Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Dinosaurs live with man?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 286 of 373 (698482)
05-07-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 11:26 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland
The creationists have the Queen beat!
The contortions they have to go through to believe that dinosaurs lived with man are funny to watch. They have to deny the accuracy of all dating methods, ignore much of the law of superposition, and turn the scientific method upside-down. They also have to ignore huge amounts of data which show they are wrong.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 12:18 PM Coyote has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 287 of 373 (698487)
05-07-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Coyote
05-07-2013 11:55 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
It is sooo ridiculous.
"Oh, mankind's genes gradually mutating over many generations to the point where the phenotype has changed drastically? No, that impossible, that must have taken magical intervention from God.
But a worldwide flood that could somehow sort the bodies of different animals into neat layers where the bones of the apparently-older ones got fossilized and the modern ones did not? Sure, we've got a totally non-magical explanation for that one!"
Its just utter stupidity!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Coyote, posted 05-07-2013 11:55 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 12:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 288 of 373 (698499)
05-07-2013 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 11:26 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
All the dinosaur bones are fossilized and the human ones are not. Therefore, they couldn't have been together at the same place and the same time.
Who said they were in "the same place?" Inhabiting the same planet at the same time doesn't mean they hung out together. The bizarre stuff that gets imputed to creationists is really the straw man nonsense in the minds of the evolutionists.
Fossilization has to do with how the creature was buried more than anything else. If it got buried rapidly and deep then it would be likely to fossilize, shallow burial wouldn't accomplish that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Taq, posted 05-07-2013 2:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 2:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 289 of 373 (698500)
05-07-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
05-07-2013 2:27 PM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Who said they were in "the same place?"
Dinosaur fossils are found on every continent, so how could they not be in the same place? It's like saying that birds and humans are never found in the same place.
Fossilization has to do with how the creature was buried more than anything else. If it got buried rapidly and deep then it would be likely to fossilize, shallow burial wouldn't accomplish that.
How is it that dinosaurs were never buried in the same deposits as modern mammals such as rhinos or deer? Why is it that dinosaurs were all buried under igneous rocks that date to 65 million years or older using radiometric dating methodologies? How does that work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 05-07-2013 2:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 05-07-2013 9:21 PM Taq has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 373 (698503)
05-07-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
05-07-2013 2:27 PM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Who said they were in "the same place?" Inhabiting the same planet at the same time doesn't mean they hung out together.
Dinosaurs were everywhere and humans were everywhere. If they both existed at the same time, then they had to be in the same places. How could it be otherwise?
The bizarre stuff that gets imputed to creationists is really the straw man nonsense in the minds of the evolutionists.
I apologize for assuming that creationists had some basic logical thinking skills. I won't make that mistake with you again.
But anyways, have you not seen the pictures of the Creationist Museum? Take a look at this one:
Apparently they think kids had pet dinosaurs.
Fossilization has to do with how the creature was buried more than anything else.
Well geez, that's not even true. The conditions that it goes through are what determines if it fossilizes or not. Sure, that can depend on how it was buried, but the conditions can change after it was buried.
If it got buried rapidly and deep then it would be likely to fossilize, shallow burial wouldn't accomplish that.
No, that's just something you made up in a post hoc rationalization of your preconceived Flud scenario. Its not something based on evidence.
But still, if the dinos and humans were around each other, then we'd have some humans that got buried rapidly as well, and we'd see their fossilized bones along side the dino ones. But we've never ever found even one example of that... and that's because it never happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 05-07-2013 2:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 291 of 373 (698534)
05-07-2013 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Taq
05-07-2013 2:39 PM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Sharing a continent is not necessarily hanging out together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Taq, posted 05-07-2013 2:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Coyote, posted 05-07-2013 10:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 350 by Taq, posted 05-10-2013 4:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 292 of 373 (698542)
05-07-2013 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
05-07-2013 9:21 PM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Sharing a continent is not necessarily hanging out together.
Neither is a separation of 65+ million years.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 05-07-2013 9:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 293 of 373 (698545)
05-08-2013 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
But a worldwide flood that could somehow sort the bodies of different animals into neat layers where the bones of the apparently-older ones got fossilized and the modern ones did not? Sure, we've got a totally non-magical explanation for that one!"
Creationists don't see any of the different animals as "apparently older," that's an evolutionist error. But those that got buried deeper in the stack of wet sediments had a better chance of getting fossilized than those at the top of the stack, most of which got washed away anyway. Those creatures would have been exposed to the elements and rotted away rather than being preserved. Nothing ridiculous about that idea.
Funny how you guys go on and on about what you imagine to be creationist errors and never address the glaring stupidity of evolutionist interpretations of the strata, their amazingly knife-edge close interfaces with each other and their flat-topped horizontality as seen for instance in the Grand Canyon, plus of course their being completely separated discrete sediments. Attributing such a formation to long ages is ludicrous but you all just gloss it over or apply your weird made up Rube Goldbergish explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 9:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 294 of 373 (698546)
05-08-2013 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 11:26 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
The point was that there are not any dinosaur bones that are not fossilized. If they existed when humans did, then we would have at least one bone from a dinosaur that didn't get fossilized. But we don't.
What makes you so sure of that? If they all got buried at a certain depth, which you all agree they did, then why would any bone escape that burial? And if it did, why wouldn't it have rotted away by now anyway, which the human bodies no doubt did.
It's impossible for The Flood to have fossilized just some of the bones from animals that all existed at the same place at the same time. If humans and dinosaurs were together, then we'd have human bones fossilized with dinosaur bones, and we'd have unfossilized dinosaur bones with the unfossilized human bones. But we don't see any of that anywhere at all.
Because it's a dumb idea.
But what's even dumber is the fact that the strata do for some reason display peculiar collections of bones of particular animals, that is, one particular animal or a few, will dominate in a given layer. How does that make sense according to the theory of long ages? Why shouldn't every layer contain an array of all the animals supposedly living on the earth in that particular era? In other words, there ought to be a lot more mixing on YOUR theory than there in fact is. Austin's nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon has some other marine life in it but it's full of nautiloids, which dominate, and no other largish sea creature. How could that have happened according to your illustrious theory? Like it or not the only explanation for the sorting we see has to be some kind of mechanical/hydraulic principle.
There is no doubt that dinosaurs and people shared this planet before the Flood.
Even you don't believe that. You just have to say that to save face.
Bad bad form to make such personal remarks. Violation of forum rules too.
One thing that needs to be taken into account here is that according to the Bible neither animals nor people were meat-eaters until after the Flood, so that there wouldn't have been the problems you all imagine with them cohabiting the same space before the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2013 1:23 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 296 by Huntard, posted 05-08-2013 1:27 AM Faith has replied
 Message 302 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 5:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 321 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 10:05 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 12:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 335 by 1.61803, posted 05-09-2013 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 295 of 373 (698547)
05-08-2013 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
05-08-2013 12:36 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
quote:
Because it's a dumb idea.
What's dumb about it ?
quote:
But what's even dumber is the fact that the strata do for some reason display peculiar collections of bones of particular animals, that is, one particular animal or a few, will dominate in a given layer.
What makes you think that that is true ? Have you actually done research that leads you to conclude that ?
(I will point out that the most productive site I visited in childhood had numerous fragments of sea urchin shells and spines, crinoids, brachiopods, assorted bivalves and gastropods all in one small area)
quote:
How does that make sense according to the theory of long ages? Why shouldn't every layer contain an array of all the animals supposedly living on the earth in that particular era?
No stratum is truly global, so each one will only contain a sampling of the creatures that lived locally - and that biased by other factors (soft-bodied creatures fossilise far more rarely than hard parts, for instance).
quote:
In other words, there ought to be a lot more mixing on YOUR theory than there in fact is.
And since your view suggests even MORE mixing - because you don't accept the temporal segregation - it's an even worse problem for you, to the extent that it's true.
quote:
Austin's nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon has some other marine life in it but it's full of nautiloids, which dominate, and no other largish sea creature.
If this is true, isn't it a major problem for Austin's "mass kill" idea ? Surely anything causing a mass kill wouldn't just select out nautiloids and leave everything else untouched.
quote:
Like it or not the only explanation for the sorting we see has to be some kind of mechanical/hydraulic principle.
That's absolutely NOT what Austin claims about the nautiloids. Austin claims that they are the remains of a mass kill, preserved in situ.
And you've provided no reason why we should even accept it as a possibility, let alone the only one.
quote:
One thing that needs to be taken into account here is that according to the Bible neither animals nor people were meat-eaters until after the Flood, so that there wouldn't have been the problems you all imagine with them cohabiting the same space before the Flood.
Can you actually support the claim that the Bible says that animals were vegetarian before the Flood ? Chapter and verse, please. And how do you explain the fossil evidence of predation ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 12:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 296 of 373 (698549)
05-08-2013 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
05-08-2013 12:36 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Faith writes:
One thing that needs to be taken into account here is that according to the Bible neither animals nor people were meat-eaters until after the Flood, so that there wouldn't have been the problems you all imagine with them cohabiting the same space before the Flood.
Could you please tell me why god thought it was a good idea to equip plant eaters like T-Rex with those nice dagger like teeth? Those absolutely suck for eating plants, like god showed by equipping plant eaters like Apatosurus with nice flat teeth, which are great for eating plants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 12:36 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 1:43 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 298 by Pressie, posted 05-08-2013 1:55 AM Huntard has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 297 of 373 (698550)
05-08-2013 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Huntard
05-08-2013 1:27 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Maybe he ate tree trunks, who knows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Huntard, posted 05-08-2013 1:27 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Huntard, posted 05-08-2013 1:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 298 of 373 (698552)
05-08-2013 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Huntard
05-08-2013 1:27 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Huntart writes:
Could you please tell me why god thought it was a good idea to equip plant eaters like T-Rex with those nice dagger like teeth?
T-Rex only ate tomatoes. Lots and lots of them. Tomatoes were thus in danger of going extinct.
Before The Flood, ripe tomatoes were big and the green tomatoes were small. T-Rex needed a method to delicately seperate the ripe tomatoes from the green one's.
The ripe tomatoes stuck between the teeth where they could be torn from the plant in one head-jerk, while the green tomatoes slipped through the gaps between the teeth and stayed on the plants.
The teeth were thus intelligently designed for tomatoes to survive till after The Flood. As T-Rex didn't eat tomatoes after The Flood, green tomatoes became just as big as ripe tomatoes . Those teeth were thus intelligently designed for tomatoes to survive.
Does that answer your question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Huntard, posted 05-08-2013 1:27 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Huntard, posted 05-08-2013 1:58 AM Pressie has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 299 of 373 (698553)
05-08-2013 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Faith
05-08-2013 1:43 AM


Diet of Dinosaurs
Faith writes:
Maybe he ate tree trunks, who knows.
So you can't explain it? Ok, fair enough. Don't go around claiming things you can't explain though, that's bad form.
Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 1:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 300 of 373 (698554)
05-08-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Pressie
05-08-2013 1:55 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
It's better than Faith's answer that "nobody knows", yet somehow, she is sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Pressie, posted 05-08-2013 1:55 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Pressie, posted 05-08-2013 4:19 AM Huntard has seen this message but 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