Dinosaurs Weren't in the Bible...They Never Even Existed.

[Happy UnBeliever]

Creation Science. Hmmm, just another myth created by christians:

http://www.crivoice.org/enumaelish.html

They plagerized it from the above.

Dinosaurs did not exist huh?

[Minimalist]

So you are admitting that both Creation and Evolution are empirically unscientific because they are not based on direct observation or repeatability? This could be a major step for you in your progression.

Head firmly shoved up your own ass again, eh Waldork?

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/01/05...e-science/

We can catalogue animals in a given population and their genetic makeup. Then over generations, we know how many survived, how many died and how many got the chance to pass on their genes. A few dozen generations later, we can take a DNA sample from the resultant population and compare it to the original samples taken at the start of the experiment. What we’ll notice is a genetic drift towards the genomes of the survivors in the original population. We can see this in fruit flies, humans, birds and just about any animal we’ve studied extensively. Once again, it’s repeatable, testable science.

Let's see you repeat something besides your own stupidity for a change.

[Minimalist]

More scientific experimentation ( get that Waldork? e-x-p-e-r-i-m-e-n-t-a-t-i-o-n not your fucking bullshit ) on how evolution works.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...190404.htm

Guppies in the wild have evolved over at least half-a-million years -- long enough for the males' coloration to have changed dramatically. Yet a characteristic orange patch on male guppies has remained remarkably stable, though it could have become redder or more yellow. Why has it stayed the same hue of orange over such a long period of time?

Because that's the color female guppies prefer.

[orogenicman]

How do you know they are fossilized bones? Have you even observed the fossilization process to even take place in nature?

Fossilization is a chemical process involving the crystalization/replacement of biological structures (be it bone, skin, or collagen. etc.). It is a well studied and understood process, having many decades of research behind its understanding.

I do, direct observation and repeatability.

What direct observation do you believe we don't have with regard to fossilization? Please back up your respoinse with peer reviewed data.

Then how come when I ask for “proof” you keep resorting back to science? I want proof.

If you want proof, then you don't want a scientific explanation.

This is just an argument from improbability, when I make those on here I get chastised for it.

It is no such thing. You are confused.

I post, therefore, I am.

Begging the question, you used “I” in your premise which is the very thing you are trying to prove exists.

It is an action statement, indicating that human behavior is occurring. Now, dude, you don't have to take my word for it that I exist. All you have to do is take me up on my long standing offer of going on a geology field trip.

Ok, so he believes Dinosaurs and humans lived during the same time period, how does that demonstrate he believes the Flintstones is a documentary again? I believe gorillas and humans live at the same time period, that doesn’t mean I believe “Congo” is a documentary though, get real.

We have evidence that humans and gorillas live at the same time.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Now, I think it is time for you to stop being so stupid and admit that:

1) you are not a scientist;
2) don't play one at work;
3) have little knowledge of the scientific process;
4) and since 1, 2, and 3 are true, you should step aside and stop interferring with the discussions of others who are scientists, do play one at work, and have broad knowledge of the process and the field.

[Happy UnBeliever]

Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know they are fossilized bones? Have you even observed the fossilization process to even take place in nature?

I suppose next you will be claiming that we have all been duped by some great dinosaur conspiracy! I guess you believe early humans concocted these fossils and spent millions of years planting them all over the earth!

The Bible is NOT a BOOK of SCIENCE! It fails pathetically in that category!

[Epimethean]

Outside of fairytales, it fails pretty spectacularly in every category.

[Minimalist]

1) you are not a scientist;
2) don't play one at work;

Waldork is more like the janitor who sweeps up the lab.

[The Grand Nudger]

He's seen a scientist before, and he feels that this qualifies him to claim to be one. After all, they didn't look so different. Ten fingers, ten toes, and they both wear overcoats.

[Epimethean]

Prove it! Have you actually ever seen a scientist forming?

[Statler Waldorf]

"I stand corrected, Kent Hovind appears to be a complete fucking moron and this "museum" is a joke. I can't believe that anyone would represent christianity and creation science to the world in such an idiotic way. I was wrong for insinuating that people were smearing his name by making baseless accusations. The gentleman who made the reference to him believing that the Flintstones was a documentary was absolutely correct."

What a bunch of incoherent gibberish, I have seen no evidence that Kent believes the Flintstones was a documentary, you merely re-asserting this claim proves nothing.

Dinosaurs did not exist huh?

Not what I said.

Head firmly shoved up your own ass again, eh Waldork?

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/01/05...e-science/

Nope, but I will never get tired of shoving my boot up yours. Observing small changes in organisms is not observing all life on earth descending from a single common ancestor. In fact creationists welcome these observations of speciation and small changes because they help explain the Ark. So you are going to have to do a whole lot better if you are going to try and prove a historical science such as evolution is actually an operational science such as Physics.

Fossilization is a chemical process involving the crystalization/replacement of biological structures (be it bone, skin, or collagen. etc.). It is a well studied and understood process, having many decades of research behind its understanding.

Didn’t answer my question, has the process ever been observed to actually happen in Nature?

What direct observation do you believe we don't have with regard to fossilization? Please back up your respoinse with peer reviewed data.

It’s not my job to back up a negative claim; it’s yours to provide evidence for the positive claim. Give me a peer reviewed article that details the observed event of an animal dying, being buried, and then being fossilized in the wild. I don’t want theory and storytelling; I want actual repeatable direct observation of this process actually happening.

If you want proof, then you don't want a scientific explanation.

Bingo, that’s why I have been asking for a logical syllogism all along and have not gotten one yet.

It is no such thing. You are confused.

It was such a thing, you argued against the occurrence of an event (me being some posting robot) because it was not probable.

It is an action statement, indicating that human behavior is occurring. Now, dude, you don't have to take my word for it that I exist. All you have to do is take me up on my long standing offer of going on a geology field trip.

I believe you exist, but that’s because I am not a hardcore skeptic like you guys all claim to be, if I play the part of the skeptic then I begin to question whether you exist or not.

We have evidence that humans and gorillas live at the same time.

Did you really miss my point that badly?

There is NO evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Now, I think it is time for you to stop being so stupid and admit that:

Depends on what you will accept as evidence.

1) you are not a scientist;

Well unlike you, I actually work as one, which makes me one by definition.

3) have little knowledge of the scientific process;

Actually I have proven I hold to a stricter definition as to what is science and what is not, don’t hate me because I am more of a scientific purist than you are.

4) and since 1, 2, and 3 are true, you should step aside and stop interferring with the discussions of others who are scientists, do play one at work, and have broad knowledge of the process and the field.

I understand your urge to silence someone you can’t refute, it’s a natural behavior for many people. I don’t believe I have met anyone on here besides myself who qualifies as above, so I think the conversations would be pretty silent on here.

The Bible is NOT a BOOK of SCIENCE! It fails pathetically in that category!

I am so glad it’s not, that would make it fallible.

Waldork is more like the janitor who sweeps up the lab.

Nope, his name is John. We don’t have labs though, we do more filed work than anything.