Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

Originally posted by CalledOUT

Originally posted by Threadfall
reply to post by CalledOUT
So far all they do is prove a creation by there lack of evidence and constant re-guessing so they can keep their useless fantasy alive. Like I said earlier, you could never summarize any of their recent theories, because if you did, it would sound so ridiculous, you probably couldn't believe it. So you hold on to the latest super long winded theory till somebody takes a long time to figure out what they are saying, reveal to the common folk such as yourself why it'd be easier doing a study to prove santa clause is coming to town. it gets annoying... especially when all you do in every post is claim how smart you are for believing it and how silly it is to believe anything else.

What is the catch phrase of this site?

reply to post by CalledOUT

I could say the same thing about evolutionists!

You can, but I also can say that there's a green elephant in the trunk of my car. Both are wrong.

Funny how you guys always claim evolutionists are soooo smart and to think anything else is uneducated...

And, yet, all of the information is freely available. All you have to do is take the time to actually read it. I don't think proponents of evolution are any smarter than anyone else -- they're just not willfully ignorant.

but you still belief in a less scientific theory than creationists.

You have an interesting notion there -- that a theory with over a century and a half of objective evidence to support it is somehow inherently less scientific than something that can't even be properly called a theory which has no objective evidence supporting it.

But hey, once they can show how life came from nothing,

Another example of how some time spent reading the material before you try and refute it would help -- the theory of evolution isn't concerned with the origin of life, only what life does once it's already here.

how something came from nothing,

Can you explain the rationale for making the claim that amino acids, and their chemical precursors, are "nothing"? But, again, this is outside the realm of the theory of evolution for the reason described above.

and a dating instrument that actually works with things that the age is known for...

Dating methods work fine when used properly. If you do radiocarbon testing on specimens that are older than the calibration curves used for radiocarbon dating or specimens that are contaminated with dead carbon sources, you can expect to get garbage results.

then you'll have something more than a fantasy.

The objective evidence for evolution is overwhelming, if for no other reason than we can observe it happening right now. Tough to call something that's objectively observable a "fantasy" with any credibility.

So far all they do is prove a creation by there lack of evidence and constant re-guessing so they can keep their useless fantasy alive.

Even if evolution were somehow falsified, it still wouldn't prove creationism -- that's not how science works. You have to provide positive objective evidence for your claims. Given that creationism relies on a creator, feel free to try and provide objective evidence for one to support your "theory" of creationism. But you haven't even stated what your "theory" of creationism is, just that evolution is wrong.

Like I said earlier, you could never summarize any of their recent theories, because if you did, it would sound so ridiculous, you probably couldn't believe it.

Pick one. Let's see if we can summarize it in a non-ridiculous way.

So you hold on to the latest super long winded theory till somebody takes a long time to figure out what they are saying, reveal to the common folk such as yourself why it'd be easier doing a study to prove santa clause is coming to town. it gets annoying... especially when all you do in every post is claim how smart you are for believing it and how silly it is to believe anything else.

All you're doing here is lashing out at some kind of perceived elitism that simply doesn't exist. People who don't understand what the theory of evolution actually says, not people who disagree with it but people that clearly don't understand it, could easily find the information if they wanted to take some time to do so. No one is claiming to be smarter than you, just not willfully ignorant.

reply to post by Threadfall


There ARE limitless accounts of man and dinosaur living together from every corner of the earth running through virtually every ancient peoples.

A quick search would provide much of this information to you, as I have stated several times...I only gave two quick examples to get discussion going and instigate further research.

The fact that a so called expert would bother coming on a blog site where people could argue Santa was an alien shows just how desperate this person and how laughed at by the real scientific world this person would be.

reply to post by nyk537

There ARE limitless accounts of man and dinosaur living together from every corner of the earth running through virtually every ancient peoples.

A quick search would provide much of this information to you, as I have stated several times...I only gave two quick examples to get discussion going and instigate further research.

There are accounts of creatures called "dragons" which are generally conceived as being reptilian in nature. None of the stories involving dragons suggests that they were widespread or even contemporary. They are usually conceived as having lived "once upon a time." The tale of St. George and the dragon was not written down by a contemporary of the saint, but by a much later hagiographer. Chinese beliefs about dragons make it clear that they are not material in nature. They circulate through the elements and are capable of changing into human form when desired. Traveler's tales of gryphons and sea monsters often contain elements that suggest that the locals were ribbing the tourists, or startled imaginations turned waves into serpents.

It is not inconceivable that some woolly mammoths managed to eke out an existence in Siberia well into historical times, as the environment there would have been suitable for their adaptations and they would have had few natural predators. (In fact it is surprising that no hapless 18th century adventurer recounts having shot a "furry elephant" while exploring the region!) Given that the Earth has undergone so many environmental changes over the aeons, causing dinosaurs' ecological niches to disappear, and the dearth of contemporaneous accounts, it is virtually certain that human beings and dinosaurs have never crossed paths.

Originally posted by Threadfall
reply to post by flexy123

 

Well said flexy...

One of the biggest logical hurdles for this theory isn't about the crappy evidence...it's that one of the cornerstones of this paradigm necessitates that there is some global cabal of super smart scientists (nearly all scientists in fact) that are actively attempting to deceive the vast majority of humanity for??????????????drum roll please......eh, some reason or another...THAT part...that why...why would scientists lie...how could so many scientists from every nation, some separated from others by generations conspire together to dupe the world (and succeed) that dinosaurs are millions of years old? THAT is never addressed.

This theory has more holes than bonnie and clydes corpses.

edit on 18-8-2011 by Threadfall because: word smart

edit on 18-8-2011 by Threadfall because: (no reason given)

Bravo! It's refreshing when common sense shines.

I just have one thing to say. It might have been said before, so pardon me if it has.

There are many rampant stories about mythical creatures in our mythology and lore. Dragons. Sea serpents. Large gigantic beasts. What if these were true, in a sense. Dinosaurs could clearly be mistaken from dragons or other such mythical beasts.

The "loch ness monster" is often show in cartoons and fiction as a Pliosaur. Indeed, if one only looks at the neck of this creature, with the rest of it's body underwater, it is frighteningly easy to mistake it for a sea serpent with it's long neck.

Winged reptiles such as the Pterodactylus, commonly known as Pterodactyl, with leathery wings sounds similar to Wyverns of folklore, and with some distortion, perhaps even dragons.

With such possibilities, it might also be possible to have a reason as to why Dinosaurs do not exist now. Often portrayed as evil, they may all have bee slayed or driven off and if they could not adapt, they would have perished.

Admittedly more research should have been done on the locations of the legends and myths and the locations of where the fossils have been found, in which can either prove or disprove my above idea. Feel free to disagree though.

-Zhao_0770

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by nyk537

 

There ARE limitless accounts of man and dinosaur living together from every corner of the earth running through virtually every ancient peoples.

A quick search would provide much of this information to you, as I have stated several times...I only gave two quick examples to get discussion going and instigate further research.

There are accounts of creatures called "dragons" which are generally conceived as being reptilian in nature. None of the stories involving dragons suggests that they were widespread or even contemporary. They are usually conceived as having lived "once upon a time." The tale of St. George and the dragon was not written down by a contemporary of the saint, but by a much later hagiographer. Chinese beliefs about dragons make it clear that they are not material in nature. They circulate through the elements and are capable of changing into human form when desired. Traveler's tales of gryphons and sea monsters often contain elements that suggest that the locals were ribbing the tourists, or startled imaginations turned waves into serpents.

It is not inconceivable that some woolly mammoths managed to eke out an existence in Siberia well into historical times, as the environment there would have been suitable for their adaptations and they would have had few natural predators. (In fact it is surprising that no hapless 18th century adventurer recounts having shot a "furry elephant" while exploring the region!) Given that the Earth has undergone so many environmental changes over the aeons, causing dinosaurs' ecological niches to disappear, and the dearth of contemporaneous accounts, it is virtually certain that human beings and dinosaurs have never crossed paths.

Here we go again. Can you people please understand that a mammoth was NOT a dinosaur and DID live well into the time of humanity. NO ONE argues aginst the fact that Mammoth and man were around at the same time. Mammoths were NOT dinosaurs

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman

 

I am not sure that what God does needs to be completely understood by us. I don't even remember God promising eternal life for any of his creations (after the fall that is) so I don't see any issues here.

check out John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he sent his only son, that who so ever believes in him will have eternal live." that is from my memory.
This is quoted from the bible "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal" www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version... -
He does promise eternal more than once. I can find the rest if you like.

Originally posted by SusyQ30

Originally posted by nyk537[/i


check out John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he sent his only son, that who so ever believes in him will have eternal live." that is from my memory.
This is quoted from the bible "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal" www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version... -
He does promise eternal more than once. I can find the rest if you like.

No thanks