Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 43 of 135 (514082)
07-03-2009 3:44 PM


I like to point out that there are hundreds of ancient artifacts, cave drawings and other relics that have depictions of dinosaurs on them. While this does not really prove anything about young earth. It does show how blindly wrong the evolutionists are in their conclusions that the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.
If they can be that wrong about the dinosaurs and not willing to concede that they did indeed live along side humans throughtout the ages, then why should I believe them in anything else concerning ages?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset to eliminate signature spam.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 07-03-2009 3:55 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 48 by roxrkool, posted 07-03-2009 6:25 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2009 6:30 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2009 8:30 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 51 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2009 7:25 AM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2009 5:01 PM wirkkalaj has replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 70 of 135 (518131)
08-04-2009 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Brian
07-03-2009 3:55 PM


Re: Such as?
Sorry it's taken so long for me to reply. This site http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html has enormous amounts of artifacts and drawings and such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 07-03-2009 3:55 PM Brian has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 71 of 135 (518132)
08-04-2009 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coyote
07-03-2009 6:30 PM


Re: Dinosaurs cavorting with humans
This page is about Dinosaurs in Literature, History and Art http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
This page is about Dinosaurs in the 20th Century
http://s8int.com/dino1.html
Check em out. I would concede that there might not be indisputable evidence about man and dino's co-existing, but there is a lot of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2009 6:30 PM Coyote has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 72 of 135 (518135)
08-04-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by roxrkool
07-03-2009 6:25 PM


How likely?
I'm not sure of your point here? I would say that it would be very unlikely, which is why I say. I highly doubt that ancient people had an Archeology team that went out and dug up bones and reassembled them as we do. So how could they have drawings, statues and other artifacts that (in many cases) look just like dinosaurs if they never saw them?
http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by roxrkool, posted 07-03-2009 6:25 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2009 9:59 AM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 73 of 135 (518136)
08-04-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2009 8:30 PM


Dinosaur Depictions
The 'stones of Ica'
Mesopotamian Cylinder Seal from approximately 3300 B.C.
This dinosaur petroglyph can be found at Natural Bridges, National Monument Utah
This one can be found in Angkor-wat is in northwest Cambodia.The construction of the temple took place in the first half of the 12th century
There are thousands more here:
http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2009 8:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by pandion, posted 08-04-2009 7:58 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 74 of 135 (518138)
08-04-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by anglagard
07-04-2009 7:25 AM


Re: Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
Well here's some more examples then:
dragons of Chinese mythology
These fossils of Chinese mythology were found around Xingyi city in Guizhou province.
The piece is made of metal and is from Nepal, Himalayas, 10th century.
The famous temple of Muktinath

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2009 7:25 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2009 10:01 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 10:53 AM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 91 by Blue Jay, posted 08-04-2009 11:51 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 75 of 135 (518142)
08-04-2009 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
07-04-2009 5:01 PM


Re: reasonable interpretations and reality
See messages 73 and 74 and tell me if I am misrinterpreting these depictions and let me know which ones are fraud.
EvC Forum: 101 evidences for a young age...
Regardless, a few examples of fraud do nothing to discredit my argument as a whole. Evolutionists have had their own cases of fraud. The infamous Piltdown controversy. It doesn't mean that all other primate fossils are hoaxed. Perhaps just willfully or unknowingly misinterpreted.
There are many such legends of fantastic beasties and creatures, and not to difficult to think that many are based on primitive interpretations of fossils, and not of living animals.
Given the fact that most culture's around the world have dragon legends or dinosaur depictions. I would consider it too unlikely that each independent culture interpreted them from fossils. It is not very common to find dinosaur bones just lying about on the ground. You usually have to dig for them.
There are no "depictions of dinosaurs" that represent any recognizable species of dinosaurs with the clarity and detail in those cave paintings.
See 73 and 74. I can produce more examples if these aren't satisfactory.
No it doesn't. It does not contradict in any way the fact that no dinosaur fossils (other than birds) have been found after the 65 million year mass-extinction.
Yeah, assuming the dates they give are accurate. I tend to agree with The Dating Game and I simply don't put much emphasis on most dating methods. The age of the Earth, the age of the Mass-Extinction and so many other things, which were taught as fact and as indiputable, have changed so many times from when I was a kid, I just don't consider them fact anymore.
EvC Forum: The dating game
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...-radiometric-dating-prove
If you want to investigate the evidence of an old earth, see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and note that it is not just the evidence of an old earth, but the correlations between the different methods and systems
Well, then you have to note all of these correlating methods as well.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../topic/young-age-evidence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2009 5:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 08-04-2009 8:47 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2009 6:17 PM wirkkalaj has replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 80 of 135 (518179)
08-04-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coyote
08-04-2009 10:53 AM


Re: Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
If it's bones you want? I will dig up more bones (not fossils) than my dog can fetch. I didn't know it was such an issue, but they have been finding them for decades, and I will produce examples which I'm sure will get ridiculed. Oh well.
Here's a recent article about that T-Rex bone that they found back in '05 that still had "soft tissue" preserved!
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
That is much better than a bone. How are you going to tell me that it somehow got preserved for 65 million years?! I can't think of one feasible possibility in which soft-tissue (easily decayed) can be preserved for so long.
Occam's razor (which Athiests like to quote alot) seems to apply here. The simplest explaination tends to be the right one: The animal simply hasn't been dead for that long! Maybe a few thousand years at best? Just give up on the dinosaurs guys? They have been with us throughout history! The evidence is overwhelming (once you start looking). Not to mention the thousands of eye-witness accounts about dinosaurs. Even if they have been with us throughout history, as far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything to undermine the General Theory of Evolution at all? I mean, the theory doesn't stand or fall based on some dinosaurs does it?
I'm out of time, but there are more bones to come!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 10:53 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 1:51 PM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 08-04-2009 1:55 PM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 83 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2009 2:18 PM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 84 by pandion, posted 08-04-2009 5:16 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 87 of 135 (518270)
08-04-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
08-04-2009 6:17 PM


Re: reality testing
I like your rebuttle: it makes me think even more about what I believe to be true. I will offer a full counter argument when I am not so tired (tomorrow).
Just one quick point tho. Those ancient civilizations were carving into solid stone, not paper. They did not have easily manipulated pieces of material to illustrated their surroundings. I still don't see how can say that the carvings do not at least resemble a Stegasaurus (spelling?). Even a 1st grader could see the resemblance!? You might consider that their interpretations of the beast are more accurate than our fossil re-constructions because they saw them first hand.
Interestingly, whatever you consider "unlikely" has absolutely no effect on reality, opinion that is not supported by fact is only reflective of the mind with the opinion.
All of life, death, Earth, history and all facts fall into the realm of interpretation. I do believe in truth, but you are mistaken if you think that something can be considered fact just because the "scientific circle" you run in considers it so. The creationist movement is on the rise and more and more continue to gain degrees and scientific recognition. You are doing science a huge disfavor if you simply dismiss us all as being frauds, dishonest, ignorant, stupid or any other condescending term just because you disagree.
I am not a stupid man. I have a college education (I'm attending again this semester), but I admit that my beliefs about the world are always in need of refinement and I try my best to keep them open to other enlightenments. I have not come to my current opinions on a whim. I would even state that "I am not as well educated as some of you here", (your memory and knowledge about the details of the argument is very impressive: no sarcasm) but you cannot dismiss my arguments (as well as the millions of others) on that basis alone. Our deductive reasoning and logic are likely the same and therefore warrant a close and honest examination of the points from either side.
This thought is incomplete and I'll add more later. Thanks for battle!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2009 6:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 10:07 PM wirkkalaj has replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 93 of 135 (518839)
08-08-2009 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Coyote
08-04-2009 10:07 PM


Re: reality testing
The problem is that creationists are creationists first and scientists second. They abandon the scientific method and instead practice religious apologetics using their scientific backgrounds.
Charles Darwin believed in Evolution long before he had a method or technique to test or verify the age of the Earth, and thus began his search for Dating Methods which coincided with his beliefs. It is the same with a lot of Evolutionists (and I'll concede, with a lot of Creationists) It is your "belief" in an old/young Earth that drives people to find an agreeable dating system or discard contradictory ones. The Earth has to be Billions of years old in order for the Evolutionary hypothesis to work, and certainly affects your starting assumptions and axioms, just as it does Creationists.
"They are Evolutionists/Old Earth first and Scientists second".
Just as with yourself! I'm positive that you did not know every fact and particular of Evolution before you made your decision to believe in it? Who can? We are all guilty of making up our minds (perhaps pre-maturely) based on the limited information we have at hand (along with personal experience). Then, we use our belief and knowledge to interpret the evidence around us. If we waited for all of the information to come into light, noone would never make a decision because it can never be fully known (Exception: until we can travel through time)!
When one adheres to these beliefs, one ceases to do science.
See Charles Darwin comment above. I don't discount everything he did just because he had a set of beliefs, wholly unfounded at the time, that he tried to set out and prove.
Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian and held to a similar belief. Shall we discount all of his work because of it?
Besides evolutionists already have a similar belief "that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved".
With a starting presumption like that, no wonder you think all Christians are morons! Evolutionists, first above all else, need to examine their own starting beliefs and then admit and be aware of any bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 10:07 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-08-2009 9:43 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2009 11:37 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 95 of 135 (518850)
08-08-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Otto Tellick
08-08-2009 9:43 PM


Re: reality testing
The former people discard other beliefs and explanations when there is no real data -- no observational basis -- to sustain those beliefs and explanations, and especially when those beliefs and explanations are in direct conflict with reliably observed evidence. They do not discard the observations (the evidence that must be explained by a coherent and accurately predictive theory).
Firstly, any and all dating methods are not observable sciences. Aspects of each method happened in the past and are therefore not observable. Each method adheres to a set of assumptions that must be used. There's no getting around it. Where it's Carbon Dating, Potassium-Argon Dating, Uranium-lead dating etc.
1. How much of the element (C-14 etc.) was present when it started to decay or when it die? More or Less than in todays creatures/rocks? None?
They usually assume it's the same amount that creatures today have in our bodies. Fair enough assumption, but still an assumption and unobservable.
2. Is the rate of decay always constant? You may say yes for sure, and it very likely might be constant but it's still an assumption and unobservable.
3.The third assumption is if any of the element has or has not escaped out of the test subject? Perhaps from magnetic fields, or extreme heat/cold or other unknown variables that may affect the amount of element in the test subject. Who knows, but you can't know for sure and therefore it's still an assumption and unobservable.
The latter people discard or ignore evidence when it conflicts with their chosen beliefs and explanations.
Oh please! Carbon Dating issues arise all of the time that are discarded or ignored by Evolutionists. I could list numerous examples, but here's one. With their short 5,700-year half-life, carbon 14 atoms should not exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.
The honestly scientific estimations for the age of the Earth have undergone numerous adjustments, based on evidence, since the 18th century. There has been no fundamental change in the evidence itself, and none of it has been discarded or ignored. Each new revision to the estimated age is tested against all available evidence. Any discrepancies or conflicts will lead to refining the explanation further, and/or revisiting and repeating observations to confirm whether they are accurate and reliable.
Well maybe in a million years and after a million more adjustments you guys will have the dates adjusted correctly!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-08-2009 9:43 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 11:41 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2009 11:41 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 107 by pandion, posted 08-09-2009 12:37 AM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 99 of 135 (518855)
08-08-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
08-04-2009 6:17 PM


Re: reality testing
And yet none of the dragons or other depictions really look like an actual dinosaur. Please look again - closely - at the depictions you have posted and see if they accurately portray known dinosaurs.
This one is obvious, of course you'll probably just call it a hoax.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2009 6:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2009 11:48 PM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 103 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:01 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-09-2009 12:31 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2009 5:51 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 101 of 135 (518857)
08-08-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Theodoric
08-08-2009 11:41 PM


Re: reality testing
I am not opposed to having my arguments destroyed. How else do we grow in our understanding.
"One man thinks he is right until another steps forward to speak"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 11:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 102 of 135 (518858)
08-08-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Coyote
08-08-2009 11:41 PM


Re: reality testing
Now, are you willing to accept my challenge on another thread?
Yes, I will accept. Perhaps we should start a new thread or something? I am probably not going to be on too much longer tonight, but I will respond tomorrow of course. Who shall start off with the first comment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2009 11:41 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:01 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-09-2009 12:19 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 08-10-2009 9:58 AM wirkkalaj has replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5325 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 110 of 135 (518924)
08-09-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by lyx2no
08-09-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Potential Energy ’ Heat
The waters did not just vanish instantly after the Flood. The sea levels would have remained quite high for a long time. It was the abundance of warm water (warm because of underwater springs, volcano's and tectonic shifting during the flood) that was left over from the flood, which consequently increased evaporation and cloud cover over the Earth and made conditions ideal for a moist/warm planet for many years(150-200 years).
As the global temperature began to gradually cool towards equilibrium, the tremendous amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere began to fall as snow over the north and south pole, and continued to fall in massive amounts for the next 300 years bringing about an "ice age" that lasted hundreds of years. The ice sheets likely reached their peak around 500 yrs after the flood and probably didn't fully recede until 750 yrs after the flood.
It was the warm climate and rainfall immediately after the flood that gave way to the abundance of vegetation in the tundras of Russia and the explosion of the mammoth population. The resulting ice age was their undoing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by lyx2no, posted 08-09-2009 9:15 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by lyx2no, posted 08-09-2009 8:52 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024