View Poll Results: Do you believe in science or religion?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Noah did live to 979 years old as in Bible

    2 15.38%
  • Noah probably did not live longer than 90 years old

    4 30.77%
  • Do you believe in religion over science

    0 0%
  • Do you believe in science over religion

    6 46.15%
  • Another of Anti-Christ's silly polls

    7 53.85%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 275
  1. #46
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Well perhaps someone with more knowledge of reptile growth rates than me could work out exactly how long it would take for a penny lizard to grown into a t-rex.
    I'm no lizard expert but I know enough to say there is no lizard alive today which is anatomically anything like a T-Rex. There are some similarities between earlier "dinosaurs" like iguanadons and modern iguanas but the closest think alive today to most theropods (the group in which many dinosaurs are classified) are not lizards but birds.

    I also strongly suspect most lizards do not keep growing linearly throughout their entire life. Even if they did, then Igor's theory would still only make sense if lizards were dying from skin cancer or some other UV related disorder. Again, no expert, but I'm pretty confident that that is not the case.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #47
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    This hypothesis could very well be wrong. But what is "demonstrably wrong"?
    Demonstrably wrong means it is able to be shown it is wrong. That is, we are in possession of enough facts that the hypothesis can't possibly be true to as much certainty as science is capable of showing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    That reptiles grow until they die?
    I strongly suspect this is not true. Yes certain features like tails are able to be lost and grown back (to a certain extent) but I don't believe reptiles in general keep growing ad infinitum even in their normal lifespans

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Or that dinosaurs were gigantic reptiles?
    This too. There are dinosaurs which are anatomically nothing like any modern lizard. Hip structure alone of theropods is enough to distinguish those dinosaurs from all modern reptiles.

    Still if you think the hypothesis is defensible then present the evidence for both central claims (infinite growth and anatomical similarities between dinosaurs and modern reptiles).
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #48
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,208
    Today I read how all mammals and whales (also mammals when I think of it) all have seven ribs. And if whales were whales when Noah and Jonah were around when were they cows? And maybe repeating I seen a doco on a whale being disected the other night and lo and behold there were it's redundant legs on inside. And Creationists will try and tell us that they did not come from mammals???

  4. #49
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Igor,

    One thing you will have to demonstrate with regard the "lizards continue growing" claim is that this growth is not asymptotic to some smaller than dinosaur limit. For example you might have a lizard which has length 0.5 metres after one year and then grows 0.25 metres in its second year, 0.125 metres in this third year and so on.

    Now I don't claim such a lizard exists but if it did then it would theoretically keep growing throughout its life but it would never get to more than one metre long, even if it lived for 10,000 years. So that sort of continuous growth does not support your hypothesis.

    Earlier I used the words "linear growth" to describe the sort of growth you would need to demonstrate, however that may be too much. You would just need to demonstrate growth such that it is non-asymptotic, or at the very least would lead to apatosaurus sized lizards with a relatively short time frame (say 1,000 years).

    Good luck.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Demonstrably wrong means it is able to be shown it is wrong. That is, we are in possession of enough facts that the hypothesis can't possibly be true to as much certainty as science is capable of showing.
    Demonstrably wrong means you can prove it wrong.
    Everything else falls into categories from "very likely" to "very unlikely".

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I strongly suspect this is not true. Yes certain features like tails are able to be lost and grown back (to a certain extent) but I don't believe reptiles in general keep growing ad infinitum even in their normal lifespans
    It is actually true. Those that stop growing in length keep bulking up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    This too. There are dinosaurs which are anatomically nothing like any modern lizard. Hip structure alone of theropods is enough to distinguish those dinosaurs from all modern reptiles.
    There are many types of reptiles (and not all of them are lizards). Dinosaurs are also reptiles. Obviously those types don't exist because they are extinct.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  6. #51
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Demonstrably wrong means you can prove it wrong.
    Everything else falls into categories from "very likely" to "very unlikely".
    I think you are confusing what is right and wrong and what what is believed to be right or wrong. Demonstrably just means able to be demonstrated. What you think that word means personally is up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    It is actually true. Those that stop growing in length keep bulking up.
    Now I think you are confusing growth with obesity. Reptiles will not keep "bulking up" for ever. They will eventually die. And in any regard an apatosaurus is not just really fat, it is really long like 23 metres long.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    There are many types of reptiles (and not all of them are lizards). Dinosaurs are also reptiles. Obviously those types don't exist because they are extinct.
    So if they are are now extinct the novel part of you post is what?

    That the huge sizes were only possible in the pre-flood climate.

    or

    That if were to somehow reinstate the pre-flood climate that modern reptiles would grow until they were the size of the dinosaurs.

    or

    The whole Dinosauria superorder is a mistake and the dinosaurs are simply super-sized extinct species of modern extant orders. (That is either Crocodilia; Sphenodontia (2 species); Squamata or Testudines).
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #52
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,242
    If you are saying that they are now extinct doesn't that just completely contradict the hypothesis that today's reptiles can grow into dinosaurs given the (supposed) conditions from a few thousand years ago.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  8. #53
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Don't want to comment on human longevity, but there is an interesting hypothesis explaining the extinction of dinosaurs:
    Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher, blocking UV and allowing reptiles to live much longer.
    Reptiles are known to grow as long as they live, hence dinosaurs grew to a gigantic size.
    I am no herpetologist, but I thought a lack of UV light inhibits a reptiles ability to produce calcium and therefore stunts their growth.

  9. #54
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,208

    Silly me sillier you Jono

    I have accidentially deleted my post asking Jono if he believes the speed of light has slowed down by a very large factor to its present speed - because Creationists argue that to allow for light from very distant stars millions of light years away to already reach Earth that the speed of light was much faster then.

    Jono, I am waiting?

  10. #55
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,208
    I am not into science or maths much. Could someone work out what would have to have been the speed of light so that 6,000 years ago those most distance stars' light would have already reached earth?

    As ancient Greeks etc chartered the stars we know that they were already in place.

    I am still waiting Jono - mop and bucket required

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Actually I wouldn't be surprised if your hypothesis were on Jono's site as one of the dumber-than-your-average-creationist-argument arguments that creationists should not use.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Jono,
    Just to save us all some time. I thought you would like to add "dinosaurs are just overgrown lizards" to your list
    What does it have to do with evolutionism/creation debate?
    How this hypothesis, whether it's right or wrong, strengthen or weakens any position?

    You guys seem to be easily disturbed by any idea that does not conform to your orthodoxy, even though very little is actually known about past flora and fauna, including the time of dinosaurs.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  12. #57
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    ... even though very little is actually known about past flora and fauna, including the time of dinosaurs.
    You shouldn't generalise your level of understanding to others.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    As a matter of interest (to me anyway), given that Stegosaurus is believed by scientists to have lived (and died out) approximately 150M years ago, what is the scientific explanation for carvings of a stegosaurus appearing on the temple at Angkor?

    I don't see how one can reasonably claim that the builders of Angkor used fossils as the basis of their drawing.

    The most obvious answer is that the builders of Angkor and a stegosaurus co-existed.

    Comments?
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  14. #59
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    You shouldn't generalise your level of understanding to others.
    The difference between an idiot and an intelligent human being is that idiot thinks he knows everything, and an intelligent person understands how little he knows.
    I prefer to think of majority to be intelligent. If you don't belong to this majority - please accept my condolences.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  15. #60
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    As a matter of interest (to me anyway), given that Stegosaurus is believed by scientists to have lived (and died out) approximately 150M years ago, what is the scientific explanation for carvings of a stegosaurus appearing on the temple at Angkor?

    I don't see how one can reasonably claim that the builders of Angkor used fossils as the basis of their drawing.

    The most obvious answer is that the builders of Angkor and a stegosaurus co-existed.

    Comments?
    Another question:
    What is the origin of dragon stories? And why dragons are so similar to dinosaurs?
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2177
    Last Post: 30-03-2019, 06:54 PM
  2. Charles Robert Darwin 1809-1882
    By antichrist in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 02:18 PM
  3. Tsunami hits NSWCA members
    By peter_parr in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 21-12-2007, 08:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •