The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

No the triceratops was not a rhino. Rhinos are perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates). Triceratops was not, it had even toes on its back legs, 4 in all, and 5 on its front legs, nothing like the Rhino which has 3 toes on all legs and bears it's weight on the middle toe, like other odd toed ungulates.

The number of toes expressed isn't a definitive reason for not classifying a Triceratops as a type of Rhino especially in view of the fact that they possessed the genetic diversity of being both perissodactyls and artiodactyls i.e. they were both odd-toed and even-toed ungulates.

... and there were many other warm-blooded 'Dinosaurs' as well ...
... and I know than many Evolutionists know that ... but are afraid to admit that they do!!!

However, Scientific American is now 'warming' to the idea that some Dinos were endothermic ... and guess what? ... they have illustrated their article with a picture of a Rhino and a Triceratops ... and they said that “Studying modern mammals can provide insights into the metabolism of dinosaurs” no less !!!

Have a look below guys ... :eek:

Warning ... this could destroy a belief in Evolution ... in anybody where it isn't already a faith!!!:eek:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dinosaurs-warm-blooded-animals-metabolism

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

The number of toes expressed isn't a definitive reason for not classifying a Triceratops as a type of Rhino

Yes it is, Rhinos are defined as being odd toed, it is part of the classification process that classifies an animal as a type of Rhino,, they belong to a set of odd toed mammals, if a creature is not odd toed it cannot, by definition, be considered a type of Rhino.

But again you already know this, all this has already been explained to you many many times.

Troll harder bro, troll harder. :rolleyes:

Quatermain

You should read articles before you post them.

An important clue has now been uncovered — not in Triceratops and its relatives, but in herbivorous mammals.

Digging your own grave, old boy.

J C

Quatermain wrote: »

You should read articles before you post them.
Quote:
An important clue has now been uncovered — not in Triceratops and its relatives, but in herbivorous mammals.

... and you should read your quotes before you post them!!!:)
The point is that Triceratops looked like a Mammal, walked like a Mammal ... and had the same physiology as an endothermic Mammal ... and do you know what? ... it was a Mammal !!!

... and there goes Evolutionism 'up in smoke' ... for everyone except those with a deep faith in Evolutionism!!!
... and the faith required ... has just got very deep indeed!!:eek:

Quatermain wrote: »

Digging your own grave, old boy.

The only grave being dug here is for Evolutionism ... but like some kind of 'living dead' ... it stumbles on and refuses to die ... even though it is in an advanced state of decay!!!:)

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes it is, Rhinos are defined as being odd toed, it is part of the classification process that classifies an animal as a type of Rhino,, they belong to a set of odd toed mammals, if a creature is not odd toed it cannot, by definition, be considered a type of Rhino.

The Triceratops was a perissodactyl mammal ... as it had five toes on its front feet and was an endothermic quadruped!!

Zombrex wrote: »

But again you already know this, all this has already been explained to you many many times.

Troll harder bro, troll harder. :rolleyes:

Please strop trolling!!!!:(

Quatermain

I always figure the more smiley faces you post, the more desperate you're getting. Now we get into you twisting sentence structure until it screams for mercy.

No matter how you want to change the bold on that sentence, it says that a triceratops is not a mammal. Once again:

An important clue has now been uncovered — not in Triceratops and its relatives, but in herbivorous mammals.

Not a triceratops, but a mammal. Mammals are what they are after. Nowhere does it say in that article that the two are related. Now, the sentence would really work if triceratops ate meat, or was a dinosaur. I can guess which one you will pounce upon.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... and you should read your quotes before you post them!!!:)
The point is that Triceratops looked like a Mammal, walked like a Mammal ... and had the same physiology as an endothermic Mammal ... and do you know what? ... it was a Mammal !!!

... and there goes Evolutionism 'up in smoke' ... for everyone except those with a deep faith in Evolutionism!!!
... and the faith required ... has just got very deep indeed!!:eek:

The only grave being dug here is for Evolutionism ... but like some kind of 'living dead' ... it stumbles on and refuses to lie down and be buried ... even though it is in an advanced state of decay!!!:)

Lol, so it used to be a Rhino, now it just "looks" like a mammal.

Was the Triceratops a sauropsida or a synapsids JC?

Troll harder bro, troll harder. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

The Triceratops was a perissodactyl mammal ... as it had five toes on its front feet and was an endothermic quadruped!!


Please strop trolling!!!!:(

And 4 on it back legs, meaning it wasn't a perissodactyl. Or does that not matter because to you it "looks" like a Rhino?

Troll harder bro, troll harder. :rolleyes:

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

The point is that Triceratops looked like a Mammal

Yeah, I'm sure there are just an abundance of egg-laying, beaked ungulate's with frills and no mammary glands, frolicking around Africa right now. :rolleyes:

There are an massive amount of features unique to dinosaurs, and a massive amount of features unique to mammals that neither families share. But disingenuously as always, you go out of your way to look for some trivial features to compare and jump straight to an immediate conclusion, without understanding anything about how we actually define a clade.

You've lost this debate the moment to stepped foot in it. Keep wasting your time with your fantasies if you like here in the Christianity forum. It's no skin off my back.

For the record, since you're bringing up similarities - The similarities between humans and chimps are infinitely closer than triceratops and rhinos, at both a anatomical and a genetic level. I'm happy to hear you've finally accepted shared ancestry with chimps and humans. Well done - finally some progress with you.

J C

Quatermain wrote: »

I always figure the more smiley faces you post, the more desperate you're getting. Now we get into you twisting sentence structure until it screams for mercy.

No matter how you want to change the bold on that sentence, it says that a triceratops is not a mammal. Once again:

Quote:
An important clue has now been uncovered — not in Triceratops and its relatives, but in herbivorous mammals.

Not a triceratops, but a mammal. Mammals are what they are after. Nowhere does it say in that article that the two are related.

The bottom line is that the article in the Scientific American was illustrated with a picture of a Rhino and a Triceratops ... and they said that “Studying modern mammals can provide insights into the metabolism of dinosaurs” !!!
Now unlesss you are in total denial ... this means that Rhinos and triceratops are similar animals!!!
... but of course accepting this obvious reality ... will destroy your faith in Evolutionism, millions of years and all of the other stuff that Evolutionists confuse themselves with.:)
... and I have been accused of trolling for making the exact same comparison between the Triceratops and the Rhinoceros ... and nobody has been man enough to apologise!!!:(

... and I smile when I'm happy ... and I frown when I'm sad ... which happens a lot on this thread!!

Quatermain wrote: »

Now, the sentence would really work if triceratops ate meat, or was a dinosaur. I can guess which one you will pounce upon.

So the Triceratops isn't a Dinosaur after all ... it's a mammal ... and everyone can go back to sleep again ... and forget that they were accusing me of trolling for pointing this out a few posts ago.
I guess if somebody were to discover a residual population of Triceratops somewhere, ye guys would call it a 'living fossil' like you do with all of the other living species that have been found fossilised alongside dinosaur bones!!!
... and tell everybody that it didn't change a bit because NS didn't affect it while something that looked like a large rat ... turned into Humans during the same period of time!!!
... a five year old wouldn't believe this stuff ... but I guess a 20-year old, who has been properly 'educated' will.:eek::

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

And 4 on it back legs, meaning it wasn't a perissodactyl.

... and 5 toes on the front legs ... you can take your pick!!!

Zombrex wrote: »

Or does that not matter because to you it "looks" like a Rhino?

... so it walks like a Rhino, has the same anatomy as a Rhino ... and, because it's face doesn't 'fit' with the Evolutionist worldview ... its a Duck!!!:):eek:

Zombrex wrote: »

Troll harder bro, troll harder. :rolleyes:

There are enough trolls posting here without me starting!!!:(

Quatermain

J C wrote: »

The bottom line is that the article in the Scientific American illustrated their article with a picture of a Rhino and a Triceratops ... and they said that “Studying modern mammals can provide insights into the metabolism of dinosaurs” !!!
Now unlesss you are in total denial ... this means that Rhinos and triceratops are similar animals i.e. mammals!!!

That is altogether too many exclamation marks for a sane mind.

Is it that easy to convince you of something? A simple piece of clip-art? Can we put a picture of a whale next to a goldfish and reel you into thinking they're both fish, since they have fins and live in water? Pun entirely intended.

They are similar in that they were both enormous herbivores who ate differently depending on the climate, but that's about it. I'm presuming you're aware that triceratops' horns were part of their skull and not actually densely-compacted keratin, as is the rhino's case?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure there are just an abundance of egg-laying, beaked ungulate's with frills and no mammary glands, frolicking around Africa right now. :rolleyes:

The Ornithorhynchus anatinus are frolicking around Australia right now ... and its egg-laying and with a beak and a Mammal ... so what's your point?

dlofnep wrote: »

There are an massive amount of features unique to dinosaurs, and a massive amount of features unique to mammals that neither families share.

... and so there are ... but the differences between some fossil 'Dinosaurs', like the Triceratops, and living mammals, like the Rhinoceros are so small as to be at vanishing point!!!
... unless you're an Evolutionist determined to make a 'mountain out of a molehill' to sustain your faith that you are a monkey's cousin AKA an Ape!!:)

dlofnep wrote: »

But disingenuously as always, you go out of your way to look for some trivial features to compare and jump straight to an immediate conclusion, without understanding anything about how we actually define a clade.

The common features between a Triceratops and large living herbivores, like the Rhino aren't trivial ... they are very compelling ... and now that we have found that the Triceratops was an endotherm ... this closes the debate!!!

dlofnep wrote: »

For the record, since you're bringing up similarities - The similarities between humans and chimps are infinitely closer than triceratops and rhinos, at both a anatomical and a genetic level. I'm happy to hear you've finally accepted shared ancestry with chimps and humans. Well done - finally some progress with you.

A Shared Designer explains these similarities.:)

J C

Quatermain wrote: »

That is altogether too many exclamation marks for a sane mind.

Unfounded Adhominems will get you nowhere and are in breach of the rules of the Boards!!

Quatermain wrote: »

Is it that easy to convince you of something? A simple piece of clip-art? Can we put a picture of a whale next to a goldfish and reel you into thinking they're both fish, since they have fins and live in water? Pun entirely intended.

They are similar in that they were both enormous herbivores who ate differently depending on the climate, but that's about it. I'm presuming you're aware that triceratops' horns were part of their skull and not actually densely-compacted keratin, as is the rhino's case?

Horns generally contain a bone core covered with Keratin ... as with the Triceratops ... the current Rhino horns are short on bone ... and long on Keratin!!
No big deal there.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

The Ornithorhynchus anatinus are frolicking around Australia right now ... and its egg-laying and with a beak and a Mammal ... so what's your point?

A platypus is not an ungulate. Nor are platypus' eggs similar to that of a dinosaurs. The platypus (and echidna) are of a very old form of mammals which lay eggs, a process which is well understood. Nice strawman by the way. You didn't respond to my point at all.

J C wrote: »

... and so there are ... but the differences between some fossil 'Dinosaurs', like the Triceratops, and living mammals, like the Rhinoceros are so small as to be at vanishing point!!!

No, they are not so small. They are only small to uneducated people like you, who don't know the first thing about the anatomy of mammals and dinosaurs.

J C wrote: »

... unless you're an Evolutionist determined to make a 'mountain out of a molehill' to sustain your faith that you are a monkey's cousin AKA an Ape!!:)

I am an ape, you are an ape. This is a biological fact. I find it actually hilarious that in one paragraph you're arguing in favour of a Triceratops being a mammal because of trivial similarities between it and a Rhino, but in the next paragraph you're arguing against homo sapiens and chimps being related, even though the similarities at both an anatomical and biological level are far closer.

J C wrote: »

The common features between a Triceratops and large living herbivores, like the Rhino aren't trivial ... they are very compelling ... and now that we have found that the Triceratops was an endotherm ... this closes the debate!!!

They are very trivial when you're attempting to use them as an excuse to move a species from one clade to another. As I've already state, there are a great number of features that are unique to only dinosaurs, and a great number of features than are unique to only mammals. It is by these features that we can group species correctly.

So how about we do the following.

I want you to define for me very specifically what it is that makes a species a mammal, and what it is very specifically that makes a species a dinosaur. When you're capable of doing so - you can then argue precisely when you feel a Triceratops is not a dinosaur, but a mammal.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

A platypus is not an ungulate. Nor are platypus' eggs similar to that of a dinosaurs. The platypus (and echidna) are of a very old form of mammals which lay eggs, a process which is well understood. Nice strawman by the way. You didn't respond to my point at all.

You asked if there was an abundance of egg-laying, beaked mammals, frolicking around Africa ... and I confirmed that there weren't ... but there was one in Australia allright!!!:)
... and now you're nit-picking over whether it was an Ungulate ... when the Triceratops was endothermal and clearly was a herbivore.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2001/05/24-02.html
Quote:-
The Triceratops made its public debut in 1905. At that time, dinosaurs were thought to be reptilian and cold-blooded, so the skeleton was assembled with its front limbs splayed out, much like a lizard. In the 1980s, researchers started thinking of such dinos as warm-blooded, leading some to envision Triceratops standing erect with its legs under its body, like an elephant

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they are not so small. They are only small to uneducated people like you, who don't know the first thing about the anatomy of mammals and dinosaurs.

It's certainly not a lizard ... its an endothermic quadruped obligate herbivore that is both a Perissodactyl and an Artiodactyl ... and the Smithsonian accepts this ... and if that's not good enough for an Evolutionist ... I don't know what is.

... get with the programme!!!:p:)

dlofnep wrote: »

I am an ape, you are an ape.

Speak for yourself ... and leave me out of it!!!:eek:
Just because you have low self-esteem doesn't mean that everybody else does.
You are the lineal descendent of a specially Created man and woman ... and a much loved Child of God.

... and an Ape is ... er ...an Ape ... of the Taxonomic Family Pongidae!!

dlofnep wrote: »

This is a biological fact. I find it actually hilarious that in one paragraph you're arguing in favour of a Triceratops being a mammal because of trivial similarities between it and a Rhino, but in the next paragraph you're arguing against homo sapiens and chimps being related, even though the similarities at both an anatomical and biological level are far closer.

There is a complete and un-bridgeable gulf between an Ape and a Man ... although some men behave like Apes ... that is due to their fallen nature ... and not because they are Apes.:)
When Apes start posting on the Board.ie ... I'll accept that you also are an Ape, to keep you happy!!!:D

dlofnep wrote: »

So how about we do the following.

I want you to define for me very specifically what it is that makes a species a mammal, and what it is very specifically that makes a species a dinosaur. When you're capable of doing so - you can then argue precisely when you feel a Triceratops is not a dinosaur, but a mammal.

How about you do some homework, for a change, and enlighten us all as to why you don't think that a Triceratops was a Mammal

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

How about you doing some homework, for a change, and enlightening us all as to why you don't think that a Triceratops was a Mammal

I know exactly why it isn't. You made the claim that it is a mammal, so I now want you to define a mammal and a dinosaur for me, and elaborate on why a certain species could fit into either clade.

Don't try pass the buck because you're uneducated. Just admit that you don't know, and I'll accept it as an answer.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

You asked if there was an abundance of egg-laying, beaked mammals, frolicking around Africa ... and I confirmed that there weren't ... but there was one in Australia allright!!!:)

No, I did not. I see you're lying as per usual. I'll quote exactly what I said.

I'm sure there are just an abundance of egg-laying, beaked ungulate's with frills and no mammary glands, frolicking around Africa right now.

The last part is extremely important is it's the biggest factor in determining what is, and what is not a mammal. The hint is in the name.

J C wrote: »

It's certainly not a lizard ... its an endothermic quadruped obligate herbivore that is both a Perissodactyl and an Artiodactyl ... and the Smithsonian accepts this ... and if that's not good enough for an Evolutionist ... I don't know what is.

No, it wasn't. Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla are orders of the class Mammalia. You must be a mammal to be a member of either class. Stop using big words when you don't understand what they mean.

J C wrote: »

Speak for yourself ... and leave me out of it!!!:eek:

You are an ape. It is a biological fact.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

I know exactly why it isn't. You made the claim that it is a mammal, so I now want you to define a mammal and a dinosaur for me, and elaborate on why a certain species could fit into either clade.

Don't try pass the buck because you're uneducated. Just admit that you don't know, and I'll accept it as an answer.

Uneducated?? ... strong words from somebody who thinks that he is an Ape!!!

Life is too short for this kind of codology ... and all that will happen if I do answer your question is endless nit-picking for the sake of it ... so here is the Wikipedia definition of a Mammal
Quote Wikipedia :
Mammals are a clade of warm-blooded amniotes. Among the features that distinguish them from the other amniotes, the reptiles and the birds, are hair, three middle ear bones, mammary glands in females, and a neocortex (a region of the brain). The mammalian brain regulates body temperature and the circulatory system, including the four-chambered heart.

... the Triceratops ticks all of the Mammalian boxes that the details preserved in their fossils allows.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I did not. I see you're lying as per usual. I'll quote exactly what I said.

Quote:
I'm sure there are just an abundance of egg-laying, beaked ungulate's with frills and no mammary glands, frolicking around Africa right now.

The last part is extremely important is it's the biggest factor in determining what is, and what is not a mammal. The hint is in the name.

So you were asking a nonesense question ... and now you are nit-picking over my answer!!!

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it wasn't. Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla are orders of the class Mammalia. You must be a mammal to be a member of either class. Stop using big words when you don't understand what they mean.

... eh ... em ... you seem to have forgotten that the Triceratops was an endothermic Mammal!!!:eek:

dlofnep wrote: »

You are an ape. It is a biological fact.

... its nothing of the sort ... like I have said, if and when a real Ape ... as distinct from the Evolutionist variety ... starts posting on the Boards.ie ... I'll call you an Ape, if that keeps you happy.:)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... eh ... em ... you seem to have forgotten that the Triceratops was an endothermic Mammal ... only this doesn't 'fit' the Evolutionist worldview ... so they call it a lizard!!!:eek:

Triceratops was a dinosaur.

J C wrote: »

... its nothing of the sort ... like I have said, if and when a real Ape ... as distinct from the Evolutionist variety ... starts posting on the Boards.ie I'll call you and Ape, if that keeps you happy.:)

You are an ape.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Uneducated ... strong words from somebody who thinks he is an Ape!!!

Yes, you are uneducated about biology.

J C wrote: »

Wikipedia definition of a Mammal

So all this time, you were telling us that Triceratops was a mammal and you were incapable of actually defining what a mammal was - instead you had to use wikipedia to assist you in defining it. I expected no less from you.

J C wrote: »

Mammals are a clade of warm-blooded amniotes. Among the features that distinguish them from the other amniotes, the reptiles and the birds, are hair, three middle ear bones, mammary glands in females, and a neocortex (a region of the brain). The mammalian brain regulates body temperature and the circulatory system, including the four-chambered heart.

... the Triceratops ticks all of the Mammalian boxes that the details preserved in their fossils allows.

No, it doesn't. Anything else?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Triceratops was a dinosaur.



You are an ape.

Two wrongs ... don't make a right!!!:):D

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

I'll let you get back to your book of fiction - Clearly reality is too much for you to handle right now.

Says the guy who believes that he is descended from Pondslime and is a monkeys cousin!!!:)

Jesus wants you to know that you are a much loved Child of God ... and He wants you to enjoy Paradise with Him for eternity ... and all you have to do is to believe on Him ... and repent of your sins.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes, you are uneducated about biology.

That's not what my University qualifications say.

dlofnep wrote: »

So all this time, you were telling us that Triceratops was a mammal and you were incapable of actually defining what a mammal was - instead you had to use wikipedia to assist you in defining it. I expected no less from you.

I made it clear that I was using Wikepedia to avoid the incessant nit-picking that goes on here on this thread.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Anything else?

Yes it does ... have a look at the creature if you doubt me.

The Concrete Doctor

J C wrote: »

Says the guy who believes that he is descended from Pondslime and is a monkeys cousin!!!:)

Jesus wants you to know that you are a much loved Child of God ... and He wants you to enjoy Paradise with Him for eternity ... and all you have to do is to believe on Him ... and repent of your sins.

Has anyone ever agreed with you JC? Did you just sit in class and argue with your teachers, when you were in school?

J C

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Has anyone ever agreed with you JC? Did you just sit in class and argue with your teachers, when you were in school?

I was top of the class in every school and University I attended ... and I never argued with anybody ... all my fellow students respected me ... and hung onto every word I said!!!
I was an Evolutionist at the time ... so maybe that was why things ran so smoothly.

... I can't recall having any discussion about the 'origins' question.
It was 'Evolution-lite' at the time and, as far as I can recall, there was mutual respect between Evolutionists and more conservative Theists at the time ... and a general respect for Academic Freedom.

The thing that I think is relatively new is an agressive form of Atheism/Evolutionism that thinks that Creationists are unthinking and uneducated morons.
It never seems to cross their minds that many Creationists are former Evolutionists who are eminently and conventionally qualified to speak on the topics that they talk about.
What's also relatively new is the number of Christians who are now Evolutionists 'in tooth and claw' ... when I was a young man, Conservative Christians were treated with the height of respect by their more liberal confreres ... but now many 'liberal' Christians would give the neo-Atheists a 'run for their money' in the levels of agression they show towards Creationism.

Looking back, I think that the thing that really 'threw the cat amongst the pigeons' was the the development of the Creation Science movement in the seventies ... and the breakthroughs in ID research added further 'fuel to the flames' of Evolutionist resentment towards all things Creationist and ID.

It's a great pity ... we should be loving and respecting each other.
I have always tried to do this ... but I'm not a 'shrinking voilet' either ... and I refuse to be walked upon ... when I know I'm right.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

That's not what my University qualifications say.

Stop lying. You have no university level education in biology.

lmaopml

If you think he is a troll why the effort to argue with him at all? It's amazing that people have actually spent ten odd years arguing with somebody they think is a troll no?

The Concrete Doctor

J C wrote: »

I was top of the class in every school and University I attended ... and I never argued with anybody ... all my fellow students respected me ... and hung onto every word I said!!!
I was an Evolutionist at the time ... so maybe that was why things ran so smoothly.

Quite a man, humble too. If you had joined the priesthood you would have made bishop in no time, then who know? So when did you notice that people stopped hanging on to your every word and headed in the opposite direction?