Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   dinosaur and human co-existence
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 31 of 271 (559344)
05-08-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
05-07-2010 9:22 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
Of course, Buz, you know from the previous discussion that your idea is nonsense, The most important fact being that snakes existed alongside dinosaurs, as proven by the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2010 9:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 6:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 271 (559345)
05-08-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
05-08-2010 5:41 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
Huntard writes:
Wow, that's some nice conjecture. You know what would make it really neat? Some friggin' evidence instead of wild made up ridiculous fairytales.
Seriously, this is the best you can come up with? Made up stuff? Pure friggin' magic? I can only assume you think us all complete retards, if you think this drivel will convince anyone with half a brain.... Sheesh!
This is simply another blind asserted Bibliophobic example of why you people wouldn't admit evidence to anything; anything, I say smacking of evidence of an intelligence existing in the Universe higher than what is observed in planet earth's human creatures. Relative to this, you elitist science minded members think on the level of Model Ford T technology.
1) Are you denying the evidence of similar appearance of Euparkeria to gator?
2) I assume that you're also denying my evidence that dinosaurs, as is the case with lizzards, allegators, turtles, etc are reptiles.
Online dictionary writes:
1. Any of various extinct, often gigantic, carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the orders Saurischia and Ornithischia that were chiefly terrestrial and existed during the Mesozoic Era.
(Embolding mine for emphasis)
3) Which evidence is more observable with the naked eye, the alleged BB singularity event or the Buzsaw dino evidence? Hmm, Huntard and friends?
Edited by Buzsaw, : word change
Edited by Buzsaw, : Add Dictionary quote

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 05-08-2010 5:41 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by hooah212002, posted 05-08-2010 7:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 271 (559347)
05-08-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
05-07-2010 10:15 PM


Re: Where are the bones?
DrAdequate writes:
Dinosaur does not literally mean "lizard", it literally means "dinosaur"
when the British paleontologist Richard Owen discovered the first dinosaur bones, he called them Dinosauria. The word is derived from the two Greek words deinos and sauros, meaning terrible lizard
So the fact that we still use the word 'dinosaur' to describe them means that 'terrible lizard' is infact their literal name. If that has changed, why not change the name from dinosaur to what they are now known as to save us simpletons from confusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 10:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2010 7:47 PM Peg has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 271 (559348)
05-08-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
05-08-2010 6:22 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
PaulK writes:
Of course, Buz, you know from the previous discussion that your idea is nonsense, The most important fact being that snakes existed alongside dinosaurs, as proven by the fossil record.
Thanks, Paul; thanks much (:cool for citing this, further evidence of the veracity of the Genesis record and the Buzsaw Hypothesis. My position right here on this thread, as well as in archived threads has always been that they co-existed for many centuries, in that the offspring egg hatched short legged reptiles became the altered members of the reptillians.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2010 6:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2010 3:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 35 of 271 (559349)
05-08-2010 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 6:38 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
When was the Mesozoic Era, Buz?

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 6:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 7:18 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 271 (559351)
05-08-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by hooah212002
05-08-2010 7:01 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
hooah writes:
When was the Mesozoic Era, Buz?
The problems with Dating methology is for another topic, Hooah. In the mean time, how about one thing at a time. How about you addressing my challenges to Huntard. I'll add another visible evidence of my assertions:
Apatosaurus, the Sinclair Oil trade mark, has the head and long tail features of snake, quite unlike reptile alligator and his bumpy torsal resembling his look alike dino, previously cited.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by hooah212002, posted 05-08-2010 7:01 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by hooah212002, posted 05-08-2010 7:22 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 56 by Meddle, posted 05-09-2010 10:11 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 37 of 271 (559353)
05-08-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 7:18 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
No, Buz. You used a definition of dinosaur that also used the term Mesozoic era, saying that is the period in time in which dinosaurs lived. If you don't believe that, you don't get to use that definition. You can't pick and choose which parts of a definition you like the same as you do your bible.
Apatosaurus, the Sinclair Oil trade mark, has the head and long tail features of snake, quite unlike reptile alligator and his bumpy torsal resembling his look alike dino, previously cited.
Have you studied the physiology of this animal? Or are you just saying "well golly gee, it looks like something, so it must be related"?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 7:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 10:04 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 271 (559356)
05-08-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
05-08-2010 6:56 PM


Re: Where are the bones?
when the British paleontologist Richard Owen discovered the first dinosaur bones, he called them Dinosauria. The word is derived from the two Greek words deinos and sauros, meaning terrible lizard
So far, you are right.
So the fact that we still use the word 'dinosaur' to describe them means that 'terrible lizard' is infact their literal name.
No, it means that their literal name is dinosaur. No scientist in the world would be stupid enough to call them lizards.
If that has changed, why not change the name from dinosaur to what they are now known as to save us simpletons from confusion?
Dinosaurs are now known as dinosaurs. They are not known as lizards. These are two completely different words.
Even a simpleton would not be confused into thinking that because dinosaurs are always called dinosaurs and never called lizards, they must be lizards. The only person who would even pretend to be stupid enough to be confused by this would be a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 6:56 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 39 of 271 (559361)
05-08-2010 9:01 PM


Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi, Everybody.
There's been some misinformation going around on this thread which has been a partial cause for some really inane sub-discussions, so I thought I'd step in to provide some clarification.
-----
Dinosaurs vs Reptiles
Dinosaurs are reptiles. The word "reptile" traditionally referred to every kind of four-legged animal except mammals and birds. So, it included lizards, snakes, turtles, frogs, salamanders, crocodilians and dinosaurs. It actually turns out to be an evolutionarily meaningless term, so science generally avoids using it as a technical term.
Science more often will use the evolutionarily meaningful term amniote. The word "amniote" refers to a vertebrate that lays eggs with an amnion, which is a membrane that protects the egg from drying out. This includes all vertebrates except fish and amphibians. So, birds, mammals, crocodilians, lizards, snakes and dinosaurs are all amniotes. Note that mammals no longer lay eggs, but still have an amnion surrounding the embryo as it develops.
There are three kinds of amniotes: anapsids, synapsids and diapsids.
Anapsids are probably extinct, although there are still some scientists who think turtles are anapsids.
Synapsids include mammals and various groups that are truly intermediary between mammals and reptiles, such as pelycosaurs, gorgonopsids and cynodonts.
Diapsids include lizards, snakes, alligators, dinosaurs, and birds (among others). Most scientists also think turtles belong here.
Within the diapsids, there are two main groups: lepidosaurs and archosaurs. The lepidosaurs (this word means "scaly reptiles") include lizards, snakes, tuataras and amphisbaenians. The archosaurs (this word means ruling reptiles) include dinosaurs, crocodilians, birds, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs and some others. I don't actually know where turtles fit in here: I think they are considered to be a third group, neither lepidosaurs or archosaurs.
ASIDE: Peg, please note that the word sauros---which literally translates to lizard---is taken to mean reptile, not lizard, even though this is not the classical usage of the word. Scientific Latin/Greek is not really Latin/Greek, but is a constructed system of naming things that is derived from Latin and Greek and used as a convenient way to invent new systematic words. There is a healthy dose of artistic license taken in coining scienfitic terms, and there are conventions that protect scientific terminology to keep it stable through the years and facilitate communication, even when new data reveals semantic issues. So always take the literal meanings of scientific Latin/Greek terms with a grain of salt.
You’ll note that crocodilians are considered to be more closely related to dinosaurs than they are to lizards or snakes. Euparkeria looks a lot like a crocodilian because both crocodilians and dinosaurs evolved from an organism that was very similar to Euparkeria. In fact, for the purpose of this discussion, we can go ahead pretend that Euparkeria was the ancestor of both crocodilians and dinosaurs, because, even if it isn’t a direct ancestor, it is very close to their common ancestor.
However, it should be noted that Euparkeria is quite different from lizards or snakes. Its ankle joints are archosaur-like, and it seems to have had upright or semi-upright limbs, as Dr Adequate illustrated earlier.
ASIDE: Buzsaw, it is thus ridiculous to argue that lizards are degenerate dinosaurs (and I’m rather certain that torsal is not a word: perhaps you meant dorsum?). Furthermore, in arguing that reptiles and dinosaurs are similar animals, you are not presenting anything that’s a problem for evolution. Evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists are well aware of the similarities, and have, in fact, organized these animals into groups based on these similarites, the results of which look like the nested hierarchy we expect from our Theory of Evolution. So, from our perspective, ToE is more realistic than Genesis.
-----
The Word Reptile
Different people consider the word reptile to properly refer to a different grouping of animals. Most people think it only refers to scaly, cold-blooded diapsids (lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodilians and dinosaurs). Some, however, like to use it to refer to all diapsids, such that it also includes birds. I even know some who think it should only refer to lepidosaurs, and exclude turtles and crocodilians. Personally, I simply prefer to avoid the word altogether.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 9:58 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 40 of 271 (559368)
05-08-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 5:30 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
First off, this aspect of the debate is relevant to topic in that the more evidence of similarities between dinos and contemporary reptiles, the more scientific the hypothesis that man and dinos lived contemporaneously becomes.
Uh ... no. Also, the resemblance between paper and papyrus does not imply that I am contemporary with the building of the pyramids.
It would not have been sudden. It would have applied to the offspring of the cursed species.
So, a gradual change in the genes over a number of generations converting one species into a very different one.
This is a radical new idea. I think you should call it "evolution".
Since man lived hundreds of years, likely many of the parent dinos lived up until the time of the flood, their altered gene offspring modern reptiles being the ones which were loaded on Noah's ark. Thus, no unfossilized bones of dinos remaing and the likelihood of a false radiometric reading for age.
Your unsupported fantasies do not offer genuine support for your other unsupported fantasies.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 5:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 271 (559369)
05-08-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Blue Jay
05-08-2010 9:01 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Bluejay writes:
There's been some misinformation going around on this thread which has been a partial cause for some really inane sub-discussions, so I thought I'd step in to provide some clarification.
But Bluejay, your two word terms, misinformation and clarification are relative to your secularistic con-ID premise from which you extrapolate from observed evidence. I have demonstrated that your premise is no more falsifiable than the ID premise as per the Genesis record.
One of the problems with your premise as to what happened to the dinos is that all (I say all) of the dinosaur species disappeard exclusively of the other reptiles which co-existed with the dinos.
The Buzsaw Hypothesis solves/eliminates that problem with a logical explanation evidencing similarities of dinos and respective conventional reptiles.
Bluejay writes:
You’ll note that crocodilians are considered to be more closely related to dinosaurs than they are to lizards or snakes. Euparkeria looks a lot like a crocodilian because both crocodilians and dinosaurs evolved from an organism that was very similar to Euparkeria. In fact, for the purpose of this discussion, we can go ahead pretend that Euparkeria was the ancestor of both crocodilians and dinosaurs, because, even if it isn’t a direct ancestor, it is very close to their common ancestor.
However, it should be noted that Euparkeria is quite different from lizards or snakes. Its ankle joints are archosaur-like, and it seems to have had upright or semi-upright limbs, as Dr Adequate illustrated earlier.
I said they were different, citing evidence that the Sinclair dino more resembled the snake model than Euparkeria which modeled the alligator. I alluded to the fact that other physiological adaptations were likely necessary due to the different environs, etc.
Bluejay writes:
Buzsaw, it is thus ridiculous to argue that lizards are degenerate dinosaurs (and I’m rather certain that torsal is not a word: perhaps you meant dorsum?).
That is correct, Bluejay. Thanks.
Bluejay writes:
Furthermore, in arguing that reptiles and dinosaurs are similar animals, you are not presenting anything that’s a problem for evolution. Evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists are well aware of the similarities, and have, in fact, organized these animals into groups based on these similarites, the results of which look like the nested hierarchy we expect from our Theory of Evolution. So, from our perspective, ToE is more realistic than Genesis.
Heh. Yah, like I said, from your perspective. But I'm not arguing your perspective. I'm arguing mine which appears to make more sense than yours. As I said, mine solves the puzzle as to why one complete species died of exclusive of the other reptillians.
Again, Bluejay, neither you or any other evolutionist is ever going to acknowledge evidence of a higher intelligence if you were wading knee deep in it. To acknowledge just one eensy little bit of something supernatural would would utterly demolish your whole evolutionist premise. It would be the 9/11 demolition of your twin towers of the BB and evolution.
Bluejay writes:
The Word Reptile
Different people consider the word reptile to properly refer to a different grouping of animals. Most people think it only refers to scaly, cold-blooded diapsids (lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodilians and dinosaurs). Some, however, like to use it to refer to all diapsids, such that it also includes birds. I even know some who think it should only refer to lepidosaurs, and exclude turtles and crocodilians. Personally, I simply prefer to avoid the word altogether.
Obviously it would be to your advantage to avoid the word, reptile but lol on that. Your problem is that it supports the ID argument and tends to refute that of the evolutionist. The reason you and yours have so much problem with defining the word term is that no matter how you cut it, it's problematic to your premise.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 05-08-2010 9:01 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 05-08-2010 10:30 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 45 by bluescat48, posted 05-08-2010 11:15 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2010 3:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 74 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-09-2010 9:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 271 (559371)
05-08-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by hooah212002
05-08-2010 7:22 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
hooah writes:
You used a definition of dinosaur that also used the term Mesozoic era, saying that is the period in time in which dinosaurs lived. If you don't believe that, you don't get to use that definition. You can't pick and choose which parts of a definition you like the same as you do your bible.
Hooah, all I cited the conventional definition for was to demonstrate that from the conventional premise both dinos and modern types were considered reptiles. My purpose was to dispell the notion of some that dinos were not considered reptiles. That the conventional mindset depicts Mesozoic has no relevance to my usage of the online definition.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by hooah212002, posted 05-08-2010 7:22 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by hooah212002, posted 05-08-2010 10:36 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 43 of 271 (559374)
05-08-2010 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 9:58 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi, Buzsaw.
Buzsaw writes:
But Bluejay, your two word terms, misinformation and clarification are relative to your secularistic con-ID premise from which you extrapolate from observed evidence. I have demonstrated that your premise is no more falsifiable than the ID premise as per the Genesis record.
I’m confused as to why you’re the one complaining about this when it’s the evolutionists on this thread that I am accusing of spreading misinformation. My message was a correction of some things said by evolutionists that resulted in a really weird and confusing discussion about the differences between reptiles and dinosaurs.
-----
Buzsaw writes:
One of the problems with your premise as to what happened to the dinos is that all (I say all) of the dinosaur species disappeard exclusively of the other reptiles which co-existed with the dinos.
Can you explain for me what you mean by this? I am currently under the impression that (1) dinosaurs can go extinct without causing my worldview any problems and (2) the coexistence of dinosaurs with the types of animals that survived the dinosaur extinction is strong evidence that these animals are not the same as dinosaurs.
-----
Buzsaw writes:
Again, Bluejay, neither you or any other evolutionist is ever going to acknowledge evidence of a higher intelligence if you were wading knee deep in it.
It seems like I have to remind you in every thread that I’m a Mormon. I would be quite happy to acknowledge evidence for God’s existence if it could be shown to be genuine.
Can you try to remember this for next time, please?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 9:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 12:04 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 44 of 271 (559375)
05-08-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 10:04 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
Good. So you are saying that dinosaurs are reptiles of some sort that existed in the mesozoic era. I just want to be certain so I can follow this thread properly.
I'm sorry if you, or any others, feel this is off topic, but it is the only objective evidence buz has cited for his position. Since it quite clearly contradicts with his known YEC tendencies, you can certainly see my gripe (I hope).

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 10:04 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 45 of 271 (559380)
05-08-2010 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 9:58 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Again, Bluejay, neither you or any other evolutionist is ever going to acknowledge evidence of a higher intelligence if you were wading knee deep in it. To acknowledge just one eensy little bit of something supernatural would would utterly demolish your whole evolutionist premise. It would be the 9/11 demolition of your twin towers of the BB and evolution.
If I was wading "knee deep in in evidence of a higher intelligence," then there would be evidence and thus I could accept that, but since there is no such "wading evidence" I stand pat. The problem with the creationist is, rather than show evidence that their ideas are correct, they continually simply try to debunk evolution, the big bang etc. Debunking science doesn't prove creation. It would simply mean that there was some other source, you would still have to show evidence to show that creation was that other source.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 9:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 12:08 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024