People and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time

[UppsalaDragby]

You asked for statistical evidence that it's not coincidental that human and dinosaur remains are not found in the same geologic strata ("ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence"). That's exactly what I provided.

Where is there anything in the statistics you provided that takes into consideration the number of human fossils found in relation to the size of the planet and the likelyhood that they should be found "mixed in with" dinosaure fossils? If the answer is in the PDF somewhere then please quote and post the relevant data rather than just posting links!

It shows that evolutionary mechanisms are fully capable of producing new species. Other studies and observations demonstrate that the same mechanisms are fully capable of producing new traits and abilities, including entirely new genetic sequences.

That simply shows evidence of adaption. Where is there any scientific evidence of common descent? Where is the scientific evidence that birds were not ALWAYS bird, cows were not ALWAYS cows, fish were not ALWAYS fish and so on..?

First, I have no need to be evasive. Second, why do you think erosion stopped?

If you have no need to be evasive then why answer MY question with a question?

Ok then, I guess I don't understand your objection to the long-established geologic explanation for polystrate fossils. The surrounding environments of deposition show unequivocally what took place. If you have a direct rebuttal to that, then please give it. Otherwise, vague complaining about "evolutionists" doesn't amount to much.

As I said, creationists can PROVE that strata does not need millions and millions of years to form, whereas evolutionists cannot PROVE that any strata takes millions of years. That is hardly "vague complaining".

Yes, I'm aware of what creationists believe.

Really? Then why are you using an argument like "Do you believe that there was enough water to cover the earth over 29,000 feet Deep?"

That shows exactly how much you know about what creationists believe!

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

How? Do you believe that there was enough water to cover the earth over 29,000 feet deep?

I find it nearly impossible to believe flood waters were deep enough to cover Everest . I really do. That is one heck of a lot of water.

However Genesis 7:19 and Genesis 7:20 say they were covered (15 cubits is about 20 feet)

My only guess and speculation is that while the flood was receding , the earth crust maybe rose up higher in some places (mountains like Everest) and deepened in adjacent areas (deep seas) .... but the bible does not say so. It is conjecture on my part.

If it wasn't for those darn high mountains it is easy to put earth under water .... because even as we speak 72% or the earth is already submerged .... of the remaining 18 % of the land ... most of it is just a few feet above sea level .... melt the polar ice caps and a lot of those lowlands are submerged. A world wide flood is easy to do .... except for those mountains .... very difficult to cover the mountains in my thinking

It is at times like this when I turn to my beloved evolutionists and geologists and rely on their scriptures which say there are marine fossils on Everest and sharks teeth on the prairies of North Dakota which is far far away from any oceans.

On a side note .... deep sea researchers in the last couple of years have found immense springs of water feeding into the oceans from deep inside the earth .... sounds just like the source of much of the flood waters of Noah's era Genesis 7:11

Bottom line 29,000 feet of water to cover Everest seems impossible .... we have 36,000 feet of water in the Mariana trench off japan but that does not help me with the Everest dilemma.

 

[River Jordan]

Where is there anything in the statistics you provided that takes into consideration the number of human fossils found in relation to the size of the planet and the likelyhood that they should be found "mixed in with" dinosaure fossils? If the answer is in the PDF somewhere then please quote and post the relevant data rather than just posting links!

Again, this is what you asked for: "ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence"". The statistical analyses in that paper do exactly that.

That simply shows evidence of adaption.

No, they show that evolutionary mechanisms are fully capable of generating new traits, abilities, genes, and species. Therefore, the conclusion that in the past, new traits, abilities, genes, and species arose by the same mechanisms is plausible, reasonable, and consistent with observed reality.

If your position is "Oh, but in the past those things arose via different mechanisms", then provide some supporting data.

Where is there any scientific evidence of common descent? Where is the scientific evidence that birds were not ALWAYS bird, cows were not ALWAYS cows, fish were not ALWAYS fish and so on..?

Ok, let's take your first example (birds). If birds evolved from a reptilian ancestor, what sort of traits would you expect in a "transitional fossil" between reptiles and birds? Also, what sort of overall temporal progression would you expect to see in the fossil record?

If you have no need to be evasive then why answer MY question with a question?

Because your statement, "Why, after 60 million years or so would it not have eroded away" makes no sense. Could it be that you're objecting out of mere ideology rather than any actual technical issues with the find?

As I said, creationists can PROVE that strata does not need millions and millions of years to form, whereas evolutionists cannot PROVE that any strata takes millions of years. That is hardly "vague complaining".

Again I have to question if you're reading what I've been providing. Geologists (not "evolutionists") recognize that in certain circumstances (volcanic eruption, subsiding coastal plains) strata can be laid down rapidly. Those events are all associated with specific environments of deposition, such as the examples we've been talking about.

So why you appear to think rapid sedimentation is exclusive to creationists is a mystery.

Really? Then why are you using an argument like "Do you believe that there was enough water to cover the earth over 29,000 feet Deep?"

That appears to be what some creationists here believe.

That shows exactly how much you know about what creationists believe!

Except for what's being posted on this forum.

Now, can you please explain to me what your specific technical rebuttal is to the long-standing geologic explanation for polystrate fossils? If you don't have one, just say so and we can move on.

I find it nearly impossible to believe flood waters were deep enough to cover Everest . I really do. That is one heck of a lot of water.

That's because there isn't enough water on earth to do it. All the water on earth is already at its lowest point. It'd be like trying to completely "flood" your head with water while in a bathtub, using only the water that's already in there. What happens? The water immediately runs back down to the lowest point.

My only guess and speculation is that while the flood was receding , the earth crust maybe rose up higher in some places (mountains like Everest) and deepened in adjacent areas (deep seas) .... but the bible does not say so. It is conjecture on my part.

Massive rapid continental movement produces its own set of issues. Moving that much mass that quickly requires an insane amount of energy and heat...so much so that it would boil off the oceans and render the earth uninhabitable. Even creationist John Baumgardner, one of the main proponents of this idea, admits that it would generate at least 1028 joules, which is more than enough to boil off the oceans.

It is at times like this when I turn to my beloved evolutionists and geologists and rely on their scriptures which say there are marine fossils on Everest and sharks teeth on the prairies of North Dakota which is far far away from any oceans.

It's not just that there are fossils on Everest, it's that they're of a specific type (limestone) that require enormous populations of very small organisms living above to produce.

On a side note .... deep sea researchers in the last couple of years have found immense springs of water feeding into the oceans from deep inside the earth .... sounds just like the source of much of the flood waters of Noah's era Genesis 7:11

Again, that water is already at its lowest point. If it leaves that lowest point, water or other material immediately moves to the vacated space.

Bottom line 29,000 feet of water to cover Everest seems impossible .... we have 36,000 feet of water in the Mariana trench off japan but that does not help me with the Everest dilemma.

Which is why Biblical flood geology doesn't work.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

.
We still end up with marine fossils on Everest

Those Marine fossils lived in water at one time

Everest must have been under water at one time

This is science speaking , not religion.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Again, this is what you asked for: "ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence"". The statistical analyses in that paper do exactly that.

I have several times clarified what I meant by that and yet you continue to ignore this. Also, I do NOT see anywhere in the paper you posted that shows that not finding human fossils among dinosaur fossils is an amazing coincidence. The simple fact that you CLAIM that it shows this is not enough. What YOU need to do is exacly what I asked you to do, which you have repeatedly FAILED to do.

No, they show that evolutionary mechanisms are fully capable of generating new traits, abilities, genes, and species. Therefore, the conclusion that in the past, new traits, abilities, genes, and species arose by the same mechanisms is plausible, reasonable, and consistent with observed reality.

No??? How does having a "mechanism" that allows for "new traits, abilities, genes and species" disprove the idea that they were the result of being designed adaptions, rather than a mechanism that cause some animals in the fossil record hardly change at all, whereas others are converted into completely new creatures with drastically different body plans, respiratory systems, and so on?

Ok, let's take your first example (birds). If birds evolved from a reptilian ancestor, what sort of traits would you expect in a "transitional fossil" between reptiles and birds? Also, what sort of overall temporal progression would you expect to see in the fossil record?

The problem with that argument is that the supposed "transition" was assumed after the fact (seeing similarities between these two sets of animals) so why would anyone "expect" to see something that has already been seen. Furthermore, I would expect to see reptiles where limbs are gradually being changed into wings, mouths being turned into beaks and things like that. Cherry-picking a few fossils here and there where such transitions are assumed is not enough. where are the gradual changes? The scarcity of fossils is a really, really bad excuse! Why? Because we should still see a reasonably evenly dispersed series of changes. What we see is basically see what we see today - clearly distinct groups of animals that vary within their own kind.

More importantly, you haven't explained what "mechanism" dictates the direction of development that has supposedly occurred in animals over millions of years. What causes an animal that obviously would have no problem surviving in the ocean, to become an amphibian, a land-dweller and then back to an amphibian and then an ocean dweller again. What possible environmental pressures fluctuate in such a way that the only viable evolutionary route would be something like that? Or take a dinosaure turning into a bird. Why would it be more likely that a dinosaure took that evolutionary route rather than simply changing diet or developing faster legs or something else that would have been closer at hand? Random genetic changes do not chose a specific direction in which an animal develops.

Because your statement, "Why, after 60 million years or so would it not have eroded away" makes no sense. Could it be that you're objecting out of mere ideology rather than any actual technical issues with the find?

It does make sense! Perhaps it is your inability to address my question that reflects your ideology? I am asking you why, after 60 million years, would the layers above the fossil be eroded down and then stop exactly where the fossil appears above ground. What exacly in that question doesn't make sense?

Geologists (not "evolutionists") recognize that in certain circumstances (volcanic eruption, subsiding coastal plains) strata can be laid down rapidly. Those events are all associated with specific environments of deposition, such as the examples we've been talking about.

Which geologist are "not evolutionists" according to you? Geologists, just as much as anyone else, are subjected to the prevailing paradigm and taught over a period of years how they are to interpret what they find. That includes long periods of time, uniformitarianism, and so on.
You are also ignoring (again) the point I made, which is that the creationist view is scientifically verifiable, whereas the claims of evolutionists are not.

That appears to be what some creationists here believe.

Really? Who exactly are you referring to? I have been a member of evolutionaryfairytale.com for a few years and I can't recall any creationist who has that belief. The common view is that the topology of the earth would have been vastly different in the pre-flood environment that it is today.

Now, can you please explain to me what your specific technical rebuttal is to the long-standing geologic explanation for polystrate fossils? If you don't have one, just say so and we can move on.

Why would I need to have a "specific techinical rebuttal" to something you have already admitted. I don't get you point?

 

[River Jordan]

.
We still end up with marine fossils on Everest

Those Marine fossils lived in water at one time

Everest must have been under water at one time

This is science speaking , not religion.

Yep, and there's a very good explanation for that. The strata that are now atop Evererst were once sea floor, and due to tectonic movements (which we still see in action today) over very long periods of time, those strata have been uplifted to the top of the mountain.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Yep, and there's a very good explanation for that. The strata that are now atop Evererst were once sea floor, and due to tectonic movements (which we still see in action today) over very long periods of time, those strata have been uplifted to the top of the mountain.

There you go again .... I said Everest was under water at one time .... you said no it was not ... now you say Everest was once a sea floor.

But of course you insert the magic formula "long periods of time"

I have said it before .... remove your magic formula "long periods of time" from evolution theory and it collapses.

Every single explanation given by evolutionists requires application of the magic formula to make it work

to wit: kiss a frog and it will not become a prince ..... but wait a long time and it will

Not only that .... I suggested and speculated that during the receding of Noah's flood Everest could have been raised and the corresponding seas could have deepened to hold the water .... but you said

Massive rapid continental movement produces its own set of issues. Moving that much mass that quickly requires an insane amount of energy and heat...so much so that it would boil off the oceans and render the earth uninhabitable. Even creationist John Baumgardner, one of the main proponents of this idea, admits that it would generate at least 1028 joules, which is more than enough to boil off the oceans.

And now you turn around and say the strata of Everest has been placed there by tectonic earth crust movements.

OH .... and of course you had to insert long periods of time so nothing would overheat .... there is that magic formula again.


.

 

[River Jordan]

I have several times clarified what I meant by that and yet you continue to ignore this. Also, I do NOT see anywhere in the paper you posted that shows that not finding human fossils among dinosaur fossils is an amazing coincidence. The simple fact that you CLAIM that it shows this is not enough. What YOU need to do is exacly what I asked you to do, which you have repeatedly FAILED to do.

Right, you've "clarified". IOW, when I met your first demand, "ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence" you moved the goalposts and demanded something else.

Here's what I have....several statistical analyses stratigraphy (the geologic order in which fossils occur) very strongly showing that the reason for the order of their occurrence is evolutionary and temporal relationships between taxa rather than mere chance.

That's what I have. If that doesn't satisfy you....well, that's hardly a surprise.

No??? How does having a "mechanism" that allows for "new traits, abilities, genes and species" disprove the idea that they were the result of being designed adaptions, rather than a mechanism that cause some animals in the fossil record hardly change at all, whereas others are converted into completely new creatures with drastically different body plans, respiratory systems, and so on?

Because that's the history of life on earth...a continual development of new traits, abilities, genes, and species. And no, none of that disproves the belief that they were supernaturally designed. Given that you're talking about a supernatural act by God, that's impossible to do. It'd be like me arguing that everything was really created last Thursday, but God just made it look like it wasn't. Can you disprove that? Of course not. No matter what object you cite, I can just say "That's the way God made it look".

The problem with that argument is that the supposed "transition" was assumed after the fact (seeing similarities between these two sets of animals) so why would anyone "expect" to see something that has already been seen.

Is that an admission that transitional fossils between dinosaurs and reptiles exist (they've already been seen)?

Furthermore, I would expect to see reptiles where limbs are gradually being changed into wings, mouths being turned into beaks and things like that. Cherry-picking a few fossils here and there where such transitions are assumed is not enough. where are the gradual changes? The scarcity of fossils is a really, really bad excuse! Why? Because we should still see a reasonably evenly dispersed series of changes. What we see is basically see what we see today - clearly distinct groups of animals that vary within their own kind.

First, unless you can define "kind", then it's a meaningless term.

Second, earlier in this thread you were citing the rarity of fossils when it suited you (why human and dino fossils aren't found together). Now you're arguing against it? Make up your mind.

Finally, do we agree that if birds evolved from reptiles, we should see fossilized organisms that show a mixture of reptilian and avian traits?

More importantly, you haven't explained what "mechanism" dictates the direction of development that has supposedly occurred in animals over millions of years. What causes an animal that obviously would have no problem surviving in the ocean, to become an amphibian, a land-dweller and then back to an amphibian and then an ocean dweller again. What possible environmental pressures fluctuate in such a way that the only viable evolutionary route would be something like that? Or take a dinosaure turning into a bird. Why would it be more likely that a dinosaure took that evolutionary route rather than simply changing diet or developing faster legs or something else that would have been closer at hand? Random genetic changes do not chose a specific direction in which an animal develops.

Again, it's observed reality that new traits, abilities, genes, and species come about via evolution. Thus, it's reasonable to conclude that the same is true in the past. And again, if you have data supporting some other means of developing those things, then provide it.

It does make sense! Perhaps it is your inability to address my question that reflects your ideology? I am asking you why, after 60 million years, would the layers above the fossil be eroded down and then stop exactly where the fossil appears above ground. What exacly in that question doesn't make sense?

And again I have to ask: Why do you think those erosional processes stopped?

Which geologist are "not evolutionists" according to you? Geologists, just as much as anyone else, are subjected to the prevailing paradigm and taught over a period of years how they are to interpret what they find. That includes long periods of time, uniformitarianism, and so on.

Seriously? You believe that over a hundred years ago when geologists first came across polystrate fossils, they were like, "Ok, no matter how we explain these, it has to be within the framework of evolution"? :blink:

You are also ignoring (again) the point I made, which is that the creationist view is scientifically verifiable, whereas the claims of evolutionists are not.

Sorry, but you've not demonstrated that at all.

Really? Who exactly are you referring to? I have been a member of evolutionaryfairytale.com for a few years and I can't recall any creationist who has that belief. The common view is that the topology of the earth would have been vastly different in the pre-flood environment that it is today.

At the time I wrote that, it appeared Arnie was promoting that view.

Why would I need to have a "specific techinical rebuttal" to something you have already admitted. I don't get you point?

??????? What do you think I've admitted?

The point is, polystrate fossils are found in specific environments of deposition that indicate how they were formed. Some were formed in actively subsiding coastal plains, others in volcanic areas. Those areas are known to be prone to brief periods of rapid sedimentation, which explains how these fossils were preserved upright.

IOW, over 100 years ago geologists were able to fully account for polystrate fossils without any reference to a global flood. Those explanations stand today.

If you have an alternative scientific explanation that's superior to the long-standing one among geologists, then please present it. If you don't have one, then just say so.

There you go again .... I said Everest was under water at one time .... you said no it was not ... now you say Everest was once a sea floor.

When those strata were sea floor, "Mt. Everest" didn't exist.

But of course you insert the magic formula "long periods of time"

Because moving that much material from sea floor to 29,000 feet in a short period of time makes the earth uninhabitable. Did you forget that fact?

I have said it before .... remove your magic formula "long periods of time" from evolution theory and it collapses.

Every single explanation given by evolutionists requires application of the magic formula to make it work

to wit: kiss a frog and it will not become a prince ..... but wait a long time and it will

First, "long periods of time" were mainstream science long before evolutionary theory was. So pretending that scientists just made it up to prop up evolutionary theory is simply wrong, and yet another straw man on your part.

Not only that .... I suggested and speculated that during the receding of Noah's flood Everest could have been raised and the corresponding seas could have deepened to hold the water .... but you said



And now you turn around and say the strata of Everest has been placed there by tectonic earth crust movements.

OH .... and of course you had to insert long periods of time so nothing would overheat .... there is that magic formula again.

Because anything else renders the earth uninhabitable. Did you forget that fact?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Because moving that much material from sea floor to 29,000 feet in a short period of time makes the earth uninhabitable. Did you forget that fact?

No , I have not forgotten that the earth was uninhabitable during Noah's flood

I think it is really cool that when the evolutionist finds himself cornered they begin to use arguments that line up with the genesis record

 

[River Jordan]

No , I have not forgotten that the earth was uninhabitable during Noah's flood

I think it is really cool that when the evolutionist finds himself cornered they begin to use arguments that line up with the genesis record

You're truly not understanding the point here. That much heat (required to move entire continental plates long distances in very short periods of time) is enough to boil off the oceans and the atmosphere. The entire planet would be uninhabitable, from that point on. Not just during the flood, but on into the future. Noah et al. would have been boiled alive.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Right, you've "clarified". IOW, when I met your first demand, "ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence" you moved the goalposts and demanded something else.

No, that is NOT correct, you haven't satisfied anything, because you haven't shown any objective statistics that show that human fossils should be found among dinosaur fossils. It is one thing to assume evolution and make claims based on that theory, it is another thing to prove your case given the creationist point of view that fossilization occurred during a short timespan and involved environments rather than long periods of time.

What goalposts have I "moved"? I never agreed that the assumptions that evolutionists have made are the goalposts I need to adhere to.

Because that's the history of life on earth...a continual development of new traits, abilities, genes, and species. And no, none of that disproves the belief that they were supernaturally designed. Given that you're talking about a supernatural act by God, that's impossible to do. It'd be like me arguing that everything was really created last Thursday, but God just made it look like it wasn't. Can you disprove that? Of course not. No matter what object you cite, I can just say "That's the way God made it look".

The "history of life on earth" says absolutely nothing at all about whether or not you have the right to simply extrapolate and assume.

Conclusions drawn by scientists looking backwards in time contradict the Bible, just as their conclusion drawn forwards in time do the same thing! The Bible teaches us that God created everyting within the time period of 6 days and that he will create new heavens and a new earth. What human beings assume is obviously your guiding light, and with that you think you can dictate to me what the history of life tells us. Can you disprove the fact that what God has said needs to conform to what you and your evolutionist friends teach as the gospel truth? Of course not!

Furthermore, what supernatural act of God do you consider to be "impossible to do"?

If God tells us that he created the universe in 6 days and you don't believe him then how do you arrive at the conclusion that what he didn't "make it look" the way you expect? In my books, God saying something "makes it look" the way he says it should look, not how you or I think it looks!

Is that an admission that transitional fossils between dinosaurs and reptiles exist (they've already been seen)?

No. You might get me to admit that dinosaurs ARE reptiles, but the quotes around the word "transitional" should have given you an obvious clue about what i admit concerning that.

First, unless you can define "kind", then it's a meaningless term.

Nice try, but there is no universally accepted definition for "species" either, and neither does the definition of words prove one thing or another! You can disagree with that all you want and try to build up a case around it, but I will be laughing all the way along, because even if there was a universally accepted definition of the word species what does it prove? We can see a general pattern in nature that shows that animals are grouped in "kinds" that reproduce with variations within these groups. Even a child can see that, but obviously evolutionists are too smart to accept it.

Second, earlier in this thread you were citing the rarity of fossils when it suited you (why human and dino fossils aren't found together). Now you're arguing against it? Make up your mind.

Make up your own mind! What I said "earlier in this thread" was that human and dinosaur fossils are too rare to make the dogmatic statements that you were making and I have tried to get you to provide evidence to the contrary without any success.

What evolutionists claim on the other hand is that fossils are too rare for us to fill in all the gaps that we EXPECT should be there. And the undeniable evidence that the fossil record contains such embarrasing gaps has been provided by evolutionists themselves! Otherwise there would be no need for the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This is what makes the theory of evolution so hard to falsify. When something doesn't fit within the paradigm just add another theory to fix it.

Finally, do we agree that if birds evolved from reptiles, we should see fossilized organisms that show a mixture of reptilian and avian traits?

Of course. IF that was the case then we would naturally expect to see things like that. But similar traits can be found all throughout the animal kingdom and they neither prove nor disprove common ancestry.

Again, it's observed reality that new traits, abilities, genes, and species come about via evolution. Thus, it's reasonable to conclude that the same is true in the past. And again, if you have data supporting some other means of developing those things, then provide it.

Why exactly would I need to provide any other means of developing variations and adaptions?

And again I have to ask: Why do you think those erosional processes stopped?

STILL no answer from you??? I wonder why? It isn't ME who is claiming that fossils such as these have existed for 60 million years, so why are you trying to throw the burden back at me? That a fossil could be exposed after 6 thousand years is ten thousand times more likely than one that has existed for 60 million years, don't you think? But continue evading the question... it suits me fine.

Seriously? You believe that over a hundred years ago when geologists first came across polystrate fossils, they were like, "Ok, no matter how we explain these, it has to be within the framework of evolution"?

I don't know, but you are very welcome to produce evidence to the contrary. As I have pointed out, geologists are just as susceptible to being influenced by the prevailing paradigm as you are.

Sorry, but you've not demonstrated that at all.

I haven't??? You have already ADMITTED that polystrate fossils show evidence of rapid stratification.

At the time I wrote that, it appeared Arnie was promoting that view.

Really, where exactly did he do that??? Your original claim was that "creationists here" believed that, now suddenly it is only Arnie, and ALL Arnie was "promoting" was that marine fossils were found on top of Mt Everest!!!

You're truly not understanding the point here. That much heat (required to move entire continental plates long distances in very short periods of time) is enough to boil off the oceans and the atmosphere. The entire planet would be uninhabitable, from that point on. Not just during the flood, but on into the future. Noah et al. would have been boiled alive.

Oh yeah, sure, scientists can hardly even agree about conditions on the Earth TODAY, such as global warming, but they know for a fact exactlly what the would have happened back then. NO ONE KNOWS whether or not the continents "moved" long distances, that is just ONE theory. It could also be conceivable that some parts of the crust sank below water whereas other parts were lifted up. I don't know. You don't know, and neither does anyone else!

 

[River Jordan]

No, that is NOT correct, you haven't satisfied anything, because you haven't shown any objective statistics that show that human fossils should be found among dinosaur fossils. It is one thing to assume evolution and make claims based on that theory, it is another thing to prove your case given the creationist point of view that fossilization occurred during a short timespan and involved environments rather than long periods of time.

??????? My position is that they shouldn't be found together, and the fact that they are never found together (and are separated by long geologic ages) is strong evidence that they didn't coexist.

As this thread testifies, the young-earth creationist position is that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. We can even look to AIG's "creation museum" to see displays of humans alongside dinosaurs and even dinosaurs with saddles on them. The ICR also states that humans and dinosaurs co-existed in the same time and place. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the mainstream young-earth creationist position is that humans and dinosaurs coexisted in the same time and place.

So, if these two taxa existed in the same time and place, why are their remains (or artifacts) never found with each other?

What goalposts have I "moved"? I never agreed that the assumptions that evolutionists have made are the goalposts I need to adhere to.

I met your demand for "ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence". As the analyses show, they are not found together is because they are separated phylogenetically and temporally, rather than "by coincidence". But rather than recognizing that, you're now demanding something else.

The "history of life on earth" says absolutely nothing at all about whether or not you have the right to simply extrapolate and assume.

Sure it does. The overall progression seen over the history of life via the fossil and genetic records shows a continuous process of the arrival of new traits, abilities, genes, and species. That begs the question: How did that happen? When we study life around us today, all we ever see are new traits, abilities, genes, and species arising via evolutionary mechanisms.

If you're going to assert that in the past everything was different and all those things came about via completely different processes, then you need to provide some supporting data and analyses. If you cannot, then you are conceding that explanatory space to evolutionary theory.

Conclusions drawn by scientists looking backwards in time contradict the Bible, just as their conclusion drawn forwards in time do the same thing! The Bible teaches us that God created everyting within the time period of 6 days and that he will create new heavens and a new earth. What human beings assume is obviously your guiding light, and with that you think you can dictate to me what the history of life tells us. Can you disprove the fact that what God has said needs to conform to what you and your evolutionist friends teach as the gospel truth? Of course not!

They contradict one specific reading of scripture. There are literally millions of Christians and Jews who do not agree with a hyper-literal reading.

Furthermore, what supernatural act of God do you consider to be "impossible to do"?

I said it is impossible to disprove any claimed supernatural act of God. Thus my reference to Last Thursdayism.

If God tells us that he created the universe in 6 days and you don't believe him then how do you arrive at the conclusion that what he didn't "make it look" the way you expect? In my books, God saying something "makes it look" the way he says it should look, not how you or I think it looks!

God created the universe. Studying that universe unequivocally shows that it is very old and was not created in 6 24-hour periods. So why would God tell us He created it one way, but make it look like it was created very differently? Something has to be wrong.

If we look at history, there are plenty of examples of Christians reading certain passages hyper-literally and subsequently denying the reality of the world around them. And usually what ended up changing was that we realized we were reading scripture incorrectly. When the Bible says God stopped the sun in the sky for Joshua, many read that as a literal description that explicitly pointed to the sun revolving around the earth. After all, God didn't say He stopped the earth's rotation!

My point is, if the reality that God created doesn't mesh with how you're reading scripture, you're probably reading scripture wrong.

Nice try, but there is no universally accepted definition for "species" either, and neither does the definition of words prove one thing or another! You can disagree with that all you want and try to build up a case around it, but I will be laughing all the way along, because even if there was a universally accepted definition of the word species what does it prove? We can see a general pattern in nature that shows that animals are grouped in "kinds" that reproduce with variations within these groups. Even a child can see that, but obviously evolutionists are too smart to accept it.

First, that species are fluid and difficult to identify is exactly what we would expect if they are evolving. If species were rigid and fixed, then they would be very easy to delineate.

Second, there are definitions for species, depending on what we're talking about. If we're talking about living, sexually-reproducing organisms, then if two populations are unable to produce viable offspring, but are able to produce offspring among themselves, they are two different species. Obviously when we're dealing with fossils or asexual reproducers, we need different definitions.

Finally, if there isn't even one workable definition of "kind" in any context, then the term is meaningless. There's no way around that.

Make up your own mind! What I said "earlier in this thread" was that human and dinosaur fossils are too rare to make the dogmatic statements that you were making and I have tried to get you to provide evidence to the contrary without any success.

So fossilization and subsequent discovery is rare. We agree to that?

What evolutionists claim on the other hand is that fossils are too rare for us to fill in all the gaps that we EXPECT should be there.

Of course. Why would anyone expect "all the gaps" to be filled in? What should we expect, 100% of all species that have ever existed to be not only fossilized, but discovered as well?

Of course. IF that was the case then we would naturally expect to see things like that. But similar traits can be found all throughout the animal kingdom and they neither prove nor disprove common ancestry.

Ok then. Caudipteryx (known from at least 5 nearly complete specimens) shows a very good mixture of reptile and bird-like traits, including a compact skull with a break-like snout with only a handful of bird-like teeth; a short tail that is stiffened at the end and with few vertebrae; but is also has a more reptile-like pelvis and shoulder. It also has a "hand" that is more similar to primitive birds. It's overall body proportions are very much like today's flightless birds. Oh, and it had feathers.

Why exactly would I need to provide any other means of developing variations and adaptions?

Because you're disputing that the ones we see take place today are the same ones that took place in the past. That begs an obvious question: What else produced those traits, abilities, genes, and species?

If your answer is merely "I don't know. But it wasn't evolution!", just say so.

STILL no answer from you??? I wonder why? It isn't ME who is claiming that fossils such as these have existed for 60 million years, so why are you trying to throw the burden back at me? That a fossil could be exposed after 6 thousand years is ten thousand times more likely than one that has existed for 60 million years, don't you think? But continue evading the question... it suits me fine.

Answer to what? You posted the article about the footprint, with your commentary "Why, after 60 million years or so would it not have eroded away?"

I'm still trying to figure out why you would think it had to have eroded away.

I don't know, but you are very welcome to produce evidence to the contrary. As I have pointed out, geologists are just as susceptible to being influenced by the prevailing paradigm as you are.

That's easy. HERE is an excerpt from Dawson (1868) explaining polystrate fossils. Notice that there's no reference to evolution or any need to make his explanation fit into that framework. If you're going to argue that Dawson was actually forcing the facts to fit a preconception of evolution, then you need to provide some actual evidence for that claim.

And actually, in that same book Dawson states, "Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work". So not only were polystrate fossils not arbitrarily jammed into an evolutionary framework, they were explained by a geologist operating from a theistic framework!

I haven't??? You have already ADMITTED that polystrate fossils show evidence of rapid stratification.

Why do you think "rapid stratification in coastal subduction zones" is the same thing as "there was a global flood"?

Really, where exactly did he do that??? Your original claim was that "creationists here" believed that, now suddenly it is only Arnie, and ALL Arnie was "promoting" was that marine fossils were found on top of Mt Everest!!!

When I wrote that, it wasn't clear what he was talking about. But since then he's clarified and I've pointed out the fundamental problem with the alternative creationist talking point (smooth earth).

 

[aspen]

Only scientists on the payroll of fossil fuel companies question global warming.

 

[River Jordan]

Oh yeah, sure, scientists can hardly even agree about conditions on the Earth TODAY, such as global warming, but they know for a fact exactlly what the would have happened back then. NO ONE KNOWS whether or not the continents "moved" long distances, that is just ONE theory. It could also be conceivable that some parts of the crust sank below water whereas other parts were lifted up. I don't know. You don't know, and neither does anyone else!

This didn't show up the first time I quoted the post.

Yes, we do know that continents moved long distances. There is a significant congruence of a variety of data supporting that. What you propose necessitates some very serious effects, and is also contrary to the data.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Jordan River demands evidence from us of dinosaur fossils and human fossils found together

Yet Jordan River does not have fossil evidence that shows transitional evolution from one species to another

Typical

 

[UppsalaDragby]

??????? My position is that they shouldn't be found together, and the fact that they are never found together (and are separated by long geologic ages) is strong evidence that they didn't coexist.

As this thread testifies, the young-earth creationist position is that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. We can even look to AIG's "creation museum" to see displays of humans alongside dinosaurs and even dinosaurs with saddles on them. The ICR also states that humans and dinosaurs co-existed in the same time and place. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the mainstream young-earth creationist position is that humans and dinosaurs coexisted in the same time and place.

So, if these two taxa existed in the same time and place, why are their remains (or artifacts) never found with each other?

Once more you ignore what I wrote concerning this and just keep repeating the same argument! Firstly, you haven't provided any information as to the likelyhood given the number of human and dinosaur fossils found that they should be found burried together given the Creationist model (you cannot simply assume the evolutionist explanation!), and secondly, scientists are not going to identify layers containing dinosaur fossils as being the same layer were human remains are found.

I met your demand for "ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence". As the analyses show, they are not found together is because they are separated phylogenetically and temporally, rather than "by coincidence". But rather than recognizing that, you're now demanding something else.

And I rejected that claim for the reasons given above.

Sure it does. The overall progression seen over the history of life via the fossil and genetic records shows a continuous process of the arrival of new traits, abilities, genes, and species. That begs the question: How did that happen? When we study life around us today, all we ever see are new traits, abilities, genes, and species arising via evolutionary mechanisms.
If you're going to assert that in the past everything was different and all those things came about via completely different processes, then you need to provide some supporting data and analyses. If you cannot, then you are conceding that explanatory space to evolutionary theory.

You might not be aware of it but what you are doing here is simply assuming evolution in order to support your claims. You assume that the location of the fossils is related to time and not to location. And what the fossil record shows refutes your claims, which is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was introduced.

Furthermore, I have no problem admitting that evolutionary mechanisms lie behind the variation and diversity that we see in the animal kingdom. I just question whether or not you can simply extrapolate and assume and present your ASSUMPTIONS as FACTS.

They contradict one specific reading of scripture. There are literally millions of Christians and Jews who do not agree with a hyper-literal reading.

I don't care about the number of Christians and Jews who reject a literal (I don't know were you got "hyper" from) reading of Genesis, I care about the quality of their arguments. If you or any of these millions of Christians and Jews could give a reasonable explanation for a symbolic interpretation of Genesis then I would very quickly change sides in this issue. I am not a creationist because I enjoy all the sneery, contemptuous insults that are thrown at us, but because I believe that what God says is the TRUTH.

So far, I haven't seen one single theistic evolutionist who doesn't say anything more that something like "Genesis is symbolic", and just leaves it at that. Where is the explanation for the symbolism? They have nothing, because they are not actually interested in WHY the book would be symbolic but rather in finding a way to sweep its testimony under the carpet.

Let me ask you a few questions here.

1. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real, physical people?

2. Do you believe that Jesus was physically raised from the dead?

3. Do you believe that the universe will eventually burn out in the future as scientists claim, or will God create a new heavens and a new earth?

God created the universe. Studying that universe unequivocally shows that it is very old and was not created in 6 24-hour periods. So why would God tell us He created it one way, but make it look like it was created very differently? Something has to be wrong.

The only reason that you claim it "looks" old is because you have been indoctrinated to believe it is. You haven't observed it's age yourself, but rather have accepted other peoples explanation as to why THEY think it is old. What is it that "unequivocally" shows that the universe is old?

My point is, if the reality that God created doesn't mesh with how you're reading scripture, you're probably reading scripture wrong.

And my point is, if what God says doesn't mesh with what you accept as "reality" then you are probably reading "reality" wrong.

First, that species are fluid and difficult to identify is exactly what we would expect if they are evolving. If species were rigid and fixed, then they would be very easy to delineate.
Second, there are definitions for species, depending on what we're talking about. If we're talking about living, sexually-reproducing organisms, then if two populations are unable to produce viable offspring, but are able to produce offspring among themselves, they are two different species. Obviously when we're dealing with fossils or asexual reproducers, we need different definitions.
Finally, if there isn't even one workable definition of "kind" in any context, then the term is meaningless. There's no way around that.

Just as I pointed out, this is just a game of words that proves absolutely nothing. Does having a definition for species prove common descent? No. Does having a definition for kind prove creation? No. This is simply a red herring.

So fossilization and subsequent discovery is rare. We agree to that?

Yes.

Why would anyone expect "all the gaps" to be filled in? What should we expect, 100% of all species that have ever existed to be not only fossilized, but discovered as well?

You are ignoring the point. Yes, we should expect gaps, but such gaps would be relatively evenly dispersed. We don't see that. We see an explosion of life in the fossil record where for most life forms predecessors are lacking. Think about it. If all the animals living today were suddenly fossilized then you would still be able to build up sequences of fossils and claim that they were the result of a "progression".

Ok then. Caudipteryx (known from at least 5 nearly complete specimens) shows a very good mixture of reptile and bird-like traits, including a compact skull with a break-like snout with only a handful of bird-like teeth; a short tail that is stiffened at the end and with few vertebrae; but is also has a more reptile-like pelvis and shoulder. It also has a "hand" that is more similar to primitive birds. It's overall body proportions are very much like today's flightless birds. Oh, and it had feathers.

http://creation.com/what-another-feathered-dinosaur-claim

"Evolutionary ornithologists Larry Martin and Allan Feduccia, strong critics of the dino-to-bird dogma, believe that the fossils are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods."

Because you're disputing that the ones we see take place today are the same ones that took place in the past. That begs an obvious question: What else produced those traits, abilities, genes, and species?
If your answer is merely "I don't know. But it wasn't evolution, just say so.

Rubbish!! I told you repeatedly that I acknowledge that evolutionary mechanisms give rise to adaption and diversity, both NOW and IN THE PAST! What I have a problem with is using a wild extrapolation of this as evidence of common descent. We see finches beaks growing longer and shorter in order to adapt to fluctuations in the environment. What we DON'T see is adaptions that accumulate to the degree that animals no longer can be grouped under their original kind, where kind "in this context" is the family to which it belongs (is it OK to use the word "family" here, or are you going to start splitting hairs again?)

Answer to what? You posted the article about the footprint, with your commentary "Why, after 60 million years or so would it not have eroded away?"
I'm still trying to figure out why you would think it had to have eroded away.

Either the fossil was on the surface for 60 million years, or it was burried under sedimentary rock which just happened to erode down to the exact level where the fossil was exposed.

Both of these scenarios seems highly unlikely given the vast amount of time that evolutionists assume.

That's easy. HERE is an excerpt from Dawson (1868) explaining polystrate fossils. Notice that there's no reference to evolution or any need to make his explanation fit into that framework. If you're going to argue that Dawson was actually forcing the facts to fit a preconception of evolution, then you need to provide some actual evidence for that claim.
And actually, in that same book Dawson states, "Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work". So not only were polystrate fossils not arbitrarily jammed into an evolutionary framework, they were explained by a geologist operating from a theistic framework

I'm not sure what all that is supposed to prove. All it shows is that Dawson reported what he observed, and says nothing about how he interpreted his finds either within the paradigm of evolution or otherwise. I said that geologists were susceptible to adhering to the prevailing paradigm. I did not say that ALL geologists backwards in time adhered to the theory of evolution!

Why do you think "rapid stratification in coastal subduction zones" is the same thing as "there was a global flood"?

Where did I say that?

What you propose necessitates some very serious effects, and is also contrary to the data.

Perhaps... as I clearly admitted I don't know, but for the sake of curiosity, how does what I propose have serious effects and is contrary to the data. I couldn't see anything factual in the link you posted that supports your assertion.

 

[River Jordan]

Jordan River demands evidence from us of dinosaur fossils and human fossils found together

Yet Jordan River does not have fossil evidence that shows transitional evolution from one species to another

Typical

I've already provided an example of the direct observation of the evolution of a new species. However, if you want species-species transitions in the fossil record, start HERE.

Once more you ignore what I wrote concerning this and just keep repeating the same argument! Firstly, you haven't provided any information as to the likelyhood given the number of human and dinosaur fossils found that they should be found burried together given the Creationist model (you cannot simply assume the evolutionist explanation!), and secondly, scientists are not going to identify layers containing dinosaur fossils as being the same layer were human remains are found.


And I rejected that claim for the reasons given above.

Well of course you reject the statistical relationship between stratigraphy and phylogeny. You have to. If you didn't reject it, you'd have to recognize it as evidence in favor of evolutionary theory, and you aren't allowed to do that, are you?

To sum this bit of our conversation up, the fact remains that human remains and artifacts are not found in the same geologic strata as dinosaur fossils. To me, that plus the fact that humans don't show up anywhere in the fossil record until very recently, whereas dinosaurs show a very clear pattern of early emergence of a few species transitioning from archosaurs ~230 million years ago, followed by a radiation over the next 165 million years worth of geologic strata, followed by a sudden complete disappearance....

...it's all very clear that dinosaurs came and went long before humans evolved.

Now, if you have solid scientific data indicating otherwise, please present it.

You might not be aware of it but what you are doing here is simply assuming evolution in order to support your claims. You assume that the location of the fossils is related to time and not to location. And what the fossil record shows refutes your claims, which is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was introduced.

Furthermore, I have no problem admitting that evolutionary mechanisms lie behind the variation and diversity that we see in the animal kingdom. I just question whether or not you can simply extrapolate and assume and present your ASSUMPTIONS as FACTS.

No, evolution is not an assumption. As has been shown here, that evolution is the mechanism behind the generation of new traits, abilities, genes, and species is an observed fact.

And again, if you have an alternative mechanisms for generating those things, then please present it. Otherwise all you're doing is saying "I reject it" over and over with no substantive basis for doing so.

I don't care about the number of Christians and Jews who reject a literal (I don't know were you got "hyper" from) reading of Genesis, I care about the quality of their arguments. If you or any of these millions of Christians and Jews could give a reasonable explanation for a symbolic interpretation of Genesis then I would very quickly change sides in this issue. I am not a creationist because I enjoy all the sneery, contemptuous insults that are thrown at us, but because I believe that what God says is the TRUTH.

So far, I haven't seen one single theistic evolutionist who doesn't say anything more that something like "Genesis is symbolic", and just leaves it at that. Where is the explanation for the symbolism? They have nothing, because they are not actually interested in WHY the book would be symbolic but rather in finding a way to sweep its testimony under the carpet.

I don't believe the Genesis creation account is symbolic. Most Catholics (including several Popes) don't either (and I'm not Catholic BTW). There is a very consistent theme in Genesis 1....God lets things happen. He lets light be, He lets the waters separate, He lets the earth bring forth plants and animals, He lets the seas team with life.

IOW, not only does Genesis tell us that God created those things, but it hints at how He created them....by letting things happen on their own.

1. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real, physical people?

2. Do you believe that Jesus was physically raised from the dead?

3. Do you believe that the universe will eventually burn out in the future as scientists claim, or will God create a new heavens and a new earth?

Yes to all three. On #3, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

The only reason that you claim it "looks" old is because you have been indoctrinated to believe it is. You haven't observed it's age yourself, but rather have accepted other peoples explanation as to why THEY think it is old. What is it that "unequivocally" shows that the universe is old?

I know that's what you're forced to believe, but it's simply not true. Why do you think 19th century European geologists, most of whom were Christians (some were even Reverends) as they started traveling and looking into mines and other digs, concluded that the earth was very old? They preceded Darwin, so it didn't have anything to do with evolution. Yet if you read their writings, they make it very clear that the only sensible interpretation of the geologic formations they were seeing was very, very long periods of time.

Who indoctrinated them? Were they liars? Were they just terrible at their jobs?

See, this is the sort of thing that creationism has forced you to believe. Rather than consider that maybe, just maybe, I've spent time in the field directly looking at various formations myself and simply reached the same obvious conclusions that geologists have been reaching for over 200 years now....you have to tell yourself that no....we're all both brainwashed and too stupid to realize it.

Just as I pointed out, this is just a game of words that proves absolutely nothing. Does having a definition for species prove common descent? No. Does having a definition for kind prove creation? No. This is simply a red herring.

The fact remains, you don't have any workable definition of "kind"....at all. Thus, the term is meaningless.

You are ignoring the point. Yes, we should expect gaps, but such gaps would be relatively evenly dispersed.

Why? Why should gaps in the fossil record be the same for benthic aquatic organisms and say...terrestrial desert organisms?

http://creation.com/what-another-feathered-dinosaur-claim

"Evolutionary ornithologists Larry Martin and Allan Feduccia, strong critics of the dino-to-bird dogma, believe that the fossils are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods."

You're dodging. Those two individuals aren't here. You agreed that if avians evolved from reptiles, then we should see fossilized organisms with mixtures of avian and reptilian traits. I've provided you with an example of one such specimen. So the question to you is: Does that specimen have a mixture of avian and reptilian traits?

Rubbish!! I told you repeatedly that I acknowledge that evolutionary mechanisms give rise to adaption and diversity, both NOW and IN THE PAST! What I have a problem with is using a wild extrapolation of this as evidence of common descent. We see finches beaks growing longer and shorter in order to adapt to fluctuations in the environment. What we DON'T see is adaptions that accumulate to the degree that animals no longer can be grouped under their original kind, where kind "in this context" is the family to which it belongs (is it OK to use the word "family" here, or are you going to start splitting hairs again?)

Nope, sorry....you can't base your objection on usage of the word "kind". As we've seen, it's a meaningless term.

Now, if you want to say "kind = family", we can address that.

Either the fossil was on the surface for 60 million years, or it was burried under sedimentary rock which just happened to erode down to the exact level where the fossil was exposed.

Both of these scenarios seems highly unlikely given the vast amount of time that evolutionists assume.

Why? Where's your statistical analysis?

I'm not sure what all that is supposed to prove. All it shows is that Dawson reported what he observed, and says nothing about how he interpreted his finds either within the paradigm of evolution or otherwise. I said that geologists were susceptible to adhering to the prevailing paradigm. I did not say that ALL geologists backwards in time adhered to the theory of evolution!

Throughout this thread, you've insinuated that the mainstream geological explanation for polystrate fossils for over 100 years was biased. After I posted a link to the standard geological explanation for such fossils, you stated...

"Well how convenient for geologists that all they need to do is "account" for polystrate fossils"

And when I pointed out that "Geologists (not "evolutionists")" were the ones interpreting these formations, you responded...

"Which geologist are "not evolutionists" according to you? Geologists, just as much as anyone else, are subjected to the prevailing paradigm and taught over a period of years how they are to interpret what they find."

Of course this is negated by the fact that Dawson's work not only shows no sign of such bias, but also shows he was a religious man.

Now, if you're going to drop this insinuation and accept Dawson's explanation as is, that's perfectly fine.

As far as me thinking you held the position that polystrate fossils were indicative of a global flood, if that's not what you believe then I apologize for my mistake.

Perhaps... as I clearly admitted I don't know, but for the sake of curiosity, how does what I propose have serious effects and is contrary to the data. I couldn't see anything factual in the link you posted that supports your assertion.

You stated, "NO ONE KNOWS whether or not the continents "moved" long distances, that is just ONE theory". I pointed out that (and provided supporting information from Cornell University) that continental drift over hundreds of millions of years is supported by data from independent fields of study.

So maybe you can help me out here. Do you object to that? If so, what is your position? Is it that the continents haven't moved much at all in their history, or is it more like ICR's argument for massive continental movement in a very short period of time?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Well of course you reject the statistical relationship between stratigraphy and phylogeny. You have to. If you didn't reject it, you'd have to recognize it as evidence in favor of evolutionary theory, and you aren't allowed to do that, are you?

To sum this bit of our conversation up, the fact remains that human remains and artifacts are not found in the same geologic strata as dinosaur fossils. To me, that plus the fact that humans don't show up anywhere in the fossil record until very recently, whereas dinosaurs show a very clear pattern of early emergence of a few species transitioning from archosaurs ~230 million years ago, followed by a radiation over the next 165 million years worth of geologic strata, followed by a sudden complete disappearance....

...it's all very clear that dinosaurs came and went long before humans evolved.

All you are doing is presupposing an evolutionary timescale to make your arguments. I adhere to the Biblical timescale because scripture was inspired by someone who was there at the time.

In addition, you continue to assume that appearance, or lack of appearance, in strata determines when the animal lived. I already debunked that idea.

No, evolution is not an assumption. As has been shown here, that evolution is the mechanism behind the generation of new traits, abilities, genes, and species is an observed fact.
And again, if you have an alternative mechanisms for generating those things, then please present it. Otherwise all you're doing is saying "I reject it" over and over with no substantive basis for doing so.

I'm not going to bother with regurgitated arguments that I already have dealt with and that you continue to ignore. I have told you all you need to know about how I acknowledge the evolutionary mechanisms for adaption and diversity. Beyond that you have no "facts", merely assumptions.

I don't believe the Genesis creation account is symbolic. Most Catholics (including several Popes) don't either (and I'm not Catholic BTW). There is a very consistent theme in Genesis 1....God lets things happen. He lets light be, He lets the waters separate, He lets the earth bring forth plants and animals, He lets the seas team with life.
IOW, not only does Genesis tell us that God created those things, but it hints at how He created them....by letting things happen on their own.

Nice try, but you ignore the fact that he "let" these things happen on separate days and as separate entities, not as one single primordial cell.

Also, what Hebrew word are you basing your argument on that God "let things happen on their own"?

Now you object to the fact that unless God created the universe in conformity with man-made theories he is guilty of making the universe "look old" and yet you don't have any problem with the fact that the Bible makes it "look young" and simply "hints" about the things you want the Bible to say.

Yes to all three. On #3, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Thanks, but why accept the fact that supernatural events occur in these cases as they were written in the biblical account, but reject the written account in Genesis? You allow yourself to read "science" into the Bible when it suits you, but not here.. why is that?

I know that's what you're forced to believe, but it's simply not true.

I'm not "forced to believe" in creationism any more than you are "forced to believe" in evolution! I believe in the Genesis account because I recognize the testimony of God as being higher and more reliable than the testimony of men.

Why do you think 19th century European geologists, most of whom were Christians (some were even Reverends) as they started traveling and looking into mines and other digs, concluded that the earth was very old? They preceded Darwin, so it didn't have anything to do with evolution. Yet if you read their writings, they make it very clear that the only sensible interpretation of the geologic formations they were seeing was very, very long periods of time.
Who indoctrinated them? Were they liars? Were they just terrible at their jobs?

Actually no, it has nothing to do with how well people do their jobs, it is a spiritual thing that concerns global deception at the end of the age. Paul clearly predicted that destructive heresies would infiltrate the church after he departed, and despite that people like you just keep on pointing out that there are Christians who believe in evolution. Christians have an obligation to keep their eyes on the truth and not let themselves be deceived and share in the punishment of the wicked:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." (Romans 1:18-23)

Rather than consider that maybe, just maybe, I've spent time in the field directly looking at various formations myself and simply reached the same obvious conclusions that geologists have been reaching for over 200 years now....you have to tell yourself that no....we're all both brainwashed and too stupid to realize it.

Fair enough, be my guest and explain what "formation" you found in the field that, independently of what you have been taught by others, demonstrates that the earth look old.

Why? Why should gaps in the fossil record be the same for benthic aquatic organisms and say...terrestrial desert organisms?

Well, why if the gaps are exactly as evolutionists expect was the theory of punctuated equilibrium introduced?

You're dodging. Those two individuals aren't here.

What??? Who is "here"? Are the people who support your claims here?

You agreed that if avians evolved from reptiles, then we should see fossilized organisms with mixtures of avian and reptilian traits. I've provided you with an example of one such specimen. So the question to you is: Does that specimen have a mixture of avian and reptilian traits?

Judging from the artists impressions yes, but what does that prove? We have animals alive and kicking today that have common traits with other animals, so why even bother with fossils??? If similar traits exist today without any "transition" occuring then why on earth are you suggesting that a fossil is evidence of transition.

Throughout this thread, you've insinuated that the mainstream geological explanation for polystrate fossils for over 100 years was biased. After I posted a link to the standard geological explanation for such fossils, you stated...
"Well how convenient for geologists that all they need to do is "account" for polystrate fossils"
And when I pointed out that "Geologists (not "evolutionists")" were the ones interpreting these formations, you responded...
"Which geologist are "not evolutionists" according to you? Geologists, just as much as anyone else, are subjected to the prevailing paradigm and taught over a period of years how they are to interpret what they find."
Of course this is negated by the fact that Dawson's work not only shows no sign of such bias, but also shows he was a religious man.
Now, if you're going to drop this insinuation and accept Dawson's explanation as is, that's perfectly fine.

You said that "Geologists (not "evolutionists") recognize that in certain circumstances (volcanic eruption, subsiding coastal plains) strata can be laid down rapidly."

You used the word "recognize" not "recognized" with implies PRESENT TENSE. My response was to ask you was which geologists ARE not evolutionists, not which ones WERE not evolutionists, so your entire objection was just a complete waste of time.

As far as me thinking you held the position that polystrate fossils were indicative of a global flood, if that's not what you believe then I apologize for my mistake.

Of course it is what I believe. What I reacted to was the way you presented it. I never said that rapid stratification was "the same as" a global flood. It is simply one piece of evidence, that's all.

You stated, "NO ONE KNOWS whether or not the continents "moved" long distances, that is just ONE theory". I pointed out that (and provided supporting information from Cornell University) that continental drift over hundreds of millions of years is supported by data from independent fields of study.

I think I see the root of your confusion. Having supporting data is not equivalent to KNOWING.

So maybe you can help me out here. Do you object to that? If so, what is your position? Is it that the continents haven't moved much at all in their history, or is it more like ICR's argument for massive continental movement in a very short period of time?

As I said, I don't know. But I don't see why it is necessary to believe that the map of the world as we see it today was exclusively the result of continental drift. If during the flood when the "springs of the deep" were emptied of water it is possible that large areas of the earths crust simply collapsed. So perhaps both moving and collapsing were involved.

 

[River Jordan]

All you are doing is presupposing an evolutionary timescale to make your arguments. I adhere to the Biblical timescale because scripture was inspired by someone who was there at the time.

In addition, you continue to assume that appearance, or lack of appearance, in strata determines when the animal lived. I already debunked that idea.

The geologic timescale was developed before evolutionary theory, and is not an "assumption"; it's a conclusion based on centuries of data and analyses. If you have new information that would overturn any of that, I suggest you present it. Otherwise my point stands. All the available geologic and paleontological data indicates that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist.

I'm not going to bother with regurgitated arguments that I already have dealt with and that you continue to ignore. I have told you all you need to know about how I acknowledge the evolutionary mechanisms for adaption and diversity. Beyond that you have no "facts", merely assumptions.

I realize that's what you believe. And your latest posts clearly show that your position on these issues is based first and foremost in a fundamentalist reading of scripture. That's fine.

What I'm wondering is, why do you seem so compelled to argue this from a scientific standpoint? Do you think referring to scripture and your faith is insufficient to make your case, and that trying to appeal to science is more convincing? By focusing so heavily on the scientific questions, aren't you tacitly conceding that science is the superior determinant of reality?

If not, why are you not just saying citing scripture, explaining your interpretation of it, and being done with it?

Nice try, but you ignore the fact that he "let" these things happen on separate days and as separate entities, not as one single primordial cell.

Also, what Hebrew word are you basing your argument on that God "let things happen on their own"?

Now you object to the fact that unless God created the universe in conformity with man-made theories he is guilty of making the universe "look old" and yet you don't have any problem with the fact that the Bible makes it "look young" and simply "hints" about the things you want the Bible to say.

Who do you believe wrote the Genesis creation accounts? Perhaps the days in Genesis refer to the days of the revelation. And the theme of God letting things happen is within the Hebrew style of the jussive, an indirect command.

And no, I don't demand that God do anything in conformity with the findings of science. Actually, it's you who are limiting God to your interpretative box. I believe God created the universe to look exactly as He created it. So when we see distant starlight from events millions of light years away, they really are showing events that happened millions of years ago. I don't believe God created that starlight already mostly here, or that He dramatically slowed down the speed of light as soon as we started measuring it.

Thanks, but why accept the fact that supernatural events occur in these cases as they were written in the biblical account, but reject the written account in Genesis? You allow yourself to read "science" into the Bible when it suits you, but not here.. why is that?

I'm not rejecting anything except your narrow, fundamentalist viewpoint.

I'm not "forced to believe" in creationism any more than you are "forced to believe" in evolution! I believe in the Genesis account because I recognize the testimony of God as being higher and more reliable than the testimony of men.

No, but your belief in young-earth creationism forces you into certain behaviors when discussing science. This thread is testament to that.

Actually no, it has nothing to do with how well people do their jobs, it is a spiritual thing that concerns global deception at the end of the age.

Then why didn't you just say that at the beginning and save both of us a whole lot of time? If your whole approach to this is that anything that disagrees with your fundamentalist beliefs is "part of the global deception", then why ask me for any data or other information? Why ask me any questions?

You could have headed all of this off by just saying "I believe in young earth creationism, and everything and everyone who disagrees is falling victim to the great deception". Sheesh. <_<

Fair enough, be my guest and explain what "formation" you found in the field that, independently of what you have been taught by others, demonstrates that the earth look old.

I have watched as lakebeds are excavated and seasonal layers are uncovered. You can see in those layers the passing of each season...wet, dry, spring, fall, etc, going back tens of thousands of years. Of course there is absolutely nothing indicating any sort of massive flood, let alone one of a global scale. So under young-earth creationism, all those annual layers have to be post-flood. But that makes no sense. Was there hundreds of seasons in single years? If they were that quick, how did they deposit layers the same thickness and with the same materials (pollens, leaf litter) as ones we know were formed normally?

No one had to brainwash me into anything. I can look around and see the cycles of the seasons and what happens. I don't see 100 spring-summer-fall-winter cycles in a single year.

Well, why if the gaps are exactly as evolutionists expect was the theory of punctuated equilibrium introduced?

You're not answering the question. Why would the gaps in the fossil record for desert organisms be the same as those for benthic aquatic organisms?

What??? Who is "here"? Are the people who support your claims here?

Judging from the artists impressions yes, but what does that prove? We have animals alive and kicking today that have common traits with other animals, so why even bother with fossils??? If similar traits exist today without any "transition" occuring then why on earth are you suggesting that a fossil is evidence of transition.

Let's stick with the point at hand. You agreed that if birds evolved from reptiles, we should find fossilized organisms that show a mixture of reptilian and avian features. You've now agreed that we have indeed found such specimens.

So we agree that one important piece of evidence for reptile-bird evolution exists.

Next, would you agree that under reptile-bird evolution, we should see indications of that in the genomes of existing reptiles and birds?

You said that "Geologists (not "evolutionists") recognize that in certain circumstances (volcanic eruption, subsiding coastal plains) strata can be laid down rapidly."

You used the word "recognize" not "recognized" with implies PRESENT TENSE. My response was to ask you was which geologists ARE not evolutionists, not which ones WERE not evolutionists, so your entire objection was just a complete waste of time.

Um....ok. Glad you cleared that up. :wacko:

Of course it is what I believe. What I reacted to was the way you presented it. I never said that rapid stratification was "the same as" a global flood. It is simply one piece of evidence, that's all.

How? Pick one such formation in a coastal subduction zone and explain how it supports the notion of a global flood.

I think I see the root of your confusion. Having supporting data is not equivalent to KNOWING.

Well, I suppose having a fundamentalist admit that there's supporting data for scientific conclusions about continental drift is good enough.

As I said, I don't know. But I don't see why it is necessary to believe that the map of the world as we see it today was exclusively the result of continental drift. If during the flood when the "springs of the deep" were emptied of water it is possible that large areas of the earths crust simply collapsed. So perhaps both moving and collapsing were involved.

You probably don't see why those conclusions are necessary (despite admitting that they're supported by data) because your position here is based on a fundamentalist reading of scripture. If you'd just leave it at that and trust in your faith.......

 

[UppsalaDragby]

The geologic timescale was developed before evolutionary theory, and is not an "assumption"; it's a conclusion based on centuries of data and analyses. If you have new information that would overturn any of that, I suggest you present it. Otherwise my point stands. All the available geologic and paleontological data indicates that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist.

No, your point does NOT stand. The geologic timescale is based on uniformitarianism which is an ASSUMPTION:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

So don't try to bluff your way around here. Uniformitarianism in its turn was popularized by Charles Lyell, who clearly had an anti-biblical, anti-christian agenda:

http://creation.com/charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses

You also suggested that I post "new information that would overturn any of that". I don't need new information because the information is already out there:

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I realize that's what you believe. And your latest posts clearly show that your position on these issues is based first and foremost in a fundamentalist reading of scripture. That's fine.
What I'm wondering is, why do you seem so compelled to argue this from a scientific standpoint? Do you think referring to scripture and your faith is insufficient to make your case, and that trying to appeal to science is more convincing? By focusing so heavily on the scientific questions, aren't you tacitly conceding that science is the superior determinant of reality?
If not, why are you not just saying citing scripture, explaining your interpretation of it, and being done with it?

You see, this is your problem. What you "tacitly concede" is that any and everything that scientists believe is science, rather than understand that no matter whether you believe in creationism or evolution, the data itself needs to be INTERPRETED! I am no more "conceding" science than you are. All you are doing is allowing those who believe in evolution to interpret the data for you and calling it "science", whereas I do not.

Who do you believe wrote the Genesis creation accounts? Perhaps the days in Genesis refer to the days of the revelation. And the theme of God letting things happen is within the Hebrew style of the jussive, an indirect command.

There is no "indirect command". When God said "let there be light" there WAS light, and so on. There is nothing in the text that suggests that anything took longer than the lenght of time God explicitly said it would take.

And no, I don't demand that God do anything in conformity with the findings of science. Actually, it's you who are limiting God to your interpretative box. I believe God created the universe to look exactly as He created it. So when we see distant starlight from events millions of light years away, they really are showing events that happened millions of years ago. I don't believe God created that starlight already mostly here, or that He dramatically slowed down the speed of light as soon as we started measuring it.

I don't have an "interpretive box". If I was reading the word "dog" and interpreting it as "cat" then you might have a point. Likewise, to me a "day" having "evenings and mornings" is a day, not a million years. Sure, interpreting scripture is necessary when there is good reason to do so, but it should not be a license to fit your favorite theories into the Bible, just because you don't think God has the power to do things that defy our ability to figure out.

I aslo think that God created the universe to look the way it does. But just because someone tells me that the universe is old just because light travels at a certain speed doesn't mean that I have to view the universe throught their glasses!

I believe God CREATED Adam and Eve. He did not "let" them come fourth out of the sexual organ of an ape-like creature. "Male and Female he created them" (Gen 1:27). He created them in his own image, not in the image of a beast.

Now if God created Adam as a fully grown man then he created him as a complete functional system, with blood flowing in his veins, his lungs breathing and all his other organs functioning from the very beginning.

Is it possible for God to do so???

Of course it is!

So if God created Adam as a complete system, then what prevents him from creating the entire universe as a complete working system?

Nothing!

No, but your belief in young-earth creationism forces you into certain behaviors when discussing science. This thread is testament to that.

The same applies to you, so don't throw stones in a glass house. If you disagree then be my guest and explain why it doesn't.

You could have headed all of this off by just saying "I believe in young earth creationism, and everything and everyone who disagrees is falling victim to the great deception". Sheesh.

Well you could have said that you believe evolution and no matter what the Bible says you will believe in what man says anyway.

Then why didn't you just say that at the beginning and save both of us a whole lot of time? If your whole approach to this is that anything that disagrees with your fundamentalist beliefs is "part of the global deception", then why ask me for any data or other information? Why ask me any questions?

Why should my belief in deception hinder me from discussing science? I discuss science when science is being discussed, especially when it is being used to lead others astray.

I have watched as lakebeds are excavated and seasonal layers are uncovered. You can see in those layers the passing of each season...wet, dry, spring, fall, etc, going back tens of thousands of years. Of course there is absolutely nothing indicating any sort of massive flood, let alone one of a global scale. So under young-earth creationism, all those annual layers have to be post-flood. But that makes no sense. Was there hundreds of seasons in single years? If they were that quick, how did they deposit layers the same thickness and with the same materials (pollens, leaf litter) as ones we know were formed normally?
No one had to brainwash me into anything. I can look around and see the cycles of the seasons and what happens. I don't see 100 spring-summer-fall-winter cycles in a single year.

Oh, so you have personally checked through "tens of thousands" of layers and seen "spring-summer-fall-winter cycles". That must have been tiresome for you! It's also funny because varves are usually only composed of light-dark laminated couplets, but I guess you just got lucky!

However, when Mount St. Helens erupted in Washington State it produced 25 feet of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon, so it is not at all unlikely that a global catastrophe such as a flood could have created millions of such layers.

You're not answering the question. Why would the gaps in the fossil record for desert organisms be the same as those for benthic aquatic organisms?

I didn't SAY they that the gaps for desert organisms would need to be the SAME as those for aquatic organisms, I said that they should be evenly dispersed. Why are there huge irregularities, such as the Cambrian explosion, and living fossils which should have fossils continuing up throughout ALL the layers. And IF your argument is that they ARE consistent then please answer MY question!

You agreed that if birds evolved from reptiles, we should find fossilized organisms that show a mixture of reptilian and avian features. You've now agreed that we have indeed found such specimens.
So we agree that one important piece of evidence for reptile-bird evolution exists.

Don't put words in my mouth! Firstly I only commented on the artists impression. Secondly, I just gave you a perfectly good reason why I DON'T think that it is an important piece of evidence.

Next, would you agree that under reptile-bird evolution, we should see indications of that in the genomes of existing reptiles and birds?

Sure, but my ojection would be the same. Proponents of evolutionists love focus on genetic similarities between their pet forms of life, but they don't say too much about the inconsistencies:

"With the accomplishment of the Human Genome Project in 2003, scientists found that humans share the same number of genes with a variety of animals, and that, indeed, there is an incredible genetic similarity between humans and jellyfish. The fact that humans share many similarities with the jellyfish can actually have important medical implications, especially related to the cure of cancer and longevity."

http://www.secondsight.nl/humanization/the-curious-case-of-a-jellyfish/

How? Pick one such formation in a coastal subduction zone and explain how it supports the notion of a global flood.

Why would I need to do that? What said was "I never said that rapid stratification was "the same as" a global flood. It is simply one piece of evidence, that's all."

So what does that have to do with subduction zones?

Well, I suppose having a fundamentalist admit that there's supporting data for scientific conclusions about continental drift is good enough.

Don't be rude.

You probably don't see why those conclusions are necessary (despite admitting that they're supported by data) because your position here is based on a fundamentalist reading of scripture. If you'd just leave it at that and trust in your faith.......

Are you trying to insult my faith? I believe in what the Bible says, that's all, so you can keep your labels to yourself.

And what "supporting data" do you think I have a problem with?