Tell us about the dinosaurs

[orogenicman]

Getting published in a journal that is reviewed by a bunch of like minded reviewers really is not all that impressive. You should try and get published in one where not everyone is pulling for your side sometime. Anyways, since you have been published I am surprised you are not aware that there are 59 families of Dinosaurs. So my statement that there are around 50 different kinds of dinosaurs is completely accurate, inspite of your claims to the contrary.

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.

Wow Scientists have been classifying dinosaurs for the last 400 years? So they were classifying animals that would not be discovered for another 250 years? I take it all back, you guys really are good at what you do! :-P

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

Don't pretned for a second that you have any idea how the dinosaurs went extinct. Nobody on your side of the aisle can even remotely agree on that issue. It's a pretty simple question to answer on my side of the aisle. There was a great bottleneck at the flood. Dinosaurs were very rare after the flood due to a scarcity of their primary food.

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 it".

---

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor? That's a ridiculous argument and quite frankly is kind of sad you would even try and use it.

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?

A common designer would use common building blocks, pretty simple. DNA has essentially killed your theory, until you can show us a beneficial mutation that increases information and effects morphology you have no leg to stand on and your beloved theory becomes just a faith based system. I already have a faith, why would I ever need your's?

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)?

Crackpot huh?

I was being kind.

I like to look at the words of Gandhi when personal attacks are used, "First they will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you, then you win." Looks like I am well on my way to winning this discussion.

Tell me more about these delusions you've been having. I do enjoy fiction.

---

Archosaurs huh?

Yes. Do you want me to repeat it?

What did they evolve from?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archofr.html

How do you know dinosaurs evolved from them?

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

Where are the intermidate fossils that are never in textbooks?

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

Dufus huh?

Again, I was being kind.

---

Then why would you make the mistake of assuming that the layers of strata were layed down over long periods of time rather than very quickly like we observed with Mt. St. Helens?

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.

The evidence clearly points to catestrophic events rather than long gradual accumulation.

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.



Undisturbed horizontal outcrop of sediments



Highly disturbed volcanic deposits