The Dinosaurs

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaGundam007
not tested, all thats been observed is that in fossillized remains there is a gradual change in body plans within those layered sediments. You can never TEST evolution, but you can see the gradual survival of the fittest happening.

Evolution as a theory most certianly can be tested. It makes certain predictions and statements and those can be verified or not. I don't see how you can say that you can see the 'gradual survival of the fittest happening' but then say that evolution can't be tested as a theory.




posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Nygdan,
Sorry to see you've abandoned our similar discussion in a different thread.

Please don't be intimidated by Nygdan's posts. While Nygdan is well informed about this particular topic, there is NO evidence supporting macroevolution. While the fossil record is all well and good, there are plenty of controversies, and in reality the fossil record is not evidence for anything other than rapid burial of animals. I haven't read all 6 pages of this post, but would enjoy joining the post at this particular point.

I would advise anyone interested in this post to please refer to the other thread I've cited in this post.

So.... what about evidence supporting the increase in genetic information absolutely required for macroevolution to take place; Where is this evidence?

My prediction: The evolutionists following this particular thread run immediately to the pro-evolution talkorigins site and paraphrase the synopsis there. I would imagine that most responses will come back quoting Dawkins. There will also be attempts to describe antibiotic resistance as macroevolution. Anyone who truly understands the nature of antibiotic resistance will avoid the topic, but I would imagine that there are those who would find it difficult to resist given my preface. There may also be some vague descriptions of insecticide or pesticide resistance as being
'evidence' of macroevolution. Nygdan and I have already also discussed the talkorigins definition of speciation and it's alleged 'proof' of macroevolution.

So.... let's have it.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Nygdan,
Sorry to see you've abandoned our similar discussion in a different

I'm responding to other threads off the cuff, the other one we are in I am trying to take the time to respond in detail. I haven't abandoned it


Please don't be intimidated by Nygdan's posts.

I'd be surprised if anyone was actually intimidated by anything I say.

While Nygdan is well informed about this particular topic, there is NO evidence supporting macroevolution. While the fossil record is all well and good, there are plenty of controversies, and in reality the fossil record is not evidence for anything other than rapid burial of animals. I haven't read all 6 pages of this post, but would enjoy joining the post at this particular point.


I would advise anyone interested in this post to please refer to the other thread I've cited in this post.

I agree, there's not much sense in either of us repeating the same thread here, between the two of us. However I do think it makes sense to respond to people not involved in that thread also. It would make sense for this forum to have an 'evolution' specific forum (atleast i think so anyways) and thus refer threads in other topics back to it tho.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

I haven't abandoned it

Glad to hear it.


Please don't be intimidated by Nygdan's posts.


I'd be surprised if anyone was actually intimidated by anything I say.
Nygdan, your wealth of knowledge re: this topic is vast and may in fact be intimidating to those who aren't as well versed in this topic. You have a strong background with this info, and as you've yourself admitted, an adversarial style that may bring people like me out of the woodwork, but may in fact force the less informed to simply lurk. Don't take offense; it's sort of a compliment for you.


While Nygdan is well informed about this particular topic, there is NO evidence supporting macroevolution. While the fossil record is all well and good, there are plenty of controversies, and in reality the fossil record is not evidence for anything other than rapid burial of animals. I haven't read all 6 pages of this post, but would enjoy joining the post at this particular point.


I would advise anyone interested in this post to please refer to the other thread I've cited in this post.


I agree, there's not much sense in either of us repeating the same thread here, between the two of us. However I do think it makes sense to respond to people not involved in that thread also. It would make sense for this forum to have an 'evolution' specific forum (atleast i think so anyways) and thus refer threads in other topics back to it tho.

I can agree with that. So what would you like to do. Personally, I'd like to move our discussion to here. I am 'saving myself' for Aeon in the other thread, however I would be more than happy to address our specifics here, including any that may need to be carried over from the other thread. Although, the title of this thread is 'The Dinosaurs,' Perhaps it is inappropriate for us to hijack this thread for our discussion which began in a previous thread. Nygdan, what do you think? Always a pleasure.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
well, some people are bogus stating they didnt no dino's existed a 1K years ago. the word Dinosaur wasnt invented till the 1800's, and they used "dragon's" instead. unless you dont belive in evolution, they were killed offf 65M years ago. so assuming u dont belive in evolution considering man has never seen a dino according to evo, they are mentioned in the Bible, and literally every civilization on earth. the King of Babylon reported in his documents raisning dragons to pull his chariots, dragons of the sea have been recorded in captains log books, in the 1700's US weather reports flocks of dragons moving different directions were reported, but the dragons werent important then, it was the fact they predeicted weather patterens thru "birds" flying in directions. and in the Bible, only 2 kind of dino was broight on the ark, prolly only babys. a dino is techinically a big lizrad type reptile, cause reptiles for the most part never stop greowing unlike humans. so when Noah got off the ark, and the world wide flood killed em all, the dino, along with mans life long living shortened down to only 80 years present day, which before hand they lived for about 900 years. imagine a 900 year old dino and a 80 year old on, they obviously dont get to big in just a few years, not not the thousand years old ones. (sorry, I was using human terms, but bare with me) look into the Congo area, its unmapped, (the swamp) adn supposively has dino's living it.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   


While the alien idea and the god idea can't be demonstrated, evolution can. It is a testable scientific idea. Its been tested, its been found to work.

This was said by someone else, not me.


Originally posted by ZetaGundam007
not tested, all thats been observed is that in fossillized remains there is a gradual change in body plans within those layered sediments. You can never TEST evolution, but you can see the gradual survival of the fittest happening.

Evolution can be observed in teh lab and the wild. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time and that is observed. Evolution could also be said to be speciation and that is observed in the lab and in the wild. While its true that one can't look at a 'primtive' fossil and an apparently more advanced fossil that, according to all evidence, have evolved from another and say that its a fact that they have evolved from one another, that limitation does not mean that evolution is not a fact.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
well, some people are bogus stating they didnt no dino's existed a 1K years ago. the word Dinosaur wasnt invented till the 1800's, and they used "dragon's" instead.

'Dragon' does not describe a dinosaur. It describes a big scaly creature to be sure, but not all dinosaurs are big nor scaly. Infact, the descriptions of dragons don't appear to conform to any dinoaurs.



they are mentioned in the Bible,

All that is mentioend in the bible is a large 'leviathan' or 'bohemoth', not a dinosaur.


and literally every civilization on earth. the King of Babylon reported in his documents raisning dragons to pull his chariots,

He also reports dealing with his babylonian gods and that they are the creators of the world. That hardly makes either true.


dragons of the sea have been recorded in captains log books,

That hardly means that they exist. And, notably, dinosaurs were not aquatic. So whatever these captains were noting they wouldn't've been dinosaurs.


in the 1700's US weather reports flocks of dragons moving different directions were reported, but the dragons werent important then,

Now you have moved into the realm of absurdity. You are actually contenting that dragons were flying in giant flocks across the american colonies(and you do realize that the US didn't come into existence until the very end of that century) not so long ago but that they've just died out completely and people just forgot about them entirely?



and in the Bible, only 2 kind of dino was broight on the ark, prolly only babys.


That is not what the bible says. it says that multiple representatives of every animal were taken, sometimes pairs sometimes more.



a dino is techinically a big lizrad type reptile,

A dinosaur is technically neither big, lizard like nor reptillian. There were smally dinosuars, there were dinosaurs that were nothing like lizards, and there were dinosaurs that had anatomy and physiology that is nothing like any reptile.


the world wide flood killed em all

What world wide flood? There is no evidence for a global flood


, the dino, along with mans life long living shortened down to only 80 years present day, which before hand they lived for about 900 years.

Actually its been noted in the 'why did people in the bible live so long' thread that these numbers probably refered to lunar months, and it ends up working out to some old but reasonable ages. Besides, why would people's lifespan be reduced to a tenth of what it was after the flood?


they obviously dont get to big in just a few years, not not the thousand years old ones.


Actually the only studies on sauropod growth rates that I am aware of demonstrate rather reasonably that they grew extremely rapidly when they were very young.


look into the Congo area, its unmapped, (the swamp) adn supposively has dino's living it.

The congo has been explored. There aren't populations of dinosuars running around in it, nor is there any reason to think that there is. Supposedly the natives talk about a weird animal called mokele mbembe or something like tht living there. If odd reports without anything hard to back it up are 'sufficient evidence' then, at least, a lot of other things would have to be held true.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
"quote: the world wide flood killed em all

What world wide flood? There is no evidence for a global flood "

oh geez... if their was a global flood, wouldnt like most of the earth be flooded? oh great scott, look, like over 70% of earth is water.

theyever actually foudn sea shells on peaks of mount everest, what does that tell ya? some of the dirt was under water at one time.
and the reason why people lived longer back in the day like 900 years was because after the flood, the water canapy broke open, which causes all that sun rays and gives ya cancer, and since the vapor canapy was over da earth the earth was at a constant temp all obver, a tropical setting all over the place (such as some other planet has the same canapy over it) which would allow thick vegetation to grow, allowing dino's to eat and stuff.
and maybe the king of Babylon did report the stuff about the gods, but almost every civilization includes dinos in their recordings, just look at Egypts walls paintings, and man and dino together fighting, and china, and every civilization. how could they no of Dinos if they were wiped out 65M years ago?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I just want to know where did different races (like, black people/white people/asian) come from if there was only a few peeps survived the great flood ?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
im just adding something to my last post...
iwas talking about the flood about the noahs ark*





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join