|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: dinosaur and human co-existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4531 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: bluescat writes: That would have no effect on radioactive decay I didn't say rate of decay. I said element makeup. So sulpher used to be lead and carbon used to be argon, and so on down the line? By the way, as best I remember, you made the same claim - that the Flood somewhow fundamentaly changed the structure of matter and that's why radiometric dating is unreliable - in a previous thread. You never did come up with any evidence for that assertion at the time. Maybe while I go look up which thread that was, you can go find that evidence of a massive reality shift occuring some time around 6000 years ago. Because a massive reality shift is what you'll need to explain something as fundamental as a change in atomic decay rates (or "element makeup" whatever that is).
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Some dinosaurs survived (birds). Many "belly-crawling" reptile species died.
quote: By "Genesis explanation" you mean "the Unbiblical rubbish Buzsaw made up" and by "sensible" you mean "Buzsaw likes it even though it is obvious nonsense". In reality it has been shown that the "crazy Buzsaw explanation" has no sound basis in the Bible and that the evidence not only fails to support it but in fact refutes it. This is just one more example where the differences is NOT interpretation of the evidence - the evidence to refute the claim is there. The creationist just ignores it, even though it has been brought to his attention. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm referring to the alleged zapper that essentially zapped the dinos and left the others essentially alive and well. Oh for heaven's sake, Buz.
Dr Adequate, message 51 writes: But this is not true. The KT event also saw the end of the mosasaurs, pterosaurs, and plesiosaurs, not to mention other more trivial losses, such as 20% of turtle species. Modulous, message 70 writes: You forgot calcareous nanoplankton, lots of benthic life, many many Scleractinia coral, just about all of Cephalopoda, a significant number of echinoderms, rudists, inoceramus, over half of all North American plants, pterosaurs, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs and indeed ALL large marine reptiles* except for (some) sea turtles. How many times do you need this explaining to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The real world evidence is the same evidence that evolutionists use. But this is not true. For example, you base your argument on your delusion that only dinosaurs went extinct, something that no evolutionist is ignorant enough to believe.
The difference is that little is said by evolutionists as to why the whatever catastropy which allegedly wiped out the dinos left the short legged and belly crawling ones surviving and thriving. How would you know what evolutionists say? You've somehow even managed to remain oblivious to the information that has been spoonfed to you by evolutionists on this very thread. If you'd even bothered to research as far as the Wikipedia page on the KT extinction, you'd have found a detailed treatment of what survived and why.
Creationists usually use the same real world evidence as evolutionists. No they don't. They almost exclusively base their arguments on stuff they've made up. Like you did. A creationist with the intellectual integrity and competence to examine the real world evidence would probably stop being a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
IchiBan writes:
Of course not. As you can see Buz is quite a long participant here on these boards. He's been in countless discussions about ToE and all related stuff, every time we've told him that the ToE is not a presupposition from which the evidence is interpreted, we have shown him how this is not the case, yet he chooses to say it again here. That's what I'm pointing out. Okay so it boils down to that you say it is so so it is so? Because that's what it looks like here. We don't do it like creationists do, who indeed use the method of saying "it is so so it is so". Got anything useful to add to the discussion, by the way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hi Buz,
For the sake of discussion we've postulated that the evidence from the real world supports the Biblical account that the dinosaurs were transformed into snakes because when we examine the real-world evidence it pretty much confirms what the Bible says. What is it about that real world evidence that says the extinction event was caused by a curse, or anything supernatural for that matter. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buz.
Buzsaw writes: As I have explained repeatedly, the parent cursed dinos would not have been zapped, but their egg genes were altered so that the hatched offspring became the shorty type reptiles. Let me see if I can put this together now. You say that, before the Fall, reptiles were giants, like dinosaurs. Then, because one of them tempted Eve, they were cursed to become "belly-crawlers" (i.e., lizards and snakes). But, it wasn't them, exactly, that were cursed: rather, it was their offspring. So, after the dinosaurs were cursed, their offspring hatched, not into dinosaurs, but into lizards and snakes. Then, since the original dinosaurs had not yet died, they coexisted with the lizards and snakes until the Flood killed the last of the dinosaurs. In your view, this explains why we find lizards and snakes and dinosaurs together in the fossil record, and explains why there are no more dinosaurs. ----- What if I could show you a baby dinosaur that coexisted with lizards and snakes? Wouldn't this prove that dinosaurs were giving birth to dinosaurs when they were supposed to be giving birth to "belly-crawlers," and therefore defeat your argument? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
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. Here is the problem, Buz. You clearly are using the bible as the template. In essence you construct your thesis solely on the inference that the biblical account must be true for ideological reasons, and not that there is evidence to support it. Your thesis starts with the assumption that the Genesis account is true and then you seek out ways to make it seem plausible. This methodology runs completely counter to how science works. Science doesn't start out with a theory at all. It simply gathers evidence and from that evidence then presents a thesis. In contrast, you start out with a thesis and then try and find evidence that conforms to your beliefs and dismiss anything contrary to what you want to believe. That, my friend, is the antithesis of science and that is why no one will take you seriously. You don't even have any evidence to support that one day dinosaurs had their legs *poof* out of existence, yet you present this thesis as if it has any credibility whatsoever. It is obvious that all you've done is read a few passages and concluded a priori that this account, however brief and ambiguous, must be the way it went. The fact remains that dinosaurs and snakes are proven to have coexisted simultaneously. That's an actual fact. At no point have human skeletal remains been found in the same strata with dinosaurs. There is literally no eivdence, whatsoever.
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. There are no bonafide biblical creationists, Buzsaw. That is the problem. All of it is so absurd. You have to understand that it is going to be viewed as infantile, horribly deluded and incredibly naive because of how absurd these beliefs are. I think most people try and be patient, but it's just so stupid. I don't mean to say that in a way that is mean, it is just so ridiculous so as to be laughable. You either are going to have to expect that or to start paying attention to the evidence.
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. The central issue is that you are out with an agenda. That agenda is to prove the bible true. You aren't following the evidence where it leads, you are trying to make a story believable for other people and for yourself. That's the issue people have with you and with creationists in general.
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. You don't have any evidence, Buz. What evidence do you possess that corroborates that humans lived with dinosaurs. You have a theory (a terrible one at that) with nothing more than your imagination as the guide. Please present your evidence because I've never seen it. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: Some dinosaurs survived (birds). Many "belly-crawling" reptile species died. Repeat after me; by and large. Bird from dino, though popular, is debatable.
Paulk writes: By "Genesis explanation" you mean "the Unbiblical rubbish Buzsaw made up" and by "sensible" you mean "Buzsaw likes it even though it is obvious nonsense" I mean the literal stuff that you metamephorize or wave off as fable; you know, what it actually says or clearly implies.
PaulK writes: This is just one more example where the differences is NOT interpretation of the evidence - the evidence to refute the claim is there. The creationist just ignores it, even though it has been brought to his attention. No. The evidence which better satisfies the co-existing dino/shortie problem you have yet to explain, as to just the dinos (I say dinosaurs themselves-not their descendents) at large, became extinct exclusively and relatively suddenly. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
the dinos (I say dinosaurs themselves-not their descendents) at large, became extinct exclusively and relatively suddenly.
This is a lie Buz. As you've been told multiple times in this thread the dinos did not exclusively go extinct. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Bluejay writes: What if I could show you a baby dinosaur that coexisted with lizards and snakes? Wouldn't this prove that dinosaurs were giving birth to dinosaurs when they were supposed to be giving birth to "belly-crawlers," and therefore defeat your argument? 1) Your summary of my position is correct. Thanks for getting it right. 2) There would have been dino eggs laid or young born near but before the time of the curse. These young would have co-existed with the non-dino reptiles for a period of time while they were maturing. Peryaps, also, the freshly laid eggs of that group took longer to hatch than the others, having the larger embryo. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dr Jones writes: This is a lie Buz. As you've been told multiple times in this thread the dinos did not exclusively go extinct. Please supply your source that I lied in that by and large the dinos became extinct exclusively as a group. It's all over he net, Jonesy, that the dinos are extinct and that the other reptiles by and large did not. That has been my position if you've been reading and I assume you have. This is nothing but one of our often personal attacks, calling me a liar. I resent it and would appreciate if you would cease and desist. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Please supply your source that I lied in that by and large the dinos became extinct exclusively as a group. It's all over he net, Jonesy, that the dinos are extinct and that the other reptiles by and large did not
If you actually read the other posts in this thread you'll see where other posters have pointed out to you repeatedly that the dinos weren't the only ones that were killed off by the KT event. To repeat: to claim that the dinos exclusivley went extinct would be a lie.
I resent it and would appreciate if you would cease and desist
And I'd appreciate it if you would pull your head out of your ass and read and comprehend other's posts to you instead of arrogantly stumbling around insisting that you're right, but we both know thats not going to happen. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzsaw.
Buzsaw writes: Bird from dino, though popular, is debatable. Then, since it's proper form to throw out things that are debatable, let's also throw out the idea that snakes are the cursed descendants of dinosaurs, because that's debatable too. Either throw out everything that is debatable, or don't even bring it up. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzsaw.
Buzsaw writes: There would have been dino eggs laid or young born near but before the time of the curse. These young would have co-existed with the non-dino reptiles for a period of time while they were maturing. Do you believe that all fossils were formed during the Flood? -----
Buzsaws writes: Peryaps, also, the freshly laid eggs of that group took longer to hatch than the others, having the larger embryo. "Peryaps" makes you sound Russian. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024