[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

[twinc]

What 'missing transitional forms'? How does this supposed absence reflect on the complete failure to find fossil human remains in the same strata as fossil dinosaur remains? After all, there is ample evidence of other mammal remains found not only in the same strata as, but in the same locality as dinosaur remains. Curiously, none of these fossilised mammals are of any current species.

sitting ducks mainly - buried fossils are the same as modern living fossils but mistakenly and/or misleadingly differently named - see www.TheGrandExperiment.com - living fossils Part 2 - by Dr. Carl Werner - twinc

 

[TOG]

Don't forget, every time a 'transitional fossil' is found it creates a gap on either side which is required to be filled by two 'transitional fossils'. Thus, as more 'transitional fossils' are found, this means that even more 'transitional forms' haven't been found.

That's not what I was talking about, but rather huge gaps that should contain hundreds of transitional forms, but don't contain any at all. Take the bat as an example. There are no transitions between a supposed ancestor that had short digits on it's front feet, and bats that have digits that stretch the entire length of the wing.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

That's not what I was talking about, but rather huge gaps that should contain hundreds of transitional forms, but don't contain any at all. Take the bat as an example. There are no transitions between a supposed ancestor that had short digits on it's front feet, and bats that have digits that stretch the entire length of the wing.

The TOG​

How many times do we have to educate you on bat evolution?

1. We already provided a transitional fossil.
2. Bat fossils are extremely rare given their small brittle bones.
3. Transitional fossils to bats are extremely old as they have been around for tens of millions of years.

How about your present a single shred of evidence that your hypothesis is true. Evolution is already the scientific consensus, and has been for sometime. These fallacious arguments from silence are done.

 

[lordkalvan]

sitting ducks mainly - buried fossils are the same as modern living fossils but mistakenly and/or misleadingly differently named - see www.TheGrandExperiment.com - living fossils Part 2 - by Dr. Carl Werner - twinc

Perhaps you can quote exactly what Werner is referring to as the citations you link to seem to require payment to access. I am aware that Werner has been quoted in support of this claim before, but when the small print is examined it is usually found that he is referring to phyla rather than species, a sleight of hand that seems intended to draw in the gullible:

'We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).

'The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.'

Dr Carl Werner quoted at http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils.

 

[lordkalvan]

That's not what I was talking about, but rather huge gaps that should contain hundreds of transitional forms, but don't contain any at all. Take the bat as an example. There are no transitions between a supposed ancestor that had short digits on it's front feet, and bats that have digits that stretch the entire length of the wing.

The TOG​

So, do you think that all contemporary bat species are related to each other?

 

[TOG]

That depends on what you mean by "related". I don't believe in the theory of evolution or that all species are ultimately related through a common ancestor. I believe that some of what people call species are actually just variations within a single species. That may apply to some bats, or maybe all of them. I don't know enough about it to be able to say with any certainty. For practical purposes, they can all be classified together, as can all mammals or all fish. That doesn't mean they are biologically related.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

That depends on what you mean by "related". I don't believe in the theory of evolution or that all species are ultimately related through a common ancestor. I believe that some of what people call species are actually just variations within a single species. That may apply to some bats, or maybe all of them. I don't know enough about it to be able to say with any certainty. For practical purposes, they can all be classified together, as can all mammals or all fish. That doesn't mean they are biologically related.

The TOG​

How on earth do you define a species? How can many of these be variations within a single "species" when these so called "variations" cannot even breed with each other?

Dogs have different breeds that are variations within a species. Vampire bats and fruit bats are not variations within a single species, but are two different species that have a common ancestor.

And all the evidence points to all mammals sharing common ancestry, as they share the distinct characteristics of carrying their young in the womb, having fur, and producing milk for their young among other characteristics. There are also similarities within the overall bone structure of mammals, as well as their overall anatomy. Not to mention the genetic evidence distinctly indicates biological relations.

So while you may not believe this, it doesn't change the fact that this is what scientists have discovered and all the evidence points to common ancestry.

 

[th1b.taylor]

How many times do we have to educate you on bat evolution?

1. We already provided a transitional fossil.
2. Bat fossils are extremely rare given their small brittle bones.
3. Transitional fossils to bats are extremely old as they have been around for tens of millions of years.

How about your present a single shred of evidence that your hypothesis is true. Evolution is already the scientific consensus, and has been for sometime. These fallacious arguments from silence are done.

Sorry neighbor but this educational post is anything but educational. I make the absence of the Dinosaur, large growths of the same lizards her today, to be absent only since the Noahdic flood or about four thousand years ago. And if the scientifically projected (it is still a theory) model is correct, the bats, birds, platypus and the other animals have not evolved for millions of years because they are found in the same strata and are composed then as they are now. The Natural Science Museums are just guilty of hiding them and misnaming them. I just viewed two videos, suggested by twinc that lays all of this bare.

 

[th1b.taylor]

How on earth do you define a species? How can many of these be variations within a single "species" when these so called "variations" cannot even breed with each other?

Dogs have different breeds that are variations within a species. Vampire bats and fruit bats are not variations within a single species, but are two different species that have a common ancestor.

And all the evidence points to all mammals sharing common ancestry, as they share the distinct characteristics of carrying their young in the womb, having fur, and producing milk for their young among other characteristics. There are also similarities within the overall bone structure of mammals, as well as their overall anatomy. Not to mention the genetic evidence distinctly indicates biological relations.

So while you may not believe this, it doesn't change the fact that this is what scientists have discovered and all the evidence points to common ancestry.

Interesting that in this "opinion" there is, absolutely no evidence offered causing the post to show no substance. Opinions can be very useful if they are offered with clear evidence, otherwise, they seem to be of no real use in the matter they proclaim.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Sorry neighbor but this educational post is anything but educational.

Your opinion is noted.

I make the absence of the Dinosaur, large growths of the same lizards her today, to be absent only since the Noahdic flood or about four thousand years ago.

The latest remains of Dinosaurs have been dated to 65 million years ago. So not seeing where you pull this 4000 years ago from.

And if the scientifically projected (it is still a theory) model is correct,

Please learn what Theory means when used by a scientist. This isn't just conjecture or speculation, but is the best explanation given the evidence provided within the realm of science.

the bats, birds, platypus and the other animals have not evolved for millions of years because they are found in the same strata and are composed then as they are now.

Actually the Platypus evolved from something much like an Echidna about 20 million years ago, and there were large variations within the Ornithorhynchidae family, which was a Giant Platypus. A recent discovery actually.
Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...typus-evolution-science-animals-paleontology/

There are no fossils older than 20 million years ago concerning animals like the Platypus, and genetic evidence points to a split about that time.

The Natural Science Museums are just guilty of hiding them and misnaming them.

Ahh yes, nothing like Creationists to constantly infer dishonesty among the educated and scientific organizations. Of course they are lying.. because you have to be right.

The evidence however, cannot lie and it overwhelmingly supports their claims.

I just viewed two videos, suggested by twinc that lays all of this bare.

Yes, you saw it in a video, therefore it must be true..

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Interesting that in this "opinion" there is, absolutely no evidence offered causing the post to show no substance. Opinions can be very useful if they are offered with clear evidence, otherwise, they seem to be of no real use in the matter they proclaim.

I am simply offering what I know. Within my statement there are various facts, for instance there are 1,240 different species of bats. Many of these have different abilities such as echolocation, or different size and different diets such as insects, blood, fruit and even fish. This kind of diversity is best explained through common ancestry.

I also pointed out facts about all mammals, and then provided the best scientific explanation that we have about the commonalities between mammals and that is common descent.

You are welcome to present an alternative explanation and we can discuss that, but I was merely conveying scientific consensus, which certainly isn't just my opinion.

 

[lordkalvan]

That depends on what you mean by "related". I don't believe in the theory of evolution or that all species are ultimately related through a common ancestor. I believe that some of what people call species are actually just variations within a single species. That may apply to some bats, or maybe all of them. I don't know enough about it to be able to say with any certainty. For practical purposes, they can all be classified together, as can all mammals or all fish. That doesn't mean they are biologically related.

The TOG​

So which bats are 'variations within species' and which aren't? What criteria do you apply to distinguish variations within a single species (aka related) from those that are not variations within a single species (aka unrelated)? You are aware that classifying all bats together, all mammals together and all fish together is done on the basis of biological relatedness?

 

[lordkalvan]

Sorry neighbor but this educational post is anything but educational. I make the absence of the Dinosaur, large growths of the same lizards her today, to be absent only since the Noahdic flood or about four thousand years ago. And if the scientifically projected (it is still a theory) model is correct, the bats, birds, platypus and the other animals have not evolved for millions of years because they are found in the same strata and are composed then as they are now. The Natural Science Museums are just guilty of hiding them and misnaming them. I just viewed two videos, suggested by twinc that lays all of this bare.

So that would be the Noachic flood that several cultures lived through without even being affected by it, most noticeably Dynastic Egypt?

 

[Knotical]

So that would be the Noachic flood that several cultures lived through without even being affected by it, most noticeably Dynastic Egypt?

The flood occurred well prior to when Egypt came into existence. The only people that survived the flood were the ones aboard the ark; Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives. All peoples that populated the earth from there came from them.

Also, no air breathing animal, except for those that live in water (whales, dolphins, etc...), survived either unless they were aboard the ark.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Your opinion is noted.


The latest remains of Dinosaurs have been dated to 65 million years ago. So not seeing where you pull this 4000 years ago from.

I go to the one source that has never and will never fail, the Word of God. Dinos, by a couple of different names were on the earth until about the time of the flood. I concede the use of the name dinosaur only because of the size. The truth is the dinosaurs are with us today and in the evening, here in Texas, they prowl my front porch and, driving the cats crazy, they stalk a bite to eat across the screen over my windows.
[quoted]Please learn what Theory means when used by a scientist. This isn't just conjecture or speculation, but is the best explanation given the evidence provided within the realm of science.[/quote]

Sorry, but you are dealing, here, with one of those hard headed old men that was educated before all of this, revisioist, dumbing down of the American Educational System.
A theory, used by anyone is a hypothesis of one or more peoples thought out but unproven explanation of an event, specific to this case. A theory only becomes scientific after and if it is proven.

#Please note: Your "Please learn" addition to this portion is possibly violating the terms of the use of this and likely all the other forms available for our free use. Thyere should never be anything personal about the discussions here.

Actually the Platypus evolved from something much like an Echidna about 20 million years ago, and there were large variations within the Ornithorhynchidae family, which was a Giant Platypus. A recent discovery actually.
Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...typus-evolution-science-animals-paleontology/

There are no fossils older than 20 million years ago concerning animals like the Platypus, and genetic evidence points to a split about that time.

As you can see I read the link, only to be amazed. The obvious error riddled statements in the article that htey could not think through?
Strange bumps on the only sample that can, in no manner be proven to be from a platypus. And the fleshed the animal from that one tooth?
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
Scientists fleshed out the animal based on a single tooth found several years ago in limestone collected from the fossil-rich Riversleigh World Heritage Area of northwest Queensland.

One tooth struck her as odd: It was bigger than any known platypus tooth. After closer study, "I said, 'Wait a second, not only is it quite big, it's quite different as well,'" Pian remembers. When she showed it to study co-author Mike Archer, he immediately agreed it was new.

For instance, the tooth clearly had the unique shape known to belong only to platypus teeth. But it also had bumps and ridges never before seen in the group. To estimate the size of the animal the tooth came from, Pian and colleagues compared the tooth with other platypus teeth and made a rough extrapolation of the size of the new species.

One tooth struck her as odd: It was bigger than any known platypus tooth. After closer study, "I said, 'Wait a second, not only is it quite big, it's quite different as well,'" Pian remembers. When she showed it to study co-author Mike Archer, he immediately agreed it was new.

Only four extinct platypus species have been discovered, each in different periods of time, leading scientists to believe that either there are huge gaps in the fossil record or the platypus family tree is simply not very diverse. Part of the problem is that most of the time, only the teeth with their hardy enamel survive the wear and tear of time.

Ahh yes, nothing like Creationists to constantly infer dishonesty among the educated and scientific organizations. Of course they are lying.. because you have to be right.

The evidence however, cannot lie and it overwhelmingly supports their claims.

There you go again with the personalization, I am a Christian and I have been labeled, falsely a creationist but in reality I am a believer of and follower of the One Most High God. And I am not a liar, just wishing for intelligent conversation.

Yes, you saw it in a video, therefore it must be true..

If you do that one more time, ad hominem remarks, I fear you will be punished, this forum is moderated. So how about intelligent discourse without the silly, childish personal attacks. When a person uses the Lawyer's Creedo, "When the facts are not on your side, attack and discredit the witness," it makes them come off as small. Please, let's try not to go there.

 

[lordkalvan]

The flood occurred well prior to when Egypt came into existence.

Not if it occurred 4000 years ago, it didn't. Khufu's Pyramid is dated by a number of independent means to around the middle of the 26th Century BC.

The only people that survived the flood were the ones aboard the ark; Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives. All peoples that populated the earth from there came from them.

Then I am sure you can point to the population bottleneck in the genetic diversity of humanity dating to this event.

Also, no air breathing animal, except for those that live in water (whales, dolphins, etc...), survived either unless they were aboard the ark.

So, no doubt, there are similar population bottlenecks in these species that can be dated to the same time as that in humanity?

 

[lordkalvan]

I go to the one source that has never and will never fail, the Word of God. Dinos, by a couple of different names were on the earth until about the time of the flood...

Leaving to one side for the moment the question of whether or not there was a global flood of biblical proportions and when it might have occurred, your statement suggests the co-existence of human beings with dinosaurs, a statement that appears to be at variance with the understanding of almost every palaeontologist I am aware of and also unsupported by any reliable evidence at all.

 

[Knotical]

Not if it occurred 4000 years ago, it didn't. Khufu's Pyramid is dated by a number of independent means to around the middle of the 26th Century BC.

Then I am sure you can point to the population bottleneck in the genetic diversity of humanity dating to this event.

So, no doubt, there are similar population bottlenecks in these species that can be dated to the same time as that in humanity?

As I have mentioned previously, I have no faith in what men use to "date" this planet. The bible clearly indicates when the flood occurred, and it is also used to show that bottleneck you mentioned. And even if there wasn't a bottleneck at that point, there would still be one pointing back to Adam.

Everyone on this planet is a direct descendant of Noah, who was a direct descendant of Adam. The flood occurred and wiped out every living thing that lived on land that was not in the ark. And this occurred prior to Egypt, or any other nation, came into existence.

 

[lordkalvan]

As I have mentioned previously, I have no faith in what men use to "date" this planet. The bible clearly indicates when the flood occurred, and it is also used to show that bottleneck you mentioned.

Then you can cite a study that shows it, I assume?

And even if there wasn't a bottleneck at that point, there would still be one pointing back to Adam.

If the human population was reduced to eight individuals (only six of whom were post-flood 'breeders'), then there is no possibility of there being not being a population bottleneck.

Everyone on this planet is a direct descendant of Noah, who was a direct descendant of Adam. The flood occurred and wiped out every living thing that lived on land that was not in the ark.

Again, then the evidence should be present in the genetic diversity of all those Ark-bound species.

And this occurred prior to Egypt, or any other nation, came into existence.

I have yet to see any persuasive evidence to this effect. So far I have seen one claimed date for the flood at 4000 years ago. A number of independent dating methods determine a date for Khufu's Pyramid some 500 years prior to this. Simply denying the reliability of those dating methodologies is not immediately convincing: if they are wrong, how do they each happen to be wrong in just the way necessary to return consilient dates? If three independent timing mechanisms all tell you it is within ten minutes of midday (between 11.50 and 12.10), it seems reasonable to conclude that it is about midday.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Not if it occurred 4000 years ago, it didn't. Khufu's Pyramid is dated by a number of independent means to around the middle of the 26th Century BC.

Sir,
I know that Carbon 14 dating is sacred to the world of science but the truth is that it is so unreliable. My research into the matter predates the web but I'm willing to stand up and declare the information can be found by any information seeking person on the web because the information, good or bad, is available of the WWW today. The result after several studies was that Carbon 14 dating has, rather to often, a swing of millions and on occasion of billions of years.

One of the source texts suggested to me by an individual I was discussing offered personal experience where an item of an item with a known age because of history and as I recall the swing was from a hundred years or so to a few million years old on a series of repeated tests.

The collective evidence I examined, books by scientists, demonstrated to me that what was going on was likely repeated Date Testing until a desirable result could be demonstrated. On the other hand, scripture has repeatedly been tried and, closely, examined for a few thousand years and has always been proven in a manor that has and does stand the test of time.

God has date Egypt after the Flood and that has yet to fall. If I were not a completely devoted servant, I would still trust that which has been proven reliable over that which has not. Come to think of it, I recall that when I was still Lost I did just that.