|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: dinosaur and human co-existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. I can't find it "all over the net". For example, googling on "only dinosaurs went extinct" gets four google hits. Three of them are people pointing out that this is rubbish. (One of them was me.) That leaves one person in the world besides you who is ignorant enough to believe it. Do you have a twin brother? But even if someone had spread crap like that "all over the net", it wouldn't make it true. Paleontologists know of lots and lots of extinct reptiles that weren't dinosaurs. We've named some of them for you. Mosasaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs ... and that's just from the KT event, whereas if you believe orthodox creationist gibberish you must believe that all reptile extinctions were the result of one single extinction event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In other words it would require dealing with a subject you have repeatedly run away from discussing. Suffice to say that anything you could offer there would be more nonsense.
quote: We DO have direct evidence of a major meteorite impact at about the right time. More importantly we DO have firm evidence of a mass extinction affecting far more than just the dinosaurs. The only "problem" you could possibly be offering an answer to is why ALL of the dinosaur species at that time (except birds) went extinct while other groups left SOME survivors. But you don't even have a good explanation for THAT. "God decided to curse ALL the dinosaurs" is no better than "they all died in the mass extinction" - you don't offer any reason WHY God would include all dinosaurs in the curse - and it is neither mentioned nor implied in the story. In fact your answer is WORSE because we HAVE solid evidence for the mass extinction, but no significant evidence for your speculations - and a very large amount of evidence AGAINST them. Your "hypothesis" is founded on nothing more than ignorance and the dogma of Biblical literalism. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Buzsaw writes: Percy writes:
That would have to fall back on flood evidence which would be another topic to explain, in that it would involved discussion of reliability of radiometric dates relative to the possibility of a flood. What is your evidence that dinosaurs lived as recently as 4350 years ago? So your evidence that dinosaurs still roamed the Earth 4350 years ago is the unreliability of radiometric dating? So if radiometric dating had never been invented so that you could point to how unreliable it is you'd have no evidence at all? Let's assume for the sake of discussion that radiometric had never been invented. What is your evidence that dinosaurs still lived 4350 years ago?
Now we're back to square one which again goes into how the observed evidence of the by and large extinction of dinos and the survival of the others is interpreted. How is the physiological and genetic evidence interpreted to reach the conclusion that snakes and lizards are the descendants of dinosaurs? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now we're back to square one which again goes into how the observed evidence of the by and large extinction of dinos and the survival of the others is interpreted. As something that you've made up in your head which is known for certain to be false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Let's assume for the sake of discussion that radiometric had never been invented. What is your evidence that dinosaurs still lived 4350 years ago? The evidence remains being what is observed; fossils showing that long legged repiles have become extinct and that a large array of close to earth reptiles thrive abundantly. This coupled with physical evidence attributed to the flood (another topic) and recorded history becomes inclusive in the thesis. applying the 4350 or so date .
Percy writes: How is the physiological and genetic evidence interpreted to reach the conclusion that snakes and lizards are the descendants of dinosaurs? The most significant of this I've repeatedly repeated already, such as the fact that both are reptillian, similarities of visible appearance such as the two examples of the respective types.So far as the genes, that they would be different is extrapolated from the thesis as cause and effect. Any change in genetically physiology would necessarily be effected by genes. The change in egg embryo genes, in this case, involves the old debate of ID, which is again, another topic. This thread topic has a lot to do with the ID debate. To address all of the ramifications of the evidence cited, would be impossible in this one thread. 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 |
DrAdequate writes: As something that you've made up in your head which is known for certain to be false. No comment on blind assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The most significant of this I've repeatedly repeated already, such as the fact that both are reptillian, similarities of visible appearance such as the two examples of the respective types. Other than 'scaly' and 'has four limbs' - do you have anything more specific to say about their appearance? After all birds are scaly and have four limbs too. And given that some dinosaurs appear to have feathers, as do birds and snakes don't... Why should we conclude that the descendants of dinosaurs are snakes and not birds. How can we rule out that snakes are descended from non-dinosaur 'reptillian' ancestors?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The most significant of this I've repeatedly repeated already, such as the fact that both are reptillian, similarities of visible appearance such as the two examples of the respective types. The extinct dinosaurs are much more similar to modern birds than they are lizards and snakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The evidence remains being what is observed; fossils showing that long legged repiles have become extinct and that a large array of close to earth reptiles thrive abundantly. That couldn't possibly be construed as evidence, that's an assertion based on pure conjecture. Actual evidence refutes your claim, as it is empirically proven through physical evidence that snakes and dinosaurs co-existed.
The most significant of this I've repeatedly repeated already, such as the fact that both are reptillian, similarities of visible appearance such as the two examples of the respective types. Is it extraordinary that reptiles cladistically share superficial similarities with other reptiles? Even then it begs the question: Do snakes resemble Apatosaurus or Triceratops? Are they related to snakes? Do they resemble one another? Obviously not, which should be an excellent indicator that your thesis is specious at best. The bottom line is that not only do you not have evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, but there is actual evidence refuting your claim that dinosaurs are really just cursed serpents. At any point in time feel free to post any evidence you that corroborates your extraordinary claim. That would be the best way for you to get from point A to point B. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzz.
Buzsaw writes: Zen, the fall, according to the Genesis curse account, i.e. non-dino types would not have existed until the time of the curse when the existing dinos laid their eggs. All embryos from then on would be non-dino types. Except, I can present you with dinosaur eggs that contain dinosaur embryos at the time of the Flood. This source (you may need a paying subscription, but a citation is provided below) shows many dinosaur eggs, one of which contains a dinosaur embryo, dated to a short time before the K-T/Flood. Within that paper, we find this quote:
quote: Dinosaur embryos developing in dinosaur eggs, and newly-hatched dinosaur young, with lizards found nearby, all dated to the same age, is sufficient evidence to disprove your notion that all dinosaurs were cursed to give birth to lizards at some point in history.
Citation: Norell MA et al. (1994). A theropod dinosaur embryo and the affinities of the Flaming Cliffs dinosaur eggs. Science 266 (5186): 779-782. Edited by Bluejay, : Typographical issues. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
For a relative uniformist, yes but that would not be the case with the flood. Just so you know... that's impossible. No, it doesn't matter who its for, the Earth has never been covered in water since mankind has existed. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. The only reason a person would think that it has, is because they think the Bible says it did (which itself is questionable). But we know it never really happened.
In that case, then neither did the dinos... they're birds now. Have you been following closely, CS? Actually, no... I read that you said that dinos and humans coexisted and I just couldn't believe it Now, I've seen things ascribed to you that you didn't technically actually say, so I checked it out. Turns out, for the Flud to have wiped out the dinos would require them coexsting with humans. Not a chance. You're wrong. The Flud did not wipe out the dinos. Just stop already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In other words you have NO significant evidence that snakes are dinosaur descendants. Your evidence is only evidence of some sort of relationship and most creationists would reject even that (it's far weaker than the evidence that birds are dinosaur descendants, for a start). So it's quite clear that your reason for picking out snakes is not any empirical evidence at all - it is the Genesis story. So, in fact it turns out that your "hypothesis" is nothing more than an attempt to fit the Genesis story to your cursory knowledge of the facts. You made NO serious attempt to investigate the evidence or even consider what the evidence should look like if your idea was true. All you have is armchair speculation, and you haven't even done a good job of that./
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
I'm just trying to understand the timeline in your mind and I think that is within the topic. I need to understand where you are.
Are you saying all the species that we say went extinct 250 Million years ago during the Permian event(before Dinosaurs) co-existed with the species we say went extinct 65 million years ago during the KT event around 4350? Do you have evidence for this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Buzsaw writes: Percy writes: Let's assume for the sake of discussion that radiometric had never been invented. What is your evidence that dinosaurs still lived 4350 years ago? The evidence remains being what is observed; fossils showing that long legged repiles have become extinct and that a large array of close to earth reptiles thrive abundantly. Nothing there about 4350 years ago.
This coupled with physical evidence attributed to the flood (another topic) and recorded history becomes inclusive in the thesis. applying the 4350 or so date Nothing there about 4350 years ago, either. Pretend you're preparing me for a debate where I'm to take the position that dinosaurs still roamed the Earth 4350 years ago. What information are you going to give me so that I can win the debate?
Percy writes: How is the physiological and genetic evidence interpreted to reach the conclusion that snakes and lizards are the descendants of dinosaurs? The most significant of this I've repeatedly repeated already, such as the fact that both are reptillian,... Not only are they both reptilian, they're both reptiles. Dinosaurs are in the class Reptilia. Snakes and lizards are in the class Reptilia. Members of the Reptilia class tend to be reptilian.
...similarities of visible appearance such as the two examples of the respective types. So far as the genes, that they would be different is extrapolated from the thesis as cause and effect. Any change in genetically physiology would necessarily be effected by genes. You've just described your hypothesis, not your evidence. It is your hypothesis that the changes observed in the fossil record were brought about by dramatic genetic changes in a single generation. What is the evidence for your hypothesis? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: The evidence remains being what is observed; fossils showing that long legged repiles have become extinct and that a large array of close to earth reptiles thrive abundantly. This coupled with physical evidence attributed to the flood (another topic) and recorded history becomes inclusive in the thesis. applying the 4350 or so date . This is not right. There are no 4000 year old fossils. So far as I can research it, the most recent fossils are 10,000 years old. Anything younger than that is a bone, not a fossil. And, as has been pointed out many, many times, there are no unmineralized dinosaur bones. They don't exist. And, yes, I very aware that creationists often claim that it only takes a few years to make a real fossil. This is simply not true. If you can find a reputable study - and not unsupported claims from a creationist website - that says otherwise, I'd be delighted to hear it. Once again: Fossils are not bones. Fossil remains of bones are rocks. Rocks take time to form under natural conditions. (And yes, I know that you're going to claim that the Flood created exactly those magical, unrepeatable conditions, the same ones that apparently make radiometric dating completely unreliable from your point of view. This claim is also utterly unsupported by evidence.) The only preserved remains of dinosaur bones ever found have been rocks, and not bones. Ergo, no dinosaurs living 4000 years ago. None. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024