News:

Our Hosting and Server Costs Are Expensive! Please Subscribe To Help With Monthly Donations.

Main Menu
+-+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 80077
Latest: armchairscholar
New This Month: 3
New This Week: 1
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 890831
Total Topics: 89534
Most Online Today: 520
Most Online Ever: 2999
(Fri Jan 13, 2023 - 21:20:46)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 500
Total: 500
Google (2)

Creation scientists

Started by Amo, Sat Aug 10, 2019 - 12:47:21

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Amo


4WD

Like you said, Amo, presumption is as presumption does.  That was the most ludicrous explanation that anyone could imagine.  That guy has tectionic plates moving thousands of miles in just three or four thousand years.  Shoot, one could almost water ski behind plates moving that fast.  But seriously, the work, the power, required to move that much mass that fast would be beyond imagination. That is not ignorance; that is stupidity.

Amo

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 17:08:25
Like you said, Amo, presumption is as presumption does.  That was the most ludicrous explanation that anyone could imagine.  That guy has tectionic plates moving thousands of miles in just three or four thousand years.  Shoot, one could almost water ski behind plates moving that fast.  But seriously, the work, the power, required to move that much mass that fast would be beyond imagination. That is not ignorance; that is stupidity.

Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Not only has it happened, and in far less time than thousands of years, but it will happen again in the second judgment of God and destruction of this world. You simply limit God to your own understanding, and the testimony of His word to the same. To this end you define creation, the flood, and no doubt the final judgement of this world, as allegorical, and apparently those who take them to be literal as stupid. So be it. I am sure, you will learn otherwise. God absolutely is not limited in any way shape or form by the confines of your imaginations, lack thereof, or unbelief.

Jer 25:30 Therefore prophesy thou against them all these words, and say unto them, The LORD shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation; he shall mightily roar upon his habitation; he shall give a shout, as they that tread the grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth. 31 A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth; for the LORD hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh; he will give them that are wicked to the sword, saith the LORD. 32 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth. 33 And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.

This world has not been around anywhere near as long as you have imagined, nor will it remain anywhere near as long as you have imagined.


Amo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_A6eTgDIkU

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4WD

Quote from: Amo on Sat Sep 07, 2019 - 10:06:58Not only has it happened, and in far less time than thousands of years,
If you are speaking of the breakup of Pangaea and the movement of the tectonic plates to their present positions, then you have only your own uninformed imagination to rely on.  Neither the Bible nor science says such a thing.
Quote from: AmoYou simply limit God to your own understanding, and the testimony of His word to the same.
As do you, Amo.  However I do limit my understanding of God to the testimony of His word.  That is precisely as it should be.  That is the purpose of His special revelation through His written word . There is also His general revelation from which we see that  "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psa 19:1). But that you refuse to acknowledge any such thing preferring instead some wild imaginations of your own.

Quote from: AmoTo this end you define creation, the flood, and no doubt the final judgement of this world, as allegorical,
You lie. That is the reason that I refrain so often to interchange with you.  That is an out and out lie.  It is in fact a disgusting lie. I have never defined the creation nor the flood to be allegorical.  And I have never stated, suggested nor hinted at the final judgment as allegorical.  You seem to make up stuff about what others here write with the same abandonment that you make up stuff about what God has written.
Quote from: AmoThis world has not been around anywhere near as long as you have imagined, nor will it remain anywhere near as long as you have imagined.
Unlike you, I don't rely on my imagination for the length of time the universe has been in place.  And I have no idea whatsoever how long it will remain. Such prophetic utterances of the day the earth will end is the stuff of folks like you who read into the Scriptures what they want it to say.

Amo

QuoteIf you are speaking of the breakup of Pangaea and the movement of the tectonic plates to their present positions, then you have only your own uninformed imagination to rely on.  Neither the Bible nor science says such a thing.

Yes, it is just a theory, based upon evidence backing up faith in the biblical flood account. Just as evolution is just a theory, based upon evidence backing up faith in the writings of Darwin.

QuoteAs do you, Amo.  However I do limit my understanding of God to the testimony of His word.  That is precisely as it should be.  That is the purpose of His special revelation through His written word . There is also His general revelation from which we see that  "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psa 19:1). But that you refuse to acknowledge any such thing preferring instead some wild imaginations of your own.

Please do tell, what these wild imaginations of my own are. There is no hint of evolution anywhere in the word of God. So, how is it you believe the same while limiting your understanding of God to the testimony of His word?

QuoteYou lie. That is the reason that I refrain so often to interchange with you.  That is an out and out lie.  It is in fact a disgusting lie. I have never defined the creation nor the flood to be allegorical.  And I have never stated, suggested nor hinted at the final judgment as allegorical.  You seem to make up stuff about what others here write with the same abandonment that you make up stuff about what God has written.

BALONEY! Perhaps I have confused you with others, or presumed such. If you have never said such, then I was simply wrong. See how easy that is. My bad. Here we are, please do tell what I have made up that you or others have said, and I will admit of such a mistake and move on. Please do supply instances where I have made up what God has written as well, I certainly do not want to be guilty of any such thing. Please do also explain to me if you can, how evolution is true, and God's word concerning the creation is also literal and true at the same time, without being allegorical. I know I have asked you and others this question many times over, that is, to explain this position by explaining what the creation account really means if it is not literal.

QuoteUnlike you, I don't rely on my imagination for the length of time the universe has been in place.  And I have no idea whatsoever how long it will remain. Such prophetic utterances of the day the earth will end is the stuff of folks like you who read into the Scriptures what they want it to say.

I have never said what day the earth will end, the scriptures plainly state that no man knows the day or hour of such. It also conclusively states its beginning with real time frames in place though not specific, and its end as well being connected to the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The bible commissions all in Christ to look for and hasten the day of His return, in which day this present world will come to its end. Which end will be followed by the creation of a new heaven and new earth. Do you believe the bibles testimony concerning such?



The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Sat Sep 07, 2019 - 17:58:54
Yes, it is just a theory,

Plate tectonics is a theory.   So is gravitation.   But it's probably not a good idea to step off of high places, just the same.   The evidence for plate tectonics is compelling, including the fact that we can observe and measure the current speed of the continental plates.

Quotebased upon evidence backing up faith in the biblical flood account.

That's just faith.   We can't even conclusively prove whether the flood was an allegory or a real flood.  The evidence for a great regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time, suggests that it's a real flood.  But not a global one.   And the Bible doesn't say it's global.

QuoteJust as evolution is just a theory, based upon evidence backing up faith in the writings of Darwin.

No scientist has "faith" in Darwin; they accept his theory, because the predictions of the theory have been repeatedly verified by new evidence.

QuoteThere is no hint of evolution anywhere in the word of God.

There's no hint of protons, therein, either.   But we know by observation that they exist, just as we can observe evolution and plate tectonics.

 

Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Sep 07, 2019 - 19:01:36
Plate tectonics is a theory.   So is gravitation.   But it's probably not a good idea to step off of high places, just the same.   The evidence for plate tectonics is compelling, including the fact that we can observe and measure the current speed of the continental plates.

That's just faith.   We can't even conclusively prove whether the flood was an allegory or a real flood.  The evidence for a great regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time, suggests that it's a real flood.  But not a global one.   And the Bible doesn't say it's global.

No scientist has "faith" in Darwin; they accept his theory, because the predictions of the theory have been repeatedly verified by new evidence.

There's no hint of protons, therein, either.   But we know by observation that they exist, just as we can observe evolution and plate tectonics.



Same old, same old, crap.

Amo

QuoteYou lie. That is the reason that I refrain so often to interchange with you.  That is an out and out lie.  It is in fact a disgusting lie. I have never defined the creation nor the flood to be allegorical.  And I have never stated, suggested nor hinted at the final judgment as allegorical.  You seem to make up stuff about what others here write with the same abandonment that you make up stuff about what God has written.

Perhaps the following replies of yours quoted below, are why I thought you believed the creation account was allegorical. All emphasis mine.

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

Reply #2956 on: Tue Dec 04, 2018 - 05:26:33

QuoteThe creation account is not intelligible if taken literal given what we now know to be the case.  Given all the evidence to the actual physical age of the universe, the Genesis account of creation cannot be considered a literal description.  The description of light, which comprises only a very narrow range of the complete electromagnetic frequency spectrum, must be taken as figurative; other wise there is no basis for the existence of gamma rays, X-rays, and all the rest of the spectrum of electromagnetic energy. The statement of "there was evening and there was morning" must be taken as figurative given what we know to be the literal cause of literal evenings and mornings. And so much more of the complete description as presented must be taken as figurative given what we know about such things today.

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

Reply #2935 on: Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 04:49:53

QuoteActually, I believe that Genesis 2:1-2 is figurative speech from God as is most of the rest of the chapter.

No, we accept Genesis as literal where it seems appropriate and figurative where that seems appropriate.  That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood.

Much of the whole of chapter 1 is indeed figurative language.

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

Reply #2753 on: Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 05:27:37

QuoteThe joke is not in what Moses wrote; he wrote as God directed.  The joke is always in the interpretation.  It is, or should be, evident that what God directed Moses to write about creation in Genesis was not to be taken as a literal account of God's work of creation.

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

Reply #1970 on: Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 16:14:58

QuoteContrary to your question, of course the biblical account is true.  The question is really whether the account is a literal account.  Is Revelation an accurate account of the end times? Of course it is.  Is it a 100% literal account or a metaphoric account?  I will opt for the latter.   Is the Genesis account 100% literal or does it, much like Revelation, carry significant metaphoric content?  I will opt for the latter.  Now if you can prove that is not the case, I will consider it.  But I am not holding my breath that you can do that.


Rella

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:48:51
Do you not understand that your faith in scripture is based in large part on your "human" speculation?

First: you should reword this to say "your understanding of scripture'

Faith is not appropriate here as there is no person that relies on scripture for anything other then what it is , and that being a textbook for our learning.

Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Oops... can't hardly say anything on this topic with out using scripture.

Now:" based in large part on your "human" speculation"??????

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Do you, yourself, not believe scripture? Are you among those who believe the bible to be a book of fables?

I have drawn a conclusion based on the many years I have read and observed the threads on Grace Centered and that is there are
very few members who believe the Holy Bible to be the inerrant word of God.

Yet most , who quote scriptures they find acceptable for their explanations are in constant debates with others, (Yes, I am guilty)for the inability to arrive at a consensus on many things.

And those things range from, among other things,  being a young earth believer, evolutionist, the flood, baptism, was the thief on the cross going to be saved, what day the crucifixion happened, and even slightly differing beliefs in the crucifixion itself, or if Jesus was God incarnate, the Holy Trinity, even if Adam was the first man.

Speaking of which....

I do wish someone would address Pre-Adamite.....

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848600000212

OK, I have rambled long enough.....






The Barbarian

Quote from: Rella on Sun Sep 08, 2019 - 08:35:29
First: you should reword this to say "your understanding of scripture'

Yet most , who quote scriptures they find acceptable for their explanations are in constant debates with others, (Yes, I am guilty)for the inability to arrive at a consensus on many things.

And those things range from, among other things,  being a young earth believer, evolutionist, the flood, baptism, was the thief on the cross going to be saved, what day the crucifixion happened, and even slightly differing beliefs in the crucifixion itself, or if Jesus was God incarnate, the Holy Trinity, even if Adam was the first man.

And there can be lots of disagreements on those things that are not essential parts of our faith, with all parties still being Christians.  Well said.

Amo

Isa 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The law -

Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

The testimony -

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Her 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


Those who reject the above law and testimony, have no light in them.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How is the above possible, if all scripture is subject to every individuals interpretation of it?

Amo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDHDaSvP8Y

Haven't kept up with the dinosaur tissue issue for a while now. Apparently evolutionary scientists avoid or pass over the topic and its significance when confronted with the evidence now. They simply accept that such can survive for millions of years so as not to negatively effect their faith. Never mind more obvious implications, or the lack of any scientifically established circumstance that could allow for such deep time preservation. A theory or two has been suggested, but they don't hold up under any scrutiny.

Amo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVg_RFhRhuA

Been waiting to hear about results from those examining this discovery. Haven't found anything yet.

The Barbarian

#49
Quote from: Amo on Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:23:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDHDaSvP8Y

Haven't kept up with the dinosaur tissue issue for a while now. Apparently evolutionary scientists avoid or pass over the topic and its significance when confronted with the evidence now.

Scientists have known for a long time that organic molecules can remain intact for hundreds of millions of years under specific circumstances.  It's been known to happen in invertebrates since I was an undergraduate.   It was surprising that such conditions would occur where land animals live, but there it is.

The most important part of the T. rex find was that it gave scientists another way to test the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   They took a little of the heme found in that fossil (heme is a part of a hemoglobin molecule) and injected it into lab animals, which produced antibodies against it.   

The antibodies turned out to react most strongly against the heme of birds, more so than the heme of other reptiles.   And so the finding that birds are descended from reptiles was once more confirmed.




Amo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T6G0NgUFjA

Good video addressing soft dino tissue and theories attempting to explain how such could be preserved for millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of years.

Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:32:42
Scientists have known for a long time that organic molecules can remain intact for hundreds of millions of years under specific circumstances.  It's been known to happen in invertebrates since I was an undergraduate.   It was surprising that such conditions would occur where land animals live, but there it is.

The most important part of the T. rex find was that it gave scientists another way to test the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   They took a little of the heme found in that fossil (heme is a part of a hemoglobin molecule) and injected it into lab animals, which produced antibodies against it.   

The antibodies turned out to react most strongly against the heme of birds, more so than the heme of other reptiles.   And so the finding that birds are descended from reptiles was once more confirmed.

Presumption is as presumption does. To those whose faith lies in evolution all commonality suggests support for their theory. For those whose faith lies in the word of God, commonality simply points out common design by the common Designer. Knowing about the soft tissue issue, does not explain it. To the contrary, if they have known about it so long, why haven't they been actively seeking an explanation through more intense study and investigation? Is it because they do not like where such might lead?

The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:31:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVg_RFhRhuA

Been waiting to hear about results from those examining this discovery. Haven't found anything yet.

I notice the skull of the animal has a zygomatic arch, and differentiated teeth, neither of which(SFAIK) have ever been found on a dinosaur, much less a theropod dinsaur.   Learn about it here:
https://www.purposegames.com/game/a1cacbafdf

You have to turn off any ad blocker.

But let's see what I can find...
(Barbarian checks)   Yep.  The zygomatic arch is limited to the Synapsida, the reptiles that led to the therapsids, and ultimately to mammals.

And while teeth were different in different theropods, each theropod had one kind of teeth:
  https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app000562013.pdf

The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:44:42
Presumption is as presumption does.

True.   Those guys presumed organic molecules couldn't exist for that length of of time.    Invert paleontologists had, for a long time, known better.

To those whose faith lies in YE creationism, commonality means nothing.    However, we can test the theory by comparing heme of organisms of known descent.   Turns out, it confirms the finding.

For those whose faith lies in the word of God, there is no need to invent fake stories or to deny the facts.   We know birds and dinosaursare closely related, and it doesn't impact on our faith in God at all.

QuoteKnowing about the soft tissue issue, does not explain it. To the contrary, if they have known about it so long, why haven't they been actively seeking an explanation through more intense study and investigation?

There was, when it was first discovered.   Turns out lot of iron tends to preserve proteins.  Would you like to learn about it?

 

Amo

QuoteI notice the skull of the animal has a zygomatic arch, and differentiated teeth, neither of which(SFAIK) have ever been found on a dinosaur, much less a theropod dinsaur.   Learn about it here:
https://www.purposegames.com/game/a1cacbafdf

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-tyrannosaur-tooth-toolkit-98482124/

Emphasis in quotes below from links above them is mine.

QuoteThe Tyrannosaur Tooth Toolkit

.......................

Not all mammals have differentiated sets of teeth. Dolphins, for example, have jaws full of nearly identical, conical teeth. Among reptiles, on the other hand, multiple species have been found with a variety of tooth shapes in their jaws. Pakasuchus, an extinct cousin of modern crocodiles found in the 105-million-year-old rock of Tanzania, had three different types of teeth in its jaws, and even the mighty Tyrannosaurus and Albertosaurus possessed differentiated teeth. What this meant for how the tyrant dinosaurs ate was addressed in a Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences paper by Miriam Reichel last year.

https://www.fossilera.com/pages/dinosaur-teeth

QuoteAbout Dinosaur Teeth

Because of the specificity of dinosaur diets many species typically have only a single type of tooth in their jaws with variations only in size. The big exception to this is most meat-eating dinosaurs, who's teeth sometimes varied significantly in size and shape as one moves back in the jaw. The front teeth (premaxilla teeth) were typically much more conical in shape and closely packed making them ideal for gripping and pulling. The teeth further back in the jaw frequently were more blade like to aid in cutting and slicing of meat. This variation in tooth shape sometimes makes it very difficult to assign isolated teeth to a particular dinosaur species.

Amo


QuoteBut let's see what I can find...
(Barbarian checks)   Yep.  The zygomatic arch is limited to the Synapsida, the reptiles that led to the therapsids, and ultimately to mammals.

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.23519

QuoteEvolution of the Jugal/Zygomatic Bones


EARLY VERTEBRATES, DINOSAURS, AND BIRDS
The origins of the zygoma or jugal require an understanding of the homologies of cranial bones in stem gnathostomes, including jawless (agnathans, consisting of hagfishes, lampreys, and ostracoderms) and jawed fishes (consisting of placoderms, acanthodians, chrondrichthyans, and osteichthyans). Gai et al. (2017) review the complex anatomy in these taxa and the evidence for deep homologies associated with the zygoma/jugal. They include new fossil evidence. They conclude by formulating a model for the major steps in the evolution of the zygoma. They speculate that the zygoma arose from specialized dermal bones in ostracoderms perhaps as early as the Ordovician. They provide evidence for the morphology and homology of the zygoma/jugal and surrounding bones in the evolution of the osteichthyans, in the lineage from the stem sarcopterygians to osteolepiforms, and during the transition from osteolepiforms to tetrapods.


Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:49:53
I notice the skull of the animal has a zygomatic arch, and differentiated teeth, neither of which(SFAIK) have ever been found on a dinosaur, much less a theropod dinsaur.   Learn about it here:
https://www.purposegames.com/game/a1cacbafdf

You have to turn off any ad blocker.

But let's see what I can find...
(Barbarian checks)   Yep.  The zygomatic arch is limited to the Synapsida, the reptiles that led to the therapsids, and ultimately to mammals.

And while teeth were different in different theropods, each theropod had one kind of teeth:
  https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app000562013.pdf

Whenever evolutionists are proved or prove themselves wrong about previous assumptions based upon limited data, they freely admit that this is the nature of their theory which must change and adapt to new information. Nevertheless in all discussions like this one, they act and preach as though all is already known as in your above post. Do you really think your not going to continue to find new fossils and evidence which will alter or change previous determinations such as the ones you are promoting above? Do you really think you as an individual can even keep up with all the non stop new info and fossils being discovered, all of which may and very often do change previous theories regarding previous observations? Why act so concretely knowledgable or comprehensively understanding concerning a theory that is undergoing constant change. As though what has been found thus far, will not be changed by what is found in the future as it has so many times before. How many dinosaur remains are still to be discovered which could change everything? This is not even to question the entire theory of evolution itself, which of course I and a great many others do.

Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:54:53
True.   Those guys presumed organic molecules couldn't exist for that length of of time.    Invert paleontologists had, for a long time, known better.

To those whose faith lies in YE creationism, commonality means nothing.    However, we can test the theory by comparing heme of organisms of known descent.   Turns out, it confirms the finding.

For those whose faith lies in the word of God, there is no need to invent fake stories or to deny the facts.   We know birds and dinosaursare closely related, and it doesn't impact on our faith in God at all.

There was, when it was first discovered.   Turns out lot of iron tends to preserve proteins.  Would you like to learn about it?



Yes, we know you think much of the bible is filled with fake stories. One of the videos I linked addressed the poor attempt of yet another theory of evolutionists concerning iron preserving tissues for countless millions of years. The conditions speculatively allowing for such, are created in the labs of such speculations, they do not exist naturally. Nor can anything short of the observation of such conditions occurring naturally, and actually preserving soft tissue over the course of millions of years, verify such beyond questioning. As always though, all such theories are based upon exactly that which scripture denies, all things remaining the same for long long ages. Of course evolutionists conveniently claim all such scriptures to be fairy tales. So be it.

The Barbarian

QuoteEvolution of the Jugal/Zygomatic Bones

The point is that they are found in mammals and mammal-like reptiles, by not in dinosaurs, birds or crocodiles.   So the "fossil" is a synapsid, apparently a cat.


The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Sun Oct 20, 2019 - 10:47:12
Yes, we know you think much of the bible is filled with fake stories.

If you think the Bible is filled with fake stories, then one of us does.    I have shown you more than once that YE creationists often tell fake stories about what's in the Bible, but that's an entirely different thing.

QuoteOne of the videos I linked addressed the poor attempt of yet another theory of evolutionists concerning iron preserving tissues for countless millions of years.

It does explain why such molecules (not tissues, which are groups of cells organized to some function) are always found in the presence of iron.

QuoteOf course evolutionists conveniently claim all such scriptures to be fairy tales.

Scientists to point out that the revisions  that YE creationists try to apply to scripture are often fairy tales.

QuoteSo be it.

Yep

Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Oct 20, 2019 - 19:27:01
The point is that they are found in mammals and mammal-like reptiles, by not in dinosaurs, birds or crocodiles.   So the "fossil" is a synapsid, apparently a cat.

Even if the above proves correct, you were wrong about the differentiated teeth, as you may well be proved wrong in the near future concerning a zygomatic arch. You know all the evidence is not and cannot yet be in, so why act so very confident about observations that are continually being updated and changed with new evidence. Your practice is just like your theory, undergoing constant change for survival. In the ned neither will survive, being proved false altogether.

Amo

QuoteIt does explain why such molecules (not tissues, which are groups of cells organized to some function) are always found in the presence of iron.

Does it really. Emphasis in quotes below from links above is mine.

Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron

Iron (/ˈaɪərn/) is a chemical element with symbol Fe (from Latin: ferrum) and atomic number 26. It is a metal that belongs to the first transition series and group 8 of the periodic table. It is by mass the most common element on Earth, forming much of Earth's outer and inner core. It is the fourth most common element in the Earth's crust.

In its metallic state, iron is rare in the Earth's crust, limited to deposition by meteorites. Iron ores, by contrast, are among the most abundant in the Earth's crust, although extracting usable metal from them requires kilns or furnaces capable of reaching 1500 °C or higher, about 500 °C higher than what is enough to smelt copper..........

The body of an adult human contains about 4 grams (0.005% body weight) of iron, mostly in hemoglobin and myoglobin. These two proteins play essential roles in vertebrate metabolism, respectively oxygen transport by blood and oxygen storage in muscles. To maintain the necessary levels, human iron metabolism requires a minimum of iron in the diet. Iron is also the metal at the active site of many important redox enzymes dealing with cellular respiration and oxidation and reduction in plants and animals.[5]

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/hemoglobin_and_functions_of_iron/

Iron is an essential element for blood production. About 70 percent of your body's iron is found in the red blood cells of your blood called hemoglobin and in muscle cells called myoglobin. Hemoglobin is essential for transferring oxygen in your blood from the lungs to the tissues. Myoglobin, in muscle cells, accepts, stores, transports and releases oxygen.

About 6 percent of body iron is a component of certain proteins, essential for respiration and energy metabolism, and as a component of enzymes involved in the synthesis of collagen and some neurotransmitters. Iron also is needed for proper immune function.

About 25 percent of the iron in the body is stored as ferritin, found in cells and circulates in the blood. The average adult male has about 1,000 mg of stored iron (enough for about three years), whereas women on average have only about 300 mg (enough for about six months). When iron intake is chronically low, stores can become depleted, decreasing hemoglobin levels....................

http://www.irondisorders.org/our-need-for-iron/

Iron is so important that without it all life would cease to exist. Every living thing: plants, animals, human beings, bacteria (good and bad), even cancer cells all need iron to survive and grow.

Plants require iron to make chlorophyll, which is necessary for growth and generating oxygen for people to breathe.  Plants, animals, and human beings require iron to make DNA, which encodes all life. Animals and humans also need iron to make hemoglobin, which delivers oxygen to the body. Iron also carries carbon dioxide out of the body, which plants need to function.

Humans also need iron to make myoglobin in muscles. Myoglobin is a protein like hemoglobin, except that it is an oxygen storage protein contained in muscles of the body. We call upon the oxygen stored in myoglobin when we use our muscles to walk, run, climb or move in any way.............................

Looks like there is plenty good reason for the presence of iron apart from some form of preservation that is highly unlikely to occur naturally.


Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Oct 20, 2019 - 19:31:43
If you think the Bible is filled with fake stories, then one of us does.    I have shown you more than once that YE creationists often tell fake stories about what's in the Bible, but that's an entirely different thing.


It does explain why such molecules (not tissues, which are groups of cells organized to some function) are always found in the presence of iron.

Scientists to point out that the revisions  that YE creationists try to apply to scripture are often fairy tales.

Yep

Please do provide us with the revisions and fairy tales of YE's you claim they promote.

The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 11:12:35
Even if the above proves correct, you were wrong about the differentiated teeth,

You can look at the remains and see it.  One of the major differences between dinosaurs and mammals, is mammals have differentiated teeth.

Mammals have specialized teeth, such as canines for tearing through meat and molars for grinding food. Reptile teeth are uniform in shape, though they might vary in size.
https://sciencing.com/differences-similarities-between-mammals-reptiles-8179273.html

The only exception is the one that proves the rule.   Some mammal/reptile transitional therapsids had specialized teeth, and the enlarged fenestration in therapsid skulls eventually formed a zygomatic arch found only in mammals:
https://cooldinofacts.fandom.com/wiki/Therapsids

Quoteas you may well be proved wrong in the near future concerning a zygomatic arch.

See above.  Right at the point that mammals evolved from therapsids, we have this...



Thrinaxodon.  A cynodont ("dog tooth") therapsid.   Where there is writing, the enlarged fenestration of the skull (to allow larger muscles to attach to the jaw) produced a bridge of bone that will eventually form the zygomatic arch.

QuoteYou know all the evidence is not and cannot yet be in

See above.   There it is.  The only reptiles with specialized teeth were those transitional to mammals.

Quotewhy act so very confident about observations that are continually being updated and changed with new evidence.

As you see, your assumption is incorrect.  We've known about this for decades.



The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 11:41:01
Looks like there is plenty good reason for the presence of iron apart from some form of preservation that is highly unlikely to occur naturally.

The iron isn't there to preserve things.   They just happened to be preserved because there was a lot of iron there.

The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 11:43:41
Please do provide us with the revisions and fairy tales of YE's you claim they promote.

One particularly weird story:
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall"

Just not possible.   Even many creationists admit it.

"There was no rain before the Flood"

Not possible.

"The remains of the Ark were found on Mt. Ararat."

Easily debunked.  How many would you like to see?

Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 21:11:09
You can look at the remains and see it.  One of the major differences between dinosaurs and mammals, is mammals have differentiated teeth.

Mammals have specialized teeth, such as canines for tearing through meat and molars for grinding food. Reptile teeth are uniform in shape, though they might vary in size.
https://sciencing.com/differences-similarities-between-mammals-reptiles-8179273.html

The only exception is the one that proves the rule.   Some mammal/reptile transitional therapsids had specialized teeth, and the enlarged fenestration in therapsid skulls eventually formed a zygomatic arch found only in mammals:
https://cooldinofacts.fandom.com/wiki/Therapsids

See above.  Right at the point that mammals evolved from therapsids, we have this...



Thrinaxodon.  A cynodont ("dog tooth") therapsid.   Where there is writing, the enlarged fenestration of the skull (to allow larger muscles to attach to the jaw) produced a bridge of bone that will eventually form the zygomatic arch.

See above.   There it is.  The only reptiles with specialized teeth were those transitional to mammals.

As you see, your assumption is incorrect.  We've known about this for decades.

All presumptions of an evolutionist, which could change at any time via new evidence, as so very much of evolutionary theory has and does. Why did the articles I quoted speak of dinosaurs with differentiated teeth? Were they wrong? Expound. Define specialized teeth. So no dinosaurs had specialized teeth for dong what they did with their teeth?

Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 21:14:20
The iron isn't there to preserve things.   They just happened to be preserved because there was a lot of iron there.

No. Nothing is preserved simply because there is iron present. The conditions produced in the labs formulating this theory to defend their faith, do not naturally exist. Those experiments were conducted with exact intent and purpose creating conditions best suited to supply results conducive to defending evolutionary faith. They had nothing to do with what naturally transpires according to random chance.

Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 21:21:06
One particularly weird story:
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall"

Just not possible.   Even many creationists admit it.

"There was no rain before the Flood"

Not possible.

"The remains of the Ark were found on Mt. Ararat."

Easily debunked.  How many would you like to see?

As if you or any creationists know what is possible or not with God. So do you think God wastes energy, and heaven is subject to decay? If not, why would His creations have to be? God made the laws of nature, He is not subject to them.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

You reject the global flood, and therefore the different world that existed before it. The earth was watered in a different way preflood, according to scripture in any case. God is not as puny as you would make Him out to be. Sustaining a world without rain, is no dilemma for Him, though it is far beyond you and I. I understand of course that you consider the above scriptures to be fairly tale, as well as many others.

Christians being mistaken about evidence supporting their faith in the scriptures does not equal fairy tale. It is your belief that the scriptures testifying of the global flood is a fairy tale, that will not ever allow you to believe that the Ark could be found, no doubt.

YE's simply don't take the bible according to Barbarian or evolutionists to be the truth. this is not making up stories about what it says. They believe just what it says. You do not. You believe what you say it says. 




Amo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdJRkcR7N-8

Lengthy but good video for students, addressing many problems with the theory of evolution. It is broken up in segments so doesn't have to be watched all at once.

+-Recent Topics

In the middle of our heat wave...... by Rella
Today at 15:01:27

Creation scientists by Amo
Today at 12:45:03

IMMIGRATION INFO by Amo
Today at 12:36:02

A GLORIFIED BODY BEYOND THE SUNSET by 4WD
Today at 04:49:46

New Discovery explains why Climate Models don't work by 4WD
Today at 03:52:09

Hell's Daily Tally by NyawehNyoh
Yesterday at 18:42:56

mommydi by Alan
Yesterday at 12:34:55

Question from a Roman Catholic by DaveW
Yesterday at 07:05:52

How does one get "INTO CHRIST"?~ D. W. Baker by Red Baker
Yesterday at 05:11:38

Roman politics by Amo
Sun Jun 16, 2024 - 13:03:05

Powered by EzPortal