Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hahaha I love this thread! But what do dinosaurs have to do with souls? Has this thread turned into an Evolution vs Creation thread? But what about the killing of man?!?! Perhaps man killed each other so the dinosaurs wouldn't eat us :P
Props to seeker and rifleman for pomoting truth!
Yup we look at dem bones. That is real and tangible and datable and model-able ya know assemble dem bones and erect a display that actually shows what the dino looked like. Using your much loved forensic pathology techniques, the skeleton can be fitted with a body to possibly give us an idea of what they looked like.
I asked you this:
How do you know that 1250 years ago there may not have been an exposed complete skeleton to give the artists an idea of what they may have looked like?
As usual, you ignored to comment but see this is what happens when the unexplainable is approached with preconceived notions.
You want dinos to have existed with humans.
You want the flood to be proven scientifically
Problem is that all the insurmountable evidence to the contrary proves you wrong time and again.
Nope, it is not even a question. All you folk have is pictographs and pertoglyphs and that you call slam dunk evidence, one pic at the entire site. No wonder you folk are called woo woos.
No I did the research, care to answer the seven questions?
It is your data so bring it man, you have experts then they should be qualified in their fields, where are their credentials? Oh wait - Rock art experts.
From your link interestingly enough:
Rock art cannot be dated accurately by any technique presently known. As can be seen from Newspaper Rock in Canyonlands National Park, the petroglyphs vary from possibly over a thousand years old to three hundred years ago or less...note the Indian on a horse. The Ute Indians were the earliest Indians to have horses in the canyonlands area, and that wasn't until after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. The first recorded Europeans to enter southeastern Utah with horses and mules was the Dominguez Escalante Expedition in 1776.
Poof goes your evidence - ironic hey?
See I knew nothing of what you offered up this morning and yet it was so easy to research and dismiss as unreliable.
I wonder why all around the world we do NOT see any pics of dinos + humans except for your lame attempts.
At Ukhahlamba-Drakensberg, South Africa, now thought to be some 3,000 years old, the paintings by the San people who settled in the area some 8,000 years ago depict animals and humans, and are thought to represent religious beliefs. Somalia has a large number of rock art found at sites across the country. The most prominent of these sites is the rock art recently discovered by French archaeologists in Laas Geel.
Keep it coming. Every discipline in science you choose to attempt to dismiss evolution backfires in your face.
You have no contrary evidence. All you have is the YEC's trying to take one or two examples and then try discredit the methods used by "evolutionists" to determine age as flawed yet your experts know squat in the relevant fields.
I guess it works for those that WANT to believe the myth.
All around the world we do see dinosaurs that have been made by ancient man and before dinosaurs were discovered. You just ignore them, or try to make a lame attempt to dismiss them. Tell me, what do you believe the utah image was, if not a dinosaur? What about Bishops Bell, what do you believe of those depictions? Just curious. I know if I showed either one of those images to a 10 year old, they would say it was a dinosaur. Of course, a 10 year old has not yet been blinded by Evolution.
All around the world we do see dinosaurs that have been made by ancient man and before dinosaurs were discovered. You just ignore them, or try to make a lame attempt to dismiss them. Tell me, what do you believe the utah image was, if not a dinosaur? What about Bishops Bell, what do you believe of those depictions? Just curious. I know if I showed either one of those images to a 10 year old, they would say it was a dinosaur. Of course, a 10 year old has not yet been blinded by Evolution.
A ten year old may already be indoctinated to believe in creation though....Many are....How old were you when you were indoctrinated? Whoever did it did a hell of a job, I must say.
All around the world we see hoaxes designed to fool the gullible such as yourself....Where are the dino bones younger than 55 million years? I suppose you won't let that little detail get in the way will you..Better start diggin', because none have been found. If fossils had been found dating only a few thousand years old your argument would have some credibilitiy.
All around the world we do see dinosaurs that have been made by ancient man and before dinosaurs were discovered. You just ignore them, or try to make a lame attempt to dismiss them. Tell me, what do you believe the utah image was, if not a dinosaur? What about Bishops Bell, what do you believe of those depictions? Just curious. I know if I showed either one of those images to a 10 year old, they would say it was a dinosaur. Of course, a 10 year old has not yet been blinded by Evolution.
To this day, flood catastrophism continues alive and well. Articles on the flood appear regularly in Creation Research Society Quarterly, for example. For the most part the proposals lack empirical control and fail to engage or test the hypotheses of other flood geologists. [109] Flood geology has proved to be a marvelous illustration of the unlimited human capacity both to offer and embrace unchecked speculation.
One might expect that those who endorse a strict literalistic interpretation of the flood narrative (involving the complete destruction of human and animal life not preserved on the ark and the significant reordering of the earth's surface features) would be inclined simply to reject the relevance of extrabiblical data, given the fact that such data seem clearly and overwhelmingly to deny that such a planet-altering flood ever took place. One might expect that such individuals would instead make appeals solely to the Word of God as the complete and final authority in all such matters and that they would denounce extrabiblical evidence as superfluous and misleading. And yet the proponents of flood geology have moved in the opposite direction, not only showing a substantial interest in extrabiblical evidence but actually elevating it to the status of apologetic proof.
The issue for flood geologists is not whether extrabiblical evidence is relevant to biblical interpretation but rather how to interpret that evidence. Having already employed, without benefit of external evidence, a hermeneutic that demands a literal interpretation of the Bible, flood geologists are prepared to do anything but accept the mainstream scientific evidence that flatly refutes their claims that the earth is geologically young and that a global deluge deposited the fossiliferous strata. They have thus been forced either to appeal to miracles or to construct elaborate theories that manipulate the extrabiblical data to fit their view of what must be true.
The appeals to miracle have been made mostly in the context of arguments for a young earth (e.g., in claims that God created the world in such a way that it simply has the "appearance of great age").
A ten year old may already be indoctinated to believe in creation though....Many are....How old were you when you were indoctrinated? Whoever did it did a hell of a job, I must say.
All around the world we see hoaxes designed to fool the gullible such as yourself....Where are the dino bones younger than 55 million years? I suppose you won't let that little detail get in the way will you..Better start diggin', because none have been found. If fossils had been found dating only a few thousand years old your argument would have some credibilitiy.
Your 55 million year old dinosaur bones are based on assumptions made by science and you. And dinosour bones that have been carbon tested, show them to be in the thousands of years old, not millions. And if dinosaur bones are millions of years old, why do we still find carbon in them that allows them to be carbon time tested? And the fact that dionsaur bones are being found that have stretchable soft tissue in them, points to thousands of years not 75 million years. Of course, it requires common sense to see that.
Your 55 million year old dinosaur bones are based on assumptions made by science and you. And dinosour bones that have been carbon tested, show them to be in the thousands of years old, not millions. And if dinosaur bones are millions of years old, why do we still find carbon in them that allows them to be carbon time tested? And the fact that dionsaur bones are being found that have stretchable soft tissue in them, points to thousands of years not 75 million years. Of course, it requires common sense to see that.
As best as I understand it, other methods are used to date dinosour bones (uranium-238, uranium-235, potassum-40).
Your 55 million year old dinosaur bones are based on assumptions made by science and you. And dinosour bones that have been carbon tested, show them to be in the thousands of years old, not millions. And if dinosaur bones are millions of years old, why do we still find carbon in them that allows them to be carbon time tested? And the fact that dionsaur bones are being found that have stretchable soft tissue in them, points to thousands of years not 75 million years. Of course, it requires common sense to see that.
To this day, flood catastrophism continues alive and well. Articles on the flood appear regularly in Creation Research Society Quarterly, for example. For the most part the proposals lack empirical control and fail to engage or test the hypotheses of other flood geologists. [109] Flood geology has proved to be a marvelous illustration of the unlimited human capacity both to offer and embrace unchecked speculation.
One might expect that those who endorse a strict literalistic interpretation of the flood narrative (involving the complete destruction of human and animal life not preserved on the ark and the significant reordering of the earth's surface features) would be inclined simply to reject the relevance of extrabiblical data, given the fact that such data seem clearly and overwhelmingly to deny that such a planet-altering flood ever took place. One might expect that such individuals would instead make appeals solely to the Word of God as the complete and final authority in all such matters and that they would denounce extrabiblical evidence as superfluous and misleading. And yet the proponents of flood geology have moved in the opposite direction, not only showing a substantial interest in extrabiblical evidence but actually elevating it to the status of apologetic proof.
The issue for flood geologists is not whether extrabiblical evidence is relevant to biblical interpretation but rather how to interpret that evidence. Having already employed, without benefit of external evidence, a hermeneutic that demands a literal interpretation of the Bible, flood geologists are prepared to do anything but accept the mainstream scientific evidence that flatly refutes their claims that the earth is geologically young and that a global deluge deposited the fossiliferous strata. They have thus been forced either to appeal to miracles or to construct elaborate theories that manipulate the extrabiblical data to fit their view of what must be true.
The appeals to miracle have been made mostly in the context of arguments for a young earth (e.g., in claims that God created the world in such a way that it simply has the "appearance of great age").
However, to the scientist bewilderment, more and more prehistoric relics discovered on the ocean floor are challenging their point of view.
Believers in Evolution are not just having to deal with creation scientist, they have to deal with new evidence that is now being revealed. Why are we finding underwater human structures deep below the oceans of the world? Consider the link below. It is creation scientist who have stated that the earths crust collapsed during the flood. This almost seems obvious now that numerous ancient manmade structures are being discovered deep below the surface of the worlds oceans.
The appeals to miracle have been made mostly in the context of arguments for a young earth (e.g., in claims that God created the world in such a way that it simply has the "appearance of great age").
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
