I don't know exactly when Men discovered that there used to be bigass dinosaurs at some point, but I'm curious how the bible (or religion in general) deals with this.

I find it hard to even understand how people can actively and sincerely believe in a religion when there's so many inconsistencies.

So how DOES the bible or koran or whatever deal with Dino's?

As far as I know, the religious folk stick to: God created everything at the same time, so man must have been around with the dinosaurs. Don't know about any other religious texts besides the bible. That is an explanation I've heard anyway.

I'm no biblical scholar, but, I don't ever recall any teaching of dinosaurs in Sunday School or VBS. Don't even think the Bible mentions them. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

------------------
Uh, what country is this??

The Bible said that God called forth for the Earth and Seas to spring forth life. What's the big deal?

The whole thing can be debated on grammar points more than doctrine (regarding Biblical creation). Honestly, the Bible doesn't contradict evolution at all. It's just that some people interpret the words to mean one thing and others another. Eh, it's a minor discussion that some people like to turn into a major defining point in religion.

HOW God made the world is inconsequential . . . but great discussion. That's about it.

The impression that I got was that some creationists say that the 'God created the earth in 7 days' bit is figurative - that it was actually a period of millions of years, where the dinosaurs would've been created on an earlier 'day' than the humans. I guess the impression that I got was that God just had a different idea of timing, or something.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Originally posted by Aphasia:
The impression that I got was that some creationists say that the 'God created the earth in 7 days' bit is figurative - that it was actually a period of millions of years, where the dinosaurs would've been created on an earlier 'day' than the humans. I guess the impression that I got was that God just had a different idea of timing, or something.



I guess I can feel that.

------------------
"Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them"
Martin Luther King Jr.
"You cannot separate peace from freedom, because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom" -Malcom X

We had an evolution thread going over at SN a few months back.

And someone quoted a passage in the bible that spoke of large gargantuan creatures, etc etc. But that is kind of irelevant because if dino bones were discovered before the bible was 'written' then it could all just be a history/story book.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Well considering the bible was written by a bunch of relatively ignorant (atleaset compared to todays standards)and disparate dudes over the course of years and years you could hardly expect it to contain any challenges to biology, since they knew nothing about it...

------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Doinosaurs vs the Bible

I don't recall any mention of Doinosaurs, true.

------------------
-Curt

"There ought to be limits to Freedom."

http://home.earthlink.net/~fiveofanatic/exmo.jpg

Curt you're a smartass.

My problem with the figurative interpretation of the Bible is that some thigns are taken at face value as FACT whereas others are taken as metaphor...

Also, moving this to 'Big Debates'

------------------
Manu Narayan

I listen to Christian radio alot. The other day a man was on (don't remember his name) who was saying basically that dinosaurs were just like any other animal. They were on Noah's Ark and have since died off. His theory is that the enormous fossils we found were from very old dinosaurs. Theory being that dinosaurs are reptiles and therefore grow their whole lives. Thus the enormous specimens were very old. This would mean that young dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark while they were small enough to manage. He also said carbon dating is BS and un-scientific. BTW, thought this was gonna be moved?

an interesting fact...

some (most?) belive that it dosen't really say in the bible (and torah) that "DAY" equals 24 hours....so these days could have been millions of years.. :)...


so it's the creation of the world....abridged... haha

A friend of mine (who happens to be Mormon) once told me that she believes that God put dinosaur bones deep in the earth to occupy human interest and give them something to do. She doesn't believe in evolution either -- again, any evidence contrary to Creationism was just God having fun.

When I debate on some facts, and a stuburn christian begins to talk, they may start their words off with: "The bible is 2000 years old, and it says..."

Well, I found some dino fossiles in the earth, and I know for a fact they are much older than that book you are quoting. :p

I see no contradiction between the Bible and evolution . . . none in the least.

why would God need billions of years to create the world.. I have heard the versus "a day to man is as a thousand years to God".. well God is God.. wouldn't make him any more God the less time He took to create the earth.. He did it to show us that we need rest as humans.. thus the seventh day He rested.. the versus day to man is thousand years to God refers to God is timeless.. He has and always be here.. atleast that is what I believe since the Bible says that..

Originally posted by D Durden
I see no contradiction between the Bible and evolution . . . none in the least.
That's not really the question. How do you explain the millions of years between the time of dinosaurs and the time of humans? Another thing about dinos being on Noah's Ark, That would sstill mean that humans and dinos co-existed, which fossil evidence shows is false. I guess thats why he threw in the thing about carbon dating being BS. What do scientist know.:rolleyes:

On the old question,"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".
Maybe... as many as care to....

A couple lines of thought... IF universe is 14 billion yrs old -- 1/7 of that is a very long day and G had a lot of time on his hands to make whatever he wanted before Adam.

Or let's go to Earth--4 billion yrs. old-- same comment.

Most fun to me--1 day = 1000yrs(or 1 day=1 day!)
and lets simulate a universe looking 14 Billion old & an Earth 4 billion. Doesnt't sound like much of a trick to me.

:)

Okay, here's my thoughts . . . and, if I'm wrong, no heresey intended! LOL!

If we're made in God's image, I would assume that God's creative and developing skills are similar to ours.

If that's the case, then naturally, God would have made His Earth a piece at a time, keeping what he liked and tossing aside what he doesn't like. So, after whatever period of time, God evolved/created man. Then he rested. Then he created woman, and since then, neither God NOR MAN has rested! LOL!

To me, it's simple. What's a day to God? If He says it was a day, so be it. Time is meaningless to Him, anyway. The question is great debate with little substance.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong . . . nothing sinful about discussing how God might have done something.

How can you say this has little substance? In many people's minds this undermines the entire Christian faith? How many times do Christians say "well it says in the bible..." This is a subject that the bible certainly doesn't abswer. In fact, many people believe this disproves the bible and the whole idea of creation. I'm gald you are secure enough in your faith to look at this as trifle, but I assure yu not everyone agrees.

There was a group or church that attempted to match the bible and evolution together. And according to what I heard, they were satisfied with the results. I do not know if it is on the web, or what the groups name is.

Job 40:15-19
15. Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox.
16. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.



Job 41

1. Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? Or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2. Canst thou put a hook into his nose? Or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3. Will he make many supplications unto thee? Will he speak soft words unto thee?
4. Will he make a covenant with thee? Wilt thou take him for a servant forever?
5. Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6. Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7. Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8. Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9. Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10. None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11. Who hath prevented me that I should repay him? Whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12. I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13. Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14. Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23. The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32. He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33. Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34. He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

Here is an example of dinosaurs found in the Bible. Many today have interpreted it as meaning a hippo or and elephant, but neither of those have tails like a cedar tree. A cedar tree was huge, sort of like our giant redwoods. The word behemoth means kingly, gigantic beast. So you may draw your own conclusions. And then you have the leviathan, which many claim is an alligator or croc. Yet here we find no man can capture him or best him to control him, even though we all know that a croc or gator CAN be controlled or killed.

It is true that God created all the land beasts on the same day he created man according to the Bible, so yes ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE they did live at the same time. It might be pointed out here that Job lived AFTER the flood of Noah, thus the dinos were around after the flood. Another thing to remember is that the ark did not look like we see in so many old movies. It was more of a box shape, thus making it nice and stable in a flood of the nature of the one involved.

Many ancient cultures have tales of “dragons” that when described sound very much like dinos. And when you look at some of the paintings and drawings they do in fact resemble what we know of them today. A book I have for the kids has photos f paintings and drawings in it; one of these photos is of and ancient Roman mosaic showing two long-necked dragons by the sea…they look like a Tanystropheus. In Europe a well known, old science book, the Historia Animalium, claims “dragons” still were not extinct in the 1500’s. But the animals were said to be very small.

Ireland (900AD) An Irish writer recorded and encounter with a large beast with “iron” nails on its tail, which pointed backwards. Its head was shaped like a horses and it had thick legs with strong claws.

Africa and Arabia (460 BC)
A Greek explorer Herodutus described small flying reptiles in ancient Egypt and Arabia. They were “small in size and of various colors.” Aristotle said that in his time it was common knowledge that creatures like that also existed in Ethiopia.

Today
Natives in Zimbabwe describe a strange flying creature the call “kongamato” which is not a bird, but a reddish colored lizard with bare, bat-like wings with a wingspan of up to 7 feet. The scientists showed the natives pictures of various animals, both living and extinct. Each person identified the Pterodactyl as the most like it.


On to the leviathan, which is described above for you in Job 41: it says “nothing on Earth is his equal-a creature without fear.” King David describes one in Psalms 104 and says they play where the ships go to and fro.

A German sub commander, Capt. Georg von Forstner, reported a creature like this in WW1. Here is his description: “On July 30, 1915, our U28 torpedoed the British steamer Iberian carrying a rich cargo in the North Atlantic. The steamer sank quickly, the bow sticking almost vertically into the air. When it had gone for about 25 seconds there was a violent explosion. A little later pieces of wreckage, and among them a gigantic sea animal (writhing and struggling wildly) was shot out of the water to a height of 60 to 100 feet. At that moment I had with me in the conning tower my officers of the watch, the chief engineer, the navigator, and the helmsman. Simultaneously we all drew one another’s attention to this wonder of the seas…we were unable to identify it. We did not have the time for a photograph, for ht animal sank out of sight after tenor fifteen seconds. It was 60 feet long, was like a crocodile in shape and had four limbs with powerful webbed feet and a long tail tapering to a point.”

Now, you can take it for what it is worth. If you can explain these sightings in regular terms with regular animals, I’m all ears. I hope this has answered some of the questions you have about the Bible and dinos. The problem as I see it is that folks who believe in evolution have a different starting point than Bible believers do. I have one book that shows an island that the scientists watched come into being through volcanic action. When it was cool enough to walk on the tested the organic material with carbon dating. It was found to be the usual bazillion years old. Now if they had not watched it, they would have “assumed” that it was a bazillion years old…BECAUSE THEY START WITH THE IDEA THAT EVERYTHING IS OLD.

It might also be added that people who believe in Macroevolution don’t for a minute think scientists can be real scientists if they DO NOT believe in evolution. Most creation scientists I know DO believe in microevolution, i.e., Various changes within species for adaptability purposes. What we do not believe is that all life descended from some soup in the beginning and that all creatures are evolved from a common ancestor: such as fish to land creature to reptile to bird to mammal to chimp to man. MACROevolution is what I have problems with and the evidence does not support. Darwin predicted that we would find hundreds of thousands of "links" if you will, but what we have are a few debatable specimins. Horseshoe crabs look the same as they did when first made…no change at all. No apes are getting up and walking out of the forest looking for a pair of pants. “Evolution is gradual” they say, but still after a bazillion years some ape sometime ought to be seen changing to a human. We have lived together for thousands of years now don’t ya know.

So there you have it.

Becky

Where did you get that information?

It is titled "The Great Dinosaur Mystery and The Bible" by Paul S. Taylor.

Oh the Bible verses of course came from.......well......the Bible!! :D Hebrew translations of the words Behemoth and Leviathian are from the Strong's Concordance that mos tChristians I know have. If you don't know it, is a guide on every word in the Bible, it's literal original language spelling, English spelling, literal meaning or referance to its original root word. Great for Bible study. It consists of Hebrew, Chaldean (parts of Daniel were written by King Nebbie, the King of Babalyon), and Greek for the New Testament.

As for the rest I used some info from the kids book. Taylor writes books on the subject. Some of his stuff can be found at www.answersingenesis.org. Someone asked, I provided info I have. I am no scientist, but trust the ones I do know.....after all, we can't all be scientistis now can we.


You I'm sure would like me to prove it. I say to you DISPROVE IT!! ;)

Ideas and theories abound on both sides, with little "proof" one way or another. Have you read "Darwin's Black Box" yet? A very tough (I'm no biochemist either unlike the author) but a very interesting read. Not trying to "force" you or "convert" you, just pulling out info to think about.

See you later, you skeptic you!

Actually, I STILL don't see the conflict between evolution and the Bible.

I think that God DID seperate humans from other simean life with the knowledge of right/wrong or good/evil. I think that it's that concept that makes us different . . . and gives us souls.

As for the argument of dinosaurs living during Moses's time . . . uhhhhh . . . I REALLY doubt it. I mean, heck, if you were in a world where there were lions and tigers AND raptors, rexes, and super-rexes . . . who would you give the print-time to? LOL!

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to believe that dinos were around till only a few thousand years ago. SOMEBODY would have kept one as a pet . . . or bread them . . . or something.

Really, so the scientists found that the island was a "bazillion" years old, just like the rest of the world? Something else to think about. People report sighting of bigfoot, UFOs, Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc.:rolleyes:

I found this really funny story the other day. I read somewhere (i can not find the web site) that the dino's never existed. That there were created by the devil to confuse man. and the devil every once in a while sends a dino loose (like ogo pogo & Neisse) to further confuse man and turn him from the light.

Meanwhile women laugh at the men for chasing a satanic dinosaurs around.

If i can find the article, i will post it up.

Messages boards are of the devil, send me a $1!!!

I'm afraid this might push the topic into "Big Debates," but in a philosophical discussion I was in we went into some depth discussing the evolution/creationism inconsistencies and we eventually had to rest on the fact that, because of the nature of most people's conception of God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc) the argument for creationism can't be evaluated because--This is going to sound bad, but I mean it only in the philosophical sense of the word-- it is irrational. This only means that it can't be "reasoned" in the traditional sense.

If God can do anything he wants, including trick us or try to teach us or bend time, etc, then there is NO WAY TO DISPROVE his creation of everything. Even if aliens came down from the sky and told us that they sent spores billions of years ago and we thought we finally had proof of the real answer, it means nothing to this theory, because they could have been sent by God (or the devil or whoever) to make us believe this was the case. Unless the religious concept of creationism can be pinned down with agreed upon, exact facts that can be disproved, and the concept of God is deprived of some of his/her/its/their power to alter the physical world, the physical world can never be relied upon to provide the answer, and we can never conclusivly know.

Well KK thats true. That seems to be something that I think a lot of people on this board (and in life) don't seem to understand.The burden of proof is not on the person who doesn't accept a theory. Generally, its on the person presenting the theory. Why should I have to disprove something for them to believe. I think its funny that many Christians who think I should have to disprove the existance of God think Mormons are idiots for believing that Joseph Smith found some golden tablets that no one else saw. That's the problem with religion, as you pointed out. EVERYTHING can be attributed to God. BTW, you don't have to dance around the subject so much, just come out and say what you think. I doubt you'll ever say anything that will shock the people here.

Thats why its called "Faith".

Neither side can be proven or disproven. Some have faith and some dont.

Ah, but it's such an artful dance, jw. Sorry, I guess I'm just used to lurking on boards where everyone goes out of their way to be P.C. Didn't even really realize I was doing it. I'm doing it again aren't I? Careful not to offend with my inoffensiveness. I'll just hide in the corner now...;)

Originally posted by Powerboss
Neither side can be proven or disproven. Some have faith and some dont.

No...some people have faith in your God and some peolpe have faith in something else.

Your faith is based upon 'proof' shown to you in various religious teachings, their faith is based upon 'proof' from real world observations.

Originally posted by Klassy_Kat
Ah, but it's such an artful dance, jw. Sorry, I guess I'm just used to lurking on boards where everyone goes out of their way to be P.C. Didn't even really realize I was doing it. I'm doing it again aren't I? Careful not to offend with my inoffensiveness. I'll just hide in the corner now...;)

You crack me up!:)

mom>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have one book that shows an island that the scientists watched come into being through volcanic action. When it was cool enough to walk on they tested the organic material with carbon dating. It was found to be the usual bazillion years old.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

These statements don't make good sense. 1)Recent volcanics don't have 'organics' in them, 2)carbon dating is good back maybe 100,000 yrs, 3)volcanic elements may include 4 billion yr old (remelted) constituents that could be so dated using argon dating. Using the "Tricky God" hypothesis, physics would show 4 billion even if this hunk of rock is 6000 yrs old.

manu>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
... their faith is based upon 'proof' from real world observations.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Am I correct that this refers to Theory of Evolution / radioactive age-dating in particular?

Again "Tricky God" disposes of it neatly -- physics & earth science HAVE TO show what they show -- but also Evolution requires its own 'faith'; no species to species transform can be demonstrated by the Geol record.

;)

Originally posted by hammegk
mom>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have one book that shows an island that the scientists watched come into being through volcanic action. When it was cool enough to walk on they tested the organic material with carbon dating. It was found to be the usual bazillion years old.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

These statements don't make good sense. 1)Recent volcanics don't have 'organics' in them, 2)carbon dating is good back maybe 100,000 yrs, 3)volcanic elements may include 4 billion yr old (remelted) constituents that could be so dated using argon dating. Using the "Tricky God" hypothesis, physics would show 4 billion even if this hunk of rock is 6000 yrs old.



Oh, I know.....I was rather in a hurry when I typed that. I'm a busy gal and with kids yelling in my ear as I type, my mind melts down upon occasion. Not to mention that I confused that island with another thing I had read in one of my books.....after reading 5 or 6 they get jumbled!! :D At any rate, the folks had watched the island appear before their very eyes through volcanic action and in just months it looked like any other ancient island as far as formations etc. that's a brief synopsis.....they sometimes judge how old things are by the formation and how long they THINK it must take to get that way. And as you said, if the rocks date to 4 billion years old, and if they did not see it formed in the past year, they would NATURALLY assume it was4 billion years old DUE TO THEIR STARTING ASSUMPTION OF OLD EARTH. (I use the term bazillion cause I personally like it!!!)

JW,

I am afraid I get my info from books and websites, like all the rest of the world that doesn't do this for a living. I have read a few books on the topic of creation/evolution. I also go to www.answersingenisis.org for information. Of course that fact that many of them are scientists doesn't seem to matter to many, since if they believe the Bible they must not be very smart. Not including you in that (I hope!) If you like I can post a few quotes about the above island from my book....the story was originally in National Geo. I believe. It has info on oil formation, coal beds, etc. Let me know, ok!

Becky

Yeah Mom, that would be cool. Thanks for the link. hammegk brings up an interesting point. Just because I don't believe in Christian creationism doesn't mean I believe in evolution. Why is it assumed that you HAVE to believe in one or the other? I'm not afraid to say I have no idea about the origins of the world.

I didn't read the whole thread here, so this MAY have already been mentioned at some point, but in regards to the Earth being created in 7 days and all, I've heard it suggested before that what God considers a "day" and what we now call a day may be two totally different things... What's time to an immortal being after all? It's possible that Dinos were largely around at that point in "Bible history".

Check out this link.....
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/cover.html

Also this article........

Cal scholar's team says it found oldest humanlike fossil
Evolutionary theories called into question

A team of scientists led by a UC Berkeley anthropologist has discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humanity's earliest known ancestor, a creature that walked the wooded highlands of East Africa nearly 6 million years ago.

The discovery is already challenging older theories about the ancestral lineage of humans, and changing scientific views of the environment that fostered the evolution of prehumans as they moved from verdant forests to open grasslands.

The team reporting the discovery today was led by two respected Ethiopian scholars: one an anthropologist still working on his doctorate at the University of California at Berkeley, the other a geologist now at UC's Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

The fossils were gathered during four years of exhausting expeditions to a harsh and hostile Ethiopian scrubland where lions and cheetahs hunt at night and few humans roam the semidesert wilderness by day.

The remains include a jawbone and its teeth, hand bones and foot bones, fragments of arms, a piece of collarbone and -- most important -- a single toe bone whose form provides strong evidence that the prehuman creatures walked upright, the scientists said.

The toe bone, in fact, is a crucial clue to the earliest days of human evolution that developed soon after the ancestral lines of apes and humans split apart -- perhaps 6 million to 8 million years ago.

Two papers on the discovery by the Ethiopian scientists are appearing in the journal Nature today -- one by Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a doctoral candidate at UC Berkeley, the other by Giday WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos, together with colleagues in the United States and Ethiopia.

Dating of the fossils, using the known decay times of radioactive argon sequestered in the fossils as a kind of atomic clock, was accomplished by Paul R. Renne of the Berkeley Geochronology Center. Renne is a co-author of WoldeGabriel's report in Nature, as is Tim D. White, the famed paleoanthropologist at UC Berkeley who in 1994 discovered the prehuman fossil named Ardipithecus ramidus, which was then the oldest known, at 4.4 million years.

Haile-Selassie, whom White considers one of the most outstanding field anthropologist he has ever known, has tentatively named the new fossils as a subspecies of White's A. ramidus.

In a telephone interview from Addis Ababa, where he is analyzing his fossils, Haile-Selassie said he is being extremely conservative and that the fragments he and WoldeGabriel plucked from the sun-baked ground may represent an entirely new species of prehuman creature.

The fossils they found vary in their ages from about 5.2 million to 5.8 million years old, according to Renne.

Anthropologists call all the species and subspecies of these ancient ancestors hominids, to distinguish them from the ape lineage, which includes chimpanzees. The two branches -- apes and hominids -- are believed to have separated and evolved from one common ancestor between 6 million and 8 million years ago.

But in the contentious world of paleoanthropology, where scientists have been trying for many decades to sort out the murky ancestry of today's human race by comparing thousands of fossil bones and skulls, no evidence is certain and no lineages are clear.

'MILLENNIUM MAN'

Only last January, a French team headed by Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford found fossils in Kenya they named Orrorin tugenensis and nicknamed "Millennium Man." They dated their find at 6 million years old.

In an e-mail interview this week, Pickford said the majority of the Orrorin fragments are "about 5.8 million or so years old," and vary from 5.6 million to 6.1 million. He agreed that his group's fossils from Kenya and Haile- Selassie's from Ethiopia are "virtual contemporaries."

Pickford stirred something of a controversy in his message by suggesting that the whole tribe of Ardipithecus hominids, including Haile-Selassie's, might actually belong in the ape lineage. "And if it is an ape rather than a hominid, then one needs to rethink the whole (evolutionary) scenario," he told The Chronicle.

After a telephone interview with Haile-Sellasie, the Berkeley anthropologist sent an e-mail message saying that the French discovery bears "no compelling evidence" to show that it is definitely a hominid.

"It could be the earliest hominid," Haile-Selassie said, "or it could be a common ancestor, or it gave rise only to the chimpanzee lineage, or it went extinct around 6 million years ago without giving rise to any species."

White stepped into this e-mail discussion insisting that the French team has been extremely helpful in comparing the two sets of finds.

"Both teams are dedicated to the same principles: science first," White said, and added: "We will be in a very interesting series of debates about these materials. . . . And to get all the answers, both teams will have to go back to the basics -- the field work."


CLIMATE PUZZLE
One of the major mysteries in the human evolution story has been the role of climate in shaping the environment where creatures that regularly walked upright -- the hominids -- first emerged. Now both sets of finds, in Ethiopia and Kenya, could help resolve the puzzle.

A major theory has long held that after the ape and hominid lineages split, the earliest human ancestors were forced into the expanding tropical grasslands of the African savannah after the continent's thick forests dwindled as the climate changed.

But geochemical analysis of the ancient sedimentary soils where Haile- Selassie's Ardipithecus creatures lived shows that the region between 5 million and 6 million years ago was well-forested, well-watered and rich with woody plants, according to anthropologist Stanley Ambrose of the University of Illinois, who is also a chemist and a co-author of WoldeGabriel's report in Nature.

The clear inference, according to Haile-Selassie and WoldeGabriel, is that those early human ancestors of the Miocene epoch were already thriving in the forests of a land that was then being shattered by volcanic eruptions, and millions of years later was to become the stony scrubland that it is today.

http://www.vi2.com/maxForumFiles/Hands.jpg

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/phychar/images/humans.jpeg/skulls.3.jpeg

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/phychar/images/humans.jpeg/row_of_skulls.jpeg

See, I was under the impression that carbbon dating can only go back about 50k years. If so, how can they date things to 5 BILLION years? Do they go by the age of the rock? But, how can they date this past 50k years? Or do they simply go by the ASSUMPTION that it would need long periods of time to evolve, thus they start with an old date and fit the pieces together?


Loads of assumptions here metinks!!! What faith you have!! And ya'all laugh at me.

Like I said, I STILL don't see any intrinsic disagreements between Creationism and some form of Evolution. None whatsoever.

Originally posted by Momof6
See, I was under the impression that carbbon dating can only go back about 50k years. If so, how can they date things to 5 BILLION years? Do they go by the age of the rock? But, how can they date this past 50k years? Or do they simply go by the ASSUMPTION that it would need long periods of time to evolve, thus they start with an old date and fit the pieces together?


Loads of assumptions here metinks!!! What faith you have!! And ya'all laugh at me.


Just a quick reply...

Carbon 14 dating is limited in accuracy to a certain number of years. However, there are other types of radioactive dating methods using different elements, some of which are better suited to use in rocks (carbon 14 dating is useless when discussing the age of an inorganic rock with no carbon in it in the first place) Thus, there are many scientific methods that most people are not even aware exist. I do not remember the specific elements used in the dating.

Of course there are assumptions in the use of scientific analysis. The job of a scientist is to ensure that the asumptions made are reasonable given the knowledge base that we have about the methods and the specimens. The assumptions of radioactive dating involve the abundances of elements in the earlier epochs. These data are made from models that have been shown to be accurate in other, completely separate fields of science (astrophysics produces accurate models for solar system formation which geophysicists can interpret into abundances that can be used to date materials.)

Science is an intricate web of assumptions based logically upon previously verified hypotheses...that is why people put faith in the results of science.

Nate

Hey Jwreck,

I bet you thought I was ignoring you, eh? :D Reread my book and decided to find out if Answers in Genesis had any info on the topics I mentioned to you, rather than me typing 15 pages of stuff, which I really don’t have time to do!! So I searched the web page and came up with a few links for you on oil and coal formation. One of these links is to the main page the links are on. AIG has a technical magazine that can be read on-line as well. Creation Ex NihiloTechnical Journal is its name. Many of these men are specialists in their field of study, thus reliable to read.

I’m glad you have an open mind about the topic, so many do not. You should probably save these links to read at your leisure. Some are technical, and some are not. They are all interesting. Enjoy!!


Becky

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1233.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v18n1_forests.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp

I believe one such forms of dating is done using uranium-238 which has a half life of about 1 billion years. It goes to produce lead. By comparing the amount of lead vs. uranium in a given area we can date that area.

Originally posted by D Durden
Actually, I STILL don't see the conflict between evolution and the Bible.

I think that God DID seperate humans from other simean life with the knowledge of right/wrong or good/evil. I think that it's that concept that makes us different . . . and gives us souls.

As for the argument of dinosaurs living during Moses's time . . . uhhhhh . . . I REALLY doubt it. I mean, heck, if you were in a world where there were lions and tigers AND raptors, rexes, and super-rexes . . . who would you give the print-time to? LOL!

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to believe that dinos were around till only a few thousand years ago. SOMEBODY would have kept one as a pet . . . or bread them . . . or something.


The problem with God "seperating" us from other simeans is that the Bible said we are made in God's image and a special creation. This is very different than what evolutionists think (and teach) or even what you mentioned. In both we are the same as animals, just seperated. Very different than specially made to have fellowship with God.

I do believe that kinds (term used in the bible) mutate or evolve to adapt. This is different than saying we ALL (all life on earth) came from one thing, then evolved and branched out into what we are today. To me species is a much misused term today. To say there are different species of dogs is to muddy the truth.....they are all of the canine kind. There are just different BREEDS. They can all mate and produce young.

Check out he web page I posted for JW. You can search for speciation info there.

Becky

Originally posted by Manu
I believe one such forms of dating is done using uranium-238 which has a half life of about 1 billion years. It goes to produce lead. By comparing the amount of lead vs. uranium in a given area we can date that area.


Manu,

Here is a link on that very topic for you to read. Now the man who discovered these, Dr. Gentry, is a creationist scientist. It is techinical, but should give you an idea of the topic. After all, you are a smart fella!! :D


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n4_radiohalo.asp



Becky

See also

www.science.ubc.ca/~geol256/notes/ch2_meth_intro.html

for more Detail than most will want to know about age-dating......:)

Mom, interesting read. The problem I have with that document is that it is one case study. There are excpetions to every rule. I am by no means a physics authority (yet :-) ) so I cannot delve too much further into the technical side.

There are thosuands of observational proofs for uranium 238 dating. There is years of theory proving that dating technique. Our very understanidng of the universe hinges on these theories.

That article doesn't do much but reveal there is something different going on in that ONE situation, and science is probably finding a way to show what it is.

But one inconsistency does not invalidate a scientific theory, it merely shows it is incomplete, not that it is incorrect or inacurate.

I have trouble believe that dinosaurs walked with men. Or vice versa. There really is not precendence for so in other cultures which predate the bible. There was some decent record keeping by some of these cultures, and record of dinosaur attacks, or dinosaur workhorses, or anything is completely absent.

Originally posted by Momof6
The problem with God "seperating" us from other simeans is that the Bible said we are made in God's image and a special creation. This is very different than what evolutionists think (and teach) or even what you mentioned. In both we are the same as animals, just seperated. Very different than specially made to have fellowship with God.

Ah, but we ARE animals, and we are VERY close (with respect to DNA) to primates. However, the minor physical differences are nothing compared to our mental development AND the existance of morality. The knowledge of good and evil IS a central theme to the seperation of man and animal, and I belive that is the origin of Adam and Eve. I believe that they were the first creatures to possess that knowledge thereby garnishing the human soul and the curse of original sin. Maybe God further seperated them with physical changes. Who knows?

The thing is that we have NOT found a "missing link" nor have any other creatures evolved to our level. I believe that perhaps we're different spiritually more than physically.

As far as "in God's image", that could mean physically or psycho/emotionally . . . or both. The Bible doesn't talk much about the physical aspect of God other than to say that mortal man cannot look at the face of God and live. To me, the image of God is more mental than physical, but, hey, I have no basis for that belief other than gut feeling.

Of course, perhaps the most important thing is that, with regards to salvation, your theory of "how it all started" doesn't really matter. To me, it's right up there with the depth of water during a Baptism or whether the Sabbath is really Saturday or Sunday. It doesn't particularly matter to God. I think He just enjoys His children putting thought into His works and creation.
Becky [/B]

Dave, regarding 'missing links.'

We have found PLENTY! Look at ancient man! Look at the close close resemblence to gorillas. Have you seen gorillas playing in a zoo? Looking at their face, their hands, the way they interact, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that we are from them.

As far as DIRECT missing links between various creatrues we have found a few. I will need to dig out notes from my history of life on Earth class, but we've found some missing links between reptiles and birds and one between reptiles and mamals...

I've seen video of that bird-reptile they discovered (a few yrs ago?) can't remember the name they gave the species. Pretty creepy looking really, but it definitly helps make the connection. Scaly, ugly little thing, but somehow still extant (last I knew, never can tell these days which species will be wiped out next time ya look).

Here are a few more links for Manu and Klassy_Kat on the “missing links” and the bird/reptile.

Link for Refutation of Boyce Rensberger's anti-creationist Washington Post article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2403.asp



Link for the bird/reptile question.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3904.asp

Originally posted by Klassy_Kat
I've seen video of that bird-reptile they discovered (a few yrs ago?) can't remember the name they gave the species. Pretty creepy looking really, but it definitly helps make the connection. Scaly, ugly little thing, but somehow still extant (last I knew, never can tell these days which species will be wiped out next time ya look).


If you are referring to the ones from China, they have been proven by even evolutionists to be fakes.

Originally posted by Manu
Dave, regarding 'missing links.'

We have found PLENTY! Look at ancient man! Look at the close close resemblence to gorillas. Have you seen gorillas playing in a zoo? Looking at their face, their hands, the way they interact, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that we are from them.

Uh, Manu . . . that's EXACTLY what I'm implying. However, they have no knowledge of good and evil.

As far as DIRECT missing links between various creatrues we have found a few. I will need to dig out notes from my history of life on Earth class, but we've found some missing links between reptiles and birds and one between reptiles and mamals...

BUT, we have no DIRECT missing link between man and ape. There isn't one that can be found. I think it's because there really ISN'T one. We ARE seperated from our relatives by some minor things, but the REAL difference is spiritual.

did you take a peek at my links? Cool stuff there!!

BTW, Your gal is quite a sweetie! She and I have been "chatting" here in PM's. I'm not to sure you are good enough for her though!! ;) :D BTW, that's Private Messages, not PMS....hehehe!!

Becky

Uh, Manu . . . that's EXACTLY what I'm implying. However, they have no knowledge of good and evil.
Dave, how do you know they don't know the difference between good and evil? Hell, many PEOPLE don't know the difference between good and evil.

Hey Dave,

Lookit what I found…Inca Burial Stones with dinos and men on them! The 1st link is from Dr. Javier Cabrera who is a professor of medicine and head of his department at the University of Lima. (No small qualifications there!!) Scroll through the pages.

http://www.creationists.org/livedinos01.html

http://www.creationevidence.org/HomePage/Archives/AR_WhatsNew7_00/ar_whatsnew7_00.htm

http://www.creationevidence.org/inca1_2_700.jpg

Originally posted by D Durden


BUT, we have no DIRECT missing link between man and ape. There isn't one that can be found. I think it's because there really ISN'T one. We ARE seperated from our relatives by some minor things, but the REAL difference is spiritual.

Dave, evolution does not work in direct steps. It runs in gradual slow change.

A large part of the differenbce between early man skeletons we've found and gorillas could easily be made closer with the addition of non preservative materials. (hair for starters!)

Another IMPORTANT thing to realize, bones are not 'hard' in terms of preservation. They erode, they break, and they do decompose over time. It is believe that we are aware of less than 1% of the fossil record that is PRESERVED let alone the fossil record that WOULD exist if we dind't have erosion.

Originally posted by Manu


Dave, evolution does not work in direct steps. It runs in gradual slow change.

That's true . . . but it doesn't change the fact that there IS a chunk missing in the evolution of humans. We have pre-human remains (lots of them). We have human remains . . . lots of them. But, there's nothing really in-between. I'm not saying there ISN'T, but we can find pre-human and human . . . in the same places geographically, but NEVER the almost-but-not-quite human . . . you know?

A large part of the differenbce between early man skeletons we've found and gorillas could easily be made closer with the addition of non preservative materials. (hair for starters!)

I'm perfectly willing to admit that we're CLOSE . . . but, unlike Lewinsky, still no cigar.

Another IMPORTANT thing to realize, bones are not 'hard' in terms of preservation. They erode, they break, and they do decompose over time. It is believe that we are aware of less than 1% of the fossil record that is PRESERVED let alone the fossil record that WOULD exist if we dind't have erosion.


So, what you're saying is that we DO have records from before and after the alleged evolution, but somehow we don't have the middle because . . . . of . . . erosion or attrition. But, of course, we have the OLDER stuff . . . and some of it has managed to survive. That's not logical . . . and gets less and less logical every day because we're NOT finding the missing link.

The facts are simple. Evolution occurs. We all know it does. HOWEVER, we can trace human evolution clearly (fairly) up to a point . . . and then it loses us . . . then suddenly man is using tools, building fires, raising crops, and splitting the atom (along with making Silly Putty!). There's a BIG hunk that's missing, and not from a lack of effort to find "it" . . . if "it" really exists.

We seem to have no problems at all making discoveries about dinosaurs, how they lived, how they felt, and their real insights on trancendentalism and metaphysics . . . but we can't find a little set of bones that all evolutionists MUST admit exist . . . and would have to exist in some significant quantity in a fairly accessible place. Sounds fishy . . .

Originally posted by Momof6
did you take a peek at my links? Cool stuff there!!

BTW, Your gal is quite a sweetie! She and I have been "chatting" here in PM's. I'm not to sure you are good enough for her though!! ;) :D BTW, that's Private Messages, not PMS....hehehe!!

Becky

I am most DEFINITELY not worthy of her. She's THE best . . . bar none.

Originally posted by Momof6
Hey Dave,

Lookit what I found…Inca Burial Stones with dinos and men on them! The 1st link is from Dr. Javier Cabrera who is a professor of medicine and head of his department at the University of Lima. (No small qualifications there!!) Scroll through the pages.

http://www.creationists.org/livedinos01.html

http://www.creationevidence.org/HomePage/Archives/AR_WhatsNew7_00/ar_whatsnew7_00.htm

http://www.creationevidence.org/inca1_2_700.jpg

Eh, the Incans got stoned a lot! LOL!

;)

I dunno . . . maybe they had big lizards around back then? I just doubt they had a 200 ton Myexsisterinlawasaurus back then.

Mom, question regaring your Incas...

We see paintings/carvings from the crusades and onwards with pictures of fire breathing flying dragons, unicorns, griffons, etc. Do you think these creatures existed in the recent past? Do you think the people of medival Europe ACTUALLY saw dragson, unicorns and other creatures of myth?

Currently we see pictures of the lochness monster, bigfoot, abominable snowmen, etc etc, do you think they exist?

Dave, ARE we missing a step? I must admit I do not know my prehistoric man trivia well enough.

I am trying to find a great national geogrpahic article I read a few years back which outline our evolution.

Some thought on the missing link...

First of all, evolution can occur in fast or slow, gradual steps. If you have a small isolated population, then evolution can occur very fast. Thus, if there was some small isolated population of apes in Africa, it could have evolved afast until it reached a stable species which saw little evolution because it was adapted to the environment. The number of generations, and thus the number of POSSIBLE fossiles for this time of change is very low. When the species has stabilized for its conditions, then it multiplies and takes over more land. It is also around for a long time. There are many members of this species since it is around a long time. It also may change very little in this time. Thus, there are millions of possible fossiles, of which we find a few, and most are destroyed. This species is around for a long time until a small isolated group of this species evolves very fast and begins to get an edge over the old species. Remember, very fast is in terms of thousands of years, not millions. Therefore, there are many generations during the time of evolution, but for most of the time, there is a generally stable species. This explanation predicts that we would not find "missing links" because there are so few possible specimens of these links, compared to the number of specimens of the stable species that we do find.


Also, on the fossile record. We do not have some history of evolution of mankind back to a point, with a break, and then more fossile evidence from older species that we think humans came from. Rather, we have a bunch of fossiles scattered all about the "line" of evolution. We then use empirical and logical conclusions to connect the evolution line. If we take into account the evolution processes I described before, then the connections between species would be sudden connections, and so in a sense we probably have fossiles from most of the major species. We would not expect to find fossiles from the transition ancestors.

Finally, about dinosaurs: Dinos have been around ALOT longer than humans. They covered alot more land for many times longer. There should be alot more specimens of dinosaurs to find. Also, we do not know alot about the transition species of dinosaurs either, just like humans. We talk about T-rex and Triceratops, but I bet that there were many, many different species of each one. We seem to have little trouble thinking that the T-rex and triceratops are both dinosaurs and thus had common ancestors, but we do not have fossiles of some "missin" link in the dinosaur evolution. The T-rex (human) is like one chain of the dino(ape) family, we cant find missing links, but we know that the T-rex (human) and the Triceratops (chimp) are related through common ancestors, more ancient dinos (more ancient apes), of which we do not necessarily have the fossiles.

Thats enough for now.

Nate

Originally posted by Manu
Dave, ARE we missing a step? I must admit I do not know my prehistoric man trivia well enough.

Actually, even more confusing . . . now we've found 2 different "stages" of man that lived in the same area at the same time . . . confirmed.

So, evolution happened to SOMEBODY, but not everybody. And once it happened to us, it stopped for everyone else.

Very logical . . . LOL!

Originally posted by D Durden


Actually, even more confusing . . . now we've found 2 different "stages" of man that lived in the same area at the same time . . . confirmed.

So, evolution happened to SOMEBODY, but not everybody. And once it happened to us, it stopped for everyone else.



That's exactly how evolution should work, now that we understand the mechanisms of genetic change. The presence of two stages of man in one area is confirmation of the predictions of evolution. The larger the population, the slower evolution will occur. Thus, if there were two small populations of less developed species found in the same region, and one gained an evolutional advantage over the other, it make sense that one of them would dominate the other, either assimilating with it or forcing them to die out.

Speciation, the formation of new species from older ancestors, has been observed, on multiple occasions. Primarily in plants; their genomes are substantially more flexible than those of animals. Here are a choice few examples.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
source: talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org)

"2) A naturally occurring speciation of a plant species, Stephanomeria malheurensis, was observed in Burns County, Oregon. The citing is: "


Gottlieb, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeria. American Journal of Botany 60(6):545-553"


Finally, it's not confined to plants:
"Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.
Abstract:

Analysis of contact between two chromosomal races of house mice in northern Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation."

In all cases, the genesis of reproductively isolated species has been observed. Evolution, 'tis a wonderful thing.

Note: this does not mean that I would discount Creationism as "God created the first life", as it's hard to see how the basic cellular machinery could self-assemble from primordial soup, especially given that we struggle to make individual amino acids from primordial soup. But the occurence of evolution is supported by so much evidence, including direct observation as described above, that to claim otherwise would be foolish in the extreme. Maybe God created the first cells and let evolution take over from thereon. Maybe things went further. Maybe the Universe just has a tendency to produce life. I'm buggered if I know. What I can say is that the evidence for evolution is about as close to proof as is possible to get without being omniscient.