12 votes

Did Humans Live With Dinosaurs?

Puff The Magic Dragon...

Lived by the sea...with you and me?

For the ultimate skeptic in all of us, just fast forward to 16 minutes in and watch for 2 minutes.

Seems like the Creationists have more science on their side than Darwin ever had.


http://youtu.be/PHesNW9WnDM

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

These kind of posts are always laughable how they play out

Ha! I'm right, you're wrong!

No! I'm right, you're wrong!

In my opinion, the "creationists" who believe the earth is only ~6,000 years old are wrong. They might very well be right about many other things, but when it's age of the Earth, in my opinion they're wrong.

Whether that's because they sincerely believe what they're saying or because it was told to them in a con - where they were tricked, therefore they have to defend & support the con regardless how ridiculously false it is - I couldn't tell you? But usually, that's how cons work. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong or tricked, especially when it isn't a joke & they themselves have promoted the con - they're invested in it.

In my opinion, the only way the "creationists" could be correct, is if we live in a simulation universe, i.e. synthetic computer program.

- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10451983/Do-...

- http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-ma...

- http://www.vice.com/read/whoa-dude-are-we-inside-a-computer-...

- http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/06/28/brainst...

Of course, "creationists," i.e. overly over-religious folks, would rather believe a book written 1000s of years ago by comparatively primitive man, not God, than believe in current science by incredibly smarter man. To that I say: LOL.

But

"Quote some scripture for me, just for 'the hell of it'/
when it's usually metaphorical & totally irrelevant"

- RonPaulWins

Creationism is not instrinically

connected to a theory regarding the age of the earth. I, for one, do not believe that the earth is 6000 years old. (I believe what the Bible says, and the Bible does not say the age of the earth; the 6000 year age is an extrapolation made by mere mortals - incorrect in my opinion.) I believe in aspects of creationism and also the theory of evolution. I don't think either group has it right. I think the explanation - when it's known - will show that they each got parts of it right but failed to understand the bigger picture.

I don't know how you could claim to know how the Bible was written.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I don't know how you can

I don't know how you can claim to know the bible is anything other than a work of fiction, an amalgamation of thousands of religions prior from a time man didn't understand the fireball in the sky and thought it was a god so man invented a story for it.

If there is a god and he's logical and just he would have to know the only logical choice any of us can make when faced with 10,000 different religious choices is "I don't know." That's it, that's the only logical choice. Everything else is no different than a child believing in Santa.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Brief response to other comments

The nonsense that is the comment section on this is why I've so little hope for humanity.

Evolution - the idea that species can transform, over time, into radically different ones - is not an observed phenomenon. There has been "speciation" observed, but without fail it has been instances like mosquito to different species of mosquito. To claim that that makes Darwinian evolution an "observed phenomenon" is misleading. A case can be made that it SUPPORTS Darwinian evolution, and in that case I have no issue with it, but kindly refrain from misleading or otherwise dishonest argument.

I didn't watch the video, but I'm well aware that all sides of an issue will be misleading when it suits them, so my request goes to the creationists and intelligent design proponents as well - kindly avoid the use of wordplay and tricky language, not to mention discredited arguments.

I am not a young-Earth creationist, never have been. I think it's kind of silly - but COME ON, surely we can at least treat them with respect, can't we? If we can engage statists, communists, neocons and the like as equals, why can't we engage those we disagree with on evolution or religion in the same way?

Has it ever occurred - to either of the sides in this non-debate - that maybe, just maybe, your opponents did not, in fact, arrive at their views on account of evil motives or stupidity? That maybe, just maybe, they arrived at their views through rational examination of the evidence and that - horror of horrors - they came to a DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN YOU? Why can't anyone seem to respect that when it comes to religion?

The Apostle Paul insisted on reasoning with the Athenians in a public debate. To the best of our knowledge, both sides were relatively respectful and willing to listen.

Atheists, young-earthers, I.D. proponents, and everyone in between - why can't we be more like Paul? Come, let us reason together.

From a philosopher's point

It's common knowledge that Atheism is a indefensible argument in philosophy. You literally have no proof to argue, only speculation. Which I 100% agree with.

For all of you that enjoy debates. I encourage you to watch

William Craig VS Christopher Hitchens on YOUTUBE.

It's a (2) hour debate in which one of the most intelligent atheist's in the world get's handed a intellectual whopping.

Hitchens, a man that made MILLIONS from his books on Atheism said he did not believe in god however would NEVER say that god does not exist!

Enjoy!

That makes no sense at all.

Philosophically, atheism doesn't even exist, it's not even an argument. It's the denial of an infinite number of proposals, all of which claim to have truth with no evidence. You're also completely wrong about the Hitchens/Craig debate, you'll see Hitchens ask questions repeatedly asking for their deductive reasoning and substantiations which he never even attempts to address. He tries to take religion out of the bible(s) and put it into some sort of spirituality or existential plane of existence that the bible never claims, and gives him some imaginary fortress to defend from. William Lane Craig is a Christian who refuses to use what the bible says as evidence of Christianities teachings.

No train to Stockholm.

GoodSamaritan's picture

To believe that life came from non-life is irrational

It is neither evil nor stupid, just irrational.

Random atomic collisions do not lead to self-replicating life no matter how many billions of years one gives the Flying Probability Monster to wave his Magic Wand and make it happen. The chemically impossible does not become possible over time.

The information encoded in our DNA is separate and distinct from the molecules that carry it. Information does not arise by itself no matter the number of eons. It is irrational to believe that information just happens on its own.

There are no examples of life arising from non-life. There are no examples of information creating itself. Why should I believe a theory that amounts to no more than wishful thinking when nobody can provide a single example of these most basic requirements for evolution?

I refuse to be irrational. Emperor Evolution is naked.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Ouch!

"Flying Probability Monster" That is awesome; kudos.

You. Are. The. Man.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Your statement is logical

Your statement is logical nonsense! "To believe life came from non-life is irrational." Okay, so you believe life can only come from life. That means god=life. Since god=life and he couldn't have come from nonlife (spontaneous existance) then according to your own logic, god was made by some other life.

See what you get when you try and rationalize faith? Logical absurdity.

P.S. That's why they call it faith and to try and rationalize it just shows "believers" don't really believe at all.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Except that generally theists

Except that generally theists believe that God didn't come into existence, but is eternal. Your criticism of GoodSamaritan's logic is based on an assumption that he probably doesn't share.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

GoodSamaritan's picture

Spot on

The Creator is outside of His creation, eternal, and uncaused.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

apples and oranges

Evolution and a biogenesis have zero to do with each other. They are completely different disciplines.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

GoodSamaritan's picture

The copout of the century

I was wondering if anyone would bring up that old canard.

Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point in an effort to avoid the logical consequence of the Law of Biogenesis - life only comes from life.

If evolutionists wish to separate the study of biology from evolution then they might be able to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the abiogenesis problem, but not while they keep evolution so intimately coupled with biology.

Belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific phenomenon.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Two Words

Two words: theistic evolution

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

No....still wrong

The start of life is not required by evolution at all. Evolution deals with the changes in life forms. It has nothing at all to do with life beginning.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Now i see the point you were making, its semantics

It's the definition of evolution, I understood it, whether scientifically correct or not, as "natural selection". The fact that even the most Basic life contains DNA, an incredibly complex, 30 billion sequence of 5 molecules, is what is not understood nor explained by the evolutionists, but is by the creationists.

Can the evolutionists humble themselves enough to admit that they have no clue as to how that first living organism, as per Darwin, came from?

Not until that complex strand of DNA can be explained by evolutionists, it's only 5 elements, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphors, carbon, and hydrogen, can "pop" into existence, you cannot refute the existence of a creator.

So one can be an evolutionist, as in "natural selection" and still believe in a creator. That is the only logical conclusion.

Finally.....!

Yes, there are many people that acknowledge the fact of evolution but are still religious. Pope John Paul in the 80's declared (infallably of course) that Christians could no longer deny evolution because the evidence was overwhelming, but that your god's hands guided it. And, they didn't have to accept human evolution. But, it was a good start.

"Not until that complex strand of DNA can be explained by evolutionists..." --- Still! Evolutionists don't have to explain that, I thought you understood. Acknowledging the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the first DNA. An 'evolutionist' as you call them never has to address this, it is a completely different realm of science. Abiogenesis, the first DNA, is an entirely different question. There are many scientific hypotheses in the works - but no theory yet has any concensus. There may never be, that is a tough one and it is impossible to recreate the conditions. But yes, a different question.

It has nothing to do with being "humble". Every person that acknowledges the fact of evolution will admit they don't know how life began. That is because they understand how science works. It is the con-men selling books and museum tickets about humans and dinosaurs living together that need to humble themselves.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

language and the understanding of what words and definitions

mean has probably caused more than a few wars. The people, mainly from a religious perspective, are thinking evolution answers, or more accurately doesn't answer the question of abiogeneses. They don't separate the two definitions.

Being humble is a virtue, IMHO. Pun intended, LOL

GoodSamaritan's picture

Leading evolutionists don't separate them

so why should anyone else?

From http://creation.com/origin-of-life

Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution. The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”. High-profile defenders of ‘all-things-evolutionary’, such as P.Z. Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of evolution, as does Richard Dawkins.
...
It is only recently that some defenders of evolution have tried to divorce the origin of life from consideration. It’s probably because the hope of finding an answer is rapidly fading, as one scientific discovery after another of sophisticated machinery in even the simplest living cells makes the problem of a naturalistic origin ever more difficult.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Maybe you should use a source that isn't propaganda.

Seriously? You are going to use creation.com as your source?

I have personally heard Richard Dawkins say in an interview that abiogenesis is a different discipline. And, just because there is a section in an evolution course about the theory about primordial soup doesn't mean it is part of evolution. That is a nonsequetur fallacy and an assumption based on coincidence. Darwin's theories, among other evolutionary theories, don't address it at all.

"It is only recently that some defenders of evolution have tried to divorce the origin of life from consideration." --- No, it has been that way for as long as I can remember, and I'm in my 40's. It was even brought up at the Scopes Monkey trial and the teacher who was the subject of the trial said he didn't know about the origin of life, that it was not part of evolution, and entirely possible it was a spark from a god - and that was almost a century ago.

"It’s probably because the hope of finding an answer is rapidly fading" --- That is just an outright propaganda lie. In the last decade there have been giant strides taken. They have created amino acids and proteins in a lab, there is much more knowledge about the atmosphere and the compounds in the ocean waters during primitive life, and they have discovered life in volcanic tracts in the ocean floor that are believed to be as close to those early forms of life as possible. They have even been studying other planets in other star systems by using these estimates of life compounds in Earth's infancy.

"Sophisticated machinery in even the simplest living cells makes the problem of a naturalistic origin ever more difficult" --- Another lie. Actually, it is more understood than ever, it is just the actual start on Earth that is not sure. There are some solid theories being formed from a few different hypotheses - some even using compounds found on comets and meteors as possible catalysts - another thing not known 20 years ago. No, it is not more difficult now.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

GoodSamaritan's picture

Attacking the source = fallacious argument

From http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&ar...

In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (Kerkut, 1960, The Implications of Evolution, p. 6).

From http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/01/darwin%E2%80%99s-fra...

For Darwin, the origin of life was the result of spontaneous generation. The twenty-first century version is now more popularly referred to as abiogenesis, or self-organization.

But it's great to hear about all the advancements you mentioned. Maybe you can point out the one that shows how one kind of organism changes into another. Or just show me the article that explains how the first simple protein came about. I understand that the odds of that happening are about 1 in 10 to the 195th power. There are roughly 2,000 proteins in a typical mammalian cell but, as you indicated, such "sophisticated machinery" is not a problem to explaining a naturalistic origin.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I agree

wholeheartedly in regards to life-from-non-life making no sense.

However, the discussion, to my understanding, is about evolution and the age of the Earth. I'm attempting to arrive at some sort of an agreement for both sides to behave respectfully, nothing more.

Here are some facts

Here are some FACTS, not theory's.

Lucy - 1974 - DISCREDITED - Knee bone admittedly not found with the rest of bones. It was found over a MILE away and 200 feet deeper.

Ramapithecus - 1976 - DISCREDITED - Only a fragment of jaw and several teeth which turned out to be an orangutan.

Javaman - 1891 - HOAX - Gibbon monkey skull and human leg bone found 50 feet away by Eugène Dubois. Eugène confessed to hoax before dying. Admitted he also found two human skulls nearby which he had hidden in order to make his Homo Erectus fossil seem more plausible.

Piltdown Man - 1912 - HOAX - Human skull combined with orangutan jaw. The teeth were filed down to make the fossil look more human.

Neanderthal Man - 1829 on - DISCREDITED - Normal Human bones which gave a stooped over appearance later discovered to be suffering from a bone disease like rickets. They are now classified as normal humans.

Nebraska Man - 1921 - HOAX - Based off one tooth a pig.

Not saying you are wrong, but

Not saying you are wrong, but without citing your "Facts" they are worthless to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Please give us some citations. Thanks.

Fascinating

Thanks for sharing

...Really?

You know, trying to make your religion a science is a big contradiction in and of itself. Religion is supposed to be about faith and belief. If you have to back up your religion with facts, even if you have to make them up, as these guys clearly are, you don't have enough faith in your religion to believe in it on its own.

you dont understand what faith is

let me give you a long answer . note this is copy and pasted out of the book I wrote so its a little bit broader but this is basically the long answer on what faith is.

I believe that faith is one of the most used and misunderstood words in Christianity and the Bible. Many people believe that if you have faith you will never be sick, you will not have any trouble, and you will have all sorts of stuff. Also, if you are poor it just shows you do not have enough faith. The problem with these vague ideas of faith is that they are not supported by scripture. See the Bible clearly defines faith in Hebrews 11:1 as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Then it proceeds to give examples of men who walked by faith, and even though they were men of faith all of the examples died but one, all the examples had troubles, and several of them gave up all they had to follow God in faith. I am not saying that you should never pray for health, or that you shouldn’t pray for peace, or that you shouldn’t pray for stuff, as stuff has a place in your life. I will say that if that is all you have going for you, you probably have a real short prayer life. I believe that a better understanding of Hebrews 11:1 would help many Christians with their walk with God, so I am going to take the next few paragraphs and give the Biblical definition of faith.
Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. First of all you need to understand faith is not just one thing, but two things that come together, similar to how peanut butter and jelly come together to make a sandwich, or how a man and woman come together to make a marriage. The two things that come together are the “substance of things hoped for”, and the “evidence of things not seen”.
First of all we have the substance of things hoped for. The most important word in this phrase is hope. Hope is defined as “A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen”. Obviously throughout the New Testament when the word hope is used it is referring to heaven, and part of our faith is expecting, and desiring to go to heaven.
That said there are many things we have to trust in God for in this life. And again we must look at that word “hope”. Specifically, where do we get our hopes from? Remembering that part of hope is desire, look at Psalms 37:4 “Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart”. What this verse shows us is that if we delight ourselves in God, especially in the things of God (going to church, reading the Bible, praying, giving the gospel,) then God will give our heart’s desire. This verse is not saying if you love God and delight yourself in him, then God will give you whatever you want, but in realty God will change the desires in your heart, to the things He wants for you.
Yes, Psalm 37:4 is saying the closer you get to God, the more you want what God has for you. The closer you get to God the more God can show what he has for you. Considering this is an essay on dating, and finding a spouse, this idea of faith has a huge role to play, in finding the person God wants you to marry. So a Christian, who does not delight themselves in God, will not have a desire for the person, or even the type of person, God wants her/him to marry.
Furthermore, when it comes to the subject of what does God want for my life, when it comes to a job, or serving him, or what car, or house should I buy, or what church should I go to, if you as a Christian are not delighting yourself in Him, then the things God wants for you, you will not want for yourself. And God wants wonderful things for you, why wouldn’t you want to love on him?
You know we can often see this taking course in a lost person. First of all the lost person has no desire at all for God, or heaven. Then they get told about Jesus, and often they begin to wonder (it is very rare for a person to get saved the first time they hear the gospel), and the Christians start praying for this particular lost person. The lost person starts getting a desire to go to heaven and missing out on hell, or gets a desire to get to know the one true God (this happens more than you would think). Then the lost person sees that they are a sinner, and cannot make their own way to heaven, and find out Jesus is the only way to heaven. They believe all that and God draws them to Him (often over many months and years, through many Christian witnesses). But this is just the first part of faith. The next part of faith is when their desire for Christ turns into calling on Him to save them. The next part of faith is the evidence of things not seen. It’s amazing to me how often people are ready for salvation but will not take the next step until someone prays with them, but that is a job I love doing, and I hope, and pray every Christian learns to love to show lost people how to accept Christ.
The phrase “evidence of things not seen” is an interesting phrase especially in light of Christians. As a man I cannot look at you and tell if you are a Christian, but I can see the evidence of it in your life. A lost person who gets saved, must ask Jesus in their heart, but that action is not a work (see Ephesians 2:8-9). But if someone is a Christian, that means that they have the Holy Spirit living in them, and we know our God is a big God, and if we have a big God living in us, I would imagine, he would stick out somewhere in your life. I did not get saved by works but now that I am saved I will work for the Lord. James 2:18 puts it this way “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works”.
Many people are honestly scared to serve God because they say they don’t know enough, or don’t have enough time, etc…, but if you as a Christian do the first part of faith, and delight yourself in him, read your Bible, pray every day, go to church, pretty soon God will reveal to you what He wants you to do for him. Personally my first job in church was being a greeter, and opening the door for people, when I was a teenager, and I was so bad at it my pastor put me at the back door so very few people would see me (at 14 I did not realize this). But I loved God and wanted to serve him, and eventually God laid it on my heart to be a Sunday school teacher and all those other things that I already mentioned (although I was already called to the mission field, my first job was at the back door as church greeting people). My pastor’s first job at church was watching the steeple (By watch the steeple they meant look at the steeple when he came into church and if there were any problems report them, how often has your church had problems with a steeple? Yeah it was that kind of job) and now years, and decades later, he pastors over 2,000 people. What I am saying is don’t be frightened over serving the Lord, just love on Jesus until he shows you where to minister.
Although many Christians first job in the church is something minor, God does have bigger things planned. Luke 16:10 puts it this way “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much”. In other words many times as Christians we will probably start out in the little jobs, but move on to greater things. That is not to say we will all become pastors, missionaries, and evangelists. My dad was the greatest soul winner I ever knew; and my pastor has commented several times that my dad was the greatest soul winner he ever knew. My dad was never a pastor, evangelist, or missionary. He was a welder. My dad’s first job in the church was helping in the bus ministry at his local church, but being faithful in that little job, was a stepping stone for him to become a great winner of souls.
Now you may be thinking what in the word does ministry have to do with finding a spouse? But in reality if you are looking for God’s will ministry is a big deal. Throughout the scriptures from Abraham to Joshua, from Ezra to Job teaching children the fear of the Lord is pictured, commanded, and many reasons are given. In the New Testament God commands Fathers in Ephesians 6:4 to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In I Timothy 2 God tells the woman not to take authority over the man, but that she would be saved in child bearing if she continues in faith and sobriety. In other words, her biggest ministry will be to her children. The point is, if God cannot trust you with a small ministry at a church somewhere, how can he trust you with a family?
Often times I have heard it said that God will not put on you more than you can bare. I know two things about this phrase. One it did not come from the Bible, and two it is not true. Moses at one time walks up to Pharaoh and tells him to let God’s people go. The Bible shows us that Moses did not free the people, but God did by sending ten plagues to Egypt. As Moses was leading these people by the millions; and they were between two mountains facing the Red Sea, Pharaoh sent his army after Moses. If this situation was not too big for Moses that would mean that Moses fought off the Egyptians, but the fact was it was too big for Moses, but not too big for God. God held off Egypt with a pillar of fire, and moved the water of the Red Sea back and let Israel walk on dry ground. Faith is best known for those situations that are too big for us, but not too big for Him. This too is ministry.

I don't look at the Bible as

I don't look at the Bible as relgion...I see it as a very good history/science book that people should learn from and study.

I'm interested in the historical and scientific revelations of the Bible that prove modern day mainstream history and science are bunk.

There's too much historical and empirical evidence to deny we're being lied to about so many things. Surprise, surprise. Not really. Par for the course really.

History and science yes, religion no. I've always thought of, "religion," as something to take the place of God.

Jesus didn't give us religion, he gave us life and forgiveness.

Mainstream science and history still won't admit that civilizations from thousands of years ago were more technologically advanced than we are today. That ancient knowledge has been erased from the official history and science books, because ancient knowledge is only taught to the initiates today, willing to bite the apple and sell their souls to the devil himself for the betterment of themselves and to the detriment of society as a whole.

Ancient science today is covered in mystery. It's called the occult, because their knowledge is hidden from most.


http://youtu.be/eYlYsibZ81o

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Since you well-informed

I only have one challenge for your uncanny knowledge of hidden things no one has ever seen or that actually exist outside of doctored photos and fake website information.

Please provide just one or two non-Biblical pieces of evidence that Jesus/Yeshua actually lived. And no, the Josephus forgery does not count. Nor do the Dead Sea Scrolls - while not Biblical, they are religious texts.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

GoodSamaritan's picture

Not difficult to find

I suggest you start with the hundreds of references provided by secular Wikipedia:

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

You should be able to find one or two pieces of evidence there.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father