Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 6:29 AM
324 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 322 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,888 Year: 25,494/21,208 Month: 1,121/2,338 Week: 242/450 Day: 7/55 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
19Next
Author Topic:   dinosaur and human co-existence
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 271 (560557)
05-16-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Coyote
05-15-2010 10:59 PM


Re: Get Up to Speed
Coyote, you said you were leaving. Why don't you either keep your word or say something edifying and leave off the personal attack.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 05-15-2010 10:59 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 197 of 271 (560564)
05-16-2010 1:48 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.

And yet your response relied on those dating methods being accurate to better than one part in a hundred.

The problem with some of you people is that whenever a creationist begins scoring points, you resort to backhanded tactics, such as this or demeaning personal attacks relative to information damaging to your arguments.

No-one knows what would happen if a creationist started scoring points. What you are witnessing is the jeering when, as usual, a creationist scores an own goal.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 11:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 198 of 271 (560565)
05-16-2010 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Buzsaw
05-15-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Pray tell, what better evidence does the crater selective extinction hypothesis have?

The imaginary hypothesis that you've made up in your head has no evidence and no adherents.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 6:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 199 of 271 (560566)
05-16-2010 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Buzsaw
05-15-2010 9:04 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Suggested? It's an established fact that one type exclusively became extinct while the others thrived and survived.

No. It is absolutely certain that this is untrue.

And then you guys wonder why scientists mock you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 9:04 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 9:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2274 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 200 of 271 (560569)
05-16-2010 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
05-15-2010 11:58 PM


I'm Nice to Five Year Olds
Hey, kiddo, I wasn't born 5 years ago, so stop treating me as if I was.

Don't make me explain the obvious, Pops.

Nice try at obfuscating my position, applying my flood catastrophic non-uniform position to ToE dating methodology, which assumes relative uniformity.

Nice try at obfuscating the English language. I can only guess what this is supposed to mean. I ran it through a Yoda speak converter and it neither helped nor harmed:

Buzsaw cum Yoda writes:

My position nice try at obfuscating, to ToE dating methodology applying my flood catastrophic non-uniform position, which assumes relative uniformity. Yes, hmmm.

Buzsaw thinks he writes:

Nice try at obfuscating my position: applying ToE dating methodology to my flood catastrophic non-uniform position.

I did nothing of the sort, Buz. You, however, failed to apply your own reference to your own argument. Where is it my fault that you can't associate two thoughts if they're separated by a period?

Buzsaw thinks he writes:

ToE dating methodology assumes relative uniformity.

No, buz, uniformity is observed. We observe an armored car pulling up in front of a bank. We observe an empty handed, uniformed guard getting out of the armored car and walk into the bank. We observe the gaurd walk out of the bank with bags marked $ and get into the armored car. We observe the armored car drive away. We have observed a bank pick-up.

If you want to claim that a pick-up is assumed; it could have been a robbery or a practice run, then it is you who are assuming. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that either of the assumptions is out of the question. Both are completely valid. But what isn't valid is to make either of those assumptions without cause. Bank pick-ups are very common, even
daily, events. The alternatives rare.

Our observations of uniformity are compilations of thousands upon millions of sub-observation yearly. It's as if a thousand bank examiners with camcorders followed every detail of the bank pick-up. If you wish to assume other then a common, bank pick-up you have the burden fitting every last one of the observations into your explanation.

That is the same burden you reject in all of your positions: explaining all of the observations.

You people continually demand SOURSE but when sources are cited you whine, quote miner.

The obvious solution is to not quote mine. If Keller did not intend to be understood as claiming that the chubobblex crater event occurred 304,350 years ago don't imply that she did.

The problem with some of you people is that whenever a creationist begins scoring points, you resort to backhanded tactics, such as this or demeaning personal attacks relative to information damaging to your arguments.

I have yet to discover how I would react to a creationist scoring points, but I like to think I'd accept the event with magnanimity. I have erred in the past, but these errors have always been brought to my attention by non-creationists. Dr. Jones* most recently.

It's no wonder dear sister Faith lost her cool and nobody having anything but really thick skin comes here to argue with you people for any length of time.

Ones skin needn't be so thick if ones skull isn't.

I know that you're to old to carbon date, Buz, but science gives no privilege. I come here so people can catch me screwing up.

Edited by lyx2no, : Parallel.

Edited by lyx2no, : Case.

Edited by lyx2no, : Agreement. I've been a bit brutal on the English today. I'd better get it right.

Edited by lyx2no, : I'm tired


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 11:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 201 of 271 (560571)
05-16-2010 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
05-15-2010 11:58 PM


Re: FOUL BALL!
quote:

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.

Of course we realise that you don't accept the figure of 300,000 years that Kellher produced. We know that you consider it a much smaller figure, likely no more than a few years. Indeed all the rocks in that period might be laid down as a result of that catastrophic impact!

So obviously, in your view the impact theory cannot be hurt by Kellher's evidence since your views on dating completely negate the problem. Nobody should suggest that you accept Kellhers date, based as it is on what you call "ToE dating methodology, which assumes relative uniformity." We must all agree that you believe that the impact took place so close to the K/T event that the evidence for the impact theory clearly stands.

So let us all not rudely assume that Buz is a childish idiot who cannot think of these obvious points. Obviously Buz has considered these simple issues, and as an honest man he concedes that the evidence for the impact theory clearly outweighs that for his hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 11:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16029
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 202 of 271 (560574)
05-16-2010 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Buzsaw
05-16-2010 12:10 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi Buz,

I can appreciate that it must be very frustrating dealing with someone who is somehow still unaware of all the evidence for your position after all the time and research you've put into this, but I'm working very hard, too, and after reading every one of your messages in this thread I can see no real-world evidence for a flood 4350 years ago.

So again, pretend you're preparing me for a debate where I'm to take the position that humans and dinosaurs coexisted at the same time 4350 years ago. What evidence should I present in order to win the debate.

I don't need a detailed presentation. I just need something like the list of items Coragyps provided for an asteroid strike 65 million years ago, e.g.:

  • Crater
  • Shocked quartz in Nebraska
  • Tectites
  • Iridium
  • Tsunami deposits

Some equivalent and very brief list for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs 4350 years ago should take you almost no time at all and I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 12:10 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 9:30 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 212 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 10:54 PM Percy has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 203 of 271 (560575)
05-16-2010 6:09 AM


Moderator Request
Those with complaints about the way anyone is conducting themselves in this debate should please take them to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. This thread is for discussion of the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

Buzsaw, if you're concerned about fair treatment then you might consider requesting the assistance of AdminSlev. You could post a note to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread or send him a PM.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 271 (560585)
05-16-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2010 2:03 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Dr Adequate writes:

No. It is absolutely certain that this is untrue.

Please explain your blind assertion, Doc. Thanks.


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 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2010 2:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Huntard, posted 05-16-2010 11:28 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2010 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 271 (560587)
05-16-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
05-16-2010 6:03 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
All right, Percy. Give me some time and I'll work on your list.


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 202 by Percy, posted 05-16-2010 6:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 206 of 271 (560606)
05-16-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Buzsaw
05-16-2010 9:27 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:

Please explain your blind assertion, Doc. Thanks.


It has been explained to you at least ten times now in this very thread that dinosaurs weren't the only group that went extinct in the K-T event.

In Dr. Adequate's case, he provided some examples in Message 151:

Dr. Adequate writes:

All extinct. All reptiles. None of them dinosaurs.


Will you finally own up to the fact that dinosaurs weren't the only group that went extinct in the K-T event, or will you continue to lie about it? Yes, lie, since you have been shown that you are wrong, yet continue to say this stuff anyway.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 9:27 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 9:59 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


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 responded

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

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 271 (560663)
05-16-2010 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Huntard
05-16-2010 11:28 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Huntard writes:

Will you finally own up to the fact that dinosaurs weren't the only group that went extinct in the K-T event, or will you continue to lie about it? Yes, lie, since you have been shown that you are wrong, yet continue to say this stuff anyway.

Why should I own up to anything not soundly refuted. This very message is a good example of a bogus refute by Dr A.

It is a scientific fact that the extinction of the dinosarus as a group was far, far greater and more significant than the few Google mined (Buzsaw is purported to be the only quoteminer) relatively scanty specimens.

It is a scientific fact that the Tertiary Period began as the dino group ended.

It is a scientific fact that the pre-Tertiary climate was warmer and wetter and that the era of the dinos was during that wetter and warmer era.

Buzsaw's science compatible claim is that the Biblical era of the dinos was, guess what? Wetter and warmer.

Sciences problematic claim is that the dinos were the only exclusive great significant group that became extinct and that a meteor hit likely caused the sudden extinction, leaving the other great significant groups surviving and thriving.

Buzsaw's Biblical thesis has it that a canopy like atmosphere afforded the wetter and warmer era and that the ID effected change in the reptiles, all of the unchanged ones being anhilated in the ww flood.

So don't tell me I'm a liar and need to cave, Hunter, when in fact my hypothesis has no less evidence than secular science's meteor hypothesis.


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 206 by Huntard, posted 05-16-2010 11:28 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2010 10:21 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 211 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2010 10:38 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 271 (560666)
05-16-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2010 11:32 AM


Re: Fantastic Claims
Hyroglyphx writes:

Buz, you have to understand that you've made some pretty fantastic claims. Some we have all heard before

That makes me very scientific like, Hyro. That's the science thing, i.e. fantastic claims that we repeatedly debate here at EvC.

Claims like a thing called the alleged once sub-microscopic universe with all of it's energy was a sub-microscopic dot having no space to have existed within, no outside of to expand into and no time to have existed etc.

Claims like life began and progressed from pre-mordial soup or something like that to advance into all that is observed today.

Claims like a meteor hit on the planet wiped out the dinos leaving most of the other reptiles to survive and thrive.

So Hyro, things like the flood, ID (higher intelligence) having the ability to create and change things are no more fantastic, when you think about it objectively than things you people believe and claim to be factual. Imo, they make a whole lot more sense than a lot of some secularist science arguments.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Update message title.


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 207 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2010 11:32 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-17-2010 12:28 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 220 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2010 1:56 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 223 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2010 9:05 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7444
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 210 of 271 (560668)
05-16-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Buzsaw
05-16-2010 9:59 PM


dinosaurs are not better than ammonites
It is a scientific fact that the extinction of the dinosarus as a group was far, far greater and more significant than the few Google mined (Buzsaw is purported to be the only quoteminer) relatively scanty specimens.

Unless you can produce numbers regarding the 'greatness' and the 'significance' of the dinosaur extinction compared with the cephalopod extinction that occurred at the same time, then it is not a scientific fact. It is certainly a more dramatic story in my view than the Ammonites, but drama isn't a scientific consideration - its an aesthetic one; Science doesn't make value judgements.

It is a scientific fact that the Tertiary Period began as the dino group ended.

It is not a scientific fact that the dinosaurs went entirely extinct. It is clear that many of them did, most of them indeed. But all of them? How could we possibly establish that scientifically? As Creationists are fond of pointing out - the Coelacanth managed to avoid leaving any fossils that we could find since that extinction event.

Sciences problematic claim is that the dinos were the only exclusive great significant group that became extinct and that a meteor hit likely caused the sudden extinction, leaving the other great significant groups surviving and thriving.

Big things died, ecosystems collapsed. Many things went extinct. Not everything went extinct. Some groups were able to tolerate the changes better than others. Large things fared poorly. The evidence seems to indicate that some of the smaller dinosaurs survived the extinction event. There is nothing here that is inconsistent from a scientific point of view.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 9:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017