Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

Originally posted by GJPinks
All things tend towards entropy.

Ah, glad you mentioned it.
This old chestnut of creationism relies on people not knowing what "entropy" is, nor of what the second law of thermodynamics really is.

Entropy is used by creationists to mean decay, and thus supposedly the opposite of evolution.
It is ACTUALLY a technical term relating to the distribution of heat energy and has NOTHING to do with messy bedrooms, records melting in the sun, genetic mutations, dirty dishes, cars breaking down or any of the other analogies they use to convince you that all things "decay" without the help of God.

Just another way that they lie to you.

Of course they did.

Anyone to think otherwise is a moron..

reply to post by GJPinks

Tell that to surfactant molecules that will spontaneously self-assemble in micelles, thus reducing the amount of entropy in a system.

reply to post by nyk537


this kind of thread is ridiculous, carbon dating alone disproves this entire argument
en.wikipedia.org...
its not a theory, its scientific fact.
a cave drawing which 'you think looks a bit like a dinosaur' does not stand up to decades of the tested and proven theory which is evolution.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Akasirus

 

Fair enough, and I agree.

I just wanted to make it clear that the two things, at core, are not mutually exclusive, or needn't be.

In my view, American Christendom is about as helpful to the cause of increasing our understanding and awareness of ourselves and the world around us as is the secular atheism held by most Europians.

Science, as it's concieved today in terms of the scientific method, also has it's limitations, wherein every new "truth" generates an infinite bifurcation of hypothesis - that some work well in manipulating matter, or in predicting the effects from causes, doesn't mean that we are any closer to understanding the truth in terms of our true nature, and the very purpose and meaning of life.

Enter consciousness, within a quantum physical framework, and the deeper issues and metaphysical implications becomes the new pursuit of science within a new scientific paradigm and in that regard both science and religion are now on intersecting, not divergent paths.

Literalist fundamentalist conservative American Christendom however, in rejecting evolutionary theory, represents a step back, for all involved, and doesn't even serve the cause of God as presented through the person of Jesus, imho.

I think we share similar viewpoints. In fact, earlier in this thread I said that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive concepts. The main problem arises in that we have a framework for discussing and determining 'known' facts about our reality objectively using science, and a framework for discussing theological topics and religion, but there's no bridge between the two. So it's very difficult to discuss the two without resorting to arbitrary rules because by default topics of faith can't be held to the standards of the scientific method.

Honestly, it's quite a problem, and the reason that few people try to tie science and religion together in a way that both ideas can coexist.

Freeman Dyson I think puts it well:

Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.

reply to post by GJPinks


Except that the "all things tend toward entropy" argument is about the second law of thermodynamics, which actually states that CLOSED systems tend toward entropy. Systems, like our solar system, which receive new energy (created by the fusion of the sun), don't fit under the 2nd law.

Creationists can never use science to prove their anti-science. But they can pick up a scientific concept and misuse it well enough to deceive the gullible sheep that eat from their hands. By the way I used to be one of those sheep. I spent my teenage years as an Old Earth creationist, look into it a bit more deeply from both sides and let reason, not faith, be your guide.

yes. they still do. they are called crocodillians. the celeocanth. green algae. the congress & senate. all dinosaurs who's time is almost past! ! ! !

reply to post by quadagent


Read that last sentence again, because that's exactly what's going on in this thread. There is no reason to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, except by trying to superimpose religious views onto the scientific world,

I think it is possible that some dinosaurs lived through the big "extinction", just as humans, in small groups, could live through an apocalypse. These dinosaurs could have bred, survived and overlapped human lifetime on earth, thus appearing in human carvings/cave paintings. Then humans could have finished them off.

Creationism is total nonsense though. Believe scientists of intelligence today or a 2000 year old book?

Great thread man. Lots of research and time went it to making this

I've been browsing the threads here for some time and decided to create an account to post on this topic.
Anyways to my point... I'm an undergraduate physics major and recent scientific findings say that radioactive decay is unreliable, now the reason I bring this up is because us scientist use Carbon 14 dating to date things by the "amount" of decay over given time which gives a rough yet what is thought to be accurate dating process.

Read this- Might give some credence to the OP
www.icr.org...

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by manontrial
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

He is a young earth creationist, yes? Of course his views are tainted by his religious beliefs. No sane person supports a young Earth without a major religious bias.

Sanity is a statistic. I remember when there were a few insane doctors who once believed in little invisible monsters called germs, and tried to spread their insanity by advising their peers of these invisible tiny monsters by telling them to wash before surgery, etc.

to quote someone dead, and famous, "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted"

I like intelligent insanity, makes the world worth living in with boring dolts like...well, anyway, like some folks who's only contribution to a thread, to society, to the universe, is a mere reflection of a shallow soul's textual diarrhea retching forth a bit of bitter copy and paste thinking.

Is there anywhere besides in person, where a debate on a subject can take place without ad hominem?

Holographic Universe Theory makes any "young-earth, dinosaurs and cavemen, space aliens living in your bloodstream as nanobots disguised as organic flu viruses, etc" look pretty sane, and one I currently subscribe to.

It has no religious basis, and WAY more absurd, abstract, and difficult to grasp than ANY religious versions of the universe, but you don't see anyone attacking those threads, those thoughts, those theories.

Looks like a few of you are mad at God...even if he doesn't exist

Originally posted by zombiemonkfish
reply to post by nyk537

 

this kind of thread is ridiculous, carbon dating alone disproves this entire argument
en.wikipedia.org...
its not a theory, its scientific fact.
a cave drawing which 'you think looks a bit like a dinosaur' does not stand up to decades of the tested and proven theory which is evolution.

Scientific Facts Disproven:

1. Radioactive Decay Rates are Unalterable
2. The World is Flat
3. Pluto is the 9th Planet
4. etc, etc, etc.

My point is don't look to science as your religious, that's the good thing about science, it's dynamic, and changes with new discoveries...go be a scientist, open your mind..

Creationism and Evolution go hand in hand in my opinion, can't have one without the other.

Where did the big bang come from? A big crunch? Where did that big crunch come from...another big bang?

Get it? WHERE/WHAT/WHEN/HOW/WHY started this "cycle" of creation/destruction.

You answer that question, then you can confidently state the mind is right, the heart is wrong, or vice versa, or creationism right, or wrong.

Wow, lots of opinions, not seeing a lot of intelligent replies, but a lot of attack.

I think everyone, atheist, and believer are having Jesus issues.

Originally posted by jpb0801
I've been browsing the threads here for some time and decided to create an account to post on this topic.
Anyways to my point... I'm an undergraduate physics major and recent scientific findings say that radioactive decay is unreliable, now the reason I bring this up is because us scientist use Carbon 14 dating to date things by the "amount" of decay over given time which gives a rough yet what is thought to be accurate dating process.

Read this- Might give some credence to the OP
www.icr.org...

How does your institution react to you using Creationist sources?

reply to post by Akasirus



Sigh...I see some subtle but distinct differences between and what I think was the OP intent and "claiming jurisdiction over scientific questions." I would look at the one as someone trying to rectify his faith with some level of veracity, questioning the status quo, and seeking something to span the gap, however awkward, while the latter, and what I think Dyson was intending, was the rejection of some sort of authoritarian jurisdiction over science (i.e. something akin to Roman Catholicism against the burgeoning age of science)...but that's just me.

I think that it is apparent that I believe in a creator. And I have opinions about Young Earth/Old Earth/Ancient Earth theories, but what does my opinion matter, really? On the whole, and specifically regarding creation, I defer to much more intelligent and learned men and women throughout the ages and in our present age that have also have believed that the handiwork we see around us cries out for a designer. Everyone doesn't see that, everyone doesn't believe that. I understand.

With that said, back to the OP. I do agree that the arguments presented here are weak at best, but I don't believe they are malicious or intentionally misleading. I think a lot of people read a lot more into others intent than that are there. I personally wouldn't post among these forums anything that I knew would provoke such virulent animosity, but I do applaud the OP for seeing something they personally found to be anomalous, tried to gather some information and presented a hypothesis, however misguided knowing the perspective environment.

Perhaps he will hesitate or choose not to do so in the future. But is that what we really want? I just wish so many of the responses were less condescending, less hate filled, less abusive ad hominem in tone and, well, more simply to the point and nothing more...on all sides. If science is indeed so wonderful, and mankind so grand, would we truly need to tear another apart to prove we were right? And if faith is real, and grace true, how can we suppose that an Almighty God needs our meager defense?

I've heard that "a soft answer turns away wrath," I would at least hope that much could be proven true.

reply to post by nyk537


Oh for the love of sanity, the Flintstones was NOT a flippin' documentary! And yes I read the entire OP. It's based on junk science and misguided assumptions.

Okay, admittedly I have not read all the posts. After the first couple of pages it seemed to become creationist vs scientists. Anyway, I too do not wholly believe in evolution; although I do believe species evolve. One thing that keeps coming up is the length of time it takes for fossilization. I do not know how long it takes for bone, but having found a lot of petrified wood while working on a construction site, some of which appeared to be cut with a saw before petrification, I did some research on that. Petrification of wood can occur in as little as a couple of hundred years. Isn't it conceivable that bone could do the same? One of the best articles I found can be seen at: www.ncsec.org...
I do believe in creation, but not necessarily the 6000 year timeline. I also believe that man has achieved high levels of civilization, and then been "reset" by natural disaster, wars, or whatever and had to start all over again.
If we could discuss without attacking each other, this could be an interesting thread.

reply to post by Cosmicdjinn


In the 1700 and early 1800's when captains were trying to chart the depths of the oceans, giant shark jaws have been dredged up that were thought to be megalodon and to be around 50,000 years old. Unfortunately there wre no dating techniques back then and those jaws were either lost or sold and disappeared. It is possible that megalodon could still exist, less than 2% of the earths oceans have been explored and it is commonly thought that in the deeper oceans and trenches the more massive sea creatures dwell. It takes a tremendous body to be able to survive those massive depths and the crushing weight. However that video could be faked because that trap could be a toy and those sharks could be babies near the mother.

The lochness video was less than impressive, but i liked the music to it at least.

reply to post by zombiemonkfish


Carbon dating disproves nothing...as we have covered in this thread. (which you obviously didn't bother yourself with reading.)

I have also never mentioned, or used, a cave drawing as part of my argument.