Dinosaur valley state park that shows supposedly pre-historic dinosaur tracks , and human tracks alongside them.

The Ica stones of Ica Peru, show hundreds of clear depictions of dinosaurs.
Is it possible that the dragons that are in so many different cultures, are actually dinosaurs, and that people have actually seen them? How can ancient cultures who have never heard of dinosaurs of fossils, create a perfect picture of a triceritops on a stone? Also, the acambaro collection, is a collection of statues and figures of dinosaurs. What do evolutionists and archeologists who believe that dinosaurs became extinct, and no human being has seen a living dinosaur, say about these finds?

Isn't this place a religious park?

I don't think so. A river flooded and ripped off some limestone, and there were tracks underneath. I don't think it is religious. It's in Glen Rose Texas.

I just went on their site and there are bible quotes on it. If it is I think they have a vested interest to prove man and dinosaurs lived together. I really don't think it would have been possible we would have been bottom of the food chain.

Maybe they are, who knows. The Ica stones are a lot more interesting. Young-earth creationists believe that, according to the Bible, all humans, and all animals, including dinosaurs were vegetarian, and lived peacably together. After the global flood, the Bible says that the fear and dread of mankind would be in every wild animal, and man would be able to hunt them. There are many legends of people killing dragons- since the word dinosaur wasn't invented until the 1800's. The word dragon is used in the Old Testement 21 times. Especially in the book of Job, where 2 specific dragons are named and described. After the biblical global flood, the changed environment would've caused most dinosaurs to go extinct, or become smaller in size. Most young earth creationists believe that the earth was at one point in time, like a greenhouse, and animals and people lived for hundreds of years. Since reptiles grow their entire life, they became the dinosaurs. After the flood, the canopy that kept the earth in a greenhouse state, collapsed, and that caused the earth to be flooded. This is what most creation scientists would say about the dinosuars. (I've studied up on creationism and evolution. I've read Darwin's book twice, but I've never read the whole Bible.)
Still, how can an ancient culture, who has never seen a living dinosaur, paint or carve one? I'm just curious.

Since this is a science forum, let's look at the science here.

1. The so-called "human footprints" at the Dinosaur Valley have been shown to in fact have been dinosaur footprints. This has been known for - oh, about 30 years - see: IBSS - The Bible and Science - Dinosaur and Human Footprints (http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/footprints.htm). A clear sign that someone is really not interested in talking about science is if they trot out long-discredited "evidence."

2. The oldest known human fossil (meaning Homo Sapien) is on the order of 150,000 years old. The youngest dinosaur fossil is on the order of 65 millions years. That's a HUGE gap in time. So no - humans were not around to observe live dinosaurs.

3. The fact that ancient cultures drew pictures of dragons does not mean these creatures actually existed. Otherwise you would have to say that creatures such as centaurs, unicorns, and flying horses must also be "real."

The reason why the "creationist" view is not science is that it is not based on observations of what is found in the natural world. A good test to evaluate whether someone is talking about science versus faith is to ask: what evidence if found in the natural world would cause you to change your mind about your hypothesis? I'll be glad to offer a few on behalf of those who support the prevailing scientific theories that would cause a major "rethinking":

1. Show that the observable universe is smaller than 5000 light years in size.
2. Show that ALL the multiple methods used for dating fossils are off by at least a factor of 10,000 (I'm not hust talking about carbon dating, but also techniques such as measuring the prevalence of radio-isotopes in rock crystals)
3. Come up with a fossil of a cat that dates to the Pleistocene age.
4. Come up with a fossil of a dinosaur that is only 5000 years old, or less.

The question to ask "creationists" is: what natural evidence would you need to be shown in order to have you accept prevailing scientific theories?

I'm not a 'creationist' and I'm not a scientist either, but, just for the heck of it, I will answer your questions to the best of my 'creationism' knowledge.

1. The universe can't be measured. Nobody knows where space ends, if it does. An evolutionist would argue that because the universe is supposedly expanding it used to be smaller, condensed before the big bang. They would argue red shift, etc. A creationist would say that the universe is so big and complex, that God must've made it the way it is now.

2. The biblical flood would've caused carbon 14 dating to become innaccurate. As most of the carbon would've been buried and made into coal or oil at this time. Dating methods also require a lot of assumptions: the starting conditions were known (how much carbon there was at a certain time in history.)
We'd have to assume that the decay rate is constant- the animal didn't decay faster or slower than assumed.
Systems were closed, so that no more isotopes could be added. Also, there are dates that have come up bad before. Living animals have been carbon dated at being thousands of years old.
An evolutionist would argue that all methods of dating fossils are accurate.
3. The fossil record is highly flawed. It doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Also, it is based on circular reasoning. You know how old the fossil is by what layer of rock it was found in. You know what layer/how old the rock is, by what fossils are found in it. Circular reasoning. Plus, creationists don't believe in the Pleistocene age. Simple organisms were the first buried in the flood considering they are close to the bottom of the sea, or in the ground. The more complex animals like birds and humans would've been able to swim, and would've been buried at the top.
4. Again, the dating methods could be very inaccurate if you consider the biblical flood, which creationists do believe in.

Creationists need to be shown one species turning into another species in order to be convinced. They believe that evolution would've been thrown out a long time ago, if it wasn't for the fact that there is no replacement theory.

Again, I'm just posing some pointed questions that a creationist would ask to challenge an evolutionists thinking.

Hello Jaime90. Your arguments from the creationist viewpoint are the all based on faith, not science. In your original posting you asked how scientists respond to the footprints in Dinosaur Park and the depiction of "dragons" on cave walls - I trust that my response answered that satisfactorily. One point I left out - you mentioned the Acambaro Collection, which is widely believed to be a hoax. It is interesting though that the creationist proponents who put this forward as evidence of man and dinosuar co-existing claim to rely on carbon dating to verify the age of the artifacts - how ironic!

One last questionn - what natural evidence would you think the "young creationist" would need need to see to convince him (or her) that the earth is more than 5000 years old?

Very true. Creationists base a lot of their theories on faith when it comes to the origin of the world. Especially considering that the existence of a god (any god) cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. It comes down to personal conviction on the matter. I agree that your response was a good one from an evolutionist/scientific point of view. I don't believe that there is a whole lot of evidence that would convince a creationist. You don't have to prove the existence of God to a creationist, but if you could disprove it scientifically, that would probably be convincing. Also, there would have to be blatant evidence AGAINST the supposed existence of a creator or intelligent designer. Since carbon dating methods, and humans are behind evolution theory, there will be mistakes- even if they appear to be few, and that is what creationists will get a hold of to disprove evolution theory.
I believe that evolution theory has some good obvservations and some good science within it. But, I also believe that those observations have brought a lot of scientists and average people to the wrong conclusion.

I don't think ANY amount of natural evidence would convince a creationist - given that they base their beliefs in their religious faith. There's not much point in arguing scientific theories with one who can not be swayed by observation of the natural world. However, I do think its important to rebut those who try and position creationism as a science - since by definition science is based on observations of the natural world, and a good scientist is willing to be skeptical of even his own theory. By definition faith can not be skeptical of itself - hence creationism is not science.

Regarding your comments on carbon dating - I think your distrust in it is misplaced. Creationists like to bash C14 dating, but they exaggerate the issues - not just by a little, but by enormous amounts. It would be valid to question whether an object dated using C14 methods is 5000 years old versus 5500, but to suggest that the technique is completely flawed is without foundation. The technique does have some uncertainty, due to issues such as the variability of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere - perhaps as much as +/- 800 years for a 10,000 year old object. Also, be aware that C14 dating is just one technique - typically used for objects less than about 45,000 years - and it only works on plant and animal remains. Other techniques are available that are used to date materials quite older. Here's an article that describes some of these techniques: Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_age_dating)

One of the more interesting uses the ratio of uranium versus the products they decay into (such as lead) to date the age of zircon crystals. These are crystals that can form with uranium impurities, but not lead, at least not without destrying the lattice structure. Lead and zircon just don't interect well to form a good crystal lattice. Yet perfect zircon crytals with lead impurities are found in nature - so how did they form? The only explanation is that they were formed with uranium impurities, the uranium decayed over time, eventually becoming lead. By measuring the ratio of the lead to its predecessors it's possible to estimate when the crystal was first formed with the uranium impurities. Using this technique it has been found that there are crystals that are on the order of 2 Billion years old. Bottom line is - don't take exaggerated arguments that C14 dating may be inaccurate to mean that all dating techniques are inherently flawed.

Science, by definition is "knowledge."
About half of all scientists believe in some form of "creationist" theory. Whether that be the gap theory, the day age theory, etc. Most do not believe in a young earth(an earth less than 10,000 years old.) The Bible, is essentially a history book, but it also contains some good observations that have advanced science:

"Have you entered the springs in the sea?" Job38:16. Science did not know about hot water springs in the oceans until 1977. God asked Job this question thousands of years ago.

"by what way is the light parted? Or the east wind scattered on the earth?" Job38:24. God indicates that light causes the wind, which is scientifically accurate.

"Where is the way where light dwells? And where is the place of darkness?" Job38:19
Light has a way, darkness has a place (light moves, darkness cannot.)

"He sits enthroned, above the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22.
"He stretches out the north over empty space, He hangs the earth on nothing."Job26:7.
In an age where the earth is believed to be flat, and supposedly held on the back of an animal, Christians who read the Bible could learn otherwise.

I could name many more verses like these. The book of Job especially is full of them. If the Bible is true and there was a global flood, we should expect to find billions of dead things in rock layers laid down by water. Which, is observable in the world today. If the Bible is true, every animal should reproduce after its own kind. Which is true in the world today.

The Bible also mentions dinosaurs. The Ica stones show more than just a drawing of a dragon, they show drawings of known dinosaurs. There are many other instances of dinosaurs being drawn by natives. I wasn't there in history when the natives drew these things, and neither were you, but these natives were.

Not only is there evidence in history that indicates that man and dinosaurs co-existed, there are many eye-witness stories that claim dinosaurs are still alive today- especially in water, and in swamps. No doubt some are frauds, but you cannot discredit thousands of eye-witness reports because of some fakes. If thousands of people claim to have seen a dinosaur, I imagine that means that they must've seen something. I'm just wondering why modern day science isn't looking farther into the idea of dinosaurs still in existence, or dinosaurs and man co-existing- especially when there is so much evidence that implies mankind has seen a living dinosaur. It could be the fact that they don't want to disprove evolution theory, probably because there is no replacement theory... except maybe creationism.

Science, by definition is "knowledge."

Wrong. Science is by definition the study of the natural world, in an effort of understand natural history and the way that nature works. It relies on observable evidence as the basis of understanding.


about half of all scientists believe in some form of "creationist" theory. Whether that be the gap theory, the day age theory, etc. Most do not believe in a young earth(an earth less than 10,000 years old.)

There have been many ideas put forth of ways to reconcile the story of Genesis with modern obesravations. I'm sure there are many scientists who hold dear to both the Bible and evolution - as did Darwin himself - through non-literal interpretations of Genesis. I would argue that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive - but that's just me.


The Bible is essentially a history book, but it also contains some good observations that have advanced science:
...


Jaime - you started this thread by asking how scientists respond to claims of humans seeing dinosaurs. Is this now morphing into an attempt to convince us about the literal correctness of the Bible? This belongs in a religion forum, not a science forum. However, be aware that your logic is flawed - you seem to be saying that if a document is shown to contain at least a few true statement, then that's good evidence that ALL statements in it must be true. But that's an illogical conclusion.



Not only is there evidence in history that indicates that man and dinosaurs co-existed, there are many eye-witness stories that claim dinosaurs are still alive today- especially in water, and in swamps. No doubt some are frauds, but you cannot discredit thousands of eye-witness reports because of some fakes. If thousands of people claim to have seen a dinosaur, I imagine that means that they must've seen something. I'm just wondering why modern day science isn't looking farther into the idea of dinosaurs still in existance, or dinosaurs and man co-existing- especially when there is so much evidence that implies mankind has seen a living dinosaur. It could be the fact that they don't want to disprove evolution theory, probably because there is no replacement theory...except maybe creationism.

As with fantastic claims of seeing extra-terrestrial aliens, ghosts, zombies, sasquatch, Yeti, Nessie, etc etc.. remember that "extraodrinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I don't know what these "thousands" of people are claiming to have actually seen, but so far no credible evidence has been put forth. All that any one of these "thousands" of so-caled dinosaur spotters need do is capture or kill one, or stumble across the carcass of one, and they'd have the find of the century. Scientiist are indeed out in the field every day looking for new forms of life - on land in the sea, so don't say they're not looking. That's the thing about science - the object is to find new things about nature. A scientist who discovers something new, or who develops a better explanation of how nature works that fits the observed evidence better than the old theory, is considered a huge success. Contrast that with religion - if one puts forth a new interpretation of God (or gods) and man's relationship with Him (or them) then he is considered to be either a cultist, a heretic, or an infidel by the main stream religions.

All I can say is I was educated in a public school being taught that evolution was fact and there was no room for creation or anything beyond the physical world.
One thing I remember as a 10 year old child was one day as I was picking up my Lego blocks and putting them away, when a pair of hands appeared before me, imitating the movements that I was making. The hands were scooping up air as if helping me. They appeared as water does from a running tap and to this day I know they were real. I lived my whole life ignoring God and the Bible and one day I came to know Jesus.
The moment I realized the Bible was true was when I realized that everything I was ever taught at school and watched in documentaries was a pack of lies about evolution. I also realized that Satin is a deceiver and does his best at keeping people from knowing our creator. I know that it is a very sad situation when the physical evidence for creation and even man and dinosaurs living along side of each other is labeled as nonsense by many but the sad thing is evolutionists have the same evidence as creationists but are blinded by their dogmatic approach to old earth and millions of years.
I can not prove to someone that what I saw was real, but there is a spiritual battle going on and the Bible tells us that in the last days that man will turn his back on sound doctrine and will surround himself with false teachers who will tell him what his ears are itching to hear . Man will turn to myths ignoring what is plain to see within creation. I believe this myth is evolution - a way of trying to explain the world without a creator. The evidence for man and dinosaurs living together is overwhelming. Especially when you remove the faith / religion called evolution.
Timothy.

The most recent dinosaur fossils are about 65 million years old. This strongly suggests that dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years.

Humans are a much younger species. We split off from the other apes between 8 and 5 million years ago, and Homo sapiens (modern humans) don't appear in the fossil record until ~200,000 years--at most.

So asking if dinosaurs and humans ever lived at the same time is sort of like asking if King Solomon and his thousand wives and concubines lived in the Bronx in 1983.

Um. No.

Thank you! I just made that up.

I didn't realize this discussion was going on, or I would have joined sooner to provide moral support.

There are millions of other species we could argue about. Why not ask if humans lived at the same time as trilobites? I can see a young boy, his arm wrapped affectionately around the back of his pet trilobite, its antennae gently probing his pocket for treats. Why not?

Same reason. There hasn't been a living trilobite on Earth in 250 million years. And humans didn't evolve until, basically, last week.

There have been discoveries of dinosaur bones that have red blood cells in them (blood cells don`t last 65 million years), there are figurines all around the world in many cultures of what we today call dinosaurs, there are over 400 ancient burial stones in Peru with one third of them having the most detailed carvings of various dinosaurs, there are mosaic pictures in the middle east depicting people fighting these beasts and there are carvings in old temples in Thailand of dinosaurs.

What is considered ENOUGH evidence of man living with these beasts?

I know that the sedimentary layers ALL AROUND THE WORLD is considered by many as layers laid down over millions of years but IF this belief was wrong, and IF these layers were laid down rapidly and suddenly (as more and more experts are starting to consider), then all these dead things buried in sedimentary rock all around the world would be there for us to see -as they are! Many of them were buried rapidly i.e. in the middle of a meal, in the middle of giving birth, and in death throw positions. The layering of sedimentary rock would then represent a violent historical past over a short time, not a slow build up over millions of years. Finding the larger heavier animals and swamp dwelling creatures buried lower in the layers would only indicate that they were buried first in a catastrophic event because they lived near the seas edge and everything else would have been buried above that shortly after. If air breathing mammals were buried next to fish and other sea creatures, it could only indicate rapid burial, they don`t choose to die together.

So if the sedimentary rock only indicated a violent historical past that could have happened recently, then to find something that is fossilized and considered extinct alive and living somewhere, would be of no surprise if its ancestor was buried recently. (There are many `living fossils`)
If dinosaurs were not around 65 million years ago, but recently in history, then it would be no surprise if people saw these creatures and kept records of their encounters with them in figurines, carvings, mosaics and cave paintings. It would be of no surprise if a living one appeared or was found somewhere in the world. I won`t even mention the historical writings of eyewitness accounts and encounters with these beasts / dragons throughout the world.

So if ones belief says that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago it would be impossible for a man to have seen one.

But if one believes that dinosaurs were recently around, then there would be no surprise if our past generations saw these awesome creatures in there societies, and I think there is overwhelming evidence to prove that they were.

The only problem I can see is that if dinosaurs were around recently in history, then the theory of evolution would be in tatters. I think ones belief system or how the evidence is read, makes the biggest difference in ones world view and in turn our behavior towards our fellow human beings and ultimately our relationship with our creator and eternal destiny.

If something that was supposedly extinct for 65 million years was found alive, I would not be surprised.

This is what you are referring to as Proof?? You have got to be kidding me!

The only problem I can see is that if dinosaurs were around recently in history, then the theory of evolution would be in tatters.

This shows a lack of understandng of evolutionary theory. If you're going to attack something, you should know a little about it first.

The discussion of whether dinosaurs have been alive as recently as 5000 years ago (apparently this is your contention) has NOTHING to do with evolution. If someone was to come across a dinosaur fossil that was reliably dated to 500 years ago it would be greated by scientists as truly wonderful news! It woud be an absolutely tremendous discovery, would cause paleontologists to rejoice, and would make some people very famous. Scientists would love it - just as they love it whenever a new species is discovered. But it would do nothing to change how we view evolution, because nothing in evolutionary theory denies the existence of a particular species. Just as crocodiles and cockroaches have been around for many tens of miilions of years, if dinosaurs are found to have lived into the recent past that's no problem at all for evolution. The only issue here is - whether of dinosaurs actually lived as recently as 5000 years ago, and so far there is no credible evidence of this being the case.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefOJe2BLHTMAezGjzbkF/SIG=122d0ach2/EXP=1264700681/**http%3A//godsofsweven.com/images/ICA_CARVING.bmp

You mean:

http://godsofsweven.com/images/ICA_CARVING.bmp

What does that prove exactly?

I know that the sedimentary layers ALL AROUND THE WORLD is considered by many as layers laid down over millions of years but IF this belief was wrong, and IF these layers were laid down rapidly and suddenly (as more and more experts are starting to consider), then all these dead things buried in sedimentary rock all around the world would be there for us to see -as they are! Many of them were buried rapidly i.e. in the middle of a meal, in the middle of giving birth, and in death throw positions. The layering of sedimentary rock would then represent a violent historical past over a short time period, not a slow build up over millions of years. Finding the larger heavier animals and swamp dwelling creatures buried lower in the layers would only indicate that they were buried first in a catastrophic event because they lived near the seas edge and everything else would have been buried above that shortly after. If air breathing mammals were buried next to fish and other sea creatures, it could only indicate rapid burial, they don`t choose to die together.


A major, major problem with this supposition is that it doesn't explain why dinosaurs are always found in sediments that are 65 miilion years or older, and that more recent species (like modern mammals, and man) never are. Your hypothesis is that for some reason large animals are buried deeper than small. But that's not what is seen. No one has yet found a fossil of an elephant or a whale (modern large mammals) in rock from the cretaceous period. And don't forget that dinosaurs ranged in size from very small to very large - so by your thinking we would find the fossils segregated in the fossil record in layers according to size, or according to whether they were swamp ceatures or land creatures. But we don't. We only find fossils segregated by age - with the small dinosurs (both land and "swamp dwelling") consistenty buried deeper than large modern mammals.

NK He tamed a wild Triceratops. He must be an ancestor of Jebediah Springfield who tamed the wild buffalo. I wonder what he is smoking in that pipe??

He must be an ancestor of Jebediah Springfield who tamed the wild buffalo. You'll never beat Shelbyville!

Well it proves that people have seen, sat upon, ridden, fought with and possibly even tamed some of these beasts.
They obviously did not have photo or video cameras back then so people recorded events / activities in paintings, craft work, pottery and carvings.
These stones were not engraved last week by people who know what various dinosaurs look like, but by people thousands of years ago who could draw /etch them with great detail into rocks, and dinosaurs were not supposed to have been discovered until the 1800`s.

As the pics below show, the first stone shows a man fighting with allosaurus but sadly a second one has attacked him from behind.

The second stone shows a man riding upon triceratops as if he is using it for battle. It clearly shows his weapon in his hand and it appears he was sitting on some sort of cloth whilst riding.

The third pic is of some Mexican pottery which has been dated between 800BC and 200AD.

The fourth pic is of a figurine which was found in Turkey and was dated to 3000BC.

Lastly, the fifth pic is of a carving in an ancient temple in Angkor Wat Thailand. Spot the dinosaur.

So the evidence for these `ancient` beasts living with man is over whelming.
If someone still can dismiss this sort of evidence of dinosaurs and man living together as nonsense, then they probably still wouldn`t believe it even if they had video cameras back then and recorded them digitally.

My niece has a drawing of her riding a unicorn. So they must be real by your logic.

As the pics below show, the first stone shows a man fighting with allosaurus but sadly a second one has attacked him from behind.

The second stone shows a man riding upon triceratops as if he is using it for battle. It clearly shows his weapon in his hand and it appears he was sitting on some sort of cloth whilst riding.

The third pic is of some Mexican pottery which has been dated between 800BC and 200AD.

The fourth pic is of a figurine which was found in Turkey and was dated to 3000BC.

Lastly, the fifth pic is of a carving in an ancient temple in Angkor Wat Thailand. Spot the dinosaur.

So the evidence for these `ancient` beasts living with man is over whelming.
Do you have a link to a site that has reproducible independent studies on these objects?

Actually, if a worldwide catastrophe happened, we would expect to see millions of dead things laid down in layers by water. And guess what-? The smaller animals would've probably been buried first, animals like trilobites, clams, etc. And the animals least likely to drown (humans and birds) would be found in the top layers.

Also, the fossil record is based on circular reasoning. You cannot say that a dinosaur is supposed to be 65 million years old so the rock it was found in must be 65 million year old. You're dating the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks. It makes no sense.

We're not talking about creatures that we KNOW never existed. These are clearly pictures of dinosaurs- not unicorns. We have evidence that dinosaurs existed, and this is evidence that someone, somewhere, must have seen them.

Actually, if a worldwide catastrophe happened, we would expect to see millions of dead things laid down in layers by water.
Are you referring to a "great flood" that included an ark that had two of every species?

Actually, if a worldwide catastrophe happened, we would expect to see millions of dead things laid down in layers by water. And guess what-?! The smaller animals would've probably been buried first, animals like trilobites, clams, etc. And the animals least likely to drown (humans and birds) would be found in the top layers.

Wrong - as already shown in post 21 above (which you did not respond to). Also - trilobites lived in the sea - so they certainly would not "drown" before humans!


Also, the fossil record is based on circular reasoning. You cannot say that a dinosaur is supposed to be 65 million years old so the rock it was found in must be 65 million year old. You're dating the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks. It makes no sense.

Wrong again - rocks are NOT dated by the fossils in them. I gave you a link in Post #10 that talks about how old rocks and sediments can be dated. Please read that, and post back with what you think is in error with these techniques. I am NOT talking about Carbon 14 - so don't go there - but other radio-isotope dating techniques that are used to date materials tens of millions of years old.

Jaime - you started this thread many, many posts ago by asking how scientists respond to people who claim that dinosaurs lived in the recent past - recent enough to have been seen by humans. That question has been answered many times over. You then claim that you are not a creationist, yet you keep repeating the creationist arguments over and over - such as with nonsensical arguments about how a "global catastrophy" would rearrange the fossil record - without responding to the information that you've been given. It is clear that you are trying to argue religious beliefs with scientists, and that's never going to reach consensus.

Are you referring to a "great flood" that included an ark that had two of every species?
The global flood, yes. And no, it didn't have two of every species. It had two of every generic kind of animal- except for insects, and species that live in water.

I am curious as to how many opinions there are on this subject and what they are. I have my own opinion, yes. It doesn't surprise me that people are just replying with "no because dinosaurs lived 65million years ago." But this isn't a good enough answer. How? I mean, were you there? You weren't there when these pictures of dinosuars were drawn, but the people who drew them were, and I'm not about to argue with them. These pictures are clearly dinosaurs- we're not talking about mythical beings. And when people drew them before dinosaur remains were discovered, logic forces me to conclude: man must've seen dinosaurs alive. These things of course don't look good to the evolution theory.

I don't believe this to be religion vs. science. Believing that the earth is young, and looking into the evidence toward this theory is not religion, not anymore than believing that the earth is old, and looking into the evidence toward that theory is a religion.
Of course, religions and cultures with this belief of a young earth, might give us a little insight- which is why they look toward the people of the past- they were there, we were not. Why most creationists look at the Bible, and go about explaining what they can with science. However, the Bible, above all, is a history book, not a science book.

And when people drew them before dinosaur remains were discovered, logic forces me to conclude: man must've seen dinosaurs alive. These things of course don't look good to the evolution theory.


Just for the sake of argument - IF it turned out that dinosaurs and people actually co-existed, so that people could carve their images, how would that in any way not "look good to the evolution theory?" Please explain.

Evolution needs millions, maybe even billions of years to hide in. If humans and dinosaurs co-existed, or are still co-existing, it would mean that there are huge flaws in dating methods, and the millions of years that is essential to evolution theory will be, in the very least, questioned big time.

You're saying that if someone found a dinosaur skeleton that was shown to be only a few thousand years old, or perhaps even if someone discovered a living dinosaur today on an island somewhere, that this would somehow mean that dinosaurs could not have existed over 65 million years ago? Why is that?

My niece has a drawing of her riding a unicorn. So they must be real by your logic.

Just because your niece draws a creature using her imagination does not make it real of course, but where did you niece come up with the thought of such a creature ? Obviously through stories, books and pictures (outside influences). These stories, book and pictures have been drawn and told for thousands of years. I also believe them to be fictional creatures / mythical creatures, but if one was found as a fossil, (which let me add : I do not think would ever happen), would that then cause you to re-think your opinion on such a creature. It certainly would with me.
If someone carved dinosaurs into stone, made figurines of these creatures and painted them in pottery hundreds or thousands of years ago and later on the fossils were found of the same creatures, then that would say that they were seen by people, not fictional creatures !

The Chinese too, also have had dragons depicted throughout their communities in artwork , carvings and in legends and have always been considered as mythical by the western world but recent finds in China and particularly in Guanling, have caused scientists to take a good look at these `mythical creatures`.

Your niece probably also draws fairies too, and I certainly do not believe in fairies - but I do believe in there being a spiritual world, which is something I said in an earlier post, which is why I also believe that there is a spiritual battle going on for the hearts and minds of people, and what people believe about this world effects their attitude and the way they behave in this world and ultimately what happens to them when they die.

A major, major problem with this supposition is that it doesn't explain why dinosaurs are always found in sediments that are 65 miilion years or older, and that more recent species (like modern mammals, and man) never are. Your hypothesis is that for some reason large animals are buried deeper than small. But that's not what is seen. No one has yet found a fossil of an elephant or a whale (modern large mammals) in rock from the cretaceous period. And don't forget that dinosaurs ranged in size from very small to very large - so by your thinking we would find the fossils segregated in the fossil record in layers according to size, or according to whether they were swamp ceatures or land creatures. But we don't. We only find fossils segregated by age - with the small dinosurs (both land and "swamp dwelling") consistenty buried deeper than large modern mammals.

I am not saying that animals are buried according to size. I am saying that if there was a sudden catastrophe such as what we are told about in the bible, you would find that some of the original sea creatures (especially sea crustaceans)would have been caught up in the earlier sedimentary layers that were formed,you would also expect fish overcome by the changes in currents, with large volumes of sand movements /erosion being buried too. You would also expect to find swamp dwelling creatures or creatures that lived on lower land if they were slow to escape or could not get to safety, even large heavy creatures, buried on top of them. Even the vegetation that was around would have been buried.

You would find it total chaos with animals running every where trying to out run certain death. Animals that were living in or had run to higher grounds would also be buried in the higher levels once overcome by the rising water levels, and the more swifter or smarter animals would have possibly been able to avoid death a little longer by going to the higher ground again. Last of all most people would have been buried last because we were made with the ability to reason and probably hung on to all the debris floating on the surface of the waters until fatigue and exhaustion overcame them.
When you look at the evolutionary geological time scale which is supposedly over 560 million years, the layering of the sea creatures, fish, trees and reptiles, mammals that are considered extinct, dinosaurs, flowering plants, mammals that are around today and humans this is what you would expect to find after a catastrophe.
I think the stumbling block to most people seeing this is their belief that these massive sedimentary layers all around the world were laid down gradually over time - not suddenly over a 12 month period (as we are told in the bible).
We find the fossils segregated in the order that they were buried in the event of mass destruction, not how long ago they lived on the earth.
Even today when we see disasters happening, such as raging rivers causing houses and land to be uprooted, it is a reminder of the ferocity and damage that water can do.
We are also told of great earth movements occurring at the time of this flooding (in the bible) so there it was a total catastrophic event.
If you take away the `millions of years` belief relating to fossil layering and accepted the geological layers as a result of a world wide flood with massive earth movements, you would expect to see fossils of dead things everywhere in the world and sea shells on the top of mountains e.t.c.
As I said in an earlier post, I am someone who was taught evolution and millions of years as fact throughout my schooling.
I have also seen (what I believe to have been ) the hands of Jesus before me as a child, so after having evolution pumped into me all my life and recently coming to actually know Jesus as a real being, I can see that this battle of opinions is a spiritual battle for the hearts and minds of people. I know that Jesus is real, so that means that what the bible tells us about the world is also real. God made the land dwelling dinosaurs on day six along side of man, so if people don`t want to accept that then they are accountable for themselves when history comes to its appointed end.
Try taking away the evolutionary glasses and looking at what is observable. ( I say this out of love for my fellow man, not hostility ).

This should now be moved to the Religious Discussion forum instead of Paleontology.

This should now be moved to the Religious Discussion forum instead of Paleontology.

Evolution is a belief system. Creation is a belief system. Evolution requires faith just as creation requires faith.
The physical evidence used for creation is the same physical evidence used for evolution, it is all about the STORY that goes along with the findings, how the findings are INTERPRETED.

You can religiously argue your view and I could religiously argue my view, but I am only telling you that your STORY is wrong because I know the truth.

The study of fossils is the best job in the world to me.

Creation is not a religion.

I agree that creation and evolution are both belief systems that require faith. This isn't religion vs. science. It's about who's personal preference is correct.

Folks - this is a SCIENCE forum. Hence, questions and answers are asked and given based on SCIENTIFIC knowledge and processes. If you want to call evolution a "belief system" - fine, but that in turn means that you are calling science a belief system. And that's fine too, but do not expect to engage in anything other than a discussion based on this scientific "belief system" while posting in a SCIENCE forum. I agree wth NK, since you are aren't interested in learning about what science has to say on the topic of dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago, you should not continue the discussion here.

For the record... Many scientits are quite certain that birds are a form of Dinosaur.

I just thought I'd stir the pot.

Folks - this is a SCIENCE forum. Hence, questions and answers are asked and given based on SCIENTIFIC knowledge and processes. If you want to call evolution a "belief system" - fine, but that in turn means that you are calling science a belief system. And that's fine too, but do not expect to engage in anything other than a discussion based on this scientific "belief system" while posting in a SCIENCE forum. I agree wth NK, since you are aren't interested in learning about what science has to say on the topic of dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago, you should not continue the discussion here.

It appears to me that you are calling science and the THEORY of evolution one and the same thing.
I have told you that I am a Christian and my view to many of the claims made that go along with the evolutionary view are very much different, but what you physically find in this world always has an OPINION or STORY that is matched up with it, the STORY is not science.

Even in your post #18 you you say that if dinosaurs lived very recently in history (even along side of man) then that would have nothing to do with evolution, but the THEORY of evolution states very clearly that dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago. People keep on quoting this as if it were 100% fact.
If this were true then there should be no such findings / carvings /paintings etc. of these Same creatures found in ancient buildings or digs.
So why are these findings dismissed as irrelevant ?

There is nothing religious about all this evidence of man and dinosaurs living together.

If this were true then there should be no such findings / carvings /paintings etc. of these EXACT same creatures found in ancient buildings or digs.
So why are these findings dismissed as irrelevant ? When I asked about showing some peer reviewed studies about these artifacts no one came forth with any. Why?

Evolution is a belief system. Creation is a belief system. Evolution requires faith just as creation requires faith.
The physical evidence used for creation is the same physical evidence used for evolution, it is all about the STORY that goes along with the findings, how the findings are INTERPRETED.

You can religiously argue your view and I could religiously argue my view, but I am only telling you that your STORY is wrong because I know the truth.

The study of fossils is the best job in the world to me.

Creation is not a religion.


I would argue that theories of evolution are not belief systems. Evolution is not a belief system because it does not require a teleological explanation whereas creationist theories are both belief systems and teleological in nature. This is not to say that one is better than the other, but it is an important distinction that needs to be maintained.

A teleological explanation requires matter moving or changing in a way that is purposeful. Most biologists would reject teleological explanations. In other words, they would say that evolution has no purpose other than to ensure survival. Teleologists would say that survival has a purpose. Purpose becomes a belief system because there will always be disagreement as to what that purpose is.

I am not saying that one system is better than the other. What I am saying is that we need to maintain an important distinction. Evolution is not a belief system. Creationism, I my view is teleological and therefore qualifies as a belief system.

... the THEORY of evolution states very clearly that dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago.

Please cite a credible source that says says the theory of evolution states that dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago. The theory of evolution describes the processes that cause changes in the genetic makeup of species through successive generations. As I said earlier, nothing in the theory REQUIRES that the dinosaurs (or any group) must have gone extinct. Extinction of a species or group may be caused by any number of factors, such as environmental change, catastrophic events (perhaps a meteor strike), disease, starvatoin, or over-hunting by predators. None of those processes have anything to do with the process of evolution.

Having said that.. the best paleontological evidence does point to mass extinction of dinosaurs about 65 M years ago. My point earlier was that IF living dinosaurs were found to be alive today that it would be hugely disruptive to paleontology, but NOT to the theory of evolution.

Having said that .. the best paleontological evidence does point to mass extinction of dinosaurs about 65 M years ago. My point earlier was that IF living dinosaurs were found to be alive today that it would be hugely disruptive to paleontology, but NOT to the theory of evolution.

Hello ebaines,

As it turns out two 'dinosaurs' survived the mass extinction. They both are alive and doing well. The first one was discovered in about 1938 and the other in 1998.

The Coelacanth and the Wollomi pine. Both lived over 100 million years ago and predates any dinosaur. There didn't seem to be any disruption to evolutionary theory, I'm not sure about paleontology, but I am sure you can provide some information.

Regards

Tut

Ah yes - there are certainly many species of animals and plants that have flourished for many tens of millions of years, or in the case of the coelacanth several hundred million years. There are many other species with equally impresive longevity records: crocodiles have been around for at least 200 million years, sharks for at least 400 million, and the common cockroach perhaps 300 miilion years. But none of them are dinosaurs - which belong to the order dinosuria - although both crocodiles and modern birds are very closely related to dinosaurs as all three belonging to the group archosauria. Some would argue that since birds are thought to have descended from a group of dinosaurs known as threropods, strictly speaking they must be considered to actually BE dinosaurs. Obviously in common language no one thinks of a chicken as a dinosaur, but one could make the argument. So in that sense, I would concede that yes, man has seen avian dinosaurs. But we must be careful here -I am sure that when Jaime asked her question back in post #1 she was not inquiring about birds.

Please cite a credible source that says says the theory of evolution states that dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago. The theory of evolution describes the processes that cause changes in the genetic makeup of species through successive generations. As I said earlier, nothing in the theory REQUIRES that the dinosaurs (or any group) must have gone extinct. Extinction of a species or group may be caused by any number of factors, such as environmental change, catastrophic events (perhaps a meteor strike), disease, starvatoin, or over-hunting by predators. None of those processes have anything to do with the process of evolution.

Having said that .. the best paleontological evidence does point to mass extinction of dinosaurs about 65 M years ago. My point earlier was that IF living dinosaurs were found to be alive today that it would be hugely disruptive to paleontology, but NOT to the theory of evolution.

I do apologize for not phrasing my sentence above correctly where I said the evolutionary theory states that dinosaurs died out 65M years ago, as you corrected me, it relates to genetic changes across species over time.
What I should have said was `as is always quoted by scientists as if it were fact that dinosaurs died out 65M years ago`. I stand corrected!

I ask you, With regards to causes of mass extinction, such as environmental change, catastrophic events (perhaps a meteor strike) , Would a world wide flood be considered a catastrophic event ? Or would you have to rule this one out because it is sounding like it could be plausible ?
Also, as Tut317 pointed out in post#45, both the Coelacanth and the Wollomi pine both lived over 100 million years ago, and yet they have not evolved one little bit. They are exactly as their fossils have depicted them to be, totally unchanged.

I ask you, With regards to causes of mass extinction, such as environmental change, catastrophic events (perhaps a meteor strike) , Would a world wide flood be considered a catastrophic event ?

Clearly, it would.


Or would you have to rule this one out because it is sounding like it could be plausible ?

I'm going to assume that you are asking if there is evidence of a SINGLE world-wide catastrophic flood of magnitude sufficient to cover all land masses simultaneously to sufficient depth to cause mass extinctions. This doesn't seem probable as (a) the geologic and fossil records don't support it, and (b) there isn't a known natural mechanism that could cause a single world-wide flood to occur. Of course, over geologic time scales virtually all places on the earth that are today above water have been under water at one time or another - hence the presence of sedimentary rocks and fossils of sea creatures on what is land today. But the mechanisms that cause land masses to rise and fall take millions of years to occur, so can not be a cause for simultaneous mass extinctions. If you're thinking about rainfall somehow occurring globally - there just isn't enough water capacity in the atmosphere to account for more than a couple of inches of rain occurring world-wide simultaneously. Here's why: atmospheric pressure is equivalent to about 14 feet of water, and water vapor makes up about 1% of the atmosphere; so if ALL the water vapor in the atmosphere world-wide was somehow squeezed out as rain all at once you would have about 1% of 14 feet of water - or less than 2 inches of rain world-wide.


Also, as Tut317 pointed out in post#45, both the Coelacanth and the Wollomi pine both lived over 100 million years ago, and yet they have not evolved one little bit. They are exactly as their fossils have depicted them to be, totally unchanged.

Agreed, as I said in my earlier post. There are any species that have been quite successful in their biological niches, and hence have been able to survive and flourish, even as other species around them have come and gone. There is nothing inconsistent here - no one has ever said that all species must have the same limited time span on earth.

ebaines: "man has seen avian dinosaurs."

Oddly enough I was reading a dinosaur book to my 4 year old brother. When the book said that dinosaurs were living in our backyards as birds, he questioned it and told me that it made no sense. My parents haven't raised him on "creationism." Even a 4 year old can realize that it just doesn't make sense.

Jaime - I thought you'd be pleased that I conceeded to your hypothesis that man has indeed seen dinosaurs! (Even if only "avian dinosaurs" and not a stegosaur or T-Rex.)

Your little brother's reaction illustrates that the processes of evolution affecting species over millions of years is not obvious to the casual observer. If it was obvious, we wouldn't have such controversy over the subject.

I'm not trying to "convince" anyone, to believe what I believe. If you did decide to "conceed to my hypothesis" I'm not going to jump up and down for joy, because I'm not here to try to convince you or turn your personal beliefs around.

Also, a lot of people claim to be "evolutionists" but if it takes a science guru to tell them what to believe about the theory, how are any of them right?

When I asked about showing some peer reviewed studies about these artifacts no one came forth with any. Why?

Any of these artifacts can be viewed / searched through search engines. I personally have not kept records of where I have seen these items exactly but they are easily found with Google images and the various links from there. Whether a particular web site meets your approval is entirely up to you but I expect if they are websites that suggest the creation belief system that it will be immediately dismissed by you as nonsense.

One link I just found still in my P.C. is Welcome to 6000years.org - Proof the Bible is True (http://www.6000years.org)

Some of these items may even be on peoples blogs too, but that does not nullify there existence or peoples opinions on them.

If I were to personally find something spectacular that called into question the supposed old-time scale of things and photographed it to put on my own blog, that would not mean it did not exist, and if I were to give it to someone to to study, it would be interpreted as to someone's `belief system` be it evolutionary or creationism.

Sorry to also take so long to answer sometimes, I am a single dad with a lot on my plate.

One link I just found still in my P.C. is Welcome to 6000years.org - Proof the Bible is True (http://www.6000years.org)

Some of these items may even be on peoples blogs too, but that does not nullify there existence or peoples opinions on them.

If I were to personally find something spectacular that called into question the supposed old-time scale of things and photographed it to put on my own blog, that would not mean it did not exist, and if I were to give it to someone to to study, it would be interpreted as to someones `belief system` be it evolutionary or creationism.


In other words: no - there are no peer reviewed articles on these "artifacts." Tim - the problem is that in science we must rely on the collective wisdom of recognized experts to evaluate and pass judgment on the validity of scientific claims. Web sites such as the one you cited are not at all about science - but rather are about trying to "prove" the validity of a group's religious beliefs. They have little to no crediblility in the scientific communiyt NOT because they go against a particular "belief system," but because they fail to adhere to the basic tenets of the scientific process.

Tim - I am not at all trying to persuade you or anyone else that a particular belief system is wrong. I am only interested in making sure that beliefs that are grounded in faith - and not science - but that are presented here as being "scientific" should be challenged, given that this is a science forum.

Ill take a quick stab at answering the creationists.

Do you believe in GPS? Do you think its based on science, or is it magic?

Ok, if you believe that GPS technology can pinpoint your location on earth, and that it's based on science, let me give you a quick physics lesson. Yes, I know this is a paleontology board, but you brought religion into it.

All GPS technology requires a clock. A very accurate clock. This kind of accuracy cannot be achieved with a mechanical, or quartz movement watch. You need an atomic clock.

How does an atomic clock work? Interesting question, glad you asked. It measures the radioactive decay of a isotope. Our science has progressed to the point that we can measure the decay of isotopes to millionths of a second! The 'proof' that we know how isotopes work is on glorious display every time someone can find the local chemist in their car. (assuming they don't run down that lady in the crosswalk when they should be watching the road instead of that little screen)

Now, here is the fun part. How do we know the age of the Earth? It's the same technology! We measure the isotopes and daughter elements of Uranium! We can then cross check those dates to the dates of other similar isotopes in different layers of rock, and different locations around the world! Amazingly, all those different locations and isotopes all point to the same date. 4.5 billion years.

Conveniently, most volcanic eruptions deposit a nice fresh layer of isotopes when they erupt. So if we find fossils under a layer of volcanic ash, its quite easy to date the age of those fossils. They are just a bit older than the ash!

So, next time you want to disbelieve the age of the earth, stop using your GPS. Or your cell phone. Or your computer. Or fly in an airplane. Or believe that the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2. Or use power from a nuclear power plant. Or buy your kid a glow in the dark poster. Or...

I would like to add a few things to this conversation.

1) I agree science is a belief system. Because almost all of science is based on theory and it changes constantly. It has no bearing on realiability or accuracy. It simply is. That is the birthplace of our knowlage pool. Science.

2) Did man live with dinosaurs. My belief is no. But has man seen dinasaurs. Yes. But not living ones. Bones appear all the time. The wash out or are exposed from being covered for very long periods. And if primitive man were to see the t-rex in skeletal form they would presume it to be living and create legend.

3) As far as the clocks the help with GPS. One additive that wasn't explained is that the clocks in space are set to run slower to compensate for those on the ground. It is the only way for them not to gain time and therefore maintain an accurate feedback for the GPS system.

Very well said jaime90, you make a valid point. I believe people over complicate this stuff which leads to confusion, it is all over the place with the explanation of how old the Earth is, how there is no general consenus on any of it including evolution. I like the simple stuff, often people over look that, its like trying to fix a car and you take the whole engine apart before you discover the batery cable was disconnected.