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

[Cinjin]

Wow, fruit bats must really eat a lot of meat, look at those sharp teeth! Maybe you shouldn’t speak of “intelligent scales” and then spew such refuse.

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.

[tuxcomputers]

I was saying that fossils are how we have established that dinosaurs exist, and there is astounding evidence for the existence of dinosaurs, especially in comparison with god.

No there is actual proof for God’s existence

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

WTF do you mean we don't have fossils of humans?

That is exactly what I mean, and we don’t. The article you cited didn’t list any fossils for Homo sapiens, but rather some actual bones and skeletons.

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

If there was a single rock (or even just a couple of dozen) that just happened to look like a bone then I would agree with you that rocks that look like bones would not be evidence for dinosaurs.

However there are hundreds and thousands of fossils, these aren't just random rocks that people bring in off the street. A theory requires that it is able to make predictions, there are people that study fossils, make predictions that they should be able to dig in a certain area and find certain fossils.

Here is where I just use the atheist’s response to critics of abiogenesis, “you are not actually arguing against the occurrence of improbable events are you? Given enough time anything is possible, such as thousands of rocks ending up looking like bones.”

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

When they do that low and behold they do not just find random rocks that happen to look like the shapes they are trying to find. They find fossils that look exactly like they predicted.

Not all the time, they do find surprises quite often.

... 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?

They do not dig in the ground and create the shapes they want to find, the fossils are structurally different than the surrounding material.

That proves that dragon-like creatures existed millions of years ago how?

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.

If the rocks were really just random shapes that happen to look like bones then why do we find the same shapes over and over again? Why do the rocks in the same location happen to make the shape of a functional animal instead of a hodge podge?

Given enough time the statistically impossible not only becomes possible but probable.

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?

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.

When you take those factors into account the chances of these "rocks" being random shapes that just happen to look like bones is zero.

It’s probably about the same as life spontaneously arising from non-life, but nobody believes in that now do they? :-P

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.

However if I wanted to calculate the actual chances of that I would have to create a computer billions of times the current power of our best, then I would have to wait until the end of time to get the results of the calculation.

Stop asserting that fossils are just rocks that happen to look like bones, you have your evidence that they aren't and your argument falls apart.

Evidence? I didn’t see any such evidence, you just made an argument from improbability much like the ID crowd does.

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"

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

[Epimethean]

"Given enough time the statistically impossible not only becomes possible but probable."

Hell, people have been believing in gods for about as long as they have existed, despite the lack of divine evidence, so perhaps credulity was an early trait which persisted in some.

[thesummerqueen]

I'd quote that shit about chimps, typewriters and Shakespeare, but we know how people of his ilk feel about apes.

[Epimethean]

LOL! I almost DID quote that, but I admire chimps.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ummmm What IS the chemical composition of Dinosaur bones as opposed to random rocks?

[tuxcomputers]

I'd quote that shit about chimps, typewriters and Shakespeare, but we know how people of his ilk feel about apes.

... besides that I think the internet has proven the idea was wrong.

[orogenicman]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

In some cases, Kichi, the difference is that there is rock all around a nice big chunk of empty space. Imprint fossil. Hard to get more chemically different than that. On the other hand older fossils are often made of minerals deposited in an imprint, or that have permeated the bone (eventually replacing it entirely). In this case it's structure and chemical content as opposed to the (largely sedimentary) rock around it helps to distinguish between the two. There are lots of things that look like fossils that aren't.

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

[orogenicman]

Many well preserved fossil dinosaur bones have been unearthered in the last 180 years. They contain bone structures recognizeable by any anatomist, and are found in strata recognizeale by any geologist worth his salt. There is no doubt whatsoever that dinosaur fossils are real amd are very old.