[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs and man

[Barbarian]

About flying serpents? Yep.

 

[Vaccine]

About flying serpents? Yep.

Good moring Barbarian! It seems to me I have two choices. On the one hand is a historian who gave a fairly accurate description of a pterosaur. On the other hand we have a picture of a whale and have to imagine someone would mistake a rock for a wing.
I think the first one is more reasonable, all things considered. Dinosaur soft tissue has been documented. Joshepus, no fan of Herodotus, backs up his claim smentioning they were very aggressive. People in Africa have nanes for them. There have been other reports as well. All things considered I find it very reasonable Herodotus was right.

 

[Barbarian]

Good moring Barbarian! It seems to me I have two choices. On the one hand is a historian who gave a fairly accurate description of a pterosaur.

Actually, a pterosaur skeleton wouldn't look at all like a serpent. The body is quite short and stubby, with a birdlike head and rudimentary tail in the ones present in middle eastern deposits.

On the other hand we have a picture of a whale and have to imagine someone would mistake a rock for a wing.

There was the skull of a "dragon" in a display in ancient Greece, complete with long vertebrae. Here's the skull:

Sivatherium. Fossil giraffe. How about a griffin?

Not surprisingly, stories of griffins (yes, including tales of live ones) came from Central Asia, where these fossils are often found.

I think the first one is more reasonable, all things considered.

Either he was fooled like everyone else, or there were live dragons running around lose in the Middle East.

Dinosaur soft tissue has been documented.

None of the descriptions are remotely like a dinosaur. And the "soft tissue" turned out to be not tissue.

Joshepus, no fan of Herodotus, backs up his claim smentioning they were very aggressive.

Unlikely. They were quite fragile, as you would expect from a large flying organism. The biggest of them (and some were gigantic) weighed little more than a large man. And they were not built for taking large prey. Seem to have been scavengers and fish eaters.

People in Africa have nanes for them.

Chupacabra? Bigfoot? Yeti? Nessie?

 

[Randy]

For those of you who believe the earth is 6000 years old, I would like to know how you resolve the issue of man and dinosaurs.
Why has there never been found human fossils together with dinosaur fossils.
If the earth is 6000 years old, when did the dinosaurs exist, before, during or after
How did the dinosaurs become extinct.
I would be interested in your replies. Thank you and God bless

Is there any evidence in large bone sites of a conclusion of "death by drowning?"

R.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello everyone. Here are a couple of links that you might find interesting on the subject. http://creation.com/mesopotamian-monsters-in-paris and (had a problem with the other link) go to www.creation.com and put into the search engine there on the site - "watery graveyard" first on the list will be it.

 

[Barbarian]

Is there any evidence in large bone sites of a conclusion of "death by drowning?"

Sometimes. Many times not.

 

[Barbarian]

The problem is that there is no evidence for dinosaurs in the last 30 million years or so. There certainly were some big reptiles when humans were first around, giant monitors and the like, that would have been considered dragons, but these weren't remotely like dinosaurs.

I haven't seen anything like a dinosaur in any historical depictions, other than "griffins" which seem to have been based on protoceratops, and a "dragon" that was really the skull of a primitive giraffe.

 

[Barbarian]

http://www.icr.org/article/6883/

Sloths and mammoths aren't dinosaurs, of course, but it's long been known that mammoths lived on well after humans showed up. Stone age men drew detailed pictures of them.

The Spanish found evidence that some Indians in S. America actually penned up giant sloths, perhaps as a sort of living food supply to be killed later.

I'm surprised the ICR isn't aware of these things.

 

[Pizzaguy]

The science world told us the earth was going to freeze early 70s ...

Nope. I was in academia then, and the concern, even then, was warming.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/#rs1971

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies.

I was in academia then, too. In 1972 I was in 6th grade - and I remember telling mom and dad about how we talked in Mrs. Rocky's science class about the coming ice age.

Like it or not, it was taught in the early 70's that we were cooling. Oh, if I only had my 6th grade science book today...

 

[Barbarian]

I was in academia then, too. In 1972 I was in 6th grade - and I remember telling mom and dad about how we talked in Mrs. Rocky's science class about the coming ice age.

Like it or not, it was taught in the early 70's that we were cooling. Oh, if I only had my 6th grade science book today...

I'm sure Mrs. Rocky was sincere, but she got her ideas from an article in one of several popular magazines (the source of this myth), not scientists. Scientists, even then, were mostly aware that warming was on the way:

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

 

[Pizzaguy]

I was in academia then, too. In 1972 I was in 6th grade - and I remember telling mom and dad about how we talked in Mrs. Rocky's science class about the coming ice age.

Like it or not, it was taught in the early 70's that we were cooling. Oh, if I only had my 6th grade science book today...

I'm sure Mrs. Rocky was sincere, but she got her ideas from an article in one of several popular magazines (the source of this myth), not scientists.

She was teaching the textbook.

 

[Barbarian]

I've seen a lot of textbooks, but they rarely contradict what scientists say. And as you see, climatologists, even in the 70s, were concerned about warming. Hardly any of them thought it was going to get colder.

 

[Barbarian]

Just pointing out the myth of a scientific consensus for cooling. It never happened. The literature is still there if you want to check. I was still in the university in the 70s, and scientists were talking about warming, not cooling. If you can find a school textbook from that time that predicted an impending ice age, I'd like to see it.

The American Meteorological Society took a look at the story, and went back into the journals to see. Their finding?

The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.

So no, that is just a myth.

Which is not to say that some teacher in some school somewhere didn't teach otherwise. But I would be stunned to see a science textbook so far out of range of the scientific consensus. Not saying it didn't happen. Just saying it would be very weird.

 

[Narwhalist]

Going back to original theme of topic - there has never been dinosaur fossils discovered with human fossils in the same strata. Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. They went extinct. Mammoths and other large mammals are not dinosaurs. There really is no way around this. This is what God created as nature tells us so, just as Psalm 19 1:4 tells us. Nature spews out knowledge. We just need to interpret correctly.
The Bible is God's word, so it's inerrant. Nature is God's creation, so it does not lie for it has no free will - it's comprised of God's natural laws.

 

[Barbarian]

Well said.

 

[Barbarian]

Why would it seem weird for the schools to teach untruths?

Because that's not what schools do.

They've been doing that since the beginning.

Sounds like you had really awful schools. How sad.

 

[reba]

Really Barb? They teach much untruths in a number of subjects...... Speaking only of the where i have worked and where I and my kids went...

 

[Barbarian]

Really Barb? They teach much untruths in a number of subjects...... Speaking only of the where i have worked and where I and my kids went...

I know of teachers who have gone wrong like that, but school curricula are pretty closely examined and open to state review.

So I'm still skeptical.

 

[Barbarian]

Oh, surely you jest Sir. I found outright lies in my sons high school textbooks about the history and foundation of our government and the way it's supposed to operate.

Usually, that's just a difference of opinion or a definition failure. Let's take a look.

One thing I remember is that they called us a democratic republic

Republics are where representatives are sent to govern. So that's right. A democratic republic is where the people get to vote for those representatives. Good so far.

and we are a Constitutional Republic.

A constitutional republic is where there is a set of overriding laws that rule the nation, and limit what the representatives can do. So that's true, too. A pure constitutional republic is where the people can't alter or abolish parts of the constitution. A democratic constitutional republic is where a constitution exists, but it can be amended by the people.

And that's what we have.