Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What many people are not aware of is that there exists a considerable body of evidence that supports the biblical claim of human/dinosaur interaction. .
This evidence exists in many forms. Some examples include:
1. Eye witness accounts by many people of creatures that are exactly like dinosaurs in appearance. The descriptions include not only sightings, but people actually hunting and killing them are being killed by them. These stories have been documented all over the world in many different cultures. They exist in the writings of several well-known ancient people, and have been documented by scientists as recently as a few years ago. Some of the best information along these lines come from evolutionists in their book titled "A Living Dinosaur?".
2. Art work and various ancient artifacts depicting live dinosaurs by themselves, or interacting with humans. These include burial stones, burial cloths, clay figurines, cave drawings, etc.
3. Fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs together. While some of these particular discoveries may be questionable, others appear to be far more reliable.
Because evolutionists and the news media have so thoroughly indoctrinated our society into believing we lived millions of years apart from dinosaurs, many will immediately dismiss such evidences as hoaxes, or the result of overactive imaginations. However, like many other 'anomalies' that evolutionists try to explain away or dismiss, this evidence is far too abundant worldwide to ignore.
The problem for evolutionists is that if this is true, it would deal a major blow to evolutionism theory. Some evolutionists will say that if a few dinosaurs were found alive today, it would not do harm to evolutionism. But we're not talking about a few isolated incidents. There are many incidents around the world that are documented in many different cultures. The evidence suggests that this interaction between humans and dinosaurs has in the past been wide-spread, not isolated. If true, this would indeed present a major problem for evolutionists to explain using their world view of origins.
Nice cut and paste job from creationist propaganda websites
So it's a fossilized human tooth supposedly 1.2 million years old. Why all the fuss? Oh, I know, because those who have an evolutionary worldview will tout this as yet another piece of 'evidence' to support evolution. Because of it's "age" and the evolutionary worldview that modern humans were not on the scene at this point in history, it will also be viewed as a "link" between pre-human and modern humans. Per the article, at this stage it's age has only been determined by where it was found in the geologic column:
"The foundation said studies of the geological level suggested it was more than one million years old but that final results were being awaited..." (emphasis mine)
I wonder if any C-14 will be found within the fossil? If so, then the age could not be greater than ~50,000 years (due to the half-life of C-14). That will be interesting to hear about.
Now, from my biblical worldview, this is nothing more than a fossilized tooth from a human. And I do mean a human just like you and me. It's age from my POV couldn't be greater than 6,000 years old because that's when God created us. Most of the geologic strata are evidence for the global flood in Noah's day. Could this tooth be from that period in history? Possibly.
As a biblical creationist, I'm not pushing for creationism to be taught in schools. What I do want taught is that evolution has holes in its theory. People will continue to disagree with me about that, but there is pleanty of empirical scientific evidence that does not jive with the TOE. Is any of this taught to science students? No. TOE is taught as complete, unequivical, uncontradictable fact, when it's not. That's my beef.
In my opinion, you do not need to believe in (rely on) evolution to be a successful "real" scientist. Sir Isaac Newton (Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light) was a biblical creationist. The man who invented the MRI scanner is a biblical creationist. Neither subscribed to the TOE, but yet were/are able to perform "real" science.
Evolution need not be foundational for modern medicine, agriculture, etc. Understanding mutations/speciation/genetics is but that, in my sincere belief, is not evolution. I know, I know, evolutionists say they are examples of evolution or are evolution. I say they are exactly what they are and cannot be used to show evolution. They show how bacteria mutate into resistant bacteria or how humans have bred all the various kinds of dogs from a larger pool of a canine kind (wild dogs). Understanding mutations/genetics/speciation does not mean you have to buy into evolution. Scientists can still be great and do wonderful things and be biblical creationists.
And finally (aren't you glad?! ) to those Christians who accept evolution, IMO, you are subscribing to a view that is inconsistant with your faith. As an aside, Hugh Ross is a charlatan IMO, and cannot be trusted. His teachings twist the Bible horribly and he would be an entire thread of its own for me to explain further. I am not questioning anyone's salvation, so please don't take it that way. But Jesus himself taught on and believed in a literal Genesis creation. He believed in and taught on a literal global flood and a literal Noah. Evolution was proposed as the antithesis of how we came about without the need for God in the picture. Evolution is based on naturalistic/materialistic suppositions to explain away the need for God, everything came about from matter according to natural laws. It cannot be harmonized with the God of the Bible in my strong, yet humble, opinion. A belief in millions of years before Adam and Eve undermines the gospel message and our need for Jesus. You're free to hold to your beliefs and your interpretations of Genesis, but I just hope you realize this. (Evolutionists such as Dawkins even realize this and mock "compromising Christians" like H. Ross)
Well, at least you have the power of unwaivering conviction.
While I have come to the conclusion that debating any of your assertions is pointless, I will comment on one point you made.
You stated:
Quote:
In my opinion, you do not need to believe in (rely on) evolution to be a successful "real" scientist. Sir Isaac Newton (Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light) was a biblical creationist. The man who invented the MRI scanner is a biblical creationist. Neither subscribed to the TOE, but yet were/are able to perform "real" science.
Who is asserting that one cannot be a "real" scientist without accepting evolutionary theory unequivocally? I ask because this is the first I've heard anyone say this. It's like saying you can't be a "real" geologist without unequivocally accepting the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia.
It proves to me that once again God has used science to let us know that the earth is more than 6000 years old, and that we christians should focus on his words and instructions in the bible, rather than trying to insert things that are not there for the benefit of confusion.
Well said!!!!!! I agree 100% with this. I sooooo wish more were like you Blue!
It proves to me that once again God has used science to let us know that the earth is more than 6000 years old, and that we christians should focus on his words and instructions in the bible, rather than trying to insert things that are not there for the benefit of confusion.
Blue, you are quite a sage individual. This is one of the wisest things I have yet to read on this forum, and I hope to keep this little tidbit in my head. God bless!
I do not need an explanation of the difference between micro and macro. I have an honours in Econ so I get it. What you don't seem to grasp is that Evolution is the study of the genetic code in the molecule DNA. The transformations that have been observed can be attributed (and largely uncontested) to the conclusion that species can evolve so far as from non-complex to complex organisms. We cannot see it in our lifetimes but through scientific observation, theory, and calculus we can assume beyond reasonable doubt that this is the case. Macro and micro are not differing evolution theory.
As for WCRob's comment... of course it matters, when faced with religious beliefs that bear no historic proof and yet influence behaviour, public policy, and progressive attitude. I personally couldn't care less where we came from, I am here and that is that. Evlolution is an area of public discourse that is fiercly contested by the religious right, and if they get their way, will be breeding a society of ignorance before we know it.
Wow. "....but through scientific observation (when was "evolution" ever witnessed?) ....theory (theory, this poster really used the word "theory", enough said) ......we can "assume" (yes, this poster also used the "assume" word, once again, enough said). This poster also said, "....when faced with religious beliefs that bear no historic proof" and yet science and all the arguments and discussions also have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. All the scientific proof is assumptions and theory, period. It's all "what if's". How many times over the decades has science been wrong in many areas that once were pushed down the publics throats as "fact"?
This poster finishes with a bang in stating, "..that is fiercly contested by the religious right, and if they get their way, will be breeding a society of ignorance before we know it." Wow, such a bold condemnation. Actually I see it as the complete opposite. I see the so-called scientific community as fiercely contesting the creationist that if they get their way will be breeding society of ignorance before we know it. ALL of the dating methods are based on assumptions. If something is a "fact", then it cannot and is not EVER wrong. You can talk "theories" and "assumptions" all day long, just don't call it a fact and with that you must believe that since it's a theory or assumption that what can come with that is being wrong.
Oh yeah, but maybe I'm wrong, because you see I don't have an "honours in Econ" like this poster does....
So it's a fossilized human tooth supposedly 1.2 million years old. Why all the fuss? Oh, I know, because those who have an evolutionary worldview will tout this as yet another piece of 'evidence' to support evolution. Because of it's "age" and the evolutionary worldview that modern humans were not on the scene at this point in history, it will also be viewed as a "link" between pre-human and modern humans. Per the article, at this stage it's age has only been determined by where it was found in the geologic column:
"The foundation said studies of the geological level suggested it was more than one million years old but that final results were being awaited..." (emphasis mine)
I wonder if any C-14 will be found within the fossil? If so, then the age could not be greater than ~50,000 years (due to the half-life of C-14). That will be interesting to hear about.
Now, from my biblical worldview, this is nothing more than a fossilized tooth from a human. And I do mean a human just like you and me. It's age from my POV couldn't be greater than 6,000 years old because that's when God created us. Most of the geologic strata are evidence for the global flood in Noah's day. Could this tooth be from that period in history? Possibly.
As a biblical creationist, I'm not pushing for creationism to be taught in schools. What I do want taught is that evolution has holes in its theory. People will continue to disagree with me about that, but there is pleanty of empirical scientific evidence that does not jive with the TOE. Is any of this taught to science students? No. TOE is taught as complete, unequivical, uncontradictable fact, when it's not. That's my beef.
In my opinion, you do not need to believe in (rely on) evolution to be a successful "real" scientist. Sir Isaac Newton (Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light) was a biblical creationist. The man who invented the MRI scanner is a biblical creationist. Neither subscribed to the TOE, but yet were/are able to perform "real" science.
Evolution need not be foundational for modern medicine, agriculture, etc. Understanding mutations/speciation/genetics is but that, in my sincere belief, is not evolution. I know, I know, evolutionists say they are examples of evolution or are evolution. I say they are exactly what they are and cannot be used to show evolution. They show how bacteria mutate into resistant bacteria or how humans have bred all the various kinds of dogs from a larger pool of a canine kind (wild dogs). Understanding mutations/genetics/speciation does not mean you have to buy into evolution. Scientists can still be great and do wonderful things and be biblical creationists.
And finally (aren't you glad?! ) to those Christians who accept evolution, IMO, you are subscribing to a view that is inconsistant with your faith. As an aside, Hugh Ross is a charlatan IMO, and cannot be trusted. His teachings twist the Bible horribly and he would be an entire thread of its own for me to explain further. I am not questioning anyone's salvation, so please don't take it that way. But Jesus himself taught on and believed in a literal Genesis creation. He believed in and taught on a literal global flood and a literal Noah. Evolution was proposed as the antithesis of how we came about without the need for God in the picture. Evolution is based on naturalistic/materialistic suppositions to explain away the need for God, everything came about from matter according to natural laws. It cannot be harmonized with the God of the Bible in my strong, yet humble, opinion. A belief in millions of years before Adam and Eve undermines the gospel message and our need for Jesus. You're free to hold to your beliefs and your interpretations of Genesis, but I just hope you realize this. (Evolutionists such as Dawkins even realize this and mock "compromising Christians" like H. Ross)
Wow, just wow.
Evolution is a theory in the same way the earth rotating around the sun is a theory. Given the fact that there is nothing that contradicts it, there is no reason to throw it out. There's always the possiblity that a ball will fall up into the air, but that doesn't mean we should throw out the laws of gravity.
And I like how you pointed out c-14 dating. A common creationist argument that you would know is outdated if you were involved in science as much as some people. You didn't even talk about the dating methods that use isotopes with half-lifes well over a billion years.
Evolution is not like the earths rotation, because we WITNESS the earth's rotation every day. Neither you nor anyone else has ever WITNESSED or RECREATED evolution in any way to validate your theory. I have to love radioactive decay dating methods, which depend on reams of suppositions. The most important of those is a constant level of radioactive isotopes in the environment at all times, an absolutely preposterous proposition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it's a tooth...
