Extinctions not asteroid after all, and dino protein real after all...

[dad]

What scientific evidence do you have that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. It seems to me that you'r just flat out rejecting scientific data suggesting this connection for no reason other than a bias in favor of a fundamentalist interpretation of the genesis story.

What scientific data do you have that dinos did not evolve from birds? You seem to suggest there is some date that it was the other way round. Let's see it.

 

[uke2se]

What scientific data do you have that dinos did not evolve from birds? You seem to suggest there is some date that it was the other way round. Let's see it.

There is a lot of scientific evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and the scientific evidence that birds and dinosaurs are related could indicate a reverse relationship ONLY if you disregard all the data that points to the established line of descent.

But you never disregard any evidence, do you, dad?

 

[gaara4158]

What scientific data do you have that dinos did not evolve from birds? You seem to suggest there is some date that it was the other way round. Let's see it.

the evidence is the order in which their fossils show up in the geological column. Dinosaurs show up first, then dinos with feathers, then birds. the tissue they found in the T-rex skeleton confirms this. Dinosaurs didn't evolve from birds any more than Thomas Edison evolved from you.

 

[BananaSlug]

Well some of the late Cretaceous maniraptorans could have possibly evolved from early birds that lost flight secondarily. It is a minority view expoused by some scientists but could garner support as more evidence crops up.

 

[dad]

There is a lot of scientific evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and the scientific evidence that birds and dinosaurs are related could indicate a reverse relationship ONLY if you disregard all the data that points to the established line of descent.

But you never disregard any evidence, do you, dad?

No, of course not. Show us, so that I can tweak my opinions accordingly if you can. I don't believe you. What you would need to focus on is why the claim is made that birds came from the dinos, rather than the other way round, as I suspect. After all, birds were here before man and beast.

Let's see you do it.

 

[BananaSlug]

No, of course not. Show us, so that I can tweak my opinions accordingly if you can. I don't believe you. What you would need to focus on is why the claim is made that birds came from the dinos, rather than the other way round, as I suspect. After all, birds were here before man and beast.

Let's see you do it.

The main evidence we have is fossil evidence and we all know what you think about that

 

[dad]

the evidence is the order in which their fossils show up in the geological column. Dinosaurs show up first, then dinos with feathers, then birds....

OK, so let's look at that claim, and check our bases here, see if we can proceed to a conclusion that is solid.

If I recall, relatively few 'feathered' dino birds exist in the record. Is this right? If so, we need to look at where the few were found, precisely.

We need to look at the basis of the claim that they are more recent.

If you can do that, we can move on to deducing what went on. Of course the birds showing up later should be obvious, if we understand that life on earth (with some exceptions) started in Eden. Moved out from there. So birds would need to wait till it was suitable, and safe to start living and dying in an area. The fact that they arrived in many places after the dinos illustrates that.

Liaoning Province is one place a lot of that stuff was found. Can you tell us about where in the record it was in the rock? Did they find these things right under big dinos? Or was it simply "dated" by the usual faith based methods?

If you can't deal with that, we are left only with the fact that birds came in the record later than the time the big dinos died there. That is what is expected in the exit from Eden.

 

[dad]

The main evidence we have is fossil evidence and we all know what you think about that

I accept the record. But I doubt you have anything about feathered dinos coming after dinos, save the "dating". Do you? Let's see it.

 

[uke2se]

OK, so let's look at that claim, and check our bases here, see if we can proceed to a conclusion that is solid.

If I recall, relatively few 'feathered' dino birds exist in the record. Is this right? If so, we need to look at where the few were found, precisely.

We need to look at the basis of the claim that they are more recent.

If you can do that, we can move on to deducing what went on. Of course the birds showing up later should be obvious, if we understand that life on earth (with some exceptions) started in Eden. Moved out from there. So birds would need to wait till it was suitable, and safe to start living and dying in an area. The fact that they arrived in many places after the dinos illustrates that.

Liaoning Province is one place a lot of that stuff was found. Can you tell us about where in the record it was in the rock? Did they find these things right under big dinos? Or was it simply "dated" by the usual faith based methods?

If you can't deal with that, we are left only with the fact that birds came in the record later than the time the big dinos died there. That is what is expected in the exit from Eden.

Wow, you're acting like nobody has ever thought to actually do the research necessary to ascertain the age of the fossils.

Then you go on to dismiss not just one verified dating method, but several, but you still have the audacity to claim that you never dismiss data.

You are a very scary individual.

 

[Split Rock]

I will translate for dad:

OK, so let's look at that claim, and check our bases here, see if we can proceed to a conclusion that is solid.

Let's look at that claim, and check our bases here, see if we can proceed to a conclusion that fits in with my arrogant assumption that my interpretation of scripture is "God's Word."

If I recall, relatively few 'feathered' dino birds exist in the record. Is this right? If so, we need to look at where the few were found, precisely.

I have no idea where they were found, but wherever they were found we must assume that was not Eden, and therefore they hadn't migrated from Eden yet to that place.

We need to look at the basis of the claim that they are more recent.

We need to find a way to ignore the fact they are more recent.

If you can do that, we can move on to deducing what went on. Of course the birds showing up later should be obvious, if we understand that life on earth (with some exceptions) started in Eden. Moved out from there. So birds would need to wait till it was suitable, and safe to start living and dying in an area. The fact that they arrived in many places after the dinos illustrates that.

Of course according to my prophet-level interpretation of scripture, being "God's Word," we must assume that there was some reason those birds didn't move out from Eden yet. Let's call that "waiting until conditions were suitable." Whatever, "suitable" is.

Liaoning Province is one place a lot of that stuff was found. Can you tell us about where in the record it was in the rock? Did they find these things right under big dinos? Or was it simply "dated" by the usual faith based methods?

Liaoning Province is one place a lot of that stuff was found. Can you tell us about where in the record it was in the rock? Did they find these things right under big dinos? Or was it simply "dated" by the usual methods which must be wrong since they conflict with my Divinely Inspired interpretation of scripture, i.e. "God's Word."

If you can't deal with that, we are left only with the fact that birds came in the record later than the time the big dinos died there. That is what is expected in the exit from Eden.

If you can't deal with that, we are left only with the fact that birds came in the record later than the time the big dinos died there. That is what is expected in the exit from Eden, as whatever we find I am going to claim is "expected" in the exit from Eden scenario.

 

[BananaSlug]

I accept the record. But I doubt you have anything about feathered dinos coming after dinos, save the "dating". Do you? Let's see it.

The "dating" is part of the evidence. Since you automatically throw that out we cannot really give a good argument.

Of course, your "different state past" has no evidence to back up your claims other than, "how do you know?" I find it funny that the numerous ways geologists/paleontologists use to date all correlate to the same age.

 

[plindboe]

OK, I am not one to dispute evidence.

That's good to hear.

So we agree about the order of appearance: dinos -> primitive dino-like birds-> modern birds, but you don't accept that birds evolved from dinosaurs? I'm not sure how that works, unless you believe that modern birds invented a time machine and travelled back in time at some point.

No, actually. All speculation about asteroids or comets wafting in life is less than limp dreams. No results of same state past based conclusions, and fabricated models, amount to anything at all, without first proving there was a same state. They forgot to cover their bases, and are caught with their pants down, so to speak.

Your OP didn't talk about panspermia, and my reply didn't talk about it, so why do you react as if that is what we're discussing?

Here's my response to your OP again (notice it has absolutely nothing to do with life coming from comets, but is entirely about extinction:

"I thought it was well known that there are differing opinions regarding whether an asteroid snuffed the majority of the dinosaurs, though the asteroid hypothesis has gained alot of support after the discovery of the Chicxulub crater."

And again, that is entirely valid.

The denial that protein was in the bones, apparently is another pop in a long series of pops. Even KO ing comets as a big player, as many claimed it was is another little pop. I just sit back and watch em implode.

Again you seem to have forgotten what we were discussing. You said you didn't care about belief, yet all you do is talk about what people believe, claim and buy into. You're contradicting yourself.

I was talking about the ejecta from earth in the flood year, that went into space, and returned later making an impact. They did not need to get by Jupiter's present gravity to smack the planet here. Not if they originated here! Same deal if we find dead microbes, or whatnots on Mars, or other places. If earth debris went out, I would expect some of that.

On what evidence do you base the idea that material was ejected into space after this mythical event?

If they are not that old, no quandary exists. If they were, you need a great imagination to have prtein in bones some tens of millions of years old. Why same state past believers like to accept endless miracles to prop up their imaginary dreamt up past, I will never know!

How often do we find protein fragments? If these creatures died recently we'd find fragments all the time. That we find them so very rarely surely tells us that the creatures died a very long time ago.

Of course it has to do with creation, and the fact their scenarios are messed up something fierce.

I'm sure it boosts your self esteem to imagine that the rest of the world is just as obsessed with your religious ideas as you are, but you'll still need to provide some evidence for your claims if you want to convince others.

It matters not hether they are aware of it, one can hold up things they find out, and look at them in the light. Their ability to also do so is not required.

That is one reason I find comedy in so called science, it is truly ridiculous, and pitifully limited. Yet it struts around, talking big, and putting on like it knows something. Even to the point of daring to pretend to over rule God's word!

They need to be brought low.

Feel free to fantasize, but the world marches on.

I hope you'll outgrow your anger one day. Can't be good for you.

Peter

 

[Split Rock]

Well some of the late Cretaceous maniraptorans could have possibly evolved from early birds that lost flight secondarily. It is a minority view expoused by some scientists but could garner support as more evidence crops up.

Wouldn't they be considered flightless avian theropods?

 

[dad]

The "dating" is part of the evidence. Since you automatically throw that out we cannot really give a good argument.

Then I agree, you cannot give me a good arguement. Same state dating is only as valid as a same state past, and that never was, and cannot be proven. The whole thing rests on a lie. Astounding, to be reminded of that, and have it so clearly illustrated. I sure am real glad I tried to give God and His word the benefit of the doubt all along.

Of course, your "different state past" has no evidence to back up your claims other than, "how do you know?" I find it funny that the numerous ways geologists/paleontologists use to date all correlate to the same age.

I find it hilarious that they all are same state past based, an in effect, there is only one way they use. Whether tree rings, assumed to represent s year as present trees grow, or decay, as is only in the present state, or etc...it is all sitting on a faulty foundation.

 

[dad]

Wow, you're acting like nobody has ever thought to actually do the research necessary to ascertain the age of the fossils.

Then you go on to dismiss not just one verified dating method, but several, but you still have the audacity to claim that you never dismiss data.

You are a very scary individual.

I dismiss no data or evidence ever. All dating is a pathetic joke, with zero basis, and 100% religion, belief, and imagination. Unless there was a same state past, it is mind cluttering useless dripping foolish fables. It is a sacred cow I am happy to disrespect with all my mind and heart.

Now, if we knew the state of the future was like this, I would have to dismeiss the new heavens state coming. Same thing with the creation state of the past. But all that has been done is build on a foundation that assumes without proof the present state will be and was in effect. The dating is purely a statement based on that faith, and utterly preposterous, and unproven.

Therefore, if one wants to present feathered bird dinos in a certain sequential order in the record, we need evidence, not same state belief faith statement so called dating. Found one sitting directly ove a T rex?

Let's all stick to what we know. I cannot allow faith based claims in a science thread. Not unless you have either bible, or solid proof, and real evidence.

Same state past dating is very welcome, after you prove there was one. Until then, save it for the believers.

 

[dad]

That's good to hear.

So we agree about the order of appearance: dinos -> primitive dino-like birds-> modern birds, but you don't accept that birds evolved from dinosaurs? I'm not sure how that works, unless you believe that modern birds invented a time machine and travelled back in time at some point.

No. I want to see the proof (not same state dating) that the dinos were before the little feathered bird dinos.

Your OP didn't talk about panspermia, and my reply didn't talk about it, so why do you react as if that is what we're discussing?

The issue of extinction caused by comets, or asteroids was the focus. But I have heard claims that life may have been carried to earth that way as well.

"I thought it was well known that there are differing opinions regarding whether an asteroid snuffed the majority of the dinosaurs, though the asteroid hypothesis has gained alot of support after the discovery of the Chicxulub crater."

Well, I have looked at that, and I have a question for you. Can you prove that the direction of the imppact was up to down? (example, the micro scratch marks or etc?) Or, could it have been a fountain of the deep, and things shot up? That is just for starters. From all I heard so far on that, I could drive a Mac truck through the claims.

Again you seem to have forgotten what we were discussing. You said you didn't care about belief, yet all you do is talk about what people believe, claim and buy into. You're contradicting yourself.

Not at all. In science claims, I do not care about belief. In bible, it comes in handy, and is a good thing.

On what evidence do you base the idea that material was ejected into space after this mythical event?

The evidence that a lot of stuff hit the moon, and planets, and earth shows a lot of stuff was up there. The Walt Brown hydro plate theory envisioned a lot of stuff shooting into space from deep down under as it came up. And he came up with that using present physics. Imagine if he had a different state past to work with!?

How often do we find protein fragments? If these creatures died recently we'd find fragments all the time. That we find them so very rarely surely tells us that the creatures died a very long time ago.

5000 years ago is a long time.

I'm sure it boosts your self esteem to imagine that the rest of the world is just as obsessed with your religious ideas as you are, but you'll still need to provide some evidence for your claims if you want to convince others.

The world has accepted the bible to some degree, and that is something I use to balance the fables of science so called. Besides, in real logic, and knowledge and science, how many accept it is not a concern. My concern is what is really known, and the basis for how we know it, and how it weighs in with God's truth.

 

[uke2se]

I dismiss no data or evidence ever.

Yes you do. You dismiss all data that does not agree with your rediculous ideas. That is to say, all of the data.

Let's all stick to what we know. I cannot allow faith based claims in a science thread.

Well, I'm sorry to inform you, but that would completely toss your ideas right out the window while affirming the techniques used by science. Your ideas are faith-based. Science is not. It doesn't matter how much you disagree. You are wrong.

 

[dad]

I will translate for dad:


Let's look at that claim, and check our bases here, see if we can proceed to a conclusion that fits in with my arrogant assumption that my interpretation of scripture is "God's Word."


I have no idea where they were found, but wherever they were found we must assume that was not Eden, and therefore they hadn't migrated from Eden yet to that place.

We can also assume that all the kinds were on the ark. Therefore the more recent geological evidence has the kinds in them, See any feathered dinos, or any dinos in that?? No. Do we see dinos in various parts of the earth? Yes. That means they were not in Eden, it was in one part of the earth!

We need to find a way to ignore the fact they are more recent.

No, you need to find a way to prove otherwise.

Of course according to my prophet-level interpretation of scripture, being "God's Word," we must assume that there was some reason those birds didn't move out from Eden yet. Let's call that "waiting until conditions were suitable." Whatever, "suitable" is.

I agree. Except some supposed higher level thing. We know man was in Eden, and beast. We know that man was not created all over the planet at once! That is a known biblical quantity. Therefore it is quite reasonable to deduce that the life in Eden moved on out to the still uninhabitable parts of the earth. That is why Eden was needed, the earth was not suitable yet for all life.

Liaoning Province is one place a lot of that stuff was found. Can you tell us about where in the record it was in the rock? Did they find these things right under big dinos? Or was it simply "dated" by the usual methods which must be wrong since they conflict with my Divinely Inspired interpretation of scripture, i.e. "God's Word."

The usual methods are all those that use the present as the key to the past. If there is no physical evidence, and you point solely to the same state belief based nonsense they falsely label 'dating' then you have no case indeed.

If you can't deal with that, we are left only with the fact that birds came in the record later than the time the big dinos died there. That is what is expected in the exit from Eden, as whatever we find I am going to claim is "expected" in the exit from Eden scenario.

What is expected is that the planet was largely uninhabitable. The created trait of hyper evolution was needed to spread out. If a bird needed to live in the world of the day, it seems they may have needed to adapt to dinos, and walk, so as to be safe, and have plenty to eat. It is illogical to assume dinos were a created kind. Not unless you put them on the ark! Same with many of the extinct evolved critters that evolved from Eden's creatures. They did not go on the ark, just the kinds of creation!

We KNOW from the bible birds were already here at Eden, even before man. That is absolute. No opinion, or guessing needed. It makes sense that the migrating, fast evolving created kinds adapted to the conditions they met as they moved out.

 

[dad]

Yes you do. You dismiss all data that does not agree with your rediculous ideas. That is to say, all of the data.



Well, I'm sorry to inform you, but that would completely toss your ideas right out the window while affirming the techniques used by science. Your ideas are faith-based. Science is not. It doesn't matter how much you disagree. You are wrong.

Great, so prove the same state past that the ideas of science are based on, concerning the far past. Then you win. If you can't it is faith based. Deal with it.

 

[uke2se]

Great, so prove the same state past that the ideas of science are based on, concerning the far past. Then you win.

Ok. Science is based on natural laws working the same way all the way back to the Big Bang. It makes predictions based on these laws.

The predictions work.

Case closed.

If you can't it is faith based. Deal with it.

It's called "being rational and confront reality". I'm sure it wouldn't hurt you to try.