You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).
Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive.
No, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on death at all. It depends on some species passing on differing genes to their progeny. That can happen for a variety of reasons, including just pure random chance. (which, note, means more than just mathematical randomness, by-the-way, it means just that we cannot predict and maybe do not understand the mechanism -- aka "God did it" is plausible, just not something scientists will say because it cannot be proven, they would head that under "don't know or "random"). The process happens very slowly when there is no change, but if a population is isolated, say on an island, by a landslide or other event, it can happen whilst the main population is quite thriving.
Further, just because some individuals are doing better and passing on new genes, it is not given that the old examples will die off necessarily. They could survive just by chance, just because they happened to be on the edge of the population, somehow wound up surving despite the harsh competition. Think of blacksmiths and horse and buggy purveyors. Once each were extremely critical to civilization. Now, they are few and far between. They were absolutely out-competed, BUT... did they completely disappear? No! Some serve groups like the Amish that want the old technology, some have become artists. They are far fewer, but not utterly gone. In fact, numbers have grown again slightly in recent times. That is very similar to what happens in evolution. It is why we have Ceolocanths, Nautilus, sharks, etc... even though most of their ancient, close relatives have long since gone.
Here is another way to look at it.
In our culture, a woman takes her husband's name. If she has no brothers, that might mean the end of the name, but if she has brothers, it will continue. Even if all the males having a particular name die, there is no gaurantee that it will end the name. A sister might have a child on her own, or may marry someone who takes her name, either because that is the cultural norm there or, maybe because a particular name is so common that people are being encouraged to take another. Each of these situations is analogous to somethign that happens with mutations and evolution.
In other words, it is a “straw man” argument… an argument that is false, but presented as if it were a real and true argument to give the appearance of considering the opposition.
Viceroy63 wrote: That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.
Again, no. That is sort of the “kindergarten” version, something said loosely in general context because they don’t want to take the time to go into full details. The details are understood by most educated adults. Specifically, its probable a LOT of things contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. No one seriously thinks, at least today, that all dinosaurs were instantly killed off at exactly 65 million years ago. However, around then we see a huge change in the fossil compositions. I won’t get into the whole bit because you have a tendency to ignore anything not feeding into your ideas, but the truth is that even the “quickest” scenarios have dinosaurs persisting for a long while after that. We don’t know exactly because just not finding dinosaur fossils doesn’t mean they were truly gone, it just means that none died in a way that lead to fossil preservation. However, what we do see is that there were lots and lots of dinosaurs and then none or almost none. The change happened around 65 million years ago. There is evidence of at least one major geologic cataclysm at about that time, so the idea that the 2 things.. the demise of the dinosaurs and the meteor hitting is a reasonable idea. However, it wasn’t as if it hit them all on the head. The most prominent scenario I have read recently is that this meteor and probably volcanic activity, too lead to a “dramatic” change in climate. Note that geologically, “dramatic” could mean hundreds of years, even millennia. Anyway, all that is theory and the exact reason the dinosaurs died is debated. When they died off is ALSO debated, though your creationist friends are unlikely to point that out. It is very possible that dinosaurs persisted long after. Its slightly possible they persisted into the time of humans (not very likely, but there is a slight chance).
Whether dinosaurs died or not, though is actually irrelevant. We have entirely different species today. The Bible does not talk of dinosaurs living and then being replaced by modern species. It talks of just modern species. Whatever happened with the dinosaurs predates the known times in the Bible. Of course, God knew how he created the Earth, but let me ask you. If God were to say to the people who would become Jews that these species around came from other creatures, how, exactly would they understand that? And, what would be the purpose of that understanding? In a time when many people believed the Earth to be flat (not all, but some ancient Jews did believe that) because of what they saw, when they had an utterly different understanding of time than we, the story we read is what they could have understood.
Viceroy63 wrote: Since recent archeological evidence suggest that Dinosaurs are even today still among us in remote parts of the world, they why are they not evolved? Why are they described the same way even after millions of years of evolution?
IF they exist, then it would be because they were isolated, similar to how the Coelacanth survived. The other possibility is how we still have horseshoe crabs.. that they just had a “successful” body type. Having a “successful” body type does not preclude change in progeny, but it just makes it less likely.
Viceroy63 wrote: Why is it that there is no Dinosaur bones where we Find the Woolly Mammoth?
Because woolly Mammoths lived long after the time of dinosaurs. Also, the climate was very different… ergo the woolly bit. In fact, woolly mammoths very much did live with humans.
Viceroy63 wrote: Could it be possible that theory is based on a misrepresentation of the Facts?
Sure, but you have to show that this is the case. So far, you have not done that.
Viceroy63 wrote: The only place where you find the geological sedimentary column, as shown in text books, is only in the text books.
Where did you get that idea? Actually, you can see geologic layers in many road cuts in CA and other mountainous areas. When we probe the depths of the ocean and lack sediments, we see various layers. In fact, go anywhere and take a log core sample and you will see definite layers. Oh, almost forgot.. the canyons. They give a nice, clear, vegetation-free look. Geologists love deserts because they can see the geology without having a bunch of vegetation obscuring it.
Viceroy63 wrote: When geologist look at the sedimentary column they only find segments of it at a time. This geologist freely admit. They put the column together to fit their ideas of the theory and not to fit any facts.
OH.. OK, started to answer before I had read down.
No, actually geologists are very cautious about suggesting that layers not connected are formed together. When we show kids how this works, we can use blankets and layer cakes. Try it! Take a layer of chocolate, a layer of frosting or another type of cake.. repeat in any order you wish. Make 3 (or break into 3 good sized sections). First, tear the cake in the middle. This is similar to an earth quake. Take your hand and yank out some of the middle of another, leaving just the bottom layer. That is what a river does over a very, very long period of time (sometimes wind does this also, but rivers tend to be quicker). Take the last and fold it, then twist. Those are all simple examples, without huge complications like heat that changes the rock, multiple twists and fracturing, etc.
Anyway, if you look at the layers of earth/rock in a particular area, that is what you will see. Is that, alone, proof? No. To get into the real proof, though requires chemistry and some other techniques I don’t have time to explain… and that, to be honest, likely require a lot of education you are unlikely to have. The bottom line is that Some formations are pretty clear and obvious. Even young earth creationists don’t really deny that the layers on each side of the Grand Canyon match, for example. They just try to claim they were all made at the same time. In many other cases, the story is much more complicated and not entirely understood. There is a book about the Marble Mountains in CA called “The Klamath Knot”. It is called that because there were so many different things happening to that landform that untangling it is like untangling a knot. But, just like a knot of string, you start with one, known point and work your way until you have undone all the tangles. In that case, I believe there are still some sort of mysteries. That is, no… saying “oh , well, God just did it” doesn’t work, but did this piece metamorphise with this other piece, etc, etc.. the exact details are not necessarily fully known, (and actually, they might be by now.. the book is decades old).
Viceroy63 wrote: As I explained in an earlier comment, the reason why all the bones are found in their sections is because of the way that the sediments settle after a violent world wide flood.
You have “explained” that, but the facts don’t match your explanation. Floods leave specific kinds of traces. In fact, floods are one of the easiest things to decipher, right along with volcanic eruptions. They leave definite traces and give a pretty firm universal dating mechanism, because each flood will have a very different sediment composition. There were cases of fossils shifted by floods. I would have to read the exact report you have read to know where they erred, but many times young earthers try to claim that old bones uncovered and relocated were aged the same as other, fresh bones. However, wear patterns and other evidence shows that is not the case.
Viceroy63 wrote: Those human skeletons (10 persons) were in fact held down by some kind of a land slide when the Flood occurred. Everything else just settled at it's only pace. That is why you don't find any Shoe crabs with the Dinosaurs or with the Woolly Mammoth at the top of the Column yet they are also still alive today.
I have no idea what article you think proves this, but it mixes up a good deal false information with some truths.
Viceroy63 wrote: If evolution were a fact instead of a theory then you would not only expect to see dinosaur bones at the level where you find mammals but also more evolved and adapted dinosaurs right there alongside of the other mammals as well. Along with alligators and crocodiles and all of those creatures which we see at the bottom of the column and are still alive today. But we do not see them, Why?
You do see very primitive mammals alive with dinosaurs. I have no idea what you mean by we would see “more evolved and adapted dinosaurs”. We do see a wide range of different dinosaurs, and the emergence of a few mammal predecessors.
I am not versed in Alligator phylogeny or fossils, so I don’t know when they emerged. Not sure why you think this is a critical point, though.
Viceroy63 wrote: Thus the existence of any kind of a dinosaur today lays to rest the theory of evolution simply on the merit that we don't see it happening in the geological or archeological records. We should have found the evidence of intermediate species by now and not archeological proof that dinosaurs and mankind live alongside of each other and unchanged for over 65 million years. That just doesn't make sense for a theory that can't answer that question. I hope this makes it clear. And this is just one point of logical reasoning for why Evolution simply has never happened.
Almost nothing in this last paragraph is correct.
Let me explain something to you. If you want to refure the theory of evolution, you truly need to begin with actually understanding the theory of evolution, not some creationist young earth fiction being taught by evolution opponents.