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

[Statler Waldorf]

Bingo.
I won't respond to the rest of the post.
Thank you for explaining your own problem so fully.

So you accept the Biblical doctrine of regeneration? That’s interesting to say the least.

Though I do have to add my sorrow that Stat must never have taken basic biology in uni, and certainly not any evolutionary bio or paleontology classes, or he'd realize the difference between a set of enlarged canines to hold fruit, and a set of incisiform teeth for rending meat.

This is funny, so that’s why dogs have such enlarged canine teeth? They love holding fruit with them? How do you know the T-rex’s teeth were for eating meat? I smell circularity in 3…2….1….

Thanks, Stat, now we know that you are blind in addition to batshit crazy.
Those teeth look similar as all hell, don't they? Especially the flat ones in the back for grinding vegetation which are identical to the T-Rex's back teeth which are...... oh, no they aren't!

You are also funny let’s play a game….since you seem to be such an expert on animal teeth…

http://www.connecticutvalleybiological.c...sp2015.jpg
Oh snap! Cougars have the same flat teeth in the back as a fruit bat! They must only eat vegetables.

http://www.wildlifetaxidermy.com/S-303-g...resize.jpg
Oh snap! Grizzly bears too! We all know they never eat meat.

Just admit it, you implied that sharp teeth are only used for eating meat and I caught you on it. It’s ok to admit when you say something retarded, you can always blame it on your advanced age.

Actually some fruit bats do indeed eat insects as well as fruit, but that's not really the point is it. I believe Min was stating a fact of the obvious. It is obvious that some species of dinosaurs were and always were carnivores.

You can believe that if you like, but you cannot prove it with only fossils. The bones of a black bear or even raccoon would lead us to believe they eat far more meat than they actually do.

There is? Where? Is there a hypothesis or theory that is able to make predictions based on the data?

When I used the word “proof” why did you automatically assume we were talking about scientific inquiry? Whenever I say proof I mean deductive proof, not scientific induction.

Do you have a brain cell? Just one? You sure? Do you know how fossils are formed? Do you know how long that takes?

Talk to the atheist (aleialoura) who was silly enough to assert we have human fossils, not me.

It took alot longer for abiogenesis to occur, there was enough time for that to happen.

Actually even if you take all the interactions between atoms in the universe over the history of time abiogenesis is still a statistical impossibility. It’s funny you have so much blind faith on certain matters but not others.

... and them finding a surprise proves what? That the predictive power of the theory is not perfect and discover a new dinosaur or the entire thing needs to be chucked in the bin in favour of your "just random shaped rocks hypothesis?

No you just seemed to imply it was a perfect science, so I was merely correcting you.

You posted an image of some statues implying they were "proof" of giant, that was intellectually dishonest any surrounding material was structurally the same as the end product. The process of fossilisation produces 2 different types of material. That takes a long long time, millions of years, not enough time for human bones to fossilise.

You and I both know that nobody has ever even observed “the process of fossilization” to take place, so stop engaging in storytelling and stick to actual science please.

So how do the same shapes keep appearing in the same strata and not out of place in a different strata. Your hypothesis is that given enough time a fully formed a T Rex shaped rocks would appear in the completely wrong strata right?

Nope, given enough time all of those shapes could appear in similar layers of strata. It’s just a coincidence.

How do you explain the linear time line of evolving animals? Less evolved shapes appear in older strata, more evolved animals with similar shapes appear in later strata.

Wait, are we still talking about dinosaurs here or now evolution?

Maybe given enough time there could be thousands of randomly shaped structurally different rocks that form into what looks like bones that are the same over and over again that happen to have the shape of a fully functional creature that are placed in the strata in such a way that the ones that look like less evolved are in older layers.

Yep, that’s actually more probable than naturally synthesizing a fully functional and self-replicating protein.

The ID crowd have a hypothesis that is able to make predictions? Holy shit that's first I have heard of it, can you show me ANYTHING the ID crowd says .. apart from "god did it"

What does this have to do with anything? He made an argument from improbability which is the exact same argument the ID crowd uses. Why should it be valid when he makes it but not when they make it?

You really do have your head up your arse don't you.... next post just say "lalalalalalalalalalala.... I can't hear you.... I can't hear you", it's just as intellectually honest

Do you usually try to talk trash after getting intellectually spanked or is this a new thing you are trying out?

Statler, you'd have to be the dumbest person on the planet to subscribe to anything you just posted. Congratulations.

Haha, I am arguing exactly how atheists argue, so if you think it’s dumb then….LOL

No, proof that they once were bone (or whatever else they were, depending on the fossil; we do have soft tissue fossils, very rare).

Stop tossing the word proof around if you don’t know what it means!! I have seen no valid syllogisms proving anything you guys have asserted to be true, therefore you have presented no proof at all.

This thread is hilarious. Why are you guys continuing to respond to Stat? I propose that nobody even engages him from now on. Literally brush over his posts and don't reply, ever. He'll get bored and fuck off soon enough.

Winning by letting arguments stand un-refuted? Maybe you shouldn’t be anyone’s coach on here.

Who needs to in this day and age where natural history museums exist. If you doubt in them or they charge money for admission then please consult a local university.

A Natural History Museum saying something is true does not make it true, give me proof.

You may take the hard and long road to enlightenment and come to Europe and visit many of its museums to see the real things, see homo sapiens in action in sites like la grotte de Lascaux, la grotte Chauvet.

Europe? That’s funny. You mean there are not Homo sapiens living and acting in America today?

It's not just remains that talk, it's the work left by those like stone tools. And you can date it back to Homo Habilis some 2 million years ago or Homo Erectus which brought the technology on many continents.

Reification.

This may also explain why YECs are a truly rare occurrence over here.

Europeans are just more gullible actually, simply because a Museum or Wikipedia says something is true well then it must be! America was based off of free thinking and questioning authority, that’s why YECers have found a home here.

That is only the START of the scientific process, not a conclusion. Here let me explain how science works since it obvious that you don't have a single fucking clue:

I actually am employed as a scientist Toots.

Some dude (or gal) comes up with an idea.

Ok, fossilization occurs, got my idea.

They produce data from experiments based on that idea.

Oh snap! Where are the experiments proving that fossilization occurs naturally over millions of years like you assert it does!? We didn’t even make it past your second step. I told you that you were telling stories and not engaging in real science.

If there was a scientist that was able to prove that fossils are just rocks that looked like bones they would be so fucking famous that 16yo virgin school girls would line up around the block to suck his 75 year old cock.

Burden of proof fallacy, it is up to you to prove they are the remnants of animals that died millions of years ago. Since you don’t have any empirical data proving fossilization even occurs you have a bit of an uphill road my friend.

He is good at logical yoga, logics judo and I like him. He started with a complete reversal of situation by giving the burden of proof to us despite the fact that any encyclopedia or teacher would have given him the answer.

Well I see this exercise didn’t go over your head like it did everyone else’s. Kudos to you.
So if a teacher or encyclopedia says something is true it is true?

All we have to do is not to take interest in his dismissal of everything around but to ask him what his personal explanation is. And that's the great thing about creationists, be them young earth like some fraction of the christians or old earth creationist like the indus. The fun really start when they give their explanations not when they try to sound smarter than science itself. That's where the weak unicorn stories come up.

So you are saying that if you can’t back up your own theories attack the Creationist’s theories?