|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: dinosaur and human co-existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Isn't it true that dinosaurs are painted on cave walls? No, of course not.
What about DRAGONS? Where did they come from? The same place as Harry Potter.
Heard about the dinosaur fossils buried in the same strata as human remains? They're aren't any.
Dinosaurs are accurately described in the Bible. No they're not.
Heard of the un-fossilized dinosaur? Nope. And if anyone ever finds one I shall be alerted by the sound of a billion evolutionists celebrating.
All of these things say that man must have been there at the same time. Then it's a shame that all these things are stuff that people have made up, otherwise it might actually be interesting. One question interests me --- why do you want this to be true? Just because something is a mistake based on a fantasy doesn't necessarily mean that it's an argument for creationism. Some things are wrong without being creationist arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
just curious about what type of dinosaurs you are refering to. When i think of modern dinosaurs i think in terms of crocodiles and iguanas and comodo dragons arnt these all a type of 'dinosaur'.... literally meaning lizards? Dinosaur does not literally mean "lizard", it literally means "dinosaur". Oh, and crocodiles aren't lizards. There are a number of anatomical features that distinguish dinosaurs from other reptiles, the most crucial of which is that they have their legs under them like mammals rather than splayed out to the side. This required various anatomical adaptations, including the perforation of the acetabulum and the development of a head to the femur. Consider the diagram of hips and thighs below. From top to bottom: a basal reptile; an intermediate form such as Lagosuchus; and a true dinosaur.
Birds are modern dinosaurs. Iguanas aren't. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you could take an alligator balloon; one of those that you can reshape and stretch out and enlarge the hind legs, and blow up the torsal, you wouldn't have to do a whole lot to the head and rest of the body to make it appear like Euparkeria Of course, to get it to breed true you'd also need to change to its genes such that its children grew up to look like Euparkaria. Would you do that gradually or all at once? --- This reminds me of a metaphysical puzzle I like to this about sometimes. What would be the difference between a magician instantaneously turning a beachball into an umbrella, and a magician instantaneously making a beachball disappear and an umbrella appear in the place where the beachball used to be. if there is a difference, are we meant to suppose a quintessence underlying the superficial qualities, such that the transformed object is still the original object, but having a completely different form? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
By the same token I can say there was no space and time which the BB could have happened and no outside of into which it could expand. Yes, you could. And in doing so you would not be objecting to the Big Bang, because that's exactly what physicists would tell you about it. Now, back to the talking snakes and the inflatable crocodiles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
when the British paleontologist Richard Owen discovered the first dinosaur bones, he called them Dinosauria. The word is derived from the two Greek words deinos and sauros, meaning terrible lizard So far, you are right.
So the fact that we still use the word 'dinosaur' to describe them means that 'terrible lizard' is infact their literal name. No, it means that their literal name is dinosaur. No scientist in the world would be stupid enough to call them lizards.
If that has changed, why not change the name from dinosaur to what they are now known as to save us simpletons from confusion? Dinosaurs are now known as dinosaurs. They are not known as lizards. These are two completely different words. Even a simpleton would not be confused into thinking that because dinosaurs are always called dinosaurs and never called lizards, they must be lizards. The only person who would even pretend to be stupid enough to be confused by this would be a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
First off, this aspect of the debate is relevant to topic in that the more evidence of similarities between dinos and contemporary reptiles, the more scientific the hypothesis that man and dinos lived contemporaneously becomes. Uh ... no. Also, the resemblance between paper and papyrus does not imply that I am contemporary with the building of the pyramids.
It would not have been sudden. It would have applied to the offspring of the cursed species. So, a gradual change in the genes over a number of generations converting one species into a very different one. This is a radical new idea. I think you should call it "evolution".
Since man lived hundreds of years, likely many of the parent dinos lived up until the time of the flood, their altered gene offspring modern reptiles being the ones which were loaded on Noah's ark. Thus, no unfossilized bones of dinos remaing and the likelihood of a false radiometric reading for age. Your unsupported fantasies do not offer genuine support for your other unsupported fantasies. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
One of the problems with your premise as to what happened to the dinos is that all (I say all) of the dinosaur species disappeard exclusively of the other reptiles ... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The similarities lie in the appearance of the dorsal, head and tail as previously noted. Yeah, they both had heads, backbones, and tails. But if you want to convince me that snakes evolved from dinosaurs you'll have to do a bit better than that. How about showing me some intermediate forms? Vestiges of dinosaurian features in snakes? Genetic evidence which puts snakes closer to crocodiles (close relatives of dinosaurs) than to lizards (the clade in which snakes actually lie)? If you want to rewrite the history of evolution, shouldn't you have a little bit of evidence for doing so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
the point is, that IS what the word means....its a desciptive word. Yes, the word "dinosaurs" describes dinosaurs.
If dinosaurs dont mean that, then they should change the name to what they believe it means. They believe that dinosaurs means dinosaurs.
Im really just nitpicking here btw lol Well, troll, you were wrong. Could you try to post something on-topic that you don't know to be stupid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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 ... Chapter and verse, please? Oh, wait, you made that up, didn't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are many descriptive words which do not mean what they describe. Orangutan = man of the woodsFliedermaus = bat (literally flying mouse) is a Tasmanian devil a demon from Tasmania or a marsupial? none of these descriptive words means what it describes. A thing to think about. So far as I know, every species with the word "flying" in its colloquial name is incapable of flight. They're all gliders. Flying squirrels, flying fish, flying frogs ... the one thing that they all have in common is that they can't fly. --- ETA: But flying foxes are an exception. They can fly but are not foxes. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 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 312 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024