How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?

[Split Rock]

Sorry science says they are NOT reptiles, try again.

Dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Through the first half of the 20th century, before birds were recognized to be dinosaurs, most of the scientific community believed dinosaurs to have been sluggish and cold-blooded. Most research conducted since the 1970s, however, has indicated that all dinosaurs were active animals with elevated metabolisms and numerous adaptations for social interaction."


Your evolutionists can't even give consistent deffinitions. reptiles are cold blooded, but dino are now believed to have elevated metabolisms - read NOT cold-blooded.

Well, which is it? What, can't even get your own classifications right?

Where in your quote does it say they were warm-blooded? "Elevated metabolism" is not necessarily "warm-blooded. There are also intermediate forms of metabolism, which can qualify as elevated over cold-blooded lizards and snakes. This is actually a subject of controversy among paleontologists. Some do believe that at least theropods were warm-blooded, but the evidence is not solid.

And yet your very own science says reptiles are cold-blooded, and you now claim dino were NOT cold-blooded. So which is it, are reptiles cold-blooded or not? Are dino cold-blooded or not? As I said, your very own definitions are contradictory because in reality you have not a clue.

Are dino reptiles? If so they were cold-blooded. But you no longer believe they were cold-blooded, so were not reptiles. But lets keep the definitions the same as always so we can say whatever we need to at any given time and not be pinned down to one definition.

Some dinosaurs may well have been warm-blooded... some or all may have had an intermediate metabolism. It is not clear and difficult to access, since we cannot measure a living dinosaur's body temperature over time. If it turns out that some were warm-blooded, they would either be moved out of the Reptilia, as some scientists favor, or the definition would have to be changed to "all living members being cold-blooded." In any case, it is very possible for a warm-blooded species to evolve from intermediate or cold-blooded ancestors.

Lol, you evolutionists are so ignorant when it comes to what your own science says about it.

No, you are. You also seem to be a very angry person. Maybe you should get help for that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is the shape your evolutionary trees are in:

Darwin's Evolutionary Tree 'Annihilated'

"[D]ifferent genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.” Finally, evolutionary biologists seem to be catching up with creation biologists."

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

"I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”


Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution


Viruses and the tree of life

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is the shape your evolutionary trees are in:

Darwin's Evolutionary Tree 'Annihilated'

"[D]ifferent genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.” Finally, evolutionary biologists seem to be catching up with creation biologists."

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

"I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”


Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution


Viruses and the tree of life

 

[Split Rock]

This is the shape your evolutionary trees are in:

Darwin's Evolutionary Tree 'Annihilated'

"[D]ifferent genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.” Finally, evolutionary biologists seem to be catching up with creation biologists."

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

"I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”


Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution


Viruses and the tree of life

owwwwwww another quote mine! Here is mine:

This is the shape your Young Earth Creationism is in:

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter

 

[HitchSlap]

Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter

Ha! I knew inmate Hovind was a secret evoloser!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

owwwwwww another quote mine! Here is mine:

This is the shape your Young Earth Creationism is in:

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

Who says the earth is only 6000 years old? Certainly not the Bible. The original Hebrew texts have a pause mark between the first and second verse. The word translated was, is also translated as became some 20 times in this chapter alone. The Hebrew tohu was bohu exists in 3 places in the Bible together, and in both other places describe a once flourishing condition made desolate and waste. Why would I think it meant something completely different in the first chapter? Gen 1:2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23

I agree, the earth is millions of years old. The earth became desolate and waste after untold eons and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Meteor, comet? Who knows. You are trying to make a molehill out of an anthill because people close to 2000 years ago chose to translate words to fit their own propaganda. If you can't take the time to look up the original meaning of the original Hebrew language, don't blame others for your laziness.

And your carbon 14 dating is as useless as your theory. But of course its totally accurate according to you, then why do you not accept the results? If radiocarbon dating is so accurate, why must your evolutionary scientists continue to disregard the data obtained as flawed?????

Dinosaur bones Carbon-14 dated - YouTube

http://www.newgeology.us/NoTime4Evolution.pdf


Make up your minds, can we or can we not trust carbon 14 dating? Yes with respect to anything but dino bones

 

[Split Rock]

Who says the earth is only 6000 years old? Certainly not the Bible. The original Hebrew texts have a pause mark between the first and second verse. The word translated was, is also translated as became some 20 times in this chapter alone. The Hebrew tohu was bohu exists in 3 places in the Bible together, and in both other places describe a once flourishing condition made desolate and waste. Why would I think it meant something completely different in the first chapter? Gen 1:2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23

I agree, the earth is millions of years old. The earth became desolate and waste after untold eons and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Meteor, comet? Who knows. You are trying to make a molehill out of an anthill because people close to 2000 years ago chose to translate words to fit their own propaganda. If you can't take the time to look up the original meaning of the original Hebrew language, don't blame others for your laziness.

You're preaching to the choir here. Tell it to your fellow creationists who insist each day during the creation week was a 24-hour period, with no long periods between.

And your carbon 14 dating is as useless as your theory. But of course its totally accurate according to you, then why do you not accept the results? If radiocarbon dating is so accurate, why must your evolutionary scientists continue to disregard the data obtained as flawed?????

C-14 dating is accurate within the limits of the technique. These limits are known.

Make up your minds, can we or can we not trust carbon 14 dating? Yes with respect to anything but dino bones

I will ask you to measure the length of a paramecium with a ruler. Then you can tell me that rulers cannot be trusted. As far as dinosaurs are concerned, there are other radiometric techniques that can be used to estimate their age based on the age of igneous strata bracketing the fossils ladden strata.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're preaching to the choir here. Tell it to your fellow creationists who insist each day during the creation week was a 24-hour period, with no long periods between.

For one thing the creation described in genesis has nothing to do with the age of the earth, the dinosaurs, or any creature that existed before mankind. You again misinterpret it. We do not know anything about the creations that occurred before mankind, during the first verse when all was created, nor the time between the first and second verse, the Bible is silent on this matter. the Bible only concerns itself with events directly connected to the creation of man. But we do know from fossil records that all the animals now existing with man appeared with mankind, except for a few classes of reptile and fish that survived the earlier cataclysms. The geological and fossil record is clear, there have been many sudden appearances of fully formed life on this planet and many destruction's. There is no gradual chain, nor transitory species in any of the previous epochs.

You are talking to someone who once argued for evolution and knows exactly what the evidence says and doesn't say. In every geological epoch there exist only fully formed creatures, creatures that went extinct and were replaced by other fully formed creatures. We wont mention that 5 of these prior events occurred at a minimum, depending on which geologist you choose to discuss the strata with.

C-14 dating is accurate within the limits of the technique. These limits are known.


I will ask you to measure the length of a paramecium with a ruler. Then you can tell me that rulers cannot be trusted. As far as dinosaurs are concerned, there are other radiometric techniques that can be used to estimate their age based on the age of igneous strata bracketing the fossils ladden strata.

Yes they are known, the limits reach approximately 50,000 years.

And yet every C-14 test done on dinosaur bones show them to be less than 40,000 years old. only within the last 10 years has anyone tried, because of the fabled myth that they were millions of years old so the tests would show nothing. But every single test has shown a remarkable consitency, yet evolutionists choose to ignore these results simply because they do not jive with their preconceived notions. Not actual facts, just theory on how it should be. Skin samples have been discovered, veins and other soft tissue, impossible by evolutionists own science because they believed them to be too old. The evidence is clear, they are not the millions of years old they once thought.

I have no problem with an old earth with previous life with resulting destruction's and a newer creation along with mankind. The geological and fossil record support this. But it also supports life springing into being fully formed in every single instance.

I propose that those they claim are transitional are nothing more than variation within kinds, just as we observe with our own eyes in cats and dogs. Variations that without mankind's interference might have taken thousands if not millions of years and would be mistaken as transitional if we knew nothing about the background of dogs and cats.

They cant even take bacteria and get it to be anything other than bacteria, and we can get millions of generations of bacteria in a single human lifetime. Anyone involved in plant or animal husbandry would tell you the limits imposed on the genome thru manipulation, that nothing new that did not already exist within the genome is ever possible. Genes simply become dominate or repressed, but they already existed.

Evolutionists themselves admit this, at least those involved in molecular biology who know the facts, the rest just parrot Zombie science. Scientific theories long dead that they refuse to let die.

As for your strata age if a flood buried me from strata once on a mountain, would you believe me to be millions of years old because the dirt I was found in had that age? Even if your C-14 tests showed that every single bone tested found with me was less than 40,000 years old? Would you? Or would you logically decide the strata layered over me from the flood was perhaps of an older age, but that which was buried in it belonged to a younger age? We all know fossils only form when the animal is almost immediately buried, otherwise we would have millions of fossilized buffalo bones littering the Midwest, of which I do not see a single one.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes they are known, the limits reach approximately 50,000 years.

And yet every C-14 test done on dinosaur bones show them to be less than 40,000 years old.

Don't you understand what you're saying? C-14 cannot produce a reliable age greater than 50,000 years. It couldn't produce an age of millions of years. But when tests that have that range are performed, they provide ages in the millions of years. When numbskulls use C-14 on dinosaur bones, their methods are so shoddy that they can't get them published.

 

[Split Rock]

You are talking to someone who once argued for evolution and knows exactly what the evidence says and doesn't say. In every geological epoch there exist only fully formed creatures, creatures that went extinct and were replaced by other fully formed creatures. We wont mention that 5 of these prior events occurred at a minimum, depending on which geologist you choose to discuss the strata with.

What does a not "fully formed" creature look like?

Yes they are known, the limits reach approximately 50,000 years.

Correct. Now tell me why you expect the technique to accurately date fossils older than 50,000 years?

And yet every C-14 test done on dinosaur bones show them to be less than 40,000 years old. only within the last 10 years has anyone tried, because of the fabled myth that they were millions of years old so the tests would show nothing. But every single test has shown a remarkable consitency, yet evolutionists choose to ignore these results simply because they do not jive with their preconceived notions. Not actual facts, just theory on how it should be. Skin samples have been discovered, veins and other soft tissue, impossible by evolutionists own science because they believed them to be too old. The evidence is clear, they are not the millions of years old they once thought.

There is no measurement of age or measured date that gives "40,000 years." There is always an error associated with any measurement. The errors associated with dating dinosaur fossils with C-14 are huge. That is why they are clearly not reliable. That also makes sense since they are too old for the technique to work properly.

As for your strata age if a flood buried me from strata once on a mountain, would you believe me to be millions of years old because the dirt I was found in had that age? Even if your C-14 tests showed that every single bone tested found with me was less than 40,000 years old? Would you? Or would you logically decide the strata layered over me from the flood was perhaps of an older age, but that which was buried in it belonged to a younger age? We all know fossils only form when the animal is almost immediately buried, otherwise we would have millions of fossilized buffalo bones littering the Midwest, of which I do not see a single one.

No one dates sedimentary rock (absolutely, that is). They date the igneous rock bracketting the sedimentary layers.

 

[USincognito]

Theory hasn't changed, you still believe in evolution even though every new data set falsifies the current theory.

When did that happen?

 

[USincognito]

And yet you still refuse to accept the scientific facts. Cats and dogs have been forced into appearance changes in our lifetime, yet still remain cats and dogs.

If you think that selective breeding will change them into anything other than cats or dogs or that selective breeding is anything more than an analogue to evolution, I can see why you're having trouble grasping that this observation is not a problem for evolutionary theory.

 

[USincognito]

Birds lived with the dinosaur, are found in the strata at the same time, in the stomachs of fossilized dino, so can not be dino.

Did your grandparents die the moment you were born?

Since you do not classify dino as aves, then dino are not birds, never have been.

Aves is an outdated (though still useful) Linnaean taxon. Phylogenetically they are placed within the clade Theropoda.
Theropoda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You once believed dino were reptiles, but no longer. Not sure if you think they are mammals or not, can't get any definite answer from an evolutionist in this regard, but I know you do not classify them as aves, so birds they were not.

I believe you've been corrected on this before. Dinosaurs are reptiles in Linnaean taxonomy. More accurately they are a subset of terrestrail tetrapods. NO ONE thinks dinosaurs are mammals. I have no idea where you're getting such a crazy idea. In fact, a popular "dinosaur" found in plastic toy sets is Dimetrodon which, not only wasn't a dinosaur, but was a side branch of Synapsids from whence mammals evolved.

 

[lasthero]

Make up your minds, can we or can we not trust carbon 14 dating?

Is a yardstick a flawed tool just because you wouldn't use it to measure miles?

 

[USincognito]

What are Felidae? What are Canidae?

Derived taxa that evolved from a basal Carnivora.
Carnivora evolved from a basal Eutherian.
Eutherians evolved from a basal Therian.
Etc. etc.

 

[USincognito]

Sorry science says they are NOT reptiles, try again.

Dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Reptile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Reptiles, the class Reptilia, are an evolutionary grade of animals, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, and tuatara, as well as many extinct groups. A reptile is any amniote (a tetrapod whose egg has an additional membrane, originally to allow them to lay eggs on land) that is neither a mammal nor a bird.[1] Unlike mammals, birds, and certain extinct reptiles, living reptiles have scales or scutes (rather than fur or feathers) and are cold-blooded."

 

[USincognito]

And yet your very own science says reptiles are cold-blooded, and you now claim dino were NOT cold-blooded. So which is it, are reptiles cold-blooded or not? Are dino cold-blooded or not? As I said, your very own definitions are contradictory because in reality you have not a clue.

Unlike mammals, birds, and certain extinct reptiles, living reptiles have scales or scutes (rather than fur or feathers) and are cold-blooded."​

 

[USincognito]

There are not kinds within kinds. There are not several kinds of dogs, they all fall under one kind, canine. There are different breeds within that kind, but not species. A pug is a canine, just as a wolf is a canine. It is evolutionists that have a name game problem along with a species problem, because in reality you have not a clue as to how to define things.

Why do Creationists have an obsession with kitty cats, moo cows and horsies? Why won't they discuss other clades and taxa?

Tell me:
Are clams a "kind"?
Are squids a "kind"?
Are slugs a "kind"?
Are mollusks a "kind"?

What about crabs and lobsters?
What about crabs, lobsters and wasps?
What about crabs, lobsters, wasps and spiders?

 

[lasthero]

Make up your minds, can we or can we not trust carbon 14 dating?

Because those are simple animals that they know about without having to do any sort of research whatsoever. Once you start moving away from dogs and cats, it becomes readily apparent. I've heard creationists imply that birds are divided between flying and nonflying kinds, I've heard them say all cats are the same kind, I've even heard them say that all bacteria are a kind.

Just often harps on about the different species definitions, but if you actually look at them, you notice that changing the definitions would only alter taxonomy in a few areas - the vast majority of cases would stay the same regardless of which definition you picked.

Species

Not so with 'kind'. There's a big difference between a term that's vague and hard to define and a term that changes depending on the person using it at the time. 'Kind' is just a shell game - creationists like Just don't know what it means anymore than anyone else does, and they know it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because those are simple animals that they know about without having to do any sort of research whatsoever. Once you start moving away from dogs and cats, it becomes readily apparent. I've heard creationists imply that birds are divided between flying and nonflying kinds, I've heard them say all cats are the same kind, I've even heard them say that all bacteria are a kind.

All cats are of the same kind, that's why they are classified as felidae. If there were different kinds they wouldn't be cats. All bacteria are of the same kind, that's why they are all bacteria.

Just often harps on about the different species definitions, but if you actually look at them, you notice that changing the definitions would only alter taxonomy in a few areas - the vast majority of cases would stay the same regardless of which definition you picked.

Species

Not so with 'kind'. There's a big difference between a term that's vague and hard to define and a term that changes depending on the person using it at the time. 'Kind' is just a shell game - creationists like Just don't know what it means anymore than anyone else does, and they know it.

No, you have kind and species confused. Kind is all felidae, species you define as separate even within the same class. You have lions as a separate species from tiger, when clearly tiger and lion have mated and fulfill even your own definition of species. A common House cat can mate with an Ocelot, Ocelot with Jaguar, Jaguar with Panther, Panther with Lion and Lion with Tiger, showing despite your classification of them as different species, they are in reality all of the same kind.

This is the most obvious example as the different breeds of cats have been created in our lifetimes so they have not completely lost the ability to interbreed within select gene pools. Over thousands of years this ability may be lost, but does not preclude they belong to the same kind or family.

Half of your classification system isn't even classified on the same level. Cats and dogs you have under family, while birds you have under class or clade, with no family at all. Your system isn't even consistent in its naming and is utterly useless.