Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[Mushroom]

I didn't know that. I went to look at the pictures of humans and dinosaurs and went with something that looked good.

And that is the danger of just finding something and not critically analyzing it.

Myself, I am very much a skeptic, and that "article" jumped out and screamed at me it was fake. For reasons I already stated.

First of all, a Kuwaiti "sheperd" (misspelling, it should be "shepherd") finding the caves? Well gee, where have we heard that one before? Did they find cave art, or the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Then we get to the person in charge. "Abdul Al-Shalafi, the paleontologist recently named in charge of the site". First of all, who is he affiliated with? A university? A museum? A government cultural agency? Look at any similar article, and it will always identify who they are working for. Here, nothing. And if he works for nobody, who was it that put him in charge, under what authority?

Well, I did a Google search for "Abdul Al-Shalafi". And what did I find? Well, absolutely nothing that did not refer right back to this single discovery. Which interestingly enough has been "reported" almost the exact same way in 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2021. The same "news" being reported exactly the same over and over again is almost a guarantee it is fake.

I encourage anybody to look at things like this through the eyes of a skeptic. Do not just look for things you agree with, make sure they are credible reports and are factual.

I mean come on, really? NEWS

Well, how reputable are they? Let's examine some of their current "headlines".

TRANS-SPECIES MAN WHO IDENTIFIES AS A SQUIRREL ARRESTED FOR TWO 20-TON PEANUT TRUCK HEISTS​

TEXAS MAN ADMITS KIDNAPPING 79 PEOPLE TO ANALLY PROBE THEM WHILE DISGUISED AS AN ALIEN​

CANNIBAL KILLER SLAUGHTERED AND ATE 23 PIZZA DELIVERY MEN, 6 JEHOVAH WITNESSES, 2 POSTMEN IN PAST 7 YEARS​

WOMAN SUES SAMSUNG FOR $1.8M AFTER CELL PHONE GETS STUCK INSIDE HER VAGINA​

FLORIDA FISHERMAN LOST AT SEA FOR 14 DAYS CLAIMS HE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY MERMAIDS​

Yea, that is the site you used to pull up this "proof". Dude, you trolled yourself. But take it as a lesson, and look for accurate and factual information, not just information that agrees with your beliefs.

 

[Old Rocks]

 

[alang1216]

I know, but it appears you didn't know. It's catastrophism. Didn't I say there was no uniformitarianism? However, I'm open to it. What is something that is uniformitarian if you disagree? What does uniformitarianism mean?

If you don't like annual flooding how about the movement of plates. There is no evidence I know of that points to any change in the speed of their movement.

I think dinosaur and human fossils will be found in one layer, i.e. location, and will make you and the atheists look foolish.

That would certainly turn science on its head but until then it is not evolution science that looks foolish

It's not easy to find either fossil. Where are the human fossils? You don't have any fossils of these, but yet you believe in them.

There are hundreds of fossils of our ancestors, apes that walked upright when no dinos were around.

 

[Mushroom]

There are hundreds of fossils of our ancestors, apes that walked upright when no dinos were around.

Hell, the first recognized "proto-primate" is Purgatorius, which evolved around 66 mya in North America. And it was a long tailed four legged arboreal creature, having more in common with a squirrel than what would follow it.

It would be another 10 million years until that evolved into Notharctus, another North American primate that would finally take on a form that most would actually recognize as being an actual primate. But anatomically it was still closer to a rodent than to a modern Primate, but the direction it was now moving in was becoming obvious.

So at the absolute outside, the idea that "humans were with dinosaurs" is true - only if you include all primates and their predecessors as "human".

 

[JoeBlow]

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong

I made one of those in grade school once.

 

[james bond]

Apparently you are so ignorant that you do not know that there are many ways of dating rocks and other artifacts. As far as evolution goes, we are related to all life on Earth, it is written in the DNA in every cell in your body. That you choose to take as fact the mythology developed by a bunch of goat herders 5000 years ago simply is an indication of how you fear knowledge.

You are wrong and trying to make mountains out of molehills. It shows that you are so desperate for a win. I wasn't ignorant, but just had the wrong location. Instead of Kuwait, it was France, but dinosaurs and humans lived together. All of these rocks and cave paintings are considered prehistoric. They have them around the world.

 

[james bond]

And that is the danger of just finding something and not critically analyzing it.

Myself, I am very much a skeptic, and that "article" jumped out and screamed at me it was fake. For reasons I already stated.

First of all, a Kuwaiti "sheperd" (misspelling, it should be "shepherd") finding the caves? Well gee, where have we heard that one before? Did they find cave art, or the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Then we get to the person in charge. "Abdul Al-Shalafi, the paleontologist recently named in charge of the site". First of all, who is he affiliated with? A university? A museum? A government cultural agency? Look at any similar article, and it will always identify who they are working for. Here, nothing. And if he works for nobody, who was it that put him in charge, under what authority?

Well, I did a Google search for "Abdul Al-Shalafi". And what did I find? Well, absolutely nothing that did not refer right back to this single discovery. Which interestingly enough has been "reported" almost the exact same way in 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2021. The same "news" being reported exactly the same over and over again is almost a guarantee it is fake.

I encourage anybody to look at things like this through the eyes of a skeptic. Do not just look for things you agree with, make sure they are credible reports and are factual.

I mean come on, really? NEWS

Well, how reputable are they? Let's examine some of their current "headlines".

TRANS-SPECIES MAN WHO IDENTIFIES AS A SQUIRREL ARRESTED FOR TWO 20-TON PEANUT TRUCK HEISTS​

TEXAS MAN ADMITS KIDNAPPING 79 PEOPLE TO ANALLY PROBE THEM WHILE DISGUISED AS AN ALIEN​

CANNIBAL KILLER SLAUGHTERED AND ATE 23 PIZZA DELIVERY MEN, 6 JEHOVAH WITNESSES, 2 POSTMEN IN PAST 7 YEARS​

WOMAN SUES SAMSUNG FOR $1.8M AFTER CELL PHONE GETS STUCK INSIDE HER VAGINA​

FLORIDA FISHERMAN LOST AT SEA FOR 14 DAYS CLAIMS HE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY MERMAIDS​

Yea, that is the site you used to pull up this "proof". Dude, you trolled yourself. But take it as a lesson, and look for accurate and factual information, not just information that agrees with your beliefs.

You sound like another desperate for a win. All you did was correct the location of where the prehistoric cave painting was at. It was in the Chavet Caves in France. Chauvet Caves is known as the oldest rock art site in the world. Why don't you tell us about that? Then, I would consider you a winner instead of a trivialist or someone who makes a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Mac-7]

Whatever the case, the fossil record certainly doesn't support creationism.

If not evolution then what?

Call it creationism or intelligent design

It still points to something that makes godless libs uncomfortable

 

[Mushroom]

Instead of Kuwait, it was France, but dinosaurs and humans lived together.

The image was not even there!

It was a fraud! From a website that also claimed a man from Texas dressed up as an alien and anal probed people!

Holy hell, you do not even realize you were trolled, you still believe that nonsense!

Well, maybe we should have that guy from Texas pay you a visit.

 

[Mushroom]

You sound like another desperate for a win. All you did was correct the location of where the prehistoric cave painting was at.

The "cave painting" is a lie! From the same people that brought you the "trans species" man who thinks he is a squirrel and stole 20 tons of nuts.

Holy hell, you really can not tell reality from fantasy, can you?

Tell me, where do the mermaids fit into your fantasy world? Because the same "source" that says this photo is real also claims mermaids are real.

 

[james bond]

The "cave painting" is a lie! From the same people that brought you the "trans species" man who thinks he is a squirrel and stole 20 tons of nuts.

Holy hell, you really can not tell reality from fantasy, can you?

Tell me, where do the mermaids fit into your fantasy world? Because the same "source" that says this photo is real also claims mermaids are real.

First, there is evidence such as dinosaur fossils with soft tissue and C14 still remaining. With prehistoric art and others, it shows prehistoric humans weren't underdeveloped Neanderthals as atheist scientists claim. Creationists do not believe in millions of year old humans nor of them living in caves (I've been to Pinnacles and Carlsbad Caverns and wouldn't want to live there. Have you visited any caves?). The Neanderthal skeletons are representations of today's humans. The art shows that prehistoric humans were more advanced than what atheist scientists think.

As for dino and human art, there are others found all over the world and it just supplements the soft tissue/C14 evidence.

 

[james bond]

Holy hell, you really can not tell reality from fantasy, can you?

Can you? I just used a poor example of prehistoric dino art. But evolutionists have nothing to support their early human history and have had their "scientific" evidence shown to be fakes.

Here's one from evolution. We have no history of these so-called human depictions.

 

[Mushroom]

Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Mushroom]

Let's ask a creationist geologist.

Flume experiments have verified that carbonate mud isn’t deposited slowly but rapidly by wave and current action.3 Laboratory experiments demonstrate that water flowing between 10 and 20 inches per second creates ripples and laminated carbonate mud layers identical to those observed in carbonate rocks.4

The only problem is that is all bullshit.

Tell us, where can we find this "carbonate mud" that would be required? And then, how much of it is there?

You are aware are you not that during the processes to turn that "carbonate mud" into limestone, you are going to only end up with a fraction of the final result, because of subsurface compression. Most estimate that such strata are only 1/10 the size they were before such compression (or even smaller). Where we see coal seams a few dozen meters thick, was once hundreds of meters of plant material piled on top of more plant material for millions of years. We see a hundred meters or so of limestone, that was tens or millions of years of deposits. It is only when you get closer to the time of origin that the compression largely goes away.

However, it is still there. Go to any of the fossil beds left behind by the many eruptions of the Yellowstone Caldera, and you can see this in action. A layer maybe a meter or two thick, normally dating to the last million or so years of volcanic ash. However, this was up to tens of meters thick originally, but like can be seen after any ashfall this is a light material and compresses.

So what you said, it is all bullshit. And anybody experienced with geology can tell it is bullshit in a moment. That is why we all laugh at the very idea of a "creationist geologist". That is somebody that ignores science and proof, and just makes up crazy garbage that they think makes sense. But in reality, is all bullshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If not evolution then what?

Call it creationism or intelligent design

It still points to something that makes godless libs uncomfortable

No, we are perfectly fine with creationism. I.E., evolution is how it happened. Science is the study of rhe universe, and saying "but mah Gawd did it" doesn't get in the way of anything at all.

 

[alang1216]

If not evolution then what?

Call it creationism or intelligent design

It still points to something that makes godless libs uncomfortable

We have trillions of fossils and every one supports the theory of evolution. If that makes religious people uncomfortable, that is on them since it is the reality of the world. If a God created it, that is how He did it. You may say creationism or intelligent design but you're only saying that you don't know how we came to be.

 

[ding]

About what? Could you summarize this in your words?

I have only watched the first 7 minutes of the video but from what I have seen it's the same thing we have been discussing in the other thread. That the fossil record does not support speciation based upon slight successive changes. He said Darwin's theory does a good job of explaining why the beaks of finches changed slightly but not where birds came from.

 

[ding]

Hell, the first recognized "proto-primate" is Purgatorius, which evolved around 66 mya in North America. And it was a long tailed four legged arboreal creature, having more in common with a squirrel than what would follow it.

It would be another 10 million years until that evolved into Notharctus, another North American primate that would finally take on a form that most would actually recognize as being an actual primate. But anatomically it was still closer to a rodent than to a modern Primate, but the direction it was now moving in was becoming obvious.

So at the absolute outside, the idea that "humans were with dinosaurs" is true - only if you include all primates and their predecessors as "human".

 

[ding]

Ahhh, a video from a group that supports Creationism. How neutral such a thing is.

Sorry, not buying whatever it is he is selling.

I'm not a creationists even though I get accused of being a creationist (they do that a lot to Christians here) but I do buy punctuated equilibrium and that is what I thought he was discussing but I have only watched the first 7 minutes of the video.

 

[alang1216]

I have only watched the first 7 minutes of the video but from what I have seen it's the same thing we have been discussing in the other thread. That the fossil record does not support speciation based upon slight successive changes. He said Darwin's theory does a good job of explaining why the beaks of finches changed slightly but not where birds came from.

Doesn't seem like radical changes are required to change from dinos to birds.