"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

Doc_Savage wrote: »

you're citing the man that coined the phrase "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." as an analogy to the origins of life?

... he was also one of the leading Atheists of his day and was Director of the prestigious Institute of Astronomy in the equally pretigious Cambridge University.:)

... and he was indeed correct in his analogy of "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" being just as likely as life originating and evolving spontaneously and without intelligent input!!!

J C

BMF Plint wrote: »

all this creationism stuff makes me sick how can someone believe that an omnipotent force created the universe.. All there scientific study is based on a book that was written about 1600 years ago when people thought the earth was flat. I think if anything the theory of Evolution is is evident when you have forward thinking people talking about the scientific points of things and solving problems; and the you have the backward people who believe in a mystical sky fairy who can send his only son down here and then murder him to prove a point... Retarded if you ask me

... if you ask me ... the real 'intellectually-challenged ones' are those who believe that they are directly descended from unicellular pondslime ... with nothing added but time and selected mistakes!!!!

BMF Plint wrote: »

all this creationism stuff makes me sick

... I used to feel that way as well ... when I was an Evolutionist ... but then I realised that my belief in the powers of Pondkind to become Mankind was a load of baloney ... and I have never needed a 'chill pill' ever since !!!

J C

pH wrote: »

J C - I understand that you're concentrating on your mathematical skills rather than taxonomy, however I'd still like to know what features of warm blooded dinosaurs lead you (and other creation scientists? or is this a personal breakthrough?) to conclude they were mammals?

Surface:volume ratio, size, warm-bloodedness, skeletal structure and the presence of hair ... or 'dino-fuzz' ... as the following quote calls it:-

Richard O. Prum, an evolutionary biologist at Yale said, “It’s an important advance to show that this dino fuzz really is feathers.”

According to Hans Dieter-Sues, a paleontologist with the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History the study is “scientifically sound.”

“I think the researchers really are looking at the fossilized remnants of melanosomes,” he added.

However, many researchers differ and argue that hair-like filaments are fossilized internal collagen and not related to feathers

... and you can read all about the dino-hair here:-

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100128/scientists-get-clear-evidence-color-dinosaurs-id-1098596.html

... and the dinos were apparently 'red-heads'!!!:eek::D:)

... I am now drawing a deep breath as I await immediate denial from the Evolutionists along the lines that the 'dino-fuzz' wasn't 'fuzz' or hair at all ... at all !!!!

... because this evidence 'blows the whole Evolutionary time frame out of the water'!!!!

... and the Evolutionists simply cannot have that ... or am I wrong, and are they open-minded enough to recognise when their theory has 'gone up in smoke' ... and are they prepared to admit it???

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Surface:volume ratio, size, warm-bloodedness, skeletal structure and the presence of hair ... or 'dino-fuzz' ... as the following quote calls it:-

Richard O. Prum, an evolutionary biologist at Yale said, “It’s an important advance to show that this dino fuzz really is feathers.”

According to Hans Dieter-Sues, a paleontologist with the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History the study is “scientifically sound.”

“I think the researchers really are looking at the fossilized remnants of melanosomes,” he added.

However, many researchers differ and argue that hair-like filaments are fossilized internal collagen and not related to feathers

... and you can read all about the dino-hair here:-

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100128/scientists-get-clear-evidence-color-dinosaurs-id-1098596.html

... and the dinos were apparently 'red-heads'!!!:eek::D:)

... I am now drawing a deep breath as I await immediate denial from the Evolutionists along the lines that the 'dino-fuzz' wasn't 'fuzz' or hair at all ... at all !!!!

... because this evidence 'blows the whole Evolutionary time frame out of the water'!!!!

... and the Evolutionists simply cannot have that ... or am I wrong, and they are open-minded enough to recognise when their theory has 'gone up in smoke' ... and they are prepared to admit it???

JC do you know what the definition of a mammal is?
Please state it.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC do you know what the definition of a mammal is?
Please state it.

... here is scientific proof that relatively large mammals lived alongside dinosaurs ... and actually hunted and killed dinosaurs.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6874-large-mammals-once-dined-on-dinosaurs.html

Originally, Evolutionists maintained that all dinos were scaly, cold-blooded lizards living alongside small mammals the size of mice ... and now they are admitting that some Dinos were hairy and warm-blooded ... and lived alongside large mammals.

... I await ... with baited breath the final admission by Evolutionists that some of the animals that were originally classified as 'Dinosaurs' were actually mammals themselves!!!!:pac:

... or is this still a 'step too far'???

Turtwig

Oh Sweet Jesus I see the light it's all so clear now. JC, you were right, evolution is a lie, but a lie worth living. Now, knowing that you cannot convince us out of this lie (because that would mean giving up our lack of moral values) can you please, as a new year's request just leave this thread to die. It deserves that.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... here is scientific proof that relatively large mammals lived alongside dinosaurs ... and actually hunted and killed Dinosaurs.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6874-large-mammals-once-dined-on-dinosaurs.html

Firstly, Evolutionists maintained that all dinos were scaly, cold-blooded lizards living alongside small mammals the size of mice ... and now they are admitting that some Dinos were hairy and warm-blooded ... and lived alongside large mammals.

... I await ... with baited breath the final admission by Evolutionists that some animals that were classified as 'Dinosaurs' were actually mammals themselves!!!!:pac:

... or is this still a 'step too far'???

That's not the question I asked.
It's very simple: state the definition of a mammal.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC do you know what the definition of a mammal is?
Please state it.

I think that it is tme for you to demonstrate that Evolutionists actually know how to identify a Mammal ... when they see one!!!:D

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I think that it is tme for you to demonstrate that Evolutionists actually know how to identify a Mammal ... when they see one!!!:D

Again for the third time JC: define what a mammal is.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh Sweet Jesus I see the light it's all so clear now. JC, you were right, evolution is a lie, but a lie worth living. Now, knowing that you cannot convince us out of this lie (because that would mean giving up our lack of moral values) can you please, as a new year's request just leave this thread to die. It deserves that.

It has just become very interesting ... why do you want to kill it off??

... and if you have seen the light ... please go and get Saved.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Again for the third time JC: define what a mammal is.

OK ... since the Evolutionists on this thread don't seem to know here is the definition of Mammal courtesy of Wikipedia:-
Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain. Some mammals have sweat glands, but most do not.

Happy now???

King Mob

J C wrote: »

OK ... since the Evolutionists on this thread don't seem to know here is the definition of Mammal courtesy of Wikipedia:-
Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain. Some mammals have sweat glands, but most do not.

Happy now???

So how does a dinosaur just having fur class it as a mammal when it lacks all those other distinguishing features?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh Sweet Jesus I see the light it's all so clear now. JC, you were right, evolution is a lie, but a lie worth living.

Does this mean that you have ceased to be an 'Agnostic' ... and you have now become a 'Gnostic'???:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Does this mean that you have ceased to be an 'Agnostic' ... and you have now become a 'Gnostic'???:)

The answer to that very much depends on what the answer to the request I made to you is.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So how does a dinosaur just having fur class it as a mammal when it lacks all those other distinguishing features?

The presence of fur is an unambiguous and definitive proof that an organism is a Mammal !!!
... please go and confirm this with an Evolutionary Biologist if you doubt me!!!:)

... game set and match ... to the Creationists!!!

... you may now close the thread and let me get back to my family!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Malty_T
Oh Sweet Jesus I see the light it's all so clear now. JC, you were right, evolution is a lie, but a lie worth living. Now, knowing that you cannot convince us out of this lie (because that would mean giving up our lack of moral values) can you please, as a new year's request just leave this thread to die. It deserves that.


Originally Posted by J C
Does this mean that you have ceased to be an 'Agnostic' ... and you have now become a 'Gnostic'???

Malty_T
The answer to that very much depends on what the answer to the request I made to you is.

I have asked for the thread to be closed ... in response to your request to let it die ... as I always like to go out on a 'high'!!!!
... so does this response by me now mean that you have become a 'Gnostic'????:pac:

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The presence of fur is an unambiguous and definitive proof that an organism is a Mammal !!!
... please go and confirm this with an Evolutionary Biologist if you doubt me!!!:)

... game set and match ... to the Creationists!!!

... you may now close the thread and let me get back to my family!!!!

So we can add another thing to the pile of stuff you are too dense to grasp.






All mammals too I suppose?


And I assume that Flipper here isn't a mammal?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So we can add another thing to the pile of stuff you are too dense to grasp.






All mammals too I suppose?

None of these creatures are warm-blooded ... and they are invertebrates ... so they are not Mammals!!!

... however, some Dinosaurs were warm-blooded, hairy, air-breathing, vertebrates ... and so were definititively Mammals!!!!:pac:

... and here is the Yahoo answer to your question about all mammals (including the marine ones) having hair...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060928160902AAsE1Z0

King Mob

J C wrote: »

None of these creatures are warm-blooded ... and they are invertebrates ... so they are not Mammals!!!

You said:

The presence of fur is an unambiguous and definitive proof that an organism is a Mammal !!!

I've given you examples of organisms that are furry and aren't mammals.
Now you're backtracking again because you said something extra stupid.

J C wrote: »

... however, some Dinosaurs were warm-blooded, hairy, air-breathing, vertebrates ... and so were definititively Mammals!!!!:pac:

So can you please show us this legendary creature?

pH

J C wrote:

however, some Dinosaurs were warm-blooded, hairy, air-breathing, vertebrates ... and so were definititively Mammals!!!!

You probably should keep reading wikipedia J C.

Paleontologists use a distinguishing feature that is shared by all living mammals (including monotremes), but is not present in any of the early Triassic synapsids: mammals use two bones for hearing that were used for eating by their ancestors. The earliest synapsids had a jaw joint composed of the articular (a small bone at the back of the lower jaw) and the quadrate (a small bone at the back of the upper jaw). Most reptiles including lizards, crocodilians, dinosaurs (and their descendants the birds) use this system, as did non-mammalian synapsids such as therapsids. Mammals have a different jaw joint, however, composed only of the dentary (the lower jaw bone which carries the teeth) and the squamosal (another small skull bone). In mammals the quadrate and articular bones have become the incus and malleus bones in the middle ear.

fatmammycat

Is not a platypus a mammal?

J C

pH wrote: »

You probably should keep reading wikipedia J C.

Mammals have three bones in their middle ear because they were originally designed that way.
The idea that a bone from the jaw 'moved' into the middle ear over time has no basis in either observed reality or logic ... and it has no basis even in evolutionary theory, as all intemediate structures would be a disadvantage to the organism and thus would be selected against!!!
The middle ear bones are observed to be precisely sized and co-ordinated with each other ... and any imprecision or putative intermediate structure between them would result in profound deafness!!!

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

Is not a platypus a mammal?

... it is an egg-laying mammal placed here by God to confound the Evolutionists!!!

... is it a bird? ... is it a plane? ... no it's a Specially Created Mammal !!!:)

pH

J C wrote: »

Mammals have three bones in their middle ear because they were originally designed that way.
The idea that a bone from the jaw 'moved' into the middle ear over time has no basis in either observed reality or logic ...

Yes, you could say that (though you'd be wrong), or you could say:

wikipedia wrote:

The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles is one of the most well-documented and important evolutionary events, demonstrating both numerous transitional forms as well as an excellent example of exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.
In reptiles, the eardrum is connected to the inner ear via a single bone, the stapes or stirrup, while the upper and lower jaws contain several bones not found in mammals. Over the course of the evolution of mammals, one lower and one upper jaw bone (the articular and quadrate) lost their purpose in the jaw joint and were put to new use in the middle ear, connecting to the stapes and forming a chain of three bones (collectively called the ossicles) which amplify sounds and allow more acute hearing. In mammals, these three bones are known as the malleus, incus, and stapes (hammer, anvil, and stirrup respectively).
The evidence that the malleus and incus are homologous to the reptilian articular and quadrate was originally embryological, and since this discovery an abundance of transitional fossils has both supported the conclusion and given a detailed history of the transition. The evolution of the stapes was an earlier and distinct event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles

Anyway, back to the original question, have any dinosaurs you've come across had the 3-bone mammalian inner-ear?

Fluffybums

fatmammycat wrote: »

Is not a platypus a mammal?

No it's a monotreme, as is the echidna.

Neither are Kangaroos, Wallabies, Wombats, Possums etc. they are marsupials.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by fatmammycat
Is not a platypus a mammal?

Fluffybums
No it's a monotreme, as is the echidna.

Neither are Kangaroos, Wallabies, Wombats, Possums etc. they are marsupials.

Yes, they are all Mammals.

The three main infraclass taxa of Mammals are monotremes, marsupials and placentals.:pac:

CiaranMT

This guy always makes me smile

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

I have asked for the thread to be closed ... in response to your request to let it die ... as I always like to go out on a 'high'!!!!
... so does this response by me now mean that you have become a 'Gnostic'????:pac:

This thread need not be closed, all you have to do is leave it to a wither and die. Yep, it would but it depends heavily on what action you take.

Galvasean

So J C uses an article about feathered dinosaurs as proof of dinosaurs being mammals (yep, everyone knows modern day mammals have feathers).
He then cites evidence that mammlas lived alongside dinosaurs (something nobody ever disputed) as further evidence that dinosaurs and mammals are one in the same.

I'm sorry but the guy is a f#cking idiot. No two ways ifs or buts about it. Such statements are idiocy in the extreme.
What a f#cking tool.

sponsoredwalk

JC I think we both know there's a post you've been consciously ignoring.

As for this mammal-dinosaur discussion:

Irregardless, name a reptile that breast-feeds. Heck, birds are their
descendents, can you name a bird that breastfeeds?
Breastfeeding is a uniquely mammalian trait. In fact, the term mammal
comes from the mammary gland, the milk producing gland that is present
in female mammals. Mammals are the only class of animal that breastfeeds.

Your three egg laying mammals are exceptions to the rule, not the
standard. They are more likely unusual by-products of evolution.
So in conclusion, while I am not saying it is impossible (nature can be

strange like that), there is nothing in modern biology that suggests any
dinosaur breastfed their young. If you have a theory that a certain
dinosaur breastfed, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not for the
rest of us to disprove it.
Link

First and foremost, mammary glands. These are the defining feature of
mammals, and give them their name. They are the glands that produce milk
to feed to the young. Only mammals have them, and no other animals do.
If something has mammary glands, it's a mammal, and if it doesn't, it isn't.

Dinosaurs were reptiles. They did not have mammary glands. They had
scaly skin or, in some species, feathers, whilst all mammals have at least
some hair. The dinosaurs laid eggs, whilst most mammals (though not all)
give birth to live young. Most dinosaurs were cold-blooded, whilst all
mammals are warm-blooded (some dinosaurs are thought to have been
warm-blooded, but certainly not all of them. Something the size of the
sauropods would soon overheat if it were warm-blooded). Dinosaurs had
teeth of all one type, whilst mammals have differentiated teeth - incisors,
molars, canines, etc. The lower jaw of dinosaurs was made up of more
than one bone, whilst the lower jaw of most mammals is a single bone.
Dinosaurs did not have the little bones in the inner ear which mammals
have (these actually evolved from some of the jaw bones). And so on.
link

Also,human and feline females have mammary glands, but snakes do not, so
having mammary glands is another derived trait shared by cats and humans
Link

Honestly I have no stake in this debate & although JC did say:

J C wrote: »

Dinosuars were certainly a diverse group of animals allright ... encompassing both 'cold-blooded' reptiles and 'warm-blooded' mammals and birds within their ranks.

I don't think any dinosaur can be classed as a mammal since mammary
glands are the defining feature of a mammal. Even your post
acknowledges this:

J C wrote: »

OK ... since the Evolutionists on this thread don't seem to know here is the definition of Mammal courtesy of Wikipedia:-
Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain. Some mammals have sweat glands, but most do not.

Happy now???

But you just completely ignore that little factor :rolleyes:

I have not read a tap of evidence by you that dinosaurs were mammals,
dinosaurs had no fur but some are thought to have feathers. There is a
huge difference between having fur or having feathers, & there is no
evidence that any dinosaur had mammary glands. So you were just
wrong when you claimed:

J C wrote: »

Dinosuars were certainly a diverse group of animals allright ... encompassing both 'cold-blooded' reptiles and'warm-blooded' mammals and birds within their ranks.

&

J C wrote: »

... you're the guys that are still in denial that some Dinos were warm-blooded mammals instead of cold-blooded lizards!!!!

I don't know, I've heard some dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded,
I don't know tbh but the central point is that you're wrong about this
mammal lark completely, will we get an acknowledgement of the fact
you were wrong from you about anything or will you dig deeper?

J C wrote: »

... here is scientific proof that relatively large mammals lived alongside dinosaurs ... and actually hunted and killed dinosaurs.

Nobody here is denying that, I found plenty of links of this, I even seen
mention of a dinosaur being found in the stomach of a mammal, what does
that prove? This most certainly does not prove that dinosaurs were
mammals as you claimed.

J C wrote: »

Originally, Evolutionists maintained that all dinos were scaly, cold-blooded lizards living alongside small mammals the size of mice ... and now they are admitting that some Dinos were hairy and warm-blooded ... and lived alongside large mammals.

... I await ... with baited breath the final admission by Evolutionists that some of the animals that were originally classified as 'Dinosaurs' were actually mammals themselves!!!!

... or is this still a 'step too far'???

Oh!!! I see! You view science in the way you view religion! If scientists
change their minds when new evidence comes in to convince them to
change their minds, to you that means evolution is wrong

This isn't religion, the whole point of science is to, by using evidence,
uncover the truth. This is the pettiest argument you've given yet, but
then I know you're grasping at straws since you can't talk about the
frankenproof anymore since I've explained to you how you're deceiving
everyone everytime you mention it.

J C wrote: »

The presence of fur is an unambiguous and definitive proof that an organism is a Mammal !!!
... please go and confirm this with an Evolutionary Biologist if you doubt me!!!

And the dinosaur with fur is where exactly???

J C wrote: »

... game set and match ... to the Creationists!!!

More of that characteristic gloating! Isn't that a sin in the bible or...?

J C wrote: »

... you may now close the thread and let me get back to my family!!!!

I know that the only reason you're saying this is because you can't answer
anything in my last post analyzing your proof, man the dishonesty you
illustrate is shocking.