Dinosaurs or really big chickens

[rossum]

I would like to correct my above statement to read that there are reports of dinosaur and human footprints being found together.

Very wise. Even creationists such as AiG and CMI do not think that the Paluxy tracks are good evidence. See Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

If you read through Pope John Paul II’s address, you’ll note that certain findings needed to be viewed as being compatible with certain truths held by the Church. In other words, whatever evidence may be found needs to be compatible with those truths.

The theory of Evolution is science and philosophy mixed together. One is not presented without the other. It is clear that the overriding concern is secularizing religious people, the evidence is secondary. By accepting a purely natural evolution, man is little more than ambulatory amoeba with the ability to speak and manipulate its environment. It appears to me that the focus is not on anything else. Individuals can then do as they will. God being already surmised as nothing more than an evolutionary creation designed to serve the survival of the species. In other words, a necessary concept at one time, but which now needs to be discarded.

I personally believe that the scholars at the Vatican can and will rightly judge any objective evidence for evolution but this will not happen on forums such as these in regards to that particular subject. Any dissent from holding evolution as absolutely true (i.e. a fact) is dealt with quickly, and then there is a return to the constantly repeating message: Evolution happened, get over it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[zian]

Back to dinosaurs, I think there is good evidence that humans interacted with them, but the evolutionists want to deny it the loudest. …
God bless,
Ed

I am unaware of any good scientific evidence of humans and dinosaurs co-existing. Care to link us to any of this evidence, so that we discuss assessment of it?

 

[Abbi]

They’ve found fossils with dinosaur and human footprints side by side. Yup yup!
And I rekon the dinosaurs died out after the flood - as they couldn’t survive in such an environment; there is evidence for an ice age.

And as for the T-rex and chickens… haha.

Human DNA is also 50% similar to banana DNA. Are we half banana? er… no.

 

[Church_Militant]

They’ve found fossils with dinosaur and human footprints side by side. Yup yup!
And I rekon the dinosaurs died out after the flood - as they couldn’t survive in such an environment; there is evidence for an ice age.

And as for the T-rex and chickens… haha.

Human DNA is also 50% similar to banana DNA. Are we half banana? er… no.

Yeah… ya are… Did ya get all that from the writings of “Dr. Dino” Hovind? The same guy whose doing federal time now for tax evasion? Google him.

 

[Abbi]

Haha… yeah i heard a rumor about that:shrug:

 

[rossum]

The theory of Evolution is science and philosophy mixed together. One is not presented without the other.

Here we disagree. The theory of evolution is science and has no additional philosophy in it, any more then meteorology or gravity. I will agree that some atheists such as Richard Dawkins do attempt to use evolution as a justification for their philosophical atheism. However that is not intrinsic to evolution.

Evolution does disagre with some very literal interpretations of Genesis, but a lot of science does that: is meteorology atheisic because it disagrees with a literal interpretation of Psalms 78:26 “He caused the east wind to blow in the heavens And by His power He directed the south wind”?

It is clear that the overriding concern is secularizing religious people, the evidence is secondary.

It is not clear at all. Evolution is science. It is used as a tool in theist-atheist discussions but it does not have any overriding concern to secularise. Many scientific studies of evolution are so technical that their use as propaganda is minimal. For instance: Genotype-Environment Interaction and the Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity.

By accepting a purely natural evolution, man is little more than ambulatory amoeba with the ability to speak and manipulate its environment. It appears to me that the focus is not on anything else. Individuals can then do as they will. God being already surmised as nothing more than an evolutionary creation designed to serve the survival of the species. In other words, a necessary concept at one time, but which now needs to be discarded.

Some atheists use that argument. The argument is not part of evolution but of philosophy or theology.

I personally believe that the scholars at the Vatican can and will rightly judge any objective evidence for evolution but this will not happen on forums such as these in regards to that particular subject. Any dissent from holding evolution as absolutely true (i.e. a fact) is dealt with quickly, and then there is a return to the constantly repeating message: Evolution happened, get over it.

Evolution did happen and is happening now. For a theist that should not be a problem since lots of things happen and God is responsible for all of them. In passing I am pleased to see that you acknowledge that there is some evidence for evolution.

rossum

 

[rossum]

They’ve found fossils with dinosaur and human footprints side by side. Yup yup!

Nope, nope. Even creationists don’t believe that one any more:‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

Source: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

And I rekon the dinosaurs died out after the flood - as they couldn’t survive in such an environment; there is evidence for an ice age.

There is evidence for many ice ages. There is no evidence for a global flood. Even in 1510 Leonardo da Vinci was able to see that the evidence did not support a flood:"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.

“And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks…”

And as for the T-rex and chickens… haha.

Closer than you seem to think. Both are classified as Coelurosauria. Mmm Southern Fried Dinosaur.

Human DNA is also 50% similar to banana DNA. Are we half banana? er… no.

I am not sure of the exact percentage, but err… yes. Much of what goes on inside a plant cell is that same as what goes on inside our cells, the Krebs cycle and so forth. Since the processes are the same it is not surprising that the DNA is the same. We do share a common ancestor with a banana, though that was a long time ago. T-rex and chickens are much closer so I would expect a grater than 50% match between their DNA.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

rossum,

I notice you are using the same talking points I’ve seen everywhere else. And offer a little praise to me as long as you think the evolutionary foot is still keeping the door open. In order to have a proper discussion about this subject, I never include the compartmentalization imposed upon others by evolutionists.

The first cell arising by itself is mathematically impossible. Life does not come from non-lfe. Panspermia simply moves the question off the planet but does not answer it. (Abiogenesis, yes, I know).

There is no evidence for speciation. I recall the recent excitement over a recent fossil find where the evolutionists said, “Look! A fin on its way to being a foot!” Baloney. The same could be said about the seal or walrus who use their fins to walk. Are their fins on their way to becoming feet?

The discovery by scientist Mary Schweitzer of elastic and liquid structures, three dimensional, in a T-Rex bone (see links posted earlier). The response from the “science” establishment? Nope, not possible. And when asked what evidence would convince them? The reply was None.

Evolution is a belief system. There is some science, misinterpreted, and presented as “The Origin of the Species” by modern science, but science, like any tool, has its uses. One does not do science and file it away. It is used in the outside world for a purpose. Who funds all these dinosaur hunters?

And the clear, unmistakeable purpose is to tell people: "You started out in a chemical soup. Just mix some amino acids with water, and poof, human beings. This is goo to you evolution, and it sounds more like a science-fiction story than fact. Given an infinite number of possibilities, ladies and gentlemen, we had goo then you.

It would be laughable if it were not being used by atheists right now to convince everyone they can that, well, God was not involved: “That’s what the evidence says.”

And please do not repeat that canard that “science” is in a locked room somewhere and “religion” is in another locked room. People take scientific knowledge and use it. They respond to it. I mean everyday people. Take the television news: “Scientists reported today that people should stop doing XYZ today.” People respond to what scientists say. Right? So when a group of scientists on, oh say, the Discovery Channel, tells you that water and amino acids when mixed well, produce life, what do you think people think? This is not science however. It’s a non-reproducible guess. A wish that they hope is true, not something that can be reproduced in a lab (and they did try).

So this is where abiogenesis and evolution stand. Abiogenesis happened, trust me. I mean, it Must have happened. At least we hope so.

Evolution. Well, there were those dead peppered moths pasted onto a tree, someone went through a great deal of trouble assembling Piltdown Man, antibiotic resistence is not what’s been advertised, the Mosaic of Palestrina from Egypt clearly showing a T-Rex type dinosaur… I spoke with a friend of mine recently who is reconsidering his entire stance on evolution. In Darwin’s day, a cell was like a blob of jelly, now we know it contains intricate, interconnected machinery. He told me, “It’s too complex. It could not have arisen on its own.” I agree.

God bless.
Ed

 

[VociMike]

“It’s too complex. It could not have arisen on its own.” I agree.

No Catholic who actually believes in God claims that “it arose on its own”. The question is only, how did God choose to do it.

Let me ask this simple question. If God chose to use some form of evolution to produce the world as it has existed and as it now exists, could God do it? Could God produce the world through the means that science proclaims (to the extent that science has properly deciphered the evidence)? Not did He do it, but could He do it? Or would an evolutionary world be too hard for God to pull off?

 

[edwest2]

Based on my past experience in these sorts of debates, my only allowed answer is: Yes, He could.

However, you are still ignoring the T-Rex bone with the soft tissue in it. 65 million years old? I don’t think so, but when a scientist was presented with this evidence, he refused to deal with it, correct?

No, it is crystal clear after I’ve visited Christian and Atheist forums, there is one goal: Evolution, it happened, get over it. It seems to me that after that goal is accomplished and the majority believe, part two begins: God? Who believes in God anymore, he’s like santa Claus.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that God creates from nothing, Creation Ex Nihilo. The job, because I’ve been watching this subject for some time now, is to steer people into believing: “Well, He could haved used evolution right? Right?”

I don’t think so. And the constant, daily repetition of this “possibility” is also evidence that evolution is being promoted as a worldview, not science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

The first cell arising by itself is mathematically impossible.

A cell is not a mathematical object. Presumably you have a mathematical model of how the first cell started and have calculated your probabilities on the basis of that model. How valid your results are depend on how good your underlying model is. Since you have not shown us your model I will withold comment on your results.

Life does not come from non-lfe. Panspermia simply moves the question off the planet but does not answer it. (Abiogenesis, yes, I know).

Creation by a living God does exactly the same thing - just moves the question off universe. Creationists have even less idea of the origin of life than evolutionists do. At least we have hypotheses like the RNA world, creationists have nothing.

There is no evidence for speciation. I recall the recent excitement over a recent fossil find where the evolutionists said, “Look! A fin on its way to being a foot!” Baloney. The same could be said about the seal or walrus who use their fins to walk. Are their fins on their way to becoming feet?

There is a lot of evidence for speciation - see Observed Instances of Speciation. You are grossly simplifying the importance of Tiktaalik. Before Tiktaalik we had Panderichthys - a fish with fins on stumps. After Tiktaalik we had Acanthostega - a fish with elbows, wrists and digits that could breathe air. Between the two we had nothing. So Neil Shubin looked for some rocks dated between the two and laid down in shallow water. He found Tiktaalik - a fish with fins on stumps that had elbows and wrists but no digits. Evolution correctly predicted the date of the fossil and the type of environment it would have lived in.

Seals and Walruses have feet on their way to becoming fins - have a look at a whale or a dolphin for the end result of such a process.

Evolution is a belief system.

You have said this before. Repeating it will not make it any more true than it was the first time.

It would be laughable if it were not being used by atheists right now to convince everyone they can that, well, God was not involved: “That’s what the evidence says.”

If atheists did not use evolution then they would use something else. I have seen atheists use the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Bible to try to convinve people of atheism. Will you treat all of those the same way as you are trying to treat evolution - “Atheists use X therefore X is wrong”?

So this is where abiogenesis and evolution stand. Abiogenesis happened, trust me. I mean, it Must have happened.

Life must have started somewhere, otherwise we would not be here now, would we.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I invite anyone interested to visit an Atheist or Darwinist forum. Read for yourself what they are talking about. I also recommend any Secular Humanist forum. God cannot be a part of their lives since they do not want Him.

So God will not be separated from His Creation.

God bless,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

Based on my past experience in these sorts of debates, my only allowed answer is: Yes, He could.

However, you are still ignoring the T-Rex bone with the soft tissue in it. 65 million years old? I don’t think so, but when a scientist was presented with this evidence, he refused to deal with it, correct?

I’m not ignoring it at all. Neither am I in a position to say much of value about it one way or the other, having neither the bone nor the expertise to evaluate it. All we can do is leave it in the hands of those who are qualified, and hope that they do not let any agendas get in the way of their scientific responsibilities.

No, it is crystal clear after I’ve visited Christian and Atheist forums, there is one goal: Evolution, it happened, get over it. It seems to me that after that goal is accomplished and the majority believe, part two begins: God? Who believes in God anymore, he’s like santa Claus.

Well I don’t have “Evolution” as a goal. In fact, I don’t even like discussing it. But I’m not prepared to say all science is a lie, or all scientists are liars.

There is an interesting analogy with the introduction, beginning some hundred years ago, of Quantum Mechanics. That was a very worldview-shattering theory, and many physicists could not at first accept the core statements of the theory. But history shows us that they all did come around, regardless of their personal beliefs, when the evidence was strong enough. So in the evolution debate the other side simply has to present evidence as strong as that of Quantum Mechanics and science will have to come around. Besides, just think of all the Nobel Prizes and other honors that await the first pioneers with overwhelming evidence.

 

[edwest2]

The evolution worldview is what I’m talking about: there is no God, only science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[zian]

However, you are still ignoring the T-Rex bone with the soft tissue in it. 65 million years old? I don’t think so, but when a scientist was presented with this evidence, he refused to deal with it, correct?

Well, we can’t account for every scientist’s behavior, now can we Ed? As my posted links show, however, Schweitzer, Horner, et. al., are actively looking for more samples such as Schweitzer and her team found in the tyrannosaur bone, now that they know such things can exist and they have techniques to recover them. I’m looking forward to their further analysis of these finds.

As for the atheist forums, Ed, I’m sure it is easy to find those who are rabid God-deniers. However, the set of those who post in an internet atheist forum are hardly guaranteed to be a random sample of all atheists. Hence, conclusions drawn on a small sampling of posts may not reflect the entire population of atheists.

 

[edwest2]

I disagree. Any forum I visit that even tangentally mentions evolution has the same talking points.

I wish Mary Schweitzer and others who are looking all success, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that Christians are more conformed to the world now than they were 30 years ago. I lay this at the feet of those in authority that have been deceiving them for a long time, either knowingly, unknowingly, or by simply saying nothing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Riley259]

Let me go further on my point, since nobody seems to have noticed it: if one would look at the Fall, one would see that Adam and Eve realized they were naked after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Now, what does this mean? It means they became aware of themselves, and of sin as well. We reflect now on man’s evolution, and how man became aware of morality. If one looks at history, one would notice that he only began to make moral codes and laws when he had enough intellectual capacity to do so. When was this? Why, when man was as homo sapien, not homo erectus or other earlier form. One might argue that perhaps man recognized morality earlier than that, before he began to write. Perhaps so, but that doesn’t negate this fact, nor the fact that man began to slowly become aware of himself and his surroundings. He began to become aware of it when he ate from the fruit–when he began to have intellect and knowledge.

As for evolution and creation itself, I can say that they go together. One compliments the other, not in conflict of each other. What made me realize that? Actually by reading Paul. Paul wrote something about, "when I was a child, I talked like a child…but when I grew up, I began to take away childish things’, or something to that effect. Now, would a 6,000 BC man understand the concept of Darwinian evolution? I highly doubt it. At that point, as it is, man was but a babe, or at least a child. As he began to use his intellect more, and discover more, more things were revealed to him. In essence then, God began to reveal to man how he was made. The creation narrative in the Bible was a simplified way of showing man how God created him; Darwinian evolution is a more detailed telling of the same story. It’s only those who want to create friction between religion and science, between Christianity and science in particular, that would deny this.

Very insightful ideas about an issue that has bothered me for some time. Thanks.

 

[First_of_9]

So humans evolved, and were not created in God’s image? Interesting.

Often overlooked is the fact the God does NOT have a body.

While we ARE created in His image, it is our souls only that are in God’s image. Consequently, human bodies could very easily have evolved following the natural laws created by God.

Do you actually believe that God physically looks like a human?

 

[Abira]

This thread has been a kind of frustrating read - I would hate others to see how divided the church is.

We like to show others how faith in God is based in truth and faith…and that of course we are all open to the real truth. This is what gives faith its integrity… if people thought Christians would be willing to close their eyes to facts it would not act as a great advert for the existence of God.

I would hope that in the same way everyone here is honestly open to the facts as we all should be. The truth cannot contradict the truth and if something makes us re-evaluate how we interpret genesis then it is His will.

In terms of facts, I’ve seen very few on this thread, only opinions and easy get out clauses.

If something is the truth then we should accept it… nobody here has addressed the accuracy of dating with any facts:

How do you account for the fact that dinosaurs are commonly held to have died out 65 million years ago as opposed to the nearest recordings of modern man found only 250, 000 years ago? It’s hardly a few seconds is it, even with a margin of error allowed.

For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.

what evidence must be shown to us before we accept it?