Perhaps Dragons are real after all, and not just exaggerated Crocodiles

Started Nov 24, 2012 | Discussions thread
Lee Jay
Forum ProPosts: 44,486Gear list
Like?
Re: Perhaps Dragons are real after all, and not just exaggerated Crocodiles
In reply to PhilPreston3072, Nov 27, 2012

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

You just need some common sense.

Common sense is neither common nor sensible. It means you are applying your own personal experience to a new situation. How many dinosaur extinctions did you live through 65 million years ago? Zero.

How many have you?

How would you know what happened 1000 years ago, let alone 4500 years ago without history books?

It's called "forensic evidence". Look it up.

On the one hand you've got people of recent times claiming that dinosaurs died out before the existence of humans.

Not claiming, showing, with multiple lines of evidence from multiple branches of science from biology to orbital mechanics to geology to nuclear physics.

Please show me.

I have, repeatedly. Try this one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar00.html

On the other, you've got human works from the distant past in art, literature and culture that testify that these dinosaurs have been witnessed by them as live animals.

We have no such thing.

Denial.

Some dubious cave paintings, uncorrelated with anything or each other, do not make evidence.

Eye witness testimony is almost always the least reliable form of evidence.

I guess you won't be needed if you happen to witness a murder or a complicated car accident. My DOB is probably unreliable too since it was only witnessed by my parents and grandparents, and never scientifically dated.

In the courts, eye witness testimony is almost totally useless unless corroborated by more reliable evidence. Uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence there is.

If those that weren't there have reliable repeatable evidence than I'd trust them far, far more than eye witnesses that I could interrogate. Eye witnesses that have been dead for thousands of years that left nothing but little bits of art are almost totally worthless.

So we'll tar all eye witnesses with the same brush then.

No, live eye witnesses are somewhat less useless than dead ones. Dead ones that are identified are somewhat less useless than unidentified ones. Dead, unidentified ones that wrote their testimony in a detailed and dated way are somewhat less useless than ones that wrote non-distinct non-dated non-signed testimony. That last group is all you've got, and on the worthless scale, it's probably more worthless than no evidence at all.

The fact that no dinosaur fossils have ever been found that are newer than 65 million years is telling, however.

Suggestive, yes. But it's not absolute, since there are examples of organisms that are still alive today even though the only fossils of them are in the same layers or below the dinosaurs. These examples falsify an absolutely certain extinction date by geology.

Wrong. Fossilization is a rare process. We wouldn't expect to find every species fossilized with every other species. You gave some astonishingly ridiculous examples in the other thread of humans not being found with individual species of rare fish or shrimp. This seems to mean something to you despite the fact that the species in question don't life (or die) in the same locations. Dinosaurs were thousands of exceptionally common (dominant, in fact) land species, and if humans lived along side them, we would expect to find our bones with at least some of those species. We don't.

That's false. In this case, we have a clear cutoff. We also have a layer of vanadium-laden soil between dinosaur fossils and no dinosaur fossils. And we now have a dated impact site consistent with that fossil and geological evidence. Game. Set. Match.

I believe you mean Iridium.

Ha! Brain cramp. Sorry.

Iridium can also come from volcanoes, which is the other theory of what killed the dinosaurs. In any case, you've only confirmed that a catastrophe buried a significant number of dinosaurs. How can you be sure there were no survivors? Geology doesn't always record the survivors.

We know that some of the aves survived.

I would also be wary of putting great faith in the radiometric dating system.

That's because you're biased by some useless old writings. This system is as solid as it gets in science. It's been repeatedly tested and confirmed by such varied lines of scientific inquiry from geology to nuclear physics to supernova investigations. If radiometric dating didn't work, little things like the stars wouldn't work either.

Perhaps you ignore the numerous cases of incorrect radiometric dates for known, historic lava flows. See http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_r01/

I already obliterated your false and dishonest claim here. I know calling an icr claim false and dishonest is redundant, so I won't.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow