The base of our brain is Reptilian....
We still dont actually know how the dinosaurs died soo maybe im thinking they never died they just evolved into us could this be possible???

Mammals, of a sort, already existed by the time dinosaurs first appeared in the Triassic period. They have a common ancestor, but dinosaurs did not and could not evolve into humans.

The "Reptilian" brain is merely a term used by clinical psychologists when refering to the "Old Brain", or as Freud understood it, your unconscious desire-drive. It is the small part at the base of your brain where it meets the spineal cord, surrounded by the evolutionarily younger mass called the new brain...you know...neo cortex. It is called reptilian because it functions much like an ancient animal brain, all self-driving, carnal instinct. When you are horny, it is this brain that tells you to copulate, when hungry, to eat and etc.
This part of the brain is in no way biologically reptilian. I highly suggest discovering why something is termed the way it is before drawing conclusions, as the arguments you come up with will otherwise be absurdities.

This dashes into bits any idea that dinosaurs and humans share ancestry or a common reptile brain. It was early mammalian life, such as subterranean rodents, etc. that evolved inot humans post-extinction.

I have never studied into this crap so I dont know much just a theory gosh.

Well Mammals evolved from Reptiles, and realistically it makes no sense that all dinosaurs are called dinosaurs...there reptiles. oo; The only reason we named them dinosaurs was the fact that we were grouping them all by the fact that they were all ancient species of reptiles, so we just called them dinosaurs. O-o; I hope I explained that well... x.x

reptiles and mammels have a common ancestor, if yo ufoolow the evolution side of the argument, then that explains why the most primitive part of our brain is there. also given that this region of the brain is the first to develop during pregnancy shows that we share a common ancestor with the reptiles.

What would Lacerta, the subterranean reptiloid woman say?
I suppose common ancestry supports the idea.

good point aside from common ancestor' there is nothing to back your theory up.

To the best of my knowledge, mammals didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but rather evolved at the same time (certainly there were mammals around in the cretacious period...perhaps in the jurrassic also, but I doubt as early as the triassic). It just happens that, as dinosaurs evolved in one direction, other groups of creatures evolved in another. Although it wasn't until the dinosaurs were out of the way that there were any mammals around larger than a mouse

That's exactly what I was saying, as well.

And evolution isnt a philosophy

Women perhaps, but not men. Women are cold-blooded and vicious on occasion. Trust me, I know...

But seriously, I don't think so. But who knows what lies in our DNA? Dorment DNA could be reptilian.

I dont recall anyone saying that it IS.

Some parts of the "theory" damn well should be. Get it now?

Care to explain to us which parts those are?

To the best of my knowledge, mammals didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but rather evolved at the same time (certainly there were mammals around in the cretacious period...perhaps in the jurrassic also, but I doubt as early as the triassic). It just happens that, as dinosaurs evolved in one direction, other groups of creatures evolved in another. Although it wasn't until the dinosaurs were out of the way that there were any mammals around larger than a mouse

The cynodonts, or 'dog teeth', were the most successful and one of the most diverse groups of therapsids. Their Late Permian and Triassic evolutionary radiation included such forms as the large, carnivorous cynognathids, equally large herbivorous traversodonts, and the small and extremely mammal-like tritylodontids and trithelodonts. The trithelodonts (ictidosaurs) are almost certainly close to the direct ancestry of the Mammalia. The extremely mammal-like structure of cynodonts has been known for nearly a century, but only within recent years have we learned enough about them and about the very early mammals to say with confidence that all mammals are indeed descended from a single group of cynodonts

Even the earliest cynodonts, the Procynosuchidae of the Late Permian, show many advanced mammalian characteristics, such as a reduced number of bones in the lower jaw, a secondary bony palate and a complex pattern of the crowns of their cheek teeth. It is likely that Cynodonts were at least partially if not completely warm-blooded, covered with hair, which would have insulated them and helped to maintain a high body temperature.

By Early Triassic times, cynodonts had diverged into large predaceous carnivores such as Cynognathus and moderate large omnivorous and herbivorous types such as Trirachodon and Diademodon. The Middle Triassic saw a major radiation of herbivorous forms included in the family Traversodontidae. From this family evolved the highly specialized and extremely mammal-like Tritylodontidae of the Late Triassic to Middle Jurassic, the "rodents" of the early Mesozoic and culmination of the herbivorous cynodont radiation. At the same time, the descendents of Cynognathus evolved into medium-sized to small carnivorous and insectivorous forms. It is interesting that as the archosaurian reptiles were becoming larger, the cynodonts became smaller, perhaps nocturnal. The hot arid Triassic conditions favored the ectothermic reptilian metabolism of the archosaurs over the warm-blooded mammalian organization of the cynodonts. (In his Dinosaur Heresies, Bob Bakker has clamed that even the early thecodont archosaurs like Erythosuchus were warm-blooded, and out-competed the cynodonts for this reason, but this position is almost never held nowadays

The parts which arent liable to be falsified by data.
The parts which cannot be tested by observation and experiment.
Try and give me few examples im sure you can do it.

Wait how about "The origin of species".

Once again, I make the referral for good explanations on Evolution: Talk Origins

Hey here is a site for you. Already read most af what talkorigins had to say. Just dicovered this site. gl hf
True Origins

The base of our brain is Reptilian....
We still dont actually know how the dinosaurs died soo maybe im thinking they never died they just evolved into us could this be possible???

This is insane.

This topic started with a flawed, uneducated statement by someone who heard a psychological/physiological term and took it literally. There was no research, and now it has gotten to a discussion of evolution v. creation.

Evolution has scientific FACT to back it. Creation has the belief of a group of people. If we are to teach creation than we must teach ALL creation theories from Sumer/Mesopotamia on down to modern day Hinduism and so on. They are all equally valid in that there is no proof whatsoever to validate any of them.

The base of our brain is Reptilian....
We still dont actually know how the dinosaurs died soo maybe im thinking they never died they just evolved into us could this be possible???

I’m sure you have seen in textbooks the word "primordial soup" and "abiogenesis" and how all of life started from a single cell and then evolved. This is as much scientific fact as all the other creation theories.

Abiogenesis is actually laboratory proven. It is scientific fact.

So evolution doesn’t teach us that we were created. I’ve heard so many arguments that evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life but on life's progression. Why then are children being taught about how life started? I’m sure you have seen in textbooks the word "primordial soup" and "abiogenesis" and how all of life started from a single cell and then evolved. This is as much scientific fact as all the other creation theories.
Mmm maybe children need to believe in this to make evolution theory more believable... or is it indoctrination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial soup. Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat. (That idea, which has long been known to be incorrect, will be called "Aristotelian abiogenesis" in this article.)

or http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Abiogenesis

The term abiogenesis refers to the process by which the first living entities appeared on a lifeless Earth. It means simply getting life from non-life.

The notion that God (or any supernatural influence) intervenes in evolution or chemical interactions is not falsifiable by science, but it could be rendered irrelevant by a scientific demonstration that natural chemical processes are sufficient to explain the origins of life. The philosophical notion of vitalism posits that living organisms are imbued with a living essence or spirit which non-living things do not possess. However, no experiment has shown that living organisms are chemically different from non-living matter, or require anything more than basic chemical elements and their interactions in order to breathe, metabolize food, and reproduce.

Thus, around 1620, the physician and early chemist Jan Baptista van Helmont published this recipe for making mice:

"for if you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of the wheat, changes the wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge (from the wheat) and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents? But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which came out were not small mice? but fully grown."

Oh if you are refering to the Miller-Urey experiment, i would hardly consider that as evidence for abiogenesis. Amino acids with 50-50 chirality were formed.

Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. Despite the enormous progress that has been made since the Miller-Urey experiment, abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by random natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments.