The UFO stuff is not evidence unless backed up by something that is objectively verifiable. Pictures and carvings are not strong evidence without corroboration that does not rely on mere visual impressions, particularly if we cannot know whether or not the artist intended said pictures or carvings to be seen as historical events as opposed to, say, mythological narrative. Evidence is a lot closer to making something a "fact" than an impression of whether an artwork resembles a creature in a way that happens to fit our beliefs. Otherwise, what about art depicting unicorns, brownies, etc.
There are numerous resources (for example, the books of Dawkins, Gould, Coyne, etc) detailing the evidence for evolution and speciation which is stronger than the lack of evidence for creationism and that bring to light much phenomena creationism cannot answer. Science has shown it so strongly that IMO anyone not seeing it must have simply ignored the evidence or has not seen it. In the very least, this evidence raises questions that cannot simply be ignored. For example, as I asked before, how do the scriptures square "after their own kind" stuff with the clear and observed phenomena of speciation. Speciation is documented and on record, and not knowing about it can only mean the evidence was not seen by those who deny it or is deliberately ignored by them. Macroevolution is evidenced just as strongly.
We do not know that "these people" left us something, as there is no evidence for it that has been corroborated by hard scientific data, as opposed to visual impressions of artwork and unjustified conclusions about mythological documents -- for example, the dating of dinosaur fossils vs. guesses about what the Job poet MIGHT have intended to portray in an ancient, uncorroborated writing. These impressions are not highly possible because they have nothing to corroborate them strongly and numerous examples of these do not make them stronger.
The claims of the Bible themselves are themselves often uncorroborated, and in the case of Job, we cannot know that the poet's work is used by the canonizers in a way the poet intended. Nothing in that poem and frame tale convincingly claims historicity. It is not truth simply because believes assert it. Where is the evidence outside of the book? Mere elaboration of description is not evidence -- unless we are to believe the tales of Gilgamesh and the claims of the Quaran -- much of which contradict the Bible -- also.
I did not claim Christians are being deceived; YOU claimed Satan is deceiving people who make rival claims to Christianity. I only asked if Satan is deceiving people (a thing I certainly don't believe, and for which you provide no evidence) why is he deceiving them but not Christians. On what basis? As for the size of the church, Islam has a billion followers also. So why are they being deceived but not you? On what basis are your claims about God true but people who believed in Zeus, etc were only seeing ghosts or are being deceived?
That only strengthens my question -- on what basis are people who make rival religious claims being decieved by Satan or are seeing ghosts but Christians are not being deceived when they make their claims?
There are similarities with much artwork concerning unicorns, dragons, pagan myths. We don't believe in them because they provide no corroboration. Without evidence outside a piece of artwork, mere similarity -- perceived "clear" similarity -- between paintings and fossils is not evidence of anything more than visual similarity. And again, what do these people say about the paleontological evidence countering their claims. They seem to be ignoring hard scientific data in favor of uncorroborated sense impressions that tell them what they want to hear. Strange things are said to have happened all the time; they cannot all be dismissed, but without corroboration they cannot be taken seriously either -- not as seriously as hard scientific evidence.
That's just assuming too many things -- that the art is intended to depict a striped dinosaur as opposed to some other creature. Without corroboration it is not a real possibility -- which just seems to be a special pleading in favor of a visual impression that tells the guys in the video what they want to be true -- nor is it something to consider.
Whether Job was written to please science is irrelevant. Fossil evidence wasn't "created" to "please" science; it is indicative of what actually happened -- as opposed to the claims about the Job poem, which claims a likely mythological document might have been historical, despite the fact that the document itself appears to make no such claim and the evidence of its intended fictional nature is too strong to be ignored. That there are no living creatures fitting Job's description is actually a good indication, along with the known time of the poem's composition and the fossil record that prehistoric creatures died millions of years before that time, that the poem is not historical nor meant to be. In any event, it is likely, as some of the latest scholarship says, that the creatures are fictionalized contemporaneous animals, not prehistoric creatures.
It's behavior you see in a lot of predators, not just what you'd "expect" to see with predatory dinosaurs. Without fossil corroboration, that is not evidence at all. And the similarity of the creature "in our understanding" without corroboration does not change this. Hard fossil data vs. "They really look alike,"
I'll look at it. Equally I would encourage you to look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA debate with Dawkins, one of those authors whose books provide numerous evidence, actual evidence.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2rmkVDmNs4&feature=player_detailpage#t=8s
), dinosaurs eventually perished and were entombed in strata overtop the fish. And the faster mammals were able to make it to the highest ground before the waters came - and so, were fossilized last.
