Shape-shifting Dinosaurs

[JohnEmmett]

Again, I'm feeling like this is an insult. Why do you keep doing that?

I’m clarifying only

 

[AV1611VET]

I did not say that.

Oops! You're right!

Someone else said it.

My apologies!

 

[AV1611VET]

No soul is not the teaching

QV please:

Some English-speaking Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth" or "re-becoming" (Sanskrit: punarbhava; Pali: punabbhava) to "reincarnation" as they take the latter to imply an entity (soul) that is reborn. Buddhism denies there is any such soul or self in a living being, but does assert that there is a cycle of transmigration consisting of rebirth and redeath as the fundamental nature of existence.

SOURCE

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I’m clarifying only

It's clear as mud.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Buddhism denies there is any such soul

I should know it’s not the teaching


And you should not know

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Regarding the OP (since I'm not wading through four pages with both John and AV together), it that Jack Horner is not wrong in the slightest.

When we have fossils, we can only tell that we have the fossils of that animal. It's virtually impossible to tell if a fossil could be connected to another as an adult and child unless they're found together. What also stymies it is that, while there was a massive number of dinosaurs, many dinosaurs in certain locales ended up following certain body types. Triceratops-like dinosaurs and Tyrannosaur-like dinosaurs were much more common across the area now called North America, while Velociraptor-like dinosaurs were more common in what is now Asia.

Unless you find fossils like the Miasaura which were found as adults AND infants emerging from eggs, it is virtually impossible to tell if certain dinosaurs aren't just infant/adult forms of dinosaurs instead of whole new species.

 

[JohnEmmett]

It's clear as mud.

If you find the truth … then it was for the best

 

[AV1611VET]

I should know it’s not the teaching.

Perhaps Wikipedia hasn't gotten the memo yet?

And you should not know.

In this case, ignorance is bliss.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regarding the OP (since I'm not wading through four pages with both John and AV together),

-- That made me chuckle.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-- That made me chuckle.

I just... I've not had a brilliant day at work and I just didn't want to deal with you two arguing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just... I've not had a brilliant day at work and I just didn't want to deal with you two arguing.

I pray you have a better day tomorrow!

 

[Halbhh]

Yes but whales have lungs, not gills.

And according to evolution doctrine, lungs developed on land.

Yes, that's right, mammals came later we see in the fossils. Great, huge sea creatures existed before any mammals though!

 

[Halbhh]

why the bible stories don't align with reality,

Having read the bible through fully (entirely) 3 times, and having a degree in engineering physics, and much familiarity with mainstream science, I cannot think of any bible passage that doesn't align with reality. Of course, if a person does read through the bible fully, that's very unlike merely hearing some doctrines like the YEC stuff you could hear in some small minority of American churches. A person can read well (meaning to read through and never to just read for an agenda) and then they will see (from that more complete reading) a huge amount of figurative wordings and at times stylized representations in visions like the ones in Acts 10 or Genesis 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, that's right, mammals came later we see in the fossils. Great, huge sea creatures existed before any mammals though!

Whales ... before ... land animals.

No evolutionist worth his NaCl would dare say that on a secular test, would he?

I can make this harder:

Explain angiosperms before the sun.

 

[Halbhh]

Whales ... before ... land animals.

No evolutionist worth his NaCl would dare say that on a secular test, would he?

I can make this harder:

Explain angiosperms before the sun.

Whales are mammals, and came later. But long before land animals, there were large sea creatures already, we see in fossils. Not whales, but other large enough sea creatures from that earlier time.

Just a few impressions of what some might have looked like from fossils:

480 million years ago, the Aegirocassis benmoulae

Prehistoric 'Sea Monster' Had More Legs Than Thought

A well-preserved fossil has helped scientists determine that an ancient 480-million-year-old arthropod had two, not one, set of limbs.

www.livescience.com

380 million years ago, the Dunkleosteus

Dunkleosteus - Your Guide To The Giant Armored Placoderm: Fossilguy.com

These above were some especially ancient creatures, but after them came a number of truly large dinosaurs carnivores of the sea, frightening creatures.

Dig this one:

Mosasaurus was a ferocious predator in the ancient oceans of the Cretaceous period (145.5 million to 65.5 million years ago).

Mosasaurus: Apex ocean predator of the dinosaur age

Mosasaurus and other mosasaurs ruled the seas for millions of years.

www.livescience.com

 

[AV1611VET]

Whales are mammals, and came later. But long before land animals, there were large sea creatures already,

Okay, Halbhh.

Thanks for the info.