Last Update: 08 Jan 00

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay


(R) The problem is that Evolution theory says that dinosaurs died hundreds of millions of years ago.
(MB) No, it doesn't. Evolution is not concerned with whether or not the dinosaurs are still alive. You're going to have to argue with the paleontologists on this one. Paleontology says that the dinosaurs died out because there is no physical evidence in the fossil record (or anywhere else) of dinosaur existence past the mass-extinction catastrophe that took place 65 million years ago.

(R) And the evolutionist even after seeing unaltered pictures refuse to allow for the existence of dinosaurs today.
(MB) As I've already stated, evolution is not concerned with this. As a matter of pure science, however, evolutionists and every other scientist would absolutely *love* to find a genuine specimen of a living dinosaur. However, unproven claims and shoddy evidence do not add up to genuine specimens. Consider for a moment that an actual living dinosaur would be the best possible proof that we have interpreted the evidence of the fossil record correctly. Then, tell me again how evolutionists would even think about flat refusals to allow for their modern existence.

(R) There is evidence that land based dinosaurs are still alive in very remote areas like the Congo swamps, Kenya, and deep in the Amazon River basin. But evolutionist deny the existence because it goes against Evolutionary theory. So they do not take it seriously.
(MB) The actual existence of a living dinosaur would not go against any part of evolutionary theory any more than the discovery of the "extinct" Coelecanth or Tautara did. The only reason that dinosaur claims are not taken seriously is that there have been so many fraudulent or misinterpreted claims in the past and that there is currently no conclusive evidence of any living specimen -- as much as scientists would love to find such evidence.

(R) There are many native stories in the Swamps of Congo, where the Pygmies live that a large swamp living creature that is 75 or 100 ft long and runs off the hippos from its favorite feeding spots.
(MB) If such a creature is real, it shouldn't be too hard to find, should it? Consider also, that for such creatures to have survived for 65 million years, there must be more than one of them and there would quite likely be many of them.

(R) There are stories of either a Petradon or Teradyctal living in remote Kenya and the Amazon river basin. The Phoenix was worshipped by the Southwestern Indians and it was likely a Teradyctal.
(MB) On what do you base that conclusion?

(R) Lewis and Clark heard tales from the Indians of living Wooly Mammoths.
(MB) Considering that these tales were told in the heart of buffalo country, that mammoths were unknown at that point in history, and that Lewis and Clark were explorers rather than biologists, there's likely a heaping helping of confusion in those accounts.

(R) There are hundreds of stories in Europe and Asia of Dinosaurs (dragons) being killed by a local hero.
(MB) Sure. Heroes killing dragons has been a common and favorite element of fiction since Man first started swapping stories. If Man can invent a story about something, does that make the story real?

(R) In ancient Babylon, there is written a description of a fire breathing dragon, which could be a dinosaur.
(MB) Or, more likely, another story. There are no known methods or examples to explain any creature's ability to "breathe fire". Do you believe stories just because they are exciting?

(R) So a case could be made that Dinosaurs lived on Earth with and at the same time as Man.
(MB) How? If these stories are your standards of evidence, then you probably also believe that a case can be made for the existence of King Arthur and Camelot.

(R) Which further points to problems of aging the bones and fossils that are found. There are many assumptions made in order to use the other dating methods. (And yes I do know that C-14 has a half life of 5700 years.) I do know that other equally unsure methods are used for dating.
(MB) Oh? Which methods do you disagree with and why? What assumptions do these methods use that you disagree with? What do you believe is the proper way to age-date fossils and rock samples?

(R) The point I made on the C-14 is that it is increasing in the atmosphere and it should not be increasing. It should be stable after 30,000 years. If that is not true then no c-14 test can be accurate because we do not know what the levels of c-14 were when the animal, fossil etc was alive. And therefore the remaining amount of c-14 left means nothing, because we do not know how much was supposed to be in the animal when it died.
(MB) This is Kent Hovind nonsense that shows nothing more than blatant ignorance about how C-14 dating is performed. It is performed by examining the sample's ratio of C-14 to the byproducts of its decay. This makes the sample's initial amount of C-14 irrelevant. The only way that Creationists can argue this is to advance some staggeringly-incompetent claims about the nature of radioactive decay.

(R) Like I said before, we all can be blind to facts that are not inline with our paradigm.
(MB) In this case, it is only the Creationists who are blind since all the facts are on the side of science.

Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.5 .......... Last Update: 08 Jan 00
Go to next reply

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay

Back to Philosophy page