1. Why do you think it was such a shock when they were first rediscovered in 1938? Because EVERYONE thought they were extinct.
2&3&4. They look exactly like they were portrayed. Take a look at the following fossils - http://www.dinofish.com/image16.htm http://www.amnh.org/naturalhistory/0501/images/0501_ceolo1.jpg http://www.nature.ca/discover/treasures/trsite_e/trimages/trfossil/trswhit-m.jpg
I don't see any legs. Nor do I see anything that points to lungs(and a form of locomotion on land) that would lead to such claims. I think you are making some of your stuff up.
5. There are over 80 different species of coelacanths that we know of. So for one or two of them to survive make headlines through out the world when they were discovered.
6. I seem to recall fossils of dragonfly's that look exactly like they do today, only that they were larger in the past. THere are fossils of cockroaches, even frogs,toads, sharks. So we have lots of examples of animals that have changes very little if at all. So that proves nothing. Evolution says that living being evolve to adapt to their environment. So if something doesn't need to change to survive/reproduce, then they won't change very much.
You're assuming men hunted dinosaurs for food. There is no evidence of that of which I am aware. In fact, I think your side would balk at that notion
Hmmm. There are dinosaurs that spent most of their life in the water because their girth to muscle ratio is so high that it is difficult for them to move on land. So instead of hunting them(some sauropods were only 15 meters) while they went on land to nest, our anceters decided to hunt very fast moving antelope and Wooly Mammoths with horns as large as the men at the time. Man, were our anceters stupid. More likely, ALL DINOSAURS DIED OFF MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE MAN EXISTED!!!!!
I don't think the Egyptians started until 2500-2000 years ad
I'm sorry if you do not track time like the rest of us. But BC years come before AD years. You live in the year 2003 AD. Plato died around 347 BC. Perhaps this will help in your further understanding of the world - http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q4_ad_bc_ce.html
No matter what, your claim that all dinosaurs lived within a span of 1000 - 1500 is laughable to anyone with a brain. I bet those dinosaurs in antarica were pretty cold - http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/locations/Antarctica.shtml
You don't have a measurable starting point because you literally don't even know the exact distance between earth and the moon. It is a rough distance.Lets start with the moon. Maybe this will help with your understanding of the exact disitance to the moon that you say we do not have(quote "They do this by beaming pulses of laser light to the Moon and measuring the time it takes for the light to reflect back to Earth. This technique has established the exact distance from Earth to the Moon to within a fraction of an inch.") - http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/moon.html
Or how about this one("An astronomer from the University of Washington is hoping to pin down the exact distance from the Earth to the Moon - to the last millimetre. Using a collection of instruments including a telescope, laser beam and several reflecting mirrors, he will use a technique called "laser ranging" to collect data over the next five years to reach the most accurate distance ever measured. Current measurements, although very precise, are only accurate to a few centimetres.") - http://www.universetoday.com/html/dailyarchive/article2002-0116.html
Furthermore, you don't know if there are obstructions shifting the apparent position of the star from where it actually is.
Using only trig we can get exact distances to many thousands of stars. So it goes back to my old argument that God must be tricking us in each and every one of these cases. AS far as we know, all other stars in the universe just went supernova. But we won't be able to tell until that light actually gets to us. In some cases that would take several billions of years.
If you can't garauntee you're pointed at the correct angles and matched to the same point on both ends of a known lenth, you can't get there from here. You obviously havn't been keeping up with technology. Your strong arm tactics may have worked a hundred years ago, but not any more. I'd say that we can be pretty accurate these days. Here is a nice debunking of one of your heros Kent Hovind - http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/stars.htm
We've not been to a single star yet to be able to establish a standard rule of distance that can be looked upon as sure. So don't try to sell a mathemitician with a physics background on your quackery. WOW!! You won't even accept trig to find the distances to the closest stars. You are an extreemist even in the YEC crowd. So trig is quackery? On that note, I will choose to ignore you from now on.
No, not true. It was stated they were extinct because they had not been observed by those who were being listened to on the subject. More than that was perpetuated by the same crowd and is documented in the link I will provide in response to your next segment. You don't see the difference. But I do. It is a fact that they were stated to be extinct. It is a proven fact that they are not.
2&3&4. They look exactly like they were portrayed. Take a look at the following fossils - http://www.dinofish.com/image16.htm http://www.amnh.org/naturalhistory/0501/images/0501_ceolo1.jpg http://www.nature.ca/discover/treasures/trsite_e/trimages/trfossil/trswhit-m.jpg I don't see any legs. Nor do I see anything that points to lungs(and a form of locomotion on land) that would lead to such claims. I think you are making some of your stuff up.
Read a copy of "Old Four Legs" - J. L. B. Smith. Then feed me this stuff. Below is a nice set of footnotes on the point. These quotations underscore what I've been saying. Though finding a copy of the book old four legs will probably be as elusive now as finding bigfoot, it's worth a laugh or two. I understand why the only mention of it on the net that I could find is from someone using it as a weapon in argument. I guess the memory of what your side propounds dissappears in the changing dialogue as things get disproved..
here
5. There are over 80 different species of coelacanths that we know of. So for one or two of them to survive make headlines through out the world when they were discovered.
There are over 80 fish classified as coelacanths in other words. Meaning that like cats, there is diversity among types of fish. But no evidence of evolution. One is not a precursor of another - merely a brother to it. So I don't know why you offered it. It says nothing.
6. I seem to recall fossils of dragonfly's that look exactly like they do today, only that they were larger in the past. THere are fossils of cockroaches, even frogs,toads, sharks. So we have lots of examples of animals that have changes very little if at all. So that proves nothing. Evolution says that living being evolve to adapt to their environment. So if something doesn't need to change to survive/reproduce, then they won't change very much.
But your crowd propounded the notion that the ceolacanths evolved and walked onto land. The link I provided above is proof of it, your sidestepping notwithstanding.
Hmmm. There are dinosaurs that spent most of their life in the water because their girth to muscle ratio is so high that it is difficult for them to move on land. So instead of hunting them(some sauropods were only 15 meters) while they went on land to nest, our anceters decided to hunt very fast moving antelope and Wooly Mammoths with horns as large as the men at the time. Man, were our anceters stupid. More likely, ALL DINOSAURS DIED OFF MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE MAN EXISTED!!!!!
I didn't say man was not our ancestor "stupid." Try making a rational point. I noted there is no evidence that men hunted dinosaurs. Doesn't mean they didn't. But the lack of cave paintings of hunts including dinosaurs neither proves nor disproves the notion that it could have happened. This is like saying that 4000 years from now if a photograph can't be found of men putting large hats on their heads shaped like condoms that it never happened. If you want to parade ignorant arguments and yell, you're just helping me.
I'm sorry if you do not track time like the rest of us. But BC years come before AD years.
I do track time the same way and corrected it, noting that it would be attacked. You aren't dissappointing me in my expectations of you. Everyone who doesn't think like you or isn't perfect must be stupid. And that is the liberal, atheistic upperclass snobbery mentality. I'm having a hard time imagining you as upperclass; but, the snob part you've already aptly demonstrated.
http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/moon.html
On this I will stand corrected as I was unaware of this. My literature does not mention it.
Using only trig we can get exact distances to many thousands of stars.
Only if you are sure of the star's position. Period. You can say otherwise all you wish; but, I know physics and I know math. And shy of knowing the position is not shifted or masked, you cannot say this. It only works in a vaccuum with no unknown mitigating factors.
Here is a nice debunking of one of your heros Kent Hovind - http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/stars.htm
I haven't quoted him and he's not a hero. So, you can go plunk that one back on a shelf somewhere.
WOW!! You won't even accept trig to find the distances to the closest stars.
No, I won't accept assumptions unless the assumptions can be proven true. It's called methodology. Proving it works nearby where there are no obstructions does not demonstrate that it works on the far distance where conditions are unknown. It's a forgone conclusion that if you're spear fishing, you can't aim where you percieve the fish to be or you will miss. That is a factual known. You don't want to admit that a condition could exist where you aim a spear at a star, if you will, and miss because you aimed at where you percieved it to be. It's brightness or percieved brightness, color, ect can be rendered irrelevant if it's location is masked. That is not blindness, it's stubborn ignorance.
On that note, I will choose to ignore you from now on.
By all means, run away. It fits your type.