Chritian "science" At Its Finest...

[Warrior_of_god]

Use science to your advantage.

 

The word "dinosaur" means "monstrous lizard" (Greek 'deinos' = monstrous + Greek 'sauros' = lizard)

 

Lizards are reptiles. Reptiles are cold-blooded. That means they depend solely on their environment. They can't regulate their body temperature and must depend on the heat from their environment for warmth. In cold weather, cold-blooded animals hibernate. Hibernation pretty much stops growth. In a warm environment, cold-blooded animals grow faster.

 

Before the flood, the environment was different. There was no rain. Even man lived longer lives. But after the flood, lifespans began to decrease. If the change in environment affected the lifespan of humans, warm-blooded creatures, then it also affected the lifespan of reptiles.

 

Another scientific point is that reptiles never stop growing. Now imagine the preflood world. Man lived hundreds of years, compared to the average of 70-90 years today. Reptiles were created just as humans were and if they naturally lived alongside humans, then they would have also lived as long. Imagine a reptile living 500+ years in ideal weather and remember the fact that reptiles never stop growing.

 

Noah would most likely have taken smaller reptiles on board the ark to save space. Immediately after the flood, these reptiles would have grown and lived fairly long lives, but as their offspring adapted to the environment, the lifespans would have decreased, along with their sizes. If any of the larger reptiles survived they also may have been killed by humans who saw them as a threat.

 

There's not much mention of the preflood world in the Bible, only that it was wicked. After the flood, there is mention of two beasts that could be dinosaurs, the Behemoth and Leviathan. As far as their demise, the leviathan were killed for food.

I love that somehow adaptation means shorter lifespan...

Are all fundies this stupid or just the dreaded rr-bb ones?

[Thurisaz]

To become a fundie, so it seems, you must first shut down 99.9 % of your brain, so...

[Jeydid]

That was so stupid it was painful to read.

[Light_of_Reason]

I actually feel like my IQ dropped a few points reading that.

[Taphophilia]

Fundy logic:

 

My name means "by the meadow". Meadow is a character in the Soprano's. The Soprano's is about the Mafia and they are Italian and I know how to make Lasagne. That means I must be Italian, so that also make me Catholic.

[Warrior_of_god]

Exactly. Its all circle BS.

[Ramen666]

Wow it feels like my IQ just dropped. Anyways proof that the Bible is wrong " the average lifespan". Come think about it in 1700's in France was the age 30. The reason why disease , no medicine, wars, stuff like that. The condtions in the Bible are MUCH worse than France 1,700 years later.

 

Christians really can be that stupid.However Even my dad said people in Bible times that is impossible to live that long and HE IS A CHRISTIAN. At least he has some logic.

[twincats]

Yeah, I remember when I was still deluded and watched every TV special on Noah's Ark with hypnotic fascination!

 

So glad I'm not there anymore, but fifteen years ago I would have called that Damned Interesting.

[Darkside]

I think I heard that from good ol' Kent Hovind back in my fundy days. The dinosaurs never went extinct, they just got smaller. I can't wait to find a pygmy T-rex.

[woodsmoke]

I want a triceratops, myself. Teach him to carry a rider, then go on a safari trip to Africa and play chicken with the rhinos.

[Darkside]

I want a triceratops, myself. Teach him to carry a rider, then go on a safari trip to Africa and play chicken with the rhinos.

 

Get your Cretin Science straight! Remember, the dinosaurs shrank. We're talking mini versions here. You can have a triceratops, but he's only going to be playing chicken with... well, chickens.

[HuaiDan]

I want a triceratops, myself. Teach him to carry a rider, then go on a safari trip to Africa and play chicken with the rhinos. GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

 

 

'Twould be a sight indeed

[HuaiDan]

I honestly thought it was going to say "dinosaur means monster lizard. lizards are coldblooded, dinosaurs were warm blooded. Therefore dinosaurs are not true lizards and therefore do not exist." or something along those lines.

 

What I got was infinitely more entertaining.

[Japedo]

 

I think they win the award for the De dee de song Link: Carlos Mencia - Dee, Dee, Dee (you tube)

[LosingMyReligion]

Uhm, if we lived alongside dinosaurs there would be no human race. They would have anihilated us...Or we would have evolved into something inhuman to survive...

It is absolutely insane to believe that we had lifespans that lasted milleniums and that gets erradicated because of a flood that cannot even be proven(where in the hell did all the water go?)...

 

How does a person like that even graduate highschool, let alone become a scientist?

[woodsmoke]

How does a person like that even graduate highschool, let alone become a scientist?

 

The same way all cretinists do; by paying for one online from a genuinely certified degree mill.

[MrSpooky]

Wait, reptiles never stop growing? What the crap? And in the next sentence he says they shrank?

 

*head explodes*

 

In all fairness though, species can adapt to have lower lifespans but not under this sort of crappy justification.

[Mr. Neil]

I think I heard that from good ol' Kent Hovind back in my fundy days. The dinosaurs never went extinct, they just got smaller. I can't wait to find a pygmy T-rex.

My jaw used to drop whenever I heard that. It's so obviously wrong to anyone who knows anything about dinosaurs. Heck, if you've SEEN a dinosaur, you could pretty much tell that's wrong.

 

I can't even think of a single reptile that even remotely looks like a dinosaur. Even the Komodo dragon, which is often used in analogue to a dinosaur, still pretty much has the general bodytype of a lizard. Anyone who would have the audacity to tell you that a Komodo dragon is just a smaller variation of a much larger creature that existed before the flood is either daydreaming or mental.

 

I often point out that creationists have a concept of dinosaurs that's at least 80 years too old. They think of dinosaurs as the way they were portrayed in movies like 1925's The Lost World, as if they were just large lizards, dragging their tails along, snarling and hissing.

 

But we know better now, and given our fresh perspective of what a dinosaur is, we can't really look at reptiles and seriously think that any of these are just smaller descendants. Of course, when I say this, I'm referring to the classic layman definition of a reptile, which is a cold-blooded vertibrate with scaley or leathery skin, which breathes air full-time and lays hard-shelled eggs. And as you can see, at least some fascet of this layman definition exists in article posted above.

 

The word "dinosaur" means "monstrous lizard" (Greek 'deinos' = monstrous + Greek 'sauros' = lizard)

 

Lizards are reptiles. Reptiles are cold-blooded.

Of course, somebody must have forgotten to inform this nimrod that the Greek taxonomy is a misnomer and that dinosaurs are in no way lizards. Lizards fall under a completely different class of reptiles than the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are archosaurs, which puts them in the company of pterasaurs, crocodiles, alligators, and birds.

 

Birds are clearly so much more similar to dinosaurs, especially the dromaeosaurs, that I often wonder how creationists can stand the cognative dissonance of denying what is plainly obvious. That their brains aren't shutting down from the overloaded spin-cycle of creationist logic is quite a curiousity. It must be a concentrated effort to insist that a T-rex is just a giant lizard when he's clearly built more like a chicken.

 

If you take the time to read the various opinions of creationist "experts", what you'll find is that different creationists will come to different conclusions about certain alleged "missing link" fossils. For example, when looking at hominids, one creationist may look at a fossil and conclude that it's human while another would say that it's an ape. This happens quite a bit, actually. What this shows is that the creationists clearly have no criteria for their alleged classifications and they're just making it up to explain away the evidence.

 

I suggest doing the same thing with dromaeosaur fossils. Make a line-up of all the "raptor" dinosaurs, and throw in some prehistoric bird fossils, just for laughs. In theory, the creationists will be all over the place, because they have no criteria for anotomically identifying prehistoric birds and "raptor" dinosaurs. Since feathers don't normally fossilize, prehistoric bird fossils look every bit as dinosaurian as a velociraptor or deinonycus.

 

In fact, you could probably put an archeopteryx skeleton side-by-side with that of a compsognathus, and unless you actually told the creationist what species he was looking at, he would almost certainly assume that both skeletons were dinosaurs.

 

But you could get a consession from Kent Hovind. You could back Kent in a corner and try to wave the evidence in his face. Since Hovind subscribes to the Cartoon Universe, he'll simply pull an Acme Portable Hole out of his pocket, throw it on the wall, and leap to safety. That is to say, he'll say something absurd, machine-gun a lot of misinformation, and run away in the confusion.