|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 27, 2008 0:19:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Sept 27, 2008 0:50:43 GMT
Sad but true--I could formulate a well though out post describing all the ways they are wrong, but I don't have that much free time. Just a couple for now:
Dinosaurs are though to have been warm blooded.
There are fossils of dinosaurs with feathers.
Some dinosaur bones are hollow.
Chickens have teeth genes.
It's sad, really, how ignorant some people are. They choose to ignore all scientific facts.
Just so you know, I am deeply religious, but I believe in a spiritual and contextual interpretation of the Bible and not the radical literal interpretation of these people.
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 27, 2008 1:17:43 GMT
Yeah, but you are one of the smart religious people! ;D Most otheres (not all) just COMPLETELY ignore the facts and go by the bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 27, 2008 1:48:38 GMT
Sadly, the Adam and Eve story in the bible "teaches" that it is bad to seek knowledge ... the forbidden apple they eat is from the Tree of Knowledge. In other words, knowledge=evil.
I only recently found this out... this is why so many christians are willfully ignorant of science and logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Sept 27, 2008 1:58:33 GMT
No, the story of Adam and Eve teaches people to obey rules or else bad things will happen to them, but lets please not get into a religious discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 27, 2008 2:11:27 GMT
^ I agree on that.
this dude luke at my school REFUSES to believe in australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc. That is just stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 27, 2008 2:15:07 GMT
No, the story of Adam and Eve teaches people to obey rules or else bad things will happen to them, but lets please not get into a religious discussion. Looks like another case of multiple interpretations leading to disagreements .... OK, no discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Sept 27, 2008 2:16:33 GMT
Let's get back to discussing the main point of this thread- how many ways the video is wrong.
Also, is it me, or does the 1st guy look like Billy Ray Cyrus?
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 27, 2008 2:20:11 GMT
^ Who is billy ray cyrus? Sorry, I am not good with celebrities.  |
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 27, 2008 2:22:23 GMT
It's Hannah Montana's dad. I have young daughters, so I get to know this stuff.
As for the video, it speaks for itself. Why waste time analyzing such blatant nonsense...
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Sept 27, 2008 2:23:18 GMT
He's a famous country singer, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 27, 2008 2:25:01 GMT
He's a famous country singer, too. That's right -- he had a song called "Achy Breaky Brain" ... something of an anthem for Creationists, as I recall. |
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 27, 2008 3:26:30 GMT
Has anyone here ever tried to discuss evolution, geology (or any kind of science) with a creationist/intelligent design advocate? I have, on many occasions. Some examples:
Me: "Why do all vertebrates have essentially the same structure and organs? Doesn't this indicate a relationship among them?"
Creationist: "No, it's just the optimum form that the Creator chose to use."
Me: "How can the Earth be only a few thousand years old when multiple forms of geological dating say it's 4.5 billion?"
Creationist: "All those methods are wrong. All scientists are either stupid or in on a gigantic conspiracy to discredit the Creator."
Me: Why did the creator invent so many different species, including thousands that are very similar to each other? For example, why bother to make a dozen kinds of blind moles and a million variations of the beetle?"
Creationist: "God moves in mysterious ways."
And I'm told I'm going to burn in hell for my efforts. Ya can't can't win.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 27, 2008 3:28:04 GMT
On that 1 2 3 digit thing, and the 2 3 4 thing.... I know that modern birds hands have been identified as having these digits making up the hands. I know that people use this all the time to denounce that dinosaurs and birds are related.... I hear this constantly from the creation and from the fedduca crowd. All of that made me think....if that IS the case...and somehow we know that therpods have digits 1, 2 and 3, then why has this not been addressed with regards to archeopteryx ? I want to know, does archeopteryx posses digits 1, 2 and 3, or digits 2, 3, and 4 ? Is this something that can even be proven ? For the longest time, birds were though to have digits 1, 2 and 3. Could all therpods have a condition like modern birds and actually posess digits 2, 3 and 4 ? Does the "digit" argument not hold water from any view as without an archeopteryx or velociraptor in early developmental stages we would not be able to tell what digits it has developed ? Only under that detail did we "dicover" that about birds. www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/paulfed.htmlIf different fingers are making up the hands of therpods VS modern birds, then to be a bird, Archeopteryx is going to have to have digits 2, 3 and 4 developed, right ? As would caudipteryx, another animal claimed to be just a "type of bird"... If Archeopteryx does not have digits structured like that, and instead is "structured like that of the other therpods", (as I usually hear it, with digits 1, 2 and 3) then that makes it not only a therpod dinosaur according to that logic, and that also means that somehow modern birds hands are distinctly different from even the more primitive archeopteryx... Anyone ? |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 27, 2008 4:44:13 GMT
"Then Hinchliffe repeats that the most bird-like dinosaurs are Cretaceous forms that appear after the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx. Well, there is Coelurus with that "rare" semi-lunate carpal in the Late Jurassic. Troodont teeth have been identified from the same period (Chure 1994). A few dromaeosaur-like bones are known from the same time (Jensen & Padian 1989). Possible dromaeosaur teeth have been found in the Middle Jurassic (Evans & Milner 1994). Gosh, there could have been a whole bunch of little dino-birds skittering around the last half of the Jurassic for all we know. But small predators near the top of the food chain are rather scarce and difficult to preserve -- that old fossil record is spotty, after all"
If no fossil record is available, how can they be so sure these forms existed?
"I suggest that they compare the paroccipital process of Archaeopteryx to Dromaeosaurus, and note the extreme similarity in the twist of the process and the subrectangular distal expansion that results in a deep auditory meatus not observed in other archosaurs (Currie 1995). This is just convergence? No, Archaeopteryx is a small, flying dromaeosaur."
If the fossil record is incomplete and one cannot clearly tell how exactly birds evolved, how can they know it's not convergence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 27, 2008 6:12:26 GMT
It's Hannah Montana's dad. I have young daughters, so I get to know this stuff. As for the video, it speaks for itself. Why waste time analyzing such blatant nonsense... Thats was stupid, but very funny. So many mistakes....so much ignorance. My brother also refuses to believe in the evolution of humans. He believes in the evolution of animals, just....not humans.  My brother has actually met billy ray cyrus. He got a picture with him . Nice guy....nice guy....  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 27, 2008 12:01:31 GMT
I have nothing against people who believe in a religion...But creationists and fanatics in general,geez those people really drive me mad  Jack Chick,for example...His d**n fundamentalists tracts are so awful and full of ignorance that...Man,if i'd be a christian believer i'd be ashamed by the way that sicko treats my religion  By the way,his "comics" (just like every creationist/fundie statement) are so unintentionally hilarious that there's no need to spoof them ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 27, 2008 12:31:18 GMT
Those Jack Chick comics are creepy, but kind of entertaining... it's sad that they scare the living daylights out of a lot of people, though.
Steering it back on track, the Bible does mention dragons several times -- I like to think that was their word for dinosaurs!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 27, 2008 15:54:34 GMT
"Steering it back on track, the Bible does mention dragons several times -- I like to think that was their word for dinosaurs!" I think it being thier word for large lizards, crocodilians, and chimera animals that are completely made up makes alot more sense. But don't ever let reason make a dent in that faith!  |
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 28, 2008 0:26:53 GMT
What were the Biblical unicorns.... elasmotherium?
|
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
