Is this proof that dinosaurs existed with men?

[Faithfulservant]

http://www.marshill.org/WebPages/Tri...al%20Stone.htm

What would happen to the scientific community if they could prove that dinosaurs in face existed with man. I have other articles about the inaccuracy of carbon-dating if thats an argument that comes up.

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

What would happen to the scientific community if they could prove that dinosaurs in face existed with man. I have other articles about the inaccuracy of carbon-dating if thats an argument that comes up.

Did some searching for this - the pictures are on bible.ca, and other sites quoting it include creationists.org, purecreation.org, davidgoliathministries etc. - all of which link back to the same pictures. Somewhat a suspect set of viewpoints.... especially since the stones appear to be newly carved.

There's an interesting bit at http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/articl.../9/1/1809.html which shows some large animals done in fabric patterns, which *might* be dinosaurs... or the loch ness monster.... or some fanciful pattern.

[Vajradhara]

what do you mean?


nothing would happen to the community, per se. the theory of how life has acquired its' varations would have to be modified.

however... as has been said quite often, if you want to really falsify the ToE as we know it, simply present a mammal skull from the pre-Cambrian period and evolution, as we know it, stands refuted.

the ICR isn't known for it's objective scientific standards

check out the "statement of belief" the scientists have to sign:

http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm

doesn't really seem like much of scientific method approch to science, now, does it?

[Faithfulservant]

Only if you didnt believe that God was the master planner of the universe and not some man-made theories trying to disprove it. I dont think there is any specific guildines on how science should be conducted. You just work with different factors when you are developing your hypothesis.

[I, Brian]

Certainly it's an interesting story - there's been quite some fringe conjecture of some form of small saurapod existing in the African Congo, plus some large mammal extinctions from the Quartenary era have been pretty relevatively contemporary with humans. Plus, of course, there are living remnants from the age of dinosaurs, such as the Tuatara and the Coelacanth.

However, as stories such as Piltdown Man have clearly shown the scientific community, there are clear dangers in placing too much emphasis on any single result.

It does seem that a lot more is being read into this story than it actually gives room for.

[Faithfulservant]

Vaj,

Is science objective? It seems to me that there are two basic factors in some forms of science.. proving that God doesnt exist or proving that He does. I believe that ICR is objective in saying that Yes God created the universe.. Others are objective in claiming the big bang theory and evolution is how we we came into being . Both of those ideas contradict themselves. So are the scientists on ICR men of science? Are evolutionists men of science? One gives credit to creation theory the other one gives credit to evolution theory. I found that statement offensive and Im trying to point out your prejudiced view in a friendly way because theres a lot of Christian intolerance in this world and most of it isnt even realized.

Respectfully

Faithful Servant

[Bandit]

There are some unanswered questions. If I am not mistaken theory of evolution is not that old and started with Darwin 1859?

The biggest problem I have with carbon dating is it makes claims that are not even comprehendable. We can comprehend time fames to a point, but when they speak of millions of year...
Millions look good on paper and can be counted when they are dollar bills but when we speak of 'time' that is a different dimension.

Science makes claims often, then a few years later they have to confess they were wrong in there 'discovery' and things come back to a reasonable perspective.

I mean, How many centuries did it take for man to figure out the earth was round and how long did it take for them to get the calendar correct? and the bible tells the earth is round. LOL
I am seeing the same thought pattern in most of these NEW sciences.

I think I am seeing this the same way you are FaithfulServant. It is being used to prove or disprove. We don't know the exact time of days of creation, we can only guess and I think that is pretty much all we will ever be able to do. But who knows.

I dont have a problem with something being on earth prior to man as we know as in from Adam, but I think there would be a different explanation for it and is not directly connected to man as we know it.
I am starting to see the earth was well into orbit before the actual 6 days of creation, (I mean forming of the void or empty earth and creating the inhabitants within the earth) but none the less, God still made the heavens and the earth.

This link is kind of interesting on bible, science and dinasaurs.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Is science objective? It seems to me that there are two basic factors in some forms of science.. proving that God doesnt exist or proving that He does.

Ah - now there's the problem - science is *not* about proving or disproving God.

On a basic level, science is simply about measuring things, and then communicating how those measurements can be repeated. Nothing more, nothing less.

Science is not about dismissing those things that cannot be measured or even observed - they are simply "unquantified" - ie, not measured.

There are many things that we can observe that we cannot measure, and there are other things we cannot even observe directly let alone measure. Love and consciousness are two fundamentals of human existence that are "unquantifiable".

Most scientists are plainly aware that science is filled with mysteries and inexplicable wonders - it's not hard to find the giants of science openly advocating their belief in God or else being very religious.

It is the media (and certain elements of the educational establishment) that seeks to present a dumbed down view of science as a objective rule of absolutes, when it is plainly not.

Science does not determine what does and does not exist - it simply tries to describe what it can observe.

It is the common perception of many people that the following clearly applies: "Religion tells us God made the world - science simply tells us how He did it."

Or, to put it another way - Religion is about the "why" - science tries to say "how".

What's sad to see is how the "creationism vs rationalism" battle in the USA has effectively turned into a marketing battle, of unnecessary extremes. I should imagine that both misrepresent their respective positions: science is not able to disprove God, and religion is not a science textbook.

2c.

[Bandit]

Ah - now there's the problem - science is *not* about proving or disproving God.

I think there are plenty of scientists with or without media that would love to prove or disprove it. But science itself does not do that. It is rational.


What some scientists are trying to do, is more to do it, to disprove the bible in 'God of creation' and give the glory to something else. (like themselves or whatever)
Others are using science and the bible as a source of information and denying the salvation in it.

and yes, there are some scientists who openly believe in the God of creation.

We dont 'test' and 'experiment' physical things unless we have some hope of using the results. Science makes a lot of mistakes, things we will never here about. Often they do not even know the mistakes until years and centuries later.
That is why the hype and findings do not move me like it does some.

[Faithfulservant]

Dont you think that men of science want their theories to be proved correct?? By even acknowledging that some other source besides chance created this world as we know it disproves every theory they had been claiming is fact. They are in fact trying to disprove creation theory.. and disproving there is a God or higher power that orchestrated this world into being. Do they say that? no lol they would look silly. But they are teaching evolution to my children at school so I have a right to say that I disagree with their theories.

[lunamoth]

Dear Faithfulservant,

In all gentleness I must disagree with you. As a biologist I have worked with many scientists in genetics and molecular biology, even (gasp!) theories of evolution. There is no conspiracy to disprove God or the magnificence of His creation. Many of these scientists are very deeply spritual people, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Baha'is, Buddhists and so on. I've known a couple of scientists who struggle with apparent conflicts between their religion and science but never have I seen one who felt it was part of their job to prove or disprove God.

The men and women of science of course want to see theories that help them understand and be able to make predictions about the material world. And it is true that the person who comes up with the strongest, most useful idea will get the grant money. But the best way to test a theory is to do everything you can think of to disprove it and this is very much part of what scientists do. And if you don't adequately try to disprove it there are lots of others who will be more than happy to do so (and get your grant money). The theory of evolution survives and is taught in schools because it is a useful model to explain what we see in nature.

You of course have a right to disagree with anything you wish and say so. However, it is an injustice to the many scientists who love God as you do to say that they are hiding truth or twisting things to fit some kind of atheist agenda. It just is not true.

Peace to you,
lunamoth

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Dont you think that men of science want their theories to be proved correct?? By even acknowledging that some other source besides chance created this world as we know it disproves every theory they had been claiming is fact. They are in fact trying to disprove creation theory.. and disproving there is a God or higher power that orchestrated this world into being. Do they say that? no lol they would look silly. But they are teaching evolution to my children at school so I have a right to say that I disagree with their theories.

Science doesn't even say that chance created life - it remains an unknown process.

The problem seems to be when a particular interpretation of Genesis is upheld to be a scientifically correct version, and even taught in state schools as such.

If a literal creation from 7 days is argued for - then indeed Genesis and Evolutionary Theory do not get on so well. But from what I've read, even in Judaism there's no overwhelming argument for a strict literalism in the reading of the opening chapters as being for seven days - and I seem to recall also reading Creationist theories that accepted long time spans for geological development and biological diversity to take place.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Only if you didnt believe that God was the master planner of the universe and not some man-made theories trying to disprove it. I dont think there is any specific guildines on how science should be conducted. You just work with different factors when you are developing your hypothesis.

Namaste Faithfulservant,

thank you for the post.

i would encourage you to read about Sir Karl Popper and the Philosophy of Science. Science does work through a set of praxis that are well known and used throughout the scientific field.

hence, a group like the AiG are rather suspect in this regard since they require a statement of faith that requires them to conform all evidence to a YEC Biblical view, prior, to finding said evidence.

can you see how deciding what the evidence will mean before you actually find it, can be a problem for science?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste FF,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Vaj,

Is science objective?

science, per se, is a methodology predicated on falsification of repeatable experiments. so.. i would say that the question doesn't apply to science as discipline, but to individual scientists themselves. they may or may not be objective depending on the issue at hand.

It seems to me that there are two basic factors in some forms of science..
proving that God doesnt exist or proving that He does.

science actually cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist since God is outside of science. science, itself, is agnostic about God. some individual scientists may have views that are theistic or not, depending on their circumstance.

I believe that ICR is objective in saying that Yes God created the universe.. Others are objective in claiming the big bang theory and evolution is how we we came into being .

neither of those statements are objective, they are both subjective. the evidence, however, is intersubjective and it is said intersubjective evidence that we have to use to form our conclusions in the scientific field.

Both of those ideas contradict themselves.

actually, it more depends on your reading of your Holy Text if this conflicts or not. God could quite easily have created the universe from a single point, which we'd call a "Big Bang" (which was a Christian name to ridicule the idea, by the way) and used the process of evolution to diversify the species. there are plenty of Christian and other thiests, whom are scientists and hold to the ToE as how life came to be so diverse.

So are the scientists on ICR men of science? Are evolutionists men of science? One gives credit to creation theory the other one gives credit to evolution theory.

it's about evidence, not credit, in this particular discussion. the evidence, unfortunately, supports Gods' unwritten text, the universe, more than it does His written texts.

I found that statement offensive and Im trying to point out your prejudiced view in a friendly way because theres a lot of Christian intolerance in this world and most of it isnt even realized.

Respectfully

Faithful Servant

which statement, that the ICR isn't known for it's objective standard?

i'm not intolerant of Christians, not in the least well... i would be a bit less tolerant if you tried to impose your morality upon me through some type of legislation, however, that is not the case.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bandit,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Bandit

There are some unanswered questions. If I am not mistaken theory of evolution is not that old and started with Darwin 1859?

correct, whilst he was a Christian.

The biggest problem I have with carbon dating is it makes claims that are not even comprehendable. We can comprehend time fames to a point, but when they speak of millions of year...

carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 years or so... which is why we use things like Ar dating and others.

Millions look good on paper and can be counted when they are dollar bills but when we speak of 'time' that is a different dimension.

my traditions have been calculating the age of the universe in billions of years since somewhere around 3000 B.C.E. perhaps, it was our advanced mathmatical systems that permitted this.

Science makes claims often, then a few years later they have to confess they were wrong in there 'discovery' and things come back to a reasonable perspective.

which is why science works on theories when you get some new evidence, you have to revisit the theory, which is either revised or scrapped altogether. this is actually a strength of the scientific process. if we didn't do it like this, we'd still be using Newtons' understanding of Gravity!

I mean, How many centuries did it take for man to figure out the earth was round and how long did it take for them to get the calendar correct? and the bible tells the earth is round.

they proved the world was spherical in ancient China, near the time they invented the compass. as for calendars... which one are you referring to? there are alot of them, you know. the Buddhist calendar has been in use since roughly 400 B.C.E and the Mayan calendar even longer than that.

I am seeing the same thought pattern in most of these NEW sciences.

"new" sciences? what would an example of an "old" science be?