"Human Riding on a Dinosaur" - NOPE! · 3:29am Apr 8th, 2018
Preface, this is not a jab or slam at anyone of any belief system or those beliefs themselves. Lots of smart people are Christian, Jewish, Broncos Fans, and or like the color purple. Lots of less intelligent or merely less informed people in such categories and more to. This is a response to a call-out and a clarification of an error to others aren't mistaken like the person of subject was.
There are people who believe many many different things in this world. Some believe in a religion, others believe in destiny, some believe we have been visited by aliens, and others believe there is an unidentified upright walking primate in the Pacific Northwest of America. People are perfectly entitled to their beliefs in the way that they choose to believe them, that is a fundamental belief here in the United States of America that has been preceded by others and echoed by the Americans since. That is why we don’t have a state religion and we also try not to show favor to one religion or lack thereof over another in official, taxpayer-funded operations. The government is, in principle, there to serve the people it administers justly and protect them. Just the same, science doesn’t exist to replace religion nor try to prove one religion over another. Science’s concerns are studying the world around us and improving both knowledge and well-being through the study of things such as biology, physics, chemistry, anthropology, geology, engineering, mathematics, and many other related fields.
Science is not out to disprove or attack a religion, only state what the facts are based on observation and testing and form supportable theories based off what can’t be directly tested in its entirety. For example, we can observe gravity is a phenomenon. We can form a hypothesis about how it works. And then we can test that hypothesis in a controlled setting to see if it seems to be true not. When it is supported by the testing and research, the hypothesis becomes a “Theory”. Theory in science means something very different from the common use. In a nutshell, theory means “____ is true based on all available testing and has no evidence disproving it. While testing it in its entirety is unfeasible, there is nothing to go against it that has any evidence.”
To go back to gravity, the reason it’s called the “Theory of Gravity” is because we pretty much do know how gravity works, but in the vast expanse of the universe it unfeasible to tested under every single possible circumstance. There very well may be a circumstance or material the theory doesn’t work with, we just haven’t found it yet and everything else lines up. This is the same with evolution. We can observe evolution happening, both models, in the laboratory, and the nature despite what some may think. Thus we know evolution happens with the theory born from centuries of study, breakthroughs in genetics, knowledge of how cells work, and documentation of ancient species in the fossil record demonstrating the process. However, no one has a time machine, nor has the capability of observing every single living organism at the same time to document any changes; thus it is given the title “Theory”. There is nothing provable going against the concept, all evidence points towards them, thus it is treated as true as the fact water is wet.
I say all this because a great many people misunderstand this and this leads to even more misunderstandings into a subject I, unfortunately, know all too well and are aware of its damaging effects. And I was reminded of it when a sent postcards came to my attention at the museum I work at. On it showed an old Roman styled fresco, one I recognized from a textbook a while back. However according to the sender, of whom no return address nor name was given, it depicted a man riding on a dinosaur with a message on the back stating,
“Saw your store and Museum, loved it, but you need to look at all the evidence.”
Along with a quote from the book of Isaiah talking about dragons.
Here is the fresco picture, zoomed in as the postcard was.
Now the art of course exaggerates and distorts images for artistic value, but let’s accept the idea that the subject in the picture is a real flesh and blood animal and some of its traits were preserved in the artistry. The subject the man is atop of in the lower right-
-Has sprawling legs that stick out to the side
-Lives in or spends a lot of time in the river to the point the hunters have to go to said river to get it
-Is not as tall as a man but is longer than he is tall
-Has armored plates across its back
-Is in the process of having its mouth tied shut, showing the humans fear its bite
-Lives in the same area and time as a hippopotamus, given a hippo is clearly in the frame a right above it
Bro that’s a crocodile. More specifically a Nile Crocodile. No way can it be a dinosaur because even if the artist did see a flesh and blood non-avian dinosaur, they wouldn’t have drawn it like this.
First is the legs. Dinosaurs have an erect limb set, meaning the legs are situated directly below the hips in a pillar-like manner. We know this from both studying how the bones fit together, comparing them the modern animals, and observing how dinosaurs walked from fossil trackways.
Crocodilians in the past also had such a limb style, but modern crocodilians partially adapted to a different lifestyle so their stance is more like a lizard with sprawling legs on account of their shortened limbs. This is because modern crocodilians largely live in the water, were big limbs would just get in the way. The animal in the fresco has sprawling legs, like a crocodile.
Another fact is the creature is clearly shown to primarily live in the water, or else the hunters would have cornered it elsewhere. Contrary to popular belief and Jurassic World’s often misquoted references regarding Pterosaurs and Mosasaurs, dinosaurs were very chiefly land-based animals. There were only one or two types of dinosaurs one could consider amphibious, and they all bore distinct features such as distinctive horns (Ceratosaurus) or body shapes (Spinosaurus) that would not have been lost upon the artist. Just as well, none of these dinosaurs sported the bands of armor plates going across their backs like crocodilians do. An additional fact would be to all carnivorous dinosaurs are strictly bipedal, where as the animal in this fresco and its counterpart on the other side are all sporting clearly carnivorous sharp teeth while being obligated quadrupeds. Like a crocodile.
Additionally, the animal is shown to be in close proximity to a hippopotamus, thus we can infer it lives in the same habitat at the same time. Here I think is the most damning piece of evidence for when people insist and attack others over their belief all prehistoric creatures lived at the same time and you could once see a mammoth, Tyrannosaurus rex, lion, anole lizard, and Dimetrodon all together in the same space and time. Even if one wants to say that maybe dinosaurs and people avoided each other in such a scenario, and that’s why we don’t find dinosaur fossils next human ones, there is nothing excusing the apparently miraculous segregation of Mesozoic (Dinosaur), Cenozoic (Modern mammal), and Paleozoic (Pre-Dinosaur) life.
If you have a hungry Allosaurus, a fast and agile predator weighing in as heavy as a rhinoceros with large teeth and massive claws; and it has the option between hunting a heavily armed and armored Steogsaurus as big as it is or a relatively weaponless young elephant, why would it ever go for the first option? Why have we only ever found Allosaurus teeth lodged in the bones of a Stegosaurus or Camptosaurus from the same “supposed” time period and never in the bones of a “supposedly” Cenozoic Elephant, horse, or bovine or a “supposedly” Paleozoic Mochops?
Why don’t we find Neanderthal right next to or hunting a young Plateosaurus?
Why don’t we find a shed Triceratops tooth with the similarly shed teeth of a Ground Sloth to show the two were grazing on the same shrubs at the same time?
Heck, even within the same era this is a fact. We have never found a Triassic Postosuchus in the same rock layer as a Jurassic Diplodocus and Cretaceous Albertosaurus. Just as we don’t find seemingly very primitive primate from the Paleocene Plesiadapis right next to upright walking ape from the Pliocene Australopithecus.
If all these species and genera existed at the same time, we would have found their bones or trace fossils together by now. We don’t. And all the testable, verifiable, “test it against itself and a hundred dozen other methods” we use to date their fossils all clearly show these entities were all separated by millions of years of time, with one having already been long extinct and fossilized by the time the other walked across the land bearing their buried bones.
This creature lives of the river at the same place at the same time as a hippopotamus. Just like a crocodile. Because it is a crocodile.
Isaiah even says so-
Isaiah 35:7
And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.
Isaiah 51:9
Wake up, wake up, O LORD! Clothe yourself with strength! Flex your mighty right arm! Rouse yourself as in the days of old when you slew Rahab, the dragon of the Nile.
Dragon of the nile? Lives in pools of water with reeds and rushes? Saaay, what else is big and scaly, lives in reedy water in the Nile river?
But hey, maybe it really IS a drago-I mean dinosaur! Hey, maybe if we look at a culture the ancient Hebrews and Romans had contact with that did live on the Nile we'll find more pictures that could clear up this mess. So, did Egyptians and Nubians draw dinosaurs or crocodiles?....
Yep, crocodiles.
And if I was a bronze age herdman of only about 5'4, and I saw something like this- 
You better believe I'd call that 2,000 lb, 20 foot long carnivorous reptile a dragon.
And as a closing statement allow me to clarify something. Because there seems to be an idea going across certain groups that believe they need to disprove an attack science with the highly questionable use of dinosaurs to prove their belief. Many, many scientists are also men and women of faith. In America that can mean Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Native, a myriad of other religions, and a literal whole bunch of metric tons of Christians. Some of the most famous Paleontologists of all time were Christian or still are if they’re alive. They are not your enemy. And yet many, many times I see such groups demonize scientists and imply they are actively Antitheist monsters afraid of God and trying to corrupt the minds of others against belief. Some even go so far as to say there is a willing cover-up to hide or divert attention away from the “evidence” the writer of the postcard demanded we see, even when such “evidence” is in the public eye and blatantly available for all to see.
Here’s the problem. Regardless of any of their beliefs, I can guarantee you there is not a single Paleontologist, Zoologist, Historian, Anthropologist, Geologist, or Archaeologist on the planet who would not absolutely jump at the chance to prove a non-avian dinosaur survived into the historic times and lived alongside humans. That scientist with their proof would be famous the world over for all time. So if we’re a bunch of godless, smug, selfish souls who only want to glorify ourselves and not a god, why hasn’t anyone said anything or come forward with anything?
As someone of a belief in a creator and a scientist, I can give the answer.
It's simple that idea of scientists and this picture are both a load of croc.
*facepalm to the max*
Personally, I'm Christian, but to me there's no real issue with science and the idea of God co-existing for one simple fact:
We can't see 'an almighty being spoke the universe into being', because that's simply something uncomprehendable by our current capabilities. But we CAN see the results of that and processes it creates. And to me, those results is what science let's us see. We can't see the act of creation, but we can see the process happening.
My perception of things anyway. I respect anyone's views that differ from mine so long as they do the same.
4835670
prettyuglylittleliar.net/uploads/monthly_2016_02/r0OF0hc.png.0e9feb94fd500d87e88863aea1f9a967.png
4835677
Many many scientists would agree with you my friend. This isn't a statement for or against faith. I have my beliefs, others are entitled to there's. Long as no one is hurting anyone, I have no issue. This is more about someone grossly misunderstanding science, its methods, and the subjects of recorded history; with me giving a retort. They say it's a dinosaur, I demonstrate it's a crocodile.
Look, when it comes to faith or beliefs, I'm pretty loose. I don't particularly identify with any religion, but I came from a religious family (at least on one side) who are accepting of my choice. If something can be proven to me, then I'll buy into it, but I won't go around talking down to people who lean on their faith. That's they're choice, and (so long as they don't take it too far) I'll respect that.
All that said, that's a f
cking crocodile. It took me a while to realize it at first due to artistic license, but yeah. That's a crocodile. My knowledge of dinosaurs is not that great, but I could easily tell you that (barring someone actually figuring out a way to do Jurassic Park) humans have never and will never occupy the same time and space as dinosaurs. I was about six when I realized I'd never see a Stegosaurus for real. This person is either really stupid, or just someone who hasn't learned this stuff yet.
....... was that whole thing just to say "croc"?
Well to be fair, Crocodiles do resemble a Lagiacrus.
4835727
But Lagiacrus is not a dinosaur..?
4835741
But it is a type of dragon.
4835742
Thanks for clarifying
4835683
I went to a Catholic High School run by Jesuits, it has mass on Thursday's, the principle was a priest, and do you know what was one of the things they taught us in school? The theory of Evolution. They accept it as a sound theory for exactly the reasons you just stated. They fully accept that God and Science can co-exist.
Pretty good stuff. Reminds me of this thing I found in a textbook one time. It talked about a certain African tribe. One member had a sacred duty to inspect the livestock for disease. He used a microscope to check the animals' blood for pathogens, and gave a speech that technology and tradition can coexist. I also believe religion and science can coexist.
dat pun at the end
kekulus rift
4835683
Gotcha.
And to be honest, I agree with you here. It's a rather shallow argument on the person's part.
Especially since it rather clearly relies on missreading Biblical passages to support their argument, something Christians aren't supposed to do.
Many,many years ago, in preparation for my Confirmation (It's a Catholic thing,) the question of Evolution versus Creationism came up in a Religious Education Class. The deacon running the class told us that, for decades at that point, it was the view of The Church that the Book of Genesis should be taken as metaphor, and The Theory of Evolution was most likely correct. Yes, this can be seen as religion bowing to science, but since the Book of Genesis has two separate, non-compatible creation stories, it was likely always the case that it should, at least in part be read as metaphor. (Seriously, the first few verses state god created beasts before man, then go on to start over, with man preceding beasts. Check for yourself if you don't believe me.)
I looked at that picture you were told was a Dinosaur, and saw either a badly drawn lizard like reptile or an even worse drawn crocodile. Not a dinosaur. I read the bible passages, and I translated Dragon as Big Scaly Beast. Since there have been more scaly beasts that were not dinosaurs then that were, I tend to doubt even a rough reference to Dinosaurs was intended. Crocs, on the other hand, have been around for longer then Humanity and fit the description perfectly.
Finally, have you ever noticed that all the people who quote the Bible as defense of their position all use translations provided by someone else? I'm not saying those quotes in the original Hebrew likely said Crocodile instead of Dragon. I'm saying if you want to quote a source from a different language, be sure the translation is accurate and not embellished by the translator. In fact, you should find at least three individuals who are qualified to perform the translation, and then compare their translations if you yourself cannot read the original language.
Otherwise, a law sentencing those who use poison to murder others to death will be used to burn midwives on account of their being witches.
As far as I'm concerned, people can believe what they want to believe. However, holding religious beliefs is one thing, but then there's being out of touch with reality. The reality is, that's a crocodile.
This reminds me of a certain other subject:
Stop with the disclaimers. Stop apologizing. Stop defanging yourself. Make declarative statements. As long as you do not resort to ad hominem, then it's on them if the take it as an attack or insult. Coddling them makes your arguments weaker.
Humans didn't ride on dinosaurs, and here's my proof. Period.
Just for a quick clarification Tarb, do you you think that birds should be put back into the Dinosauria clade instead of being considered completely separate?
Really? Even pop-up books I had when I was 5 (and keep in mind I was born in 88) mentioned that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted together (the pop-up book replacing the image in the next page with that of a mammoth).
I'm not Christian. I'm Catholic. But I do remember a really good Twitter thread from Nash Bozard about how religion and science are not mutually exclusive. And suddenly, Lewis 'Linkara' Lovhaug (who is Christian) adds this little beauty (transcribing from memory since it was over a month ago and Nash tends to tweet a LOT): Every scientific discovery makes us appreciate God's work even more. Each new fact, each new hypothesis reveals what is easily the greatest work of art ever made.
And he's right. The greatest scientists are often the humble ones, the ones that admit that they don't have all the answers. Because they're the ones who go looking for them. We will probably never find all the answers because three more questions are uncovered with each answer found. And each of these answers only contribute to make the world we live in even more awesome than it already is.
Scientists are often accused of "taking away the romance in the world's mysteries" and this is a load of garbage. Scientists are driven by mysteries. No matter who says that (either a scientific figure or a religious figure) anyone who claims to have all the answers isn't interested in moving forward.
And aren't mysteries just grand?
That said, the only people I know that believe in humans and dinosaurs co-existing are those who believe crackpot theories like the "Expanding Earth Theory". Why else would Neil Adams would draw Batman riding a pterodactyl and fight a T-Rex?
P.S. If it looks disjointed, it probably means that I'm not a good speaker. But I needed to get that off my chest.
4836414
I'm not making excuses. I'm clarifying the point to this because people flamewar over this far too easily and I wanted to avoid a headache. I'm not defanging myself, I'm making sure someone knows what the hell I'm aiming my gripe at so there isn't a annoyance I can avoid.
4836417
Technically Birds/Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, Crocodilians, and relation should just get moved into a group 'Archosauria' and out of Reptiles in general.
I've often been both confused and frustrated at the idea of that science and religion are considered "enemies" of each other when it comes to beliefs of the universe. As though they are absolutes of a belief of life? The only reason I can think of is that we as humans are so used to "black and white" thinking when it comes to our own interpretations. If religion is right, evolution must be wrong, and vice versa, because there are people who want to believe in LITERAL translations of the bible or their beliefs.
Honestly, is it really that hard to believe that you can rely on BOTH to complement your view of the universe? Like, maybe Science can actually enhance our view of a religious point of view. Think about it: Wouldn't it not be more interesting to show just how complex our universe is, that how we as a civilization seemingly rose because of billions upon billions of years of evolution to achieve the civilization we are today....or is it better to believe that God simply snapped his fingers, and POOF, here we are? I think the former enhances the beauty and complexity of our universe created by an omnipotent being, and it doesn't disprove or prove the existence of God. It just adds to the mystery of the universe. It explains the HOW of God's creation, but it doesn't destroy the WHY.
I think Galileo said it best when it came to these matters:
Ooh, an evolutionary debate! Interesting topic, it isn't discussed nearly as much as it should! Forgive me if I go on too long, there's a TON of information I've gathered over the years on this subject.
To start, we actually DO have a lot of the evidence that you claimed we never see, if not those specific species combos. In several places for instance, we actually DO find human bones (as in, unquestionably homo sapiens) alongside dino bones, and in many MANY areas, we find actual surviving dino tissue when it all should've been long destroyed if even the most conservative evolutionary estimates of when dinos existed were accurate... not to mention such seemingly weird events as the "traditional fossil record" being straight up inverted in some areas ("more complex" organisms at the bottom, "less complex" organisms at the top).
In fact, even the commonly used dating methods generally used are considered woefully inaccurate past 5K years or so, and that includes the people who INVENTED said methods. Heck, Carbon Dating can give you radically different results on the SAME ARTIFACT depending on where you take the sample from, like how one part of an elephant calf corpse reads 20K BC while another reads 40K BC.
Heck, the very concept of macroevolution (i.e. what 99.99% of people think of as "evolution", and NOT microevolution which would more accurately be called "genetic shuffling") is based on some rather flawed understandings, to the point where, were it introduced today, it would be laughed at for its complete incongruity with the observable world. Cell structure being one such example, since we now know even the simplest examples are vastly more complex than our entire civilization. The possibility that such a level of information could form by chance, even enough to develop ONE SPECIES, is so infinitesimal that you'd have a better chance of finding a single specific electron out of all the 10 to the 124th or so power that exist in the universe!
But as far as the picture is concerned... while you're correct that it, by itself, is NOT sufficient proof of anything, there are two very interesting facts that may give credence to the idea of it not being an exaggeration:
1. Reptiles grow for as long as they live.
2. There are far more blatantly saurian beasts depicted with human riders in other well known artifacts.
It is entirely possible that the fossils we find are of incredibly long-lived specimens, and that the ridden dinosaurs depicted in things like the Inca Stones were far younger. Of course, it's ALSO possible that exaggeration was involved in this fresco, but not nearly as certain as you claim.
I could go on and on and ON without repeating myself, but even I think that may be a bit much for a single comment...
4836492
While a pretty piece of prose, it kind of misses the point: if "God's Word" says very clearly that everything was made in six days, and you believe it WASN'T, then why in the world would you trust it to be right about anything else? In other words, if we are to believe that God in infallible and all knowing, then He and His Word MUST be correct ALL. THE. TIME. Anything else renders the belief in Him logically inconsistent.
That isn't to say I disagree that God and science are diametrically opposed, far from it. The problem is that many "scientists" believe in a religion that IS diametrically opposed, and have been trying to make the case that their beliefs are supported by what is commonly observed.
This attempt, however, doesn't hold up to scrutiny, to the point where it essentially DISproves their entire worldview at every turn! That's not the same thing as saying it outright proves Evangelical Christianity is correct (though there are other proofs that deal in matters not covered by scientific study), just that there must be at LEAST one entity who by definition would be a god/goddess involved... and that the Earth is far younger than "millions of years".
P.S. In the original Hebrew, the uses of those particular words for "evening", "morning", "number", "night", OR "day" specifically refer to a 24-hour period, so all of them together is basically code for "this is a literal day, and you'd have to be a moron to think I'm saying anything different".
4836544
I'm not sure if you're being serious, or if you're making fun of those who think that Earth is 'younger than it looks'. If the former... Get out. If the latter... Get out, since it's not very nice to make fun of those who may have some mental retardation.
4836501
With all do respect, I do need to correct some points here as I've heard these before and am of the firm belief knowledge is a gift to be given.
1. No. No we haven't found a single case of a non-avian dinosaur alongside human remains. There isn't a single paleontologist on the planet who would hide such a discovery if it were made as it not only mean acclaim for themselves and their associates, but also the guarantee of permanent funding for further projects (something many scientists struggle with) as well as rewriting the evolutionary timescale.
One often trumpeted case of dinosaur it human convergence is Glen Rose Texas, were several tracks vaguely resembled human footprints are located adjacent to dinosaur tracks. This however was caused by misunderstanding as the supposedly human tracks were actually the tracks of a large Theropod dinosaur with the toes eroded and filled in. many suppose it tracks that appear extremely clear were also found to be forgeries.
paleo.cc/paluxy/metatarsal-track-diagram3.jpg
The only large animals humans have ever been found in association with are large mammals, large crocodilians or birds, and in one case a very large monitor lizard. All of which are discernible from nonavian dinosaurs by the trained eye even though the layman might make this mistake. The Creation Museum once claimed to find over 200 pounds of on fossilized dinosaur bones, but the bones were found to be actually from moose and large bison. They removed this mention from their website and now have no comment about it despite the fact several of their videos mention the bones being found.
2. You're referring to the Cretaceous feathered dinosaurs been found in younger strata than the first bird, Archaeopteryx. This is a common misunderstanding so I don't blame you at all for not knowing this. Simply put the fact we have found feathers on Dromaeosaurids ("Raptors"), Troodontids, Tyrannosaurids, and relation has nothing to do with the evolution of birds. Rather it's demonstrating that feathers are an ancestral trait to the Coelurosauria family. The origins of said family do exist before Archaeopteryx. In fact other evidence suggests feathers or proto-feathers might even be a trait found at the base of the entire dinosaur family tree as they are far more common than people think.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Distribution_of_feathers_in_Dinosauria.jpg/1024px-Distribution_of_feathers_in_Dinosauria.jpg
In essence, feathered dinosaurs in the case of Velociraptor aren't the ancestors of birds; paleontologists never said that. Rather they and birds share a common feathery ancestor, akin to two cousins sharing the same grandfather. Feathers are useful for far more than just flight, so it makes perfect sense even the branches of the family that didn't develop flight still had feathers for those purposes (thermoregulation, display, camouflage, brooding nests, etc.).
Carbon dating isn't, nor has it ever been accused for dating dinosaur fossils. Carbon dating relies on carbon-14 and 12, both of which are useless after 40,000 years. Also carbon dating is never used alone. In fact when testing carbon dating of human archaeological remains, it's always used with additional radiometric dating, stratigraphy dating, law of association dating, and radiographic dating. In fact dinosaur bones alone undergo 12 different varieties of radiographic and radiometric dating, all of which can be verified in the laboratory and can be cross referenced amongst each other to eliminate margin of error. And all of these methods are far less susceptible to margins of error like carbon dating is alone and they don't require the very specific traits carbon dating needs. Carbon dating is almost never used on artifacts because a vast majority of surviving artifacts don't even have carbon in them.
Methods that are used on fossils include,
Uranium–lead dating method
Samarium–neodymium dating method
Potassium–argon dating method
Rubidium–strontium dating method
Uranium–thorium dating method
Radiocarbon dating method
Fission track dating method
Chlorine-36 dating method
argon–argon dating method
iodine–xenon dating method
lanthanum–barium dating method
lead–lead dating method
lutetium–hafnium dating method
potassium–calcium dating method
rhenium–osmium dating method
uranium–lead–helium dating method
uranium–uranium dating method
krypton–krypton dating method
All of which can be cross referenced amongst themselves and be verified under controlled settings in the laboratory to be accurate.
...Ahem. No. Just because the process is extremely complicated does not mean that it happened nor that the fundamentals of this happening are completely above our understanding. The new studies of cell structure and gene flow do not rewrite we knew before them, rather just expand upon them. The fundamentals of genetics have not changed significantly since their discovery in collaboration upon. Point shifts, DNA mutation, competition, and random selection have all been documented in witnessed in life. Additionally there is no boundary line between macroevolution and microevolution, rather the latter is the steps to the former. Over time genetic inferences stacked together until shifts in the chromosome have become so great that infertility restricts the ability to cross pollinate and the resulting offspring is sterile if it's even viable. For instance gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans are all genetically close enough they could produce an offspring in theory. However in practice this cannot happen because the gorilla chromosome, chimpanzee chromosome, and human chromosome have all gone under point shifts, re-combinations, and reversals to wear the proper chromosome would no longer line up even if the genetic material is not all that different.
1.bp.blogspot.com/-AWSQg-3SWSQ/UkWd5yogNXI/AAAAAAAAAD4/ujDY6irpYak/s1600/1982-Chromosome+chimps.jpg
Additionally, macroevolution has been witnessed in the laboratory and in nature to the point where the new resulting organism strain can no longer produce viable offspring with the other strains. This is the core boundary line between subspecies and species.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305150917.html
https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
1. No, functionally they actually do functionally stop after awhile. Any insinuation the dinosaurs are just extremely long-lived reptiles just lays back to the old, outdated way of thinking that dinosaurs were just giant lizards. They are not, there are dozens of fundamentally different anatomical features found in the skeletons alone that differ between dinosaurs and modern reptiles. Even the reptiles that are genetically and by relation closest to dinosaurs, crocodilians, differ from them in many key ways. You can't go from a sprawling gate, cold-blooded, quadrupedal, scaly, three-chamber hearted, expanding jawed monitor lizard to a pillar-legged, warm-blooded, feathery, bipedal, four chamber hearted, static jawed, Yutyrannus. Additionally growth rates amongst reptiles declined drastically after sexual maturity. An American alligator will grow roughly 6 inches a year for the first 20 years of its life, and then it will slow down drastically to the point the difference in size between a 20 year old and 80 year old individual is negligible, within a half foot or so.
Also growing constantly would just result in a very very big, but very recognizable reptile. The biggest problem with your scenario is the fact they have found dozens upon hundreds of dinosaur eggs and babies. Some genera we're even lucky enough to have a representative of every growth stage. We can also determine the age of the dinosaur when it died based off proven methods that work on birds and crocodilians. Sue, the largest Tyrannosaurus rex known was only 30 at most when she died.
And these baby dinosaurs? Don't look anything at all like reptiles found today.
i.ytimg.com/vi/ucE-6mEgy1E/maxresdefault.jpg
Observe, an infant Tarbosaurus bataar, roughly the size of a large cat.
3.bp.blogspot.com/-BtF0I54DX_I/WDur0MLm8II/AAAAAAAAFLE/OdLysJlXxQYiNerIYgj495bc_TqatWGmACLcB/s1600/IMG_9529-1.jpg
and an adult Tarbosaurus bataar, roughly the size of a bus.
kingsnake.com/blog/uploads/tarbosaurus-skeleton.jpg
Tyrannosaurid growth rate, very rapid and short
researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Makovicky/publication/8404088/figure/fig2/AS:278863306346506@1443497601410/Logistic-growth-curves-for-Tyrannosaurus-and-three-related-tyrannosauridsNote-that-the.png
Alligator growth rate, more gradual before plateauing
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3891752?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
2. Yes, and every single one of those does not look like a real dinosaur and is pretty obviously showing a fanciful creature. Many of them have been found to be forgeries, much like the Inca Stones because they show how people used to think dinosaurs looked. This is why traits like tail dragging and upright body postures abound, whereas more modern discoveries like feathers and keratin plates are absent. Additionally before any mention of fiery flying serpents is brought about, I can already tell you now as someone who has read the original Hebrew Bible and consulted with an Orthodox rabbi about a more accurate translation, the subject of that passage is neither fiery nor flying; and any person observing a Pterosaur would never describe them as a serpent.
The ultimate downfall of anyone claiming they found depictions of dinosaurs in art is that many of these depictions show what people used to think dinosaurs look like in pop culture (Inca Stones) and none of them were ever found preceding a discovery. If a statue was found in, say, the 1980s showing a feathered Dromaeosaurid or perhaps an accurate Spinosaurid when both of those groups were virtually unknown at the time and very poorly understood, that would be something different. So far that has never happened.
Instead we just get with this mural shows. A dude on a crocodile.
This is the only known accurate picture of a person riding a dinosaur.
i.imgur.com/TjKvTXR.jpg
4836501
1. No the topic wasn't about evolution. Just the fossil record and someone's art fresco.
2. If you please, don't be rude. Especially not to my friends.
3. Holy Spirit didn't write the Bible nor do the books necessarily agree with one another. Genesis has two completely different word creation stories, none of the disciples' volumes agree upon what time of day Yeshua died on, etc. This is because the written Torah and then New Testament were only written down decades to centuries after the event took place. More so, they have been edited and translated countless times to the point even same language translations often have different passages. The whole point of the bible is it is the "inspired" word of God, and if one is Christian then they can find truth within its teachings regarding its savior. The rest is additional material also included for metaphor and moral lesson.
PS: Don't even try to bring up Mokele-mbembe. I've heard it dozens of times and I've pummeled the argument to the ground just as many. Lingala's word for the supposed creature in a nutshell can mean any large animal, with elephants, hippos, and rhinos all being identified as "Mokele-mbembe".
And bring up Behemot a.k.a Behemoth and you'll find I have the funniest disproving of "Behemoth is a Sauropod" you'll ever hear
4836414
You are out of touch with reality, ye olde noob saibot
4836461
... Fair point. I think I've gotten too used to the Culture War, where giving an inch always results in someone taking a hundred miles. Sorry about that.
4836582
... What are you talking about?
4836576
Okay, there's a LOT here I need to address:
First, I was not being rude to anyone. Rather, his comment was showing a lack of understanding as to why this sort of thing is important, and I brought it up. Dissenting views do not equal rudeness.
Second, the two topics are so tightly intertwined that they are always going to be relevant to each other.
Next, I am aware of the "human tracks" claim, how it's disputed, and ironically how those disputes are in turn disputed (namely, running barefoot through wet cement produces tracks remarkably similar). This was NOT what I was referring to. I meant exactly what I said: actual BONES (with video!) that were found alongside dino bones.
The dino tissue example is the same, where I MEANT tissue and NOT feathers (again, with video). I'd never even heard of this feather thing before!
Next, I only brought up the Carbon Dating as ONE example of a dating method touted as secure while actually being flawed. It is NOT the only one, not even close, just the one I know enough specifics of to discuss.
That is NOT macroevolution, that is MICROevolution. MACROevolution involves the creation of new genetic information, and all of those processes only either move or destroy genetic information. This is an extremely common bait-and-switch, which is why there's all those "macroevolution in labs" results: while they DID create a lot of strange and impressive results, not ONE of them created new genetic information without deliberate genetic engineering (and at that point you've already abandoned the "this happens naturally" part, which is the important bit). It doesn't matter whether this genetic shuffling results in one group being incompatible with another or not, you can't even get TO single-celled organisms without new genetic information, let alone from there to more complex forms of life.
As for the "Inca stones are forgeries" thing, this claim is hotly contested. There ARE people who attempt to produce fakes, yes, and they even use the same methods claimed to be involved in the forging, but the results are... well, much less authentic looking. The nature of the patina, the smoothness of the artwork, and other factors disagree with the idea that these are fake. And the Inca stopped existing BEFORE the common ideas of what dinosaurs looked like were "officially" conceived, yet are WAY too close to them to be generic "monsters", so the idea that they just "copied what people thought they looked like" also goes out the window.
And finally, do NOT claim that the Bible is only "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, as there are many MANY mentions of it being the Word of God, to the point where, to quote from Genesis 1:1:
That doesn't sound like "inspired" to me!
Besides, you're sorely overestimating the time from these events to their transcriptions. Studies of the New Testament's history show that it was written EXTREMELY close to the events being described, to the point where it puts most OTHER historical texts to SHAME in the official methods of testing authenticity. The Bible as a whole even scores three times as high as the second best piece of literature!
And while the Torah WAS written centuries afterward (Moses wrote them, so even assuming the Bible is accurate that's quite some time), I should mention that the Flood account (which is ALSO pretty far back) has eerily similar accounts in just about every nation, with the low ball estimate being 288 distinct Global Flood accounts (and the high being in the tens of thousands), ALL hitting the same basic plot points as the Biblical version. To say that's too many to be coincidence would greatly understate the situation!
In short, while what I say goes against the "standard" story, and while I may even be wrong on a few small points, the crux of my arguments is incredibly secure. Regardless of any of that though, you ARE still one of my favorite authors, and I will continue to enjoy The Bridge.
4836551
The former, and WAY too many people (including top scientists!) agree with my views to simply dismiss it as "mental retardation". Should I quote Tarb's stance on not being rude?
4836609
1. Yes, yes you were. He had a different view and thus you attacked him over it.
2. Relevant doesn't equal linked. If a dinosaur was found alive in the modern day it wouldn't prove anything about how old the earth is or if evolution even happens. Given the wealth of evidence supporting an old Earth, it only prove the dinosaur in question is a Lazarus taxon.
And you keep saying that without offering any proof or citation. Give me a clear video, give me a peer reviewed study to prove the bones aren't just the bones of a Cenozoic animal or the human bones are actually just that, give me a presentation on these bones by a neutral party who obviously doesn't lie or make things up constantly (i.e. Ken Ham and his associates).
The soft tissue you are referring to was collagen, actin, and tubulin. All of which don't decay because they are heavy mineralization. Bone in its pieces are not all organic, roughly 70% the bones mass is mineral. While the majority of this is calcium, there are softer parts that are effectively "stretchy rock". Despite claims to the contrary however, both of the two samples found in a tyrannosaur and hadrosaur dinosaur did not contain preserved blood cells. Nor did they contain proteins and DNA fragments which one would expect from a recently dead animal. We know what preserved DNA looks like, we've found it already in Woolly Mammoths and Cave Lions preserved in ice and even a Neanderthal man skull preserved in crystal.
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/
https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say
Macroevolution is, at its base definition, the change of one species into another. Species is defined as a group of life forms with the maximum genetic diversity amongst themselves in which they can still breed. An Asiatic lion and an African lion are the same species, a cross between either of the two sexes of each can still produce offspring that in turn can have offspring of their own since both the male and the female offspring are fertile. However an Asiatic lion is not the same species as a Bengal Tiger, as while the lion and a tiger can crossbreed, the resulting hybrids cannot breed amongst themselves (male ligers and tigons are sterile). Same with horses being a different species and donkeys and mules being sterile. The macroevolution I described has all been occurring and documented in both the laboratory without genetic influence ( as I linked) and in the wild (again, as I linked). Macroevolution is not genesis where you make a completely new organism out of scratch. Evolution does not deal with creating new life, rather documenting how organisms change with time. Sometimes this is a very long process, sometimes punctuated equilibrium occurs and things change rapidly. We can chart how far back these changes occur and how long they occurred via both the fossil record and even more precisely, molecular mapping; the latter of which is free of errors because it is so accurate it can be used for ancestral tracking, medical documentation, and law enforcement.
Looking into the mitochondrial DNA of the subject, they can trace the maternal line backwards. Your mitochondria is identical to your mother's, identical to your grandmothers, identical to your great grandmother. It's passed along the female line and mutates with a set rate. Ergo, what this allows us to do is things such as look at your Mt DNA and then the Mt DNA of another person, and chart the mutation rate to give us a generation gap and show how far back it was until you two had a common ancestor. Not only is this allowed us to see how many generations human Mt DNA goes, but it also allows us to see when and where a common ancestor for majority of humanity existed. In this case a "mitochondrial Eve" living in what is now southeastern Africa over 100,000 years back accounting for generational gaps.
If the Genesis story (either of them, the book lists two) was entirely accurate down to the smallest detail, we would find not only the highest genetic diversity in the Middle East (on account people have been there the longest and the well-documented occurrence of genetic drift would have a longer time to take effect) and we would find all DNA types would be derivatives of Middle Eastern origin at the location Noah's Ark supposedly landed on in Turkey. We would not find it in the places some suppose Noah's sons and their wives departed to, nor will you find one of those locations would be more genetically diverse and have an older Mt DNA signature than the others. Moreover there would be no shared Mt DNA signature because according to Scripture, it was Noah's sons repopulate the earth with their wives. Wives who would've passed on their own different mitochondrial DNA, and not a shared one.
Instead, we find the highest genetic diversity by a huge margin is in Africa. Africa by itself is a higher genetic diversity than everywhere else in the world put together. To illustrate, there are historic groups in Africa that are more genetically close to Norwegians, Han Chinese, and Incans at the same time then they are to another group in Africa. Additionally Africa is the source of all the most primitive and oldest human remains by a wide margin. Anatomically accurate humans have been identified in African deposits that are, even if the dating methods are all entirely wrong (which they aren't) would still be at bare minimum 50 times older than a physically dated object (as an it actually has the year of creation written on top of it) that is supposedly as old as the universe is according to young earth creationists.
Instead every single one of the Ica stones surprisingly matches pictures you can find in the children's book from the 1940s to 50s. Not to mention the Ica artifacts that could be tested all show to be modern and made with materials unavailable to the people living in the region at the time. Moreover, the Ica stones show depictions of dinosaurs we now know to be erroneous based off physical traits blatantly visible in the bodies, such as upright walking Theropods who drag their tails, something no Theropod could do without breaking its own hips and tail. Moreover still, none of the stones show anything remotely resembling modern depictions and knowledge of dinosaurs. There is not a single feathered species shown, nor is there any depiction of the much more common but much less well know creatures during the Mesozoic. If the Ica saw dinosaurs, why wouldn't they draw the dinosaurs they would have interacted with the most? Not once?
Also the Ica stones' art style does not even remotely resemble any Incan or Peruvian culture. You expect some sort of continuity to be present. And this isn't even mentioning the stones depicting metal tools, brain surgery, and space craft.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
New International Version
but test them all; hold on to what is good,
New Living Translation
but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.
English Standard Version
but test everything; hold fast what is good.
Berean Study Bible
but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
Berean Literal Bible
but test all things. Hold fast to the good.
New American Standard Bible
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
King James Bible
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Christian Standard Bible
but test all things. Hold on to what is good.
Contemporary English Version
Put everything to the test. Accept what is good
Good News Translation
Put all things to the test: keep what is good
Holman Christian Standard Bible
but test all things. Hold on to what is good.
International Standard Version
Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good.
NET Bible
But examine all things; hold fast to what is good.
New Heart English Bible
but test all things; hold firmly that which is good.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Explore everything and hold what is excellent.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good.
New American Standard 1977
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
Jubilee Bible 2000
Examine all things; retain that which is good.
King James 2000 Bible
Test all things; hold fast that which is good.
American King James Version
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
American Standard Version
prove all things; hold fast that which is good;
Douay-Rheims Bible
But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Darby Bible Translation
but prove all things, hold fast the right;
English Revised Version
prove all things; hold fast that which is good;
Webster's Bible Translation
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Weymouth New Testament
but test all such, and retain hold of the good.
World English Bible
Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.
Young's Literal Translation
all things prove; that which is good hold fast;
So do I question everything or prove everything? For something you insist is so consistent it seems to waver even in just the past couple hundred years with just one language.
i.imgur.com/fZznWLk.gif
If I picked up a Bible and did something extremely sacrilegious, such as replace every instance of a word "Christ", "Jesus", or any title relating to the savior of man and son of God with the words "pink platypus", we now have a Bible with the Romans committing violence against monotremes and there is nothing stopping me from doing it. While these translation blunders affect the Old Testament much more than the New Testament, they still affect the New Testament.
But John states he was somehow before Pilate three hours later and died much later that day.
Each of the apostles also gives details about the crucifixion which differ amongst themselves, such as occurrences at the Temple.
And every single one of those flood stories drastically differs from the tale of Noah, especially the ones that were written well before Genesis. In fact the Sumerians and the epic of Gilgamesh all have a Noah like figure, but there is not a scant mention of the God of Abraham nor the conditions of the flood being the same. And all these stories are so ancient and so different from each other, that flood myths in China could not have a common origin with flood myths in the Congo or Brazil or Sumeria.
While I find Mr. Ra a bit too aggressive and bashing at times, he does do a lovely case documenting these flood myths far more than I see Youth Earth Creationists. And he's done it in summarized video format, see you can see just how similar these flood stories really are and then go look them up yourself.
Understand this, I'm not beating down your arguments as blasphemy against God. In the end, none of this matters being Christian. What matters is what you believe in regarding a certain stone Carpenter from Nazareth. I'm glad that I can still make a story in which you enjoy, however your arguments are not as secure as you think they are. I heard every single one of them before and are still other facts and evidence I can point out to try and clarify the situation. You are far, far from the worst I've debated with and I do not hold your argument against you. However I heavily encourage you to look upon the world God is giving you to dwell in and appreciated on all sides.
4836551
Appreciate the assist V, though I can handle this. Trust me, I've debated far far worse and I still haven't taken the gloves off
4836766
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyuPr9ULqI
4836934
https://media.giphy.com/media/GCLlQnV7wzKLu/giphy.gif
although I appear late to the party, I would like to say, Thank the lord someone said it. As a man of both SCIENCE and GOD, I hate when people both religious or not attack me for saying things like this, In my opinion, science is how man understands the works and creation of whatever deity or deities exist.