Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
86 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,622 Year: 3,268/14,102 Month: 209/724 Week: 58/93 Day: 15/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Dinosaurs live with man?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 46 of 373 (662814)
05-18-2012 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ScottyDouglas
05-18-2012 1:50 PM


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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-18-2012 1:50 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1001 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 47 of 373 (662816)
05-18-2012 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-18-2012 3:55 AM


On being wrong...
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?

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.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-18-2012 3:55 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by foreveryoung, posted 05-30-2012 2:25 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 48 of 373 (663449)
05-24-2012 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-18-2012 3:55 AM


maybe
I guess its possible.

I think we still have some, they are called Crocodilians.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-18-2012 3:55 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by caffeine, posted 05-25-2012 3:09 AM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 12:20 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2012 4:57 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply
 Message 56 by 1.61803, posted 05-29-2012 6:30 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 49 of 373 (663451)
05-24-2012 6:26 PM


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
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 50 of 373 (663492)
05-25-2012 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Artemis Entreri
05-24-2012 6:22 PM


Re: maybe
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-24-2012 6:22 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 51 of 373 (663553)
05-25-2012 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Artemis Entreri
05-24-2012 6:22 PM


Re: maybe
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-24-2012 6:22 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-25-2012 12:35 PM Taq has responded
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2012 8:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 52 of 373 (663560)
05-25-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
05-25-2012 12:20 PM


Re: maybe
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 12:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 12:59 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2012 9:35 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 53 of 373 (663562)
05-25-2012 12:46 PM


Fun fact
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: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 54 of 373 (663566)
05-25-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Artemis Entreri
05-25-2012 12:35 PM


Re: maybe
Does the Tuatara of New Zealand qualify?

Nope. You are actually getting further away, if I am reading the phylogeny correctly:

http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866

Crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than tuataras (i.e. Sphenodons) are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-25-2012 12:35 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 55 of 373 (663625)
05-25-2012 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Artemis Entreri
05-24-2012 6:22 PM


Re: maybe
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-24-2012 6:22 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 56 of 373 (664188)
05-29-2012 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Artemis Entreri
05-24-2012 6:22 PM


Re: maybe
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-24-2012 6:22 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-29-2012 7:41 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 57 of 373 (664197)
05-29-2012 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by 1.61803
05-29-2012 6:30 PM


Re: maybe
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by 1.61803, posted 05-29-2012 6:30 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 58 of 373 (664205)
05-29-2012 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
05-25-2012 12:20 PM


Re: maybe
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 12:20 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 59 of 373 (664207)
05-29-2012 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Artemis Entreri
05-25-2012 12:35 PM


Re: maybe
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


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-25-2012 12:35 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-30-2012 12:54 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 05-30-2012 6:41 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 82 by caffeine, posted 05-31-2012 5:37 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 60 of 373 (664225)
05-30-2012 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Coyote
05-18-2012 10:57 PM


Re: On being wrong...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2012 10:57 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021