Dinosaurs and humans

Discussion in 'Science' started by Helen, Jul 27, 2005.

  1. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Johnv asked me why we don't find fossils of dinosaurs with fossils of humans.

    1. How many human fossils are there? VERY few. They are found in entirely different places than the large dinosaur fossils. The large dinos required the humidity and water of the steamy river valleys that existed after the Babel incident. Before that, after the Flood, there was enough water and humidity everywhere that they did not have to congregate only in those special spots. However right after the Flood it was the humans who were looking for habitable areas, and those would not have been where the dinosaurs were most comfortable.

    2. Very little except marine animals and plants have ever been fossilized. Therefore, to use the evolution canard, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack!

    3. There are eyewitness records from men of large dinosaurs, often referred to as dragons, right up until the Middle Ages. Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and the records of Alexander the Great all include dragons. Chinese records and drawings include them. They are seen in Australian caves, Roman pottery and various other places around the world. This is the only field I am aware of where eyewitness accounts mean nothing because dinosaurs are not 'supposed' to be contemporaneous with man.

    But they were.
     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do we find any advanced mammals at all with dinosaurs?

    I can't think of a case. Even where those mammals would have lived in similar environments, it doesn't happen.

    We know that some dinosaurs preferred dry areas, others lived in pine forests, and others on plains. Humans clearly utilize all of these.

    And yet, no human remains are ever associated with dinosaurs.

    We do know, however, that fossils of giraffes gave rise to dragons, and those of ceratopsians gave rise to griffin legends.

    And the "cyclops skull" exhibited the Greeks was actually that of an elephant.

    So the stories do have a basis in fact, albeit not dinosaurs.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 - I never differentiated large dinosaur fossils, small dinosaur fossils, or medium dinosaur fossils. In fact, most dinosaurs were small and medium creatures. Their diversity in size was similar to the diversity in the size of mammals and birds today.
    2 - Your statement is competely false. Dinosaur fossils are often found in the same locations as human remains. However, they are found in different layers, dating to different times of existence. That finding is generally consistent in findings worldwide. This evidences the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived on the earth at different times from each other.

    1 - That's also false, as I pointed out on another thread. Large dinosaurs were not strictly relegated to amazonian tropical climates as above. They were very common in temparate climates mediterranian climates such as conifer forests and savannahs, which have rainfall closer to desert climates than rain forest climates.

    2 - Let's assume you're correct that large dinosaurs were relegated to rain forest type climates. Large dinos made up only a small percentage of all the dinos in existence. This does not explain small or medium dinos, which were in much greater abundance.

    3 - There is no geological evidence to suggest that those climates were more abundant before the Babel incident. Further, scripture does not even make mention of any climate change due to or following the Babel incident.

    There is no geological evidence to support that idea.

    What evidence there is contradicts your statements and supports mine. You're attempting to use the lack of evidence to contradict existing evidence. That's not science. And that doesn't even involve the evolution debate (which I have not even addressed).

    You are seriously equating mythical creatures to evidence? Let's assume you're correct. The you would agree that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Chupacabra are all real animals, despite the fact that no scientific evidence exists. Also, I would assume that you believe Santa Clause and the Easter bunny exist, since there have been countless eyewitness accounts for them.

    Last time I checked, Beowulf was a mythical tale. Now as far as Gilgamesh, if you believe that account to be accurate, then why do you not believe their Flood account to be accurate? It contradicts the Noahdic flood account.

    Last time I checked, paleontology and geology do not rely on eyewitness accounts. The fact that you rely on mythical accounts to assert your ideas leaves your objectivity suspect. Then again, you once claimed that Egyptian heiroglyhics exist in Australia.

    Please note that I'm not attacking you or your faith. I find you to be quite devout and rigteously faithful. I simply question the conclusions you have drawn.
     
  4. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    John, please check the geological evidence as it is presented on my husband's webpage:

    http://www.setterfield.org/geology.htm

    I think you will find the evidence is in the geological record if you understand that the Flood layer is below the Cambrian.
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    What layer is the supposed carbon rich layer?
     
  6. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Do we find human fossils with blue whale fossils today? No. Aren't they contemporary? Yes. Why don't we find fossils together? As is pointed out in #1 of Helen's post they live in differing environments, so we wouldn't we find them together.

    We see the scripture refers to dragons, . We can also see the American Indian's have cave paintings of dinosaurs along side of all the other creatures they saw (wolves, buffalo, deer, apatosaurs, pterosaurs). (for example, see this site: http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm )

    The word "Dragon" appears in the Bible. In fact, it wasn't until after the King James version of the Bible was first written that the word "dinosaur" was invented. So dragon could very well mean dinosaur. We see that 'leviathan' and behemoth in the scripture - which both sound very much like dinosaurs we know of:

    Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
    16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
    17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
    18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
    19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].

    Sounds like a very large dinosaur to me - perhaps a supersaurus or something similar. Also, we read in verse 19 that Behemoth was the ‘chief of the ways of God’, which suggests that Behemoth was one of the largest (if not the largest) of God’s creatures.
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vastly different environments. But dinosaurs lived in many environments suitable for humans.

    I find it hard to believe humans wouldn't settle in pine forests, grasslands, or tropical jungles.

     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting. Every YEC I've known has said that fossils entombed in sedimentary rocks is evidence for the flood. Your husband's timeline says that all the fossils entombed in the sedimentary rocks are all non-flood. His hypothesis is way outside of the mainstream YEC view (This doesn't even begin to argue that fact that his hypothesis also lacks scientific evidence, meaning that both conventional science and YEC supporters reject his claims).
     
  9. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Do we find human fossils with blue whale fossils today? No. Aren't they contemporary? Yes. Why don't we find fossils together? As is pointed out in #1 of Helen's post they live in differing environments, so we wouldn't we find them together. "

    So now tell us why we do not find fossil whales together with the great fossil marine reptiles who do share the same ecological niches.
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    You're completely misrepresenting my question. I asked why humans and dinosaurs do not exist at the same point in time in the geologic record. In your example, a blue whale that died 1000 years ago and a human that died 1000 years ago will appear in the geological record 1000 years ago. But Humans and dinosaurs are separated by large gaps in the geological record. Note that I'm not even suggesting anything that supports darwinian evolution here, or in anything that follows:

    We do? I've intently studied the scriptural source texts, and can find none.

    You're referring to the Anasazi drawings. The drawings are likely less than a thousand years old. This is long after the flood. Many creationists claim that dinosaurs died prior to the flood. BTW, cave paintings at Lascaux depict a unicorn-type creature, as well as a flying man with wings. Is this evidence for flying men and unicorns?

    Does it? The KJV translates the Hebrew word tanniyn as dragon. But it simly referrs to sea animals such as whales. In fact, Gen 1:21 translates the word as "whales".

    A likewise cursory study of the Hebrew reveals that the the words refer to contemporary animals. The word behmowth is Hebrew for "water ox". A Water Ox is what they used to call a hippopotamus. The word levyathan is what the Hebrews used to call a crocodile. In fact, most other bible translations translate those words as such.
     
  11. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    UTE, the 'supposed' carbon-rich layer is discussed here:
    http://www.setterfield.org/snowballearth.htm

    The Tapley Hill Formation is about 2.5 miles thick of carbon rich sediment.

    John, I know the standard YEC explanation is the Flood formed the fossils. Geology does not bear that out. I think you will find that in Barry's material if you take the time to read it. If you don't take the time, please don't come back asking questions about what we think to be true which are already answered in it.

    In the meantime, dinosaurs did not die out before the Flood. They may well have been around a thousand years ago in America. Rare but a few left.

    Finally, a 'cursory' study of the Hebrew is not best here:

    1. Behemoth is a plural in the original. It is derived from an unused root regarding a large quadruped. If you look at the description in Job, however, I don't think you will find it corresponds with anything known today.

    2. Leviathan is from 'wreathed' or writhing animal such as a serpent. Crocs don't writhe like serpents. And the description of the leviathan of Job's time bears NO resemblance to a crocodile.

    3. Tanniym, or tanniyn, is from a word meaning marine or land monster -- this can include anything from a dragon to a whale. The root it came from means 'to elongate' or 'a monster' such as a sea serpent or huge marine animal, or other hideous land animal such as a dragon.

    Items 1-3 are referenced from a Strongs Concordance.

    In the long run, it is only because of evolutionary presuppositions that there is a refusal to accept the biblical descriptions as being accurate, or to accept that the ancients knew full well what a dragon was because they saw them, were often afraid of them, and suffered quite a bit of damage from some of them. If you take off the evolutionary glasses, sometimes the evidence can speak quite loudly of something that disagrees with evolution itself.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, are you telling me that most other Bible translations, including translations in Dutch German, Spanish, and other languages, not to mention the NIV, NASB, etc, are all wrong when they render the words "water ox" and "crocodile"?

    You presume that the behemoth and leviathan are dinosaurs because if they're not, they might support evolution somehow? That in itself is a presupposition. Properly rendering the words "water ox" and "crocodile" neither support nor refute either YEC or evolution, so there's no need for YEC's to get in a fight over this. I'm aware of what Strong's Concordance says. Strongs, however, does not include context. You'd thin my several years studies, including Hebrew and Greek, would count for something here.

    As for your accusation of me having evolutionary glasses, note that I have not addressed the issue of evolution at all in this thread. In fact, I'm steering clear of it so that we can address specific evidentiary points. So kindly do not accuse me of having any kind of glasses on. Besides, I paid a lot of money for my laser eye surgery, and no longer need 'em. [​IMG] .

    As for your Barry's material, I will be happy to read it with an objective eye. However, upon doing so, kindly do not accuse me of being non-objective if I post any disagreements or concerns. I may surprise you, and post agreements as well.
     
  13. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    I apologize for the offense, John. I am so used to being conned and lied to here that I tend to get a bit insensitive. Go ahead. Surprise me. I would love it.
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "UTE, the 'supposed' carbon-rich layer is discussed here:
    http://www.setterfield.org/snowballearth.htm

    The Tapley Hill Formation is about 2.5 miles thick of carbon rich sediment.
    "

    Except taht this formation shows the same excersion of carbon isotopes that indicates the buildup of non-organic carbon in the atmosphere during the glacial periods that is removed during the following warm periods to make the characteristic dolostones.
     
  15. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    From Barry:

    Actually, it doesn't. Tell Joe he knows better.

    The carbon isotopes referred to in your response are in the overlying carbonate cap on top of the Tapley Hill sequence (known as the Brighton Limestone), not on the Tapley Hill formation itself. "The very fine lamination [of the Tapley Hill formation] is largely due to variation in mineral composition and pigmentation by organic matter...The darker laminations are stained by organic pigment and contain less quartz silt....The Tindelpina Shale Member [again of the Tapley Hill formation] is distinguished by its finer grain size and higher organic carbon content (up to 1.1%). The greater degree of crystallinity of illite, increased content of graphitic kerogen [kerogen: A solid, waxy, organic substance that forms when pressure and heat from the Earth act on the remains of plants and animals] and higher magnetic response ...have been attributed to an increase in metamorphic grade."
    The Adelaide Geosyncline, W.B. Preiss, bulletin 53, Geological Survey of South Australia,1987, pp 162 and 165

    This, then, is the Flood layer.
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know a Joe so I don't know what you are insinuating here.

    The only thing I can think of is that you are referring to Joe Meert. I have never had any contanct with him and I am unaware of anything by him that I would have read that concerns this.

    But, since you mentioned it, getting a real geologist involved might be quite interesting. I have little knowledge of geology and am forced to go off and try and research all of these things as best I can. Since your interpretations are so far from what geologists have to say, the opinion of people who have detailed knowledge of the geology in question on your ideas would be interesting.

    In any case, when starting to look into the Tapley Hill Formation, the first reference I came across when trying to orient myself included the overlaying limestone deposits as part of the formation.

    Next statement is that this reference

    M.R. Walter, J.J. Veevers, C.R. Calver, P. Gorjan, A.C. Hill, Dating the 840–544 Ma Neoproterozoic interval by isotopes of strontium, carbon, and sulfur in seawater, and some interpretative models, Precambrian Research 100 (2000) 371–433.

    lists the deviations for many layers during the period in question. For the Tapley, it lists the deviation from the ratio for organic material as -26.2 to -29.0% and for the Brighton it is -24.6 to -27.8%. So they fall into the same general range of excursion.

    Finally, another reference which I cannot find again right now, stated that the darker shales of the formation, in which can be found organic carbon, has a signature of carbon from algae because of the characteristic length of the carbon chains. This is also incompatible with this layer containing carbon from all the worlds layers.
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Getting back to the topic though, it seems that you need to address the concerns raised above.

    You have asserted that dinosaurs required hot and steamy conditions as a reason for finding their remains separate. But, as has been pointed out, dinosaurs are actually found in all of the various ecological niches that were present during the time. Some did live in swamps, but many lived in more temperate areas including forest land. Some have even been found so close to the pole that they endured long periods of darkness.

    But you still never find dinosaurs with large mammals who would have been expected to be in these same areas if they had been contemporaries. You cannot even tie them together from different locales with index fossils. For that matter, you cannot even tie dinosaurs to being contemporary with grasses. Surely these grazing plant eating dinosaurs would have loved to munch on grass just as much as the grazing and browsing mammals do today.

    The giant marine reptiles of hte time used the same ecological niches as todays cetaceans. Yet they are never found together.

    The list of fossil animals who had similar lifestyles and lived in similar ecologies but who are never found together can be extended for a long time. Marsupial "cats" and actual large cats is anotherexample.

    This is why past biogeography is one of the common pieces of evidence that points towards common descent.
     

Share This Page

Loading...