Man and dinosaur coexisting

justlookinla said:

Continue with your failure.

Click to expand...

How did I fail? I supported my claims. You can't even define your terms.

Here is the article that you did not understand a third time:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

Subduction Zone said:

How did I fail? I supported my claims. You can't even define your terms.

Here is the article that you did not understand a third time:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

Click to expand...

There's your link....links aren't evidence, based on the scientific method.

Still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Dr GS Hurd said:

In fact, we each have more bacteria in and on us than we have "human" cells.

Click to expand...

Cool, and each and every one of them is still...... a bacteria. The number of them and the number of different variations has nothing to do with anything. There is just more variety of bacteria than the variety of humans. Cool story..
But, humans are humans, bacteria are bacteria and they are not morphing into fish, frogs, birds, cats or dogs in any 4 billion years or sooner.
Therefore....not observable, testable or repeatable
Therefore... not science
Therefore....no proof
Therefore..... faith based
Therefore... religion.

BrriKerr said:

People are trying to help you and you are rejecting their help with the most ridiculous excuses, with that attitude you deserve to remain a Christian until the day you die,

Click to expand...

Not sure if insult or compliment? You deserve to remain a Christian until you die? Seriously? Then what do they deserve?
OH OH I know... eternal life.....

That is the funniest complement which was meant to be a condescension that I have ever heard.

Tell me, can you tell by looking at a person's life, whether they are a Christian or not by how awful it is. This life that you have sentenced him to until he dies? Do tell what miserable conditions and trials befall a poor Christian. Doomed to live in these conditions to the extent that you have them begging for death for it to end the misery that they would not face had they believed the views of an atheist?

How do you know where evolution in the next four billion years? Look at it this way: If God can make a man out of monkey, think what he can do with a jackass like you. One source of inspiration for Darwin were the breeding experiments going on, where all sorts of strange and exotic creatures ere produced, such a pigeons who would not fly. So the thinking was if we can create all this in just a few chort years, think what GOd can do given a million years of evolution. Also, can you explain why if what you say is true, do scientists accept evolution? You make very bold pronouncements and when people do that, first thing I want to see are some big, bug credentials and some big, big evidence. I sure do not see that in your case. I would side with the scientist any day, s they are the ones with the education and experience to be truly expert. Could something turn back into a fish? You bettcha. Whales and some other sea creatures were originally mammals, lived fully on land, and then evolved into fish. A whale is a cow in the water. Also your statements about faith and religion here are way, way off base and uncalled for. Just about everything we do requires faith. If you sit down in a chair, you are assuming it will not break. That is an act of faith. Did you test the chair before you sat down? Haven't you ever heard of chairs unexpectedly breaking under someone? Furthermore, speculation is always part of any learning process. Yes, scientists do speculate, but that is OK. That does not mean blind faith, as you falsely assume. Evolution was a new, radical idea. Initially, everyone thought it was crazy, but I did become a solid part of science. Many creative ideas are like that, first rejected, then accepted when they prove their worth. And the march of science never goes backwards, always forwards. So there is not a ghost of a chance that it is going to go bane to the earlier stage of anti- or non-evolutionary thinking. Evolutionary science is based on a core of hard data. If you don't think so, that simply proves you haven't read the literature. You say evolution is not observable, testable, repeatable. More than one laboratory study brought bout the evolution of a new species of bacteria. If you want to read such studies, I can provide you the titles. Next, we get to your use of the term "religion." I know you intended it to be a derogatory smart-alec remark. However, you do kinda touch on truth here, smart-alecy your comment was. Einstein, for example, said his encounters with nature bordered on a near-mystical experience and therefore science was his religion. As the noted Jesuit thinker, Teilhard de Chardin, observed, a religion of the earth is fighting a religion of the sky. The universe, with its vast profusion of complex structures and interrelationships seems far more fascinating and far more aesthetically pleasing that the traditional or classical Christian image of God as a wholly one-dimensional being void, of body, parts , passions, compassion, wholly simple, wholly immaterial, extension less, wholly immutable, without even the show of movement.

Another issue here is what exactly were Darwin's views on God. After all, he was about to be ordained ,when he left on the Beagle, and he certainly does refer to God in his ""On the Origin of Species."

Isaiah55:6 said:

You see what your saying there? You identify the Cretaceous strata by the animal you find in it and then identify the age of the animal by the strata it's in. This is circular reasoning.
"How do you know the fossils are old?"
Because it was in old rock!
"But how do you know the rock is old?"
Because it had old fossils! . . . .

Click to expand...

Just so you know, this is not an example of circular reasoning. Cretaceous strata were figured out to be consistent cretaceous strata because they always have the same ancient fossil species in them . . . that is, certain of their fossils are marker fossils for being that kind of strata. Now those strata are dated independently, and when a Cretaceous fossil is dated independently (most reliably by radioactive means) it turns out to be about the same. So finding another set of Cretaceous fossils and therefore assuming it is of the same as all the other cretaceous strata always turn out to be is NOT circular reasoning. That goes for the fossils in that strata that are NOT among the "marker" species used to determine it is, in fact, the Cretaceous layer.

By the way, the geological layers and their relative place in the geological column were all worked out before the discovery of radioactive dating methods. They were worked out before Darwin published his works on evolution.

And people wonder why the US is in so much trouble, it's because half of it's population live in the dark, it's a good thing for the rest of the world but disastrous for the US.

justlookinla said:

There's your link....links aren't evidence, based on the scientific method.

Still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Click to expand...

How about you offer your critique of what's actually IN the link?

klutedavid said:

Science is empiricism, the empiricist believes that knowledge is derived from observation.

We have a predictive theory called the Big Bang.

So what has billions of dollars invested into the research of the cosmos revealed?

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up
just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't
see, detect or even comprehend. These mysterious substances are called dark energy
and dark matter. Astronomers infer their existence based on their gravitational influence
on what little bits of the universe can be seen, but dark matter and energy themselves
continue to elude all detection. "The overwhelming majority of the universe is: who
knows?" explains science writer Richard Panek, who spoke about these oddities of
our universe on Monday (May 9) at the Graduate Center of the City University of
New York (CUNY) here in Manhattan. "It's unknown for now, and possibly forever."
(space.com)

Hmmm, appears that what empiricists think they observe, tells them nothing about
what actually exists. The empirical foundation of science may be it's weakness point.

Click to expand...

And? Things like the Big Bang theory will take time to gather the full data on because, surprisingly, the universe is a big place.
But this thread isn't about the Big Bang theory, it's about dinosaurs and man (supposedly) coexisting.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

But this thread isn't about the Big Bang theory, it's about dinosaurs and man (supposedly) coexisting.

Click to expand...

As I see it, the issue is binary.

Either they did or they didn't.

According to the Bible, they did.

HOWEVER, the Bible doesn't call them dinosaurs.

Linnaeus does.

Thus the confusion.

Science just doing its thing.

AV1611VET said:

As I see it, the issue is binary.

Either they did or they didn't.

According to the Bible, they did.

HOWEVER, the Bible doesn't call them dinosaurs.

Linnaeus does.

Thus the confusion.

Science just doing its thing.

Click to expand...

You have this weird fixation on Linnaeus, don't you?
And no, the Bible doesn't even remotely refer to things that can be called dinosaurs.
There is no confusion.
This is just an example of Bible literalists trying to shoehorn actual science in to their readings.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

You have this weird fixation on Linnaeus, don't you?

Click to expand...

I like using the term "Linnaeus" as a collective term for those who name and classify the animals.

It keeps me from having to look up who coined the term "dinosaur" and when it was coined (i.e., before or after Mr. Linnaeus lived) and whatnot.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

And no, the Bible doesn't even remotely refer to things that can be called dinosaurs.

Click to expand...

Not even dragons, satyrs, or leviathan?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

There is no confusion.

Click to expand...

Of course not: it's called "peer review," isn't it?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

This is just an example of Bible literalists trying to shoehorn actual science in to their readings.

Click to expand...

Not this Bible literalist.

AV1611VET said:

I like using the term "Linnaeus" as a collective term for those who name and classify the animals.
It keeps me from having to look up who coined the term "dinosaur" and when it was coined (i.e., before or after Mr. Linnaeus lived) and whatnot.

Click to expand...

Which is completely illogical, not too mention pretty childish too.. Dinosaur ('Terrible Lizard') was term coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1842, with no connection to Linnaeus.

Not even dragons, satyrs, or leviathan?

Click to expand...

A satyr is part man, part goat. Hardly sounds like a dinosaur. To the other two: not in any sense are they dinosaurs.

Of course not: it's called "peer review," isn't it?

Click to expand...

No. It's just Bible literalists trying to shoehorn actual science in to a non-scientific religious text.

Not this Bible literalist.

Click to expand...

Well, that I can agree with. But it seems to be the only thing I can agree with you on.

AV1611VET said:

Not even dragons, satyrs, or leviathan?

Click to expand...

Or Hippopotamus and Elephants, the authors of the bible could using other names for known animals. Given the fact that the physical evidence for humans living at the same time as dinosaurs is non-existant, for example, point me to any convincing evidence dinosaurs sharing the same strata as humans, maybe the correct name for hippo is leviathan.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Which is completely illogical, not too mention pretty childish too.. Dinosaur ('Terrible Lizard') was term coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1842, with no connection to Linnaeus.

Click to expand...

As I said, I use the term collectively.

If that's illogical & childish to you, so be it.

It's just a working term I use for the sake of Occam's razor.

Try it sometime.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

A satyr is part man, part goat.

Click to expand...

Since when?

Since cherubs became little babies posing to have their pictures taken for Hellmark cards?

Goonie said:

Or Hippopotamus and Elephants, the authors of the bible could using other names for known animals. Given the fact that the physical evidence for humans living at the same time as dinosaurs is non-existant, for example, point me to any convincing evidence dinosaurs sharing the same strata as humans, maybe the correct name for hippo is leviathan.

Click to expand...

How about humans sharing the same strata as dinosaurs?

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

AV1611VET said:

As I said, I use the term collectively.

If that's illogical & childish to you, so be it.

It's just a working term I use for the sake of Occam's razor.

Try it sometime.

Click to expand...

No. It's still illogical and childish.

Since when?

Since cherubs became little babies posing to have their pictures taken for Hellmark cards?

Click to expand...

Since the Greeks made them up. Body of a man with the hind legs of a goat.
And also the modern image of cherubs actually came from the Renaissance art, not Hallmark. If you're going to at least insult something, get your facts right.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Since the Greeks made them up.

Click to expand...

Made what up?

The animal's name (satyr), or its description?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Body of a man with the hind legs of a goat.

Click to expand...

Ya ... I'm familiar with the Greek conception of the satyr.

Just like I'm familiar with Darwin's version of a man.

Waren_of_the_Storm said:

And also the modern image of cherubs actually came from the Renaissance art, not Hallmark.

Click to expand...

That's ... not ... the ... point ...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

If you're going to at least insult something, get your facts right.

Click to expand...

Whoever depicted God's elite fighting angels as child p... as innocent babies first, Hellmark certainly propagates it.

Naked babies shooting people with arrows ... c'mon.

Only scientists and sentimental laity would buy into that one.[/quote]

JacksBratt said:

So, we should not fill their heads with the religion of "evolution" either.

Click to expand...

Yet another creationist willing to fall on his sword in an attempt to destroy evolution. You don't care how bad you make religion look, just as long as you can call evolution a religion. You use faith and religion as a term of derision. Why is that?

The thin veneer of psychological projection is trying to mask one obvious truth. You think science is superior to religion. In order to try and defeat evolution, you have to drag it down to your level, the level of religion.

JacksBratt said:

Humans are a huge biological group. We have any number of races...... all ..... human.

Click to expand...

Primates are an even larger biological group. There are any number of species of primates . . . all . . . primates.

Mammals are an even larger biological group. There are any number of species of mammals . . . all . . . mammals.

Vertebrates are an even larger biological group. There are any number of species of vertebrates. . . all . . . vertebrates.