|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Dinosaurs live with man? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your evidence is yours and it is coloured with your prior assumptions and interpretations the cat may remain sceptical about. Mine is mine, Coy Boy. Okay, so the scientific approach has yielded all sorts of wonderful advancements for mankind. The only thing your's has done is try to destroy the credibility of our knowledge. But the results are what matters, and Science won a long time ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The clearest evidence is, Dogmameat, that nobody ain't got no remotest clue about such matters, You're like the psycho ex-boyfriend with a knife to his ex's throat: "If I can't be right, then nobody can!" **slit**
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Vatican, you, Coy Boy and shy Tanya are deluded. No, we're not.
Your bigbanger creationist proposals are nothing like any pretty ex. Who would want to slit the throat of such ugly nonsense? Not the feline. But that's bullshit. You *do* want to slit its throat. Since you can't refute it all you can do is doubt it. And that's what you do: you write that nobody knows anything about this when in fact we do. You can't deal with the facts so you resort to obscurity.
All your ludicrous quackademic doctrines will die an ugly natural death collapsing from accumulating decrepitude. Deal with that. Given the track record of how great it has been working, you know; curing diseases, putting the man on the moon, and allowing us to communicate in this way, the odds of it collapsing are extremely low.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The topic is "Did Dinosaurs live with man?".
You say that dinosaurs might have, and that they could have spawned the legends of dragons. We point out that there are not dinosaur bones, as opposed to fossilized material, so they can't be contemporary with man. Your response is to deny that we know anything about it at all and that anything is possible. Well whoop de-fucking-doo! Just face the facts, CrazyJew. Science won the debate decades ago. Denying reality and thinking wishfully only make you a fool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What do you mean by the cat's denying you know anything about anything at all? I didn't say that. You saw something that wasn't there. How crazy of a Jew are you? Oh!.. wait, that might explain why you think there's dragons.
You mean anything past? Well, there are serious doubts about all your certainties even about relatively recent past. Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. We have a very simple fact here: Dinosaurs did not coexist with humans. Now, you are unable to refute that fact by adding additional knowledge. So, instead you try to combat it by discrediting the knowledge that we do have: "You don't know that they're not dragons". You're not actually bringing anything to the table, all you're doing is pretending that we haven't brought anything either. Its pathetic, really. And since you're doing such a disservice to everyone, you have to hide what you're doing behind obscure language and prose. No doubt, in your arrogance, you think that you're clever. Just know that we all think that you're an idiot and a troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Now, how dense a learned skull can be? - wonders the Cheshire. Its on the order of a couple thousand kilograms per cubic meter. You can thank science for that fact.
How do you mean you have got a "fact" about dragons here, Vatican? Its a fact that dinosaurs did not live with man. Do you want a deduction, or something? 1) If dinosaurs lived with man, then we would have unfossilized dinosaur bones.2) We do not have unfossilized dinosaur bones. ∴ C) Dinosaurs did not live with man. Now, we know you're unable to accept this fact. So, instead of bringing something to the table, all you can do is try to discredit our knowledge:
There is no single eternal fact in science. Any presentation includes a number of interpreted assumptions taken by the presenter and the audience for granted for the sake of enjoying the exchange of presentations in hope of possible understanding. Those may be called facts for the sake of that particular presentation only. The "facts" are not doubted and examined by the presenter and the audience any too much simply because if each and every assumption were to be thoroughly examined first, no presentation of a hypothesis would be possible at all. No theorising would ever be started. That is all there is to the "facts", Vatican. But, the fact remains that this method of science works and provides results. It cures diseases, put a man on the moon, and has allowed us to communicate this way. So it doesn't even matter at all if it "could" all be wrong. Its working great! You should be thankful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
[qs]
Its a fact that dinosaurs did not live with man. Do you want a deduction, or something? 1) If dinosaurs lived with man, then we would have unfossilized dinosaur bones. 2) We do not have unfossilized dinosaur bones. I already answered you on the Do Creationists try to find fossils thread referring to my earlier post where I linked a couple articles: The article on petrification clearly describes bodies of humans and a cat that had been mineralized throughout, and there is one quote on [URL=http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/fossilboot.html]the other page[/URL=] by an Alfred Romer writing in Natural History in 1959 saying that it only takes five to ten years to completely replace chicken bones and wood with minerals. Complete replacement with minerals IS fossilization. At least those references ought to demonstrate the point. Dinosaurs might take longer to fossilize but a few hundred years ought to be more than enough, and we have some 4300 years since the Flood for the job anyway. The point was that there are not any dinosaur bones that are not fossilized. If they existed when humans did, then we would have at least one bone from a dinosaur that didn't get fossilized. But we don't. Its impossible for The Flood to have fossilized just some of the bones from animals that all existed at the same place at the same time. If humans and dinosaurs were together, then we'd have human bones fossilized with dinosaur bones, and we'd have unfossilized dinosaur bones with the unfossilized human bones. But we don't see any of that anywhere at all. All the dinosaur bones are fossilized and the human ones are not. Therefore, they couldn't have been together at the same place and the same time.
There is no doubt that dinosaurs and people shared this planet before the Flood. Even you don't believe that. You just have to say that to save face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It is sooo ridiculous.
"Oh, mankind's genes gradually mutating over many generations to the point where the phenotype has changed drastically? No, that impossible, that must have taken magical intervention from God. But a worldwide flood that could somehow sort the bodies of different animals into neat layers where the bones of the apparently-older ones got fossilized and the modern ones did not? Sure, we've got a totally non-magical explanation for that one!" ![]() Its just utter stupidity!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Who said they were in "the same place?" Inhabiting the same planet at the same time doesn't mean they hung out together. Dinosaurs were everywhere and humans were everywhere. If they both existed at the same time, then they had to be in the same places. How could it be otherwise?
The bizarre stuff that gets imputed to creationists is really the straw man nonsense in the minds of the evolutionists. I apologize for assuming that creationists had some basic logical thinking skills. I won't make that mistake with you again. But anyways, have you not seen the pictures of the Creationist Museum? Take a look at this one:
Apparently they think kids had pet dinosaurs.
Fossilization has to do with how the creature was buried more than anything else. Well geez, that's not even true. The conditions that it goes through are what determines if it fossilizes or not. Sure, that can depend on how it was buried, but the conditions can change after it was buried.
If it got buried rapidly and deep then it would be likely to fossilize, shallow burial wouldn't accomplish that. No, that's just something you made up in a post hoc rationalization of your preconceived Flud scenario. Its not something based on evidence. But still, if the dinos and humans were around each other, then we'd have some humans that got buried rapidly as well, and we'd see their fossilized bones along side the dino ones. But we've never ever found even one example of that... and that's because it never happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Funny how you guys go on and on about what you imagine to be creationist errors and never address the glaring stupidity of evolutionist interpretations of the strata, their amazingly knife-edge close interfaces with each other and their flat-topped horizontality as seen for instance in the Grand Canyon, plus of course their being completely separated discrete sediments. Attributing such a formation to long ages is ludicrous but you all just gloss it over or apply your weird made up Rube Goldbergish explanations. I don't think you're getting it. Let's try a little role reversal. Take a look at these layers of paint:
My new position, now, is that all of those paints were mixed together and landed onto the surface in one big pour. Then they settled out into their different colors and formed the layers that you see. Your new position, now, is that each layer was laid down individually over a period of time. (Surely you can agree that's true, no?) How would you argue against my position and for yours? How would you explain that they were not put down together all at once?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What makes you so sure of that? If they all got buried at a certain depth, which you all agree they did, then why would any bone escape that burial? And if it did, why wouldn't it have rotted away by now anyway, which the human bodies no doubt did. If that was true, then we would have fossilized human bones along side the fossilized dino ones. But we don't, because that never happened.
It's impossible for The Flood to have fossilized just some of the bones from animals that all existed at the same place at the same time. If humans and dinosaurs were together, then we'd have human bones fossilized with dinosaur bones, and we'd have unfossilized dinosaur bones with the unfossilized human bones. But we don't see any of that anywhere at all. Because it's a dumb idea. But what's even dumber is the fact that the strata do for some reason display peculiar collections of bones of particular animals, that is, one particular animal or a few, will dominate in a given layer. How does that make sense according to the theory of long ages? Whoa whoa whoa.... You don't get to just say "that's dumb" and then Gish Gallop over to attacking the opposition. We've got a scenario where humans and dinos lived around the same places at the same time. Then a big flood comes in. Now, you're saying that all the dinos got buried real deep but not a single human did. How would the waters or sediments or whatever, distiguish between a dino and human and know to bury one and not the other?
One thing that needs to be taken into account here is that according to the Bible neither animals nor people were meat-eaters until after the Flood, so that there wouldn't have been the problems you all imagine with them cohabiting the same space before the Flood. Well, so much for Sola Scriptura. I knew you didn't really follow that one, rather you only claim to when its convenient. But I don't have a problem with them cohabiting, per se. You're the one who was saying they didn't live very near to each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"Seriously entertaining?" I have no doubt whatever that they lived at the same time. Then you don't know what doubt is. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Mine looks like it still has the enamel on the lower portion. Is that possible? I had no idea, so I did some Googlin'... apparently it is:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Here is another preflood herbivore. ![]() And obviously, God created these guys:
So they'd have adequate defense against the plants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
This photograph is evidence that man and dino lived together. It would also appear as though photography has been around for much longer than previously imagined. Good find. Heh, that reminds me of this:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024