It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dawkins & Smash of Dinosaur / Human Footprints

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know, Trolls were thick hided and seeing as we have stories with them in they must have existed




posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Howd you get bellowing to be the meaning of grendel. it's widely accepted the word grendel mean one of three things depending on the language. in old English it means to grind up and destroy. in norse it means like a strong and fast wind. in dutch it means to keep locked up or to lock down. never heard of bellowing before.
edit on 13-10-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: cooperton

Sorry but that reference is a Young Earth creationist site, how can we take it seriously?


When soft tissue is found in fossils of the T-Rex, how can we take an million-year-old-dinosaur hypothesis seriously?



British and norse *mythology* is full of dragons...


Same with all cultures across the globe. If these were mythological beings, how did all these cultures have dragon myths? It is way too big a coincidence if all these cultures were making up the same story. Rather, it is more likely they were observing large serpentine creatures.



You tried to equate Grendel as an Allosaurus, yet you know full well that in Beowulf Grendel dies after having his ARM torn from his shoulder. Not leg.


Not sure where you are going with this one. Both allosaurus and T-rex are bipedal, and their arms would be attached to a shoulder joint. More proof this animal was a bi-pedal dinosaur.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That doesn't describe a dinosaur either... There doesn't and has never existed an animal that can't be pierced by a sword AND is a predator.


that is an assumption. It is a fact that contemporary science has never had the grace of directly studying a dinosaur skin sample.

edit on 13-10-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know, Trolls were thick hided and seeing as we have stories with them in they must have existed


Yea apparently according to people like him humans didn't have imaginations back then and only wrote about the absolute truth.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Let's put it this way. Dinosaur teeth can pierce other dinosaur skin (because that is how predators work). Dinosaur teeth aren't as sharp as a sword. Therefore, there doesn't exist dinosaur skin that is impenetrable by a sword.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: PickledOnion

It amazes me that all over the world there are stories of dragons/dinosaurs, including the bible, yet people believe no one ever saw one.

We know there was an extinction event but we have no idea when all dinosaurs became extinct. Not every dinosaur that dies leaves a fossil. Fossils are actually rare in comparison to the number of dinosaurs that existed and only form under special circumstances.

Why can't scientists just admit maybe we were wrong? Maybe a few spieces of dinosaurs survived the extinction event and were still around for men to see. This would be a much better explanation for OOP fossils and the vast number of stories and drawings that depict man alongside dinosaurs.

Everyone wants to be right so much that they refuse any logical middle ground.


edit on 13-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Let's put it this way. Dinosaur teeth can pierce other dinosaur skin (because that is how predators work). Dinosaur teeth aren't as sharp as a sword. Therefore, there doesn't exist dinosaur skin that is impenetrable by a sword.


Again, that is speculation. It is a fact that a set of clenching jaws would be able to apply more force than a sword made of the same material.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Let's put it this way. Dinosaur teeth can pierce other dinosaur skin (because that is how predators work). Dinosaur teeth aren't as sharp as a sword. Therefore, there doesn't exist dinosaur skin that is impenetrable by a sword.


You would make a great scientists. Your ability to make claims without any evidence is remarkable.

The force of a dinosaur jaw would be hundreds of times more powerful than the force of a man wielding a spear or sword. It is absolutely possible that some of the dinosaurs had flesh impenetrable by a man with a sword.

And it is equally likely that the word impenetrable is a slight embellishment, people do that when they tell stories, especially when it has to do with fearsome monsters.


edit on 13-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: PickledOnion

It amazes me that all over the world there are stories of dragons/dinosaurs, including the bible, yet people believe no one ever saw one.


It amazes me that Bible believers somehow think that past humans didn't have imaginations. All those stories give dragons supernatural powers though. Medieval dragons can breath fire. Asian ones were the size of a building and could fly through the air (impossible).


We know there was an extinction event but we have no idea when all dinosaurs became extinct. Not every dinosaur that dies leaves a fossil. Fossils are actually rare in comparison to the number of dinosaurs that existed and only form under special circumstances.


Actually you are wrong. Scientists don't say that all the dinosaurs died off when that asteroid hit the planet. It is very likely that the T-Rex evolved into a chicken and the raptor evolved into a bird of prey.


Why can't scientists just admit maybe we were wrong? Maybe a few spieces of dinosaurs survived the extinction event and were still around for men to see. This would be a much better explanation for OOP fossils and the cast number of stories and drawings that depict man alongside dinosaurs.


Because the evidence for this doesn't exist outside of those stories. If we are to believe that dinosaurs somehow did survive all the way to the time period of humans without having evolved into something else then there should be widespread fossils in the ground dating all the way up to the medieval times. But none of that is the case. The only reptiles I can think of that existed back then and remain unchanged through today are alligators or crocodiles.

Why can't YOU admit you are wrong? If the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis, then you must discard the hypothesis until you can produce the evidence to support it.


Everyone wants to be right so much that they refuse any logical middle ground.


There is no middle ground here. Those stories are either true or aren't true.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hey now, show Shenlong/Tianlong some respect!





posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

So why couldn't the whole story be embellished?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So give me an example of a predator that exists today that swords cannot pierce its skin. That sounds like a pretty spectacular evolutionary advantage. Hunt other animals while nothing can pierce your skin. It seems that such an advantage would be apparent in many species that evolved from your mythical dinosaur that has this ability.
edit on 13-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

So give me an example of a predator that exists today that swords cannot pierce its skin. That sounds like a pretty spectacular evolutionary advantage. Hunt other animals while nothing can pierce your skin. It seems that such an advantage would be apparent in many species that evolved from your mythical dinosaur that has this ability.



So you're saying how this wouldn't fit the evolutionary paradigm? I agree.

Aside from your Freudian slip, I ask you, can you even think from a perspective that does not involve evolution? I see you constantly claiming others don't know evolution, but do you know the other side of the argument?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73
Dinosaurs did survive the existinction....They became birds....jeez



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Just to ask Krazysh0t. ...why do you stoop to reasoning with logic? I do the same and we both know it's futile...yet we persist...



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

The other side of the argument? What is that? Last I checked there are more than two sides to the evolution debate. There is evolution and then there is the creation accounts of EVERY OTHER religion in the world. And THEN there are any other accounts a human wants to dream up that you or I haven't thought about.

I certainly DO know the Christian account, and even the YEC account. I did use to be Catholic and I know how to read the bible literally to understand the YEC account. But those aren't the only other options and I don't feel like I should have to learn every possible alternative out there to evolution when none of them stack up in the evidence department to evolution.

Being open minded isn't about considering all possibilities absolutely equally. It means to consider all possibilities and discard the ones that are lacking in evidence. Your YEC account is just impossible from literally every scientific possibility. Like literally all of science would have to be wrong in order to believe that account. So until you can disprove all of science with valid evidence I'm not going to entertain that idea outside of fantasy.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
You beat me to Grendel being described as a troll or some form of giant. He was the offspring of a witch/succubus and the king I believe but could be wrong. Holds more credence for the nephilum theory than man walking with dinosaurs.




a reply to: Learningman



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Just to ask Krazysh0t. ...why do you stoop to reasoning with logic? I do the same and we both know it's futile...yet we persist...


Who knows? Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment...



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Haven't you watched swamp people those gators bounce back bullets! I jest of coarse, to suggest the gator bounced a bullet is crazy.


At bigger sizes sure but the little baby gators they pass off as gaints couldn't stop a bullet if they had a vest on. The bullet fragments come from them missing the gator and hitting their 15pound carbon steel grappling hook they catch the gator with.




a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

The other side of the argument? What is that? Last I checked there are more than two sides to the evolution debate. There is evolution and then there is the creation accounts of EVERY OTHER religion in the world. And THEN there are any other accounts a human wants to dream up that you or I haven't thought about.

I certainly DO know the Christian account, and even the YEC account. I did use to be Catholic and I know how to read the bible literally to understand the YEC account. But those aren't the only other options and I don't feel like I should have to learn every possible alternative out there to evolution when none of them stack up in the evidence department to evolution.

Being open minded isn't about considering all possibilities absolutely equally. It means to consider all possibilities and discard the ones that are lacking in evidence. Your YEC account is just impossible from literally every scientific possibility. Like literally all of science would have to be wrong in order to believe that account. So until you can disprove all of science with valid evidence I'm not going to entertain that idea outside of fantasy.


I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join