Micro to Macro

corvus_corax said:

Not quite.

Click to expand...

Come on cor cor, I do know that birds are descended from dinos, and you know that "dinosaurs" are not mentioned in the bible, nor did they doexist with people.

AV1611VET said:

Do dinosaurs and man coexist?

Click to expand...

Insofar as archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) are descended from dinosaurs, yes, they co-exist. The definition I like is that 'dinosaur' includes the Triceratops, modern birds, their most recent common ancestor, and all their descendants.

AV1611VET said:

Are dinosaurs mentioned in both Testaments of the Bible?

Click to expand...

No: the authors had no idea what a dinosaur was, nor would they have know that birds and crocodiles were related.

Hespera said:

Come on cor cor, I do know that birds are descended from dinos, and you know that "dinosaurs" are not mentioned in the bible, nor did they doexist with people.

Click to expand...

Birds are dinosaurs precisely because they are descended from T. Rex and the like.

Hespera said:

Come on cor cor, I do know that birds are descended from dinos, and you know that "dinosaurs" are not mentioned in the bible, nor did they doexist with people.

Click to expand...

When most people (myself included) think of dinosaurs, they think of creatures such as T Rex, Triceratops, Brachiosaurus and so on. However, AV1611Vet is correct in his assertion that birds (now known as avian dinosaurs) are mentioned in the bible. From the Berkeley site- "Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science".

It would, however, probably erase some confusion (or not?) if it were stated that archosaurs are mentioned in the bible even without the term "archosaur" ever being used.

Wiccan_Child said:

Insofar as archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) are descended from dinosaurs, yes, they co-exist. The definition I like is that 'dinosaur' includes the Triceratops, modern birds, their most recent common ancestor, and all their descendants.


No: the authors had no idea what a dinosaur was, nor would they have know that birds and crocodiles were related.

Click to expand...

Ok if you want to technicalize, crocodilians are not descended from dinosaurs.


If a bird is a dinosaur because of their ancestry, wouldst consider thyself a Theriodont?

Hespera said:

Ok if you want to technicalize, crocodilians are not descended from dinosaurs.

Click to expand...

It's hardly a technicality...

If a bird is a dinosaur because of their ancestry, wouldst consider thyself a Theriodont?[/quote]
Yes. I am also a tetrapod, an amniote, a synapsid, a therapsid, a mammal, etc.

Wiccan_Child said:

It's hardly a technicality...

If a bird is a dinosaur because of their ancestry, wouldst consider thyself a Theriodont?

Click to expand...

Yes. I am also a tetrapod, an amniote, a synapsid, a therapsid, a mammal, etc.[/quote]


Techno or otherwise, crocs still arent descended from dinos.

I do like thinking of myself in terms of all the ancient ancestry that goes into making up a human being.

Suppose there is a reception line of ancestors, in an afterlife. Grandparents, great great great great great etc grandparents, H. erectus, etc...I wonder how far back that would go? Till they quit having hands to shake, or what.

And I wonder how it would go for the creationists, if they saw that line stretching away, and know at some point they are gonna have to change their mind or else say to some worthy predecessor YOU aint my gggggggggggreat anything. You is a pongid. or you is a Therapsid..........I know ye not.

See how that goes over.

Hespera said:

Anyway, is there a point to it that you keep mentioning bird-as-dinosaur?

Click to expand...

Yes. Sophistry.

Hespera said:

Techno or otherwise, crocs still arent descended from dinos.

Click to expand...

Aye, my mistake.

Hespera said:

I do like thinking of myself in terms of all the ancient ancestry that goes into making up a human being.

Suppose there is a reception line of ancestors, in an afterlife. Grandparents, great great great great great etc grandparents, H. erectus, etc...I wonder how far back that would go? Till they quit having hands to shake, or what.

And I wonder how it would go for the creationists, if they saw that line stretching away, and know at some point they are gonna have to change their mind or else say to some worthy predecessor YOU aint my gggggggggggreat anything. You is a pongid. or you is a Therapsid..........I know ye not.

See how that goes over.

Click to expand...

What if, when we get to those pearly gates, we see our ancestry stretch back only to Adam and Eve?

atomweaver said:

Not only does it not stop, ever, it can do loop-the-loops;

Tamaskan Dog

Click to expand...

shows what you know. they are all still dogs..

ranmaonehalf said:

shows what you know. they are all still dogs..

Click to expand...

shows what you know. ones a wolf, ones a dog, ones a rat and one is a cancer. lol

MoonLancer said:

don't you mean birds, whos ancestors are dinosaurs.

Click to expand...

And who are consequently dinosaurs themselves.

AV knows perfectly well that while birds are technically dinosaurs, the common usage of the word "dinosaur" doesn't usually include them. I don't have enough fin rays (he-he) to count how many times he's been explained.

Hespera said:

This seems a bit silly, tweety birds are a totally different subject than 30 ton carnosaurs.

Click to expand...

30 ton carnosaurs is off by an order of magnitude

Hespera said:

This seems a bit silly, tweety birds are a totally different subject than 30 ton carnosaurs.

Click to expand...

My browser can't find the picture on your hard drive

double post

Naraoia said:

AV knows perfectly well that while birds are technically dinosaurs, the common usage of the word "dinosaur" doesn't usually include them.

Click to expand...

AV also wishes you guys would apply the same rule of thumb to other aspects of the Bible as well.

Like saying the earth is fixed and unmovable, Pi is wrong, and the sun doesn't "rise" and the moon doesn't "shine".

To name a few.

You guys don't like the shoe on the other foot, do you?

AV1611VET said:

AV also wishes you guys would apply the same rule of thumb to other aspects of the Bible as well.

Like saying the earth is fixed and unmovable, Pi is wrong, and the sun doesn't "rise" and the moon doesn't "shine".

To name a few.

You guys don't like the shoe on the other foot, do you?

Click to expand...

We're not the ones who take the Bible as literal truth. Accepting that there is error in the Bible solves pretty much all the minor problems, like a shining moon.

Wiccan_Child said:

We're not the ones who take the Bible as literal truth.

Click to expand...

No kidding?

Wiccan_Child said:

Accepting that there is error in the Bible solves pretty much all the minor problems, like a shining moon.

Click to expand...

And the coexistence of dinosaurs --- ya, I get it.

The Bible is good at exposing your ... well ... selective preferences.

AV1611VET said:

AV also wishes you guys would apply the same rule of thumb to other aspects of the Bible as well.

Like saying the earth is fixed and unmovable, Pi is wrong, and the sun doesn't "rise" and the moon doesn't "shine".

To name a few.

You guys don't like the shoe on the other foot, do you?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Naraoia said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Click to expand...

You guys like to say that the Bible's claim that the sun rises is a scientific flaw; turning a deaf ear to our explanations of "references to the observer".

Then you turn right around and say the Bible is flawed because It mentions dinosaurs coexisting with man; sweeping under the carpet the fact that dinosaurs do coexist with man.

You'll turn a deaf ear to our explanations, while at the same time sweep your explanations under the carpet.