ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my library, where I collect information and present arguments developed by myself that lead, in my view, to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation for the origin of the physical world.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Dinos with humans

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Dinos with humans Empty Dinos with humans Thu May 01, 2014 11:42 am

Otangelo


Admin

Dinos with humans

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1714-dinos-with-humans

Dinosaur Art By Native Americans (Petroglyphs)

Dinos with humans Dino-a10

Dinosaurs
The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy
Dinos with humans Delk-t10

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-dinosaur-on-the-tucson-artifacts
Dinos with humans Dinos_10


Further links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones
http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2416
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-humans-coexisted.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=743
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-humans-coexisted.html
Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]



Last edited by Admin on Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:48 pm; edited 8 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2Dinos with humans Empty Re: Dinos with humans Thu May 22, 2014 11:16 pm

Otangelo


Admin

http://www.factfictionandconjecture.ca/files/meister_footprint.html

Dinos with humans Ye3c_d10

Stegosaurus Carving on a Cambodian Temple?
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm
Even if it represented a stegosaur, it could be based on fossils rather a live stegosaur. Those insisting that the carver saw a recently living stegosaur have failed to adequately consider contrary features and alternate explanations, let alone the extensive geologic evidence against human and dinosaur cohabitation.

Dinos with humans Aaaaae10

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3Dinos with humans Empty Re: Dinos with humans Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:17 am

Otangelo


Admin

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions
Dinos with humans Jeremy10

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4Dinos with humans Empty Re: Dinos with humans Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:06 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Evidence of humans living with Pre-flood, extinct animals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium
Elasmotherium ("thin plate beast") is an extinct genus of large rhinoceros endemic to Eurasia during the Late Pliocene through the Pleistocene, existing from 2.6 Ma to at least as late as 39,000 years ago in the Late Pleistocene

https://www.nature-environnement.fr/decouvrir-les-plus-belles-merveilles-naturelles-de-la-planete-ou-aller/

http://archeologie.culture.fr/chauvet/fr

If you are in love with history, the Chauvet cave is definitely a must. Located in the Ardèche, it will impress you with its historical figures of 36,000 years ago. The official site of the cave also offers you a taste thanks to their spectacular virtual visit! If you are daring, the Skaftafell cave located in Iceland is worth seeing. A glacial cave, it is conducive to live adventures. If you are not sensitive to heat, the Cueva de Los Cristales in Mexico is worth a visit. It is a cave of giant crystals, whose thickness can reach several meters.

Dinos with humans Kickin10

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

5Dinos with humans Empty Re: Dinos with humans Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:05 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Meet The Malachite-Moab Man.
Biblical skeptics and global flood deniers have often asked Christians/Creationists the following question....
"If there really was a global deluge as described in the Bible, why don't we find out of place artifacts like human remains in so-called dinosaur or Cambrian layers"?
Well meet The Malachite Man. The malachite human remains were found between 1930 and 1970 in undisturbed Cretaceous rock.
Anti-Creationists often try to explain this discovery away as an example of 'intrusive burial' by native Americans, or even by a mining accident, however these particular human remains (9 adults and one infant) were found 50 feet under undisturbed lower Cretaceous rock who's natural bones have been replaced by a mineral called "malachite', and who's burial location can't easily be explained a-way. Plus who takes an infant with them onto a mining site.
Darwin and Dawkins said the following similar paraphrase~~~~ "If a recent mammal or human remain is found in lower geological column levels, then our entire theory of evolution will be falsified"~~~..
Well Malachite man and other Oopart art said Hello gentlemen.
Reference..
Don Patterson (Malachite man) https://youtu.be/ltI1gzkryeM
See.. Oopart and forbidden archeology.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

6Dinos with humans Empty Re: Dinos with humans Sat May 18, 2024 7:51 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Why Haven’t We Found Dinosaur and Human Fossils Together?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLkyi4Bu638



Why Haven’t We Found Dinosaur and Human Fossils Together?

Previously on dealing with Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, we made the biblical case for why dinosaurs actually went on board the ark and also showed the fossil record supports the biblical account of Noah's flood by demonstrating various kinds of creatures were buried together all at the same time rather than over a supposed millions of years time frame. Join us now as we deal with a related question: if humans and dinosaurs coexisted at the time of Noah's flood, then why have human and dinosaur fossils not been found together? In part three of dealing with Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

As mentioned in the last episode, we showed that the popular idea that the fossil record supports the evolutionary based idea that dinosaurs never existed alongside the other animals commonly associated being on board Noah's ark simply doesn't line up with many modern fossil finds. The fact is the fossils of ducks, beavers, badgers, platypus, pine trees, squirrels, and many other common creatures have been found in rock layers Evolution believing scientists considered to be dinosaur age, all of which was unheard of when I was growing up because it means they all lived at the same time. However, as helpful as this is in favor of believing dinosaurs were in fact on board Noah's ark, it also Spurs on one of the most common questions against the Genesis account of Noah's Ark, which is: if humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why have no human and dinosaur fossils been found together?

To answer that, let's pose a similar question that will help frame what the actual issues involved in the question really are: why don't we find whales and selacan fossils buried together? Has any Bible skeptic ever asked that? Certainly no one that I've known, and it's likely the average person has no idea what a selacan is. However, I've certainly had many people ask me the "why no human and dinosaur bones found together" question over the years. So why is that?

Well, as explained previously, biblical creationists believe that the great flood recorded in Genesis 6:9 is the cause of the majority of the sedimentary rock layers containing billions of fossilized remains found worldwide, and we also believe that dinosaurs, which were air breathing land animals, were part of the biological payload sent aboard Noah's Ark. So the obvious conclusion is that both humans and dinosaurs coexisted before and after the flood. So what the "human with dinosaur fossils" question is getting at is this: simply logical yet somewhat naive assumption that if two different creatures live together at the same time and coexisted in similar environments, then we should surely find their fossils buried together.

However, this isn't as much of an argument as it sounds once you dig into the details involved. In fact, it's actually quite a powerful argument against the story of evolution when you factor in Evolution's required millions of years' time frame and unpack it fully. For the sake of argument, let's use the two creatures I mentioned earlier: whales and selacan, already living in an aquatic environment where evolutionary stories primarily depict fossilization happening versus dinosaurs and humans, which are both specifically land dwelling creatures.

Now let's look at these first two candidates in relation to the evolutionary timeline. Selacan, living fish once presumed extinct and formerly used as index fossils for the Cretaceous Period, are said to date back as far as 410 million years ago. Now, I specifically chose this for our comparison because it's so well known in the creation Evolution debate that it's casually referred to as the "the dinosaur fish" by some. Now whales are said to have evolved about 50 million years ago, so that means that whales and selacan have supposedly coexisted for approximately 50 million years in the same general aquatic environment. However, even though they live together now and presumably did so throughout this supposed 50 million year old evolutionary timeline, no fossils with whales and selacan together have ever been found. So why would that be?

Now, before we proceed, let's deal with an objection that can be raised here because some might say that although both these creatures live in the same wide ranging environment, i.e. the ocean, both don't live in the same habitats, so the argument isn't valid. However, although today we observe selacan living deeper in the oceans between 90 to 700 M deep and most whales spending more time near the surface, there's actually a tremendous variety of behavior among the 40 different whale types living today whose activities regularly cause them to traverse all but the most extreme depths of the oceans. Some whales have been documented using satellite link tags diving over 2900 M and some can stay submerged for over 3 hours, which means they regularly pass through selacan territory and overlap their habitats constantly today. Selacan are found near the Kos islands in the Western Indian Ocean, and some also live along the east African Coast into Indonesian Waters. Accordingly, a wide variety of whales also frequent these locations, so there's no known reason to believe these creatures ever had any significant separation over time, but still no fossils of them together.

Now, a skeptic might try to say that all of what we've discussed doesn't provide sufficient opportunity to expect fossils of them to have been found together, as whales generally stayed closer to the surface and selacan mostly lived in deeper waters over the last 50 million years, even though there's no way to definitively verify that. But how then would they explain, in probabilistic terms, how the remains of a selacan has been found jumbled up with several pterosaur fossils, which are a group of extinct flying reptiles, as reported in a 2021 Live Science article? It stated the fossilized lung was part of a slab uncovered in phosphate beds in Oulmes, Morocco, which contains several other bones belonging to parasaurs. Now, even though pterosaurs are thought to have hunted over top water, what are the chances of a land dwelling flying reptile and a deep sea living selacan being buried together versus the remains of a selacan and a whale being so?

Well, the evolutionary researchers who found them cautiously postulated that because they'd only found the lung of a selacan mixed with some pterodactyls, there might have been a rather intriguing chain of events that resulted in this "fantastic fish and flyer find." They proposed that perhaps a completely different creature, such as a giant mosasaur or plesiosaur, ate the rather massive estimated 7 ft long selacan, then, after traveling quite a distance, threw up the selacan's lung. Now their reasoning on this was that because plesiosaurs and mosasaurs are thought to have been modern day marine reptiles and because some modern-day lizards sometimes regurgitate their food, typically when stressed or ill, perhaps these creatures did that too, and then we must presume that a group of pterodactyls swooped in and got that juicy lung but then were suddenly somehow all killed in a sudden fossilization event that entombed them all at once. And of course, all of this happened before the lung, ripped from its owner and then swallowed, surrounded by digestive juices and then later spit up, had fallen apart. Respectfully, if you can't hear the special pleading in this tall tale, so typical of evolutionary propaganda, perhaps you should reevaluate what you think science is because this isn't science, it's simply another just-so situation commonly heard from those who believe in the story of evolution. It makes far more sense to believe the Genesis account that would explain all sorts of creatures from a wide variety of habitats being buried together rapidly.


Now, let's remember that our original comparison is that of the chances of two land dwelling creatures being buried together versus two aquatic creatures being so. We know from the fossil record, regardless of which history and mechanisms of fossilization you accept, that marine creatures and plants make up the overwhelming majority of the fossil record. When looking at it, we find 95% of all fossils were shallow marine organisms, 95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants, trees, and other invertebrates including insects. The remaining 25% were vertebrates, mostly fish. So the observable facts show that from a historical perspective, statistically, there's been a far greater probability of marine animals being fossilized than land creatures by orders of magnitude.

Again, given the supposed 50 million years whales and selacan were supposed to have coexisted and how much opportunity they'd have had for interaction and overlap in each other's habitats, and the fact that many dead marine animals, unless scavenged completely beforehand, fall to the bottom of whatever particular area of the ocean they were in, it is very reasonable to imagine many occasions for whale and selacan fossilization events to have happened in the imagined evolutionary timeline, far more reasonable than the flight of fancy just described with the pterosaurs.

Theoretically, there would have been billions of each creature, whale and selacan, produced during that supposed vast amount of time, and yet, as mentioned to date, we've never found any fossils of them together. However, none of this definitively proves that these creatures didn't coexist. It obviously just means there simply never happened to be a situation in which the two creatures were preserved together. Of course, the same statement can be logically applied to dinosaur and human remains as well, and in fact, to an exponentially higher level of probability when you think through the two different historical accounts being held forth.

How so? Well, contrast the imagined 50 million-year-old evolutionary scenario with the historical biblical account. According to the Bible, the flood happened approximately 1,650 years after creation, so that would determine the maximum population potential with natural population control mechanisms recognized for any creature being fossilized at the time of the flood. And certainly, there would have been many dinosaurs and people produced during that time, but nowhere near the incredible number of whales and selacan that would have been during the supposed 50 million years of evolutionary history. We're talking about 62,200 days of potential procreation versus 18 billion 250 million days.

However, don't misrepresent the argument. It's not simply about the total cumulative numbers of potential creatures that could theoretically have existed throughout the two comparative histories, but rather the enormous difference in the amount of time for potential fossilization to occur that's truly staggering. You see, the pool of potential candidates for the fossilization of any creatures together in the Biblical timeline is limited primarily to the number of each immediately alive at the time of the flood event. However, the pool of creatures available for fossilization together in the evolutionary history is virtually every coexisting animal ever produced for the entire period of their coexistence.

Now the Bible records that the entire flood event itself was only a year long, with the majority of sedimentation events occurring during the early phase of the flood. But even granting a full year for fossilization to occur, when comparing the probability of a human and a dinosaur skeleton just happening to be deposited together during a mere 365 days versus the chances of a whale and a selacan being fossilized together over 50,050 million years, the difference is enormous.

Not to belabor the exact theoretical circumstances under which any of these creatures might have died together, but in a pure time comparison, we're not talking even close to a one in a million shot here. We're talking about the difference between 365 days to produce a human with dinosaur fossils versus 18 billion 250 million days of potential fossilization of a selacan and a whale together – literally 50 million to one. And understand this isn't the only case in which we could do the math and use it to make the point.

A few more examples would be living trees such as the Ginkgo and Wollemi Pine, supposedly alive at least 240 and 150 million years ago, respectively. That would also have coexisted with dinosaurs for some 95 million years, and they would also have lived with humans for the past 2 million years. Yet, they've also never been found in rock layers with humans or dinosaurs. So once you apply the whole "well, if they aren't found together in the same rocks, they must not have lived at the same time" argument to the entire fossil record, no informed evolutionist would hold to it. It's strategic that the particular "why no human and dinosaur fossils" question is asked rather than almost any other creature comparison.

In conclusion, just because certain organisms aren't buried together, it's not a hands-down argument they didn't live together. However, if Bible skeptics insist Biblical history is suspect because we specifically haven't found dinosaur and human fossils together yet, how much less viable is the evolutionary story in comparison by having to add millions of years to the equation? They've compounded by a thousandfold their difficulty in explaining the very same issue should any two specific creatures or organisms that supposedly coexisted not be found together in the fossil record. And this leads us to another topic we'll be covering, which comes from the logical conclusion that dinosaurs were on the ark alongside Noah's family and all of the other animal kinds.

Join us next time where we'll answer the very popular question: how could Noah and his family possibly look after dinosaurs on board? In part four of dealing with Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum