Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is your definition of a dinosaur? Anything that died off prehistorically, and anything that survived is not a dinosaur?

All these "giant lizards" and other large animals that are found in the fossil record would be just another animal with a modern name, had they survived. They were simply too large to survive after the sudden change in barometric pressure and O2 content.

The tortoise's, alligators, rhino's, whatever, survived due to their body size compared to lung capacity.

As for the Blue whale and your question "how do you explain that"? I believe you will agree that the pressure above the water level is quite different than below. Therefore any ocean creature lives in a different pressure. If you look at Boyles gas law of pressure, under pressure the of O2 is equivalently higher. If you are a scuba diver and breath from a scuba cylinder filled with air at atmospheric pressure and dive to deeper depths you run the risk of O2 poisoning if you go very deep. The % O2 will be equivalently higher as the pressure increases. This is why they use air mixers for deep dives.

The same factor is what kept the ocean dwellers alive. The change in pressure above the sea level was quite drastic, however it was a very small change, in fact insignificant to the blue whale. Thus they survived.
That's how I explain it.

Definition of a dinosaur (from dictionary.reference.com):
noun: any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals.

Or, to use a more specific definition: any prehistoric reptile that had it's hind legs straight under it's body instead of splayed out to it's side.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Okay, this whole thing with the evolution of the horse supposedly being wrong is really confusing me since I cannot find anything online that actually shows it being wrong.

A lot of this stuff can be found in Wiki. Do you understand what the word "replaced" means? My point is that even though they have REPLACED the OLD model with a new model, still the old Huxley model is taught far to often. Huxley known as Darwin's bull dog turned out to be a Huckster. (promote or sell something, typically a product of questionable value). So we go from Darwinism to Post-Darwinism to Neo Post Darwinism as they keep trying to get it right. But in time it is all falsified and we come out with a whole new theory of evolution to replace the old outdated defunct theory.

"The original sequence of species believed to have evolved into the horse was based on fossils discovered in North America in the 1870s by paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh. The sequence, from Eohippusto the modern horse (Equus), was popularized by Thomas Huxley and became one of the most widely known examples of a clear evolutionary progression. The horse's evolutionary lineage became a common feature of biology textbooks, and the sequence of transitional fossils was assembled by the American Museum of Natural History into an exhibit that emphasized the gradual, "straight-line" evolution of the horse.

Since then, as the number of equid fossils has increased, the actual evolutionary progression from Eohippus to Equus has been discovered to be much more complex and multibranched than was initially supposed. The straight, direct progression from the former to the latter has been replaced by a more elaborate model with numerous branches in different directions, of which the modern horse is only one of many. George Gaylord Simpson in 1951[9] first recognized that the modern horse was not the "goal" of the entire lineage of equids,[10] but is simply the only genus of the many horse lineages to survive.

Detailed fossil information on the distribution and rate of change of new equid species has also revealed that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed. Although some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years. Both anagenesis (gradual change in an entire population's gene frequency) and cladogenesis (a population "splitting" into two distinct evolutionary branches) occurred, and many species coexisted with "ancestor" species at various times. The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Eohippus to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and only in retrospect can certain evolutionary trends be recognized.[11]"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A lot of this stuff can be found in Wiki. Do you understand what the word "replaced" means? My point is that even though they have REPLACED the OLD model with a new model, still the old Huxley model is taught far to often. Huxley known as Darwin's bull dog turned out to be a Huckster. (promote or sell something, typically a product of questionable value). So we go from Darwinism to Post-Darwinism to Neo Post Darwinism as they keep trying to get it right. But in time it is all falsified and we come out with a whole new theory of evolution to replace the old outdated defunct theory.

"The original sequence of species believed to have evolved into the horse was based on fossils discovered in North America in the 1870s by paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh. The sequence, from Eohippusto the modern horse (Equus), was popularized by Thomas Huxley and became one of the most widely known examples of a clear evolutionary progression. The horse's evolutionary lineage became a common feature of biology textbooks, and the sequence of transitional fossils was assembled by the American Museum of Natural History into an exhibit that emphasized the gradual, "straight-line" evolution of the horse.

Since then, as the number of equid fossils has increased, the actual evolutionary progression from Eohippus to Equus has been discovered to be much more complex and multibranched than was initially supposed. The straight, direct progression from the former to the latter has been replaced by a more elaborate model with numerous branches in different directions, of which the modern horse is only one of many. George Gaylord Simpson in 1951[9] first recognized that the modern horse was not the "goal" of the entire lineage of equids,[10] but is simply the only genus of the many horse lineages to survive.

Detailed fossil information on the distribution and rate of change of new equid species has also revealed that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed. Although some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years. Both anagenesis (gradual change in an entire population's gene frequency) and cladogenesis (a population "splitting" into two distinct evolutionary branches) occurred, and many species coexisted with "ancestor" species at various times. The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Eohippus to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and only in retrospect can certain evolutionary trends be recognized.[11]"

But none of that says that the evolution of the horse is wrong. It's simply saying that through finding more fossils of prehistoric horses and prehistoric proto-horses that evolutionary tree for horses has just been expanded to include more species.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But none of that says that the evolution of the horse is wrong.

That is true, but it does say that the "Darwin's bulldog" Huxley model was wrong. Evolutionary theory is in a constant state of change as new information causes the theory to go through constant revision. That is why text books cost so much because they are in need of constant revision. My sons literature text book is in it's 14 edition. How much revision does literature need? I can buy the 12 th edition for $5 but the edition he needs for his classes is over $50. That sounds pretty much like a scam to me that everything is in so much of a constant state of change. In the 60's my ancient history book was written in 1936. NO ONE in over 30 years had written or produced a better book.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is true, but it does say that the "Darwin's bulldog" Huxley model was wrong. Evolutionary theory is in a constant state of change as new information causes the theory to go through constant revision. That is why text books cost so much because they are in need of constant revision. My sons literature text book is in it's 14 edition. How much revision does literature need? I can buy the 12 th edition for $5 but the edition he needs for his classes is over $50. That sounds pretty much like a scam to me that everything is in so much of a constant state of change. In the 60's my ancient history book was written in 1936. NO ONE in over 30 years had written or produced a better book.

And? What's your point? Any good scientific theory will get revised if more evidence is found. It happens. Is getting new information on a subject a bad thing?

 

[joshua 1 9]

And? What's your point? Any good scientific theory will get revised if more evidence is found. It happens. Is getting new information on a subject a bad thing?

My point is you do not know a scam when you see it. It is only a question of time when what you believe and promote is falsified and replaced with something else. That is just the way the whole system works. What remains consistent and true is the evidence. I just do not trust evolutionists to interpret the evidence. Yet we do owe evolutionists a debt of gratitude for the hard work they put into gathering evidence for us all to examine and form our own opinions regarding the proper understanding of what God has give us to study in the natural record that we have to work with.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My point is you do not know a scam when you see it. It is only a question of time when what you believe and promote is falsified and replaced with something else. That is just the way the whole system works. What remains consistent and true is the evidence. I just do not trust evolutionists to interpret the evidence. Yet we do owe evolutionists a debt of gratitude for the hard work they put into gathering evidence for us all to examine and form our own opinions regarding the proper understanding of what God has give us to study in the natural record that we have to work with.

So you're saying... that because evolution has to be revised a lot, due to the amount of evidence found, and that means that books about evolution have to be rewritten a lot to take in to account this new information... it's a world wide scam?
Wow. Just wow.

 

[Heissonear]

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?

Were you raised by Him to be a geologist by calling like me?

What revelations and comprehension about geology of the Earth did He hold and was to give as you physically, mentally, and spiritually matured before Him?

Evolution requires faith. Evolution on Earth never happened.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There may have been a die off at when Pangaea broke up, but it was nowhere near the extinction event that killed them.

For Creationist the extinction of Coelophysis was very important. Not so important for the Evolutionist who does not see any new beginning with the Coelophysis.

They also had plenty of time to recover after that. And i know of no extinction event being the final confirmation of plate tectonics. I thought it was the magnetic mapping of the ocean floor that confirmed it.

I thought we already did this. I was talking about Edwin H Colbert, according to Wiki: "His fieldwork in Antarctica in 1969 helped solidify the acceptance of continental drift, by finding a 220-million-year-old fossil of a Lystrosaurus." I suppose this is history now and his work is outdated so people do not pay as much attention to his books as they use to. Still his discovery had a lot to do with the acceptance of the continental drift theory. He provided some of the early evidence for the theory.

Of course if you knew that you probably would not have mentioned the Ica Stones.

I made it clear that I was joking about how you can buy forgeries. Ebay sells lots and lots of forgeries. You can buy all the stone arrow heads you would ever want, but when you get them you will find tool marks from modern tools. They do not even try to make them look real. Although I hear of people what will clean up the tool marks and bury them in the back yard for the winter, then dig them up in the spring and take them out and sell them as the real thing.

In Darwin's day people manufactured forgeries to profit off of Darwin's theory. Even Darwin was selling books and making a nice living off of trying to promote a theory he learned from his Grandfather. When someone is making money you can be sure that others are going to try to jump on their bandwagon and cash in on the profit.

 

[joshua 1 9]

it's a world wide scam?
Wow. Just wow.

My point was that a college text books are a scam because of the high cost. My bother actually wrote a book that was being used as a text book for a while. It took him three years and it was a lot more work then it was worth. But the publishing company cashed in on it and I am sure they were making good money.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My point was that a college text books are a scam because of the high cost. My bother actually wrote a book that was being used as a text book for a while. It took him three years and it was a lot more work then it was worth. But the publishing company cashed in on it and I am sure they were making good money.

You keep bringing this point about text books being expensive and try to link it to evolution. Why do you keep doing that, if you don't think there is a connection between the two?

 

[JacksBratt]

Definition of a dinosaur (from dictionary.reference.com):
noun: any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals.

Or, to use a more specific definition: any prehistoric reptile that had it's hind legs straight under it's body instead of splayed out to it's side.

Well, I did not know that they were all "reptiles that had it's hind legs straight under it's body instead of splayed out to it's side".

If they were all like this, and we don't have any like it today, how could they have evolved into anything or be proven to be the ancestors of anything if they have no similarities in hip and leg arrangement?

But, then I read this: Looks like the Rhino is just a surviving dino of the smaller more oxygen efficient kind.

Date:
June 28, 2012
Source:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Summary:
A study with extant mammals refutes the hypothesis on which the assumption that dinosaurs were ectotherms was based. The study analyzing the lines of arrested growth (LAG) in the bones of around a hundred ruminants, representative of the specific and ecological diversity of that group of mammals. The results show that the presence of these lines is not an indicator of an ectothermic physiology (does not generate internal heat), as had previously been thought, since all warm-blooded mammals have them. The study therefore dismantles the key argument of the hypothesis that dinosaurs could have been cold-blooded reptiles

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I did not know that they were all "reptiles that had it's hind legs straight under it's body instead of splayed out to it's side".

If they were all like this, and we don't have any like it today, how could they have evolved into anything or be proven to be the ancestors of anything if they have no similarities in hip and leg arrangement?

But, then I read this: Looks like the Rhino is just a surviving dino of the smaller more oxygen efficient kind.

Date:
June 28, 2012
Source:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Summary:
A study with extant mammals refutes the hypothesis on which the assumption that dinosaurs were ectotherms was based. The study analyzing the lines of arrested growth (LAG) in the bones of around a hundred ruminants, representative of the specific and ecological diversity of that group of mammals. The results show that the presence of these lines is not an indicator of an ectothermic physiology (does not generate internal heat), as had previously been thought, since all warm-blooded mammals have them. The study therefore dismantles the key argument of the hypothesis that dinosaurs could have been cold-blooded reptiles

I'm pretty sure that it's been known for a good while now that the dinosaurs would have been warm-blooded. There's no way an animal like an argentinosaurus would have been able to operate if it had been a cold-blooded animal.
But you're missing something here: a rhinoceros is clearly a mammal, with a distinct fossil to prehistoric mammals, and it's skeletal structure shows that it's a mammal.
It is not, in anyway shape or form, descended or relate to dinosaurs. No matter how much you want to twist the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is your definition of a dinosaur? Anything that died off prehistorically, and anything that survived is not a dinosaur?

All these "giant lizards" and other large animals that are found in the fossil record would be just another animal with a modern name, had they survived. They were simply too large to survive after the sudden change in barometric pressure and O2 content.

That's a completely unsupported assertion.

Also, we don't see any dinosaur fossils in the last 65 million years of the fossil record, and a search of the world has not turned up a living species. If you want to claim that they lived recently, we are going to need to see evidence.

Also, there were many dinosaur species that were the size of modern mammals. Some were smaller than chickens. What happened to them?

As for the Blue whale and your question "how do you explain that"? I believe you will agree that the pressure above the water level is quite different than below. Therefore any ocean creature lives in a different pressure. If you look at Boyles gas law of pressure, under pressure the of O2 is equivalently higher. If you are a scuba diver and breath from a scuba cylinder filled with air at atmospheric pressure and dive to deeper depths you run the risk of O2 poisoning if you go very deep. The % O2 will be equivalently higher as the pressure increases. This is why they use air mixers for deep dives.

You still can't explain why the small dinosaurs did not survive.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You keep bringing this point about text books being expensive and try to link it to evolution. Why do you keep doing that, if you don't think there is a connection between the two?

Do you think there is a connection between evolution and text books? Of course, evolution is a method, it is a way to teach science. It is also very unstable and always changing. If you do not like this weeks theory just wait maybe you will like next weeks version better.

 

[Loudmouth]

A lot of this stuff can be found in Wiki. Do you understand what the word "replaced" means? My point is that even though they have REPLACED the OLD model with a new model, still the old Huxley model is taught far to often.

In the new model, those fossil species are still considered transitional.

Can you provide any reference or evidence demonstrating that they aren't transitional?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think there is a connection between evolution and text books? Of course, evolution is a method, it is a way to teach science. It is also very unstable and always changing. If you do not like this weeks theory just wait maybe you will like next weeks version better.

Evolution is a theory. Science is the method.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you think there is a connection between evolution and text books? Of course, evolution is a method, it is a way to teach science. It is also very unstable and always changing. If you do not like this weeks theory just wait maybe you will like next weeks version better.

The fact that you think that science changing is a bad thing shows that you don't understand a thing about science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The fact that you think that science changing is a bad thing shows that you don't understand a thing about science.

Yet the Bible has remained unchanged for over 3500 years. Maybe more people understand more then what it use to be.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Can you provide any reference or evidence demonstrating that they aren't transitional?

No more then you can provide evidence that they are transitional. There is more then one pea in a pod and there are more theories to explain what we find in the natural evidence other then just Darwin's theory.