[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[Rick W]

The exchanges of opinions toward others is not supported by the site or the agreement to post in here.

Please be careful and present your case as outlined within the guidelines .

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Well, sperm whales and bottle-nosed dolphins are also related, so I'm not sure what point you think you are making. How does the relatedness (or otherwise) of contemporary humming-birds to long-extinct dinosaurs establish the validity of the claim that the Angkor Wat carving actually represents a living stegosaurus seen by the artist some several hundreds of years ago?

Could you please present this yet unviewed evidence here and with out the usual "holes" that are so easily distinguished in your theory?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Human beings and bananas on some level also are related, you should note that as well.

Of course your understanding of the relation between Birds and Dinosaurs doesn't factor in the that many Dinosaurs also had feathers.

View attachment 5310
View attachment 5311

Nor does it take into account the similarities in bone structure.

View attachment 5312
View attachment 5313

Thanks for citing one of the easier relations to demonstrate.

Please, show mw the feathers.

 

[lordkalvan]

It's staring you in the face. Go back and read my previous post. In fact, I'll even quote the relevant parts here so you won't have to (emphasis added).

You wrote:

"Claims that the Angkor Wat temple carving represents a stegosaurus seem to be a classic case of confirmation bias, where evidence is interpreted to fit a pre-existing conclusion."​

I replied:

"This is hilarious coming from an evolutionist, who thinks these two are related."
​

I then posted a picture of a T. Rex and another of a hummingbird. Then I went on to say:

"Nope... No confirmation bias there. Those two are practically indistinguishable."

​

In case you didn't get it, that was sarcasm.

I'd never have guessed. Again, what relevance does the relatedness of dinosaurs and birds have to do with whether or not the Angkor Wat carving represents a stegosaurus? Sarcasm is largely wasted if it lacks relevance.

If you are truly incapable of seeing what is staring you in the face and what I'm sure everyone else here sees, let me explain it to you. To anyone who looks at the Angkor Wat carvings without any preconceived ideas, they look very similar to certain dinosaurs. But you say that the only reason people see those similarities is because they want to see them.

We have one carving that, almost without exception, only YE creationists see as 'similar to certain dinosaurs'. Curiously, in order to do this they ignore or deny certain salient facts, such as the lack of any corroborating evidence at all that such dinosaurs were indigenous to the area or that anyone else noticed them.

On the other hand, there is practically no visible similarity at all between a T. Rex and a hummingbird, yet evolutionists like you see so much similarity that they conclude that they must be related... because that's what you want to see.

Nope, what we see are certain physical traits that demonstrate similarities that suggest relatedness. These have been pointed out for you by Doulos lesou and are relatively recent conclusions based not on what anyone 'want to see', but on evidence that leads inexorably to that conclusion.

You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of. You have already made up your mind that evolution is true and interpret everything in light of that.

Contrariwise, I have been persuaded by the evidence that evolution is the best explanation for the variety and relatedness of life we are confronted with. I have no vested interest in either evolutiin or evolutionary theory: provide a better explanation that accounts for all the evidence in as consilient and consistent a way as do evolution and evolutionary theory and I will consider it.

Part of what you have already decided is tens of millions of years separate humans from dinosaurs, and therefore you rule out any possibility of them having seen each other, even before you look at the evidence that clearly shows they did indeed see each other, such as the aforementioned carvings. And since you refuse to see that you are doing the very thing you criticize in others, I said:

"There is none so blind as those who will not see."​

Which, in case you don't know, refers to those who willingly close their (metaphorical) eyes to the truth.

The TOG​

I 'rule out [the] possibility' because no credible evidence exists to support it. Certainly none has been presented here. Haldane's fossil rabbits in the Precambrian remain as elusive as ever.

 

[lordkalvan]

A rather diversified segment of the world.

So no evidence that crocodiles and alligators are dinosaurs, then?

 

[lordkalvan]

You have not seen because you refuse, the end of that rabbit trail.

I cannot refuse to see what has not been provided.

 

[lordkalvan]

Could you please present this yet unviewed evidence here and with out the usual "holes" that are so easily distinguished in your theory?

What are you referring to? The relatedness of sperm whales and dolphins?

 

[TOG]

Nope, what we see are certain physical traits that demonstrate similarities that suggest relatedness.

Perhaps you could explain how birds can be descended from T. Rex, which, according to evolutionists, lived between 66 and 67 million years ago, while the first bird generally recognized by evolutionists lived 150 million years ago. How can birds be descended from dinosaurs which birds predate by 83 million years.

The TOG​

 

[th1b.taylor]

So no evidence that crocodiles and alligators are dinosaurs, then?

You asked and I answered but I doubt that this is a treding lie of the many zoo keepers and display managers of the world.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I cannot refuse to see what has not been provided.

kalvan,
being cute is not desirable here, if it were I would poke back, but. You can refuse anything, you are neither prisoner nor slave in chains. The statement is not only a visible lead in to an altercation I'm refusing. The evidence is present for all to view so there is, really, no justification for baiting. If you had examined the evidence in it's entirety, I would have frothed at the mouth when you were so blind as to not see.

 

[th1b.taylor]

What are you referring to? The relatedness of sperm whales and dolphins?

You are driving, in a silly, slight of hand way to p me off, if you are a man and not a teen, stop that and stand up and be counted. If you are so academically strained that you did not notice the first three lines of post #123, then all of it, if you wish. The feather on the dino would go far to lend credit to the statement appearing to be painted with a very broad brush.

 

[lordkalvan]

Perhaps you could explain how birds can be descended from T. Rex, which, according to evolutionists, lived between 66 and 67 million years ago, while the first bird generally recognized by evolutionists lived 150 million years ago. How can birds be descended from dinosaurs which birds predate by 83 million years.

The TOG​

As I do not claim that birds descend from T.Rex, you are asking that I 'explain' a strawman of your own creating. The evidence suggests that birds have evolved from the Theropod dinosaur line, which includes T.Rex as a descendant of this line, whose first examples date to around 230 MYA, that is 80 million years before the first 'true' birds.

 

[lordkalvan]

You asked and I answered but I doubt that this is a treding lie of the many zoo keepers and display managers of the world.

I asked you to support a particular claim you made in respect of crocodiles and alligators. Simply repeating that claim in a slightly different form does not constitute supporting it.

 

[lordkalvan]

kalvan,
being cute is not desirable here, if it were I would poke back, but. You can refuse anything, you are neither prisoner nor slave in chains. The statement is not only a visible lead in to an altercation I'm refusing. The evidence is present for all to view so there is, really, no justification for baiting. If you had examined the evidence in it's entirety, I would have frothed at the mouth when you were so blind as to not see.

Pointing out that no evidence for particular claims has been posted here is neither 'being cute' nor is it 'baiting'; it is a simple observation.

 

[lordkalvan]

You are driving, in a silly, slight of hand way to p me off, if you are a man and not a teen, stop that and stand up and be counted. If you are so academically strained that you did not notice the first three lines of post #123, then all of it, if you wish. The feather on the dino would go far to lend credit to the statement appearing to be painted with a very broad brush.

I was responding to post #122, which was directed to me and not altogether clear as to what you were asking. If you want me to discuss dinosaur feathers, you should ask me clearly and directly.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Perhaps you could explain how birds can be descended from T. Rex, which, according to evolutionists, lived between 66 and 67 million years ago, while the first bird generally recognized by evolutionists lived 150 million years ago. How can birds be descended from dinosaurs which birds predate by 83 million years.

The TOG​

Hi TOG,

I think you might find this short video informative on the matter of Dinosaur to Bird evolution.

Fossil evidence as I have already linked shows how some of the later Dinosaurs had feathers, and that the latest bird fossils we have are remarkably like that of a Dinosaur.

The Archaeopteryx is known as the "first bird," first appeared on the earth roughly 150 million years ago, during the Jurassic Period. Which of course is the same period of time as Dinosaurs.

Here is a fossil pictured below.

And here an artist's restoration of this bird.

Skeletal comparisons to that of Dinosaurs are extremely similar in early birds as well as modern birds. Here below is perhaps a more clear fossil that we have.

And below a feathered Dinosaur fossil.

The similarities hardly need to be stated, but you can see that both had feathers.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Please, show mw the feathers.

Here is an up close image of a fossilized Dinosaur feather.

Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...feathers-found-in-ancient-amber/#.VGKxV_nF_Lk

This is an image of Dinosaur feathers preserved in ancient amber.

 

[Edward]

Ok, for the sake of discussion, I'll consider what you're saying Doulos. Allright, so they evolved feathers, I'm with you on that...but...what hasn't been answered yet (we're both Christians and believe scripture even if we have disagreed on some points) and so I ask you again now brother... I don't get it how dinosaurs died off before men were created...before sin or death entered into the world.

I don't get it brother. Can you explain that one to me?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Here is an up close image of a fossilized Dinosaur feather.

Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...feathers-found-in-ancient-amber/#.VGKxV_nF_Lk

This is an image of Dinosaur feathers preserved in ancient amber.

I wasn't speaking with you but I will say that you have an example of a feather of completely unknown origin so now that you have tried to assist Kalvan to stand up, let's see if he can connect it to a dinosaur. I will state now that during my education endeavors, none were able to do such a thing though it was much discussed.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I wasn't speaking with you

It sure looks like you were speaking to me.

View attachment 5316

but I will say that you have an example of a feather of completely unknown origin so now that you have tried to assist Kalvan to stand up, let's see if he can connect it to a dinosaur. I will state now that during my education endeavors, none were able to do such a thing though it was much discussed.

Why would you have Kalvan defend evidence that I represented. I am more than capable of defending my own evidence.

From that very article where I obtained the photograph example, there is more than just the feathers that were discovered. See below:

Here is an excerpt from the article:

"But a few hollow hair-like structures stumped researchers. The unidentifiable filaments weren’t plant fibers, fungus or fur, so the researchers surmise that they are protofeathers (thought to be the evolutionary precursors to feathers). Discovery News explains:

The collection is among the first to reveal all major evolutionary stages of feather development in non-avian dinosaurs and birds."
Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...feathers-found-in-ancient-amber/#.VGNb2fnF-0J

What we have is feathers that do not belong to any kind of bird, but more like "Dinofuzz," in that it more resembles the kinds of feather transitional forms that you would likely find in the Cretaceous Period, as these are dated at 80 million years old.

This finding isn't an outlier either, as I have already presented fossil evidence showing that some Dinosaurs had feathers.