Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Jan 4, 2010, 02:06 PM
    Has man really never seen a living dinosaur?
    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?
    spitvenom's Avatar
    spitvenom Posts: 1,266, Reputation: 373
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Jan 4, 2010, 02:24 PM

    Isn't this place a religious park?
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Jan 4, 2010, 02:26 PM

    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.
    spitvenom's Avatar
    spitvenom Posts: 1,266, Reputation: 373
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Jan 4, 2010, 02:32 PM

    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.
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Jan 4, 2010, 02:48 PM

    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.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,130, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #6

    Jan 5, 2010, 09:06 AM

    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. 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?
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #7

    Jan 5, 2010, 11:13 AM

    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.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,130, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #8

    Jan 5, 2010, 12:27 PM

    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?
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Jan 5, 2010, 01:04 PM

    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.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,130, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #10

    Jan 5, 2010, 01:34 PM

    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

    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.
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Jan 7, 2010, 07:49 PM

    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.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,130, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #12

    Jan 8, 2010, 07:27 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jaime90 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaime90 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaime90 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaime90 View Post
    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.
    Tim2you's Avatar
    Tim2you Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #13

    Jan 25, 2010, 03:17 AM
    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.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #14

    Jan 26, 2010, 11:37 PM

    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.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #15

    Jan 27, 2010, 08:52 AM

    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.
    Tim2you's Avatar
    Tim2you Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #16

    Jan 27, 2010, 09:43 AM
    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.
    spitvenom's Avatar
    spitvenom Posts: 1,266, Reputation: 373
    Ultra Member
     
    #17

    Jan 27, 2010, 10:20 AM
    This is what you are referring to as Proof?? You have got to be kidding me!
    Attached Images
     
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,130, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #18

    Jan 27, 2010, 10:40 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim2you View Post
    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.
    jaime90's Avatar
    jaime90 Posts: 1,157, Reputation: 163
    Ultra Member
     
    #19

    Jan 27, 2010, 10:45 AM

    [IMG]http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefOJe2BLHTMAezGjzbkF/SIG=122d0ach2/EXP=1264700681/**http%3A//godsofsweven.com/images/ICA_CARVING.bmp[/IMG]
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #20

    Jan 27, 2010, 10:48 AM
    You mean:



    What does that prove exactly?

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