Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 100 (8539)
04-14-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by gene90
04-14-2002 8:01 PM


"You just said that most animals are afraid of humans. Dinosaurs would have to be hunting humans already before people would begin actively avoiding them. It seems that both of your replies are contradictory. Also humans would have had to come down from their hideouts to gather food and move across the continent."
Yeah, you're right, I did sort of contradict myself. However, it seems to me that EITHER dinasaurs were bloodthirsty, thus humans stayed away, OR dinasaurs were not bloodthirsty, thus humans did not have to worry about such things.
Also, I must reemphasize that EVEN if dinasaurs ate humans relatively often, it is unlikely that such evidence would be preserved in the fossil record and even more unlikely that humans would discover it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 04-14-2002 8:01 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 04-15-2002 1:43 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 100 (8540)
04-14-2002 10:03 PM


What about is the quantity of seemingly carnivorous Dinosaur fossils found?
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Joe Meert, posted 04-15-2002 1:00 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 100 (8541)
04-14-2002 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by gene90
04-14-2002 8:09 PM


"I maintain my disagreement"
No suprise here!
"I still contend it would be inevitable that people would be eaten if they were contemporaries with the dinosaurs, just as it is inevitable that people would have eaten dinosaurs, and we would find their remains at archealogical sites."
Well, I never said that dinasaurs NEVER ate people, just that such an event was very unlikely, coupled with the unlikliness of fossilization of such an event. Also, any civilization that was post-flood would not eat dinasaurs. And there is no way of knowing what people 6000 years ago would of eaten.
"But let's set aside the 'human hideout' concept and widen the question a little more. Why aren't we finding bones from mountain goats, horses, camels, pronghorns, rabbits, birds, deer, mice, voles (for the procomposagnathids and ceoleophysis) wildcats, wolves, mammoths, elk, bears etc. in dinosaur bellies? In fact, every extant large land animal that I can think of is post-Cretaceous. Imagine, not one of them being represented inside a dinosaur ribcage!"
Before evaluating the question further, I would like to know, How often are remains found inside dinasaur ribcages?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by gene90, posted 04-14-2002 8:09 PM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 100 (8542)
04-14-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 9:45 PM


"Well, creationists think that any evidence that contradicts creationism is being interpreted wrongly."
--My opinion on interperetation of evidence and data on the question of where is it valid, is that if it contredicts creationism, I should either find out what has not been considered, be willingly ignorant, or change my system of belief on Earth history. In my opinion, scientific discovery is superior. Though obviously, let us not take this to our heads. I have always found that the more I understand any concept or scientific observation, the more compatable it becomes, this is my personal reason for believing what I believe. Though ofcourse, the more this happens, the more I must fashion my inference on the past to be harder and sharper, which is infact, the strength of science, not its weakness.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 9:45 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 100 (8543)
04-14-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
04-10-2002 9:58 AM


"While I am encouraged that these folks are being seen as the nutcases they are, what about the grandfather of the modern Creation "science" movement, Henry Morris?"
What exactly about Henry Morris compels you to believe that he is a nutcase?
"He expounds on all sorts of topics, such as Biology, Geology, and Astrophysics, as if he was an expert, yet his degree is in Hydrolics."
That doesn't mean he can't pontificate on other topics, it just means that one should be skeptical of what he says on these topics.
"Creationist peer-review is not scientific peer-review. If they want to be considered real, professional scientists, then they should be able to get their work published in real, professional scientific journals."
Duh, don't you know about the Grand Evilutionist Conspiracy?
"Of course, their work is based on a a particular interpretation religious book, and not emperical evidence found in nature, so it cannot, by definition, be considered scientific."
Yes, they do base their work on a particular preconcieved notion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 04-10-2002 9:58 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by gene90, posted 04-15-2002 12:10 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 53 by edge, posted 04-15-2002 1:45 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 51 of 100 (8545)
04-15-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 10:12 PM


[QUOTE][b]Before evaluating the question further, I would like to know, How often are remains found inside dinasaur ribcages?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
"Occasionally" is the best way to put it -- stomach acids often can decompose bones before the carcass decomposes. Sue was the first T-rex to have stomach contents identified with it (Elasmosaur). Spinosaurus stomach contents have also been found (Iguanadon and fish) but these are the only instances I could find on the web. A search of paleontological literature would likely yield more information.
Other data comes from coprolites, fossil dinosaur feces. I can't find anything decent with web searches because all the hits are rock shops and dinosaur pages for elementary school students.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 10:12 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 100 (8546)
04-15-2002 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 9:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Also, I must reemphasize that EVEN if dinasaurs ate humans relatively often, it is unlikely that such evidence would be preserved in the fossil record and even more unlikely that humans would discover it.
Can I reming you of this the next time you ask about why we don't have a continuous lineage of organisms to "prove" evolution.
Also, part of the problem here is that we not only fail to find evidence of human predation by carnivorous dinosaurs, but there is no evidence anything human or human designed in any stratum containing evidence of dinosaurs. To me, this makes it more likely that humans and dinosaurs simply did not exist contemporaneously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 9:59 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 53 of 100 (8547)
04-15-2002 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 10:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"He expounds on all sorts of topics, such as Biology, Geology, and Astrophysics, as if he was an expert, yet his degree is in Hydrolics."
That doesn't mean he can't pontificate on other topics, it just means that one should be skeptical of what he says on these topics.
And it also doesn't mean that we cannot critique his analyses and take potshots at his credentials. Basically, Morris is an engineer, and not a scientist.
[This message has been edited by edge, 04-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 10:12 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 100 (8555)
04-15-2002 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 12:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]I'll go ahead and answer this one:
"Now answer my question: why aren't there human bones found inside dinosaur ribcages?"
First of all, it is very possible, even likely, that humans and carnivorous dinasaurs lived in seperate ecological zones.[/QUOTE]
Why? Please explain.
quote:
Also, it's not neccesarily even likely that dinasaurs would often eat humans (most animals are afraid of humans).
Well, we have killed off all of those animals which weren't afraid of humans, so we have been an environmental selective pressure which has produced animals which are more skittish of humans.
The prediction of Evolutionary theory would then be that if there was a population of animals which had not had contact with humans, they would not be afraid. Well, guess what? Head on down to the Galapagos and other extremely remote places where humans have never lived, and you can walk right up to all of the animals. They have no fear. Score another borne-out predition of the ToE.
OTOH, there are plenty of predators, such a tigers, large snakes and lions, which are currently known to catch and eat humans. Why would it be any different for even larger predators such as carniverous dinos to catch and eat humans?
Why aren't there ANY fossils of dinosaurs with ANY large mammal fossils inside them? There are fossils of dinosaurs with other dinos inside, but not a single one with large mammal fossils inside. Why?
quote:
Even if a dinasaur had eaten a human just previous to the flood, there is no guarantee that that dinausaur would be fossilized.
What is your evidence for the flood?
Here's a question:
Why do we not find any flowering plants in the lowest/earliest geologic layers? They are only found higher/later. Flowering plants include many species of plants, including all grasses and all deciduous trees. Did the all of the flowering grasses and trees run for high ground when the rains started to fall?
[QUOTE]And even if a dinasaur who had eaten a human WAS fossilized, the odds are it will never be discovered.[/b]
Irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 12:00 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 100 (8556)
04-15-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 7:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"That is hardly evidence. On the other hand if we look around today, we do find humans living not far from mammal predators and there is frequent interaction. Even in the ocean we find sharks with human remains and other artifacts in their stomachs. Seems to me the best assumption would be that humans and predatory dinosaurs would LIKELY have existed in the same environment. Even if it were to hunt the same prey."
Fine, but even with your assumption granted, it would not be likely that we would find human remains inside of dinasaurs.
"Indeed that is the consensus. You were however suggesting that humans and dinos were contemoraneous. We are just asking for evidence of this. So far you have not offered any."
Although I didn't really suggest it, it is my opinion that humans and dinos lived at the same time. However, you must realize that I was not attempting to offer evidence of this occuring. I was simply trying to give you a plausible solution to the question of, if indeed humans and dinos lived at the same time, why don't we find human remains in dinasaur ribcages? Whether or not I offered a plausible solution is of course your opinion, but it is a bit of a straw man for you to try to attack my solution based on evidence in which I have acknowledged is most likely faulty.

I have another question.
If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, then why don't we find human artifacts made from dinosaur bone and skin? We have things made from whalebone, horsebone, elephant hide, snakeskin, buffalo hide, ivory, tortiseshell, etc. etc. Some of these items are tens of thousands of years old. Why no dinobone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 7:56 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
techristian
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 56 of 100 (8559)
04-15-2002 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by mark24
04-14-2002 6:56 PM


Ok here is your answer Mark.
First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !
Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS !
Third I would like to ask if breeding was even ATTEMPTED (in a labratory) between both creatures at both ends of the "ring".
I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones. (which would lead me to think that "Lucy" was actually a combination of the bones of more than one individual.) I wrote an entire paper on the "Lucy" program.
To answer you honestly, there have been so many SCAMS with "Pilt Down Man" and others that I would almost need a missing link to walk up to me and say "I am a missing link. Try to disprove it!" Even "carbon dating" has been disproved when a pig bone (buried only a few years earlier) was said to be "MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"
Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.
Now Mark please tell me what it would take to make you believe in a SUPREME CREATOR.
Dan
http://musicinit.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 04-14-2002 6:56 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Joe Meert, posted 04-15-2002 10:47 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 04-15-2002 11:26 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 04-15-2002 11:43 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 60 by Quetzal, posted 04-15-2002 11:46 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 64 by gene90, posted 04-15-2002 12:29 PM techristian has replied
 Message 78 by mark24, posted 04-16-2002 12:15 PM techristian has not replied
 Message 80 by nator, posted 04-16-2002 12:34 PM techristian has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 57 of 100 (8561)
04-15-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by techristian
04-15-2002 10:37 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by techristian:
[B]Ok here is your answer Mark.
First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !
Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS !
Third I would like to ask if breeding was even ATTEMPTED (in a labratory) between both creatures at both ends of the "ring".[/QUOTE]
JM: Would you accept a vertebrate giving rise to a eukaryote?
quote:
I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones. (which would lead me to think that "Lucy" was actually a combination of the bones of more than one individual.) I wrote an entire paper on the "Lucy" program.
JM: No doubt you told the Ethiopian government researchers, Don Johanssen and others about your 'discovery'. HAve you published your 'paper' in a scientific journal? Do you get all your science from TV shows? You can spin your own conspiracies anywhere you want; I'd like to see your scientific analysis of Lucy in the published literature as would all scientists. So, when will it appear?
quote:
To answer you honestly, there have been so many SCAMS with "Pilt Down Man" and others that I would almost need a missing link to walk up to me and say "I am a missing link. Try to disprove it!" Even "carbon dating" has been disproved when a pig bone (buried only a few years earlier) was said to be "MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"
JM: NOw, that is a lie. Maybe inadvertent on your part, but no C-14 date would EVER give millions of years. Thanks for trying, but you've repeated somebody else's lie uncritically and it just voided all your other arguments.
quote:
Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.
HUH?
quote:
Now Mark please tell me what it would take to make you believe in a SUPREME CREATOR.
JM: I can't speak for Mark, but I know that 50 million dollars deposited in my bank account today would go a long way towards convincing me.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 04-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by techristian, posted 04-15-2002 10:37 AM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by gene90, posted 04-15-2002 12:19 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 58 of 100 (8565)
04-15-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by techristian
04-15-2002 10:37 AM



techristian writes:
Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.
Techristian, you're getting a bit weird here. You can't create a "missing link" through organ transplants. That would have to be done through some kind of genetic modification, and even then who knows how it could be done.
The specific event you're referring to is when Doctor Leonard Bailey of Loma Linda University transplanted a baboon heart into Baby Fae in 1984. It was attempted because human donor hearts were unavailable, and the surgical alternative available at the time had an exceedingly low success rate then, about 2%. Baby Fae died after about 20 days.
This has nothing to do with the Creation/Evolution debate, but it was a historic event because it helped call attention to the problem of the shortage of human donors.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by techristian, posted 04-15-2002 10:37 AM techristian has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 100 (8566)
04-15-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by techristian
04-15-2002 10:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
Ok here is your answer Mark.
First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !
Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS !
Third I would like to ask if breeding was even ATTEMPTED (in a labratory) between both creatures at both ends of the "ring".
I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones. (which would lead me to think that "Lucy" was actually a combination of the bones of more than one individual.) I wrote an entire paper on the "Lucy" program.
To answer you honestly, there have been so many SCAMS with "Pilt Down Man" and others that I would almost need a missing link to walk up to me and say "I am a missing link. Try to disprove it!" Even "carbon dating" has been disproved when a pig bone (buried only a few years earlier) was said to be "MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"
Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.
Now Mark please tell me what it would take to make you believe in a SUPREME CREATOR.
Dan
http://musicinit.com

I'll ask again, what would you accept as a transitional? Please note, I DID NOT ask what you wouldn't accept.
If I could be cheeky, & add to that, what criteria would you apply to all fossils to determine whether they are transitional or not?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-15-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by techristian, posted 04-15-2002 10:37 AM techristian has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 60 of 100 (8567)
04-15-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by techristian
04-15-2002 10:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
Ok here is your answer Mark.
First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !
Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS !
Third I would like to ask if breeding was even ATTEMPTED (in a labratory) between both creatures at both ends of the "ring".
Why would anyone attempt to breed these species in a lab? What would that prove? Their ranges overlap at both ends. The critters don't interbreed. That by definition makes them distinct species. You can shout about them still be the same "kind" or whatever all you want, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are distinct species. Over time, the same mechanisms that created the two species in the first place can eventually cause these two populations to diverge even further. Shouting about it won't change the fact.
quote:
I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones. (which would lead me to think that "Lucy" was actually a combination of the bones of more than one individual.) I wrote an entire paper on the "Lucy" program.
Wow. I'm impressed! You were able to see through that evil hoax via a made-for-TV documentary from the comfort of your own living room. I wish I had that ability. Do you have any idea how ludicrous that statement is? You, techchristian, were able to discover that the scientists who study human evolution all their lives were completely wrong. Based on a TV program. Amazing.
quote:
To answer you honestly, there have been so many SCAMS with "Pilt Down Man" and others that I would almost need a missing link to walk up to me and say "I am a missing link. Try to disprove it!" Even "carbon dating" has been disproved when a pig bone (buried only a few years earlier) was said to be "MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"
Piltdown Man was a hoax perpetrated on scientists. It was debunked relatively immediately by scientists (once they had the chance to examine it). By your standards, given all of the spurious "holy relics", false prophets, and fake "visions" Christianity has been plagued with over the centuries, you should automatically reject that, as well. As to the mis-dated pig bone - your assertion doesn't make it so. Care to give a reference? Any other "scams" you'd like to discuss?
quote:
Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.
I assume you were referring to the "Baby Fae" heart transplant that was an attempt to save the life of a new-born baby when no other appropriately-sized heart was available? I'd say it was a brave, if desperate (and probably foredoomed) effort to save a human life. Isn't that what you Christians are supposedly on about all the time? Saving babies? How you can say the doctors (not evolutionary biologists, btw) were trying "to create a missing link", rather than state what it was - a last-ditch attempt to save a child's life? Your comment is utterly indefensible. You need to seriously re-examine your sources of information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by techristian, posted 04-15-2002 10:37 AM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by edge, posted 04-15-2002 11:55 AM Quetzal 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