Dinosaurs

[Kdall]

Again. Irony meter.

If you actually compare them though . . .

The other carvings nearby don't look like any recognizable animals, yet you want to claim they're some kind of field guide to animals

Thank you for posting these images together. Hopefully now we can put to bed that ridiculous claim that it's a dinosaur and not a rhino

 

[Kdall]

The structure of mammal eyes works very very well for nocturnal vision. The early mammals were nocturnal (all the better to avoid the dinosaurs) the result is called the nocturnal bottleneck

Mollusk eyes also are excellent for night vision, yet they are designed in the "correct" fashion.

 

[Kdall]

The structure of mammal eyes were very well for whatever they were designed for.

I'm still curious to hear why, if our eyes are so perfect, our ears pick up sound faster than our eyes pick up light? Despite the obvious fact that light travels FAR faster than sound

 

[Kdall]

6days chuckles.....
As I said....
Evolutionists used "useless" appendix as evidence of evolution.
Now that we know its useful, I guess we can consider that as evidence for our Creator.

Except for Barbarian plainly showed you that Darwin said exactly the opposite of what you're claiming "evolutionists" have been saying for 200 years. So either you're lying or you didn't bother to read his post before replying to it, which demonstrates that you have no interest in the truth. Just an interest in your own dogma

 

[Kdall]

what is quote mining ?

Pulling a quote from somewhere and then either changing what it says slightly (see Stripe), or more commonly leaving off the back or front ends of a quote so that it is taken out of context

 

[OCTOBER23]

SATAN JUST GAVE MIND PICTURES OF PREHISTORIC DINOSAURS
INTO THE MINDS OF MEN WHO DREW WHAT THEY SAW WHEN THEY
WERE IN TRANCES.

Because he saw it all.

 

[TracerBullet]

what is quote mining ?

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.


In the above incident 6days quotemined Richard Dawking by only quoting the first part of Dawkin's statement.

 

[The Barbarian]

Except for Barbarian plainly showed you that Darwin said exactly the opposite of what you're claiming "evolutionists" have been saying for 200 years. So either you're lying or you didn't bother to read his post before replying to it, which demonstrates that you have no interest in the truth. Just an interest in your own dogma

To be fair, Darwin merely pointed out that vestigial organs are often not useless. In his time, biologists (most of whom were not evolutionists) thought that the appendix was useless. For all I know, Darwin agreed with the creationists on the appendix; he merely pointed out that "rudimentary" organs did not have to be useless. Over time, and in light of evolutionary theory, we found that the appendix had lost it's primary function, but not all of them. The creationists were wrong. The appendix retains some functions. Or possibly, it evolved a new one. Darwin predicted both of these would happen, and in various organs, his prediction has been verified.

I'm pretty sure that 6days is merely parroting something he read on some creationist website, and is completely nonplussed that they gave him the wrong story.

 

[Yorzhik]

I guess you didn't look at the evidence.

I looked at the evidence. It suggests the track was not carved. The mud was compressed exactly where it should have been making carving an impossibility. That you refuse to acknowledge reality is why it is only worth talking to you as an example of how someone that believes in common descent cannot accept reality.

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.

The tail is not a rhino tail. But reality can't be allowed into your worldview.

Let's assume you're right, and that my credible sources from esteemed organizations truly are just horrible.

It was only one of the links that was horrible. The others didn't address the issue at all. Of the link that addressed the issue, it was neither credible nor esteemed.

And to address what that link cited as the preservative factor; just how iron rich have the samples been? I know the answer, but I know you won't be able to allow reality into your view.

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."

Before I do that, you first cite where AiG or ICR say "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?

Real evidence shows that men and dinosaurs coexisted. But as a common descentist, you can't allow science to go where it leads.

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

I used to be a common descentist. But I put aside my desires and looked at the evidence objectively. The only honest conclusion is that the tracks are human, and the stone carving is not a rhino.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes. That's what this thread is for.

So let's first get done with the carving in question. You admit it is not a rhino, correct?, based on the tail.

 

[Yorzhik]

Again. Irony meter.

If you actually compare them though . . .

No irony. Why don't you post two pictures, one of the tail in the carving and one of a rhino tail?

The other carvings nearby don't look like any recognizable animals, yet you want to claim they're some kind of field guide to animals?

Again, even if it WAS a stegosaurus, which the carving is the ONLY evidence of one, which is incredibly weak evidence. Where are the modern bones?

Yes, it's weak evidence. But if the evidence meter were honest, it would tip ever so slightly in favor of the YEC position that dinos and man coexisted.

Evidence isn't of one side or another. It simply is.

Not according to Kdall. In Kdall's world, the evidence is weighed against whether it supports Kdall's view or not. If it doesn't, then the evidence doesn't exist. I'm the one that acknowledges common descentists have evidence in their favor. I just find the evidence is vastly greater in the YEC direction.

To test if you view of common descent is honest, just ask yourself what evidence the YEC's have in their favor. You can even cite the stone carving above.

I'm fairly sure I've posted about those tracks before. They're dinosaur tracks, unless you know of people with three toes.

And the ones that don't have toes are very large for humans and appear to be produced by erosion from the three toed versions.

source

[/quote]
The evidence says the Delk track is real. You'll admit the evidence, at least a little bit, falls to dino/man coexisting.

 

[Kdall]

No irony. Why don't you post two pictures, one of the tail in the carving and one of a rhino tail?


Yes, it's weak evidence. But if the evidence meter were honest, it would tip ever so slightly in favor of the YEC position that dinos and man coexisted.


Not according to Kdall. In Kdall's world, the evidence is weighed against whether it supports Kdall's view or not. If it doesn't, then the evidence doesn't exist. I'm the one that acknowledges common descentists have evidence in their favor. I just find the evidence is vastly greater in the YEC direction.

To test if you view of common descent is honest, just ask yourself what evidence the YEC's have in their favor. You can even cite the stone carving above.

The evidence says the Delk track is real. You'll admit the evidence, at least a little bit, falls to dino/man coexisting.

I can only waste so much time per day pointing out the obvious to people that don't want to accept it. The fact that it's a rhinoceros is fairly evident. The tail isn't 100% perfect, and that's likely because it is very hard to make a squiggly rhino tail in a stone carving with limited space to work with. Instead, a more generalized tail was inserted, and the artist did a decent job overall. At any rate, it's no dinosaur. As you've been shown again and again, the Paluxy tracks were fraudulent. You wanting them to be real won't ever make them so unfortunately. And even more unfortunately, no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. Anyway, you still have yet to present ANY evidence of dinosaurs coexisting with man. How about a cave painting? There are hundreds of those depicting all sorts of ice age mammals. Why none with dinosaurs? Curious indeed. But it's clear that you have a problem with science in general, not just biology or paleontology.

Answer me this: what level of education did you take your highest course in biology or perhaps paleontology?

Then, find me one non-creationist source that says that's a dinosaur in the stone carving

 

[Kdall]

Not according to Kdall. In Kdall's world, the evidence is weighed against whether it supports Kdall's view or not. If it doesn't, then the evidence doesn't exist.

You gotta go easy on my irony meter, man. It's taking a beating from you.

 

[The Barbarian]

So let's first get done with the carving in question. You admit it is not a rhino, correct?, based on the tail.

Looks like a rhino to me. A lot more like a rhino than like a dinosaur. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that much. I've been down to the Paluxy river and looked at the tracks. Dinosaur tracks. New ones are exposed every so often as the rock erodes. No human ones so far. As the link shows, even honest creationists now admit the truth; one of them asked how could any human be walking around in the middle of a great flood.

There's no point in denying what it is.

 

[TracerBullet]

Real evidence shows that men and dinosaurs coexisted.

The Flintstones is not a documentary

 

[TracerBullet]

The evidence says the Delk track is real. You'll admit the evidence, at least a little bit, falls to dino/man coexisting.

the trail is real. There are no human footprints though

 

[Alate_One]

No irony. Why don't you post two pictures, one of the tail in the carving and one of a rhino tail?

Well let's see. It doesn't have four spikes on it now does it? And while you're at it how about you tell me which dinosaurs are carved above and below the "stegosaur".

You do understand that people make drawings of fantastical creatures all the time, today and presumably thousands of years ago.

If you believed every drawing you should believe unicorns, bunyups and phoenixes existed too.

Yes, it's weak evidence. But if the evidence meter were honest, it would tip ever so slightly in favor of the YEC position that dinos and man coexisted.

If you think an ambiguous carving tips the scale "ever so slightly" in the YEC position, feathered dinosaurs and the sheer number of layers of rock showing long time periods should break the scale in favor of old earth and evolution.

To test if you view of common descent is honest, just ask yourself what evidence the YEC's have in their favor. You can even cite the stone carving above.

You seem to have some kind of idea that there SHOULD be evidence for YEC. Have you ever considered the fact that if you're wrong, every piece of "evidence" you're holding up is simply a misunderstanding?

I was once a YEC when I was younger and even then I struggled with the obvious inconsistencies of YEC. If every creature was once alive at the same time, why aren't they buried together in every possible combination?

If YEC were true you shouldn't have to find a handful of human/dinosaur tracks, you'd find dinosaurs and rhinos, elephants, deer, dimetrodon, giant arthropods, sabretooth cats, horses and everything else mixed together in a wonderful jumble.

But we don't find that. Instead there's a clear pattern, showing descent. And that pattern is confirmed by DNA, anatomy, biogeography, continental drift etc.

The evidence says the Delk track is real. You'll admit the evidence, at least a little bit, falls to dino/man coexisting.

You mean this ridiculous carving?

Really, that's what you want to hang your hat on?

:chuckle:

The level of ridiculousness . . . You accept something so obviously fake and reject the mountains of fossil evidence we have. It's actually quite sad.
Here's a discussion of the carvings

Maybe you should tell us which fossils you think are fake. :chuckle:

 

[Kdall]

If YEC were true you shouldn't have to find a handful of human/dinosaur tracks, you'd find dinosaurs and rhinos, elephants, deer, dimetrodon, giant arthropods, sabretooth cats, horses and everything else mixed together in a wonderful jumble.

Your boldened words above just reminded me of yet another point against YEC. The giant dragonflies, spiders, centipedes, and so on that existed in prehistory needed an atmosphere that was far far more oxygen heavy than it is today in order to reach those sizes and sustain themselves. Therefore, they couldn't have possibly lived alongside any modern animal at any point in history. They basically lived on an alien planet compared to what Earth is like now. In today's world, they'd suffocate instantly

 

[6days]

You do understand that people make drawings of fantastical creatures all the time, today and presumably thousands of years ago.

Sure... But there are enough cave drawings, sculptures and pottery to consider it as an evidence. Consider the Chinese zodiac as real animals... all except the 'dragon' (dinosaur)?

Also consider God's Word as an evidence...
Job 40:15 "Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16
What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!

17
Its tail sways like a cedar;

 

[6days]

Your boldened words above just reminded me of yet another point against YEC. The giant dragonflies, spiders, centipedes, and so on that existed in prehistory

Prehistory?
In the beginning, God created. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so....And there was evening and morning, the 6th day,

needed an atmosphere that was far far more oxygen heavy than it is today in order to reach those sizes and sustain themselves. Therefore, they couldn't have possibly lived alongside any modern animal at any point in history. They basically lived on an alien planet compared to what Earth is like now. In today's world, they'd suffocate instantly

Giant ferns, trees, and animals are consistent with God's World and the perfect creation.