revealed, the split was 2/4/0/2 (hippo, dino, rhino, other). I deliberately recorded it in the post because I KNEW that after revealing the source the votes would decidedly swing away from dinos because of personal biases.


Having answered that I'm a little closer to dementia.

Hey, I'm having fun!, But, I guess it is a little easier to debate when the empirical facts support your side, rather than finding biases opinions to support one's side.

Maybe you're on the wrong side. Unless you like to be driven crazy?

 

[Live4Him]

Having fun yet?

Originally posted by Raithere

Your ignorance is not an argument for a "lack of scientific explanation". I offered several scientific explanations

Science is based upon observations. Thus, "scientific explanation" means an explanation of observations. You offered no observations to support your position. Thus, there wasn't a scientific explanation, just opinions. Opinions are a waste of time to refute because even when empirical evidence is presented, the opinion changes just enough to address the evidence.

(i.e.
O: The WTC didn't collapse due to Arab terrorists attacks by planes.
E: Planes driven by Arabs impacted the WTC. Shortly there after, the towers collapsed.
O: Winds blew them over, not the planes.)

See, it is a chasing after the wind to attempt to address every opinion. So, present your observations, and we can debate the conclusions of those facts. Until then ...


Live4Him: in "Where is the energy?", we've addressed the lack of a fuel source for the stars to burn for the billions of years needed the naturalists' religion.
Once again in this thread you fail to address the issues and evidence that was brought to your attention.

I didn't see ANY empirical evidence. Perhaps you could present it here? I don't see the need to discuss it on a forum not dealing with the religious aspects, so don't ask me to go there.


Are you just looking for a place to evangelize the creationist myth or are you actually going to debate one of these issues?

Myth? You are trying to assert that empirical evidence is MYTH? Drop your biases and deal with the facts.

I'm more than glad to debate empirical evidence and the interpretation of that evidence. What I'm not interested in debating is the opinions of others as being "empirical evidence".

So, present your evidence, and we'll debate. But, present "expert opinions", and you are just quoting your priest.


The incomplete fossilization was explained in the article you quoted, "A dense outer layer of bone seems to have stopped water diffusing in, limiting fossilisation of the interior."

No mystery if the bones were less than 10,000 years old. BUT, when they are alleged to be MILLIONS of years old, then the facts don't agree with the opinion of the age of the fossils.


You'll note that the article said " Despite some claimed successes, no one has yet convinced the majority of scientists that they have recovered recognisable dinosaur DNA.

But, we are not talking about recognizable DNA. We are talking about ANY DNA. No DNA, of any amount should survive the millions of years that are alleged to have passed since the KT boundary.


No one has said that proteins and nucleic acids could not survive.

NOTHING of a living animal dead for more than 65 million years, with the exception of a fossil, should still exist. Please remember, a fossil is basically a stone in the shape of previous structure like a dino bone.


Based upon what evidence?

Based upon the empirical evidence of today of the rapid breakdown of all life forms after death.


Every such case has been soundly refuted except in those instances where the exact site location has never been revealed by the creationists who "discovered" them and thus cannot be refuted.

Ahhh. but HOW were they refuted? Anybody can "logically" refute the empirical facts, but it doesn't mean that the refutation holds water.

Logically, a man can not fly. This logical argument was presented for centuries, but the empirical evidence shows otherwise. Logically, the World Trade Centers were designed to withstand the impact by a plane, without collapsing. Thus, logically, they could NOT have collapsed due to the plane crashes.


I keep getting a "contact" refused error when I try to get to this site.

Well, I gave the group address as well. I could have cut off a character in my copy and paste.

You should be able to link to the proper picture from one of the sublinks. Here it is again.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm


All evidence indicates that these things take quite a long time under normal conditions.

Here you go again. You are making an assumption. Evidence should reflect empirical evidence, not subjective evidence. There is no scientific study that has been conducted for any significant number of years (i.e. 200+), especially under what you call "normal conditions". Thus, there is no evidence to support your claim. Yet, there IS empirical evidence of these things (fossilization and coalification) occurring much more rapidly that believed.

How do these occur? Logically, they don't. But empirically, they do. A real scientist must deal with the empirical evidence (i.e. that which is observed) without trying to explain it away.


The actual passage describes a hippo.

His tail sways like a cedar;

2179. zanab; from 2180; to curtail, i.e. cut off the rear:- smite the hindmost.
2180. zanawb; from 2179; the tail (lit. or fig.):- tail.

So, how does the tail of a hippo resemble a cedar tree?


Your argument is very weak and I find your conclusion to be unfounded.

At least ... You'd like to believe that. However, why don't you present empirical (i.e. observable to all) evidence to back up your claims, like I presented empirical evidence to support my position?

Is it that you don't have any?



To others:

I'm sorry that I couldn't get to the Genesis Authorship post. I'll get to it tomorrow. Or I might do some tonight.


Later,

<><
Live4Him

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Live4Him
There is plenty of scientific evidence against the naturalists' philosophy.

No, my libelous little yec, there is not.

 

[Zero]

I'm a bit drained from slaughtering whatsupyall. After a short break, I will be back to annihilate you, you little creep. If you ARE whatsupyall back in a different style, I swear I'll ... do what I formerly said I would do. Really.

Creationism has no empirical evidence. There is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Try to argue otherwise.

 

[Zero]

Alright, just a quickie here to feel the water. Sweet Isis help me.

There is evidence that man existed. There is evidence that dinosaurs existed. There is NO evidence that they existed side by side.

You do not cite a reputable source. I have yet to see any prestigious scientific journal, historical scientist, or scientific academic group cited in your posts. Therefore the credibility of your arguments are quite nil.

Is there evidence of creationism? Heck no. Unless you can provide me with some.

Is there evidence of evolution? Heck yes. The fossil record, among other things.

Any thoughts?

 

[Voodoo Child]

Don't forget, it is extremely difficult all subjects that are in the distant past (i.e. 100+ years). And it gets even more difficult when there is no written record. Yet, naturalists ignore that fact of life when they present "scientific" evidence for their naturalistic beliefs.

It is reasonably challenging, I wouldn't say it is always extremely difficult. It does not mean that well supported theories can not be formed or that outlandish theories can not be refuted.

The Naturalists (a religion based upon the belief in natural causes of everything observed) propose the Bib Bang Creation (BBC) as the origin of life as we know it.

1) Naturalism is not a religion: no moral code, diety, path to salvation/enlightenment.

2) Big Bang Cosmology is not the sole preserve of naturalists.

3) You can't logically hold that BBC increases the p of God and argue against it reductio ad absurdum.

In my posts, I'm exposing the scientific flaws in the BB (Big Bang) model. I find that if I only use YEC (i.e. "Christian") web sites, they get discounted due to the source.

No, generally they get discounted because of their illogic, unwarranted conclusions, highly selective use of evidence etc, etc.

Thus, I'm extracting empirical facts from sources that should be hostile to my position. This way, no one can argue about the validity of the facts. (i.e. I'm making it as tough on myself as possible.)

1) The sources aren't hostile to your position, your position holds no place in their consiciousness since no serious scientist has considered it for 100 years.

2) Of course I can argue about the validity of the facts. eg. the Lindahl quote: the external validity comes into question because of the differing conditions. Can Lindhal's findings be accurately applied to DNA at the bottom of a coal mine or trapped in Amber.

Of course it was fully hydrated! It WAS a living dinosaur just before it died. And of course it was highly degraded. Utilizing the opinion that I've put forward, (i.e. Dinos died approximately 4000 years ago), then one WOULD expect a highly degraded DNA string, especially considering the fact presented by Thomas Lindahl.

Just because the dinosaur was living doesn't mean that the DNA was fully hydrated. A-form DNA has a different physical structure, I don't know how this affects decomposition. Also, under your thesis, you'd expect lots of fossils to have DNA remaining. However, this is an <i>extremely</i> rare phenomenon, so your explanation does not fit the observed facts.

Lets separate out the empirical facts from the opinion.
1) DNA is very fragile. It quickly breaks down, leaving only fragments after a few thousand years.
2) DNA has been extracted from a weevil trapped in amber.

Now, lets present the opinions.
1) DNA won't survive for more than 100,000 years.
2) The weevil is 120 million years old.

Fact one: should read "...under the conditions of Lindahl's expt". ie. the external validity again. I don't have journal access at the moment, I'm not sure of the test conditions, conclusions, other research etc. If anyone can pull the article...
As a result of this misstatement of premise 1 the rest of your conclusions, to use a philosophical term, are extremely dodgy and your extrapolations useless.

On the other hand, it IS logical to believe that the DNA extracted is less than 10,000 years old. And if so, then the YEC (Young Earth Creation) model is correct.

The first bit I've dealt with. Second, your conclusion doesn't follow. You have created a false dichotomy, YEC or mainstream neo-darwinian evolution. Dinosaurs could of lived thousands of years ago and YEC model could still be wrong. Evolution could still have occurred. Evolution might not have occurred but the universe is billions of years old. Universe is young, but no giant flood/ big boat. Need I continue....

Of course I've read bible.ca's link. I'm the one that posted it.

No, I did not see a link by you on the other thread. When the thread turns to simple name calling, I quit reading the thread. However, having seen the tracks, no amount of logic will refute the evidence that I can see with my own eyes. Now, if they want to argue that the tracks were of a much higher strata, or some similar empirical fact, then I will entertain their arguments.

CA was Consequent Atheist, but you're kidding, right? The Paluxy tracks are widely acknowledged by creationists and science to be eroded dino prints. If you won't look at the evidence, that's your problem. Minds can only be opened from the inside.

Dr. Cabrera has obtained test results from the University of Bonn in Germany, the University of Lima, and an engineering laboratory in Lima all of which confirmed a patina which they say is "indicative of great age."

Wow, an unpublished study. The carvings consist of scratching off the oxidised layer. That the Patina is old does not mean the carving is.

Hey, he's riding a pterodactyl! That is SO cool!

I can't take this shit seriously. Brain transplants? Flying machines? Extraterrestrials? Fucking Jesus, this is insane.

Nope. Prior to the source being revealed, the split was 2/4/0/2 (hippo, dino, rhino, other).

At the time <i>I</i> posted. Now it is 8:7 is dinos favour, however, only 40% think you are right. What about my other criticisms of your argumentum ad populum?

Well, this is your opinion, but I'm looking for empirical facts to discuss. You (nor has anybody) polled the religious views of any world group. Yet, the beliefs that we are discussing are from the naturalist philosophy.

No they are not. Yes, scientists must use methodological naturalism to investigate the world. This does not imply that any or all of them are philosophical naturalists. World religions have been constantly polled. In regard to science, see:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Which says that 45% of scientists are definitely theistic. The other 55 could be, also.

I'm sorry, but I don't need a scientific study to tell me that a "fossilized cowboy boot" is less that a few thousand years old, which is much less than the "required time" for normal fossilization according to naturalists.

As I said before: "You should research the difference between fossilization and petrification. P is involved in fossilisation but things can petrify in hundred or so years. Those evil Satano-geologists don't think that all petrified things are from MYA. I shouldn't think this would constitute the downfall of modern science. "

 

[Raithere]

Re: Having fun yet?

Originally posted by Live4Him
Science is based upon observations. Thus, "scientific explanation" means an explanation of observations.

You asked for explanations not proof. Admittedly, as it stands all "naturalistic" explanations as to the origins of the Universe are largely hypothetical. Some are based upon observed phenomena however most remain mathematical hypotheses.

This puts them on approximately the same standing as the "unmoved mover" or "God" for which there is, of course, zero evidence. Personally, given two hypotheses one of which seems to have evolved out of pure imagination and the other which has been derived through methodologies that have proven reliability, I will choose the latter. If you choose the former that is your prerogative, though I would mention that religion has an extremely poor track record regarding the explanation of observable phenomena.

I didn't see ANY empirical evidence. Perhaps you could present it here? I don't see the need to discuss it on a forum not dealing with the religious aspects, so don't ask me to go there.

There was significant response to your thread, you did not reply. If I took the same attitude I wouldn't be conversing with you at all. So far I have not seen an iota of "evidence".

Myth? You are trying to assert that empirical evidence is MYTH? Drop your biases and deal with the facts.

Please do supply those facts then... thus far I've seen nothing that has not been scientifically refuted or simply baseless conjecture.

No mystery if the bones were less than 10,000 years old. BUT, when they are alleged to be MILLIONS of years old, then the facts don't agree with the opinion of the age of the fossils.

Why would that be? Unfossilized remains have been found that are far older. It all depends on the conditions of their interment.

But, we are not talking about recognizable DNA. We are talking about ANY DNA. No DNA, of any amount should survive the millions of years that are alleged to have passed since the KT boundary.

Obviously that is not the case under certain conditions.

You either do not understand how science works or, more likely, you are simply using particular statements erroneously to "prove" your point and convince those who do not know any better. If DNA is found that is 120 million years old the theory that DNA cannot exist for that long is the theory that is in error and needs to be corrected. What you seem to think should happen is that all other scientific theories should be thrown out and this single one should stand despite the fact that the other theories give congruent results with each-other and with the facts. That is NOT how it works. It is the incongruent theory or fact that is questioned. If 5 tests are congruent and 1 test disagrees then the most likely explanation is that the 1 test that is most likely to be in error.

NOTHING of a living animal dead for more than 65 million years, with the exception of a fossil, should still exist.

Tissues and biochemicals don't simply spontaneously disintegrate. They need to interact with something (chemicals, radiation, life, erosion, etc.) Under certain conditions these interactions are decreased or almost entirely eliminated in which case the tissues could last almost indefinitely.

Based upon the empirical evidence of today of the rapid breakdown of all life forms after death.

Under normal conditions (e.g. laying out in the open) yes. However, under certain conditions the body, cells, proteins, acids, etc. break down much more slowly than normal. Under perfect conditions they would not break down at all.

Ahhh. but HOW were they refuted? Anybody can "logically" refute the empirical facts, but it doesn't mean that the refutation holds water.

In most cases simply by revealing that which the creationists were trying to hide. The "human" foot prints have been found to be dinosaur prints that were partially registered, eroded, covered, or fake:

The conclusion reached by Neufeld was that there was not any "good evidence for the past existence of giant men", and the Paluxy River prints did not "provide evidence for the coexistence of such men (or other large mammals) and the giant dinosaurs." (cited in Ronald Numbers, "The Creationists", Alfred Knopf, NY, 1992, p. 266)

Burdick's original tale was that he had found human footprints actually overlapping those of dinosaurs, and this was the story that Morris and Whitcomb repeated in the first edition of their book "The Genesis Flood". Later, however, Burdick admitted that no such overlapping prints existed, and Morris and Whitcomb were forced to revise this portion of their text in the third edition. (cited in Numbers, 1992, pp. 202-203) (As shown above, Morris nevertheless repeated this debunked claim in 1974, in his book "Scientific Creationism".)

Paleontologists who examined the Paluxy "man prints" have without exception declared them to be nothing more than partially-registered dinosaur tracks, natural depressions, or, in some instances, deliberate forgeries carved by local residents to sell to tourists. These were also the conclusions reached by biologist Glen Kuban in 1980, as well as another group of scientists in 1984, which included physicist Ronnie Hastings, geologist Steven Schaferman, anthropologist John Cole and physical anthropologist Laurie Godfrey. (Arthur N. Strahler, "Science and Earth History", Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1987, p. 463)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/paluxy.htm

Logically, a man can not fly. This logical argument was presented for centuries, but the empirical evidence shows otherwise. Logically, the World Trade Centers were designed to withstand the impact by a plane, without collapsing. Thus, logically, they could NOT have collapsed due to the plane crashes.

You don't understand logic well, do you? Man still cannot fly *unassisted*. All that was missing in the original assertion were the unstated premises.

Regarding the Twin Towers, they did survive the plane impacts but they were not designed to survive the heat generated by the thousands of gallons of burning jet-fuel. This is why they did not fall until long after the crashes. This latter one, however, has nothing to do with logic. Just because man intended for the buildings not to fall does not logically mean that they cannot.

Here you go again. You are making an assumption. Evidence should reflect empirical evidence, not subjective evidence. There is no scientific study that has been conducted for any significant number of years (i.e. 200+), especially under what you call "normal conditions". Thus, there is no evidence to support your claim.

Quite wrong; the sciences of archaeology, paleontology, and geology concur with this.

Yet, there IS empirical evidence of these things (fossilization and coalification) occurring much more rapidly that believed.

Please present the evidence then. The only evidence of rapid coalification that I have heard of have been due to deliberate experiments to accomplish just that.

A real scientist must deal with the empirical evidence (i.e. that which is observed) without trying to explain it away.

Please do then provide some.

So, how does the tail of a hippo resemble a cedar tree?

Exactly in the manner described; in it's movement or "swaying".

However, why don't you present empirical (i.e. observable to all) evidence to back up your claims, like I presented empirical evidence to support my position?

I'm challenging your claims not making my own.

~Raithere

 

[James R]

Live4Him:

<i>If the moderators feel the need to censor the topic on this forum, then that is their choice. All it reveals is their insecurity of their beliefs.</i>

I feel no need to censor this topic because of my beliefs. I am quite confident that real science can easily hold its own against creationist nonsense and lies.

We do not censor posts on this forum because they express a different view. We only delete or edit posts when posters show that they cannot respect other posters and/or common forum etiquette (e.g. no spamming, no excessive swearing, etc.)

<i>However, once they do, I will continue posting summaries of previous posts including the fact that they felt the need to silence all empirical evidence against naturalism.</i>

We do not, however, take kindly to threats. Trying to get around moderation will get you banned, no questions asked.

I feel confident that I can speak for Cris here, too.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

No, my libelous little yec, there is not.

Sorry, but I've already presented quite a bit of empirical evidence which has not been refuted.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Zero

There is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Try to argue otherwise.

Sorry, but I've already presented some : Job 40, both tracks in the same strata, dino art prior to the initial discovery in the 1800's, Dino DNA, etc. Trying to pretend that they haven't been presented won't get you anywhere.


You do not cite a reputable source. I have yet to see any prestigious scientific journal, historical scientist, or scientific academic group cited in your posts.

This is the typical naturalist argument. Just because this info is not currently on naturalists' web sites does not mean this is a valid argument.

Second, part of this information is on newscientist, a scientific journal.

Nope, you need to do better than this.


Is there evidence of creationism? Heck no. Unless you can provide me with some.

There is a lot of evidence of creationism, or at least empirical evidence pointing to "young-earth", and the lack of a scientific explanation (i.e. based upon observations) for the creation of the universe (i.e. the singularity).

I've partially addressed some of this evidence in my "Probability of God" post. And I'll address it further after I've addressed several other subjects.


Is there evidence of evolution? Heck yes. The fossil record, among other things.

The fossil record is ambiguous.

Science should be based upon direct observations, with opinions clearly delineated as opinions. Almost all of the fossil record is some person's opinion, not facts. For example, a person finds a fossilized dino bone 3 ft below the ground level. That is the total of the empirical evidence. The age of the fossil is someone's opinion.

And, when fossil evidence MUST be discarded as anomalies, it calls into question the objectivity of the person doing the discarding. And this discarding of anomalies has occurred far to frequently.