Dinosaurs and man lived together, which destroys the theory of evolution

theropodal dinosaurs? in some cases, catching prey. in other cases, nothing at all. and in still others, flight.the major leg difference between dinosaurs and reptiles is that dinosaurs stand upright. they did not walk bow-legged hugging the ground, like a reptile does. even the four-legged varieties walked upright, no bent legs. and if they did, they leave huge ditches everywhere they went. their bodies are not shaped to lie flat against the ground like a reptile's.it's the ability to walk upright which allowed dinosaurs to evolve the ability to balance their weight over their hips and take the weight off the front legs. this allowed them to find other uses for their front limbs, including catching prey, and eventually gliding and flight.

Buz, But we're not talking about the other similarites, we're talking about size. And if size is a valid homology as you suggest, then similar sized molluscs & snails is evidence of their relationships, except it isn't when you don't want it to be.But for the record, if we take as many "similarities" as we can, birds are closest to theropods, not crocodilians. You can't have it both ways. And the fact that most reptiles are smaller than the largest bird has no relevence? Pure biased subjectivity, ignoring contrary evidence. Irrelevant. You said, "both dino and reptile have four legs. Bird two legs, 2 wings". This is false. Therapods have 2 legs & 2 forelimbs adapted for other purposes, this fact alone makes them more similar to birds than crocs. Moreover, the morphological similarities of coelosaur forelimbs are extremely similar to avian forelimbs in joint arrangement. Evidence against you, not for you. But are primarily terrestrial. Crocs are sometimes marine, does that make it a valid homology with fish? You completely failed to address the point that relationships are determined via homologies, not differences. But the flukes are your "homologies", not mine. Dinosaurs & birds both have species that have toothed & toothless beaks. Do crocs have beaks with or without teeth? Strange that the only connection you need to link with is the one that doesn't exist. Another fluke that the evidence supports me & not you, I suppose? There is no scientifically valid evidence for an Edenic serpent at all. Your hypothesis may as well try to argue that an asteroid orbiting any given distant star is made of white chocolate, & not brown. But you are arguing that birds are morphologically closer to crocs than dinos. This is simply false. I'm not sure how much your "Edenic" hypothesis relies on this, but it's a black mark from the outset. Not a good start.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

It appears this's going nowhere so I'm agreeing to disagree except that now I see your dinos arms are now, forlimbs. What are these forlimbs called? I would assume they're called legs, as I said in the first place. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-25-2004 11:55 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

The reference to forelimbs was in the context of therapod dinosaurs, which (according to a quick check on wikipedia) were bipedal.The forelimbs of a bipedal animal, by definition, aren't legs - depending on the animal they are called arms or wings.Of course, I'm no expert so I stand to be corrected by the resident experts in dinosaurs and/or anatomy

---

Confused ? You will be...

quote:

---

It appears this's going nowhere so I'm agreeing to disagree except that now I see your dinos arms are now, forlimbs. What are these forlimbs called? I would assume they're called legs, as I said in the first place.

---

Your use of the term 'legs' implied their use in locomotion. If you had simply used the term 'legs' to mean 'limbs' then you would have defined birds as four-legged rather than two. Given that you didn't, 'non-locomotory forelimbs' and 'wings' are grouped together by your logic as 'non-legs'. Ergo, extant 'Reptiles' have 4 limbs, all of which are 'legs', while the Theropods and extant Aves have 4 limbs, 2 of which are 'legs', while the forelimbs are either grasping or flying (or both) 'non-legs'.Impeccable logic, I know... RegardsDarwin ReduxThis message has been edited by Darwin Redux, 10-26-2004 12:34 AM

These forelimbs are no more legs than the appendages you use for typing your posts, Buz. Just how far will you try to stretch this?

quote:

---

LOL. It would be if it had enough other similarities (as I believe crock has) to qualify to be. You people are forgetting, it appears that my hypothesis factors in a substantial renovation of the physiology of the Edenic serpent accordig to the Genesis text.

---

But your assertion wasn't about 'other' similarities. It was about one: size. Your point is therefore moot.

quote:

---

A few reptiles are larger than any bird. Not a big deal, but, imo, has some significance

---

I'M SORRY??? It was YOU who were asserting that we shouldn't be looking at 'flukes' but 'by and large' with respect to comparative specimens, and now you are deciding the that the few 'flukes' of the extant reptile phyla which are bigger than modern birds are 'significant' to your argument? How inconsistent can one get? That's poor debating. Poor, poor debating.RegardsDarwin Redux

Buzsaw,Therapodal arms are forelimbs, just like yours. Are your forelimb/arms called legs? Are you obfuscating?We do not agree to disagree. You disagree in spite of the evidence, I disagree because of it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-26-2004 04:36 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

1. MY HYPOTHESIS HAS A CLASS OF ANIMALS WHICH HAS, SINCE THEY, {DINOS), WERE DISCOVERED BEEN WIDELY REGARDED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AS BEING REPTILIAN IN NATURE HAVING BECOME AT SOME TIME EXTINCT, ALL OF THEM, LARGE AND SMALL. YET ANOTHER CLASS OF ANIMALS REGARDED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AS AN EXTANT REPTILIAN CLASS OF ANIMALS HAS SURVIVED. SO MY NYPOTHESIS EQUATES EXTINCT REPTILIAN TO EXTANT REPTILIAN.2. MY HYPOTHESIS HAS THE EXTINCT CLASS OF REPTILIAN ANIMALS AS BEING THE PRE-CURSED EDENIC SERPENTS (REPTILIAN) BEING VASTLY CHANGED PHYSIOLOGICALLY BY THE CREATOR.3. MY HYPOTHESIS HAS THE OFFSPRING OF THE CHANGED REPTILLIAN REPTILES AS BEING THE PHYSIOLOGICALLY CHANGED CLASS OF REPTILIAN ANIMALS.4. MY HYPOTHESIS OFFERS MY CREATIONIST EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THIS VERY UNUSUAL EVENT HAPPENED, THAT ONE ENTIRE CLASS OF REPTILIAN ANIMALS TOTALLY VANISHED AMONG THE LIVING AND ANOTHER REPTILIAN CLASS OF ANIMALS HAS SURVIVED.5. MY HYPOTHESIS OFFERS FOR THE CREATIONIST THE ONLY SENSIBLE EXPLANATION THAT I AM AWARE OF FOR EVIDENCE THAT THE PRE-CURSED EDENIC LONG LEGGED SERPENT EVER EXISTED AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM, THE BIBLICAL IMPLICATION BEING THAT THIS WAS A LONGER LEGGED WALKING ANIMAL BY REASON THAT THE CURSE CHANGED IT TO BECOME A BELLY CRAWLER.6. MY HYPOTHESIS OFFERS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR HUMANS, WHO LIKELY NEVER SAW A DINO FOSSIL BEING ABLE TO REPRODUCE A LIKENESS IN THE PETROGLYPHICS FOUND ON THE ROCKS.7. MY HYPOTHESIS IS JUST THAT, HYPOTHESIS. IT HAS IT'S PROBLEMS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, SUCH AS HOW MUCH WAS CHANGED PHYSIOLOGICALLY FROM ONE CLASS TO ANOTHER, BUT SO DO ALL OTHER HYPOTHESES HAVE THEIR PROBLEMS. THE EVO FOLKS HAVE THE PROBLEM OF WHY EVERY LAST ONE OF THE DINOS BECAME EXTINCT WHILE OTHER LIVING ANIMALS REMAIN EXTANT.8. THE BIRD/DINO DEBATE IS AN ONGOING DEBATABLE SUBJECT AMONG SCIENTISTS OF BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE, BUT SOMEWHAT IRREVELANT TO MY PURPOSE FOR INTRODUCING MY HYPOTHESIS INTO THIS THREAD. HYPOTHESIS IS JUST THAT AND NOTHING MORE. I'M NOT CLAIMING IT TO BE A PROVABLE FACT. AGAIN, THE FACT THAT THERE HAVE, FOR A LONG TIME BEEN REGARDED, TWO CLASSES OF REPTILIAN ANIMALS WHICH HAVE MORE SIMILAR REPTILIAN APEARANCE AS LIVE ANIMALS THAN DINO AND BIRD LIVE APPEARANCE, RENDERS MY ARGUMENT AS WORTH A HEARING IN THIS THREAD. LET THE READERS JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES.Not being a scientist I have done the best I can in the bird/dino debate for the limited time I have for it. Admittedly, I don't have all the answers and though some are more studied in this, some of their points are being debated by other scientists of equal clout according to what I have read.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Buz,Good, we probably needed a clarification. Let me try to sum up the gist of your "hypothesis": God cursed what we now classify as dinosaurs, completely and suddenly changing their morphology, anatomy, and physiology into what we now classify as reptilian.Let me know if this is entirely off the mark, but I think this is your basic argument.Given the way you've framed it, I would argue that this doesn't qualify as as a testable hypothesis, and is rather a belief based on faith. No matter what evidence we supply for differences between dinosaurs and reptiles, you can simply counter with "God did it as part of the curse".Buz, perhaps you could give us a hypothetical example of objective scientific evidence that would falsify your hypothesis. If you can't provide an example, then it is not a hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but precurse, weren't there only two humans around, and weren't they blind? Who saw the dinosaurs, exactly?

YOUR HYPOTHESIS HAS NO EVIDENCE.You're just projecting Genesis onto natural history.By the way, birds are warm blooded, reptiles are cold-blooded, so just from that alone equating birds to "EXTANT REPTILIAN" is a bit of a stretch. Some dinosaurs are thought to have been warm blooded, plus dinosaurs are not reptiles, so equating them to "EXTINCT REPTILIAN" is also a bit of a stretch.In reality you're just playing word games. You've chosen to apply the inexact and superficial labels of "EXTINCT REPTILIAN" and "EXTANT REPTILIAN" in order to imply similarity and relatedness. This obfuscative approach ignores the evidence that tells us that dinosaurs and reptiles shared a common ancestor, and that birds descended from dinosaurs.You need a hypothesis that doesn't require you to cast a blind eye at the evidence.--Percy

I think that we all understand your hypothesis. THe problem is that it is based on jumping to conclusions instead of looking at the evidence.1) As has been pointed out "reptile" is a very, very, large and diverse group that is not even considered valid under cladistic terminology. So the "reptile" classification means very little. The fact of extinction also means little.
The fact is that snakes and lizards are not closely related to dinosaurs and evolved alongside the dinosaurs
Dinosauria On-Line
And you know what ? That's the first hit I got on Google searching for "fossil" "snake".2) There is no Biblical support for the idea that the "serpent" of Genesis refers to a very large and diverse group of species.3) There is no evidence to support this hypothesis. As snakes are closer related to lizards and appear before the dinosaurs died out the evidence is very much against it.4) Your hypothesis is not compatible with typical YEC beliefs (since fossils are attributed to the Flood the dinosaurs must have survived to that point) nor with typical OEC beliefs. OEC's accpet that the dinosaurs died out long befor eman appeared on the scene.5) As my comment to 4 above shows your answer is NOT acceptable ot the majority of YECs or OECs. YECs would not even expect "pre-Edenic serpents" in the fossil record and OECs would expect them to be contemporary with the first humans.6) Even if we assumed that the pictures were baed on living dinosaurs (which seems unlikely) they are far more likely to be based on a few remnant species which died out relatively recently. This explanation avoids obvious problems like the extinction of the dinosaurs occurring tens of millions of years before there were any humans.7) Your hypothesis has no significant evidence for it and very serious problems. And unless you have an explanation for why ALL dinosaurs should be cursed you don't even solve the problem of why they're all gone (except birds). So far as I can see your hypothesis only makes the problem worse.8) The bird/dino debate is relevant in this respect. We should expect dinosaur descendants to nest with the archosaurs as crocodiles and birds do (and even die-hards opposing the idea that birds are dinosaur descendants accept that much). Snakes do not - but they are closely related to lizards.So far as I can see the main value of this sub-thread ahs been to prove that you do not throughly check your facts, instead preferring to jump to conclusions.You've not researched the physiology or the actual taxonomic relationships, preferring instead simply to rely soley on the "reptile" classification.You've not considered the timescales involved.You've not considered - or even thought of looking for - the oldest fossil snakes. By your hypothesis they should suddenly appear in large numbers directly after the dinosaurs . They don't. The first snakes appear while the dinosaurs are still around.You haven't even thought about the fact that you have no real explanation of why ALL the dinosaurs disappeared. To do that you would have to explain why the "curse" should affect so many differnet species. Yet you have no problem saying that other people have an equivalent problem.You haven't even considered other creationist positions before declaring your explanation the only "sensible explanation" for them. It isn't even A "sensible explanation" for most creationists.

When you say "nature", what do you mean, exactly? What exactly is the "reptile nature"? How would one detect it, specifically?

Buz, Your hypothesis is contradicted by evidence, not supported by it. It's in the bin, mate.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

A google search on "dinosaur front legs" brought up 45,000 hits whereas "dinosaur front arms" brought 65,000 hits, so though I seem to be in the minority view, I have plenty of company.