1925 Dinosaur

[Canuckster1127]

All you've got here is anecdotal evidence and rather tortuous at that.

In terms of the soft tissue dinosaur here is an article by Rich:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

First, as stated before, dinosaurs have not died out. There are many dinosaurs still present, such as crocodiles, iguana's, monitor lizards etc. It is not unusual by any measure for there to be mythology around large creatures or unusual creatures. That's why we have consistent cross cultural myths of elves, giants, pixies, fairies, leprachaun's etc.

To appeal to this kind of mythology in the absence of hard evidence is more than poor science, it is poor logic.

It's a matter of evidence. What you are offering is not hard evidence and the reason is because you have no hard evidence, so you have to appeal to this soft, nebulous type stuff that really is in keeping with the Loch Ness Monster. Big foot is a not just a regional myth, it also applies to Yeti in Asia and similar type myths.

Where's the hard evidence? If you have all creatures that have ever lived within a 6,000 year time frame, there should be all kinds of comingled remains and creatures in the same or very close layers. You don't have an answer for that. You will appeal again to people's incredulity and claim the evidence is there. we just haven't found it yet.

These are links showing the type of "Scientists" that Hovind and Hamm are:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bart ... thesis.htm

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/chr ... er14th.htm

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ham_evidence.htm

Now, I am not an evolutionist. But this is the kind of response that the type of YEC stuff that is being paraded out generates and frankly it damages the reputation of the Church and drives people away from Christ in many instances.

Where's your hard evidence?

[sandy_mcd]

I'm not really sure what this has to do with accounts of recent dinos, but it seems that those who don't want that to be true simply marginalize and redicule. I guess that is easier than actually confronting the evidence.

There are many plants and animals which scientists thought had gone extinct only to find similar living species: dawn redwood, coelacanth, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil Scientists are certainly willing in some cases (in which there is solid evidence) to admit they were wrong about some lineage being extinct. So what is different in the case of the plesiosaur?
1) The evidence just isn't convincing.
2) There is some peculiar consequence to admitting that plesiosaurs still exist.
I am going with number 1.

[Gman]

Now, I am not an evolutionist. But this is the kind of response that the type of YEC stuff that is being paraded out generates and frankly it damages the reputation of the Church and drives people away from Christ in many instances.

I totally agree with you on this Bart... In fact I work with scientists everyday that remind me of this fact. It has made Christianity totally laughable in their eyes.. And rightfully so.

G -

[Jbuza]

gone.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

I totally agree with you on this Bart... In fact I work with scientists everyday that remind me of this fact. It has made Christianity totally laughable in their eyes.. And rightfully so.

G -

No actually this is completley wrong. They laughed at Jesus Christ before anoyone even cared about the dinos. All they really cared about them at that time was the nuisance they were.

But JEsus did say that he was taunted and rediculed first, and that we would be taunted and rediculed for his sake.

IT isn't suprising. The church isn't a social club where we tell the most popular story in hopes af attracting the most listners.

Actually I have never even hear the word dino mentioned at my church. The church is in great danger if we are going to preach what is popular, and what doesn't result in the redicule of the world.

I might agree with you, if I believed that YEC was taught in the Bible.

The Gospel itself is always going to be seen as foolishness and Scripture clearly teaches we will be persecuted and ridiculed for it. That is independent of the YEC/OEC debate and includes all of us.

That said, I don't believe being ridiculed itself is necessarily an indication of any virtue.

If there were, then let's just come up with the position that creates the most ridicule from the world and determine truth on that basis.

I know YEC proponents like to frame their position as "the" Biblical position It goes with the presumption that their's is the only literal position and so they've framed the question in terms of one that equates YEC with the truth of the Bible.

Both YEC and OEC are literal positions. "Yom" literally can mean a 24 hour day, the 12 hour or so portion of a day where there is light, or a period of time. The issue is what the context demands in that passage.

The issue is not popularity. It is simply one of what Scripture teaches first and then and then what the creation itself demonstrates.

The truth is that the OEC position is Biblical in its foundation. It existed before the advent of modern science. The issue is one of how to literally interpret the Scriptures. The proponderance of evidence over time is demonstrating this understanding to be more consistent with the creation itself, which should not surprise any Christian. Scripture and nature are in perfect agreement. It is Theology (man's interpretation of Scripture) and Science (man's interpretation of Nature) that finds conflict and the reason is found on both side's in the common denominator of "man's interpretation."

There is no direct parallel in appealing to the warnings of ridicule for the Gospel message itself and equating that with either position in terms of YEC or OEC. There is no virtue in being ridiculed when what you profess is not what the Scripture teaches.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

The truth is that the OEC position is Biblical in its foundation. It existed before the advent of modern science. The issue is one of how to literally interpret the Scriptures. The proponderance of evidence over time is demonstrating this understanding to be more consistent with the creation itself, which should not surprise any Christian.

really.

Yes, really. Do you believe Scripture and Nature are not in agreement?

[Canuckster1127]

Don Batten: Buddy, you recently had a visit to Alaska to find 'fresh' dinosaur bones — can you tell us about that?

Buddy Davis: Sure. Our team of five went to the North Slope of Alaska, about as far north as you can go without actually getting into the Arctic Ocean. We landed at a little place called Umiat, population two, in a small bush plane and there picked up rubber rafts and rafted a hundred miles down the glacier-fed Colville river. The third day we found our first dinosaur remains. [Prof.] John Whit-more, our geologist and team leader, spied this fossil head — it was just dropping out of the bank ready to fall into the river. Dr Speck and I paddled just as hard as we could, and I just got my hands on it and, you know, the current was pulling us. And so I'm hanging onto this thing trying to pull it loose and get it in our rubber raft. It weighed 80 pounds [40 kilograms] — it's a wonder it didn't sink the raft. We later identified it as a Lambeosaurus — the furthest north such dinosaur remains have been found.

I heard the mosquitoes were ferocious?

I tell you, I've never seen mosquitoes like it. They were on us constantly and you couldn't get away from them. They'd even land in your food — we ended up eating our food, mosquitoes and all. It was something else.
... and quicksand?

That's right. Dr Speck fell in quicksand as we neared the main bone bed. We got him out — he was very cold and shivering — we put dry clothes on him, put him in a sleeping bag, gave him a hot meal, and the next day he was all right. The police later told us that Eskimos out hunting alone get caught in quicksand and bears get them.

The Liscomb Bone Bed has probably thousands of frozen unfossilized dinosaur bones — some of them have the ligaments still attached. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure the importance of this. To believe that it is 65 million years or more since these dinosaurs lived on earth — that takes a lot of faith. It doesn't take near as much faith to believe that they might have been frozen for a couple of thousand years at most. It places dinosaurs well within the time of man, so I think that's exciting. That's what we went there for — to find the frozen dinosaur bones and the Lord was very, very gracious to us. We brought back (under an official permit) over two hundred pounds of bones. It was a neat team and we all give God the glory.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... sicman.asp

Why are there no pictures? Where are the reports of paleontologists who have been invited to examine the evidence? Are there not even YEC paleontologists who could do this or coordinate the review?

Why not have the ICR or Kent Hovind, or Ken Hamm etc, coordinate the verification of this find and these bones with mainstream scientists?

Why is so much we're asked to believe and suspend judgment upon based upon hearsay and conspiracy theories?

Where's the hard evidence?

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

The truth is that the OEC position is Biblical in its foundation. It existed before the advent of modern science. The issue is one of how to literally interpret the Scriptures. The proponderance of evidence over time is demonstrating this understanding to be more consistent with the creation itself, which should not surprise any Christian.

really.

Yes, really. Do you believe Scripture and Nature are not in agreement?

The quote seems to indicate that an OE should not be a surprise to any christian.

I believe scripture and nature are in agreement. I don't believe Evolution and OEC to be in agreement with nature.

Evolution and OEC are not the same things.

What you are saying and doing here though does bring out the point, that on the one hand you claim that science cannot prove OEC by seeking to demonstrate that we cannot know anything to any degree of certainty from the past. In doing so you claim the multitude of hard evidence testifying to these conclusions cannot be relied upon.

Yet, now you attempt to create a premise for YEC and base it upon historical claims of sightings of dinosaurs, which are based upon even flimsier levels of evidence that of anecdotal evidence given.

You appear to me to be taking the path of the gunman arrested with a smoking gun in his hand, which afterwords matches ballistic tests with the bullet found in his wife, who when confronted by the judge states, "Who are you going to believe? Me? or your lying eyes?"

Where's the hard evidence?

[sandy_mcd]

Why are there no pictures? Where are the reports of paleontologists who have been invited to examine the evidence? ... Why is so much we're asked to believe and suspend judgment upon based upon hearsay and conspiracy theories?
Where's the hard evidence?

I suspect Jbuza does not appreciate how science works. If he wants to convince people of his ideas, he needs real evidence. Stories are just a start. It is not that scientifically minded people will not change their beliefs. Scientists (and many non-scientists who have opinions about the natural world) need evidence on which to base their beliefs. The history of science is full of once-accepted ideas which have been since rejected, replaced, and expanded. But these changes (many of which were too slow in coming) were ultimately based on evidence, not only stories. This link isn't particularly good, but it does have some examples http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/scidis.htm. The story of Bretz and the Missoula floods is a good example of scientists letting their pre-conceived notions reject a hypothesis which they would not even seriously consider. But eventually through long-life, persistence, examination of evidence, and additional evidence, Bretz' ideas finally prevailed.
So long as JB presents only anecdotes, he isn't going to have much success. And the old rule of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence still applies. The more established a belief that JB wants to overturn, the more evidence he needs to convince others.
I suspect JB gets frustrated sometimes because he thinks people aren't paying attention to what he writes (e.g., some comments which led to his being chided by a moderator). But the real issue is that many here are not going to be convinced by things which he apparently feels constitute compelling evidence. He may find tales of flying, fire-breathing, Chinese dragons sufficient to believe in dinosaurs coexisting with man, but for many others, real physical evidence is necessary.

[godslanguage]

If dinosaurs did coexist with man, as Jbuza presents pritty descent historical findings. Wouldn't radiometric dating or whatever scientists use to date the fossils indicate or provide data that corresponds with the timeline of around 6000 years. So to prove this we must find data because science works with data and is the only way to provide evidence in this regard. Is data that science interprets with radiometric dating consistent with known history itself? Do we know this for sure, 100 % no doubt ?

Just wanted to add, as for the physical evidence, it is there, in museums and in the ground. So other physical evidence such as footprints, artifacts and historical pieces are not physical evidence EVEN in a laughable state?