Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood in dino bones
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 138 (394872)
04-13-2007 7:54 PM


Could the creationists please explain the magical mechanism which would have made this soft tissue rot away after 65 million years, but would have left them preserved for 4000 years after the flood?
Hint: there isn't one. Either there were bacteria present able to rot the soft tissue, in which case it would have rotted away in 4000 years, or there weren't, in which case it wouldn't have rotted away at all.
Your pick.

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2007 9:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 104 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 138 (395032)
04-14-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
04-14-2007 9:19 AM


Well, I did refer to the soft tissues, but you're right, I should have done the "a few weeks" bit, that's good.
I notice, by the way, that my dilemma has shut up the creationists good and proper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2007 9:19 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 138 (455284)
02-11-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by DogToDolphin
02-11-2008 6:25 PM


I don't see why extant or not-that-old extinct dinosaurs would be a problem for evolutionists.
They aren't.
So, you ask, why do I argue against the loons who pretend that (non-avian) dinosaurs are still roaming the earth?
There are two reasons.
The first is that I am not just opposed to halfwitted lies that oppose the theory of evolution --- I am opposed to all halfwitted lies. If I see someone telling a halfwitted lie, I respond by telling him the truth, whether or not it has anything to do with evolution.
The second reason is that evolution and creationism are in opposition, so every time I expose a creationist liar as a liar, I gain a rhetorical advantage. If his lie is irrelevant to the debate, then I have still exposed the creationist as a liar. If, as in this case, his lie has no relation to the debate, then I score twice, because I can then expose him as being, not just a liar, but a stupid liar, since he expended his credibility on telling a lie that doesn't actually help his cause.
And this is how I do treat the living-dinosaur people. Not only are they lying, but they are dumb enough to believe that their stupid lies support their cause. The fact that their lies wouldn't support their cause even if those lies were true does not deprive me of the rhetorical advantage of being able to point out that creationists are stupid liars. On the contrary, the fact that their lie is irrelevant proves that their lie is stupid.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 6:25 PM DogToDolphin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 138 (455288)
02-11-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by DogToDolphin
02-11-2008 7:25 PM


What about the almost universal depiction of dragon (dinosaur)-like creatures around the globe?
Er ... given that it doesn't exist, what about it?
It's not the case of Dragons/Dinosaurs, right?
You know, writing the words "Dragons/Dinosaurs" doesn't magically turn dragons into dinosaurs any more than writing "Horses/Unicorns" magically turns horses into unicorns.
The / character does not have magical properties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 7:25 PM DogToDolphin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 7:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 114 of 138 (455291)
02-11-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by DogToDolphin
02-11-2008 6:25 PM


Where was this dinosaur bone found? At the surface or deep down in the soil?
According to the report you quoted, it is near the bottom of an exposed cliff face.
So I am thinking that this dinosaur might not be as old as 70millions years, if it's near the surface (even a bone is sticking out the surface).
Here's a word for you. E-ro-sion.
They could always run carbon 14 tests, but that's unlikely going to happen if they stick to the millions year old.
I guess that you think that you know what you mean when you say this, but for the benefit of those of us who don't live in your fantasy world, could you please expand on this statement?
Also China has a dragon as one of its national symbol. Why does it look so much like dinosaurs if indeed no one had seen them in the past.
Here is a picture of a Chinese dragon.
Please tell us which dinosaur you believe that it "looks so much like"?
I think this question will be resolved if we find dragon (dinosaurs) skull/skeletons in medieval sites or ancient sites where people lived.
The fact that we have never, ever, found such a skeleton surely also has some bearing on the question.
You might as well say that the question of whether pigs have wings "will be resolved if we find winged pigs". Well, yes it would. But the fact that we have never found any winged pigs is surely also relevant, and helps us to resolve this question.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 6:25 PM DogToDolphin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 8:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 117 of 138 (455297)
02-11-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by DogToDolphin
02-11-2008 7:47 PM


I wrote Dragon/Dinosaurs since the word Dinosaurs didn't exist before the 19th century.
What of it? The word "invetebrate" didn't exist until the 18th century, but that would not excuse someone who wrote "Dragon/Invertebrate" as though they were two different terms for the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 7:47 PM DogToDolphin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 126 of 138 (455330)
02-11-2008 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by DogToDolphin
02-11-2008 9:31 PM


what about the Oarfish? Even thought it is not a "dragon", it still looks like an ancient mythological creature, doesn't it?
Or, to put it another way, there is evidence of oarfish existing, and oarfish do actually exist.
And your point would be what? We evolutionists have no problem whatsoever with saying that things that exist exist. In order to argue against evolution, you need to say something that is false. The existence of oarfish is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 9:31 PM DogToDolphin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-12-2008 9:13 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 138 (455332)
02-11-2008 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by DogToDolphin
02-11-2008 8:17 PM


Why are you saying I live in a Fantasy world?
Because you are a creationist.
What about it?
It is a dinosaur fossil that actually exists. How do you suppose that that will help you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by DogToDolphin, posted 02-11-2008 8:17 PM DogToDolphin 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