Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All or none, either all the fossils are transitional or none of them are. The only problem is there is no evidence that the fossils within a species are transitional. One example is horse evolution. As much as they try it is very difficult for them to put together a family tree for all the different horse skeletons they have.

Yes, all fossils are transitional fossils. And no, horse evolution is not wrong.

 

[Heissonear]

Do you even know what you are arguing against?
Have you taken paleontology? Or are you yourself just another arm-chair, internet expert on whatever topic you choose?

I was raised an Evolutionist and naturally inclined to learn of the Earth since single digit in age, and am a degreed geologist. I was not raised a Christian. I was still a non-Christian when I formally took paleontology in college. Christianity and other religions at that time were empty beliefs derived from ignorance.

Let me present it again, the main evidence to support Evolution is missing, even in every paleontology text.

How odd. No, such is too odd, Sir.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was raised an Evolutionist and naturally inclined to learn of the Earth since single digit in age, and am a degreed geologist. I was not raised a Christian. I was still a non-Christian when I formally took paleontology in college. Christianity and other religions at that time were empty beliefs derived from ignorance.

Let me present it again, the main evidence to support Evolution is missing, even in every paleontology text.

How odd. No, such is too odd, Sir.

The main evidence is not missing. In fact, there is no main evidence for evolution. The evidence is in various things, all of which stand on their own merits.
You are just showing willful ignorance in saying that it is missing.

 

[Heissonear]

Yes, all fossils are transitional fossils. And no, horse evolution is not wrong.

In your eyes. And on paper or pixels. But not in rock record sequences that show transition from one creature to the next, part by part that shows evidence of Evolution. That is too odd, Sir. Too remarkable. So you resort that all fossils are transitional. In your eyes you game what is missing. Like others before you it requires faith to accept Evolution.

 

[Heissonear]

The main evidence is not missing. In fact, there is no main evidence for evolution. The evidence is in various things, all of which stand on their own merits.
You are just showing willful ignorance in saying that it is missing.

Nice tap dance. But still no transitional rock record.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a LOT of books around here about the Ghost Ranch. Would you like to go into more details about it?

In which book does it say that "dinosaur" is the name of a species?

Like I said this is a very significant beginning for creationists because of their carnivorous nature.

There were carnivores well before the first tetrapods were making their way onto land.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nice tap dance. But still no transitional rock record.

I assume you mean transitional fossil. I found them for you:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In your eyes. And on paper or pixels. But not in rock record sequences that show transition from one creature to the next, part by part that shows evidence of Evolution. That is too odd, Sir. Too remarkable. So you resort that all fossils are transitional. In your eyes you game what is missing. Like others before you it requires faith to accept Evolution.

You put down so many words, but so little content.
We have the fossils. They show evolution via common descent. We see animals evolving from one species to another in the fossil records. Archaeotperyx, tiktaalik, ambulocetus. Those are just three that I can name off the top of my head that show animals transitioning from one species to another.
But of course, you don't care. No. You just want to believe in the words of a book written over 2000 years ago instead of looking at the world that The All Mighty has created around us, wherein he shows the true history of his creation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nice tap dance. But still no transitional rock record.

HA! Pot, meet Mr kettle.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You have been educated already that Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

So did God create the Earth likewise.

If you could have approached Eve a day after she was created she would exhibit apparent age.

It is the same when you look at the Earth. It appears to have natural age.

Firstly, you didn't address my post in the slightest. You just kinda jumped in with this unrelated comment.

Secondly, based on your epistemology, how do you know the universe wasn't created on July 6th, 1753 with everything embedded with "natural age" (including the Bible). Any arbitrary date will work, perhaps even just last Thursday.

Your version of God sounds terribly deceptive in placing all this pesky evidence around. You're telling me that you think he embedded in Eve scars, wrinkles and even memories to give the illusion that she was older? Who's to say that God didn't do the same to you?

 

[fargonic]

You have been educated already that Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

So did God create the Earth likewise.

If you could have approached Eve a day after she was created she would exhibit apparent age.

It is the same when you look at the Earth. It appears to have natural age.

"Apparent Age" always sounds so....dishonest. Especially for God. Why make a Potemkin village when He has the power to make a real village? Why make "apparent age" when age would not be a problem for God?

 

[fargonic]

Let me present it again, the main evidence to support Evolution is missing, even in every paleontology text.

Not really. There are countless "transitional forms", there are countless examples in the fossil record of change over time. And when one looks at molecular biology there's even more evidence of evolution.

 

[fargonic]

Have you taken paleontology?

I have. I've also crawled across a giant pile of shale in the middle of the north American continent and found a sharks tooth unlike modern sharks. Imagine that! An ancient shark more than a thousand miles inland.

Do you expect people to listen to arm-chair experts or the rock record?

I personally go with the rock record coupled with my education on the topic.

 

[Hoghead1]

He has a good point, Isaiah. There is no evidence of any variation in the decay rates. Also, while there are possible ways of contaminating measurements, the scientists are well aware of these and correct for them. Creationists love to play up possible contaminants, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was mainstream science that located these and has corrected for them. Also, more than one measurement is made. On a tell, for example, they may take at least three samples for carbon-14 dating. In addition, they also bring in other means of dating. If all indicators point the same way, bango, you got it. If not, and sometimes that happens, they you can't reach any definite conclusions. Your comments remind me of a situation that occurred with creationist Barry Settlefield. He tried to argue that c (speed of light) was not absolute, could in fact undergo many changes. He then argued that c was infinite at the beginning of creation and has been slowing down ever since. If scientists took that into account, they would calculate out a very young earth. But where is the evidence of any of this? C has been checked more than once by modern science and remains constant. Setterfiled tried to argue on the basis that the history of C measurements shows slower and slower rates. Doesn't compute. Careful study of the records of attempts to measure c show it has been assumed to be faster and faster, not to mention these measurements were made with primitive instruments. Also, if you ere to throw out all scientific measurements, what would you use in their place? And if scientific measuring techniques prove to be wrong, you can say the substitutes you brought in were any better? If you can't trust one, it stands to reason you should have doubts about the other. Some creationists have appealed to Scripture. However, Scripture provides no clear measurements and has been interpreted as saying anything from 4004 BC to 10,000BC. Incidentally, minor point here: Archbishop James Usher did not say the world began in 4004 BC. That was q decision his followers came up with, not Usher.

 

[Loudmouth]

He has a good point, Isaiah. There is no evidence of any variation in the decay rates. Also, while there are possible ways of contaminating measurements, the scientists are well aware of these and correct for them. Creationists love to play up possible contaminants, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was mainstream science that located these and has corrected for them. Also, more than one measurement is made. On a tell, for example, they may take at least three samples for carbon-14 dating. In addition, they also bring in other means of dating.

In the end, the consilience is the big winner in science. When you have 3 different methods all giving the same age, that's pretty much a deal sealer.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible. "
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

Three completely independent methods give the same results across labs, across hundreds of samples, and across different minerals. Doesn't get much better than that.

 

[lasthero]

Smaller dinosaurs like the crocodile, tortoises, rhinoceros, komodo dragons, chameleons, all the whales and large fish, and other animals that are small enough to survive on the lower amount of O2 and lower barometric pressure?

A) none of those are dinosaurs.

B) Compsognathus, just as one example. Dinosaur, not even bigger than a chicken.

 

[eartheart]

I dont understand how ancient man could fashion metals and create unmovable temples but never found these huge bones, if they did they did not record it. Perhaps because it was common or because it was hidden on purpose. 1800s? around the same time they discovered biblical ruins. I heard that the greeks went to war with dragons, and that chinese used to snort crushed dragon bones, anyway there are still dense areas of the world that are still uncharted territory, it would change the world to discover a new truth

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I dont understand how ancient man could fashion metals and create unmovable temples but never found these huge bones, if they did they did not record it. Perhaps because it was common or because it was hidden on purpose. 1800s? around the same time they discovered biblical ruins. I heard that the greeks went to war with dragons, and that chinese used to snort crushed dragon bones, anyway there are still dense areas of the world that are still uncharted territory, it would change the world to discover a new truth

Dragons were common in Greek mythology, if not all of European, if not practically all of Eurasian mythology. It does mean they were real.
And the Chinese claim with 'crushed dragon bones' is simple. They weren't dragon bones. They were dinosaur bones that had been uncovered and the people, not knowing what creature they belonged to, called them dragons. As crushing them in to medicine... eh, the Chinese have always been a bit strange with their medicine.

 

[eartheart]

Dragons were common in Greek mythology, if not all of European, if not practically all of Eurasian mythology. It does mean they were real.
And the Chinese claim with 'crushed dragon bones' is simple. They weren't dragon bones. They were dinosaur bones that had been uncovered and the people, not knowing what creature they belonged to, called them dragons. As crushing them in to medicine... eh, the Chinese have always been a bit strange with their medicine.

Davinci also wrote of an intense salt drawn out of the dried escrement of bones. Whatever he was talking about, im sure bones are as easy as grain to crush with rocks, maybe the reason these skeletons are found with rocks in the stomach area

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Davinci also wrote of an intense salt drawn out of the dried escrement of bones. Whatever he was talking about, im sure bones are as easy as grain to crush with rocks, maybe the reason these skeletons are found with rocks in the stomach area

Well, fossils are essentially rocks. I'm not that learned on the actual process, but rocks are easy to crush and break.
The rocks in the stomach is an interesting and something I do know: dinosaurs, specifically large herbivores like the sauropods, lacked the teeth to fully crush their food matter. They had incisors, but no molars. So the leafs they ate were basically just chopped off from the trees, chewed slightly, then slid down the gullet. However, inside the stomach were numerous stones which, when acted up by the muscles in the stomach (think of something like a cow's stomach if you know your biology) helped crush the plant matter down.