@somebodyshort, the man + dinosaur position is misrepresented. The claim isn’t that men were around hundreds of millions of years ago, but that a very few dinosaurs survived - like the coelacanths. The evidence isn’t clear enough to convince you (and it only leads me to grant plausibility), but is there. Fishing boats catching what looks like an ichthyosaur in photos (but not saving the carcass), Roman mosaics showing what look like ichthyosaurs playing in the Mediterranean, Josephus describing flying lizards spoiling the date harvest, Medieval paintings depicting the dragon killed by St. George looking remarkably like a triceratops, etc.
The reason the position is associated with (recent origin of life, but not necessarily young earth) creationists is that it is far more plausible that a few dinosaurs would hang on for a few thousand years, than that they would hang on for hundreds of millions of years.
prfessor, the problem with your argument is is assumes it only applies one way. That can’t be true. Assuming that hard, physical evidence is required to prove something, then, according to the same rule, lack of hard, physical evidence does not disprove it. In fact, hard, physical evidence is also required to disprove anything (i.e. prove the inverse). Lack of evidence doesn’t actually prove anything, it just makes it unproven.
@prfesser, your comparison of dragons and jackalopes is nonsense. The jackalope is not based on what you would call fantasy but on two very real species that very certainly exist. You would have us believe that the medieval dragon is entirely fantasy, made up out of pure imagination. But Stuart is pointing out the interesting correlation that “imaginary” creature has with today’s conception of the paleontological triceratops. Odd indeed that a medieval artist (presumably) without fossil skeletons would just “imagine” a being that matches 20th Century scientific artwork. Certainly not proof, but definitely curious.
WoodEye almost 14 years ago
They should eat him, but what would the strip be without him?
Coyoty Premium Member almost 14 years ago
They’re held in raptor attention.
cdward almost 14 years ago
I was going to eat him, but I kind of lost my appetite.
magnamax almost 14 years ago
my cat does that to me
MontanaLady almost 14 years ago
Good morning, fellow BC’er’s….
Isn’t the call of the female:
CHARGE- itYukoneric almost 14 years ago
And for his second trick, he’ll fly away………….
stuart almost 14 years ago
@somebodyshort, the man + dinosaur position is misrepresented. The claim isn’t that men were around hundreds of millions of years ago, but that a very few dinosaurs survived - like the coelacanths. The evidence isn’t clear enough to convince you (and it only leads me to grant plausibility), but is there. Fishing boats catching what looks like an ichthyosaur in photos (but not saving the carcass), Roman mosaics showing what look like ichthyosaurs playing in the Mediterranean, Josephus describing flying lizards spoiling the date harvest, Medieval paintings depicting the dragon killed by St. George looking remarkably like a triceratops, etc.
The reason the position is associated with (recent origin of life, but not necessarily young earth) creationists is that it is far more plausible that a few dinosaurs would hang on for a few thousand years, than that they would hang on for hundreds of millions of years.
lightenup Premium Member almost 14 years ago
It’s the Raptor Dance!
Hello, pamlicorat, Tanya, Grog, Gweedo, Sheik, MontanaLady, Lewreader, Lonewolf, LuvH8, Little Sister and everyone else!
JP Steve Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Yukoneric, is that all you do, bird imitations?
captainedd almost 14 years ago
Didn’t their folks teach them not to play with their food?
threlfallm almost 14 years ago
prfessor, the problem with your argument is is assumes it only applies one way. That can’t be true. Assuming that hard, physical evidence is required to prove something, then, according to the same rule, lack of hard, physical evidence does not disprove it. In fact, hard, physical evidence is also required to disprove anything (i.e. prove the inverse). Lack of evidence doesn’t actually prove anything, it just makes it unproven.
lin4869 almost 14 years ago
As long as he didn’t have to also lift the other foot at the same time…
dsom8 almost 14 years ago
@prfesser, your comparison of dragons and jackalopes is nonsense. The jackalope is not based on what you would call fantasy but on two very real species that very certainly exist. You would have us believe that the medieval dragon is entirely fantasy, made up out of pure imagination. But Stuart is pointing out the interesting correlation that “imaginary” creature has with today’s conception of the paleontological triceratops. Odd indeed that a medieval artist (presumably) without fossil skeletons would just “imagine” a being that matches 20th Century scientific artwork. Certainly not proof, but definitely curious.
travburg1 almost 14 years ago
Tempest in a teapot…