Tell us about the dinosaurs

[The Skeptic]

It's slightly straying from the conversation but on topic with dinosaurs to say this; In astronomy we were having a lecture on the asteroid that caused extinction and gave rise to the age of the mammals via evolution, and some guy in the class said, "then why are there reptiles today" and the teacher didnt look like he knew what to say ( he's a physicist not a biologist and he's from Korea and there's a bit of a language block on his part, though his english is relatively fluent ) so I quipped that through natural selection the colder blooded life forms died out leaving those with warm blood or a feather covering like raptors to stay warm enough to survive.

[thesummerqueen]

It's slightly straying from the conversation but on topic with dinosaurs to say this; In astronomy we were having a lecture on the asteroid that caused extinction and gave rise to the age of the mammals via evolution, and some guy in the class said, "then why are there reptiles today" and the teacher didnt look like he knew what to say ( he's a physicist not a biologist and he's from Korea and there's a bit of a language block on his part, though his english is relatively fluent ) so I quipped that through natural selection the colder blooded life forms died out leaving those with warm blood or a feather covering like raptors to stay warm enough to survive.

Am I missing some joke here...? I know I've only had one cup of coffee, but...snakes?

[Loki_999]

Am I missing some joke here...? I know I've only had one cup of coffee, but...snakes?

Erm... garden of Eden connection? It is tenuous i know...

[thesummerqueen]

Snakes are cold blooded. So are other animals. We still have cold-blooded life forms. Unless that was sarcasm that even I didn't get.

I've got another thermos of starbucks. Maybe the truth will reveal itself unto me in time.

[The Skeptic]

It's slightly straying from the conversation but on topic with dinosaurs to say this; In astronomy we were having a lecture on the asteroid that caused extinction and gave rise to the age of the mammals via evolution, and some guy in the class said, "then why are there reptiles today" and the teacher didnt look like he knew what to say ( he's a physicist not a biologist and he's from Korea and there's a bit of a language block on his part, though his english is relatively fluent ) so I quipped that through natural selection the colder blooded life forms died out leaving those with warm blood or a feather covering like raptors to stay warm enough to survive.

Am I missing some joke here...? I know I've only had one cup of coffee, but...snakes?

No, there's no joke here. Just me "pwning" a creationist in class that thinks an asteroid would have killed ALL reptiles.

[thesummerqueen]

No, there's no joke here. Just me "pwning" a creationist in class that thinks an asteroid would have killed ALL reptiles.

Gotcha - "creationist" made the difference. I figured you must have been trying to fool someone.

[Anomalocaris]

It's a fair question to ask why what average people think of as dinosaurs died out while many other cold booded creatures which average people think of as similar to dinosaurs didn't.

But to correct their misconcetions, one can point out that three things:

1. Dinosaurs didn't die out. Birds can be shown by multiple unrelated techniques to have descended directly from dinosaurs, and are in fact themselves dinosaurs. Many dinosaurs had bird like feathers, arranged on their bodies in bird like ways. The evolution of Flying birds' bone structure can be traced step by step back to ground dwelling theropod dinosaurs with hardly a missing link. Remove the evidence of flight feathers from the fossil of the first bird and you will hardly be able to tell the bones apart from relatives of velociraptors. Biochemically the birds are similar to dinosaurs. A tyrannosaurs steak will taste like chicken. Characteristic behavioral patterns of birds, like how bird sleeps and nests, are reminiscent of behavior found in ground dwelling dinosaurs. Every time you hear birds chirp you hear evidence of non-extinction of dinosaurs.

2. Dinosaurs were not very similar to most living reptiles. Their circulatory system separates the delivery of oxygenated blood from non-oxygenated blood, and were thus more efficient than any other reptile's besides crocodiles. Their respiration system uses single pass through flow system involving air sacs throughout their bodies which are unlike those of any reptiles and are far more efficient than those in any mammals. The gait of the dinosaurs were also unlike those of living reptile. Dinosaurs walked like birds and mammals, and some extinct crocodiles, with their legs tucked in and supporting their bodies from underneath, not sprawled out to the side, like lizards sunning themselves.

3. Dinosaurs were warm blooded, unlike any living reptiles. To be sure, not all dinosaurs exhibit unambiguous evidence of endothermy, and it may be that the genes and biochemistry of dinosaurs can more easily accommodate very different levels and types of endothermy between related species than is the case with mammals, but many mid-to-late medium to small sized theropod dinosaurs show unambiguous evidence of internally driven warm bloodedness.

All this does not address why dinosaurs outside the avian lineage apparently didn't produce a single species that survived the Cretaceous termination event, as the closely related birds, more distantly related crocodiles, and the very distantly related mammals, lizards, and snakes were able to do. But it does suggest the reason is not based solely on the particular physiology, genetics or biochemistry of ground dwelling dinosaurs.

[Minimalist]

Still trying to confuse the lunatic fringe with facts, eh Chuck?


Good luck.

[rjh4 is back]

It is not, however, about "whether or not any creationism is properly scientific," I said. As you somewhat recognized, it is about Statler and his views, which consist of a highly specified young-earth creationism based more on Scripture than anything else—not creationism in a general sense. And his views are being roundly criticized—rightly so—for their irrationality, never mind their lack of scientific integrity and merit, and my point was to distance creationism generally from his distinct young-earth subset thereof. While people might consider his ilk as "**** fools" (e.g., Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Russell Humphreys, etc.), they do not necessarily think that of all creationists—for example, Ronald Fisher, Theodore Dobzhansky, Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Randall Isaac, etc. (evolutionary creationism) or Russel Mixter, Fazale Rana, Jeffrey Zweerink, David Rogstad, etc. (progressive creationism) are not characterized with such invective.

Not all creationists are as scientifically incoherent or illiterate as the young-earth subset tends to be. Let Statler regale us with his account of dinosaurs (but don't hold your breath); however, as some of the names above should indicate (e.g., Dobzhansky), there is no shortage of creationists whose account of dinosaurs would probably mirror yours very closely, if not identically, and who are at least as passionate about science as you are and would not recognize your accusation that creationism is opposed to established science. While I understand the disparaging invective against young-earth creationists, those "radical evangelicals" who feel "that the findings of science ... [are] contrary to their religious dogma," I want to ensure that people are not broad-brushing all creationists generally; there are many creationists that rational people do not think are **** fools.

Arcanus,

I read stuff like this from you and shake my head. It sounds like you are saying or implying that you too think that a young earth creationist position is not rational. Furthermore, one could easily come away thinking that your position is that a position based more on Scripture than anything else is irrational. Is it your position that a young earth creationist position based on Scripture is irrational? If so, why? I tried to pin you down in a short e-mail exchange with you a few months ago as to what your position is and the reasoning that led you to your position, but you failed to e-mail me an answer to my last questions. Knowing that you were planning to publish something on aristophrenium.com regarding the issue, I waited. Yesterday and today, I read what you had to say but what I found absent was any concrete position on the issue. Yes you did say that Scripture was ultimately authoritative (which, in itself, I think would qualify you as a "fool" in the eyes of most here (not me or probably Statler)) but you failed to take a position other than to say you lean toward old-earth creationism.

Is it your position that a position based more on Scripture than anything else is irrational? If so, why? I have a really hard time believing that your answer would be yes given your stated position at aristophrenium.com that you hold to Scripture as being ultimately authoritative. Furthermore, I wonder: given the fact that some of your colleagues over at aristophrenium.com clearly take a young earth creationist position, do you think such disparaging invecitve as one finds here is appropriately directed at such them? Or when you say you "understand" such invective being applied do you merely mean you understand the point of view of the person who provides such invective but you do not agree with it personally?

Arcanus, you seem to be really good at tearing down the arguments of others and do so on a regular basis. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it might be nice if you also opened up your actually position on some of these issues to the scrutiny of others instead of just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots at everyone else's position.

[Anomalocaris]

The fringe is in a state of permenent and maximum confusion that is imposible to add to or subtract from. I try to point out the state of clarity possible outside fringe for the benefit of others.