New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Da_Shrimp]

A reading of the second link of 925 led me at once to the conclusion that it was the article of which Ichneumon's post 436 on this thread is a very detailed rebuttal.

After looking at the link, it's one I've seen before. It's not convincing: the Cocconino Sandstone is still very much a desert sandstone.

[DittoJed2]

The "Right" order is the order of ages with millions of years of variance between them. Here is an example of fossils in the wrong layer http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/485.asp

[Ichneumon]

And I therefore find that the response ---> "Free speech is a problem for you. You should start your own discussion club in your closet where it's relatively safe." to be justified.

Thank you for that information, but since that wasn't the sentence which triggered the non-compliance notice (and the portion to which Physicist refers to as namecalling), your feelings about that sentence are a diversion from the actual matter being discussed.

The portion of the post which was found objectionable was already highlighted in an earlier post, it looks as if you missed it.

[StolarStorm]

If you want to be real picky about it, I didn't exactly say that creationists weren't welcome. I said that I wished they'd stop witnessing (getting preachy). I also said that these threads didn't require input from those with no belief or understanding of the scientific method. If you are claiming this meant that creationists should stay away then you are basically conceding that they don't understand the scientific method.

Either way, I have no right to demand that anyone stay away from any thread... and I admit that. Luckily, as I have no authority on FR, my request has no power... thus you have nothing to fear from it. So drop it.

And... I also didn't have a problem with ALS's response. I made myself fair game.

[Right Wing Professor]

We know they're annual in the historical past, because we can count back layers until we find ones that contain volcanic dust, which we can correlate with known volcanic eruptions. We can also date CO2 in the layers. They give an entirely consistent picture for the histrocial period; so why did we go from 1/year oscillations in the historical period to 20/year oscillations earlier?

[Da_Shrimp]

Here is an example of fossils in the wrong layer

Why are they in the wrong layer? Ostracoderms like Anatolepis were the earliest known true vertebrates and have been known for over 100 years.

[VadeRetro]

I didn't say that.

Good idea. That would be totally indefensible.

The geological column is frequently not in the right order.

Also indefensible. The only "out of order" situations commonly encountered are easily recognizeable extreme warping and displacement along fault lines.

[DittoJed2]

Try this one:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_31march2002.aspIt is dated later.

[Da_Shrimp]

In fact, IIRC, the main debate was whether Anatolepis was a vertebrate or not, that's all. The link you cited is dishonest in some ways as it makes a false claim. No one in palaeontology was worried whether vertebrates could exist in the Cambrian or not, it's just that earlier techniques could not prove whether Anatolepis was a vertebrate or invertebrate.

[BMCDA]

You are mixing things up again. Cosmology is not the same as biological evolution.

Well, the universe can also be said to have always existed whereas 'always' means for all points in time that make sense. So 'before the big bang' makes as much sense as 'north of the north pole' (thanks to Physicist for this analogy).
You are also mistaken to think that the big bang is some kind of explosion which of course it is not. An explosion takes place within space but the big bang is the expansion of space itself.

Of course I'm only a layman in this regard but if you don't believe me we have a physicist here (just lurking behind the corner) who you can ask and who is much better at explaining these things than me.

[AndrewC]

I have asked you several times to keep me out of your discussion. I did not respond to your last post to me since it did not involve me in a discussion. Leave me alone. If you wish to comment, I cannot stop you nor will I try, but I will complain when you do not understand that I consider it provocative when you do not comply with my simple request to leave me out of your discussion. You have used language to me that I find offensive. You have previously called me a troll for my mere defense of an innocuous statement. LEAVE ME ALONE.

[AndrewC]

Luckily, as I have no authority on FR, my request has no power... thus you have nothing to fear from it. So drop it.

I will. It will leave some things hard to explain, but I'll try to figure out a way.

[DittoJed2]

The big bang is what evolutionists say caused earth to form. Therefore, it is relevant where the "bang" came from. Whether it was an "explosion" or a sudden appearance of something from nothing that made a bunch of hot stuff and spun a bunch of stuff around (stuff, of course appearing out of nowhere) is kinda irrelevant. The theory does not make scientific sense.

[Physicist]

And I therefore find that the response ---> Free speech is a problem for you. You should start your own discussion club in your closet where it's relatively safe. to be justified.

I see nothing wrong with that statement, either. I don't see where you're going with this.

[AndrewC]

I see nothing wrong with that statement, either. I don't see where you're going with this

I'm not going anywhere with it. I am dropping discussion of that statement.

[Physicist]

The big bang is what evolutionists say caused earth to form.

Some do, some don't. Charles Darwin was entirely ignorant of Big Bang cosmology, but that in no way hampered his insight.

Therefore, it is relevant where the "bang" came from. Whether it was an "explosion" or a sudden appearance of something from nothing that made a bunch of hot stuff and spun a bunch of stuff around (stuff, of course appearing out of nowhere) is kinda irrelevant. The theory does not make scientific sense.

To me it makes perfect sense. When you say that it doesn't make scientific sense, do you mean that you don't understand it, that you don't like how it sounds, or that the math doesn't work out?

[DittoJed2]

Science is based upon observation. Since science requires that SOMETHING be present in order for something to happen then the theory that NOTHING existed and brought forth SOMETHING is not scientific nor is it observable. You can hypothesize, but it is nonsense.

[BMCDA]

Maybe you want to go to this website before you come up with more strawmen:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Make sure to also read the FAQ.

[Right Wing Professor]

In fact, modern physics requires that something (virtual particles) is created out of nothing, every instant of time. And the measured values of several physical constants depend on that creation of something from nothing.

[BMCDA]

1000 ;-)