|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Dinosaurs live with man? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi ScottyDouglas,
Again appling that some how people like Christopher columbus and Marco Polo who wrote about such beats did not know what they were describing or talking about? ... Curiously, such lack of knowledge and scientific accuracy in description was quite common at the time. One need only look at the fantasy sea monsters in books and on maps, ones that have no bearing on any know living or fossil animals.
... That seems like science today assumes that they are the only ones who knew and can properly describe a dinosaur. ... Science can and does properly describe fossils, and any reconstruction of the organism from the fossils is hypothetical, a fact that is readily admitted by scientists. These reconstructions are not evidence, even though they are done as meticulously as possible using known methods of reconstruction based on a knowledge of muscles, tissues, organs, etc.
... Stick to your gunns till the end because IF dinos walked with man darwins evolution theory is done. ... And again this is falsified by the living organisms today that also existed at the time of the dinosaurs. For it to change the theory of evolution it would need to challenge the nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors, and this doesn't.
... That also means all your dating and knowledge you proclaim throughout the world is false. ... Except, amusingly, that this does not even begin to follow by any stretch of logic.
But yes more evidence coming up!! More items for the frauds and hoaxes thread? (hopefully you have checked to make sure they are not already listed ... ). Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Scotty, by now you have read the posts responding to your initial post and pointing out a huge number of errors.
I have a couple of serious questions I'd like to ask: 1) Did you not realize the information you were relying on was erroneous? Did some websites or creationists you trusted provide you with false information that you then posted here? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
I guess its possible.
I think we still have some, they are called Crocodilians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Well this thread has been thoroughly trounced.
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
I think we still have some, they are called Crocodilians. Except that crocodilians aren't dinosaurs - they're crocodilians. The ancestors of crocodiles split off from the ancestors of dinosaurs somewhere in the Late Permian or Early Triassic - about 250 million years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I guess its possible. I think we still have some, they are called Crocodilians. It would have been more accurate to say "they are called birds", but that is neither here nor there. You do bring up a bigger point. It is indeed possible that some (non-avian) dinosaurs made it into the modern age. We may stumble upon a few surviving species on a remote island, for example. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires dinosaurs to be extinct. Nothing. In fact, I find it kind of strange that we don't see any dinosaurs today. Even the ancient monotreme is still represented by 2 species: the platypus and the echidna. What we are arguing against is the implication that radiometric dating is not accurate. Obviously, creationists are not arguing that there may be some isolated island that still houses a few species which is why they are not seen in the fossil record for the past 65 million years. What they are trying to argue is that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old, therefore man and the dinosaurs found in the fossil record roamed the Earth together.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Taq writes: It would have been more accurate to say "they are called birds", but that is neither here nor there. you got me. I am an earth science guy.
Taq writes: You do bring up a bigger point. It is indeed possible that some (non-avian) dinosaurs made it into the modern age. We may stumble upon a few surviving species on a remote island, for example. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires dinosaurs to be extinct. Nothing. In fact, I find it kind of strange that we don't see any dinosaurs today. Even the ancient monotreme is still represented by 2 species: the platypus and the echidna. Does the Tuatara of New Zealand qualify?
What we are arguing against is the implication that radiometric dating is not accurate. Obviously, creationists are not arguing that there may be some isolated island that still houses a few species which is why they are not seen in the fossil record for the past 65 million years. What they are trying to argue is that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old, therefore man and the dinosaurs found in the fossil record roamed the Earth together.
oh, well that is just ludicrous. I was more interested in the chance of finding a lost or relic species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The time between when the Stegosaurus lived and when the Tyrannosaurus lived is greater than the time between when the Tyrannosaurus lived and now.
mind = blown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Does the Tuatara of New Zealand qualify? Nope. You are actually getting further away, if I am reading the phylogeny correctly: Diapsida Crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than tuataras (i.e. Sphenodons) are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I think we still have some, they are called Crocodilians. They're just archosaurs. Dinosaurs are different. The most important feature is that they're adapted so that their legs are vertical instead of splaying outwards like crocodiles or lizards or tortoises. Birds are dinosaurs. Crocodiles are just the nearest thing to dinosaurs that aren't dinosaurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Hi
Artemis Entreri, I see you have denounced and gave forth a negitive rating of my comment of the topic of whether man live contemporaneous with dinosaurs. And the abundance of stomp the shit out of post that say nay. So if you are indeed not in agreement perhaps you can show why, and evidence to the contrary. Or are you just slinging bullshit? "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
dang dude. do you chase down everyone that gives you a jeer? (flashback to Jay and Silent Bob strikes back), lol.
that was like a week ago. I think you are referring to my negative "jeer" about post :#49 where your whole post was:"Well this thread has been thoroughly trounced." to be honest i thought you were the one flinging shit. you were definitely beating a dead horse, and it was a rather off topic, unnecessary, and immature post. You are like that guy that waits for someone to get beat up and then afterwards says "dang you just got beat up". It seemed really trollish, and uncalled for so i gave it a negative. Now had you participated in the thread prior to just posting to talk shit, i probably would not have done anything, heck if i'm winning (almost never) i gloat sometimes, i may even give you a plus for a great retort with a snarky in your face comeback (see: Dr. Adequate, Taq, Catholic Scientist. or Onifre); but you did nothing but come on here, choose the winning side, and talk smack like a you were taunting someone who was not doing well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Taq writes: In fact, I find it kind of strange that we don't see any dinosaurs today. Even the ancient monotreme is still represented by 2 species: the platypus and the echidna. to be fair, the dinosaur is represented by hundreds of thousands of species. we just don't have any (known) examples of non-avian dinosaurs. but that's a silly paraphyletic grouping anyways. there's some relatively fringe ideas that some species of non-avian dinosaurs made it past the K-T event by several hundred thousand years. they're pretty controversial, and probably bullshit, but i haven't really looked at them very closely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
Artemis Entreri writes: Does the Tuatara of New Zealand qualify? so, i'm not really sure that you actually understand what a dinosaur is.
this is coelophysis (by jeff martz). he's one of the first dinosaurs, in the mid-to-late triassic. he shows all of the hallmarks of the things that differentiate dinosaurs from other sauropsids and even other archosaurs at the time. but more interestingly, he shows a lot of the hallmarks of modern birds. his bipedal posture (the thing that makes dinosaurs fundamentally different than lizards like the tuatara, and even other archosaurs like crocodiles) is one of those thing. he balances his weight over his hips, which are somewhere between those of a crocodile and a bird. he almost certainly had feathers. and he even has hollow bones (his name means "hollow structure") like a bird. this is one of the earliest dinosaurs. here's a nice photo-collage by Alain Beneteau of another non-avian dinosaur:
recognize this guy from jurassic park? yeah, i didn't think so. that's velociraptor (late cretaceous, one of the last dinosaurs). science tells us that they had quill barbs on their arms. that means wings. they are skeletally very similar to the another dinosaur you might have heard of: archaeopteryx. in fact, they are so similar that seems that archaeopteryx (the first bird) was a basal (early) dromaeosaur (the family that includes velociraptor). they're sort of like birds' nephews. it's... relatively hard to find an accurate reconstruction of a dinosaur like velociraptor on the internet. the shape seen in the movies has taken over the popular imagination. but if you saw a real one, you'd think it was a strange kind of bird that had teeth instead of a beak. in fact, that description would be closer to being accurate than thinking a tuatara was a dinosaur. small theropods (including velociraptor) would look like fluffy birds. larger theropods would look like ostriches. if there are non-avian dinosaurs still floating around, we've almost certainly mistaken them for birds. it's not going to come down to finding something scaly and lizardlike. it's going to be "i guess this family tree was organized wrong, and this dinosaur we thought was a bird isn't actually a bird." Edited by arachnophilia, : edit: oh, and some of them had beaks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I have a couple of serious questions I'd like to ask: 1) Did you not realize the information you were relying on was erroneous? Did some websites or creationists you trusted provide you with false information that you then posted here? 2) In either case, what good does it do for any cause to be associated with such erroneous claims? Certainly in science there is no benefit in being wrong--it is a disgrace at best and often a disaster to one's career. Is it different for creationists? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. He would have to admit to being wrong first. I don't believe he thinks you have proved him wrong, so your questions are moot. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024