If Dinasours exsisted 65 Million years ago and the first Man exsisted 2.5 Million years ago?

Question

62.5 million years passed with no human beings according to you right?
Some paleoanthropologists, for example, have declared Sahelanthropus to be on the line that led to gorillas, not humans..The oldest known hominid, might come from the bush the shape of the hominid tree and its various branches. *The Bushy Theory*

Now scientists are trying to figure out what evolutionary pressure led hominids to become bipedal in the forest. To answer that question, they have to figure out what upright walking evolved from. Fossils offer some clues, but opinion is divided over what the clues mean..

So why don't you admit there is not ONE CONCLUSION based on scientific evidence how man was created, it is all conjecture.... And since GOD's time is not based on what Science relates time to, there is no way to compare biblical evidence to evolutiion, HOWEVER I have read the Coyotoe might have evolved from the Dinasour which would be some of the animals that entered the NOAH's ARK...Thoughts?

Answer 1

noah's ark is scientifically proven as impossible. To use it as a reference as something scientific is quite a joke.

Answer 2

It has recently determined that upright walking actually occurred because of mankind's "walking" in the trees.

As to how man was created, it is NOT all conjecture... there IS evidence.

You may have read that the coyote might have evolved from the dinosaur, except whatever book you are reading is nonsense. The coyote is a mammal, the dinosaurs were lizards.

As to Noah's Ark, there isn't enough water on the entire Earth to cover the Earth with water. Remember that the story of Noah's Ark was written when the known Earth covered only a very small part of the world. As to the story being true, the genetic damage as a result of the inbreeding that would have followed would have wiped out all life on Earth due to birth defects that were lethal.

Try again.

Answer 3

I have never read a more convoluted question but I will try to piece it all together.

Yes, dinosaurs "died out" 62.5 million years ago, or thereabouts. By "died out" we mean that the major forms of that animal type could not reproduce faster than they were dying off. That does not mean that every dinosaur died, only that there weren't enough to sustain their numbers high enough. If 99% of a species dies off, we consider it extinct. However, there were dinosaurs that survived and, over time adapted to whatever new environment they now found themselves in. (Think alligators and crocs. Who can say that they are not "dinosaurs" who simply survived?)

As far as the scientific method, no, there is not ONE CONCLUSION. There rarely is in science. Science is a great debate, with different people putting for their hypothesis and the conclusions of their experiments. Then someone else might also test those hypothesis or may test the validity of the experiment altogether. Science, like democracy, is strongest when there is a lively (and sound) debate afoot.

The problem with biblical explanations is that there is no way to evaluate the merit of these myths one against another. If I am a Native American who believes all mankind came from underground beneath a corn patch, how can we disprove or prove that notion? Is it any more or less valid than being shaped from mud next to a river? Or stepping out of the sea? Or being placed here by aliens? Is there any way to test any of it? No.

The second major problem with faith-based arguments is that they defy logic. They deal in the realm of what COULD happen, ignoring altogether whether or not it DID happen. COULD God have shaped men from clay? Yes, he COULD. But he also COULD have set certain biological systems into motion that would raise a man (along with every other plant and animal on the planet) all in the course of that systems functioning.

Seeing as how there is evidence of this mode and NO EVIDENCE of any of these other ideas, I think we should stick with the facts as God has layed them out. Plants and animals have DNA. That DNA tells a story. Unless God is just a tricky bastard trying intentionally to screw with us all, I think we should just trust the DNA. While we're at it, let's just agree to trust in gravity, the Pythagorean Theorem (a=b, b=c, then a=c); that the rings in the Grand Canyon actually are sedimentary levels and not just pretty colors with no meaning; that there are planets and that they revolve around the SUN and not the EARTH, etc.

Answer 4

evolution is a bit tricky because we werent there at the time. 6 ton, walnut brained, quadrupedal lizards severely lacking in the opposable thumb department are not known for their documentation skills. the have in fact produced no biologists of note.
the general theory of walking on two legs is simple habitat change. if you live in trees and the trees stop growing its time to consider alternativs to hanging in branches. t-rex's ancestor walked on all fours, he decided he had a better idea. if he can why cant we? after all there are insects that wheigh more that his brain. (possibly the reason he missed the boat).
And about noahs ark. To flood the world would require large amounts of water (obviously). if all the polar ice melts the water level will rise some 62 meters. mount everest is 8848 meters tall. so we would need a bit more water. rain cant provide it as rain comes from the ocean - a closed system. so it has to come from somewhere else, possibly the marsian water export and planet flooding cooperation. and where did it go afterwards? the rings of saturn?
Also if the entire planet was covered in water terrestial plant life would be effectivly eliminated as fig trees dont survive too well when buried under 10 km of salt water. Fresh water fish would go bye-bye too.
And the dove came back with an olive branch? an olive tree? on top of a mountain, a tall one ergo above the treeline when said mountain was just the day before an ocean... olive trees take a-g-e-s to grow.
well at least the plankton would have a party.
need it be mentioned that it would be pretty obvious to geologists, mineralists and, well, anyone with a shovel, if the entirity of earths landmass had been submerged under 10 000 years ago?

nicely written though

Answer 5

There are a number of good books written with the recent material from research into deep cores drilled into coral, glaciers & lake bottoms. The spinning planet ensured that the result of any disaster or change in the climate, settled fairly evenly over the globe. A mile of glacier core can read off Earths history like we used to with tree rings. Now, amazingly enough, there is evidence of our recent history going back 300,000 years.

It was surpringing to read that the planet, has very likely 'died' several times, resting a few million years in between different occupations, before starting up again. Using the same ingredients as every evolution had to hand, there must have been variations on a similar theme to ours. We are just the most recent & maybe to date - the most devstating. We are not waiting for another complete ice age, or the chance of another galactic collision, this time we are committing suicide.

The first forked upright homo sapiens - that escaped from excessive heat into the sea, would have been female, & all her children daughters. One theory of the aquatic ape was probabably during a few million hot years, when several species took to the sea as well, & all those that went with us, turned out to be fat, hairless & highly intelligent. (Pigs, elephants, whales, dolphins women. etc)

Answer 6

Never have I seen quite so many misconceptions about evolution than here in R&S.

First -- no one has said that we know every detail of the evolutionary path of every species on the planet.

What we DO know is that evolution is a fact -- it is observably present in the world around us. However, we do not know exactly all the details.

To draw a parallel -- we have deep knowledge of stellar physics. However, within the past 20 years, there have been major re-evaluations of how we believe the sun operates. We're still utterly clueless on some of the very fine level details.

Did the fact we're confused or missing a few details change the fact that they're still there, and the sun is still shining?


In short -- why are you expecting omniscience from science? Scientists don't claim to be omniscient. If we were omniscient, there'd be no point what-so-ever in doing science. If there were no conflicts, we'd never get to the fine-level detail.

Answer 7

exciting outlook... The registration of time is a man made factor. regardless of "contemporary" contraptions to grant us some perception into how previous the earth is, the celebrities are , how distant or the age of prehistoric fossils and guy, we could continuously agree on one factor. they're all man made calculations, and therefor issue to being incorrect. Even the theory that the earth is barely 6000 years previous got here from a guy who calculated this from anceint text cloth. Granted the text cloth could be "supported" by utilizing archaeological findings, suposition or perhaps some guess artwork. yet then so are a great number of the organic sciences. How far off could any calculation be, organic or non secular? that's yet another question to be debated. i'm a "borderline". I relatively have studied the organic sciences maximum of my person existence and that i carry a PhD in Comparative faith. that's basically achieveable that some day we are able to discover out--yet i could be greater worried if the caluclations of being waiting to knock an asteroid out of the earths direction have been greater efficient than the calculations of the time tables for dinosaurs or God. Dr. Tommy Skelton

Answer 8

Coyotes do not descend from dinosaurs. Of living animals, only birds do. Coyotes descend, as all living canines do, from bear dogs (amphicyonids.)

As to upright walking, there's less mystery than you think there is. Yes, there's some conjecture about what would make an ape spend more time upright, but that doesn't make that it happened much of a mystery. Chimpanzees and bonobos, for instance, carry traits indicative of the beginnings of this change to bipedalism, as they share our curvature of the spine. For our common ancestor, two changes remained, and it came shortly after the split, the alteration of the pelvic girdle, and the loss of an opposable big toe on the foot (as well as the reduction of the toes.)

What chimps had already begun to develop a limited ability for (upright walking), we took further as our ancestors moved out of the forests and into the woodlands.

Answer 9

interesting take. here's how i see it, both evolution and the bible may be correct. god created matter, matter collects into giant ball of mass, the mass implodes (big bang) creating billions of galaxies, in each, billions of stars with the posibility of each star having a planet around it. it just so happens that our planet has the right conditions to sustain life, life evolves on earth from fish to reptiles to dinosaurs, to mammals and birds to primates to us. An all knowing god could have easily forseen our creation from the beginning right? when the bible says that man was created from the earth, rather than adam physically rising from the ground, its a metaphore suggesting that the protiens that eventually started life we "of the earth" i don't believe that dinosaurs were on noahs ark if that is what you where inplying, man and dinosaurs never coexisted. (proven) however the dates of when dino's where here based on scientific fact does not coeincide with the bible. my take on that is that god's time is not our time. he supposedly created time right? 1 day for him could have been 1 billion years for us. that would explain the descrepancy between the scientists and the Christians as to how old the earth is. many people believe that we are still in god's 7th day of rest. so maybe the 8th day is armageddon. who knows.


like i said, all of this is simply a theory that i have based on all of the evidence i've found. i cannot PROVE evolution because we have no know theories as to how life was first created (all previous ones have been debunked). on the other hand, the only way to prove that god exists is to die and i'd kinda want to know that before i die. I guess i'll just have to keep searching huh?

Answer 10

Scientific theories are not conjecture. There are many possible explanations based on empirical evidence for exactly how different stages of evolution played out. This does not make the fact that organisms evolve any less of a reality.

I'd like to know from which website of misinformation you are copying and pasting.

Answer 11

you are a nut. i would be rich if i had 1 penny for each time i heard gods time is different from our time, bulllllshit. if gods time is different then maybe his 7 days of work was 70 years . this is totally idiotic time is time is time. no matter how you put it the math formulas measurements for cubes etc math and numbers are used as definites in everything we do. gods minute is the same as our minute, this is an excuse to explain the unexplainable in science its the same as say having faith. believing in what is unseen and assumed true. if you knew your history of the world you would know that science of today has a foundation that is against god and any race other than white. (darwin,linnaeus,cartright,j.m.sims and on and on...) therefore the slate should be wiped clean and restarted without the ignorance of colorismand supremacy being the main thing proved.