Shape-Shifting Dinosaurs

[AV1611VET]

That would show that the Square-Cube law is working perfectly. Take a look at an elephant or rhino and tell me that their legs dont look immensly strong.....?

Behemoth would probably step on an elephant and rhinoceros; or use it's massive tail to send a whole herd into the next county.

 

[RickG]

Behemoth would probably step on an elephant and rhinoceros; or use it's massive tail to send a whole herd into the next county.

You mean like this.

Behemoth (2011) Trailer Full Movie - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean like this.

Well ... you got the right idea anyway.

 

[Kylie]

The curious case of the shapeshifting dinosaurs | Science Illustrated

So what?

I have changed shape in my life as well. After all, a mature woman does not have the same body shape as a young girl.

So what exactly is your point here?

 

[CabVet]

So what?

I have changed shape in my life as well. After all, a mature woman does not have the same body shape as a young girl.

So what exactly is your point here?

I asked this at the beginning of the thread, and said that nothing in the video goes against evolution. No answer yet, so I am curious too. But I am sure that either Ken Ham, Kent Hovind or some other professional liar twisted in a way that makes it sound like it goes agains evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what?

I have changed shape in my life as well. After all, a mature woman does not have the same body shape as a young girl.

So what exactly is your point here?

Were you considered a Homo ergaster then, and a Homo sapiens now?

 

[CabVet]

Were you considered a Homo ergaster then, and a Homo sapiens now?

No, because people, even those from the times of Linnaeus, knew that human children and human adults were the same species.

Still waiting for you to say what your problem with the video is. Is it: "if you got two species wrong you got them all wrong"? Please don't be that one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still waiting for you to say what your problem with the video is. Is it: "if you got two species wrong you got them all wrong"? Please don't be that one.

I don't need a video on shape-shifting to know that.

According to Wikipedia, some think Homo ergaster is a one-size-fits-all category that actually contains Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.

I'm under the impression Homo ergaster was once a tax paying contributing member of society that God laid a "wonderful plague" upon.

 

[CabVet]

I don't need a video on shape-shifting to know that.

According to Wikipedia, some think Homo ergaster is a one-size-fits-all category that actually contains Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.

Not this Wikipedia: Homo ergaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm under the impression Homo ergaster was once a tax paying contributing member of society that God laid a "wonderful plague" upon.

Funny how Homo ergaster and Homo sapiens bones are not found in the same strata, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to Wikipedia, some think Homo ergaster is a one-size-fits-all category that actually contains Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.

Funny how Homo ergaster and Homo sapiens bones are not found in the same strata, isn't it?

Post of the month.

 

[[serious]]

Post of the month.

These posts?

According to Wikipedia, some think Homo ergaster is a one-size-fits-all category that actually contains Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.

Not this Wikipedia: Homo ergaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean, you being embarrassingly wrong about something and getting immediately called on it isn't really rare enough to make post of the month rank.

 

[CabVet]

Post of the month.

Nope, the real post of the month is this:

1) Wikipedia does not say what you claim it does (which means you are spreading false information).

2) Homo ergaster is not a one-size-fits-all category that actually contains Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens (which again means you are spreading false information).

3) Homo ergaster and Homo sapiens are not found in the same strata, which is inconsistent with your "impression" that they live together (which for a third time means you are spreading false information).

Hint: you don't need to spread false information to justify your faith. All you need to do is say that "God did it".

 

[AV1611VET]

1) Wikipedia does not say what you claim it does (which means you are spreading false information).

Because I put Homo sapiens on the list by mistake?

Some paleoanthropologists consider H. ergaster to be simply the African variety of H. erectus; this leads to the use of the term "Homo erectus sensu stricto" for the Asian H. erectus, and "Homo erectus sensu lato" for the larger species comprising both the early African populations (H. ergaster) and the Asian populations. The latest discoveries go even further claiming that all five contemporary species of early "Homo" in Africa, "Homo habilis", "Homo rudolfensis", "Homo ergaster", and "Homo erectus" are representatives from the same species,

SOURCE

 

[Kylie]

Were you considered a Homo ergaster then, and a Homo sapiens now?

I believe you have been told countless times that individuals don't evolve, populations do over many generations...

 

[AV1611VET]

So what?

I have changed shape in my life as well. After all, a mature woman does not have the same body shape as a young girl.

So what exactly is your point here?

Were you considered a Homo ergaster then, and a Homo sapiens now?

I believe you have been told countless times that individuals don't evolve, populations do over many generations...

Then your example can take a hike.

You were a "wise man" when you were a young girl, and you're considered a "wise man" as a mature woman.

The point I'm making is the same animal being mistaken for two different ones.

 

[CabVet]

Because I put Homo sapiens on the list by mistake?

And because you stuck to it after I pointed out your mistake.

 

[CabVet]

The point I'm making is the same animal being mistaken for two different ones.

It happens all the time. Do you want more examples? I can give you hundreds.

FYI: That does not invalidate evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI: That does not invalidate evolution.

It's okay for Mother Nature to shape shift and fool you guys, but let God shape shift someone's bones and hooboy, look out -- it's deception central.

Even though God documented it -- (Psalm 38).

I also think it's funny that you guys claim God is being deceptive, while all the time yo Mamma [Nature] has been fooling you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I also think it's funny that you guys claim God is being deceptive, while all the time yo Mamma [Nature] has been fooling you.

You are the one that has God putting fake fossils in the ground.

 

[CabVet]

It's okay for Mother Nature to shape shift and fool you guys, but let God shape shift someone's bones and hooboy, look out -- it's deception central.

Oh, so now God is to blame for the mistakes of taxonomers? Frankly, this is the first time I hear this argument. And FYI, it does not in any way interfere with evolution.

Even though God documented it -- (Psalm 39).

I also think it's funny that you guys claim God is being deceptive, while all the time yo Mamma [Nature] has been fooling you.

God is not being deceptive. Your word is not God's word and is not the only interpretation of the Bible out there. So, the only way to reconcile your interpretation of the Bible with reality is by concluding that God was deceptive.