Man and dinosaurs, when did we first know about them?

I'm out. jmc007 is such an obvious troll at this point that even the humour element has gone from this thread.
 
no, there is irrefutable credible evidence that you're an idiot.

just because you, and other idiots with an agenda, have jumped to the conclusion that it's dinosaurs does not mean that it is. With that argument lets look at the Egyptians and say that dog headed people were once commonplace.

dog headed people go to heaven right? because they're like little furry people

B@
 
Last edited:
What of Greek and Roman deities? They are widely depicted in artwork, are we to assume they are real too? No? Would that be selective reasoning?
 
Efour said:
Kedge if you say this to argue and debate this stuff for fun then fair enough.

If you truly believe this stuff then you are in a very, very small minority and whilst that doesn't make you "wrong" per-se it doesn't make you right.

I've never seen a carbon atom or isotope, how do i know they exist? Someone told me afterall ... You seem to accept some science as fact but dismiss others, whats the point? Its all lies right?

You have a very tiny limited pool of data to draw from if you are trying to disprove the past 100 years of scientific advancement.

I think faith and science should just be kept apart, after all one is created by man and the other is science.
Click to expand...


When you say minority you have a huge amount of Muslims, catholics abd many Christians who do and must believe in creation ism.
 
The Running Man said:
When you say minority you have a huge amount of Muslims, catholics abd many Christians who do and must believe in creation ism.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I find, when pushed at least, many who subscribe to religions that demand creationism to be the truth are actually very ambivalent in this belief.

Primarily I suspect this is because there is an ever growing set of evidence for natural processes being the cause of life as we know it and it becomes far more difficult to make an argument against than it is to make statements such as "Jesus walked on water and turned water in to wine" as these are effectively impossible to disprove as if they happened, they happened at a time were records were kept by a select few in the form of written word.
 
The Running Man said:
When you say minority you have a huge amount of Muslims, catholics abd many Christians who do and must believe in creation ism.
Click to expand...

disagree. many find it outdated in the face of modern science. you can believe in god/s and not be a douche about certain pointless parts of the practice which are certainly not a serious distinction of the teachings

B@
 
The Running Man said:
When you say minority you have a huge amount of Muslims, catholics abd many Christians who do and must believe in creation ism.
Click to expand...

They do not necessarily believe in or accept the validity of Literal Biblical Creationism or it's variations such as Young Earth Creationism...for the most part they accept the validity and reality of Evolution and address that within their spiritual world-view. Catholicism particularly has this viewpoint. I would point out as well that Catholics ARE Christians, you seem to be implying they are not.
 
jmc007 said:
You obviously have not researched diligently; come back when you have. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What research, the stuff you are linking to is making assertions based on nothing more than conjecture. You are making conclusions that are not supported by the evidence and are making connections that are are pure conjecture and without due consideration to the obvious alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Just post it.. Its not a guessing game people are at work or Uni or school, whatever....

I would love to think dinosaurs were alive in the past 100,000 years but unfortunately my degree in Geology and working in the oil industry, has so far led me to believe that they are and ill say with certainty, 99.999999% extinct. Unless they live in the centre of the earth or a land where time forgot.
 
Its quite hilarious the conclusions creationists jump to given the evidence, or in most cases, lack of evidence.
 
Its just a case of finding what your looking for, if you set out with a preconception then there is every chance you will find things you can make fit your viewpoint. Its an incredibly silly and lazy way of doing things but thats what creationism is.
 
omg, lol! check the remains of a fosillised "finger" they're using as evidence:

fossil-finger+finger.jpg
B@
 
Efour said:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm


dinosaur art... this part interests me the most... the rest of that website is PURE crap.

well there is 40 mins of my life i wont be getting back...

Logical explanations for everything.
Click to expand...

the Cambodian stegosaurus just looks like a different water buffalo, it even looks like it has horns on the head, and the pattern that's repeated around the carving is repeated behind the carving of the animal, just like the carving above. It does not look like a stegosaurus. we will truly never know but one thing we do know is this is not evidence of dinosaurs living with men, its just a carving that isn't 100% clear as to what it is. The things these people cling on to are ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom