It came from youtube creationists!

inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
It came from youtube creationists!

This is something that arrived in my mailbox, and it looks rather canned. Still, this sheer amount of wrongness thrown at me all at once was, I admit, stupifying.

Quote:
• Why did the dinosaur disappear? This is something that has modern science mystified, but the Bible may have the answer (written 3500 years ago. God Himself is speaking):
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierces through snares. (Job 40:15-24).
This was the Largest of all creatures He made.
It was plant-eating (herbivorous).
It had its strength in its hips.
Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).
It had very strong bones.
Its habitat was among the trees.
Drank massive amounts of water.
His nose pierced through snares.
Then Scripture says, " . . . He that made him can make his sword approach to him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.
• Hebrews 1:10,11 (written 2000 years ago): ". . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment." The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. This wasn't discovered by science until comparatively recently.
• Genesis 17:12: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%.
• Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse reveals that a female possesses the "seed of life." This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago. It was widely believed that the male only possessed the "seed of life" and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator.


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
wait: people say that the

wait: people say that the Earth is 6000 years old (calculated from the bible).and now those same people are claiming that the bible tells us how dinosaurs became extinct, even though they have to have been around a long time before 6000 years ago.

this is also contradictory to the "intelligent design" theory, which states that god put the fossils there to fool us.

can Christians make up their mind? seriously.


bearflag
bearflag's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Metalurgy of the 15th century B.C.E.

Funny about all these creationist funny-facts... unfortunately Iron smelting and brass alloying was not availbale to mankind in the 15th century BCE.

 

I am not even sure man was making anything resembling "swords" by that point. But these are the exact words of GOD!!! 

Creative editing, (:


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Creationists are ridiculous

 

Ha! I have seen this argument before, during the essay drive when I wrote to debunk a creationist website, this is what they wrote.


and now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal like that in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle can do it, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree? Many fossil dinosaur skulls contain unexplained, empty passages. Scientists have not been able to guess the reason for these passages. Would it make sense that some dinosaurs used these passages as “gas tanks” for the combustible mixture used to “breathe fire?” We believe it does.

and this is what I wrote.

 

 

No, actually, I do not agree. If a beetle can do it, that does not mean a dinosaur can, at least not if you have any education in zoology. Any slits for fire exhalation would have completely destroyed their fragile internal maintenance. You correctly stated the bombardier beetles do not shoot fire. The hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone react and shoot a spray of hot gases and acrid fluid. Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone secretor cells are propelled through an extremely muscular chamber inside the abdominal wall. No animal shoots fire, the Bombardier beetle shoots hot gas and chemically irritating liquid. Now, I think we can agree that there is absolutely no conceivable mechanism that would allow a dinosaur to shoot fire through slits accommodating gas tanks in his skull. There is no protection that could possibly shield the fragile brain from the extreme temperatures and pressures as the chemical reactions that produced the hot gases would produce extreme force in the opposite direction, and would destroy the brain, causing the skull to explode and the nasal epithelial cells to incinerate. Newton’s Third Law.

 

Nor could man have walked with the dinosaurs.  Firstly, radiocarbon dating alone can disprove this immediately, but we can even reason our way out of this idiocy. We must delve deep into our evolution for this. For when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, they were King. Small mammals hid in terror, the dinosaurs had better developed brains and constantly outthought and outfought the smaller, less intelligent mammals. It was only with the extinction of the dinosaurs that the domination of mammals began. Only a few surviving mammals and simple insects withstood the cataclysm that destroyed the dinosaurs. Only by the extinction of them are we here. Even if we disregard this, there is no way that the dinosaurs could have survived the hardships that man went through to earn the species the right to survive on this planet. During the last ice age, man lived in terrible hardship, scrounging for food and living the life of the hunter-gatherer. A dinosaur, a cold-blooded, massive reptile, could not have survived. A dinosaur needs massive amounts of food, and cannot maintain its internal body temperature. Any human contact with dinosaurs would have been massively documented, and the two could not mutually co-exist. If there had been no cataclysm that wiped out the dinosaurs, the chain of life on this planet would have continued in their favor. No mammals. No man. In any case, if there was any place that the dinosaurs could not have existed, it was the arid desert of the Fertile Crescent where the Old Testament originated. Dinosaurs need massive amounts of lush vegetation to support them. I shouldn’t even have to be making these points. If we placed a dinosaur in the deserts around ancient Jerusalem or Damascus, it would die within days. In truth, categorically denying that the dinosaurs could have been here 6,000 years ago is such a waste of time, but as Ben Franklin pointed out: Against a sufficiently ridiculous idea, the only defense is ridicule.

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


solidsquid
solidsquid's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Why did the dinosaurs die? 

Why did the dinosaurs die?  Well, not all did but most didn't work well with the big rock that hit the earth and the climatic changes thereafter.  Some survived and we now eat their descendants at KFC.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:   Ha! I

deludedgod wrote:

 

Ha! I have seen this argument before, during the essay drive when I wrote to debunk a creationist website, this is what they wrote.


and now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal like that in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle can do it, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree? Many fossil dinosaur skulls contain unexplained, empty passages. Scientists have not been able to guess the reason for these passages. Would it make sense that some dinosaurs used these passages as “gas tanks” for the combustible mixture used to “breathe fire?” We believe it does.

and this is what I wrote.

 

 

No, actually, I do not agree. If a beetle can do it, that does not mean a dinosaur can, at least not if you have any education in zoology. Any slits for fire exhalation would have completely destroyed their fragile internal maintenance. You correctly stated the bombardier beetles do not shoot fire. The hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone react and shoot a spray of hot gases and acrid fluid. Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone secretor cells are propelled through an extremely muscular chamber inside the abdominal wall. No animal shoots fire, the Bombardier beetle shoots hot gas and chemically irritating liquid. Now, I think we can agree that there is absolutely no conceivable mechanism that would allow a dinosaur to shoot fire through slits accommodating gas tanks in his skull. There is no protection that could possibly shield the fragile brain from the extreme temperatures and pressures as the chemical reactions that produced the hot gases would produce extreme force in the opposite direction, and would destroy the brain, causing the skull to explode and the nasal epithelial cells to incinerate. Newton’s Third Law.

 

Nor could man have walked with the dinosaurs.  Firstly, radiocarbon dating alone can disprove this immediately, but we can even reason our way out of this idiocy. We must delve deep into our evolution for this. For when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, they were King. Small mammals hid in terror, the dinosaurs had better developed brains and constantly outthought and outfought the smaller, less intelligent mammals. It was only with the extinction of the dinosaurs that the domination of mammals began. Only a few surviving mammals and simple insects withstood the cataclysm that destroyed the dinosaurs. Only by the extinction of them are we here. Even if we disregard this, there is no way that the dinosaurs could have survived the hardships that man went through to earn the species the right to survive on this planet. During the last ice age, man lived in terrible hardship, scrounging for food and living the life of the hunter-gatherer. A dinosaur, a cold-blooded, massive reptile, could not have survived. A dinosaur needs massive amounts of food, and cannot maintain its internal body temperature. Any human contact with dinosaurs would have been massively documented, and the two could not mutually co-exist. If there had been no cataclysm that wiped out the dinosaurs, the chain of life on this planet would have continued in their favor. No mammals. No man. In any case, if there was any place that the dinosaurs could not have existed, it was the arid desert of the Fertile Crescent where the Old Testament originated. Dinosaurs need massive amounts of lush vegetation to support them. I shouldn’t even have to be making these points. If we placed a dinosaur in the deserts around ancient Jerusalem or Damascus, it would die within days. In truth, categorically denying that the dinosaurs could have been here 6,000 years ago is such a waste of time, but as Ben Franklin pointed out: Against a sufficiently ridiculous idea, the only defense is ridicule.

 

 

Just because I'm nitpicky, there are a couple errors here. First is that we do walk with the dinosaurs. We always have. That is if you take the standard definition of dinosaur, which is a reptile living between 65 and 200 odd million years ago. Crocodiles are dinosaurs.
The second is that there is still some debate over dinosaurs being cold blooded or not. There are a lot of things pointing to them not being able to be cold blooded and survive. Including the fact that avians are not cold blooded, yet many dinosaurs evolved into avians.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Oops, that was my mistake,

Oops, that was my mistake, when I wrote this article for the first time, I inserted the notion of poikothermic dinosaurs. This idea is outdated. I was supposed to remove it. Guess I forgot.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Sorry handsome, but

Sorry handsome, but Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. Crocs and Dinosaurs are very closely related and are both diapsids - they share a common ancestor with the thecodonts (a group of archosaurs that lived in the Triassic and who may have lived up into the Jurassic period).  There are many structural and physiological differences between crocs and dinosaurs (when I say dinosaurs I mean both extant birds and extinct saurischians and ornithiscians), not the least of which is that their lineage broke off long before dinosaurs became distiguished from others groups in archosauromorph Infraorder.

See also: http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Dinosaurs/dinoBG3.html

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur

Also, I wouldn't characterize dinosaurs as Reptiles.  We know that birds are Dinosaurs and not reptiles (though many of their traits can be called reptilian - indeed, many mammalian traits can also be called reptilian too ...).  I would argue that Reptilia  (or Sauropsida) is not the proper class that Dinosaurs (and their avian antecedents) should be put into - Some have suggested that Dinosaurs should constitute their own class and I for one would agree.

As for their metabolism, there are no conclusions that can be drawn except to say that Dinosaurs did not have a simple reptilian systems that modern crocs do ...

Just trying to help,

G

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Now, I think we can agree

Now, I think we can agree that there is absolutely no conceivable mechanism that would allow a dinosaur to shoot fire through slits accommodating gas tanks in his skull.

 

Heheh, most assuredly not in their skull, though thanks to evolutionary theory we can imagine how a fire breather might have evolved. In case you haven't seen this, here's a link to the description. It's a docudrama about dragons as they might have been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Dragon_%28docudrama%29

 
And they say scientists aren't creative. . .


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:

Sorry handsome, but Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. Crocs and Dinosaurs are very closely related and are both diapsids - they share a common ancestor with the thecodonts (a group of archosaurs that lived in the Triassic and who may have lived up into the Jurassic period).  There are many structural and physiological differences between crocs and dinosaurs (when I say dinosaurs I mean both extant birds and extinct saurischians and ornithiscians), not the least of which is that their lineage broke off long before dinosaurs became distiguished from others groups in archosauromorph Infraorder.

See also: http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Dinosaurs/dinoBG3.html

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur

Also, I wouldn't characterize dinosaurs as Reptiles.  We know that birds are Dinosaurs and not reptiles (though many of their traits can be called reptilian - indeed, many mammalian traits can also be called reptilian too ...).  I would argue that Reptilia  (or Sauropsida) is not the proper class that Dinosaurs (and their avian antecedents) should be put into - Some have suggested that Dinosaurs should constitute their own class and I for one would agree.

As for their metabolism, there are no conclusions that can be drawn except to say that Dinosaurs did not have a simple reptilian systems that modern crocs do ...

Just trying to help,

G

This implies you don't know the standard definition of dinosaur, which I pointed out in my last post, and does in fact apply to crocodiles.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
You're joking right? 

You're joking right?  You're flying in the face of decades of Paleontological data and modern cladistic analysis ... Here is a clear family tree to illustrate my point:

From: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/images/revuelto_tree_big.jpg

Oh an check the Phyologeny of Archosaurs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur#Phylogeny (note the Crocodylomorpha (crocodiles and relatives))

Also, form the Berkeley site (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html): "Not everything big and dead is a dinosaur. All too often, books written (or movies made) for a popular audience include animals such as mammoths, mastodons, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and the sail-backed Dimetrodon. Dinosaurs are a specific subgroup of the archosaurs, a group that also includes crocodiles, pterosaurs, and birds. Although pterosaurs are close relations, they are not true dinosaurs. Even more distantly related to dinosaurs are the marine reptiles, which include the plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs. Mammoths and mastodons are mammals and did not appear until many millions of years after the close of the Cretaceous period. Dimetrodon is neither a reptile nor a mammal, but a basal synapsid, i.e., an early relative of the ancestors of mammals."

I admit that I do depart, along with many respected and notable paleontologists, from the standard definition of Dinosaurs as Reptiles, at least the way Reptiles are commonly defined, but this is a topic which is still open to debate ...  One characterisitic that Dinosaurs have, which Crocs don't (and there is no debate about this) is a hole straight through the hip-socket (separating the pubis, ilium and ischium) - that is the trait that spearates them from the other archosaurs - including crocs, both extant and extinct forms like Prestosuchus or Legosuchus. 

The only implication one can draw from my posts, by the way, is that I know a dinosaur from a croc (which any person who even wades in the sea of  Paleontological research would ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:

You're joking right?  You're flying in the face of decades of Paleontological data and modern cladistic analysis ... Here is a clear family tree to illustrate my point:

From: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/images/revuelto_tree_big.jpg

Oh an check the Phyologeny of Archosaurs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur#Phylogeny (note the Crocodylomorpha (crocodiles and relatives))

Also, form the Berkeley site (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html): "Not everything big and dead is a dinosaur. All too often, books written (or movies made) for a popular audience include animals such as mammoths, mastodons, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and the sail-backed Dimetrodon. Dinosaurs are a specific subgroup of the archosaurs, a group that also includes crocodiles, pterosaurs, and birds. Although pterosaurs are close relations, they are not true dinosaurs. Even more distantly related to dinosaurs are the marine reptiles, which include the plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs. Mammoths and mastodons are mammals and did not appear until many millions of years after the close of the Cretaceous period. Dimetrodon is neither a reptile nor a mammal, but a basal synapsid, i.e., an early relative of the ancestors of mammals."

I admit that I do depart, along with many respected and notable paleontologists, from the standard definition of Dinosaurs as Reptiles, at least the way Reptiles are commonly defined, but this is a topic which is still open to debate ...  One characterisitic that Dinosaurs have, which Crocs don't (and there is no debate about this) is a hole straight through the hip-socket (separating the pubis, ilium and ischium) - that is the trait that spearates them from the other archosaurs - including crocs, both extant and extinct forms like Prestosuchus or Legosuchus. 

The only implication one can draw from my posts, by the way, is that I know a dinosaur from a croc (which any person who even wades in the sea of  Paleontological research would ...

Dinosaur: any of various extinct, often gigantic, carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles that were chiefly terrestrial and existed during the Mesozoic era. The name dinosaur means - Greek 'deinos' = monstrous + Greek 'sauros' = lizard.

Your biological dissertation is mere semantics. By and far the vast majority of definitions and uses of the term are applicable to my definition as laid out above.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
No, Vestet, you're wrong. 

No, Vestet, you're wrong.  Period. 

Are you a creationist?!


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Also, what you're doing is

Also, what you're doing is semantics.  I'm showing you common ancestry and phylogeny to show you that Crocodiles are related to Dinosaurs, but are not the same as dinosaurs (Shit, I usually only have this argument with creationists - are you a creationist?) ... 
Anyone can use mere words to make any animal part of another taxon, but what is implicit in a definition of an animal (or a group of animals) is who its relatives were and are, what its physical characteristics are and where it falls on the tree of life .. and that is what I've shown.  Why are fighting the science?  Why don't you call your local Natural History Museum and ask a Vertebrate Paleontologist if you don't want to take my word for it?

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:

Sorry handsome, but Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. Crocs and Dinosaurs are very closely related and are both diapsids - they share a common ancestor with the thecodonts (a group of archosaurs that lived in the Triassic and who may have lived up into the Jurassic period). There are many structural and physiological differences between crocs and dinosaurs (when I say dinosaurs I mean both extant birds and extinct saurischians and ornithiscians), not the least of which is that their lineage broke off long before dinosaurs became distiguished from others groups in archosauromorph Infraorder.

See also: http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Dinosaurs/dinoBG3.html

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur

Also, I wouldn't characterize dinosaurs as Reptiles. We know that birds are Dinosaurs and not reptiles (though many of their traits can be called reptilian - indeed, many mammalian traits can also be called reptilian too ...). I would argue that Reptilia (or Sauropsida) is not the proper class that Dinosaurs (and their avian antecedents) should be put into - Some have suggested that Dinosaurs should constitute their own class and I for one would agree.

As for their metabolism, there are no conclusions that can be drawn except to say that Dinosaurs did not have a simple reptilian systems that modern crocs do ...

Just trying to help,

G

Nicely said. You saved me the trouble. Since the discovery of a fossilized four-chambered dinosaur heart and the obvious link between theropod dinosaurs and birds, I think we can say that at some point dinosaurs evolved warm-bloodedness. The existence of feathers on non-flighted theropod dinosaurs would serve no real purpose on an ectotherm.

Here's my own little dinosaur--gotta love him!--destroying an evil blue towel. For some reason, he fixated on it and went out of his way to kill it. Smiling My own little relation to the dromaeosaurids, proving he's as mean as any velociraptor. 


I snipped out the bird pics and put them here: http://tinyurl.com/2t9bz3 . I decided they didn't belong in this thread. Cheers!

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:

No, Vestet, you're wrong.  Period. 

Are you a creationist?!

No, you're wrong. Period.
Are you a creationist?

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:

Also, what you're doing is semantics.

No, that's what you're doing. As I already pointed out.

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:
I'm showing you common ancestry and phylogeny to show you that Crocodiles are related to Dinosaurs, but are not the same as dinosaurs (Shit, I usually only have this argument with creationists - are you a creationist?) ...

And I already explained that your biological dissertation is irrelevant to dictionary definitions and standard use of the term. Which is as I already stated. I'm not going to waste anymore time debating the issue with someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Actually, Vastet, he has it

Actually, Vastet, he has it right.

Dinosaurs and crocodiles are both archosaurs, but crocs are not dinosaurs. Many scientists consider birds to be dinosaurs because they evolved directly from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs. They are using cladistic taxonomy when they do this. You could not, however, include crocodilians in the dinosaur family even using cladistic taxonomy.

Dinosaurs (and birds) have a fully upright posture; crocodiles do not. Here is a cladogram showing the differences between archosaurs. Notice that the crocodilians and the dinosauria are on different branches.

Here's a snippet:

"The remainder of the animals on the cladogram are all archosaurs, comprising two major groups that correspond to the two branches of the cladogram leading from the archosaur node. One is called the Ornithosuchia, or 'bird crocodiles.' It includes all archosaurs more closely related to birds and other dinosaurs than to crocodiles. The second branch is the Pseudosuchia, or 'false crocodiles.' It includes all archosaurs more closely related to crocodiles than to birds and other dinosaurs. Note that this does include the crocodiles, so crocodiles are 'false crocodiles.' This is an unfortunate consequence of a sordid taxonomic history. Just remember it's only a name."

Notice that Ornithosuchia are "more closely related to birds and other dinosaurs than to crocodiles [emphasis mine]." Birds are dinosaurs; crocodiles are not.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Thank you, Iruka ...

Thank you, Iruka ...

[Dictionary definitions are not technical and subordinate to taxonomical definitions, anyway ...]

Like Dawkins, I'm passionate about what's true ...

Your little dinosaur is quite cute!

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com