Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   dinosaur and human co-existence
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 271 (559568)
05-10-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
05-10-2010 8:58 AM


Re: Evidence Of Curse
I assumed that the fossils were the world evidence of my premise which is the Genesis declaration of the cause and effect of the curse, the cause being that a long legged reptile was empowered to deceive mankind, cursing the reptile types.
Percy is saying that there is no evidence that one day *poof* their legs fell off and now they're snakes, with or without fossils. There is only evidence of different kinds of reptiles and sauropods.
Aside from which there is no morphological similarity between a snake and various reptiles. You couldn't just rip the legs off of a reptile and suddenly it would resemble a snake.
This, as with so many evolution/creation debates gets into the realm of whether Satan, Jehovah, angels and other aspects of invisible intelligence exist and operate in and out of the human realm.
Why is that? Is this a tacit way of saying that people who don't see things your way are under the wiles of some kind of demonic deception?
Since the topic is whether dinos and humans co-existed, likely the Genesis record would be the most likely source for a premise to the co-existance of the these.
And yet Genesis is completely silent on the issue. One would think that if monstrous beasts roamed with man, the author would have chronicled it. The only mention of anything remotely relating to what could be construed as a Sauropod is in the book of Job, long after the dino's would have been dead according to The Flood theory.
In fact, long before the author of Genesis the dinosaurs would have been dead meaning that the author never personally witnessed this dino/human symbiosis. In other words, even if it were the case, it was still a story passed down from generation to generation.
Then of course the physical evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as dinosaur remains are found much, much lower in the strata layers than humans. Then there is the radiometric dating disparity. No doubt you will argue that C14 dating is inaccurate, so I'm not sure we'll ever get anywhere in the debate. The point is that there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts the human/dinosaur connection. What, if not the obvious, will lend credence to notion that they didn't coexist?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 8:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 10:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 113 of 271 (559740)
05-11-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
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.
Here is the problem, Buz. You clearly are using the bible as the template. In essence you construct your thesis solely on the inference that the biblical account must be true for ideological reasons, and not that there is evidence to support it.
Your thesis starts with the assumption that the Genesis account is true and then you seek out ways to make it seem plausible. This methodology runs completely counter to how science works. Science doesn't start out with a theory at all. It simply gathers evidence and from that evidence then presents a thesis.
In contrast, you start out with a thesis and then try and find evidence that conforms to your beliefs and dismiss anything contrary to what you want to believe. That, my friend, is the antithesis of science and that is why no one will take you seriously.
You don't even have any evidence to support that one day dinosaurs had their legs *poof* out of existence, yet you present this thesis as if it has any credibility whatsoever. It is obvious that all you've done is read a few passages and concluded a priori that this account, however brief and ambiguous, must be the way it went.
The fact remains that dinosaurs and snakes are proven to have coexisted simultaneously. That's an actual fact. At no point have human skeletal remains been found in the same strata with dinosaurs. There is literally no eivdence, whatsoever.
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.
There are no bonafide biblical creationists, Buzsaw. That is the problem. All of it is so absurd. You have to understand that it is going to be viewed as infantile, horribly deluded and incredibly naive because of how absurd these beliefs are. I think most people try and be patient, but it's just so stupid. I don't mean to say that in a way that is mean, it is just so ridiculous so as to be laughable. You either are going to have to expect that or to start paying attention to the evidence.
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.
The central issue is that you are out with an agenda. That agenda is to prove the bible true. You aren't following the evidence where it leads, you are trying to make a story believable for other people and for yourself. That's the issue people have with you and with creationists in general.
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.
You don't have any evidence, Buz. What evidence do you possess that corroborates that humans lived with dinosaurs. You have a theory (a terrible one at that) with nothing more than your imagination as the guide.
Please present your evidence because I've never seen it.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 271 (559780)
05-11-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
05-11-2010 1:57 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
That's not true, Hyro.
Are you saying that you were not a Christian before you came to your scientific conclusion?
As it is with evolutionists, corroborating data is assembled some related to this particular topic and some not, which supports the credibility of the premise, being the Biblical record. The more, the better and the better things jive (as I believe is the case here) the more evidence based the thesis becomes.
Buz, you haven't provided any evidence. You say dinosaurs and humans lived contemporaneously. Please show some evidence of that.
That you and your evolutionist friends have an obvious bias to your premise does not mean that mine is blind faith based. Not at all. I've cited a whole lot over the years, including fulfilled prophecy, Exodus evidence, ID evidence, etc which builds upon my premise, just as you people calim relative to evolution.
What bias do I have, Buz? I am neither a Christian nor an atheist. I am interested in truth. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence of your extraordinary claim. I would like to see some.
You people have your unknowns and iffies as well, do not forget, such as the first and early stages of biogenesis and evolution, not to mention the problems with the singularity event of the BB etc, so don't come down so hard on creationists because we don't have all of the answers to suit your biased intillects.
Excuse me Buz, but I am not one you people. I don't subscribe as an evolutionist or an atheist where you would be able to compartmentalize me. I don't subscribe to any kind of codified belief or have any agenda to push. I realize that for some atheists, they need the theory of evolution, but I am not one of them. And conversely evolution doesn't need atheism. Your ideology, however, is completely dependent upon both. Your entire worldview would collapse without it, so forgive me for recognizing that.
We can get passed all the hubris and you could simply provide clear evidence that man and dinosaur co-existed. That would be the simplest way to get from point A to point B.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 1:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 271 (559988)
05-12-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
05-12-2010 10:59 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
The evidence remains being what is observed; fossils showing that long legged repiles have become extinct and that a large array of close to earth reptiles thrive abundantly.
That couldn't possibly be construed as evidence, that's an assertion based on pure conjecture. Actual evidence refutes your claim, as it is empirically proven through physical evidence that snakes and dinosaurs co-existed.
The most significant of this I've repeatedly repeated already, such as the fact that both are reptillian, similarities of visible appearance such as the two examples of the respective types.
Is it extraordinary that reptiles cladistically share superficial similarities with other reptiles? Even then it begs the question: Do snakes resemble Apatosaurus or Triceratops? Are they related to snakes? Do they resemble one another? Obviously not, which should be an excellent indicator that your thesis is specious at best.
The bottom line is that not only do you not have evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, but there is actual evidence refuting your claim that dinosaurs are really just cursed serpents. At any point in time feel free to post any evidence you that corroborates your extraordinary claim. That would be the best way for you to get from point A to point B.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2010 10:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 271 (560607)
05-16-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
05-15-2010 11:58 PM


Re: FOUL BALL!
Hey, kiddo, I wasn't born 5 years ago, so stop treating me as if I was. Nice try at obfuscating my position, applying my flood catastrophic non-uniform position to ToE dating methodology, which assumes relative uniformity.
You people continually demand SOURSE but when sources are cited you whine, quote miner.
Buz, you have to understand that you've made some pretty fantastic claims. Some we have all heard before, like man and dinosaur coexisting. An even more extraordinary claim is that snakes are really just dinosaurs who lost their legs because of an obscure passage you read in Genesis.
That kind of information defies logic and intuition. On some level you're going to have to appreciate the fact that this sounds more like a children's book than reality to most people. That being the case, is it so unreasonable to request that you detail why you believe that with corresponding data? Thus far you have not even attempted to explain it. Instead you shift the goals by defaulting to ridiculing the Big Bang and the ToE, which has nothing to do with this topic. What is worse is that you choose to present yourself as the perennial martyr against evilutionists. This is a straw man and needless distraction.
Your inability to answer even the simplest of questions lead people to believe that your theory is based solely on what you read in the bible and you searching for superficial ways to tie that in. As I stated before, that isn't science. You don't start with a general belief as a starting point and try and find compelling reasons why it works, all the while discrediting anything that contradicts it. That's not science. Science has it that you follow the trail of evidence where it leads. Simply collect data and interpret later, not interpret now and then manufacture the data.
It seems to me that you have two choices: Either present even a modicum of evidence to support this theory or be a gentleman and admit that you don't have evidence to support your thesis, and that your thesis is more like pet theory based on your ideology.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 11:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 10:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 271 (560721)
05-17-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Buzsaw
05-16-2010 10:16 PM


Re: Fantastic Claims
When an appropriate thread comes out about abiogenesis or the big bang, direct your criticism there. That straw man has nothing to do with this thread. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly as well as requests that you present some evidence for your claim.
Can we reasonably assume that you have none since you keep shifting the goals?

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 10:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024