Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #21

    Jan 27, 2010, 10:53 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim2you View Post
    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.
    spitvenom's Avatar
    spitvenom Posts: 1,266, Reputation: 373
    Ultra Member
     
    #22

    Jan 27, 2010, 10:56 AM

    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??
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #23

    Jan 27, 2010, 11:07 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by spitvenom View Post
    He must be an ancestor of Jebediah Springfield who tamed the wild buffalo.
    You'll never beat Shelbyville!
    Tim2you's Avatar
    Tim2you Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #24

    Jan 28, 2010, 07:59 AM

    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.
    Attached Images
         
    spitvenom's Avatar
    spitvenom Posts: 1,266, Reputation: 373
    Ultra Member
     
    #25

    Jan 28, 2010, 08:08 AM

    My niece has a drawing of her riding a unicorn. So they must be real by your logic.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #26

    Jan 28, 2010, 08:51 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim2you View Post
    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?
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #27

    Jan 28, 2010, 10:52 AM

    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.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #28

    Jan 28, 2010, 10:55 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jaime90 View Post
    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?
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #29

    Jan 28, 2010, 11:28 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jaime90 View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by jaime90 View Post
    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.
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #30

    Jan 28, 2010, 02:43 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    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.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #31

    Jan 28, 2010, 03:00 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jaime90 View Post
    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.
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #32

    Jan 28, 2010, 03:20 PM

    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.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #33

    Jan 28, 2010, 03:37 PM

    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?
    Tim2you's Avatar
    Tim2you Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #34

    Jan 29, 2010, 02:15 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by spitvenom View Post
    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.
    Tim2you's Avatar
    Tim2you Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #35

    Jan 29, 2010, 04:08 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ebaines View Post
    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 ).
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #36

    Jan 29, 2010, 04:34 PM
    This should now be moved to the Religious Discussion forum instead of Paleontology.
    Tim2you's Avatar
    Tim2you Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #37

    Jan 30, 2010, 05:03 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    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.
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #38

    Jan 30, 2010, 03:03 PM

    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.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #39

    Jan 30, 2010, 04:49 PM

    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.
    FlyYakker's Avatar
    FlyYakker Posts: 378, Reputation: 41
    Full Member
     
    #40

    Jan 31, 2010, 03:48 PM

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

    I just thought I'd stir the pot.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Looking for children's 80's feature length Cartoon - man, boy, space, dinosaur pet [ 4 Answers ]

Hi - can anyone remember a Cartoon which was feature length and I think of the 80's. At least that is when I would have been watching it. There was a little boy who had some sort of creature for a pet which I think was like a small dinosaur. It dies when it gets dragged into a cave by...

I think I need to reinstall XP, but my CD is a dinosaur [ 14 Answers ]

Hi, and thanks for being here. I'm in big trouble, and I've just spent the last 30 hours of my life desperately trying to dig myself out of the pit I'm in. My ancient toshiba satellite p25-s507 went into a mess of problems 2 days ago due to device/display driver errors. In fact, I can barely see...

Movie:Man living in forest with homemade inventions? [ 9 Answers ]

This is a very vague memory of this movie but I remember watching it in the late to mid 80's. I just remember this man living in the forest or on an island and he had all these gadgets and inventions. For some reason I want to say that he lived in a tree or something. The guy was tall and lean...

Man living with parents [ 1 Answers ]

I'm 44 years old. The man I've been in an on and off again relationship is 39 years old. He has lived with me, then when he becomes depressed, he moves back into Mom and Dads basement. He is currently there now. His parents have been diagnosed with a variety of mental/emotional disorders. ...


View more questions Search