How Did the Ancients Know About Dinosaurs?

[Taz]

If God created all the species at the same time, why are there not the same species alive today as we find in fossils?

Natural selection is part of how evolution works. If you believe in one, you believe in the other.

Shut up about Noah's flood already, there's no worldwide proof of it like there is the asteroid that killed all the dinos. The Grand Canyon has nothing about it that points to a 40 day worldwide flood.

Evolution is relatively new, but if it was true, then we would have historical evidence of it. You have nothing. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old if their fossils can be radiocarbon dated. Also, it still has soft marrow tissue and complete blood cells. We have people who fit the various homo sapiens skulls today.

God destroyed the world and people with Noah's flood. The only ones who remained were Noah's family to start over. We are Noah's ancestors. The Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are successful and they explain what happened. It shows how Noah's ark was built and how all the animals were put and kept on board. Another builder made on to float and travel on water.

Evos tried to do the same by making money using Lucy's fossils in an evolution tour and it lost money. They sent the fossils back to Ethiopia. People didn't want to see a racist exhibit and fossil remains of a chimpanzee. Besides, its parts were found three miles away and at different depths. It probably was more than one chimp or parts of different animals. Your fake science is not successful. No one is going to go see asteroid remains and evidence when the timing is not right. It crashed on Earth 300,000 years too early. Thus, your evidence is laughable and you got egg on your face once again.

Like I said, you want to believe fake science, that’s not my problem. But real scientists don’t take what you say seriously. But you knew that already.

 

[Taz]

Nominated for absolute dumbest post of the year. Nobody said nothing about life coming from a rock. Sorry, but it's time to leave when you find yourself talking to fucking idiots. Plus putting somebody on ignore.

progressive hunter has provided verified evidence. You can't explain anything, but make ad hominen attacks. Yours is a fallacious argument of mostly ignorant and moronic people. Do you know what the IQ of a moron is? It's 40, but you sound like yours is less than that. That makes you a loser in this debate. Might as well put your dunce cap on, sit in a corner, and have a good cry. Maybe next time you can read a book or an article and have something to contribute to the discussion, but IQ under 40 probably precludes you from doing that. Why don't you ask Taz why Evolution made people like you when people are suppose to evolve haha?

Every schpeel you make is full of ad hominem attacks (like this last one), wtf are you complaining about?
What a baby.

 

[james bond]

If God created all the species at the same time, why are there not the same species alive today as we find in fossils?

Natural selection is part of how evolution works. If you believe in one, you believe in the other.

Shut up about Noah's flood already, there's no worldwide proof of it like there is the asteroid that killed all the dinos. The Grand Canyon has nothing about it that points to a 40 day worldwide flood.

Evolution is relatively new, but if it was true, then we would have historical evidence of it. You have nothing. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old if their fossils can be radiocarbon dated. Also, it still has soft marrow tissue and complete blood cells. We have people who fit the various homo sapiens skulls today.

God destroyed the world and people with Noah's flood. The only ones who remained were Noah's family to start over. We are Noah's ancestors. The Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are successful and they explain what happened. It shows how Noah's ark was built and how all the animals were put and kept on board. Another builder made on to float and travel on water.

Evos tried to do the same by making money using Lucy's fossils in an evolution tour and it lost money. They sent the fossils back to Ethiopia. People didn't want to see a racist exhibit and fossil remains of a chimpanzee. Besides, its parts were found three miles away and at different depths. It probably was more than one chimp or parts of different animals. Your fake science is not successful. No one is going to go see asteroid remains and evidence when the timing is not right. It crashed on Earth 300,000 years too early. Thus, your evidence is laughable and you got egg on your face once again.

Like I said, you want to believe fake science, that’s not my problem. But real scientists don’t take what you say seriously. But you knew that already.

How can it be fake science when the scientific method backs it up? For example, we have the bent rocks at Grand Canyon. You can't bend rocks unless you get them when they are forming, i.e. the sedimentary layers get wet and form a chemical reaction to harden under water like cement. You do not know any science.

Your scientists are not real. They think the rocks bent due to high heat and pressure over millions of years. Old rocks crumble and break into smaller pieces. Not bend.

For example, atheists think Bill Nye is an evolutionist and science guy. He is a comedian .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nominated for absolute dumbest post of the year. Nobody said nothing about life coming from a rock. Sorry, but it's time to leave when you find yourself talking to fucking idiots. Plus putting somebody on ignore.

progressive hunter has provided verified evidence. You can't explain anything, but make ad hominen attacks. Yours is a fallacious argument of mostly ignorant and moronic people. Do you know what the IQ of a moron is? It's 40, but you sound like yours is less than that. That makes you a loser in this debate. Might as well put your dunce cap on, sit in a corner, and have a good cry. Maybe next time you can read a book or an article and have something to contribute to the discussion, but IQ under 40 probably precludes you from doing that. Why don't you ask Taz why Evolution made people like you when people are suppose to evolve haha?

Every schpeel you make is full of ad hominem attacks (like this last one), wtf are you complaining about?
What a baby.

Dont worry, Bond doesn't actually know what the term "Ad Hominem" means.

 

[Asclepias]

There is no evidence of ancient peoples excavating dinosaur fossils. One person told me Aristotle knew about and found a fossil when it was a sand dollar from the beach. The evos will make up anything BS to keep their "faith-based" science, i.e. dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

"There is no evidence of ancient peoples excavating dinosaur fossils."

There was no evidence of a lot things until there was. Lack of evidence is not the determining factor. It just means you are too blind or too ignorant to know exactly what they did or didnt do.

Hahahahahahaha. Man, you can believe up is down and down is up with that piece of strange logic and science. We had coelacanth to contradict evolution. And the evos believe dinosaurs became extinct based on what exactly?

The evidence -- global stories and legends of dinosaurs, art pieces, shows that humans in ancient times lived with dinosaurs. Not next door, but they were around.

"We had coelacanth to contradict evolution."

Not sure why you think the coelacanth contradicts evolution. Its actually more proof of what I just told you. People say all types of silly shit and because they are scientists people think they are always right. Well news flash.....they are wrong....alot. My daughter is a wild life biologist and she told me they mess up all the time. If humans lived with dinosaurs why cant they find just one fossil thats consistent with the first appearance of homo sapiens? Not saying its impossible but right now the evidence say they were separated by millions of years. If you dont think the dinosaurs are extinct where do you think they are hiding?

Coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient. The tree of life and common ancestor is still living, so your past hypothesis is wrong. It being a "living fossil" now is BS haha.

Well you are supposed to have some reading comprehension. I never said they grew legs. Where in the hell did you get that from? The ones that are alive are not ancient but the ones that they found that were millions of years old and fossilized are ancient. Just because something doesnt die out doesnt mean it isnt old. It just means its a very successful life form. A good example of that is sharks. They still exist but as a species they are ancient as hell. I think about 300-400 million years old.

 

[Asclepias]

You do not seem to understand how evolution works, you do not mate a chimp and a gorilla to get a new species, although there ARE new species that have been created in just that way. Go back some 15-20 million years or so, whatever. Guess what, there are no chimps, no gorillas, and men either. But there WAS a common ancestor to all ape species, and from that common ancestor came the chips, gorillas, monkeys, and us too. Each lived in a different environment which cultivated mutations or adaptations to survive and thrive in the changing environmental conditions. Some made it, and some died out (extinction).

Now don't be asking for scientific proof, cuz there ain't any. There cannot be proof, you can't duplicate millions of years of life on a changing planet in a lab, okay? So, it's not a scientific fact, but it IS a scientific theory that is universally accepted by anybody who knows diddly about biology. If you or anyone else doesn't believe it, that's up to you.

I do understand as I have studied both evolution on Understanding Evolution and creation science. You admitted it yourself as no scientific backing. Evolution doesn't happen. Atheists and their scientists are liars and do not have anything that is backed by the scientific method (except natural selection). That is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

Whoa dude, I didn't say evolution has no scientific backing, it sure as hell does. The evidence is quite substantial, starting with Darwin's work on the Galapagos Islands and going forward with the various anthropological digs and studies. Evolution DOES happen, it just takes a long time, as the following evidence shows:

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.


2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.


3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.


4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.


5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Five Proofs of Evolution | Evolution FAQ

do you evos have a church where you practice your religion???

Nope, cuz, of course, it ain't a religion. It's called science, you gather facts and evidence and you develop a theory about how life evolved. And every other scientist who knows anything about biology looks at what your data shows and how well it fits your theory, they question it looking for errors or gaps in logic, and if most of them find little or none then it gradually becomes accepted theory until something else along to either disprove it or throw doubt upon the conclusions reached. That ain't religion, that is the science works.

BTW, there's nothing that says God didn't create the evolutionary process, or maybe got the ball rolling and let nature take it's course, hell I don't know. There's nothing about evolution that says atheism is right or wrong, or has jack squat to do with religion. Do we need to have a discussion about what religion actually is?

so you believe life magically came from a rock without proof,,,

sorry thats a religion,,,

Life was created and then it evolved. You have to be a dunce not to see it. All living things have the same blueprint. Can you explain why the human fetus goes through stages where it looks like various animals like a fish or a bird?

 

[james bond]

There is no evidence of ancient peoples excavating dinosaur fossils. One person told me Aristotle knew about and found a fossil when it was a sand dollar from the beach. The evos will make up anything BS to keep their "faith-based" science, i.e. dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

"There is no evidence of ancient peoples excavating dinosaur fossils."

There was no evidence of a lot things until there was. Lack of evidence is not the determining factor. It just means you are too blind or too ignorant to know exactly what they did or didnt do.

Hahahahahahaha. Man, you can believe up is down and down is up with that piece of strange logic and science. We had coelacanth to contradict evolution. And the evos believe dinosaurs became extinct based on what exactly?

The evidence -- global stories and legends of dinosaurs, art pieces, shows that humans in ancient times lived with dinosaurs. Not next door, but they were around.

"We had coelacanth to contradict evolution."

Not sure why you think the coelacanth contradicts evolution. Its actually more proof of what I just told you. People say all types of silly shit and because they are scientists people think they are always right. Well news flash.....they are wrong....alot. My daughter is a wild life biologist and she told me they mess up all the time. If humans lived with dinosaurs why cant they find just one fossil thats consistent with the first appearance of homo sapiens? Not saying its impossible but right now the evidence say they were separated by millions of years. If you dont think the dinosaurs are extinct where do you think they are hiding?

Coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient. The tree of life and common ancestor is still living, so your past hypothesis is wrong. It being a "living fossil" now is BS haha.

Well you are supposed to have some reading comprehension. I never said they grew legs. Where in the hell did you get that from? The ones that are alive are not ancient but the ones that they found that were millions of years old and fossilized are ancient. Just because something doesnt die out doesnt mean it isnt old. It just means its a very successful life form. A good example of that is sharks. They still exist but as a species they are ancient as hell. I think about 300-400 million years old.

Man, you don't know what ToE states. Again, coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient.

From water to land

Finding the coelacanth still alive contradicts the tree of life and its position as a common ancestor. If I was still an evolutionist, then I would state that. What you state is stuff that low brow internet atheists believe. Its not based on any transitional fossil evidence. Let the facts make up the theory. Not the theory make up a new story because a common ancestor was contradicted.

 

[james bond]

Dont worry, Bond doesn't actually know what the term "Ad Hominem" means.

If I tell you what ad hominem means, then will you be any smarter in your posts? Of course not. You continue to be fallacious or tending to mislead and be deceptive.

Then there are your posts where you are usually wrong like the black hole image that wasn't even in our galaxy.

 

[Asclepias]

"There is no evidence of ancient peoples excavating dinosaur fossils."

There was no evidence of a lot things until there was. Lack of evidence is not the determining factor. It just means you are too blind or too ignorant to know exactly what they did or didnt do.

Hahahahahahaha. Man, you can believe up is down and down is up with that piece of strange logic and science. We had coelacanth to contradict evolution. And the evos believe dinosaurs became extinct based on what exactly?

The evidence -- global stories and legends of dinosaurs, art pieces, shows that humans in ancient times lived with dinosaurs. Not next door, but they were around.

"We had coelacanth to contradict evolution."

Not sure why you think the coelacanth contradicts evolution. Its actually more proof of what I just told you. People say all types of silly shit and because they are scientists people think they are always right. Well news flash.....they are wrong....alot. My daughter is a wild life biologist and she told me they mess up all the time. If humans lived with dinosaurs why cant they find just one fossil thats consistent with the first appearance of homo sapiens? Not saying its impossible but right now the evidence say they were separated by millions of years. If you dont think the dinosaurs are extinct where do you think they are hiding?

Coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient. The tree of life and common ancestor is still living, so your past hypothesis is wrong. It being a "living fossil" now is BS haha.

Well you are supposed to have some reading comprehension. I never said they grew legs. Where in the hell did you get that from? The ones that are alive are not ancient but the ones that they found that were millions of years old and fossilized are ancient. Just because something doesnt die out doesnt mean it isnt old. It just means its a very successful life form. A good example of that is sharks. They still exist but as a species they are ancient as hell. I think about 300-400 million years old.

Man, you don't know what ToE states. Again, coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient.

From water to land

Finding the coelacanth still alive contradicts the tree of life and its position as a common ancestor. If I was still an evolutionist, then I would state that. What you state is stuff that low brow internet atheists believe. Its not based on any transitional fossil evidence. Let the facts make up the theory. Not the theory make up a new story because a common ancestor was contradicted.

The ToE is from Darwin who didnt know shit about genetics, WTF are you talking about? The coelacanth simply stopped evolving long ago. Its environment stayed the same. Thats just one species out of thousands that prove evolution. Again why does the human fetus go through stages where it looks like a fish or bird? Dont avoid the question because its inconvenient to your beliefs.

How am I stating what atheists believe when I believe the first life form or forms had to be created?

 

[james bond]

Hahahahahahaha. Man, you can believe up is down and down is up with that piece of strange logic and science. We had coelacanth to contradict evolution. And the evos believe dinosaurs became extinct based on what exactly?

The evidence -- global stories and legends of dinosaurs, art pieces, shows that humans in ancient times lived with dinosaurs. Not next door, but they were around.

"We had coelacanth to contradict evolution."

Not sure why you think the coelacanth contradicts evolution. Its actually more proof of what I just told you. People say all types of silly shit and because they are scientists people think they are always right. Well news flash.....they are wrong....alot. My daughter is a wild life biologist and she told me they mess up all the time. If humans lived with dinosaurs why cant they find just one fossil thats consistent with the first appearance of homo sapiens? Not saying its impossible but right now the evidence say they were separated by millions of years. If you dont think the dinosaurs are extinct where do you think they are hiding?

Coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient. The tree of life and common ancestor is still living, so your past hypothesis is wrong. It being a "living fossil" now is BS haha.

Well you are supposed to have some reading comprehension. I never said they grew legs. Where in the hell did you get that from? The ones that are alive are not ancient but the ones that they found that were millions of years old and fossilized are ancient. Just because something doesnt die out doesnt mean it isnt old. It just means its a very successful life form. A good example of that is sharks. They still exist but as a species they are ancient as hell. I think about 300-400 million years old.

Man, you don't know what ToE states. Again, coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient.

From water to land

Finding the coelacanth still alive contradicts the tree of life and its position as a common ancestor. If I was still an evolutionist, then I would state that. What you state is stuff that low brow internet atheists believe. Its not based on any transitional fossil evidence. Let the facts make up the theory. Not the theory make up a new story because a common ancestor was contradicted.

The ToE is from Darwin who didnt know shit about genetics, WTF are you talking about? The coelacanth simply stopped evolving long ago. Its environment stayed the same. Thats just one species out of thousands that prove evolution. Again why does the human fetus go through stages where it looks like a fish or bird? Dont avoid the question because its inconvenient to your beliefs.

Hahahahaha. What does your first sentence even mean? It's a non sequitur.

WTF, WTF, WTF!

If the coelacanth stopped evolving, then that contradicts ToE. Read the link I provided. It was supposed to have grown legs and crawled out of the ocean as part of it being a common ancestor in the tree of life.

As for the rest of your rambling, I have no idea how you get one species out of thousands that prove evolution. And what does a fish have to do with the human fetus? Humans are primates and we haven't even gotten from sea creatures to land animals. Like I said, the coelacanth didn't grow legs. We can see that it didn't.

Here is what ToE says about primates.

Humans are primates. You have to explain your bizarre and wacky ramblings. If I was an evo, then I would question why there are no transitional fossils from one to another. Australopithecus becoming bipedal is really questionable as we do not see that today and the transitional fossil evidence is sketchy. Lucy's (au af) tour was a dismal failure. People don't believe it. If I was evo, then I wouldn't believe it either. I also pointed out that there are problems with gorillas and chimpanzees. There are no hybrids; it isn't part of natural selection.

 

[Asclepias]

"We had coelacanth to contradict evolution."

Not sure why you think the coelacanth contradicts evolution. Its actually more proof of what I just told you. People say all types of silly shit and because they are scientists people think they are always right. Well news flash.....they are wrong....alot. My daughter is a wild life biologist and she told me they mess up all the time. If humans lived with dinosaurs why cant they find just one fossil thats consistent with the first appearance of homo sapiens? Not saying its impossible but right now the evidence say they were separated by millions of years. If you dont think the dinosaurs are extinct where do you think they are hiding?

Coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient. The tree of life and common ancestor is still living, so your past hypothesis is wrong. It being a "living fossil" now is BS haha.

Well you are supposed to have some reading comprehension. I never said they grew legs. Where in the hell did you get that from? The ones that are alive are not ancient but the ones that they found that were millions of years old and fossilized are ancient. Just because something doesnt die out doesnt mean it isnt old. It just means its a very successful life form. A good example of that is sharks. They still exist but as a species they are ancient as hell. I think about 300-400 million years old.

Man, you don't know what ToE states. Again, coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient.

From water to land

Finding the coelacanth still alive contradicts the tree of life and its position as a common ancestor. If I was still an evolutionist, then I would state that. What you state is stuff that low brow internet atheists believe. Its not based on any transitional fossil evidence. Let the facts make up the theory. Not the theory make up a new story because a common ancestor was contradicted.

The ToE is from Darwin who didnt know shit about genetics, WTF are you talking about? The coelacanth simply stopped evolving long ago. Its environment stayed the same. Thats just one species out of thousands that prove evolution. Again why does the human fetus go through stages where it looks like a fish or bird? Dont avoid the question because its inconvenient to your beliefs.

Hahahahaha. What does your first sentence even mean? It's a non sequitur.

WTF, WTF, WTF!

If the coelacanth stopped evolving, then that contradicts ToE. Read the link I provided. It was supposed to have grown legs and crawled out of the ocean as part of it being a common ancestor in the tree of life.

As for the rest of your rambling, I have no idea how you get one species out of thousands that prove evolution. And what does a fish have to do with the human fetus? Humans are primates and we haven't even gotten from sea creatures to land animals. Like I said, the coelacanth didn't grow legs. We can see that it didn't.

Here is what ToE says about primates.

Humans are primates. You have to explain your bizarre and wacky ramblings. If I was an evo, then I would question why there are no transitional fossils from one to another. Australopithecus becoming bipedal is really questionable as we do not see that today and the transitional fossil evidence is sketchy. Lucy's (au af) tour was a dismal failure. People don't believe it. If I was evo, then I wouldn't believe it either. I also pointed out that there are problems with gorillas and chimpanzees. There are no hybrids; it isn't part of natural selection.

Its kind of obvious you dont understand what it means. What it means is you are beating a dead horse by talking about the ToE. That was Darwin that didnt know shit about genetics. Personally I think its fatally flawed in most areas so I dont know why you keep bringing it up like I subscribe to it entirely. I think youre so caught up trying to prove it wrong your reading comprehension spazzed out on you. Its obvious to me that there were one or more life forms created by someone or something and then life evolved. Some creatures couldnt adapt to their surroundings and died out. Others flourished and evolved. Others flourished and stopped evolving because their surroundings remained the same.

 

[Taz]

If God created all the species at the same time, why are there not the same species alive today as we find in fossils?

Natural selection is part of how evolution works. If you believe in one, you believe in the other.

Shut up about Noah's flood already, there's no worldwide proof of it like there is the asteroid that killed all the dinos. The Grand Canyon has nothing about it that points to a 40 day worldwide flood.

Evolution is relatively new, but if it was true, then we would have historical evidence of it. You have nothing. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old if their fossils can be radiocarbon dated. Also, it still has soft marrow tissue and complete blood cells. We have people who fit the various homo sapiens skulls today.

God destroyed the world and people with Noah's flood. The only ones who remained were Noah's family to start over. We are Noah's ancestors. The Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are successful and they explain what happened. It shows how Noah's ark was built and how all the animals were put and kept on board. Another builder made on to float and travel on water.

Evos tried to do the same by making money using Lucy's fossils in an evolution tour and it lost money. They sent the fossils back to Ethiopia. People didn't want to see a racist exhibit and fossil remains of a chimpanzee. Besides, its parts were found three miles away and at different depths. It probably was more than one chimp or parts of different animals. Your fake science is not successful. No one is going to go see asteroid remains and evidence when the timing is not right. It crashed on Earth 300,000 years too early. Thus, your evidence is laughable and you got egg on your face once again.

Like I said, you want to believe fake science, that’s not my problem. But real scientists don’t take what you say seriously. But you knew that already.

How can it be fake science when the scientific method backs it up? For example, we have the bent rocks at Grand Canyon. You can't bend rocks unless you get them when they are forming, i.e. the sedimentary layers get wet and form a chemical reaction to harden under water like cement. You do not know any science.

Your scientists are not real. They think the rocks bent due to high heat and pressure over millions of years. Old rocks crumble and break into smaller pieces. Not bend.

For example, atheists think Bill Nye is an evolutionist and science guy. He is a comedian .

"You can't bend rocks unless you get them when they are forming" I don't know where you get your info, but this is just plain wrong.

 

[james bond]

Coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient. The tree of life and common ancestor is still living, so your past hypothesis is wrong. It being a "living fossil" now is BS haha.

Well you are supposed to have some reading comprehension. I never said they grew legs. Where in the hell did you get that from? The ones that are alive are not ancient but the ones that they found that were millions of years old and fossilized are ancient. Just because something doesnt die out doesnt mean it isnt old. It just means its a very successful life form. A good example of that is sharks. They still exist but as a species they are ancient as hell. I think about 300-400 million years old.

Man, you don't know what ToE states. Again, coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient.

From water to land

Finding the coelacanth still alive contradicts the tree of life and its position as a common ancestor. If I was still an evolutionist, then I would state that. What you state is stuff that low brow internet atheists believe. Its not based on any transitional fossil evidence. Let the facts make up the theory. Not the theory make up a new story because a common ancestor was contradicted.

The ToE is from Darwin who didnt know shit about genetics, WTF are you talking about? The coelacanth simply stopped evolving long ago. Its environment stayed the same. Thats just one species out of thousands that prove evolution. Again why does the human fetus go through stages where it looks like a fish or bird? Dont avoid the question because its inconvenient to your beliefs.

Hahahahaha. What does your first sentence even mean? It's a non sequitur.

WTF, WTF, WTF!

If the coelacanth stopped evolving, then that contradicts ToE. Read the link I provided. It was supposed to have grown legs and crawled out of the ocean as part of it being a common ancestor in the tree of life.

As for the rest of your rambling, I have no idea how you get one species out of thousands that prove evolution. And what does a fish have to do with the human fetus? Humans are primates and we haven't even gotten from sea creatures to land animals. Like I said, the coelacanth didn't grow legs. We can see that it didn't.

Here is what ToE says about primates.

Humans are primates. You have to explain your bizarre and wacky ramblings. If I was an evo, then I would question why there are no transitional fossils from one to another. Australopithecus becoming bipedal is really questionable as we do not see that today and the transitional fossil evidence is sketchy. Lucy's (au af) tour was a dismal failure. People don't believe it. If I was evo, then I wouldn't believe it either. I also pointed out that there are problems with gorillas and chimpanzees. There are no hybrids; it isn't part of natural selection.

Its kind of obvious you dont understand what it means. What it means is you are beating a dead horse by talking about the ToE. That was Darwin that didnt know shit about genetics. Personally I think its fatally flawed in most areas so I dont know why you keep bringing it up like I subscribe to it entirely. I think youre so caught up trying to prove it wrong your reading comprehension spazzed out on you. Its obvious to me that there were one or more life forms created by someone or something and then life evolved. Some creatures couldnt adapt to their surroundings and died out. Others flourished and evolved. Others flourished and stopped evolving because their surroundings remained the same.

We agree Darwin is one of the stupidest AF atheist scientists of all time, but he's way smarter than you. The lie of ToE is what people believe and is what is promoted in schools and museums. I even gave you a link on it.

Anyway, we are done. There is nothing further to discuss because your posts do not answer my questions to you when I asked for clarification on what you stated in your previous post. You do not explain your positions so I nor other people can understand what you are trying to say.

You also do not understand that I believed in evolution first. I studied it using the link. I gave you the reasons I started doubting it and this happened when many articles started coming out against it from 2007 - 2011. I didn't start looking at creation science until 2012 when I became Christian.

 

[james bond]

If God created all the species at the same time, why are there not the same species alive today as we find in fossils?

Natural selection is part of how evolution works. If you believe in one, you believe in the other.

Shut up about Noah's flood already, there's no worldwide proof of it like there is the asteroid that killed all the dinos. The Grand Canyon has nothing about it that points to a 40 day worldwide flood.

Evolution is relatively new, but if it was true, then we would have historical evidence of it. You have nothing. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old if their fossils can be radiocarbon dated. Also, it still has soft marrow tissue and complete blood cells. We have people who fit the various homo sapiens skulls today.

God destroyed the world and people with Noah's flood. The only ones who remained were Noah's family to start over. We are Noah's ancestors. The Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are successful and they explain what happened. It shows how Noah's ark was built and how all the animals were put and kept on board. Another builder made on to float and travel on water.

Evos tried to do the same by making money using Lucy's fossils in an evolution tour and it lost money. They sent the fossils back to Ethiopia. People didn't want to see a racist exhibit and fossil remains of a chimpanzee. Besides, its parts were found three miles away and at different depths. It probably was more than one chimp or parts of different animals. Your fake science is not successful. No one is going to go see asteroid remains and evidence when the timing is not right. It crashed on Earth 300,000 years too early. Thus, your evidence is laughable and you got egg on your face once again.

Like I said, you want to believe fake science, that’s not my problem. But real scientists don’t take what you say seriously. But you knew that already.

How can it be fake science when the scientific method backs it up? For example, we have the bent rocks at Grand Canyon. You can't bend rocks unless you get them when they are forming, i.e. the sedimentary layers get wet and form a chemical reaction to harden under water like cement. You do not know any science.

Your scientists are not real. They think the rocks bent due to high heat and pressure over millions of years. Old rocks crumble and break into smaller pieces. Not bend.

For example, atheists think Bill Nye is an evolutionist and science guy. He is a comedian .

"You can't bend rocks unless you get them when they are forming" I don't know where you get your info, but this is just plain wrong.

How is that wrong? One can shape molten rocks to form any shape before it hardens. It happens daily.

 

[Taz]

If God created all the species at the same time, why are there not the same species alive today as we find in fossils?

Natural selection is part of how evolution works. If you believe in one, you believe in the other.

Shut up about Noah's flood already, there's no worldwide proof of it like there is the asteroid that killed all the dinos. The Grand Canyon has nothing about it that points to a 40 day worldwide flood.

Evolution is relatively new, but if it was true, then we would have historical evidence of it. You have nothing. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old if their fossils can be radiocarbon dated. Also, it still has soft marrow tissue and complete blood cells. We have people who fit the various homo sapiens skulls today.

God destroyed the world and people with Noah's flood. The only ones who remained were Noah's family to start over. We are Noah's ancestors. The Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are successful and they explain what happened. It shows how Noah's ark was built and how all the animals were put and kept on board. Another builder made on to float and travel on water.

Evos tried to do the same by making money using Lucy's fossils in an evolution tour and it lost money. They sent the fossils back to Ethiopia. People didn't want to see a racist exhibit and fossil remains of a chimpanzee. Besides, its parts were found three miles away and at different depths. It probably was more than one chimp or parts of different animals. Your fake science is not successful. No one is going to go see asteroid remains and evidence when the timing is not right. It crashed on Earth 300,000 years too early. Thus, your evidence is laughable and you got egg on your face once again.

Like I said, you want to believe fake science, that’s not my problem. But real scientists don’t take what you say seriously. But you knew that already.

How can it be fake science when the scientific method backs it up? For example, we have the bent rocks at Grand Canyon. You can't bend rocks unless you get them when they are forming, i.e. the sedimentary layers get wet and form a chemical reaction to harden under water like cement. You do not know any science.

Your scientists are not real. They think the rocks bent due to high heat and pressure over millions of years. Old rocks crumble and break into smaller pieces. Not bend.

For example, atheists think Bill Nye is an evolutionist and science guy. He is a comedian .

"You can't bend rocks unless you get them when they are forming" I don't know where you get your info, but this is just plain wrong.

How is that wrong? One can shape molten rocks to form any shape before it hardens. It happens daily.

Sure it can be formed that way, but the moving tectonic plates of the earth crash into each other to form mountains and bend the rocks.That's also how we get earthquakes. And sea fossils in layers on top of mountains.

 

[james bond]

I got more from Taz on another thread. It goes to show Taz cannot explain his own links and my post explains why radiometric dating of dinosaur fossils is bogus. Using radiocarbon dating is done directly to the fossil and produces fairly consistent results.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

It is interesting to me that you cannot explain what you are trying to say in your own words. Thus, I can freely explain my pov from the article you linked.

"The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old."

Yep, that's what I said when there would be no C-14 left to measure. C-14 decays rather quickly, so there would not be any remaining. However, one can still do C-14 dating on all the dino fossils. This is a direct measurement of the fossils and not the layer of rock it was found in. It means that the fossils are not millions of years old. We find they are less than 50,000 years old. This is also backed up by the soft tissue and blood cells found inside.

Then the article says to use radiometric dating instead. It is used to date the sedimentary rock layers. However, the sedimentary rock does not contain the radioactive isotopes, so one has to use the igneous rock layers to mark the layers that can be measure. They say the igneous layers mark off the sedimentary layers beautifully.

What they are basically saying is to date the rocks in order to date the fossils. We do not even date the actual rock that the fossils were found in. They are twice removed. Many people are flabbergasted when they find that fossils cannot be directly dated using radiometric dating.

"Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones."

That said, dating these igneous rock layers in order to date the fossils give a wide range of measurements. They can be off by millions of years due to contamination. Thus, in order to ensure that the measurement of the rock was correct, they use past samples taken of fossils found in these layers and say that is the correct measurement. In reality, none of the measurements could be correct. One should take all of the measurements as valid or none since we have a wide range of values.

Therefore, in order to verify the date the rocks, they say to date the fossils. This is circular reasoning and is a fallacy. They only take the range that fits their preconceived notions. These scientists even did the same with moon rocks. The moon rocks gave a wide variety of dates, so they only accepted the ones that fit the preconceived notion of the Earth rocks. They assumed the Earth and moon formed around the same time and only accepted measurements that fit their assumed range.

There is really no way to directly determine the age of the rock except for radiocarbon dating and one can do it because there is still C14 left in coal deposits and diamonds. It gives relatively consistent results. OTOH, radiometric dating has to fit in with preconceived results of else it is wrong.

The other assumption is the sedimentary layers took hundreds of millions of years to form because of ToE. One can't have evolution without long time. However, we notice the same sedimentary layers formed from the Mt. St. Helens volcano. We know they are only tens of years old. Doing radiometric dating on its layers using the above technique gave around 350,000 years old.

The bottom line to all this for radiometric dating is if you want credibility for the measurements, then take all of the measurements or take none. Don't just pick and choose those that fit your theory.

 

[Hollie]

I got more from Taz on another thread. It goes to show Taz cannot explain his own links and my post explains why radiometric dating of dinosaur fossils is bogus. Using radiocarbon dating is done directly to the fossil and produces fairly consistent results.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

It is interesting to me that you cannot explain what you are trying to say in your own words. Thus, I can freely explain my pov from the article you linked.

"The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old."

Yep, that's what I said when there would be no C-14 left to measure. C-14 decays rather quickly, so there would not be any remaining. However, one can still do C-14 dating on all the dino fossils. This is a direct measurement of the fossils and not the layer of rock it was found in. It means that the fossils are not millions of years old. We find they are less than 50,000 years old. This is also backed up by the soft tissue and blood cells found inside.

Then the article says to use radiometric dating instead. It is used to date the sedimentary rock layers. However, the sedimentary rock does not contain the radioactive isotopes, so one has to use the igneous rock layers to mark the layers that can be measure. They say the igneous layers mark off the sedimentary layers beautifully.

What they are basically saying is to date the rocks in order to date the fossils. We do not even date the actual rock that the fossils were found in. They are twice removed. Many people are flabbergasted when they find that fossils cannot be directly dated using radiometric dating.

"Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones."

That said, dating these igneous rock layers in order to date the fossils give a wide range of measurements. They can be off by millions of years due to contamination. Thus, in order to ensure that the measurement of the rock was correct, they use past samples taken of fossils found in these layers and say that is the correct measurement. In reality, none of the measurements could be correct. One should take all of the measurements as valid or none since we have a wide range of values.

Therefore, in order to verify the date the rocks, they say to date the fossils. This is circular reasoning and is a fallacy. They only take the range that fits their preconceived notions. These scientists even did the same with moon rocks. The moon rocks gave a wide variety of dates, so they only accepted the ones that fit the preconceived notion of the Earth rocks. They assumed the Earth and moon formed around the same time and only accepted measurements that fit their assumed range.

There is really no way to directly determine the age of the rock except for radiocarbon dating and one can do it because there is still C14 left in coal deposits and diamonds. It gives relatively consistent results. OTOH, radiometric dating has to fit in with preconceived results of else it is wrong.

The other assumption is the sedimentary layers took hundreds of millions of years to form because of ToE. One can't have evolution without long time. However, we notice the same sedimentary layers formed from the Mt. St. Helens volcano. We know they are only tens of years old. Doing radiometric dating on its layers using the above technique gave around 350,000 years old.

The bottom line to all this for radiometric dating is if you want credibility for the measurements, then take all of the measurements or take none. Don't just pick and choose those that fit your theory.

In typical fashion, you plagiarized / cut and pasted the above while deleting sections that you knew would contradict your lies and falsehoods.

What a dishonest hack.

 

[james bond]

Sure it can be formed that way, but the moving tectonic plates of the earth crash into each other to form mountains and bend the rocks.That's also how we get earthquakes. And sea fossils in layers on top of mountains.

Go ahead and explain how plate tectonics bend rocks. It causes rocks and the earth to break in an earthquake. Like I said the bend is caused by molten rocks (magma) as the mountains rise up or sedimentary layers hardening by a chemical reaction with water. Sounds like you got another fail.

 

[Hollie]

Well you are supposed to have some reading comprehension. I never said they grew legs. Where in the hell did you get that from? The ones that are alive are not ancient but the ones that they found that were millions of years old and fossilized are ancient. Just because something doesnt die out doesnt mean it isnt old. It just means its a very successful life form. A good example of that is sharks. They still exist but as a species they are ancient as hell. I think about 300-400 million years old.

Man, you don't know what ToE states. Again, coelacanth was supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs. Also, they are supposed to grow legs and come out of the ocean. It doesn't even grow any legs. They're not ancient.

From water to land

Finding the coelacanth still alive contradicts the tree of life and its position as a common ancestor. If I was still an evolutionist, then I would state that. What you state is stuff that low brow internet atheists believe. Its not based on any transitional fossil evidence. Let the facts make up the theory. Not the theory make up a new story because a common ancestor was contradicted.

The ToE is from Darwin who didnt know shit about genetics, WTF are you talking about? The coelacanth simply stopped evolving long ago. Its environment stayed the same. Thats just one species out of thousands that prove evolution. Again why does the human fetus go through stages where it looks like a fish or bird? Dont avoid the question because its inconvenient to your beliefs.

Hahahahaha. What does your first sentence even mean? It's a non sequitur.

WTF, WTF, WTF!

If the coelacanth stopped evolving, then that contradicts ToE. Read the link I provided. It was supposed to have grown legs and crawled out of the ocean as part of it being a common ancestor in the tree of life.

As for the rest of your rambling, I have no idea how you get one species out of thousands that prove evolution. And what does a fish have to do with the human fetus? Humans are primates and we haven't even gotten from sea creatures to land animals. Like I said, the coelacanth didn't grow legs. We can see that it didn't.

Here is what ToE says about primates.

Humans are primates. You have to explain your bizarre and wacky ramblings. If I was an evo, then I would question why there are no transitional fossils from one to another. Australopithecus becoming bipedal is really questionable as we do not see that today and the transitional fossil evidence is sketchy. Lucy's (au af) tour was a dismal failure. People don't believe it. If I was evo, then I wouldn't believe it either. I also pointed out that there are problems with gorillas and chimpanzees. There are no hybrids; it isn't part of natural selection.

Its kind of obvious you dont understand what it means. What it means is you are beating a dead horse by talking about the ToE. That was Darwin that didnt know shit about genetics. Personally I think its fatally flawed in most areas so I dont know why you keep bringing it up like I subscribe to it entirely. I think youre so caught up trying to prove it wrong your reading comprehension spazzed out on you. Its obvious to me that there were one or more life forms created by someone or something and then life evolved. Some creatures couldnt adapt to their surroundings and died out. Others flourished and evolved. Others flourished and stopped evolving because their surroundings remained the same.

We agree Darwin is one of the stupidest AF atheist scientists of all time, but he's way smarter than you. The lie of ToE is what people believe and is what is promoted in schools and museums. I even gave you a link on it.

Anyway, we are done. There is nothing further to discuss because your posts do not answer my questions to you when I asked for clarification on what you stated in your previous post. You do not explain your positions so I nor other people can understand what you are trying to say.

You also do not understand that I believed in evolution first. I studied it using the link. I gave you the reasons I started doubting it and this happened when many articles started coming out against it from 2007 - 2011. I didn't start looking at creation science until 2012 when I became Christian.

Actually, the ToE, founded on Darwin’s works, is a cornerstone of science.

That your hyper-religious beliefs conflict with science is not surprising as religious faith is often the victim of fear and superstition.

 

[Taz]

Sure it can be formed that way, but the moving tectonic plates of the earth crash into each other to form mountains and bend the rocks.That's also how we get earthquakes. And sea fossils in layers on top of mountains.

Go ahead and explain how plate tectonics bend rocks. It causes rocks and the earth to break in an earthquake. Like I said the bend is caused by molten rocks (magma) as the mountains rise up or sedimentary layers hardening by a chemical reaction with water. Sounds like you got another fail.

Sorry, not what real scientists say. You have no degree, so stfu.