Fossil Challenge Old Evolution Theory

[orionsbelt]

No one is going to respond to the link I posted? I assure you, I’m not a stereotype or a Republican (I have no party affiliation), or anti-science. However, when I do find information that suggests humans and dinosaurs lived together in the time after Christ, I think that raises some important questions.

God bless,
Ed

I guess I’ll bite.

I don’t think the information used by the author of the article can be used as a basis for suggesting dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. The artifacts referenced however do suggest a vivid imagination by artists.

I’d hate to imagine the things some future archeologist could assume about today’s world and the creatures that would exist in our time based on our art and cultural artifacts.

 

[KarenNC]

Here is a link to a book about the Nile mosaic of Palestrina (and, contrary to the author of your link, I found little problem finding information about it).

books.google.com/books?id=jyTFEJ56iTUC&dq=nile+mosaic+palestrina+animals

“” The famous Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, ancient Praeneste in central Italy, dating to c. 100 B.C., is one of the earliest large mosaics which have been preserved from the classical world. It presents a unique, comprehensive picture of Egypt and Nubia. The interpretation of the mosaic is disputed, suggestions ranging from an exotic decoration to a topographical picture or a religious allegory.The present study demonstrates that the mosaic depicts rituals connected with Isis and Osiris and the yearly Nile flood. The presence of these Egyptian religious scenes at Praeneste can be explained by the assimilation of isis and Fortuna, the tutelary goddess of Praeneste, and by the interpretation of the mosaic as a symbol of divine providence."

This is just a preview of the book, though one can read some of the pages online. It came out in 1995. It is an academic book and thus expensive, so I would recommend seeing if your local university library might have a copy. We have a community borrower’s card to our local university library and it has been a fabulous resource for access to academic books not usually found in public libraries and that are prohibitively expensive to buy as an individual.

 

[hecd2]

No one is going to respond to the link I posted? I assure you, I’m not a stereotype or a Republican (I have no party affiliation), or anti-science. However, when I do find information that suggests humans and dinosaurs lived together in the time after Christ, I think that raises some important questions.

God bless,
Ed

Well, I saw several people, including PhilVaz reply to it. There was another thread about this very subject here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=175140

In that thread I made the point that everyone is taking positions about the implications of this paper published in the world’s most prestigious science journal, without having read the actual paper (and your original post misunderstands what is being claimed which is the co-existence of H habilis and H erectus, NOT the co-existence of either of these with H sapiens). Anyway, I *have *read the original paper and in the other thread I made these points:

1. The fact that two species, one clearly older in origin than the other, are also found simultaneously does not in any way provide evidence against evolutionary theory. Both allopatric-with-migration and sympatric speciation can result in coexisting species that share a common ancestor. (A more modern example is H Neanderthalensis and H sapiens in Europe - both evolved from an earlier common ancestor and both shared the same geographic range for many thousand years).
2. The last two sentences of the scientific paper can be understood in the kindergarten, but haven’t been reported in the press. They are:“As the earliest secure evidence of Homo is found outside the known region of overlap4, it is nonetheless possible that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis elsewhere, and that the Turkana basin was a region of secondary contact between the two hominin taxa”

So let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

And as others have said, if you think the scientific paper in question is evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together, then you have added two and two together and made 456.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

This fossil find indicates the possibility that there was no evolution.

Well, no it doesn’t, not according to the authors of the paper, Leakey et al, and not according to a correct understanding of the their claims.

Just as there are many types of dogs with different body shapes and skulls, so could it have been that primates/hominids could have been of different types.

Indeed so - we call them species.

This also ties in to recent science that modern humans and neanderthals interbred

I assume you are referring to Green et al, *Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA, *Nature 444, 330 - 336 (16th November 2006), in which the authors find that Neanderthals split off from the lineage leading to modern humans between 461,000 and 825,000 years ago, a finding that is entirely consistent with previous analyses. Neanderthal has the derived allele in 30% of human SNPs, suggesting that these SNPs predate the Neanderthal split - this high percentage suggests some gene flow between modern humans and Neanderthals, and the fact that the X-chromosome is more divergent than the autosomes suggests that gene flow would have occurred predominantly from modern human males into Neanderthals. However, the authors support the well accepted finding that Neanderthals contributed little or no genetic material to the modern human genome.

and that more ‘modern’ dinosaurs lived with their ‘ancestors.’

I’d be interested in a reference for that.

It seems to me that the dinosaurs could have lived at the same time as modern humans.

Unfortunately for this hypothesis we know that dinosaurs (apart from birds) disappear from the fossil record above the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary 65 million years ago (marked by the KT iridium anomaly), apes don’t appear until 15 million years ago, and the earliest Homo doesn’t appear until 2 million years ago so you have a 63 million year problem.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Teflon93]

Or dinosaur bones.

There is in fact a plausible theory that the Greeks got the Cyclops by misinterpreting mammoth fossils. The nasal cavity of the mammoth reasonably resembles the eye socket of a large, misshapen giant.

There was a documentary on one of the educational channels which referred to such things. It struck me as very plausible.

Given the evidence for the mass extinction of the dinosaurs around 65 million years ago, I’d have to place my money on the notion that humans and dinosaurs did not in fact coexist.

 

[Teflon93]

Unfortunately for this hypothesis we know that dinosaurs (apart from birds) disappear from the fossil record above the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary 65 million years ago (marked by the KT iridium anomaly), apes don’t appear until 15 million years ago, and the earliest Homo doesn’t appear until 2 million years ago so you have a 63 million year problem.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I’ve got it!

What if there were an INVISIBLE Fossil Record?

(Sorry, Alec—inside joke regarding creative ways folks find to get around other large historical gaps as demonstrated elsewhere in this forum—you are of course correct on your dates).

 

[edwest2]

This article indicates evidence for Neanderthals and modern humans interbreeding.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061103083616.htm

I am very skeptical of evolution. It does not seem to me that one type of animal turned into another. Gills to lungs, that’s a bit hard to believe.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MerryAtheist]

Gills to lungs, that’s a bit hard to believe.

Have you ever heard of Mudskippers?

 

[hecd2]

This article indicates evidence for Neanderthals and modern humans interbreeding.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061103083616.htm

This is the original article:
Trinkaus et al, Early modern humans from the Pehttp://www.pnas.org/math/large/scedil.giftera Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania, Proc Natl Acad Sci doi:10.1073/pnas.0608443103 find a mosaic of modern human and Neanderthal/archaic features in these remains from Romania securely dated to 30,000 radiocarbon years BP, and suggest that this is evidence of interbreeding between the species. The conclusion is controversial and not generally accepted. But even if we fully accept it, so what?

I am very skeptical of evolution. It does not seem to me that one type of animal turned into another. Gills to lungs, that’s a bit hard to believe.

As I have said to many before you, your personal incredulity does not constitute credible evidence against evolution. I direct you to Jennifer Clack’s superb book ‘Gaining Ground’ for an analysis and evidence of the fish to amphibian transition. I also suggest you investigate the extant fish order Dipnoi.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Steve40]

The fact that God may have set up Evolution as the means of creation is not contrary to our belief. True faith is not threatened by science.

It actually is because it is not proven. We are not permitted to believe in every unproven theory out there over Sacred Scripture. Pope Leo XIII in
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

in quoting St. Augustine said we are to hold to the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture unless by necessity we are to depart from it. None of the recent Papal statements carry as much weight as this.

 

[Abira]

St. Augustine said we are to hold to the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture unless by necessity we are to depart from it. None of the recent Papal statements carry as much weight as this.

unless by necessity? how about a 63 million year necessity that it doesn’t account for. Genesis s not meant to be read literally but this does not mean that it has no truth, only that it is told to us in a different way…

people on these threads, not you steve lol, are throwing ideas around that species of human co-existed or didn’t, interbred or didn’t… so what??

that time span is nothing compared to the 63 million year gap not accounted for from the generally acceped date from dinosaurs to modern man… there has been no evidence put forward…so back to steve’s post; this has not been proven (that dinosaurs and people co-existed) so your statement would require us not to believe anything unless proved in the secular arena.

also, hasn’t your pope recenty said that we are free to believe either??? so why state that we are not free to believe either?

S

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for the book recommendation. No, it’s not my incredulity that I’m trying to present as evidence. I asked a friend of mine if he believed in God. His reply: “I believe in evolution.” That was some years ago. More recently, I got a call from him and evolution was brought up. He said, “I’ve got all of Stephen Jay Gould’s books but I don’t think it’s possible. The cell is too complex.”

While evolutionists are careful to point out that the science for evolution says nothing about God either way, it makes evolution valueless as an evangelization tool because the process of evolution does not require God in any way, shape or form. I think tacking God on, which science, by definition, cannot do, and saying He got the ball rolling, so to speak, is not theology but “see, maybe God did this or that, maybe.”

I’m not trying to give you a hard time but miracles still happen. It just doesn’t appear to me that God used a process like evolution when Jesus clearly showed what He could do instantly while on earth.

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[Steve40]

unless by necessity? how about a 63 million year necessity that it doesn’t account for. Genesis s not meant to be read literally but this does not mean that it has no truth, only that it is told to us in a different way…

Your 63 million years is not proven so it is not necessary to depart from the meaning in Sacred Scripture. People need to try to understand what is scientifically proven and what is not. What is wrong with say scientifically, we don’t know, so until proven otherwise, believe what God said. This is what the Encyclical letter from the chair of Peter said and we should follow it. However, if you are intellectually incapable of understanding what is scientifically proven and what is not, and you choose the place your faith in the scientists, I’m not your judge and could understand why you would go against the Pope.

 

[Abira]

Your 63 million years is not proven so it is not necessary to depart from the meaning in Sacred Scripture. People need to try to understand what is scientifically proven and what is not. What is wrong with say scientifically, we don’t know, so until proven otherwise, believe what God said. This is what the Encyclical letter from the chair of Peter said and we should follow it. However, if you are intellectually incapable of understanding what is scientifically proven and what is not, and you choose the place your faith in the scientists, I’m not your judge and could understand why you would go against the Pope.

I’m intellectually capable of a lot of things steve, but not debate with people like you who are extrememly rude to me for no reason.

I think you should start your own thread called: basic manners and communication techniques.

that response is hardly the start of a loving dialogue is it!! lol

 

[hecd2]

Thank you for the book recommendation. No, it’s not my incredulity that I’m trying to present as evidence. I asked a friend of mine if he believed in God. His reply: “I believe in evolution.” That was some years ago. More recently, I got a call from him and evolution was brought up. He said, “I’ve got all of Stephen Jay Gould’s books but I don’t think it’s possible. The cell is too complex.”

While evolutionists are careful to point out that the science for evolution says nothing about God either way, it makes evolution valueless as an evangelization tool because the process of evolution does not require God in any way, shape or form. I think tacking God on, which science, by definition, cannot do, and saying He got the ball rolling, so to speak, is not theology but “see, maybe God did this or that, maybe.”

I’m not trying to give you a hard time but miracles still happen. It just doesn’t appear to me that God used a process like evolution when Jesus clearly showed what He could do instantly while on earth.

Respectfully,
Ed

I think this was in response to me. A few points then:

You said:*"I asked a friend of mine if he believed in God. His reply: “I believe in evolution.” That was some years ago. More recently, I got a call from him and evolution was brought up. He said, “I’ve got all of Stephen Jay Gould’s books but I don’t think it’s possible. The cell is too complex.”
*So it’s not *your personal incredulity that you present as evidence against evolutionary biology, but your friend’s incredulity. You will pardon me if I give absolutely no weight to the evidence of your friend’s personal incredulity? Unless, of course, your friend is an expert, say, a professor in cell biology in one of the world’s leading biological research groups.- but he won’t be because all of those guys (professors of cell biology) who have forgotten ten times more cell biology than your friend ever knew fully accept evolution.
You say that “evolution (is) valueless as an evangelization tool because the process of evolution does not require God in any way, shape or form.” *Well, yes, science is not meant to be an evangelisation tool. Science is a serious human endeavour to understand how the universe works that is shared by people of every faith and none - it is the only human way of knowing that transcends all faith, national, ethnic, geographic and class boundaries and it is therefore very precious.

Be comforted - you are in no way giving me “a hard time”. You are not capable of that. And when you say *“It just doesn’t appear to me that God used a process like evolution when Jesus clearly showed what He could do instantly while on earth” *all I can do is repeat the fact that your personal incredulity is no evidence against evolution.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Hmm. I think you’re missing one of my points. I’m not trying to use my or a friend’s incredulity as evidence against evolution. I did sit down, studied it and I did say: “No, this does not make sense.” Which doesn’t mean I’ve stopped studying either.

I go to other Christian forums and have run across the following time and again:

You don’t believe in evolution? Why not?
You think “god did it.” There’s no evidence of that.
You insist on not changing your mind?
Your holy book and god are myths!
You are (bad name) and a (bad name) and probably (bad name).

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Hmm. I think you’re missing one of my points.
Ed

So what is your point?

I did sit down, studied it and I did say: “No, this does not make sense.”

But those who know a thousand times more science than you do think it makes wonderful sense. Scientists, without whom we would know nothing about the natural world, thinks it makes eminent sense. So? Do I accept your conclusion based on your extremely superficial understanding of the science, or do I give more weight to what I know based on a lifetime dedicated to understanding the natural world?

Alec

 

[hecd2]

However, if you are intellectually incapable of understanding what is scientifically proven and what is not, and you choose the place your faith in the scientists, I’m not your judge and could understand why you would go against the Pope.

I understand why Abira is affronted. You are in no position to take a high intellectual stance. Let me point out why: let’s see if you can give me an example of things that are scientifically proven (be very careful that what you put forward is proven in the mathematical sense - ie that it is uncontroversial, necessary in logic and complete.)

Alec

 

[KarenNC]

Artifacts have been found showing man and dinosaurs:

s8int.com/dinolit2.html

Similar artifacts (ie artwork in this case) has been put forth as proof that flying saucers have been regularly visiting Earth since at minimum the Middle Ages

sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm

 

[Teflon93]

Your 63 million years is not proven so it is not necessary to depart from the meaning in Sacred Scripture. People need to try to understand what is scientifically proven and what is not. What is wrong with say scientifically, we don’t know, so until proven otherwise, believe what God said. This is what the Encyclical letter from the chair of Peter said and we should follow it. However, if you are intellectually incapable of understanding what is scientifically proven and what is not, and you choose the place your faith in the scientists, I’m not your judge and could understand why you would go against the Pope.

Easy there—I’m no evolutionist myself, but I don’t believe the Pope said the literal interpretation of Genesis was dogma. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that to be the case.

There are certainly limits to science which specialists recognize but seem to abandon whenever talking outside of their expertise, but we don’t have any positive evidence of man coexisting with dinosaurs. Fortunately, I don’t think Scripture maintains they did, but your mileage may vary.

It should also be noted science would not exist but for the Catholic Church, which sponsored and inspired the folks who developed its methods during its critical formative period in the Middle Ages. Religion and science go hand in hand, despite some latter day materialist atheists claiming otherwise (no offense intended to latter day materialist atheists).