|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| evilsorcerer1 | |||||||
|
| Announcements: | Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: dinosaur and human co-existence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 1725 days)  Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
here are people touching a dinosaur.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 1686 days)  Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member  Posts: 15948 Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
An archosaur, actually.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
techristian Member (Idle past 1599 days)  Posts: 60 Joined: |
The greatest evidence of this, is all of the cave drawings. Remember that these paintings were done long before the "science" of Archeology. The cavemen didn't have computer modelling to put the bones back together and put flesh on the bones. Here are a few more proofs. http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/dinosaur-man.html BTW We still have "cavemen". Dan
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 15948 Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
I've seen 'em. You don't need computer modeling or "archaeology" (or paleontology, which is the study of fossils) to produce vague squiggles and smudges which creationists pretend look like dinosaurs.
Nor, indeed, would you need "computer modeling" to produce a picture of something which actually did look like a dinosaur, you'd just need some bones. Our nineteenth-century ancestors produced pictures that were actually pictures of dinosaurs and not smudges and squiggles, and they did it all without the assistance of computers. This picture, for example, is far more accurate than the blurred sudges of "cave art": It was produced by someone who had never seen a dinosaur or a computer.
The forum rules prohibit debating by link. If there's any of that stuff you believe is true, try to present it in your own words, and if possible with supporting evidence. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 229 days)  Posts: 9068 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
actually, the problem i have this particular brand of cracked pottery is that the pictures i see that are supposedly proof of mankind seeing dinosaurs with their own eyes all look more like this:
than like this:
it's sort of subtle with trikey here, but with theropods, it's more dramatic.
vs.
i mean, knowing what we know now from modern paleontology, if you had to guess, which one of those would you say was made by a person that actually saw a living t. rex? basically, what it tells me, is that the people who made most of those artifacts/drawings/etc were looking at shitty pop-culture dinosaur drawings from before 1990, and not living, breathing non-avian dinosaurs.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 15948 Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
I take it your point is that dinosaurs tails stuck out backwards rather than trailing downwards. But that is only a deduction made by mere scientists looking at mere facts. What are you going to believe: the theories of godless so-called paleontologists, or the vague squiggles produced by actual anonymous eyewitnesses.
Dinosaurs must have looked like this, because this is a picture of a dinosaur, and we know it's a picture of a dinosaur because that's what dinosaurs look like.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
frako Member  Posts: 2702 From: slovenija Joined: |
What most creos dont get is that even finding a tyrannosaurs Rex living somewhere in the jungle would not put the slightest dent in the theory of evolution. Finding a modern human that lived during the time of dinosaurs would.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member  Posts: 29183 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member  Posts: 5929 Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 |
I've looked at thousands of pictographs and petroglyphs (I'm an archaeologist). Many of the drawings are a true Rorschach test. You can make most anything out of them. If creationists want to prove the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, all they need to do is find a dinosaur bone in a prehistoric archaeological site, or to find a kill site with a spear point in a dinosaur bone. Hasn't happened. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DBlevins Member (Idle past 1272 days)  Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Dinosaur bones with cut marks, pot rubbing, fire darkening, and perhaps marrow extraction? etc... Lots of evidential opportunities to prove humans were hunting dinosaurs. Amazingly, or not, we haven't seen a one.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member Posts: 29183 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DBlevins Member (Idle past 1272 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
 and paying due homage to the tongue-in-cheek remark, bridles are a more recent invention and wouldn't have existed prehistorically, though both bridles and yokes would not be preserved over such a long period of time.*edit: Caught myself at the end. If we're talking 6,000 year old Earth then all bets are off on the bridle/yoke hypothesis.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member Posts: 29183 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 194 days)  Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Frako. Just a minor quibble:
If we found a species from the Cretaceous in the modern world, it probably would be quite a problem for the Theory of Evolution, given that current views of evolution aren't very friendly toward the idea of a single species living unchanged for 65 million years. But, your general point is right, of course. Finding a tyrannosaur, or some relative of Tyrannosaurus rex would not be a problem for ToE to cover. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017
