Dinosaurs

[mitch4fun]

I reckeon that the dinosouars where just the snake before the fall of adam, couse god said "you will slide on your belly and eat dust for the rest of your days" and most reptiles now are pretty much flat and close to the ground. Anyway I can't see a snake talking as much as a dinosouar and dragons, are often reffered to as serpents are't they? what do you thinks?

 

[Melethiel]

Dinosaurs would be more closely related to today's birds, if I recall correctly.

 

[Assyrian]

The serpent in Genesis 3 was actually Satan. It was a snake in the story, but the real meaning was Satan, just as the birds in the parable of the sower are birds in the story, but really they represent the evil one. You can read who the serpent in the garden really was in Rev 12.

Welcome to the forum Mitch.

Assyrian

 

[Windlord]

Dinosaurs would be more closely related to today's birds, if I recall correctly.

You are correct. Today many Paleantologists theorize that Dinosaurs may have even been warmblooded.

Peace,

Windlord.

 

[mitch4fun]

I wasn't saying that like it was a parable (story) i was meaning that it actually happended. and satan can take many forms and divide his power/evil in anyway he likes, just like god can divide/combine himself into the trinity and since satan knew of gods wrath i don't think that it would actually be him wholley. Anyway i thought that this would be a nice soulution to the evolution/genesis debate.

 

[Melethiel]

and satan can take many forms and divide his power/evil in anyway he likes, just like god can divide/combine himself into the trinity

Incorrect understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity...

Anyway i thought that this would be a nice soulution to the evolution/genesis debate.

In order for your scenario to work, you would have to have dinosaurs more closely related to modern reptiles, which they're not.

 

[DailyBlessings]

satan can take many forms and divide his power/evil in anyway he likes

Satan is omnipotent?

 

[LoG]

You are correct. Today many Paleantologists theorize that Dinosaurs may have even been warmblooded.

Peace,

Windlord.

Warm blooded dinosaurs are a source of much controversy and recent studies shop that the dino-->bird connection to be highly unlikely.

I reckeon that the dinosouars where just the snake before the fall of adam, couse god said "you will slide on your belly and eat dust for the rest of your days" and most reptiles now are pretty much flat and close to the ground.

I've run across a few sites that made the connection between dinosaurs and serpents from various myths. There could be something to it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Warm blooded dinosaurs are a source of much controversy and recent studies shop that the dino-->bird connection to be highly unlikely.


would you please link to the science of this?
AFAIK the connection between dinosaurs and birds seems likely, but i am unfamiliar with the bulk of the science as you are. perhaps a few good links to the best review articles in the field would help me get up to speed and see what you propose here.

 

[Mallon]

Warm blooded dinosaurs are a source of much controversy

You're right here. There is nearly as much evidence for warm-blooded dinosaurs as there is for cold-blooded dinos. Interesting... seems many dinosaurs may have had an intermediate metabolism between reptiles and birds -- exactly as palaeontologists predicted they might as early as the turn of last century.

and recent studies shop that the dino-->bird connection to be highly unlikely.

I can think of one man -- Alan Fedduccia and his 2 or 3 cronies -- who still don't accept the dinosaur origin of birds. Unfortunately for you, none of his work has stood up to scrutiny in the realm of vertebrate palaeontology. So your claim is moot. Unless, of course, you can find a better way of explaining the 210+ similarities between basal coelurosaurian theropods and birds...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I wasn't saying that like it was a parable (story) i was meaning that it actually happended. and satan can take many forms and divide his power/evil in anyway he likes, just like god can divide/combine himself into the trinity and since satan knew of gods wrath i don't think that it would actually be him wholley. Anyway i thought that this would be a nice soulution to the evolution/genesis debate.

A nice solution?

An omnipotent Satan and a rather dense God that can’t tell it was Satan and not a snake, so He punished all snakes and not Satan.

That, to me, is not an acceptable solution at all.

 

[mitch4fun]

Einstein also said hat there must be an equel, oposite reaction to evry action, so if you follow just einstein on this the universe can't expnad forever can it?

 

[mitch4fun]

I never said that god was dumb, god uses satan to sift out the real beleivers I think, other than that can you hink of a reason why god would have allowed it to happen when he knew it was satan? Anyway that's another topic I'm talkin about dinos.

 

[gluadys]

Einstein also said hat there must be an equel, oposite reaction to evry action, so if you follow just einstein on this the universe can't expnad forever can it?

That's much earlier than Einstein. Newton included it in his laws of motion 300 years earlier, but I think he borrowed it from the ancient Greeks.

Also Newton was referring to motion when two moving bodies collide. Nothing raises an opposite reaction if there is no collision. Then the first law of motion applies: that anything moving will keep going in a straight line for ever.

So, yes, the universe can keep expanding forever. What could it run into to make it react by reversing its direction?

The only thing we know of that could reverse the expansion of the universe is that the mass of matter in the universe would create so much gravity it would start pulling matter back toward the centre faster than the universe can keep expanding.

However, the evidence suggests that there is not enough matter in the universe to do this.

 

[Starcrystal]

Dinosaurs are dinosaurs and birds are birds.... nothing "evolved" into another species, people did not come from apes, and God created every species "after its own kind." That means while species can breed with others of the same species, they cannot breed with creatures not of their species: for instance a domestic dog can mate with a wolf or Coyote and produce offspring because all are canids... but you can't mate a dog with a cat or a goat. It just doesn't work that way. You can't even mate a human with an ape, and I hear some sickos have tried.... so this alone proves God created individual species and the species remain relatively the same since creation.
I don't even know how much dinosaurs could interbreed... for instance could a Triceratops mate with other Ceratopsians like Styracasaurus or Protoceratops?
Could Velociraptor breed with Dionychus? Similar animals but I think they all produced after their kind. So dino's didn't turn into birds and if you look at the sheer intracicies of birds feathers you will see they could not have "evolved" over time from a featherless creature. The undeveloped evolving feathers would have been useless, gotten in the way, and led to the inbetween species extinction because others would have hunted it due to its inability to fly and its awkwardness on the ground...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Dinosaurs are dinosaurs and birds are birds.... nothing "evolved" into another species, people did not come from apes, and God created every species "after its own kind." That means while species can breed with others of the same species, they cannot breed with creatures not of their species: for instance a domestic dog can mate with a wolf or Coyote and produce offspring because all are canids... but you can't mate a dog with a cat or a goat.
snip snip to address a single issue

other than simply taking your word for these declarations of truth, what evidence do you have for them?

how do ring species fit into this system of yours? ie A can mate with B, B can mate with C but A can not mate with C.

for example, within your few lines you confuse species with "kind" with genus. which one(s) is(are) foundational?

is hybridization-possible the same boundaries as kind? in plants as well as animals?

 

[LoG]

I can think of one man -- Alan Fedduccia and his 2 or 3 cronies -- who still don't accept the dinosaur origin of birds. Unfortunately for you, none of his work has stood up to scrutiny in the realm of vertebrate palaeontology. So your claim is moot. Unless, of course, you can find a better way of explaining the 210+ similarities between basal coelurosaurian theropods and birds...

The 210 similarities are immaterial since it only requires 1 or dissimalarities to refute the hypothesis. The differences in fused digits and the lung type aren't looking good for the idea.

If paleontologists were so good at predicting this, you have to wonder why they abandoned the idea for 40 odd years. Looks to me like the were srambling for an ancestor to the birds. Couldn't just have them being appearing out of nowhere now can we?

 

[gluadys]

The 210 similarities are immaterial since it only requires 1 or dissimalarities to refute the hypothesis. The differences in fused digits and the lung type aren't looking good for the idea.

No, it doesn't. We expect some dissimilarities. "Descent with modification" remember?

If paleontologists were so good at predicting this, you have to wonder why they abandoned the idea for 40 odd years. Looks to me like the were srambling for an ancestor to the birds. Couldn't just have them being appearing out of nowhere now can we?

Well, Feduccua doesn't think birds appeared out of nowhere either. He doesn't think they evolved from dinosaurs but he does think they evolved from another reptile group.

 

[RealityCheck]

Dinosaurs are dinosaurs and birds are birds.... nothing "evolved" into another species, people did not come from apes, and God created every species "after its own kind." That means while species can breed with others of the same species, they cannot breed with creatures not of their species: for instance a domestic dog can mate with a wolf or Coyote and produce offspring because all are canids... but you can't mate a dog with a cat or a goat. It just doesn't work that way. You can't even mate a human with an ape, and I hear some sickos have tried.... so this alone proves God created individual species and the species remain relatively the same since creation.

No, that proves nothing, and in fact you clearly demonstrate you don't understand the definition of a species.

You can mate a coyote with a wolf, yes. But they are not the same species! They're not even the same genus. They are classed under a higher level, and the fact that they can breed is generally immaterial, because the offspring are usually infertile.

Same with lions and tigers, or horses and donkeys. They are not the same genus/species, but they are genetically similar enough that they CAN produce offspring. They're just generally infertile.

Of course, there's the new polar/grizzly bear... scary.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You can mate a coyote with a wolf, yes. But they are not the same species! They're not even the same genus. They are classed under a higher level, and the fact that they can breed is generally immaterial, because the offspring are usually infertile.

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid
there are more fertile hybrids then you would expect. Coyote(M)-dog(F) hybrids are very common in our area, we have a chow-chow/coyote ourselves.



Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia (all animals)
Phylum: Chordata (animals with notochords)
Subphylum: Vertebrata (animals with a skeleton of bone or cartilage)
Class: Mammalia (mammals)
Order: Carnivora (carnivores)
Family: Canidae (dog family)
Genus: Canis (dogs)
Species: lupus (wolves)

there is a nice discussion of the Canidae family at:
http://home.globalcrossing.net/~brendel/canidae.html

which all goes to show you that no fertile hybrids are not a definition of either species or genus.