Science Says Dinosaur Era Had 5x Carbon

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Yes that's exactly what science does when something is found to disprove their theories!  "Oh, they were mining and it just collapsed in on them!" 

 

1) Well, why wasn't there any historical data suggesting that people were mining there?  If they were mining, it would be obvious.

2) fossilized remains already? 

3) a woman and an infant?  explain that.

 

They have found man-man objects in with fossils dated 165 million years ago, in sandstone and in coal, even completely encased in rock.  Again, more physical proof. 

 

http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/human-artifacts-found-in-fossil-beds-237491.html

[gray wolf]

The author does not really give a reference for the original find and its report, so I did a little digging.  I wondered about the artifact's proposed age.  Did humans even have the technology to make an almost pure iron hammerhead in the days before Noah? An implement of that age should have been made of bronze, right?  Some additional information at this website http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

[Tolken]

gray wolf - Did humans even have the technology to make an almost pure iron hammerhead in the days before Noah? An implement of that age should have been made of bronze, right?

 

Don't let reason and/or facts get in the way of an urgent bias.  It would appear obvious that if Baugh believed this to be such a "monumental" discovery that he would pursue methods to assure proof.  From past references I think Baugh's integrity is questionable.

 

"It should be noted that although Baugh has strongly promoted the hammer as a dramatic "pre-Flood" artifact, as have a few individuals writing for the Bible-Science Association and the Creation Science Foundation, other creationists organizations, including ICR and CRSQ, have said little or nothing about it in their literature, perhaps realizing its dubious nature."

 

As you noted originally there is absolutely no "indisputable" evidence, or even  any convincing evidence at all that dinosaurs and humans existed together. It would certainly have me rethink my position on Genesis if there was.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Oh yeah, the scientific community has all the 'facts' and 'evidence' to back them all.  ALL they have are dating methods which are inaccurate and have been proven wrong numerous times!  That's the ONLY thing science has to say anything is millions/billions of years old.  But that one piece of 'evidence' outweighs thousands upon thousands of pieces of physical evidence and historical data saying otherwise and you roll your eyes at our 'urgent bias'.  I think you are the ones who are desperate to prove we evolved and there is no God to which you desire to hold yourself accountable to. 

[gray wolf]

I think a good case for creation can be made with good science, but we have to rigorously examine all evidence so we don't embarrass ourselves.  And that may often lead to leaving no verdict in various cases where we really don't have answers.  There are claims out there which do not really hold water and we should not use them.  Answers in Genesis gives an exhaustive list of these to avoid.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

They don't even disprove or challenge the actual find. "Who found it?  Yep, it's a fraud.  This guy isn't credible in my eyes."  What creationist work will ever be credible?  The second it challenges evolution, it's automatically rubbish in the eyes of scientific community and never given the light of day.  So what's the point anymore?  Not a single piece of evidence we have present here mattered.  You just shrugged it off.  Short of a dinosaur showing up on your front porch, you will take evolution to the grave. 

[gray wolf]

I didn't say I am in disagreement with the whole kit and caboodle, just certain artifacts that may not qualify as evidence.  As a scientist and a conscientious Christian, it is my duty to examine claims to see if they're viable.  I am certainly not an evolutionist, but I acknowledge some principles from the theory (no I do not believe Adam and Eve were products of evolution).  I did not see the hammer artifact as a case of fraud, but rather misinterpretation which does not hold up to scrutiny. Truth is the primary concern in this area.  What actually happened?  What best explains the evidence?  It is an ongoing project.  I think we're on the same team

[Tolken]

anthonyjmcgirr - So what's the point anymore?  Not a single piece of evidence we have present here mattered.  You just shrugged it off.  Short of a dinosaur showing up on your front porch, you will take evolution to the grave.

 

The point is that for example if Baugh had wanted the find to be at all credible he would have allowed the find to be tested.  It is quite simple to suggest that "science" would simply dismiss any evidence to the contrary of the regnant theory, but that I believe is an empty assertion. One can dismiss science as a fraud, suggest that "dating methods" are inaccurate, etc., etc. but that does little to further one's evidence.  As gray wolf noted there is a list of discarded arguments that at times still raise their dismissed heads.  Further there are an ample number of scientists who are Christian that could conduct the testing and further "scrutiny".

[Tolken]

anthonjmcgirr - Here is an interesting read................ http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

 

I do not share the young-earth position of AIG and CSF, but applaud their courage and forthrightness in dealing frankly and publicly with the serious problems in Carl Baugh's work and claims. The main AIG web site is:
http://www.christiananswers.net/aig/aighome.html

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Well I want someone to actually challenge me on the issues.  If I present evidence, pull that apart.  Don't just look for a way to discredit the person who revealed it. I understand there are frauds both in the creationist world and scientific world.  I'm also sure there are things I believe that are incorrect or been unproven.  But I am tired of things just being dismissed and shrugged off simply because they don't agree with the monopolized scientific bias of billions of years so it can't possibly be true.