Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 7:34 PM
80 online now:
Colbard, Coyote, Dr Adequate, Jon, JonF, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, nwr (8 members, 72 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,093 Year: 24,934/28,606 Month: 2,235/1,786 Week: 450/647 Day: 55/79 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   dinosaur and human co-existence
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4766
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 61 of 271 (559423)
05-09-2010 12:33 PM


To return to the original topic
Buz, you claim dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

Show me an instance in which dinosaur and human bones or man-made artifacts have been found in the same context.

We have a lot of examples of humans co-existing with extinct mammals, such as the mammoth and mastodon, but no dinosaurs.

Where are the bones?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 2:17 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 271 (559426)
05-09-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
05-09-2010 11:47 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Percy writes:

Buzsaw writes:

Note: The Genesis account of the curse is not evidence.

Can we therefore agree that there is no evidence for "the curse" or for the effects of curses?

If so, then how can you imply a causal relationship between "the curse" and any observations you might make about the natural world?

As I went on to explain, the Genesis record depicting the curse is not in itself the evidence. It is the premise from which the Buzsaw thesis extrapolates interpretation of the cited observable evidence.

My argument is not the Bible says so, so it's so, as has been implicated.

By the same token, ToE is not evidence in itself perse. Evolution is the premise from which evolutionists extrapolate their interpretation of the observable evidence, i.e. their thesis. No?

How is the relationship of the Genesis record relative to this topic any more casual than the relationship of ToE to the observed evidence cited in this thread? Both ideologies have other corroborating evidences and problematic aspects, not directly related to this topic which either support or hinder the respective premises and theses.

Though I'm not up to date on responses, as yet, so far as I'm aware, none of you, my evolutionist friends have effectively refuted the co-existant/survival problem of yours, a problem which mine has a practical solution for.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 05-09-2010 11:47 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Huntard, posted 05-09-2010 2:15 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2010 3:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 05-09-2010 4:38 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 63 of 271 (559429)
05-09-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 1:56 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:

By the same token, ToE is not evidence in itself perse. Evolution is the premise from which evolutionists extrapolate their interpretation of the observable evidence, i.e. their thesis. No?


No. Have you learned anything in your time here? The ToE is the best explanation for all the evidence we see, Buz. How many times do we have to tell you this?

Though I'm not up to date on responses, as yet, so far as I'm aware, none of you, my evolutionist friends have effectively refuted the co-existant/survival problem of yours, a problem which mine has a practical solution for.

Why would this be a problem for us, pray tell? Does anyone here say that if snakes coexisted with dinosaurs, they had to have died along with them as well? What a weird thing to claim, given the evidence is suggesting this is far from the case.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 1:56 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 2:35 PM Huntard has responded
 Message 93 by IchiBan, posted 05-10-2010 8:07 PM Huntard has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 271 (559430)
05-09-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
05-09-2010 12:33 PM


Re: To return to the original topic
Buz, you claim dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
Coyote writes:

Show me an instance in which dinosaur and human bones or man-made artifacts have been found in the same context.

We have a lot of examples of humans co-existing with extinct mammals, such as the mammoth and mastodon, but no dinosaurs.

Where are the bones?

Since before the flood, the bones would nearly all have had either been in shallow graves or rotted on the surface. Given the uniformity non catastrophic period from creation of animals to the time of the flood, non of the bones of either man nor kino would have been preserved by fossilization. Likey, as I've alluded, relatively (I say relative) few of all existing pre-flood dinos would have died during that 1500-1800 time frame from alleged day six of creation.

At the time of the flood and previous, likely few, if any dinos and humans mingled close enough to have been catastropically buried in the earth to fossilize together.

As the flood began to rise, mankind, being the creature of high intelligence would, unlike the dinos, had the intelligence to seek the best last bastions of survival which would have been, in most cases, substantially separate from the dinos, having the ability to climb to greater heights, float on debris for a spell, etc.

There are claims by Carl Baugh and others of human superimposed footprints over that of dinos. I'm not convinced that all of the have been imperically refuted, nor am I able, without more knowledge to adamantly argue for them.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2010 12:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 271 (559431)
05-09-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Huntard
05-09-2010 2:15 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Huntard writes:

No. Have you learned anything in your time here? The ToE is the best explanation for all the evidence we see, Buz. How many times do we have to tell you this?

Huntard, that, have you learned anything here demeaning and blind asserted tune you're singing is all too often the evolutionist response to viable arguments of creationists. It's time you drop the hum drum old personal attack tune and stick to the debate tune of effective responses such as what we are required to sing.

Huntard writes:

Buzsaw writes:

Though I'm not up to date on responses, as yet, so far as I'm aware, none of you, my evolutionist friends have effectively refuted the co-existant/survival problem of yours, a problem which mine has a practical solution for.

Why would this be a problem for us, pray tell? Does anyone here say that if snakes coexisted with dinosaurs, they had to have died along with them as well? What a weird thing to claim, given the evidence is suggesting this is far from the case.

Huntard, perhaps you should reread carefully what you responded to and get back to me on that. You're response makes no sense relative to my statement and needs some clarification.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Huntard, posted 05-09-2010 2:15 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Huntard, posted 05-09-2010 3:02 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 66 of 271 (559434)
05-09-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 2:35 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:

Huntard, that, have you learned anything here demeaning and blind asserted tune you're singing is all too often the evolutionist response to viable arguments of creationists.


And it always seems to be true as well, imagine that.

It's time you drop the hum drum old personal attack tune and stick to the debate tune of effective responses such as what we are required to sing.

Why? You're not showing any evidence. There's literally nothing to debunk, you haven't even shown anything. All that's left for me is to point out the rather obvious fact you have misrepresented science and evolution once again

Huntard, perhaps you should reread carefully what you responded to and get back to me on that. You're response makes no sense relative to my statement and needs some clarification.

Really? Allow me to break down your response:

Though I'm not up to date on responses,

Here, you say you haven't yet read all response in this thread. Ok, that's clear.

as yet, so far as I'm aware

Here you say the same thing twice, that you currently haven't. Well duh you said that in your initial sentence, no need to repeat it twice.

none of you, my evolutionist friends

You are now going to state something we have failed to do, in your eyes.

have effectively refuted the co-existant/survival problem of yours

This is the thing we failed to do, refute this so called "co-existant/survival problem" of ours.

a problem which mine has a practical solution for.

Here you say that you have a practical solution to the "co-existant/survival problem".

Now, My response to this was pointing out to you that we have no "co-existant/survival problem", since no one here claims it is a problem for snakes or other reptiles to have co existed with dinosaurs, and yet have survived the extinction event that led to the disappearance of the dinosaurs.

Clear enough for ya?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 2:35 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 67 of 271 (559437)
05-09-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 1:56 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

As I went on to explain, the Genesis record depicting the curse is not in itself the evidence. It is the premise from which the Buzsaw thesis extrapolates interpretation of the cited observable evidence.

So your evidence is: Dinosaurs and snakes are distantly related and dinosaurs all died out along with a lot of other species at the end of the Cretaceous. That's not exactly great evidence that dinosaurs all turned into snakes, even before we consider the fossil evidence refuting the idea.

quote:

Though I'm not up to date on responses, as yet, so far as I'm aware, none of you, my evolutionist friends have effectively refuted the co-existant/survival problem of yours, a problem which mine has a practical solution for.

What problem would that be ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 1:56 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 68 of 271 (559438)
05-09-2010 3:49 PM


About Those Footprints
Just as a side note to this important thread, the topic of which is obviously Buzsaw Wishes He Were Faith ...

Those dino-human footprints in Texas turned out to be partly eroded tridactyl tracks. The ones that were real that is, the ones that were fake are fun with mud and cement and so on on by local residents. The Institute for Creation Research concurs on this.

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=...

Upon closer investigation, scientists discovered that the smaller footprints running beside the larger dinosaur tracks were also made by dinosaurs, albeit smaller ones. They were three-toed reptile tracks, eroded just enough to coarsely resemble human footprints. Besides, those smaller footprints were three feet long, revealing an animal who stood over twenty feet tall, but the ICR retorted that they were Nephilim footprints (the giants in the days of Noah, Genesis chapter six).

In addition, many well-defined, fossilized human footprints were sold around that site, but scientists quickly saw that those were fakes. During the 1930s, when the dinosaur tracks were first discovered, a bunch of Glen Rose residents sculpted fake footprints and sold them to tourists.

Six years after publication, John Morris acknowledged this dilemma in the ICRs January 1986 Impact newsletter called The Paluxy Mystery. This is significant because the Institute for Creation Research almost never admits to errors.

AIG includes this boondoggle amongst its helpful list of pitfalls for serious creationists to avoid embarassing themself in.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/...pic/arguments-we-dont-use


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13311
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 69 of 271 (559439)
05-09-2010 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 1:56 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi Buz,

I don't know what all that had to do with my question, so let me ask it again.

Can we therefore agree that there is no evidence for "the curse" or for the effects of curses? And that therefore no causal connection can be drawn between "the curse" and any observations you might happen to make about the natural world?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 1:56 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 9:13 PM Percy has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6481
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 70 of 271 (559442)
05-09-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 12:04 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Your problem remains: why did the alleged Ice Age allegedly render exclusively the dinos extinct, leaving the other co-existing reptiles alive and well to flourish and survive. That is your position. No?

Exclusively left the dinosaurs extinct?

You forgot calcareous nanoplankton, lots of benthic life, many many Scleractinia coral, just about all of Cephalopoda, a significant number of echinoderms, rudists, inoceramus, over half of all North American plants, pterosaurs, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs and indeed ALL large marine reptiles* except for (some) sea turtles.

They all went extinct at the same time. If you want talk about reptileish things in the fossil record - then most of them went extinct and some of them didn't. This is because, trivially speaking, the cause of the extinction wasn't comprehensive and for whatever assorted reasons, breeding populations managed to keep around during the turmoil.

Different circumstances behind the extinction events, and more or less species and orders would have gone extinct.

How does Creation explain why most Cephalopoda went extinct, but not all of them?



* Disclaimer already hashed out in this thread.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 12:04 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4766
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 71 of 271 (559446)
05-09-2010 6:32 PM


I will no longer be participating in this thread.

You simply can't discuss science with someone who makes things up as they go. That is the absolute antithesis of science.

(See tagline.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by IchiBan, posted 05-10-2010 2:26 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 1403 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 72 of 271 (559464)
05-09-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2010 7:47 PM


Re: Where are the bones?
Dr Adequate writes:

No, it means that their literal name is dinosaur. No scientist in the world would be stupid enough to call them lizards.

the point is, that IS what the word means....its a desciptive word.

If dinosaurs dont mean that, then they should change the name to what they believe it means.

Im really just nitpicking here btw lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2010 7:47 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-09-2010 9:10 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2010 1:16 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 80 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2010 1:29 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 984 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 73 of 271 (559476)
05-09-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:44 PM


Re: Where are the bones?
Peg writes:

Dr Adequate writes:


No, it means that their literal name is dinosaur. No scientist in the world would be stupid enough to call them lizards.

the point is, that IS what the word means....its a desciptive word.

If dinosaurs dont mean that, then they should change the name to what they believe it means.

And the literal translation of gastritis from the Greek means "stomach fire." Doest that mean you think that doctors treat ulcers with fire extinguishers?


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:44 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 984 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 74 of 271 (559477)
05-09-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 9:58 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:

But Bluejay, your two word terms, misinformation and clarification are relative to your secularistic con-ID premise from which you extrapolate from observed evidence.

Well that would seem to be the problem, Buz. The scientific view is based on actual evidence. You, on the other hand, are making up made-up things.

Oh, and if you're going to use the Sinclair logo as evidence that snakes are the ancestors of dinosaurs, then can I use this as evidence that dogs and dinosaurs are also closely related?

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 271 (559478)
05-09-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
05-09-2010 4:38 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Percy writes:

Can we therefore agree that there is no evidence for "the curse" or for the effects of curses? And that therefore no causal connection can be drawn between "the curse" and any observations you might happen to make about the natural world?

The curse is part of the premise which is in the Genesis record. That record states that at some point the long legged reptile type would cease to exist and the descendents of it would be belly crawling (implicating short legged) types of reptiles.

The evidence cited by me depicts two examples of extinct long legged type reptiles, i.e. the prototypes and the respective belly crawling reptile types that did not become extinct; that survived and thrived abundantly and which are observable today. The Buzsaw premise and thesis is based on the fact that indeed evidence of this has been observed as the premise predicted.

The above lends evidentual support to the prediction in the Genesis record and renders a reasonable explanation for the disappearance of the dinosaur type reptiles.

I see Coyote has opted out of this thread and you appear to have a problem with my claims of evidence. Perhaps it could be moved to the Freeforall, continued as a new topic in Freeforall or simply closed.

This is just another example of why it becomes so difficult for bonafide Biblical creationists to debate anything in the science fora here at EvC. I don't know what the solution is. I have tried to keep it as scientific as possible, but as you know, anything implying ID directly or indirectly implies an intelligent creator/manager.

I don't think it's to the benefit of anyone if debates like this become so technically difficult that Biblical premises become intolerable.

If the data which I've cited, (all I have at this time) is considered moot as evidence by you and perhaps others on your staff, just say the word and I'll be done with this topic.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 05-09-2010 4:38 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by lyx2no, posted 05-10-2010 1:02 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2010 1:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2010 2:51 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 05-10-2010 5:10 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2010 11:15 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014