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

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?

Message 62 of 271 (559426) 05-09-2010 1:56 PM

Reply to: Message 59 by Percy 05-09-2010 11:47 AM

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.

Message 64 of 271 (559430) 05-09-2010 2:17 PM

Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote 05-09-2010 12:33 PM

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.

Message 65 of 271 (559431) 05-09-2010 2:35 PM

Reply to: Message 63 by Huntard 05-09-2010 2:15 PM

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, 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.

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

Message 66 of 271 (559434) 05-09-2010 3:02 PM

Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw 05-09-2010 2:35 PM

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?

Message 67 of 271 (559437) 05-09-2010 3:32 PM

Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw 05-09-2010 1:56 PM

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 ?

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

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=...

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

Message 69 of 271 (559439) 05-09-2010 4:38 PM

Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw 05-09-2010 1:56 PM

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

Message 70 of 271 (559442) 05-09-2010 4:48 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw 05-09-2010 12:04 AM

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?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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

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

(See tagline.)

Message 72 of 271 (559464) 05-09-2010 7:44 PM

Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate 05-08-2010 7:47 PM

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

Message 73 of 271 (559476) 05-09-2010 9:10 PM

Reply to: Message 72 by Peg 05-09-2010 7:44 PM

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

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

Message 74 of 271 (559477) 05-09-2010 9:12 PM

Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw 05-08-2010 9:58 PM

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.

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

Message 75 of 271 (559478) 05-09-2010 9:13 PM

Reply to: Message 69 by Percy 05-09-2010 4:38 PM

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.