[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[Ashua]

Oh dear, so someone writing in a particular field of knowledge actually asks someone else who is professionally skilled in that field to review their work before publication is 'circle jerking'? Tell me, does the process of peer review mean nothing to you? Do you think it is a waste of time? And would you rather than your anthropology classes were taught by the groundsman at your college?

Who said anything about peer review meaning nothing? I never said those books shouldnt be reviewed.

Do they really need to integrate their personal gratitude within the middle of a paragraph throughout a chapter? They could just as easily have it in a "special thanks" page.
How would you feel if you were watching a movie and every time the need for "special thanks" arrives, they put a sub title scroll expressing gratitude as opposed to putting those names in the credits? Not a perfect analogy but the point is made.

Does it make them feel that good about themselves when they see their name in ink on some textbook in which most students probably train their eyes to bypass in the same way that they skip over the life time range of people mentioned in the text? John Doe (1874-1948). Oh, how silly of me. They don't care if the students read their names so much as their colleagues do.

I'll answer the rest of this later. Good night.

 

[lordkalvan]

Archaeologists actually dismiss finds that are out of the "proper" sequence. My textbook teaches that they require a standard of frequency to establish where say, a clovis point belongs. If a folsom point is found in the clovis level, they will dismiss it as the result of floralturbation, or cryoturbation, faunalturbation, graviturbation, tampering, mistake, or some other reason.

So is your argument that archaeologists are wrong to do this and that they have no sound reasons for doing so? Do they always dismiss such intrusions regardless of circumstance?

I do not outright reject the law of superposition or seriation. I reject the notion of forming index fossils/artifacts as a method of dating rock, while dating the objects found within the rock, by the rock.

Except that is not what is done. Index fossils are used to date strata based on the fact that such strata have been previously dated by other means. Index fossils can then be used to date other fossils and to identify the date of similar strata that does not contain any fossils at all. Regardless of this, however, the fact that strata can be independently dated using other methodologies (RM dating, magnetostratigraphy, for example) and that these dates support calculations based on other methodologies adds confidence to the use of index fossils.

Seriation is a great deductive tool; hence the "index" is useful and usually accurate in terms of relative dating. While I do not believe they should be trigger happy when it comes to dismissing things that are rare finds in places where they "ought not be", these aren't a "major" problem.

The 'index' also appears to be useful for absolute dating as well.

 

[lordkalvan]

Who said anything about peer review meaning nothing? I never said those books shouldnt be reviewed.

Then what's your point about acknowledging that a colleague has reviewed an article before publication? Peer review is not restricted to books alone.

Do they really need to integrate their personal gratitude within the middle of a paragraph throughout a chapter? They could just as easily have it in a "special thanks" page.

So you don't like the way in which the acknowledgment is done. How does this in any way detract from the worth of the article(s) in question?

How would you feel if you were watching a movie and every time the need for "special thanks" arrives, they put a sub title scroll expressing gratitude as opposed to putting those names in the credits? Not a perfect analogy but the point is made.

As you point out, the analogy is not a good one. The medium is different, the message is different and the intent of the acknowledgment is different.

Does it make them feel that good about themselves when they see their name in ink on some textbook in which most students probably train their eyes to bypass in the same way that they skip over the life time range of people mentioned in the text? John Doe (1874-1948). Oh, how silly of me. They don't care if the students read their names so much as their colleagues do.

You seem to have a great deal of bitterness towards the academic community. If someone has reviewed an article prior to publication, courtesy and professional standards suggest that this should be acknowledged; that you don't like how this is done says more about your personal preferences and prejudices than whether it should be done or not. I would expect serious students to understand this, just as they may be expected to glean relevant secondary information about an individual from the dates when s/he was active in whatever field is being discussed.

 

[Ashua]

Then what's your point about acknowledging that a colleague has reviewed an article before publication? Peer review is not restricted to books alone.

I know this. My point is they do not need to integrate their acknowledgment in the middle of the paragraphs. Even something like this (Dr john doe, ph.d) would have been passable. But to make an entire sentence or two out of it? No thanks.

So you don't like the way in which the acknowledgment is done. How does this in any way detract from the worth of the article(s) in question?

None of my other classes do this. Only the anthropological ones. My geology class did not do this. My anatomy class did not do this. My math classes did not do this. Are those disciplines any less scientific? I would argue they are even more scientific.

As you point out, the analogy is not a good one. The medium is different, the message is different and the intent of the acknowledgment is different.

And still the point is made.

You seem to have a great deal of bitterness towards the academic community. If someone has reviewed an article prior to publication, courtesy and professional standards suggest that this should be acknowledged; that you don't like how this is done says more about your personal preferences and prejudices than whether it should be done or not. I would expect serious students to understand this, just as they may be expected to glean relevant secondary information about an individual from the dates when s/he was active in whatever field is being discussed.

I seem to have a great deal of bitterness towards the ego of the academic community.I do not like it because it puts people above the message. As I said, there is an appropriate place for the acknowledgment of people who assisted in the book. In most books, it is called an "acknowledgment page." You really have been inferring much in the past couple posts. The article which inspired this was pretty common sense. I had no problems with this article whatsoever. I just don't like when an author derails the instruction to ego stroke his/her colleague. I understand this is how academia works and I understand the check and balance NECESSITY of peer reviewing all mediums of publication. What I do not understand is why they have to elevate NAMES. Humility is better than ego. Back to the movie analogy... In the credits you notice how the directors name is like this? and sits there for a few moments before dissolving and the rest of the names are normal sized and scroll by at a healthy pace? I don't like that either. At least it doesn't add to the burden of homework assignment. (The "medium" which you knit picked on the movie analogy is that of enjoyment. The demographic of the textbook isn't reading for enjoyment. It is already hassle enough without "brought to you by" sponsored name interruptions.

By the way, this article was probably 8 paragraphs long. Not even an half a page of the book. It didn't say an whole lot and it wasn't on a terribly scientific concept. (It was descriptive examples of the differences in various cultures within the context of cultural anthropology)

 

[Ashua]

So is your argument that archaeologists are wrong to do this and that they have no sound reasons for doing so? Do they always dismiss such intrusions regardless of circumstance?

No that is not my argument. I said that in the majority of cases they are right with their relative sequencing, but I am not as "extremist" as many of them are in that I do not outright reject a folsom point in a clovis level on the SOLE BASIS that it "shouldnt be there."

Except that is not what is done. Index fossils are used to date strata based on the fact that such strata have been previously dated by other means. Index fossils can then be used to date other fossils and to identify the date of similar strata that does not contain any fossils at all. Regardless of this, however, the fact that strata can be independently dated using other methodologies (RM dating, magnetostratigraphy, for example) and that these dates support calculations based on other methodologies adds confidence to the use of index fossils.

I understand this, but they were doing this long before RM dating was ever developed and I have my issues with K-AR and C-14. You brought up another method which I already told you I don't know anything about. You'll probably knit pick on this in your next post, but whatever. This is becoming too redundant.

The 'index' also appears to be useful for absolute dating as well.

Sure does as long as the absolute dating of the index is accurate.

 

[lordkalvan]

I know this. My point is they do not need to integrate their acknowledgment in the middle of the paragraphs....

I have snipped the remainder of your post, not because I think it is worthless or poorly argued, but because we seem to have developed a storm in a teacup that has little relevance to the subject matter as such. I suggest we drop the topic, leave our differences unresolved and stop boring folk ;-).

 

[Ashua]

I have snipped the remainder of your post, not because I think it is worthless or poorly argued, but because we seem to have developed a storm in a teacup that has little relevance to the subject matter as such. I suggest we drop the topic, leave our differences unresolved and stop boring folk ;-).

Deal.

 

[jasoncran]

Deal.

i wasnt bored at all, lost at little in the terminology but not bored.

carryon.

 

[Deavonreye]

You mean I can wake up now??

Sorry, I've been watching extremely bad SYFY movies all day. The Psuedoscience I've been exposed to, today, has been extreemly mind numbing.

 

[lordkalvan]

No that is not my argument. I said that in the majority of cases they are right with their relative sequencing, but I am not as "extremist" as many of them are in that I do not outright reject a folsom point in a clovis level on the SOLE BASIS that it "shouldnt be there."

I doubt your suggestion that this happens enough times to make it significant and that many archaeologists reject excavated anachronisms solely on the basis of the fact that they 'shouldn't be there'.

I understand this, but they were doing this long before RM dating was ever developed....

And they still dated strata not solely by index fossils.

....and I have my issues with K-AR and C-14.

None of which you have elaborated in any detail as to suggest why, however; you have simply poisoned the well with unsupported comments.

You brought up another method which I already told you I don't know anything about. You'll probably knit pick on this in your next post, but whatever. This is becoming too redundant.

I simply point out that we have a number of independent consilient methodologies for establishing various chronologies into the past history of Earth. None of these methodologies has been convincingly refuted.

Sure does as long as the absolute dating of the index is accurate.

And it appears to be accurate to within a range of relatively small error bars.

 

[AKJVReader]

So you know i take Genesis literally, i have found these excellent resources for you to look at about dinosaurs, they are produced by Creation Scientists, i think that they make sense:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/dinosaurs

http://www.forbidden-history.com/index.html

 

[warhorse]

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)

Well frankly there were many dinosours that died in the flood but the men that lived before the flood are listed by name in Genisis so you are looking at less then a few hundred peaple to begin with.

 

[Deavonreye]

Umm. . . . when did they die? In other words, about what time on the time line?

 

[AKJVReader]

I found some quality information:

So why did God make these dinosaurs with such big teeth and such big horns? Well, as one guy points out, maybe they were God’s original big giant lawn mowing machines. “Dinosaurs were not the only animals that grew very large. The fossils show there once were giant kangaroos, giant deer, giant birds, giant dragonflies, giant bears and bison. There were even giant beavers (eight feet long)! Even many plants grew much larger in ancient times. All animals, including the first dinosaurs, were created to benefit mankind in one way or another. God’s exact purpose for the various dinosaurs is still a mystery. Perhaps the larger dinosaurs kept certain types of lush plant life under control and cleared paths through the forest. Using their long necks, some dinosaurs could have eaten foliage at the tops of tall trees. In a thick forest, this would let light come down to the ground so smaller plants would have a chance to grow.”

The second way we know man and dinosaurs coexisted in a peaceful environment is because in the beginning Dinosaurs Weren’t All Big. Another misconception about dinosaurs is not only that they were mean ferocious meat-eaters chasing everything around, but they every single one of them was massively giant just waiting to squish you on the ground. The facts are: “Of course, some dinosaurs were very large, weighing in at an estimated 80 tons and standing 40 feet high! But the average size of a dinosaur, however, was probably about that of a small horse or even a sheep. In fact, some were as small as chickens, and others were even smaller. The Saltopus was really tiny – no bigger than a housecat. Most of the dinosaurs killed by the Flood were less than fifteen inches long, not including their tails, which made them more than twice as long. In museums, most people never see the small dinosaurs because the jumbo-sized ones are so much more impressive.”

The third way we know man and dinosaurs coexisted in a peaceful environment is because in the beginning Dinosaurs Weren’t the Rulers. Speaking of not being a threat issue, the Bible also says that when it came to the animals, which included dinosaurs, the man is the one who had dominion over them, not the other way around.
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
As one man points out:
“All of the animals were friendly and under man’s control. None of the animals ate meat or killed. God provided the plants and seeds with all the vitamins people and animals needed. There was no sin, no death or evil or disease. In the original Creation dinosaurs were certainly not vicious or troublesome. When God finished making the animals He said they were all “very good.” Originally, dinosaurs must have been harmless – designed to delight man and benefit the world, just like all the other animals.” Hmmm. Just like all the other animals, huh? Gee, I wonder if Adam and Even had some for pets? It certainly makes you wonder just what kind of reptiles James was talking about when he mentioned various animals that man had tamed.
James 3:7 “All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man.”

The fourth way we know man and dinosaurs coexisted in a peaceful environment is because in the beginning Dinosaurs Weren’t Brainy. You see, the facts are, many of the dinosaurs may have come with big giant bodies, but many of them didn’t come with big giant brains. And thus, they wouldn’t have been the sharpest knife in the drawer, let alone much of a quick thinker that man had to be overly concerned about, as this article shares:
“Most dinosaurs had small brains in comparison to the size of their bodies. The 29-foot long Stegosaurus had a brain the size of a walnut. Even the great Apatosaurus’s brain was not much larger than a kitten’s. If a huge Brachiosaurus could be shrunk to the size of a human, its brain would be 10,000 times smaller than Man’s. This does not necessarily mean these animals were stupid as animals go, but they were surely no match for Man’s brain.”
How many of you have ever been scared that one day a cow is going to chase you down and eat you? Yeah, the thought just doesn’t ever enter your mind, does it? Well gee, guess what? It probably did run through Adam and Eve’s minds either when they really did one day coexist with dinosaurs.
In conclusion:
“Before the Flood, there is no indication in the Bible that any of the animals ate meat or were violent and vicious. It is people that God says were so terrible and violent. By the time of the Flood, most animals must still have been able to live on plant foods alone. Every basic kind of land animal and bird in the world was on the Ark. They ate only plants during the voyage.
For God told Noah to load the ship with every kind of food the animals would need (Genesis 6:21). These foods must have been the same things God assigned to the animals in the beginning – “every green plant.”

Read more:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=513101228280

 

[Deavonreye]

Really? On both threads? :

 

[AKJVReader]

This is great information:

Fact: There are about 10000 professional scientists in the US who are Christian and Creation Scientists. There is a big move in Science towards intelligent design.

I recommend these PDF resources about dinosaurs to you:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=dinosaur&currsection=sermonstopic&mediatype=PDF

Here is a sample:

GOD CREATED ANIMALS THAT FILLED THE EARTH
Dinos that range in size from the size of a chicken to 160,000 pound, 80 ton Brachiosaurus, are in 5 groups:
HORNED Triceratops and Stegosaurus
DUCKBILLED Anatosaurus 18 feet high with 2,000 teeth!
MEATEATERS Tyrannosaurus Rex 20 feet high and 50 feet long.
SMALL Strut hiomimus [ostrich mimic] ate eggs small reptiles.
BIG PLANT EATERS Diplodocus [double beamed] 100 feet long; Brontosaurus Apatosaurus 80 feet long, 40 tons; Brachiosaurus [biggest] 50 feet high, 80 feet long, 80 tons, nostrils atop dome of head!

THE GREAT DINOSAUR MYSTERY
Evolution has a problem called The Great Dinosaur Mystery. Where did the great dinosaurs come from;
How did they grow so big; and, if it is "survival of the fittest", why did these powerful creatures become extinct?
A creationist would answer, "no problem". God created the giant reptiles and may have referred to one or two of them which existed in Job's day (see Job 40:15 - 41:34). Reptiles do not have a built-in growth inhibiting factor like other animals and man. The dinosaurs would have continued growing as long as they lived. The older they got, the bigger they grew. Reptiles function best, as cold-blooded animals, in warm temperature climates. God created large reptiles which kept growing in an efficient high pressure atmosphere with plenty of warmth and unlimited supplies of lush vegetation to eat and nothing to eat them. The Bible says, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is fife, I have given every green herb for meat..... (Genesis 1:30)
A creationist might say that a stable body temperature in a giant cold-blooded reptile is consistent with the creationist view that the earth's temperature was uniformly warm in the tropical pre-Flood heaven and earth system number one. Creationists would expect to find "...remarkable consistency of the oxygen isotopes in the dinosaur's bones...... Apparently these evolutionistic researchers would rather pretend that cold-blooded reptiles were actually warmblooded than to consider the pre-Flood pole-to-pole greenhouse wann condition of earth (6,000 years ago, not 70 million years ago) as presented by the creationist model.
The giant flying reptiles such as the pterosaurs (pterodactyls and pteranodons) would be unable to fly in our present atmosphere. They needed a heavier atmosphere to get enough air to lift them with their 40 to 50-foot wingspans. The Heaven and earth system would have provided the heavier atmospheric pressure necessary for the flight of these huge creatures. Evolutionists say we don't know how these giant reptiles could have flown in our atmosphere. To a creationist, this is not a problem. Heaven and earth systems before the water canopy came down at the flood of Noah's day would have provided the air density needed for these huge creatures to fly. In order to protect their jobs the evolutionists dare not even suggest the global flood of Noah's day as part of the solution to their problems, and yet the Flood supplies the explanation for what we "see".
We even read in our older history books about ancient cultures which taught a global flood. Gigantism was common in the heavy pre-flood atmosphere. Fossil dragonflies with a 32-inch wingspan have been discovered and would be a frightful bug to hit your windshield! The homless rhinoceros grew to about "...seventeen feet high and nearly 30 feet long!"
Dinosaurs lived alongside people as Job testifies as well as “caveman” drawings. And God created them all!

Blessings

 

[jasoncran]

This is great information:

Fact: There are about 10000 professional scientists in the US who are Christian and Creation Scientists. There is a big move in Science towards intelligent design.

I recommend these PDF resources about dinosaurs to you:
SermonAudio.com - Sermons on dinosaur

Here is a sample:

GOD CREATED ANIMALS THAT FILLED THE EARTH
Dinos that range in size from the size of a chicken to 160,000 pound, 80 ton Brachiosaurus, are in 5 groups:
HORNED Triceratops and Stegosaurus
DUCKBILLED Anatosaurus 18 feet high with 2,000 teeth!
MEATEATERS Tyrannosaurus Rex 20 feet high and 50 feet long.
SMALL Strut hiomimus [ostrich mimic] ate eggs small reptiles.
BIG PLANT EATERS Diplodocus [double beamed] 100 feet long; Brontosaurus Apatosaurus 80 feet long, 40 tons; Brachiosaurus [biggest] 50 feet high, 80 feet long, 80 tons, nostrils atop dome of head!

THE GREAT DINOSAUR MYSTERY
Evolution has a problem called The Great Dinosaur Mystery. Where did the great dinosaurs come from;
How did they grow so big; and, if it is "survival of the fittest", why did these powerful creatures become extinct?
A creationist would answer, "no problem". God created the giant reptiles and may have referred to one or two of them which existed in Job's day (see Job 40:15 - 41:34). Reptiles do not have a built-in growth inhibiting factor like other animals and man. The dinosaurs would have continued growing as long as they lived. The older they got, the bigger they grew. Reptiles function best, as cold-blooded animals, in warm temperature climates. God created large reptiles which kept growing in an efficient high pressure atmosphere with plenty of warmth and unlimited supplies of lush vegetation to eat and nothing to eat them. The Bible says, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is fife, I have given every green herb for meat..... (Genesis 1:30)
A creationist might say that a stable body temperature in a giant cold-blooded reptile is consistent with the creationist view that the earth's temperature was uniformly warm in the tropical pre-Flood heaven and earth system number one. Creationists would expect to find "...remarkable consistency of the oxygen isotopes in the dinosaur's bones...... Apparently these evolutionistic researchers would rather pretend that cold-blooded reptiles were actually warmblooded than to consider the pre-Flood pole-to-pole greenhouse wann condition of earth (6,000 years ago, not 70 million years ago) as presented by the creationist model.
The giant flying reptiles such as the pterosaurs (pterodactyls and pteranodons) would be unable to fly in our present atmosphere. They needed a heavier atmosphere to get enough air to lift them with their 40 to 50-foot wingspans. The Heaven and earth system would have provided the heavier atmospheric pressure necessary for the flight of these huge creatures. Evolutionists say we don't know how these giant reptiles could have flown in our atmosphere. To a creationist, this is not a problem. Heaven and earth systems before the water canopy came down at the flood of Noah's day would have provided the air density needed for these huge creatures to fly. In order to protect their jobs the evolutionists dare not even suggest the global flood of Noah's day as part of the solution to their problems, and yet the Flood supplies the explanation for what we "see".
We even read in our older history books about ancient cultures which taught a global flood. Gigantism was common in the heavy pre-flood atmosphere. Fossil dragonflies with a 32-inch wingspan have been discovered and would be a frightful bug to hit your windshield! The homless rhinoceros grew to about "...seventeen feet high and nearly 30 feet long!"
Dinosaurs lived alongside people as Job testifies as well as “caveman†drawings. And God created them all!

Blessings

while i am a creationist. let me correct you on what surivival of the fittest is. natural selection "chooses" what genes survives and is carried on. the nature of ns is the enviroment, predatory animals.food(yes if food adapts and you cant catch them you starve and die out).

ok cold blooded animals such as frogs and turtles and others have to bask to maintain the heat. so that dinosaur thing is off

btw if you are copy and pasting please post the link per the tos.

 

[AKJVReader]

ok cold blooded animals such as frogs and turtles and others have to bask to maintain the heat. so that dinosaur thing is off

You haven't made a point here. The reptiles grew because of the heat in the environment. The environment was right for them. I did provide a link so please be careful what you type.

 

[jasoncran]

You haven't made a point here. The reptiles grew because of the heat in the environment. The environment was right for them. I did provide a link so please be careful what you type.

ah i didnt see that, ignore. when i first read that i didnt see that in blue.

but in my quote its there, oops

ok well that cant be verified as well the reptiles that werent on the flood die out and they were quite large. could some species grow to that size? maybe but then again . and if the air mass was heavier then man most be able to adopt and lost that as the atmospheric pressure of the earth is current 14.7psi at sea level go to much heavier and traveling up to higher elevations quickly and the bends may occur.

how heavy is the atmosphere in pressure compartively, do remember that your 'theory" as just as much as a "theory' as the opposing side as neither side can test what the atmosphere was like when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. we can know some of it by what is found in fossils and or rocks etc, but density?

correct me on that.

i'm seing flaws in that theory of yours that your promoting not that i dont buy man vs dinosaur but like all man-made speculations all have holes.