Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Jaysyn]

There are no reputable scientists who support an Old Earth." There I just did it.

Yes...and made an even bigger ass out of yourself in the process!

He's a poe. He has to be. There is no fucking way anyone is that willfully ignorant.

[Statler Waldorf]

Seriously? So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor?

Cough..Collossus....Cough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


The Colossus machines were electronic computing devices used by British codebreakers to help read encrypted German messages during World War II. These were the world's first programmable, digital, electronic, computing devices. They used vacuum tubes (thermionic valves) to perform the calculations.

Cough...computers don't evolve by natural means they are created by men....cough

---

There are no reputable scientists who support an Old Earth." There I just did it.

Yes...and made an even bigger ass out of yourself in the process!

The Assertion makes another assertion...surprise.

---

There are no reputable scientists who support an Old Earth." There I just did it.

Yes...and made an even bigger ass out of yourself in the process!

He's a poe. He has to be. There is no fucking way anyone is that willfully ignorant.

Obviously you either did not read my post, or you did not understand it. I will make it moer simple for you. Defining "reputable" as someone who agrees with you, and then using that to make a point is invalid logic. To prove this point, I played this game back on you. You caught the bad logic when I did it, however you fail to catch it when you guys do it....not surprising but rather sad.

[orogenicman]

---

[quote='orogenicman' pid='103400' dateline='1288833629']

Certainly being published in the mostly widely respected journal on invertebrate paleontolotgy lends more weight to my arguments (and is far more impressive) than does the fact that you obviously have little, if any science training whatsoever. I might add that if you knew anything about publishing in such journals, then you would know how difficult it is to acheive publication regardless of your background. Even the most respected paleontologists have to wade through the backlog, and convince the peer reviewers of the validity of their arguments. Secondly, your argument that the biblical "kinds" of animals included on Noah's ark refer to the Linean "family" classification is simply ludicrous since it assumes that tribal peoples of the Middle East some 4,000 years ago had any concept of such a classification, when the fact of the matter is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support such an assumption. Third, you originally said there were only 50 kinds of dinosaurs, and now you are saying that there are 59. The problem, sir, is that it is arrogant of you to propose an ad hoc nomenclature scheme that no one in the scientific community accepts as valid, particularly since it is by and large meaningless for the purposes of biological classification. And finally, your argument is nothing but a diversion from the fact that there is simply no scientific evidence whatsoever that a global flood ever occurred, not in Noah's time or any other.

---

Your posts are hilarious. Most widely respected journal by whom? Other Old-Earthers? You also use the word "whatsoever" a lot.

OGM's Responses, in bold: Let me tell you something. I've seen many creationists such as yourself poo poo such widely referenced journals and then reference them as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you know of anothewr journal of invertebrate paleontology with more references, more widely read in the profession, I'm all ears, bud.

If you read what I actually said (something I don’t think you do much) you will notice two things. I said that the Biblical kind does not directly match up with any one level of classification. It depends on the animal, but it USUALLY matches up with the Family. You will also notice that I said ABOUT 50 kinds of dinosaurs, so the fact that the number is really 59 does not mean much. 59 is a lot closer to 50 than it is to your original assertion of 9000 haha.

No sir. You made the claim that the biblical "kinds" equates to families. There is no evidence in the bible or anywhere else that that is the case. I rather doubt that anyone living at the time even had a clue as to the linean concept of animaly families. What they clearly understood was that there ware distinctions between animals such as goats and sheep, and that these clearly cannot mate (breeding sheep, after all, was a common profession in biblical times, and is even referenced in the Bible). Secondly, to say that 'kinds' "it depends on the animal, but it USUALLY matches up with the Family" is rather meaningless since it doesn't provide any sort of foundation for a classification scheme that is based on reality. What's more, nowhere in the Bible is this 'kind' classification scheme even elaborated upon. You folks made this crap up and then wonder why ever other scientists gets a chuckle out of it. It's sad, really.

So getting published in a journal adds more credence to your argument? Awesome, I have already pointed out that Creation guys have been published in numerous journals on both sides of the aisle. So I totally agree with you. You keep asserting that I have no evidence, despite the fact that I have mountains (literally) of evidence. So nice try.

Name one creationist who has published an argument for creationism in a reputable peer reviewed science journal. I want names and article citations, please.

That is not what I said. If you are having a problem reading the English language may I suggest the Harbrace Handbook?

Actually I was poking fun at your bad use of the English language. We were talking about dinosaurs and then you started talking about animal classifications but you failed to specify that the subject of your sentence had changed so it looked like you were still talking about dinosaurs.

Dude, you were the one who brought up animal classifications and yes, dinosaurs ARE animals, and so they do fit into discussions of animal classifications.

Yes, I'm certain that it is quite easy for the rather simple minds in your camp to answer such a question when all you have to do is to pull one out of your ass. Unfortunately for you simpletons, science requires considerably more evidence than the circular argument that "god did

I noticed you didn't try to explain what happened to the Dinosaurs, maybe you are wising up. All the evidence points to exactly what I said happened. You just have to resort to straw man arguments about things I never said. Did I ever say "God did it" in my explanation?

What evidence, where? I posted a link that discusses the the evidence for the various theories on the extinction of the dinosaurs. Did you ignore it, or what? I can post what I think happened, but it would simply be a regurgitation of what has already been said widely in the literature. No, I don't agree with all of it because I think it is more complex that many think it is. And Statler, your entire argument rests on the presumption that everything science has discovered in the last 500 years is wrong because the Bible contradicts it, or rather because it contradicts the Bible. And the Bible, according to you, is the word of God almighty. So no you didn't actually say that "God did it". You didn't have to. That argument is self-evident in every one of your posts.

As a matter of fact, all microcomputers do have a common ancestry in that they are all descended from the IBM x86 format. That you haven't a clue in this regard comes as no surprise whatsoever. Do you deny that all life on Earth is DNA-based?

Haha, seriously? So the computer I am typing this on evolved through natural means from the original IBM? I would not be surprised if you actually believed that. Here I will let you in on a little secret....they were all created. You know how I know that? They all contain information, and no un-intelligent natural process has ever been observed to increase information. By all means though, keep believing that computers evolved, it's just as silly as believing life on Earth has.

You have a bad habit of posting strawman arguments. You didn't say in your analogy that computers evolved through natural means, or even that evolutionists claim such, and no one here is making that suggestion either. So why are you making this stupid suggestion? That computers have evolved from a common ancestor is undisputed. If you want to hold onto the false impression that this is somehow incorrect, be my guest.

Man breeds animals and plants. They can do so because traits have the ability to bre3ed true if we manipulate them properly. Take modern bananas, for instance. They have been altered for centuries and have been so changed that they bear little resemblence to their wild ancestral predecessors. The raits they possess have been selected for by man. If artificial selection can do that in a relatively short period of time, imagine what natural selection could do in billions of years. And what it has done is to generate all the diversity of the natural world that we see around us.

First of all, I didn't originate the theory of evolution. Sorry to disappoint you. Secondly, DNA is the very pinnacle of evolutionary theory. If you don't believe that DNA affects morphology, I suggest you pick up a book on genetics and read it, because, damn, that is just about the dumbest statement I've ever heard a creationist make. And that's saying a lot. Faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof. Religion is faith-based. Science is not, unless you are truly stupid enough to suggest that it takes an act of faith to understand the laws of physics. And finally, if you are so anti-science, why are you using it to post these absurd messages? If you truly want to portray yourself as a purist, why not sell everything you own that owes its existence to science (that'd be pretty much everything you own), and become truly pure (and leave the science to those of us who actually understand it)?

Someone is getting desperate. You are either intentionally misrepresenting what I said, or I am using too big of words for you. I never said DNA does not effect Morphology, I said there has never been a natural increase in information at the DNA level that effects Morphology. That statement still stand un-refuted.

You did, in fact, say that it doesn't affect morphoplogy. You should re-read what you wrote. And you are wrong about that, of course, just as you are wrong about your claim above that there has never been a natural increase in information at the DNA level, or one that affects morphology. A sponge has less genetic information than a fish, and both certainly have rather different morphologies. And yet, both share snippets of genetic information, as do all forms of life on the planet. That said, as I pointed out before, there is no principle in genetics or in the theory of evolution that says that increased information, diversity, or complexity is a requirement. All that is required is that adaptations occur that enhances the ability of a species to survive and reproduce. If that means becoming less complex or diverse, then that's what happens. If it means becoming more complex and more diverse, then that happens as well. Evolution contains no "arrow".

I also never said I am anti-science, I just don't worship it like you do.

Oh please. We wouldn't be having this conversation if your tirades weren't about denying even the most basic foundations of science. Your posts are nothing, if not anti-science. I admit to being anti-theology. At least I am man enough to admit it. You claim to be an Environmental scientist working for the USDA, which, I suppose, explains why the government is so screwed up. I've worked with many environmental scientists, being an environmental consultant myself. I know of none who hold the rather ridicuous opinions of science that you hold.

I don't understand Science huh? That's funny, last week I just got promoted to the lead in teaching our CE courses for our...wait for it...Scientists. Apparently the US Government disagrees with you.

I challenge you to stand up in front of your peers and declare the follow:

1) Radioisotopic dating doesn't show that the Earth is old.

2) There was a worldwide flood thart proves the world is only 6,000 years old.

3) That Noah's ark was real.

Do that, and lets see how long you get to keep the lead in teaching your Continuing Education courses.

If you want to define faith that way then go ahead, but it is not the definition the Bible uses. So to use it to argue against religious people is another logical fallacy. Richard Dawkins even admits he has faith that his wife loves him. Is there no evidence of this?

Dude, that is the definition of faith as recognized by nearly everyone but you and your podunk tribe of creationists.

Morphology. If this word is too big for you, buy a dictionary.

Haha, I was hoping you'd say morphology. I know enough about logic to know that using Morphology as evidence for Evolution is the good old logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. So keep doing it, it makes your argument beyond easy to refute. Are all of your beliefs based on invalid logic? Or just the ones you post on here?

Morphology is a foundation of comparative anatomy as well as many other biological disciplines. I guess you missed science class in the forth grade, huh?

They are in the textbooks. Clue- the Bible is not a science textbooks, so obviously you won't find them there.

Check out this definition of Archosaurs...

•Archosaurs (Greek for 'ruling lizards') are a group of diapsid amniotes represented by modern birds and crocodilians. This group also includes extinct non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs and relatives of crocodiles.

So when I asked you wehre Dinosaurs came from you pretty much just told me they came from Dinosaurs? That makes a lot of sense. I will try it again, where did the Dinosaurs really come from?

Let me try to explain this one more time. The archosaurs are the ancestral group of all of the above classes of animals. They are neither birds, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, or crocodiles, but are the ancestral stock of all. And the ancestors of archosaurs were the tetrapods that came before them.[/b]

---

OGM wrote:

It is not an assumption. All you have to do is meet me at the Creation museum for an afternoon geology field trip and all your questions can be answered. It is not an assumption. Not all layers of strata were laid down "like we observed with Mt. Sty. Helens". In fact, most were not laid down in such a fashion. Sedimentary rocks and volcanic rocks are easily distinguichable and have unrelated origins. Secondly, we can measure the rate and modality of deposition in modern sediments and compare them to ancient sediments. This is called science, a notion that apparently escaped you.

Statler wrote:

You keep talking about meeting you at the Creation Museum, however if you can't give me any evidence on here why would I waste my time and money flying across the country and expect a different result? Hmm, so the mud flows caused by Mt. St. Helens didn't lay down any sedimentary rock? These mud flows didn't carve any canyons? I am thinking most geologists who work in that area would disagree with that assertion. So you are just assuming that the gradual processes that lay down layers today are exactly the same as the processes that laid them down in the past? There are numerous secular Geologists who disagree with that assumption. You are assuming something we have never observed happens more often than events we do actually observe, and you are calling this Science? I guess I just have a more strict definition of Science than you, because to me what you are doing is not Science at all.

OGM's response, in bold: Yes, I keep talking about meeting you because if you had any scientific curiosity whatsoever and were actually interested in learning from an expert in field geology, one would think that you would jump at the chance. I can promise you that you won't walk away from the experience without a different perspective. There is a huge difference between volcanic sediments and marine, lake, and stream/river sediments, as well as aeolian sediments. There are almost NO geolologists who disagree with the principal of uniformitarianism. The mechanical and chemical processes we see occurring on Earth are measurable, repeatable, falsifable, and there is no reason at all to suppose that they didn't occur in the past and/or won't occur in the future. That's the very odd thing about you creationists. In order for your narrow world view to work even in your own minds, you have to throw out even the tiniest bit of common knowledge in order to pigeonhole your god into the real world. I find it particularly wierd that you seem to be arguing that these rather common worldwide processes must have somehow mysteriously not been there in the past and just miraculously began functioning at some time fill in the blank__________________ preordained by fill in the blank____________________.
How difficult it must be for you to get anyone else to believe it.

OGM wrote:

What evidence, where? Are you saying that all lake sediments are deposited in catastrophic events? All ocean sediments are deposited in catastrophic events? If they were, we wouldn't see tens of thousands of feet of undisturbed sediments in nearly every corner of the globe. We would see highly disturbed strata. You do realize that the strata that Mt. St. Helens produced is chaotic and highly disturbed, right? of course you don't because you don't have a clue.

Statler wrote:

Just off the top of my head there is loads of flood evidence...

Dinosaurs buried alive while fighting
Polystratic fossils
Huge amounts of bent but unbroken strata
Dinosaurs buried while giving birth
Coral buried upside down and unattached
Fish fossilized while eating other fish
Disagreeing radiometric dates
Fossils found in jumbles, not layers.
Huge boulders in the bottom of the grand canyon that are not moved by the Colorado River even in flood seasons.
Large bent but unbroken veins of coal

Need I go on?

OGM's reply:Well, yes, you do. For one, you didn't answer my questions. And secondly, none of the above is evidence of a global flood. MOst are merely evidence of rapid burial, which have many different explanations, from river floods to scour and fill during massive storms (i.e., hurricanes), etc. Others are simply evidence of plate tectonics. While others are simple regurgitations of long refuted arguments. Now, would you mind answering my questions?

Note: For those who would complain about this format, my apologies in advance. These responses are getting very unwieldy and I simply don't have the time or the patience to go through them and do it any other way. Sorry.

[tavarish]

Fuck, that's hard to read.

[Minimalist]

Anything posted by jesus freaks is hard to read. In the case of creationists its damn near impossible.

[Loki_999]

He's a poe. He has to be. There is no fucking way anyone is that willfully ignorant.

You obviously have never met my mother-in-law.

[Anomalocaris]

Note: For those who would complain about this format, my apologies in advance. These responses are getting very unwieldy and I simply don't have the time or the patience to go through them and do it any other way. Sorry.

I wouldn't have the patience to acknowledge his posts. Indefatigable ignorance can't be enlightened.

[downbeatplumb]

Seriously? So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor?

Cough..Collossus....Cough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


The Colossus machines were electronic computing devices used by British codebreakers to help read encrypted German messages during World War II. These were the world's first programmable, digital, electronic, computing devices. They used vacuum tubes (thermionic valves) to perform the calculations.

I would argue that Charles Babbage's Difference engine precedes that by far. You haven't lived if you haven't seen this awesome machine in operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine

I did know about that machine, but at the time it was a dead end.
Colossus however led direct;ly to the computers we see today.

---

Seriously? So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor?

Cough..Collossus....Cough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


The Colossus machines were electronic computing devices used by British codebreakers to help read encrypted German messages during World War II. These were the world's first programmable, digital, electronic, computing devices. They used vacuum tubes (thermionic valves) to perform the calculations.

Cough...computers don't evolve by natural means they are created by men....cough

I see an atempt to 'shoehorn in' intelligent design into this as a counter argument to evolution.

I'm tempted not to rise to the bait, but here goes anyway.

That mens designs and creations change over time is down to scientific improvements and market forces. Two very well understood concepts.

Plants,animals and fungus change overtime due to the very well understood concept of evolution.

What is needed to drive change is a mechanism and in both cases mechanisms exist.

[Statler Waldorf]

Anything posted by jesus freaks is hard to read. In the case of creationists its damn near impossible.

Yes, we do use a lot of big words. I have tried my best to dumb things down for you but apparently it has not worked. If you are still confused and find my arguments "impossible" to understand then you can always ask for clarification and I will explain things to you. Does that help?

[orogenicman]

Anything posted by jesus freaks is hard to read. In the case of creationists its damn near impossible.

Yes, we do use a lot of big words. I have tried my best to dumb things down for you but apparently it has not worked. If you are still confused and find my arguments "impossible" to understand then you can always ask for clarification and I will explain things to you. Does that help?

Here's a big word for you:

Oxymoron = creation science

Good day