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
Message
Author
esaym
Posts: 190
Joined: 2007-04-05 03:59

#21 Post by esaym »

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.

User avatar
garrincha
Posts: 2340
Joined: 2006-06-02 16:38

#22 Post by garrincha »

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

#23 Post by garrincha »

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
rickh
Posts: 3473
Joined: 2006-06-29 02:13
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA

#24 Post by rickh »

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
Bro.Tiag
Posts: 1937
Joined: 2007-06-02 19:14

#25 Post by Bro.Tiag »

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.

detly
Posts: 244
Joined: 2006-10-24 08:31

#26 Post by detly »

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).

User avatar
CocoAUS
Posts: 513
Joined: 2007-04-29 08:40

#27 Post by CocoAUS »

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.

detly
Posts: 244
Joined: 2006-10-24 08:31

#28 Post by detly »

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).

User avatar
bluesdog
Posts: 2082
Joined: 2006-02-01 09:02
Location: Similkameen, British Columbia, Canada

#29 Post by bluesdog »

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
CocoAUS
Posts: 513
Joined: 2007-04-29 08:40

#30 Post by CocoAUS »

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
Telemachus
Posts: 4677
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53

#31 Post by Telemachus »

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

IGNORE THE CREATIONISM ASPECT.
You seem to me to be ignoring the obvious response: No. Many of us can't, won't and shouldn't ignore that aspect for a number of reasons. First, the people who make these claims on the sites you like so much are all vocal creationists. Second, their arguments appear to rely on the Bible as much as on scientific evidence. Third, they seem rather irrationally concerned with proving that the dinosaurs and people ran around together and that the world is not millions of millions of years old. I wonder why that is. Could it possibly be because if it is millions and millions of years old, then one of the claims in the Bible (if interpreted literally) turns out to be false? (I mean the date of the Earth if we go by the Bible). So, maybe you should pay more attention to the creationism aspect and realize that the tail is wagging the dog. These wonderful "scientists" of yours have no interest in dinosaurs: they care about proving something about the Bible. Creationism is at the heart of this; it's not a side issue.

Harold
Posts: 1502
Joined: 2005-01-07 00:15

#32 Post by Harold »

CocoAUS> Thankfully the mods have decided not to censor this thread.

Correction. The mods have not yet decided to censor this thread.

User avatar
gmedina
Posts: 74
Joined: 2007-05-14 20:03
Location: Colombia

#33 Post by gmedina »

Telemachus, I totally agree with you.
CocoAUS wrote:2) would either provide an honest argument or admit that the evidence contradicts his presuppositions
Again, I haven't found much real scientific evidence (scientific in the way science is meant to be) that supports your post's argument and subsequent defenses.
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,...

User avatar
Bro.Tiag
Posts: 1937
Joined: 2007-06-02 19:14

#34 Post by Bro.Tiag »

gmedina wrote:Telemachus, I totally agree with you.
CocoAUS wrote:2) would either provide an honest argument or admit that the evidence contradicts his presuppositions
Again, I haven't found much real scientific evidence (scientific in the way science is meant to be) that supports your post's argument and subsequent defenses.
Aye, evolution's theory of creation is no more scientific as is the Bible's account of Creation. The question is then, does one trust God and His Word, or man and his mind?.

User avatar
gmedina
Posts: 74
Joined: 2007-05-14 20:03
Location: Colombia

#35 Post by gmedina »

Bro.Tiag wrote:...trust God and His Word, or man and his mind
Science can't be reduced to a matter of "trusting". But only to give a reply to your fallacious question: No. You can't trust "God and His Word" since they do not exist (at most they are useful hypotheses); and: No, you can't trust "man and his mind" since... (well, there are so many obvious reasons).
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,...

User avatar
Vergil
Posts: 181
Joined: 2007-04-22 04:54
Location: Tennessee, US

#36 Post by Vergil »

Bro.Tiag wrote:Aye, evolution's theory of creation is no more scientific as is the Bible's account of Creation. The question is then, does one trust God and His Word, or man and his mind?.
There is NO theory of the creation of life from evolution. Evolution deals with the change in living things not how the started. The study of the start of life is abiogenesis.

User avatar
CocoAUS
Posts: 513
Joined: 2007-04-29 08:40

#37 Post by CocoAUS »

Why are people asking for "scientific" evidence?

You are hearing about strong evidence that supports the idea that dinosaurs and man lived together. It's not "repeatable" in that you can't repeat finding bones and drawings in a cave, or somehow test a hypothesis about red blood cells being found on bones only thousands of years old in Alaska. Whether it's "scientific" or not, it's still evidence.

What's more, you are choosing to deny the data because you don't like the conclusion it leads to. You then find excuses for your rejection. Is that how science is done? By forming a conclusion first, then rejecting all day except that which coincides with your predetermined results?

User avatar
Vergil
Posts: 181
Joined: 2007-04-22 04:54
Location: Tennessee, US

Re: Dinosaurs and man living side by side

#38 Post by Vergil »

CocoAUS wrote:Isn't some of this rather compelling evidence that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time?
* Unfossilized dino bones with blood. No true, the "secular scientists" did not find this. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
* They assume the bible is correct by default if evolution is wrong. False dilemma
* Dino images. People also painted pictures of women with huge hips. Do you think they existed?
* Dino tracks. Not human tracks http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
* A beast with trail like a cedar = dino. HA!

Harold
Posts: 1502
Joined: 2005-01-07 00:15

#39 Post by Harold »

I think that we've gone far enough here. This is a computer forum. Debian specifically. Off-topic in this forum refers to something that is at least computer related. Off-topic in this forum does not include religion. Those of you who want to have a discussion on religion should go to a religion forum.

Thread Locked!

Locked