paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

[Grumblenuts]

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

 

[james bond]

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]

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]

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..

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]

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. 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]

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!

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]

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. 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

"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]

"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]

"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.

"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.

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]

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]

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?

“Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s“

Haha...what moron said that?

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

“Fossils weren't discovered until the 1840s“

Haha...what moron said that?

says the troll,,,

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.