Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,360 Views) | |
| trisdino | Jul 10 2014, 04:28 PM Post #2101 |
![]() ![]()
|
No, it is "just a crocodile, an odd crocodile, but a crocodile nevertheless" Or maybe it is an illusion made by satan, or maybe god just wants them to look similar, and made them like that. It does not matter what you say, they have some bullshit excuse no matter what. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 10 2014, 04:54 PM Post #2102 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
"its just a theory, you can't prove ____" those people, they piss me off, they don't grasp the meaning of "theory" |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Jul 10 2014, 04:55 PM Post #2103 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well, the moment they start falling upwards, I will respect that statement. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Jul 10 2014, 05:05 PM Post #2104 |
![]() ![]()
|
Allow me to entertain you, my entire conversation with the creationist up until now: Him: 1: I'm a creationist 2: just because its in a book dosn't make it true (in christopher columbus' time they thoght the earth was flat!) 3: I not just saying this becuase I'm an idiot, I study different theories of evolution too, and I'm the wiki admin. 4: dont think you understood, I was saying to end the debate because it's all just theories, too late i guess :lol: . Me: 1. Young earth I suppose? 2. No, of course not, it is the other way around. 3. There is only one theory of evolution(that is, biological evolution, but I doubt we are talking about stars here). There are branches within it, sure, not everybody agrees, but the basic principles of "a parent with a genetic mutation that is beneficial, even in the slightest way, is more likely to pass on its genes and further that mutation", is the backbone of evolution by natural selection. Of course, once again, natural selection is only one mechanism, we also have genetic drift, and forced evolution, but I think this is what we are talking about. 4. Remember, a theory in science is the same as a fact in common day terminology, a hypothesis in science is the same as a theory in common day language. Basically, a scientific theory, such as evolution, is a substantial collection of evidence, which has been tested and evaluated, and is currently Him: Creationist dosn't just mean I believe earth is young, it means that I believe God created the earth and every thing on it, and every thing in the universe. Pretty sure that the definition of of theory still means the same as it did when Noah Webster wrote his dictionary, look it up on Merriam Webster dictionary. there is no proof of evolution, try and prove me wrong, pls I enjoy it 8-) Me: I love it when creationists act smug. I am sorry, but why do you not educate yourself? And on, you have clearly not, do not try to pretend that you are smarter than 99% of all scientists. As for the definition of a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html Him: I not saying I'm smarter that 99% of scientist, I'm saying that my God ( His name is Yahweh, dont want any confusion) is smarter then 100% of all scientist and anyone for that matter. And yet you still havn't proved anything, and by the way I love it when evolutionist insult me, it only means they don't have an answer. :lol: Me: Sadly, you cannot claim to know the truth because your god knows it until your god has been proven to exist. It is the whole "god is true because the bible says so, and the bible is true because god says so" paradox. If you want to deal with science, you first have to throw away all the unicorns and gods, and then start looking at the facts. Of course, educating yourself in all the fields is a waste of time, so instead, look to people who are educated, compare them to each other, and then draw your conclusions from there. And no, a preacher does not count as an educated person, nor does Ken Ham. Him: Yet no answer from the "educated person" you have proved nothing. :lol: just throwing insults to make me go away. ![]() By the way has there been a change in kind ever, like a dog turning into a cat. God's word says that he created all animals according to there kind, so that means that wolves can be bred into a akita or a german sheperd eventually that not evolution. my God does exist I dont need a scientist to tell me that, just observe the animals the sky, the planets that rotate the Sun in such order. tell me do you think that all of this happen by chance, the animals with such amazing design, the planets with such order, NO it was all planned. And the Bible is true because God says it's true, and the God exists because, He does. Me: The educated person? Well, I could point you in some directions. Aronra on youtube, richard dawkins has several books, and there are multiple peer reviewed articles at your disposal, it is just about looking. And please, do not use the dog to cat argument, because that has nothing to do with evolution. The best way to explain evolution is this: A group of lizards live in the desert. They are brown to blend in with the sand, and have stubby legs with short fingers because that helps them move. Then, one day, a large rock formation in the mountains breaks down, releasing a river into their habitat. This river turns the desert into a lush green environment with lots of trees and other such points of elevation. Suddenly, the stubby legged, brown backed lizards are not that well adapted anymore, can we agree on that? So, now the lizards are decreasing in numbers, because their habitat is now hostile towards them. Then, one lizard is born with greenish pigment. It is not totally green, but it matches much better with the grass, moss, and bark, than the other lizards. Thus, this individual has a higher chance of surviving and mating then the others. When it does mate, the genes within it, which carry the genetic mutation, have a chance of being carried on. Perhaps it lays 5 eggs, and out of them, 2 have the mutation. Those 2 have a higher chance of surviving than the 3 others, and as such, a higher chance of spreading their genes. Eventually, there are more green lizards then brown ones, and the population has evolved to fit better into their habitat. Can we agree thus far? But, at some point, a lizard with longer legs, and another lizard with longer fingers, hatch from eggs. Again, the difference here is not big, but they still have a slight advantage. Both of these animals get eaten by an eagle 2 weeks after hatching though, so they never get to pass on their genes. Still, another pair later down the line are born with similar genes. This time, 1 of them survives, while the other one dies. The surviver is the one with longer legs, and it has 3 eggs. Out of this clutch, 2 have longer legs, and 1 does not. They all survive, but the children of the long legged ones have a higher chance of surviving than those of the short legged ones, since long legs are good for climbing trees, which there are lots of in their habitat. Eventually, another one with longer fingers is born, and this time, it survives. A few generations down the line, the long fingered ones, which were already the descendants of the green ones, mate with the descendants of the long legged ones, producing long legged, long fingered, green lizards. These are much more well adapted than the original generation, and eventually, they are the only ones that exist, because all the others were out competed, or hunted to extinction. Can we agree on this? Now, they can still breed with normal lizards, like their ancestors, because they are still technically the same species, just a few generations in a different direction. But, if they never breed with others, and their genes only circulate between the green lizards, eventually, they will be so far away from the others genetically that they cannot breed, and you have a new species. This change is slow, incremental. At no point did two brown stumpy legged lizards give birth to a green long legged, long fingered lizard. Rather, a brown stumpy legged lizard gave birth to a still brown, but slightly more greenish, stumpy legged lizard, whoms descendants later gave birth to slightly longer fingered and slightly longer legged lizards. The fingers and legs kept getting longer, and the skin kept getting greener, because those with those traits had a higher chance of surviving. Eventually the long fingered ones bred with the long legged ones, and we get long fingered long legged ones. Do you understand that? Him: well God made lizards so they can change claw length, its color, and anything as long as it's still a lizard, I am eager to listen to your proof, I'm not just going to shoot down everything you say. Because it's adapting to it's surroundings.that's not evolution it's adaptation. Me: Evolution is adaptation, that is all it is: Small changes that compile over time. Him: well if a lizard has long legs it's still a lizard. not evolution, but what about the dinos they think that they evolved into birds, how could that happen if they all died out. How could they have offspring if they all died out. Fossilization dosn't take millons of years. What happens to a fish when it dies. After (for most) floating on the surface while being attacked by various scavengers, what is left (if anything) sinks to the bottom. Here, rather than lying quietly for thousands of years being gradually covered up by slowly settling sediment, it will be attacked further by fish, crabs, and many other creatures. Bacterial attack will also contribute to the process of disintegration. Even in a sterile, low oxygen environment, the flesh rapidly becomes soggy and falls apart. To preserve such features, it is obvious that the creature needs to be buried quickly. Not just that, but the enclosing sediment needs to harden fairly quickly. If it stayed soft and unconsolidated for years, the fact that oxygen, moisture and bacteria could easily access the carcass means that one would very quickly have a disintegrated, stinking mess. To try to imitate how such features as scales and fins can possibly be preserved, the best experimental analogy would be to bury a fish rapidly in wet cement! How would hordes of fish be buried during the Flood? The upheavals necessarily associated with a global Flood would generate ideal conditions for rapid sedimentation. Today, for example, localized earthquakes can trigger large submarine avalanches (called ‘turbidity currents’) which have been clocked as carrying millions of tonnes of sediment at over 50 kph (30 mph) underwater.3 The silent testimony of the billions of well-preserved fossil fish around the world is, by the most obvious common sense, to rapid processes—rapid burial and rapid hardening here is a link to the website I got it from http://creation.com/fast-fossils now if a world wide flood covered the the highest mountains, the dinos would be covered in sediment too. Re: about what you said on the forum Sent: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:14 pm by Triceratops_Cody well if a lizard has long legs it's still a lizard. not evolution, but what about the dinos they think that they evolved into birds, how could that happen if they all died out. How could they have offspring if they all died out. Fossilization dosn't take millons of years. What happens to a fish when it dies. After (for most) floating on the surface while being attacked by various scavengers, what is left (if anything) sinks to the bottom. Here, rather than lying quietly for thousands of years being gradually covered up by slowly settling sediment, it will be attacked further by fish, crabs, and many other creatures. Bacterial attack will also contribute to the process of disintegration. Even in a sterile, low oxygen environment, the flesh rapidly becomes soggy and falls apart. To preserve such features, it is obvious that the creature needs to be buried quickly. Not just that, but the enclosing sediment needs to harden fairly quickly. If it stayed soft and unconsolidated for years, the fact that oxygen, moisture and bacteria could easily access the carcass means that one would very quickly have a disintegrated, stinking mess. To try to imitate how such features as scales and fins can possibly be preserved, the best experimental analogy would be to bury a fish rapidly in wet cement! How would hordes of fish be buried during the Flood? The upheavals necessarily associated with a global Flood would generate ideal conditions for rapid sedimentation. Today, for example, localized earthquakes can trigger large submarine avalanches (called ‘turbidity currents’) which have been clocked as carrying millions of tonnes of sediment at over 50 kph (30 mph) underwater.3 The silent testimony of the billions of well-preserved fossil fish around the world is, by the most obvious common sense, to rapid processes—rapid burial and rapid hardening here is a link to the website I got it from http://creation.com/fast-fossils now if a world wide flood covered the the highest mountains, the dinos would be covered in sediment too. Me: Fossilization does take millions of years. Now, I cannot explain it, because I am not a scientist, but any basic google search can explain this. And yes, you are right, a lizard is always going to be a lizard. The thing is, species names are arbitrary. Once there was only one monkey, then its descendants evolved in several directions, but all of those descendants are also monkeys. They may also be an ape, and a human, and a homo sapian, but they are still monkeys. This is because names are arbitrary, it is something we give creatures to describe them, but in evolutionary science, that does not matter. Do not base things on labels, base it on what is happening. You have one species, which is now different. When we decide to call it a new species does not matter, that is arbitrary, defined by us, but it has still evolved, it has changed, and that is all evolution is, change. And birds to dinosaurs is simple, birds are still dinosaurs. Again, with the arbitrary labels. That birds are dinosaurs matters no more then that we are eukaryotes. If you mean for feather evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLgfGX1I5Y If you mean how the shape of the body changed, well, I already demonstrated that. Your people say "micro" and "macro" evolution, but that is a meaningless distinction. For there to be micro, there must be macro. What you call macro evolution, is just micro evolution over a longer period of time. An animals offspring will always be similar, but over generations, the differences start to compile, even you must be able to understand this. For an easy to visualize example: Dogs have changed a lot over time, you know this. They have been breed to the point where some breeds hardly even resemble wolves at all. Now, take the amount of change that has happened over the last few thousand years, and multiple that with a million. The difference would be enormous. And no, I am not going to go to a creation website for facts, and neither should you. All scientific facts come from peer reviewed journals, so get them from there. Whatever the creation website says, if it is a known fact, has come from a peer reviewed journal, and can be found in its true form there. If it does not show that peer reviewed journal, it has no source, and as such, cannot be trusted. Here, this is how fossils form: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecor ... zation.htm And also, fossils are not skeletons, they are impressions of the skeletons, consisting of rock. Nothing in the world indicates an universal flood, partly because that would have wiped out all life on earth, and partly because it is just not preserved. No, the grand canyon is not evidence of a flood, google it and you will find an explanation as to how it formed. The fact of the matter is that an ark the size of noah's could not possibly hold as many species as there are on earth, even if he took only babies and eggs. Creationists make up for this with their "kinds" argument, but even if that worked, there would still be to many "kinds" for them to fit. Not to mention, if we are to imagine that all lions and tigers and cheetahs and other such animals came from one ancestor on the ark, that would indicate far more rapat evolution then anything science has ever claimed. If you wish to have this discussion, do not use any creation websites, only present me with peer reviewed journals, and websites with sources. Do not make claims that a simple google search can prove wrong, and please, do not repeat the same arguments that have been made and disproved over and over. Oh, and one last thing, to disprove the 6000 years old argument. Light travels at a speed, namely light years. If a star is more than 6000 light years away from earth, the light would have had to have traveled for more then 6000 years, otherwise our view of the universe would be VERY limited. And no, do not claim that "god made it that way", this argument does not hold up as you have yet to prove god. Him: you have yet to give me proof, that I can observe, you tell me read a book, google it, well i can google, but that dosn't make it true, and as for as the text book how about this, A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. how can it be repeatedly confirmed/observed if no one was around then to see it, there is no proof of it now. Me: It can be confirmed via several methods, not least that it can be observed, just on a smaller scale. Again, we have seen animal populations change colour, proportions, diet, habitat. These things are all evolution. As for a specific book you could read, try richard dawkins "the greatest show on earth". There is a reason 99% of the worlds scientists believe in evolution, and that is because the educated individuals do. You cannot possibly be arrogant enough to claim that you know better than steven hawkins, christopher hitchens, charles darwin, richard dawkins, laurence craust, and the other great scientists. I already gave you a detailed explanation of exactly how evolution works, and explained that all evolution is is change over time. It comes in several forms, natural selection, which is adaption under environmental conditions, genetic drift, which is when evolution occurs more or less randomly because there is no selective pressure, directed evolution, which dog breeding is an example of, and sexual selection, which is exactly what it sounds like. I do not see how you can deny this, for it is self evident, we see it all the time, from moths changing colour due to pollution, to a group of desert rats becoming black when placed in a lab, to lizards changing their diet and teeth after having discovered a fruit that they like. Examples are all over the place, yes, they are on a smaller scale, but again, micro and macro, small + small + small + small = big. Him: this is all adaptation, if you can't tell the diffrence I should end this conversation right now. There is no proof of a lizard eventully growing gills and going into the ocean, or a fish evolving lungs and crawling on land, and as for arrogance I have none, I only know that God knows all things. and if evolution did exist, which it doesn't , where did it all come from, if a lizard evolved from a organism, where did the organism come from? Me: Look, you have to take a step back. Evolution, is ONLY adaption, that is all it is. Evolution litterally just means change, if you think that a dog giving birth to a chicken is evolution, then you are wrong. No animal ever changes greatly over one generation, there are slight incremental changes which compile over many generations. It is as if creationists admit that 1 + 1 = 2, but not that 2 + 2 = 4. You cannot have something on a small scale, without also having it on a big scale, not to mention, assuming that you are right in this case, is arrogance. First you have redefined evolution, which is not valid, then you have claimed that 99% of all scientists are wrong, and then you have stated that you know because you know, and none of these things are valid. I have provided proof, but you are committing the standard, yes standard, creationist fallacy of redefining what evolution is, so that all actual evidence for it seems false. So let me summarize: Crocodile gives birth to lizard - not evolution Crocodile gives birth to alligator - not evolution Crocodile gives birth to slightly smaller crocodile - evolution Slightly smaller crocodiles descendants eventually get so small that, if found today, we would have called them a dwarf crocodile - evolution. Adaption and evolution are too separate things, stop trying to use word games to win this. Adaptation is, as the name suggests, a creature adapting. There are many ways for it to do this, and evolution is just one. Evolution in and of itself is defined just as that below, so if you wish to keep talking with me, you will only use the correct scientific definition: Slight incremental changes over time as a result of genetic mutations and population dynamics¨ Him: Give me proof, not theory. and yes I know what evolution is, I study it, and I found no living proof of it, nothing in the fossil record, nothing to day, so I say why believe in something that has no proof. and please don't say the samething over and over Me: I am giving you a theory, because that is what evolution is. And I am giving you proof, of that theory. I have given you links, talked about books, told you of youtube channels to search, and demonstrated it with a simple text example. Also, gravity is just a theory. The theory of gravity. In science, evolution and gravity are equally upheld as fact. I do not see you floating upwards. Again, everybody who knows even the smallest thing about biology believes in evolution, and no, if you do not believe in it, you have not researched it. Him: you can't see me, and I can't have a debate with someone who dosn't adress what I'm saying. saying "if you don't believe in it you have not researched it" dosn't make sence, like I could say if you dont believe in God' you havn't read the Bible. this debate is getting pointless because you don't even stop to ponder. And yes I looked at your youtube video, but still evolution dosn't have proof of small changes over time, equals a big change, show me one thing that shows that in the fossil record or anything. Me: ... this is basic logic. Small + small + small = large. You cannot possibly say that it can produce small changes but not large changes. No, within single generations the changes are tiny, but they COMPILE. How can you not see this, what you are saying is physically impossible. Him: I decide to end this conversation. but I give you this, before I end it. 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Romans 1:18 23 this is what the Bible says, this is not an insult. but it also says 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 bye. |
![]() |
|
| Nomis | Jul 10 2014, 05:09 PM Post #2105 |
![]()
the Mountain Born
![]()
|
What the f*@k is this BS Also
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 10 2014, 05:12 PM Post #2106 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
what a ****-tard I hate people like that [edit] ![]() I had meant trisdino's creationist guy I'm pretty sure thats a troll, they mentioned llamas... Edited by stargatedalek, Jul 10 2014, 05:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nomis | Jul 10 2014, 05:16 PM Post #2107 |
![]()
the Mountain Born
![]()
|
Did you check the link |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 10 2014, 05:20 PM Post #2108 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
yep and that guys also a ****-tard or a troll, actually either way hes a ****-tard I'm a bad mood so be happy I'm using "text bleeps"
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jul 10 2014, 05:21 PM Post #2109 |
![]() ![]()
|
When creationists say that "bones just prove a large animal once existed", they seem to think that the word "dinosaur" can only be applied to JP-styled retrosaurs. Whatever large animal the bones came from would still be a dinosaur, regardless of what it actually looked like. Besides, we DO have more than just bones (skin impressions, feathers, quills, trace fossils, etc.)
Edited by CyborgIguana, Jul 10 2014, 05:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Meerkatmatt2 | Jul 10 2014, 05:57 PM Post #2110 |
![]() ![]()
|
It's not that bad, besides broken wrists, too bendy of a tail and under feathered hands, tail, hind leg and cave, it's not quite as ad as many reconstructions. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jul 10 2014, 06:00 PM Post #2111 |
![]()
|
It was made by a museum and is an offense to naked JP raptors. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 10 2014, 06:33 PM Post #2112 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
its not how bad it is per-se, its more so the fact it was made recently, and by a FRIGGIN' MUSEUM
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jul 10 2014, 07:35 PM Post #2113 |
![]() ![]()
|
People who still think that pterosaurs went extinct due to being out-competed by birds. We now know that there were many ecological niches occupied by pterosaurs that weren't occupied by birds at any point in the Cretaceous, so the hypothesis just doesn't work these days. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 10 2014, 08:19 PM Post #2114 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I still think birds were a contributing factor in the decline of smaller, especially arboreal, pterosaurs |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jul 10 2014, 08:27 PM Post #2115 |
![]() ![]()
|
It's possible, I guess. I'm just saying that there's no way Cretaceous birds could've contributed to the demise of...say...azhdarchids or thalassodromeids because no bird back then occupied a similar terrestrial stalking niche.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Jul 10 2014, 08:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups







Because it's adapting to it's surroundings.








