# paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs



## Dalia

Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs, voilà...so i décide to create a thread 




 

I am new to this forum so i do the best i can and i don't speak English all the time.

There so much to say about this périod of time,  like bird are descending for the dinosaurs

 l'archæoptéryx


----------



## I amso IR

Hello Dalia, what is your position on recreating dino's from DNA. Me, I think we can do without them roaming about. I have read that they would be horrible household pets.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.


----------



## Iceweasel

I would like a brontosaurus burger someday.


----------



## Vastator

Earth no longer has the climate to support dinosaurs.


----------



## Dalia

Hello i amso IR, i would like to see them in real Yes a bit like jurassic park, i love dinosaurs so much...just to think about the way it has at that time..
Since my childhood i read and i collectionne, books, figurines, games i have a lot of thing that have to do with dinosaurs.

this game is my favorite i have it in Ottawa now i buy it in France because i can't play the nord américan version in France.
Evo - Search For Eden


----------



## Vastator

I remember that game! I'm surprised they haven't released an updated version for the newer consoles. Seems like a no brainer.


----------



## Dalia

For this game you just attack and eat the meat after, no challenge...the game is more hard near the end but the décor is very good for a old game ( super nintendo)
i have a lot of différent super nintendo games but this one is more Rare.


----------



## Dalia

IsaacNewton said:


> Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.



Hello, the oldest family is the Herrerasauridae, the first family of dinosaurs.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Time to join modern gaming Dalia.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Just a month ago:

Two paleontologists found the largest, nearly complete T. Rex skull


----------



## TheOldSchool

IsaacNewton said:


> Time to join modern gaming Dalia.


My uncle got to play that a couple weeks ago.  He said he almost pissed himself when the T-Rex showed up.


----------



## IsaacNewton

TheOldSchool said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to join modern gaming Dalia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My uncle got to play that a couple weeks ago.  He said he almost pissed himself when the T-Rex showed up.
Click to expand...


Yeah gaming is just about to the point of reality. Look at the detail.


----------



## TheOldSchool

The largest Dinosaur ever found was just announced 2 years ago:

Dreadnoughtus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dalia

Vidéo  MEGA-HUGE: The Biggest Dinosaurs Ever!


----------



## Dalia

TheOldSchool said:


> The largest Dinosaur ever found was just announced 2 years ago:
> 
> Dreadnoughtus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hello TheOldSchool, i think  the biggest and heavy Animal that ever live on this earth is : Bruhathkayosaurus



 

4 time long like a bus...



 

They could be so big and heavy because they were :

Poikilotherms (or "cool" or pœcilotherme) are animals with a body temperature that varies with that of their environment. By this characteristic, they differ and are opposed to warm-blooded animals which have a relatively stable internal temperature. They are not to be confused with heterotherms that are warm-blooded which usually steady body temperature varies in some cases (hibernating animals, infants whose body temperature is not stable yet, etc.)
Most cold-blooded organisms (that do not control their body temperature) are ectothermic (that is to say, their body heat comes from outside). However, there are special cases, and it is necessary to recall that ectothermic poikilothermic and are not synonymous.
This lack of control of the internal temperature prevents a "normal" activity during cold periods, but it is a much more economical characteristic energy homeotherms. Both have survived because they are characteristic of different lifestyles, even if we consider that homeothermy is an evolving character.


----------



## I amso IR

Dalia said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The largest Dinosaur ever found was just announced 2 years ago:
> 
> Dreadnoughtus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello TheOldSchool, i think  the biggest and heavy Animal that ever live on this earth is : Bruhathkayosaurus
> 
> View attachment 90900
> 
> 4 time long like a bus...
> 
> View attachment 90899
> 
> They could be so big and heavy because they were :
> 
> Poikilotherms (or "cool" or pœcilotherme) are animals with a body temperature that varies with that of their environment. By this characteristic, they differ and are opposed to warm-blooded animals which have a relatively stable internal temperature. They are not to be confused with heterotherms that are warm-blooded which usually steady body temperature varies in some cases (hibernating animals, infants whose body temperature is not stable yet, etc.)
> Most cold-blooded organisms (that do not control their body temperature) are ectothermic (that is to say, their body heat comes from outside). However, there are special cases, and it is necessary to recall that ectothermic poikilothermic and are not synonymous.
> This lack of control of the internal temperature prevents a "normal" activity during cold periods, but it is a much more economical characteristic energy homeotherms. Both have survived because they are characteristic of different lifestyles, even if we consider that homeothermy is an evolving character.
Click to expand...


Dalia, I am not at all certain where this is all headed, but please, feel free to continue. Kinda sounds like "Poikilotherms" might be associated with the human species with reference to the "time, location and situation". I mention this because when engaged in certain activities the human species can easily overheat, even when it is in a colder environment. Like wise in an oppressively hot situation a human can develop "cold feet', so to speak.


----------



## Dalia

Hello I amao IR,
Poikilothermic animals include types of vertebrate animals, specifically fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as a large number of invertebrate animals. The the naked mote- rat is the only mammal that is currently thought to be poikilothermic.


----------



## NCC1701

Dalia said:


> Hello I amao IR,
> Poikilothermic animals include types of vertebrate animals, specifically fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as a large number of invertebrate animals. The the naked mote- rat is the only mammal that is currently thought to be poikilothermic.



would you call birds and alligators modern dinosaurs?


----------



## Dalia

Yes...Crocodiles are, with the birds, the last representatives of sovereign reptiles.

Origin of crocodiles

Older archosaurs are Thécodontes that emerged in Upper Devonian and became extinct at the end of the Triassic. These are most likely the ones who served strain at all other levels.

Eryops is a prehistoric amphibian that lived in the marshes in the early Permian


----------



## Dalia

Researchers From Japan And Mongolia Unearth The World's Largest Dinosaur Footprint Ever -

Let’s talk about some absolute studs who lived on the planet 65 million years ago – dinosaurs. Researchers in Mongolia have unearthed what could be the world’s largest dinosaur footprint. And it’s the size of a full grown man.







tecake

According to researchers, the footprint belongs to a species named Titanosaur. This species was herbivorous and ate plants to gain energy, and was known to have a long neck – in fact, the longest neck among all the species that ever lived on Earth.



*The footprint is 106 centimetres (42 inches) long and 77 centimetres wide.*






clipartpanda

The researchers on the team are from Mongolia and Japan. Mongolia has a huge history of dinosaurs footprints, with many being found in the Mongolian desert before. However, this one is the biggest so far.

The fossil may belong to a period ranging from 90-70 million years ago.

“This is a very rare discovery as it’s a well-preserved fossil footprint that is more than a metre long with imprints of its claws,” said a statement issued by the Okayama University of Science.








dinosaurpictures

This particular fossil belonged to a Titanosaur that was 30 meters long and 20 meters tall.

Source: Bing News ले छापेको छ/


----------



## Dalia

T-Rex VS. Spinosaurus The Reason Why They Hated Each Other


----------



## Dalia

Hello, nobody like dinosaurs ?  Ok What your favorite dinosaur ?

I love the horned dinosaurs They were herbivorous 





New Horned Dinosaur Species Unearthed In Utah | The Huffington Post






New Horned Dinosaur Found: Fossils From 100M Years Ago in Utah Canyons


----------



## westwall

My favorite is Deinonychus, vicious little bastards!


----------



## westwall

I also like Coelophysis and was a part of a team that was able to identify a large fossil assemblage in the Morrison Formation in Utah as being these little buggers.  I found a intact cross section of a forearm that was able to positively identify them.  Here is the cross section and the critter for comparison.


----------



## Dalia

Thank you westwall, they wear aggressive the features of Deinonychus seemed to make the tail into a stiff counterbalance, but a fossil of the very closely related_ Velociraptor mongoliensis_


----------



## westwall

Dalia said:


> Thank you westwall, they wear aggressive the features of Deinonychus seemed to make the tail into a stiff counterbalance, but a fossil of the very closely related_ Velociraptor mongoliensis_







Yes, the two filled the same niche.


----------



## Dalia

I like Ankylosaurus...





Tyrannosaurus rex vs Ankylosaurus


----------



## Dalia

westwall said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you westwall, they wear aggressive the features of Deinonychus seemed to make the tail into a stiff counterbalance, but a fossil of the very closely related_ Velociraptor mongoliensis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the two filled the same niche.
Click to expand...


When two species that occupy the same niche eliminate some of the need to compete by diverging their niches they become able to exist simultaneously. Species can adapt to new niches by seeking out a different source of food or by altering their primary place of habitation. According to the Lotka-Volterra equation, competition within each species comes to predominate over competition between the two different species as their two niches diverge. There are many factors influencing how much niche differentiation is required in order to permit two species to coexist in overlapping niches. Some of them include how similar the two species are, how much variation there is within each species, what type of environment they are occupying and what type of resources they are competing for.


----------



## westwall

Dalia said:


> I like Ankylosaurus...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrannosaurus rex vs Ankylosaurus








I've always thought that Ankylosaurus was a bizarre creature.


----------



## westwall

Dalia said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you westwall, they wear aggressive the features of Deinonychus seemed to make the tail into a stiff counterbalance, but a fossil of the very closely related_ Velociraptor mongoliensis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the two filled the same niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When two species that occupy the same niche eliminate some of the need to compete by diverging their niches they become able to exist simultaneously. Species can adapt to new niches by seeking out a different source of food or by altering their primary place of habitation. According to the Lotka-Volterra equation, competition within each species comes to predominate over competition between the two different species as their two niches diverge. There are many factors influencing how much niche differentiation is required in order to permit two species to coexist in overlapping niches. Some of them include how similar the two species are, how much variation there is within each species, what type of environment they are occupying and what type of resources they are competing for.
Click to expand...






That is true, however these two were separated by a pretty good amount of land and ocean.


----------



## Dalia

westwall said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Ankylosaurus...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrannosaurus rex vs Ankylosaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that Ankylosaurus was a bizarre creature.
Click to expand...

A other bizarre creature _Troodon formosus



 _

With a relatively large brain for its small size, _Troodon formosus_ was probably one of the smartest dinosaurs. It may have been as intelligent as modern birds.


----------



## westwall

Dalia said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Ankylosaurus...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrannosaurus rex vs Ankylosaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that Ankylosaurus was a bizarre creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A other bizarre creature _Troodon formosus
> 
> View attachment 99671 _
> 
> With a relatively large brain for its small size, _Troodon formosus_ was probably one of the smartest dinosaurs. It may have been as intelligent as modern birds.
Click to expand...






I am not familiar with this critter.  Do they have any idea of the brain construction?


----------



## Dalia

Here an image of the possible evolution of Troodon towards a human form


They had large eyes pointing forward which allowed them to have a perception of the depths. They most likely had a night vision which meant they were still active at night and they certainly understood that it was simpler to hunt at night. They were of a very similar gauge, 2 m long and about 50 kg. They were masters in the art of ambushing. They were fast, agile and very efficient dinosaurs. They also had a very developed maternal instinct. They might have a body trimmed with feathers.
    <= Saurornithoides / Troodon =>








Sourece : terre- univers.be


----------



## westwall

Dalia said:


> Here an image of the possible evolution of Troodon towards a human form
> 
> 
> They had large eyes pointing forward which allowed them to have a perception of the depths. They most likely had a night vision which meant they were still active at night and they certainly understood that it was simpler to hunt at night. They were of a very similar gauge, 2 m long and about 50 kg. They were masters in the art of ambushing. They were fast, agile and very efficient dinosaurs. They also had a very developed maternal instinct. They might have a body trimmed with feathers.
> <= Saurornithoides / Troodon =>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sourece : terre- univers.be






Do they have a fossil that shows what the interior of the skull looked like?  You can get an idea of the construction of the brain from that, and that can give you an indication of possible intelligence.


----------



## Dalia

westwall said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Ankylosaurus...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrannosaurus rex vs Ankylosaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that Ankylosaurus was a bizarre creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A other bizarre creature _Troodon formosus
> 
> View attachment 99671 _
> 
> With a relatively large brain for its small size, _Troodon formosus_ was probably one of the smartest dinosaurs. It may have been as intelligent as modern birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not familiar with this critter.  Do they have any idea of the brain construction?
Click to expand...

_Troodon_ had some of the largest known brains of any dinosaur group, relative to their body mass (comparable to modern birds
Troodon - Wikipedia


----------



## Old Rocks

troodon skull - Google Search






Interesting


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

I amso IR said:


> Hello Dalia, what is your position on recreating dino's from DNA. Me, I think we can do without them roaming about. I have read that they would be horrible household pets.


DNA under the right conditions completely breaks down after 7 million years so we would never be able to bring back true dinosaurs. If birds are truly the ancestors of dinosaurs we could possibly manipulate their DNA in such a way to simulate them.


----------



## Dalia

-74 to -65 million years (end of the Cretaceous) Troodon live for 9 million years on earth !

VISION IN RELIEF

The eyes of Troodon,

Different from those of the

Most dinosaurs,

Were oriented towards the front

And not on the sides. This

Gave a relief

As in humans.

Thanks to this unusual faculty

For a dinosaur, he succeeded

To evolve the distance of the prey

Before jumping to kill her.





Legs slightly

                                                                               Folded in the egg



Troodon's EGGS were found at Egg Mountain in Montana, USA. Scientists have reconstructed this model of enbryon about to hatch with tiny bones present in an egg. Both parents kept their eggs in the nest, protecting them from their feathered legs.


Troodon probably possessed the largest brain, among all the dinosaurs, in proportion to his weight. But if he was perhaps quick-witted, his brain was no bigger than that of a bird-racer, a casoar, for example, and much smaller than that of an average mammal.


----------



## Dalia

"*Sue*" is the nickname given to *FMNH PR 2081*, which is the largest, most extensive and best preserved _Tyrannosaurus rex_ specimen ever found at over 90% recovered by bulk.[2] It has a length of 12.3 meters (40 ft), stands 3.66 m (12 ft) tall at the hips, and was estimated to have weighed around 6.4 to 10.2 metric tons when alive.[3][4] It was discovered in the summer of 1990, by Sue Hendrickson, a paleontologist, and was named after her. After ownership disputes were settled, the fossil was auctioned in October 1997, for US $7.6 million,[5][6] the highest amount ever paid for a dinosaurfossil,and is now a permanent feature at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Illinois






_A Tyrannosaurus rex painted by John Gurche. From the top of this reconstruction, decades of paleontological research contemplate ... © The Field Museum_

SUE the T. rex

A History of Dinosaur Hunting and Reconstruction


----------



## mamooth

First Dinosaur Tail Found Preserved in Amber
---
*To scientists' delight, the incredible appendage from 99 million years ago is covered in feathers.*
---


----------



## Dalia

Thank you mamooth  it is a great found the delicate feathers that cover the dinosaur tail stay preserved in amber to be discoved  researchers believe it belongs to a juvenile  
*coelurosaur*





 , part of a group of theropod dinosaurs that includes everything from 
*Tyrannosaurus*





  to modern birds.


----------



## esthermoon

I love dinosaurs!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Old Rocks

While not actually about dinosaurs themselves, this is the latest from the crater of the impact that killed them.


----------



## Dalia

Bonsoir, thank for the vidéos... there a vidéo about the first sauriens it is in french.


----------



## Dalia

esthermoon said:


> I love dinosaurs!


Bonsoir esthermoon, I love Dinosaur since i was a kid... this is great Monopoly board game to learn more about dinosaur


----------



## LuckyDuck

I amso IR said:


> Hello Dalia, what is your position on recreating dino's from DNA. Me, I think we can do without them roaming about. I have read that they would be horrible household pets.


DNA was unable to survive 65 million years.  The best they've been able to come up with is collagen from the T-Rex thigh bone.  There is some promise in reverse engineering birds (i.e., chickens) in the embryonic stage where they have activated long dormant genes to grow tails, talons and teeth.  However, they have yet to allow any to grow beyond the embryonic stage.  The religious nutcases would complain that we are playing god if we actually do create a so-called, chickenosaurus.


----------



## esthermoon

Dalia said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love dinosaurs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, I love Dinosaur since i was a kid... this is great Monopoly board game to learn more about dinosaur
Click to expand...

Bonsoir Dalia! 
That Monopoly rocks!


----------



## Dalia

esthermoon said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love dinosaurs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, I love Dinosaur since i was a kid... this is great Monopoly board game to learn more about dinosaur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> That Monopoly rocks!
Click to expand...

Bonsoir esthermoon, i like monopoly i have different version like the Simpsons also.
But i prefer Dinosaurs.





list of the Dinosaurs

The Dino Directory - Name A-Z - Natural History Museum


----------



## esthermoon

Dalia said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love dinosaurs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, I love Dinosaur since i was a kid... this is great Monopoly board game to learn more about dinosaur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> That Monopoly rocks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, i like monopoly i have different version like the Simpsons also.
> But i prefer Dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> list of the Dinosaurs
> 
> The Dino Directory - Name A-Z - Natural History Museum
Click to expand...

Bonsoir Dalia! 
I prefer dinosaurs too! 

p.s. this T rex picture is....


----------



## Dalia

esthermoon said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love dinosaurs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, I love Dinosaur since i was a kid... this is great Monopoly board game to learn more about dinosaur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> That Monopoly rocks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, i like monopoly i have different version like the Simpsons also.
> But i prefer Dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> list of the Dinosaurs
> 
> The Dino Directory - Name A-Z - Natural History Museum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> I prefer dinosaurs too!
> 
> p.s. this T rex picture is....
Click to expand...

Bonsoir esthermoon  pretty monstrous!

Tyrannosaurs got smart before they got big, and they got big quickly right at the end of the time of the dinosaurs





*This illustration shows T. euotica prowling around Central Asia about 90 million years. Back then, the Central Asian climate was less like a desert, and more forested with rivers and lakes.
Credit: Todd Marshall*

A horse-sized relative of the mighty _Tyrannosaurus rex_ may not have been big, but it had a surprisingly advanced brain, a new study finds. The newfound dianosaur species, _Timurlengia euotica_, lived in what is now present-day Uzbekistan during the Cretaceous, about 90 million years ago. An analysis of its braincase showed that it had extraordinary low-frequency hearing, which likely helped it hunt prey. It may not have been the size of _T. rex_, but _T. euotica_ provides evidence that tyrannosaurs' complex brains likely helped them become apex predators during the dinosaur age.

From Brains to Brawn: How T. Rex Became King of the Dinosaurs


----------



## Weatherman2020

Carved 1,000 AD.


----------



## yiostheoy

Dalia said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, the oldest family is the Herrerasauridae, the first family of dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Herrerasauridae - Wikipedia


----------



## yiostheoy

IsaacNewton said:


> Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.


amoebas -> invertebrates -> vertebrate worms -> boney fishes -> amphibians -> reptiles -> dinosaurs -> birds & crocodilians.


----------



## yiostheoy

Dalia said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The largest Dinosaur ever found was just announced 2 years ago:
> 
> Dreadnoughtus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello TheOldSchool, i think  the biggest and heavy Animal that ever live on this earth is : Bruhathkayosaurus
> 
> View attachment 90900
> 
> 4 time long like a bus...
> 
> View attachment 90899
> 
> They could be so big and heavy because they were :
> 
> Poikilotherms (or "cool" or pœcilotherme) are animals with a body temperature that varies with that of their environment. By this characteristic, they differ and are opposed to warm-blooded animals which have a relatively stable internal temperature. They are not to be confused with heterotherms that are warm-blooded which usually steady body temperature varies in some cases (hibernating animals, infants whose body temperature is not stable yet, etc.)
> Most cold-blooded organisms (that do not control their body temperature) are ectothermic (that is to say, their body heat comes from outside). However, there are special cases, and it is necessary to recall that ectothermic poikilothermic and are not synonymous.
> This lack of control of the internal temperature prevents a "normal" activity during cold periods, but it is a much more economical characteristic energy homeotherms. Both have survived because they are characteristic of different lifestyles, even if we consider that homeothermy is an evolving character.
Click to expand...

C. megalodon


----------



## yiostheoy

Dalia said:


> Here an image of the possible evolution of Troodon towards a human form
> 
> 
> They had large eyes pointing forward which allowed them to have a perception of the depths. They most likely had a night vision which meant they were still active at night and they certainly understood that it was simpler to hunt at night. They were of a very similar gauge, 2 m long and about 50 kg. They were masters in the art of ambushing. They were fast, agile and very efficient dinosaurs. They also had a very developed maternal instinct. They might have a body trimmed with feathers.
> <= Saurornithoides / Troodon =>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sourece : terre- univers.be


Humans and apes did not evolve from large reptiles.

They evolved from small weasel like mammals that survived the dinosaur extinction.

Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia


----------



## yiostheoy

Dinosaurs were a reptilian dead end because they had grown so large they depended on large amounts of vegetation for their food.

Small mammals on the other hand could scavenge on less.

When the big meteor hit and cause the nuclear winter, only the small burrowing mammals and other small animals could survive it.

These mammals evolved into monkeys, apes, and humans.

At some point God gave two of them a soul.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Coelacanth. Believed to have become extinct 65 million years ago. Tastes yummy.


----------



## yiostheoy

Penguins evolved from birds that gave up flight and returned to the sea.

Thus being birds they are relics of dinosaurs.

They are endangered and may go extinct like the dodo did.

Antarctica is melting away.


----------



## Vastator

yiostheoy said:


> Penguins evolved from birds that gave up flight and returned to the sea.
> 
> Thus being birds they are relics of dinosaurs.
> 
> They are endangered and may go extinct like the dodo did.
> 
> Antarctica is melting away.


Imagine the secrets that lay buried under her ice...


----------



## Weatherman2020

I took this in a Luthern church in Estonia. Painted in the 1500's the scene in Job talking about the Behemoth.


----------



## Dalia

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The largest Dinosaur ever found was just announced 2 years ago:
> 
> Dreadnoughtus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello TheOldSchool, i think  the biggest and heavy Animal that ever live on this earth is : Bruhathkayosaurus
> 
> View attachment 90900
> 
> 4 time long like a bus...
> 
> View attachment 90899
> 
> They could be so big and heavy because they were :
> 
> Poikilotherms (or "cool" or pœcilotherme) are animals with a body temperature that varies with that of their environment. By this characteristic, they differ and are opposed to warm-blooded animals which have a relatively stable internal temperature. They are not to be confused with heterotherms that are warm-blooded which usually steady body temperature varies in some cases (hibernating animals, infants whose body temperature is not stable yet, etc.)
> Most cold-blooded organisms (that do not control their body temperature) are ectothermic (that is to say, their body heat comes from outside). However, there are special cases, and it is necessary to recall that ectothermic poikilothermic and are not synonymous.
> This lack of control of the internal temperature prevents a "normal" activity during cold periods, but it is a much more economical characteristic energy homeotherms. Both have survived because they are characteristic of different lifestyles, even if we consider that homeothermy is an evolving character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C. megalodon
Click to expand...

Dinosaur.


----------



## Dalia

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here an image of the possible evolution of Troodon towards a human form
> 
> 
> They had large eyes pointing forward which allowed them to have a perception of the depths. They most likely had a night vision which meant they were still active at night and they certainly understood that it was simpler to hunt at night. They were of a very similar gauge, 2 m long and about 50 kg. They were masters in the art of ambushing. They were fast, agile and very efficient dinosaurs. They also had a very developed maternal instinct. They might have a body trimmed with feathers.
> <= Saurornithoides / Troodon =>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sourece : terre- univers.be
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and apes did not evolve from large reptiles.
> 
> They evolved from small weasel like mammals that survived the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Ben oui, well yes i know that my post was about the fact if the dinosaur have survive like Troodon.


----------



## esthermoon

Dalia said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love dinosaurs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, I love Dinosaur since i was a kid... this is great Monopoly board game to learn more about dinosaur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> That Monopoly rocks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, i like monopoly i have different version like the Simpsons also.
> But i prefer Dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> list of the Dinosaurs
> 
> The Dino Directory - Name A-Z - Natural History Museum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> I prefer dinosaurs too!
> 
> p.s. this T rex picture is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon  pretty monstrous!
> 
> Tyrannosaurs got smart before they got big, and they got big quickly right at the end of the time of the dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This illustration shows T. euotica prowling around Central Asia about 90 million years. Back then, the Central Asian climate was less like a desert, and more forested with rivers and lakes.
> Credit: Todd Marshall*
> 
> A horse-sized relative of the mighty _Tyrannosaurus rex_ may not have been big, but it had a surprisingly advanced brain, a new study finds. The newfound dianosaur species, _Timurlengia euotica_, lived in what is now present-day Uzbekistan during the Cretaceous, about 90 million years ago. An analysis of its braincase showed that it had extraordinary low-frequency hearing, which likely helped it hunt prey. It may not have been the size of _T. rex_, but _T. euotica_ provides evidence that tyrannosaurs' complex brains likely helped them become apex predators during the dinosaur age.
> 
> From Brains to Brawn: How T. Rex Became King of the Dinosaurs
Click to expand...

Hi Dalia! How are you? 
T rex is not my only "love". I like Stegosaurus too


----------



## Dalia

esthermoon said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, I love Dinosaur since i was a kid... this is great Monopoly board game to learn more about dinosaur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> That Monopoly rocks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, i like monopoly i have different version like the Simpsons also.
> But i prefer Dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> list of the Dinosaurs
> 
> The Dino Directory - Name A-Z - Natural History Museum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> I prefer dinosaurs too!
> 
> p.s. this T rex picture is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon  pretty monstrous!
> 
> Tyrannosaurs got smart before they got big, and they got big quickly right at the end of the time of the dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This illustration shows T. euotica prowling around Central Asia about 90 million years. Back then, the Central Asian climate was less like a desert, and more forested with rivers and lakes.
> Credit: Todd Marshall*
> 
> A horse-sized relative of the mighty _Tyrannosaurus rex_ may not have been big, but it had a surprisingly advanced brain, a new study finds. The newfound dianosaur species, _Timurlengia euotica_, lived in what is now present-day Uzbekistan during the Cretaceous, about 90 million years ago. An analysis of its braincase showed that it had extraordinary low-frequency hearing, which likely helped it hunt prey. It may not have been the size of _T. rex_, but _T. euotica_ provides evidence that tyrannosaurs' complex brains likely helped them become apex predators during the dinosaur age.
> 
> From Brains to Brawn: How T. Rex Became King of the Dinosaurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Dalia! How are you?
> T rex is not my only "love". I like Stegosaurus too
Click to expand...

Bonsoir esthermoon and the smallest dinosaur compare to the T-Rex 
Maniraptoran dinosaurs


----------



## yiostheoy

Dalia said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here an image of the possible evolution of Troodon towards a human form
> 
> 
> They had large eyes pointing forward which allowed them to have a perception of the depths. They most likely had a night vision which meant they were still active at night and they certainly understood that it was simpler to hunt at night. They were of a very similar gauge, 2 m long and about 50 kg. They were masters in the art of ambushing. They were fast, agile and very efficient dinosaurs. They also had a very developed maternal instinct. They might have a body trimmed with feathers.
> <= Saurornithoides / Troodon =>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sourece : terre- univers.be
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and apes did not evolve from large reptiles.
> 
> They evolved from small weasel like mammals that survived the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben oui, well yes i know that my post was about the fact if the dinosaur have survive like Troodon.
Click to expand...

Well birds and crocodiles have survived, and they were dinosaurs once long ago.


----------



## miketx

Dalia, a little known fact about the dinosaurs:


----------



## Dalia

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here an image of the possible evolution of Troodon towards a human form
> 
> 
> They had large eyes pointing forward which allowed them to have a perception of the depths. They most likely had a night vision which meant they were still active at night and they certainly understood that it was simpler to hunt at night. They were of a very similar gauge, 2 m long and about 50 kg. They were masters in the art of ambushing. They were fast, agile and very efficient dinosaurs. They also had a very developed maternal instinct. They might have a body trimmed with feathers.
> <= Saurornithoides / Troodon =>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sourece : terre- univers.be
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and apes did not evolve from large reptiles.
> 
> They evolved from small weasel like mammals that survived the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben oui, well yes i know that my post was about the fact if the dinosaur have survive like Troodon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well birds and crocodiles have survived, and they were dinosaurs once long ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, but my post was about the fact that if the dinosaur Troodon had survive he could look like some kind of humanoid


----------



## Dalia

miketx said:


> Dalia, a little known fact about the dinosaurs:


I love it thank...

The latest theory about dinosaurs suggests they may have lived mostly in the water, needing the buoyancy of aquatic life to support their huge frames. Here is a round up of other recent theories. 
*



*
Planet Dinosaur: Spinosaurus - the biggest predator ever to walk the Earth
that they died out from constipation due to changes in plant-life and that they never really existed, instead being a myth created by evolution theorists.
Or maybe they smoke to much plants* *


----------



## esthermoon

Dalia said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> That Monopoly rocks!
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, i like monopoly i have different version like the Simpsons also.
> But i prefer Dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> list of the Dinosaurs
> 
> The Dino Directory - Name A-Z - Natural History Museum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> I prefer dinosaurs too!
> 
> p.s. this T rex picture is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon  pretty monstrous!
> 
> Tyrannosaurs got smart before they got big, and they got big quickly right at the end of the time of the dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This illustration shows T. euotica prowling around Central Asia about 90 million years. Back then, the Central Asian climate was less like a desert, and more forested with rivers and lakes.
> Credit: Todd Marshall*
> 
> A horse-sized relative of the mighty _Tyrannosaurus rex_ may not have been big, but it had a surprisingly advanced brain, a new study finds. The newfound dianosaur species, _Timurlengia euotica_, lived in what is now present-day Uzbekistan during the Cretaceous, about 90 million years ago. An analysis of its braincase showed that it had extraordinary low-frequency hearing, which likely helped it hunt prey. It may not have been the size of _T. rex_, but _T. euotica_ provides evidence that tyrannosaurs' complex brains likely helped them become apex predators during the dinosaur age.
> 
> From Brains to Brawn: How T. Rex Became King of the Dinosaurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Dalia! How are you?
> T rex is not my only "love". I like Stegosaurus too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon and the smallest dinosaur compare to the T-Rex
> Maniraptoran dinosaurs
Click to expand...

Hi Dalia! How you doing?


----------



## Dalia

esthermoon said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon, i like monopoly i have different version like the Simpsons also.
> But i prefer Dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> list of the Dinosaurs
> 
> The Dino Directory - Name A-Z - Natural History Museum
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> I prefer dinosaurs too!
> 
> p.s. this T rex picture is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon  pretty monstrous!
> 
> Tyrannosaurs got smart before they got big, and they got big quickly right at the end of the time of the dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This illustration shows T. euotica prowling around Central Asia about 90 million years. Back then, the Central Asian climate was less like a desert, and more forested with rivers and lakes.
> Credit: Todd Marshall*
> 
> A horse-sized relative of the mighty _Tyrannosaurus rex_ may not have been big, but it had a surprisingly advanced brain, a new study finds. The newfound dianosaur species, _Timurlengia euotica_, lived in what is now present-day Uzbekistan during the Cretaceous, about 90 million years ago. An analysis of its braincase showed that it had extraordinary low-frequency hearing, which likely helped it hunt prey. It may not have been the size of _T. rex_, but _T. euotica_ provides evidence that tyrannosaurs' complex brains likely helped them become apex predators during the dinosaur age.
> 
> From Brains to Brawn: How T. Rex Became King of the Dinosaurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Dalia! How are you?
> T rex is not my only "love". I like Stegosaurus too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon and the smallest dinosaur compare to the T-Rex
> Maniraptoran dinosaurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Dalia! How you doing?
Click to expand...

Hi i am doing well, thank you ! and you ?


----------



## esthermoon

Dalia said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir Dalia!
> I prefer dinosaurs too!
> 
> p.s. this T rex picture is....
> 
> 
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon  pretty monstrous!
> 
> Tyrannosaurs got smart before they got big, and they got big quickly right at the end of the time of the dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This illustration shows T. euotica prowling around Central Asia about 90 million years. Back then, the Central Asian climate was less like a desert, and more forested with rivers and lakes.
> Credit: Todd Marshall*
> 
> A horse-sized relative of the mighty _Tyrannosaurus rex_ may not have been big, but it had a surprisingly advanced brain, a new study finds. The newfound dianosaur species, _Timurlengia euotica_, lived in what is now present-day Uzbekistan during the Cretaceous, about 90 million years ago. An analysis of its braincase showed that it had extraordinary low-frequency hearing, which likely helped it hunt prey. It may not have been the size of _T. rex_, but _T. euotica_ provides evidence that tyrannosaurs' complex brains likely helped them become apex predators during the dinosaur age.
> 
> From Brains to Brawn: How T. Rex Became King of the Dinosaurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Dalia! How are you?
> T rex is not my only "love". I like Stegosaurus too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonsoir esthermoon and the smallest dinosaur compare to the T-Rex
> Maniraptoran dinosaurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Dalia! How you doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi i am doing well, thank you ! and you ?
Click to expand...

I'm ok Dalia thanks!


----------



## Dalia

Dinosaurs Might Not Be Extinct Had the Asteroid Struck Elsewhere.





Had the asteroid that hit Earth 66 million years ago struck nearly anywhere else, some dinosaurs — and perhaps other species like this flying reptile — might have survived, according to a new study. Credit Mark Garlick, via Science Source .

Dinosaurs reigned supreme for more than 160 million years. Their dynasty came to a cataclysmic close 66 million years ago when an asteroid crashed into the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico at a site now known as the Chicxulub crater, paving the way for mammals — and eventually humans — to inherit the Earth.

But had the extraterrestrial impact happened nearly anywhere else, like in the ocean or in the middle of most continents, some scientists now say it is possible dinosaurs could have survived annihilation. Only 13 percent of the Earth’s surface harbored the ingredients necessary to turn the cosmic collision into this specific mass extinction event, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports.

“I think dinosaurs could still be alive today,” if the asteroid had landed elsewhere, Kunio Kaiho, a paleontologist from Tohoku University in Japan and lead author on the study, said in an email.

Other researchers questioned their findings.

When the asteroid, which had a diameter about half the length of Manhattan, struck the coast of Mexico, it found a rich source of sulfur and hydrocarbons, or organic deposits like fossil fuels, according to the researchers. Scorching hot temperatures at the impact crater would have ignited the fuel. The combustion would have spewed soot and sulfur into the stratosphere in sufficient quantities to blot out the sun and change the climate, setting into motion the collapse of entire ecosystems and the extinction of three-quarters of all species on Earth.

Photo




A shaded relief image from NASA of the Yucatán Peninsula, showing the Chicxulub impact crater at upper left. Credit NASA/JPL
The Chicxulub impact spewed an extraordinary amount of black carbon, or soot, from the rocks, the researchers said. That in turn launched nearly 60 Hoover Dams worth of soot into the upper atmosphere, cooling the Earth’s surface by as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit, they said.

Not every place on the planet has the same amount of fossil fuel reserves and sulfur trapped beneath its surface. Locations with less hydrocarbons would have jetted less soot into the sky upon impact and created a smaller cooling effect around the globe. So Dr. Kaiho set out to determine the mass extinction hot spots in the Mesozoic real estate market
He created a map of what the world looked like 66 million years ago and used present day measurements of sedimentary rocks and organic compounds to estimate the global distribution of hydrocarbons during that time.

Dr. Kaiho’s co-author Naga Oshima, a senior researcher at the Meteorological Research Institute in Japan, created a model that simulated asteroid impacts that ejected varying amounts of trapped soot from rock. Only areas with the highest amounts of hydrocarbons released enough soot into the stratosphere to cool the climate to catastrophic levels.

Eighty-seven percent of Earth’s surface, places like most of present day India, China, the Amazon and Africa, would not have had high enough concentrations of hydrocarbons to seal the dinosaurs’ fate. But if the asteroid had hit marine coastal areas thriving with algae, which would have included present day Siberia, the Middle East and the eastern coast of North America, the bang would have been about as devastating to the dinosaurs and life on Earth as the Chicxulub impact.

Dinosaurs Might Not Be Extinct Had the Asteroid Struck Elsewhere

Site of asteroid impact changed the history of life on Earth: the low probability of mass extinction


----------



## Muldoon

I'm new here and I love dinosaurs! I was hoping this thread could get started, again?


----------



## miketx

I don't think we really have a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like. But there must have been a shit load of them to give us all the oil we have.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

miketx said:


> I don't think we really have a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like. But there must have been a shit load of them to give us all the oil we have.



I think the emoticon means you are spoofing us, eh?


----------



## Muldoon

miketx said:


> I don't think we really have a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like. But there must have been a shit load of them to give us all the oil we have.


Sure we do! If it looks like a bird and acts like a bird ... then, it must be a dinosaur.


----------



## miketx

ChesBayJJ said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we really have a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like. But there must have been a shit load of them to give us all the oil we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the emoticon means you are spoofing us, eh?
Click to expand...

No, it means I got a drop of preparation H in my eye.


----------



## miketx

Muldoon said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we really have a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like. But there must have been a shit load of them to give us all the oil we have.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we do! If it looks like a bird and acts like a bird ... then, it must be a dinosaur.
Click to expand...

But we still don't know what they really looked like. Unless we can find some videos somewhere...


----------



## Muldoon

No videos, but plenty of oil, like you say! And my car needs it. We do know what the tail of what one dinosaur looked like, though, because it was trapped in amber. The rest of the dinosaur was probably encased in it, too. Where that piece is who knows ...


----------



## ChesBayJJ

miketx said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we really have a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like. But there must have been a shit load of them to give us all the oil we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the emoticon means you are spoofing us, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it means I got a drop of preparation H in my eye.
Click to expand...


Don't be sticking your finger in  your eye after sticking it in  your ass.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

*How Was Oil Formed?*

The beginning of crude oil formation happend millions of years ago. Oil is a fossil fuel that has been formed from a large amount tiny plants and animals such as algae and zooplankton. These organisms fall to the bottom of the sea once they die and over time, get trapped under multiple layers of sand and mud.

How Was Oil Formed?


----------



## Weatherman2020

miketx said:


> I don't think we really have a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like. But there must have been a shit load of them to give us all the oil we have.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

And lets not forget


----------



## Dalia

Hello, new Discovery….New three-foot-tall relative of Tyrannosaurus rex* Suskityrannus hazelae*






A new relative of the _Tyrannosaurus rex_—much smaller than the huge, ferocious dinonsaur made famous in countless books and films, including, yes, "Jurassic Park—has been discovered and named by a Virginia Tech paleontologist and an international team of scientists. 

You could read more about it in the link 

New three-foot-tall relative of Tyrannosaurus rex


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## progressive hunter

Dalia said:


> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs, voilà...so i décide to create a thread View attachment 90804
> 
> View attachment 90806
> 
> I am new to this forum so i do the best i can and i don't speak English all the time.
> 
> There so much to say about this périod of time,  like bird are descending for the dinosaurs
> 
> l'archæoptéryx
> 
> View attachment 90805




you do know there is no proof birds descended from dino's???


----------



## Dalia

progressive hunter said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs, voilà...so i décide to create a thread View attachment 90804
> 
> View attachment 90806
> 
> I am new to this forum so i do the best i can and i don't speak English all the time.
> 
> There so much to say about this périod of time,  like bird are descending for the dinosaurs
> 
> l'archæoptéryx
> 
> View attachment 90805
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do know there is no proof birds descended from dino's???
Click to expand...

I know yes, 
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest _PNAS _research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.

"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?


----------



## Dalia

progressive hunter said:


>


Interesting, some discover seem to go that way


----------



## progressive hunter

Dalia said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs, voilà...so i décide to create a thread View attachment 90804
> 
> View attachment 90806
> 
> I am new to this forum so i do the best i can and i don't speak English all the time.
> 
> There so much to say about this périod of time,  like bird are descending for the dinosaurs
> 
> l'archæoptéryx
> 
> View attachment 90805
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do know there is no proof birds descended from dino's???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know yes,
> "We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
> 
> Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest _PNAS _research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
> 
> "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
> 
> Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
Click to expand...


did you know that common ancestor they talk about is a rock???

sorry there is more evidence that evolution is not just a myth but a flat out lie,,,


open your mind and look for real facts and not this imaginary world evolution is pushing,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Dalia said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, some discover seem to go that way
Click to expand...

SOME???

well if you look at evolution there is nothing compared to the real facts we find,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, some discover seem to go that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SOME???
> 
> well if you look at evolution there is nothing compared to the real facts we find,,
Click to expand...


When you use the term "we", you mean facts that are found by ID'iot creationist quacks, right?


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs, voilà...so i décide to create a thread View attachment 90804
> 
> View attachment 90806
> 
> I am new to this forum so i do the best i can and i don't speak English all the time.
> 
> There so much to say about this périod of time,  like bird are descending for the dinosaurs
> 
> l'archæoptéryx
> 
> View attachment 90805
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do know there is no proof birds descended from dino's???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know yes,
> "We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
> 
> Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest _PNAS _research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
> 
> "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
> 
> Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you know that common ancestor they talk about is a rock???
> 
> sorry there is more evidence that evolution is not just a myth but a flat out lie,,,
> 
> 
> open your mind and look for real facts and not this imaginary world evolution is pushing,,,
Click to expand...


You know that Carl Baugh is an ID'iot creationist quack, right?


----------



## james bond

I ♥ Jurassic Park and Jurassic World.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Bird species goes extinct...another species like it evolves in its place later:

Extinct species of bird came back from the dead, scientists find - CNN

(CNN)A previously extinct species of bird returned from the dead, reclaiming the island it previously lived on and re-evolving itself back into existence, scientists have said.


----------



## toobfreak

IsaacNewton said:


> Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.




I too have a fondness for dinosaurs.  The dinosaur basically originally sprung from the Diapsid reptile of about 300 million years ago in the Permian Period. Then came the P-T extinction event about 250 million years ago that ended fish as being the dominant world species and heralded in the age of amphibians.  Out of that sprung the Mesozoic Marine Revolution where ichthyosaurs appeared and therapsids and diapsids diversify greatly.  Diversity exploded.  Finally by about 225 million years ago, due to climate and conditions the first true dinosaurs appeared amid the Middle Triassic.  They grew so large basically because they had to.  Plant food quality was so poor, they had to eat large quantities just to get nourishment and reach food sources.  The rest is history.


----------



## james bond

Muldoon said:


> No videos, but plenty of oil, like you say! And my car needs it. We do know what the tail of what one dinosaur looked like, though, because it was trapped in amber. The rest of the dinosaur was probably encased in it, too. Where that piece is who knows ...



That's likely the tail of a modern bird.  The amber findings included fossilized resins containing remains of modern-looking birds, reptiles, fish, clams, plants, and mammals.  They were found in strata near or below dinosaur fossils.


----------



## deanrd

Vastator said:


> Earth no longer has the climate to support dinosaurs.


 I suspect that since dinosaurs lived all over the earth, even in the Arctic, today’s climate would do just fine for many species.


----------



## deanrd

I heard someone say one time that God put bones in the ground to show people what animals on other planets look like.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Great topic, Dalia. Thanks!



Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs, voilà...so i décide to create a thread View attachment 90804
> 
> View attachment 90806
> 
> I am new to this forum so i do the best i can and i don't speak English all the time.
> 
> There so much to say about this périod of time,  like bird are descending for the dinosaurs
> 
> l'archæoptéryx
> 
> View attachment 90805
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do know there is no proof birds descended from dino's???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know yes,
> "We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
> 
> Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest _PNAS _research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
> 
> "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
> 
> Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you know that common ancestor they talk about is a rock???
> 
> sorry there is more evidence that evolution is not just a myth but a flat out lie,,,
> 
> 
> open your mind and look for real facts and not this imaginary world evolution is pushing,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that Carl Baugh is an ID'iot creationist quack, right?
Click to expand...

Did you know that ID'iot creationists literally quack?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Archeologists have found Ruth Ginsberg's foot prints next to Brontosaurus tracks.
It appears that she was stalking it.

*


----------



## james bond

deanrd said:


> I heard someone say one time that God put bones in the ground to show people what animals on other planets look like.



Which verse is that?


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bird species goes extinct...another species like it evolves in its place later:
> 
> Extinct species of bird came back from the dead, scientists find - CNN
> 
> (CNN)A previously extinct species of bird returned from the dead, reclaiming the island it previously lived on and re-evolving itself back into existence, scientists have said.




now thats funny,,,

maybe they werent extinct after all...


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bird species goes extinct...another species like it evolves in its place later:
> 
> Extinct species of bird came back from the dead, scientists find - CNN
> 
> (CNN)A previously extinct species of bird returned from the dead, reclaiming the island it previously lived on and re-evolving itself back into existence, scientists have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now thats funny,,,
> 
> maybe they werent extinct after all...
Click to expand...


They were at the end of the line getting off the Ark.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> That's likely the tail of a modern bird.


Nope. We can tell from the vertebrae that it is not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard someone say one time that God put bones in the ground to show people what animals on other planets look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which verse is that?
Click to expand...

Sounds like something that conman Ken Ham would dream up..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> maybe they werent extinct after all...



I wonder if the scientists thought of that!?!?


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe they werent extinct after all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the scientists thought of that!?!?
Click to expand...



I doubt it,,,they think things just magically came to life from a rock,,,

on the other hand I dont know if they have explored every corner on the planet to make sure they were extinct first,,,thats a lot of man power but when the government is flipping the bill who knows what they can accomplish,,


----------



## Vastator

deanrd said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth no longer has the climate to support dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that since dinosaurs lived all over the earth, even in the Arctic, today’s climate would do just fine for many species.
Click to expand...

The landmasses that currently occupy the latitudes that we today call the “Arctic” were in a different location millions of years ago...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely the tail of a modern bird.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. We can tell from the vertebrae that it is not.
Click to expand...


It was a piece in amber.  The big deal is birds are the only animals with feathers, so now the paleontologists are trying to put feathers on dinosaurs in order to show that birds descended from dinosaurs.  It's starting to turn out like Piltdown Man and the other fakes as we are seeing the fakes with dino birds such as archaeopteryx.

Top 10 Dinosaurs That Aren't What They Were


----------



## james bond

These do not even look like dinosaurs.  The so-called "feather" evidence on the fossils and in amber are  probably remains of modern birds or fibers of dead leathery skin.  It is another case of the facts made to fit the theory.

They Had Feathers: Is the World Ready to See Dinosaurs as They Really Were?


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> These do not even look like dinosaurs.  The so-called "feather" evidence on the fossils and in amber are  probably remains of modern birds or fibers of dead leathery skin.  It is another case of the facts made to fit the theory.
> 
> They Had Feathers: Is the World Ready to See Dinosaurs as They Really Were?



The real story
The origin of birds


----------



## ChesBayJJ

DNA points to reptilian ancestry of birds


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The big deal is birds are the only animals with feathers, so now the paleontologists are trying to put feathers on dinosaurs in order to show that birds descended from dinosaurs


Hilarious nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are kist making stuff up.


----------



## Flopper

Dalia said:


> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs, voilà...so i décide to create a thread View attachment 90804
> 
> View attachment 90806
> 
> I am new to this forum so i do the best i can and i don't speak English all the time.
> 
> There so much to say about this périod of time,  like bird are descending for the dinosaurs
> 
> l'archæoptéryx
> 
> View attachment 90805


Has anyone started claiming they are a figment of Spielberg's imagination?


----------



## Grumblenuts

The highlighted bits (not the first one - that's just a link) are so dumb:


> Often called “the first bird”, Archaeopteryx is one of those creatures you could find in any book on dinosaurs or evolution. Often considered to be a sort of “missing link” between reptiles and birds, Archaeopteryx has been used as a mascot by both scientists trying to prove evolution, and creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird).
> 
> However, the fossil evidence shows that both scientists and creationists were wrong. As more and more feathered dinosaurs are found in China, some of them even more similar to birds than Archaeopteryx, it becomes obvious that this creature was not the missing link, and was not a bird either, but one hundred per cent dinosaur.


paleontology - the branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants. Notice - scientists - with no concern for evolution required whatsoever. Actually, I've yet to run across a scientist "trying to prove evolution." If you find any please slap them silly for me. Like AGW, and starkly unlike ID'iotism or creationism, evolution sets the standard for scientifically established fact. Sure, one can always scrape together some self-deluded wack jobs along with a bunch of shameless corporate hacks and deniers, but they all, always, son of a gun, wind up relying on science! in their ridiculous attempts to "disprove" science!

See, truth is, you start with a theory. If/when you find it flawed, you amend your theory. All is science! None is "wrong." Science itself is just a process. One designed to evolve. Scientific fact is established by achieving overwhelming consensus. Not "right" or "wrong" - established scientific fact.

"creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> The real story
> The origin of birds



That's not the real story, but the fake one.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.



The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big deal is birds are the only animals with feathers, so now the paleontologists are trying to put feathers on dinosaurs in order to show that birds descended from dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are kist making stuff up.
Click to expand...


I already explained.  They're not remnants of feathers, but fibers from their leathery hides.  Of course, they have to be feathers in order to fit the made up evolution of birds from dinosaurs.


----------



## WheelieAddict

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
Click to expand...

Origin of birds - Wikipedia


----------



## james bond

WheelieAddict said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Origin of birds - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Explain in your own words.  You can't even rebut my comment.  That's no answer because anyone can change it and wikipedia is biased.


----------



## WheelieAddict

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
Click to expand...

They didn't "descend" from dinosaurs, they are an evolutionary path different from other dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were on the Earth for millions of years, why would you think they all are supposed to evolve the same way?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
Click to expand...

In reality, the "it" in "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)" was referring to "evolution."  Creationists idiotically trying to "disprove" evolution, i.e. the entire theory of biological evolution. If one could indeed scientifically "show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs" that would simply mean the evolution of birds differs from the established scientific consensus.. regarding the evolution of birds!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Origin of birds - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain in your own words.  You can't even rebut my comment.  That's no answer because anyone can change it and wikipedia is biased.
Click to expand...


As is typical, the ID'iot creationists feel threatened by fossil / transitional species because that evidence displays immense time spans vs. the ID'iot creationist 6,000 year old earth.

CC214.1:  Archaeopteryx as a Transitional Bird


----------



## james bond

WheelieAddict said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't "descend" from dinosaurs, they are an evolutionary path different from other dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were on the Earth for millions of years, why would you think they all are supposed to evolve the same way?
Click to expand...


What did they "descend" from then?  What is the evolutionary path different from "other" dinosaurs?  For that matter, what are the "other" dinosaurs haha?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In reality, the "it" in "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)" was referring to "evolution."  Creationists idiotically trying to "disprove" evolution, i.e. the entire theory of biological evolution. If one could indeed scientifically "show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs" that would simply mean the evolution of birds differs from the established scientific consensus.. regarding the evolution of birds!
Click to expand...


People who do not believe evolution use science to argue against it.  One is the fact that femur of the bird is fixed while the theropod is moving.  It means that birds could descend from theropods.  The other argument is the fibers on the fossils are just fibers from the leathery skin as it aged.  It isn't part of feathers.  Furthermore, if they did "evolve" into birds, then we should have transitional fossils to see that they did.

I don't really follow your argument.  On one hand, you are saying creationists are trying to "disprove" evolution by saying Archaeopteryx is simply a bird.   How do you know what an Archaeopteryx is?  Has anyone taken a pic of one?  You do not present anything to show how this evolution happened and what the evidence is.


----------



## progressive hunter

WheelieAddict said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't "descend" from dinosaurs, they are an evolutionary path different from other dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were on the Earth for millions of years, why would you think they all are supposed to evolve the same way?
Click to expand...

there is not a single bit of evidence that they were here millions of yrs,,,

that is pure speculation based on poor assumptions,,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't "descend" from dinosaurs, they are an evolutionary path different from other dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were on the Earth for millions of years, why would you think they all are supposed to evolve the same way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is not a single bit of evidence that they were here millions of yrs,,,
> 
> that is pure speculation based on poor assumptions,,,
Click to expand...


This is not the ID'iot creationist conspiracy theory forum.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't "descend" from dinosaurs, they are an evolutionary path different from other dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were on the Earth for millions of years, why would you think they all are supposed to evolve the same way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is not a single bit of evidence that they were here millions of yrs,,,
> 
> that is pure speculation based on poor assumptions,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not the ID'iot creationist conspiracy theory forum.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Ignore bond's trolling. He is not asking honest questions.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> People who do not believe evolution use science to argue against it.


Indeed. Ironically enough. They try. And fail. Time and again. Miserably. Because they don't know what they're doing, nor that evolution is well established scientific fact.


james bond said:


> I don't really follow your argument.





> Stephen Jay Gould also points out that "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution."[20] These two aspects are frequently confused. Scientists continue to argue about particular explanations or mechanisms at work in specific instances of evolution – but the fact that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring, is undisputed.



Follow it now?


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't "descend" from dinosaurs, they are an evolutionary path different from other dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were on the Earth for millions of years, why would you think they all are supposed to evolve the same way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is not a single bit of evidence that they were here millions of yrs,,,
> 
> that is pure speculation based on poor assumptions,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not the ID'iot creationist conspiracy theory forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Ignore bond's trolling. He is not asking honest questions.
Click to expand...



in your opinion,,,but then again you think we all came from a rock,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

Actually,



> Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> in your opinion,,,but then again you think we all came from a rock,,,


Isn't that what Genesis says, that we came from dirt?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeed. Ironically enough. They try. And fail. Time and again. Miserably. Because they don't know what they're doing, nor that evolution is well established scientific fact.



Name one fact or else you are the one failing miserably.  I know what I am doing.



Grumblenuts said:


> Follow it now?



Not really.  One argument against Darwin is he failed due to his racism.  His theories led his cousin to come up with eugenics and he supported eugenics.  We know that it led to Hitler's exterminations, social Darwinism, and genocide of blacks and today's Planned Parenthood.  He also didn't have long-time.  As for natural selection, that was also proposed by the Christians.

Now, explain one fact of evolution from Darwin.  What facts of evolution did Stephen Jay Gould state?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Actually,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
Click to expand...


Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it.  What observable evidence does it have?  What is the self-replicating molecule?  How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.  What is the last common ancestor?  If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha?  Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life.  Remember, I said only life begats life.  Not chemistry.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Isn't that what Genesis says, that we came from dirt?



Haha.  No.  Adam was formed from dirt and we will return to dirt.  If all it took was dirt, then we'd have humans popping up all over the place.  What is missing from your post?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> in your opinion,,,but then again you think we all came from a rock,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what Genesis says, that we came from dirt?
Click to expand...


dont know cause I never read it,,,,


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Adam was formed from dirt


Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
Click to expand...

thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,

but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it.  What observable evidence does it have?  What is the self-replicating molecule?  How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.  What is the last common ancestor?  If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha?  Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life.  Remember, I said only life begats life.  Not chemistry.
Click to expand...


Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha. 

You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
Click to expand...


There are 40,000 colleges and public / private teaching universities in the US which counter your claim of no proof of biological evolution. 

Shouldn't you be rummaging around the Carl Baugh "College for the Silly"?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
Click to expand...


The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> life begats life


So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> life begats life
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
Click to expand...

why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs.  Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale.  Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In reality, the "it" in "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)" was referring to "evolution."  Creationists idiotically trying to "disprove" evolution, i.e. the entire theory of biological evolution. If one could indeed scientifically "show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs" that would simply mean the evolution of birds differs from the established scientific consensus.. regarding the evolution of birds!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who do not believe evolution use science to argue against it.  One is the fact that femur of the bird is fixed while the theropod is moving.  It means that birds could descend from theropods.  The other argument is the fibers on the fossils are just fibers from the leathery skin as it aged.  It isn't part of feathers.  Furthermore, if they did "evolve" into birds, then we should have transitional fossils to see that they did.
> 
> I don't really follow your argument.  On one hand, you are saying creationists are trying to "disprove" evolution by saying Archaeopteryx is simply a bird.   How do you know what an Archaeopteryx is?  Has anyone taken a pic of one?  You do not present anything to show how this evolution happened and what the evidence is.
Click to expand...

There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs.    Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.

Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect.  In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't.  And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all.  Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found.  Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from.  But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
Click to expand...

Curiously, it is the discipline of the scientific method that you use to vilify science in favor of your appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

Can you provide one example, just one, of any discovery in science that has supernaturalism as its cause?


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> life begats life
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
Click to expand...

How is it out of context?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> life begats life
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it out of context?
Click to expand...

you not only  edited it,,, but pulled it out of stream so others cant even see the context  he was talking about,,,

very dishonest if you ask me,, but standard procedure for evo's,,,

carry on,,


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> life begats life
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you not only  edited it,,, but pulled it out of stream so others cant even see the context  he was talking about,,,
> 
> very dishonest if you ask me,, but standard procedure for evo's,,,
> 
> carry on,,
Click to expand...

Let's ask james bond what he thinks.  Did he mean that "life begats life" or did he mean something else entirely?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> life begats life
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you not only  edited it,,, but pulled it out of stream so others cant even see the context  he was talking about,,,
> 
> very dishonest if you ask me,, but standard procedure for evo's,,,
> 
> carry on,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's ask james bond what he thinks.  Did he mean that "life begats life" or did he mean something else entirely?
Click to expand...



it would help if his entire statement were here so he and  others can see the context of his comment,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it.  What observable evidence does it have?  What is the self-replicating molecule?  How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.  What is the last common ancestor?  If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha?  Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life.  Remember, I said only life begats life.  Not chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.
> 
> You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,," 
And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it.  What observable evidence does it have?  What is the self-replicating molecule?  How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.  What is the last common ancestor?  If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha?  Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life.  Remember, I said only life begats life.  Not chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.
> 
> You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"
> And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
> And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
> And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!
Click to expand...



wikipedia isnt biased MY ASS!!!!


and hate to break it to you but under evolution we all came from a primordial/prebiotic  soup which is basically rock soup,,,

so yeah evo's think we came from a rock,,,


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
Click to expand...




> thats why they call it a religion based on faith


Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence.  There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths.  Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.

Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally.  Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally?  If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it.  What observable evidence does it have?  What is the self-replicating molecule?  How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.  What is the last common ancestor?  If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha?  Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life.  Remember, I said only life begats life.  Not chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.
> 
> You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"
> And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
> And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
> And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wikipedia isnt biased MY ASS!!!!
> 
> 
> and hate to break it to you but under evolution we all came from a primordial/prebiotic  soup which is basically rock soup,,,
> 
> so yeah evo's think we came from a rock,,,
Click to expand...


It's clear that the science curriculum was not a priority at your madrassah.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence.  There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths.  Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.
> 
> Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally.  Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally?  If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.
Click to expand...



but what if youre not christian or an evo???
and just want something that makes sense,,,

cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
Click to expand...

You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
Click to expand...

and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,

whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence.  There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths.  Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.
> 
> Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally.  Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally?  If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but what if youre not christian or an evo???
> and just want something that makes sense,,,
> 
> cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
Click to expand...

What evidence of creation do you  have other than the Bible?


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence.  There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths.  Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.
> 
> Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally.  Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally?  If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but what if youre not christian or an evo???
> and just want something that makes sense,,,
> 
> cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence of creation you they have other than the Bible?
Click to expand...



thats the faith part,,,

but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,

fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seriously, information is growing so fast now that no college specialty can sufficiently prepare one for a career in any technical or scientific field. But good technical/scientific information is so readily available these days on the internet no one should need such expensive preparation. If, otoh, you want to pursue the liberal arts... best of luck!
Actually, good, affordable online courses have begun to make a dent in the crushing institutional barriers.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.


Believe it or not, many of us really don't just sit around looking at porn all day.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yes, progressive hunter, context completely shredded for humorous effect^


----------



## Grumblenuts

progressive hunter said:


> but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,
> 
> fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,


I too am all about what genuinely makes sense.
What evidence points you toward a young Earth as opposed to an old one (aside from faith based fantasies)?
You say "most of" not all, so what "evo stuff" is not just "made up crazy talk" in your humble opinion?


----------



## Grumblenuts

For example, you seem particularly unaware that:



> While people are most familiar with carbon dating, carbon dating is rarely applicable to fossils. Carbon-14, the radioactive isotope of carbon used in carbon dating has a half-life of 5730 years, so it decays too fast. It can only be used to date fossils younger than about 75,000 years. Potassium-40 on the other hand has a half life of 1.25 billion years and is common in rocks and minerals. This makes it ideal for dating much older rocks and fossils.


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,
> 
> fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I too am all about what genuinely makes sense.
> What evidence points you toward a young Earth as opposed to an old one (aside from faith based fantasies)?
> You say "most of" not all, so what "evo stuff" is not just "made up crazy talk" in your humble opinion?
Click to expand...

I like how you added the faith based 'fantasies' to get your finger in the face of others,,,

as for the crazy stuff

life from non living matter

humans never saw dinosaurs 

something giving birth to something not of its kind

the planet is ,,,what is it now 13 billion yrs old

birds evolving from dinos

these are just some of the main base of evo


----------



## Grumblenuts

progressive hunter said:


> as for the crazy stuff


Actually, the question was: 


> so what "evo stuff" is not just "made up crazy talk" in your humble opinion?


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,
> 
> fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I too am all about what genuinely makes sense.
> What evidence points you toward a young Earth as opposed to an old one (aside from faith based fantasies)?
> You say "most of" not all, so what "evo stuff" is not just "made up crazy talk" in your humble opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how you added the faith based 'fantasies' to get your finger in the face of others,,,
> 
> as for the crazy stuff
> 
> life from non living matter
> 
> humans never saw dinosaurs
> 
> something giving birth to something not of its kind
> 
> the planet is ,,,what is it now 13 billion yrs old
> 
> birds evolving from dinos
> 
> these are just some of the main base of evo
Click to expand...


Did you take the dinosaur thrill rides at Ken Ham’s Creation Museum as a literal rendering of history?


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> as for the crazy stuff
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the question was:
> 
> 
> 
> so what "evo stuff" is not just "made up crazy talk" in your humble opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

sorry read to fast


dinosaurs died got buried and turned into fossils


----------



## Grumblenuts

progressive hunter said:


> dinosaurs died got buried and turned into fossils


How about the potassium-40 dating of said fossils?


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dinosaurs died got buried and turned into fossils
> 
> 
> 
> How about the potassium-40 dating of said fossils?
Click to expand...

my problems with all of the dating process's is that if you test 3 times you get 3 different dates that vary by thousands of yrs,,,that and the fact that the same people that created the tests made the rulers and they seem to have a rubber content to them,,,

OH and they have no way of telling the history and  contamination/exposure of the item being tested


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> my problems with all of the dating process's is that if you test 3 times you get 3 different dates that vary by thousands of yrs,,,


Well that's a stupid way of looking at it, and you are lying anyway.  What matters is the percentage of error. And no, nobody who is being honest and who is not a moron would say that a margin of error of a few thousand years of something deteemined to be 100 million years old suddenly casts doubt on its age. You are a lying little troll purposely saying retarded shit to elicit reaponses.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> my problems with all of the dating process's is that if you test 3 times you get 3 different dates that vary by thousands of yrs,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's a stupid way of looking at it, and you are lying anyway.  What matters is the percentage of error. And no, nobody who is being honest and who is not a moron would say that a margin of error of a few thousand years of something deteemined to be 100 million years old suddenly casts doubt on its age. You are a lying little troll purposely saying retarded shit to elicit reaponses.
Click to expand...

you sure are a sensitive little religious nutjob,,,,


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Archeologist have discovered Ruth Ginsberg’s foot prints next to brontosaurus tracks*


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Buttigieg has 99% of the Megasaurass's support*


----------



## Grumblenuts

Accuracy and precision of the many radiometric dating methods discussed here.


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> Accuracy and precision of the many radiometric dating methods discussed here.


sorry that source is far to biased,,

I prefer at least 3 different sources for starters


----------



## Grumblenuts

You're in luck then!

34 sources linked and listed right at the bottom of the page. Great example of the greatness of Wikipedia, btw. Where else would a layperson have a prayer of seeing all those radiometric dating methods even mentioned?


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
Click to expand...

I didn't say I believed we came from a rock.  Origin of life is a scientific problem that has not been resolved. There are several theories but they lack enough evidence for wide spread acceptances.

We have good evidence of Homo sapien evolution within the Homo genus and homid family.  Over 6000 fossil remains older that 10,000 years has been found.  This has resulted resulted in more than 2500 pre-human  classifications by reconstruction and DNA analysis.  Also, radiometric dating reveals the ages range form 12,000 years to 3.2 million years.

There's strong evidence that we evolved from Homo erectus and a first cousin Homo ergaster.   Beyond that it get's a bit murky.  Whether we are talking about evolution or the history man, the further we go back, the less information is available.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say I believed we came from a rock.  Origin of life is a scientific problem that has not been resolved. There are several theories but they lack enough evidence for wide spread acceptances.
> 
> We have good evidence of Homo sapien evolution within the Homo genus and homid family.  Over 6000 fossil remains older that 10,000 years has been found.  This has resulted resulted in more than 2500 pre-human  classifications by reconstruction and DNA analysis.  Also, radiometric dating reveals the ages range form 12,000 years to 3.2 million years.
> 
> There's strong evidence that we evolved from Homo erectus and a first cousin Homo ergaster.   Beyond that it get's a bit murky.  Whether we are talking about evolution or the history man, the further we go back, the less information is available.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this theory but have yet to understand what they mean by humans evolved from less advanced humans,,,did someone give birth to an advanced human???or did a new type of human just appear one day??? and that doesnt even get into what it was before it was human,,,

and I dont believe any of the dating process's because they have no idea what the history of the item being tested is as to its exposure or if it went through a event that increased or decreased the rate of decay,,,

sorry but there is no evidence anything ever gave birth to any thing other than its kind,,what there is is speculation based on assumptions


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence.  There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths.  Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.
> 
> Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally.  Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally?  If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but what if youre not christian or an evo???
> and just want something that makes sense,,,
> 
> cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence of creation you they have other than the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats the faith part,,,
> 
> but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,
> 
> fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,
Click to expand...

How about ra


progressive hunter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it.  What observable evidence does it have?  What is the self-replicating molecule?  How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.  What is the last common ancestor?  If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha?  Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life.  Remember, I said only life begats life.  Not chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.
> 
> You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"
> And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
> And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
> And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wikipedia isnt biased MY ASS!!!!
> 
> 
> and hate to break it to you but under evolution we all came from a primordial/prebiotic  soup which is basically rock soup,,,
> 
> so yeah evo's think we came from a rock,,,
Click to expand...

Evolution is a discipline within biology which addresses the processes by which living and fossil organisms evolved, from the earliest emergence of life to the present. It does not address how life originated.  I don't know of any discipline that deals strictly with the origin of life.  Research has been done in biology and chemistry, and even astrobiology.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats why they call it a religion based on faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence.  There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths.  Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.
> 
> Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally.  Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally?  If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but what if youre not christian or an evo???
> and just want something that makes sense,,,
> 
> cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence of creation you they have other than the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats the faith part,,,
> 
> but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,
> 
> fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about ra
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it.  What observable evidence does it have?  What is the self-replicating molecule?  How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.  What is the last common ancestor?  If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha?  Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life.  Remember, I said only life begats life.  Not chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.
> 
> You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"
> And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
> And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
> And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wikipedia isnt biased MY ASS!!!!
> 
> 
> and hate to break it to you but under evolution we all came from a primordial/prebiotic  soup which is basically rock soup,,,
> 
> so yeah evo's think we came from a rock,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is a discipline within biology which addresses the processes by which living and fossil organisms evolved, from the earliest emergence of life to the present. It does not address how life originated.  I don't know of any discipline that deals strictly with the origin of life.  Research has been done in biology and chemistry, and even astrobiology.
Click to expand...



*Primordial Soup Theory*

leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm
The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species.


----------



## Grumblenuts

What is the Origin of this Leiwen? Not the physics professor from MIT I hope?


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> What is the Origin of this Leiwen? Not the physics professor from MIT I hope?


when you cant refute the claim attack the messenger is what I always say,,,

that was just one of many sites that popped up when I google it,,,,here let me get wikipedia for you,,it says pretty much the same thing



*Primordial soup - Wikipedia*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup
Primordial soup, or prebiotic soup is the hypothetical set of conditions present on the Earth around 4.2 to 4.0 billions of years ago. It is a fundamental aspect to ..theheterotrophic theory of the origin of life, first proposed by Alexander Oparin in 1924, and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane in 1929.[1][2]


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say I believed we came from a rock.  Origin of life is a scientific problem that has not been resolved. There are several theories but they lack enough evidence for wide spread acceptances.
> 
> We have good evidence of Homo sapien evolution within the Homo genus and homid family.  Over 6000 fossil remains older that 10,000 years has been found.  This has resulted resulted in more than 2500 pre-human  classifications by reconstruction and DNA analysis.  Also, radiometric dating reveals the ages range form 12,000 years to 3.2 million years.
> 
> There's strong evidence that we evolved from Homo erectus and a first cousin Homo ergaster.   Beyond that it get's a bit murky.  Whether we are talking about evolution or the history man, the further we go back, the less information is available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep hearing this theory but have yet to understand what they mean by humans evolved from less advanced humans,,,did someone give birth to an advanced human???or did a new type of human just appear one day??? and that doesnt even get into what it was before it was human,,,
> 
> and I dont believe any of the dating process's because they have no idea what the history of the item being tested is as to its exposure or if it went through a event that increased or decreased the rate of decay,,,
> 
> sorry but there is no evidence anything ever gave birth to any thing other than its kind,,what there is is speculation based on assumptions
Click to expand...

Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo.    Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals.  They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains.  Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis.   They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extinction of the species. Other believe they were driven to extinction because they could not compete with modern man.

Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens  has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say I believed we came from a rock.  Origin of life is a scientific problem that has not been resolved. There are several theories but they lack enough evidence for wide spread acceptances.
> 
> We have good evidence of Homo sapien evolution within the Homo genus and homid family.  Over 6000 fossil remains older that 10,000 years has been found.  This has resulted resulted in more than 2500 pre-human  classifications by reconstruction and DNA analysis.  Also, radiometric dating reveals the ages range form 12,000 years to 3.2 million years.
> 
> There's strong evidence that we evolved from Homo erectus and a first cousin Homo ergaster.   Beyond that it get's a bit murky.  Whether we are talking about evolution or the history man, the further we go back, the less information is available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep hearing this theory but have yet to understand what they mean by humans evolved from less advanced humans,,,did someone give birth to an advanced human???or did a new type of human just appear one day??? and that doesnt even get into what it was before it was human,,,
> 
> and I dont believe any of the dating process's because they have no idea what the history of the item being tested is as to its exposure or if it went through a event that increased or decreased the rate of decay,,,
> 
> sorry but there is no evidence anything ever gave birth to any thing other than its kind,,what there is is speculation based on assumptions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo.    Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals.  They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains.  Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis.   They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extension of the species. Other believe they were driven to extension because they could not compete with modern man.
> 
> Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens  has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.
Click to expand...



like I said,,,
a lot of speculation based on assumptions and still not a single bit of evidence,,,

and are you talking about lucy in the 70's???,,cause that one is just made up bullshit,,,


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dinosaurs died got buried and turned into fossils
> 
> 
> 
> How about the potassium-40 dating of said fossils?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my problems with all of the dating process's is that if you test 3 times you get 3 different dates that vary by thousands of yrs,,,that and the fact that the same people that created the tests made the rulers and they seem to have a rubber content to them,,,
> 
> OH and they have no way of telling the history and  contamination/exposure of the item being tested
Click to expand...

Since most fossils we deal with in human evolution are between 40,000 to 3,000,000 years old. An accuracy of 1,000 years is 2.5% to .3%.
There are two methods used to date fossils:

Relative Dating in which we already know the date of rocks or other fossils, or earth strata.
Absolute dating, radiometric dating which can be much more accurate.  This method uses radioactive minerals that occur in rocks and fossils almost like a geological clock.
Relative dating is often sufficient. Knowing a fossil is 40,000 years old or 41,000 is often of no importance.  However Absolute dating can be used and is usually more accurate.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dinosaurs died got buried and turned into fossils
> 
> 
> 
> How about the potassium-40 dating of said fossils?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my problems with all of the dating process's is that if you test 3 times you get 3 different dates that vary by thousands of yrs,,,that and the fact that the same people that created the tests made the rulers and they seem to have a rubber content to them,,,
> 
> OH and they have no way of telling the history and  contamination/exposure of the item being tested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since most fossils we deal with in human evolution are between 40,000 to 3,000,000 years old. An accuracy of 1,000 years is 2.5% to .3%.
> There are two methods used to date fossils:
> 
> Relative Dating in which we already know the date of rocks or other fossils, or earth strata.
> Absolute dating, radiometric dating which can be much more accurate.  This method uses radioactive minerals that occur in rocks and fossils almost like a geological clock.
> Relative dating is often sufficient. Knowing a fossil is 40,000 years old or 41,000 is often of no importance.  However Absolute dating can be used and is usually more accurate.
Click to expand...

when you can prove those dates get back to me,,

I have heard all that before and like I said ,,,


its pure speculation based on assumptions...


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
> 
> 
> 
> and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,
> 
> whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say I believed we came from a rock.  Origin of life is a scientific problem that has not been resolved. There are several theories but they lack enough evidence for wide spread acceptances.
> 
> We have good evidence of Homo sapien evolution within the Homo genus and homid family.  Over 6000 fossil remains older that 10,000 years has been found.  This has resulted resulted in more than 2500 pre-human  classifications by reconstruction and DNA analysis.  Also, radiometric dating reveals the ages range form 12,000 years to 3.2 million years.
> 
> There's strong evidence that we evolved from Homo erectus and a first cousin Homo ergaster.   Beyond that it get's a bit murky.  Whether we are talking about evolution or the history man, the further we go back, the less information is available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep hearing this theory but have yet to understand what they mean by humans evolved from less advanced humans,,,did someone give birth to an advanced human???or did a new type of human just appear one day??? and that doesnt even get into what it was before it was human,,,
> 
> and I dont believe any of the dating process's because they have no idea what the history of the item being tested is as to its exposure or if it went through a event that increased or decreased the rate of decay,,,
> 
> sorry but there is no evidence anything ever gave birth to any thing other than its kind,,what there is is speculation based on assumptions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo.    Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals.  They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains.  Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis.   They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extension of the species. Other believe they were driven to extension because they could not compete with modern man.
> 
> Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens  has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> like I said,,,
> a lot of speculation based on assumptions and still not a single bit of evidence,,,
> 
> and are you talking about lucy in the 70's???,,cause that one is just made up bullshit,,,
Click to expand...

Yes, I know a great world wide hoax involving hundreds of thousands of scientists, over 6,000 human remains, skeletal reconstructions, and thousands of DNA studies and that's just in the field of human evolution.
However, we have alternate explanation of how we came to be and it makes so much more sense.

In an alternate dimension outside of space and time lives the most powerful wizard ever known. He's so powerful that he can speak things into existence. One day he is sitting around bored and thinks, "Let me make myself some other beings that can bask in the glory of how awesome I am." So he spent six days thinking and speaking the whole universe and everything in it into existence. Then he took a nap, because that was a lot of talking to do.

One of the many things the wizard, let's call him The Wiz, created was people. He made people extra special out of dirt like a mud golem to look and think like him. Basically like little The Wiz dolls. But at first it's just this one dude named Adam and he's very lonely and bored. So The Wiz rips out one of Adam's ribs and says, "Alakadabra!" and the rib turns into another person. But this person has nipples that actually serve a purpose.

Well one day a talking snake shows up and sees the person with the functioning nipples, her name was Eve, and says, "You simply must try the fruit on that one tree! It's divine!" So she does and she shares it with Adam because it's very tasty and instead of dying they just get smarter and notice they're naked. So they hide when The Wiz comes back around, because of being naked and all, and The Wiz immediately knows something is wrong. So he says, "What the fuck guys? I told you not to eat that fruit. Now I'm going to have to kick you out of the garden."

So they get kicked out and The Wiz is double pissed at Eve so he makes her menstruate and makes childbirth really painful for her. They have two boys named Cain and Abel, which end up fighting because The Wiz likes meat better than vegetables and Cain kills Abel. So The Wiz sends Cain to live in some weird land called Nod and he finds a wife there and does his thing. In the meantime, Adam and Eve have many more children and a couple thousand years go by in which the earth fills up with people.
The Bible in a Nutshell (part 1 of 3)


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ahh, The Atheists New Wiz Testament.. So refreshing.. And just in time!..


> Is there really a need for so many different English versions of the Bible? The answer is, of course, no, there is no need for 50 different English versions of the Bible. This is especially true considering that there are hundreds of languages into which the entire Bible has not yet been translated. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with there being multiple versions of the Bible in a language. In fact, multiple versions of the Bible can actually be an aid in understanding the message of the Bible.



And in case you feared progressive hunter's dinosaurs were somehow being left out?.. of some 50 different English versions?..  then you have yet to hear this steaming pile!:


> Even though the word dinosaur is not used, Scripture does indeed talk about them. The words that we see are behemoth, dragon, Leviathan, and serpent, which can be a number of dinosaurs.



Better still:


> Many people don't realize that paleontology (the study of past geological ages based primarily on the study of fossils) is a relatively new science. In fact, the concept of "dinosaurs" only surfaced in its present form less than 180 years ago. Prior to that, anyone who found a large fossilized bone assumed it came from an elephant, dragon or giant. It wasn't until 1841 that English scientist Richard Owens suggested that the group of "newly discovered" animals be called "dinosaurs" (meaning, "terrible lizards"). Therefore, we shouldn't expect to see dinosaurs in the Bible, _{yada, yada, and just you never mind that}_ Today's Bible translations use the following terms instead: "great whales" (KJV), "the great creatures of the sea" (NIV), "the great sea monsters" (NASB), and "great sea creatures" (NLT, NKJV) _{nor that}_ the latest Bible translations use the words elephant, hippo or crocodile instead of Behemoth and Leviathan,



Because, well, you know.. sure, I mean, uh,... why would anyone sane expect more recent Bible translators to use "dinosaur" instead of words like elephant, hippo, or crocodile where they so clearly meant "dinosaur"? That would just be crazy talk, I tells ya! Pure speculation based on assumptions!


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> life begats life
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it out of context?
Click to expand...


Quote mining.


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs.    Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.
> 
> Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect.  In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't.  And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all.  Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found.  Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from.  But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.



That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree.  My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection.  Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another.  Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept.  We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs.  The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet.  However, this experiment has been a failure.  What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past.  If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.

Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex.  There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized.  Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster?  Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first.  It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  Here is an example of a chicken egg:

chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> life begats life
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you not only  edited it,,, but pulled it out of stream so others cant even see the context  he was talking about,,,
> 
> very dishonest if you ask me,, but standard procedure for evo's,,,
> 
> carry on,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's ask james bond what he thinks.  Did he mean that "life begats life" or did he mean something else entirely?
Click to expand...


I meant more than that.  Here is the full quote:

"The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?"

It goes to show alang1216 is thick.


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extinction of the species. Other believe they were driven to extinction because they could not compete with modern man.
> 
> Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.



The trouble I am having is you are _assuming_ there was evolution.  It is more of the facts used to fit the theory.  Neanderthals were like modern humans, but probably more sturdier and heartier people.  Modern humans would probably not be as fit and strong as them.  As I keep saying today's secular scientists have eliminated their opposition who have a different theory.

"Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate."

The homo erectus were similar to modern humans, too.  Their characteristics could be similar to those of modern day Eskimos.  The anatomical differences are very small and homo erectus could just as well be homo sapien.

Neanderthals Are Still Human!

How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
Click to expand...


You wanted to know the origin.  Once God created the perfect man and woman, that was all that was necessary to populate the world.  However, they were tainted by sin and brought death.  Still, their genes were pure enough so there wasn't deformities like we have today with incest.  It explains why humans lives so long before the flood.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, many of us really don't just sit around looking at porn all day.
Click to expand...


Hilarious.  With evolution, you would not even have any porn.  We wouldn't even get asexual.  Let alone LGBTQ.  Actually, there is no LGBTQ.  Just men, women, and hermaphrodites.  Can I help it if they are convinced that they are LGBTQ by the libs?

As for the rest, you're just posting diarrhea.  A big mess.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was formed from dirt
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  Evidence?  Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is we are here.  We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.  We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it.  Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other.  Shall I go on or are you too thick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanted to know the origin.  Once God created the perfect man and woman, that was all that was necessary to populate the world.  However, they were tainted by sin and brought death.  Still, their genes were pure enough so there wasn't deformities like we have today with incest.  It explains why humans lives so long before the flood.
Click to expand...


That’s a funny story. Although, since you brought up incest, tell us a story about the incestuous / familial relations that occurred after Noah’s pleasure cruise to nowhere when it was Noah and his immediate family left to repopulate the planet.

Did the gods coin that phrase “incest is best”?


----------



## Votto

IsaacNewton said:


> Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extinction of the species. Other believe they were driven to extinction because they could not compete with modern man.
> 
> Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble I am having is you are _assuming_ there was evolution.  It is more of the facts used to fit the theory.  Neanderthals were like modern humans, but probably more sturdier and heartier people.  Modern humans would probably not be as fit and strong as them.  As I keep saying today's secular scientists have eliminated their opposition who have a different theory.
> 
> "Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate."
> 
> The homo erectus were similar to modern humans, too.  Their characteristics could be similar to those of modern day Eskimos.  The anatomical differences are very small and homo erectus could just as well be homo sapien.
> 
> Neanderthals Are Still Human!
> 
> How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?
Click to expand...


Yes, you do keep repeating the slogan “today's secular scientists have eliminated their opposition who have a different theory.”

However, your revulsion for science is one borne of religious extremism. ID’iot creationism is not a different theory. It’s not a theory at all. It’s literal, hyper-religious extremism that requires every biblical tale and fable to be literally correct. 

The fact you cut and paste links to the charlatans at the ICR is reason enough to accept your views as anything but rational or objective.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, many of us really don't just sit around looking at porn all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Why, thank you! What amazes me is how quickly I came up with that. Straight out. No edits. Some of the best jokes seemingly write themselves.


> As for the rest, you're just posting diarrhea.  A big mess.


Yep, when the going gets tough, the tough stick their fingers in their ears and just keep repeating "I can't hear yoouuuuuu, NANANANANANA!!"
Well, maybe not so tough, but definitely armed with just enough critical thinking skill to bluff their way into complete self-delusion.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> life begats life
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote mining.
Click to expand...

*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.[note 1] It's a way of lying. 

Your post:
_The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides * life begats life*. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?_​
Please correct me.  Do you believe "life begats life" or don't you?  How did I distort your meaning?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?


Okay, so let's critically examine that pile of shit for a moment..  What we need here is a sample of some actual, pertinent cell biology:


> How is it possible, therefore, to maintain very fast metabolic rates?
> The answer lies in the spatial organization of cell components. Reaction rates can be increased without raising substrate concentrations by bringing the various enzymes involved in a reaction sequence together to form a large protein assembly known as a _multienzyme complex_ (Figure 3-54). Because this allows the product of enzyme A to be passed directly to enzyme B, and so on, diffusion rates need not be limiting, even when the concentrations of the substrates in the cell as a whole are very low. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that such enzyme complexes are very common, and they are involved in nearly all aspects of metabolism—including the central genetic processes of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis. In fact, few enzymes in eucaryotic cells may be left to diffuse freely in solution; instead, most seem to have evolved binding sites that concentrate them with other proteins of related function in particular regions of the cell, thereby increasing the rate and efficiency of the reactions that they catalyze.


So what's that have to do with the price of tea in China, you may well ask? It explains why cells organize the way they do. OMG, cells, amino acids, proteins, all evolving to maximize the efficiency of each.. Who coulda guessed it? Who wudda thunk it? The question isn't whether proteins can ever form outside of a cell. Of course they can't.. normally! But have you tried doing it billions of times... over millions of years... in various hot environments.. having all sorts of gases and pressures far outside anything one would ever expect to find outside today? No, you most assuredly have not. So... you really have no fucking clue as to what could or could not be scientifically possible in such conditions. We're simply not technologically advanced enough quite yet to conduct or monitor such vast experiments. Yet here we are. Evidence that it must have happened. Right in your face. But you choose to believe some institutional fairy story instead of the obvious.. Sad.


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs.    Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.
> 
> Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect.  In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't.  And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all.  Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found.  Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from.  But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree.  My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection.  Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another.  Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept.  We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs.  The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet.  However, this experiment has been a failure.  What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past.  If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.
> 
> Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex.  There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized.  Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster?  Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first.  It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  Here is an example of a chicken egg:
> 
> chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org
Click to expand...


Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.






Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extinction of the species. Other believe they were driven to extinction because they could not compete with modern man.
> 
> Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble I am having is you are _assuming_ there was evolution.  It is more of the facts used to fit the theory.  Neanderthals were like modern humans, but probably more sturdier and heartier people.  Modern humans would probably not be as fit and strong as them.  As I keep saying today's secular scientists have eliminated their opposition who have a different theory.
> 
> "Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate."
> 
> The homo erectus were similar to modern humans, too.  Their characteristics could be similar to those of modern day Eskimos.  The anatomical differences are very small and homo erectus could just as well be homo sapien.
> 
> Neanderthals Are Still Human!
> 
> How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?
Click to expand...


Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs.    Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.
> 
> Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect.  In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't.  And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all.  Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found.  Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from.  But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree.  My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection.  Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another.  Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept.  We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs.  The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet.  However, this experiment has been a failure.  What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past.  If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.
> 
> Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex.  There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized.  Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster?  Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first.  It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  Here is an example of a chicken egg:
> 
> chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare
Click to expand...



more speculation and no proof they gave birth to or morphed into  each other,,,

and what were they before they were these forms???

arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs.    Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.
> 
> Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect.  In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't.  And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all.  Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found.  Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from.  But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree.  My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection.  Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another.  Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept.  We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs.  The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet.  However, this experiment has been a failure.  What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past.  If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.
> 
> Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex.  There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized.  Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster?  Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first.  It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  Here is an example of a chicken egg:
> 
> chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more speculation and no proof they morphed into or from  each other,,,
> 
> and what were they before they were these forms???
> 
> arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.  Evolution is a scientific theory which can never be proved, no matter how much evidence exists because it's a theory which is ever changing as more evidence is found.  The creation myth is so preposterous, you can't defend it so you attack the only theory that is supported by any real evidence.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs.    Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.
> 
> Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect.  In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't.  And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all.  Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found.  Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from.  But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree.  My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection.  Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another.  Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept.  We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs.  The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet.  However, this experiment has been a failure.  What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past.  If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.
> 
> Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex.  There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized.  Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster?  Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first.  It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  Here is an example of a chicken egg:
> 
> chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more speculation and no proof they morphed into or from  each other,,,
> 
> and what were they before they were these forms???
> 
> arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.  Evolution is a scientific theory which can never be proved, no matter how much evidence exists because it's a theory which is ever changing as more evidence is found.  The creation myth is so preposterous, you can't defend it so you attack the only theory that is supported by any real evidence.
Click to expand...

who said I believe the creation myth/theory???

so lets stick to the facts and what we know and not some pictures randomly put on a page,,,

like I said there is zero proof any of the skulls represent the evolution of man because all we know is something died and not if it morphed or gave birth to anything other than its kind,,,
and what did they look like before they looked like that???

at least the creationist base it on faith because its a religion,,,
whats the evo excuse??? they do push it as fact and attack anyone that questions it,,,all while using tax payer money,,,

let me ask you
does this represent the evo of horses???


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flopper said:


> I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.


Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.

They aren't actually asking for proof, argument, or evidence of evolution for their consideration; no would they give them any honest consideration, if you did the work of compiling it all and presenting it to them.

As i am sure you are starting to notice.

They will reject all of it for no good reason and continue to claim there exists no evidence or good argument for evolution. And they do this for one reason alone: to forward a narrative that betting on the truth of evolution is "faith", no different or more valid than their own faith.

Having no tools, resources, evidence, or good arguments with which to support or elevate their own, faith-based beliefs, they are left no choice but to try to drag this evidence-based knowledge into the shitty murk where their faith resides, in order to make the comparison more favorable to their faith based beliefs.

And that's it, in a nutshell.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.
> 
> They arent actually asking for proof or evidence of evolution for their consideration; no woild they give it any honest consideration, if you did the work of compiling it and presenting it to them.
> 
> As i am sure you are starting to notice.
> 
> They will reject all of it for n9 good reason, amd continue to claim there exists no evidence. And they do this for one reason alone: to forward a narrative that betting on the truth of evolution is "faith", no different or more valif than their own faith.
> 
> Having no tools, reaources, evidence, or good arguments with which to support or epevate theor own, faith-based beliefs, they are left no choice but to try to drag this evidence-bases knowledge into the shirty murk where their faith resides, in order to make the comparison more favorable to their faith based beliefs.
> 
> And that's it, in a nutshell.
Click to expand...



so says the attention grabbing troll,,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.
> 
> They aren't actually asking for proof, argument, or evidence of evolution for their consideration; no would they give them any honest consideration, if you did the work of compiling it all and presenting it to them.
> 
> As i am sure you are starting to notice.
> 
> They will reject all of it for no good reason and continue to claim there exists no evidence or good argument for evolution. And they do this for one reason alone: to forward a narrative that betting on the truth of evolution is "faith", no different or more valid than their own faith.
> 
> Having no tools, resources, evidence, or good arguments with which to support or elevate their own, faith-based beliefs, they are left no choice but to try to drag this evidence-based knowledge into the shitty murk where their faith resides, in order to make the comparison more favorable to their faith based beliefs.
> 
> And that's it, in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right, but still.. even that low level of concerted effort demands some significant reasoning power.. which begs the question: If they're smart enough to know better, why bother with the same old crap, year after year?  At some point one can no longer fail to self-reflect. To apply the same tests one demands of others to their own indefensible positions. We know it does indeed wear thin since so many outspoken atheists turn out to be former priests and ministers who, of course, generally already know all their opponent's talking points much better than their opponents. People gotta sleep. Self-doubt makes for lots of tossing and turning instead. Drugs maybe?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Who Wrote The Bible?
Interesting read:
What Does The Actual Historical Evidence Say?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grumblenuts said:


> If they're smart enough to know better, why bother with the same old crap, year after year?


Because their faith remains. And this specious, fraudulent dog and pony show is all they have.


----------



## Flopper

progressive hunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs.    Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.
> 
> Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect.  In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't.  And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all.  Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found.  Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from.  But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree.  My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection.  Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another.  Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept.  We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs.  The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet.  However, this experiment has been a failure.  What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past.  If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.
> 
> Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex.  There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized.  Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster?  Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first.  It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  Here is an example of a chicken egg:
> 
> chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more speculation and no proof they morphed into or from  each other,,,
> 
> and what were they before they were these forms???
> 
> arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.  Evolution is a scientific theory which can never be proved, no matter how much evidence exists because it's a theory which is ever changing as more evidence is found.  The creation myth is so preposterous, you can't defend it so you attack the only theory that is supported by any real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said I believe the creation myth/theory???
> 
> so lets stick to the facts and what we know and not some pictures randomly put on a page,,,
> 
> like I said there is zero proof any of the skulls represent the evolution of man because all we know is something died and not if it morphed or gave birth to anything other than its kind,,,
> and what did they look like before they looked like that???
> 
> at least the creationist base it on faith because its a religion,,,
> whats the evo excuse??? they do push it as fact and attack anyone that questions it,,,all while using tax payer money,,,
> 
> let me ask you
> does this represent the evo of horses???
> 
> 
> View attachment 260998
Click to expand...

You are right about one thing, there is no proof because theories can not be proved because  they are always subject to change.  However, there is evidence and a hell of lot of it.

We know a lot  more about those skulls than you think.  First we know how old they are based radiometric dating of the skulls and the rocks they are found in.  Secondly we know the attributes such size, shape, and size of the brain they held.  We can also tell that they are not homo sapiens due to brain size, skull shape an characteristics of their skeleton.  We can place them within genus or family and see transition in structure by comparing them with other skeletal remains.  Lastly, DNA studies of fossils .4 to 1.5 million years old allow us to see the changes in DNA as we go through through family and genus.  Paleontology is not an exact science but with tools such radiometric dating and dna, plus the increasing number finds it's getting a lot better.


----------



## progressive hunter

Flopper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree.  My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection.  Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another.  Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept.  We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs.  The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet.  However, this experiment has been a failure.  What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past.  If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.
> 
> Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex.  There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized.  Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster?  Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first.  It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  Here is an example of a chicken egg:
> 
> chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more speculation and no proof they morphed into or from  each other,,,
> 
> and what were they before they were these forms???
> 
> arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.  Evolution is a scientific theory which can never be proved, no matter how much evidence exists because it's a theory which is ever changing as more evidence is found.  The creation myth is so preposterous, you can't defend it so you attack the only theory that is supported by any real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said I believe the creation myth/theory???
> 
> so lets stick to the facts and what we know and not some pictures randomly put on a page,,,
> 
> like I said there is zero proof any of the skulls represent the evolution of man because all we know is something died and not if it morphed or gave birth to anything other than its kind,,,
> and what did they look like before they looked like that???
> 
> at least the creationist base it on faith because its a religion,,,
> whats the evo excuse??? they do push it as fact and attack anyone that questions it,,,all while using tax payer money,,,
> 
> let me ask you
> does this represent the evo of horses???
> 
> 
> View attachment 260998
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are right about one thing, there is no proof because theories can not be proved.  They are always subject to change.  However, there is evidence and a hell of lot of it.
> 
> We know a lot  more about those skulls than you think.  First we know how old they are based radiometric dating of the skulls and the rocks they are found in.  Secondly we know the attributes such size, shape, and size of the brain they held.  We can also tell that they are not homo sapiens due to brain size, skull shape an characteristics of their skeleton.  We can place them within genus or family and see transition in structure by comparing them with other skeletal remains.  Lastly, DNA studies of fossils .4 to 1.5 million years old allow us to see the changes in DNA as we go through through family and genus.  Paleontology is not an exact science but with tools such radiometric dating and dna, plus the increasing number finds it's getting a lot better.
Click to expand...



speculation is not evidence,,,its barely an opinion,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

progressive hunter said:


> speculation is not evidence,,,its barely an opinion,,,


So quit your speculating. Including about supernatural nonsense. Remember, you've claimed to care about making sense. High time you got started..


----------



## progressive hunter

w


Grumblenuts said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> speculation is not evidence,,,its barely an opinion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> So quit your speculating. Including about supernatural nonsense. Remember, you've claimed to care about making sense. High time you got started..
Click to expand...

when did I push the supernatural???


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> w
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> speculation is not evidence,,,its barely an opinion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> So quit your speculating. Including about supernatural nonsense. Remember, you've claimed to care about making sense. High time you got started..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I push the supernatural???
Click to expand...


Conceptions of supernatural gods tends toward pushing the supernatural.


----------



## Flopper

Grumblenuts said:


> Who Wrote The Bible?
> Interesting read:
> What Does The Actual Historical Evidence Say?


The creation story comes from Moses, or someone that we have no evidence of his existence.  There is of course no original text and there is no way of knowing how many versions there were of the story.  The fact that so many millions of people accept this nonsense literally is truly a miracle.

I have no problem accepting the creation story as allegorical tale in which God is the architect of the universe and the prime mover. However to accept the Bible literally is to deny science and just plain common sense and that is a very serious problem today.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> "I can't hear yoouuuuuu, NANANANANANA!!"



It just goes to show that you have wax in your ears and diarrhea coming out of your fingers as you type.






This reminds me of your recent posts.


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they



It's just human variability if one examines the fossils.  The rest are artists' drawings to make it look like evolution occurred.  If you compare modern humans with the fossils, then there isn't much difference.  Your evidence is highly circumstantial as an artist can made these fossils to look like anything he wants.






Amazing Vintage Photographs Capture Everyday Life of Eskimo People From the Early 20th Century ~ vintage everyday

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.



You didn't clarify the evolution myth.



Flopper said:


> However to accept the Bible literally is to deny science and just plain common sense and that is a very serious problem today.



It just different science and that is creation science.  It should be a battle of the two sciences but evos have eliminated their main competition.  Thus, you believe whatever their false science tells you.  Secular science believed in creation before the 1850s.  Afterward, uniformitarianism and Darwin's myths took over.

For example, Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, the professor who put australopithecus afarensis or Lucy's fossils together, thinks apes evolved from humans.  It's on the Kent State U website so this is valid.  People who believe that evolution happens keeps changing their stories all the time.  Our Earth and universe will be getting millions of years older soon.

OTOH, creation science does not change its story.  In fact, it can't as it's is already written and it has stood the test of time.


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> You are right about one thing, there is no proof because theories can not be proved because they are always subject to change. However, there is evidence and a hell of lot of it.
> 
> We know a lot more about those skulls than you think. First we know how old they are based radiometric dating of the skulls and the rocks they are found in. Secondly we know the attributes such size, shape, and size of the brain they held. We can also tell that they are not homo sapiens due to brain size, skull shape an characteristics of their skeleton. We can place them within genus or family and see transition in structure by comparing them with other skeletal remains. Lastly, DNA studies of fossils .4 to 1.5 million years old allow us to see the changes in DNA as we go through through family and genus. Paleontology is not an exact science but with tools such radiometric dating and dna, plus the increasing number finds it's getting a lot better.



One of the big problems with Darwin's theories and these skulls is that they are racist.  How else can one explain blacks are on the lower end of the evolutionary scale and whites on the higher end?  We had eugenics which was created by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and he supported it while Hitler committed the Holocaust.  Radiometric dating is not accurate because of the assumptions it makes with parent-daughter isotopes.  In fact, its more of the facts made to fit the evolution theory of layers of the earth being based on time chronology.  To the contrary, creation science believes the layers are based on location and what happened there such as catastrophes.  Even the names of these layers refer to locations and not time.  The evos just made the story of the layers and how old they were using erroneous science.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Thus, you believe in the myth of false science.

How can you show that your evolution and evolutionary thinking and history is not false?  Then show us how evolution follows the scientific method.  It should not be difficult since you have mountains of evidence and the science is on your side.  However, we find that it is all forensic or circumstantial evidence where the secular/atheist scientists made up whatever story fits best..


----------



## Grumblenuts

For starters, prog man, remember that leiwin.wu page you shared idiotically _assuming_ that someone else here somehow wasn't already well acquainted with "primordial soup"? Yeah, that one where you also _assumed_ I wanted to refute it and that I was somehow attacking the messenger by asking you if he happened be the widely acclaimed and beloved physics professor from MIT? 


progressive hunter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the Origin of this Leiwen? Not the physics professor from MIT I hope?
> 
> 
> 
> when you cant refute the claim attack the messenger is what I always say,,,
> 
> that was just one of many sites that popped up when I google it,,,,here let me get wikipedia for you,,it says pretty much the same thing
Click to expand...

And that Wikipedia page you then shared, surprise, surprise, didn't really say the same thing? Yeah, that. Turns out the professor spells his name "Lewin" so that's a relief. Not that I've always agreed with him, but damn that man could teach! Check out some of his free physics lectures if you haven't already.

Anyway, as one might have expected, the Wiki page was straightforward and comprehensive, whereas the leiwen page seemed very truncated in a way that at least seemed highly suspicious. Their listing of supposed "Problems with theory" in particular. But the actual reason I said I hoped it wasn't Lewin is because I had glanced at some other links one can easily navigate to from that page. For example, Creation. Notice same format but suddenly not a hint of criticism ("problems"). In fact, they offer "Other evidence" seemingly to further criticize evolution instead. There's even an "Against PST" page.

That made you smell like a creationist to me. Perhaps something earlier, but apologies if that conclusion was wrong. However, your continued cheap, blanket denials of all evidence offered here for evolution says plenty about your lack of understanding of what comprises scientific evidence and your unwillingness to  learn anything more about it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I can't hear yoouuuuuu, NANANANANANA!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show that you have wax in your ears and diarrhea coming out of your fingers as you type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of your recent posts.
Click to expand...

Flatulency will get you nowhere


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just human variability if one examines the fossils.  The rest are artists' drawings to make it look like evolution occurred.  If you compare modern humans with the fossils, then there isn't much difference.  Your evidence is highly circumstantial as an artist can made these fossils to look like anything he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Vintage Photographs Capture Everyday Life of Eskimo People From the Early 20th Century ~ vintage everyday
> 
> Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com
Click to expand...

The difference between the species homo erectus and homo sapiens are to great to consider them the same species,  a smaller brain, low forehead and protruding face.  Homo erectus have very large teeth compared homo sapian's small teeth.  They have heavy brow bridges and much heavier build jaws.  Eskimos nor any other race or ethnicity matches.  Although Homo erectus is much closer to humans than most other hominids, they are just not close enough but they are certainly transitional.

Homo ergaster discovered in first half of the 20th century is closer to modern day humans in many respects than Homo erectus.  Some claim it to be a common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.  However, there is much controversy over this species.  
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> For starters, prog man, remember that leiwin.wu page you shared idiotically _assuming_ that someone else here somehow wasn't already well acquainted with "primordial soup"? Yeah, that one where you also _assumed_ I wanted to refute it and that I was somehow attacking the messenger by asking you if he happened be the widely acclaimed and beloved physics professor from MIT?
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the Origin of this Leiwen? Not the physics professor from MIT I hope?
> 
> 
> 
> when you cant refute the claim attack the messenger is what I always say,,,
> 
> that was just one of many sites that popped up when I google it,,,,here let me get wikipedia for you,,it says pretty much the same thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that Wikipedia page you then shared, surprise, surprise, didn't really say the same thing? Yeah, that. Turns out the professor spells his name "Lewin" so that's a relief. Not that I've always agreed with him, but damn that man could teach! Check out some of his free physics lectures if you haven't already.
> 
> Anyway, as one might have expected, the Wiki page was straightforward and comprehensive, whereas the leiwen page seemed very truncated in a way that at least seemed highly suspicious. Their listing of supposed "Problems with theory" in particular. But the actual reason I said I hoped it wasn't Lewin is because I had glanced at some other links one can easily navigate to from that page. For example, Creation. Notice same format but suddenly not a hint of criticism ("problems"). In fact, they offer "Other evidence" seemingly to further criticize evolution instead. There's even an "Against PST" page.
> 
> That made you smell like a creationist to me. Perhaps something earlier, but apologies if that conclusion was wrong. However, your continued cheap, blanket denials of all evidence offered here for evolution says plenty about your lack of understanding of what comprises scientific evidence and your unwillingness to  learn anything more about it.
Click to expand...



well if you would stop picking your nose after you wipe your ass you might be able to smell better


and no evidence has been given,,just speculation


but I did notice instead of providing any evidence you went straight to personal attacks,,,

which we all know is the last thing a person has when they cant back up their own claims,,,


----------



## Flopper

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't clarify the evolution myth.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> However to accept the Bible literally is to deny science and just plain common sense and that is a very serious problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just different science and that is creation science.  It should be a battle of the two sciences but evos have eliminated their main competition.  Thus, you believe whatever their false science tells you.  Secular science believed in creation before the 1850s.  Afterward, uniformitarianism and Darwin's myths took over.
> 
> For example, Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, the professor who put australopithecus afarensis or Lucy's fossils together, thinks apes evolved from humans.  It's on the Kent State U website so this is valid.  People who believe that evolution happens keeps changing their stories all the time.  Our Earth and universe will be getting millions of years older soon.
> 
> OTOH, creation science does not change its story.  In fact, it can't as it's is already written and it has stood the test of time.
Click to expand...

Unlike the Bible creation story, science changes with new discovers commonly referred to as scientific progress.  Some people need to hold on to something that never changes such as the biblical story of creation although it's based on the supernatural, with no reliable evidence as to the author, no original manuscript, and no evidence that it's factual, plus it's filled inconsistency.  The fact that so many people believe this crap is a real miracle.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Flopper said:


> I have no problem accepting the creation story as allegorical tale in which God is the architect of the universe and the prime mover.


I do if by "allegorical tale" you at all mean a true though highly symbolic narrative. Just as with all the pathetically obvious dinosaur revisionism discussed here earlier, there are so many blatant contradictions right off the bat that no matter how much one lends it poetic or symbolic license it soon ceases being even funny. For example, those first "days" are clearly intended to be taken as literal days. No matter how many revisionists insist otherwise, the entire context makes that plain. I've read that crap too many times. Much though is indeed good story telling just as one can still expect from the powers that be.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> It wasn't until the 17th century, with the rise of critical thinking in many disciplines—in science, in philosophy, and others—that people began to look at the Bible not just as a sacred text but as they would look at any other book. And they began to notice in the pages of the first five books of the Bible a lot of issues that didn't seem consistent with the idea that Moses was their author. For example, Moses never speaks in the first person; Moses doesn't say, "I went up on Mt. Sinai." There are also a lot of repetitions—the same stories told from different perspectives. And there are also many, many inconsistencies; as the same stories are retold, many of the details change.


So much for holding "on to something that never changes".


----------



## Flopper

Grumblenuts said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem accepting the creation story as allegorical tale in which God is the architect of the universe and the prime mover.
> 
> 
> 
> I do if by "allegorical tale" you at all mean a true though highly symbolic narrative. Just as with all the pathetically obvious dinosaur revisionism discussed here earlier, there are so many blatant contradictions right off the bat that no matter how much one lends it poetic or symbolic license it soon ceases being even funny. For example, those first "days" are clearly intended to be taken as literal days. No matter how many revisionists insist otherwise, the entire context makes that plain. I've read that crap too many times. Much though is indeed good story telling just as one can still expect from the powers that be.
Click to expand...

It's amazing the different accounts of the creation story.   In Gen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2,  God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity.  Then there's about 15 popular  versions (translations) of the Bible each with a different twist.  

So when someone says they take the creation story in the Bible literally, which one?

Two Creations in Genesis


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just human variability if one examines the fossils.  The rest are artists' drawings to make it look like evolution occurred.  If you compare modern humans with the fossils, then there isn't much difference.  Your evidence is highly circumstantial as an artist can made these fossils to look like anything he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Vintage Photographs Capture Everyday Life of Eskimo People From the Early 20th Century ~ vintage everyday
> 
> Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between the species homo erectus and homo sapiens are to great to consider them the same species,  a smaller brain, low forehead and protruding face.  Homo erectus have very large teeth compared homo sapian's small teeth.  They have heavy brow bridges and much heavier build jaws.  Eskimos nor any other race or ethnicity matches.  Although Homo erectus is much closer to humans than most other hominids, they are just not close enough but they are certainly transitional.
> 
> Homo ergaster discovered in first half of the 20th century is closer to modern day humans in many respects than Homo erectus.  Some claim it to be a common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.  However, there is much controversy over this species.
> Homo erectus
> Homo sapiens
Click to expand...


Yours are still artist reconstructions.  They usually can't agree on what homo erectus looked like. 









"1) _H. erectus_ is the same species as _H. ergaster_, and thereby _H. erectus_ is a direct ancestor of the later hominins including _Homo heidelbergensis_, _Homo antecessor_, _Homo neanderthalensis_, _Homo denisova_, and _Homo sapiens_; or,
2) it is in fact an Asian species or subspecies distinct from African _H. ergaste_r"

Of course, they do not put "same species, but distinct from H. ergaster."


----------



## james bond

Flopper said:


> So when someone says they take the creation story in the Bible literally, which one?



You should read it yourself and find it's this one:


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when someone says they take the creation story in the Bible literally, which one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should read it yourself and find it's this one:
Click to expand...



Don’t you find ir odd that you’re reduced to cutting and pasting cartoons from charlatans at a dishonest, fundamentalist ministry?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Flatulency will get you nowhere



You get this then


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just human variability if one examines the fossils.  The rest are artists' drawings to make it look like evolution occurred.  If you compare modern humans with the fossils, then there isn't much difference.  Your evidence is highly circumstantial as an artist can made these fossils to look like anything he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Vintage Photographs Capture Everyday Life of Eskimo People From the Early 20th Century ~ vintage everyday
> 
> Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between the species homo erectus and homo sapiens are to great to consider them the same species,  a smaller brain, low forehead and protruding face.  Homo erectus have very large teeth compared homo sapian's small teeth.  They have heavy brow bridges and much heavier build jaws.  Eskimos nor any other race or ethnicity matches.  Although Homo erectus is much closer to humans than most other hominids, they are just not close enough but they are certainly transitional.
> 
> Homo ergaster discovered in first half of the 20th century is closer to modern day humans in many respects than Homo erectus.  Some claim it to be a common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.  However, there is much controversy over this species.
> Homo erectus
> Homo sapiens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours are still artist reconstructions.  They usually can't agree on what homo erectus looked like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "1) _H. erectus_ is the same species as _H. ergaster_, and thereby _H. erectus_ is a direct ancestor of the later hominins including _Homo heidelbergensis_, _Homo antecessor_, _Homo neanderthalensis_, _Homo denisova_, and _Homo sapiens_; or,
> 2) it is in fact an Asian species or subspecies distinct from African _H. ergaste_r"
> 
> Of course, they do not put "same species, but distinct from H. ergaster."
Click to expand...


Most anyone, even fundamentalist quacks can edit wiki.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't clarify the evolution myth.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> However to accept the Bible literally is to deny science and just plain common sense and that is a very serious problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just different science and that is creation science.  It should be a battle of the two sciences but evos have eliminated their main competition.  Thus, you believe whatever their false science tells you.  Secular science believed in creation before the 1850s.  Afterward, uniformitarianism and Darwin's myths took over.
> 
> For example, Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, the professor who put australopithecus afarensis or Lucy's fossils together, thinks apes evolved from humans.  It's on the Kent State U website so this is valid.  People who believe that evolution happens keeps changing their stories all the time.  Our Earth and universe will be getting millions of years older soon.
> 
> OTOH, creation science does not change its story.  In fact, it can't as it's is already written and it has stood the test of time.
Click to expand...


Actually, the silly label of “creation science” has long ago been exposed as a fraud. It’s nothing more than fundamentalist Christianity under a false label of ID’iot creationism. 

There is no battle with ID’iot creationism as fundamentalist Christian ministries due no research and thus cannot publish in peer reviewed journals. 

It’s too bad that the hyper-religious don’t understand even the most basic concepts of biological evolution. It’s a broad term that encompasses both a set of facts and a testable model, or _theory_ (actually, many theories), to explain those facts. Creationism has neither a testable model nor facts that support the claims to supernaturalism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Yours are still artist reconstructions.


No, those are actual fossils. Why do you say such ridiculous things? You ambarrass yourself. We can measure the bones and teeth. And no, they do not resemble modern humans or fall within the physiological spectrum of modern humans.. You are spreading stupid lies.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about one thing, there is no proof because theories can not be proved because they are always subject to change. However, there is evidence and a hell of lot of it.
> 
> We know a lot more about those skulls than you think. First we know how old they are based radiometric dating of the skulls and the rocks they are found in. Secondly we know the attributes such size, shape, and size of the brain they held. We can also tell that they are not homo sapiens due to brain size, skull shape an characteristics of their skeleton. We can place them within genus or family and see transition in structure by comparing them with other skeletal remains. Lastly, DNA studies of fossils .4 to 1.5 million years old allow us to see the changes in DNA as we go through through family and genus. Paleontology is not an exact science but with tools such radiometric dating and dna, plus the increasing number finds it's getting a lot better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the big problems with Darwin's theories and these skulls is that they are racist.  How else can one explain blacks are on the lower end of the evolutionary scale and whites on the higher end?  We had eugenics which was created by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and he supported it while Hitler committed the Holocaust.  Radiometric dating is not accurate because of the assumptions it makes with parent-daughter isotopes.  In fact, its more of the facts made to fit the evolution theory of layers of the earth being based on time chronology.  To the contrary, creation science believes the layers are based on location and what happened there such as catastrophes.  Even the names of these layers refer to locations and not time.  The evos just made the story of the layers and how old they were using erroneous science.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Thus, you believe in the myth of false science.
> 
> How can you show that your evolution and evolutionary thinking and history is not false?  Then show us how evolution follows the scientific method.  It should not be difficult since you have mountains of evidence and the science is on your side.  However, we find that it is all forensic or circumstantial evidence where the secular/atheist scientists made up whatever story fits best..
Click to expand...


That was one long, lurid conspiracy theory addled rant. “Science is racist” is right out of the Henry Morris playbook.

 It’s not surprising that most of your cutting and pasting is stereotypical for the hyper-religious thumpers.

An Index to Creationist Claims


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, those are actual fossils.



I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you.  Here is homo erectus:





Way too dark if you ask me and he is made to look like homo ergaster.  Another artist would represent him differently from the fossils and description.  It's based on human variability, so we can show today's humans to fit the description and fossils.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:


Way too dark? According to whom? The voices in your head? And homo erectus and homo ergaster do look somewhat alike, and they resemble each other much more than either resembles a modern human.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:
> 
> 
> 
> Way too dark? According to whom? The voices in your head?
Click to expand...


Compare him to the Eskimo:


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, those are actual fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you.  Here is homo erectus:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way too dark if you ask me and he is made to look like homo ergaster.  Another artist would represent him differently from the fossils and description.  It's based on human variability, so we can show today's humans to fit the description and fossils.
Click to expand...


I’m not sure what your complaint is. 

Would you care to comment on the western societal image of the jeebus as a tall, fair skinned, fair haired, very Caucasian looking fellow?

Are you surprised that the western world would create jeebus in their own image?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:
> 
> 
> 
> Way too dark? According to whom? The voices in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compare him to the Eskimo:
Click to expand...

We do compare them to eskimos, and to all humans. Trust me, actual measurements and comparisons to mountains of data mean more than your gut feelings. I know you religious goobers dont get that.











Not even close... Well, closer than other, more distantly related prinates and animals.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:
> 
> 
> 
> Way too dark? According to whom? The voices in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compare him to the Eskimo:
Click to expand...


You don't understand that geography plays a part in physical traits?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I’m not sure what your complaint is.



Please try to keep up.  The fossils and description would match different peoples of today.  It shows human variability.  One didn't evolve from the other.  That's just a made up story to fit Darwinism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The fossils and description would match different peoples of today.


No, they wouldn't. That is a shameless lie you parroted and that you don't even understand.  You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure what your complaint is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please try to keep up.  The fossils and description would match different peoples of today.  It shows human variability.  One didn't evolve from the other.  That's just a made up story to fit Darwinism.
Click to expand...


Your uninformed opinions are nothing more than what you copy and paste from ID’iot creation ministries.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> *Scientific racism* (sometimes referred to as *race biology*),[1][2] is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.[3][4][5]Historically, scientific racist ideas received credence in the scientific community but are no longer considered scientific.[4][5]
> 
> _{snip}_
> 
> The term "scientific racism" is generally used pejoratively as applied to more modern theories, as in _The Bell Curve_ (1994). Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence.[10] Publications such as the _Mankind Quarterly_, founded explicitly as a "race-conscious" journal, are generally regarded as platforms of scientific racism for publishing articles on fringe interpretations of human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race subjects.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Your uninformed opinions are nothing more than what you copy and paste from ID’iot creation ministries


Thats exactly right. His current, laughably stupid talking point (that he doesn't even understand) is being regurgitated directly from here:

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

He shamelessly plagiarizes that website.  And it's funny watching him try to stand on his own, then say something very stupid, then go google for a talking point from this website.

And it is every single time. Try it out, sometime. I have found his words verbatim there more than once.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Trust me, actual measurements and comparisons to mountains of data mean more than your gut feelings.



Not gut feelings, but scientific observations.  It doesn't show evolution.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> *Scientific racism* (sometimes referred to as *race biology*),[1][2] is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.[3][4][5]Historically, scientific racist ideas received credence in the scientific community but are no longer considered scientific.[4][5]
> 
> _{snip}_
> 
> The term "scientific racism" is generally used pejoratively as applied to more modern theories, as in _The Bell Curve_ (1994). Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence.[10] Publications such as the _Mankind Quarterly_, founded explicitly as a "race-conscious" journal, are generally regarded as platforms of scientific racism for publishing articles on fringe interpretations of human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race subjects.
Click to expand...


There's nothing scientific about racism.  It's pseudoscientific, but the social Darwinists, eugenics believers, people like Hitler, racists, white supremacists, Planned Parenthood, and more believe it.  Why are they all on the liberal side?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Study: Last Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans Lived 800,000 Years Ago | Anthropology, Paleoanthropology | Sci-News.com

Earlier than previously thought...


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Scientific racism* (sometimes referred to as *race biology*),[1][2] is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.[3][4][5]Historically, scientific racist ideas received credence in the scientific community but are no longer considered scientific.[4][5]
> 
> _{snip}_
> 
> The term "scientific racism" is generally used pejoratively as applied to more modern theories, as in _The Bell Curve_ (1994). Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence.[10] Publications such as the _Mankind Quarterly_, founded explicitly as a "race-conscious" journal, are generally regarded as platforms of scientific racism for publishing articles on fringe interpretations of human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing scientific about racism.  It's pseudoscientific, but the social Darwinists, eugenics believers, people like Hitler, racists, white supremacists, Planned Parenthood, and more believe it.  Why are they all on the liberal side?
Click to expand...

On the liberal side, eh?


> The theory was used to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism. Class stratification was justified on the basis of “natural” inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a correlate of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness, temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society through state intervention or other means would, therefore, interfere with natural processes; unrestricted competition and defense of the status quo were in accord with biological selection. The poor were the “unfit” and should not be aided; in the struggle for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At the societal level, social Darwinism was used as a philosophical rationalization for imperialist, colonialist, and racist policies, sustaining belief in Anglo-Saxon or Aryan cultural and biological superiority.


What exactly is a liberal?


> The word has—for some people, at least—taken on some negative connotations when used in a political sense in the United States. It is still embraced with pride by others.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Is Planned Parenthood really racist -or- has it just been constantly accused of being racist by racists and other political opponents? National Republican Radio asks and reluctantly answers.. (No and Yes)


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> Is Planned Parenthood really racist -or- has it just been constantly accused of being racist by racists and other political opponents? National Republican Radio asks and reluctantly answers.. (No and Yes)


well the founder was very clear about why she started it,,,


3. "We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...


21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick


----------



## Grumblenuts

Would you like it if people started accusing you of wanting to exterminate all Black people? No? Think you might tell a colleague that you wouldn't like that to happen? Yes? OMG, what disgusting person you are!


progressive hunter said:


> 21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick


Wow, what a shameless political hatchet job. Have you asked the authors why they think Italian women (highly Catholic, you know, from where the Pope resides?) still rely so much upon birth control?


----------



## Grumblenuts

> The only contraception method sanctioned by the Catholic Church is natural family planning (NFP) — a method of non-hormonal birth control that involves tracking a woman’s fertility through biological markers like taking her temperature, examining her cervical mucus, or counting the days between her menstrual cycle. NFP has about a 24 percent failure rate and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend it for women who could be placed in medical danger by a pregnancy.
> 
> NFP isn’t very popular among the faithful. Only 2 percent of U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age actually use this method, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Meanwhile, according to a 2014 poll by Univision, 79 percent of Catholics around the world support the use of other forms of contraception. Previous polling has reported that 82 percent of American Catholics say birth control is “morally acceptable,” and 98 percent of U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age have used contraception at some point while they’ve been sexually active.


Congratulations on getting us so far off the topic with your BS.


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> Would you like it if people started accusing you of wanting to exterminate all Black people? No? Think you might tell a colleague that you wouldn't like that to happen? Yes? OMG, what disgusting person you are!
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a shameless political hatchet job. Have you asked the authors why they think Italian women (highly Catholic, you know, from where the Pope resides?) still rely so much upon birth control?
Click to expand...

your deflection is well noted and rejected as complete bullshit since its obvious you didnt click the link and read the other quotes,,nor did you do any real research on her


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> The only contraception method sanctioned by the Catholic Church is natural family planning (NFP) — a method of non-hormonal birth control that involves tracking a woman’s fertility through biological markers like taking her temperature, examining her cervical mucus, or counting the days between her menstrual cycle. NFP has about a 24 percent failure rate and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend it for women who could be placed in medical danger by a pregnancy.
> 
> NFP isn’t very popular among the faithful. Only 2 percent of U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age actually use this method, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Meanwhile, according to a 2014 poll by Univision, 79 percent of Catholics around the world support the use of other forms of contraception. Previous polling has reported that 82 percent of American Catholics say birth control is “morally acceptable,” and 98 percent of U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age have used contraception at some point while they’ve been sexually active.
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on getting us so far off the topic with your BS.
Click to expand...

youre one to talk,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

progressive hunter said:


> your deflection is well noted and rejected as complete bullshit since its obvious you didnt click the link and read the other quotes,,nor did you do any real research on her


That's your deflection and of course I read the fucking quotes, you shameless prick.


----------



## Grumblenuts

progressive hunter said:


> youre one to talk,,,


_"Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh!"_ to you to.


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> your deflection is well noted and rejected as complete bullshit since its obvious you didnt click the link and read the other quotes,,nor did you do any real research on her
> 
> 
> 
> That's your deflection and of course I read the fucking quotes, you shameless prick.
Click to expand...

then that makes you a bold faced liar,,,you should have stuck with deflection


----------



## Grumblenuts

No, I should have just ignored you in the first place.


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> No, I should have just ignored you in the first place.


and as usual you switch to personal attacks when you cant back up your claim or are proven wrong


----------



## Grumblenuts

_Pffft!_


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> _Pffft!_


as expected,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

Done yet?


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> Done yet?


with what???


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uninformed opinions are nothing more than what you copy and paste from ID’iot creation ministries
> 
> 
> 
> Thats exactly right. His current, laughably stupid talking point (that he doesn't even understand) is being regurgitated directly from here:
> 
> Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com
> 
> He shamelessly plagiarizes that website.  And it's funny watching him try to stand on his own, then say something very stupid, then go google for a talking point from this website.
> 
> And it is every single time. Try it out, sometime. I have found his words verbatim there more than once.
Click to expand...


Finally, you linked something intelligent.  The unintelligent find a human foot fossil in a layer that is much older than should be and assume it was a creature that was in the process of becoming human.  It's always the facts to fit the story with evolution.  It is wrongness on top of wrongness.  The creation scientist would examine it and check the DNA and all and say it is an old fossil of a human foot.  Could be around 10 K years old.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Finally, you linked something intelligent.


No,I linked a hilariously stupid blog by a young earth creationist idiot with no credentials, education, or experience in this field, and who knows less about evolution than does a high school student.

There is a reason that lying retard is writing blogs for creation.com and not publishing in scientific journals. And no, its not because "Jesus told him to".  

So,one has to ask: who is the bigger moron? The lying retard creationist blogger, or the fool who regurgitates what he says without even understanding it?


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you linked something intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> No,I linked a hilariously stupid blog by a young earth creationist idiot with no credentials, education, or experience in this field, and who knows less about evolution than does a high school student.
> 
> There is a reason that lying retard is writing blogs for creation.com and not publishing in scientific journals. And no, its not because "Jesus told him to".
> 
> So,one has to ask: who is the bigger moron? The lying retard creationist blogger, or the fool who regurgitates what he says without even understanding it?
Click to expand...



so you admit to being an attention hungry troll,,,,


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No,I linked a hilariously stupid blog by a young earth creationist idiot with no credentials, education, or experience in this field, and who knows less about evolution than does a high school student.
> 
> There is a reason that lying retard is writing blogs for creation.com and not publishing in scientific journals. And no, its not because "Jesus told him to".
> 
> So,one has to ask: who is the bigger moron? The lying retard creationist blogger, or the fool who regurgitates what he says without even understanding it?



It's not a blog.  It's not a website I use normally, but have used it a few times since you attribute it to me. It's a creation science website with real scientists.  Not the fake ones like evolution has.

It just goes to show how big of a fool and idiot of a little man you are.  You can go crawl back under your rock now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's not a blog.


Of course, it is a blog. And no, there is no such thing as creation science. That's why nobody is performing or publishing creation science: because it does not exist.

No, there are no actual scoentists contributing to that blog. You're either a shameless liar or a gullible idiot on that one. 

Mehlert is not a real scientist. He is a fraud with no credentials or published science. Hey...just like you!


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a blog.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it is a blog. And no, there is no such thing as creation science. That's why nobody is performing or publishing creation science: because it does not exist.
> 
> Mehlert is not a real scientist. He is a fraud with no credentials or published science. Hey...just like you!
Click to expand...

man you are such a mindless troll,,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

> The late A. W. (Bill) Mehlert had a Diploma in Theology and lived in Brisbane, Australia.


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> The late A. W. (Bill) Mehlert had a Diploma in Theology and lived in Brisbane, Australia.
Click to expand...



your point is???


He was a keen student of Flood geology and the fossil record, including the supposed fossil evidence for human evolution, and wrote a number of important articles on these topics in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Creation.


----------



## Grumblenuts

LOL!


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a blog.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it is a blog. And no, there is no such thing as creation science. That's why nobody is performing or publishing creation science: because it does not exist.
> 
> No, there are no actual scoentists contributing to that blog. You're either a shameless liar or a gullible idiot on that one.
> 
> Mehlert is not a real scientist. He is a fraud with no credentials or published science. Hey...just like you!
Click to expand...


You are not credible.  First you told me that we saw Sgr A when the image of the black hole came out last month.  I had to figure out for myself that it wasn't a shadow, but a silhouette.  It just goes to show you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Anyway, how can a little man like you know anything about creation science, i.e. real science, when you do not understand fake science?  ROFL .


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He is a fraud with no credentials or published science.



Wrong again and again and again.  You are little man who keeps shrinking by the post.  Mehlert did the research for the article.  He has done peer-reviewed work by AIG.

Here
The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470


----------



## Grumblenuts

It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..


progressive hunter said:


> He was a keen student of Flood geology and the fossil record, including the supposed fossil evidence for human evolution, and wrote a number of important articles on these topics in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Creation.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..



Not I, nuts boy.  Like I said, I do not normally use creation.com, but have been doing so just to bug your butt buddy, Fort Fun Indiana.  I can't help it if he's one of those in the closet creation science readers.

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated, so you shouldn't let your diarrhea fingers get carried away there.


----------



## progressive hunter

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not I, nuts boy.  Like I said, I do not normally use creation.com, but have been doing so just to bug your butt buddy, Fort Fun Indiana.  I can't help it if he's one of those in the closet creation science readers.
> 
> BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated, so you shouldn't let your diarrhea fingers get carried away there.
Click to expand...



he does have a habit of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a keen student of Flood geology and the fossil record, including the supposed fossil evidence for human evolution, and wrote a number of important articles on these topics in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Creation.
Click to expand...



hey I was just posting the part you left out of your cut and paste,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> First you told me that we saw Sgr A when the image of the black hole came out last month


No, i didnt. You're confused. Again.


james bond said:


> I had to figure out for myself that it wasn't a shadow, but a silhouette.


Actually, it's either one. You were wrong about that, too. 



james bond said:


> He has done peer-reviewed work by AIG.


Haha...so embarrassing....

He has no credentials and no published science. He is a fraud, and you are a fool who regurgitates and plagiarizes frauds.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated,


You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you told me that we saw Sgr A when the image of the black hole came out last month
> 
> 
> 
> No, i didnt. You're confused. Again.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to figure out for myself that it wasn't a shadow, but a silhouette.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's either one. You were wrong about that, too.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has done peer-reviewed work by AIG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...so embarrassing....
> 
> He has no credentials and no published science. He is a fraud, and you are a fool who regurgitates and plagiarizes frauds.
Click to expand...

so says the troll,,,

give it up bud, you are just stuck on your mindless religion,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated,
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.
Click to expand...

peer review means nothing if they are all wrong,,,


----------



## james bond

progressive hunter said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not I, nuts boy.  Like I said, I do not normally use creation.com, but have been doing so just to bug your butt buddy, Fort Fun Indiana.  I can't help it if he's one of those in the closet creation science readers.
> 
> BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated, so you shouldn't let your diarrhea fingers get carried away there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> he does have a habit of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger,,,
Click to expand...


It's up to them to show evidence for their claims, but they are so trivial or turn out to be fraudulent that one just does an eyeroll .  For example, they claimed East Rudolf specimen 1470 or KNM–ER 1470 was a new species of Homo rudolfensis.  

Homo rudolfensis: KNM-ER 1470 | eFossils Resources

The skull was assembled by famed paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey and his wife, Meave, and was sent to the Kenya National Museum – East Rudolf and classified as Homo habilis.  So far, so good.  But hey, not so fast, 

"Homo habilis shares many features with the apes known as Australopithecus. Like them, H. habilis has a long-armed, short-legged and ape-like skeletal structure. Its hands and feet are well suited to climbing. These characteristics show that H. habilis spent most of its time in the trees.

The volume of the majority of skulls classified as H. habilis does not exceed 650 cubic centimeters. This brain size is very close to that of present-day gorillas. On the other hand, its jaw structure closely resembles that of present-day apes, definitely proving that it was an ape.

In terms of general skull features, it bears a closer resemblance to Australopithecus africanus. Like A. africanus, H. habilis has no eyebrow protrusions. Previously, this feature led to its being misinterpreted and depicted as a human-like creature."

Thus, even the famed Richard Leakey gets it wrong, but the evos just hype their wrongness to no end.

KNM-ER 1470 Fraud


----------



## progressive hunter

james bond said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not I, nuts boy.  Like I said, I do not normally use creation.com, but have been doing so just to bug your butt buddy, Fort Fun Indiana.  I can't help it if he's one of those in the closet creation science readers.
> 
> BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated, so you shouldn't let your diarrhea fingers get carried away there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> he does have a habit of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to them to show evidence for their claims, but they are so trivial or turn out to be fraudulent that one just does an eyeroll .  For example, they claimed East Rudolf specimen 1470 or KNM–ER 1470 was a new species of Homo rudolfensis.
> 
> Homo rudolfensis: KNM-ER 1470 | eFossils Resources
> 
> The skull was assembled by famed paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey and his wife, Meave, and was sent to the Kenya National Museum – East Rudolf and classified as Homo habilis.  So far, so good.  But hey, not so fast,
> 
> "Homo habilis shares many features with the apes known as Australopithecus. Like them, H. habilis has a long-armed, short-legged and ape-like skeletal structure. Its hands and feet are well suited to climbing. These characteristics show that H. habilis spent most of its time in the trees.
> 
> The volume of the majority of skulls classified as H. habilis does not exceed 650 cubic centimeters. This brain size is very close to that of present-day gorillas. On the other hand, its jaw structure closely resembles that of present-day apes, definitely proving that it was an ape.
> 
> In terms of general skull features, it bears a closer resemblance to Australopithecus africanus. Like A. africanus, H. habilis has no eyebrow protrusions. Previously, this feature led to its being misinterpreted and depicted as a human-like creature."
> 
> Thus, even the famed Richard Leakey gets it wrong, but the evos just hype their wrongness to no end.
> 
> KNM-ER 1470 Fraud
Click to expand...



what thats called is just

MAKIN SHIT UP,,,


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you told me that we saw Sgr A when the image of the black hole came out last month
> 
> 
> 
> No, i didnt. You're confused. Again.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to figure out for myself that it wasn't a shadow, but a silhouette.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's either one. You were wrong about that, too.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has done peer-reviewed work by AIG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...so embarrassing....
> 
> He has no credentials and no published science. He is a fraud, and you are a fool who regurgitates and plagiarizes frauds.
Click to expand...


How can you be so wrong about a black hole?  The image that was taken was in another galaxy.

Second, you still do not know the difference between a shadow and silhouette even though it was painstakingly explained to you.  What a dummy!

Thus, anything you have to say about creation.com and it's top writers completely miss the mark and are so wrong.  When you have wrongness on top of wrongness on top of wrongness, then it's better to just let the idiot stammer and stew instead of trying ot fix it.  Is there a saying that if something is broke so much, then don't bother to fix it?  In the case of you brain, that would be the perfect quote.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's up to them to show evidence for their claims,


I would direct you to a 6th grade science book. Start there.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I would direct you to a 6th grade science book. Start there.



This is beyond your reading level, but is a good start for many children:
Children’s Books


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.



I did with the trueorigin article.  It's written by the same author and his work has been peer-reviewed.  Of course, that article is too advanced for you so you could not understand even if you read it.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's up to them to show evidence for their claims,
> 
> 
> 
> I would direct you to a 6th grade science book. Start there.
Click to expand...



Which ones would you recommend that didn't find too far over your head?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> "Previously, this feature led to its being misinterpreted and depicted as a human-like creature."


So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you  somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!


james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did with the trueorigin article.  It's written by the same author and his work has been peer-reviewed.  Of course, that article is too advanced for you so you could not understand even if you read it.
Click to expand...

What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?

Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's up to them to show evidence for their claims,
> 
> 
> 
> I would direct you to a 6th grade science book. Start there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones would you recommend that didn't find too far over your head?
Click to expand...

Meh,not witty or fresh. C-


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!



You guys made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists in people's imaginations just like evolution.  It's just just like you made up what the too old foot fossil was, the fake homo rudolfensis, Piltdown Man, and more:











 .

Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?



Grumblenuts said:


> What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?
> 
> Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?



Why don't you briefly rebut?  What did you say your background was again lol?  So far, I connect you with Fort Fun Indiana who thinks he made it to 7th grade (but still in 4th).

The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470


----------



## toobfreak

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists in people's imaginations just like evolution.  It's just just like you made up what the too old foot fossil was, the fake homo rudolfensis, Piltdown Man, and more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?
> 
> Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you briefly rebut?  What did you say your background was again lol?  So far, I connect you with Fort Fun Indiana who thinks he made it to 7th grade (but still in 4th).
> 
> The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470
Click to expand...



You're a little cornfused, James.  Heidelberg Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Cro-Magnon, etc., these are all only references to specimens found at specific locations, not as distinct, separate species.  But the evidence is clear that man evolved from the same ancestry that apes came from and part of what helped them advance was both their learning to stand on two legs to see farther as well as giving up berries and fruits to become a hunter which the added protein gave a higher quality food source to support a larger brain.


----------



## Grumblenuts

So that already discussed dead guy is still your alleged peer reviewed "author", except not in the "creation science" arena? ...  "work by AIG" was peer reviewed, not his work in particular? Here's some peer review of AIG:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-AIG-RVW2987517.htm
Is that what you meant?
Incoherent.


james bond said:


> Why don't you briefly rebut?


Already did. You not liking my rebuttal doesn't make it nonexistent.


james bond said:


> Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?


Already covered too. There's no such thing as a creation scientist.


----------



## james bond

This should be case closed.







"_*Figure 1. *Salkhit skullcap found in Mongolia. _
Image credit: Copyright © Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."






"_Image credit: Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev. Copyright © 2015 Allrus.me. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."_

"A skull fossil found in Mongolia in 2006 was linked to evolutionary icons like _H. neanderthalensis_ and_ H. erectus _because of its alleged “archaic” features. A recent study now dates it at about 34,000 years, which puts it in the same age range (evolutionarily speaking) as very recent humans.1 This study also extracted mitochondrial DNA from the skull and placed it within the range of modern Eurasian humans. Considering that secular scientists have dated other human skulls with “anatomically modern” features at over 300,000 years,2 these new findings of “recent” humans with archaic features highlight the abject futility of the human evolution story."

Recent Humans with Archaic Features Upend Evolution


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> So that already discussed dead guy is still your alleged peer reviewed "author", except not in the "creation science" arena? ... "work by AIG" was peer reviewed, not his work in particular? Here's some peer review of AIG:
> https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-AIG-RVW2987517.htm
> Is that what you meant?
> Incoherent.



I'll put you down as diarrhea of the fingers and avoiding the question/issue which is a fallacy.



Grumblenuts said:


> Already did. You not liking my rebuttal doesn't make it nonexistent.



Which post was that?  Like I said diarrhea of the fingers makes it hard to read, but easy to skip.  Also, you've been caught with the false attribution fallacy.



Grumblenuts said:


> Already covered too. There's no such thing as a creation scientist.



Ignorance is no excuse and see above.

I suppose this wraps up and summarizes your evolution is fact posts.


----------



## james bond

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists in people's imaginations just like evolution.  It's just just like you made up what the too old foot fossil was, the fake homo rudolfensis, Piltdown Man, and more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?
> 
> Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you briefly rebut?  What did you say your background was again lol?  So far, I connect you with Fort Fun Indiana who thinks he made it to 7th grade (but still in 4th).
> 
> The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a little cornfused, James.  Heidelberg Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Cro-Magnon, etc., these are all only references to specimens found at specific locations, not as distinct, separate species.  But the evidence is clear that man evolved from the same ancestry that apes came from and part of what helped them advance was both their learning to stand on two legs to see farther as well as giving up berries and fruits to become a hunter which the added protein gave a higher quality food source to support a larger brain.
Click to expand...


You know very well Piltdown Man was fraud.  Do you want to go over the rest, too haha?

And I've been saying all along that the layers that all the fossils in the fossil record that were found refer to location and not time chronology.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> diarrhea of the





james bond said:


> I've been saying


----------



## james bond

Two old fossils.  See the resemblance?  There you go.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists in people's imaginations just like evolution.  It's just just like you made up what the too old foot fossil was, the fake homo rudolfensis, Piltdown Man, and more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?
> 
> Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you briefly rebut?  What did you say your background was again lol?  So far, I connect you with Fort Fun Indiana who thinks he made it to 7th grade (but still in 4th).
> 
> The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a little cornfused, James.  Heidelberg Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Cro-Magnon, etc., these are all only references to specimens found at specific locations, not as distinct, separate species.  But the evidence is clear that man evolved from the same ancestry that apes came from and part of what helped them advance was both their learning to stand on two legs to see farther as well as giving up berries and fruits to become a hunter which the added protein gave a higher quality food source to support a larger brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know very well Piltdown Man was fraud.  Do you want to go over the rest, too haha?
> 
> And I've been saying all along that the layers that all the fossils in the fossil record that were found refer to location and not time chronology.
Click to expand...

You have been saying a lot of things that are nonsensical. Your "sayings" are right out of the most notorious fundamentalist ministries, totally unsupported and absent verification.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> This should be case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_*Figure 1. *Salkhit skullcap found in Mongolia. _
> Image credit: Copyright © Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_Image credit: Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev. Copyright © 2015 Allrus.me. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."_
> 
> "A skull fossil found in Mongolia in 2006 was linked to evolutionary icons like _H. neanderthalensis_ and_ H. erectus _because of its alleged “archaic” features. A recent study now dates it at about 34,000 years, which puts it in the same age range (evolutionarily speaking) as very recent humans.1 This study also extracted mitochondrial DNA from the skull and placed it within the range of modern Eurasian humans. Considering that secular scientists have dated other human skulls with “anatomically modern” features at over 300,000 years,2 these new findings of “recent” humans with archaic features highlight the abject futility of the human evolution story."
> 
> Recent Humans with Archaic Features Upend Evolution



Pretty funny stuff from quacks at the ICR. Can you link to any peer reviewed journals that the ICR submitted their data to?


----------



## dannyboys

I amso IR said:


> Hello Dalia, what is your position on recreating dino's from DNA. Me, I think we can do without them roaming about. I have read that they would be horrible household pets.


It's been done pal.
Didn't you watch the 'BREAKING NEWS BOMBSHELL' report CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WP all did on the story. They all titled their BOMBSHELLS 'Jurassic Park'.
It was none other than Brian Williams who first broke the story when he was pinned down by enemy machine gun fire somewhere in the south pacific.


----------



## dannyboys

Dalia said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, the oldest family is the Herrerasauridae, the first family of dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Did they live in what is now Israel?
I'm sure I saw their name in the Dead Sea Scrolls.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated,
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.
Click to expand...


Just as I thought.  No rebuttal from nuts boy.  Nor your butt buddy Fort Fun Indiana.  Creation scientists have to peer review their own work since they have been eliminated from fake science.  That's why you guys are wrong on human fossils.  My evidence is observable and not artists' fake representations made to fit the theory.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated,
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  No rebuttal from nuts boy.  Nor your butt buddy Fort Fun Indiana.  Creation scientists have to peer review their own work since they have been eliminated from fake science.  That's why you guys are wrong on human fossils.  My evidence is observable and not artists' fake representations made to fit the theory.
Click to expand...


Fundamentist hacks don't submit anything for peer review by the relevant science community because they do no research, perform no experiments or submit to science journals. 

Your revulsion for science is obvious but don't let your biases give credibility to your silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This should be case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_*Figure 1. *Salkhit skullcap found in Mongolia. _
> Image credit: Copyright © Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_Image credit: Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev. Copyright © 2015 Allrus.me. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."_
> 
> "A skull fossil found in Mongolia in 2006 was linked to evolutionary icons like _H. neanderthalensis_ and_ H. erectus _because of its alleged “archaic” features. A recent study now dates it at about 34,000 years, which puts it in the same age range (evolutionarily speaking) as very recent humans.1 This study also extracted mitochondrial DNA from the skull and placed it within the range of modern Eurasian humans. Considering that secular scientists have dated other human skulls with “anatomically modern” features at over 300,000 years,2 these new findings of “recent” humans with archaic features highlight the abject futility of the human evolution story."
> 
> Recent Humans with Archaic Features Upend Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny stuff from quacks at the ICR. Can you link to any peer reviewed journals that the ICR submitted their data to?
Click to expand...


So the obvious is no. Christian fundamentalist hacks cannot withstand the rigor of peer review.


----------



## Grumblenuts

When you have faith you can just make it all up as you go along. The next world is all that really matters so why sweat the details here?

Look at these heads here.. We've obviously evolved from foods!


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> When you have faith you can just make it all up as you go along. The next world is all that really matters so why sweat the details here?



Nuts boy, aren't you a silly little man?  None of this is made up.  It is the word of God.  He didn't discuss science, but science backs up what he said.  The word of God cannot change. 

Maybe you will understand this too late when you are about to take your last breath.  To the contrary, it is evos who make it all up as they go along.  I already presented evidence of the human foot fossil that was too old to be human.  They made up a silly story to explain it and fit their fake theory.  The human fossil records isn't three million years old.  As I forecast, I can guarantee that your evo scientists will be making these records even older along with the Earth and universe.  They think that we will be hit by a giant asteroid and die.  That's catastrophism which is what creation science teaches.  What happened to AGW lol?

If all of this evolution is true, then we should see people getting stronger and living longer.  They are living shorter.  They can't even make it to 120 yrs old anymore.

For you, I have the following to review.  At least, it won't strain your brain like a peer review, even if it is a fake evo one.  Do you know the six basic concepts of evolution haha?

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

Thus, we can see that you are wrong and have been wrong.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Pffft!

Btw, I happen to agree that gluons are silliness, but Goddidit is far sillier.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have faith you can just make it all up as you go along. The next world is all that really matters so why sweat the details here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuts boy, aren't you a silly little man?  None of this is made up.  It is the word of God.  He didn't discuss science, but science backs up what he said.  The word of God cannot change.
> 
> Maybe you will understand this too late when you are about to take your last breath.  To the contrary, it is evos who make it all up as they go along.  I already presented evidence of the human foot fossil that was too old to be human.  They made up a silly story to explain it and fit their fake theory.  The human fossil records isn't three million years old.  As I forecast, I can guarantee that your evo scientists will be making these records even older along with the Earth and universe.  They think that we will be hit by a giant asteroid and die.  That's catastrophism which is what creation science teaches.  What happened to AGW lol?
> 
> If all of this evolution is true, then we should see people getting stronger and living longer.  They are living shorter.  They can't even make it to 120 yrs old anymore.
> 
> For you, I have the following to review.  At least, it won't strain your brain like a peer review, even if it is a fake evo one.  Do you know the six basic concepts of evolution haha?
> 
> Chick.com: Big Daddy?
> 
> Thus, we can see that you are wrong and have been wrong.
Click to expand...


All of your usual conspiracy theory ramblings.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


>


This is so wrong as it was demonstrated using the scientific method that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  You're behind the times Grandpa Nutz Boy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Arguing with Perry now? You do understand He's just a roofer, right? Don't forget to pay Him!


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Arguing with Perry now? You do understand He's just a roofer, right? Don't forget to pay Him!



Not Perry, but the idiot who posted the dumb cartoon.with his diarrhea fingers Grandpa Nutz Boi.

Here's something to put in your pipe and think about the next time...


----------



## Grumblenuts

So lame. Get back to me when you manage to beat your way out of a wet paper sack..


----------



## james bond

Aww.  You didn't put it in your pipe and think about it or even have it with your coffee tomorrow morning.


----------



## james bond

It's not like I am saying anyone here is an evil person.  I assume people are here because of dinosaurs and wanting to know more about them and discuss.  Yet, it's the nature of our worldviews that will bring us into conflict and people want to discover what is the truth.  I mean why would a person need to be saved if they aren't evil or they believe it so.  However, that is not the case.  We all have original sin.  It prevents us from living nicely in the next life.  Then Satan makes us bad or do wrong things; He doesn't want you to know that he exists.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's not like I am saying anyone here is an evil person.  I assume people are here because of dinosaurs and wanting to know more about them and discuss.  Yet, it's the nature of our worldviews that will bring us into conflict and people want to discover what is the truth.  I mean why would a person need to be saved if they aren't evil or they believe it so.  However, that is not the case.  We all have original sin.  It prevents us from living nicely in the next life.  Then Satan makes us bad or do wrong things; He doesn't want you to know that he exists.



Obviously, you simply don't care that posters may find it offensive when you seek to impose your religious fears and superstitions on others.

 Why do people make their god(s) so weak that threats and intimidation are used to coerce people to "believe"? 

Living a life under a delusion is a sad existence. In many cases, such a belief is harmless. In many cases though, the belief is far from harmless.

From the atheistic point of view, the theist cannot withstand a world wherein humans are the final owners of our destiny, that acts need to be watched over and adjudicated by a father figure dwelling in some supernatural realm, (and never seen), and that human progress is inherently hindered, impossible without the guidance of the father figure. Finally, the theist is in a psychological dilemma of superiority/inferiority -- they are so vaunted by their gods that the entire realm of existence was created exclusively for them, but they are so unworthy that they are but evil and base in the sight of their deities. That is a prescription for a maladjusted personality, and again, it's evident by the seething passions that theistic belief has whipped up time and time again.

I do, by the way choose not to believe in your version of angry, vindictive gods. 

That is a predicament for you to resolve as my free will _reduces_ the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc.

Why? You ask. Well let me tell you. If the gods are all knowing, then my act of free will reduces their “powers” in some way. Good for my case of reason and knowledge – bad for you case of superstition and conjecture.

Thanks


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Aww.  You didn't put it in your pipe and think about it or even have it with your coffee tomorrow morning.



Why is your cartoon of the jeebus depicting an image of a person with very western, Caucasian features?

Here you are again creating gods in your own image. That's kind of the height of conceit, forgery and misrepresentation.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


>


Everyone will die.  That's what Adam and Even brought.  More evidence for God.  The spiritually dead will lose their spiritually perfect bodies (souls).

As for Armageddon, there will those who burn to death and those who don't.


----------



## james bond

Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?

Welp.  The USGS is wrong lol.

Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?


----------



## progressive hunter

james bond said:


> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Welp.  The USGS is wrong lol.
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?




if they didnt then how do evos explain all the physical evidence and all the written and illustrated accounts from  humans knowing what they looked like???


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Welp.  The USGS is wrong lol.
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?



Nonsense.

You're having problems paying attention.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Welp.  The USGS is wrong lol.
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if they didnt then how do evos explain all the physical evidence and all the written and illustrated accounts from  humans knowing what they looked like???
Click to expand...


The simple answer for you simple types is to present some evidence that humans lived within the timeframe of dinosaurs. You haven't. You cannot.

Thanks.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Welp.  The USGS is wrong lol.
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if they didnt then how do evos explain all the physical evidence and all the written and illustrated accounts from  humans knowing what they looked like???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The simple answer for you simple types is to present some evidence that humans lived within the timeframe of dinosaurs. You haven't. You cannot.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


The atheist joke is humans live with birds haha.  The evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs are:

"Coelacanth
Paleontologists believed that coelacanths went extinct about 65 million years ago. However, in 1938, fishermen off the coast of South Africa found them alive and well. By evolutionary logic, coelacanths have coexisted with a multitude of other sea creatures for the last 65 million years; yet, the fossil record is silent. In addition, coelacanths and humans continue to coexist even though their fossil bones have never been discovered together.

 Tuatara
Native to New Zealand, this beakhead lizard supposedly went extinct about 135 million years ago. For the last 135 million years on the evolutionary timeline, not a single Tuatara fossil has ever been discovered.One Small Speck to Man. p. 36.">1 Therefore, for the last 135 million years the Tuatara has coexisted with a number of other animals, yet the fossil record bears no record. Tuataras and humans continue to coexist even though their fossil bones have never been discovered together.

 Rock rat
the rock rat has coexisted with many other creatures without the fossil record bearing witness.
Just recently, scientists were shocked to discover that the Laotian rock rat was alive and well in the jungles of Laos. Based on the fossil record, this type of rodent was believed to have gone extinct about 11 million years ago.Creation 29(2):52–55, 2007.">2 Once again, the rock rat has coexisted with many other creatures without the fossil record bearing witness. In addition, this small rodent lives with humans today, yet their fossil bones have never been discovered next to human bones."

There are many more.  Just because we do not have human and dinosaur fossils doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Welp.  The USGS is wrong lol.
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if they didnt then how do evos explain all the physical evidence and all the written and illustrated accounts from  humans knowing what they looked like???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The simple answer for you simple types is to present some evidence that humans lived within the timeframe of dinosaurs. You haven't. You cannot.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist joke is humans live with birds haha.  The evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs are:
> 
> "Coelacanth
> Paleontologists believed that coelacanths went extinct about 65 million years ago. However, in 1938, fishermen off the coast of South Africa found them alive and well. By evolutionary logic, coelacanths have coexisted with a multitude of other sea creatures for the last 65 million years; yet, the fossil record is silent. In addition, coelacanths and humans continue to coexist even though their fossil bones have never been discovered together.
> 
> Tuatara
> Native to New Zealand, this beakhead lizard supposedly went extinct about 135 million years ago. For the last 135 million years on the evolutionary timeline, not a single Tuatara fossil has ever been discovered.One Small Speck to Man. p. 36.">1 Therefore, for the last 135 million years the Tuatara has coexisted with a number of other animals, yet the fossil record bears no record. Tuataras and humans continue to coexist even though their fossil bones have never been discovered together.
> 
> Rock rat
> the rock rat has coexisted with many other creatures without the fossil record bearing witness.
> Just recently, scientists were shocked to discover that the Laotian rock rat was alive and well in the jungles of Laos. Based on the fossil record, this type of rodent was believed to have gone extinct about 11 million years ago.Creation 29(2):52–55, 2007.">2 Once again, the rock rat has coexisted with many other creatures without the fossil record bearing witness. In addition, this small rodent lives with humans today, yet their fossil bones have never been discovered next to human bones."
> 
> There are many more.  Just because we do not have human and dinosaur fossils doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Click to expand...


The ID'iot creationist joke is the planet is 6,000 years old. That's a bit of a problem for the fundie zealots when timeframes extend toward millions of years.

Your cut and paste is from here: Dinosaurs, humans and the fossil record - creation.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Your cut and paste is from here:


Every time...


----------



## Hollie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your cut and paste is from here:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time...
Click to expand...


What's comical is that the boy provided nothing to indicate that humans shared the planet 65 million years ago with the species noted above.

How does the boy reconcile the Coelacanth, thought to have gone extinct 65 million years ago, with biblical genesis?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> The simple answer for you simple types is to present some evidence that *humans lived within the timeframe of dinosaurs*. You haven't. You cannot.
> 
> Thanks.


Still waiting..


----------



## Grumblenuts

_


Hollie said:



			How does the boy reconcile the Coelacanth, thought to have gone extinct 65 million years ago, with biblical genesis?
		
Click to expand...

Oopsies!
_
Begs the question: Did Noah supposedly put two of each fish, amphibian, flightless bird, amoeba, virus,.. on the Ark?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer for you simple types is to present some evidence that *humans lived within the timeframe of dinosaurs*. You haven't. You cannot.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting..
Click to expand...







You must be dense because I already did.  Sorry, to insult you, but you have asked for evidence several times after I did. 

If you're waiting for Hollie to answer a question, then you will know what billions of years mean.  Hollie is one of the dumbest of my followers here. 

Furthermore, for one, you can't show the assumptions made about radiometric dating is correct for parent-daughter isotopes.  Two, we get time chronology of fossils as results that fit the theory or circular thinking again.  Three, we have humans writing about behemoths, dragons, and the like in their history; it comes from different parts of the world.  We even have large unknown creature sightings today.  We have coelacanth.  Are you going to admit that they were from 65 million/80 million years ago or not?  Aren't they living fossils then lol?  What happened to the common ancestor theory for it?











From water to land

I'll wait for you, Hollie, or even Fort Fun Indiana lol.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Begs the question: Did Noah supposedly put two of each fish, amphibian, flightless bird, amoeba, virus,.. on the Ark?



.  What a dumbass you are haha.  God brought the animals to Noah, so in his infinite wisdom just the creatures that were needed came.  He had already created natural selection.


----------



## Grumblenuts

So no coherent responses it is then. Oh well, at least you're reliable


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> So no coherent responses it is then. Oh well, at least you're reliable



I thought "What a dumbass you are" in post #340 was good.  Second would be "You must be dense" in post #339.


----------



## Grumblenuts

From source of image above:


> Coelacanths were thought to have become extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[6][7]
> 
> The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because scientists thought it was the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and that it evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.[8][9][10]


And oops again, no mention of dinosaurs. Oh well.. perhaps try reading, James..


----------



## james bond

The best evidence is in the Bible.  It discusses humans and behemoths and dragons.  There was no word for "dinosaur" back then.

Then we have historical, paleontological, and cryptozoological evidence.  There you go.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> The best evidence is in the Bible.  It discusses humans and behemoths and dragons.  There was no word for "dinosaur" back then.
> 
> Then we have historical, paleontological, and cryptozoological evidence.  There you go.


Yeah, there ya go. Bubbye!


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> From source of image above:
> 
> 
> 
> Coelacanths were thought to have become extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[6][7]
> 
> The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because scientists thought it was the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and that it evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.[8][9][10]
> 
> 
> 
> And oops again, no mention of dinosaurs. Oh well.. perhaps try reading, James..
Click to expand...


Try etymology.  dinosaur | Origin and meaning of dinosaur by Online Etymology Dictionary  Wasn't until 1841, the word came into existence.

According to evos, Coelacanth had legs, so I guess you missed READING that part.  Did you misplace your reading glasses, Grandpa?  Or you just whiffed completely haha?  .


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Try etymology. dinosaur | Origin and meaning of dinosaur by Online Etymology Dictionary Wasn't until 1841, the word came into existence.


So, according to you, Wikipedia somehow couldn't have used that word. Just as no Bible translator since 1841 could have either.

in·co·her·ent
/ˌinkōˈhirənt/
_adjective_

1.
(of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
"he screamed some incoherent threat"
synonyms: unclear, confused, muddled, unintelligible, incomprehensible, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected, unconnected, disordered, mixed up, garbled, jumbled, scrambled; More


----------



## Hollie

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best evidence is in the Bible.  It discusses humans and behemoths and dragons.  There was no word for "dinosaur" back then.
> 
> Then we have historical, paleontological, and cryptozoological evidence.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there ya go. Bubbye!
Click to expand...


Ahh. We can use evidence for dragons, talking snakes, 600 year old humans and all manner of ancient fears and superstitions as being true because "the bibles say so". 

"Good gawd", you folks are scary.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try etymology. dinosaur | Origin and meaning of dinosaur by Online Etymology Dictionary Wasn't until 1841, the word came into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> So, according to you, Wikipedia somehow couldn't have used that word. Just as no Bible translator since 1841 could have either.
> 
> in·co·her·ent
> /ˌinkōˈhirənt/
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> (of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
> "he screamed some incoherent threat"
> synonyms: unclear, confused, muddled, unintelligible, incomprehensible, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected, unconnected, disordered, mixed up, garbled, jumbled, scrambled; More
Click to expand...


"Top definition
Stupid af
To be so f*cking stupid
That kid is stupid af"

You can describe yourself as stupid af -- Urban Dictionary: Stupid af.

The link also says you can buy a coffee mug with "Stupid af" on it to let people know its yours.


----------



## james bond

For the intelligent followers of this thread, we have historical evidence from various parts of the world.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> "Good gawd", you folks are scary.



And your _folks_ believe fairy tales.  I discussed already with Fort Fun Indiana.  At least, he can carry on a discussion for a post or two before having to revert to ad hominem attacks.  He and the secular/atheist scientists think birds evolved from dinosaurs and a few of them are trying to reverse engineer a chicken into a dinosaur.  Fort Fun Indiana is a firm believer that it can be done.  What's hilarious are the claims and the results they've gotten so far.  Actually, it's a good thing these aren't living animals.  Poor creatures.

Obviously, he and you cannot provide any historical evidence of feathered dinosaurs from around the world as I have done in post #350.


----------



## james bond

Here's a good piece of historical evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.  How can this ancient artist know what this dino looked like if there were no fossils?  Obviously, he had seen one.  These are found all over the world from ancients stories and drawings.  Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s and even then it took time to reconstruct what they looked like so artists could draw them.

So, it seems that  those scientists and people who believe birds came from dinosaurs do not know what they are talking about.  None of these art work represent dinosaurs with feathers.  Just admit you are stupid af or show us the historical evidence from around the world?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Good gawd", you folks are scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your _folks_ believe fairy tales.  I discussed already with Fort Fun Indiana.  At least, he can carry on a discussion for a post or two before having to revert to ad hominem attacks.  He and the secular/atheist scientists think birds evolved from dinosaurs and a few of them are trying to reverse engineer a chicken into a dinosaur.  Fort Fun Indiana is a firm believer that it can be done.  What's hilarious are the claims and the results they've gotten so far.  Actually, it's a good thing these aren't living animals.  Poor creatures.
> 
> Obviously, he and you cannot provide any historical evidence of feathered dinosaurs from around the world as I have done in post #350.
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Good gawd", you folks are scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your _folks_ believe fairy tales.  I discussed already with Fort Fun Indiana.  At least, he can carry on a discussion for a post or two before having to revert to ad hominem attacks.  He and the secular/atheist scientists think birds evolved from dinosaurs and a few of them are trying to reverse engineer a chicken into a dinosaur.  Fort Fun Indiana is a firm believer that it can be done.  What's hilarious are the claims and the results they've gotten so far.  Actually, it's a good thing these aren't living animals.  Poor creatures.
> 
> Obviously, he and you cannot provide any historical evidence of feathered dinosaurs from around the world as I have done in post #350.
Click to expand...


I understand by fairy tales you’re referring to peer reviewed science. The facts of a very ancient earth and of biological evolution are not subject to the happenstance of place of birth and inheritance of the majority religion,  Science, including evolution, is based on *objective* evidence, evidence which is the same for everyone. Biological evolution is independent of partisan religious belief. It provides a method of understanding our existence on this planet _without_ appeals to your gods or anyone else’s gods.

What is glaringly evident Is that revulsion for science and knowledge as displayed by the hyper-religious derives from their abject fear of knowledge. The natural world is at odds with magic and supernaturalism. 

Nothing in science is intended to instill fear and cowering before angry supernatural entities who command by fear. That’s why the hyper-religious explanations for life on the planet tend to be simplistic and subjective - simplistic in that the existence of life is based on a simple step from one state (non-life) to some other (complex life as we now know it), all at the hand of various gods. That is unrealistic, and subjective in that the gods people inherit are almost exclusively a matter of place of birth and parentage.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here's a good piece of historical evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.  How can this ancient artist know what this dino looked like if there were no fossils?  Obviously, he had seen one.  These are found all over the world from ancients stories and drawings.  Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s and even then it took time to reconstruct what they looked like so artists could draw them.
> 
> So, it seems that  those scientists and people who believe birds came from dinosaurs do not know what they are talking about.  None of these art work represent dinosaurs with feathers.  Just admit you are stupid af or show us the historical evidence from around the world?



That’s not evidence of anything.

BTW, your comment “Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s“ is pure nonsense. You are simply making outrageous claims tha5 make you appear quite silly.

It took me all of 10 seconds to find an extensive list of fossils discovered by people thousands of years ago.

10 Prehistoric Fossils That Were Discovered In Ancient Times

Do you not understand that your nonsensical, uneducated and just plain comically wrong admonitions are the reason people point and laugh?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a good piece of historical evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.  How can this ancient artist know what this dino looked like if there were no fossils?  Obviously, he had seen one.  These are found all over the world from ancients stories and drawings.  Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s and even then it took time to reconstruct what they looked like so artists could draw them.
> 
> So, it seems that  those scientists and people who believe birds came from dinosaurs do not know what they are talking about.  None of these art work represent dinosaurs with feathers.  Just admit you are stupid af or show us the historical evidence from around the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not evidence of anything.
> 
> BTW, your comment “Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s“ is pure nonsense. You are simply making outrageous claims tha5 make you appear quite silly.
> 
> It took me all of 10 seconds to find an extensive list of fossils discovered by people thousands of years ago.
> 
> 10 Prehistoric Fossils That Were Discovered In Ancient Times
> 
> Do you not understand that your nonsensical, uneducated and just plain comically wrong admonitions are the reason point and laugh?
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> “Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s“


Haha...what moron said that?


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a good piece of historical evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.  How can this ancient artist know what this dino looked like if there were no fossils?  Obviously, he had seen one.  These are found all over the world from ancients stories and drawings.  Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s and even then it took time to reconstruct what they looked like so artists could draw them.
> 
> So, it seems that  those scientists and people who believe birds came from dinosaurs do not know what they are talking about.  None of these art work represent dinosaurs with feathers.  Just admit you are stupid af or show us the historical evidence from around the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not evidence of anything.
> 
> BTW, your comment “Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s“ is pure nonsense. You are simply making outrageous claims tha5 make you appear quite silly.
> 
> It took me all of 10 seconds to find an extensive list of fossils discovered by people thousands of years ago.
> 
> 10 Prehistoric Fossils That Were Discovered In Ancient Times
> 
> Do you not understand that your nonsensical, uneducated and just plain comically wrong admonitions are the reason point and laugh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s“
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...what moron said that?
Click to expand...



says the troll,,,


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Try etymology. dinosaur | Origin and meaning of dinosaur by Online Etymology Dictionary Wasn't until *1841*, the word came into existence.





Hollie said:


> BTW, your comment “Fossils weren't discovered until the *1840s*“ is pure nonsense. You are simply making outrageous claims tha5 make you appear quite silly.
> 
> It took me all of 10 seconds to find an extensive list of fossils discovered by people thousands of years ago.
> 
> 10 Prehistoric Fossils That Were Discovered In Ancient Times
> 
> Do you not understand that your nonsensical, uneducated and just plain comically wrong admonitions are the reason people point and laugh?


My guess is that James' brain has been stuck in amber since the early 1840's. Mind you, I have no cave drawings to prove it, but the similarity in dates simply can't be coincidence.

LOL 

Seriously, it seems James' knee must have jerked violently as the point of my earlier post flew right over his pointy, little head. I'll flesh it out here a bit more so he can do it again while others perhaps gain from a far less terse description.. because I think it's rather important that serious people get it! Here goes:

Many thumpers have claimed, earlier here and elsewhere, that the Bible contains descriptions and evidence of dinosaurs, and further, that this proves the earliest humans coexisted with dinosaurs. {Note: this is aside from any debate over whether current birds are dinosaurs that coexist with us now}. The thumpers (like James) incessantly cry that the word "dinosaur" didn't exist until recently (1841) so those who wrote and have translated the Bible had no choice but to use other words (like serpent, dragon, behemoth, etc.).

Okay, never mind that the Bible is so often touted as the "literal Word of God", written down exactly as told to "the Disciples" or "Apostles", so that if "God" meant dinosaurs "He" damn well would have said so from the git-go. And never mind that certain extinct woolly mammoths,  rhinoceros, saber-toothed tigers, massive snakes, and literal "sea monsters" likely did coexist with early humans who perhaps then drew and sculpted images inspired by them.


> A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."[9]



No, no, here's the real kicker. When you check out the current list of Bibles it should be almost immediately apparent that the vast majority were created post 1841. After, even long after, the word "dinosaur" was reportedly created. One can even search for the word "dinosaur" in the entire latest, greatest version they're working on now.



Spoiler: result



That's right. Nothing.



Now one might reasonably expect at least one of those modern translations to say "dinosaur" where it really means "dinosaur" since the thumpers argue so vehemently that they're in there.. Good luck searching! Perhaps there's alternative explanation that makes perfect sense.. Hmm..?



Spoiler: could cause pain - view at your own risk 



Oh, I dunno, could it be SHAMELESS REVISIONISM???


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I understand by fairy tales you’re referring to peer reviewed science.



You would not be able to comprehend peer reviews.  You barely understand evolution.  You do not even know how to read other's posts correctly.  On top of that, you're looney tunes.  Maybe you can find someone else to follow.


----------



## james bond

10 Prehistoric Fossils That Were Discovered In Ancient Times

Haha.  You guys are ridiculous and stupid af.  First, you are listening to Hollie and agreeing with her.  She is a loon and grasping at straws to prevent herself from sinking into the abyss.  So this is your evidence?  Where is the peer review that these are dinosaur fossils that we are talking about?  Did you even read the article and what the people did with them?  Do you even know how artists put together what dinosaurs looked like from fossils?  We didn't even have the word dinosaurs before then.

You guys get this award :


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand by fairy tales you’re referring to peer reviewed science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would not be able to comprehend peer reviews.  You barely understand evolution.  You do not even know how to read other's posts correctly.  On top of that, you're looney tunes.  Maybe you can find someone else to follow.
Click to expand...


I see you're angry and emotive and have launched into another of your kicking, screaming emotional outbursts.  

Peer review is actually quite easy to understand. For your reading pleasure, here is the link to the "about" section of the journal, _Nature_.

About Nature Publishing Group journals : authors & referees @ npg

*Scientific Reports*

Scientific Reports is an online, open access, multidisciplinary publication that publishes research in all areas of the biological, chemical, physical, and earth and environmental sciences. Scientific Reports provides rapid peer review and publication of research without barriers to access. To be considered for publication in Scientific Reports, a paper must be technically sound original research, without any requirement for impact or a conceptual advance. 



Notice the sentence from above "...._paper must be technically sound original research_,..."

Now, although you will refuse to admit it, we both know that the charlatans at your favorite fundamentalist ministry do no original research and "quoting" bible verses is not a technically sound argument.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I see you're angry and emotive and have launched into another of your kicking, screaming emotional outbursts.



Jeez, I'm only LMAO at your looney tunes.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> 10 Prehistoric Fossils That Were Discovered In Ancient Times
> 
> Haha.  You guys are ridiculous and stupid af.  First, you are listening to Hollie and agreeing with her.  She is a loon and grasping at straws to prevent herself from sinking into the abyss.  So this is your evidence?  Where is the peer review that these are dinosaur fossils that we are talking about?  Did you even read the article and what the people did with them?  Do you even know how artists put together what dinosaurs looked like from fossils?  We didn't even have the word dinosaurs before then.
> 
> You guys get this award :



Other than the above being another of your kicking, screeching emotional outbursts, you never were able to identify what your screeching was in objection to. 

Did you somehow miss that the article describes ancient fossils found by pre-scientific people?

That's quite a dilemma for you, as you wrote "Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s“.

How typical that you manage to contradict your own comments within the page of this thread.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're angry and emotive and have launched into another of your kicking, screaming emotional outbursts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez, I'm only LMAO at your looney tunes.
Click to expand...


I can't help but notice that you're reduced to cut and paste cartoons in the absence of a relevant response.


----------



## james bond

Let's not forget the important thing.  The evos do not have any historical evidence of birds from dinosaurs except for their wrong interpretation of the dinosaur fossils.  Are there ancient representation of feathered dinosaurs from around the world or are birds just birds?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Let's not forget the important thing.  The evos do not have any historical evidence of birds from dinosaurs except for their wrong interpretation of the dinosaur fossils.  Are there ancient representation of feathered dinosaurs from around the world or are birds just birds?



Actually, the "evos" have a great deal of evidence. 

The "religos" are in a panic over that evidence.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Highly unlikely James will ever really impress Miss Moneypenny with that mouth..


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> Here's a good piece of historical evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.  How can this ancient artist know what this dino looked like if there were no fossils?  Obviously, he had seen one.  These are found all over the world from ancients stories and drawings.  Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s and even then it took time to reconstruct what they looked like so artists could draw them.
> 
> So, it seems that  those scientists and people who believe birds came from dinosaurs do not know what they are talking about.  None of these art work represent dinosaurs with feathers.  Just admit you are stupid af or show us the historical evidence from around the world?



So Aristotle studied fossils and came to the belief that they used to be living things in his writings.   You are saying the ancient Greek scholar Aristotle was alive in 1840?  

Next up will be how humans didn't discover the wheel until 1997.   Lol.

You have to wonder how these morons exist.  Like do they believe being intentionally ignorant is a good way to go through life?


----------



## james bond

SandSquid said:


> So Aristotle studied fossils and came to the belief that they used to be living things in his writings.



Go ahead, explain how Aristotle studied fossils of seashells in rocks found on the beach and was able to come up with how dinosaurs looked.  Let's see the historical evidence.  What a freakin' dumbass you are !!!

And yet, still no evidence of feathered dinosaurs.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Highly unlikely James will ever really impress Miss Moneypenny with that mouth..



Have you come up with any evidence to back your claims or shall I move on to other evidence?


----------



## james bond

So what we find is atheists lie and make up stuff in order to show birds came from dinosaurs and argue against humans and dinosaurs living together.  Once more the creation scientists have provided the observable evidence.


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Aristotle studied fossils and came to the belief that they used to be living things in his writings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead, explain how Aristotle studied fossils of seashells in rocks found on the beach and was able to come up with how dinosaurs looked.  Let's see the historical evidence.  What a freakin' dumbass you are !!!
> 
> And yet, still no evidence of feathered dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


Wow.  You really did go full retard.   Never go full retard man.


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> Let's not forget the important thing.  The evos do not have any historical evidence of birds from dinosaurs except for their wrong interpretation of the dinosaur fossils.  Are there ancient representation of feathered dinosaurs from around the world or are birds just birds?



You are quite funny.

Serious question for a moment. I'm all for somebody who wants to question the truth.  But you are questioning the truth, finding evidence that supports the truth, and then making the choice to be willfully ignorant, and then lying and using logical fallacies and statements debunked by actual science and hard evidence to try to prove your ignorance.

Is this something you're proud of? Like "hey guys I'm really good at being ignorant!" 

I'm not an expert on learning disabilities, but for most of the human race we have evolved to wear the more evidence facts and data we collect on something the more knowledgeable on that subject we become.  Instead you're sitting here arguing that the more evidence facts and data we find the less knowledgeable you are.  It is an intriguing disability.

Seems a really odd flex but you do you.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> So what we find is atheists lie and make up stuff in order to show birds came from dinosaurs and argue against humans and dinosaurs living together.  Once more the creation scientists have provided the observable evidence.



There is nothing to indicate that your claim of “make up stuff” is true. As usual, faced with peer reviewed science, you launch into another of your emotional outbursts.

Your undated, unsourced and irrelevant photo is evidence of nothing. 

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B


You have never provided any evidence that “creation scientists” (you can’t even describe what that means), have provided evidence of humans and dinosaurs inhabiting the planet at the same time.

Identify the charlatans you define as “creation scientists” and identify the peer reviewed data they have published.

Thanks.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Once more the creation scientists have provided the observable evidence.


Sure they did.


> _Both_ Civil War pterosaur photos: copyright 2000, 20th Century Fox Film Corporation and Regency Entertainment.


See, at the dawn of the 21 century, 20th Century Fox went back to the 19th century to film civil war soldiers..


Hollie said:


> “make up stuff” is true.


Hey, just create "science" (with actors and a film projector) as you go along then project!

Skip to 29:45 minutes:

What a stupid show!


----------



## james bond

SandSquid said:


> Wow. You really did go full retard. Never go full retard man.



The full retard is the product of anyone bangin' your mom.  C'mon where is your explanation for Aristotle, full retard?  That would be a swell new handle for you.


----------



## james bond

SandSquid said:


> Seems a really odd flex but you do you.



I'm sure you know all the odd flex positions haha.  I never used that term before, so first time for everything.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Identify the charlatans you define as “creation scientists” and identify the peer reviewed data they have published.



Earth to Hollie .  I just posted an authentic civil war photo of Northern soldiers with a Pterosaur.  That photo was peer-reviewed after it was published in a book way before photoshop.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more the creation scientists have provided the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they did.
> 
> 
> 
> _Both_ Civil War pterosaur photos: copyright 2000, 20th Century Fox Film Corporation and Regency Entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, at the dawn of the 21 century, 20th Century Fox went back to the 19th century to film civil war soldiers..
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “make up stuff” is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, just create "science" (with actors and a film projector) as you go along then project!
> 
> Skip to 29:45 minutes:
> 
> What a stupid show!
Click to expand...


This is observable science I am presenting.  Your side's claim is birds from dinosaurs and we have had no evidence of that whatsoever when humans lived with them.  It follows no evidence of aliens, abiogenesis, monkeys becoming bipedal, and feathers on dinosaurs.  

I even presented the coelacanth which was such a big deal until it was found living.  Do you need to see those boring links again?  Where are the feathers on it haha?  Isn't that a spectacular fail for your side?  You have no explanations, but are grasping at Hollie straws.  What's next?  Believing in BreezeWood 's science and history?

My hero, Blaise Pascal, said the default position should be believing in God and creation until proven different, and that is to debunk Jesus rising from the dead.  I mean all it took to debunk Greek mythology was Mt. Olympus.  You should easily be able to debunk Christianity and creation science if it wasn't true.  Your evolution can change as it goes along.  My creation science cannot change.  It's already been written down.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Identify the charlatans you define as “creation scientists” and identify the peer reviewed data they have published.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to Hollie .  I just posted an authentic civil war photo of Northern soldiers with a Pterosaur.  That photo was peer-reviewed after it was published in a book way before photoshop.
Click to expand...


Another of your emotional outbursts. Your claim that the photo is "authentic" is somehow not convincing.

Provide the source of your claimed peer review. Reviewed by who?

Have you considered that most reasonable people would not be so gullible as to believe the nonsense you are willing to believe?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> The full retard is the product of anyone bangin' your mom.


It takes a full retard to break basic rule #4:


> No Attacks on family members.





james bond said:


> I just posted an authentic civil war photo of Northern soldiers with a Pterosaur. That photo was peer-reviewed after it was published in a book way before photoshop.


Sure it was. Because you say so and you're just so full of win today!


> Update:
> 
> I, Jonathan Whitcomb, have completely withdrawn my support for the concept that the Ptp image (also known with titles like “pterodactyl photo” and “Civil War Pteranodon photo”) is a genuine photograph recorded during the American Civil War. It now appears that part of an episode of Walking With Dinosaurs has a wing, on an animated pterosaur, that is extremely close to the left wing in Ptp.
> 
> I apologize. I should have waited for some evidence of provenance before jumping into looking for evidence for the authenticity of this image. I take full responsibility for my blunder.


High time you did the same, James..


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Another of your emotional outbursts. Your claim that the photo is "authentic" is somehow not convincing.



Haha.  Just because I use smilies ?  Get a sense of humor, girl/woman/beotch.

Clifford Paiva and Jonathan Whitcomb.

Bible Timetable Verified in Pterosaur Photo – Report Your Sighting

https://www.livingpterosaurs.com/blog/?tag=photo&print=pdf-search

Scientific Paper on Extant Pterosaurs – Pterodactyl Alive

I'll accept your post #379 as conceding defeat.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another of your emotional outbursts. Your claim that the photo is "authentic" is somehow not convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Just because I use smilies ?  Get a sense of humor, girl/woman/beotch.
> 
> Clifford Paiva and Jonathan Whitcomb.
> 
> Bible Timetable Verified in Pterosaur Photo – Report Your Sighting
> 
> https://www.livingpterosaurs.com/blog/?tag=photo&print=pdf-search
> 
> Scientific Paper on Extant Pterosaurs – Pterodactyl Alive
> 
> I'll accept your post #379 as conceding defeat.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for you to provide some peer reviewed data. 

Thanks.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Update:
> 
> I, Jonathan Whitcomb, have completely withdrawn my support for the concept that the Ptp image (also known with titles like “pterodactyl photo” and “Civil War Pteranodon photo”) is a genuine photograph recorded during the American Civil War. It now appears that part of an episode of Walking With Dinosaurs has a wing, on an animated pterosaur, that is extremely close to the left wing in Ptp.
> 
> I apologize. I should have waited for some evidence of provenance before jumping into looking for evidence for the authenticity of this image. I take full responsibility for my blunder.
> 
> High time you did the same, James..



Finally, you have something.  Whitcomb published a book on with the photo on the cover.  One of things I was waiting for was the book from the 60s or so which has the photo in it as claimed.  What else do you have to explain to relate the photo to the show?  Also, when are you going to apologize to Jesus for your heathen comments?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I'm still waiting for you to provide some peer reviewed data.



You must have wax in your eyeballs.  I've said many times creation scientists peer review their own work.  Why don't you tell those farking atheist/secular scientists to let the creation scientists back in on the peer reviews?  Then, we should get some fairer peer reviews.  Gawd you are dumb!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide some peer reviewed data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have wax in your eyeballs.  I've said many times creation scientists peer review their own work.  Why don't you tell those farking atheist/secular scientists to let the creation scientists back in on the peer reviews?  Then, we should get some fairer peer reviews.  Gawd you are dumb!
Click to expand...


Your emotional outbursts are becoming more strident.

Shall I take your sidestepping to indicate that you cannot provide any peer reviewed evidence of your specious claims?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide some peer reviewed data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have wax in your eyeballs.  I've said many times creation scientists peer review their own work.  Why don't you tell those farking atheist/secular scientists to let the creation scientists back in on the peer reviews?  Then, we should get some fairer peer reviews.  Gawd you are dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your emotional outbursts are becoming more strident.
> 
> Shall I take your sidestepping to indicate that you cannot provide any peer reviewed evidence of your specious claims?
Click to expand...


 I already did.  If you won't accept the photo, there are other links to take you to cryptozoology and pterandon and pterosaur sightings.

Now, give me what I asked for pages ago.  Where is the evidence of feathered dinosaurs?  I already provided the peer reviewed evidence against it by OSU.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide some peer reviewed data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have wax in your eyeballs.  I've said many times creation scientists peer review their own work.  Why don't you tell those farking atheist/secular scientists to let the creation scientists back in on the peer reviews?  Then, we should get some fairer peer reviews.  Gawd you are dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your emotional outbursts are becoming more strident.
> 
> Shall I take your sidestepping to indicate that you cannot provide any peer reviewed evidence of your specious claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did.  If you won't accept the photo, there are other links to take you to cryptozoology and pterandon and pterosaur sightings.
> 
> Now, give me what I asked for pages ago.  Where is the evidence of feathered dinosaurs?  I already provided the peer reviewed evidence against it by OSU.
Click to expand...


It's a shame you are so willing to be an accomplice to fraud. While your gullibility makes you a convenient "mark" to charlatans, why would you presume others are going to share your fraud?

Still, still waiting for you to provide peer reviewed data. Are you just too dishonest to admit your fraud?


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You really did go full retard. Never go full retard man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full retard is the product of anyone bangin' your mom.  C'mon where is your explanation for Aristotle, full retard?  That would be a swell new handle for you.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight.  Aristotle thought that fossils proved that animals could go extinct and just because you could find their remains doesn't in fact mean that they live in the world at the same time as him.

Other ancient civilizations believed that if you dug up the bones, even if you couldn't find the animal, it must be some mystical being living on top of a mountain you can't reach, deep inside the earth, or fly down from the sun occasionally. 

And you are sticking with #2 here.  lol

Boy do I have some bad news for you.  Those same civilizations also believed that an eclipse wasn't an aligning of Earth, the Moon and the sun, but rather that the Sun god was unhappy.   They believed that "shooting stars" were actual Stars crashing into the earth and not meteors.   They believed that vapor cooling didn't cause rain, but rather sacrifice.  

I'm sorry but if you believe rather than extinction being a possibility, Dinosaur bones are of dragons who rule the weather WITH the aid of modern science... you've gone full retard


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update:
> 
> I, Jonathan Whitcomb, have completely withdrawn my support for the concept that the Ptp image (also known with titles like “pterodactyl photo” and “Civil War Pteranodon photo”) is a genuine photograph recorded during the American Civil War. It now appears that part of an episode of Walking With Dinosaurs has a wing, on an animated pterosaur, that is extremely close to the left wing in Ptp.
> 
> I apologize. I should have waited for some evidence of provenance before jumping into looking for evidence for the authenticity of this image. I take full responsibility for my blunder.
> 
> High time you did the same, James..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you have something.  Whitcomb published a book on with the photo on the cover.  One of things I was waiting for was the book from the 60s or so which has the photo in it as claimed.  What else do you have to explain to relate the photo to the show?  Also, when are you going to apologize to Jesus for your heathen comments?
Click to expand...

That being  a misquote (also against the rules) , I'll quote the slightly longer, full Whitcomb apology this time:


> Update:
> 
> I, Jonathan Whitcomb, have completely withdrawn my support for the concept that the Ptp image (also known with titles like “pterodactyl photo” and “Civil War Pteranodon photo”) is a genuine photograph recorded during the American Civil War. It now appears that part of an episode of Walking With Dinosaurs has a wing, on an animated pterosaur, that is extremely close to the left wing in Ptp.
> 
> I apologize. I should have waited for some evidence of provenance before jumping into looking for evidence for the authenticity of this image. I take full responsibility for my blunder.
> 
> ****************************************************
> 
> Original Post
> 
> I want to be objective about this photo that appears to have come from around the time of the American Civil War, and it looks like it has a dead _Pteranodon_ on the ground. If I’ve missed something important, please contact me. [Update: As of early November, 2018, I have stopped supporting Ptp.]


Want a book from the 60s or so? Go to the library. Provide some evidence to support _your _silly claim. But first, give that poor guy a rest. Stop linking to his self-discredited works already. He's admitted to being wrong.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update:
> 
> I, Jonathan Whitcomb, have completely withdrawn my support for the concept that the Ptp image (also known with titles like “pterodactyl photo” and “Civil War Pteranodon photo”) is a genuine photograph recorded during the American Civil War. It now appears that part of an episode of Walking With Dinosaurs has a wing, on an animated pterosaur, that is extremely close to the left wing in Ptp.
> 
> I apologize. I should have waited for some evidence of provenance before jumping into looking for evidence for the authenticity of this image. I take full responsibility for my blunder.
> 
> High time you did the same, James..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you have something.  Whitcomb published a book on with the photo on the cover.  One of things I was waiting for was the book from the 60s or so which has the photo in it as claimed.  What else do you have to explain to relate the photo to the show?  Also, when are you going to apologize to Jesus for your heathen comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That being  a misquote (also against the rules) , I'll quote the slightly longer, full Whitcomb apology this time:
> 
> 
> 
> Update:
> 
> I, Jonathan Whitcomb, have completely withdrawn my support for the concept that the Ptp image (also known with titles like “pterodactyl photo” and “Civil War Pteranodon photo”) is a genuine photograph recorded during the American Civil War. It now appears that part of an episode of Walking With Dinosaurs has a wing, on an animated pterosaur, that is extremely close to the left wing in Ptp.
> 
> I apologize. I should have waited for some evidence of provenance before jumping into looking for evidence for the authenticity of this image. I take full responsibility for my blunder.
> 
> ****************************************************
> 
> Original Post
> 
> I want to be objective about this photo that appears to have come from around the time of the American Civil War, and it looks like it has a dead _Pteranodon_ on the ground. If I’ve missed something important, please contact me. [Update: As of early November, 2018, I have stopped supporting Ptp.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want a book from the 60s or so? Go to the library. Provide some evidence to support _your _silly claim. But first, give that poor guy a rest. Stop linking to his self-discredited works already. He's admitted to being wrong.
Click to expand...


Well, you can't say stuff like "silly" in a peer review unless it's really off.  I don't think you can even joke in one.  That said, to me, your birds from dinosaurs is _silly_.  For one, you have giant creatures shrinking into small ones. 

What I think is needed in order to contradict the original finding (which is what I was going by), one has to argue against their original authencation.  What Whitcomb has done is pull his support with little explanation and an apology.  It leads to more questions than a satisfactory argument against the original finding such as what did the prop look like and how was it used in the documentary?.  Also, we do not know what his co-author thinks.  Furthermore, he could say there has been no evidence of the photo being used in a book from the 60s as we thought (provenance).  I think one has to present an effective argument against an original peer-review.  It could be a simple, this is the prop used in the documentary as vouched by so-and-so and they validate that it is the prop that is used in the photo.

Instead of telling me what I already know, why don't you find me evidence of birds from dinosaurs?  I'm sure the library has that, too.  Finally, there is something wrong with your thinking as one self-admitted mistake does not mean that the rest of his work is invalid.  That's fallacious thinking which you are full of.


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Identify the charlatans you define as “creation scientists” and identify the peer reviewed data they have published.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to Hollie .  I just posted an authentic civil war photo of Northern soldiers with a Pterosaur.  That photo was peer-reviewed after it was published in a book way before photoshop.
Click to expand...


So despite the inauthenticity of the photo (wrong belt buckles on the soldiers, pterosaur doesn't have the hooked feet on the wings, wrong shaped head of any known pterosaur, etc), AND NOT ONE soldier ever mentioned it.  Also NOT ONE person in the 1800s in supposedly an area with pterosaurs ever noticed an animal with a 30 foot wingspan flying around.  Nor have we ever found any bones that are not completely fossilized.  

Wow, I'm sure that if we nuke ourselves back to the stone age, someone like you will find a childrens picture book with dinosaurs dated 2019 and explain that Dinosaurs roamed the earth at that time.   lol


----------



## james bond

SandSquid said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You really did go full retard. Never go full retard man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full retard is the product of anyone bangin' your mom.  C'mon where is your explanation for Aristotle, full retard?  That would be a swell new handle for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  Aristotle thought that fossils proved that animals could go extinct and just because you could find their remains doesn't in fact mean that they live in the world at the same time as him.
> 
> Other ancient civilizations believed that if you dug up the bones, even if you couldn't find the animal, it must be some mystical being living on top of a mountain you can't reach, deep inside the earth, or fly down from the sun occasionally.
> 
> And you are sticking with #2 here.  lol
> 
> Boy do I have some bad news for you.  Those same civilizations also believed that an eclipse wasn't an aligning of Earth, the Moon and the sun, but rather that the Sun god was unhappy.   They believed that "shooting stars" were actual Stars crashing into the earth and not meteors.   They believed that vapor cooling didn't cause rain, but rather sacrifice.
> 
> I'm sorry but if you believe rather than extinction being a possibility, Dinosaur bones are of dragons who rule the weather WITH the aid of modern science... you've gone full retard
Click to expand...


I think I was pretty clear.  You're avoiding explaining how Aristotle knew what a dragon or behemoth looked like from the fossils which you claim he studied.  Why don't you explain the process of how he got the fossils then and what kind they were.  None of your posts sound scientific, but are more forum fodder.

Also, what does this mean, "Aristotle thought that fossils proved that animals could go extinct and just because you could find their remains doesn't in fact mean that they live in the world at the same time as him."  Like, huh?

Moreover, "Those same civilizations also believed that an eclipse wasn't an aligning of Earth, the Moon and the sun, but rather that the Sun god was unhappy.    They believed that "shooting stars" were actual Stars crashing into the earth and not meteors.   They believed that vapor cooling didn't cause rain, but rather sacrifice."


----------



## james bond

SandSquid said:


> So despite the inauthenticity of the photo (wrong belt buckles on the soldiers, pterosaur doesn't have the hooked feet on the wings, wrong shaped head of any known pterosaur, etc), AND NOT ONE soldier ever mentioned it. Also NOT ONE person in the 1800s in supposedly an area with pterosaurs ever noticed an animal with a 30 foot wingspan flying around. Nor have we ever found any bones that are not completely fossilized.
> 
> Wow, I'm sure that if we nuke ourselves back to the stone age, someone like you will find a childrens picture book with dinosaurs dated 2019 and explain that Dinosaurs roamed the earth at that time. lol



Still, doesn't sound scientific.  Where are you getting your information?

And one can't go backward in time.  That's a dumb belief of the secular/atheist scientists.  Your comments are really childish and elementary.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Are you just too dishonest to admit your fraud?



What fraud?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Well, you can't say stuff like "silly" in a peer review unless it's really off.


Pretending to know something about scientific peer review now, lol. And I have no idea why you keep banging on about feathered dinosaurs? That theory has barely begun being established and I've taken no stand other than perhaps providing links to some convincing evidence. Don't recall nor care at this point. But I definitely provided all that's needed to expose the ptp photos as fakes (they're both copyrighted by 20th Fox ... let that sink in a while, you belligerent dunce). There's no book. No pterodactyls flying around in Cuba. Nor in Kansas. There's just gullible, gullible you.

Here, dingbat. Read and weep.


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> So despite the inauthenticity of the photo (wrong belt buckles on the soldiers, pterosaur doesn't have the hooked feet on the wings, wrong shaped head of any known pterosaur, etc), AND NOT ONE soldier ever mentioned it. Also NOT ONE person in the 1800s in supposedly an area with pterosaurs ever noticed an animal with a 30 foot wingspan flying around. Nor have we ever found any bones that are not completely fossilized.
> 
> Wow, I'm sure that if we nuke ourselves back to the stone age, someone like you will find a childrens picture book with dinosaurs dated 2019 and explain that Dinosaurs roamed the earth at that time. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, doesn't sound scientific.  Where are you getting your information?
> 
> And one can't go backward in time.  That's a dumb belief of the secular/atheist scientists.  Your comments are really childish and elementary.
Click to expand...


So you're going with the "it's a dragon that lives in the sun and controls the weather" scientific approach over the "extinction can occur" one.


Full.  Retard.


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> So despite the inauthenticity of the photo (wrong belt buckles on the soldiers, pterosaur doesn't have the hooked feet on the wings, wrong shaped head of any known pterosaur, etc), AND NOT ONE soldier ever mentioned it. Also NOT ONE person in the 1800s in supposedly an area with pterosaurs ever noticed an animal with a 30 foot wingspan flying around. Nor have we ever found any bones that are not completely fossilized.
> 
> Wow, I'm sure that if we nuke ourselves back to the stone age, someone like you will find a childrens picture book with dinosaurs dated 2019 and explain that Dinosaurs roamed the earth at that time. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, doesn't sound scientific.  Where are you getting your information?
> 
> And one can't go backward in time.  That's a dumb belief of the secular/atheist scientists.  Your comments are really childish and elementary.
Click to expand...


Ahh yes.  The guy who hates the scientific explanation for lightning because it ends the "Tlaloc is mad, and creates lightning as a threat he will stop holding up the sun unless more humans are sacrificed" belief.

SMH.

Sorry for the slow reply. I needed to charge my phone.  Which we all know is cheese from the moon passed through the "charging cable" to the little gnome who lives inside my phone and communicates through witchcraft And elf blood infused mental waves to everyone else's phone or computer gnomes...  Because thats how it works since I don't believe in that secular science mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Grumblenuts

SandSquid said:


> Ahh yes. The guy who hates the scientific explanation for lightning because it ends the "Tlaloc is mad, and creates lightning as a threat he will stop holding up the sun unless more humans are sacrificed" belief.


OMG, seriously? He argued that?


----------



## SandSquid

Grumblenuts said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes. The guy who hates the scientific explanation for lightning because it ends the "Tlaloc is mad, and creates lightning as a threat he will stop holding up the sun unless more humans are sacrificed" belief.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, seriously? He argued that?
Click to expand...


Well he argued their belief on fossils proves they existed in real life.   So yes, that's what he believes.


----------



## Grumblenuts

James in a nutshell:


> An *argument from ignorance* (Latin: _argumentum ad ignorantiam_), or *appeal to ignorance* ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. This is also called a *negative proof fallacy*. This also includes the (false) assumption there are only two options (true or false). There may be as many as four choices:
> 
> 
> true
> false
> unknown
> unknowable.[1]
> Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on _the person making the claim_.[2][3]
> 
> A logical fallacy is simply a bad argument.[4] Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true). It is basically a hasty conclusion, one that is arrived at incorrectly.[5] But it still may be convincing to some audiences.[5] This is why it is used in politics and advertising.
> 
> *Examples*
> 
> "This drug is safe because no-one has found any toxic effects."[6] This only implies that complete testing has been done. It does not say it has been tested completely.
> "Candidate Smith has never spoken out concerning her views on abortion. We can safely conclude that she must be pro-choice".[7] The argument from ignorance fallacy can be used to dismiss a subject or to argue that it means the opposite.[7]
> "Of course disease is caused by witchcraft. How else could it happen?" (The argument from ignorance often takes the form of "how else could X happen" which implies that because there is no other explanation yet known, the one being offered is correct.)


----------



## SandSquid

Grumblenuts said:


> James in a nutshell:
> 
> 
> 
> An *argument from ignorance* (Latin: _argumentum ad ignorantiam_), or *appeal to ignorance* ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. This is also called a *negative proof fallacy*. This also includes the (false) assumption there are only two options (true or false). There may be as many as four choices:
> 
> 
> true
> false
> unknown
> unknowable.[1]
> Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on _the person making the claim_.[2][3]
> 
> A logical fallacy is simply a bad argument.[4] Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true). It is basically a hasty conclusion, one that is arrived at incorrectly.[5] But it still may be convincing to some audiences.[5] This is why it is used in politics and advertising.
> 
> *Examples*
> 
> "This drug is safe because no-one has found any toxic effects."[6] This only implies that complete testing has been done. It does not say it has been tested completely.
> "Candidate Smith has never spoken out concerning her views on abortion. We can safely conclude that she must be pro-choice".[7] The argument from ignorance fallacy can be used to dismiss a subject or to argue that it means the opposite.[7]
> "Of course disease is caused by witchcraft. How else could it happen?" (The argument from ignorance often takes the form of "how else could X happen" which implies that because there is no other explanation yet known, the one being offered is correct.)
Click to expand...


Not even that. 5,000 years ago if a group of people who didn't have any understanding of things like weather, electricity, and the concept of extinction, they had their ignorant belief that a set of dinosaur bones was enough proof that there exists living mystical beings that cause droughts and throw lightning and we don't see them since they are up in the clouds holding up the sky.

It's how they explained why they couldn't find the animals who's fossils they dug up. They lived on top of the tallest mountain. They lived in the sun. They lived in the depths of the sea at the edge of the world.  They lived under the ground.  They were invisible.

To believe that today isn't just ignorance.  It's intentional ignorance...  Aka going full retard.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you can't say stuff like "silly" in a peer review unless it's really off.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending to know something about scientific peer review now, lol. And I have no idea why you keep banging on about feathered dinosaurs? That theory has barely begun being established and I've taken no stand other than perhaps providing links to some convincing evidence. Don't recall nor care at this point. But I definitely provided all that's needed to expose the ptp photos as fakes (they're both copyrighted by 20th Fox ... let that sink in a while, you belligerent dunce). There's no book. No pterodactyls flying around in Cuba. Nor in Kansas. There's just gullible, gullible you.
> 
> Here, dingbat. Read and weep.
Click to expand...


You got fooled again.  That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.

Anyway, the PTP has not been debunked as authentic.  What it requires is _provenance_ if the claim is that it was published in a book around the 60s (before photoshop).  Do you get it now?  Of course, you don't haha.

As for birds from dinosaurs, are you agreeing with creation scientists that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs?  The evos (and atheists) have latched onto this as a second example of macroevolution because birds are the only creature with feathers.  They thought birds evolved from dinosaurs because of the black fuzz around the dino fossils.  It's just threads of dried skin and not feathers.  It really is dumb and incredulous that a small bird would evolve from a dinosaur. 

Anyway, I can see that you cannot process this as you are too busy attacking me with ad hominem fallacies.  Yet, another fail on your part.  Maybe one day, you'll get it but I would not bet on it..


----------



## james bond

SandSquid said:


> Ahh yes. The guy who hates the scientific explanation for lightning because it ends the "Tlaloc is mad, and creates lightning as a threat he will stop holding up the sun unless more humans are sacrificed" belief.



Boy, what a liar you are.  Are you fat, too?  Then you'd be a big, fat liar.

Anyway, we are done.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SandSquid said:


> It's intentional ignorance.


Hmm, I'm not sure that is correct. It might be. Bond could eventually know all the evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. He just would not care.  He starts at the position of absolute, literal truth of the bible. That's not necessarily "willful ignorance". It's willful delusion. You can't have a rational debate with someone who believes in magic and is willing to delude himself. Evidence means nothing to a person like this. Evidence means nothing at all in his paradigm, as determinism ceases to exist there.

Which, really, makes his dog and pony show even more odd. Who is he trying to fool? Himself? Is his faith shaky? Is he so embarrassed of his faith, that he can't march under his "true flag" of faith, instead pretending to have evidence?  What is with these people?

Ever heard of Ken Ham? Same thing.


----------



## james bond

What we cannot argue are the facts if we each have them.  Most of the time, creation scientists and secular/atheist scientists have the same facts.  However, we have different worldviews and thus interpret the facts differently.  Thus, it is a matter of who is presenting the better argument.  More better arguments usually means they have the best theory.  What isn't fair today is creation scientists have been excluded by secular scientists in order to promote the lies of evolution.  That said, intelligent people realize evolution is bullsh*t and made up so the facts fit their theories.  It's circular reasoning at its worst.  That's why I say atheists and secular scientists are usually wrong.  They cannot process the facts correctly if they believe everything happened by evolution.  We know the evidence shows that it was not possible and it is not possible.  Or else we would be seeing it happen.

The only thing that we agree on is natural selection to explain the different species.

As for the Earth being 4.5 billions years old, that is what I learned from evolution.berkeley.edu.  However, it kept getting longer and the age of Earth and the universe will get older.  You can count on that happening as the James Webb telescope comes online.  Secular scientists are already planning on it.  However, the long age does not fit the evidence of a young Earth.  Otherwise, Fort Fun Indiana would be able to explain why not and show evidence, but he can't and he doesn't


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> What we cannot argue are the facts if we each have them.  Most of the time, creation scientists and secular/atheist scientists have the same facts.  However, we have different worldviews and thus interpret the facts differently.  Thus, it is a matter of who is presenting the better argument.  More better arguments usually means they have the best theory.  What isn't fair today is creation scientists have been excluded by secular scientists in order to promote the lies of evolution.  That said, intelligent people realize evolution is bullsh*t and made up so the facts fit their theories.  It's circular reasoning at its worst.  That's why I say atheists and secular scientists are usually wrong.  They cannot process the facts correctly if they believe everything happened by evolution.  We know the evidence shows that it was not possible and it is not possible.  Or else we would be seeing it happen.
> 
> The only thing that we agree on is natural selection to explain the different species.
> 
> As for the Earth being 4.5 billions years old, that is what I learned from evolution.berkeley.edu.  However, it kept getting longer and the age of Earth and the universe will get older.  You can count on that happening as the James Webb telescope comes online.  Secular scientists are already planning on it.  However, the long age does not fit the evidence of a young Earth.  Otherwise, Fort Fun Indiana would be able to explain why not and show evidence, but he can't and he doesn't



You make the mistake of attempting to portray ID’iot creation scientists as something they are not; relevant scientists. There are dramatic differences between a _statement of  faith _and a _scientific theory_. The crank fundamentalist ministries have a _statement of faith_ but they have not produced any _scientific theories _.

It's convenient for you to say that ID’iot creationists and relevant scientists have the same facts but that is just another dishonest claim. There are irreconcilable contradictions between the Bible thumpers account of supernaturalism vs. the natural world, There is no physical evidence whatever that there was a Global Flood, and overwhelming evidence that there was not. There is also irrefutable evidence that plants and animals did not appear on earth in the order that Genesis claims they did, and that the earth itself is far older than the bible indicates. The bible says that the planet was submerged in a flood. It's up to you to take it literally or figuratively-- but that's what it says. And it is wrong. Genesis says that plants existed before the sun. This is totally at odds with what science has to say. For your edification, Moses did not write Genesis, nor any book of the bible.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.


(..and so on..)

Seems you can no longer read because you don't want to know. That must really suck. My condolences.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.
> 
> 
> 
> (..and so on..)
> 
> Seems you can no longer read because you don't want to know. That must really suck. My condolences.
Click to expand...


Not I.  Do you want me to tell you that you are fool again?  I am telling you that you are a bigger fool now because you were fooled 3x now.

Let's review your record in this thread so far, 1) Has provided no evidence of birds from dinosaurs even though he has been told what the issues were, 2) has tried to disprove the civil war soldiers with a pterosaur, but has not been able to, 3) has not explanation for the other historical evidence found throughout the world of humans and dinosaurs co-existing together, 4) this follows what God has said in the Bible about dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and the like, 5) has been provided other evidence of reports of dinosaur sightings today, but refuses to discuss, and 6) doesn't have anything more to complain about so is about throw another fit.

Do you want more information about the photo since that is the only thing you have left to complain about?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.
> 
> 
> 
> (..and so on..)
> 
> Seems you can no longer read because you don't want to know. That must really suck. My condolences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not I.  Do you want me to tell you that you are fool again?  I am telling you that you are a bigger fool now because you were fooled 3x now.
> 
> Let's review your record in this thread so far, 1) Has provided no evidence of birds from dinosaurs even though he has been told what the issues were, 2) has tried to disprove the civil war soldiers with a pterosaur, but has not been able to, 3) has not explanation for the other historical evidence found throughout the world of humans and dinosaurs co-existing together, 4) this follows what God has said in the Bible about dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and the like, 5) has been provided other evidence of reports of dinosaur sightings today, but refuses to discuss, and 6) doesn't have anything more to complain about so is about throw another fit.
> 
> Do you want more information about the photo since that is the only thing you have left to complain about?
Click to expand...


To educate you about your bibles, the gods didn’t “say”, anything. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect your supernatural gods with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. 

One of the inevitable consequences of breaking from the literal descriptions within any of the various bibles is that you fall into the circular loop of interpretation and what, if any, is the _real _interpretation. Which means, you are forever driving in that Cul-de-sac with no way out of the issue of interpretation and translation.  Then we’d get in the problems with shoddy translation and why the gods would allow that.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Where's James? Forever driving an Aston Martin around a Cul-de-sac..


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes. The guy who hates the scientific explanation for lightning because it ends the "Tlaloc is mad, and creates lightning as a threat he will stop holding up the sun unless more humans are sacrificed" belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, what a liar you are.  Are you fat, too?  Then you'd be a big, fat liar.
> 
> Anyway, we are done.
Click to expand...


Lol.  That's the comeback?  Not facts. Not anything to defend your stance that Aztec religion proves extinction doesn't exist?  Just a 1st grade name calling?   

Lol yeah we are done.  Like I said. Don't go full retard.  It's indefensible


----------



## Grumblenuts

Q instructed James not to hit that button. But did James listen? Does he ever?


----------



## SandSquid

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.
> 
> 
> 
> (..and so on..)
> 
> Seems you can no longer read because you don't want to know. That must really suck. My condolences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not I.  Do you want me to tell you that you are fool again?  I am telling you that you are a bigger fool now because you were fooled 3x now.
> 
> Let's review your record in this thread so far, 1) Has provided no evidence of birds from dinosaurs even though he has been told what the issues were, 2) has tried to disprove the civil war soldiers with a pterosaur, but has not been able to, 3) has not explanation for the other historical evidence found throughout the world of humans and dinosaurs co-existing together, 4) this follows what God has said in the Bible about dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and the like, 5) has been provided other evidence of reports of dinosaur sightings today, but refuses to discuss, and 6) doesn't have anything more to complain about so is about throw another fit.
> 
> Do you want more information about the photo since that is the only thing you have left to complain about?
Click to expand...


So wait.  People here have given evidence on all the things you claim they haven't. 

But instead of educating yourself on the topic on which you speak, you choose to be intentionally ignorant.  

It's like when the sun comes out and people are trying to explain to you how it's bright and you stick your head in a hole and say you don't believe the sun is bright.

Nothing can solve that James.   No one here can fix the issue that either you don't have the mental capacity for understanding basic proven fact.  No one here can help you if you are so gullible you choose that over scientifically proven facts.   That's you.   And that's fine.  There are a lot of people with major learning disabilities.

Anyways James since you are adding NOTHING of substance to the conversation here, just using 4 year old name calling when confronted with fact, I have no real desire to listen to you any further.  I'm putting you on ignore.  

Please seek the help you so desperately need.


----------



## bripat9643

I amso IR said:


> Hello Dalia, what is your position on recreating dino's from DNA. Me, I think we can do without them roaming about. I have read that they would be horrible household pets.


It's impossible.  DNA has a maximum life span, which is way under 100,000 years.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Q instructed James not to hit that button. But did James listen? Does he ever?



That button ejects you out of the car.

The following evidence knocks you out of the ballpark.  How is this an argument from ignorance?  We have the Earth and universe here because of creation ex nihilo.  It is impossible to have infinite temperature and infinite density as in the big bang singularity claim and cosmic expansion breaks the laws of physics.  We have dinosaur fossils because of Noah's flood.  It killed the dinosaurs and helped bury them before they were eaten by scavengers, deteriorated by water, and decomposed by microbes that can destroy whole carcasses after a few years.  Their remains were buried in sediment that was chemically transformed into rock.  Else how do you explain something organic that dies and is preserved into fossil (see what normally happens to your body after death in my bottom link); fossilization is rare?


Chemistry happens and organic tissues decay, so we should not have soft tissue remaining dinosaur fossils, but we still have the fossils with soft tissue in it.


Carbon dating has been done on decontaminated dinosaur fossils and they are thousands of years old, not hundreds of millions years.  C-14 would be gone around 100,000 years.

25 Things That Happen to Your Body After You Die


----------



## Grumblenuts

You are so behind the times, James. Response from 37 years ago:


> Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work,* it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.* (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.


1982 Aston Martin V8 - Vantage Volante


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q instructed James not to hit that button. But did James listen? Does he ever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That button ejects you out of the car.
> 
> The following evidence knocks you out of the ballpark.  How is this an argument from ignorance?  We have the Earth and universe here because of creation ex nihilo.  It is impossible to have infinite temperature and infinite density as in the big bang singularity claim and cosmic expansion breaks the laws of physics.  We have dinosaur fossils because of Noah's flood.  It killed the dinosaurs and helped bury them before they were eaten by scavengers, deteriorated by water, and decomposed by microbes that can destroy whole carcasses after a few years.  Their remains were buried in sediment that was chemically transformed into rock.  Else how do you explain something organic that dies and is preserved into fossil (see what normally happens to your body after death in my bottom link); fossilization is rare?
> 
> 
> Chemistry happens and organic tissues decay, so we should not have soft tissue remaining dinosaur fossils, but we still have the fossils with soft tissue in it.
> 
> 
> Carbon dating has been done on decontaminated dinosaur fossils and they are thousands of years old, not hundreds of millions years.  C-14 would be gone around 100,000 years.
> 
> 25 Things That Happen to Your Body After You Die
Click to expand...


What do you think is served by cutting and pasting silly YouTube videos by ID’iot creationist thumpers?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> You are so behind the times, James. Response from 37 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work,* it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.* (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
> 
> 
> 
> 1982 Aston Martin V8 - Vantage Volante
Click to expand...


The person who wrote your article isn't right because if coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old, then it should have "so little C-14 left..."  However, the creation scientists are right because they showed that these materials had C-14 left.  One can't have it both ways, assume that these objects are millions of years old and little C-14 left, and then be able to do radiocarbon dating on them to show there was C-14 left.  It means that the materials were young and not old.


----------



## Grumblenuts

First, all the test result emanate from one university in Georgia. Just as with the woman claiming to have isolated dinosaur tissue from dinosaur fossils. Zero repeatability or confirmation from anyone or anywhere else. No genuine peer review possible nor scientific consensus. No scientific finding as of yet.

Second, all the results reported ages in from 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. "Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because_ {...}_" They ain't worth shit because carbon dating itself ain't worth shit for much beyond 20,000 yrs. This is very old news you only pretend not to grok.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> First, all the test result emanate from one university in Georgia. Just as with the woman claiming to have isolated dinosaur tissue from dinosaur fossils. Zero repeatability or confirmation from anyone or anywhere else. No genuine peer review possible nor scientific consensus. No scientific finding as of yet.
> 
> Second, all the results reported ages in from 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. "Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because_ {...}_" They ain't worth shit because carbon dating itself ain't worth shit for much beyond 20,000 yrs. This is very old news you only pretend not to grok.



One thing you can't get through your THICK skull is creation scientists are on the outside.  They have been systematically eliminated from peer review, so atheist scientists can run amok with their weird hypotheses.  They become theories in no time as their circular reasoning rules the day.  How else can major museums end up with fake science?  It wasn't this way before the 1850s.


Creation scientists can lose their jobs if they come out and promote creation or real science; it ends up as forbidden science.  This is not the way I learned science nor the way science should operate.  Science has always been about arguments.

Furthermore, it is CAIS, one of the largest and oldest institutions for radiocarbon dating.


----------



## james bond

Anyway, the secular/atheist paleontologists have not been able to eliminate the evidence of soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils nor C-14 remaining in dinosaur fossils.  These are evidence for a young Earth.  We also have record of human dinosaur tracks which is part of paleontology.  Coelacanth and other living fossils have been discovered to argue against Darwin's tree of life and common ancestor.  Mary Leakey who discovered the Laetoli footprints thinks that part of Darwin is crap haha.

Cancer cells or stubborn fungus are considered living fossils and is one of nature's ways to get even against humans.

The mountain of evidence that is on creation science's side is overwhelming and has stood the test of time.  This is the science secular science believed before fake science of evolution came along.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Anyway, the secular/atheist paleontologists have not been able to eliminate the evidence of soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils nor C-14 remaining in dinosaur fossils.  These are evidence for a young Earth.  We also have record of human dinosaur tracks which is part of paleontology.  Coelacanth and other living fossils have been discovered to argue against Darwin's tree of life and common ancestor.  Mary Leakey who discovered the Laetoli footprints thinks that part of Darwin is crap haha.
> 
> Cancer cells or stubborn fungus are considered living fossils and is one of nature's ways to get even against humans.
> 
> The mountain of evidence that is on creation science's side is overwhelming and has stood the test of time.  This is the science secular science believed before fake science of evolution came along.



Sorry, but the slogan “creation science” is not science. ID’iot creationists do no research and add nothing to the body of the relevant sciences. 

Your usual, unsupported and truly ignorant comment about cancer cells and  “nature’s way of getting even against humans”, marks a new low point in the putrid bile coming from the religious extremists.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Here Schweitzer et al propose a different explanation for the soft tissue findings. OMG, you mean it's possible that shit can last far longer than _everyone_ thought? Why has the crushingly high probability of that solution never occurred to you ID'iots? Too intent upon being whiny, put upon outsiders? Yeah, I really don't think you can claim her as one of your loony, creation science smitten allies


----------



## Dalia

MU study suggests T. rex had an air conditioner in its head.LOL

Tyrannosaurus rex, one of the largest meat-eating dinosaurs on the planet, had an air conditioner in its head, suggest scientists from the *University of Missouri, *Ohio University and University of Florida, while challenging over a century of previous beliefs.





A graphic thermal image of a T. rex with its dorsotemporal fenestra glowing on the skull. Illustration courtesy of Brian Engh.

In the past, scientists believed two large holes in the roof of a T. rex’s skull — called the _dorsotemporal fenestra_ — were filled with muscles that assist with jaw movements.

For more information : Prehistoric AC


----------



## Frannie

Dalia said:


> Hello i amso IR, i would like to see them in real Yes a bit like jurassic park, i love dinosaurs so much...just to think about the way it has at that time..
> Since my childhood i read and i collectionne, books, figurines, games i have a lot of thing that have to do with dinosaurs.
> 
> this game is my favorite i have it in Ottawa now i buy it in France because i can't play the nord américan version in France.
> Evo - Search For Eden


OMMFG


----------



## Dalia

Frannie said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello i amso IR, i would like to see them in real Yes a bit like jurassic park, i love dinosaurs so much...just to think about the way it has at that time..
> Since my childhood i read and i collectionne, books, figurines, games i have a lot of thing that have to do with dinosaurs.
> 
> this game is my favorite i have it in Ottawa now i buy it in France because i can't play the nord américan version in France.
> Evo - Search For Eden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMMFG
Click to expand...

Does paleontology interest you?


----------



## Frannie

Dalia said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello i amso IR, i would like to see them in real Yes a bit like jurassic park, i love dinosaurs so much...just to think about the way it has at that time..
> Since my childhood i read and i collectionne, books, figurines, games i have a lot of thing that have to do with dinosaurs.
> 
> this game is my favorite i have it in Ottawa now i buy it in France because i can't play the nord américan version in France.
> Evo - Search For Eden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMMFG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does paleontology interest you?
Click to expand...

Everything interest me except for games for third graders


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> games for third graders


That's actually a pretty good description of your embarrassing trolling of the science section.


----------



## Dalia

Frannie said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello i amso IR, i would like to see them in real Yes a bit like jurassic park, i love dinosaurs so much...just to think about the way it has at that time..
> Since my childhood i read and i collectionne, books, figurines, games i have a lot of thing that have to do with dinosaurs.
> 
> this game is my favorite i have it in Ottawa now i buy it in France because i can't play the nord américan version in France.
> Evo - Search For Eden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMMFG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does paleontology interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything interest me except for games for third graders
Click to expand...

Good, so have something to said about my post ?


----------



## Frannie

Dalia said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello i amso IR, i would like to see them in real Yes a bit like jurassic park, i love dinosaurs so much...just to think about the way it has at that time..
> Since my childhood i read and i collectionne, books, figurines, games i have a lot of thing that have to do with dinosaurs.
> 
> this game is my favorite i have it in Ottawa now i buy it in France because i can't play the nord américan version in France.
> Evo - Search For Eden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMMFG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does paleontology interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything interest me except for games for third graders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, so have something to said about my post ?
Click to expand...

You mean the drawings of dinosaurs you posted? 

Actually I was reading this earlier

The finding of the oldest human skull changes evolution science


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello i amso IR, i would like to see them in real Yes a bit like jurassic park, i love dinosaurs so much...just to think about the way it has at that time..
> Since my childhood i read and i collectionne, books, figurines, games i have a lot of thing that have to do with dinosaurs.
> 
> this game is my favorite i have it in Ottawa now i buy it in France because i can't play the nord américan version in France.
> Evo - Search For Eden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMMFG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does paleontology interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything interest me except for games for third graders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, so have something to said about my post ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the drawings of dinosaurs you posted?
> 
> Actually I was reading this earlier
> 
> The finding of the oldest human skull changes evolution science
Click to expand...

Bait and switch


----------



## toobfreak

Dalia said:


> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs,



Hi Dalia, since you have such a passion for dinosaurs, I cut this out of a chart I made showing the section of history when dinosaurs lived for you as sort of a gift.  Hope you enjoy.


----------



## Frannie

Dalia said:


> MU study suggests T. rex had an air conditioner in its head.LOL
> 
> Tyrannosaurus rex, one of the largest meat-eating dinosaurs on the planet, had an air conditioner in its head, suggest scientists from the *University of Missouri, *Ohio University and University of Florida, while challenging over a century of previous beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graphic thermal image of a T. rex with its dorsotemporal fenestra glowing on the skull. Illustration courtesy of Brian Engh.
> 
> In the past, scientists believed two large holes in the roof of a T. rex’s skull — called the _dorsotemporal fenestra_ — were filled with muscles that assist with jaw movements.
> 
> For more information : Prehistoric AC



Can DNA be extracted from dinosaur bones...…………………

No absolutely not since there are no dinosaur bones

Next


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> MU study suggests T. rex had an air conditioner in its head.LOL
> 
> Tyrannosaurus rex, one of the largest meat-eating dinosaurs on the planet, had an air conditioner in its head, suggest scientists from the *University of Missouri, *Ohio University and University of Florida, while challenging over a century of previous beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graphic thermal image of a T. rex with its dorsotemporal fenestra glowing on the skull. Illustration courtesy of Brian Engh.
> 
> In the past, scientists believed two large holes in the roof of a T. rex’s skull — called the _dorsotemporal fenestra_ — were filled with muscles that assist with jaw movements.
> 
> For more information : Prehistoric AC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can DNA be extracted from dinosaur bones...…………………
> 
> No absolutely not since there are no dinosaur bones
> 
> Next
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything, troll?


----------



## Innocynioc

Dalia said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The largest Dinosaur ever found was just announced 2 years ago:
> 
> Dreadnoughtus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello TheOldSchool, i think  the biggest and heavy Animal that ever live on this earth is : Bruhathkayosaurus
> 
> View attachment 90900
> 
> 4 time long like a bus...
> 
> View attachment 90899
> 
> They could be so big and heavy because they were :
> 
> Poikilotherms (or "cool" or pœcilotherme) are animals with a body temperature that varies with that of their environment. By this characteristic, they differ and are opposed to warm-blooded animals which have a relatively stable internal temperature. They are not to be confused with heterotherms that are warm-blooded which usually steady body temperature varies in some cases (hibernating animals, infants whose body temperature is not stable yet, etc.)
> Most cold-blooded organisms (that do not control their body temperature) are ectothermic (that is to say, their body heat comes from outside). However, there are special cases, and it is necessary to recall that ectothermic poikilothermic and are not synonymous.
> This lack of control of the internal temperature prevents a "normal" activity during cold periods, but it is a much more economical characteristic energy homeotherms. Both have survived because they are characteristic of different lifestyles, even if we consider that homeothermy is an evolving character.
Click to expand...


The largest animal ever to live on Earth is still alive today.  It he blue whale which can weigh up to 200,000 pounds or  over 90,000 Kg.  The blue whale's tongue alone can weigh as much as an African elephant.


----------



## Dalia

toobfreak said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dalia, since you have such a passion for dinosaurs, I cut this out of a chart I made showing the section of history when dinosaurs lived for you as sort of a gift.  Hope you enjoy.
> 
> 
> View attachment 278151
Click to expand...

The evolution of dinosaurs that have lasted for millions of years, I would like to understand why the T-Rex to keep his little  Arms in front of the rest of his body who has become huge as for the rest of the dinosaurs.?

Here is one of the first T-rex: Nanotyrannus






Nanotyrannus - Wikipedia


----------



## james bond

Frannie said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello i amso IR, i would like to see them in real Yes a bit like jurassic park, i love dinosaurs so much...just to think about the way it has at that time..
> Since my childhood i read and i collectionne, books, figurines, games i have a lot of thing that have to do with dinosaurs.
> 
> this game is my favorite i have it in Ottawa now i buy it in France because i can't play the nord américan version in France.
> Evo - Search For Eden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMMFG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does paleontology interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything interest me except for games for third graders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, so have something to said about my post ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the drawings of dinosaurs you posted?
> 
> Actually I was reading this earlier
> 
> The finding of the oldest human skull changes evolution science
Click to expand...


I'm positive paleontology is solely based on the atheist religion.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMMFG
> 
> 
> 
> Does paleontology interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything interest me except for games for third graders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, so have something to said about my post ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the drawings of dinosaurs you posted?
> 
> Actually I was reading this earlier
> 
> The finding of the oldest human skull changes evolution science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm positive paleontology is solely based on the atheist religion.
Click to expand...


Why would you announce your ignorance in such a fashion on a public discussion board?


----------



## Frannie

james bond said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMMFG
> 
> 
> 
> Does paleontology interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything interest me except for games for third graders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, so have something to said about my post ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the drawings of dinosaurs you posted?
> 
> Actually I was reading this earlier
> 
> The finding of the oldest human skull changes evolution science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm positive paleontology is solely based on the atheist religion.
Click to expand...

Someone cares,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I am not that one however


----------



## Frannie

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does paleontology interest you?
> 
> 
> 
> Everything interest me except for games for third graders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, so have something to said about my post ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the drawings of dinosaurs you posted?
> 
> Actually I was reading this earlier
> 
> The finding of the oldest human skull changes evolution science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm positive paleontology is solely based on the atheist religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you announce your ignorance in such a fashion on a public discussion board?
Click to expand...

Because that is what ignorance does...………………...


----------



## alang1216

Dalia said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dalia, since you have such a passion for dinosaurs, I cut this out of a chart I made showing the section of history when dinosaurs lived for you as sort of a gift.  Hope you enjoy.
> 
> 
> View attachment 278151
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evolution of dinosaurs that have lasted for millions of years, I would like to understand why the T-Rex to keep his little  Arms in front of the rest of his body who has become huge as for the rest of the dinosaurs.?
> 
> Here is one of the first T-rex: Nanotyrannus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nanotyrannus - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I picture flightless birds that just don't need arms.  I suspect they keep their wings for balance since they don't have a tail like t-rex


----------



## Dalia

alang1216 said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dalia, since you have such a passion for dinosaurs, I cut this out of a chart I made showing the section of history when dinosaurs lived for you as sort of a gift.  Hope you enjoy.
> 
> 
> View attachment 278151
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evolution of dinosaurs that have lasted for millions of years, I would like to understand why the T-Rex to keep his little  Arms in front of the rest of his body who has become huge as for the rest of the dinosaurs.?
> 
> Here is one of the first T-rex: Nanotyrannus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nanotyrannus - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I picture flightless birds that just don't need arms.  I suspect they keep their wings for balance since they don't have a tail like t-rex
Click to expand...

T-Rex had a lot of strength in his legs but they could not exceed 6 meters in height


----------



## Dalia

Hello, what do you feel about a little game about finding the name of dinosaur ?


----------

