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


(1)
Message 301 of 373 (698558)
05-08-2013 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Huntard
05-08-2013 1:58 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Just imagine those Great Whites nibbling on celery sticks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Huntard, posted 05-08-2013 1:58 AM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 302 of 373 (698559)
05-08-2013 5:20 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.
But you are the one saying that dinosaurs and people didn't live near each other.
Have you forgotten what you are arguing again?
Can you guess who said the following quotes?
quote:
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.
quote:
Sharing a continent is not necessarily hanging out together.
You have to twist and turn sooo much to maintain your beliefs that you end up arguing against both sides of the argument, including you own.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

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 303 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 7:17 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 303 of 373 (698561)
05-08-2013 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Panda
05-08-2013 5:20 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
They didn't necessarily live near each other, so what? They also weren't meat eaters, so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 5:20 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 7:45 AM Faith has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 304 of 373 (698562)
05-08-2013 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
05-08-2013 7:17 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Faith writes:
They didn't necessarily live near each other, so what? They also weren't meat eaters, so what?
So now they didn't live near each other?
I wish you would make up your mind.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 7:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 7:56 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 305 of 373 (698563)
05-08-2013 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Panda
05-08-2013 7:45 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Good grief, the first point I made more than once was that they DIDN'T live near each other. There is no reason to think they did. Then I pointed out that according to the Bible they weren't meat eaters ANYWAY. What IS your problem? Both are true, and both support the argument that they lived at the same time in the same world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 7:45 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2013 8:00 AM Faith has replied
 Message 308 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 8:36 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 306 of 373 (698565)
05-08-2013 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
05-08-2013 7:56 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
quote:
Then I pointed out that according to the Bible they weren't meat eaters ANYWAY. What IS your problem? Both are true
I asked before, and I'll ask again. Where in the Bible does it say that animals weren't carnivores before the Flood ? Chapter and verse, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 7:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 8:30 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 334 by 1.61803, posted 05-09-2013 3:47 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 307 of 373 (698569)
05-08-2013 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by PaulK
05-08-2013 8:00 AM


When did animals become carnivores?
I asked before, and I'll ask again. Where in the Bible does it say that animals weren't carnivores before the Flood ? Chapter and verse, please.
It doesn't say so directly, it's an inference from other facts.
At the original Creation, men and animals ate only plants:
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
In Genesis 3:19 and 21, God clothes Adam and Eve in animal skins, the first deaths recorded in the Bible. But they were not eating meat at that time.
In Genesis 9:3 God tells Noah that now they are to eat meat.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
The usual idea about this is that the environment had changed drastically after the Flood, the land was far less fertile and there was much less, and probably less nutritious, plant food.
It is from this that some extrapolate that animals also began to eat meat at the same time. They had no need to eat meat until after the Flood for the same reason people had no need to.
There are those who think animals began to eat meat before the Flood as a result of the Fall but there is no evidence for that. If they did then T Rex would have evolved for that purpose before the Flood. But again there is no evidence for that and I think the post-Flood explanation makes more sense because the world no longer produced as much plant food as before.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2013 8:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2013 8:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 318 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 9:28 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 319 by jar, posted 05-08-2013 9:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 308 of 373 (698570)
05-08-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
05-08-2013 7:56 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Faith writes:
Good grief, the first point I made more than once was that they DIDN'T live near each other. There is no reason to think they did.
Apart from the fact that fossilised dinosaur bones are found in the same areas as human bones.
Also, you say this:
quote:
Why shouldn't every layer contain an array of all the animals supposedly living on the earth in that particular era?
Well, the answer to your own question is: because Faith says they shouldn't - "they DIDN'T live near each other. There is no reason to think they did."
Faith writes:
What IS your problem?
My main problem is that you keep reversing what you are claiming, depending on what aspect of the flood you are trying to support.
Make. Up. Your. Mind.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 7:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 8:45 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 309 of 373 (698573)
05-08-2013 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Panda
05-08-2013 8:36 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Yes I'm responding to different objections as they come up. So what. I'm not REVERSING anything, I'm bringing up different aspects of the situation.
But if ancient human bones are found where dinosaur bones are also found, fine, that takes care of that argument. They DID live close together then.
It is my impression that the strata are TYPICALLY populated by groups of the same kind of creature, and that you don't get a full collection of the same kinds of creatures that inhabit the lower strata, which you should since anything that continues to live in the present should be just as abundant in later time frames as earlier. There should be a continuous record. Why should dinosaurs dominate their particular strata to the exclusion of creatures that dominated earlier strata in the same area?
Again it is my impression that this is the case. Do you have evidence that I'm wrong about this?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 8:36 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 9:08 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 310 of 373 (698575)
05-08-2013 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Faith
05-08-2013 8:30 AM


Re: When did animals become carnivores?
quote:
The usual idea about this is that the environment had changed drastically after the Flood, the land was far less fertile and there was much less, and probably less nutritious, plant food.
But the Bible does not even say that much, does it?
quote:
It is from this that some extrapolate that animals also began to eat meat at the same time. They had no need to eat meat until after the Flood for the same reason people had no need to.
In other words it is NOT true the Bible says so. It's all based on extrapolating statements that apply only to humans. (In fact the Bible is ambiguous even regarding humans, It certainly has Abel killing and butchering sheep, and even the ban is based on the absence of a statement granting permission)
quote:
There are those who think animals began to eat meat before the Flood as a result of the Fall but there is no evidence for that.
There may be nothing in the Bible to say either way, but there's certainly fossil evidence of predation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 8:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 9:01 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 311 of 373 (698576)
05-08-2013 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by PaulK
05-08-2013 8:49 AM


Re: When did animals become carnivores?
Animal sacrifice was done before the Flood but Genesis 9:3 implies that meat was not eaten until after.
The Bible doesn't SAY the earth was less fertile after the Flood but there's plenty of reason to think it's implied. The fact that plants were given to all animals and people at Creation, plus the description of Eden as a garden, plus the description of mists watering the planet, all add up to a picture of a lush environment that obviously no longer exists planet-wide, and probably in a small way only in isolated jungle areas. The Flood wiped out most animal and human life, and there's no reason to think it left much more sea life or plant life either. The huge abundance of fossils demonstrates unimaginably dense life of all kinds before the Flood.
OK, if there is uncontrovertible fossil evidence of predation then apparently animals ate meat before the Flood. I'll accept that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2013 8:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Coragyps, posted 05-08-2013 9:16 AM Faith has replied
 Message 323 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2013 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 312 of 373 (698577)
05-08-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Faith
05-08-2013 8:45 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Failth writes:
I'm not REVERSING anything
Which is - ironically - followed by you reversing your stance on dinosaurs and humans living together:
Faith writes:
But if ancient human bones are found where dinosaur bones are also found, fine, that takes care of that argument. They DID live close together then.
But, anyway, that puts us back to Catholic Scientist's earlier reply to you:
CS writes:
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.
Its 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.
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.
...which still stands as valid reasoning for dinosaurs and humans not existing at the same time.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 8:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 9:14 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 313 of 373 (698578)
05-08-2013 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Panda
05-08-2013 9:08 AM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Yes, I FINALLY reversed my argument. Sheesh.
I still have the same answer to the fossilized dinosaur versus unfossilized human bones. The upper strata did not have the conditions necessary to fossilization as the lower strata did. Much of it simply washed away when the Flood waters drained. It wasn't compacted as the lower strata were and it would have dried out sooner if it wasn't washed away. Decay was the more likely effect wherever anything remained.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 9:08 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 9:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 314 of 373 (698579)
05-08-2013 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Faith
05-08-2013 9:01 AM


Re: When did animals become carnivores?
You just can scarcely imagine the unbridled ferocity of a Jurassic Carrot. It took every tooth in an allosaur's head to subdue one of those wily orange devils. That's why some dinosaurs were so carnivorous-looking.
Tyrannosaurs had to deal with Cretaceous Cauliflowers, which hunted from ambush. Even Tubal-cain's best bronze spears were hardly a match for them. They were likely even fiercer that Jurassic Carrots, but they rotted badly in Flud Water, so we don't have many fossils.

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 9:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 9:17 AM Coragyps has replied

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


Message 315 of 373 (698580)
05-08-2013 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Coragyps
05-08-2013 9:16 AM


Re: When did animals become carnivores?
Ah, you're all SO cute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Coragyps, posted 05-08-2013 9:16 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Coragyps, posted 05-08-2013 9:23 AM Faith 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