Dinosaurs/Dragons/Evolution/Humans

There has even been unfossilized T-rex bones (yeah actual freakin bones!) found, and it still had fleshy unmineralized organic matter within it.

What does this tell you?

This particular T-Rex wasnt dead for so long (consider the timeline scale).
It was alive recently enough to still find red blood cells. This means that T-Rex as it was 65 million years ago, hasnt changed, itsthe same bones from the same creature, skull intact, same creature, no transitioning evident, it wasnt just a big chicken.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Look up everything Im saying, these are all known things you can just google man. The internets been around for decades, and people act like they dont know how to search for things.
Like I have been doing for decades, ya know there is more than one way to get an education, but mainly, its alot of reading, not of just one source, but from all sources. The problem with investing too much into someone else handing you knowledge, is you fail to learn to be able to get it on your own.

There is more than enough evidence against macro evolution, its just not discussed by those who have faith in it.

In north-western Alaska. In 1961 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-metre-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bison bones. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbill dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs. Presently William A. Clemens and other scientists from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska are quarrying the bone bed

An initial announcement was printed in l985 in Geological Society of America abstract programs Vol.17, p.548. Already in press at that time was an article describing the site and the condition of the bones (Kyle L. Davies, ‘Duck-bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska’, Journal of Paleontology, Vol.61 No.1, pp.198-200

So in '61 they found a mass grave of many different dinosaur bones that were not fossilized all together. Plenty of other dinosaur fossils and footprints have been found in Alaska, these bones though remain a mystery.

You must face it, If Darwinism was true then we should have a hard time finding the same species fossilized twice, since everything was in a constant state of transition over billions of years. Instead, we find the same species fossilized over and over, variation of the same forms, and the huge gaps that defy any explanation, such as bird wing evolution, and evolution of whales, are missing.

reply to post by Climax

There has even been unfossilized T-rex bones (yeah actual freakin bones!) found, and it still had fleshy unmineralized organic matter within it.

What does this tell you?

Defintily not the same thing you are saying. What do you do get all your news from creationist sites?

Try geting the real story once in a while. Here I will help you.link


Funny thing is Mary Schweitzer the one who actually made the discovery and who is also a Christian is pissed off at the creationist groups for taking her work out of context and falsely making claims such as the one you are making. Not that you care obviously. If you are the one that's teaching your kid then yeah I do feel bad for him. Not like you want him to get to college anyway from what your saying.

For anyone interested in actually learning something about Dinosaurs and Science, I highly recommend the link member Grimpachi provided.
It's a 4 page article in Smithsonian, detailing the soft tissue discovery out of fossil T-Rex bone.
Other details are discussed such as the extreme similarity between the samples and Ostrich bones.

Starting on page 1 of a 4 page article, here's the link again:
Dinosaur Shocker - Smithsonian

Something of note even mentioned on page 1 of the article:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

The article goes into detail on Schweitzer's background, and some experience. Her approaches and methodologies are detailed.

We see the process of inquisition and logical path of inquiry followed in pursuing data to conclusions.

We've a fairly thorough telling of the process and findings in this article.

Should adherents to fringe opinion-based history choose to ignore any of this in favor of their opinion and faith-based ideologies, then, there's not much more can be said.

Climax, please get some access to some reputable science. (Facepalm)

reply to post by Grimpachi


Thanks for sharing, really.
I dont want to spread outright lies, thats not my intent.
No one is going to be right about everything, and learning is an ongoing proccess. Thats why Im here, and why I posted this.
Id be thankful if there is a counter to every specific issue I have other than, "nu-uh you're a retard, All fossils are transitioning".

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by Climax

 

The nature of Science is that it's constantly challenging its own paradigms.
If Science and paradigms didn't change, that would be worrisome.

Now there's a thought. This is a tacit admission that science is frequently, constantly, (choose your adverb) wrong. The thing is, a very large part the scientific community governs knowledge by consensus ... and as a result, no one is allowed to challenge their paradigm's flav-o-the-day.

AliceBleachWhite
If you're homeschooling your children with these attitudes, and these thoughts, I feel really sorry for them, but, if they manage to make it to University, University will then have to repair what you think you fixed. Suffice to say, they'll need suffer the disadvantage and embarrassment of getting laughed at for backwards home-schooling by someone more filled with opinion than academic training.

So ... attitudes and thoughts instilled by parents are bad? We can see that when attitudes and thoughts are absent in homes that a ghetto mentality develops. IOW conflict 'causes' development (survival of the fittest, maybe?), while toeing the line may really be nothing more than towing the line.
We can agree that some parents are going to fall into a deep trap with homeschooling. Others, OTOH, are certain to come out way ahead of their peers. I guess they'll have to be dumbed-down a bit so they fit into that round hole that is a university degree today.

AliceBleachWhite
They'll have to take REMEDIAL courses to repair the damage you do, and suffer the embarrassment of the necessity for having to take REMEDIAL courses. All these extra courses to catch up with what they already should know won't be free either, so, in addition to all the additional time they'll need spend to get on a level with their own peers, they'll also be spending more money. I'm sure they'll thank you for all the extra cost and debt. That is, of course, if they even go to University.

Notice that I haven't said you're wrong here. I know that one has to go along to get along (and I sent both of my kids to college for that reason ... and that reason alone). But, when going along is a decades long set-back for a sheople who's only good for 30 solid years of work. It will never cover the ground it could have. There should be a happy medium and academia owes us that first critical step forward. Too bad they're always too busy shoring up the walls surrounding their kingdom (so that we can't view the naked emperor).

AliceBleachWhite
No transitional fossils? We've more than adequate several examples of transitional fossils. Look at the Horse. Look at the Whale. As to birds, I recommend looking up a thing or two on Dinosaur feathers.

Give me a bit. I've just uncovered another scientific find they're referring to as Piltdown Man. Fascinating stuff!!

Here's something to consider about dinosaurs. When I was about ten I got to ask a question of a curator at the Simthsonian. I asked him why dinosaurs dragged their tails on the ground. He told me that my question was wrong-headed and that the scientific community probably didn't ascribe to that belief. At which point I pointed to the triceratops display behind him and showed him a stack of pictures where everyone believed they did just that. Of course the entire room erupted in laughter and my school was sent quantities of newspaper clippings about the boy who showed up the Smithsonian. The best that came out of it ... artist's conceptions of dinosaurs dragging their tails slowly disappeared from academic and reference materials.

I, OTOH, was disappointed that I didn't get to ask my follow-up question: Why does science always (and still does to this day) portray herds of reptiles roaming the plains and forests. This is atypical reptilian behavior ... but the pictures and displays (mommy and daddy triceratops watching over little baby triceratops ... just like elephants - ha!) are cool.

All people aren't dumb. All scientists aren't right. Some scientists get their degrees based on their abilities to perpetuate the myth.

Evolution can be easily observed just by observing something as simple as the common virus. As medicine combats the virus with antibiotics and the virus (in the case of bacterium) eventually evolves to combat the new defenses that an antibiotic provides.

Simple, easy to follow, evolution taking place this very minute.

I'd add that to say that every dinosaur evolved into a bird is ridiculous. Nobody is saying that, but if it fits your beliefs to think they are, go right ahead. Did SOME (a few) different dinosaurs evolve over time into something else? Could be. Did some dinosaurs simply evolve in that they became smaller? Could be. Did most of them die out? Absolutely. Could there have been some that died out over a longer period of time than others? Sure.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Creatures becoming resistant to harm is adaptation not macroevolution, it doesnt change their species. Same species of bacteria, just more better adapted.
This is also observable in humans, but you dont call smokers more evolved because they can breath toxins and enjoy it, rather than a non-smoker cannot without half hacking to death. Or Alcoholics, they are not evolved to the point of being able to drink a lethal amount of booze and still go to work the next day, IM talking about Congress people, these jackasses are not more evolved!

reply to post by Climax


A good majority of evolution involves a species adapting to it's surroundings over time. If you are sticking with the myopic "evolution is one species turning into another" view, you are missing most of what evolution is, and most of what Darwin theorized.

Given the number of transient fossils and other evidence out there why are we still discussing this?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Because if Darwinism was true then we should have a hard time finding the same species fossilized twice, since everything was in a constant state of transition over billions of years. Instead, we find the same species fossilized over and over, variation of the same forms, and the huge gaps that defy any explanation, such as bird wing evolution, and evolution of whales, are missing.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Darwin said that if his theory is true it will be proven by finding transition stages that show one creature turning into other creatures.
Saying that all fossils are in transition is flat wrong, and it sounds like the last excuse possible, all fossils of all the same species are the same, non show creatures half and half, and even creatures that seem very similar, when look at closely have many different features and would be incompatible with breeding with another species.
Hybrids tend to be sterile, and even so, how can something give birth to a seperate species that there would be no mate for to have offspring with? This is based off of random mutations, something the odds are astronomically against, so in order for lightning to strike more than once across entire species, over and over again, so that whole groups could evolve together, there would have to be something MORE than random happening.
Im still unsure where I stand spiritually, Im not pushing creationist agendas here, and lets be honest, when you really look alot into the refined theory of evolution, it looks more and more like someone would have had to organize it, so to me, Evolution is the renfined theory of Inteligent Design.

Climax
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Because if Darwinism was true then we should have a hard time finding the same species fossilized twice, since everything was in a constant state of transition over billions of years. Instead, we find the same species fossilized over and over, variation of the same forms, and the huge gaps that defy any explanation, such as bird wing evolution, and evolution of whales, are missing.

Evolution of Whales is missing?
What's this?




I strongly recommend, and enthusiastically encourage educating oneself on the topic under discussion as there are quite obvious remediations occurring due lack of information.

The horse is also very well documented:


Many sundry species are very well documented all the way back to the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event where we watch Therapsids adapt, diversify, and branch out as well as other species due the extreme bottleneck of such a significant extinction event.



Also, instead of balking at dinosaurs evolving into birds and making Argument from Incredulity, allow me to encourage some self directed education in doing some google searches for "Evolution of Birds", "Evolution of Bird Wing", as well as looking closely at keynote species in the fossil record.

Ignorance for lack of understanding due lack of adequate data to make an informed decision is one thing, and quite understandable. Willful rejection of an entire body of data in favor of an opinion bias crafted as an insulator to protect a religious faith is another.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Thank you for so superbly proving my point. Brilliant post, just brilliant.

reply to post by Climax


There is so much wrong with what you´re saying, I do not know where to start.

First of all, please do not homeschool your kids. The fact alone that you posses the arrogance to deny decades of research and make up your own (surely MUCH better) conclusions is warning enough.

Sure not everything is perfect in school, but what in life is perfect? It is LOTS better than being homeschooled by a conspiracy theorist.

Look at it this way, even if you´re right, why wouldn´t you want your kids to have a "normal" chance in life? How are they supposed to develop social skills? How are they supposed to make useful mistakes that they can learn from? How are they supposed to be some kind of normal?

Or in other words, how many homeschooling parents have you met so far and how many of them were "weird" in your eyes?

Please do not let your children suffer because of your own warped world view. And it doesn´t matter if you are right or wrong. Homeschooling is ALWAYS a bad choice. And it doesn´t really matter what they teach. Being part of a little community (class) witch little responsibilities matters, being forced to interact with classmates one doesn´t like maybe, THAT is what matters most.

I cannot stress this enough. I have known quite a few parents over the years who went on all kinds of crazy trips with their children (not medicating or vaccinating because of "evil pharma" being one of the worst ones), but restricting education or the school experience is certainly a very bad idea.

Sorry to be so honest, but having dragons in the thread title, talking about the "dinos to birds nonsense" and wanting to homeschool your kids. That doesn´t sound good at all.

Climax
You must face it, If Darwinism was true then we should have a hard time finding the same species fossilized twice, since everything was in a constant state of transition over billions of years. Instead, we find the same species fossilized over and over, variation of the same forms, and the huge gaps that defy any explanation, such as bird wing evolution, and evolution of whales, are missing.

Again, DO NOT HOMESCHOOL ANYONE!

This statement alone proofs that you heavily misinterpret simple scientific concepts even.

Evolution does not mean a constant state of transition at all, but let´s not get into this at this point.

I don´t know where to start. But I know that tone of voice of yours and I know that you won´t be persuaded by any form of argument.

But please do not feed that rubbish to young children who don´t know better. Let them make up their own mind first.

reply to post by Climax


Want human examples?

Tonsils, adenoids, and the appendix are all easy examples of human organs or body parts that, through evolution, we no longer need. We have not evolved enough for them to completely disappear, but they no longer serve any useful function in the human body.

I bet they did millions of years ago. So in this example, did we transition from one species to another? No, but we evolved nonetheless.