Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

reply to post by aorAki


Nope that is not my logic at all, but genesis contradicts evolution there for evolution is not real at all.

God said he created us in his image, not the image of a amoeba.

As for evidence, there's plenty, just read the first page in this thread and it might help you understand. And if you don't like what's being said here then leave, i think the science section on ATS would actually be more suited for you. (you don't see me going over there and trolling like you are in this section of the forums).

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by aorAki

 

Nope that is not my logic at all, but genesis contradicts evolution there for evolution is not real at all.

God said he created us in his image, not the image of a amoeba.

No, man said that god said that. Apparently god dictated it. Does that mean god is illiterate? Maybe god is an amoeba?

Originally posted by RevelationGenerationAs for evidence, there's plenty, just read the first page in this thread and it might help you understand. And if you don't like what's being said here then leave, i think the science section on ATS would actually be more suited for you. (you don't see me going over there and trolling like you are in this section of the forums).

edit on 30-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

Mate, I've been reading this thread since day one, so I don't need some jumped-up little strumpet telling me what is and what isn't. The evidence (and I use that term lightly) in the OP is not evidence at all.

If YOU read through this thread and follow all the links (not just the links that originate from Creationist/fundamentalist Christian sites) you might actually begin to see the light. I do like what is being said here, because what is being said is that there is no evidence, despite wacky claims that there is.

I am not trolling. I am offering information and have provided some very useful information in this thread.

I will not be told what to do by someone who is twelve years old (or at least has the online mentality of such a person).

Jeepers, sadly I've read a bit of your guff and you seem to have no humility, and yet you call other Christians out for being non-Christian.

I repeat (for those of limited comprehension): there is no credible evidence for the contemporaneous existence of dinosaurs and man. Period.

Is this 'debate' still going???

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a857392511b.jpg[/atsimg]

I mean, really... this kind of foolishness just makes us all look bad!

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Yep ive always thought this to be the case, and this futher proves that evolution is a hoax and the biblical accounts of Genesis are infact the truth.

Given that this thread has shown that the evidence provided for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans in the OP is both spurious and unscientific, it actually supports the opposite conclusion -- evolution is correct and the Genesis account is fallacious from a scientific standpoint.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Got evidence that they were? Because you stated in another thread that if the Bible doesn't explicitly state something, it must not have been true.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Nope that is not my logic at all, but genesis contradicts evolution there for evolution is not real at all.

Yes, because when a 2000 year old book written by men contradicts observed facts, it must be the facts that are wrong.

God said he created us in his image, not the image of a amoeba.

No, humans said that God created us in his image.

As for evidence, there's plenty, just read the first page in this thread and it might help you understand. And if you don't like what's being said here then leave, i think the science section on ATS would actually be more suited for you. (you don't see me going over there and trolling like you are in this section of the forums).

It's painfully obvious that you didn't read past the first page of this thread. You know, to the parts that roundly refute the suppositions of the OP by actually bringing facts and evidence to the table.

I realize that reading and reading comprehension of anything outside of the Bible may not be your strong suit, but before suggesting that another member is in the wrong part of the forums, maybe you should read the explanation for this forum that exist at the top of every page of every thread (emphasis mine):

Origins and Creationism: This forum is dedicated to the discussion of the organized conspiracy to influence science education through the introduction of creationism and other non-scientific origin concepts. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

Maybe you should take your non-scientific proselytizing to the RF&T boards instead of trying to engage in a conversation where the closest you've come to adding something is plagiarizing Answers In Genesis.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Stovokor

 

And what is your reason? Because some textbooks written by scientists with an agenda told you so?

And how is that any different than the junk religious dogma the creationists adhere to? The bible is nothing more than a collection of stories and paraboles written by people who didn't understand the world around them. How could that have any more truth to it?

Are you saying religion has no agenda?? I'm sure you aren't because you seem far to smart to think that.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by noonebutme


They were more in touch with the world around them then you or i could ever be.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


So, people who didn't know about the existence of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto or that the coelacanth was still alive, let alone existed at all knew more about the natural world than us? I guess we should also go back to believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that the only way to cure mental illness is trepanation so we can let the demons out.

I just looked out of my window and saw a dinosaur! I took a picture.

reply to post by SG-17


Looks like a bird to me.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Well that's because it is. Birds are avian dinosaurs after all.

Paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 Ma ago.

en.wikipedia.org...

So yes, humans and dinosaurs do coexist. But only with avian dinosaurs, non-avians went extinct 65 million years ago.

reply to post by MegaplateausFlight


Thanks to YOU, ,MegaPlateau !
Erich Von Daniken, like other authors (Velikhovsky, Charoux, Pauwells, Chatelain, etc ...) has been heavily dismissed by the establishment and the narrow-minded believers of the official science or religion.
Nevertheless, they have settled a bunch of remarquable facts, even if their interpretation was sometimes a bit far-fetched, or simply wrong.
It's not because you're wrong when giving an explanation, that what you're trying to explain disappears.
These authors have unearthed things that need to be explained.
Things that are now part of our culture.
Particularly here, on ATS.
I think that trying to explain that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago with a Bible in one's hand, is at least as far-fetched than saying that Nazca lines were airstrips for space ships.
But ... MAYBE both are correct assertions.
Open minded folks should consider this.
We would never improve our knowledge if we were only recitating the certitudes of the establishment.
Afterall, things heavier than air ARE flying, don't they ?

reply to post by SG-17


You mean the extinction event 4500 years ago with the great flood? I'd have to believe evolution to accept birds were once dinosaurs, which i don't but im sure there were some flying dinosaurs.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Nope. I mean the extinction 65 million years ago. I feel sorry for you that you never got a proper education.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

No i didn't stupid loser.

Name calling... how hypocritical of one as pious as you claim to be. Let me see if I can jog your memory:

Not at all, but the bible totally contradicts evolution and clearly outlines how we came to be, their is no mention of evolution. So yes it is possible that God could have chosen to do that, but it is not what he did. You cannot be a Christian and be a evolutionist and if you are your basically calling God a liar.

So because the Bible doesn't explicitly state that God used evolution to "create" man, he must not have. But the Bible also doesn't explicitly state that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Of course, you give yourself the typical out when people like you are challenged on the veracity of the Bible:

I'm not a literalist i just recognize the authority of the bible and believe God's word. I'll admit there are some things in the bible that should not be taken literal, but the story's of the great flood of noah, adam and eve, Jonah etc are real accounts of things that took place.

So you're assuming that you're an authority on which parts should be taken literally and which shouldn't. You make the same claim again later:

The bible is literally true where it is intended to be literally true, figurative where it is intended to be figurative, poetic where is meant to be poetic, etc. Therefore, we must examine the wide diversity of biblical writing using logic, contextual analysis, etc. Do I believe that God created the earth in the order that is described in Chapter 1 of Genesis? Yes I do. Words mean what they mean in context. This applies to verses as well.

And you reiterate this again:

Literal truth in the context is supposed to be in, ive already said Genesis was literal, so i ask you now why you still believe in evolution when Genesis has no mention of it? You are clearing misunderstanding Genesis 2.

But then you still give yourself an out in another post:

Therefore, it would make sense that the second "account" of the creation is not intended to be as literal as the seven-day description; rather, it is a short representation of the preceding information. Please note that Gen. 2:4 says, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” We see in this verse a description of the summation of the previous information found in Chapter 1. So, we can be confident to know that the writer was fully aware of the previous information and chose to speak of it any more condensed form in the above verse.

So some chapters and verses withing the same book aren't "as literal" as others, so not only is there flip-flopping between literal and figurative language, which only you appear to be able to decipher which is which, but now there are degrees of literalness as well. Again, probably ones which only you can decipher, in your infinite wisdom.

Seriously, I can keep quoting your own posts back at you to show how inconsistent you are with your application of what should be taken literally and what shouldn't, with absolutely zero sense of internal logic to tie it all together, but I have a hunch you already realize it. So what makes more sense? The version of the origin of man that has actual objective evidence supporting it or the version from a book written by men which even you admit is figurative or allegorical in places?

reply to post by SG-17


I got an education, but i never allowed myself to be brainwashed by Darwinism, i don't call that education at all. Its ashame you think secularism is the answer though when in reality its taught to us because of a hidden agenda to turn everyone into atheistic morons and lose as many souls to satan as possible.

reply to post by iterationzero

So because the Bible doesn't explicitly state that God used evolution to "create" man, he must not have. But the Bible also doesn't explicitly state that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Of course, you give yourself the typical out when people like you are challenged on the veracity of the Bible:

I don't know why you keep claiming this is my argument, but its not and that's not essentially what i said at all.

There are many reasons why evolution cannot successfully be merged with the accounts of the bible and ive already stated many of those already. For one we were created in God's image. Secondly God made us from the dirt and then breathed the breath of life into man, which doesn't sound like evolution was involved at all if you have any common sense. Thirdly God isn't a God of gaps, he created all beings in there full form, and then gave them life. I could continue to go on as to why evolution doesn't fit to be apart of genesis but i'd be wasting me time, since your not even a christian but merely a guy here to argue with me so you can try and trick other christians into accepting evolution and genesis. There are also numerous verses which totally contradict any type of evolutionary process ever taking place.

So some chapters and verses withing the same book aren't "as literal" as others, so not only is there flip-flopping between literal and figurative language, which only you appear to be able to decipher which is which, but now there are degrees of literalness as well. Again, probably ones which only you can decipher, in your infinite wisdom.

No im not the only one, any bible scholar or theologian will tell you this.

Seriously, I can keep quoting your own posts back at you to show how inconsistent you are with your application of what should be taken literally and what shouldn't

Please do because so far you have been unable to achieve that even once.

The version of the origin of man that has actual objective evidence supporting it or the version from a book written by men which even you admit is figurative or allegorical in places?

The bible of course, i'd have to pick that any day over 33rd degree freemasonry and the secular brain-washing religion of evolution that's full of hidden agendas to destroy man kind.

As for the saying the bible is not valid because its a product of man, well that's really a poor argument to use on your part and does not discredit the claims of the bible.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by dbates

 

The descriptions of creatures by civilizations all over the world could not be a coincidence could it? There are reports from all kinds of people of giant lizards and flying serpents. These are common across all corners of the world.

What makes you think this is evidence of specifically the Bible being true? I say that it's pretty obvious that the Aztecs were right and all these reports were of Quetzalcoatl.




Now let's get the sacrifices ready.