Aww.....did TOL's little pet troll get his feelings hurt?
Dinosaurs
- Thread starter Kdall
- Start date
Aww.....did TOL's little pet troll get his feelings hurt?
Holy cow you're thick. There were dinosaurs the size of chickens, idiot. And there were babies too. Do you think a full grown T-Rex just popped out of its mother? And I never said an intact dinosaur skeleton was inside of a mammal. I said "remains." Damn. You need help
CherubRam
New member
If there was such a thing as Evolution, then why is it not evident in prehistoric plants and animals today? http://list25.com/25-prehistoric-animals-that-are-alive-today/
Prehistoric plants alive today: https://www.google.com/search?q=pre...AYQ_AUoAWoVChMIpdrwq_LKxwIVBjKICh3TwwJ0&dpr=1
Prehistoric plants alive today: https://www.google.com/search?q=pre...AYQ_AUoAWoVChMIpdrwq_LKxwIVBjKICh3TwwJ0&dpr=1
I guess you didn't look at the evidence. Many tracks WERE carved, and others are the result of a large therapod dinosaur's middle toe imprinting deeper than the other two (as this is where most of their weight fell) and then natural and expected geological phenomena wearing away any trace of the other two toes, ultimately leaving what looks like an elongated human-ish footprint with no toes or any other defining features. Sorry if that's inconvenient. I know it is.
I believe it was the Barbarian who posted a view of the images that were on the top and bottom of the "stegosaurus" carving in question. All three images have the same leaves that you want to claim were plates. It's an open and shut case, but feel free to become enraged by it not being what you desperately wish it was, a dinosaur and not a rhino.
Let's assume you're right, and that my credible sources from esteemed organizations truly are just horrible. How about you post some of your own. But first, I'd like to guess where anything you post will come from.
1. Answers in Genesis
2. ICR
3. Any other site with a statement in the "About" section saying something along the lines of, "Genesis is real and literal, and we don't accept any evidence to the contrary."
Again, I'm terribly sorry that your delicate worldview cannot withstand the very obvious fact that dinosaurs and man never looked each other in the face, but that's really my problem, is it?
Anybody with any ability to put aside their desires and be objective can see after examining evidence and testimony from credible sources that those tracks are not human, and that stone carving is not a dinosaur. If you can't, then once more, it's not my problem
Last edited:
Oh look. Yet another person here who thinks that evolution requires all species to change their physical appearance no matter what. Shocker
GO PICK UP A SCIENCE BOOK. I'm tired of explaining simple concepts to you people that are easily found
Yes. That's what this thread is for.
That's retarded. The tracks would've had to come from a 12 foot tall man. Even without all of the other evidence showing them to be hoaxes or mistaken identity, that fact alone should disqualify them
CherubRam
New member
There is a sudden appearance of abundant life at the Cambrian layer, with thousands of plants and animals appearing. We see many of those life forms alive the same today. There are almost no life forms below the Cambrian layer, but earth boring life forms. Artistic drawings of what could have been does not count as scientific facts. Did you find your brain in a Cracker Jack box? No life, suddenly many life forms. Logic dictates that life on this planet did not evolve.
CherubRam
New member
Is that a fact, or your opinion?
It's a fact. That's part of the reason they were able to confirm that a dinosaur's middle toe was the actual culprit; the track was just too damn big. Look it up if you like
TracerBullet
New member
so you are saying that someone in a pair of moccasins stepped on a trilobite while taking a stroll on the ocean floor. :chuckle:
It all makes sense now....
BTW, many of these scams were actually debunked by YE creationists, from Loma Linda University. For the reason alluded to, above.
In 1970, the CRS asked Wilbert Rusch to visit the Paluxy River and find out once and for all if the prints were real or not. Rusch concluded that the best he could say was that Burdick's claim was "not proven". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 265) Rusch concluded that Burdick had rushed into printing a sensational story with little to back it up--"We need these episodes for our cause," Rusch reported, "like we need a hole in the head. Premature statements, too strong statements on insufficient evidence, do us as much harm." (cited in Numbers 1992, p. 265) Lammerts, meanwhile, wrote again to Morris, "The whole footprint business raises more problems for our side than for evolutionists. On the basis of a worldwide Flood what were people doing WALKING [emphasis Lammerts'] around yet after so much sediment deposited? Burdick has never answered this question [he still hasn't today-!-LF] nor has any of the footprint enthusiasts."
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/paluxy.htm
Honest creationists never use these stories any more.
In 1970, the CRS asked Wilbert Rusch to visit the Paluxy River and find out once and for all if the prints were real or not. Rusch concluded that the best he could say was that Burdick's claim was "not proven". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 265) Rusch concluded that Burdick had rushed into printing a sensational story with little to back it up--"We need these episodes for our cause," Rusch reported, "like we need a hole in the head. Premature statements, too strong statements on insufficient evidence, do us as much harm." (cited in Numbers 1992, p. 265) Lammerts, meanwhile, wrote again to Morris, "The whole footprint business raises more problems for our side than for evolutionists. On the basis of a worldwide Flood what were people doing WALKING [emphasis Lammerts'] around yet after so much sediment deposited? Burdick has never answered this question [he still hasn't today-!-LF] nor has any of the footprint enthusiasts."
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/paluxy.htm
Honest creationists never use these stories any more.
TracerBullet
New member
No, you are wrong. (as usual) What Dawkins actually said was: "Once again, send it back, it’s not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot. Or is it? If it were, the eye would be terrible at seeing, and it is not. It is actually very good."
is quote mining to produce a false statement part of your religion?
Wow..the 1800's
If you have to go back that far to find people saying the apendex is useless then you have demonstrated that you don't have a point
Wow, 6. I need you to address this misrepresentation of a quote. It's dishonest, deceitful, and shameful if you meant to do it.
6days
New member
Kdall said:
Yes Kdall....I may be thick. But even thick people can tell you call others names to try disguise your ignorance of science. As Yorzhik said to you, "*you have no interest in evidence, just propping up your religion of common descent."
REVIEW:
Post 21 Kdall "The fossil record shows no mammals larger than a weasel in the same geological strata as dinosaurs"
Post 56 6days*"BTW... there are no 30 pound weasels." (There are 30 pound mammals found with dinos in their tummy)
So, are you trying to convince us that weasels are as big as 30 pound chickens?
You would do well to take the 'advice' you gave to NickM "Your lack of knowledge on dinosaurs is somewhat more disturbing... If you do not know what you are talking about, it would suit you not to act like you do."
Well yes, there are weasel species that get that big. Your 30 pound mammal was about 1 meter long, the size of an otter. Perhaps you thought I was referring to the modern lesser weasel? I wasn't, but instead referring to the weasel family, Mustelidae, which includes otters, badgers, honey badgers, and wolverines. They more than have 30 lbs and a meter covered. So no, nothing I said was incorrect. And what is more, some dinosaur species weighed as little as 2 grams. Not pounds; grams.
Link to Mustelidae Wikipedia page here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustelidae
Unfortunately 6, it seems I was not as wrong as you were sure that I was. Good luck to both you and Yorzhik in your appeal to insanity.
Earlier I also used a cat as an example of Cretaceous mammalian size. Did you take note of how I did not use "housecat?" That wasn't a mistake, either. Modern wild cats, for example an ocelot, weight between 20-40 lbs. Does that seem like the right size? It does to me too. Now that I know how very specific I have to be in order to get my point across, I'll be sure to make a species reference next time I draw a comparison so as to avoid the confusion
Never studied, or perhaps even heard of, the Cambrian explosion I take it? Do a quick google for me
6days
New member
Dawkins is saying precisely what I told you. He says the design is that of an idiot... poor design. He then goes on to credit our vision inspite of the design 'flaws' to evutionary processes.
As I said...evolutionists think poor design is evidence of evolution...and they think good design is evidence of evolution.
BTW... Dawkins made the argument many times that our eyes were poorly designed...Example: "@Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain.*He would laugh*at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light.*Yet this is exactly what happens*in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect,wired in backwards, with its write sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called “blind spot”) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light , instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires,presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion*(actually probably not much*but, still, it is the principle of the thing*that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!).
Alate_One
Well-known member
Really a google image search?
Two problems.
1. The fact that some ancient species may survive into modern times doesn't refute evolution. What you need for that are organisms identical to advanced modern species that are fossilized before they could have possibly evolved. Whales, orchids, daisies in the cambrian, carboniferous or permian for example.
2. The "prehistoric plants and animals" are almost never identical to their fossil forms, indicating they . . .changed over time!
Spoiler
Ancient horsetails (Calamites) for example were tree sized. Their modern counterparts are generally waist high at best. Above image shows only a small fragment of a calamites fossil.