Your Religion or Spirituality

Bring it on.

It's also direct observational evidence of how at one point the continents split up, and shifting plates of the earth caused some land masses to elevate higher than others.

As for the fossils buried together, there was this meteor that once struck the earth long ago. I'm sure you heard of that.

YOU answer me this. If the earth is only 6,000 years old as you claim, and man and dinosaurs existed at the same time - as you also claim - why no fossils of them found at the same level? Why the HUGE gap in depth of where human remains and dino remains are found?

What do YOU think of THAT?

 

actually, plate tectonics is an interpretation or theoretical description of what geologists think happened to the continents.

Genesis 1:9-10 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

There very well may have been one landmass way back when, and geologists do acknowledge that the continental plates seem to "fit" together. Some scientists presuppositions cause them to interpret the continental drifts to be over long periods of time. There are some observations that contradict these assumptions (magnetic patters on the sea bed, lack of sediment formations at oceanic crusts). With the evidence included that poses problems for the slow drifters, a catastrophic event (such as the flood) fits nicely with the observed evidence.

 

They can see the plates from space and measure the movements in some areas.

 

As a Catholic, yet someone who hates finite thought and conclusions...I insist that you cannot use science to legitimately prove Gods existence. ..not even slightly. You can use science to help prove why you believe in God, but that counts as nothing towards any sort of significance or truth.

And the same goes for your whale and global flood theory. But then again, there's scientific evidence that whales at one time had appendages for moving on land...so perhaps thats why they were found so far above any sea going scenario. and the phenomena of finding fossils in clusters is a small occurance in comparison to the nature in which fossils are normally found...not to mention the ability to prove the age of the finds, and how drastically different by millions of years they are.

 

Yes, I think you a wrong for some people's views, and right for your views.

Who are you to say others are wrong???

 

You can't handle the truth!!!

 

Basically, you are saying that truth is relative- that something may be true for one person, and true for another person, and true for another person. That "A" can be both "A" for one person, and "B" for another... etc... This contradicts logic (law of non-contradiction) and defeats itself. Your philosophy can't even get out of the gate.

Speaking of worldviews, if one is incoherent and contradictory, logically we can disregard it as false. I think Dolphan7 is asking you to justify the standard you use to make moral pronouncements of right or wrong- your answer, being contradictory, shows that whatever standard you are using may be false and disregarded.

 

Was there someone there to record this event or is it just a theoretical interpretation of the evidence that is available to us? There are answers that Christians can give for your question, which I'm sure you have heard before. One answer is that in the Bible, God says that he will utterly wipe out any evidence of the humans that existed, that were being judged by the flood. Therefore, biblically speaking, there is no surprise that there are no human fossils found with dino bones.

There are a number of arguments that can be made against the geologic column that is used to interpret the age of fossils and their place in earths history.

 

Bro, that's a poor thing to use. Was anyone there to record the events of Jesus' supposed miracles? His rising from the dead?

No, there wasn't. Any "records" of this were written hundreds of years after the fact. One of those records is the Bible, which pretty much - since it was written years after - nullifies (to any non-Christian) your explanation for why no human fossils were found with dino ones.

So I'm assuming you agree with D7 on the dino/human living at the same time theory.

Let's suppose the Bible's explanation was true. Why no human remains found within the digestive tracts of any dinos? You can't tell me that if humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time that none were eaten by the carnivorous ones. I mean let's be real here, a village of humans with no weaponry that could kill them would be like a buffet table for a t-rex, no? And raptors would have feasted.

Did God wipe out the remains from inside the dino's bellies too?

 

I can answer this as a christian....Yes, god wiped out ALL evidence of humanity. That would include any partially digested human tissue inside a dinosaurs belly. God is perfect and infallible so why would he make a mistake by leaving some behind. Don't look for any human DNA in fossilized stools either, he got all that too. He doesn't miss a trick so, don't think you're ever going to find any evidence that humans and dino's lived at the same time because god doesn't want any evidence found.....but it IS true.


That was easy....

 

I see this, and I wonder how you cannot see how that is not considered science. God did it? Might as well say thunder is caused by Zues.

 

Well of course there are other explanations - what would you expect from people who seek to explain things by natural causes.

The question becomes what best explains the data?

While volcanoes and shifting plates and meteors are nice suggestions, they don't fit the data on a world wide basis. They don't explain everything we see.

 

Boy. Take a break from this site for a day and look how far behind I am.



Great question!

According to what we see in the fossil record, earth was by and large a temperate climate controlled planet. Lot's of lush green vegetation. Then something happened. Climate change caused by some catastrophic event. This is what we all know today.

Now taking into consideration the biblical account for the rest of this post consider this....

We say the catastrophic event was a worldwide flood, but others say something else. Anyway that is another debate. Changing the earth from a temperate climate the world over, to covered with water, will cause the poles to freeze. This explains why we see animals snap frozen in places like Siberia, the wooly mammoth for instance, -standing up to boot! Now this is the readers digest version, so if you are really interested in learning more.......I can help you find lot's of good research to explain in more detail what I just explained.

Multiple periods of extinction and multiple periods of land mass movement and changes is just one possibility, but not proven fact. You have to understand the driving force behind the long periods of time that these events supposedly happened. Once you understand this then you can understand why it is so important for evolutionists to think in these long time periods when hypethsizing and theorizing. Evolution demands long time periods. That doesn't mean that there were long time periods, it just means that everything they do revolves around long periods of time.

 

Sorry, that's wrong. According to what we know from the fossil record, mineral samples, deep ice cores, etc... Earth has gone through many, many different stages: lush and tropical, hot and arid, cold and glaciated, multiple times over. There have been at least three or four mass extinctions and at least a couple dozen radical climate shifts since the appearance of life.

 

that is what you call scientists.

Natural means is the best way to explain the data.

They are not nice suggestions. There exists many things that fit on a world wide basis. Mostly since shifting place is world wide.

 

That is not true at all. The fact we have had a controlled climate in the last few years have been seen as rare for earth.

 

Ah you are asking more questions before we concluded the last post. Ok fine I can go with it. But I do like to put to bed prior topics before launching into another one.

With a worldwide flood, we expect the land masses to move and change. We expect mountains to become oceans, and oceans to become mountains. We all see this very clearly in the fossil record. What the debate is ....is the cause.....and the time frame. You bring up a meteor. While that is a possible exlanation, it is also a possible explanation for the cause of the world wide flood. God has many resources available at his disposal. The genesis account lists lots of catastrophic events happenning at the same time. What may be thought of as a meteor, may indeed be something not from space, but from the earth propelled upward from the earth in all the upheaval. But it could be a outerspace meteor as well. God is all powerful.

Dinosaurs and humans together. Hmmm first of all, I don't hold to a 6000 year time table. Never have. The bible doesn't say it and I am not going to add something to the bible that isn't there. I will say that earth is younger than the billions speculated by secular science. That is as far as I go. Now why don't we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils? Great question!

First off not finding their bones together does not mean they didn't live together. It just means they were not burried together.

What do we find in the fossil record? 99.975% of fossils are marine fossils, which would be expected in a marine catastrophy. Of the mammal fossils found, most are from the post-flood ice age. So the number of mammalian fossil including dinosaurs and humans is relatively small. Of the millions of creatures pre-flood, we have uncovered only a tiny fragment of fossilized dinosaurs and humans. There isn't much to find comparatively speaking.

Fossilization is a rare event, and even rarer for humans. Humans are very resourceful. Most likely they would have tried to stay alive as long as they could, seeking higher ground, floating on objects, swimming (but not for long). Dinosaurs would have immediately sunk to the depths not being able to think, swim or float. They would have sunk to the bottom quickly and burried in the upheaval of sediment caused by the catastrophy. Humans would have died, and then their bodies would float, and then they would have just decayed or been eaten, for the most part.

Populations of humans back then is debatable but probably relatively small. Humans would have concentrated together in regions, more likely close to the oceans. They would not have lived next to dinosaurs due to their fierce nature. So dinoaurs and humans while living at the same time, probably wouldn't be in the same areas. Consider metropolis vs the wild. Makes sense. So if they were in certain regions, and not spread all over the world, then a world wide flood would have burried them in a relatively concentrated area. It is possible that since we know that mammalian fossils are rare, and the population of humans lower, and in certain regions, and the fact that we have dug up less than one trillointh of the fossil record, that there are humans still burried yet undiscovered (as well as other mammals) in the earth. Think Antarctica or the Arctic, or the ocean floor itself.

We know there are fossils of things that are still alive today, even deeper than dinosaurs, yet these fossils are also not found with human fossils. Yet we live with them today. So it is possible to live along side something and not be found in the fossil record together.

To me, it does not matter if humans fossils are found with dinosaurs, or not. It is certainly possible either way.

But if we ever do find them together, then some people will have some explaining to do!

 

Because there is an obsolute moral standard of right and wrong. Whether you or I believe that or not doesn't matter.

You say that I am wrong, but you have no foundation to make that statement without appealing to an absolute standard. You can't tell me today that you are any better than the terrorists who attacked us on 911, without appealing to an absolute standard of right and wrong.

So if you want to continue to believe that our basis for right and wrong is relative to the individual, remember that you can't then claim any sort of righteousness over anyone else on this planet, and neither can anyone else.

 

Yes there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, and they wrote about it, and it was accepted as truth back then. If they were wrong, or making it up, there were people still alive that could verify it or deny it. The authority and historocity of the NT is well documented. The NT was completed before the end of the first century, not hundreds of years after. The Gospel writers had eyewitnesses to talk to about the events, if not eyewitneses themselves.

Where do you get your info, and why do you believe that info, which is probably dated to hundreds of years ago itself. Why believe one over the other?

It isn't that there weren't any eyewitnesses, it is that you choose not to believe it, and that is your prerogative. That doesn't make it untrue.

You are making an assumption that they lived near each other on a regular basis and just got picked off by a roaming T rex looking for a bite. Too much TV and Jurriasic Park my friend. The reality is that if these creatures were a verocious as we think, humans would want to live as far away as possible from them. Make sense?

Keep in mind also that we have found only a small perentage of fossils of both man and dinosaur compared to millions of specimens possible. The odds of finding human DNA in a dinosaur is astronomical. But still possible. Again this is n't a problem for creation.

But if we ever do find human DNA in the stomach of a Dino, some people will have some explaining to do.

 

Could you send me a PM and please explain to me what you think a Christian is? Because you have me confused.

 

Evolution says life happened from non-life. They don't know how, but it happened.

Evolution says that through some still unknown process, new DNA is created to move species to species to genus to family etc.....

Do you wonder why this isn't considered science?

 

How is that any different than what creationist believe?

No it doesn't. That is what creationist say the science says. There is difference.

Science is easy to dismiss if you don't understand it.

 

Here are a few excellent videos that, I hope, will help you understand what science actually believes:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4[/media]

 

Of course they say that. But remember that they demand long time periods in order for the theory to fit. Appearance of life is sudden in the fossil record, coupled with the mass extinction. Not several.

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4[/media]

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3SAGDZXLxI[/media]

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14[/media]

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY[/media]

 

Ok please understand the difference between finding natural explanations, if they exist.........

and everything must be explained naturally.

This is where evolution has hyjacked science.

Everything must be proved to have a natural cause. It they can't find one, they must keep looking. And when nothing fits right, they change the predictions: Punctuated Equilibrium, Facilitated Variation......

But at no point in time can they ever say - "It looks like there is evidence of design"

That would be sacreligious!

 

At its's basic core, evolution requires a mechanism to explain how simpler organisms evolve into more complex organisms. With the last 100 or so years of discovery at the molecular level, at the DNA level, we come to find out that there is no way new DNA, no new gentic material is possible in a natural setting. There is no evidence that adds new material to an organism. Reshufling, rearranging, change in quantities, yes......but nothing new. We can grow a bigger specimen, or a different specimen, but not a new specimen.

Evolution demands new genetic material to be created. And it is impossible.

And you know this.


You can post all the videos you want that explain what things are called and how things evolve, but at the end of the day you can't get around what every evolutionists faces everyday and that is there is no known mechanism for change to happen naturally.

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8[/media]

 

No it doesn't; No it isn't; No I don't.

Please don't assume what I know, my friend.

I believe I got around it nicely Besides, I just thought that since you use your understanding of science to substantiate your arguments, you might as well know what scientists are actually saying and why.

 

Creation demands that new genetic material comes from some invisible man in the sky. And it is also impossible.

But you'll never admit to that.

And the known mechanism for the creation myth is?

Haven't you realized by now that every argument you use against evolution while touting that creation is the only "logical" answer can be turned around and used against you?

Apparently sarcasm flies right over you, huh?

 

No, sorry, that's not true. You ignore evidence that disagrees with your religious beliefs, like the vast majority of Creationists.

 

Nice try. Dodgeball anyone?

When no answers are available, it must be the questions!, Or the questioner doesn't know science.

Science has no idea how to get from species to above species. They have no idea how new DNA, information, can be created in nature. You have to be able to see this, show this in nature for evolution to ever get down the first stretch. They say it must have happened, but they don't know how.I understand the theories, but you are lacking a mechanism.

And we haven't even got out of the gate yet because another stumblling block, and it is a huge one, is how can life come from non-life? Although evolution theory doesn't really address this, it certainly relies on it, otherwise they are at zero.

 

Apples to oranges. Go back to the flood posts. Evidence of creation, not creator.

Evolution demands observable natural explanations, which it hypothesizes and theorizes and predicts the outcome.

You can't harness supernatural events/entities.

All we can do is observe the after effects of a supernatural event.

There is large amounts of evidence that support a world wide flood. Go back to that.

 

Yes, you are correct...in the minds of people desperate to cling to their faith, there's plenty of evidence - when interpreted the way they want - to support a worldwide flood.

Except for the fact that it's well known that most of the world was covered in water at one time, before the continents split apart. That also would kind of leave the same "evidence."

Bro, it's become apparent that if somewhere an elephant farts you'll find some way to say it's evidence of creation, no matter how many people point out the inaccuracies of it.

Anything can be twisted and interpreted to "prove" your myth, much as people twist and interpret the Bible to mean what they want it to.

*AHEM*

We're STILL waiting for your "answers". Been years now, haven't gotten them. Do you realize just how foolish your arguments are when you keep demanding "answers" from everyone without providing any of your own?

How can you expect anyone to take your demands seriously when you're using them as an obvious smokescreen to the fact that YOU have no answers. The best defense is a good offense, eh?

Until you provide yours, stop asking others for theirs.

 

I don't see how not fully understanding something means automatically that an invisible man in the sky created it. The evolution theory may not be perfect but at least it's not just say everything was done by magic.

 

not magic... mud... which is not the same thing.