• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Coincident existence of dinosaurs and man as evidence against the theory of evolution

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Science doesn't reject evidence because it doesn't fit a certain theory -- though the occasional scientist might. In science theory follows evidence, wherever it leads. If there were verifiable human footprints associated with a Mesozoic site it wouldn't be hidden, it would be on the cover of Nature and would make headlines all over the world.
There is remarkable ignorance about science that is perpetuated in popular ideas. I cannot understand, with all the information available, why people do not evaluate their own ideas and compare them with valid information to see if their ideas make sense.
Gobekli Tepe is remarkable for its megalithic archetecture and the social organization needed to construct such a complex 9 or 10 thousand years ago. But a civilization? I wasn't aware there was any indication of a civilization associated with the site.

What about the site is science trying to hide? Scientific ideas change all the time as new evidence is uncovered. It isn't like religion, nothing is carved in stone, everything's provisional.
I do suppose that it would depend on how a civilization is defined, but I am unaware of claims that we could not have had one 9 or 10 thousand years ago.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Would the discovery that a few or even one species of dinosaur existed contemporaneously with man at any point in our history or even now, be evidence against the theory of evolution? Why?

Is the theory of evolution contingent on the complete extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago or shortly after that?
Well two separate topics actually. First in regards to a slightly larger framwork than the child like framework soley inside life framework that is presented as evolution to discuss what you ask actually involves a factor infinity larger scale to even begin to contemplate uncertainty.

Furthermore emergence is another aspect in this dicussion so in relationship to human emergence the answer is no in the small child like linear framework of contemporary evolution. Thats an incredibly simplistic small scale answer.


On the larger scale it is impossible to say, simply because did the extinction allow for human development? Undecided. Thus we ask a question that cant be known.

There is a fallacy of scale in modern evolution but thats reductionism at play. We shrink a concept to fit our brains therefore thats it and we prattle on it like we understand it. I call it logishrink after that we apply logiflex to it. Any rebuttle form outside the cult is you dont understand!!!! That reinforces that they really understand it!!! Ha. Nature at play always nature messing with us. Narure always wins regardless.

Oh look at that just like religion sometimes!!! Hmmm thats us at play!
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Quite so.
In anthropology there's a taxonomy of types of social organization, like there is for biological organisms.
I Googled Gobekli Tepe, and found nothing that indicated it was a civilization. Some sites even said it was built by hunter-gatherers.
A very remarkable site, though. Extraordinary stonework.
I suppose it was the epitome of culture of the time as far as we know, but I am not conversant with the rules on applying the tag civilization. I would have named it part of early Neolithic civilization,
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Certainly if this occurred evolution science would have its credibility really shaken.

An interesting aside is that a ancient wall paintings by the Aborigial people of Australia seem to portray very detailed depictions of dinosaurs known to science..

I take no position on these, but find them fascinating.

Kangaroos or Dromornithids. No other bones were found of large reptiles or other extinct large animals of the ancient past over 60 million years ago.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually this thread is a meaningless thread and deserves to be in some sort of Joke section.
Do you really think so? I was serious about it when I put it up. It was on my list of possible threads based on some literature I encountered using the very argument of dinosaurs existing with man as evidence debunking evolution.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually this thread is a meaningless thread and deserves to be in some sort of Joke section.
I was actually expecting more activity out of it. Perhaps since I have only been here a year or so, you all have already educated this ignorance out of the local population.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Would the discovery that a few or even one species of dinosaur existed contemporaneously with man at any point in our history or even now, be evidence against the theory of evolution? Why?

Is the theory of evolution contingent on the complete extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago or shortly after that?

I took this picture a few miles from my house. Here we have a legit dinosaur footprint alongside the shadow of a man with a cell phone. What more proof do we need that dinosaurs are contemporary??
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1346.jpg
    IMG_1346.jpg
    573.8 KB · Views: 0

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Well two separate topics actually. First in regards to a slightly larger framwork than the child like framework soley inside life framework that is presented as evolution to discuss what you ask actually involves a factor infinity larger scale to even begin to contemplate uncertainty.

Furthermore emergence is another aspect in this dicussion so in relationship to human emergence the answer is no in the small child like linear framework of contemporary evolution. Thats an incredibly simplistic small scale answer.


On the larger scale it is impossible to say, simply because did the extinction allow for human development? Undecided. Thus we ask a question that cant be known.

There is a fallacy of scale in modern evolution but thats reductionism at play. We shrink a concept to fit our brains therefore thats it and we prattle on it like we understand it. I call it logishrink after that we apply logiflex to it. Any rebuttle form outside the cult is you dont understand!!!! That reinforces that they really understand it!!! Ha. Nature at play always nature messing with us. Narure always wins regardless.

Oh look at that just like religion sometimes!!! Hmmm thats us at play!
I am going to have to read this a couple of times, but what is the fallacy of scale?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I took this picture a few miles from my house. Here we have a legit dinosaur footprint alongside the shadow of a man with a cell phone. What more proof do we need that dinosaurs are contemporary??
This is going to cause an uproar in science. Now we have man, dinosaurs and cell phones together again at last, for the first time.

Nice one.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I am going to have to read this a couple of times, but what is the fallacy of scale?
I thought about it a bit after i wrote it so you opened up a way of looking for me i hadnt thought of. Tell me if this clearer.

Reality isnt just here right now. So if we travel back 65 million years and look forward from the point of extinction there is no evidence of human emergence at all unpredictable. If the dinos do not go extinct there still is no evidence of either humans emerge or not, thus in actuality the whole thing is undecided.

We come into the present and look backwards into history. We can try and reverse engineer. So dinos went extinct humans emerged thus dinos die off resulted in humans emerging. But zero evidence pure inference. Not science a huge blank of data. Allow dinos to exist till the present. No evidence to either we would co exist or not, did not happen. Thus undecided. No way to determine since it didnt happen.


So we mostly have undecided and one yes based on pure unscientific speculation.

I think that might be clearer. The answer undecided. Nature does not allow for the kind of speculation we attempt to place on it. That i think is pretty good clear science. Anything else. Ha thats funny.
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Certainly if this occurred evolution science would have its credibility really shaken.

An interesting aside is that a ancient wall paintings by the Aborigial people of Australia seem to portray very detailed depictions of dinosaurs known to science..

I take no position on these, but find them fascinating.
Mate you ever seen our wildlife? They might as well be dinosaurs. Even our birds have stones on their heads ;)
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is remarkable ignorance about science that is perpetuated in popular ideas. I cannot understand, with all the information available, why people do not evaluate their own ideas and compare them with valid information to see if their ideas make sense.

I do suppose that it would depend on how a civilization is defined, but I am unaware of claims that we could not have had one 9 or 10 thousand years ago.
Göbekli Tepe has the monumental architecture of a true civilization, and must have taken many people, a lot of organization, and some specialization to complete, plus it appears to have been permanently inhabited for some periods.
The problem is, it's a neolithic site, presumably built by hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers generally have sparse populations, move in small bands, with no permanent settlements, no leaders, no specialization no social classes and certainly no monumental architecture.

Yet there it stands, built by people with no metal, no pottery, no wheel, no livestock, no writing, no agriculture; who had to go out and hunt/gather their food every day. Yet they had the large numbers, organization, engineering and technical skills of a civilization, chiefdom or agricultural society.

Permanent settlements, large groups and specialization were thought to occur only after agriculture and animal husbandry created enough resource density to sustain a large, permanent population.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I suppose it was the epitome of culture of the time as far as we know, but I am not conversant with the rules on applying the tag civilization. I would have named it part of early Neolithic civilization,
Civilizations generally have a writing system, occupational specialization, differential access to resources, social hierarchy with an aristocracy, formal laws, leadership with coercive power, permanent religious specialists and monumental architecture.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Would the discovery that a few or even one species of dinosaur existed contemporaneously with man at any point in our history or even now, be evidence against the theory of evolution? Why?

Is the theory of evolution contingent on the complete extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago or shortly after that?
No, because the ToE is dependent on a species' ancestors but not on the death of its ancestors. A population doesn't have to evolve if it's not necessary. That being said, many creationists have the misconception about the ToE, that species must be required to evolve otherwise the theory is wrong.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
No, because the ToE is dependent on a species' ancestors but not on the death of its ancestors. A population doesn't have to evolve if it's not necessary. That being said, many creationists have the misconception about the ToE, that species must be required to evolve otherwise the theory is wrong.
That is an interesting point and I see the idea of mandatory evolution come up often from creationists. The bottom line is that creationists are against something they do not understand and do not bother to learn about. I suppose for them, it is enough that science has discovered evidence and formulated an explanation that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. Knowing more does not seem to be of much interest to them, but it makes their arguments look even more ridiculous.
 
Top