Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
hedwig

Proof that dinosaurs lived alongside humans ?

96 posts in this topic

No proof at all. Dragons were not dinosaurs.. and a few cave drawings aren't proof either. Those sites aren't exactly unbiased..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe dragon legends were inspired by some sort of reptillian creatures, maybe they were dinosaurs or just a large lizard (komodo, iguana, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

i dunno if that link is reliable, if not go on google and look up dinosaurs modern day sightings, i found it VERY interesting ***

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

this is another link of the grand canyon carvings of dinosaurs

Biblical propaganda that doesn't hold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biblical propaganda that doesn't hold water.

And evolutionist propaganda

holds about as much, so please check your facts before flaming.

"Evolution is a proven fact." Wrong. Neither evolution, nor Creation is proven, because we cannot now see either theory in operation today. Both ideas are theories that must be accepted by faith. The person's conclusions for their faith must be based upon truth though - the evolutionist has no proof, only more theories. The Creationist has the words of the Bible which can be proven in a court to be true. It has been consistently proven there are no false statements in the Bible!

What Evolution is. Evolution is a theory of the origin of all things based upon a process of continuous “innovative” change. It states the universe is continually improving itself through this "process." It may take billions of years, but it is supposedly gradually improving! This usually means without allowing for an outside Creator’s help. It represents the acceptance of anything that can explain the existence of this universe, as long as it does not allow for the existence of God.

1. Some Scientific Laws Against ANY Form of Evolution.

1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (Heat Energy).

a. The first law says energy and matter can be transformed (changed) and altered, but cannot now be created or destroyed. This Law does away with Theory B. A universe that accidentally "big banged" out of nothing is unscientific since matter can't naturally be created (see Nehemiah 9:6). Evolution requires you to believe everything “accidentally” came from nothing!

b. The second law states that energy in a closed system[1] will run out. This is called ENTROPY. All forms of energy run down like a watch. For example: things do not grow toward order and cleanliness by accident (ask any housewife with kids). Nothing is in the process of "evolving" (getting better, and more advanced, and more powerful), but rather EVERYTHING which can be seen demonstrates dissipation, disintegration, decay and degeneration. Nothing is "improved" unless it is worked on by an outside force! This Law is stated in Isaiah 51:6, and does away with Theory A since if the universe had always been here, it would have "burned-out" long ago! Even though matter and energy cannot disappear, energy is always slowing down - never increasing (and never being replaced)! An example is the burning of a fire log. The log burns, and produces heat energy. That energy is then gone from the log, and cannot be produced from the same log anymore.

2. The Law of Cause and Effect. To every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. For every effect that we see in the universe, there had to be an original cause. Evolution requires that all of ORDER came from CHAOS being “helped along” - again “accidentally.”

3. The Law of Biogenetics demonstrates that life ONLY comes from life! Every living organism comes only from living organisms (John 1:1-4)! Never has life "spontaneously" come from a dead thing.

4. Mendel’s Laws. Gregor Mendel (1822-1914) proved scientifically:

a. Only genetic characteristics are inherited (things that are already coded in the DNA molecules of a gene) - only things that the parent already had “in” themselves, are passed on to the next generation. Nothing new can be passed on except for mutations which are 99.9% disastrous to the next generation.

b. Variations are built-into the DNA code of an organism - this allows for variations in a specific kind of animal - i.e., a dog’s genes have many variations already built-in (doberman, terrier, greyhound), just as a cat’s genes have many variations, etc.

c. Variations outside of the limits of the genetic code do not occur. The variations do not include the ability for offspring to turn into anything BUT what the parent was - i.e., a cat ALWAYS produces a cat! Never a cat-dog, or a butterfly, or a frog, etc.

d. No “new” characteristics appear in ANY species (it would be like trying to play keys on a piano that aren't there) except by mutation - which ALWAYS means a degradation of the offspring’s quality of life - which is opposite of the evolutionary theory.

e. All mutations are proven to be destructive to the off-spring, because they are “degenerative” and not evolutionary - the next generation ALWAYS becomes sterile.

# Order Out of Chaos? Could you believe that a delicate and beautiful Swiss watch could come from an explosion in a steel mill, or that a dictionary could come from an explosion in a print shop? Then how could a rational person believe that all the beauties and perfection of nature result from an explosion of hot gasses back at the "big bang?" Only if you are told again and again that it MUST have happened!

4. Find the Fossil Evidence. The theory of evolution contends that life appeared "spontaneously" on the earth, and that over millions of years, life forms changed and became more complex. Man is assumed to be the product of this process. Fossils, the remains of dead plants and animals, have supposedly left a record of the organisms that once populated the earth.

Modern research has shown that in recorded history, species are constantly moving toward extinction. Every day, more than 50 species become extinct. If evolution were true, one would expect to see the process providing examples of emerging species in their "transitional forms." The question arises, "where are the emerging species and their transitional forms?"[2] The fossil record shows no transitional forms - only fully developed creatures, in all strata!

Evolutionary Hoaxes, Scams, and Abuses

1. Dating Methods - Billions? Millions? Or Just Thousands of Years Old?

1. Date the fossils by the “strata” they are found in. Most scientists believe that layers of the earth’s crust (called strata) represent different time periods, and were laid down over millions and even billions of years. In the 1800’s, each layer was labeled by its depth and rock type. Then, the fossils found within each layer were classified by that layer (i.e., Cambrian, Jurassic, Carboniferous, etc).

2. Date the strata by what fossils are found in it. As time went on, strata were not found to be uniform in layering, and so the fossil type that was found in each strata was used to label the strata. The problem is this: based upon a preliminary assumption in the 1800's that all the strata in the world were laid down uniformly, all fossils and strata are classified based upon each other’s preliminary labeling - i.e., the strata is identified by the fossils it contains, and the fossils are classified by the strata they are found in - circular reasoning! Not science!

3. The “Flood” ruined everything! A creationist approaches the problem from the vantage of the world-wide flood of Genesis 7 & 8, which sorted the fossils and strata in a cataclysmic, not uniform fashion.

2. The So-Called “Missing Links” of Human Ancestry

1. Java Man (Pithecanthropus) - In 1890, a skull cap, femur, and two molar teeth were grouped together as belonging to the same person. The skull is that of an ape, but the teeth and the femur bone of an human. What was not published was that they were found 45 feet apart from each other, along with many other bones of clearly apes, humans, and other animals. It was a grocery store of “parts” to construct any animal you wanted! Java man has since been reclassified as human.

2. Neanderthal Man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) - 1856, in Neanderthal, Germany, a skull cap and limb bones were found. It was grouped with a set of skeletons found all over Europe that had the following characteristics: prominent eyebrow ridges, low forehead, long narrow brain case, protruding upper jaw, a strong lower jaw lacking a chin. The overall skeletons were short, and stooped-over. Anthropologists believed it to be a “missing link” between man and ape because it seemed to have shuffled along when walking. However, 150 years later, it is now admitted that these skeletons were of people that suffered from rickets, and syphilis. Neanderthal Man was just a variation of the modern human kind with disease!

3. The Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus). In England, in 1912, a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw were grouped together, along with a tooth as a hoax to prove another so-called “missing link.” It was believed by the scientific world for over 40 years until tested for age, only to find that the tooth had been filed down to look human, and the jaw bone stained to look as old as the skull cap.

4. The Peking Man - all the “evidence” of this ape-man was lost in World War II, and is not available for examination.

5. The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus) - an entire skeleton of an ape-man was constructed based upon a single tooth of a supposed “missing link.” The tooth was discovered to be of a rare pig found in Paraguay.

6. Lucy (Ramapithecus) - once widely accepted as the direct ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that this skeleton is merely an extinct type of orangutan - not an early human.

And they call all this "SCIENCE?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Better than to be called religion. AT least science has some basis. Religion has nothing but faith and that won't even get you a cup of coffee.

Edited by ericraven2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

i dunno if that link is reliable, if not go on google and look up dinosaurs modern day sightings, i found it VERY interesting ***

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

this is another link of the grand canyon carvings of dinosaurs

The first link only has one real image that's not a plastic model. It's of the Istar gate. I believe those are griffins. Not dinosaurs. People should really read some history and mythology.

The second link shows supposed cave drawings. Art is in the eye of the beholder. I see drawings of many things none of which look like dinosaurs. The first one looks like an alligator. Drawings are not proof of anything. Interesting. But that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And evolutionist propaganda

holds about as much, so please check your facts before flaming.

"Evolution is a proven fact." Wrong. Neither evolution, nor Creation is proven, because we cannot now see either theory in operation today. Both ideas are theories that must be accepted by faith. The person's conclusions for their faith must be based upon truth though - the evolutionist has no proof, only more theories. The Creationist has the words of the Bible which can be proven in a court to be true. It has been consistently proven there are no false statements in the Bible!

What Evolution is. Evolution is a theory of the origin of all things based upon a process of continuous “innovative” change. It states the universe is continually improving itself through this "process." It may take billions of years, but it is supposedly gradually improving! This usually means without allowing for an outside Creator’s help. It represents the acceptance of anything that can explain the existence of this universe, as long as it does not allow for the existence of God.

Speciation has been observed in microbes and other creatures with extremely fast rates of production. Genetics emphatically supports common descent. The entire fossil record supports evolution. I have no idea what you're talking about the bible being proven in court to be true, that's a ridiculous statement, completely unsupported by the amount of historically and scientifically inaccurate passages of the bible. Lastly, evolution has nothing to do with religion.

1. Some Scientific Laws Against ANY Form of Evolution.

1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (Heat Energy).

a. The first law says energy and matter can be transformed (changed) and altered, but cannot now be created or destroyed. This Law does away with Theory B. A universe that accidentally "big banged" out of nothing is unscientific since matter can't naturally be created (see Nehemiah 9:6). Evolution requires you to believe everything “accidentally” came from nothing!

b. The second law states that energy in a closed system[1] will run out. This is called ENTROPY. All forms of energy run down like a watch. For example: things do not grow toward order and cleanliness by accident (ask any housewife with kids). Nothing is in the process of "evolving" (getting better, and more advanced, and more powerful), but rather EVERYTHING which can be seen demonstrates dissipation, disintegration, decay and degeneration. Nothing is "improved" unless it is worked on by an outside force! This Law is stated in Isaiah 51:6, and does away with Theory A since if the universe had always been here, it would have "burned-out" long ago! Even though matter and energy cannot disappear, energy is always slowing down - never increasing (and never being replaced)! An example is the burning of a fire log. The log burns, and produces heat energy. That energy is then gone from the log, and cannot be produced from the same log anymore.

Oh boy, trotting out thermodynamics again. Are you just cutting and pasting from creationist websites? The earth is not a closed system! We have this huge furnace called the sun constantly adding energy to the system. If energy couldn't overcome entropy nothing could happen in any sense. No work, no growth. The 2nd law refers to a system with no outside influence. The earth is not a closed system. Also note that order can result from the 2nd Law: " There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS — yes, predicts firmly — the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.

Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis.

Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law. "

Frank L. Lambert Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Occidental College

Learn what a theory means before trying to use it in a context you don't understand.

2. The Law of Cause and Effect. To every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. For every effect that we see in the universe, there had to be an original cause. Evolution requires that all of ORDER came from CHAOS being “helped along” - again “accidentally.”

3. The Law of Biogenetics demonstrates that life ONLY comes from life! Every living organism comes only from living organisms (John 1:1-4)! Never has life "spontaneously" come from a dead thing.

4. Mendel’s Laws. Gregor Mendel (1822-1914) proved scientifically:

a. Only genetic characteristics are inherited (things that are already coded in the DNA molecules of a gene) - only things that the parent already had “in” themselves, are passed on to the next generation. Nothing new can be passed on except for mutations which are 99.9% disastrous to the next generation.

b. Variations are built-into the DNA code of an organism - this allows for variations in a specific kind of animal - i.e., a dog’s genes have many variations already built-in (doberman, terrier, greyhound), just as a cat’s genes have many variations, etc.

c. Variations outside of the limits of the genetic code do not occur. The variations do not include the ability for offspring to turn into anything BUT what the parent was - i.e., a cat ALWAYS produces a cat! Never a cat-dog, or a butterfly, or a frog, etc.

d. No “new” characteristics appear in ANY species (it would be like trying to play keys on a piano that aren't there) except by mutation - which ALWAYS means a degradation of the offspring’s quality of life - which is opposite of the evolutionary theory.

e. All mutations are proven to be destructive to the off-spring, because they are “degenerative” and not evolutionary - the next generation ALWAYS becomes sterile.

# Order Out of Chaos? Could you believe that a delicate and beautiful Swiss watch could come from an explosion in a steel mill, or that a dictionary could come from an explosion in a print shop? Then how could a rational person believe that all the beauties and perfection of nature result from an explosion of hot gasses back at the "big bang?" Only if you are told again and again that it MUST have happened!.

First read "Order out of Chaos" so you understand what you're talking about.

On Mendel, you just rewrote his laws entirely, here's what they really are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

And they completely support speciation.

4. Find the Fossil Evidence. The theory of evolution contends that life appeared "spontaneously" on the earth, and that over millions of years, life forms changed and became more complex. Man is assumed to be the product of this process. Fossils, the remains of dead plants and animals, have supposedly left a record of the organisms that once populated the earth.

Modern research has shown that in recorded history, species are constantly moving toward extinction. Every day, more than 50 species become extinct. If evolution were true, one would expect to see the process providing examples of emerging species in their "transitional forms." The question arises, "where are the emerging species and their transitional forms?"[2] The fossil record shows no transitional forms - only fully developed creatures, in all strata!

Evolutionary Hoaxes, Scams, and Abuses!

You do know that there is no such thing as a transitional form per se? All creatures are what they are at any given time. We simply use species as label to help classifiy flora and fauna. Every creature is a transitional form. To actually address what you're dancing around though, you must realize that fossils have been found that represent say: sea to land, dinosaurs to birds, whales from land creatures back to water, early hominid species. This argument has so thoroughly been debunked I can't believe it's still brought up. Here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Read it.

1. Dating Methods - Billions? Millions? Or Just Thousands of Years Old?

1. Date the fossils by the “strata” they are found in. Most scientists believe that layers of the earth’s crust (called strata) represent different time periods, and were laid down over millions and even billions of years. In the 1800’s, each layer was labeled by its depth and rock type. Then, the fossils found within each layer were classified by that layer (i.e., Cambrian, Jurassic, Carboniferous, etc).

2. Date the strata by what fossils are found in it. As time went on, strata were not found to be uniform in layering, and so the fossil type that was found in each strata was used to label the strata. The problem is this: based upon a preliminary assumption in the 1800's that all the strata in the world were laid down uniformly, all fossils and strata are classified based upon each other’s preliminary labeling - i.e., the strata is identified by the fossils it contains, and the fossils are classified by the strata they are found in - circular reasoning! Not science!

3. The “Flood” ruined everything! A creationist approaches the problem from the vantage of the world-wide flood of Genesis 7 & 8, which sorted the fossils and strata in a cataclysmic, not uniform fashion.

Strata can be accurately dated using radiometric techniques. Palentologists, geologists and archeologists start with that. If a fossil has always only been found in a certain strata and that fossil is found in a strata on site then it can be used to give a rough date. Follow up analysis is always done if the item is date crucial though. Also, note, they are very well aware how strata are moved and eroded. Its something that they deal with on a daily basis. The flood never happened. There is no geologic evidence for it. Strata are not as ununiform as you would like to believe.

2. The So-Called “Missing Links” of Human Ancestry

1. Java Man (Pithecanthropus) - In 1890, a skull cap, femur, and two molar teeth were grouped together as belonging to the same person. The skull is that of an ape, but the teeth and the femur bone of an human. What was not published was that they were found 45 feet apart from each other, along with many other bones of clearly apes, humans, and other animals. It was a grocery store of “parts” to construct any animal you wanted! Java man has since been reclassified as human.

2. Neanderthal Man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) - 1856, in Neanderthal, Germany, a skull cap and limb bones were found. It was grouped with a set of skeletons found all over Europe that had the following characteristics: prominent eyebrow ridges, low forehead, long narrow brain case, protruding upper jaw, a strong lower jaw lacking a chin. The overall skeletons were short, and stooped-over. Anthropologists believed it to be a “missing link” between man and ape because it seemed to have shuffled along when walking. However, 150 years later, it is now admitted that these skeletons were of people that suffered from rickets, and syphilis. Neanderthal Man was just a variation of the modern human kind with disease!

3. The Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus). In England, in 1912, a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw were grouped together, along with a tooth as a hoax to prove another so-called “missing link.” It was believed by the scientific world for over 40 years until tested for age, only to find that the tooth had been filed down to look human, and the jaw bone stained to look as old as the skull cap.

4. The Peking Man - all the “evidence” of this ape-man was lost in World War II, and is not available for examination.

5. The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus) - an entire skeleton of an ape-man was constructed based upon a single tooth of a supposed “missing link.” The tooth was discovered to be of a rare pig found in Paraguay.

6. Lucy (Ramapithecus) - once widely accepted as the direct ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that this skeleton is merely an extinct type of orangutan - not an early human.

And they call all this "SCIENCE?"

1. Java man is Homo Erectus and more complete specimens have been found since then. Nice trying to use a more than century old analysis, while ignoring modern analysis, to make your point.

2. No, you are wrong. The first near complete skeleton gave rise to the stooped posture. That was the sickly one. Discoveries since then, of which there are many, show them to be a different homo species that was quite robust and strong. Get you facts straight. No scientist is saying what you're purporting they are.

3. Piltdown was a hoax. It was found out. So? There was an attempted hoax not that long ago in China. that was found out too. You can't get away with it.

4. So peking man is missing. So what? There's far more fossils than that.

5. Again, this was the 1920's. And it was discovered to be false even then. Are you afraid to bring up any evidence after the 60's or what?

6. Lucy is an Australopithecus, an early human predecessor, not an extinct orangutan. Where do you get this stuff?

Nice smokescreen though, trying to bring up science that is mostly turn of the century stuff prior to the more sophisticated techniques we rely on today. Here's a list of the homonid fossils we'vr found and where they were found:

http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/

So, before you post about science again, maybe you should read some. There has never been an actual scientific argument against evolution that has stood up to scrutiny and most arguments, like your own, aren't even scientfic to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first link on the OP, there are NO cites to verify anything - and the website is suspect due to its clear Biblical affiliation.

The second are a collection of pictographs that could represent nearly anything. Sure, I can see a pterosaur in that picture. I can also see a road runner defending its nest from interlopers (and I have seen them rear up like that pictograph). They have an identical crest on their heads.

Dark Arc, would you please be so kind as to provide a single credible cite that shows that the Bible has been proven to be factual in any civil court of law? That would go a long way to showing your personal credibility... but I fear you will have problems doing so. Considering the Biblical theorists that say that the world was created only four thousand years ago, things may not be as clear-cut as you propose. I think capeo has done a fine job of poking holes in the vast majority of your post.

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a. The first law says energy and matter can be transformed (changed) and altered, but cannot now be created or destroyed. This Law does away with Theory B. A universe that accidentally "big banged" out of nothing is unscientific since matter can't naturally be created (see Nehemiah 9:6). Evolution requires you to believe everything “accidentally” came from nothing!

This isn't true. Energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. In that sense matter can be created and destroyed. Albert Einstien's equation E=mc^2 quantifies that process. The universe had plenty of energy in the beginning to produce matter.

b. The second law states that energy in a closed system[1] will run out. This is called ENTROPY. All forms of energy run down like a watch. For example: things do not grow toward order and cleanliness by accident (ask any housewife with kids). Nothing is in the process of "evolving" (getting better, and more advanced, and more powerful), but rather EVERYTHING which can be seen demonstrates dissipation, disintegration, decay and degeneration. Nothing is "improved" unless it is worked on by an outside force! This Law is stated in Isaiah 51:6, and does away with Theory A since if the universe had always been here, it would have "burned-out" long ago! Even though matter and energy cannot disappear, energy is always slowing down - never increasing (and never being replaced)! An example is the burning of a fire log. The log burns, and produces heat energy. That energy is then gone from the log, and cannot be produced from the same log anymore.

You misstated the second law of thermodynamics. One way to state it (there are several ways to state it) says the entropy in a closed system must increase. It says nothing about energy. Entropy is not energy. Entropy can be thought of as the disorder in a thermodynamic system. It is true the Earth is not a closed system. It is possible for the entropy on the Earth to decrease due to entropy transfer.

I don't even know why people try to use the laws of thermodynamics to dispute evolution. They are laws that explain heat energy. They are not laws of biology. If you want to dispute evolution you will need to find biological laws it violates.

2. The Law of Cause and Effect. To every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. For every effect that we see in the universe, there had to be an original cause. Evolution requires that all of ORDER came from CHAOS being “helped along” - again “accidentally.”

That's one of Newton's Laws of Motion. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I agree that something had to have triggered the Big Bang. Since cosmologists can't determine anything prior to the Big Bang we may never know the answer to that.

3. The Law of Biogenetics demonstrates that life ONLY comes from life! Every living organism comes only from living organisms (John 1:1-4)! Never has life "spontaneously" come from a dead thing.

For creation to be true it has to be possible to produce life from the nonliving.

As for the dinosaurs, I think it is possible people lived when dinosaurs were around. Somebody found a fossilized human footprint. Cave drawings don't prove people and dinosaurs lived at the same time though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

a. The first law says energy and matter can be transformed (changed) and altered, but cannot now be created or destroyed. This Law does away with Theory B. A universe that accidentally "big banged" out of nothing is unscientific since matter can't naturally be created (see Nehemiah 9:6). Evolution requires you to believe everything “accidentally” came from nothing!

I had to look this one up because it has been years since I graduated from college. That is not what the first law of thermodynamics says. What you have above is actually the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy. According to modern physics matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into matter. Modern physics uses conservation of mass-energy.

Edited by Jim88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

What do you all think of this link? is this proof dinosaurs lived along side humans or a hoax

That's probabily were they got the picture of the fossilized human footprint I saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had to look this one up because it has been years since I graduated from college. That is not what the first law of thermodynamics says. What you have above is actually the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy. According to modern physics matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into matter. Modern physics uses conservation of mass-energy.

:yes: Thats true.

Physics class yesterday told me so.

But agreeing with people above ^^^^^^^^, the first site is clearly biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has a PERSONAL belief system in a Prime Creator, let me distance myself from the forgoing statements of Darc Mind..er..Arc. Not everyone who holds that the universe is not totally accidental is this narrow minded . As was pointed out, science cannot know what proceeded the 'Big Bang', and so cannot say yes or no on the idea of a Primary Force in the universe. This is an idea each human must grapple with alone.

Whenever someone like the above comes along, I cringe. It is not logical to hold such 12th century notions, yet so many people do. It is much like the ones found in the UFO field who spout garbage as fact, with no proof or even logic on their side. When someone like this posts a long convoluted diatribe to prove the existence of a particular aspect of some deity, it makes those of us who hold a more logical opinion want to hide.

I express this only in case I should one day make reference to something viewers might think bordered on a belief in a higher power. And so that those here will not be automatically turning a deaf ear to people in their daily life who might mention a belief of their own.

Some people try, as above, to define creation into the time frame that their minds can handle. They do not succeed in limiting the greatness of the universe, they only show the size of their own minds in the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone who has a PERSONAL belief system in a Prime Creator, let me distance myself from the forgoing statements of Darc Mind..er..Arc. Not everyone who holds that the universe is not totally accidental is this narrow minded . As was pointed out, science cannot know what proceeded the 'Big Bang', and so cannot say yes or no on the idea of a Primary Force in the universe. This is an idea each human must grapple with alone.

Whenever someone like the above comes along, I cringe. It is not logical to hold such 12th century notions, yet so many people do. It is much like the ones found in the UFO field who spout garbage as fact, with no proof or even logic on their side. When someone like this posts a long convoluted diatribe to prove the existence of a particular aspect of some deity, it makes those of us who hold a more logical opinion want to hide.

I express this only in case I should one day make reference to something viewers might think bordered on a belief in a higher power. And so that those here will not be automatically turning a deaf ear to people in their daily life who might mention a belief of their own.

Some people try, as above, to define creation into the time frame that their minds can handle. They do not succeed in limiting the greatness of the universe, they only show the size of their own minds in the effort.

That's all fine, but there are three threads going under spirituality and skeptacism to debate creation verses evolution. I don't know how this became a debate about evolution verses creation. I just pointed out that he got some scientific principles wrong. I believe in creation myself, but I don't like it when creationists misstate scientific priniciples.

What do you think of the websites he linked to? Do you think it is possible that humans and dinosaurs could have coexisted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like loads of people fail to consider that ... humans might have found "BONES" and "REMAINS" of dynos which would of course look UNNATURAL to them.... so they did their best to portray them using their 2nd grade drawing skills...

P.S both sites are bunch of B.S. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither evolution, nor Creation is proven, because we cannot now see either theory in operation today. Both ideas are theories that must be accepted by faith.

False they are not two theories .Evolution is a theory whilst creationism is a religious belief .,One is science based the other is a matter of faith and are not to be compared .Even if evolution is wrong it doesn't follow that creationism is right or vice versa

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
False they are not two theories .Evolution is a theory whilst creationism is a religious belief .,One is science based the other is a matter of faith and are not to be compared .Even if evolution is wrong it doesn't follow that creationism is right or vice versa

fullywired

I don't see how evolution is any more based on fact than creation. You may consider it to be better. That's your opinion. If you want to debate evolution verses creation go to spirituality verses skepticism. There are three threads there to debate it. Explain to them why you think evolution is better.

You didn't even comment on the two websites he linked to. What do you think of those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am not debating evolution or creationism ,I am stating a fact that is all ,.surely you are not denying that creationism is a religious belief when it is straight out of the bible? or did you not notice I didn't defend either stance

Edited by fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not debating evolution or creationism ,I am stating a fact that is all ,.surely you are not denying that creationism is a religious belief when it is straight out of the bible? or did you not notice I didn't defend either stance

Why don't you just go up to spirituality and skepticism and tell people what you think. You think evolution is better than creation. Tell them up there why you think it is better.

I never said I was a Christian. I don't believe the version of creation in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you just go up to spirituality and skepticism and tell people what you think. You think evolution is better than creation. Tell them up there why you think it is better.

I never said I was a Christian. I don't believe the version of creation in the Bible.

I hate people putting words in my mouth .nowhere did I say ,I think evolution is better than creationism .I stated and I repeat one is a theory and the other is a religious belief .plus I never said you were a Christian.You appear to read what you want to read instead of the text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate people putting words in my mouth .nowhere did I say ,I think evolution is better than creationism .I stated and I repeat one is a theory and the other is a religious belief .plus I never said you were a Christian.You appear to read what you want to read instead of the text

You said creation is a belief out of the Bible. You assumed I was a Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The only assumptions here are those you are making ,I didn't assume you to be anything other than a poster in a thread

Isn't creationism out of the Bible ???? I always thought is was

Edited by fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only assumptions here are those you are making ,I didn't assume you to be anything other than a poster in a thread

Isn't creationism out of the Bible ???? I always thought is was

A lot of people believe in creation but they don't believe what it says in the Bible. The Bible is not the only version of creation. If you really want to hear what I think about creation and evolution then I'll tell you. I believe both explanations could be true. We could have been created and life could be evolving. If evolution were ever proven then it would disprove creation because they could both be true.

I really don't want to get into a debate over whether creation is considered to be a theory. Believers believe it is a theory. Evolutionists don't. I'm sick of debating evolution verses creation. Nobody can prove anything, so what's the point in arguing about it. I personally don't believe God wants everybody to believe in him. If he did then he would reveal himself to everybody. Some people believe in him and some people don't. I accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.