[Tim2you]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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?

[TUT317]

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.

[ebaines]

... 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.

[TUT317]

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

[ebaines]

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.

[Tim2you]

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.

[ebaines]

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.

[jaime90]

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.

[ebaines]

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.

[jaime90]

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?

[Tim2you]

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

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.

[ebaines]

One link I just found still in my P.C. is Welcome to 6000years.org - Proof the Bible is True

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.

[Revy]

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...

[cdad]

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.

[Teri_30]

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.