Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2

Note: an alternative version of this article is currently being written here. This is not an attempt to usurp Conservative's views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --Hojimachong^talk

Alternative version of the article

It's a bit hard to tell what's different about the alternative article. A comparison with the current article shows lots of differences, but much of that is due to some heavy editing of the current article recently. Comparing the first version of the alternative (presumably a straight copy of the then-current article) with the latest version of the alternative shows some differences, but most of them seem to have been incorporated into the current article anyway (although I haven't compared how closely the "history of dinosaur paleontology" sections match). The other main change is the introduction, where the alternative version states matter-of-factly that the evolutionary view is based on "overwhelming scientific evidence" (which claim, as it goes on to say, creationists dispute of course). Naturally I'd object to this view being put as though it is correct. Philip J. Rayment 01:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I am mostly happy with the current article. Given the ed staff, it's the best it'll ever get.-AmesG_yo! 02:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's Have this "Evolutionary" Debate Here & Now

Conservative, you have never rebutted my contention that "evolutionary," used as a qualifier to the entire field of science, is nothing more than a qualifier-word designed to make scientists sound less credible. There is a branch of science called "evolutionary biology," but they do not deal with dinosaurs. If you do not properly rebut this argument, I will change the article to not use the word "evolutionary" except where appropriate. -AmesG_yo! 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:

"I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight." [1]

Do we really need users who care so little about whether their material is factual or not? Do we need users who are so pugnacious that the facts don't really matter?

I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. Conservative 01:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Inappropriate edit here. See my reply on Andy's page. Stick to the point.-AmesG_yo! 01:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

"Creationary"

Conservative, that you've never heard the word "creationary" is not really the point, is it? That most haven't may be a point, but I dispute the relevance of that. It is perfectly legitimate in English to append standard prefixes and suffixes to words regardless of whether the resulting word has ever been used before, and "creationary" is just following that pattern.

"Creationary" is also a good balance to "evolutionary"; if the latter is acceptable, why not the former? At least it provides for consistency.

And it has in fact been in use for quite some time, and was included in a dictionary nearly 50 years ago. Please read here for more information, including why "creationist" is not the best word to use where an adjective is required.

Philip J. Rayment 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm down with that compromise.-AmesG_yo! 01:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we should not use the word "creationary" if it is not in more than one current very large dictionary. That's my two cents. I will not start an edit war about it though! Conservative 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

AmesG, I don't follow. I suspect that you were objecting to the term "evolutionary", but that you'd be happy if both "evolutionary" and "creationary" are used. Is that correct? Philip J. Rayment 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

That's right. If both sides sound ridiculous, no problem.-AmesG_yo! 01:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The terms may be uncommon, but I fail to see how they are, or make the topic sound, ridiculous. Philip J. Rayment 02:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Then I must have misspoken. Let's use them both.-AmesG_yo! 02:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Snipping apparent joke

However, a certain "Dr. Karl Pilkington", has used numerous reliable paleontological sources, such as "1 million years BC", by the eminent social philosopher Racquel Welch, to deduce that since dinosaurs and humans have once lived, there must be "some cross over point" where both roamed the Earth. This standpoint has gained a large amount of publicity, and is now taken more seriously than accepted extinction theory.

One Million Years BC is a 1966 science fiction movie, and Raquel Welch was the "curvy" actress who starred in it. Karl Pilkington produces a radio show and has his own Wiki. Sounds like someone was having fun. Dpbsmith 16:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK

Let's discuss this:

• For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur. A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.

Has anyone in the last 100 years report seeing a dinosaur? Anyone?

• The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth."

This contradicts the section title.

• Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.[25] World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."[25] Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, and in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting.

What does this have to do with anything. There are a lot of cultural references to animals which don't even exist! This makes no sense.

• Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Again, contradicts section title.

• Among those who believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, one popular theory is that it is a living plesiosaur.

Has anyone seen that?Sterile 13:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your claim that two of those points "contradict the section title". The section title is "Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting", and each of those points provide support (not proof, but support) of humans and dinosaurs coexisting at some time (or are you reading the section title as saying that they coexist now?).

I doubt that there are lots of cultural references to animals which don't exist, but the point here is that cultural references to creatures with descriptions matching dinosaurs supports the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting, especially when there are so many references from two continents.

By the way, I smiled at your reference to "evil British punctunation".

Philip J. Rayment 19:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

You are suggesting that the cyclops existed? When a potentially simpler answer is "the ancient Greeks saw an elephant skull[2]?" You can have cultural references to something without it existing (dragons, unicorns, boogie man, fairies, etc...) --Mtur 19:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

No, I'm not suggesting that the cyclops existed. I didn't deny that there are some cultural references to animals that didn't exist, and I'll go further and admit that perhaps the Greeks had quite a few. But by the same token, people too readily dismiss cultural references to things they haven't otherwise heard of rather than see if there might be a basis for them. The descriptions of dragons are many and widespread, and largely consistent with descriptions of dinosaurs. Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, as I understand it, the dragons that appeared in the different cultures (including English culture) wheren't actually that similiar to dinosaurs. If anything, they were more serpent like. In some cases, they were extremely different. The 'looking kindda like dinosaurs' is just the modern interpretation of dragons. Ironically, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good page on them. Sureal 10:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by "serpent like"? Long and slender? Legless? Dragons seem to have had a wide variety of descriptions (which is as you'd expect if they are dinosaurs, i.e. if they are referring to a group of creatures, not a particular type of creature; dinosaurs came in a wide variety of shapes), some serpent-like but others not. Note that most of the pictures in the Wikipedia dragon article are not really serpent-like. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

"[S]ome descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today..."

The reference in a creationist journal for this statement says, "The feasibility of the idea that some dinosaurs may still be alive has a little more support, although at this time we would have to say it is not conclusive." If the creationists are saying it's not conclusive, then why is it in the article? Sterile 14:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Good point. I've downgraded the claim to be more consistent with the reference. Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

"For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.[15]"

The only sentence in ref 15 about explorers is, "And British explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell returned from an isolated Nepalese valley in March with photos of living creatures which looked something like mammoths or extinct stegodons." Mammoths and stegodons are not dinosaurs. And the plural "explorers" implies more than one. Sterile 18:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe you could quibble about the word "explorers" vs. "researchers" or similar, but look further down in that referenced article to the bit about Mokele-mbembe. Philip J. Rayment 23:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know of many recent explorers. In most people's (and I mean most) "explorers" are the folks who went looking for "new worlds" 100s of years ago. I've done research, but never considered myself and explorer before. I shouldn't have to interpret references anyway :). Sterile 08:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How about replacing the sentence with "People in the Congo have reported seeing a creature they termed "mokele-mbembe," meaning "one that stops the flow of rivers." French priests translate this as "monstrous animals." Dr. Roy Mackal made an expedition to the region and recorded the Congolese descriptions of the mokele-mbembe. (and reference 15). That's much more clear than "explorers reported seeing...," which really isn't in ref 15 anyway. Sterile 11:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

That's too much irrelevant information for the space, in my opinion. The important point for this article is not what it's called and what that means, but that the description matched that of a dinosaur. Your suggestion doesn't mention that. Second, I would be happy to change it to "People in the Congo..." if it were not for the facts that it wasn't just the Congo and that a biologist has reported seeing it as well as ordinary "people" (see reference 15).

I'm still open to suggestions on alternative wording, however.

Philip J. Rayment 11:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you seem to claim a monopoly to the wording, what better word than explorer would you recommend? And what other researchers have observed a dinosaur? The ONLY reference to explorers in the reference is the British explorer that saw a mammoth. The "expeditions" brought back "ordinary people"'s (your words) observations, but Dr. Mackal did not observe one. There's nothing in the reference about explorers and dinosaurs. Sterile 13:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How am I claiming a monopoly on the wording if I'm inviting suggestions of better wording? I'll try to do some rewording of that entire section, though. Philip J. Rayment 08:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

My reversion of recent changes

The first edit that I've reverted was deletion of the comment about recent sightings, with the edit comment, "the author has since retracted claims - see reference". This is incorrect. The author has retracted one recent sighting, but there are still others in that article, so the statement is still correct.

The second edit removed information without any explanation. I will reinstate the minor wording changes that were also in that edit.

The third edit removed information with the edit comment, "article discredited by scientist it quotes http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2491". This is incorrect. First a couple of minor quibbles. The article was not discredited, so much as the claims of the article, and the the main scientist it quotes was not the one who disputed the claims, but her boss. More relevant, however, is that the claims were disputed; to say that they were discredited is to put a POV on whether the disputing succeeded. Most relevant is that the claim in this (Dinosaur) article was not even disputed. The claim in this article was, "Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Horner did not "discredit" that creationists see things this way, and the reference cited in the edit comment did not retract the creationist claim.

The fourth edit was grammatically incorrect, but I will reword it to make it a bit closer to the edit.

Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html

This page makes a number of claims regarding evolutionary biology that I cannot verify from any other source, and they do not cite their sources. In addition they make the claim "It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically". However, there is no possible way to tell whether or not the species have remained genetically stable. The only conclusion is that the site in unreliable. Nematocyte 12:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that it doesn't cite sources. Hang fire until I've reworded that section. Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

My reversion of recent changes (2)

The first edit I reverted this time had the edit comment, "China Today is noted for "Inquirer"-like sensational stories that cannot be confirmed.". Show me some evidence of this and I'll agree to the re-removal of that bit.

The second edit had the edit comment, "Author of the reference claims to be the Paleontologist for the United States "Rational" Museum, which apparently does not exist.". No, it said the "National" Museum, which is an alternative or former name of the Smithsonian Institute, and Wikipedia and other sources confirm that Gilmore was a paleontologist there.

The third edit had the edit comment, "Information about dragons belongs in an article on dragons.". Sorry, but the point is that creationists see dragons as being dinosaurs. Thus it belongs here.

The fourth edit had the edit comment, "Reference indicates that author retracted his claims about dinosaurs.". Please don't go repeating the same changes without giving new (and valid) reasons for doing so. The same editor made this same deletion with the same basic edit comment before, which I answered above when I reverted it.

Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If this is a joke, it's not that funny.

In my short time at Conservapedia, I've seen two 1337-speaking vandals attack (striking, among other things, my newly-made talk page!), and I've had the misfortune of seeing this article. Between the two - the vandalism and this article - I'm not sure which one is worse. I mean, I'm as conservative as the next guy (that's why I joined the site), but I'm also... errr... "college educated." There's a line between "conservative" and "creationist" that I don't think you guys really get, and it bothers me to have you creating this site in the name of all conservatives, who include me...

Let's start briefly with the content. The Loch Ness Monster is proof of the continued existence of dinosaurs? Seriously? And treating science as a "point of view" that needs to be "balanced" is obscene. Anyone who's taken science classes in any school knows that science doesn't concern itself with having a point of view, and if you believe to the contrary, honestly, you could probably find a better conspiracy theory to believe in. It strikes me that what you're working for in this article is the taking of "political correctness" to its logical extreme, that even bad science is an "opinion" that deserves "equal time." As a conservative, the idea of political correctness bothers me enough, and it should bother you, too, but I see that where being PC serves you, you're more than happy to indulge. I'd rather not dignify the rest of this article with a response.

The real weakness, though, is sourcing. Encyclopedias imply objective, factual writing. That means good academic sourcing. But, the creationist claims here are sourced to outlandishly biased one-trick-pony sites I've never even heard of before, but they all seem to have their own agenda. A basic underpinning of academic writing, as I have learned, is objective & honest use of citations. But the way you cite in this article is no better than having an article on Hillary Clinton that said, "Hillary would be a good president <ref>See her campaign website</ref>." You see the comparison? You can't support a biased statement with a biased citation just to give an illusion of objectivity: it's just my hunch, but I suspect that "AnswersInGenesis" and "CreationOnTheWeb" have a not-so-hidden agenda.

I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives. I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did. Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style? Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-BillBuck 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

No, it's not a joke. What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is dismissed as an unreliable source, rather than actually being refuted. The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective. Scientists are not always totally objective, and origins science is not empirical science]]. There is no anti-creationists conspiracy, but there is a ruling paradigm that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative. Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black. Philip J. Rayment 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I'm a Christian, a Conservative, and an "Evolutionist" (that term's new to me too). But I've also taken science classes. Don't you think it says something that the only sources you can point to are biased niche-sources, and not anything actually serious? And the last time I checked, assuming your conclusion is bad science :-P -BillBuck 11:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe that it's you that's assuming your conclusion. You've not even bothered to explain why the sources are supposedly "biased niche-sources" and opposing sources are not, and why the sources are not "serious". Making those assertions without something to back it up is not a valid argument. And you are sort of wrong with the "biased niche-sources" anyway. The creationist sources referenced frequently cite from non-creationist sources. So what that you've taken science classes? So have the scientists who are creationists! Philip J. Rayment 11:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The scientific community has a system & a vetting process for dealing with theories, that produces thoroughly reviewed & respected articles. Can you point to any of those for your creation "science"? Can you point to an accredited university that teaches it? And don't get out of that by calling all universities "liberal": while I agree that the social science depts at most universities are fairly liberal, the science depts are not. Really, I didn't think it was necessary to prove that AnswersInGenesis is a biased niche source. Look at it, and page through the articles - it's clearly a one-issue action group, which isn't that objectively persuasive.-BillBuck 11:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

There's at least two peer-reviewed creationist science journals that I know of. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the universities in the U.S. to answer that question. And even some evolutionists admit that evolution is a religion, and many universities are religiously liberal at the very least. I'm not denying that AiG has a bias; I'm claiming that evolutionists have a bias also. I can't help it if you're not persuaded by their science, including the science that they quote from evolutionists which I previously mentioned and you seem to have ignored. Philip J. Rayment 12:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is a religion!? That one's new to me, too! Where do you guys come from? Sounds like a strawman argument: you attribute it to me, and then knock it down for fun, but I never claimed it: as I said before, I'm a Christian, but a rational one. You make it sound like there's a concerted effort to push evolution. I can't imagine the reason that would be behind it. Science & truth are their own ends: science has no other agenda. Evolution simply explains life better, and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you). And, hate to tell you as well, but a peer reviewed creation science journal doesn't jump the hurdle I asked for. I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind. Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question. I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath. And so help me God, if you say "don't worry, the flood explains it all," I swear, I'm out. Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.-BillBuck 12:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

"That one's new to me, too!". Hmmm, it seems that there is a lot that you don't know. Perhaps you should read up on the creation/evolution debate a bit more (and not just from the evolutionary side).

Michael Ruse is an anti-creationist who denied that evolution was a religion, then later admitted that it is treated that way. See here.

I'm also a Christian, and I'm also a rational one (well, I believe that I am, just like you believe that you are). There is a concerted effort to push evolution. Whenever anyone suggests even that students ought to consider alternatives, the evolutionists come out with guns blazing (figuratively speaking) to prevent evolution even being questioned. The reason (not that they admit it)? Because at root this is a spiritual issue. Despite you (and many others) being Christians who believe in evolution, the atheists know that the Bible and evolution are contradictory, and belief in evolution has destroyed many a Christian's faith. Demonstrating that evolution may not in fact be true is therefore undermining one of the atheists' most important weapons.

Science has no agenda at all; it is not an intelligent being. But the scientists, on the other hand, do often have agendas.

"Evolution simply explains life better...". That is your opinion, but given your gross ignorance of the alternative view, I wouldn't put much weight on it.

"...and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you)". You've broken nothing to me; I've heard that before. And it's simply untrue. Science was founded on a Biblical (i.e. creationist) worldview and many if not most of the early scientists were creationists. So evolution, which came later, does not underlie all of modern science. Additionally, some evolutionists have even admitted this. See here, here, and here.

"I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind.". Huh? What makes you think that the editors of those journals haven't already made up their mind?

"Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question.". Why is that?

"I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath.". Who's tossing out geology? The dating methods can be tossed out because they don't stand up to scrutiny, partly because they are, in part, built on assumptions that rule out creation to start with. So using them to argue against creation is circular reasoning. And you just called thousands of scientists and other people "insane and delusional". That's a lovely way to make an argument.

"Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.. I wonder if the supporters of geocentricism with all it's adjustments to accommodate the observations said the same of heliocentricism? I don't consider creation implausible at all, and I don't consider it as complicated as the hurdles that evolutionists jumps over to maintain their faith.

Philip J. Rayment 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, you truly astound me. You manage to sound so reasonable spouting the most ridiculous stuff. I am amazed that someone who seems genuinely intelligent and well spoken can truly dismiss science so readily and try to make the scientific community out to be te crackpots. One thing that truly bothers me in your arguments though is when you continue to claim that dating methods are flawed because they proceed from the assumption that creation did not exist... but this is ridiculous. You are referring to the Flood which supposedly altered the carbon ratio of the planet. Science does not assume this didn't happen. Science does not have to assume it didn't happen. The absence of an event is the default assumption. Without credible scientific evidence of a global flood that altered the carbon ratio. there is no reason to include it in the calculation. Claiming the dating methods don't stand up to scrutiny because your assumption of creationism requires it is disingenuous at best. QNA 09:00, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I sound reasonable because what I'm "spouting" is not ridiculous?

I am not dismissing science. I'm criticising the views of some (many) scientists. Similarly, I'm not making the scientific community out to be crackpots; I'm pointing out that they have their own biases, their own worldviews/religions, and that these views often drive their views of origins. Yes, the same applies to me, but at least I admit it. They don't (most of the time; they do at times).

I'm not referring only to altered carbon ratios of the flood, but yes, that is one of the things I'm referring to.

You contradicted yourself regarding the assumptions. You first claimed that science doesn't assume this, then say that they do; as the default assumption.

What evidence for a global flood would you consider credible? It seems that you have already rejected as evidence that the vast majority of the rock on the planet is sedimentary, just as you would expect from a global flood. And that there are billions of dead things (fossils) in those sediments, just as you'd expect from a global flood. etc. etc.

Even if it is fair to claim that assuming no flood is a fair assumption, it is still not fair to then claim that the dating methods contradict a global flood; it is still circular reasoning.

I'm not rejecting the dating methods solely because they contradict the written historical record, but also because they have proved themselves unreliable. There are many documented cases of rocks of known age (the eruptions were witnessed) being dated incorrectly, of different methods giving inconsistent dates, and similar problems.

Philip J. Rayment 09:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

There's a concept in math and science called "order of magnitude." That is, is an error in 10s of years, 100s of years, 1000s of years, 10000s of years, etc. A geologic timescale of 6000-ish years imply that gross errors in rock dating would be in 100s of years and within a few percent would be 10s of years. Sure, there are errors--science is always up for revising its measurements and making it more precise--but the order of magnitude of 10000 on a geologic timescale of millions of years is so incredibly small to be laughable. Even 1000000 years among 65 million years is about 2%. And for someone to dismiss all of geological dating because "there are errors" is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion, of course). And I've always found it interesting that some "views" of science are OK whereas others are "questionable." If people don't like science and technology, then they should get rid of their car, their manufactured clothes, the food that comes to the grocery store, their car and all medical care. Sterile 11:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm familiar with the concept of "order of magnitude", thanks. I don't see the relevance here unless you are saying that 6000 years is just too big an adjustment for you to make.

I don't dismiss all of geological dating just because "there are errors". I reject it for several reasons, including (a) it contradicts the written testimony of God, (b) there are lots of examples of contradictory dates, (c) it is based on unprovable assumptions, and (d) there are very few if any examples where it has been shown to be right on rocks of known age.

Your "interest" in some science views being okay and some questionable ignores the difference between operational and origins science. Your examples are the former, whereas I am rejecting the latter. No contradiction there at all. And some of those examples actually benefited from the research of creationists.

Philip J. Rayment 08:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I think a huge misunderstanding here is that some people believe that once upon a time there was a entirely Christian world, then suddenly some sinner decided there was no God and he invented science to prove this. This is of course complete and utter bull-you-know-what.

This is how it really went: the pursuit of knowledge (astronomy, mathematics) predate today's dominant religions by thousands of years, research has always been done on a global scale under many different religions, when it became possible to crosscheck their findings, these early researchers had established a peer-reviewing system, making these findings independent of any of the local religions, of course some of these findings conflicted with the beliefs of the religions, but while religions went and go, science continued to advance, one day, one branch of religion became dominant, but the researchers living inside its sphere of influence continued their work, as did their colleagues in other parts of the world, many of these researchers were religious themselves and saw the pursuit of knowledge as a way to better understand the universe and thus a way to come a little closer to understanding the divine, one day they found evidence pointing towards a very old Earth, soon they found more, and more, and more...

There findings were not always compatible with the creation-myths of the religions, but these creation-myths were not compatible with each other either...

Then one day a new movement within one of the 5 dominant religions emerged: it declared that the Earth was 6000 years old, this of course conflicted with the creation-myths of some of the other religions... and with the evidence the researchers had found.

In an effort to discredit their opponents, this movement claimed the researchers had their own religion and that the movement's religion was so much more important than any of the other religions ever had been, that thousands of years ago the first researchers had somehow forseen the emergence of this movement and had worked all this time to debunk the beliefs of the movement before it even existed, in the process these researchers had even developed methods to make sure that experiments always went their way, no matter who did them, all because they tried to ridicule the beliefs of a movement that would only come to existence centuries later...

BTW, thanks for that ban Philip, I feel like a full member now!

Middle Man

That's an interesting bit of fiction. Problems include:

• Yes, there was a pursuit of knowledge, but science as we understand it arose in and because of a Christian worldview.
• Christianity has been around by that name for 2000 years (and is a continuation of Judaism which was a continuation of the belief in the Creator, dating back to the creation of the world), whereas the peer review process has been around for what? A couple of hundred years?
• It treats all religions as equal, and therefore as equally wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Just because some must be wrong (they can't all be right when they proclaim contradictory things), it doesn't follow that they are all wrong.
• Belief in the Earth being around 6000 years old is not a recent, post-scientific, belief. It is what the Bible has recorded for thousands of years and in fact almost everybody thought that the age of the world was that order of magnitude until only about 200 years ago.

I was annoyed at having to give you a ban. You were the first person I've blocked, other than people who came here solely to vandalise.

Philip J. Rayment 08:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

• So what, the Arabs didn't invent algebra and the Greeks and the peoples of China and India were obviously all devout Christians?

Human curiosity is the reason behind science, religion usually just slows it down, although some scientists also believe a better understanding of the universe means a better understanding of the divine, they don't have to be Christians to believe that (for example the Arab mathematicians). Abraham lived approximately 3800 years ago, that's hardly the time of the creation of the world, and the Abrahamic beliefs remained insignificant on a global scale until the 4th century AD.

• No, it doesn't prove they are all wrong, but yes, science treats every religion equally.
• Belief in the Earth being about 6000 years old was a theory put forward in the 17th century, the Bible never mentioned a creation date, and even if one religion were to be true than there's only a tiny chance it's Christianity (considering how many religions there have been).

Personally I think Buddhism comes closest, since it doesn't make too many assumptions that contradict science.

Middle Man

I agree that religion usually slows down interest in science, but Christianity is the exception to that rule, as previously pointed out. So why the continuing objection?

Belief in a creator dates back to Adam, not Abraham.

What do you mean, the Bible never mentions a creation date? What would you expect it to say? Perhaps you'd expect Moses to have written that it was created in 4004 B.C.? Hardly. If it was to mention a creation date, how would it best do so? What it does is give a list of time spans that can be added to work out when creation occurred. That's about the best you could hope for, and that is what it does. And even non-YEC experts agree that this is what was intended. I assume that you are alluding to Ussher calculating the date of creation in 1650. But Ussher was not the first nor the last to do so; just the best known.

You are still treating all religions as equal with your comment about the chances of Christianity being the correct one, and it is still just as illogical. And Christianity makes no assumptions that contradict science.

Philip J. Rayment 09:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

thanks!

Phil, thanks for clarifying the Mokele-member part of the story. (I'm not a big fan on bulleted lists--it makes it look like the writer is just trying to occupy more space--but that's your stylistic choice.)

The only other true objection (well, at least that I will bring up) is that the "exctinct species that were found" argument. An analogous argument is that apples provide evidence for oranges. That is, there's nothing about pine trees, squirrels or fish that provide any evidence for dinosaurs, because they are not related. Certainly you would not say that birds do not provide evidence for dinosaurs (!), so why would squirrels or fish or pine trees?

Other than that, I think you have portrayed the creationist perspective as well as it will ever be done. Cheerio! Sterile 11:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I'm not crazy about the bulleted list here either, but it seemed the best choice in the circumstances. I could have made each first-level bullet a sub-sub-heading perhaps, but there barely seemed enough content in each one for that, and I felt that making the arrangement clear was important. I might think more about that.

The extinct species bit is simply to counter the objection that some do make that the mere fact that dinosaurs were last in the fossil record 65 million years ago (on the evolutionary timescale) indicates that they died out that long ago. The examples show that this is not a valid argument. Can I make that clearer somehow?

Philip J. Rayment 12:00, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, uh, well, I don't know how that follows from that evidence. I just don't like the one sentence about the extinct species, because it is there is no valid conclusion by logic (like syllogism, if you know what that is) to conclude anything about dinosaurs from the other "previously thought of as extinct" species. There's no connect between alive or dead squirrels and dinosaurs. The empirical evidence (by sightings) is as good as the observers credibility, but there is no logical conclusion to be made about dinosaurs from the info. I don't know how to "discount" the fossil record from the data given. (Sorry!) I would still rather rid of the extinct species sentence. Sterile 20:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Joke article?

Offence is not meant to the creator(s) of this article, but is it a joke, or is it meant as a Straw Man argument for evolution? Can't we do better than this article? The title of this article is Dinosaur, but aside from the first two sentences, it's an article refuting evolution, and not really about dinosaurs at all.

For example, in an article about dinosaurs, you'd expect there to be a mention of, you know, individual types of dinosaurs or something. The animals mentioned in this article are:

• Triceratops (a dinosaur)
• Beetle (not)
• Medusa (not)
• Cat (not)
• Behemoth (maybe, if you believe in YEC)
• Leviathan (maybe, if you believe in YEC)
• Loch Ness Monster (please God, no)
• Plesiosaur (not)
• Mokele-member (please God, no)
• Thunderbird (not)
• Pterosaur (not)
• Dragons (not)
• Coelacanth (not)
• T-rex (in footnote only)

This article is so soooo bad it makes me embarassed to be a Christian. Why do the Loch Ness Monster, dragons, and other mythical beasts have to be discussed in this article, while genuine types of dinosaurs aren't even mentioned? I'd love to be able to send my children to Conservapedia, but articles like this are an absolute train wreck. I really want to cry. HolierThanThou 21:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the article lacks enough information about dinosaurs, particularly the different types of dinosaurs. Feel free to add information about that.

I don't see why an article about dinosaurs can't mention other creatures at all, but how do you know that dragons were not dinosaurs?

I have been thinking that maybe some of the stuff in this article could be removed to one or more separate articles (with a brief summary of their points remaining here).

Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

While I wouldn't be so bold as to edit the personal sandbox of certain sysops here, I can't help but point out that the statement: "They use overwhelming archaeological, fossil, and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times. " is incredibly biased towards creationism. Use of the word "overwhelming" when describing the evidence of human-dinosaur co-existence is at best an overstatement, at worst an outright lie. Perhaps one of the Favored-Ones who hold some pretense of semi-neutrality might consider removing the word overwhelming? QNA 11:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

See here and here. Philip J. Rayment 12:21, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

So I see. Yep, pretty much why I am having a hard time convincing myself that contributing edits would be worthwhile... QNA 12:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Some creationists believe the spines on its tail were to stop other dinosaurs from treading on it before the Fall.

You've got to be kidding! It's almost as ridiculous as that statement about the T-rex being a herbivore...

MiddleMan

You will note that I've put a {{fact}} tag on that claim, as I've never heard of it myself (and I have a pretty good idea of creationist claims). If no supporting evidence is forthcoming, the edit should be reversed. As for it being as ridiculous as T-rex being a herbivore, that latter one is not ridiculous at all. Philip J. Rayment 00:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, we all know killer jaws come in handy when eating leafs...

MiddleMan

Have a look at this skull of a carnivore and tell me what you think it eats. Philip J. Rayment 10:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

From the look of it it's probably a mammalian omnivore.

MiddleMan

It's actually a fruit bat. Despite being classified as a carnivore on the basis of its teeth, it doesn't eat meat. Things are not always as they seem. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

It eats fruit with hard shells, not leafs, and it's teeth aren't nearly as deadly as that of a T-rex (that's why I classified it as an omnivore rather than a carnivore), they are a bit pointy, but still relatively flat (square-like) they are not 15cm long razor blades (dagger-like), also the bat has (pointy) molars, the T-rex had none (it had gaps between its teeth, making it practically impossible to grind leafs or fruit.

Oh, don't forget the dinosaur, crocodile, shark and plesiosaur fossils found with skeletons of their prey in their stomach.

But in my time here I've come to see that not everyone holds the same definitions of "facts" and "evidence".

MiddleMan

You were the one that brought up leaves, not me. Perhaps T-rex' teeth were also to eat hard things, rather than leaves?

Also, I was only discussing one particular aspect of the issue. Another is that creationists do accept that creatures adapt (within their design limits), and it is therefore possible that T-rex' teeth are an adaption that suits carnivory, and were not exactly as originally designed.

I'm not sure of the relevance of your comment about creatures with skeletons of their prey. Nobody is disputing that those creatures are/were carnivores, as nobody is disputing that T-rex was a carnivore. The point of contention is whether or not it was always a carnivore. The Bible teaches that all creatures were created as vegetarians, not that they were always vegetarians.

I agree with your comments about facts and evidence, although in my case it's the evolutionists that I tend to notice confusing what's what. :-)

Philip J. Rayment 09:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

But the molars? Every land living herbivore animal has them, omnivores have them, but carnivores don't, and T-rex didn't have them, you need molars to eat leafs or fruits, but carnivores can swallow pieces of meat directly; meat doesn't have to be grinded before it arrives in the stomach, because it's easier to digest (plant cells have a cell wall that animal cells lack).

Also if T-rex had become carnivores after the flood, then where are they now? Where did all the dinosaurs go, how come there were no dinosaurs in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia?

MiddleMan

T-rex may well have become a carnivore before the flood (but after the Fall). Since the flood, they have become extinct. How do you know that there were no dinosaurs in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia?

I don't know enough about the teeth to answer that part of your question, but you seem to be overlooking what I said about creatures adapting. I can't say how much they could have adapted, but I suspect that you can't either, so the question remains open. (If only research funds were available to creationists, more of these sorts of questions could be answered! All donations are gratefully received.)

Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Creatures adapting, hey, wait a minute... there's a word for that: evolution!

Well you'd think that if there were giant Sauropods and T-rexes stampeding through your land at least someone would mention it in their writings, these cultures did mention just about every other animal they knew of...

But go look it up: you can't eat plants without molars!

MiddleMan

There are a number of words for it, and "evolution" is one of them, given the broad and almost-meaningless definition that it currently carries. But adaptation is not the same as "goo-to-you" evolution (see the previous section of that linked article).

How do you know that those cultures mentioned just about every animal that they knew of? Do you have a complete list of animals that they knew of to compare against the ones they mentioned? My bet is that you don't.

Besides, nobody is claiming that T-rex in particular survived for long after the flood, nor that it was common and widespread.

Philip J. Rayment 22:39, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

And lo! Jared who was begat of Mahalaleel went down into the valley green and did find his path verily blocked by a fearsome Beast called Tyrannosaurus. And he did run away screaming "O Lord! Save thine humble servant from this dirty great lizard! I fear that it may eat me for it has no molars!"

And the Lord saw that Jared was wise for Beasts that have no molars feed solely upon the Flesh of other Beasts and He did spare him for having taken such close regard of His Creation.

--Robledo 14:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Where are the "theories"?

In the article, it says that creationists have some "therories" that harmonyze with each other (*cough*evolutionharmonizeswitheverythingelse*cough*), but there's no mention of those, I would like to know them.

BTW: The man-dinosaur thing is a joke, why doesn't aztecs, egyptians, american natives, and all the old cultures menion dinosaurs, yes, the dragons, giant lizards an stuff are there, but where's the rest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aknot (talk)

The reference to theories harmonising, although under the Creation Perspective section, is actually a reference to evolutionary theories.

As far as those cultures are concerned, perhaps there are mentions that have yet to be recognised as such. And creationists believe that references to dragons are references to dinosaurs.

Philip J. Rayment 23:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

yes, but they only hav dragons, where's everything else? Aknot 16:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

You'll have to explain yourself better; I'm not following. Philip J. Rayment 19:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

PWNED! Aknot 15:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

• Mind your manners, Aknot. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 10:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

sorry, i tought PJ.R was never going to surrender :p Aknot 17:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!

 :-) Philip J. Rayment 07:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

But when fighting on the internet, get that white flag ready ; ) Heinkel 21:08, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Discovery Institute and the saddle

Why was my edit about the Stegosaurus saddle reverted? It was reverted without explanation, and it is sourced. It's even about a dinosaur instead of a dragon. HolierThanThou 08:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Are you serious? That is a spoof news site. Apart from anything else, the "news" item dated as occurring on 29th March 2006 was posted on 10th October 2005, consistent with their motto of "Tomorrow's news Today". You're fortunate I didn't block you for vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 09:06, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

http://www.mokelembembe.com/