What of the dinosaurs?

[JackH]

In regards to what Cope and Marsh got right, we cannot know what they got right because they did a great service to us in discreditting and casting doubt upon eachother and themselves. The very fact so much of what is taught about the dinosaurs and the ficitional old earth originates from their dubious theories and errors is very telling of how unreliable and flawed the old earth fantasy is.

It is absurd to say that two guys who lived more than a hundred years ago are mostly responsible for what is said about dinosaurs today.

That is like saying that John Atanasoff, who invented the first electronic digital computer around 80 or so years ago, is responsible for what we know about computers today. Atanasoff's computer weighed more than 700 pounds. I watched some NFL games on my cell phone this past Sunday.

Technology increases at an astounding rate, whether you are talking with respect to paleontology or computers. Many individuals pay it forward, contributing to technological advance.

A decade from now, many more fossils millions of years old will have been discovered, and technological advancements will allow scientists to tell us even more than we know today about those fossils.

When a T. rex skeleton is discovered along with a human skeleton that has been crushed by those incredible T. rex teeth, and the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates those fossils are less than 6,000 years old, I will apologize to you for thinking that you are either not the sharpest tool in the shed or lying.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

It is absurd to say that two guys who lived more than a hundred years ago are mostly responsible for what is said about dinosaurs today.

That is like saying that John Atanasoff, who invented the first electronic digital computer around 80 or so years ago, is responsible for what we know about computers today. Atanasoff's computer weighed more than 700 pounds. I watched some NFL games on my cell phone this past Sunday.

Technology increases at an astounding rate, whether you are talking with respect to paleontology or computers. Many individuals pay it forward, contributing to technological advance.

A decade from now, many more fossils millions of years old will have been discovered, and technological advancements will allow scientists to tell us even more than we know today about those fossils.

When a T. rex skeleton is discovered along with a human skeleton that has been crushed by those incredible T. rex teeth, and the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates those fossils are less than 6,000 years old, I will apologize to you for thinking that you are either not the sharpest tool in the shed or lying.

The problem is Cope and Marsh's theories and mythologies are in fact still with us today. It is not absurd to say they are responsible for most of what is known about the dinosaurs today. The very fact the most popular dinos in current pop culture were named by them and how they are depicted in artwork were imagined by them supports this fact. The fact that their flawed finds are still touted by institutions like the Smithsonian as "the best evidence for evolution" supports this fact. The fact that they probably wrote the most literature about the dinosaurs and dino era of old earth mythology and sparked what is called "dino fever" in America supports this fact.

As for technology increasing, we still do not have the technology to accurately date anything. The old earth mythology is literally an arbitrary guess, and we have displayed how its foundations are upon fraud and error. Compared to the young earth model founded upon written records, existence of known civilizations, and the artifacts therein, there is good supporting evidence for a relatively young earth and for Christianity compared to the total lack of proof for the old earth mythos.

As for the future and technology; I find it more plausible that within my lifetime or shortly thereafter that we will not have high technology due to the fact the vain technology we possess today can be laid to waste actually quite easily and quickly by human, natural, and/or spiritual forces. But who really knows what the near future holds? For that, we shall just have to see.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Yes, it does says in the scriptures that His word is not to be taken literally, because it suppose to have been discerned spiritually. And yes, the scriptures are translated a little different from the original writings, but you can see where it has been altered, by reading it and comparing it with others translations. And remember, the Jews documents were destroyed during the time of Nero, and so they restored some of the scriptures from memories.

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

2 Corinthians 3:6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

And does an animal has an extrasensory that they can tell when a earthquake is coming?

Brother , let iron sharpen iron on this. The Bible doesn't tell us not to take scriptures literally unless in the context that is made obvious. "Obvious" is to an atheist the exact opposite of what Christians (and Jews) would expect from the mind of Christ. Two geologists can stand side by side looking at strata and fossils. Each can interpret what he wants and fall within a respected range of science. In the field each respects the other. But online and in university classes, the atheists pursue to conquer Jesus Himself and take captive young minds. They do that by exercising extended control over their former graduate students who are science professionals, still setting the standards established by the religion of evolution. All that power is quite intimidating because unchallenged lies tend to build upon themselves to create a world of deceit. Many of the former young minds are adults now, busy taking care of their children, trapped in the former education supplied by atheists. That has grown to pervert Christian ministers who would compromise to maintain a "living' among the deceived. The current batch of spiritual "bas*ards" are offering dangerous compromises along with outrageous denials against Jesus without basis. Many modern folks hate Jesus, and anyone holding to His teachings. Jesus referred to the biblical account of origins, and should be honored as a truth teller. It wouldn't be much of a problem if that only advanced academia. But it perverts the gospel, puts the statements of Jesus on trial, and subverts the minds of his followers today.

Understand, Christian, that Satan is the one who as a conquered foe of Jesus, still has one allowed tool, deception of the elite. Be wise, learn to identify the liars, do not be deceived. Stay with the word of God. It is upon that your salvation hangs. The current Pope is about Satan's business, deceiving nations. The spiritual Babylon is absorbing as much of you as it can.

 

[4enlightment]

Brother , let iron sharpen iron on this. The Bible doesn't tell us not to take scriptures literally unless in the context that is made obvious. "Obvious" is to an atheist the exact opposite of what Christians (and Jews) would expect from the mind of Christ. Two geologists can stand side by side looking at strata and fossils. Each can interpret what he wants and fall within a respected range of science. In the field each respects the other. But online and in university classes, the atheists pursue to conquer Jesus Himself and take captive young minds. They do that by exercising extended control over their former graduate students who are science professionals, still setting the standards established by the religion of evolution. All that power is quite intimidating because unchallenged lies tend to build upon themselves to create a world of deceit. Many of the former young minds are adults now, busy taking care of their children, trapped in the former education supplied by atheists. That has grown to pervert Christian ministers who would compromise to maintain a "living' among the deceived. The current batch of spiritual "bas*ards" are offering dangerous compromises along with outrageous denials against Jesus without basis. Many modern folks hate Jesus, and anyone holding to His teachings. Jesus referred to the biblical account of origins, and should be honored as a truth teller. It wouldn't be much of a problem if that only advanced academia. But it perverts the gospel, puts the statements of Jesus on trial, and subverts the minds of his followers today.

Understand, Christian, that Satan is the one who as a conquered foe of Jesus, still has one allowed tool, deception of the elite. Be wise, learn to identify the liars, do not be deceived. Stay with the word of God. It is upon that your salvation hangs. The current Pope is about Satan's business, deceiving nations. The spiritual Babylon is absorbing as much of you as it can.

Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old—

Ezekiel 24:3 Tell this rebellious people a parable and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: “‘Put on the cooking pot; put it on and pour water into it.

Hosea 12:10 I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them.”

Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matthew 13:35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”


And so, should I really put on the cooking pot?

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Here is a simple illustration:


Starting with the first scientific study of geology in the late 1700s the "identity" of a stratigraphic group was decided by mineral, and fossil content. The sequence of strata was deduced by locating different groups of strata that were in direct contact. The rule was the lower rock was older than the upper rock which is simple and obvious. But, geologists had no idea of how old any of this really was. They tried many different ideas, and came up with many different (and wrong) results. So the major parts of the chart above werre done without any dating methods at all.

That changed with the discovery of radioactive elements in the late 1800s, and the final proof that atoms really existed in the 1920s.

This allowed the development of ways to measure the relative concentrations of atoms, and match this with the measured release of radiation from isotopes. This work started seriously in the late 1940s. But it was not until the 1970s that the chemical techniques, and the electronics were sufficiently developed to be much use. Even today, most of the geochemical research published on specific methods is how NOT to do it. And, every so often we get to learn of a new analysis method that better, more accurate results. An example of the latter is using Laser Ablation Microprobe Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LAM-ICPMS) to take multiple measurements from a single zirconium crystal less than a millimeter long. The image below is very interesting. Notice that the geochemists were able to avoid weathered, or cracked parts of the crystal. More importantly, note how the crystal has grown in bands something like a tree ring. There is a huge time range from when this crystal started to form in the mantle, until it was finally "frozen" in a granite pluton.


So, now that we are able to directly assign age to groups of fossils we can use their presence to give an indication of how old a particular group of rock is within some spread of time. This isn't considered very accurate, but sometimes that is all you are going to have.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Re: Armitage and Anderson

It is also obvious to me that few people have actually read the "research" paper supposedly at the center of this little storm.

Mark Hollis Armitage, Kevin Lee Anderson
2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603–608

The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! (See below). None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. Their attempt to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well.



Further, Armitage was a "permanent part time technician." That means he was never legally a full-time employee regardless of his hours, or years worked. It means that he would never be promoted. It means that he could be terminated from employment at any time for any reason- or none. The addition of "permanent" to the job title meant that he got benefits which is very generous.

This was a bottom rung job.

A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.

I don't who of you have jumped through these hoops before. Suppose you have an idea without any funding. You face two options: A) beg from a funded colleague, or B) write a short proposal to circulate around the university.

Under option "A" you are inviting the funded colleague to basically take your idea on as a project. You will be their co-investigator, you will be their co-author, you will be their tool. Option "B" is a search for seed money to try enough of the idea to write a killer grant proposal, give a conference paper, and be able to promise that your quarterly progress reports will be on time because they are practically written. The acknowledgment section under option B will mention "faculty development grant," "XYZ university foundation," or "grant in aid from ABC lab/facility under NSF (DOE, NIH) Grant #######. You can see these in every issue of Science Magazine.

Reading the article, and ironically his lawyer prepared complaint, showed a huge glaring reason to fire him. It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

That will get you fired pronto.

Armitage just helped himself, and if he did it during hours he was paid, then he stole salary as well. Some faculty members at CSUN like Armitage, and think his misappropriation of supplies was not a big deal. But, they have remained on the sidelines.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Now don't be too hateful or even afraid of the old earthers or scientists. Even Cope and Marsh is a good example even unto today how their feud was kinda pointless but really you do have to kinda feel bad how both men were essentially abandoned and ostracized by their own scientific community. Even though indeed much has changed, it is still no secret at all that all the scientists whether they ponder an old earth, young earth, flat earth, round earth, snowball earth, jurassic park earth, whatever earth you like, that they are not elites. Everyone knows the scientists are always mere pawns. I actually feel some pity for them, a lot of them get treated like crap historically and modernly by the very institutions and circles they work for. Especially in today's time this is more prevalent since there is more government involvement. Though this is typically in matters unrelated to the whole evolution, age of earth, and other high intellectual discussions.

Here is a good documentary for a contemporary look into science in Canada. It is not about evolution, but centers on mass extinctions of wild salmon. Everyone typically gets lost in the "origins debate" if you will allow such term. However the mass extinction of creatures is a very important factor in trying to realize just how crazy this aging young earth is. Most extinctions apart from that ancient cataclysm of the Flood have been actually and surprisingly sudden and very recently especially from Industrial Age forward to now no matter what timescale you go by.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTCQ2IA_Zss
[video=youtube;fTCQ2IA_Zss]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTCQ2IA_Zss[/video]

It is an intriguing look into various points of view and inner workings of the scientific community, at least for this region in the year 2013. Just a lil personal note my former darwinist friend who is very keen on biology and our debates and ponderances on old earth and younger earth discussions showed me this. Regardless of the people's personal opinions on the situation, I don't think the scientists or even many of the government folks are terrible people or anything. Obviously these people just want to help solve a real problem and catastrophe that is a pretty massive. Its not even much the scientists fault, they can only do so much because this problem is not just for the intra-scientific/academic community. A big stumbling block is the much more complex interactions with other outside factors like politics, the food supply, trade, etc.

 

[4enlightment]

Here is a simple illustration:
View attachment 91854

Starting with the first scientific study of geology in the late 1700s the "identity" of a stratigraphic group was decided by mineral, and fossil content. The sequence of strata was deduced by locating different groups of strata that were in direct contact. The rule was the lower rock was older than the upper rock which is simple and obvious. But, geologists had no idea of how old any of this really was. They tried many different ideas, and came up with many different (and wrong) results. So the major parts of the chart above werre done without any dating methods at all.

That changed with the discovery of radioactive elements in the late 1800s, and the final proof that atoms really existed in the 1920s.

This allowed the development of ways to measure the relative concentrations of atoms, and match this with the measured release of radiation from isotopes. This work started seriously in the late 1940s. But it was not until the 1970s that the chemical techniques, and the electronics were sufficiently developed to be much use. Even today, most of the geochemical research published on specific methods is how NOT to do it. And, every so often we get to learn of a new analysis method that better, more accurate results. An example of the latter is using Laser Ablation Microprobe Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LAM-ICPMS) to take multiple measurements from a single zirconium crystal less than a millimeter long. The image below is very interesting. Notice that the geochemists were able to avoid weathered, or cracked parts of the crystal. More importantly, note how the crystal has grown in bands something like a tree ring. There is a huge time range from when this crystal started to form in the mantle, until it was finally "frozen" in a granite pluton.
View attachment 91864

So, now that we are able to directly assign age to groups of fossils we can use their presence to give an indication of how old a particular group of rock is within some spread of time. This isn't considered very accurate, but sometimes that is all you are going to have.

As a small, makeshift steam probe began to melt a hole in the ice, expedition members watched dumbstruck as more and more extensions were added to the hose, some 75 metres (250 feet) before reaching the first airplane!
None of the discoverers thought that the planes could possibly be buried under more than a light cover of snow and ice. And why would they? After all, the impression the general public has is that the buildup of glacial ice takes very long time periods—thousands of years for just a few metres (see ‘deep freeze salamanders’). [Ed. note: We were not claiming that the salvagers’ perceptions were correct. Published figures of average ice accumulation rates are quite a bit lower than 1½ m/year that clearly must be true here, but not nearly as low as the salvagers thought. But it shows how much the ‘millions-of-years’ ideas have permeated into the general public, and the point of this article was to undermine this commonpreconception, as the subtitle should make clear] In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years.[SUP]2 The lost squadron - creation.com


Entombed animals are animals reportedly found alive after being encased in solid rock (and sometimes coal or wood[SUP][1][/SUP]) for an indeterminate amount of time. The accounts usually involve frogs or toads. The reputed phenomenon, sometimes called "toad in the hole",[SUP][2][/SUP] has been dismissed by mainstream science, but has remained a topic of interest to Fortean researchers. [/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entombed_animal

There's something that can't be explained, but how long do you think that it takes for a rock to encase around a toad, and or how long does it take for a toad to react while its being encased in rock? It show that something had to have happened suddenly.

 

[Cycel]

I don't think we will ever be lucky enough to be able to sequence the DNA of any of the hundreds of thousands of dinosaur species that once existed. We might get some fragmented DNA recovery, but we won't really know what it was from originally.

Agreed. I've been arguing this for some time, but I think people will be more likely to listen to you. You sound authoritative.

Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your stay, and stay long.

Cycel

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Naturally, anything from a creationist source is suspect. And anything as old as the video (look at that computer terminal!) is obsolete.

The first clue that this unnamed "physical chemist" did not know what he was talking about was when he said (1:52) that Carbon 14 decayed to Carbon 12. The real decay is to Nitrogen



He is also clueless about radioisotope geochemistry. First, here is the real Uranium decay series:



There are several things to note here. The first is that there are several long lived elements that are formed along with a larger number of rapidly decaying ones. Second, the physical chemistry (the supposed area of this supposed scientist) of many of these decay products are very different. For example, uranium oxide is not very soluble in water, and thorium oxide is. This means that if a material is saturated in water, it loses thorium, and retains uranium. Lead oxide is very soluble. We use this fact to date water deposited minerals like travertine. We can even use it to date the age of teeth! That the phoney "expert claimed was the Uranium would be preferentially removed (5:34). This is a lie. It is nearly the opposite of reality.

The so-called video expert failed to know that we use multiple decay products to internally control for events like remelting, or dilution. The "flood will invalidate these methods" is just stupid (6 min). What it would do at the very most would be to date the exact time that this so-called flood event actually happened. Creationists should ask themselves why the entire radiometric clock was not reset to 4,000 years ago. (Or is it 4012 years by now)?

The phoney "expert" next moved on to potassium argon dating of deeply submerged lavas. These "pillow" lavas do not lose their argon gas because they are erupted under pressure. The deeper into the pillow from the surface, the more argon is retained. The scientific articles on this were written with two goals; first, DO NOT USE pillow lava to date eruptions, Second, DO USE only the core to date the age of the magma chamber below the eruption. Finally, the dating of marine lavas is done by the Argon/Argon method, and had nothing to do with whole rock Potassium/Argon. Whole rock K/Ar dates are mostly published today to show why you should not do them without a very careful mineralogical, and sedimentological analysis. For example, K/Ar works just dandy for volcanic ash from fine grain pyroclastic eruptions.

But my cup runneth over when these phonies launched into the "variable decay rates." I have written about this years ago. Rather than repeat myself, see: Stones and Bones: Are Constants Constant?

At least the fake "expert" stammers when he lied.}

Then we have decay of the Earth's magnetic field lie. Here is just one example of why that is a lie:


Lunar dust? Really? Lunar Dust? Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth

At 9:20 we hear the name of the Professor. I think it was Bordrow, but who knows the spelling?

The "Big Bang" was proposed by a Christian priest based on an extension of some of Einstein's work. Einstein was opposed initially. The theory of biological evolution does not have anything at all to do with the Big Bang. That is cosmology. For an honest assessment see: WMAP's Introduction to Cosmology

So, this little 9 minute, and 18 second video had nothing but lies. Lies, and lies, and lies.

 

[JackH]

Two geologists can stand side by side looking at strata and fossils. Each can interpret what he wants and fall within a respected range of science. In the field each respects the other. But online and in university classes, the atheists pursue to conquer Jesus Himself and take captive young minds. They do that by exercising extended control over their former graduate students who are science professionals, still setting the standards established by the religion of evolution.

Yes, scientists many differ on results. That's what blind peer-review in reputable scientific journals is for.

But in the case of over 65-million-year-old dinosaur fossils v. the same bones being less than 6,000 years old, somebody is lying.

An article referred to frequently in these forums is one from your favorite website, Institute for Creation Research entitled "Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted."

The Institute for Creation Research

To quote one paragraph:

The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as “still squishy” and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.

Lies, lies, lies. Nothing but lies.

 

[JackH]

Agreed. I've been arguing this for some time, but I think people will be more likely to listen to you. You sound authoritative.

Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your stay, and stay long.

Cycel

Yes, you have been arguing this for some time. I testify to that.

In fact, on the thread in which some of these wing-nuts proclaimed Mark Armitage a martyr, you said:

"I wouldn't put much weight on this story as there are problems with the information reported. There seem to be some inaccuracies in the reporting of the story. I'd like to hear from the university in question. Also, finding soft tissue on dinosaur remains has happened once before. This is something the scientific community is hoping for. He would not be fired for such a discovery. In addition the find doesn't mean dinosaurs went extinct only a few thousand years ago. That's nonsense."

If one is to believe Dr. Hurd's post on the subject today, which I most certainly do, you were spot on.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Two geologists can stand side by side looking at strata and fossils. Each can interpret what he wants and fall within a respected range of science. In the field each respects the other.

This is a photo of a road cut I and a colleague were analyzing. I drew in the bottom traces of several stream channels. The cut was being filled in, and we were barely able to keep ahead of the earth movers:



The bottom the the photo was deposits from a little over 5 thousands years ago. You might notice that there is no "flood" deposit.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Agreed. I've been arguing this for some time, but I think people will be more likely to listen to you. You sound authoritative.

Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your stay, and stay long.

Cycel

Thanks. I got involved with the creationists over 20 years ago when I was the curator of a small museum. We would have a young earth type come in every now and again and swear the fossils were all fakes, and we were all "spawn of Satan."

I had been a professor of psychiatry and I was interested in how this poor deluded man got that way.

 

[4enlightment]

Everytime if something unnatural happens, if science can't figure it out why it had happened in a natural sense, they'll said it never had happened and which that is leaving the other person that had the unnatural experiences, a Liar. I had some unnatural experiences, but I never told anybody, because who will believe it? Maybe it is the dark forces way of keeping our mouth shut?

<strong>[video=youtube_share;Ug7AaJjwBDA]http://youtu.be/Ug7AaJjwBDA[/video]

I guess it is too much of a strain on their brain to figure out the unnatural, and that is why they doesn't deal with them.

 

[Human]

Everytime if something unnatural happens, if science can't figure it out why it had happened in a natural sense, they'll said it never had happened and which that is leaving the other person that had the unnatural experiences, a Liar. I had some unnatural experiences, but I never told anybody, because who will believe it? Maybe it is the dark forces way of keeping our mouth shut?

<strong>[video=youtube_share;Ug7AaJjwBDA]http://youtu.be/Ug7AaJjwBDA[/video]

I guess it is too much of a strain on their brain to figure out the unnatural, and that is why they doesn't deal with them.

Maybe the moss on my pillow is actually extraterrestrial foam from the aliens who planted human life on Earth.

That's how irrational you sound. Just because something cannot be scientifically explained at this present moment, does not mean that there must be an extramundane, metaphysical explanation for it. What you are presenting is an argument from ignorance. You're saying 'we can't scientifically explain it, thus is must have been an omnipresent creator'.

I can't scientifically explain how I got home last weekend after a few too many beers, it doesn't mean that God personally carried me there!

 

[nl]

Agreed. I've been arguing this for some time, but I think people will be more likely to listen to you. You sound authoritative.

Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your stay, and stay long.

Cycel

Yes, welcome, Dr_GS_Hurd. I know that it regularly requires significant achievement to add those letters, Dr and/or PhD, to a name and I don't have them for myself.

In my experience, PhD's have been esteemed at times like high priests and priestesses who function as mediators between the common people and the deep things of science. Similarly, religious priests (and priestesses) have traditionally been esteemed as mediators between the common people and the deep things of God. Traditionally, clergy and PhD's have enjoyed a high level of assumed credibility although the former have been losing some of theirs. .

I do believe that neither popes nor priests nor PhD's are infallible but I do welcome you including the expertise that you bring.

 

[JackH]

Yes, welcome, Dr_GS_Hurd. I know that it regularly requires significant achievement to add those letters, Dr and/or PhD, to a name and I don't have them for myself.

In my experience, PhD's have been esteemed at times like high priests and priestesses who function as mediators between the common people and the deep things of science. Similarly, religious priests (and priestesses) have traditionally been esteemed as mediators between the common people and the deep things of God. Traditionally, clergy and PhD's have enjoyed a high level of assumed credibility although the former have been losing some of theirs. .

I do believe that neither popes nor priests nor PhD's are infallible but I do welcome you including the expertise that you bring.

Here in these forums, I'm more interested in thread cred than a prefix or suffix attached to somebody's name.

That being said, the good doctor has established considerable thread cred here in a very short period of time, in my opinion. I don't see anybody disputing much of anything he has said that is backed up with facts and sources. And personally, I have learned something new from his posts. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen very often in these forums.

So, tell me, where do you stand on the issues presented in this thread?

Do you believe dinosaurs have not existed here on earth for more than 65 billion years and never coexisted with humans?

Or do you believe that dinosaurs first came into existence around 6,000 years ago? And did coexist with humans?

Or do you believe something else?

 

[JackH]

Now don't be too hateful or even afraid of the old earthers or scientists. Even Cope and Marsh is a good example even unto today how their feud was kinda pointless but really you do have to kinda feel bad how both men were essentially abandoned and ostracized by their own scientific community. Even though indeed much has changed, it is still no secret at all that all the scientists whether they ponder an old earth, young earth, flat earth, round earth, snowball earth, jurassic park earth, whatever earth you like, that they are not elites. Everyone knows the scientists are always mere pawns. I actually feel some pity for them, lot of them get treated like crap historically and modernly by the very institutions and circles they work for.

Did you know that there is a movie in the works about Cope and Marsh?

Bone Wars: Steve Carell and James Gandolfini to Play Battling Paleontologists | WIRED

Unfortunately, Gandolfini died shortly after this article was written.

So I don't know where the movie stands at the moment, but it would appear that there are some acting jobs available. Perhaps you should look into it.

Yes, I could see you and several others who have been posting here playing the role of dinosaur bones.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old—

Ezekiel 24:3 Tell this rebellious people a parable and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: “‘Put on the cooking pot; put it on and pour water into it.

Hosea 12:10 I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them.”

Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matthew 13:35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”


And so, should I really put on the cooking pot?

Few works of literature contain so much diversity of concepts. Parables were, of course, believable real life scenarios used to make spiritual concepts more comprehensible. Even yet Jesus' own disciples needed further explanations, such as in the CONTEXT of your Mt 13:35 reference. Always show the context of such verses, which are taken out of context in your post. That leads to confusion. Parables are powerful methods of teaching principles. They can be used to tell the truth while by not providing an "interpretation", can at the same time prevent certain people from learning a closely held secret. One of those was the plan of God for Jesus to be crucified. Jesus taught it, but for those people He hid the plan for a season. Today any sensible Bible student can understand all the parables because we have the whole story.

Note also Jesus said there He would utter the things held in secret since the creation. He did. If there are any you need help understanding, say on. We have access to it all. Those Jews had all we have right after Pentecost.