YEC and dinosaurs

[bhukkadakota]

I was wondering where the dinosaurs fit in in YEC. Iv read someone called Ken Ham(not sure of name) who is a YEC say that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs aswell. Is there any evidence in ancient sources that say dinosaurs lived in their time? if not then what day were the dinosaurs made on?

thanks

[kofh2u]

I was wondering where the dinosaurs fit in in YEC. Iv read someone called Ken Ham(not sure of name) who is a YEC say that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs aswell. Is there any evidence in ancient sources that say dinosaurs lived in their time? if not then what day were the dinosaurs made on?

thanks


I don't know how the YEC answer you, but the OEC like myself would "take the 5th" on this one:

Gen. 1:21 And God (The Universal Force) created great whales (and dinosaurs), and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God (The Universal Force) saw that it was good.

Gen. 1:22 And God (The Universal Force) blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen. 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth yom (of Mesozoic Era). (5)

[Socratism]

I was wondering where the dinosaurs fit in in YEC. Iv read someone called Ken Ham(not sure of name) who is a YEC say that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs aswell. Is there any evidence in ancient sources that say dinosaurs lived in their time? if not then what day were the dinosaurs made on?

thanks

I will assume you are sincere and not just playing games.

The usual "evidence" for dinosaurs from ancient sources is of four kinds (no pun):

[1] the accounts in scripture, especially Job chapter 40-41 (one might also include the passages regarding the "unicorn", which seems to have been a huge, fierce beast, if one ignores the mythological distortions and drawings which appear to have originated in the Middle Ages),

[2] other accounts written down by eyewitnesses,

[3] legends passed down orally,

[4] ancient art such as pottery, inscriptions, etc.

It is also possible that the "dragons" of legend were actually what is now called dinosaurs (ever since their bones were discovered in the 1800's).

There are three basic types of dinosaurs, assuming the classification system used in scripture applies: land, sea and air creatures. They would necessarily have been created in the days specified in Genesis for these "kinds". (incidentally the Hebrew word translated as "whale" simply means sea creature).

Most YECers who believe in a literal flood of Noah assume that at least some dinosaurs were preserved on the Ark, probably in the form of eggs or young animals. Most dinosaurs types were relatively small. As a general rule they were also probably slow growing.

[TheOneAndOnly]

[1] the accounts in scripture, especially Job chapter 40-41 (one might also include the passages regarding the "unicorn", which seems to have been a huge, fierce beast, if one ignores the mythological distortions and drawings which appear to have originated in the Middle Ages),

[2] other accounts written down by eyewitnesses,

[3] legends passed down orally,

[4] ancient art such as pottery, inscriptions, etc.

None of these are good evidence at all. Hearsay, legends, ambiguous verses from ancient manuscripts and imaginative art don't really count, surely?

[bhukkadakota]

thanks for the replies, i was genuinely curious.

Its believed that when dinosaurs lived, that they dominated the world. I was wondering what evidence suggests this, because if they lived with humans, shouldnt the humans have dominated the world? (if this question sounds stupid then sorry, i dont know much about this subject).

There very well might be a connection to dragons and dinosaurs, but the dragon is a mythical creature, wernt they just basically made up like centaurs, minotaurs, that flying horse (forget name) etc?

Thanks

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I have read various commentators say that the book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible. I would read what the Bible says about behemoth in the book of Job as far as it being a possible dinosaur.

Secondly, please read this webpage as far the Bible/unicorn issue:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4244cen_m1992.asp

Sincerely,

Ken

[kofh2u]

I read a rebuttal conce ning tge Ark, that is all known species of dinosaurs were computed as regards size and weight, the bouncy and the shape according to the Ark dimendions would require the miracle of a downsizing. Then, aftereards, to account for the bones found, apparently another resizing upwards.

Does any YEC know about this agument? Is that a YEC position?

Myself, I go with the common sense, that mentally, the Ark does make sense:

Gen. 6:14 Make (in the process of evolution) thee (children), as if an ark of gopher wood, (a Brain in them that thinks sanely and reflects my Reality); rooms, (of three levels of thinking, Unconscious, Subconscious, and Conscious) shalt thou make in the ark (of this Brain), and shalt pitch it within and without, (covered by the skull, with the pitch of twenty-two bones, one for each letter of my Holy Alphabet).

[Socratism]

TO: ALL

I have read various commentators say that the book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible. I would read what the Bible says about behemoth in the book of Job as far as it being a possible dinosaur.

Secondly, please read this webpage as far the Bible/unicorn issue:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4244cen_m1992.asp

Sincerely,

Ken

Dear Ken,

The answersingenesis article was interesting, but seems to have ignored some of the more important passages, those that compare the power of God to that of the unicorn. It was these verses that first caused me to hypothesize that a large dinosaur was probably intended, perhaps even a T-Rex.

[rogero]

Dear Ken,

The answersingenesis article was interesting, but seems to have ignored some of the more important passages, those that compare the power of God to that of the unicorn. It was these verses that first caused me to hypothesize that a large dinosaur was probably intended, perhaps even a T-Rex.


Dear Filibusterism,

Why aren't dinosaur fossils found in the higher (most recent) strata? Do you even understand your YEC "scientists" interpretation of the stratigraphic record? Certainly you couldn't be promulgating a "just-so story"? ---- no?!

God's Peace,

Roger

[WebToaster]

Secondly, please read this webpage as far the Bible/unicorn issue:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4244cen_m1992.asp
I agree that the above web page is illustrative.

(Please understand that I don't agree with the Christian religion, and Christian authors while totally misguided, may, in fact, stumble randomly upon some truths, which is why I posted the above site quotation. I recognize that some Christians had some impact on astrologinomy 500 years or so ago, so that we can not discard this person's beliefs before-hand, yet, they are still a Christian, and therefore, I give you this disclaimer. Thank you and may God bless)

[kendemyer]

TO: kofh2u

Perhaps they were baby dinosaurs on the ark. Another explanation is that subsequent the fall of man in the garden of eden the planet became less hospitable and the dinosaurs eventually died out and it happened before the Biblical flood.


TO: ALL

Behemoth in Job is said to have a tail like a cedar. Given the descriptiuon in the Bible, I think it is a dinosaur for several reasons.

I cite the following regarding behemoth (contains various views):

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v15n2_behemoth.asp

http://childrensermons.com/sermons/dino.htm

http://www.bibleinsong.com/Song_Pages/Job/Job40/Job40.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8612b.htm


If you do some research you will find out there is an excellent chance the Leviathon was a dinosaur/sea creature and not a crocodile like some suppose.

I cite the following verses:

Job 41:31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

Psa 104:26 There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein.

It seems to me a wake in the sea is being described which would point to some extinct or nearly extinct sea monster.

But even if the animal is a crocodile it would be a case of the Bible being way ahead of its time.

I cite the following webpage which I thought was interesting:

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCrocodile28.htm

TO: Webtoaster

I can see by your parenthetical comment that you still bear some resentment. I thought your apology in the locker room would end your crusade (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28310) You wrote: "sorry if I went overboard" in the string. I guess I would ask now if in fact you did go overboard since I noticed you used the word "if". Frankly, I was hoping your crusade would have long ended since there was nothing to crusade about. By the way, here is a great webpage regarding Christianity and the birth of science: http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

Sincerely,

Ken

[Maimonides]

TO: kofh2u

Perhaps they were baby dinosaurs on the ark. Another explanation is that subsequent the fall of man in the garden of eden the planet became less hospitable and the dinosaurs eventually died out and it happened before the Biblical flood.


TO: ALL

Behemoth in Job is said to have a tail like a cedar. Given the descriptiuon in the Bible, I think it is a dinosaur for several reasons.

I cite the following regarding behemoth (contains various views):

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v15n2_behemoth.asp

http://childrensermons.com/sermons/dino.htm

http://www.bibleinsong.com/Song_Pages/Job/Job40/Job40.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r8612b.htm


If you do some research you will find out there is an excellent chance the Leviathon was a dinosaur/sea creature and not a crocodile like some suppose.

I cite the following verses:

Job 41:31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

Psa 104:26 There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein.

It seems to me a wake in the sea is being described which would point to some extinct or nearly extinct sea monster.

But even if the animal is a crocodile it would be a case of the Bible being way ahead of its time.

I cite the following webpage which I thought was interesting:

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCrocodile28.htm

TO: Webtoaster

I can see by your parenthetical comment that you still bear some resentment. I thought your apology in the locker room would end your crusade (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28310) You wrote: "sorry if I went overboard" in the string. I guess I would ask now if in fact you did go overboard since I noticed you used the word "if". Frankly, I was hoping your crusade would have long ended since there was nothing to crusade about. By the way, here is a great webpage regarding Christianity and the birth of science: http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

Sincerely,

Ken
All right, let's give this one a whirl: How about radiometric dating: the dinosaurs were gone sixty-five million years ago (give or take), except for a few that became birds? That's the thing the YECs haven't been able to explain to my satisfaction (though it's not for lack of trying). Many dinosaurs (including velociraptor), have been found with feathers. Furthermore, there is that whole TIME thing!
Did dinosaurs survive into more modern times? It's not entirely inconceivable. Stories abound from Central Africa of the mokele-mbembe, possibly an apatosaurus. Understand that this is unsubtantiated, of course: we need scientific evidence, not legends.
Stories from around the world tell of Nessie (Loch Ness)-like creatures in the British Isles, Canada, and even one from Angel Falls, Peru. Again, no scientific corroboration as yet.
How about the accounts of Herodotus, a fifth-century BCE Greek traveler? He writes of creatures living in Arabia Felix that sound (to me) suspiciously like Pterosaurs.
As to Leviathan... who knows? Maybe the basis for the legend was a crocodile, maybe something far more primeval. Either way, all we have is a legend borrowed from Canaanite mythology (where Ba'al has to kill Rahab, another name for Leviathan, a sea-monster that emerges from Yamm, the "primeval sea" also seen in Genesis 1). We most definitely do NOT have scientific corroboration!
Lecture over. Any thoughts?

[shunyadragon]

TO: kofh2u

Perhaps they were baby dinosaurs on the ark. Another explanation is that subsequent the fall of man in the garden of eden the planet became less hospitable and the dinosaurs eventually died out and it happened before the Biblical flood.


TO: ALL

Behemoth in Job is said to have a tail like a cedar. Given the descriptiuon in the Bible, I think it is a dinosaur for several reasons.


If you do some research you will find out there is an excellent chance the Leviathon was a dinosaur/sea creature and not a crocodile like some suppose.


It seems to me a wake in the sea is being described which would point to some extinct or nearly extinct sea monster.

But even if the animal is a crocodile it would be a case of the Bible being way ahead of its time.

The recording of the existence of the crocadile, possibly the whale or the great White Shark, which was far more common then, would not be considered way ahead of its time. Other ancient cultures recorded such creatures like China as early as 3 to 4 thousand BC or earlier.

These would be fearsome creatures indeed and the huge splash of the tail of a whale surfacing and diving would be impressive enough to be the source of such stories.

The vaste problem of the world flood would have accounting for the dinosaurs would be the vaste variety of beasts that have occured in the fossil record over time. Trying to keep even young velocorapters and rexs in the Arc would be likely beyond their ability.

I will not even need to use radiometric dating for my argument.

There are two other problems, which I consider the biggest and most formidable barriers to flood genesis. The first is that all the fossils of all animals and plants occur in their environment of origin and not scattered in any manner that would be represent a world flood. The environments of the sediments represent comparable environments we see in the world today when animals die and are buried in river valleys, coastal plains and marine sediments. This is especially true of dinosaurs.

The second is the sediments containing the remains of dinosaurs occur in three distinct ages, with extinction events between them. The dinosaurs present in each age are very different. These sedimentary records are found in different places in the world and they are very distinct and ordered with complete records found in more than one place. Each layer of of sediments contain river and stream valleys, swamps, beachs, deltas and coastal plain sediments where the dinosaurs lived. The plants found in each period are also very distinctive of that period and not mixed. Other evidence like amber is found in each period with the insects and plants known in that period only.

[kofh2u]

All right, let's give this one a whirl: How about radiometric dating: the dinosaurs were gone sixty-five million years ago (give or take), except for a few that became birds? That's the thing the YECs haven't been able to explain to my satisfaction (though it's not for lack of trying). Many dinosaurs (including velociraptor), have been found with feathers. Furthermore, there is that whole TIME thing!
Did dinosaurs survive into more modern times? It's not entirely inconceivable. Stories abound from Central Africa of the mokele-mbembe, possibly an apatosaurus. Understand that this is unsubtantiated, of course: we need scientific evidence, not legends.
Stories from around the world tell of Nessie (Loch Ness)-like creatures in the British Isles, Canada, and even one from Angel Falls, Peru. Again, no scientific corroboration as yet.
How about the accounts of Herodotus, a fifth-century BCE Greek traveler? He writes of creatures living in Arabia Felix that sound (to me) suspiciously like Pterosaurs.
As to Leviathan... who knows? Maybe the basis for the legend was a crocodile, maybe something far more primeval. Either way, all we have is a legend borrowed from Canaanite mythology (where Ba'al has to kill Rahab, another name for Leviathan, a sea-monster that emerges from Yamm, the "primeval sea" also seen in Genesis 1). We most definitely do NOT have scientific corroboration!
Lecture over. Any thoughts?

Very good on the dino problem. Space on the Ark could hardly accommodate these dinos, for sure.

But, what do you calculate the cubic cubits neede to hold 25 million beetle species?

[Lion]

The dinosaur problem has a simple solution if you can divorce yourself from the evolutionary timeline and realize that the flood actually happened, not millions of years ago, but thousands. That said, I don’t know if any young dinosaurs were in the ark or not.

I visited the Dinosaur National Monument near Vernal, Utah. a few years ago. There is a museum in Vernal which has a huge skeleton that has been assembled from bones dug out of the quarry. The beast was about thirty feet long and at least ten feet tall. There were other animals on dsplay there, huge turtles, and many other creatures.

The scientists had constructed a building at the quarry so they could work out of the weather. The building was two stories tall and had lab space where they could clean the specimens, and some of the equipment was left to show how the men worked.

The building was about fifty feet square with glass sides but the building was against the hill where the bones were exposed.

The site was up a hill about 200 feet above the Green River, in a sandstone hill. The quarry itself was a jumble of huge bones on about a 60 degree slope. The scientists had dug out all the bones they wanted, but there were still lots of bones left, hundreds of them. There were leg bones five feet long, backbone parts perhaps six feet long, and many smaller bones.

I mention the location in some detail because the story the scientists tell is so bizarre it is hard for one who believes the flood story to comprehend.

The tale the scientists tell is essentially this: Dinosaurs were living down near the river and when they died the bones became fossilized and somehow they were carried up the hill and buried in a sand dune.

This story is strange, because, in the first place, when an animal dies, the flesh rots and the bones fall where they lie unless some scavenger moves them. Soon the bones decay and soil bacteria decompose the bones. I used to work in the forest for years. Deer were all around yet I never saw the bones of any dead animal. All male members of the deer family shed antlers every year, yet antlers are quickly gnawed to dust by rodents for the lime they contain. Even bones rot and decompose rapidly.

So this story is suspect from several standpoints. How did that jumble of bones get 200 feet above the river, and why were they buried all in one area not over 20 feet high and perhaps 50 feet across and perhaps 20 feet deep? If they were from single animals that died, why weren’t they scattered all around? That story doesn’t make sense.

A more reasonable scenario would be for the animals to be overtaken by a common disaster, much like the recent tidal wave of Dec 26, 2004, in Asia. The Bible tells that a wind blew. (Gen 8:1) The dinosaurs were large animals and would not rot for some time. They floated for perhaps months. The wind blew them into a heap and sand covered them.

That’s how they got gathered into one place two hundred feet above the present river bed. The water was about 200 feet deep and the carcasses just drifted into an eddy and were buried in sand. The chemical action of sand and water turned them into stone.

My conclusion is that the disaster of the flood overtook them in much the same manner as the tidal wave in Sumatra and destroyed them.

[AllDay]

I was wondering where the dinosaurs fit in in YEC. Iv read someone called Ken Ham(not sure of name) who is a YEC say that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs aswell. Is there any evidence in ancient sources that say dinosaurs lived in their time? if not then what day were the dinosaurs made on?
thanks
For convenience ....

Re: Dinosaurs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp

Re:Flood
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

[SteveF]

In many areas of Siberia there are jumbles of mammoth bones. These formed during the last ice age (even YECs accept these as non flood deposits). Large accumulations of bones can result and we don't need a flood to explain them!

You might also want to ask how enough bones were preserved, evidently in a reasonable enough condition to build a large skeleton, by a flood that also managed to scour the entire world. Now I'm no expert on taphonomy, but if the flood was able to build mountains and carve out the grand canyon, I find it quite hard to believe that a few bones would have survived intact.

Modern geology accepts both slow events and catastrophe. This in contrary to flood geology with its rigid mindset; indeed because it invokes continual catastrophe, flood geology ironically ends up being uniformitarian in mind set

[Lion]

I'm a firm believer in the flood story as recorded in Gen 7and 8. As far as the bones in the far arctic are concerned, the freezing cold has preserved those bones without much mineralization so they appear fresh. There was s mammoth dug out of the snow a few years ago and lifted by helicopter to an ice cave on the Tamyr penninsula, The scientist wanted to see if he could clone a mammoth. Unfortuately, the DNA was too badly fragmented for cloning.

The Yukon valley is covered with permafrost about 8 or 9 feet thick. Dr. Hibben of the University of New Mexico made an expedition to the Tanana river mining area, looking for human remains. What he found were frozen carcasses of animals mostly bison. They had been torn apart, half a carcass here, half there, and when they thawed, they rotted and created a stench like the wreckage left after the tidal wave of Dec 26, 2004. I am firmly convinced that these animal remains are left from the flood.

[shunyadragon]

The dinosaur problem has a simple solution if you can divorce yourself from the evolutionary timeline and realize that the flood actually happened, not millions of years ago, but thousands. That said, I don’t know if any young dinosaurs were in the ark or not.

I visited the Dinosaur National Monument near Vernal, Utah. a few years ago. There is a museum in Vernal which has a huge skeleton that has been assembled from bones dug out of the quarry. The beast was about thirty feet long and at least ten feet tall. There were other animals on dsplay there, huge turtles, and many other creatures.

The scientists had constructed a building at the quarry so they could work out of the weather. The building was two stories tall and had lab space where they could clean the specimens, and some of the equipment was left to show how the men worked.

The building was about fifty feet square with glass sides but the building was against the hill where the bones were exposed.

The site was up a hill about 200 feet above the Green River, in a sandstone hill. The quarry itself was a jumble of huge bones on about a 60 degree slope. The scientists had dug out all the bones they wanted, but there were still lots of bones left, hundreds of them. There were leg bones five feet long, backbone parts perhaps six feet long, and many smaller bones.

I mention the location in some detail because the story the scientists tell is so bizarre it is hard for one who believes the flood story to comprehend.

The tale the scientists tell is essentially this: Dinosaurs were living down near the river and when they died the bones became fossilized and somehow they were carried up the hill and buried in a sand dune.

So this story is suspect from several standpoints. How did that jumble of bones get 200 feet above the river, and why were they buried all in one area not over 20 feet high and perhaps 50 feet across and perhaps 20 feet deep? If they were from single animals that died, why weren’t they scattered all around? That story doesn’t make sense.
I am a geologist and I have been to this site and others. The story is suspect for the main reason that it is false and not how science views this particular deposit of dinosaur bones. The problem is this deposit is one of many, deposited in many ways associated with different environments throughout thousands of feet of strata all over the world. None of them are associated with evidence of human activity or animals of other ages.


A more reasonable scenario would be for the animals to be overtaken by a common disaster, much like the recent tidal wave of Dec 26, 2004, in Asia. The Bible tells that a wind blew. (Gen 8:1) The dinosaurs were large animals and would not rot for some time. They floated for perhaps months. The wind blew them into a heap and sand covered them. Actually your getting closser to the real scientific story concerning why these bones were deposited where they are in the manner of the deposit. The bones are flood deposited and not 'carried up the hill?'. The sand dunes which then covered them are common around river system then and today. The Geologic evidence indicates that this deposit is associated with a large meandering river that can be traced long distances in the existing formation. Remember this formation is one of many in strata and layers that do not reflect a catastrophic flood when taken as a whole. This is the far more reasonable scenario because it reflects the larger picture of the evidence and not tunnel vision one or a few sites trying to prove the rediculous scenario of a world flood.


That’s how they got gathered into one place two hundred feet above the present river bed. The water was about 200 feet deep and the carcasses just drifted into an eddy and were buried in sand. The chemical action of sand and water turned them into stone.
The reason they are where they are has nothing to do with the present river, topography or this age. There is clear evidence that this river system has cut down through and eroded these strata over a very long time. Olam olam! The processes of fossilization take far longer than the time span allowed for YEC. Another problem with the any argument that YEC may have for fossilization in a short period of time is that fossilized ancient bone material have been used a jewelry and other artifacts found with Stone Age people of the world.


My conclusion is that the disaster of the flood overtook them in much the same manner as the tidal wave in Sumatra and destroyed them.This only confirms that local catastrophic events like river floods can explain this type of deposit. Local and regional catastrophic events are common in the geologic record and in recorded history. There is no evidence of a world flood event.

[Dr.GH]

The link to Answers in Genesis earlier in the thread is a good example of YEC "science."

A few years ago I took an interest in the "Dino-blood" lies (still!) told by AiG. My short article is posted at TalkOrigins, Dino-blood and the Young Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html).

Another paper I wrote debunking a YEC bit-o'-lies, that dinosaur bones preserving protein fragments "proved" that the Earth was young, can be found at Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html).

[Lion]

Thank you SHUNYDRAGON for this quote
I am a geologist and I have been to this site and others. The story is suspect for the main reason that it is false and not how science views this particular deposit of dinosaur bones. The problem is this deposit is one of many, deposited in many ways associated with different environments throughout thousands of feet of strata all over the world. None of them are associated with evidence of human activity or animals of other ages.

Your comment illustrates the fact that three people viewing the same accident can come away with six or more different versions of what happened. It all depends on what your preconcieved notions are regarding the events in question. I happen to believe the Bible narrative while you choose to believe something else and neither of us can hope to persuade the other of the correctness of us our view. All a person can do is present his view and let the he reader decide which view is correct.

[wattsr1]

Gidday Lion,

To Shunydragon you wrote:-


Your comment illustrates the fact that three people viewing the same accident can come away with six or more different versions of what happened.

How true. And in actuality I agree with this part of your post. However, it is not so much with the reader of the differing stories I am interested in (which is the crux of your post), rather it is my argument and your argument.

Back in 1969, we all “witnessed” American astronauts landing on the moon – yet many who were there still refuse to believe that this actually happened.

So, is the idea that no men have landed on the moon just as likely as the idea that men have landed on the moon because “it all depends on preconceived notions”? Or is one idea better than the other and one has to examine preconceived notions, evidence, and argument in order to determine which is the more likely?


You also wrote:


I happen to believe the Bible narrative while you choose to believe something else and neither of us can hope to persuade the other of the correctness of us our view.

If you “happen to believe” something then it would appear that you have little more reason for believing it than its antithesis. That I chose my beleifs, I do not argue with – however a lot of thought did and does go into my acceptance of my belief systems and methodologies for accepting various ideas as opposed to other ideas. And while I do accept that it is very hard to convince opponents of one’s beleifs, namely because it often requires a change of world views, changing beliefs and world views does occur. If it did not (that is, it was impossible) then how do Christians become atheists, atheists become Christians, Christians become Buddhists, Flat earthers become spherical earthers etc?

IOW, whether you like it or not, Shunydragon’s and your claims are still out there to be argued about and it is more than just a matter of “happening to believe” – otherwise you really have little reason to believe.


Regards, Roland

[Dr.GH]

Your comment illustrates the fact that three people viewing the same accident can come away with six or more different versions of what happened. It all depends on what your preconcieved notions are regarding the events in question. I happen to believe the Bible narrative while you choose to believe something else and neither of us can hope to persuade the other of the correctness of us our view. All a person can do is present his view and let the he reader decide which view is correct.

And always keep in mind that creationist websites block information (c.f. my last deleted post) which exposes YEC lies. This issue can not be resolved here, or in any YEC controled media. They are too willing to lie while cloaked in self-righteous denial of the truth. The only slim chance at the truth is far far way from here.

[sylas]

And always keep in mind that creationist websites block information (c.f. my last deleted post) which exposes YEC lies. This issue can not be resolved here, or in any YEC controled media. They are too willing to lie while cloaked in self-righteous denial of the truth. The only slim chance at the truth is far far way from here.

Um. In my experience here, there is no problem if you are very careful to follow the rules. The rule of "argument by weblink" is not consistently applied; but there is a reasonable basis for having such a rule. Basically, if you respond to any point just by saying in effect "You are wrong, this link explains why"; then anyone who objects to your post for any reason can report the post as an argument by weblink, and it may get edited consistent with the forum rules. If I recall your post correctly, it was indeed subject to this rule.

The solution is to use a link as support or reference, but to have real pertinent substance included directly as text of your article.

I usually do this in one of two ways; by paraphrased summary, or by quoted extracts.

A pattern for the first form:

You are wrong, for the following reasons. (short self-contained summary/argument follows). More information is available at this link.

A pattern for the second form:

The article Citation/Title explains why you are wrong. Here are some selected extracts, which give a flavour for the real situation. (pertinent extracts follow) You can read the full paper at this link.


I'm not commenting here as a moderator, but as a debater interested in tactics to fit a particular circumstance.

I encourage you to repeat your edited article in a slightly expanded form, and keep a record of the article as well. If it is still deleted, then we have a problem. But I don't think we do have a serious problem when a post has more substance than only a link. Let's see!

Cheers -- Sylas

[Lion]

I appreciate Silas’s comment about how to get a website into an argument. That’s how to do it. That aside, I don’t appreciate arguments about origins being called lies.

The problem with origins is that nobody was there to see what happened. We have theories, but we don’t really know for sure what happened unless someone with some authority can tell what actually happened.

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw. The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record. They dismiss his record as myth and folklore. They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

The problem with the story of the flood is not with the story. It is that there are two competing beliefs, the story in Genesis that God created the earth, and the belief in evolution, that things just evolved.

A couple of side notes: The reason the dinosaur and wooly mammoth bones appear fresh and not fossilized is because the climate in the arctic just isn’t conducive to fossilizing. The other is that I have an explanation for the frozen wooly mammoths.

[Didaktylos]

I appreciate Silas’s comment about how to get a website into an argument. That’s how to do it. That aside, I don’t appreciate arguments about origins being called lies.

The problem with origins is that nobody was there to see what happened. We have theories, but we don’t really know for sure what happened unless someone with some authority can tell what actually happened.

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw. The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record. They dismiss his record as myth and folklore. They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

The problem with the story of the flood is not with the story. It is that there are two competing beliefs, the story in Genesis that God created the earth, and the belief in evolution, that things just evolved.

A couple of side notes: The reason the dinosaur and wooly mammoth bones appear fresh and not fossilized is because the climate in the arctic just isn’t conducive to fossilizing. The other is that I have an explanation for the frozen wooly mammoths.

The problem is that there are no less than 4 known versions of this particular Flood legend - Hebrew, Sumerian, Babylonian and Greek with no objective reason to consider any of them as being the original.

(edited to correct a formatting error)

[Soundsurfr]

None of these are good evidence at all. Hearsay, legends, ambiguous verses from ancient manuscripts and imaginative art don't really count, surely?
No no. Those are all good evidence. It's the fossil record that's not good evidence.

[sylas]

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw. The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record. They dismiss his record as myth and folklore. They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

The man who found Noah's grave is an excellent illustration of the general point that eyewitness accounts are far less reliable that the forensic evidence of physical traces. I'll get back to this.

Where no other evidence is available, an eyewitness account is useful, but always dubious because it cannot be tested or confirmed.

When other evidence is available, the situation changes. Evidence can let us see whether or not the witness is reliable. If they confirm certain details of the account; then the whole gains in credibility and the extra detail in the account is very useful. If they are inconsistent with the account, then it shows the account is worthless. Physical evidence usually trumps an eyewitness, in law, in science, and indeed when there are arguments in a pub. Sure, some folks will trust their source no matter what; but in a debate if one side has an eye witness and the other have pertinent physical evidence which anyone can go and check for themselves, the one with the physical evidence is usually far more persuasive. And rightly so.

However, there is an even more basic problem here, and that is that the form of the story in the bible simply does not match that of a first person account. It is given in third person. That is, Noah is not identified as the author, and the way it is written is inconsistent with Noah being the author. Traditionally, authorship has been ascribed to Moses, but as far as the bible itself is concerned, it is an anonymous account, written looking back. There is absolutely nothing in the account to suggest it is an eyewitness log.

Many Christians consider that it essentially a story with a moral or theological purpose; and not history at all. Others disagree. The debate goes on.

But as to whether the flood occurred or not, the proper resolution is the physical traces which would most certainly be left by such a catastrophe. The physical evidence shows quite unambiguously that there has not ever been a global flood, at least over the last several hundred million years.

But back the guy who found Noah's grave. This is a reference to Ron Wyatt.

Ron Wyatt is a somewhat tragic figure. Whether fraud or simply deluded I don't know; but his claims are sheer fantasy. Here is a list of some of his claims, taken from Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and Ron Wyatt (http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/wyatt.html) by Linda Gunderson.


Noah's Ark (the Durupinar site, for which he has been the prime promoter)
Stone sea anchors believed to be used by Noah to steer the vessel into the wind
Petrified timbers from the Ark that were used as memorials in an Armenian graveyard
Noah’s sacrifice area at the site
A large stone carving near the Ark picturing 8 people coming out of the side, with a rainbow above the boat, and inscriptions in Summerian, Hurrian, and Urartian identifying this formation as the Ark of Noah
Trainloads of petrified pre-flood wood that had no tree rings on the site
Corroded metal fittings, found in rows, delineating the "ribs of the ship," as indicated by metal detectors and especially a "molecular frequency generator"
A house that Noah built
Stones on this house containing inscriptions that recorded details about the Deluge
A pictograph of eight people leaving a large wave of water with a boat perched above it
Noah's grave
Mrs. Noah's grave (containing a fortune-her gold and jewelry)
The Ark of the Covenant (under the exact spot where Jesus was crucified)
The Menorah (a seven-branched candelabra), the Table of Shewbread, and the Golden Altar of Incense from the ancient Temple
Christ’s blood, scraped off of the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant
DNA analysis of the blood indicates that Christ was born of a virgin
The true site of Christ’s crucifixion and the stone socket in which the cross was placed
Verified the tomb of Christ was the actual tomb
Claimed Jesus’ tomb was sealed with a Roman iron spike, still visible
Moses' stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, held together with golden hinges
Solved the problem of the construction of the pyramids
Also the problems in Egyptian chronology
Discovered the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
Discovered sulfur balls from the same
The true site of the Israelites' Red Sea crossing
A stone monument near the site erected by Solomon, inscribed with the ancient Hebrew script
Horse and human skeletons from Pharaoh's drowned army
Gold covered chariot wheels and chariot parts
The true Mount Sinai
The 12 altars built by Moses in Exodus 24
The actual rock Moses struck to release water at Kadesh
The site of Korah's earthquake where the ground swallowed up Korah and his followers
Knows how the Shroud of Turin was forged
Has cracked the code of the Copper Scroll
Claimed (on tape) that he can read any ancient inscription
Discovered the pillars of Solomon
The tomb of the Patriarchs, the cave of Machpelah
Moses was known in Egyptian history as Thutmosa III
Joseph was the builder of the first pyramid
Storage bins Joseph used during the drought in Egypt
Bones of giant pre-flood people
Ancient Canaanite burial pots at Ashkelon

Ron died in 1999, and the world is a less colourful but more sane place as a result.

There are still people promoting Ron’s many bizarre discovered. There are two such groups (through they have had a falling out, it seems). There is Anchor Stones (http://www.anchorstone.com/), which is a reference to his claimed find of the stones used to anchor the ark, and Wyatt Archaeological Research Inc. (http://www.wyattmuseum.com/).

The Anchor Stones site seems to have more on Noah’s ark, including what Ron identified as Noah’s house, and the graves of Noah and his wife; but the information is poorly organized. The grave in question is not there any longer. Extract from news letter 9 (http://www.anchorstone.com/number9.html):

Everyone was happy, that is, until Ron took them to see the tombstones and house he believed was Noah's and his wife's. When they got there, the house was now reduced to a pile of loose rock, and the tombstones were gone!. And right where they once had stood was a partially filled hole - the grave had been robbed! Ron was heartsick.
Someone with more patience than me may like to look through the site and see if there is more about the actual identification.

Ron’s identification of Noah’s ark itself is a well known geological formation at Durupinar (http://www.noahsarksearch.com/durupinar.htm). I link to a consideration of this site made by “Noah’s Ark Search”, a group that believes in a global flood and is apparently serious about looking for the Ark itself. They don’t think much of Ron Wyatt, however. See also Amazing ‘Ark’ exposé ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp) at Answers in Genesis. I’m deliberately giving creationist sites here, as you may be more inclined to trust them.

Cheers -- Sylas

[wattsr1]

Gidday Lion,


That aside, I don’t appreciate arguments about origins being called lies.

I do not see the point, or the reason for calling your side of the fence “liars”. There are two reasons for this:-
1) name calling merely inflames an argument and thereby achieves nothing and
2) most on your side of the fence hold to their ideas in good faith.

Nevertheless, my side of the fence finds it nearly impossible to stop your side from misrepresenting us. This comes not so much from the level of the layman such as yourself, but from the level of those scientists and researchers who work as YEC/OEC.

As laymen, you merely pass on what you hear and read in good faith.

And this presents you, as a layman, with a big problem that is generally resolved by one of two methods:-

1) continually arguing but never really addressing the points being discussed or
2) quietly disappearing when the falacies behind so much of YEC/OEC thinking are pointed out.

Only a very few adopt option 1). Most YEC/OECs adopt option 2). And who can blame them. When professionsal scientists who are also YECs, inform the lay YEC that we of the mainstream think such and such and that layperson comes onto a web site to inform us of what we think, only to find out that it is not so, what choice does that YEC have?


The problem with origins is that nobody was there to see what happened.

But most of science is like this. Did you ever see gravity keep the earth in its orbit? What about a meson holding the nucleus of the atom together. A photon evaporating a water molecule from a pond – see that? The centre of the sun – those fusion reactions, ever been there to see them?


We have theories, but we don’t really know for sure what happened unless someone with some authority can tell what actually happened.

And why can you be sure if someone with authority tells you what actually happened? What authority do you rely on and how sure are you that you are correct in your assesments of that authority? Is your attitude toward that authority based on faith? Or is is based on evidence? If the latter, then how good is your evidence and your associated argument which allows you to make your above quoted declaration?

IOW your attitudes towards your authority are also theoretical.


In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw.

See above.


The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record.

Do you always believe everything that is written? I will bet there are many “written record[s]” which you dismiss and which others claim with equal conviction to be authoritative.


They dismiss his record as myth and folklore.

There are many written records which others claim to be authoritative but which are dismissed by you (I suspect) for similar reasons that you claim I dismiss yours. So why is this a problem if I do no differently to you?


They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

You give me only choices – either accept what you are saying or call you a “liar”. That is really cheap logic Lion – something akin to that which Paul (I think) used – namely “Either Christ rose from the dead or we are liars.”

Lying has nothing to do with it. And I do not doubt that you have a letter from a man claiming to have found the grave of Noah. And I do not doubt that a man thinks he has found the grave.

On this web site I am talking to a person who claims that much of what he knows today, he was told by God while in the womb.

So would you accept his claim on face value or call him a liar?

That is the choice you offer.

I prefer to search for some other explanation? I do not accept his claim at all. But neither to I think he is lying. Putting it very, very crudely, I think he is kidding himself.


The problem with the story of the flood is not with the story.

Stories, like any evidence, constrain models. The problem is in part with the story if you are going to accept it on face value.

Ancient Babylonians believed that the cosmos and earth were created during some massive war between the gods.

If I were to offer that story as a version of reality and tell you that the problem is not with the story, what would you say?


It is that there are two competing beliefs, the story in Genesis that God created the earth, and the belief in evolution, that things just evolved.

What has evolution got to do with the Flood?

I have introduced another belief – see above. So are you going to give the ancient Babylonian story equal rights as well? Or are you going to wheel in new objections to ensure that this new story is not included?


Regards, Roland

[Lion]

Roland, from the tone of your post, I wonder if you really do know what you believe. You have so many caveats in your post you can't know what you believe. On the other hand I, with the apostle, Paul know in whom have believed. I have faith in the the Bible as the word of God and that what it says is true. I believe there was a WORLD WIDE flood that wiped out every land animal. Others may doubt the word of God, but not me. They may say it is a fable and folklore, but I believe it is true. There are stories of the flood in Babylonian folklore but those stories are so mixed up with gods warring itis unbeleivable. Jesus spoke of Noah and the flood as fact. Peter speaks of scoffers that walk after their own lust, and are willingly ignorant, meaning that they don't want to know,about the flood. But, Peter says, the earth will melt with great heat and the works in the earth will be burned up.

[rogero]

Roland, from the tone of your post, I wonder if you really do know what you believe. You have so many caveats in your post you can't know what you believe. On the other hand I, with the apostle, Paul know in whom have believed. I have faith in the the Bible as the word of God and that what it says is true. I believe there was a WORLD WIDE flood that wiped out every land animal. Others may doubt the word of God, but not me. They may say it is a fable and folklore, but I believe it is true. There are stories of the flood in Babylonian folklore but those stories are so mixed up with gods warring itis unbeleivable. Jesus spoke of Noah and the flood as fact. Peter speaks of scoffers that walk after their own lust, and are willingly ignorant, meaning that they don't want to know,about the flood. But, Peter says, the earth will melt with great heat and the works in the earth will be burned up.
Lion,

It's wonderful that you have such deep faith, but the geological evidence does not support a global flood. Glennn Morton has provided you links containing copious counterexamples.

How, therefore, do you reconcile your belief in a global flood with empirical evidence?

God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. As a curious yet relevant point, what is your definition of the biblical notion of "kind" in view of the current knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, etc.?

Remember, as a Genesis Flood literalist, you will have to figure out how to include all these "kinds" on that gopherwood ark.

[wattsr1]

Roland, from the tone of your post, I wonder if you really do know what you believe. You have so many caveats in your post you can't know what you believe. On the other hand I, with the apostle, Paul know in whom have believed. I have faith in the the Bible as the word of God and that what it says is true. I believe there was a WORLD WIDE flood that wiped out every land animal. Others may doubt the word of God, but not me. They may say it is a fable and folklore, but I believe it is true. There are stories of the flood in Babylonian folklore but those stories are so mixed up with gods warring itis unbeleivable. Jesus spoke of Noah and the flood as fact. Peter speaks of scoffers that walk after their own lust, and are willingly ignorant, meaning that they don't want to know,about the flood. But, Peter says, the earth will melt with great heat and the works in the earth will be burned up.


Gidday Lion,

Thanks for your response.

Your main objection to my post appears to be that I have “so many caveats in [my] post that [I] can’t know what [I] believe.”

Could you please expand on this and point out those caveats and why you think they indicate or show that it is hard/impossible for me to “know what [I] believe”?

Regards, Roland

[Snarf]

I appreciate Silas’s comment about how to get a website into an argument. That’s how to do it. That aside, I don’t appreciate arguments about origins being called lies.

The problem with origins is that nobody was there to see what happened. We have theories, but we don’t really know for sure what happened unless someone with some authority can tell what actually happened.

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw. The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record. They dismiss his record as myth and folklore. They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

The problem with the story of the flood is not with the story. It is that there are two competing beliefs, the story in Genesis that God created the earth, and the belief in evolution, that things just evolved.

A couple of side notes: The reason the dinosaur and wooly mammoth bones appear fresh and not fossilized is because the climate in the arctic just isn’t conducive to fossilizing. The other is that I have an explanation for the frozen wooly mammoths.

Lion,

Nobody was around when you typed in your name "Lion" for the first time, except for you and anyone else who may have been watching. However, I have the preconcieved notion that you are much more fond of mice than lions.
So, I refuse to believe that you typed in your name as Lion, and instead you called yourself Stuart Little.

Without using forensic evidence, can you prove to me that you typed in "Lion?" Going by your logic that you can't prove something that happened in the past, and it's really going by preconcieved notions, then clearly my preconcieved notion is just as valid as your claim to naming yourself 'Lion.'

[Lion]

Now, Now snarf. You know very well how we picked our names and the process we went through, so let’s not get into that silly routine.

There are two competing stories about origins. I misspoke when I said nobody was there when the world began. I should have said that according to the evolutionary theory, nobody was there when it all began. On the other hand God was there, and He told his created humans all about it. That’s the difference.

So bring on your proof for evolution. That’s a challenge.

[HRG_new]

Now, Now snarf. You know very well how we picked our names and the process we went through, so let’s not get into that silly routine.

There are two competing stories about origins.

Only two ? There are the scientific results about origins on one side, and the Christian, the Hindu, the Shinto, the Norse, the Greek, the Mayan etc. stories on the other side. Must be at least 50 stories.



I misspoke when I said nobody was there when the world began. I should have said that according to the evolutionary theory, nobody was there when it all began. On the other hand God was there, and He told his created humans all about it. That’s the difference.

Where you there to check that your God really was there ?

[Lion]

I'll agree that there are all kinds of stories. Some of them are just that, stories. It depends on the reliability of the story teller. Now I know there are people who believe the story Darwin told, and they think it is a proven fact.

Truthfully, I'd rather believe the Bible than Darwin's THEORY any day. Nobody can PROVE creation and nobody can PROVE Darwin was right. Have you any proof? I'm open to PROOF, not theory.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I'll agree that there are all kinds of stories. Some of them are just that, stories. It depends on the reliability of the story teller. Now I know there are people who believe the story Darwin told, and they think it is a proven fact.

It's as "proven" as anything gets in science.


Truthfully, I'd rather believe the Bible than Darwin's THEORY any day.

What makes you think they must be in opposition?


Nobody can PROVE creation and nobody can PROVE Darwin was right. Have you any proof? I'm open to PROOF, not theory.

Then perhaps science is not your forte.

If you want a proof and are closed to theories, then stick with math.

Science can only offer you more theories.

[Lion]

If you observe some effect, and you see it again, you can form a theory that A caused B to happen. Test it again. If A causes B every time you have proven the theory. Take the laws of planetary motion. We know that eclipses occur on time, to the second. That is absoute proof of the THEORY of universal gravitation. But Darwin's theory of acquired traits carried, as the change from one kind of animal to a different kind has never been shown. There are NO intergrades no half this and half that. Man has always been man and monkey always monkey.

This is not to be confused with variation within a KIND. Cats are always cats. There are many varieties of cats, but we can always know it is a cat.

[Soundsurfr]

Darwin's theory of acquired traits carried, as the change from one kind of animal to a different kind has never been shown. There are NO intergrades no half this and half that.

You're wrong on this, Lion. You need to upgrade your facts.

[Lion]

OK show me an intergrade, fossil or live., you will make history as the first man to discover one. I havent a milllion dollares but there are folks that would pay that much for one.

[bhukkadakota]

Wouldnt the homo erectus be an example? As its between homo sapians and the australopithecus afarensis?

[Soundsurfr]

OK show me an intergrade, fossil or live., you will make history as the first man to discover one. I havent a milllion dollares but there are folks that would pay that much for one.

Well, others have already made that history, so I wouldn't be the first, nor would I get a million dollars for it. If you're really interested in seeing the transitions among fossil species along a given evolutionary line, you might try going to a natural history museum or similar website and viewing the trilobite lines.

[Pantheist_Oracl]

Wouldnt the homo erectus be an example? As its between homo sapians and the australopithecus afarensis?

Excellent! Homo erectus/ergaster (I prefer to include both the Eurasian form- classic erectus- and the African form- sometimes called ergaster- into a single species of erectus), is transitional between humanity and earlier forms (although the precise lineage is debated). Homo erectus displays compelling morphological features not seen in modern sapiens, including the shape of the cranium (more elongated; widest point further down), the supraorbital torus (browridge), etc.

Also check out Homo habilis, ancestor of erectus: tool kits simpler and morphology less like us.

And of course, the earlier australopithecines and the newly discovered Kenyanthropus platyops.

From what I understand there has been quite a bit of debate about the precise lineage connecting genus Homo with Australopithecus, particularly concerning the point of divergence between the two. Was it after anamensis? afarensis? africanus? What about Ardipithecus ramidus?

Anyway...

Here are some links that may help and relate to the subject matter:
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Herectus.html and
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Hheidelbergensis.html and others on site

also try: www.modernhumanorigins.com (http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/)

[Pantheist_Oracl]

The problem is that there are no less than 4 known versions of this particular Flood legend - Hebrew, Sumerian, Babylonian and Greek with no objective reason to consider any of them as being the original.

(edited to correct a formatting error)

Not to mention the somewhat similar North Indian tradition of Manu. Myths are wonderful stories but poor "scientific evidences."

[shunyadragon]

Your comment illustrates the fact that three people viewing the same accident can come away with six or more different versions of what happened. It all depends on what your preconcieved notions are regarding the events in question. I happen to believe the Bible narrative while you choose to believe something else and neither of us can hope to persuade the other of the correctness of us our view. All a person can do is present his view and let the he reader decide which view is correct.

That is not all a person can do. When an accident happens it is true that six different people may have different stories, but the authorities who study car accidents usually figure out what happened using science, and the testimony of the observers is than considered and the resulting evidince is used establish what happened.

This is what happens with science. Those who study the evidence usually agree as to what happened. In this case 99%+ of all scientists related to earth history and life history agree on a ancient earth, evolution and no flood.

Arguing from partial evidence like mamoths frozen in the arctic or local catastrophic events to present a flood genesis model does not work well. It is best to take the fifth and the fideist view and say in happened irregardless of what the evidence shows.

One comment that you made concerning mammoth and dinosaur bones found together is not true. There is no place on earth where animals, plants, insects or other life forms of distinctly different ages are found in the same formation.

[Lion]

Do you know why fossils of dinosaurs and other fossils are never found together? It is because of the way strata are named.

It originated from a notion that the fossils form a tree with simple forms and then the more complex forms. So the strata got named for the fossils present. Naturally when you find dinosaur bones they can’t be in the same stata because the stata was named for the fossils. Other fossils, because they contain different bones, are named different strata, even though they may be close together.

So to identify strata you have to find the fossils in it. To identify a fossil you automatically assume it is in named strata. There isn’t any proof either way. talk about reasoning in a circle, that is the height of silliness.

[Soundsurfr]

Do you know why fossils of dinosaurs and other fossils are never found together? It is because of the way strata are named.

It originated from a notion that the fossils form a tree with simple forms and then the more complex forms. So the strata got named for the fossils present.

I'm not following you. If the "fossils present" contained, say, human remains and dinosaur remains, then the two fossils would be in the same strata, no matter what you named it.


Naturally when you find dinosaur bones they can’t be in the same stata because the stata was named for the fossils.

Either this represents a new and uncharted level of ignorance I have never encountered, or I'm just unable to process this. Somebody help me.


Other fossils, because they contain different bones, are named different strata, even though they may be close together.

?


So to identify strata you have to find the fossils in it. To identify a fossil you automatically assume it is in named strata. There isn’t any proof either way. talk about reasoning in a circle, that is the height of silliness.

Lion, where do you get this information?

[Dr.GH]

Do you know why fossils of dinosaurs and other fossils are never found together? It is because of the way strata are named.

It originated from a notion that the fossils form a tree with simple forms and then the more complex forms. So the strata got named for the fossils present. Naturally when you find dinosaur bones they can’t be in the same stata because the stata was named for the fossils. Other fossils, because they contain different bones, are named different strata, even though they may be close together.

So to identify strata you have to find the fossils in it. To identify a fossil you automatically assume it is in named strata. There isn’t any proof either way. talk about reasoning in a circle, that is the height of silliness.
You are kidding, right?

You should use smilies or someone would think that you could be serious.

[bandecoot]

Do you know why fossils of dinosaurs and other fossils are never found together? It is because of the way strata are named.

It originated from a notion that the fossils form a tree with simple forms and then the more complex forms. So the strata got named for the fossils present. Naturally when you find dinosaur bones they can’t be in the same stata because the stata was named for the fossils. Other fossils, because they contain different bones, are named different strata, even though they may be close together.

So to identify strata you have to find the fossils in it. To identify a fossil you automatically assume it is in named strata. There isn’t any proof either way. talk about reasoning in a circle, that is the height of silliness.

I think you are mistaking Index fossils for something more than they are. Index fossils are an indicator of age of a stratum. The actual dating of the strata is done via Radiometric dating, which follows known laws of physics.

There is also the law of superposition, which says that the further down the column one goes the earlier the date of deposition.

If we were to assume special Creation, I would expect that a homogenous mix of complex and simpler organisms would be found in each stratum.

This is not the case as one goes down the column the organisms are less complex, and one does not find mammals and trilobites in the same strata. The organisms are similar in morphology as one would expect and they are discrete.

In case you are considering Hydrological Sorting by a global flood, do refrain until you can explain how an Oak tree managed to outrun a velociraptor.

Andrew

[kuboes1831]

Do you know why fossils of dinosaurs and other fossils are never found together? It is because of the way strata are named.

It originated from a notion that the fossils form a tree with simple forms and then the more complex forms. So the strata got named for the fossils present. Naturally when you find dinosaur bones they can’t be in the same stata because the stata was named for the fossils. Other fossils, because they contain different bones, are named different strata, even though they may be close together.

So to identify strata you have to find the fossils in it. To identify a fossil you automatically assume it is in named strata. There isn’t any proof either way. talk about reasoning in a circle, that is the height of silliness.

Lion

Your sheer ignorance amazes me. You simply know nothing how fossils were first discoverd and used in geology. They were used in relative agedating of strata before 1800 before people realised what dinosaurs were. If you can work that out that was 9 years before Darwin was born in 1809 so there is no circular reasoning from evoltuion. This is the type of crass mistake YECs like Henry Morris make and wont correct when told.

I suggest you learn a little bit about geology before posting such nonsense again.

[Lion]

Before you folks consider me a complete blithering idiot consider this. I have been studying geology for over seventy years, but not from an evolutionary viewpoint. I take the idea that the world was destroyed by a flood that was worldwide in scope, although parts of it may not have been inundated at the same instant. I consider the evolutionary idea to be less than worthy of consideration.

You may think otherwise, and that is your privilege. The problem is that I consider those who preach evolution to be willfuly ignorant. They don’t want to know. That is worse than ignorant. It is stupid to ignore the story of one who was there and lived through it.

[Dr.GH]

Before you folks consider me a complete blithering idiot consider this. I have been studying geology for over seventy years, but not from an evolutionary viewpoint. I take the idea that the world was destroyed by a flood that was worldwide in scope, although parts of it may not have been inundated at the same instant. I consider the evolutionary idea to be less than worthy of consideration.

You may think otherwise, and that is your privilege. The problem is that I consider those who preach evolution to be willfuly ignorant. They don’t want to know. That is worse than ignorant. It is stupid to ignore the story of one who was there and lived through it.

Then you must not have spent even a day with a competent geomorphologist. Come to my home in Dana Point, and I'll show you unconsolidated soils that are older than the YEC estimate for the the age of the universe. And I'll show you that these soils were the weathering product of even older soils that had become cemented (sandstones) and that some of these sandstones had undergone metamorphism both from volcanic action, i.e. metavolcanics, or from ordinary heat+pressure, i.e. quarzites. And then these metamporphic rocks have started to break down yet again and become a returned part of the sedimentry process along with the injection of new volcanic rock starting the cycle over again.

PM me for a date and time to meet.

[aniso]

Before you folks consider me a complete blithering idiot consider this. I have been studying geology for over seventy years, but not from an evolutionary viewpoint.
How do you rationalize your studies with a young earth? Where did you conduct these studies?


I take the idea that the world was destroyed by a flood that was worldwide in scope, although parts of it may not have been inundated at the same instant.
This would be a good time to provide evidence that your concept is correct. Just exactly what evidence exclusively supports a young earth?


I consider the evolutionary idea to be less than worthy of consideration.
That is fine. In fact, it is good. Then you pretty much understand how most of the educated world thinks about your ideas. The question I have is, 'why are you here?'


You may think otherwise, and that is your privilege.
Thank you.


The problem is that I consider those who preach evolution to be willfuly ignorant. They don’t want to know. That is worse than ignorant. It is stupid to ignore the story of one who was there and lived through it.
Is this the only point you have to make in this post?

[djdavo]

I was wondering where the dinosaurs fit in in YEC. Iv read someone called Ken Ham(not sure of name) who is a YEC say that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs aswell. Is there any evidence in ancient sources that say dinosaurs lived in their time? if not then what day were the dinosaurs made on?

thanks

dunno if anyone posted it or not,but look up the acambara stones from acambaro,mexico. hundreds of carvings of dinosaurs,incluing man and dinosaur together, done in like 1400.

they beg the question: if no dinosaur existed, how did they know what they all look like before sciend could reconstruct a dinosaur?

interesting stuff. :-)

[djdavo]

found the link to some of the pictures:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm


i'd love to know what everyone thinks about these :)

[PanTerra]

oh yeah I remember those. Similar to the Ica stones. I wouldn't put any stock into them.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/hovind.htm

[bandecoot]

found the link to some of the pictures:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm


i'd love to know what everyone thinks about these :)

Modern carvings done in old wood for the wooden ones. I note no ETL dating has been done on the clay ones. If there were dinosaurs in mexico in the 1500's why did the Spanish never mention them? I mean they had established Missions there in 1572, did these dinos coveniently die out between 1492 and 1572?

Why did they die out? what changed? why did these dinos not range up into North America or indeed south into the jungles? I am getting a faintwhiff of a phenomena known as "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari"

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/editors_pick/1969_12_pick.html

Ill let you work it out from there.

[djdavo]

Modern carvings done in old wood for the wooden ones. I note no ETL dating has been done on the clay ones. If there were dinosaurs in mexico in the 1500's why did the Spanish never mention them? I mean they had established Missions there in 1572, did these dinos coveniently die out between 1492 and 1572?

Why did they die out? what changed? why did these dinos not range up into North America or indeed south into the jungles? I am getting a faintwhiff of a phenomena known as "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari"

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/editors_pick/1969_12_pick.html

Ill let you work it out from there.

i'm not an apologist for them, i was honestly curious what people thought. don't quote me on this,but i think their theory is that it was a localized 'pocket' of dinosaurs. (imagine how the mountain gorillas are now)

..and there is evidence in north america. off the top of my head i can think of native american cave drawings that depict man and dinosaur together...once again, if noone knew what a dinosaur looked like how could they even draw them? :)

i can dismiss these as a hoax (like one of those trail of dino tracks with man's tracks inside them) and still have other evidences. the question is can i dismiss all the evidence as a hoax?

PS: not a big fan of Hovind myself :-)

[bandecoot]

i'm not an apologist for them, i was honestly curious what people thought. don't quote me on this,but i think their theory is that it was a localized 'pocket' of dinosaurs. (imagine how the mountain gorillas are now)

..and there is evidence in north america. off the top of my head i can think of native american cave drawings that depict man and dinosaur together...once again, if noone knew what a dinosaur looked like how could they even draw them? :)

i can dismiss these as a hoax (like one of those trail of dino tracks with man's tracks inside them) and still have other evidences. the question is can i dismiss all the evidence as a hoax?

PS: not a big fan of Hovind myself :-)

Oh I see, My idea, speculative though it is, is based on the fact that there was a lot of cultural anthropology going on in the late 20's and early 30's in mexico and Meso America. Those early field workers practices were a bit sloppy in how much of their culture they exposed the subjects to.

My reference to Eating Christmas in the kalahari is an example of how subjects in an ethnological study can take revenge for what they see as intrusion into their lives. The essay by the person to which it happened is one of the examples of how not to treat subjects.

I would not use the word hoax, that implies malice. When you have things like this that are a statistical outlier its best to look for more prosaic reasons. In this case a cottage industry making things that someone showed great interest in, as for the dates, there are plenty of ruined Pueblos to scavenge scrap wood for carving things out of.

If the were Dinos in the area 400 years ago, then there should be some remains to be found in strata where they should not be. Is this the case? I have no idea myself.

[shunyadragon]

i'm not an apologist for them, i was honestly curious what people thought. don't quote me on this,but i think their theory is that it was a localized 'pocket' of dinosaurs. (imagine how the mountain gorillas are now)

..and there is evidence in north america. off the top of my head i can think of native american cave drawings that depict man and dinosaur together...once again, if noone knew what a dinosaur looked like how could they even draw them? :)

i can dismiss these as a hoax (like one of those trail of dino tracks with man's tracks inside them) and still have other evidences. the question is can i dismiss all the evidence as a hoax?

PS: not a big fan of Hovind myself :-)

I graduated at Oklahoma State with a degree in Geology/Soil Science and spent a lot of time in the southweast looking at Indian sites and the bogus site claimed by fundimentalists as showing dinosaur tracks with human tracks. I also took two courses in anthropology, one focused on Native American history. I can assure you there is not one cave painting or scrape of evidence to support any association of ancient humans with dinosaurs.

[Lion]

Perhaps its old stuff, but i’m more than a bit curious about some of the stuff we find in the earth, like the carcasses of bison, I mean thousands of them, that were unearthed in Alaska and the Yukon during placer mining operations. They were buried and frozen. The strata was like this: Bedrock, a thin layer of sand and coarse gravel, several feet of frozen animal carcasses, then about nine feet of permanently frozen earth without any rock, appearing to be wind blown soil. The land is so flat there is scarcely a place for streams to flow. On a trip to Fairbanks by air on June , 9, 2001, I observed that the Yukon had flooded until it was miles wide, the land was so flat.

The animals were there by the tens of thousands, if not millions. They were torn apart, half here and half there, scattered in great profusion. Some gigantic disaster had struck these animals suddenly. The carcasses had not decayed, as evidenced by the stench of death from the heaped up bodies piled by the bulldozers. They were not destroyed by man, there were to many of them, and they were too torn up to be the work of man, and how did fresh appearing creatures get buried wthout decay?


Source, Frank C. Hibben, The Lost Americans, University of New Mexico.

The Discover magazine reported that a placer mining operation near Dawson Yukon Territory, Canada, had also unearthed thousands of bison bones, some with such fresh appearing marrow that some scientists were considering cloning. Sucess is doubtful, given the failure of an attempt to clone a wooly mammoth. Its DNA was too fragmented.

If the wooly mammoth and the bison disaster in Alaska were the result of the flood, which the YEC people claim it was, the evolutionary TE people have some explaining to do.

What kind of disaster caused millions of animals to be fresh frozen and buried in the far north. Why were frozen, not petrified, palm logs found when oilmen drilled at Prudhoe Bay?

[rogero]

Perhaps its old stuff, but i’m more than a bit curious about some of the stuff we find in the earth, like the carcasses of bison, I mean thousands of them, that were unearthed in Alaska and the Yukon during placer mining operations. They were buried and frozen. The strata was like this: Bedrock, a thin layer of sand and coarse gravel, several feet of frozen animal carcasses, then about nine feet of permanently frozen earth without any rock, appearing to be wind blown soil. The land is so flat there is scarcely a place for streams to flow. On a trip to Fairbanks by air on June , 9, 2001, I observed that the Yukon had flooded until it was miles wide, the land was so flat.

The animals were there by the tens of thousands, if not millions. They were torn apart, half here and half there, scattered in great profusion. Some gigantic disaster had struck these animals suddenly. The carcasses had not decayed, as evidenced by the stench of death from the heaped up bodies piled by the bulldozers. They were not destroyed by man, there were to many of them, and they were too torn up to be the work of man, and how did fresh appearing creatures get buried wthout decay?


Source, Frank C. Hibben, The Lost Americans, University of New Mexico.

The Discover magazine reported that a placer mining operation near Dawson Yukon Territory, Canada, had also unearthed thousands of bison bones, some with such fresh appearing marrow that some scientists were considering cloning. Sucess is doubtful, given the failure of an attempt to clone a wooly mammoth. Its DNA was too fragmented.

If the wooly mammoth and the bison disaster in Alaska were the result of the flood, which the YEC people claim it was, the evolutionary TE people have some explaining to do.

What kind of disaster caused millions of animals to be fresh frozen and buried in the far north. Why were frozen, not petrified, palm logs found when oilmen drilled at Prudhoe Bay?

Can you explain how this preservation of bison and other critters is inconsistent with mainstream Pleistocene geology and scientific knowledge of paleoenvironments?

The Ice Age is cold (tautologically) and there are sundry associated localized catastrophic phenomena -- most notably ice dam breaks. These mainstrean science explanations are completely consistent with the observational data you've put forth, are they not?

I mentioned this in another thread, but how does a Noahic Deluge proponent explain the rapid freezing of these critters? Liquid water is not going to freeze anything, since it can only be so cold (zero Celsius or perhaps a few degrees C lower.) This is complicated by the putative source of the Deluge water being either 1) a "vapor canopy" -- consider, please. the latent heat of vaporization, or 2) the "fountains of the deep" -- consider the geothermal gradient. And these two sources of warm water would certainly overwhelm the other putative source -- icy meteor impacts. In any case, you're not going to get a flash freezing scenario -- you've got a real thermal problem in your apologetic.

God's Peace,

Roger

[grmorton]

Why were frozen, not petrified, palm logs found when oilmen drilled at Prudhoe Bay?

I have worked Prudhoe and the North Slope a couple of times. Never have I heard of this. It is utter lunacy. Lion, do you believe every thing you read in YEC books? Are you that gullible?

I might also add that I worked for the district geophysicist who was in charge when Prudhoe was drilled. I worked with the guy from Atlantic Refining who mapped Prudhoe, and I worked on the same floor as the geologist who worked the original Prudhoe discovery. They never mentioned this in the 2.5 years I worked with them.

[Lion]

Rogero and Glenn, the huge difference, aned I mean HUGE difference is the length if time it took to form the massive amounts of ice in the polar regions. I believe the sea was much warmer in preflood times than it is now. That is no worse than your belief in a slow deposition of ice, since no one was there to see it.

I have seen six feet of snow pile up in ten hours in a normally arid area. That is the equivalent of six inches of rain in an area that normally gets ten inches a year. The same area seldom gets two feet of snow in an entire winter. All of which says the amount of snowfall is highly variable, depending on the temperature of the sea.

One more observation is in order. There is an area northeast of Chattanooga where the Bowater paper company has some cooling ponds. A heavily traveled interstate highway is adjacent. The highway was the scene of several severe accidents because of fog drifting across the road. The state put up signs and flashing yellow lights to warn when the temperature goes too low. The cause is the high humidity from the cooling ponds.

The temperature of the sea prior to the flood must have been warmer than at present. How much warmer is unknown since nobody was there.

Now we have to do some application of the known laws of physics. Coriolis forces sea water and wind to flow westward at the equator. This is what causes the circulation of the seas. It also causes the eastward curcumpolar winds. Now we have set the stage for the ice age.

So far we have not said anything about time, and here is where YEC’s and evolutionary people part ways. YEC’s simply do not allow for long ages.

The book Noah’s Flood says that there is abundant evidence that the sea was some 500 feet lower at one time. As a matter of fact one of the wonders of the ancient world was a lighthouse near Alexandria, Egypt. Moderns doubted its existence until scuba divers found its remains a few years ago. There are old river channels in the sea under the major rivers far below the normal channel. This is not in dispute.

The arctic ocean is relatively ice free as far east as the New Siberian islands. This is due to the Gulf stream which pours an immense amount of water into the arctic sea.

Now we can see how the ice age began. I know the evolutionary guys don’t accept the idea but nobody was there to see what really happened. I am relying on pure physical laws.

The warm ocean, several degrees wamer than at present, plus the gulf stream water, fed untold amounts of fog into the air. It froze and fell as snow all over North America and the entire arctic It probably took many years, but not millions, until the ocean cooled. The polar regions are virtual deserts today.

Rogero asked
Can you explain how this preservation of bison and other critters is inconsistent with mainstream Pleistocene geology and scientific knowledge of paleoenvironments?

Lion’s reply

It is a matter of perspective I believe in the flood, which the so-called mainstream evolutionary geologists refuse to accept. I know they claim the ice age took millions of years. It is their funeral. I choose to accept the Bible story.

As far as Glenn’s aspersions about gullibility in the drilling on the north slope are concerned, I doubt he saw all the debris that was brought up, but I will have to accept his claim. I wasn’t there, but I do have a question. Since you were there, what sort of debris DID come out of the permafrost area? Please tell the truth. I have heard stories, but only second hand. You are the first real live person I have talked to who was there.

[rogero]

Rogero and Glenn, the huge difference, aned I mean HUGE difference is the length if time it took to form the massive amounts of ice in the polar regions. I believe the sea was much warmer in preflood times than it is now. That is no worse than your belief in a slow deposition of ice, since no one was there to see it.



You believe it -- well, ain't that special! Our "belief" is slow deposition of ice is based on factual observations of the annual lamina of Antarctic and Greenland ice cores.




I have seen six feet of snow pile up in ten hours in a normally arid area. That is the equivalent of six inches of rain in an area that normally gets ten inches a year. The same area seldom gets two feet of snow in an entire winter. All of which says the amount of snowfall is highly variable, depending on the temperature of the sea.



Snow accumulation ain't the same as glacial ice -- Read a freshman geology text.




One more observation is in order. There is an area northeast of Chattanooga where the Bowater paper company has some cooling ponds. A heavily traveled interstate highway is adjacent. The highway was the scene of several severe accidents because of fog drifting across the road. The state put up signs and flashing yellow lights to warn when the temperature goes too low. The cause is the high humidity from the cooling ponds.

The temperature of the sea prior to the flood must have been warmer than at present. How much warmer is unknown since nobody was there.

Now we have to do some application of the known laws of physics. Coriolis forces sea water and wind to flow westward at the equator. This is what causes the circulation of the seas. It also causes the eastward curcumpolar winds. Now we have set the stage for the ice age.



I'm not following you. This is standard knowledge for a introductory meteorology student. Your point is...?




So far we have not said anything about time, and here is where YEC’s and evolutionary people part ways. YEC’s simply do not allow for long ages.



Yup, you got that right. Now, your point is...???




The book Noah’s Flood says that there is abundant evidence that the sea was some 500 feet lower at one time. As a matter of fact one of the wonders of the ancient world was a lighthouse near Alexandria, Egypt. Moderns doubted its existence until scuba divers found its remains a few years ago. There are old river channels in the sea under the major rivers far below the normal channel. This is not in dispute.



What "book Noah's Flood says"???? I've read Genesis in five translations, and I see no evidence of what you're saying. The rest of your paragraph is extra-Biblical evidence. Surely you're not trusting that over the Word of God!!!!

BTW, if the quoted scenario actually has factual support, it is totally consistent with the rise in sea level at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. Check out a physiographic map of Earth -- you will see numerous drowned river valleys -- and these are totally consistent with the mainstream geology understanding of the past 10Ka of Earth's history. So, what's the problem, man?




The arctic ocean is relatively ice free as far east as the New Siberian islands. This is due to the Gulf stream which pours an immense amount of water into the arctic sea.



Big deal! This a well-known fact of modern science. So what does this have to do with Noah's Deluge or the Price of Tea in China???




Now we can see how the ice age began. I know the evolutionary guys don’t accept the idea but nobody was there to see what really happened. I am relying on pure physical laws.

The warm ocean, several degrees wamer than at present, plus the gulf stream water, fed untold amounts of fog into the air. It froze and fell as snow all over North America and the entire arctic It probably took many years, but not millions, until the ocean cooled. The polar regions are virtual deserts today.



So, in what time frame are you placing the (last?) Ice Age? How long ago? What duration?

Have you considered the evidence from ice cores in the ice pack of Greenland and the Antarctic? Have you considered evidence of previous ice ages? Do you think the latest one (whenever you think you can fit it in to your Genesis literalist scenario -- does it conflict with the earlier Egyptian dynasties, e.g.?? :lol:) was the only one? Have you studied Pleistocence geomorphology? Nah -- I didn't think so...




Rogero asked
Can you explain how this preservation of bison and other critters is inconsistent with mainstream Pleistocene geology and scientific knowledge of paleoenvironments?

Lion’s reply

It is a matter of perspective I believe in the flood, which the so-called mainstream evolutionary geologists refuse to accept. I know they claim the ice age took millions of years. It is their funeral. I choose to accept the Bible story.



The latest Ice Age took about 60Ka (that's 60 thousand years for you in Rio Linda.) You're only showing your ignorance to all in your misinformed statements. Have you addressed any of the points I brought up? Nope.




As far as Glenn’s aspersions about gullibility in the drilling on the north slope are concerned, I doubt he saw all the debris that was brought up, but I will have to accept his claim. I wasn’t there, but I do have a question. Since you were there, what sort of debris DID come out of the permafrost area? Please tell the truth. I have heard stories, but only second hand. You are the first real live person I have talked to who was there.

I know we're supposed to be respectful to old geezers, but your response is utter ignorant drivel. You'd rather believe something you read somewhere of some dubious source as opposed to an eyewitness to the geology of the area. Are you ready to listen to Glennn's report, or do you figure to keep yammering about things about which you have no experience or knowledge?

R