Super-Continent Pangaea

[joshua 1 9]

Dunkleosteus, lived in the Late Devonian period around 360-380 million years ago. It's entire upper jaw was a tooth.

Close but no cigar, they did not actually have teeth. "Instead of teeth, Dunkleosteus possessed two pairs of sharp bony plates which formed a beak-like structure." wiki

 

[joshua 1 9]

you are ignoring

I do not know what I am ignoring because there were over 20 questions today and I do not know if I answered all of the questions the last time I was on here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Close but no cigar, they did not actually have teeth. "Instead of teeth, Dunkleosteus possessed two pairs of sharp bony plates which formed a beak-like structure." wiki

Semantics. A beak has the same makeup and function as a tooth, and Dunkleosteus was classed an apex, hyper-predator.
So to answer your question: yes, there were carnivores before the breakup of Pangaea.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I do not know what I am ignoring because there were over 20 questions today and I do not know if I answered all of the questions the last time I was on here.

... right.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Provided your science is correct.

We know that science is not always correct. An interesting book to read is: "The Half-Life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date".

The Bible is 3500 years old and remains consistent and true. If you go to your university book store the text books go through constant revision and updates. No one has to update or revise the Bible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Semantics.

Not at all, your missing the whole point of what Creationism is saying. If you want to argue against something then you have to understand it first. Sense your just trolling then you have no interest. The Bible says: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." Matt 7:6. That is why we do not give everything to everyone, we only show the people that are really interested in learning. For example Kabbalism is taught only to those who have already learned Torah and Talmud. A lot of quantum physics is based Kabbalah. But you would not know because they do not put it out there for people to debate and tear it to shreds. This is learning made available for people that are interested in learning the truth. That is why the skeptics and scoffers have to be content with throwing the same old tried pratts back and forth. No one gives them anything of any real substance, just a few scraps and bones to chew on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not at all, your missing the whole point of what Creationism is saying. If you want to argue against something then you have to understand it first. Sense your just trolling then you have no interest. The Bible says: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." Matt 7:6. That is why we do not give everything to everyone, we only show the people that are really interested in learning. For example Kabbalism is taught only to those who have already learned Torah and Talmud. A lot of quantum physics is based Kabbalah. But you would not know because they do not put it out there for people to debate and tear it to shreds. This is learning made available for people that are interested in learning the truth. That is why the skeptics and scoffers have to be content with throwing the same old tried pratts back and forth. No one gives them anything of any real substance, just a few scraps and bones to chew on.

And you completely ignore the rest of my post. Spectacular.
Here's the fact you seem to be ignoring: when Pangaea existed, 360 to 380 million years ago, Dunkleosteus was swimming around the ocean, eating things up and tearing things apart with it's beak, which is essentially one large tooth.
This means, that when Pangaea existed, there were predators. And that's just one of the predators that existed at the time.

This is not a PRATT (it has to be upper case. Lower case makes it seem like you're calling them a prat). In fact, it can't even be refuted. It is a fact.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It is a fact.

What is a fact is that Dunkleosteus did not have teeth. Nice try though, better luck next time. To be more exact we are talking about: "The relationship between tooth form and dietary preference is a crucial issue in vertebrate evolution." http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15202

The subject has more to do with food and how that is a part of evolution. For example they write books about when Humans first began to cook their food and how that was a part of the evolutionary process.


This is a dinosaur tooth.

 

[[serious]]

They can but we are talking about the people that reject Science. It is the conservative and liberal extremists that seem to show the least about of tolerance. The moderates tend to show more tolerance.

If liberal means atheist, and conservative means christian, what does science mean in all of this?

 

[Cearbhall]

If liberal means atheist, and conservative means christian, what does science mean in all of this?

Bananas.

 

[Jimmy D]

And you completely ignore the rest of my post. Spectacular.
Here's the fact you seem to be ignoring: when Pangaea existed, 360 to 380 million years ago, Dunkleosteus was swimming around the ocean, eating things up and tearing things apart with it's beak, which is essentially one large tooth.
This means, that when Pangaea existed, there were predators. And that's just one of the predators that existed at the time.

This is not a PRATT (it has to be upper case. Lower case makes it seem like you're calling them a prat). In fact, it can't even be refuted. It is a fact.

Unless I'm mistaken (by which I mean wikipedia ) Pangaea "assembled from earlier continental units approximately 300 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago".

Dunkleosteus pre-dates that time by a huge margin.

Also:
By the mid-Devonian, the fossil record shows evidence that there were two new groups of fish that had true bones, teeth, swim bladders and gills. The Ray-finned fish were the ancestors of most modern fish. Like modern fish, their paired pelvic and pectoral fins were supported by several long thin bones powered by muscles largely within the trunk.

http://www.livescience.com/43596-devonian-period.html

 

[Jimmy D]

I think we need to take a step back at this point and ask what has any of this got to do with the bible? Is Joshua actually suggesting that Pangaea has anything to do with the fall - which is normally when creationists start their nonsense about animals becoming carnivores?

Are you saying that predators didn't exist before the break up of Pangaea, because any scientific source you care to google will show otherwise. Whether or not they had a more primitive form of teeth is neither here nor there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Unless I'm mistaken (by which I mean wikipedia ) Pangaea "assembled from earlier continental units approximately 300 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago".

Dunkleosteus pre-dates that time by a huge margin.

Also:
By the mid-Devonian, the fossil record shows evidence that there were two new groups of fish that had true bones, teeth, swim bladders and gills. The Ray-finned fish were the ancestors of most modern fish. Like modern fish, their paired pelvic and pectoral fins were supported by several long thin bones powered by muscles largely within the trunk.

http://www.livescience.com/43596-devonian-period.html

And yet Dunkleosteus proves that even before Pangaea existed, there were predator animals that lived during that time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is a fact is that Dunkleosteus did not have teeth. Nice try though, better luck next time. To be more exact we are talking about: "The relationship between tooth form and dietary preference is a crucial issue in vertebrate evolution." http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15202

The subject has more to do with food and how that is a part of evolution. For example they write books about when Humans first began to cook their food and how that was a part of the evolutionary process.


This is a dinosaur tooth.

And why are you explicitly ignoring the rest of what I wrote where I said that Dunkeosteus was an apex hyper predator, which disproves your idea that it was only after the split of Pangaea that predatory animals existed?

 

[joshua 1 9]

And why are you explicitly ignoring the rest of what I wrote where I said that Dunkeosteus was an apex hyper predator, which disproves your idea that it was only after the split of Pangaea that predatory animals existed?

People can try to argue that bacteria is a predator. The Bible talks about producing fruit. A tree is not a tree when the seed begins to spout or when the seed takes root. A tree becomes a tree when the tree produces fruit. We know the seed is in the fruit.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If liberal means atheist, and conservative means christian, what does science mean in all of this?

There is all kinds of science: true and false.
A lot of what people call science is pure speculation.
There there are others that talk about a scientific method.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

People can try to argue that bacteria is a predator. The Bible talks about producing fruit. A tree is not a tree when the seed begins to spout or when the seed takes root. A tree becomes a tree when the tree produces fruit. We know the seed is in the fruit.

How many times do I have to repeat this to you? The Dunkleosteus was a predator, which lived in the oceans before the split of Pangaea. This is a fact!
Why will you not accept this?

 

[Hieronymus]

Provided your science is correct.

And it probably isn't:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And it probably isn't:

You do know that -57 was talking to joshua19, right?

 

[Colter]

Yes, we went over this. The story of Noah in the Bible is a shadow and a type of what took place in Pangaea. Some people call this an allegory. There are different words we can use. In fact there is fairly universal acceptance that the story of Noah is some sort of an allegory because the story is so universal and timeless in nature. What people questioned is the literal truth of the story. Also you have to look at the Jung perspective of archetypes.

It's not Noah's story that is universal, it's the fact that all cultures have experienced large floods.