Yes it is a spinoff so dont get too caught up on the thread name. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

i dunno. maybe they found bones or something.

hang on, are you suggesting that dinosaurs were around a few thousand years ago?

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

i dunno. maybe they found bones or something.

hang on, are you suggesting that dinosaurs were around a few thousand years ago?

Oh please tell me he isn't

Ohhhhh, so ancient cultures had an endemic fixation with scary fearsome beasts...

IT MUST BE GOD.

Geez, get real. If this is true, why don't ancient carvings and such depict dinosaurs which are off the fossil record? Or have a wider range of dinosaurs depicted? I'll tell you why. It's because creationist imbeciles have already reached their conclusion, and find shitty little bits of "evidence" like this to back it up. No matter how unrelated the evidence is, they try to make it fit. As opposed to science, which starts with a hypothesis, which then undergoes rigorous testing, over many, many years, and, after all this time of testing and accumulation of evidence, a theory is finally created.

P.S. A dragon that breathes fire (which is, for some reason, mentioned several times) is a complete biological impossibility.

dude, comon with that fucking bullshit man, it was fossils or some shit man, we aint the only people to find em.but no im mistaken since we cant explain it it must be a work of god, pull your head out of your ass and think about all the possabilties(logical ones)

as dawkins put it..

creationists decided they would come to a conclusion first, then find bullshit to back it up.

Sammy, when was the last time something you posted wasn't spoon-fed bullshit.

It is simple common mythology, these are depictions of what they would call dragons. First of all eliminate all the pictures that look nothing like dinosaurs. By doing so I am eliminating everything untill the clay figurine with the spiked back That I am prepared to write off as a stylistic depiction of an alligator or a crocodile.

Keep eliminating until the Greek depiction of the mythical..."Crocodile-Leopard" it even says so in the text. Greeks love mixing animals (harpies, griffons). The outlined cave paintings are obviously doctored, please provide another link to those pictures from an unbiased website. One frezca that looks like a spiked dinosaur is actually a picture of a hippo with a background (look at the ring surrounding it, same pattern, very dishonest picture inclusion). After that it's all dragons and legged snakes and even a turtle. Most of these pictures are a dishonest out-of-context inclusion

Edit: Nostradamus supporters have giant books full of a shitload of quatrains. When something happens they will definitely be able to find a quatrain that represents it with (at a first glance at least) stunning accuracy. That's not because it's true, but because of the simple probability and ambiguity. That link works the same exact way, out of thousands of mythological creatures and depictions the handful that look like dinosaurs make a cute little page, just like a page dedicated to Nostradamus quatrains that came true. That is simple probability, with an enumerable pool of depictions, of course you'll find "dinosaur" ones.

[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 03-18-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

the clay figurine with the spiked back That I am prepared to write off as a stylistic depiction of an alligator or a crocodile.

I have something that looks exactly like that which you're supposed to put under your desk for massaging your feet while you're sitting there doing stuff on the comp.

This is what I posted in the other thread of the 2 examples you posted

The Inca one is admitted to be fake http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/hoaxes.html

(scroll down to Cabrera’s Stones) http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/strange-world.html



And the seconded one does not look like any sort of dinosaur I know. It looks like a cross of a Stegosaurus and a Triceratops.

I found this graphic http://angryblueplanet.com/outside/steggy_not.jpg

quote:Originally posted by Blades of Hate:

as a rational person put it..

evolutionist decided they would come to a conclusion first, then find bullshit to back it up.

Blades of Hate, when was the last time something you posted wasn't spoon-fed bullshit.

quote:Originally posted by Blades of Hate:

as a rational person put it..

evolutionist decided they would come to a conclusion first, then find bullshit to back it up.

Blades of Hate, when was the last time something you posted wasn't spoon-fed bullshit.

Fixed

http://www.icr.org/article/2032/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

http://www.icr.org/article/2032/ http: //www.answ ersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record (http: //www.answ ersingenes is.org/art icles/ee/g eologic-re cord)

why dont you EVER do more then post fucken links, god damn trolls.

the scientists believe the reason they got cell tissue is because on all previous finds the bones were instantly put through a process of preservation and sterilization. This one wasnt. It was broken in half on site , after it found under massive amounts of granit(impossible to have happend by a single flood)

This doesnt change how old we think the the earth is. Just our understanding of fossilization. There are alot more things of why we know the earth (and universe for that matter) is not 6000 years old. I dont even know why I bother. These people are so closed minded about there fucking stupid religion it sickens me. They should all be shot

Damnit i was going to put the exact same thing on that one topic last night but totse had to be gay and start messing up! piss me off that was suppose to be my ownage!

lol

You only mentioned the one thing and had plenty of other stuff in there and you call me closed minded.....you truly are hopeless.

Wow see this was why i even brought up this topic last night! to show how scientists throw out evidence that suggests thier theories or beliefs maybe wrong(kinda funny how they then go around and say the same about us). That is not scientific at all and therefor they are not real scientists! a REAL scientists doesnt just accept things he questions everything, no one does that anymore and now the only goal is to prove God wrong but if even the slightest bit of info implicates that they might be wrong they call it a fluke. And disregard it, if anyone disagrees that this shouldnt even be taken into consideration has no respect from me and should never talk in a scientific debate ever again seeing as how you dont know what true science is you only know what a census on science is!

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

That is not scientific at all and therefor they are not real scientists! a REAL scientists doesnt just accept things he questions everything, no one does that anymore and now the only goal is to prove God wrong but if even the slightest bit of info implicates that they might be wrong they call it a fluke.

Who has ever called it a fluke. These scientific theories young earth creationists are trying to go against arent relying on a few pictures. I guess you'll never understand that. Science is not like religion, were not trying to prove god inspired the writing of science. If something is wrong in science, it does not push it backwards, it still moves forward.

If humans lived with dinosaurs, and somehow survived the extinction(ow ya cause noah hates dinasours) There would have hundreds of different pictures, of a wide variety of dinosaurs. You do know there are hundreds of different species, not just the ones you saw on jurassic park right? These pictures would have to match up with the dinasour fossils found in that area, which ive never even heard the creationists who believe this try and investigate(ow ya because they dont actually investigate things). There would also be evidence of humans eating dinasours, or humans being eaten. 6000 years is such a close time period LOADS of evidence would still be left behind. Humans wouldnt be able to live as plains people (which we know they did early in our history) Because they would be hunted and killed by predators like t-rex. They would only survive as cave people. hiding in caves and coming out at night and trying to hunt for food.

The vast number of different types of dinasours uncovered also shows us how they could never of all lived at the same time. A t-rex could not have lived with another apex preditor at the same time, they would fight eachother and compete for food to the death.



And those are just some things you would need to consider leaving evolution out of the mix. Once evolution comes into play there are dozens more things showing how humans didnt evolve till after the dinasours were extinct. Not only humans but mammals all togethor.

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

Damnit i was going to put the exact same thing on that one topic last night but totse had to be gay and start messing up! piss me off that was suppose to be my ownage!

lol

What ownage? Your ignorance was as prevalent as ever in that other thread, as well:

quote: Originally posted by Masta Thief:

how could they do this??? how could tribes in africa have drawn pics. of a brontosaurus(again cant spell it) on wall paintings? also (just a thought doesnt mean its right) where the hell do you think asia and europe got the ideas for dragons?.........Ok now explain how tribes in Africa did it? they wernt diggers, yet they could draw them.



How could ancient tribes and cavedwellers etched or painted items that looks like extraterrestrials, or x-ray devices, or airplanes or spaceships or guns? Those items didn't exist during that period, we know that for certain. Their etchings and crude paintings didn't necessarily have to represent their surroundings, they could represent their interpretation of something that looked like spaceships or dinosaurs or x-ray devices. Should the concept of abstract art and the ability of human beings to create abstract representations of things that do not exist in their world be taken into account here? I think it should. But you won't, because you are unreasonable and your faith prohibits you from thinking outside of it's *mystical* realms.

Come to think of it, this is about as nutty and along the lines of Erich von Däniken as you can get.

Both the ancient Egyptians and Greeks had a fixation with a creature we call the Sphinx.

Doesn't mean they witnessed it first hand instead of pulling it out of their arse.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

http://www.icr.org/article/2032/ http: //www.answ ersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record (http: //www.answ ersingenes is.org/art icles/ee/g eologic-re cord)



I'll humor you, you little shit.

For Dino - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Basically backs up what Boosehound said, but goes into more detail.

As for the second link, I wont spend much time, as I have to go to work (i'll expand later) , but it is woefully ignorant.

quote:

1. The rate of radioactive decay is known and has been constant since the rock formed.

2. There has been no loss or gain of the parent or daughter isotopes from the rock.

3. The amounts of parent and daughter isotopes present when the rock formed are known.



1- Yes, the rate is constant. I have worked with radioactive isotopes and have not seen varying emmission rates. To have wildly varing rates of emmision would not be in accord with the current laws of physics. Until these drips behind this page you posted a new mathmatical model for mapping radioactive decay and test it, I suggest they shut up.

2 - Loss and gain is minimal. When we date something via radioactive decay, we calibrate our results with other methods of dating as well, whether it be other types of radioactive decay or results from ice core, sediment cores or dendrochronology.

The only thing we have to worry about these days is that since nuclear testing, there have been increased amounts of c14 in the air, but this only affects things that have been alive since the '60's

3 - Ever done chemistry? Have you heard of the term equallibrium?

I'll let you look it up.



With these three points gone, the rest of the article is shit. I'll go into more depth if

need be when I get home tonight.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Who has ever called it a fluke. These scientific theories young earth creationists are trying to go against arent relying on a few pictures. I guess you'll never understand that. Science is not like religion, were not trying to prove god inspired the writing of science. If something is wrong in science, it does not push it backwards, it still moves forward.

If humans lived with dinosaurs, and somehow survived the extinction(ow ya cause noah hates dinasours) There would have hundreds of different pictures, of a wide variety of dinosaurs. You do know there are hundreds of different species, not just the ones you saw on jurassic park right? These pictures would have to match up with the dinasour fossils found in that area, which ive never even heard the creationists who believe this try and investigate(ow ya because they dont actually investigate things). There would also be evidence of humans eating dinasours, or humans being eaten. 6000 years is such a close time period LOADS of evidence would still be left behind. Humans wouldnt be able to live as plains people (which we know they did early in our history) Because they would be hunted and killed by predators like t-rex. They would only survive as cave people. hiding in caves and coming out at night and trying to hunt for food.

The vast number of different types of dinasours uncovered also shows us how they could never of all lived at the same time. A t-rex could not have lived with another apex preditor at the same time, they would fight eachother and compete for food to the death.



And those are just some things you would need to consider leaving evolution out of the mix. Once evolution comes into play there are dozens more things showing how humans didnt evolve till after the dinasours were extinct. Not only humans but mammals all togethor.



Hey i dont go with the young earth stuff nor the long version.

the earth has of no significance in explaining how he created the universe. If you people would actually read for a sec. you would read about what i have said to special and general relativity bieng able to explain how God could do this better than that of absolute space and time! if he could do it to space and the universe whats so hard to believe he could do it to the earth? i also have stated that the earths crust does not line up as it should, in some spots around the world the crust on top appears to be older than those on the bottom. And for the dinasuar bones if you guys knew at all what you guys say you do you would understand what exactly the effects would be if there was a flood! and you would know human bones would be turned into coal or diamonds! my arguements on here may seem vague but go look at some of the recent topics that i have talked about this on cause i dont feel like explaining twice! for example go to the topic- why must there be a purpose, i explain a lot there!

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:



Hey i dont go with the young earth stuff nor the long version.

i also have stated that the earths crust does not line up as it should, in some spots around the world the crust on top appears to be older than those on the bottom.

And for the dinasuar bones if you guys knew at all what you guys say you do you would understand what exactly the effects would be if there was a flood! and you would know human bones would be turned into coal or diamonds!



What do yo umean you dont go with either? you just pull out explinations out of your ass.

Where are these places where the earths crust doesnt line up?? I've never been able to find information about it.

For one, no the animals wouldnt be turned into coal and diamonds. For one, as far as we know an animal wont turn into coal unless its inside plant material, in some way. Almost all coal that we find is from plants. And diamonds require way more heat and pressure then what would be required to flood the earth. And it doesnt happen instantly, how long did noah chill with all the animals of the planet on his boat, a month? a year?. You people are fucked up.

And if you believe the animals that didnt make it on to noah's boat, including humans would turn to coal or diamonds. Then why the fuck do we find fossils dumbass. You just disproved your own idea.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

Yes it is a spinoff so dont get too caught up on the thread name. http://www .genesispa rk.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm (http: //www.gene sispark.co m/genpark/ ancient/an cient.htm)

Ah haaa how do you explain this then http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~seaveyca/cas/Dragon.jpg oh wait its that thing called creativity and imagination.

people. this guy is trolling. it is completely fucking obvious he hasn't a clue about evolution or anything remotely beyond the realm of religion.

he doesn't want to learn, and he is never going to understand.

just let him troll away, one day he will get sick, turns his back on medicine (science is evil, they just make conclusions then make bullshit to back it up) pray every night for a cure and then drop dead.

don't waste your time trying to debate this guy, he is too fucking dense to understand simple logic.

But I've been pissed off and need to vent at someone

Abbot and Costello here are make good targets.

im glad we don't get nutbag christians here in australia (if we do they keep themselves well hidden).

actually, the country is pretty empty of religious nutbags. even the muslim shit-stirrers are disowned by the vast majority.

but this guy is just retarded. he is arguing that dinosaurs were around a few thousand years ago, citing a handful of crude generic paintings. if dinosaurs were around with the egyptians, azteks, celts and vikings then there would be a fuckload more said about them.

they come up with one example, claim it disproves theories they can't even begin to understand, and then take cheap shots at all sciences they disagree with from their self built pedestal.

i had a thread running for about three months asking for physical evidence forwarding creationism. i got not one single post even attempting to justify creationism. these people don't have a leg to stand on, all they do is troll.

shoot down their pathetic arguments, but don't put effort in or expect a contructive debate. these people post to create fear, uncertainty and doubt, not to forward thier illogical and bizzare way of thinking.

here is a quote from harvey birdman i like.

"Aside from pointing to traditional fossil forms, or DNA polymorphisms, or tonsils, or domesticated animals, or gene sequencing, or male nipples or common sense, how does one prove evolution!"

...

How do theists explain it? You really havn't presented your argument.

Are you saying that God created the artifacts?

Are you saying God told the human creators what dinosaurs look like?

... Perhaps that dinosaurs were alive at the same time as these people, a contradiction to logic that only the existance of God could explain?

For fucks sake, would it have killed you to have made this thread useful? What are you asking evolutionists to explain? Are you asking us to explain to you how a handful of the countless ancient artifacts resemble a handful of the countless extinct living creatures? Seriously, are you fucking kidding? This is somehow an argument against evolution?

No, you've got me, I don't know exactly how all of these artifacts came to resemble certain dinosaurs. Now you tell me what the theist's explanation is.

Here is an interesting concept

1) Universe is older than 6000years as proven by the fact that light reaches us from stars that are more than 6000 ly away.

Religious answer: The earth was created with the appearance of old age (I can't help but ask why)

2) Radiometric dating proves that the earth is circa 4.55bln years old.

Religious answer: The methods are flawed

Why is it that some of the evidence is ignored using old earth appearance (OEA)while other is ignored by calling a method flawed. Wouldn't god create the earth either with complete OEA (which would pretend to explain the radiometric dating) or why don't religious people call the distance measuring of stars flawed. Did god create earth with only one half OEA? This makes no sense, it's like using two conflicting solutions for the same problem. It's like saying 2+2=4 because on one side 4*4-10=6 and on the other side 6002-6000=2 and if we average them up it is 4

Are creationists trying to be ironic or are they just stupid?

quote:Originally posted by DeliPro:

Are creationists trying to be ironic or are they just stupid?

every last one on totse is a troll. The ones in real life are just idiots.

So what the Mayan carvings that show a spaceship?

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

So what the Mayan carvings that show a spaceship?

God put them there to let us further ponder his greatness. I though everyone knew that silly.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

every last one on totse is a troll. The ones in real life are just idiots.

I have to play the Angel's Advocate and disagree with you on that. All of Totse's Christians aren't trolls, and all Christians in real life are not idiots.

BUT! With the likes of Masta Thief, mustache rider, fallinghouse & the OP - it does look grim on here as far as a Christian point of view goes.

xtreem5150, Digital Savior and trichocereus pachanoi - it's a shame they don't post as much. I may vehemently disagree with what they have to say, but at least they can articulate their points well, and bring something educational about their faith to the table besides all this crap that's been floating around here for the last week.

Can't let just a few stupid trolls completely discolor your view of religious folks - they have their idiots, just like we have our armchair *anarky* atheists who will quickly change out their belief systems with the next passing trend that comes along.





[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 03-20-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Beaver186:

If this is true, why don't ancient carvings and such depict dinosaurs which are off the fossil record? Or have a wider range of dinosaurs depicted?

As "thinking" person, you obviously haven't gotten the idea that dinosaurs don't run around the land in assortments like in the land before time. There would be the local predator, the local big dinosaur. Use your head, there are dozens of good answers to your narrow-minded question.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

xtreem5150, Digital Savior and trichocereus pachanoi - it's a shame they don't post as much. I may vehemently disagree with what they have to say, but at least they can articulate their points well, and bring something educational about their faith to the table besides all this crap that's been floating around here for the last week.



I think they got fed up with aguing the same shit over and over. I used to post in all the evolution threads until it got boring.

Every thread here has been done ten times over. It truly does get old hearing the same old arguments again and again, but it's nice hearing different perspectives than your own sometimes. Keeps your juices flowing and might even help validate your own belief system.

Let's also not fail to realize that the evolutionists are seated at a pretty auspicious podium in this arena. Theirs is a train of thought that invites refutation, encourages critical thinking and supports thorough examination of it's claims. Their discussions and debates will never cease as long as there is new information to be obtained - and they are absolutely eager to explore new developments and discard old methods. Dialogue will always be necessary, and constructive.

Creationists are bound to cling steadfastly to their quasi-facts without ever daring to think outside of the realm of what they feel they already know. They'll never dare to question the holy Instruction Manual written by their peers of yore, many centuries before them. Their momentum as a group might expand over time, but their core belief system stagnated somewhere back in the 18th century. They will forever be tethered by their ankles to what they perceive as the Infallible Word of God, rendering themselves invulnerable to intellectual growth and stunted as thinking individuals - all because they were being seduced by their God's promises to reward them as long as they never question the faith.

Fresh perspectives in here are plentiful, and this is definitely an appropriate, neutral place to air the perspectives you hold. I think those who get "fed up with arguing the same shit over and over" are just tired of proselytizing and worn smooth out from backpeddling.

how can anyone think evolution isnt real? i mean with carbon dating and everything... its insane to ignore science.

i still believe there is an afterlife though. the afterlife is just as real as science.

Looks like they knew about dinosaurs too.

Congrat-u-fucking-lations, you knuckle-dragging godheads.

There are cave paintings of mythical monsters and aliens.

Does that mean they also existed at the same time as humans, huh, retards?