Christians and Dinosaurs

[Stormwarden]

*applauds with an empty bag of popcorn in his lap*

 

I am very impressed, Mr Neil. Your argument's coherence was not only strong, but thorough and final.

 

txviper has no merit whatsoever in the argument.

[Dark Helmet]

viper's 'common sense'----> <---mr neil's reply

[Mr. Neil]

Common sense and conventional wisdom will lose out the functionality of scientific methodology every time.

[Dark Helmet]

Yeah, what feels 'right' or makes sense at our level of understanding might turn out to be quite different in reality. Processes we experience everyday, such as biological degradation, can give different results under special circumstances. I think what viper didn't consider was the fact that soft tissue inside a bone subject to mineralization doesn't behave the same as that same tissue placed in the everyday environment. The pressure is much greater underground and the infiltration of minerals forces the proteins to change and acquire a resistance uncommon to normal biological stuff, as you pointed out. So applying 'common sense' is hazardous in this situation considering how the conditions of preservation are particular.

[spamandham]

... the truth is that any theory that cannot accomodate anomlies is simply wrong.

 

Does that include your "theory" as well?

[Flyby Stardancer]

*applauds Mr. Neil*

 

*notices that txviper has yet to respond to this thread*

[Thurisaz]

Anyone got any popcorn? This is going to be fun...

 

(hands over some popcorn) Here you go. Now just to wait for Mr. Neil to get his post together... This is gonna be fun.

 

Don't you forget this...

 

*rolls in a barrel of mead, hands out some drinking horns*

 

 

*applauds Mr. Neil*

 

*notices that txviper has yet to respond to this thread*

 

You don't HIC see that dust clHICoud at the horizon? You HIC don't hear the faint HIC cries from theHICre 'mommy mommy!'? HIC

 

*drops empty mead horn, falls over empty barrel*

[Flyby Stardancer]

Anyone got any popcorn? This is going to be fun...

 

(hands over some popcorn) Here you go. Now just to wait for Mr. Neil to get his post together... This is gonna be fun.

 

Don't you forget this...

 

*rolls in a barrel of mead, hands out some drinking horns*

 

 

Unfortunately, I'm underage. Plus, I've never liked any form of alcohol I've encountered. So, that's out for me. I'll stick to soda though.

 

*applauds Mr. Neil*

 

*notices that txviper has yet to respond to this thread*

 

You don't HIC see that dust clHICoud at the horizon? You HIC don't hear the faint HIC cries from theHICre 'mommy mommy!'? HIC

 

*drops empty mead horn, falls over empty barrel*

 

Hee hee hee...

[Skankboy]

Well, I was referring to living, breathing dinosaurs. The creationists want us to believe that the dinosaurs were there in biblical times, right? But when you look at the way period artists draw animals, you see that they can draw horses, cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, etc., but for some reason, they can't draw the dino-dragons right. If the creationists are right about dinosaurs being dragons, then the dinosaurs should be right there in the field with all of the other animals, but instead of looking like dinosaurs, the ancient artists representations of dragons always come out looking like the classic mammal-like beasts with crocodile heads that you often see in mideval art, or they appear with serpent-like features, like the Chinese dragons.

 

 

I agree completely, sorry if my post implied otherwise. I was referring more to what might have been the origin of the dragon myth as opposed to the creationist contention that they were based on living animals. I also agree that the ancient representations of all fantastic animals (not only dragons) really only appear to be amalgams of other others they saw around them (ie - griffin, unicorn, manticore, etc) and not representations of any actual creatures existing along side them.

 

And again Neil you've blown me away with the amount of data you have at your fingertips. The radiometric info is fantastic, I'll be sure to check it out in more detail when I have time.

 

Good luck TX, looks like you've got your work cut out for you...

 

[Mr. Neil]

I agree completely, sorry if my post implied otherwise.

Oh, don't worry about it. I figured a clarification was in order, in case there had been any confusion.

 

I was referring more to what might have been the origin of the dragon myth as opposed to the creationist contention that they were based on living animals. I also agree that the ancient representations of all fantastic animals (not only dragons) really only appear to be amalgams of other others they saw around them (ie - griffin, unicorn, manticore, etc) and not representations of any actual creatures existing along side them.

If I remember correctly, I think it was discovered that the griffin was based on the skeletons of protoceratops. Seems the mongoloids thought that the shoulder blades were wings.

 

And again Neil you've blown me away with the amount of data you have at your fingertips. The radiometric info is fantastic, I'll be sure to check it out in more detail when I have time.

Well, I kinda breezed through the radiometric dating section. The article (link) I pulled that graphic from, though, really goes into a lot of detail. The case is pretty solid, and it's not one that txviper is going to be able to refute by whining about soft tissue.

 

I wanted to set the groundwork, though, to explain the importance of this evidence and intercept any of the expected rebuttals that most Christians like to use, such as that of the alleged inaccuracy of dating methods. Rest assured, that's not going to work!

[Ro-bear]

Oh dear...it seems that someone has been blown out of the tub.

[crazy-tiger]

 

So, what do we do while we wait for him?

 

 

-------------------------

Never mind... he's posting right now...

 

 

-------------------------

Back to boredom... he ran away.

[txviper]

I'll reply to the technical stuff after I've had time to do some reading. I am working long hours into the weekend, so it might be a while. Gas processing plants in Peru. Unrelated fossil issues.

 

But in the meantime, I have to note that you folks, at least those of you who are atheists, seem to have a lot of emotional investment in this exchange. I can't really comprehend why any of this would matter to you.

 

Neil and others get wound up like cheap watches over stuff like this. With the worldview they have to have as atheists, this is completely irrational. If there is no God, there is no judgment, no afterlife, no grand reckoning, no great registry somewhere where correctness is tabulated and tracked. In your religious framework, and like it or not, you do have one, it all ends inconsequentially. Perfectly and absolutely meaningless. So just what, for you, is the point?

 

I know precisely what my purpose and motivations are. I know exactly what I believe and why. Doctrine and prophecy. This debate does not stir me emotionally beyond the cheap thrill of being sarcastic.

 

You guys on the other hand, are angry and bitter, not to mention vulgar. This is not just a argument for you. There is something else involved.

[Onyx]

Umm, pot and kettle?

[Guest Challenger]

Oh dear...it seems that someone has been blown out of the tub.

 

Or else has gone down the drain.

[Mr. Neil]

I know precisely what my purpose and motivations are. I know exactly what I believe and why. Doctrine and prophecy. This debate does not stir me emotionally beyond the cheap thrill of being sarcastic.

Your opening volleys were nothing but emotion and sarcasm, none of which could be constituded as an argument. I even requested a formal argument from you three times! You didn't have anything before, just like you're not going to have anything now.

 

Mark my words, if all you're going to do is find quotes which appear to express doubt, I will defeat your quotes. If you try to use appeal to emotion, I will reveal it as the red herring that it is. If you try to handwave my evidence, I will bring it back and rub your nose in it. You will not evade! You're gonna lose this one, just like you lost the one about the moon.

 

But in the meantime, I have to note that you folks, at least those of you who are atheists, seem to have a lot of emotional investment in this exchange. I can't really comprehend why any of this would matter to you.

It matters because it involves education. It matters because assholes like you would have religion slipped into a science course. Some of us care about that.

 

Neil and others get wound up like cheap watches over stuff like this. With the worldview they have to have as atheists, this is completely irrational. If there is no God, there is no judgment, no afterlife, no grand reckoning, no great registry somewhere where correctness is tabulated and tracked. In your religious framework, and like it or not, you do have one, it all ends inconsequentially. Perfectly and absolutely meaningless. So just what, for you, is the point?

I'm arguing about dinosaurs. What does this have to do with the existence of a deity? Already we see that you don't have anything, so you've slipped into your morality brow-beating and poisoning the well by calling us "religous".

[Reality Amplifier]

I'll reply to the technical stuff after I've had time to do some reading. I am working long hours into the weekend, so it might be a while. Gas processing plants in Peru. Unrelated fossil issues.

 

But in the meantime, I have to note that you folks, at least those of you who are atheists, seem to have a lot of emotional investment in this exchange. I can't really comprehend why any of this would matter to you.

 

Neil and others get wound up like cheap watches over stuff like this. With the worldview they have to have as atheists, this is completely irrational. If there is no God, there is no judgment, no afterlife, no grand reckoning, no great registry somewhere where correctness is tabulated and tracked. In your religious framework, and like it or not, you do have one, it all ends inconsequentially. Perfectly and absolutely meaningless. So just what, for you, is the point?

 

I know precisely what my purpose and motivations are. I know exactly what I believe and why. Doctrine and prophecy. This debate does not stir me emotionally beyond the cheap thrill of being sarcastic.

 

You guys on the other hand, are angry and bitter, not to mention vulgar. This is not just a argument for you. There is something else involved.

[crazy-tiger]

Do me a favour... don't answer this post, just read it and try to understand. Ok?

I'll reply to the technical stuff after I've had time to do some reading. I am working long hours into the weekend, so it might be a while. Gas processing plants in Peru. Unrelated fossil issues.

 

But in the meantime, I have to note that you folks, at least those of you who are atheists, seem to have a lot of emotional investment in this exchange. I can't really comprehend why any of this would matter to you.

Would it matter to you if someone was deliberately spreading false information around? Would it matter to you if they were repeating this false information as though it was true?

If you are happy to let liars get away with it, then be my guest... I, on the other hand, have the will and integrity to stand up and fight back.

A lot of the problems are caused by the promotion of lies, and stopping those lies helps people... How can any human just stand back and let this happen when they can help stop it?

 

That is why it matters...

Neil and others get wound up like cheap watches over stuff like this. With the worldview they have to have as atheists, this is completely irrational. If there is no God, there is no judgment, no afterlife, no grand reckoning, no great registry somewhere where correctness is tabulated and tracked. In your religious framework, and like it or not, you do have one, it all ends inconsequentially. Perfectly and absolutely meaningless. So just what, for you, is the point?

To stop the constant disemination of lies and the attempts to mislead people...

 

We do this because we want to, because it helps people, because it makes the world a better place for people to live in... It's one hell of a point, and it's one that you will never understand.

I know precisely what my purpose and motivations are. I know exactly what I believe and why. Doctrine and prophecy. This debate does not stir me emotionally beyond the cheap thrill of being sarcastic.

 

You guys on the other hand, are angry and bitter, not to mention vulgar. This is not just a argument for you. There is something else involved.

Yes, we are angry... angry that people willfully lie about things even when the truth has been shoved in their faces so many times it's left an imprint on their forehead...

No, we are not bitter... though we do resent people who come along and state what we are even when they know next to nothing about us... (like you just have done)

Yes, we are sometimes vulgar... although when you make the same point for the Nth time just to have someone repeat the same old lies, a good expletive is a great way to release some frustration.

Yes, this is more than just an argument... Yes, there's something else involved...

 

It's promoting the truth about things... correcting the misconceptions... letting people know what the religions are trying to hide.

 

 

And the terrible thing is, you won't understand us because you're certain that you already know the truth about us... but all you know is lies.

[All Gods Fail]

I'll reply to the technical stuff after I've had time to do some reading. I am working long hours into the weekend, so it might be a while. Gas processing plants in Peru. Unrelated fossil issues.

 

But in the meantime, I have to note that you folks, at least those of you who are atheists, seem to have a lot of emotional investment in this exchange. I can't really comprehend why any of this would matter to you.

 

Hold on - Vipey got confused and forgot what he was arguing about.

 

(Leads txviper by the hand back to the topic)

 

Here we go - back to the point!

 

"you don't think soft tissue would last 65 million years?"

 

 

Well, hmmmmm...gosh...let me think about that...maybe...I guess if....

 

 

HELL NO! Do you?!!

 

That's a good boy! Who's my big boy?

[txviper]

"when you look at the way period artists draw animals, you see that they can draw horses, cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, etc., but for some reason, they can't draw the dino-dragons right. If the creationists are right about dinosaurs being dragons, then the dinosaurs should be right there in the field with all of the other animals, but instead of looking like dinosaurs, the ancient artists representations of dragons always come out looking like the classic mammal-like beasts with crocodile heads that you often see in mideval art, or they appear with serpent-like features, like the Chinese dragons"

 

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

[aynalhub]

TxViper. I am not going to call you names, or dance on your corpse, but listen to me, without any idea about what's real or not in your opinion, actually pay attention to my words.

 

You are attacking us because you say we have no meaning in our lives. In fact, the meaning you claim to have is as shallow as the "meaning" I find in looking at a big steak I'm going to devour.

 

When you get to heaven, what will you do? Hang out? Praise god? Everything will be ok, won't it, nothing left to do...where's the meaning in that? You're "meaning" ends when there is a new heaven and new earth. Ok, so you live your life for god (which means just saying you believe something, going to church, and other childish games) and then die, and then god fixes everything (which he made in the first place) and then what?

 

*you* have no meaning either, my friend. your religion is *practical* like all successful cults, it tells you what to do and think all the time, and it made for this world only. it is a club, with some bizarre stories and rules for life. it's a how-to guide. beyond this world, your 'meaning' ceases. you yourself said that we are going to die eventually, and thus we 'mean' nothing.

 

think! your meaning stops when you die, too, only you get to have pleasure, uninterrupted pleasure, forever, while we just go away forever.

 

WE BOTH HAVE MEANING IN THIS LIFE< AND LOSE IT IN THE NEXT. YOU DON"T HAVE MORE MEANING THAN US< YOU HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT< FOR THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME>

 

does that sound moral or meaningful at all to you? even a little?

 

In fact, if god is perfect, why or how would he create the universe in the first place? If you're perfect, you don't need anything, so why would you do anything? Did god create pain so that we could have some "meaning" until it ended again? Is the "meaning" of your religion to go somewhere where there is pleasure, and all 'meaning' ceases again? that would be a truly meaningless cycle!

 

people are emotional not because they secretly believe in some cause, but because we are animals, we protect ourselves like a dog or cat would. you think everyone should be like you, and think what you do, even though you can't prove what you think is right. this is selfish and amoral, and that is why people are emotional about it. what you are doing by pretending you believe something and trying to force others to is an act of violence!

 

btw, if you want to be respected, quote a book or a journal, not "genesis park". and i'm not being sarcastic, you seriously would have to be nuts to respect that web site.

[spamandham]

But in the meantime, I have to note that you folks, at least those of you who are atheists, seem to have a lot of emotional investment in this exchange. I can't really comprehend why any of this would matter to you.

 

You're overgeneralizing. Many of us atheists here are simply too lazy to refute creationist drone 7 of 9, because there's no cookie, and can enjoy it just as much watching someone like Mr. Niel excoriate you. Mr. Niel seems to enjoy it, so I suppose that's his motivation. The attempt to establish a theocracy by the religious nutjobs should probably motivate even the lazy such as myself, but then again, I'm lazy.

 

Whack-a-fundie is entertainment you just can't buy.

 

You guys on the other hand, are angry and bitter, not to mention vulgar.

 

Vulgar? Fuck yah!

 

You are confusing laughter at your expense as anger and bitterness. I can only guess you are projecting your own anger and bitterness. It is my experience that the most vitriolic are the same ones to accuse others of being angry and bitter.

 

You are being toyed with. I find it particularly amusing that you don't realize that, and will likely continue to fail to recognize it even after I've told you outright.

[Stormwarden]

Ok, TxViper, I was going to be nice, but I see now that I can't be when all you can do is talk garbage.

 

Atheists have meaning in this life, just the same as everyone else. The fact that there is no afterlife makes life that much more precious.

 

Atheists don't do right because a God tells them to. They do right for the sake of doing right. They don't need a God to tell them to.

 

I find that you have no faith, TxViper. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gotten your butt handed to you by Mr. Neil. Indeed, this whole convo would have never happened. You see, the cool Xians I know don't feel the need to flout or force their belief on anyone else. The same is true of the cool atheists I know. They debate you because you base your beliefs on bad data. Sorry, but you need to come to grips that Mr. Neil has beaten you, again. You haven't even provided a real argument.

[Mr. Neil]

"when you look at the way period artists draw animals, you see that they can draw horses, cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, etc., but for some reason, they can't draw the dino-dragons right. If the creationists are right about dinosaurs being dragons, then the dinosaurs should be right there in the field with all of the other animals, but instead of looking like dinosaurs, the ancient artists representations of dragons always come out looking like the classic mammal-like beasts with crocodile heads that you often see in mideval art, or they appear with serpent-like features, like the Chinese dragons"

 

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Thank for you for illustrating my point, txviper. Anyone familiar enough with dinosaurs can easily spot problems with every single one of the examples. Many of these are so weak, that they don't even bear a burden of being refuted. They're just dumb. In a lot of these are the very depictions I was referring to.

 

I will, however, deal with the ones I feel are the "strongest", or, more accurately, those which are least weak.

 

 

The "Oviraptor"

"Asian stories and stylized dragon depictions are fairly common. But an unusual beaked dragon statue from the 1400’s came up on the antiquities market and is now in the Genesis Park collection. It displays numerous characteristics of the beaked dinosaurs (like the oviraptor depicted alongside for comparison): tridactyl feet configuration, metatarsal stance, scale-like representation all over the body (except for the horn which has a striated pattern), long (albeit slender) tail, elaborate head crest and a long neck."

 

 

The author concedes a few minor inconsistencies, but there's more wrong with this example that just those few. The entire shape of the body is different. That's a mammalian body, which goes along with it's nice mammalian tail. You'll also notice the legs, aside from having three toes each, is absolutely nothing like the dinosaur picture next to it. In fact, the sculpture is a quadraped, and Oviraptor is clearly a two-legged animal. The shape of the head is nothing like that of Oviraptor, except for the beak, which even that is barely comparable.

 

This sculpture is a chimera of some kind, possibly even a griffen, but certainly not an Oviraptor.

 

The Mesopotamian Sauropod

"The art below is from an Mesopotamian cylinder seal dated at 3300 BC. (Moortgart, Anton, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia, 1969, plate 292.) The animal on the right is an artists conception from a skeleton of an Apatasaurus. There are many striking similarities between these two depictions. The legs and feet on the Egyptian art clearly fit the saurapods better than any other type of animal. The biggest difference is at the head. Cartilage forming the shape of a frill or ears may be stylized or accurate (since there is no way to know from the skeletons we have today). As for the musculature, the Egyptian artist draws with stunning realism. One has to ask where the artist got the model to draw so convincingly the trunk of a saurapod?"

 

 

Look again, jackass. While the long necks make seem as though the creationists actually got one, direct your attention to the actual bodies of these creatures. We see that, once again, the artist's reference is not a dinosaur, but a mammal. The bodies are much shorter than what you'd expect from a sauropod (notably shorter than the example next to it), and legs totally give it away. Note the very un-dinosaur-like legs that are clearly far more recognizable as mammal legs. Put your finger over the head and neck of the beast, and you'll see that the animal's body actually looks more like a bovid-type animal, such as a male cow. The head also seems to resemble no animal that I know of.

 

It seems as though the only points of contention are the neck and tail. I think it's time that I bring up the generic long-neck-long-tail mythological monster. What you'll find is that most cases of ancient "dino art" is going to be alleged depictions of sauropods and "Loch Ness" type sea monsters. It seems that ancient artists had an affinity for long necks and tails. I hasten to point out that this particular group of features seems to be a recurring theme in mythological animals that clearly look nothing like sauropods or any animal in particular. Such as medieval dragons and such.

 

The lack of specificity makes any depiction of ancient long-neck/long-tail drawing seriously questionable. There is an overall vagueness to the stereotypical sauropod characteristics, and there's rarely anything distinguishing about the head or tail to set it apart, except that it's particularly long. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch (pardon the pun) that ancient civilizations might have come up with similar mythical creatures without having seen dinosaurs. If these characteristics were as distinguishable as, say, the frill on a Triceratops or the plates on a Stegasaurus, then we might have something to talk about.

 

The thing that sets true dinosaurs apart from ancient drawings that only appear to be dinosaurs is in the body of the beast itself. Many times, just the legs alone will give it away, as I had pointed out. Mammal legs have heels much higher off the ground than in sauropods. Also, mammals are the only animals in the fossil record in which the lumbar section of the spine has little or no ribs at all, giving the mammal a very unique bodytype, unlike any other animal group. This is a dead giveaway in our "dino art" as both examples above display this mammal-exclusive trait.

 

As you scroll down the page provided by txviper, you'll notice the mammal body appearing a few more times.

 

"Nasca Stones"

"A plated and horned creature has also been discovered in Cree Indian art (far left) on the Agawa Rock at Misshepezhieu, Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. Also to the left is pictured an Inca Ceremonial Burial Stones that is likely from the Nasca culture."

 

 

Ah yes, the "Nasca Stones". They are called Nazca stones, often because they're associated (quite erroneously) with the famed Nazca lines. They're actually called Ica stones, and unfortunately for the creationist, even if many Ica Stones are genuine, there also happen to be quite a number that are known to be fraudulent, such as those that were "discovered" by Basilio Uschuya, who later admitted to counterfeiting them himself. This makes the Ica stones relatively useless as evidence of anything.

 

Now this doesn't discount all Ica stones, and there's always the remote possibility that some might be genuine. Take the one I posted above, for example. At face value, it's entirely possible that this stone might be a genuine artifact. But if we take a closer look, we begin to see the problem with giving these stones the benefit of the doubt. I've been a dinosaur enthusiast all my life, and I must say that this depiction is highly suspect.

 

There's not a single dinosaur on that rock that's drawn correctly. Even more damning, the dinosaurs depicted here all seem to have features that are quite in common with typical early-to-mid 20th Century misconceptions of these creatures. It seems that whoever drew this rock was inspired by the very paleontological incorrect 1920s film, The Lost World. Notice the up-right "T-Rex" in a kangaroo position, and the sauropod with its neck crained strait up into the air. Note that all of them have their tails on the ground. All of this is wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!

 

Notice that these are all typically well-known dinosaurs: T-Rex, Stegasaurus, Triceratops, and a sauropod. Of these four, two of them are not known to come from South America. Either this is a Nasca stone of the Dinobots, or the artist simply picked the most popular dinosaurs he knew of. Both Triceratops and T-Rex are strictly North American creatures. What are depictions of them doing in Peru? And why are they drawn so badly?

 

Well, that's about it, really. I was going to cover the aboriginal "plesiosaur" drawing, but I think I covered it pretty well in my explanation of the generic long-necked monster.

 

I think the overall sloppiness of the page speaks for itself. There's not a single piece of "evidence" on that page that can be considered seriously. It's very poor.

 

________________

 

In conclusion, I would just like to point out that, once again, Txviper ws not able to refute anything from my original argument. He has not even attempted to refute the propensity of evidence in radiometric dating. He could not refute my claim that it wasn't original dinosaur material found in that fossil, and he couldn't deal with any part of it at all. So what did he do? He's not even made a serious attempt to argue anything. He thinks that he can get away with tossing websites at me.

 

Sorry, Viper. That's not gonna work.

[crazy-tiger]

Hey Neil, you want to turn him over? I think that side of him is well-roasted now...