Dinosaurs and man living side by side

If it doesn't relate to Debian, but you still want to share it, please do it here

Postby CocoAUS » 2007-06-16 21:11

Lavene wrote:There *is* a problem with the 'evidence' on that site. And that is if you search for, say Leon Pericard and Stephane Lewoff (from this page, the modern looking cavemen) the only hit you get is *that* page. And it's like that with so much of it. It's really problematic to get any of the momentous discoveries confirmed.


I suppose you'd have to actually find the books and journals, then, instead of hoping these things are published on the internet. Don't books carry more weight than webpages? Also note the other video link I posted which includes a crap-ton of sources.
User avatar
CocoAUS
 
Posts: 513
Joined: 2007-04-29 08:40

Postby Lavene » 2007-06-16 21:21

CocoAUS wrote:I suppose you'd have to actually find the books and journals, then, instead of hoping these things are published on the internet.

Probably... I'll put it on my list :)
Lavene
Site admin
 
Posts: 5096
Joined: 2006-01-04 04:26
Location: Oslo, Norway

Postby garrincha » 2007-06-16 21:41

Without going into detail, I would point out that website references like Wiki is a big NO in academia circle, at least from my experience. Mainly because these references tend not be be peer reviewed.

Other than that I would suggest a good dollop of reading both academic and popular publications by the late Stephen Jay Gould, here's a good on-line reference, an unofficial SJG on-line archive :

Evolution as Fact and Theory (reprinted from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1994)
by Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/ ... heory.html
Maurice Green on Usain Bolt's 9.58: "The Earth stopped for a second, and he went to Mars."
User avatar
garrincha
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: 2006-06-02 16:38

Postby Harold » 2007-06-16 22:06

CocoAUS> Isn't some of this rather compelling evidence that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time?

No, it is not.
Harold
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: 2005-01-07 00:15

Postby gmedina » 2007-06-16 22:23

CocoAUS wrote:...rather compelling evidence that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time?

I think evidence is not the right word to use here. Evidence should always mean scientific evidence, i.e. data which can and have been subjected to some form of validation.
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,...
User avatar
gmedina
 
Posts: 74
Joined: 2007-05-14 20:03
Location: Colombia

Postby esaym » 2007-06-16 22:24

Telemachus wrote:
CocoAUS wrote:The video isn't meant to be an in-depth argument, just meant to present data.

Um, nope: it's not data unless you actually back up your "evidence" with detailed references (sources for confirmation, names, dates, maps, etc.). This is just, what's that word I'm looking for....bullshit.


I still fail to see the "data" presented by the evolution theory.
esaym
 
Posts: 190
Joined: 2007-04-05 03:59

Postby garrincha » 2007-06-16 22:24

The only time that man ever live with dinosaur at the same time is on chicken farm (getting among things like Avian flu), at the zoo or on dinner table.:)
Maurice Green on Usain Bolt's 9.58: "The Earth stopped for a second, and he went to Mars."
User avatar
garrincha
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: 2006-06-02 16:38

Postby garrincha » 2007-06-16 22:33

In the simplest term:
Data -- The direct results of observation and measurement, in other words, the "raw" products of experimental procedures or field observations such as the position of a planet at a given time, relative to fixed stars. Data can be described as scientific "facts."

Phenomena -- are inferred from patterns of data, and thus cannot be straightforwardly observed. For example, Kepler's laws of planetary motion are phenomena inferred from a large body of observational astronomy data. It may also be called "facts," but they are far more complex than data.

Theories -- provide explanations for phenomena. Newton's theory of gravitation explains the phenomena of Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Galileo's law of falling bodies. Theories are not facts.

Now, these three term as described would fall mostly under philosophical definition rather than scientific description.

From the link that I posted above, according to SJG:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Maurice Green on Usain Bolt's 9.58: "The Earth stopped for a second, and he went to Mars."
User avatar
garrincha
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: 2006-06-02 16:38

Postby rickh » 2007-06-17 00:30

To me, the real question here, that can not be avoided, is not, "Is evolution more provable than creationism?"; but rather, "Do you believe in God?"
Debian-Lenny/Sid 32/64
Desktop: Generic Core 2 Duo, EVGA 680i, Nvidia
Laptop: Generic Intel SIS/AC97
User avatar
rickh
 
Posts: 3473
Joined: 2006-06-29 02:13
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA

Postby Bro.Tiag » 2007-06-17 00:49

rickh wrote:To me, the real question here, that can not be avoided, is not, "Is evolution more provable than creationism?"; but rather, "Do you believe in God?"


It makes no matter whether or not one believes in God. Even Lucifer and his minions believe in God.
User avatar
Bro.Tiag
 
Posts: 1937
Joined: 2007-06-02 19:14

Postby detly » 2007-06-17 01:04

rickh wrote:I tend to be sympathetic to creationism simply because evolution suggests that random chaotic events conspired to create increasingly sophisticated beings. That's ridiculous.


1. Random and chaotic are two distinct concepts. Look them up. Furthermore, random does not imply unconstrained.

2. The suggestion is not that random events created complex structures. The laws of nature and their outcomes are not random. Look up emergence (and then find a 'Game of Life' applet).
detly
 
Posts: 244
Joined: 2006-10-24 08:31

Postby CocoAUS » 2007-06-17 01:14

It seems that everyone has ignored the first comment I made along with posting the video:

IGNORE THE CREATIONISM ASPECT. This evidence does not require that an evolutionist become a creationist to believe it--it only requires that one reject the common theory about dinosaurs dying out millions of years ago. There is no evolutionary reason why dinosaurs could not have survived.

The problem is that turning this into a creation vs evolution debate mean that people will dismiss data out of hand. Indians hunted dinosaurs? With pictures and piles of bones to prove it? If a creationist says this, it's dismissed. If an evolutionist says this, it's considered pretty good evidence that popular ideas are wrong.
User avatar
CocoAUS
 
Posts: 513
Joined: 2007-04-29 08:40

Postby detly » 2007-06-17 01:17

garrincha wrote:Theories -- provide explanations for phenomena.


Hypotheses are verifiable or falsifiable attempts to explain phenomena to a certain degree of accuracy. Theories are hypotheses that have turned out to be useful to a certain extent (ie. have been verified or not falsified over the realm to which they are applicable).
detly
 
Posts: 244
Joined: 2006-10-24 08:31

Postby bluesdog » 2007-06-17 01:51

I watched a documentary on this quite a while ago.

It was called, 'The Flintstones', iirc


imo, this topic isn't merely 'off', it's in the twilight zone, and does not belong on the forum

Oh, and dinosaurs did survive. They are called, 'chickens'
User avatar
bluesdog
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 2006-02-01 09:02
Location: Similkameen, British Columbia, Canada

Postby CocoAUS » 2007-06-17 02:00

bluesdog wrote:imo, this topic isn't merely 'off', it's in the twilight zone, and does not belong on the forum


Thankfully the mods have decided not to censor this thread. Further, why do you claim this is something out of the Twilight Zone? Again, evolution does not dictate that dinosaurs had to die. What would be out of the TZ is if all of this evidence existed WITHOUT dinosaurs living alongside man. How did the Indians know what Pterodactyls looked like enough to paint them? Why do they picture themselves hunting them and have a pile of bones in their cave? An honest observer 1) would not suggest that such information should be censored (that's called fascism), and 2) would either provide an honest argument or admit that the evidence contradicts his presuppositions.
User avatar
CocoAUS
 
Posts: 513
Joined: 2007-04-29 08:40

PreviousNext

Return to Offtopic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

fashionable