Talk:Dinosaur

Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1| Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2

Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? 50something 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.

There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "kinds", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.

The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.

One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.

Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? 50something 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.

Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.

If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.

Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. 50something 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? Feichineejits 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.

God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.

As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this convergence, but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with this article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.

Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. Feichineejits 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days as would be measured on Earth. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! 50something 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that plesiosaurs and the like, and pterodactyls and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for archosauria. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--All Fish Welcome 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. 50something 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.

I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.

Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. 50something 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation mechanisms in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? Philip J. Rayment 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? 50something 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[1]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, 50something 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. Philip J. Rayment 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --Ned 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I found this in the Tyrannosaurus rex article:

“

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.

”

That might point you in the right way... --Jenkins 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). Philip J. Rayment 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--hmuckabee

They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. Philip J. Rayment 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)

The bible is not a reference. Wisdom89 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? Philip J. Rayment 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!

Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. Wisdom89 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)

"Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference is (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it can be used as a reference.

I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an evolutionary concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.

Philip J. Rayment 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? Wisdom89 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. Philip J. Rayment 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Let me say 1st off like most peolple with any basic background in molecular biology, I beleive in evolution. I'm not trying to hide my view point, but I'm not trying to cause arguments for the sake of it either . I'm just curious on this view point, is there any scientific evidance (even speculative evidance ie. based on tooth shape etc.) to support the view point that all Dinosaurs were herbavoirs, or is it just that the bible indirectlty implies it ( all animals came to be about the same time and there was no death before sin, therefore dinosaurs only ate plants? I'm I correct that this is the reasoning? Though not to be too technical, plants and bacteria are alive too. If they ate these there would be death too (unless they ate only from larger plants ie. only the leaves off the tress but never grass for example.) -Damien Rivers

The Bible doesn't merely imply it. It says that plants were to be food for the animals and humans. As for evidence, it's probably more of a lack of conclusive evidence for the evolutionary view. Some creatures classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth don't eat meat! The fruit bat is one example. Further, many carnivores can survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. Also, there are examples of closely-related species in which one is herbivorous and the other is carnivorous. We also have examples of herbivores (e.g. sheep) eating meat on occasion. So there is considerable evidence that originally-herbivorous creatures becoming carnivorous is quite plausible, and so really nothing in science to refute the biblical claim of the animals originally being herbivorous.

As far as plants and bacteria being alive is concerned, see classification system and realise that it depends on your definition. The modern scientific definition is that they are alive, but the biblical definition is that they are not. The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.

Philip J. Rayment 18:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

...which is part of why I'm skeptical of Biblical inerrantism, Philip. I find it difficult to imagine anyone using that as their definition, and I find it extremely difficult to imagine that it's the definition God intended us to employ. There are, after all, a great many creatures other than plants and bacteria which do not breathe air through their nostrils.

Biblical exegesis is well and good, but I think too many people place too much faith in the ability of modern man to accurately and faithfully analyze linguistic nuance. --Benp 18:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Umm, yeah? What does that have to do with inerrancy? As the article on classification systems points out, "some systems may be better, or more useful than others, especially for a given purpose" (emphasis altered). The point is, the Bible had a different purpose than modern science. The Bible's classification system wasn't intended for scientific use. Beyond that, your response amounts to saying, "I can't see how that would be useful, so the Bible must be wrong.", which makes your lack of imagination the benchmark for deciding biblical accuracy! What arrogance! Philip J. Rayment 09:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Not at all. My response amounts to "When an assertion is made concerning the original meaning of the Bible, and when this assertion conflicts with observed evidence, it is likely that the assertion is in error." I must confess to not even being sure of which passage you're referring to, as the only passage I can think of offhand that mentions the breath of life in conjunction with the nostrils is Genesis 7:22--and no translation of Genesis 7:22 I have ever read makes "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." a benchmark for all that is living. In fact, it immediately links that qualifier to "...of all that was in the dry land." (There's also Genesis 2:7, but that's referring exclusively to Adam, so I can't imagine it's the basis of your claim.) If there is another line I'm overlooking elsewhere, please feel free to point it out; while I study the Bible, I do not claim to have it committed perfectly to memory, and it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking the line on which you base your argument.

Moreover, I can observe that the definition you offered ("The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.") seems rather strongly at odds with Genesis 1:20, which establishes that the creatures brought forth from the water had life. You could add the qualifier that this only applies to creatures on dry land, as per Genesis 7:22, but as I already pointed out, Genesis 7:22 does not establish that only those creatures that had the breath of life in their nostrils were alive; merely that the ones who did and were on dry land all died. It would be possible to argue that "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is in the poetic mode, and meant to refer to a broader range of respiration than strictly the nostrils, but that would also undermine the definition offered.

Is my skepticism when someone says "The Bible says..." or "The Biblical definition is..." arrogance? Perhaps. I think it would be far more arrogant if I were to assume that current scholarship has so successfully captured the nuance and idiom of the autographic texts that no significant errors of understanding remain.

I have faith in God. I know, however, how difficult it is to perfectly render an author's original intent even when you share the author's language, culture, and frame of reference. I would greet any claim by any scholar that they perfectly comprehended the idiom and tropes of a writer two thousand years dead with healthy skepticism. I know that some advance the argument that it is God's Word, and therefore, He will ensure understanding--but, again, that claim conflicts with what has been observed throughout history. Men...even saintly men...are capable of misunderstanding God's Word, and so coming to wrong conclusions about the world around them. God has not prevented this from happening, so it would be arrogant indeed to presume that He will do so now.

If you want to argue that the writers of the Bible did not consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals, I completely agree; I take no issue with that part of your statement. Certainly, they didn't consider bacteria to be alive...it's extremely unlikely that they considered bacteria at all (I suppose it's possible that God revealed the existence of bacteria to them, but it seems pretty doubtful.) However, I disagree that the Bible defines living things as those that breathe air through their nostrils. I think a stronger case could be made for mobility, and even THAT is not offered as an exclusive definition. --Benp 10:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

NB: Following a request from Benp to move this discussion to another page, I have replied to him on my talk page.

Evaluating the stature of resources

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). HelpJazz 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. Philip J. Rayment 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) HelpJazz 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Search window

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Chicago University incorrect reference

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Star (talk)

The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Philip J. Rayment 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Remove Soft Tissue Claim

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not. MetcalfeM

There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.RobertK 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists do claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate even if the creationists are wrong. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. Philip J. Rayment 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue. MetcalfeM

The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.

And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.

Philip J. Rayment 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

*deep sigh*

have a look at answersincreation.org

MetcalfeM

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.RobertK 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy.. I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged." It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost "It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University." NOT soft and stretchy So why is this not included in the article? MetcalfeM

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.RobertK 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim? MetcalfeM

deeper sigh

The AnswersInCreation response is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.

Their objections have already been answered here.

To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:

1. That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
2. That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ad hoc explanation: It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
3. That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
4. This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.

So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!

Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.

The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.

Philip J. Rayment 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.RobertK 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! Philip J. Rayment 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place. But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then. MetcalfeM

I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) replaced by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and not mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) soft and stretchy. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.

National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".

Philip J. Rayment 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Adaptation and evolution

(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section. The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there. However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything. I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. Entheogenicorder 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many real Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, intelligent scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a theory. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --David R^talk 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D Entheogenicorder 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I do in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --David R^talk 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'm going to have to disagree with DavidR on a couple of his points, but then I will address the more substantial problems with Entheogenicorder's posts.

Leading creationists recommend that we don't talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is. The real problem is the type (or direction) of change, not the size of the change.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a fact. In science, the word "theory" does not imply something uncertain.

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

"Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing": As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one defines evolution (read that). Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but microbe-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

"If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.", "Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?": I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He clearly told us that He created the world in six days (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

"...accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof.": No, we are accepting what God has clearly said about the history of this world over man-made theories by scientists trying to give us an alternative history. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about history).

"[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today": First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall. He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as the explanation, but it is a possible explanation. Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores. Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous—there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[2] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

"I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved? I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

Philip J. Rayment 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

If that is your take of things, I don't see why you have any problem with what I said. You may have misread my post, but I did not say anything about the size of an evolutionary change. Furthermore, I do not think microevolution takes size into consideration, rather it is influenced by type, as you stated. If you think that microevolution is change within a species, I cannot disagree. Also, you assume I think scientists who interpret the Theory of Evolution as scientific law are thinking clearly; I don't. In addition, a theory may not be something uncertain, but it is certainly something unproven. That is all. I hope I cleared things up. :\ --David R^talk 22:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think you understand what a theory is-- It's not an unfounded guess. It's the closest you get to "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY TRUE" in science. Barikada 22:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

DavidR, I apologise for not being careful enough in my post. It's not that you said anything explicit about the size of the change, but size is what is implied in talking about microevolution vs. macroevolution. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what people will likely understand from the user of those terms. It's not a matter of what I think microevolution is. The term is imprecise.

Nothing in science is considered proven, so prepending "theory" to it does not downgrade it at all.

In case I need to clear anything up, I was disagreeing with you on those two points only; overall, I agreed with you.

Philip J. Rayment 03:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this.

“I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He clearly told us that He created the world in six days (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said” God has not clearly said anything to me, has He told you in person? What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old and has been endlessly translated from one language to another. It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations. For example, it is widely accepted that Roman historical records prove the existence of Jesus at roughly the same time as we base our calendar around. Therefore, from studying similar Roman records from a later date, it should be considered that some time later, as is historically recorded, Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held. Therefore – for me – it is very difficult to be sure exactly what God told us. Please also see below.

“We are accepting what God has clearly said about the history of this world over man-made theories by scientists trying to give us an alternative history. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about history).” I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said, not what God has directly said to you (unless he has?). The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes, especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’. In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical, not a popular view here I imagine but that is my understanding of it. For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years, representing levels of development and culminating in our evolution. With regards to your second point, because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields? You may argue that Religion covers all aspects of life, but a Physicist will probable tell you that so does Physics, and I would argue that so does Philosophy.

If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible, I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc, if it had also to be filled with dinosaurs. I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all for 40 days and 40 nights, especially if you take into account that the animals would have needed fresh food, fresh water, fresh hay to sleep on and of course, room to exercise.

“Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on an herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores.” The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge. In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’. Carnivores have no mechanism for this. I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!

On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before any human – or mammal – remains have been found. This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong. I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth. Entheogenicorder 16:23, 1 February 2008 (BWT)

I see that you've been doing what Andy refers to as liberal deceit. You make out that you believe at least some of the Bible ("I was brought up with ... the morals as taught by Christ", and "DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything"), now show your true colours, in that you don't think the Bible is reliable enough to take any notice of!

"God has not clearly said anything to me...": He has, in the Bible, whether you choose to accept that or not.

"What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old ...": Which is consistent with it being written at the time the events happened, which makes it more reliable than something written much later. So that's a good thing. Strike 1.

"...and has been endlessly translated from one language to another": Incorrect, in the sense that you are implying. Modern English translations of the Bible have been translated directly from the original languages. Again, that supports the idea that it is accurate. Strike 2.

"It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations.": You can "conceive" anything you want with a vivid enough imagination, but the evidence is that the manuscripts have been handed down accurately. Strike 3; you're out.

"...Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held": There's your imagination running away again. The evidence is otherwise.

"I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said...": Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?

"The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes...": Perhaps your difficulty stems from trying to read the literal as metaphorical. Or else you simply know little about making such distinctions. But your inability to do this does not give you carte blanche to pick and choose what to believe. The experts agree, for example, that the creation account was meant to be understood literally. The language is not that of metaphor. An example of metaphor is elsewhere in the Old Testament where is says that the trees clapped their hands.

"...especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’.": Examples please?

"In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical...For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years.": Well, you are wrong, as mentioned above, and as the link to Creation Week above explains. Did you read that?

"...because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields?": Oh dear, another lack of comprehension. I wasn't talking about discussing multiple fields, but speaking authoritatively about them. Those scientists can discuss history as much as they like, but they have no more authority on the subject than me, and I'm not claiming any. I'm quoting other authorities and offering evidence, not claiming that I'm an authority. You can quote other scientists' arguments as much as you like, but the case stands or falls on the strength of their arguments, not their authority, because when it comes to history, they have none.

"If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible...": I don't. I accept that there are parables, metaphors, etc. in the Bible. But the Flood account is history, so...

"I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc...": Proposed size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?

"I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all...": Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)

"...for 40 days and 40 nights...": Showing your ignorance again? The Bible records that they were on the ark for just over a year.

"The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.": Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary.

"In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’": What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat. Which means that a carnivore would have problems eating vegetable matter, but a herbivore would not have the same problems eating meat. Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.

"Carnivores have no mechanism for this": Yet some carnivores survive quite satisfactorily on a herbivorous diet.

"I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!": There's been recent accounts of them doing so.

"On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago...": No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence.

"This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.": No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.

"I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth.": See here. I wouldn't normally direct you to an entire web-site for an answer to a specific question, but in your case, you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.

Philip J. Rayment 22:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Admittedly I thought I was clearer at the start in saying that despite being brought up as a Christian, I do not follow the Religion in any institutionalized sense. I would like to point out that it was not a case of me consciously practising liberal deceit. I was brought up a Christian and I do believe that to deny the true nature of the universe is to take something away from the idea of God. I do believe in what the Bible has to say about loving your brother, equality among all men and many of the other important lessons which are put together into stories. My point here was to ask you to examine your own beliefs and for me to examine my own. As Socrates once said ‘a life unexamined is a life not worth living.’

From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis, and for a large part it depends on their religious orientation. Many understand the main creation story literally, but others don’t. A small group of Christians, apparently known as 'Progressive Creationists' have spoken to me about the 6-days of creation existing in a metaphorical sense, and this is where much of my confusion arises; if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page. What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities! I can understand the points in the Creation Week link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God, but my point is about the writing down of the Bible; it may be just my curious nature to question everything, but I would question; would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being? Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do? With regards to the reference to morning and evening; if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference? And even though it is partially covered in the Creation Week link, could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules and often with revelatory texts, seeks to break with tradition.

You may believe that God spoke to you through The Bible and I may believe that he has, but I may also believe that Buddha has passed on some of his enlightened wisdom in his texts when he says; ‘do not believe on the faith of Sages of the past’. My point was that Moses (and others) traditionally wrote much of the Old Testament, and Moses was a man. Men often create or imagine figures of God or ideas of Spirituality in order to persuade themselves that they are inspired by a higher power. They also create ideas in order to manipulate groups of people into abiding by their will. Men are also often wrong. Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God, even if you believe that the Bible is exactly what Moses (etc.) said and wrote. As you well know, the first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Pentateuch". Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5. I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.

My small point about translation (your Strike 1, 2 & 3) was questioning – as you point out the language is quite loose; ‘isn’t it conceivable that…over thousands of years’ etc. If you read the King James Version, it is most likely that you have as accurate version as possible. As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past, we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is. To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian, scientist, philosopher or anything, so even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.

Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense? Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. I wrote, directly from me, that ‘Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible.’ You could only use this argument if I had said it to another person, who had then written it down and conveyed it to you. As I am saying it directly to you, there is less scope for my meaning to be lost. If I said it to an acquaintance of mine, who then thought about it and then passed it on to you, he may not convey my entire message. He may give you the gist of it, but not all of the intricate details, he may wish to elaborate on it, or even change some of the ideas if he couldn’t understand them, or he may even include his own ideas. So you see the difference I’m trying to establish; if God spoke to you in the same way he did Moses, then you would know that what he had said to you was the authentic Word of God, although there’s a fair chance you’d be called a maniac for preaching it. If God says something to Moses, who then writes it into stories and commentaries, or passes them on through generations of oral story telling as is argued by some scholars, then some of His meaning might be lost, confused, misinterpreted etc.

The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.” Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary… What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat… …Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.” Firstly, it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence. I provided a brief summation of characteristics usually associated with herbivores, I didn’t mean to over-generalize because obviously there are some exceptions, but many dinosaur fossils found display the same attributes, for example, as elephants do, for grinding the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells. There are also obvious examples of dinosaurs whose physiology is generally geared towards hunting. Secondly, theoretically this is so, but moreover I was trying to examine the differences there can be between herbivores and carnivores. I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.

On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago…” : No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence…” …this idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.: No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.” I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods. If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating, which have been used to accurately measure the ages of various buildings and relics around the world then please, let me know, but don’t try and discredit what I’m saying by using the evolutionary theory argument, because that is not relevant here. Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen here, however when it is used to prove the age of the dinosaurs is millions of years, it is repudiated, often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’ or ‘the methods are inaccurate’, though most leading scientists maintain that these claims are unfounded. Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know. It is the dating techniques using ‘rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years’ to which I am referring.

Proposed size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark? No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better. 300 x 50 x 30 cubits could have meant anything to me; I thought maybe you could provide me with a useful answer of how big that would be in terms of commonly used measurements today, rather than attack the wording and theory of my question. Please also do not accuse me of readily dismissing anything; it is with some consideration and a desire for truth that I look beyond what I have been taught. Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!

You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough... Being English I love a good bit of sarcasm and that was pretty tasty! It was a sweeping generalization admittedly, but the reason for the ambiguity in figures is that as you can see above, I had no idea how big the stated size of the ark actually meant it was, and also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation, or a more general division.

I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject. Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view. I can accept that some of the things I have written are probably wrong, and others have been phrased badly. I hope you can as well. My original post here had no real agenda, and this has now developed very much into a two person discusion of providing counter-arguments for each other without getting far. Whilst I have found it useful and also very interesting, I had hoped to find more of a discussion with a lot more theoretical and philosophical musings. I find it very frustrating that we, as humans, unconditionally rely on unproven science and theoretical history to prove our own points, whilst dismissing other science because it is only theoretical. That is the very point of science, and the very nature of it since Aristotle first set out a logical way of thinking. You observe, predict, then experiment and adjust; it is an ongoing process of refining and defining. Once you have created a theory, as a scientist the very first thing you should do is to examine it under the conditions it is most likely to be proved false. That is science; it doesn’t claim to know the ultimate answers, just guide you towards what’s right. While this is completely off-topic again, I found it very interesting. I hope you don't find my points or arguments offensive because they aren't meant to be. As I have said before, my purpose here is understanding, hoping both to be understood and to understand. Entheogenicorder 15:57, 5 February 2008 (BWT)

"From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis": It depends on what "experts" you are referring to. There are many who claim to know what it means, but have little claim to the title "expert". The experts I was referring to were the ones mentioned in the Barr quote in Creation Week: professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities. According to Barr, they are all agree on the meaning of the text, that it was six ordinary days.

"...for a large part it depends on their religious orientation.": For many of the so-called "experts", probably true. But the experts that Barr was quoting would not, for the most part, believe the account to be literally true. Barr himself is theologically liberal, I believe, but he is explaining what the text is saying, even though he doesn't believe that to be a true and accurate account.

"...if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page": In that sense, your confusion is understandable. But you need to go beyond just noting that different groups have different beliefs and see how good their arguments are.

"What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities!": That's being unkind (ascribing to them the motive of beleiving what suits them). Most non-fiction texts are literal peppered with metaphors. Take a newspaper, for example. You are meant to understand the news as literal events, but even that newspaper will include metaphors in the text, as metaphors are a normal everyday part of language. So there's nothing odd about the Bible being that way. Also, metaphors are discernable by the context. If the newspaper said that so-and-so had passed away after a heart attack, you know that "passed away" is a metaphor for "died", and you have no reason to wonder if "heart attack" is literal or metaphorical. Acknowledging that the Bible contains metaphor is not an argument of convenience, but a simple recognition of the nature of the text.

"I can understand the points in the Creation Week link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God...": You don't need to do that, for most of them at least. The points are mostly to do with understanding the language.

"...would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being?": Surely a perfect and omnipotent (and omniscient) being would have the capability of describing things in a way that Moses could understand?

"...Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do?": Wouldn't God use language that Moses understood? Besides, from what we understand of God, He doesn't experience day and night: That is something that He created as part of His creation, so He would have to be talking about earthly days, not any other ones.

"...if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference?": Why? Why explain the meaning of words to people who already understand the language?

"...could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules ...": In order for something to be called "poetry", it has to follow some rules, else you could call any text poetry. Sure, the rules might differ in different cultures and at different times in history, but there's still got to be rules. There's no point proposing that a text is poetry without having some reason for doing so, and I don't consider a desire to not take the text literally to be such a reason.

"'Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God...": I can be sure. That is, I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence of God's ultimate authorship of it to be convinced of that. You, of course, may not be so convinced. Some will never be convinced, because they will refuse to believe no matter what. But this is not the place to get into the evidence for that.

"Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5.": I would not be the first nor the last time that someone has written of themselves in the third person. And it's more than tradition that it was written by Moses, including Jesus Himself testifying to that. Of course that doesn't mean that a later person (e.g. Joshua) didn't append an epilogue to it to record Moses' death, so that fact is not reason to reject Moses' authorship.

"I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.": I also find Christians to be somewhat inconsistent like that, but I also find many sceptics, such as yourself, using loaded language, such as referring to people who believe the Bible as "Christians" and those who question it as "scholars". It is nonsense like this, along with many stupid and inconsistent arguments against the Bible, that causes sceptics to have little credibility even with Christians who are more open to examining critical views. A classic example is Thomas Paine using the very point that you used about Deuteronomy recording Moses' death meaning that Moses could not have written the book, yet he acknowledged in his own book that a previous edition contained something that he had not himself written! Did he therefore reject his own authorship of his book? Or acknowledge that he was inconsistent in denying Mosaic authorship? Of course not. When it comes to criticising the Bible, very often anything goes, including inconsistency.

"As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past...": So I guess you don't know when you were born?

"...we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is": We can "know" what happened about as well as we can know anything. How do I know that man has been to the moon (which happened in my lifetime)? Because I saw evidence and heard that it happened from people I considered to be reliable. How do I know what happened during World War II (which happened before I was born)? The same answer. How do I know what happened 2000 years ago? The same answer. Sure, for much of history the evidence is quite scant, and so we can't be sure, but that's not true all the time, so in many cases we can be as sure of it as we can be of almost anything.

"To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian...": Not true. If the evidence is scant, a historian may not have much to go on, but it is his area of authority.

"...even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.": Because words in two different languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence, this is inevitable in a sense. But given the number of different experts (translators, etc.) who have studied this, the worst that can be said is that the English translations don't 100% convey every subtlety of the original languages. But that's a whole lot different to claiming that there is any substantial change that has occurred, and to therefore questioning the veracity of the Bible.

"Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. (rest snipped)": The problem with your rebuttal is that it is a straw-man argument. If you wrote something down and gave it to your friend, and your friend carefully rewrote it verbatim and passed it on to me, there is no more chance of misunderstanding arising than if you had written it and given it directly to me. So my argument was not logically flawed. What you probably assumed before but have now stated explicitly is that the Bible was passed down by oral tradition. There's two problems with this. One is that the people at the time were quite practiced at accurately passing things on orally, as that was a common way of passing on information. The second problem is that I know of no reason why the Bible was ever passed on orally, and believe that it was always written down.

"...it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence.": If you didn't offer evidence, it would have been an unsubstantiated assertion, but providing evidence doesn't mean that it wasn't an assertion.

"I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.": I don't see your point. I'm not claiming that all dinosaurs were carnivorous. God created creatures herbivorous. Some time later, some started eating meat (which, because of the reduced digestive requirements, should not pose any problems). As far as catching the meat is concerned, some creatures would be better at that than other creatures, specifically those that already had sharper teeth, for example. Furthermore, creationists claim that God provided a fair amount of built-in variability in the genes, so possibly there was already the capability of, for example, a variety of teeth forms so that some creatures might develop teeth better suited for carnivory, and natural selection then favours those creatures. You might think that this is evolution, but the distinction is that the "better" teeth required nothing new, as the genetic information already existed.

"I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods.": The dating methods are based on evolutionary theory (or naturalism, to be more precise) and the fossils do not show evolution.

"If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating...": See radiometric dating.

"Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen here...": Carbon dating, yes, but rarely if ever other forms. Carbon dating is able to be calibrated with artefacts of known age for the last few thousand years, so creationists don't take issue with those dates, but get beyond a few thousand years and the methods can't be calibrated.

"...often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’...": I don't recall ever seeing that particular claim.

"Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know.": Well, that puts you ahead of many of the evolutionists who argue with me!

"No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better.": Modern translations have it in modern measurements, in footnotes if not the actual text. And it's really not that hard to find out what a cubit was anyway, and not my job to tell you something that you could so easily find for yourself.

"Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!": Not only those alive today, but those that have gone extinct as well. The average size of a dinosaur was about that of a chicken, if I recall correctly. Only relatively few were really large creatures, and it would have been better (for reproduction after the flood) to take young dinosaurs onto the ark, not fully grown ones. But I'm glad to see that you have learnt something! I don't think you're totally correct about the size of ancient boats, though.

"...also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation...": If you read what the leading young-Earth creationists claim, instead of their critics and people who haven't really studied it, there would have been no reason for your confusion.

"Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view.": What makes you think I only know it from one point of view? I get evolution thrust at me in the media, on the Internet, in endless debates with sceptics, in science journals and magazines, and books. I know quite a bit about both sides of the issue. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have relatively little knowledge of the creationist side of the issue. Hence my comment was justified. How much reading of the creationist view have you done?

Philip J. Rayment 00:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Dinosaurs are not Reptiles

Please remove that. >_< ProserpinaFC

Why aren't they reptiles? I can find a number of sources that say that they are. Philip J. Rayment 21:16, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Philip, reptiles are cold-blooded. The size and location of dinosaur remains, as well as their internal bone structures, have resulted in the discovery that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Darkmind1970 08:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Unless this is common knowledge, we'll need a reference or source for it. The article's not protected. --JJJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

It's not common knowledge, because, as I said, I can find a number of sources that say that dinosaurs are reptiles. So I agree a source is needed. And I have two questions. 1) Is cold-bloodedness (still) considered a defining characteristic of reptiles (as distinct from a typical characteristic)? That is, does finding that dinosaurs are warm-blooded mean that they are not reptiles, or does it mean that cold-bloodedness is no longer considered an absolute requirement of reptilianness? 2) Have all dinosaurs been found to be warm-blooded, or just some? Philip J. Rayment 11:58, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding that some dinosaurs were found to be warm-blooded. I am not aware of any reclassification away from Reptilian. Learn together 12:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Why does this page and these thoeries ignore Megafauna?

Do you guys even know about megafauna? Why do you automaticlly assume that if antiquity mentions large animals, they are mentioning dinosaurs?

What about the megalania? Or the giant sharks, turtles and crocs of 30,000 years ago? ProserpinaFC

I know about megafauna, but what I don't know is what relevance they have to this article. Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly. Philip J. Rayment 21:17, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Loch Ness Should Be Removed

I dont want to get in to the debate of whether or not dino's were around with people or not but I think the Loch Ness section should be removed. Numerous reseachers have scoured the Loch and found nothing, no concrete evidence has been found and the famous "Surgeons picture" was admitted as fake by the surgeon on his deathbed. I may not agree with the premise of this article however I do believe it should a least remain *credible*. MetcalfeM 19:29, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not an expert on the Loch Ness monster, but I would have thought that there were a number of other claimed sightings that a particular picture being faked doesn't change a lot. The entry is already there in a qualified way rather than a definite way, so I don't think it matters a lot, and is (as far as I know) accurate in that people who believe it exists think that it could be a plesiosaur. But removing it wouldn't bother me too much. Anyway, I've unlocked the article. Philip J. Rayment 20:33, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'll take it out. Also, if there was a pleisour there it would have to be very old and there is not enough food to support a large carnivore such as a dinosaur. Thanks. MetcalfeM 21:11, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Maybe we can classify Nessie as "reported" - pending a really clear photo or some bones. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I've removed the Loch Ness section for none of the above reasons. There's a better reason: plesiosaurs weren't dinosaurs. --GeorgeLi 22:03, 3 February 2012 (EST)

Name

The Greek translation of the name "dinosaur" is to be included; it is part of the history of the subject. Karajou 19:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Source for claim needed

The section regarding human and dinosaur fossils states that "It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn't live together." We should consider providing a citation that shows a prominent evolutionist making such an assertion. The current citation is unfortunately inadequate as it also fails to give an example. I fear that without such backing, this comes off sounding like a straw man argument. Any thoughts? Does anyone know where we can find something like this? Jdisciple 11:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

The article doesn't claim that "prominent evolutionists" say this. I've added a reference to TalkOrigins saying effectively what this article refers to. Philip J. Rayment 09:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip I believe you have misinterpreted the TalkOrigins response. When he says "There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs" he is talking about that none are found within the same period of time, and he goes on to say "If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places." That statement should be taken out unless someone can show a credible source of "some evolutionary scientists" making that assertion. AliG 12:05, 13 December 2009 (EDT)

Error

There's an error about halfway through the article, inthe part about Dinosaurs possibly still living. it reads:

   *
         o Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; 

refs with no content must have a name

I thought the page might have loaded badly but refreshing the page doesn't change it. Bryankershaw 20:42, 30 July 2008)

should be fixed now. thanks for pointing that out -Foxtrot 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Evidence?

Much of your evidence functions on the basis that people have reported seeing it therefore it exists. This logic is flawed with examples such as Big Foot, the Lochness Monster and many other creatures of Urban Legend. -Vcelloho 00:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Are you saying that claimed sightings of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tasmanian Tiger, and so on are to be totally ignored? Then why have various authorities spent considerable sums of money looking for those things (the Loch Ness monster, at least)? It's because claimed sightings, although certainly not conclusive proof by themselves, are valid evidence.

And no, the article does not say "people have reported seeing it therefore it exists" or anything amounting to that. Rather, it says that creationists have a range of arguments, one of which is that various sightings support that they have existed in human history.

I will concede, however, that the arguments other than reported sightings are only briefly mentioned, compared to the sightings which are covered at some length.

Philip J. Rayment 03:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)

---

Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings

In one of the bullets, this page claims, "That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the Cretaceous strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times." Am I the only one that thinks this sounds ridiculous? It really should be taken out, although I am worried it will just be put back in. MikeRi 17:11, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

• This is something relating to Young Earth Creationism, Mike. Since all I know of it is from my exposure to it here, I don't involve myself with such issues. I would recommend you curtail your involvement with such issues here at CP, rather than be judgmental about something you are not expert on, however. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:19, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

• I agree with Mike, we should take out that out the part about Dinosaurs still being around. There's no evidence to support that Dinosaurs have not gone extinct, none from the Bible or any other Conservative doctrine. And TK you didn't have to be so offensive, in fact it's commonly believed that Dinosaurs are in fact extinct, and there's no expert that would say that they are not. Please restrict your involvement on an issue that you have no knowledge of. From your fellow Conservative.--CraigR 21:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Argument about relative abundance of marine and terrestrial fossils

I have removed the argument that human and dinosaur fossils are not found together because most fossils are marine and we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all. This is EXACTLY THE SAME argument used by scientists to explain gaps in the sequence of human evolution, and the obvious danger from the creationist point of view is that after accepting this argument to explain the lack of human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, scientists are going to demand that it's also accepted to explain the absence of ape/human transitions. --Voiceoftruth2006 10:36, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Popular Culture Re-Work

Removed prior (terrible) info and added a framework to start building up that section again with better information. --HarabecW 22:22, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Iridium

This article included a query about the prevalence of iridium at the K-T boundary. The global average of iridium levels in the boundary layer is 15 times the background level, peaking at 160 times background near the crater (Alvarez et al, 1980.)

Discussion

Alright whatever your name is: if you want to discuss, do it on the talk page. Not by vandalizing the article. Here you go.--MorrisF 21:51, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

Don't engage them.--JamesWilson 21:52, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

Through engagement though we can show the user where they are wrong. MaxFletcher

They lost the right to discuss this when they created the first sock puppet. The fact they are allied with the people who promised some vandal attacks if we didn't make Conservapedia how they wanted it isn't helping--SeanS 22:02, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

indeed, good point. MaxFletcher 22:31, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

True. I just wanted to get them to at least restrict the disruptive edits to the talk page, rather than the main article, until all this socking could be stopped.--MorrisF 22:40, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

As far as can be proven...

What's wrong with the phrasing? It's more specific and mentions that, as far as we know, dinosaurs are in fact extinct. JohnPaulJonesRevWar 09:36, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Who is we? Atheists and people with deistic beliefs? Conservative 15:49, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Reverting vandalism

Is there a faster way to revert to a previous version of an article than individually undoing all of the intervening edits? I feel like there is, but I don't know how. --JHunter 09:35, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Yes, if you click on the page history tab and then click on the version you want to go back to. Click on 'edit' but make no edits, just save the page.--CPalmer 09:52, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Dinosaurs are unBiblical

Dinosaurs are NOT mentioned in the Bible. Only Leviathan and Behemoth are the ONLY "dinosaur"-like creatures mentioned in the Bible, and they appeared to be unique. The others are very obviously hoaxes created by evolutionists, like Piltdown man and Java man. Their "dinosaur skeletons" are most often made of numerous plaster casts amongst bones of other animals. I'm somewhat disappointed that this site would fall for atheist lies like this.

Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings

When discussing "Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings", perhaps you could mention the Ica stones, the dinosaur petroglyphs found in Utah's Natural Bridges National Monument, the dinosaur carving in Cambodia's Ta Prohm temple, the Acámbaro figures of central Mexico, the Bernifal cave carvings, the animals depicted in Babylon's Ishtar Gate and in the Nazca textiles of Peru. --Ty 18:32, 3 March 2013 (EST)

The focus on dragons and dinosaur sitings in modern times strikes me as goofy. After all, when the dinosaurs died out has nothing to do with the Creation vs. evolution issue. PeterKa 08:04, 18 January 2014 (EST)

Extinction

The article doesn't clarify, why or to what cause dinosaurs have not survived. It only explains that the liberalist theory is wrong. Does one know or not? --Elessar (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2015 (EDT) The article mentions the theory that dinosaurs were made extinct by a mass event about 65 million years ago, and says it was a meteor. I thought the scientific consensus on this was that a comet hit the earth about 65 million years ago, leading to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Carltonio (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2019 (EST)