Dinosaurs

[TracerBullet]

I once visited a major "natural history" museum with a group of students. We came upon a lab setting behind a glass partition designed to allow the public to observe technicians working on various fossils and such. One technician was carefully picking away at a grayish looking clump.
One student asked aloud, "What is that?"
The technician, being able to hear through the glass answered, "It's a 70 million year-old dinosaur egg."
"How do you know it's 70 million years old?"
"Because it was found in a 70 million year-old layer of earth."
"How do you know that layer of earth is 70 million years old?"
"Because we found this 70 million year-old dinosaur egg in it."

Sad but true story!

A couple years ago my wife and some of her friends visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky. One of the group asked a question about their Lucy exhibit. Something about the fossil's knee.
She didn't get an answer but instead was asked to leave.

 

[Jose Fly]

I thought they all died in the flood

See, this is how it works....

When we find intact complete fossilized skeletons or very well-preserved remains, that's evidence of the flood and how the organisms were calmly buried and preserved where they died.

And when we find jumbled messes of fossils and/or remains, and we never find human fossils in ancient strata, that's evidence of the flood and how violent and turbulent it was.

Easy peasey...whatever you find, it supports the Bible. QED. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

See, this is how it works....

When we find intact complete fossilized skeletons or very well-preserved remains, that's evidence of the flood and how the organisms were calmly buried and preserved where they died.

And when we find jumbled messes of fossils and/or remains, and we never find human fossils in ancient strata, that's evidence of the flood and how violent and turbulent it was.

Easy peasey...whatever you find, it supports the Bible. QED. :chuckle:

Nope.

A flood provides numerous conditions depending on the topography and time. Your mockery is akin to saying the same tsunami hit Sendai, Japan, so all the buildings should be in the same state afterward.

And going on your history, you will soon be demanding that I answer this question again.

What you are is committed to your evolutionism and no idea that doesn't bow to your religion is permitted a chance.

You're no scientist.

Just a troll. :troll:

 

[6days]

Easy peasey...whatever you find, it supports ...

That is exactly why common ancestry beliefs are religious, and not science.

*Evolutionists claimed our eyes were poorly designed.. they said "sloppy design" was evidence of evolution.
○Science then discovered purpose and design for our eyes.
●Evolutionists then claim that " the appearance of design" is evidence for the power of evolution.

*Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had never bred with humans.
○Science discovered most of us are descendants of Neandertals.
●Rather than admit mistakes, *evolutionists claim this is proof for the strength of science...ignoring the egg on their face.

* Evolutionists claimed our appendix was "useless" as evidence of common ancestry.
○Science proved our appendix has function.
●Evolutionists now claim our functional appendix is evidence of common ancestry.


The examples are many showing that evolutionism is not science...its about interpreting data according g to religious beliefs.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

Yep. Right here in this forum we have some creationists saying the reason we don't find human and dino remains together is because humans ran to the mountains, and died and stayed there. But then other creationists in the same thread post material that says the reason we don't find human and dino remains together is because the flood was so violent it destroyed human bodies.

But since this whole thing is based on a story in an old book, I guess you're free to just make up whatever you want.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is exactly why common ancestry beliefs are religious, and not science.

Let's see...

○Science then discovered purpose and design for our eyes.

Where's the paper on that?

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had never bred with humans.
○Science discovered most of us are descendants of Neandertals.
●Rather than admit mistakes, *evolutionists claim this is proof for the strength of science...ignoring the egg on their face.

Still on that, eh? As has been pointed out to you countless times, scientists debated the question for decades. Some thought Neandertals didn't interbreed with H. sapiens, others thought they did. When the genetic data came in it showed that they did.

That's how science works. Are you arguing that whenever there's a debate among scientists, that means the issue they're debating can't be science?

* Evolutionists claimed our appendix was "useless" as evidence of common ancestry.
○Science proved our appendix has function.
●Evolutionists now claim our functional appendix is evidence of common ancestry.

You've been corrected on this sooooooo many times, the only conclusion that can be reached is that you're either too dim to emotionally invested in your denial to get it.

 

[King cobra]

A couple years ago my wife and some of her friends visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky. One of the group asked a question about their Lucy exhibit. Something about the fossil's knee.
She didn't get an answer but instead was asked to leave.

Did her friend's question have anything to do with vitameatavegamin?

 

[The Barbarian]

That is exactly why common ancestry beliefs are religious, and not science.

Common ancestry has overwhelming evidence for it. As you learned, the evidence comes from numerous independent sources, including scientists who were not evolutionists. Would you like me to show you again?

Evolutionists claimed our eyes were poorly designed.. they said "sloppy design" was evidence of evolution.

The backwards retina in vertebrates came about because in vertebrates, eyes are part of the brain, not part of the ectoderm as they are in some other groups. So there's a loss of acuity due to the light having to pass though more layers of tissue. But natural selection has produced pretty good results with the arrangement, albeit not quite as good as if the retina faced forward.

Science then discovered purpose and design for our eyes.

No sign of design. But it makes perfect sense in terms of evolution.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had never bred with humans.

Sounds like another 6days "just-so" story. Let's see that, from the literature. Prediction: He made it up and won't show us.

Science discovered most of us are descendants of Neandertals.

And as you know, creationists called Neandertals "apes" and denied they were even human. Some creationists even denies Africans were humans.

Rather than admit mistakes, creationists made up stores about what scientists wrote.

Evolutionists claimed our appendix was "useless" as evidence of common ancestry.

Wrong again. Science found that the appendix is vestigial. As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs often evolve new functions. Creationists often believe that "vestigial" means "useless." There are useless vestigial organs, but the appendix does have several non-essential functions.

It's no longer used to ferment large amounts of plant matter, though. Which is why it's vestigial.

 

[6days]

*Evolutionists claimed our eyes were poorly designed.. they said "sloppy design" was evidence of evolution.
○Science then discovered purpose and design for our eyes.*
●Evolutionists then claim that " the appearance of design" is evidence for the power of evolution.

Where's the paper on that?

There have been many over the past number of years. For example ...

*'Physical Review Letters' published*"Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity." New Scientist' said these cells "act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye's peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp.".

There are newer articles where even more design features are discussed in journals such as* 'Phys.Org' or an article from last year in *Nature titled "Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision,"*

*Professor Erez Ribak at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, as saying:"The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today. Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes

The point Jose is that evolutionists claimed sloppy design was evidence FOR evolution...and they claim good design is evidence FOR evolution.*

*In other words....its not about the evidence...its about religion

*Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had never bred with humans.
○Science discovered most of us are descendants of Neandertals.
●Rather than admit mistakes, *evolutionists claim this is proof for the strength of science...ignoring the egg on their face.

Still on that, eh? As has been pointed out to you countless times, scientists debated the question for decades. Some thought Neandertals didn't interbreed with*H. sapiens, others thought they did. When the genetic data came in it showed that they did.

Again...the evidence didn't matter... it was all about the evolutionists religion. No matter if they did or didn't. ... no matter if something is or isn't. .. evolutionists still believe.

* Evolutionists claimed our appendix was "useless" as evidence of common ancestry.
○Science proved our appendix has function.
●Evolutionists now claim our functional appendix is evidence of common ancestry.

You've been corrected on this sooooooo many times, the only conclusion that can be reached is that you're either too dim to emotionally invested in your denial to get it.

You have been wrong on it so (soooooo) often, and you still are.*
Evolutionists DID claim the "USELESS" appendix was evidence for evolution.*
Now, evolutionists claim the USEFUL *appendix is evidence for evolution.

*Evolutionists think good design is evidence for evolution
Evolutionists think bad design is evidence for evolution.*

* Evolutionists think lack of function and functionality are both evidence for evolutionists.*

Evolutionism is simply a religion that interprets everything to fit their belief system. *

 

[Angel4Truth]

Dinosaurs arent real, if they were where are they now? Thought so. checkmate.

:rotfl:

 

[TracerBullet]

That is exactly why common ancestry beliefs are religious, and not science.

*Evolutionists claimed our eyes were poorly designed.. they said "sloppy design" was evidence of evolution.

who said this?

○Science then discovered purpose and design for our eyes.
●Evolutionists then claim that " the appearance of design" is evidence for the power of evolution.

Who is claiming this?

*Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had never bred with humans.
○Science discovered most of us are descendants of Neandertals.
●Rather than admit mistakes, *evolutionists claim this is proof for the strength of science...ignoring the egg on their face.

Science never claims to have the final truth and will actually admit when it is wrong - things creationism just don't do

* Evolutionists claimed our appendix was "useless" as evidence of common ancestry.

who made this claim?

 

[TracerBullet]

Did her friend's question have anything to do with vitameatavegamin?

you could go the the creation museum and ask that...but since questions are apparently not allowed you would most likely be shown the door

 

[TracerBullet]

There have been many over the past number of years. For example ...

*'Physical Review Letters' published*"Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity." New Scientist' said these cells "act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye's peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp.".

There are newer articles where even more design features are discussed in journals such as* 'Phys.Org' or an article from last year in *Nature titled "Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision,"*

*Professor Erez Ribak at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, as saying:"The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today. Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes

The point Jose is that evolutionists claimed sloppy design was evidence FOR evolution...and they claim good design is evidence FOR evolution.*

none of these make any sort of claim about "sloppy design"

 

[CherubRam]

Trilobite under human foot print. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

 

[6days]

none of these make any sort of claim about "sloppy design"

Very good!
They are articles discussing how scientists are realizing the "optimal" design features of our eyes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Trilobite under human foot print. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

From your link:
In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

 

[6days]

*Evolutionists claimed our eyes were poorly designed.. they said "sloppy design" was evidence of evolution.

who said this?

Richard Dawkins on our eyes said "Once again, send it back, it’s not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot."
He was wrong...

As ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said:“The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.”

Science never claims to have the final truth and will actually admit when it is wrong -

True....but evolutionism is a non falsifiable belief... it not science to claim that sloppy design is evidence of common descent and that optimal design is evidence of common descent. That is religion.

* Evolutionists claimed our appendix was "useless" as evidence of common ancestry.
who made this claim?

Do a search here in TOL and you could most likelyfind some examples .
I could google and find you books and articles from the late 1800's up to the present where people still call the appendix "useless", as evidence for evolution...Example:
http://www.livescience.com/11317-top-10-useless-limbs-vestigial-organs.html

In many popular biology textbooks, evolutionists point to vestigial organs and other biological structures that have supposedly lost function or no longer function as they once did—as proof of evolution. The concept of vestigial organs is based on evolutionary storytelling. There is nothing in science to suggest that any of these so-called evolutionary “remnants” are less than fully functional in their present form. At one time biology text books listed up to 180 parts as evolutionary leftovers. Virtually all of those 'biological remnants' are now known to have a function. Things such as 'junk DNA', the appendix and our tailbones all serve very important functions!
Humans did not evolve. We were created in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 1:27). Our sin brought death to this world, and the creation groans under the effects of sin to this day (Romans 8:20–22). But there is a remedy...our Creator, Jesus Christ

 

[Yorzhik]

You're right. I'm the one ignorant of science, even though I provided links explaining things clearly for you to view, which you didn't.

Yes, you're ignorant of science. I read the links and you should be ashamed to provide such horrid research.

Find me one dinosaur species that looks like that image. Not sort of like it. Not a combination of three of four dinosaurs. One dinosaur. Go

So you admit it isn't a rhino.

Also, you would agree the evidence says the Paluxy tracks are not carved... or did you not look at the evidence? did you look at only the evidence from one side?

 

[Yorzhik]

I think you just pegged the irony meter.
Take a look at the image in context.

Spoiler

Note the carvings above and below the one in question have stylized leaves behind the creature. What makes more sense, that the image is a stegosaurus (which it doesn't really look like anyway) or the "plates" are just stylized leaves. Also note the creature at the bottom which looks quite fanciful.

Here's an Article on the subject

He said it was a rhino. It isn't a rhino unless you wish hard enough.

And, yes, it isn't exactly like a stegosaurus, but it is evidence that tips in the favor of YEC you'd have to admit. So do you want to go through the list of all the reliefs and pictures of dino's and you can try to refute them one by one?

Have you looked at the evidence for the Paluxy tracks? or do you only look at one side like Kdall?

 

[CherubRam]

From your link:
In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

The bottom line is that they do not know for sure. I have seen moccasin prints before, and they sure do look like A PAIR of feet. It is extremely unlikely that they are not feet prints.