Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

Why then we have fossils of extinct life forms, including many humanoids???

Some organisms have died off. We know that, for example, dinosaurs walked with humans in the not-so-distant past as demonstrated by the countless number of dinosaur paintings, carvings, etc from ancient civilizations:

Dinosaur art in history

There's also been descriptions of these beasts throughout history, but they, prior to 1850 when the word "dinosaur" was first used, would have called them dragons or some other sort of large lizard:

Historical Descriptions of Dinosaurs

We deem them as myth because we are under the impression that very-large lizards (dinosaurs) went extinct long ago, but historical records tell us otherwise.

a reply to: cooperton

Historical records don't tell us otherwise. You DO know that fossils existed in the ground during the ancient past just like they exist in the ground today right? Did you ever consider that some of these ancients stumbled upon those bones and then used their imaginations to recreate those animals in their artworks?

There is ZERO definitive evidence that dinosaurs EVER co-existed with humans, regardless of what you may see in ancient artwork. It just didn't happen. I mean what you are doing here is the equivalent of a person 1000 years from now finding a Devil Dinosaur comic book and declaring that that comic book is proof that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

I mean what you are doing here is the equivalent of a person 1000 years from now finding a Devil Dinosaur comic book and declaring that that comic book is proof that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

So all of these cultures across the globe, physically separated by an ocean, all came up with the same "fake" story about a dragon?

There is ZERO definitive evidence that dinosaurs EVER co-existed with humans

This is the problem. I present you with evidence and you just dismiss it because it does not agree with your ideas. Ever hear of the trilobite? It supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago, yet, we have a fossil of a sandal footprint stepping on one:

www.creationevidence.org...

a reply to: cooperton

Art isn't evidence. It is art. It can have many meanings, it can be abstract, it can be just a story put together with pictures. If you think all art in the world is literally true, then I can prove Star Wars and warp speed traveling aliens are based on real events. I mean why would all kinds of different cultures have art depicting aliens and space travel if it weren't true?

What you are doing is making assumptions about the art, rather than critically thinking about all of the possibilities. Yes, Coop, the masses can be wrong and art is based on imagination.

I'm also willing to bet that the footprint you just posted will either end up unverified or a blatant hoax. Can't read the source now at work, but I will check it back out later tonight.

a reply to: cooperton

why does all of your evidence come from creationist websites? because thats the only place you can find any kind of evidence for creationism?

a reply to: Murgatroid

where is the word belief in that sentence , just because Im willing to discuss a subject or have knowledge of it doesnt pertain to me believing in it.

I know alot about world religions and spiritual practices doesnt mean I believe in them.
Similarly I know alot about scientific "theories" doesnt mean I believe them.

in any case I do believe that we dont fully understand how humans have arrived at our current position biologically. There is still alot which we truly dont understand. Im willing to bet its more far fetched than evolution or GOD

originally posted by: cooperton
So all of these cultures across the globe, physically separated by an ocean, all came up with the same "fake" story about a dragon?

Maybe because there are fossils of dinosaurs in every corner of the globe.

This is the problem. I present you with evidence and you just dismiss it because it does not agree with your ideas. Ever hear of the trilobite? It supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago, yet, we have a fossil of a sandal footprint stepping on one:

www.creationevidence.org...

Well if you have a fossil in the ground and someone comes along later down the line and steps on it, that doesn't mean they lived at the same time... That's absurd reasoning.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

we might as well give up. once again, this thread was posted purely for publicity and not out of any actual interest in the science of evolution. "look at what a good theist i am, resisting the dirty tactics of those lowly heathen evolutionists! here, watch me do it again!"

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Art isn't evidence. It is art. It can have many meanings, it can be abstract, it can be just a story put together with pictures.

Sure, I will humor you and assume all those depictions are coincidentally portraying dinosaurs. Why No comment on the plethora of historical descriptions of dinosaurs?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Maybe because there are fossils of dinosaurs in every corner of the globe.

So when Marco Polo describes dinosaurs, Herodotus describes dinosaurs, etc they are merely referring to fossils? This seems strange considering their accounts undeniably indicate these creatures are alive...

more dinosaurs in history

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

I mean what you are doing here is the equivalent of a person 1000 years from now finding a Devil Dinosaur comic book and declaring that that comic book is proof that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

So all of these cultures across the globe, physically separated by an ocean, all came up with the same "fake" story about a dragon?

Who Knew??

There is ZERO definitive evidence that dinosaurs EVER co-existed with humans

This is the problem. I present you with evidence and you just dismiss it because it does not agree with your ideas. Ever hear of the trilobite? It supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago, yet, we have a fossil of a sandal footprint stepping on one:

www.creationevidence.org...

Who knew??

a reply to: cooperton

This is the problem. I present you with evidence and you just dismiss it because it does not agree with your ideas. Ever hear of the trilobite? It supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago, yet, we have a fossil of a sandal footprint stepping on one:

www.creationevidence.org...

No we don't.

From The Creation Evolution Journal issue Fall 1981 : "Tripping Over a Trilobite: A Study of the Meister Tracks" by Ernest C. Conrad" (for clarity, I have set Conrad's words in bold and the authors he is quoting have been left not bolded):

... Yet, the importance of this discovery, if genuine, is made clear by Kofahl and Segraves.

According to evolutionary chronology, man did not appear on the scene until a half billion years after trilobites became extinct. If these prints prove to be valid, historical geology has another serious problem to solve.

Realizing the significance of this creationist claim and how it would lend support to their view that the earth is very young, I decided to investigate. During the question-and-answer period of the Sacramento debate, I asked Reverend Boswell what scientific evidence he had and what institutions established that the bootprint was real. He answered, "It was the University of Utah and U.C.L.A. and I have forgotten the third. These two are fairly academic institutions. They are familiar with the specimens."

Following his lead, I wrote to the Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah—a "fairly academic institution." I received a letter in return which said:

The "footprint" in question was collected by a man named Meister several years ago, and it was immediately jumped on by Melvin Cook, who is not a paleontologist, as evidence of human-trilobite cohabitation.

I have seen the specimen in question and it is nothing more than a slab of Wheeler shale that has a fragment spalled off in the form of a footprint, which reveals a trilobite, Erathia kingi.

To reiterate, the trilobite is genuine, the footprint is not.

I was referred to an article by Professor William Stokes of the Department of Geological Sciences. Dr. Stokes wrote:

I unhesitatingly assert that this is not a footprint. I have observed and collected a number of types of footprints that meet all the critical requirements, and I have had no qualms about describing these in print even though some were totally new. The Meister specimen is the result of a natural break, which happens to resemble a footprint. This type of fracture is called spalling and the part which breaks out or is detached is called a spall.

The specimen was in no sense faked, and I am sure it was found exactly as reported. But I, along with my geologist friends, are equally sincere in my belief that it is an accidental natural product and not a footprint.

One might think a difference of opinion such as this could be solved by appeal to impartial judges or by a more thorough investigation of the field of evidence. But from the time of discovery, the specimen has taken on a religious significance that makes a friendly solution almost impossible.

...

The willingness of creationists to accept such shakey evidence in defense of their model has long historical roots. For example, in 1725 Dr. Johann Jacob Scheuchzer of Zurich seized upon some fossil bones of approximately human dimensions that were discovered at Oeningen and were sent to him for an opinion.

Scheuchzer was intensely interested in anything that would help prove his theory that fossils originated largely through the work of Noah's flood. These bones seemed to help, so he declared that they belonged to Homo Diluvii Testis (Man Who Witnessed the Flood). However, nearly a hundred years later, the bones were found to be those of a large salamander. It was Cuvier, the famous French paleontologist, who offered the conclusive proof. Two petrified vertebrae, which Scheuchzer had found near Altdorf, Franconia, Germany, and believed to be further remnants of this "flood man," turned out to belong to the marine reptile ichthyosaur.

It remains to be seen how long certain modern creationists will cling to their own updated versions of Homo Diluvii Testis.

Well, we know that it has been 47 years since the Meister discovery / announcement, so that is at least as long as modern creationists will cling to this particular shibboleth.

Hmmm. 47 years, interesting that. The "Piltdown Man" fraud was definitively proven a fraud after 38 years. It was disputed by scientists during every one of those 38 years, however interest in it was interrupted by two devastating world wars and of course, many more important 'actual' finds. The forgery was originally promoted into the gullible public awarness by an over-zealous print media and the immature state of paleoanthropology science, but it has been definitively debunked since 1953 and is used as an example of why scientists need to have an extremely good BS meter. Creationists occasionally try to embarrass scientists and science in general by throwing the "Piltdown Man" forgery into discussion; that the Creationists are not embarrassed by their own BS meter breakdowns, and steadfastly refuse to keep their BS meters in good working order, speaks volumes for their motives - they are more interested in embarassing others than being right.

It seems that since God commanded that "thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor" they have no particular interest in being righteous either.

It STILL remains to be seen how long certain modern creationists (like you) will cling to their own updated versions of Homo Diluvii Testis.

originally posted by: rnaa
"I have seen the specimen in question and it is nothing more than a slab of Wheeler shale that has a fragment spalled off in the form of a footprint, which reveals a trilobite, Erathia kingi. "

So he admits its in the form of a footprint, but then shakes it off as implausible because it does not fit within his belief frame. Textbook bias.

Any comment on marco polo and herodotus' description of dinosaurs?

a reply to: cooperton

See my reply below.

This is a rather lengthy post, but once again, real scientists have researched the description of "dinosaurs" in ancient art and writings and have drawn conclusions from well researched data and documents.

Sorry to rain on your parade Coop. But isn't it about time you clean out the flap trap and start learning some real science?

Dinosaurs and pterosaurs in Greek and Roman art and literature? An investigation of young-earth creationist claims

ABSTRACT

Many young-Earth creationist (YEC) authors claim that ancient Greek and Roman
writings describe dinosaurs and pterosaurs, and that Greco-Roman art illustrates
Mesozoic reptiles. Such claims are used as “evidence” against evolutionary theory in
an attempt to cast doubt on the separation of humans and such animals by millions of
years. However, examination of the Greco-Roman materials in question reveals that
none of them actually depict Mesozoic reptiles. In descriptions of “dragons” (Greek
drakōn; Latin draco) in Greco-Roman literature—which YEC authors claim are dinosaurs—
coils and the epithets ophis, serpens, and anguis reveal that the ancient
authors are describing snakes, often large constrictors. This is the case for the draco
described by Pliny. Phrygian dragons described by Aelian, the Vatican Hill child-eater
mentioned by Pliny, the Bagradas River dragon, the legendary dragons that Alexander
the Great supposedly encountered, and dragons in Greek mythology. An alleged theropod
dinosaur in the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina is a mammal, possibly an otter. An
alleged dinosaur in a Pompeii fresco is a crocodile. Herodotus’ description of winged
snakes is anatomically incompatible with pterosaurs and possibly refers to cobras.
Alleged pterosaurs on an Alexandrian coin are winged snakes. An alleged Etruscan
pterosaur head sculpture depicts a mammal. Two alleged Tanystropheus in a Roman
mosaic from Lydney Park, England are mythical sea monsters. These YEC claims now
join the ranks of discredited “evidence” against evolutionary theory.

Continued in next post

FLYING SERPENTS:
PTEROSAURS?

Several YEC authors cite the winged serpents
mentioned by Herodotus as evidence for human
encounters with living pterosaurs (Taylor, 1987;
Goertzen, 1998; Petersen, 2002; Woetzel, 2006;
Butt and Lyons, 2008; Lyons and Butt, 2008; Stuckwish,
2009; Isaacs, 2010; Gilmer, 2011). Herodotus
says (Histories 2.75, 2.76, 3.107) that he came to a
place near Buto, a city in the Nile delta (Anthon,
1878), in “Arabia”—which, to the ancient Greeks,
included both present-day Arabia and northeast
Egypt up to the Nile (Anthon, 1878)—to ask about
πτερωτῶν ὀφίων (pterōtōn ophiōn: winged
snakes). There he saw heaps of snake bones too
many to count. He heard that to collect frankincense,
Arabians had to use storax smoke to drive
the winged snakes out of the frankincense trees.
He also heard that each spring the winged snakes
fly toward Egypt but are killed by birds called ibises
before arrival. According to Herodotus the winged
snakes are small and have a μορφὴ (morphē:
shape, form) like that of the ὕδρος (hydros: water
snake of the genus Natrix) with wings that are not
feathered but resemble those of a bat.
The batlike wings have convinced several
YEC authors that Herodotus was speaking of
pterosaurs, which, like bats, had wings of skin
rather than of feathers. However, Herodotus’ statement
that the winged snakes have the form of a
water snake is incompatible with a pterosaur.
Pterosaurs have beaklike snouts; legs and feet
with clawed toes; and skin covered in hairlike filaments,
not scales (Wellnhofer, 1991). They would
therefore have been better described as having the
form of a furry bird or a long-snouted bat, not a
snake. As shown in Figure 7, to liken a pterosaur to
a snake is absurd. Herodotus’ winged snakes were
therefore not pterosaurs.
It is possible that the winged snakes were
imaginary. Herodotus saw snake skeletons but did
not record having seen the flying snakes themselves.
If they did exist, then, given his description,
they were probably some type of actual snake with
winglike extensions of skin (hence the likening to
bat wings). As it happens, the geographic area in
question does have such snakes: cobras (genus
Naja), which spread extensions of the neck skin
when agitated. Most species of Naja readily climb
trees (Spawls and Branch, 1995), which is compatible
with their presence in frankincense trees.
Aristotle also mentioned the winged serpents,
and two YEC authors (Taylor, 1987; Petersen,
2002) cite Aristotle’s writing as evidence for human
encounters with pterosaurs. However, Aristotle’s
passing mention, in a passage on animal locomotion,
that “Feathered-winged and skin-winged animals
are bipeds or lack feet, for they say that there
are serpents [opheis] of such a kind [skin-winged]
near Ethiopia” (HA 1.5.9) was not a firsthand
account but a mere nod to what “they say” (they =
Herodotus?). Aristotle mentioned the alleged flying
serpents only to support the assertion that some
winged animals lack feet. The lack of feet and the
epithet opheis show that Aristotle was speaking of
snakes, not pterosaurs.

Continued....

PTEROSAURS IN CLASSICAL ART?

According to one YEC author, a Roman-Alexandrian
coin from A.D. 137 or 138 depicts the longtailed
pterosaur Scaphognathus crassirostris pulling
the chariot of the mythological character Triptolemos
(Goertzen, 1998). What the coin actually
shows is a pair of winged snakes—complete with
coils—pulling the chariot (Figure 8). According to
Greek myth, the goddess Demeter gave Triptolemos
a chariot drawn by a winged pair of drakontes
(Apollodorus, Library 1.5.2). These are always
depicted as snakes with feathered wings, and in
Roman iconography a rooster’s comb is often
added (Figure 8). Both the feathers and the snakelike
form are incompatible with pterosaurs.
The same YEC author illustrates an Etruscan
bronze animal head and claims that it represents
the pterosaur Scaphognathus crassirostris. His
photo is too blurry to discern what animal is actually
depicted, but its very short snout is unlike the
long beak of S. crassirostris, and it has a pair of ear
flaps (Figure 8.2). Among real animals, ear flaps
are an exclusively mammalian trait. Soft-tissue
structures are preserved in numerous pterosaur
specimens (Wellnhofer, 1991), and in no case are
there ear flaps.

CONCLUSIONS
None of the YEC claims of Mesozoic reptiles
in Greco-Roman art are correct. The “dragons” are
snakes. Even when no initial assumption that they
are snakes is made, clues in the ancient texts identify
them as snakes. The alleged pterosaurs are
also snakes. Of the alleged Mesozoic reptiles pictured
in Roman art, the krokodilopardalis is more
like an otter than a theropod, the Pompeii “dinosaur”
is a crocodile, Triptolemos’ “pterosaurs” are
snakes, and the Lydney Park “Tanystropheus” is a
mythical sea monster.
DISCUSSION
If there is any evidence that ancient humans
encountered living dinosaurs and pterosaurs, it is
not in the Greco-Roman literature and art that has
been cited by YEC authors, all of which is reviewed
here. Greco-Roman use of the terms drakōn and
draco is invariably consistent with reference to
snakes, except in the few cases in which these
terms are used for the weever fish. Interestingly,
before Pliny’s first-century work, there is no indication
that the terms drakōn and draco were
restricted to the python. Instead, as Bodson (1975)
points out, the difference in usage between the
terms drakōn and ophis in the most ancient Greek
texts is that the term drakōn tended to be used in
religious or mythical contexts, whereas the term
ophis was used for snakes in ordinary contexts.
This difference in usage is similar to that between
the terms “serpent” and “snake” in English. However,
writers after Pliny consistently imitated Pliny
in making a taxonomic rather than contextual distinction
between the terms drakōn/draco and the
terms ophis/serpens/anguis. The latter set of terms
was applied to snakes in general, and the former
was restricted to the giant, constricting snakes of
Africa and India.
By the fourth century, rumors that the draco
could fly had begun, as recorded by Augustine of
Hippo (On Psalm 148). This rumor was repeated in
subsequent works on natural history by Isidore of
Seville (sixth or seventh century; Etymologiae
7.4.4) and Vincent of Beauvais (thirteenth century;
de Beauvais 1624), but it was not until the sixteenth-
century work of Conrad Gessner that Herodotus’
flying serpents were equated with the
dragon (Gessner, 1589). By this time descriptions
of the dragon had acquired so many absurdities
that skeptics denied the existence of the beast, as
testified in this seventeenth-century rhyme
(Aubrey, 1881):

To save a Mayd, St. George the
Dragon slew,
A pretty tale, if all is told be true:
Most say, there are no Dragons:
and ‘tis sayd,
There was no George; ‘pray God
there was a Mayd.

This study reveals the need for more caution
among YEC researchers when it comes to claims
of human encounters with living animals known
today only from Mesozoic fossils. It also underscores
two methodological problems that commonly
accompany such claims. One is the neglect
to consult primary sources. Instead of consulting
the ancient Greek and Roman sources to see what
they actually said, most (although not all) of the
YEC authors whose work is reviewed here instead
used secondary or tertiary sources, and one (Niermann,
1994) even primarily consulted children’s
books.
Examination of the ancient Greek and Latin
literature itself could have prevented the errors that
were made by these YEC authors. The second
problem is one that I call dead varmint vision (DVV)
or apnotheriopia (from the Greek roots ἄπνοος,
apnoos: not breathing, dead; θηρίον, therion:
beast; and ὄψ, ops: eye): a tendency to erroneously
see fossil animals (dead varmints) in ancient
works of art. DVV is often caused by a lack of
familiarity with the mythology and the artistic and
iconographic conventions of the culture that produced
the art. Such familiarity could have prevented
the mistaking of Triptolemos’ snakes for
pterosaurs or the Lydney Park cetus for a Tanystropheus.
Likewise, familiarity with Native American
artistic and iconographic conventions and mythology
could have prevented several apnotheriopic
misidentifications, by YEC authors, of “dinosaurs”
and “pterosaurs” in North American rock art
(Senter, 2012).

It would be highly advisable for future YEC
studies on ancient literature to incorporate direct
study of that literature, and for future YEC studies
on ancient art to incorporate study of relevant stylistic
conventions and mythology. Until these things
are introduced into such studies, such studies will
continue to commit easily avoidable errors.
As shown here, all published claims of evidence
for human encounters with Mesozoic reptiles
in Greco-Roman literature and art are easily
demonstrated to be erroneous. However, it should
be noted that the YEC paradigm does not depend
on dinosaurs and pterosaurs in Greco-Roman literature
and art. Those who hold the YEC view therefore
ought to be able, in good conscience, to
discard the idea of dinosaurs and pterosaurs in
Greco-Roman literature and art.

Source: digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu...

originally posted by: Phantom423

The “dragons” are snakes.

""Leaving the city of Yachi, and traveling ten days in a westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name of the chief city....Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length (about 30 feet), and ten spans (about 8 feet) girt of the body. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger... "

-Marco Polo

note specifically how thick 8 feet of girth at the body is, and how it could no way be a snake. Not to mention snakes don't have claws. or wings.

a reply to: cooperton

You're not seriously citing Marco Polo, are you??

Funny how creationists will cite the highly unreliable accounts of a near-1000 year old adventurer as evidence without so much as a moment's scrutiny yet adamantly refuse to consider the mountain of highly credible, modern scientific evidence.

Edit: I forgot, you were the poster citing a 200 year old "letters to the editor" in an electrical periodical as evidence of spontaneous generation. What is is with you and citing centuries old, incredible works in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence? It really takes mental contortions of epic proportions to credulously accept such rubbish in favor of denying modern scientific discover.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

The “dragons” are snakes.

""Leaving the city of Yachi, and traveling ten days in a westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name of the chief city....Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length (about 30 feet), and ten spans (about 8 feet) girt of the body. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger... "

-Marco Polo

note specifically how thick 8 feet of girth at the body is, and how it could no way be a snake. Not to mention snakes don't have claws. or wings.

Look, who knows what he saw. Yachi is the city of Kunming which dates 279 BC. If there were extraordinary reptiles in or near the city, other people would have seen it. The Chinese were very prolific writers. Are there any historical reports confirming what he saw? Seems like there would be corroborating stories out there, even if they were considered fairy tales. In any case, I respect your opinion. You're entitled to it. I will disagree with it and present evidence, but I do think it's worthwhile to question everything.

Have a nice weekend.