PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dinos+humans=coexist?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
TheCman66

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html


-------
"I can't Fail English! Thats Un-possible!"

Ralph, The Simpson's.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 11:30 AM on April 12, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html

Hey, you post a link, I post a link. Alright, have a second one...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH700


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 12:17 PM on April 12, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LOL>

Cman fell for comic book art.

Classic creationists. Never bother to fact check.

And Cman, explain to me why there are no fossils of species outside of their predicted layers.

(Edited by Obvious_child 4/12/2008 at 1:52 PM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 1:52 PM on April 12, 2008 | IP
TheCman66

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because they hve not discovered them yet. And if scientists ever found evidence against evolutiuon, they would keep it a secret.


-------
"I can't Fail English! Thats Un-possible!"

Ralph, The Simpson's.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 6:09 PM on April 12, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because they hve not discovered them yet. And if scientists ever found evidence against evolutiuon, they would keep it a secret.


Nonsense.

If scientists, or anyone else for that matter, presented hard evidence that could be verified that disproved evolution, I assure you - scientists would not keep it secret!  It would be examined for authenticity and tested.  

Here are two examples of startling ideas - one proven wrong, one proven right by scientists.

 Back in 1989 two chemists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, bypassed the usual peer reviewed process and announced to the press that they had apparently discovered an inexpensive process for fusion - cold fusion.  It caused quite a stir in the media, for such a process, if true, would drastically change our world.  Their experimental process/apparatus soon came under close scrutiny by other scientists and it was found that their apparatus had a fatal flaw.  They hadn't discovered cold fusion at all.  

Einstein's general theory of relativity was a radical idea in 1915, and not too many physicists initially accepted it - mainly because there was no experimental evidence supporting his ideas.  However, within a few years during a  solar eclipse in 1919 it was observed by the bristish astronomer, Arthur Eddinton, that the light of a star appearing from behind the sun did indeed get bent by gravity - just as Einstein predicted.

His theory of General Relativity has passed many other tests since then.  Scientists do not try to hide radically new ideas if there is evidence to back those ideas up.  

If someone comes along with an idea and evidence to support it that explains life on earth better than the theory of evolution, it would be examined closely, and certainly not hidden away.      
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:11 PM on April 12, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TheCman66 at 6:09 PM on April 12, 2008 :
Because they hve not discovered them yet. And if scientists ever found evidence against evolutiuon, they would keep it a secret.


So your answer is conspiracy?

Do you also believe that the US government destroyed the WTC?

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 3:01 PM on April 13, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because they hve not discovered them yet. And if scientists ever found evidence against evolutiuon, they would keep it a secret.

Bet you can't find one shred of evidence to back this up!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:48 PM on April 13, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree that dinosaurs and humans once lived at the same time. They were created on the same day.

Actually, there may still be some alive today. People have pulled huge "monsters" out of the sea, and there are many reports from remote villages of things like pterodactyls and other dinosaur-type animals.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:29 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree that dinosaurs and humans once lived at the same time.

Why?  Absolutely no evidence that they did and a ton of evidence that they didn't.  There is roughly a 65 million year gap between the end of the dinosaurs and the rise of man, how do you account for this?

They were created on the same day.

Superstitious nonsense.

Actually, there may still be some alive  
today.


While it's possible, it's highly improbable.  And if they are this does nothing to support young earth creationism.

People have pulled huge "monsters" out of the sea

And every time there has been any organic material to test, it has always turned out to be a rotting basking shark or some other mudane explaination.  Nothing pulled from the sea has by man has ever turned out to be a prehistoric monster.

there are many reports from remote villages of things like pterodactyls and other dinosaur-type animals.

And people still see ghosts, demons, giants, elves, pixies, hell, they still see Elvis alive!  What's your point, that every crazy story someone tells is true???
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:16 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 12:29 PM on April 14, 2008 :
I agree that dinosaurs and humans once lived at the same time. They were created on the same day.


And why have we not found a single fossil layer with humans and dinosaurs?

Conspiracy? Seriously. We have THOUSANDS of fossils and dig sites across the planet studying a vast amount of eras with teams unrelated and sometimes at odds on beliefs. Why is that we have YET to find a single fossil out of place and not where evolution predicts they should be?

Actually, there may still be some alive today. People have pulled huge "monsters" out of the sea, and there are many reports from remote villages of things like pterodactyls and other dinosaur-type animals.


You are way too gullible.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html

http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=7&pid=441483

That one is particularly funny. One creationists I met tried to pass off a faked photo for a old Fox TV show called "freaky links" as proof of a living pterodactyl.

As for 'monsters' you're going to need better proof.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 5:22 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a side question - I will be back to refute your claims later...

Why are dinosaurs NOT considered advanced animals? Scientists say that there were no advanced, or evolved, creatures that lived among them, but rather small, mouse-like animals. Why would the dinosaurs have already been able to grow so large then?


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 8:18 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/dinosaur-man.html

http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html

(Edited by allisong 4/14/2008 at 8:33 PM).


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 8:27 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why are dinosaurs NOT considered advanced animals?

Could you show us where any scientist has claimed dinosaurs were NOT advanced?  I've never heard this claim before and to tell the truth it sounds kind of silly.  Dinosaurs were very advanced, evolved organisms that were extremely successful.

Scientists say that there were no advanced, or evolved, creatures that lived among them, but rather small, mouse-like animals.

Again, could you show us proof of these claims... What do you mean by advanced?  Small, mouse like mammals are pretty advanced....  I don't know any real scientists who would make these claims.

Why would the dinosaurs have already been able to grow so large then?

Dinosaurs were able to grow so large because they were so successful, they could quickly dominate most of the ecological niches of the time.  I don't understand what your argument is...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:33 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/dinosaur-man.html

The website is nonsense, no wonder you don't understand evolution and biology if this is the caliber of your resources.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:35 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"According to the belief commonly held by evolutionists, no advanced mammals were present during the “age of the dinosaurs.” Artists’ reconstructions generally show the huge reptiles living in swamps, surrounded only by other species of dinosaurs. The late evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson suggested that the only mammals that had evolved up to that point in time (even at the very end of the Cretaceous period) were supposedly “small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare” (Simpson, et al., 1957, p. 797). In his book, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen J. Gould addressed the same issue when he wrote:

   Mammals evolved at the end of the Triassic, at the same time as dinosaurs, or just a tad later. Mammals spent their first hundred million years—two-thirds of their total history—as small creatures living in the nooks and crannies of a dinosaur’s world. Their sixty million years of success following the demise of the dinosaurs has been something of an afterthought (1989, p. 318).

It thus is completely unthinkable, in evolutionary terms, that dinosaurs and advanced mammals (like elephants or giraffes) could have co-existed."


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 8:39 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The late evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson suggested that the only mammals that had evolved up to that point in time (even at the very end of the Cretaceous period) were supposedly “small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare” (Simpson, et al., 1957, p. 797).

This book is over 50 years out of date!  Why bother using it?  We've discovered a lot since then.  Why aren't you using the most accurate, up to date information?

But I still don't see where there is any claim that dinosaurs weren't advanced.  They were very advanced.  Your quote says no advanced mammals were present during the age of dinosaurs, well, dinosaurs were NOT mammals.   And there wasn't any advanced mammals because dinosaurs were so successful that they dominated most of the ecological niches.  So the statements you printed are true but they don't support your claim.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:39 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 11:29 AM on April 14, 2008 :

Actually, there may still be some alive today. People have pulled huge "monsters" out of the sea, and there are many reports from remote villages of things like pterodactyls and other dinosaur-type animals.


I suspect that this is what you remember being pulled out of the sea:

From AiG: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

“The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.”

This carcass was almost certainly a rotting basking shark, since their gills and jaws rot rapidly and fall off, leaving the typical small “neck” with the head. This has been shown by similar specimens washed up on beaches. Also, detailed anatomical and biochemical studies of the Zuiyo-maru carcass show that it could not have been a plesiosaur. See Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence and Letting rotting sharks lie.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:57 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 8:18 PM on April 14, 2008 :
Just a side question - I will be back to refute your claims later...


By refute you mean Gish Gallop.

Why are dinosaurs NOT considered advanced animals? Scientists say that there were no advanced, or evolved, creatures that lived among them, but rather small, mouse-like animals. Why would the dinosaurs have already been able to grow so large then?


What do you mean by 'advanced?' And when has any scientist said what you said? Evolution produces species that are adapted to the environment they live in. If that means a less complex organism, then that is what will happen. Dinosaurs grew large because that is what their environment supported. And several sites around the world have miniaturized dinosaurs, what is commonly called "Insular dwarfism" due to smaller habitats such as islands.



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 11:30 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 8:27 PM on April 14, 2008 :
http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/dinosaur-man.html

http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html

(Edited by allisong 4/14/2008 at 8:33 PM).


Seriously?

You were ALREADY educated on the Coelacanth. You are spamming at this point.

During the flood most dinosaurs sank to the bottom, while the birds and lighter animals stayed near the surface of the mud and water.


This is particularly amusing. It fails to address why there aren't primitive organism which are lighter in the top layers. No one has tried to address the problem of hydrological sorting in the thread I created.

And the second site is peddling lies.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Many of its links don't even work.

Was that suppose to be a refutation?

Your ignorance is appalling. So you made it to 2nd grade science?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 11:34 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How much do you know about creationism? Really.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:39 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How much do you know about creationism? Really.


You say "creationism" as though there is only one kind.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:48 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How much do you know about creationism? Really

As far as young earth creationism, I know it's a primitive myth, what else is there to know?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:37 AM on April 15, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 11:39 PM on April 14, 2008 :
How much do you know about creationism? Really.


Enough to know that the literal interpretation results in nothing good.

If you believe in literal creationism then your God must be a liar. If God created the universe as we see it today, then he's lying about what happened in Genesis. If God created the world as he did in Genesis, then he's deliberately deceiving us by operating the universe on a completely different set of physics as well as deliberately changing the fossil record and removing all evidence of the flood. No two ways about it: A literal interpretation of Genesis requires a Liar God.

Now if I was a Christian, I'd have REAL problems with that. Probably why many educated, intelligent Christians are metaphorical. The problem of a Liar God doesn't exist with that interpretation.

If Genesis is correct in a literal interpretation, then modern hydrology doesn't work. At all. As modern hydrology which is used by everyone from the federal government to your local municipality is based on water tables, millions of years of small changes in water, recharge rates, and other long term effects to manage the water supplies, that doesn't work on a 6,000 or even 12,000 year time frame. If literal creationism is true, we shouldn't be able to predict and manage water supplies. Yet we have. For decades.

Furthermore, if Literal Creationism is true nuclear reactors shouldn't work. Period. The nuclear weapons used during WW2 should not have worked. Radioactivity is based on long term decay rates. In a young earth, those rates wouldn't apply. How we could safely or even operate such facilities and weapons is seriously in doubt.

I can keep going how literal genesis literally **** the world up.  Oil companies, yes the ones who LINE REPUBLICAN POCKETS have scientists who study evolution looking for large deposits of specific types of algae which we know formed into oil and natural gas. They also have geologists who look for types of sediment and rock which facilitate the conversion of biological matter into hydrocarbons. By tracing the age of the rock with known eras of when these organisms lived, they can find where oil and gas should be. This flies right in the face of YEC.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:51 AM on April 15, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 10:39 PM on April 14, 2008 :
How much do you know about creationism? Really.



How much do you know about creation?  Really.

But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6

Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished. Proverbs 16:5



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:40 AM on April 15, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not perfect.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 8:11 PM on April 16, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 12:29 PM on April 14, 2008 :
I agree that dinosaurs and humans once lived at the same time. They were created on the same day.

Actually, there may still be some alive today. People have pulled huge "monsters" out of the sea, and there are many reports from remote villages of things like pterodactyls and other dinosaur-type animals.


But where is the evidence for this??? I mean, if I found a "monster" or a pterodactyls, I´d be a millionaire in no time! And we have scientists devoting their lives to discovering new species, scientists devoting their lives to study ANTS, but none has ever come across a living dinosaur? Aren´t you allowing your faith get in the way of common sense?






-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 7:58 PM on August 13, 2008 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 12:29 PM on April 14, 2008 :
I agree that dinosaurs and humans once lived at the same time. They were created on the same day.


Was there enough room on the ark for all the dinosaurs aswell? some of them were pretty huge, Argentinosaurus for example was 35 meters long weighed 100 tonnes. Was it clean animal?



-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 08:55 AM on August 20, 2008 | IP
Baconsbud

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 I probably shouldn't be replying to this thread since it seems to be one that has only one side that feels that they need to provide evidence. Come on creationist at least try to provide some peer reviewed evidence that makes your point.
  I noticed early in this discussion that The Cman used a link as a means of showing dinos and humans lived together. In this link there were others that pointed to words of the bible saying dions were around. But when you look at the words they can be used to describe animals of this day and age for the most part. There are also many animals which have gone extinct that could be seen as being described by these words. Why is it that the earlier church leaders never said anything about the so called dragons that are proof of dinos during the bible. It wasn't until the first dino fossils wre found that all of a sudden the meanings behind those words had to be changed to meaning dinos. Study your own religion to find that as science advances what words in the bible say change so they can fit the known world.


-------
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 10:44 AM on August 21, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.