|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: dinosaur and human co-existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No comment on blind assertions. Blindness involves not seeing things. For example, you are so blinded by your belief in your nonsense that you are ignoring all the extinct reptiles that are not dinosaurs.
All extinct. All reptiles. None of them dinosaurs. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
This one is closer in relation to mammals then most reptiles just point out further... Edited by DC85, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It may be more closely related to mammals than to modern reptiles, but it's still a reptile.
Either "reptiles" is a clade or it isn't. If it is, then mammals are reptiles too, and if it isn't (which it isn't) then that's a reptile by virtue of its anatomy. Which is why it's a pelycosaur, not a pelycotherium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
may be more closely related to mammals than to modern reptiles, but it's still a reptile. Reptile is a horrible division. I disagree Dinosaurs and early Synapsids should grouped with reptiles. Now we're taking things off topic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh, and who could forget the ichthyosaurs? Apart from me, obviously.
Of course these, like the pelycosaurs, went extinct before the KT boundary, but in creationist fantasy they all drowned in the Flood ... despite ichthyosaurs being marine organisms, but hey, it doesn't have to make sense does it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ZenMonkey writes: Rocks take time to form under natural conditions. (And yes, I know that you're going to claim that the Flood created exactly those magical, unrepeatable conditions, the same ones that apparently make radiometric dating completely unreliable from your point of view. This claim is also utterly unsupported by evidence.) Your evidence is observed data interpreted on the basis of relative uniformativity for the last 20,000 years or so. If there was a flood, the same data would not necessarily calculate the same from a non-uniformative premise. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
A tad shaped like this little guy. Brookesia peyrierasi chameleon on leaf
Edited by Buzsaw, : add photo BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
The top photo is a dimetrodon which is a Therapsid one of the "mammal like reptiles" not closely related to lizards in fact more closely related to mammals than to the living reptile families.
The Ancestor's Tale, page 252 There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A tad shaped like this little guy. Brookesia peyrierasi chameleon on leaf Yes, they are related. Just like everything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
What are the implications of this little beknownst truth? That they look alike has to mean something important, right? And what are the implications of a Toosie Roll® looking like a pekingese turd? Buz, you are setting a new low for yourself in the evidence department.
* Not the unbended curved kind. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4537 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Your evidence is observed data interpreted on the basis of relative uniformativity for the last 20,000 years or so. If there was a flood, the same data would not necessarily calculate the same from a non-uniformative premise. Yes. Evidence. Observed data. That's what science works with. The only interpretation of uniformity on the part of science is that things we observe and measure today operate in the same fundamental ways and are subject to the same fundamental laws that they did in the past, unless there is compelling, verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise. Light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second. Period. Measure it any way you like, you'll get 299,792,458 metres per second. Why on earth should we decide that maybe 6000 years ago light only traveled at 20,000 meters per second instead? (That's about the same ratio of error as your assertion that dinosaurs died out 4350 years ago instead of 65 million.) Floods don't somehow magically alter the fundamental nature of matter, which is what you keep asserting time after time. Reality is reality, Buz, that's the only assumption that science is making here. If you want to deny that, then I guess you are perfectly justified in making up stories in direct contradiction to the way the world really works, and you must believe that your God has created a universe in which nothing makes sense from one minute to the next. Feel free to live in fantasyland and pretend that reality is whatever you want to be; I'm starting to suspect that that's exactly what you do. I also note that you haven't yet replied to my questions in Message 132, nor have you acknowledged Message 135 in which I refute your claim that there's no more evidence that it was astroid that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago than there is that they drowned in a magical flood 4350 years ago. Can we assume that you're tacitly admitting that your claims are nonsense? I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Buzsaw writes: A tad shaped like this little guy. Brookesia peyrierasi chameleon on leaf
The one on top is a Dimetrodon, which is in the class Synapsida, and so is neither a reptile nor a dinosaur, though its legs and movement are thought to have resembled a lizard's. But apparently the Synapsids are closer to mammals than to reptiles. The chameleon on the bottom *is* a reptile. Since you have dinosaurs undergoing a complete genetic makeover in a single generation, why do you care how much they look like each other, and where is the evidence for your hypothesis of a genetic makeover? As others are pointing out, if your sole evidence for relatedness is vague resemblances then you're bound to arrive at all kinds of weird and wrong conclusions. General shape and appearance are molded by the environment, and similar environments and ecological niches will produce similar external appearances. It's the internal details that reveal actual evolutionary relationships, which in the case of fossils is usually just bones, though sometimes more, like skin impressions and so forth. But let's get back to a more basic issue. Pretend you're preparing me for a debate on the flood where I'm to take the position that the dinosaurs still roamed the Earth 4350 years ago. What information are you going to give me so I can win the debate? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Clarify first para.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Buz, that is not correct. A flood would have no effect on any fundamental physical process. Radioactive decay rates would be completely unaffected by it. If you're saying that the flood could have affected the composition of all the rocks we can now study, then I don't believe there's any evidence to support you. Even if it did, the isochron dating methods we often use can detect this. So we can say for certain, based on our current understanding of physics, that the flood would not invalidate dating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4654 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Your evidence is observed data interpreted on the basis of relative uniformativity for the last 20,000 years or so. If there was a flood, the same data would not necessarily calculate the same from a non-uniformative premise.
Completely wrong!!! Even IF there was a worldwide flood. It would not drastically change the decay rates of radiological materials to the extent needed to evidence a 6000 year old earth. Water doesn't suck the alpha and beta particles out of a radioactive material speeding the decay to the daughter isotope. Throwing a few rocks down to the bottom of the ocean isn't going to cause them to radiate faster. A worldwide flood WOULD NOT affect decay rates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: The one on top is a Dimetrodon, which is in the class Synapsida, and so is neither a reptile nor a dinosaur, though its legs and movement are thought to have resembled a lizard's. But apparently the Synapsids are closer to mammals than to reptiles.The chameleon on the bottom *is* a reptile. I was going by Dr Adequates message, designating them asreptiles. I checked Wiki and it appears that that site supports your assertion, though that assertion assumes a relative uniformitarian. Percy writes: Since you have dinosaurs undergoing a complete genetic makeover in a single generation, why do you care how much they look like each other, and where is the evidence for your hypothesis of a genetic makeover? It would seem that imilarities in features and appearance somewhat corrorates the fact that both are classified as reptiles.
Percy writes: As others are pointing out, if your sole evidence for relatedness is vague resemblances then you're bound to arrive at all kinds of weird and wrong conclusions. General shape and appearance are molded by the environment, and similar environments and ecological niches will produce similar external appearances. It's the internal details that reveal actual evolutionary relationships, which in the case of fossils is usually just bones, though sometimes more, like skin impressions and so forth. Again, appearance, classification and the relative sudden disappearance of the dinos, all three become supportive to corroborating the hypothesis.
Percy writes: But let's get back to a more basic issue. Pretend you're preparing me for a debate on the flood where I'm to take the position that the dinosaurs still roamed the Earth 4350 years ago. What information are you going to give me so I can win the debate? Relative to the dino topic here, a ww flood would have wiped them all out since only the non-dino types would have been on the ark. The flood debate, as I've alluded to in past threads, involves a significantly pre-flood non-uniformative planet and atmosphere. For decades I've been considering all of the ramifications of this concept. Preparing one for such a debate , like ToE, involves a lot more than one message on one topic thread. --Percy BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024