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
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 76 of 271 (559488)
05-09-2010 11:24 PM


More About Dino
This guy
is a stylized rendering of Apatosaurus, the critter some of grew up calling Brontosaurus. (This, by the way, was the word that actually translates as "thunder lizard", sorry for my earlier misstatement.)
I'm commenting about him because I want to point out that he is absolutely nothing like a snake. He is one of the best non-therapod examples of exactly why dinosaurs are not really even much like what we would consider a reptile.
Apatosaurus - Wikipedia
Its tidal volume (the amount of air moved in or out during a single breath) has been calculated based on the following respiratory systems:
* 904 liters if avian
* 225 liters if mammalian
* 19 liters if reptilian.
On this basis, its respiratory system could not have been reptilian, as its tidal volume would not have been able to replace its dead-space volume. Likewise, the mammalian system would only provide a fraction of new air on each breath. Therefore, it must have had either a system unknown in the modern world or one like birds, i.e. multiple air sacs and a flow-through lung. Furthermore, an avian system would only need a lung volume of about 600 liters compared to a mammalian requirement of 2,950 liters, which would exceed the available space.
These guys may have been cold-blooded; things like T Rex and Raptors almost certainly were not. Once again, not reptiles, not uncursed snakes, not dragons; proto-birds ...

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 77 of 271 (559503)
05-10-2010 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi Buzsaw
It seems clear to me, indeed, that the word serpent is a mistranslation of surfpet, or surf pet. That implicates seals and sea lions. Before the fall Adam and Eve would frolic for hours with their favorite pinnipeds.
Phocidae of that time, walked on their hind legs and wore hats of various colors. That they do not do so today is evidence of their disgrace in the eyes of God who removed their ears to make the balancing of hats difficult to maintain while belly walking. This must be true, Buz, because on one at the Woods Hole Oceanic Research Institute has to date written a single word in any peer review journal refuting this powerful evidence.
Odobenidae complimented their stylish mustaches with tobacco pipes and canes. Being forced to live in the water has made the use of either ridiculous. Yet, to this day walrus still sport the mustache in defiance of the Lord Jesus Christ currently of Belchertown, Massachusetts.
Otariidae are also called "walking seals" implicating seals that walk; whereas, Penni is latin for "wing" indicating that they were at one time Winged Angels of the Eucharist that tried to get the Apostles to accept cannibalism with the eating of the Lord Jesus Christ currently of Belchertown, Massachusetts. It is well know that serial cannibal Jeffery Dohmer started out as a child plying his teacher with apples, before moving on to eating road kill in Northampton, Massachusetts.
Furthermore, it is the premise, perse, of my thesis that if I can type it it is true. I evidentually support this objectively by the deafening silence coming from the Woods Hole goon squads.
Additionally also, where you say "The evidence must be of the serpent kind.", it is made plain that you do not understand the evolutionallary pathway of the the snake from the brontosaurus. A genetic mutation caused a caudal structure to extend from the right side of its thorax, while a wholly unrelated mutation caused a caputal structure to extend from the left side of its thorax, while yet a third wholly unrelated mutation caused a general atropy of the brontosaurs out of the middle. This makes wholly untenable your entire thesis of Buzsaw Conjecture.
And finally, you have to stop using the word "must" when expounding your hypothalizations. As soon as you introduce magic; all bets are off.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 78 of 271 (559506)
05-10-2010 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:44 PM


Re: Where are the bones?
the point is, that IS what the word means....its a desciptive word.
Yes, the word "dinosaurs" describes dinosaurs.
If dinosaurs dont mean that, then they should change the name to what they believe it means.
They believe that dinosaurs means dinosaurs.
Im really just nitpicking here btw lol
Well, troll, you were wrong.
Could you try to post something on-topic that you don't know to be stupid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:44 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 79 of 271 (559507)
05-10-2010 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
The curse is part of the premise which is in the Genesis record. That record states that at some point the long legged reptile type would cease to exist ...
Chapter and verse, please?
Oh, wait, you made that up, didn't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 80 of 271 (559508)
05-10-2010 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:44 PM


Re: Where are the bones?
the point is, that IS what the word means....its a desciptive word.
If dinosaurs dont mean that, then they should change the name to what they believe it means.
There are many descriptive words which do not mean what they describe.
Orangutan = man of the woods
Fliedermaus = bat (literally flying mouse)
is a Tasmanian devil a demon from Tasmania or a marsupial?
none of these descriptive words means what it describes.

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 72 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:44 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2010 3:15 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 81 of 271 (559514)
05-10-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
05-09-2010 6:32 PM


Social and Religious Issues
You are in the Social and Religious Issues ⇒ Education and Creation/Evolution forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2010 6:32 PM Coyote has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 82 of 271 (559516)
05-10-2010 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:
The curse is part of the premise which is in the Genesis record. That record states that at some point the long legged reptile type would cease to exist and the descendents of it would be belly crawling (implicating short legged) types of reptiles.
In fact the curse is placed on a single individual reptile and the only implication is that it has legs long enough that it should not be considered belly crawling. Thus it a) sounds like one of Kipling's "Just-So" stories and b) could easily refer to a lizard - and lizards are more closely related to snakes than either is to dinosaurs. Thus the text neither justifies the assumption that the story represents literal truth nor does it imply that the "type" would cease to exist (since only one individual is definitely affected the type might continue to exist).
Also, according to the story that this is part of the animals were only created after humans, and thus the story implies that we should NOT find fossil evidence supporting the story at all. The vast majority of fossil "serpents" we find should either be of lines unaffected by the curse at all or of cursed serpents.
Even if we take a dubious reading of the story and assume that animals existed long before humans the "curse" is the result of an interaction with humans. And since the evidence indicates that appearance of snakes and the later mass extinction which removed the dinosaurs both occurred tens of millions of years before there were any humans the evidence clearly indicates that the story is false. Indeed the only way to say that the evidence is not against it is to assume that the "serpent" was not a dinosaur at all.
quote:
The evidence cited by me depicts two examples of extinct long legged type reptiles, i.e. the prototypes and the respective belly crawling reptile types that did not become extinct; that survived and thrived abundantly and which are observable today. The Buzsaw premise and thesis is based on the fact that indeed evidence of this has been observed as the premise predicted.
To divide extinct "reptiles" into a mere two types seems absurd. Surely the pterodactyls and marine reptiles should be considered separately, for a start. Especially as the story gives no reason at all for assuming that a very, very broad class should be affected. This argument relies on taking both a superficial view of the evidence and on assuming things that the story does not say.
quote:
The above lends evidentual support to the prediction in the Genesis record and renders a reasonable explanation for the disappearance of the dinosaur type reptiles.
Of course neither claim is true. It doesn't take a deep look at the evidence to find serious problems. The fact that snakes appear more than 20 million years before the dinosaurs died out is a major problem, especially as that is even longer before humans appeared. The fact that we find fossils where adult snakes are eating hatchling dinosaurs is another. The fact that snakes are NOT closely related to dinosaurs is a third. The fact that dinosaurs died in a mass extinction affecting the great majority of species on earth - which the Buzsaw hypothesis does not explain at all - is a fifth.
quote:
This is just another example of why it becomes so difficult for bonafide Biblical creationists to debate anything in the science fora here at EvC. I don't know what the solution is. I have tried to keep it as scientific as possible, but as you know, anything implying ID directly or indirectly implies an intelligent creator/manager.
Yes, the fact that your opponents - unlike you - take a serious look at the evidence rather than shouting "Buzsaw made it up ! it must be true !" is a major problem for anyone arguing as you do. If you are serious then you might actually take the time to take a decent look at the evidence and rationally examine it instead of jumping to whatever conclusion you happen to like. Your problems are of your own making.
quote:
If the data which I've cited, (all I have at this time) is considered moot as evidence by you and perhaps others on your staff, just say the word and I'll be done with this topic.
I would not consider anything so superficial to be meaningful as evidence. Taking a deeper look could easily show problems - and in fact even a shallow look at the evidence is enough to show serious problems that simply are not adequately addressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 9:30 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 83 of 271 (559520)
05-10-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluescat48
05-10-2010 1:29 AM


Re: Where are the bones?
There are many descriptive words which do not mean what they describe.
Orangutan = man of the woods
Fliedermaus = bat (literally flying mouse)
is a Tasmanian devil a demon from Tasmania or a marsupial?
none of these descriptive words means what it describes.
A thing to think about. So far as I know, every species with the word "flying" in its colloquial name is incapable of flight. They're all gliders. Flying squirrels, flying fish, flying frogs ... the one thing that they all have in common is that they can't fly.
---
ETA: But flying foxes are an exception. They can fly but are not foxes.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2010 1:29 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 84 of 271 (559528)
05-10-2010 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi Buzsaw,
For the sake of discussion let us assume that somewhere in Genesis it "states that at some point the long legged reptile type would cease to exist and the descendents of it would be belly crawling (implicating short legged) types of reptiles." Let us further assume for the sake of discussion that this is what the fossil record says actually happened. In other words, for the sake of discussion we'll assume that the Bible says this happened and that the evidence from the real world also says it happened and so backs up and validates the Biblical account.
How are you going to connect this event to "the curse" for which there is no real world evidence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 8:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 271 (559552)
05-10-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
05-10-2010 5:10 AM


Re: Evidence Of Curse
Percy writes:
How are you going to connect this event to "the curse" for which there is no real world evidence?
World evidence? I assumed that the fossils were the world evidence of my premise which is the Genesis declaration of the cause and effect of the curse, the cause being that a long legged reptile was empowered to deceive mankind, cursing the reptile types. I use the term, reptile here since serpent was the only word for reptile types in the ancient language applied.
This, as with so many evolution/creation debates gets into the realm of whether Satan, Jehovah, angels and other aspects of invisible intelligence exist and operate in and out of the human realm. This is why world evidence in such debates as this involves that old debate as to whether there is indeed a higher form of intelligence operative on planet earth and the cosmos than that of humans.
This is why it becomes difficult to debate anything in the science fora relative to EvC (evolution vs creationism) and keep it secular. Again, I don't know what the solution to that is.
I've tried to answer your question here. I'm not understanding why the evidence cited is not world evidence, so hopefully you will elaborate a bit on what you're calling for here.
(ABE: Since the topic is whether dinos and humans co-existed, likely the Genesis record would be the most likely source for a premise to the co-existance of the these. It also, of course, implicates the question of dating methodology and that implicates whether the flood happened, though those are different topics. For that reason, I suggest that perhaps the topic should be in a forum which accomodates discussion of this type. )
Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in context and message title update.

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 84 by Percy, posted 05-10-2010 5:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-10-2010 11:06 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 05-10-2010 11:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 271 (559557)
05-10-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by PaulK
05-10-2010 2:51 AM


Re: Applicaton Of Change
PaulK writes:
In fact the curse is placed on a single individual reptile and the only implication is that it has legs long enough that it should not be considered belly crawling.
1) The context clearly implicates curses on all descendents of the three which were cursed in what is known as the fall or the original sin. First, the serpent/reptile was cursed to become a belly crawler. We observe that the surviving reptiles are relative belly crawlers having either short legs or no legs. 2ndly, the woman was cursed to have painful births (abe: and to be subserviant to her husband. Thus, the observed phenomena in nearly all cultures of all ages of the leadership role of the man. My purpose in citing this is not to go off topic but to show that, as with the reptile, the application of the curse was not singular) We observe that this applies to all womem. 3rdly, the man was cursed to making his living by the sweat of his brow. As an aside the ground was cursed to bring forth thorns and briers, etc. So again, the clear implication that the curse was not exclusive singularly.
2) Snakes are reptiles which have no legs whatsoever. Thus it can be concluded that before the curse, snake prototypes had legs, according to the Genesis record which is my premise. We know that no snakes have legs, thus the curse did not apply singularly.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Add statement by edit

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 82 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2010 2:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2010 10:39 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 87 of 271 (559564)
05-10-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
05-10-2010 9:30 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:
1) The context clearly implicates curses on all descendents of the three which were cursed in what is known as the fall or the original sin. First, the serpent/reptile was cursed to become a belly crawler. We observe that the surviving reptiles are relative belly crawlers having either short legs or no legs. 2ndly, the woman was cursed to have painful births. We observe that this applies to all womem. 3rdly, the man was cursed to making his living by the sweat of his brow. As an aside the ground was cursed to bring forth thorns and briers, etc. So again, the clear implication that the curse was not exclusive singularly.
As I pointed out, we observe that NOT all reptiles are belly-crawlers. The komodo dragon for instance has legs quite long enough for it to walk without dragging its belly in the dust.
In addition the curse on the serpent included a transformation of the actual individual, so your argument requires that only part of the curse is widely extended although the Bible does not imply that the curse is extended to ANY other individual. (And as we have seen the evidence clearly shows that there were dinosaurs which produced infants with legs, even after the appearance of snakes, so the evidence firmly contradicts the idea that even that part of the curse was extended to all dinosaurs).
The curse on the ground is explicitly stated, unlike your presumed extension of the curse on the serpent (especially as you wish to only extend part of that curse, without any textual justification for splitting the effects). Thus there is no parallel.
quote:
2) Snakes are reptiles which have no legs whatsoever. Thus it can be concluded that before the curse, snake prototypes had legs, according to the Genesis record which is my premise. We know that no snakes have legs, thus the curse did not apply singularly.
Of course we 'know" no such thing. The hypothesis that we have something on the lines of a "Just-So Story" explains this perfectly well, thus there is no need for the story to actually match what we see in reality. An honest appraisal must concede that you are stretching the interpretation of the story to make it fit with the observed reality, and acknowledge this as a point against the truth of the Biblical story.
Moreover it could in principle be explained even under YEC assumptions by treating all snakes as a "kind" descended from the original (individual) serpent - providing we presume that it already had descendants by the time of the curse, since descendants ARE explicitly included. (Indeed modern snakes would be descended from the representatives of the snake kind or kinds on Noah's Ark in that view, so there is clearly no problem for a YEC !). But we certainly cannot assume that the curse was to be applied so widely as to affect all dinosaurs simply from the fact that there are numerous snake species. That goes well beyond even the stretching necessary to make the story fit the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 9:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 11:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 271 (559566)
05-10-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
05-10-2010 10:39 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
PaulK writes:
As I pointed out, we observe that NOT all reptiles are belly-crawlers. The komodo dragon for instance has legs quite long enough for it to walk without dragging its belly in the dust.
Now you're getting picky-uny. Relative to most animals, they are close to the ground and likely more time than most passes on the belly.
PaulK writes:
In addition the curse on the serpent included a transformation of the actual individual,
Now, you're treading water and consuming my valuable time. I've covered this repeatedly, that other aspects of physiology would become necessary adaptations for a different environ.
PaulK writes:
(And as we have seen the evidence clearly shows that there were dinosaurs which produced infants with legs, even after the appearance of snakes, so the evidence firmly contradicts the idea that even that part of the curse was extended to all dinosaurs).
How about your source for this? Show and tell time.
As for the rest of your message, my evidence cited does account for different strokes for different folks among the dino prototypes and their respective types, i.e. the gator and snake etc.

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 87 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2010 10:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2010 11:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 271 (559568)
05-10-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
05-10-2010 8:58 AM


Re: Evidence Of Curse
I assumed that the fossils were the world evidence of my premise which is the Genesis declaration of the cause and effect of the curse, the cause being that a long legged reptile was empowered to deceive mankind, cursing the reptile types.
Percy is saying that there is no evidence that one day *poof* their legs fell off and now they're snakes, with or without fossils. There is only evidence of different kinds of reptiles and sauropods.
Aside from which there is no morphological similarity between a snake and various reptiles. You couldn't just rip the legs off of a reptile and suddenly it would resemble a snake.
This, as with so many evolution/creation debates gets into the realm of whether Satan, Jehovah, angels and other aspects of invisible intelligence exist and operate in and out of the human realm.
Why is that? Is this a tacit way of saying that people who don't see things your way are under the wiles of some kind of demonic deception?
Since the topic is whether dinos and humans co-existed, likely the Genesis record would be the most likely source for a premise to the co-existance of the these.
And yet Genesis is completely silent on the issue. One would think that if monstrous beasts roamed with man, the author would have chronicled it. The only mention of anything remotely relating to what could be construed as a Sauropod is in the book of Job, long after the dino's would have been dead according to The Flood theory.
In fact, long before the author of Genesis the dinosaurs would have been dead meaning that the author never personally witnessed this dino/human symbiosis. In other words, even if it were the case, it was still a story passed down from generation to generation.
Then of course the physical evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as dinosaur remains are found much, much lower in the strata layers than humans. Then there is the radiometric dating disparity. No doubt you will argue that C14 dating is inaccurate, so I'm not sure we'll ever get anywhere in the debate. The point is that there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts the human/dinosaur connection. What, if not the obvious, will lend credence to notion that they didn't coexist?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 8:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 10:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 271 (559570)
05-10-2010 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
05-10-2010 8:58 AM


Re: Evidence Of Curse
Buzsaw writes:
Percy writes:
How are you going to connect this event to "the curse" for which there is no real world evidence?
World evidence?
I didn't say "world evidence." I don't know what world evidence is. I said "real world evidence."
The phrase real world is one familiar to most people. Someone today might say, "My on-line life is a lot more exciting than my real world life." The phrase real world serves as an adjective.
So when I said "real world evidence" I meant evidence from the real world. This means evidence that we can detect (directly or indirectly) through our senses.
So what I said was, for the sake of discussion let us assume that somewhere in Genesis it "states that at some point the long legged reptile type would cease to exist and the descendents of it would be belly crawling (implicating short legged) types of reptiles." Let us further assume for the sake of discussion that this is what the fossil record says actually happened. In other words, for the sake of discussion we'll assume that the Bible says this happened and that the evidence from the real world also says it happened and so backs up and validates the Biblical account.
How are you going to connect this event to "the curse" for which there is no real world evidence?
Clarifying once again, "real world evidence" means evidence from the real world, like the evidence for fossils is real world evidence. What is your real world evidence that there is such a thing as "the curse?"
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Change author.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 8:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 9:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024