Evolution? How?

xingu wrote:

Quote:
How do they surmise it was a meat eater?

How do they surmise it had bird like characteristics?

Why don't you go to school and learn what they know. Then you woudn't ask such silly questions?

You seem to think that if you don't know something about science it must be false. Instead of assuming something can't be because you don't understand it, go to school and learn.

Relax, Xingu.

I didn't say anything was false. I didn't say that they didn't know, or even that they couldn't know. I said that the article didn't answer the question, but it seems like a natural question to ask.

Aren't you even the least bit curious how, if only a footprint is found (if indeed that is all that was found) how they would 'know' that it was a meat eater or not?

Or do you just accept it because an 'expert' in the field says so?

Sorry, I'm a skeptic at heart , I guess, but I tend to ask questions like that. If if bugs you, don't respond. Sorry to bust your bubble. Go on with your day. I'll keep questioning and you can do something else.

0 Replies

Quote:

Or do you just accept it because an 'expert' in the field says so?

Yes, I would accept an experts opinion because I don't have the training or knowledge to answer that question. I accept the fact that they know a lot more then I so if they say they can tell something from a footprint I will believe them as I would believe a forensic expert explaining how a murder took place by reading to blood splatterings on a wall.

That's why they're experts. They have been trained to understand things about their particular field of expertise that we can't understand unless we too have been trained.

I'm a skeptic to, more so then you. I even subscribe to their magazine.

http://www.skeptic.com/

Quote:

Sorry to bust your bubble.

You didn't bust my bubble. It's that you have continuously shown a contempt for science because it doesn't agree with your religious dogma. I happen to have far more faith in science than Genesis. What they hypothesize is based on evidence. There's no evidence to support Genesis.

0 Replies

Real

If you want an answer to your question you have to ask and expert.

Here's an expert who may be of some help to you.

http://www.nearctica.com/educate/askexp.htm#anchor427440

Scroll to the bottom of the webpage.

0 Replies

xingu, I know it's useless to try to convince people that relies on a comic book called the bible, because they will continue to refute scientific findings.

FYI, Mary Leakey's archaeological finds at Olduvai Gorge were based on footprints and other findings to determine many facts about their life thousands of years ago. To assume footprints are useless by religionists just goes to show their ignorance of archaeology.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I happen to have far more faith in science than Genesis.

That's pretty much what I've been saying about you all along. Glad we agree on this.

0 Replies

BTW, I was fortunate to have visited Olduvai Gorge during my first photo-safari to Africa. They have a small museum on the site at Olduvai Gorge that shows pictures of Mary Leakey and her associates from early in the last century, and explains what they have been able to determine from footprints they found.

0 Replies

It looks like a desolate place.

0 Replies

real, Most of us are skeptics, but if you bother to do a search on the net, you'll find most of the simple questions you ask which makes you look rather like a second-grader without any skills to do any kind of research. You just come across as a negative-simpleton sort that doesn't want to believe things that you are not skilled in. As xingu said, we would rather believe the expert scientists out in the field rather than your blather of negativity.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

xingu, I know it's useless to try to convince people that relies on a comic book called the bible, because they will continue to refute scientific findings.

FYI, Mary Leakey's archaeological finds at Olduvai Gorge were based on footprints and other findings to determine many facts about their life thousands of years ago. To assume footprints are useless by religionists just goes to show their ignorance of archaeology.

Would my footprint show you if I was a vegetarian or not, CI ?

Just seems kinda odd that this is a 'completely new species' that they knew nothing about formerly, but the footprint indicates their diet?

Well, I guess I'm not as easily satisfied as you. Hope you are having a pleasant and peaceful day.

0 Replies

It'll show you're an idiot, and it won't take a rocket scientist to determine it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
I happen to have far more faith in science than Genesis.

That's pretty much what I've been saying about you all along. Glad we agree on this.

This is really a kind of sophistry on your part. People believe in science, sometimes even have faith in it, because it demonstrably works, works repeatably, and is blatantly obviously progressing as the years pass. You can do a science experiment anywhere and anywhen and you'll get the same results. None of these things is true of religion.

0 Replies

The footprints at Olduvai Gorge may not tell what they ate but dinosaurs may. Did you consider that carnivores footprints may be different from vegetarians. Is a lions the same as a zebras.

http://www.interpatagonia.com/paseos/huellas/index_i.html

Rather then showing disrespect for the experts why don't you try to learn something. Or perhaps your of the belief that ignorance is next to Godliness.

0 Replies

Quote:

None of these things is true of religion.

Real demostrates a far greater faith in Genesis (mythology) than in science.

My position is I believe in and have more faith in the honesty of science to the deception of those who promote Creationist dogma.

So when I say I have more faith in science than Genesis I am also saying I have no faith in the Creationist argument because there is no honesty in it.

0 Replies

Do all carnivorous reptile footprints have the same characteristics? I have my doubts. Your mind apparently was made up before the question was raised.

There have been other dinosaurs identified initially as carnivore that were later thought not to be. Maybe they didn't look at their feet. They should have asked you. You would have known what to do.

0 Replies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/chronology/75mya1.shtml

0 Replies

Quote:

There have been other dinosaurs identified initially as carnivore that were later thought not to be. Maybe they didn't look at their feet.

Your right. It may be the feet were not fossilized. It may be these mistakes were make when very little was known about dinosaurs.

You say you have doubts. So your an expert.

You once said you have doubts about the aging assigned to rocks and fossils.

I guess your an expert in physics and geology as well.

You seem to be an expert in everything.

I'm impressed.

0 Replies

Dinosaurs have long left this earth, and the only remains that scientists find can be used to make educated guesses about their diets and how they lived. Subsequent finds will confirm or deny their earlier findings. That's to be expected of any animal life that have not existed for thousands of years.

Human footprints (founded by Mary Leakey's team) that are over one million years old only confirms that they were bipeds. That finding alone negated many scientific theories about homonids.

That's what science does; corrects past mistakes as more information becomes available.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/chronology/75mya1.shtml

Sorry, CI. Reading minds is against my religion. So you want to tell us what your point is?

0 Replies

It's in plain English language that any ten year old can understand.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Dinosaurs have long left this earth, and the only remains that scientists find can be used to make educated guesses about their diets and how they lived. Subsequent finds will confirm or deny their earlier findings. That's to be expected of any animal life that have not existed for thousands of years.

Human footprints (founded by Mary Leakey's team) that are over one million years old only confirms that they were bipeds. That finding alone negated many scientific theories about homonids.

That's what science does; corrects past mistakes as more information becomes available.

Or, as you just said in your first sentence. Scientists use the remains to make educated guesses.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know