Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?

Bare links with little supporting discussion is not popular here. So let me ask a question: How many toes do the "man tracks" have? Can you provide us an image to answer it?Also, how come we've never found a dinosaur with human bones in its belly, or a dinosaur skeletion with a spearpoint lodged in it?Final point, why do you feel compelled to "prove" the Bible with science?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 04-06-2002]

[QUOTE][b]Also Creation scientists operate (I believe two) magazines that are peer-reviewed.[/QUOTE][/b]However to join the Creation Research Society, the group that publishes CRSQ, you have to sign a Statement of Belief that endorses YEC views. Also, it has blatantly stated that all papers that support and Old Earth are rejected.

quote:

---

International Creationism Conference Call for Papers (CRS)
Papers dealing with the age of the earth/universe must be either from a young-earth perspective or offer a positive/constructive criticism of that perspective. Papers from an old-earth/old-universe perspective will not be considered.

---

[QUOTE]Cobra Snake: [b]I don't think you are correct in saying that Creation scientists will accept any evidence[/QUOTE][/b]Creationists reject any evidence that contradicts Creationism. In fact, AiG considers the automatic rejection of any Old Earth evidence so important they mention that it is necessary in their statement of faith: [QUOTE][b]By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.[/QUOTE][/b]AiG is the perfect example of a Creationist organization that is not interested in evidence, but only wants to promote YEC views regardless of what the truth might be. According to that quote, if God Himself descended from Heaven and told the AiG crew they were wrong, they would be obligated to ignore Him and continue their work. That is what a SoF is. No evidence of any kind will ever convince AiG because they aren't interested in evidence, and so Creationism is itself a religion and AiG is hawking a new subgroup of Christianity, in which the Bible itself is elevated to near Godhood.As for Hovind, if they rebuked the fellow, what does that say about him?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 04-09-2002]

Techristian,You must have overlooked my questions. How many toes do they have, and how many dinosaur skeletons with spearpoints in them have been found?Before we move on to other topics, we need to wear this out first.

[QUOTE][b]I'm not sure how many toes were there, but I only SAW 4 toes. (but there was possibly another one next to the big toe)[/QUOTE][/b]If it was a human, there should be five toes.Can you link to the image? The ones I've seen aren't too impressive. This one, for example, was made by a rather odd "human", as it has two toes and heart-shaped foot. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor+3-dry.jpgThe proportions of this one are wrong, and the largest toe should be on the same side as the inward curve of the foot. Conclusion: this "human" had a mirror-reversed foot. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor+3-wet.jpgThis person thought it would be convincing if they put their foot in an eroded dinosaur print and snapped a picture. "Whoever" made that print must hav do, because for you to claim these things you must have visited the site. When did you go? [QUOTE][b]As to a spear in a dinosaur , try to catch one, on foot, running 30-70 miles per hour.[/QUOTE][/b]Why should I catch it on foot when I can set a trap, run it off a cliff, or circle it with the rest of the tribe? Or I might just find an injured one (free food). Do you think that natives hunted buffalo by running them down and strangling them? I'm afraid that if humans had to run for their food we wouldn't have survived even this long in geologic time.The speed of the animal is much of a problem to someone with opposable thumbs and some creativity. Pronghorns can reach a velocity of 70 mph, the record is 84. What was a pronghorn to the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North America? Dinner¹. Also on the menu are bison¹ (35 MPH)², elk¹ (45 MPH)³, and bear (30 MPH, if you want to catch one)³. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/nediv/sebpubl.htm (1) http://www.creamerybrookbison.com/facts.htm (2) (3)http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004737.html(3)[QUOTE][b]Why are there still certain life forms unchanged when compared to fossils "millions of years old" ?[/QUOTE][/b]Name one "unchanged" compared to fossils.Now answer my question: why aren't there human bones found inside dinosaur ribcages? [QUOTE][b]When a new SPECIES is supposedly evolved, it must only mate within the species. WHO DOES THE FIRST ONE OF A SPECIES MATE WITH ? [/QUOTE][/b]A new species does not appear in one generation, and since a population evolves rather than individuals, there is never only one member of a species. Since it is a gradual process there is never an organism that different from its parents or from potential mates nearby. This is a basic concept in evolution, the question clearly shows that you should do more background research. [QUOTE][b]Once again where are your transitional species?[/QUOTE][/b]Technically every species is a transitional but I think others have already answered your question, it would be nice if you could answer mine in such detail as they have provided you.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 04-11-2002]

Dave,I'm not a big fan of the ADD method of debate. Let's pick a topic and stick with it. I want to know where all the dino products are at archealogical sites.As others have pointed out wings too weak for flying still can be used for gliding. You will note that several extant species glide between trees to escape predation therefore even partially functional wings or other unpowered aerodynamic structures have an advantage as an adaptation. Enough on that point, back to my questions. Where are the dinosaur fossils in human trashpits? Where are the dinosaur fossils with human remains in their ribcages, and with spearpoints lodged in their bones?

[QUOTE][b]First of all I gave you a plausible answer for the spear.[/QUOTE][/b]Your "plausible answer" was that dinosaurs run too fast to be hunted, to which my response was that animals that could run faster than 40 MPH, and one that had a top speed of 80 MPH, were hunted by humans. The fastest speed in the dinosaur range you could provide was 70 MPH (and you didn't give a reference, but it seemed reasonable so I let it go). Now, unless you want to claim that all dinosaurs could exceed 80 MPH on foot and were too smart for traps and never were sick or young you need to be finding spearpoints in carcasses, or at least you need to be finding dinosaur fossils at archealogical sites along with the usual camels, mammoths, horses, and dire wolves. If those people routinely hunted wooly mammoths I don't think there were very many dinosaurs they would have cowered from. Plus, I should point out (particularly after Cobrasnakes' post in which he makes an interesting argument) that dinosaurs were cosmopolitan. North America was rife with them as is obvious from the dinosaur fossils being found throughout the West and New England. If you claim that the Paluxy tracks are genuine, then that particularly demands the evidence I am asking for.I think my question is still valid, where are those human/dino interactions?And what woud you consider to be an unmistakable transitional fossil?

[QUOTE][b]poor creature becomes CRIPPLED as its front paws/claws are HALF AND HALF, USELESS FOR RUNNING FROM PREDATORS, BUT NOT YET FULLY DEVELOPED FOR FLIGHT. Oh yes, this seems like a real FIT species! And according to Darwin this poor creature might be LIMPING around in this half crippled state for a MILLION YEARS OR MORE?[/QUOTE][/b]You didn't know that the dinosaurs associated with birds were bipedal, and would not have used their forearms for running in the first place?

[QUOTE][b]It seems likely to me that humans would tend to live in different areas as opposed to living where supposedly blood-thirsty dinasaurs were roaming.[/QUOTE][/b]You just said that most animals are afraid of humans. Dinosaurs would have to be hunting humans already before people would begin actively avoiding them. It seems that both of your replies are contradictory. Also humans would have had to come down from their hideouts to gather food and move across the continent.As for chicken bones in my stomach, I'm a lot more polite about how I eat than most large predators. Dinosaurs are found with fossilized remains of food and yet we don't find any human material in there.

[QUOTE][b]Fine, but even with your assumption granted, it would not be likely that we would find human remains inside of dinasaurs.[/QUOTE][/b]I maintain my disagreement, I still contend it would be inevitable that people would be eaten if they were contemporaries with the dinosaurs, just as it is inevitable that people would have eaten dinosaurs, and we would find their remains at archealogical sites.But let's set aside the 'human hideout' concept and widen the question a little more. Why aren't we finding bones from mountain goats, horses, camels, pronghorns, rabbits, birds, deer, mice, voles (for the procomposagnathids and ceoleophysis) wildcats, wolves, mammoths, elk, bears etc. in dinosaur bellies? In fact, every extant large land animal that I can think of is post-Cretaceous. Imagine, not one of them being represented inside a dinosaur ribcage!

[QUOTE][b]Before evaluating the question further, I would like to know, How often are remains found inside dinasaur ribcages?[/QUOTE][/b]"Occasionally" is the best way to put it -- stomach acids often can decompose bones before the carcass decomposes. Sue was the first T-rex to have stomach contents identified with it (Elasmosaur). Spinosaurus stomach contents have also been found (Iguanadon and fish) but these are the only instances I could find on the web. A search of paleontological literature would likely yield more information.Other data comes from coprolites, fossil dinosaur feces. I can't find anything decent with web searches because all the hits are rock shops and dinosaur pages for elementary school students.

[QUOTE][b]NOw, that is a lie. Maybe inadvertent on your part, but no C-14 date would EVER give millions of years.[/QUOTE][/b]It must be inadvertant on his part because it is somewhat damaging to his credibility. I'm just going to briefly point out why what he claimed is impossible and leave it at that.After 50,000 years the concentration of C-14 falls to a level that is undetectable by instrumentation. Therefore an age of "millions of years" by C-14 is impossible. Also we know that it had to have been C-14 dating because of the information he gives us, that it was a pig bone. Can't use any other method I'm aware of on biologicals.

[QUOTE][b]I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones.[/QUOTE][/b]I guess that if you want to resort to something as weak as argument from personal incredulity, that's your business, but those bones could be different colors from some of them being eroded at the surface and bleached by sunlight, being near the water level during rainy season, or being stained from mineral leaching from nearby rocks. If you want to prove that it's a chimera you'll need a forensic anthropologist, and given the dog-eat-dog nature of the peer review system, I think it likely Lucy would have been sniped long ago if you were able to conclude it was a hoax through glimpsing it on television. The ridicule from other posts here was a little extreme but I think that it is not unfounded.

"New" opponents usually get the most attention. When we get used to them it settles down a little bit. But often they vanish before that happens. First few weeks are probably very hard on them.As for your question, what do you mean? By species or by individual finds?

In the future I would prefer if you reposted here. [QUOTE][b]It would seem to me that anyone seeking funding, for purposes of exploration, could be guaranteed sufficient funding only if a "rare find" of a "missing link" could be proved, and I think that his "documentary" may have achieved that purpose.[/QUOTE][/b]Why would he go to public television when we have peer review? How many times has Lucy been mentioned in the journals? Now why would he need a documentary to get funding?Anyway all this page is is a prolonged game of semantics with what the experts said on an episode of NOVA. A quick scroll down didn't find any evidence at all for what you are purporting.I can play games with semantics with you later, but first you will have to:(1) Define the problem, that is, tell us what would be a transitional and would be so convincing you could not deny it.(2) Account for the lack of dinosaur-man crossover if those alleged footprints are real and if you claim that dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous.Also I believe we were discussing the implications of C-14 dating and the age of the Earth.Why should we jump to new topics whenever you get tired of the old ones? It is an inefficient use of time and you're accumulating a backlog.TC, maybe you could visit his site and give us your thoughts.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 04-16-2002]