Nitpick: plesiosaur, not dinosaur.
That’s fine. It looks like we have plesiosaurs AND dinsoaurs still around then with some evidence to support both. I would like the OP, the friend, or whoever else to prove if this is true or untrue.
Sure, but if we found something extant today that conserved the morphology of a brontosaurus[sup]*[/sup] or a T. rex, I think the fact that it wasn’t actually the same species would be a mere footnote to all the "Gee, whiz"ing that would be going on.
*A perfectly good designation for a particular species of dinosaur, just as “dog” is a perfectly good designation for Canis lupis familiaris, or “common fruit fly” for Drosophila melanogaster.
Have you seen the ‘evidence’ for the Loch Ness monster?
Total water-based sightings since 1871 = 96 (i.e. less than one a year)
The descriptions of the ‘plesiosaur’ include:
- log-like
- salamander-like
- horrible beastie
- eel-like
- size of rowing boat
- one hump
- two humps
- three humps
- at least 4 humps
Total land-based sightings since 1879 = 20
The descriptions of the ‘plesiosaur’ include:
- waddled
- smaller than a camel, long legs
- 4 legs like an elephant’s with webbed feet
- like a hippopotamus
- neck like a giraffe
- length 6-8 feet
Now we turn to the film evidence:
1933 ‘As of the whereabouts of this film, no one knows. A still from the film was exhibited but this was no conclusive proof of the monsters existence and it could not be confirmed that the location was in fact Loch Ness.’
1934 ‘The film is now missing but stills were published of some water disturbances and a mysterious object.’
1935 ‘The film is now said to be hidden somewhere in a London bank vault. Also, with instructions stating that the film could not be shown ‘until such time as the public takes such matters seriously’’
1936 'Again the film that Irvine exposed has been lost ’
1938 'It was agreed by the experts that the film clearly showed an ordinary inanimate object floating in the Loch. ’
Well there you have it.
Conclusive proof that there is a dinosaur in Loch Ness. :rolleyes:
Perhaps, but the point I was making is that the coelacanth (or, more properly, the genus Latimeria) is not a good case for a species that has lingered for many tens of millions of years, which appeared to have been what Bricker was claiming. It is but the remaining survivor of a larger group. The coelacanth discovered in 1938 wasn’t the same species (or even genus) as the fossil forms we knew about prior.
Thanks, Finchy (note the MASCULINE form, since you long ago corrected my misconception 
). I never really thought of it that way before. It wouldn’t, would it?
Perhaps I was 
I can provide some insight with my reply to **padabe[/]
Not really a negative. Just accepting Noah’s Ark as factual implies a whack-load of positive arguments. Such as the existence for the type of changes that would take place within the geological column. That animals, as they returned to their continents of origin would leave behind traces of their return migration. Or that all the clean animals would show genetic similarities of sharing 13 common parents (7 pairs and Noah sacrificed one of each clean animal after the flood) and that dirty animals would show the genetic similarities of sharing 2 common parents. The list goes on…
I called Noah’s flood the crux of the creationist argument because it is the mechanism used to handle the “anomalies” found in the natural world.
- Continental Drift? Flood, check.
- Petroleum? Flood, check.
- Ordered layers of animals with corresponding globally within the geological column? Hydrological sorting from the Flood, check.
- Grand Canyon taking millions of years to form? Flood, check (note: See Mt Helen’s).
- Fossilized clam shells found on Everest? Flood, check. Etc.
The Flood is used to counter a lot of the evidence and once you can show that the Flood is not the only possible answer, but that it isn’t even a plausible answer, then you will force your opponent to take the evidence at face value. Sure, they may argue, and ignore, and disregard, but if they are honest, they will come around.