Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds

[Alate_One]

Explain how a tsunami could.

 

[Jose Fly]

This isn't that difficult.

For 6days and the other creationists, none of those fossils are transitional fossils because transitional fossils can't exist. And why can't transitionals exist? Because their existence would contradict "God's word". Therefore that fossil you just showed isn't a transitional. QED.

It's the application of the creationist framework....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Every post, every response, every dodged question, every bizarre reply from the creationists....it all stems directly from that framework.

Now, if you're like me and just engaging these creationists for the entertaining spectacle they provide, then continue on. But if you're actually trying to get somewhere with them, constantly showing them scientific papers, fossil specimens, and other products of science is a complete waste of time. All they'll do is apply the above framework and tell themselves that they've successfully defended their faith.

If you really want to try and get somewhere, you have to directly address that framework and the psychological basis for it. And even then you're only going to get anywhere if the creationist is willing to go down that path. Most however realize where that path leads and preemptively head off the discussion before it gets too far.

But showing them fossil after fossil after fossil and expecting them to ever do anything besides reply "No it isn't" is pure folly (except for the entertainment value).

 

[Greg Jennings]

This isn't that difficult.

For 6days and the other creationists, none of those fossils are transitional fossils because transitional fossils can't exist. And why can't transitionals exist? Because their existence would contradict "God's word". Therefore that fossil you just showed isn't a transitional. QED.

It's the application of the creationist framework....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Every post, every response, every dodged question, every bizarre reply from the creationists....it all stems directly from that framework.

Now, if you're like me and just engaging these creationists for the entertaining spectacle they provide, then continue on. But if you're actually trying to get somewhere with them, constantly showing them scientific papers, fossil specimens, and other products of science is a complete waste of time. All they'll do is apply the above framework and tell themselves that they've successfully defended their faith.

If you really want to try and get somewhere, you have to directly address that framework and the psychological basis for it. And even then you're only going to get anywhere if the creationist is willing to go down that path. Most however realize where that path leads and preemptively head off the discussion before it gets too far.

But showing them fossil after fossil after fossil and expecting them to ever do anything besides reply "No it isn't" is pure folly (except for the entertainment value).

Though I admit sometimes I get frustrated, this is 100% for the LOLs. I'm not overly worried about a shrinking super minority having any real impact on the world, and I have become painfully aware of just how thick the delusion for creationists is

 

[Stripe]

I'm not answering anymore questions you ask while dodging one of mine. You want an answer from me? Be an adult and have a conversation. Answer the question posed to you without dodging.

Trust me, I can live without answers from you. :thumb:

Those small pieces of rock are the entire makeup of a conglomerate.

Nope. You can't make rocks just be lumping a whole lot of rocks in the same place.

Mineral cement sticks the grains together.

Exactly. You need cement.

You can break apart many conglomerates with your hands.

That's because cement is hard to get all in one place and conglomerates need more of it than other sedimentary rocks.

Of course, ancient conglomerates will be significantly harder

Because... reasons. :idunno:

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/8490/width754/b2hvf29m-1331188594.jpg

Pretty pictures are not explanations.

Tell us how a tsunami can form rocks; don't just post a pretty picture and assert that it can be done.

This isn't that difficult.

For Darwinists, none of those fossils are from a global flood because a global flood can't exist. And why can't a flood exist? Because its existence would contradict their precious evolutionism. Therefore that evidence you just showed isn't evidence. QED.

It's the application of the Darwinist framework.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts evolutionism."

Every post, every response, every dodged question, every bizarre reply from the Darwinists; it all stems directly from that framework.

Now, if you're like me and engaging to improve your understanding, then continue on, but if you're actually trying to get somewhere with Darwinists, constantly showing them scientific papers, fossil specimens, and other products of science is a complete waste of time. All they'll do is apply the above framework and tell themselves that they've successfully defended their faith.

If you really want to try and get somewhere, you have to directly address that framework and the psychological basis for it. And even then you're only going to get anywhere if the Darwinist is willing to go down that path. However, most realize where that path leads and pre-emptively head off the discussion before it gets too far.

Showing them fossil after fossil after fossil and expecting them to ever do anything besides reply "No it isn't" is pure folly.

It's not even entertaining.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Trust me, I can live without answers from you. :thumb:

Then why do you keep asking me questions? Your actions are contradicting your words

Nope. You can't make rocks just be lumping a whole lot of rocks in the same place.

That's more or less how a conglomerate forms. The only thing missing in your description right here is that those lumped rocks get cemented together, and which leads us nicely into.......

Exactly. You need cement.

Via mineral precipitation from aqueous solution, yes

That's because cement is hard to get all in one place and conglomerates need more of it than other sedimentary rocks.

Because... reasons. :idunno:

Hold on a minute.....

Do you think "cement" in a conglomerate is dumped around it? How about you just tell me how you think a conglomerate forms, as you've been asked to do several times?

You keep on ranting about how you want to discuss this stuff, then you refuse to answer questions. What is the point?

 

[Stripe]

Though I admit sometimes I get frustrated, this is 100% for the LOLs. I'm not overly worried about a shrinking super minority having any real impact on the world, and I have become painfully aware of just how thick the delusion for creationists is

So you're just a troll.

Why would anyone talk to you?

 

[Stripe]

Via mineral precipitation from aqueous solution, yes.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that.

The water that transports cement in transports it out as well.

What you need is a sediment dump, where the water only is removed.

This is why we don't see tsunami and floods forming rock layers. They only provide two of the three necessary rock-making ingredients.

Do you think "cement" in a conglomerate is dumped around it?

Yes. That's the only way to get it there. A constant flow of water takes away as much as it brings in.

You keep on ranting about how you want to discuss this stuff, then you refuse to answer questions. What is the point?

Because you're a self-confessed troll.

You're here for the giggles.

You have no interest in examining ideas you are desperate to believe must be false.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that.

The water that transports cement in transports it out as well.

What you need is a sediment dump, where the water only is removed.

Please give a real world example of the boldnened words. I'm not following what you're saying

This is why we don't see tsunami and floods forming rock layers. They only provide two of the three necessary rock-making ingredients.

I'm not sure if those two form layers but they definitely transport sediment/grains that is eventually lithified. They provide the raw materials for many sedimentary rocks

Yes. That's the only way to get it there. A constant flow of water takes away as much as it brings in.

Are you saying that's the only possible way a conglomerate forms? As I mentioned previously, many conglomerates are cemented together via mineral precipitation from aqueous solution. That has nothing to do with a sediment dump

You're here for the giggles.

Somewhat true, but I at least try to engage rationally

You have no interest in examining ideas you are desperate to believe must be false.

Not true. I used to believe with all my heart in literal Genesis and Noah's flood and all that. Then I did some real research, and realized that the biblical Genesis rarely lines up with what we KNOW about the real world.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not sure if those two form layers but they definitely transport sediment/grains that is eventually lithified.

Nope.

Not unless we assume the truth of your agenda.

They provide the raw materials for many sedimentary rocks

They provide two out of three of the necessary ingredients. They will never form a rock layer.

Are you saying that's the only possible way a conglomerate forms? As I mentioned previously, many conglomerates are cemented together via mineral precipitation from aqueous solution. That has nothing to do with a sediment dump.

Assuming the truth of your ideas is a logical fallacy called begging the question. In the rock record we see conglomerates, which are cemented layers of unsorted, alluvial deposits. This requires that there was a high water flow with high cement content and the sudden removal of the water so the cement could be dumped out of solution.

Rivers today do not do this.

Tsunami don't.

Floods don't.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.

Not unless we assume the truth of your agenda.

So you reject the basic, common knowledge findings of the geological community? I mean, you are rejecting the kind of stuff that you learn in a freshman lab course. This is ridiculous

They provide two out of three of the necessary ingredients. They will never form a rock layer.

Assuming the truth of your ideas is a logical fallacy called begging the question. In the rock record we see conglomerates, which are cemented layers of unsorted, alluvial deposits. This requires that there was a high water flow with high cement content and the sudden removal of the water so the cement could be dumped out of solution.

Rivers today do not do this.

Tsunami don't.

Floods don't.

It's common knowledge that conglomerates form exactly how I described it to you. If you don't want to accept plain fact then that's up to you. Claiming that conglomerates don't form anymore is equally ridiculous. Can you cite a single source claiming as much?


You never answered this earlier, but maybe you will now so I can understand why you are more qualified than the entirety of geology to answer questions about geology:
What experience do you have in the field with rocks/minerals/fossils? "A lot" isn't a satisfactory reply

 

[Stripe]

This is ridiculous.

But you're going to appeal to popularity to back up your assertions, not evidence.

If you don't like my ideas, the scientific approach says you provide evidence that discounts them, not wail about what gets taught in universities as if that were gospel.

It's common knowledge that conglomerates form exactly how I described it to you.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

Claiming that conglomerates don't form anymore is equally ridiculous. Can you cite a single source claiming as much?

Yeah. Me. :thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

It's the application of the Darwinist framework.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts evolutionism."

Except there's one key, fundamental difference. The above is 100% fake, entirely made up by you. No scientific organization has ever said or written that.

The creationist framework OTOH...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

...is 100% real and is explicitly and proudly stated at AiG's website.

Of course, I guess this further illustrates the original point about creationists and creationism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Though I admit sometimes I get frustrated, this is 100% for the LOLs. I'm not overly worried about a shrinking super minority having any real impact on the world, and I have become painfully aware of just how thick the delusion for creationists is

Always good to keep perspective. :up:

 

[Greg Jennings]

But you're going to appeal to popularity to back up your assertions, not evidence.

If you don't like my ideas, the scientific approach says you provide evidence that discounts them, not wail about what gets taught in universities as if that were gospel.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

Yeah. Me. :thumb:

You didn't provide evidence. If my words aren't evidence, then how are yours? At least mine are backed up by real science. As you admit above, yours aren't supported by anyone but yourself.

At any rate, you've dodged yet another of my questions. I'm finished "conversing" with you for the moment, as I'd like to actually engage with someone rather than a troll. Feel free to lie and tell others that I "ran for the hills." If there is one thing YECs are good at, it's lying

 

[Greg Jennings]

The creationist framework OTOH...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

...is 100% real and is explicitly and proudly stated at AiG's website.

Of course, I guess this further illustrates the original point about creationists and creationism.

:rotfl:

I guess Dr.....oops, I mean Mr. Ken Ham doesn't understand science, history, or irony. But I guess that hilarious debate he had with Bill Nye made that pretty clear

 

[Stripe]

You didn't provide evidence.

For what? :idunno:

That I am the source you asked for?

If my words aren't evidence, then how are yours?

I haven't presented any evidence. We're still trying to get you to recant the nonsense about tsunami making rocks.

At least mine are backed up by real science.

Begging the question is still a logical fallacy. Your nonsense doesn't go away because you repeat it lots.

As you admit above, yours aren't supported by anyone but yourself.

Uh, nope. Didn't say that either.

I'm finished "conversing" with you for the moment

Bye. :wave2:

 

[Greg Jennings]

For what? :idunno:

That I am the source you asked for?

Perhaps I should rephrase: your ideas are incorrect, AND you have nothing to back them up with. I've been through many classes on the matter recently, and unless my professors are secretly idiots then you are wrong. You have admitted that your ideas only come from yourself. They aren't backed up by anything. Yet you want me to take them seriously, even though I have much more qualified people telling me your ideas are full of crap

I haven't presented any evidence. We're still trying to get you to recant the nonsense about tsunami making rocks.

And I'm still trying to get you to show me something that agrees with you that, "conglomerates don't form anymore." But you're never going to provide that are you? If you do, I'll trove through the Internet to get you a tsunami rock

Begging the question is still a logical fallacy. Your nonsense doesn't go away because you repeat it lots.

Please explain how saying truthfully that my facts are backed up by science and yours are not.....is begging the question? This is your version of 6days' "strawman." You yell it repeatedly when you're cornered factually

Uh, nope. Didn't say that either.

Then you can provide one source agreeing with you? When asked if you have one source agreeing with your conglomerate info, you said "Yeah. Me :thumb:"

If you can't see the issue there, then you're stupid. Plain and simple

 

[6days]

I don't have a problem with the quote. I have a problem with you reading it and seein it as, "this isn't a dinosaur," when it clearly says that it is.

Your link says 'It looks like a bird, but it isn't a bird'. That reminds me of a fossil found in a dinosaur layer and evolutionists said something like 'it looks like a duck and acts like a duck but it ain't a duck'.*

You see an animal with a long bony tail, a dinosaur head with teeth and no beak, two feathered arms with three claws apiece

Yes... That is what I see, although "dinosaur head" is your characterization. Same as before....We see great diversity amongst birds, bith modern and extinct.

and a conclusion by scientists THAT THIS IS A VELOCIRAPTOR......

Yes... that is the conclusion of many scientists. However, if you know anything about fossils, and you do; then you are aware of false, and / or opposing opinions on almost every fossil.

Examples of a few false conclusions:

* Scientists concluded archaeoptetyx was a*Compsognathus*dinosaur.

* Some evolutionists even concluded it was a hoax.*

We could go on.....and on

And in order to protect your religious ideology, you say, "it's a bird!"

Ha..... It seems YOU are the one defending your religious ideology. I haven't said it is a bird or a dinosaur. I don't know. Your article says it looks like a bird. It does share common characteristics with other birds. *

while denying that birds and dinosaurs are related.

Likewise, I deny dogs and cats are related....although they have many simarities.*

Some people are just too delusional or stubborn to get anywhere with.

Yes...you are correct. They start with the conclusion then shoehorn explanations to try make the data conform to that conclusion.*

*Or maybe you can tell me what separates the "dinosaur kind" from the "bird kind"?

It seems you are asking this from the Biblical perspective of kinds.*

What we know is that on the 5th day...

"God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind".

Then the flowing day...

"God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened.**God made all sorts of wild animals...

 

[Greg Jennings]

Your link says 'It looks like a bird, but it isn't a bird'. That reminds me of a fossil found in a dinosaur layer and evolutionists said something like 'it looks like a duck and acts like a duck but it ain't a duck'.*

Yes... That is what I see, although "dinosaur head" is your characterization. Same as before....We see great diversity amongst birds, bith modern and extinct.

Yes... that is the conclusion of many scientists. However, if you know anything about fossils, and you do; then you are aware of false, and / or opposing opinions on almost every fossil.

Ha..... It seems YOU are the one defending your religious ideology. I haven't said it is a bird or a dinosaur. I don't know. Your article says it looks like a bird. It does share common characteristics with other birds. *

Yes...you are correct. They start with the conclusion then shoehorn explanations to try make the data conform to that conclusion.*

It seems you are asking this from the Biblical perspective of kinds.*

What we know is that on the 5th day...

"God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind".

Then the flowing day...

"God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened.**God made all sorts of wild animals...

You have repeatedly stated in the past - with Stripe too - that "kinds" is a term that applies better than "species" to the different organisms that are on the planet. You have also said that "kinds" cannot produce a new "kind", so that a lion makes a lion, a bear makes a bear, and so on.

If that is true, then why can't you tell whether the fossil skeleton is a dinosaur or a bird? Which "kind" does it fit into? And if you cannot tell the difference between the therapod dinosaur kind and the bird kind, doesn't that defeat your argument that "kinds" is a good scientific term?

Or are birds not a "kind"? Are they a branch of the therapod dinosaur kind? Do you have thoughtful answers to these questions?

Examples of a few false conclusions:

* Scientists concluded archaeoptetyx was a*Compsognathus*dinosaur.

* Some evolutionists even concluded it was a hoax.*

We could go on.....and on

If you could provide the source, please. Those two have very different vertebral structure in the neck. If there was anything close to a complete specimen, then I don't see how this error could be made.

Likewise, I deny dogs and cats are related....although they have many simarities.

And you'd also have no problem telling apart cats and dogs by complete skeletons. But you can't tell birds from dinosaurs using the same metric. That's not an issue with cats and dogs, or any other example you come up with. It amazes me that you think both experts in dinosaur AND bird anatomy would accept this to be a dinosaur and be wrong. You think science is a game.

I also want to revisit what you said regarding the feathered dinosaur tail trapped within amber. You claimed that we cannot know if it was truly a dinosaur tail. To that I respond: name one species of bird that has ever existed that had/has a long, bony tail

 

[6days]

*You have repeatedly stated in the past...that "kinds" is a term that applies better than "species" to the different organisms that are on the planet.

Nope... another strawman.

Examples of a few false conclusions:
* Scientists concluded archaeopteryx was a Compsognathus dinosaur.
* Some evolutionists even concluded it was a hoax.

We could go on.....and on

If you could provide the source, please.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html


Lots more false conclusions on fossils...if interested.

Likewise, I deny dogs and cats are related....although they have many simarities.

And you'd also have no problem telling apart cats and dogs by complete skeletons. But you can't tell birds from dinosaurs using the same metric.

Thats not true, although bones can sing almost any song you want.*

I also want to revisit what you said regarding the feathered dinosaur tail trapped within amber.

You mean the tail vertebrae with feathers.

You claimed that we cannot know if it was truly a dinosaur tail.

True... it likely belonged to a creature or bird about the size of a sparrow.*

*To that I respond: name one species of bird that has ever existed that had/has a long, bony tail

Did the amber creature have a long bony tail? We don't know. Archaeopteryx had a long bony tail....*http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/18/rsbl.2011.0884