Men and dinosaurs

There are several places where they have found dinosaur bones with human footprints in the soil. Here is one where we have dinosaur footprints and human footprints.

http://www.daniken.com/pics/evdcdrom/B517.JPG

Most Creationists don't accept these as true tracks anymore but there are many other (supposed) anachronistic findings and cross strata objects that make it pretty clear that there are holes in the age of earth therories mandated by Evolution.

Thanks for bringing this up as many books still have references to this and it allows Evolutionist to point fingers at those who believe in Creation and say look at the foolish things they believe.

Of course we won't mention the belief that:
a baby goes through evolution as it develops (Oh excuse me fetus)
Piltdown Man
Those moths in England that prove evolution occurs, it just shows natural selection. Faked pictures also.
May I suggest Answers in Genesis, good source for Creation views and news.

The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy [ QUOTE ]
For many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock). This Web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, guys. Creationism is not science and has no basis in fact. The earth is not 5,000 years old. The stories of Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, Jonah and the Whale are your personal religious beliefs- not facts.

The National Academy of Sciences says this about "creation science" -
[ QUOTE ]
The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.


If petroleum geologists could find more oil and gas by interpreting the record of sedimentary rocks as having resulted from a single flood, they would certainly favor the idea of such a flood, but they do not. Instead, these practical workers agree with academic geologists about the nature of depositional environments and geological time. Petroleum geologists have been pioneers in the recognition of fossil deposits that were formed over millions of years in such environments as meandering rivers, deltas, sandy barrier beaches, and coral reefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have the right to believe these old stories are literal history. But please don't pass it off as scientific fact.

ditto to that Stu. Good post.
bernhard

Erich Von Daniken (referenced in the link in the initial post) is a nut job. There's no explaining all is "theories" and far fetched ideas with logic.
But you can always visit his Disneyland-like theme park: E.T. Land


--dan

but he makes a good deal of money out of it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
and his theories are very intruiging if you switch your reason off, just like a good Fantasy / Sci-Fi movie ...
bernhard

[ QUOTE ]
StuU said:
Sorry, guys. Creationism is not science and has no basis in fact. The earth is not 5,000 years old. The stories of Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, Jonah and the Whale are your personal religious beliefs- not facts.

The National Academy of Sciences says this about "creation science" -
[ QUOTE ]
The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.


If petroleum geologists could find more oil and gas by interpreting the record of sedimentary rocks as having resulted from a single flood, they would certainly favor the idea of such a flood, but they do not. Instead, these practical workers agree with academic geologists about the nature of depositional environments and geological time. Petroleum geologists have been pioneers in the recognition of fossil deposits that were formed over millions of years in such environments as meandering rivers, deltas, sandy barrier beaches, and coral reefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have the right to believe these old stories are literal history. But please don't pass it off as scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

we'll do our best to not pass our opinion as fact, if you try not to pass off your opinion as fact /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

people are always angry when someone supports creation as fact, but they have no problems with portraying evolution as fact (which dispite what some might think, it certainly is not).

I wish I could see a carno dino...what an adrenlin pump....is thing gonna eat me, or will this .460 Weathery stop him.

Oh boy, here we go again. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif I could be wrong but I don't think the previous thread changed anyone's mind. The bottom line is that humans aren't smart enough to know one way or the other so it won't be settled here.

Why don't we just agree that there are currently a hundred or so Gods being worshipped on the plant now and if you happen to believe in one of them that it's a given that you believe everyone else is wrong and is going to hell or wherever.

[ QUOTE ]
they have no problems with portraying evolution as fact (which dispite what some might think, it certainly is not).

[/ QUOTE ] Evolution is not a fact. It is a working hypothesis. One of the nice things about science is that all theories are subject to change when new data comes in. That is one of the main things making science science and creationism religion.

Comedian Bill Hicks (rest his soul) once pointed out that the Bible makes no reference to dinosaurs...kinda funny if it's supposed to be an accurate recording of early human history.

Can anyone help me out here?

How does a person who interprets the Bible literally explain this? And keep it relatively short, like my attention span. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
metalhed said:
Comedian Bill Hicks (rest his soul) once pointed out that the Bible makes no reference to dinosaurs...kinda funny if it's supposed to be an accurate recording of early human history.


[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget Adam and Eve had to fill up a whole planet, they were probably too busy begatting to mention the dinosaurs.

There *was* an older testament but it was destroyed by the high amonia content in some teradactile (sp) poop that landed on it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif I might like to propose that dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the bible because they weren't around during the time that man wrote the bible. God didn't bother to tell Adam and Eve about the dinos because they were a failed experiment of his and he wanted Adam and Eve to feel special. He also failed to mention that the Garden of Eden actually had a previous owner; another apple eater of all things! Yup, the dinos had free will too and look what it got them!

Metalhead, I hope that was short enough for you! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Man, I hope the surge suppressor works against lightening! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Well, I said I'd *like* to propose this but I won't since I have no idea what happened last week let alone that long time ago!

McGizmo...the real proof that man was not around when dinosaurs were is there is NO dinosaur porn.

Nuff said.

[ QUOTE ]
Rothrandir said:
people are always angry when someone supports creation as fact, but they have no problems with portraying evolution as fact (which dispite what some might think, it certainly is not).

[/ QUOTE ]

rothrandir-

The old bible stories of the Great Flood may have some basis in local events during bible times. However, you have to remember that people of that time believed the world was flat and did not know about the existence of places such as the Americas or Antarctica or Australia. They only knew what was happening in their own local area which seemed to them like the whole of creation.

I have worked for many years throughout the American West as on on-site petroleum geologist. This included over 50 deep oil/gas wells in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, South Dakota, Utah, Nevada, and the North Slope of Alaska. I have probably drilled through and inspected over 300,000 vertical feet(60 vertical miles) of rock layers in many different energy producing areas. And in non-energy producing areas.

The interesting part of this job was learning about the different rock layers and evidence of different environments when trying to navigate down-ward with the drill. I have been as deep as 25,000 feet below the surface and found everything from deep ocean deposits to salt deposits to surface stream deposits at these extreme depths. There is no evidence that the oil deposits and their trapping layers were deposited in one "Great Flood" or other single massive geologic event.

Maybe we should let science do it's job and tell us about our physical universe- which it does well. And religion can do it's job of telling us about the meaning of life and how we can live together with other humans in a more reasonable manner

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
StuU said:

Maybe we should let science do it's job and tell us about our physical universe- which it does

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear hear! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
StuU said:
And religion can do it's job of telling us about the meaning of life and how we can live together with other humans in a more reasonable manner

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be nice... but religion divides as often as it unites, and many atrocities are committed by those who profess to be the faithful, and not just by Muslims. Just go to Ireland... not only do they have the usual killings and bombings, they have allegedly Christian people hurling abuse at little girls... because they were Catholics walking through a Protestant neighborhood. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Rothrandir said:
people are always angry when someone supports creation as fact, but they have no problems with portraying evolution as fact (which dispite what some might think, it certainly is not).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Roth evolution IS fact. (Small e) There is convincing proof that animals do evolve over time. Evolution with a capital E is still a scientific Theory. Proving that species evolve into other species is much more difficult. I honestly don't know people make such a fuss about this. When I went through confirmation we discussed it with our Pastor. He read/spoke many languages & had read the bible in some of the earlier Hebrew/Greek copies. He said it originally said "period of time" instead of day. If the periods of time are millions of years both evolution and creation can be right. Why does it have to be one or the other? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

microevolution i believe in, (change within species)
macroevolution i don't, (change from one species to another)

generally the term "evolution" is thought of as macroevolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Rothrandir said:
microevolution i believe in, (change within species)
macroevolution i don't, (change from one species to another)

generally the term "evolution" is thought of as macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation has been observed many times.

The problem with trying to specify "micro" versus "macro" evolution is that there is no difference at the genetic level. Genes mutate, organisms evolve... there's no mechanism (other than natural selection) conserving the genes comprising a species.

Genetics is fairly well understood at this point... it's not a mystery what makes us different from chimpanzees - it's just a few genes.

Really? When's the last time you saw a few chimpanzees get together and fly a space probe to Saturn?