Dinosaurs and Cave men

Dinosaurs and Cave men (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

jadegrrl -> Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/13/2008 11:53:07 AM)
In public school we were taught the 'big bang theory' dinosaurs and homosapiens. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God created Adam and Eve. But Dinosaurs were believed to be on earth before man 230 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs so why does the bible not talk about this? Where does this fit in?

Retro80s -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/13/2008 2:06:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jadegrrl In public school we were taught the 'big bang theory' dinosaurs and homosapiens. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God created Adam and Eve. But Dinosaurs were believed to be on earth before man 230 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs so why does the bible not talk about this? Where does this fit in? Dinosaurs were created by God on day 6 of creation week about 6,000 years ago. The Bible does make reference to dinosaurs. The website Answers in Genesis has many articles on this. Here are some links to some of those articles: What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? Dinosaurs and the Bible Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur? Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?

KaseyTom -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/13/2008 2:24:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CCCdnt quote: ORIGINAL: jadegrrl In public school we were taught the 'big bang theory' dinosaurs and homosapiens. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God created Adam and Eve. But Dinosaurs were believed to be on earth before man 230 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs so why does the bible not talk about this? Where does this fit in? Dinosaurs were created by God on day 6 of creation week about 6,000 years ago. The Bible does make reference to dinosaurs. The website Answers in Genesis has many articles on this. Here are some links to some of those articles: What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? Dinosaurs and the Bible Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur? Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Each of these articles are complete and utter nonsense. Total 100% made up bologna. Dinosaurs lived between 250-65 million years ago. Humans have been around to about 100,000 years. Every reputable scientist on the planet will tell you this. Every living Nobel Prize winner in the natural sciences will tell you this. Every single one, without exception. Think about that.

Retro80s -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/14/2008 9:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KaseyTom quote: ORIGINAL: CCCdnt quote: ORIGINAL: jadegrrl In public school we were taught the 'big bang theory' dinosaurs and homosapiens. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God created Adam and Eve. But Dinosaurs were believed to be on earth before man 230 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs so why does the bible not talk about this? Where does this fit in? Dinosaurs were created by God on day 6 of creation week about 6,000 years ago. The Bible does make reference to dinosaurs. The website Answers in Genesis has many articles on this. Here are some links to some of those articles: What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? Dinosaurs and the Bible Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur? Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Each of these articles are complete and utter nonsense. Total 100% made up bologna. Dinosaurs lived between 250-65 million years ago. Humans have been around to about 100,000 years. Every reputable scientist on the planet will tell you this. Every living Nobel Prize winner in the natural sciences will tell you this. Every single one, without exception. Think about that. Yes, I am well aware of what "long-age" evolution teaches. I am well aware of the presuppositions used for for this view as well. I assume that for you to consider a scientist to be "reputable", he must adhere to long-age evolution? Since when does having a Nobel Prize make one the authority on what is and is not true? There are probably people with Nobel Prizes that would tell me that God does not exist, that Jesus is not the only way to God, etc., but this obviously does not make this true. There are many people with Ph.D.s that do believe in a six-day creation. AIG has people like this on staff. As far as the articles, you did not dispute anything. All you did is make a sweeping generalization of the articles based on your opinion.

Retro80s -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/14/2008 10:22:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jadegrrl In public school we were taught the 'big bang theory' dinosaurs and homosapiens. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God created Adam and Eve. But Dinosaurs were believed to be on earth before man 230 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs so why does the bible not talk about this? Where does this fit in? I suggest you take the time to read this information for yourself. Then you can see if you think it is "made up". If you have questions or think some of the information is in error, you can ask AIG about it and/or you can ask it here. You will find that there are people on this forum that have different views on origins – YEC, OEC, theistic evolution and those that have a completely naturalistic view. I would be what is known as a YEC – young earth creationist - as I start with the Bible as my authority, the presupposition that God does exist, that His Word can be trusted, a global flood did happen, etc.

KaseyTom -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/14/2008 3:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CCCdnt quote: ORIGINAL: KaseyTom quote: ORIGINAL: CCCdnt quote: ORIGINAL: jadegrrl In public school we were taught the 'big bang theory' dinosaurs and homosapiens. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God created Adam and Eve. But Dinosaurs were believed to be on earth before man 230 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs so why does the bible not talk about this? Where does this fit in? Dinosaurs were created by God on day 6 of creation week about 6,000 years ago. The Bible does make reference to dinosaurs. The website Answers in Genesis has many articles on this. Here are some links to some of those articles: What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? Dinosaurs and the Bible Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur? Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Each of these articles are complete and utter nonsense. Total 100% made up bologna. Dinosaurs lived between 250-65 million years ago. Humans have been around to about 100,000 years. Every reputable scientist on the planet will tell you this. Every living Nobel Prize winner in the natural sciences will tell you this. Every single one, without exception. Think about that. Yes, I am well aware of what "long-age" evolution teaches. I am well aware of the presuppositions used for for this view as well. I assume that for you to consider a scientist to be "reputable", he must adhere to long-age evolution? Since when does having a Nobel Prize make one the authority on what is and is not true? There are probably people with Nobel Prizes that would tell me that God does not exist, that Jesus is not the only way to God, etc., but this obviously does not make this true. There are many people with Ph.D.s that do believe in a six-day creation. AIG has people like this on staff. As far as the articles, you did not dispute anything. All you did is make a sweeping generalization of the articles based on your opinion. Scientist and science have no authority to tell you if there is or is not a God, because it is not a scientific question, it is a religious or philosophical question. The age of the realm of dinosaurs is a scientific question. As for disputing the AiG articles, what would you have me do, cite every single one of the millions of pages of research documentation on this subject of dinosaurs? List every one of the the millions of pieces of physical evidence found in the thousands of universities and museums throughout the world? List and compare the weakness and strengths of the 100s of dating methods and how they are used to validate each other? These is not one single piece of physical evidence of a young earth, not even the tiniest shred of evidence. Nothing. Nada, Zilch. Yet there are thousands of entire universities, museums, and libraries full of tens of millions of pieces of evidence of an old earth. Not just in one scientific discipline but in dozens, all corroborating each other. Any bozo can get a PHD and call them self a scientist. Only the best 2000 scientists in the country are invited to join the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world. I will bet you my entire 401K retirement fund against a ham sandwich that not one member of the NAS has anything to do with AiG. As for my "sweeping generalizations", if AiG claimed the moon was made of green cheese, would it be a unreasonable to make a sweeping generalization about such a claim without reading it or citing evidence to the contrary?

DanJames -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/14/2008 4:02:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KaseyTom Yet there are thousands of entire universities, museums, and libraries full of tens of millions of pieces of evidence of an old earth. Not just in one scientific discipline but in dozens, all corroborating each other. A bit sophomoric, the whole point of this thread is to discuss whether or not that is the case. Another sweeping generality that isn't really taken seriously around here. quote: Any bozo can get a PHD and call them self a scientist. Only the best 2000 scientists in the country are invited to join the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world. I will bet you my entire 401K retirement fund against a ham sandwich that not one member of the NAS has anything to do with AiG. Any bozo can get a PhD? I suppose any bozo can write an article and get it published then? Any bozo can do work on Alzheimer's? Any bozo can study cells and nuclear physics? How seriously are you taking what you're saying? By the way, I'll take your bet. I've got a ham sandwich right here against your 401(K) that says that the NAS missed at least one person that has had something (anything) to do with AiG. Though this may not be capable of being proven since AiG has a public list of scientists who support them, do talks for them, and peer review their material. But they also have a private list of scientists who don't want to put their jobs at risk, but will still do peer reviewing for AiG. That being the case, I don't think they'll disclose that list for the sake of a ham sandwich bet, especially since, if such a thing were leaked, they may get the boot from the NAS, and you would then win the bet. Hurray science. quote: As for my "sweeping generalizations", if AiG claimed the moon was made of green cheese, would it be a unreasonable to make a sweeping generalization about such a claim without reading it or citing evidence to the contrary? The difference between your green cheese argument and the theory of Creation is that pulpit-pounding has done nothing to silence the voice of thinking people who don't think that uniformitarian dogma has the kung-fu grip on scientific inquiry as you do. There are alternate interpretations to the layers of strata which contain dinosaur bones, and there are alternate interpretations to skulls which look a little different than our own. There are no alternate interpretations to a non-green-cheese moon rock.

RobertByers -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/14/2008 9:45:40 PM)
First the bible is a witness in gooding standing until shown otherwise. It claims a special knowledge of the past origins. it says there was no evolution. The very few people who over the last century or so who get paid 9-5 to study origins have ignored the bible out of hand and look instead at remaining data of past and gone events. The scientific method can not be used for origin issues.and so only dat plus untestable hypothesis. This is why every few years something in origins is overthrown. simple because the original idea was not on strong legs. Origin subjects are not happening today and so conclusions are difficult to prove.

Retro80s -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/15/2008 10:27:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KaseyTom Scientist and science have no authority to tell you if there is or is not a God, because it is not a scientific question, it is a religious or philosophical question. The age of the realm of dinosaurs is a scientific question. And yet naturalistic scientists start with the belief/presupposition that there is no God. As far as the “age of the realm of dinosaurs” being a scientific question, it is one that requires some presuppositions/assumptions. The age of the realm of dinosaurs is not something that can be directly observed, tested, and repeated in the present. When studying about the distant past, some assumptions have to be made. Those that accept “millions of years” accept different assumptions than those that believe in a “young earth”. quote: As for disputing the AiG articles, what would you have me do, cite every single one of the millions of pages of research documentation on this subject of dinosaurs? List every one of the the millions of pieces of physical evidence found in the thousands of universities and museums throughout the world? List and compare the weakness and strengths of the 100s of dating methods and how they are used to validate each other? Well, you could start by at least citing something specific that you believe contradicts what one or more of these articles says. At least then there would be something to discuss. Just saying that there is a lot of evidence that shows that these articles are incorrect goes no where. This just shows what you accept as true. Also, what you are doing is similar to if not the same as "elephant hurling". To use a quote from AiG - "This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side." I could just as easily say that all the references you would cite would be flawed. However, that would not be a very convincing argument. It would just show what I believe/accept as true. quote: These is not one single piece of physical evidence of a young earth, not even the tiniest shred of evidence. Nothing. Nada, Zilch. Again, you have not dealt with any specific data, just stated what you believe to be true and what you accept as true. By the way, both the scientists that believe in "molecules-to-man" evolution and scientists that are YEC have the same physical evidence. It is just their interpretation of that evidence that differs, as each start with different presuppositions. quote: Yet there are thousands of entire universities, museums, and libraries full of tens of millions of pieces of evidence of an old earth. Not just in one scientific discipline but in dozens, all corroborating each other. More elephant hurling. And, as you keep using the word "evidence", it is the interpretation of the evidence that is in question. quote: Any bozo can get a PHD and call them self a scientist. Only the best 2000 scientists in the country are invited to join the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world. I will bet you my entire 401K retirement fund against a ham sandwich that not one member of the NAS has anything to do with AiG. I assume by your degrading word of "bozo" you mean that a person that is not very bright and/or well-motivated can get a Ph.D.? Wow, the research, time, and devotion required to get a Ph.D. must not be as hard as I thought. Perhaps I will try to get one in my free time. quote: As for my "sweeping generalizations", if AiG claimed the moon was made of green cheese, would it be a unreasonable to make a sweeping generalization about such a claim without reading it or citing evidence to the contrary? For one, your analogy fails. The moon can be physically examined in the here and now, tested and retested and shown that it is not made of green cheese. One cannot accurately reproduce the exact conditions on earth as it is taught to have been billions of years ago by long-age evolution. The so-believed gradual process of evolution cannot be directly observed, tested and repeated, etc., etc.

robto -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/15/2008 2:23:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CCCdnt And yet naturalistic scientists start with the belief/presupposition that there is no God. Excuse me? In what science textbook did you ever read the presupposition that there is no God? quote: As far as the “age of the realm of dinosaurs” being a scientific question, it is one that requires some presuppositions/assumptions. The age of the realm of dinosaurs is not something that can be directly observed, tested, and repeated in the present. When studying about the distant past, some assumptions have to be made. Those that accept “millions of years” accept different assumptions than those that believe in a “young earth”. Well, you have to assume that physics, chemistry, and biology are basically correct. Actually, you don't - you can test all those theories for yourself by repeating the experiments that have been done to establish those disciplines. quote: Well, you could start by at least citing something specific that you believe contradicts what one or more of these articles says. quote: From AIG: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago. Not a shred of physical evidence that (non-bird) dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago. quote: God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–25, 31). Adam and Eve were also made on Day 6—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time. Dinosaurs could not have died out before people appeared because dinosaurs had not previously existed; and death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering are a resultof Adam’s sin. Not a shred of evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans. In fact, all the evidence points otherwise. No human bones have been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. No modern mammals of ANY description have ever been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. No modern plants have ever been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. quote: Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noah’s Ark. All those left outside the Ark died in the cataclysmic circumstances of the Flood, and many of their remains became fossils. OK, so how could the Flood have sorted out the dinosaur bones from the other land animals? Why do we find certain assemblages of plants and animals in certain geologic contexts, but not in others? So, for example, Permian reptiles aren't ever found associated with Jurassic reptiles, or Cretaceous reptiles? Evolution provides an explanation: they lived at vastly different times, and so got buried in different sedimentary layers. How does the Flood accomplish this sorting. What about pollen? Pollen gets everywhere. Pollen is found in arctic and antarctic ice. But no pollen from modern plants has ever been found in association with dinosaur bones. How did the Flood manage that one? How did the Flood manage to re-set the radiometric clocks, so that geological layers correlate with radiometric dates? By what process did dinosaur bones become fossilized in a mere 6000 years?

GHitch -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/15/2008 2:32:18 PM)
quote: Scientist and science have no authority to tell you if there is or is not a God, because it is not a scientific question, it is a religious or philosophical question. vs. quote: The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question... - Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion (p. 58-59) (2006) quote: As for disputing the AiG articles, what would you have me do, cite every single one of the millions of pages of research documentation on this subject of dinosaurs? List every one of the the millions of pieces of physical evidence found in the thousands of universities and museums throughout the world? List and compare the weakness and strengths of the 100s of dating methods and how they are used to validate each other? To this one can only stare in disbelief, Millions of pages of research? Millions? Tens of millions? of pieces of physical evidence? You're grossly, ridiculously exaggerating to make a point or what?! The real case is not so easy as you pretend. As for dating I would suggest you read this - the whole story isn't in yet and it aint over till its over. quote: Any bozo can get a PHD and call them self a scientist. Then why don't you have one? You either know nothing of the actual course and work involved in getting a legitimate phd or you're reffering to Phd's obtained in boxes of Corn Flakes. The NAS is largely an atheist organization due to the majoritarily atheist 'higher' education systems current mentalities specifically in the sciences. One is ridiculed for theism and especially for creationism in Western and European academia these days - it's adopt atheism or shut your mouth on your theism. Indeed, quote: "The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Gould, D.W., "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51) Nevertheless some of the worlds foremost scientists are and always have been theists. You must also face up to the reality of this not to mention the dozens of other reports of sightings of dino like creatures spotted in various remote jungle regions around the world by supposed eye witnesses. Can we prove it? Maybe not now but eventually we will know for sure.

cow451 -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/15/2008 2:43:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jadegrrl In public school we were taught the 'big bang theory' dinosaurs and homosapiens. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God created Adam and Eve. But Dinosaurs were believed to be on earth before man 230 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs so why does the bible not talk about this? Where does this fit in? In a nutshell, the Bible is not addressing science, but mankind's relationship with the one God. Genesis is not about science, it is about theology.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/15/2008 5:15:30 PM)
quote: Not a shred of evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans. In fact, all the evidence points otherwise. No human bones have been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. No modern mammals of ANY description have ever been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. No modern plants have ever been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. I recently saw at the Creation Museum where they had found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone. If dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, that wouldn't be possible.

flyboy2610 -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/15/2008 7:06:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: robto quote: From AIG: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago. quote: Not a shred of physical evidence that (non-bird) dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro-dinos.htm (They even knew that the tail of the Iguanadon stood out straight behing. Something modern science has only recently discovered.) Ever hear of the Ica Stones? They have depictions of dinosaur skin patterns and dermal frills that, again, science has only recently confirmed as being accurate. http://www.dinosaursandman.com/research/AMAZING_ANATOMICAL_ACCURACY_OF_ICA_DINOSAUR_STONES.pdf Here are some photos of some of the stones: http://www.paranormality.com/ica_stones.shtml As referenced in a different post, a T-rex bone with soft tissue and blood cells intact: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp quote: All those left outside the Ark died in the cataclysmic circumstances of the Flood, and many of their remains became fossils. quote: By what process did dinosaur bones become fossilized in a mere 6000 years? Fossilization or petrification can occur VERY rapdily under the right conditions: http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/proof_of_rapid_petrification.html http://www.icr.org/article/13/

pollywoger -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/15/2008 10:11:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: Not a shred of evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans. In fact, all the evidence points otherwise. No human bones have been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. No modern mammals of ANY description have ever been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. No modern plants have ever been found in the same geological context as dinosaur bones. I recently saw at the Creation Museum where they had found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone. If dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, that wouldn't be possible. Are you referring to this? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm Consider this, many entire fully fleshed corpses of animals and even humans have been found frozen in ice that are 6000 years old or older. If all animals existed within the last 6000 years, then many fully fleshed corpses of animals believe to be extinct for over a million years should have been found found frozen in ice, yet none have.

ot4christ -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/16/2008 12:49:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollywoger Are you referring to this? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm Here's an excerpt from another article about the same paleontologist in above article: quote: Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.” This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” (emphasis added) I post this to emphasize the "treat you really bad" part. I'm afraid to let people at my church know that I don't believe in a younger-than-10,000 year old universe. I know I would very likely “win” any debate with them (by focusing on astronomical data) but it would only generate strife and they will probably resort to name-calling, kind of like when I was a child and would hear people say "your momma." There are a few who know and are willing to agree to disagree, including my pastor, but others (one in particular) are quite militant. “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” --John 13:35

robto -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/16/2008 4:37:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flyboy2610 http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro-dinos.htm (They even knew that the tail of the Iguanadon stood out straight behing. Something modern science has only recently discovered.) You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. This is obviously a fraud. It never ceases to amaze me how people who call themselves Christian are willing to lie themselves blue in the face rather than admit they're wrong. (I'm not referring to you, flyboy - you might honestly believe this is "evidence" - but to those who perpetrated this fraud.) A couple of points: - Why are these the ONLY such figurines ever discovered? Why havent others turned up at other sites around the world? - From the Wikipedia article: quote: Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect condition except for a few that were cleanly broken, perhaps to create the illusion of antiquity. If these were authentic antiquities, they would not be preserved with such perfection in such an inhospitable environment. Pottery is almost always uncovered as fragments called sherds; nowhere have 32,000 unblemished ceramics been uncovered with none of them in fragments and all of them in perfect condition (cleanly broken in two does not count as fragments). - If you accept radiocarbon dating as being accurate in this case, do you also accept it as accurate when it gives dates of 20,000 years or more? How do you square that with "young-earth" ideas?

pollywoger -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/16/2008 5:20:42 PM)
- From the Wikipedia article: "Don Patton has provided what he claims to be accurate radiocarbon dates for the figures ranging from 6500 years to 1500 years.[3]The laboratories that produced these dates have stated that they were inconclusive, but Dennis Swift claims that once the laboratories discovered what they were dating, they retracted their original dates.[1]The claim is strange because radiocarbon dating can only be performed on items which possess carbon: living or formerly living things, of which pottery or ceramic is neither" [:D]

scutus -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/16/2008 11:39:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch quote: Scientist and science have no authority to tell you if there is or is not a God, because it is not a scientific question, it is a religious or philosophical question. vs. quote: The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question... - Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion (p. 58-59) (2006) I don't know the context of Dawkin's statement, because I haven't read the God Delusion, but I disagree with him regarding whether science can prove or disprove the existance of a God.

robto -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/17/2008 9:22:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollywoger - From the Wikipedia article: "Don Patton has provided what he claims to be accurate radiocarbon dates for the figures ranging from 6500 years to 1500 years.[3]The laboratories that produced these dates have stated that they were inconclusive, but Dennis Swift claims that once the laboratories discovered what they were dating, they retracted their original dates.[1]The claim is strange because radiocarbon dating can only be performed on items which possess carbon: living or formerly living things, of which pottery or ceramic is neither" [:D] Actually, clay CAN be dated with carbon dating because it contains organic material, so Wiki is a bit off the mark here. However, dating the clay doesn't tell you when the figures themselves were made - it only tells you how old the clay itself is. The way carbon dating works: living organisms constantly take in C14 in the air, water, and food they take in. When they die, the remains are no longer taking in C14, which decays radioactively. So the C14 date tells you how long it has been since the animal/plant died. Now imagine finding a chair made of ancient wood. You carbon-date the wood and find it is 2000 years old. Does this mean the chair is 2000 years old? No - the chair could have been made yesterday using ancient wood. Same with these clay figures: the carbon date only tells you the age of the clay. It's completely useless for finding when the figures were made.

ta_mosquito -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/17/2008 9:52:07 AM)
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE pollywoger - please email community@salemwebnetwork.com before posting further. Please allow time for a response. Do not set up any new accounts or post under another handle. Thank you! Tricia Forums Moderator Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

unclemonkey -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/17/2008 11:31:42 AM)
ORIGINAL:cow451 quote: Genesis is not about science, it is about theology. Actually, Genesis is about HISTORY.

catfighter -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/17/2008 12:03:31 PM)
Such interesting discussion. Been lurking forever, now here I am! Wouldn't the Ica Stones, if authentic, imply that dinosaurs existed after the flood? Are my dates confused?

Zuniceratops -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/18/2008 9:41:58 PM)
It's been found out that the Ica Stones apparently are frauds. According to AnswersinGenesis, a Peruvian surgeon bought the stones from a local artist who paints such things for tourists. The artist himself never claimed the stones were ancient artifacts. See website http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bishop.asp, in the citations at the bottom of the page. I hate to break any Creationist bubbles, since I am a YEC myself, but I think you would better spend your time discussing evidence that is genuine.

robto -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/19/2008 1:44:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops It's been found out that the Ica Stones apparently are frauds. According to AnswersinGenesis, a Peruvian surgeon bought the stones from a local artist who paints such things for tourists. The artist himself never claimed the stones were ancient artifacts. See website http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bishop.asp, in the citations at the bottom of the page. I hate to break any Creationist bubbles, since I am a YEC myself, but I think you would better spend your time discussing evidence that is genuine. And so it goes.... No matter how many of these "evidences" are shown to be frauds, forgeries or misinterpretations, YECs will still cling to their beliefs: "But this OTHER case is genuine!" All the while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence on the other side. Sigh....

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI