Pisces Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing That doesn't prove anything about evolution. Like I said earlier, those similarities can support either theory/belief. The extinction you refer to could have been caused by the flood. And the fossil layers could have been created very quickly by the flood that would have been created if a formerly very thick layer of atmosphere collapsed. The most accurate fossil dating method is carbon-13, and that disappears within thousands of years. You can't even conclusively prove that life on Earth is millions of years old. On a side note, I find it particularly funny that the lamest thread I ever created has transmogrified into this. 4 things: 1 I meant suppost hte similarities, not prove, I just got confused:D 2:There's semi-definite proof of the asteroid/extinction theory. Palentologists have found a ring of black dusta few centimeters thick down under many layers of soil, right around the time the dinosaurs were wiped out. That dust is believed to have been thrown up and block out the sun, killing plants, starving herbivores starving carnivores etc. 3: I think you mean carbon-14 dating. There's also the layer of rock in which the fossil was found, they can approximate the age of the fossil by the area it was found in. 4: Yes I also found it amusing that 'Kangaroo Scrotums' transfered into a discussion of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talldudeX Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 None of that explains why we would have evolved from apes yet birds evolvd from dinosaurs. So what? So chimps are smart too, that doesn't mean we evolved from them. And since all dinosaurs evolved into birds, why didn't all primates evolve into humans? Another species intelligence and traits don't have a thing to do with evolution if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Not all dinosaurs evolved into birds, only some species such as Euroraptors or Velociraptors. Those dinosaurs were already showing birdlike qualities when some of theie earliest skeletons were found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talldudeX Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Well neo to be completely honest i can no longer hold this argument because I don't know enough about creation and evolution to even have an argument. And the stuff you are saying is kind of making sense. I have no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Whoohoo. One competitor down, I have like what, three to go? You'll all fall, all of you. Yeahh, haha I'm a lunatic :D:D:D:D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal_da_Darth Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 I truthfully don't care what you think...and since you don't care what I think either, I give up too. Happy? You bet you are. Correct? That's debatable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 The hell? O_o I thought I'd replied here already...damn...now I hafta retype it -.- Originally posted by NeoDios 4 things: 1 I meant suppost hte similarities, not prove, I just got confused:D 2:There's semi-definite proof of the asteroid/extinction theory. Palentologists have found a ring of black dusta few centimeters thick down under many layers of soil, right around the time the dinosaurs were wiped out. That dust is believed to have been thrown up and block out the sun, killing plants, starving herbivores starving carnivores etc. 3: I think you mean carbon-14 dating. There's also the layer of rock in which the fossil was found, they can approximate the age of the fossil by the area it was found in. 4: Yes I also found it amusing that 'Kangaroo Scrotums' transfered into a discussion of evolution. 1) Okay then, lol 2) That's just evidence that an asteroid hit the earth. Not that it caused a mass extinction. And I know the theory well. 3) Yeah, carbon-13 I know, and they do. But the methods they use to date the rock layers originally were flawed, because there is no truly accurate method. Thus they're simply making assumptions that make sense according to their accepted time frame. 4) ::shakes head:: What do you expect from Aresen? Originally posted by NeoDios Not all dinosaurs evolved into birds, only some species such as Euroraptors or Velociraptors. Those dinosaurs were already showing birdlike qualities when some of theie earliest skeletons were found. Eoraptor, actually. And that dinosaur wasn't one of the birdlike dinosaurs. No one disputes that dinosaurs were related to birds; some dinosaurs even had feathers, which means dinosaurs and birds are in the same family. But that's still no proof that they evolved into each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Eoraptor. Okay, I'd only heard the name not seen how it was spelt. It wasn't one of the birdlike dinos? Damn, I'd seen a picture of it and it's fossil and it looked like one of the dibnos that evolved into birds. Anyway about the asteroid theory. No I suppose it isn't a proven fact but just the same they found evidence (or proof) of a massive asteroid that struck the earth around the same time the dinos went kaput. That's the best theory they've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 It was very birdlike. But evolutionists do not think it was in the group that supposedly evolved to birds. They believe it went extinct long before. By the way, the theory on apes and humans is not that we came from them. The theory is that we had a common (undiscovered) ancestor. There is near-proof that an asteroid hit the earth at the time certain rock layers that evolutionists believe were formed 65 MYA. A theory among creationists is that an asteroid could have caused or assisted the Flood, which is believed to have caused or put in motion the mass extinctions of things such as dinosaurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Yeah it itself could've hit the ocean. If it hit in the ocean that would have caused a massive flood. Except that wouldn't explain the layer of dust that palentologists uncovered. The eoraptor, right I forgot. It went extinct in the jurassic, but birdies started showing themselves in the cretacous. I'm pretty sure that we came from the ape Austrolopithicus. And that was an ape, but it walked upright like us. I'd think that, that was a good possible link between us and other apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 Actually, that's not it. (The dust layer? No, the evidence for the meteor is a rock layer with traces of a rock found most commonly in meteorites.) Here is the Flood theory: In the Bible, before the Flood, the "firmament" and the "fountains of the deep" were described. The firmament was an enormous greenhouse layer. Water vapor. The fountains of the deep were vast underground resovoirs (I think I misspelled that) of water. In the Bible, it says the firmament collapsed, and the fountains of the deep were broken up. It doesn't say what physically caused that. ...A meteor, perhaps? No, the Eoraptor, accoding to evolutionist timeframe, went extinct in the Triassic, and birds showed up during the Jurassic, or even earlier. Australopithecus was an ape that walked upright. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Wow my teachers are idiots about some things. And the Eoraptor went extinct during the Triassic? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the preyed on a european species of Iguanodon and they weere alive during the Jurassic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 O_o Preyed on Iguanodon? Do you know how little Eoraptor was? I think you have it mixed up with something else. Maybe Megalosaurus or Eustreptospondylus? Those were predators of the English Iguanodon subspecies. But Eoraptor lived in Argentina, South America. It was also pretty little. I don't recall the stats, but small enough for Iguanodon to squash it... BTW, since I had second thoughts, I searched for Euroraptor on the Net. It's listed, but with Eoraptor's description. Living in Argentina and all. I expect they thought Argentina was part of Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal_da_Darth Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing It was very birdlike. But evolutionists do not think it was in the group that supposedly evolved to birds. They believe it went extinct long before. By the way, the theory on apes and humans is not that we came from them. The theory is that we had a common (undiscovered) ancestor. There is near-proof that an asteroid hit the earth at the time certain rock layers that evolutionists believe were formed 65 MYA. A theory among creationists is that an asteroid could have caused or assisted the Flood, which is believed to have caused or put in motion the mass extinctions of things such as dinosaurs. Well, to creationists and evolutionists, I think there was a flood...that would explain why dinosaur bones are buried...and why people still claim to see giant lizards in the ocean; aquatic dinosaurs may not have died out because of a flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing O_o Preyed on Iguanodon? Do you know how little Eoraptor was? I think you have it mixed up with something else. Maybe Megalosaurus or Eustreptospondylus? Those were predators of the English Iguanodon subspecies. But Eoraptor lived in Argentina, South America. It was also pretty little. I don't recall the stats, but small enough for Iguanodon to squash it... BTW, since I had second thoughts, I searched for Euroraptor on the Net. It's listed, but with Eoraptor's description. Living in Argentina and all. I expect they thought Argentina was part of Europe? Yeah it was small, that's why it hunted in packs. Besides it had claws, teeth, agility, and superior numbers. That's all it needed to take down an iguanadon. @Cal, aquatic dinos? As in they lived in the water? I don't think so. There were aquatic reptiles, not dinos though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talldudeX Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Actually there were aquatic dinosaurs, because they lived in the same period of the rest and are now extinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Are you sure. There were dinos that swam, or ones like Brachiosaurus that hung out and ate trees that grew in the water. But I don't think there were any fully aquatic dinos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal_da_Darth Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 Though I can't name any off the top of my head...I'm pretty sure there were...I'll look into it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted August 18, 2002 Author Share Posted August 18, 2002 .... Wow. Your teachers really did suck... *sigh* There were no truly aquatic dinosaurs. There were such things as plesiosaurs and pliosaurs, and various other giant marine reptiles, but they were not dinosaurs. Brachiosaurus did not live underwater. Or even hang out underwater. Yeah, I know, it's in all the old dinosaur books. But guess what? It's body structure wasn't strong enough to support itself underwater. It would have been smashed. Brachiosaurs lived something like elephants and giraffes do today. Landliving, extremely large herbivores. About Eoraptor...No way! It was too small to be able to do more to an Iguandon than a pack of even the most determined chihuahuas could do to, say, a hippo! You're thinking of the dromaeosaurs, creatures like Deinonychus, Utahraptor, Velociraptor, Dromaesaurus; the wolves to the Eoraptor chihuahua. Nor is there evidence that Eoraptor hunted in packs. It wasn't what you Jurassic Park fans would call a "raptor". "Raptors" as a class are actually birds of prey. Things like Velociraptor were "dromaeosaurs". An Eoraptor would have been much like the 'compys' (Procompsognathus) in The Lost World. Why are they called raptors then? It's all in the names. "Velociraptor" = "swift thief". "Eoraptor" = "dawn theif". Besides, it lived in Argentina! edit for spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 <= he likes peanuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 Originally posted by Lynk Former <= he likes peanuts You are taking pills?????? You are actually saying something that is right.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 19, 2002 Share Posted August 19, 2002 *ignnores idiot remarks* Ya know Red, I think we're thinking of two different raptors. I'm thinking of a raptor maybe 10 feet long long, just big enough to take an iguanodon. Hunted in packs etc, the stuff I mentioned earlier. No it isn't Deinonychus, Velociraptor, Dromesaurus, or any of the ones you mentioned. It sounds like Euroraptor. Anyway, I knew about the plesiosaurs and pliosaurs and that, but the Brachiosaurus thing. It couldn't totally submerge itself but it did wade into shallow (relative to itself, waist deep type thing going on) to munch some trees and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted August 19, 2002 Author Share Posted August 19, 2002 Ohhhh. The largest raptor (dromaeosaur) found. Utahraptor. (Which I did mention) Did you gather that from the Discovery Channel special? I thought it was Eoraptor because those names have been confused before. But there is no such thing as a Euroraptor... Brachosaurs needed firm ground, like elephants do today. They wouldn't normally be in shallow water like that...I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted August 19, 2002 Share Posted August 19, 2002 Yep it was off that Discovery special, and I do (now) remember you saying that. I also saw the Brachiosaur thing on a Discovery Special. It's not really farfetched because normally, during the dry season it's just a field/forested area. In the wet season it becomes a flood plain with ground solid enough for a Brachiosaur. And since this discussion's pretty much over, I have a question: If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted August 19, 2002 Author Share Posted August 19, 2002 Failed. Does this mean I'm pessimistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.