[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[Pard]

How come we never find any fossils of men chilling with the dinosaurs? If man lived at the same time as dinosaurs did in the pre-Flood world, why are there no fossils where a man and a dinosaur are together?

This is a good question, and before the evolutionists in the room say something like, "there is no hard evidence, like a fossil, so it didn't happen!" Let's first consider that there are no fossils that back your theory of evolution beyond the micro-evolution that is accepted by all camps (mostly). One of the main ideas behind the theory of evolution is that animals evolved from little organisms into humans and such that we have today, and yet there is not a single fossil to prove this theory.

I'd also like to say that there are fossils of humans and dinosaurs together, however they have been "discredited" by evolutionists. The reason I say "discredited" is because often the studies into their creditability were quick and weak affairs and much more work is required before they can be confirmed OR denied.

With that I would like to open the floor to debating this issue posed in the first sentence of this topic.

(I will give my own belief when I get back from the store)

 

[Barbarian]

How come we never find any fossils of men chilling with the dinosaurs? If man lived at the same time as dinosaurs did in the pre-Flood world, why are there no fossils where a man and a dinosaur are together?

This is a good question, and before the evolutionists in the room say something like, "there is no hard evidence, like a fossil, so it didn't happen!"

That's not what scientists say. They merely note that the evidence does not support such a belief.

Let's first consider that there are no fossils that back your theory of evolution beyond the micro-evolution that is accepted by all camps (mostly).

Last check, about 0.3% of all biologists doubt modern evolutionary theory. About one-third of one percent.

One of the main ideas behind the theory of evolution is that animals evolved from little organisms into humans and such that we have today, and yet there is not a single fossil to prove this theory.

Actually, the theory is that humans evolved from other primates. And there is abundant evidence for it. Would you like to see some more?

I'd also like to say that there are fossils of humans and dinosaurs together, however they have been "discredited" by evolutionists. The reason I say "discredited" is because often the studies into their creditability were quick and weak affairs and much more work is required before they can be confirmed OR denied.

Actually, the most commonly-cited "proof" was debunked by YE creationists. I speak of the "Paluxy River Man-tracks."

 

[Evointrinsic]

Barbarian pretty much covered it. Although, would you be able to post a link to the fossils of humans and dinosaurs together?

 

[Pard]

That's not what scientists say. They merely note that the evidence does not support such a belief.

Did you notice how I never said "Scientists say..." I said, "BEFORE" this means I saw that it is very possible someone would use this line (I have seen it used before) and I wanted to get that out of the way, to keep the waters clear, though you obviously want to argue at every turn...

Last check, about 0.3% of all biologists doubt modern evolutionary theory. About one-third of one percent.

Are you hard of reading? I am agreeing that pretty much EVERYONE agrees that micro-evolution is real. That means evolutionists and creationists... please, don't argue for the sake of arguing, make a point with your arguments...

Actually, the theory is that humans evolved from other primates.

Well, ya'll keep changing it, and none the less, that is one theory.

And there is abundant evidence for it. Would you like to see some more?

The proper question you should have asked is "Want to see some?" You see, you never gave me any evidence to start with (you never do, really...) and so you cannot use the word "more". And yes, I'd like to see this evidence. Actually, I want to see the fossils that show that a species can evolve into a new species beyond its kind (I use this because I believe micro-evolution happens within kinds, well I don't believe, its proven...). Now kind can mean a few things, but I will permit anything beyond family (meaning, show me a fossil that shows a rat turns into a squirrel, just an example of course, for clarification purposes)

Actually, the most commonly-cited "proof" was debunked by YE creationists. I speak of the "Paluxy River Man-tracks."

Well aware of the Paluxy River find. You see how you used "commonly-cited", means you acknowledge other finds to this claim, and I apparently know of other ones too. Can't tell you the name, since I don't have the book on my person.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Last check, about 0.3% of all biologists doubt modern evolutionary theory. About one-third of one percent.

Are you hard of reading? I am agreeing that pretty much EVERYONE agrees that micro-evolution is real. That means evolutionists and creationists... please, don't argue for the sake of arguing, make a point with your arguments...

By 99.7% of biologists accept the modern evolutionary theory, it means both macro and micro evolution (because they both do the same thing).

Actually, the theory is that humans evolved from other primates.

Well, ya'll keep changing it, and none the less, that is one theory.

No... it's been like that since the beginning. No biologist would ever agree that Humans evolved from little organisms. None.

And there is abundant evidence for it. Would you like to see some more?

The proper question you should have asked is "Want to see some?" You see, you never gave me any evidence to start with (you never do, really...) and so you cannot use the word "more". And yes, I'd like to see this evidence. Actually, I want to see the fossils that show that a species can evolve into a new species beyond its kind (I use this because I believe micro-evolution happens within kinds, well I don't believe, its proven...). Now kind can mean a few things, but I will permit anything beyond family (meaning, show me a fossil that shows a rat turns into a squirrel, just an example of course, for clarification purposes)

There is no such thing as having a species evolve into a new species of it's kind. It is either a variation of the same species or a new species. I think you are trying to refer to a new "genus" or "family" rather than species.

All these are different species, a new species from it's ancestor. There is no such thing as "kind" when it comes to taxonomic rank, you'll have to be more specific. For example:

domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

Be more specific. Speciation happens quite regularly, we have witnessed this and tested it. technically, this is a form of Macroevolution. If you believe that speciation happens (such as the Finch example given above) you believe in macroevolution as well.

Actually, the most commonly-cited "proof" was debunked by YE creationists. I speak of the "Paluxy River Man-tracks."

Well aware of the Paluxy River find. You see how you used "commonly-cited", means you acknowledge other finds to this claim, and I apparently know of other ones too. Can't tell you the name, since I don't have the book on my person.[/quote]

Once you do, present the information, we'll be glad to debunk (unless of course it's factual)

 

[Barbarian]

I'd reply, but Evo pretty well handled it for me.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Oh look! Evo provided great illustrated evidence for micro evolution!

First of all the Paluxy River tracks were not debunked, they were not accepted by evolutionists - that’s not the same as being debunked.

Anyway, hey, here's a theoretical question.
Let's say a whole bunch of oh... I don't know...let’s say, clay dinosaur figurines were discovered. Now let's say for sake of this debate that there were thousands of them and they accurately depicted known dinosaurs.
Now let's say that some broken off chunks of the figurines were sent to a few labs for dating.
And let's also say, for arguments sake, that these labs dated these dated these chunks at oh...over 2,000 years.
OK, now for arguments sake, would that be good proof that man and dinosaurs were living concurrently?

Alright, we all know this never happened but I will explain why I am using this theoretical scenario after I get replies.

Bronzesnake

 

[Pard]

By 99.7% of biologists accept the modern evolutionary theory, it means both macro and micro evolution (because they both do the same thing).

Oh, I know this, but you see, I am referring to EVERYONE, meaning the evolution camp and the creation camp and the flying-saucer camp...

All these are different species, a new species from it's ancestor. There is no such thing as "kind" when it comes to taxonomic rank, you'll have to be more specific.

A "kind" is a Biblical reference (read Genesis chapter 1). In relation to micro-evolution most creationists acknowledge that it can happen up to and nor further than an animal's "kind". Now "kind" is an old term, it actually was used in taxonomy, but well before the current order has put in place. Today the exact def. of a "kind" is unknown, however most agree that it is nothing beyond family (though some also say nothing beyond genus). And I already said all this, maybe it wasn't as clear though...

Now kind can mean a few things, but I will permit anything beyond family (meaning, show me a fossil that shows a rat turns into a squirrel,

If that doesn't make it clear enough as to what I am asking int he way of evidence, than I will be glad to try and explain even more.

 

[Evointrinsic]

By 99.7% of biologists accept the modern evolutionary theory, it means both macro and micro evolution (because they both do the same thing).

Oh, I know this, but you see, I am referring to EVERYONE, meaning the evolution camp and the creation camp and the flying-saucer camp...

... If you accept the theory of evolution, you accept that macro and micro evolution exist. If you accept one, you accept the other. Micro and Macro evolution do the same things, they just describe different time frames and how much genetic/physical changes occurred.

All these are different species, a new species from it's ancestor. There is no such thing as "kind" when it comes to taxonomic rank, you'll have to be more specific.

A "kind" is a Biblical reference (read Genesis chapter 1). In relation to micro-evolution most creationists acknowledge that it can happen up to and nor further than an animal's "kind". Now "kind" is an old term, it actually was used in taxonomy, but well before the current order has put in place. Today the exact def. of a "kind" is unknown, however most agree that it is nothing beyond family (though some also say nothing beyond genus). And I already said all this, maybe it wasn't as clear though...

In biological referencing then, what would you like proof of when it comes to divergence of something to a something?

Now kind can mean a few things, but I will permit anything beyond family (meaning, show me a fossil that shows a rat turns into a squirrel,

If that doesn't make it clear enough as to what I am asking int he way of evidence, than I will be glad to try and explain even more.

Ah, sorry i missed that first quote somehow. Although i still would like a more definitive answer before i go accumulate the research. Just for the sake of argument though, both a squirrel and a rat are from the Rodentia Order. Neither diverged from each other. ;)


Bronzesnake: Yes Bronze, I gave illustrations of actual fossils. Why? Because it's more simple to note the differences, and they are all on their correct branches of divergence, Now I could give pictures of the exact same birds, but guess what! It would show the exact same thing... Drop the issue Bronze, if you don't understand why people use illustrations by now, you wont ever.

 

[Pard]

... If you accept the theory of evolution, you accept that macro and micro evolution exist. If you accept one, you accept the other. Micro and Macro evolution do the same things, they just describe different time frames and how much genetic/physical changes occurred.

Must disagree with you. Macro-evolution requires for a complete mutation of gnome to occur... micro evolution doesn't. Macro-evolution is a theory without any hard evidence... micro-evolution is a known thing. Ask almost any creation camper, micro-evolution is for real, macro-evolution is kinda sorta bologna...

In biological referencing then, what would you like proof of when it comes to divergence of something to a something?

I want to see proof of macro-evolution. (Not micro-evolution that is dressed up as macro...) Maybe you could show me how a reptile turned into a bird? (and I know all the dinosaur with feather games... not a single transitional fossil to prove this link at all...) Maybe an amphibian into a reptile? Oh, how about a reptile to a mammal? Heck, I'd even like to see a certain family of mammal to an entirely different family of mammal!

And I know the rat/squirrel thing, I just didn't know how to explain it.

 

[jasoncran]

we have living fossils in florida that had dinosaurs as pets.

seriously could someone present the evidence for such things?

 

[logical bob]

Macro-evolution requires for a complete mutation of gnome to occur.

Sorry if I'm being slow, but could you explain what "complete mutation of genome" means?

 

[Pard]

Macro-evolution requires for a complete mutation of gnome to occur.

Sorry if I'm being slow, but could you explain what "complete mutation of genome" means?

Mmm, to add information to the genetic sequence. There is no way a mutation can add data the the genetic sequence and this is required for a jump from one group to another (like reptile to mammal)

 

[Evointrinsic]

... If you accept the theory of evolution, you accept that macro and micro evolution exist. If you accept one, you accept the other. Micro and Macro evolution do the same things, they just describe different time frames and how much genetic/physical changes occurred.

Must disagree with you. Macro-evolution requires for a complete mutation of gnome to occur... micro evolution doesn't. Macro-evolution is a theory without any hard evidence... micro-evolution is a known thing. Ask almost any creation camper, micro-evolution is for real, macro-evolution is kinda sorta bologna...

Ah but this is where you are mistaken:

Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (some creationists still believe that mutations don't even occur). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has been observed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

This is what evolutionary biologists would define Micro and Macro evolution as. I realize that "any creation camper" would state that, unfortunately they simply do not understand the full view of the theory of evolution.

In biological referencing then, what would you like proof of when it comes to divergence of something to a something?

I want to see proof of macro-evolution. (Not micro-evolution that is dressed up as macro...) Maybe you could show me how a reptile turned into a bird? (and I know all the dinosaur with feather games... not a single transitional fossil to prove this link at all...) Maybe an amphibian into a reptile? Oh, how about a reptile to a mammal? Heck, I'd even like to see a certain family of mammal to an entirely different family of mammal!

And I know the rat/squirrel thing, I just didn't know how to explain it.[/quote]

Will do! It's going to be lengthy though ;) (also, I know what you meant by the rat/squirrel thing, Just thought I'd bring it up)

Before I do though...

we have living fossils in florida that had dinosaurs as pets.

seriously could someone present the evidence for such things?

whhhhaaat??? did someone say this earlier?


Let's do Reptiles-Birds.

In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#fig3.1.1) with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#Sereno1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#features

Source = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

 

[jasoncran]

if you all want to discuss the addition of information to the genome of said species do so in another thread.

will someone please the evidence for alleged men and dinosaur.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Technically this does apply, as the original post brings up the "issues" between macro/microevolution. Although, I would agree that we need to see the...

I'd also like to say that there are fossils of humans and dinosaurs together, however they have been "discredited" by evolutionists.

 

[jasoncran]

evo, i was refering to men with dinosaurs with that old fogie joke. pard started this i wanted to discuss the man with the dinosaur evidence.

 

[Bronzesnake]

So no one wnats to bite on my dino figurines post huh?
Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid to answer that post.

Bronzesnake

 

[Pard]

So no one wnats to bite on my dino figurines post huh?
Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid to answer that post.

Bronzesnake

I'd answer, but you want one of them to answer I imagine

 

[Evointrinsic]

Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid to answer that post.

Are you in preschool? I really hope that isn't an actual statement.

Anyway, hey, here's a theoretical question.
Let's say a whole bunch of oh... I don't know...let’s say, clay dinosaur figurines were discovered. Now let's say for sake of this debate that there were thousands of them and they accurately depicted known dinosaurs.
Now let's say that some broken off chunks of the figurines were sent to a few labs for dating.
And let's also say, for arguments sake, that these labs dated these dated these chunks at oh...over 2,000 years.
OK, now for arguments sake, would that be good proof that man and dinosaurs were living concurrently?

Alright, we all know this never happened but I will explain why I am using this theoretical scenario after I get replies.

Bronzesnake

I would say not entirely, that doesn't give hard evidence that man and dinosaurs were living together. It may possibly be on the right track, but we wouldn't be able to make a direct conclusion out of that. It would suggest that there may be a connection, however. especially if those "thousands" were all different ones that represent known dinosaurs.