Moderator: Community Team
Viceroy63 wrote:
http://www.generalforum.com/science/did ... 94028.html
The above drawing is found in Utah, USA. It was made by American Indians 500 years ago. At the time the Indian people were nomadic tribesmen. That means that they moved around a lot. They were nomads by choice because the hunting of the American Buffalo was their main concern. Well, that and the smoking of the peace pipe. Who can blame them.
The Buffalo never stayed put in just one place. So where ever the Buffalo roamed the Indians followed. They had no cities or high technology and certainly did not have spare scientist digging for bones and collecting the bones where ever they went. Spending the night dancing and singing songs around the camp fire to their gods was the height of their scientific endeavors.
So my question is...
If no one has seen a dinosaur in over 60,000,000 million years, Then just what the hell were they drawing in the cave walls?
There is an image of a man which is certainly definable but what creature even remotely resembles that of a large Horse with a tail the size of a tree and an obvious bump on it's head which we now know that some dinosaurs had atop their heads?
Frigidus wrote:Despite having a question mark at the end of your sentence, I'm not seeing a question. Admitedly you do have a YouTube video, which I can only assume is about cats doing silly things.
tzor wrote:Frigidus wrote:Despite having a question mark at the end of your sentence, I'm not seeing a question. Admitedly you do have a YouTube video, which I can only assume is about cats doing silly things.
Actually it's more like "Bevis and Butthead watch a video on evil-ution."
premio53 wrote:I have never been to this forum before. I just happened to stumble on it and noticed a couple of threads concerning God, evolution etc. Here is a list of questions for someone who considers himself an athiest or agnostic. Faith in evolution is as much a "religion" as judaism, Hinduism or any other system.
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it? (Taken from "The Evidence Bible")
AAFitz wrote:tzor wrote:Actually it's more like "Bevis and Butthead watch a video on evil-ution."
Fixed
Viceroy63 wrote:Ok then how do you explain the hundreds of documented photos and carvings and drawing of dinosaurs, other wise known as dragons through the earth in recent history when supposedly no one has seen a dinosaur in over 65,000,000 years?
tzor wrote:AAFitz wrote:tzor wrote:Actually it's more like "Bevis and Butthead watch a video on evil-ution."
Fixed
But isn't "Evil-lution" more like the history and development of the Starbucks brand name?
(Bonus points if you can guess how I managed to go from point A to point B.)
tzor wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:Ok then how do you explain the hundreds of documented photos and carvings and drawing of dinosaurs, other wise known as dragons through the earth in recent history when supposedly no one has seen a dinosaur in over 65,000,000 years?
How do you explain all the hundreds of drawings of unicorns?
I can, of course, but I'm not going to right now ... instead I'll just ask this question ...
What dinosaur does this look like, because I don't recall seeing one that looked like that?
Viceroy63 wrote:Ok then how do you explain the hundreds of documented photos and carvings and drawing of dinosaurs, other wise known as dragons through the earth in recent history when supposedly no one has seen a dinosaur in over 65,000,000 years?
Viceroy63 wrote:http://www.skygaze.com/content/strange/Dinosaurs.shtml
Viceroy63 wrote:http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm
Viceroy63 wrote:It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.-----
Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.----
Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
Viceroy63 wrote:Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... z2LpskDSn0
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on TwitterCarbon dating has been verified, is verified with other verified methods. There is absolutely a large error rate, but no... the idea is not incorrect. It has been proven, within the bounds of its limitations.Viceroy63 wrote:[Could it simply be that the carbon dating method is also based on assumptions and providing us with false dates measuring in Centuries and not eons of time and what they are saying is millions of years old is probably only thousands if not simply hundreds of years old?]
To put it another way, if I want to measure the distance to the next town, I use my odometer, not a ruler. If I want to cut a piece of board, I use a ruler. The odometer could not possibly give an accurate measure of a normal 2 X 4, but a ruler would lead to big compounding errors when used to measure several miles (even if I wanted to take the time to do so). carbon dating is like the odometer, though not quite as accurate. Tree rings, volcanic eruptions, floods, various other events are like the ruler. Getting accurate measures requires using each together for the proper purpose. Most young earther claims about how "incorrect" carbon dating techniques are either try to claim that its supposed to be like the ruler above instead of more like the odometer.... or that its supposed to measure more than it every will, like saying that because my car odometer cannot measure the distance to the moon, it is not an effective tool. Carbon dating is basically not used to date fossils. (I would say not used, but there might be an exception). The reason is pretty plain.. forming a fossil means replacing the living tissue with rock deposits. No carbon to date.
THAT is why this discovery is so phenomenal, becuase it shows that the fossilization process was not complete. It doesn't support your ideas.. sorry, it just doesn't.
If you still are under the impression it should, then... explain.Viceroy63 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvmWOKMpFZ0
Marco Polo lived in China for 17 years, around 1271 A.D. Upon his return from Asia, he reported of families raising dragons, yoking them to royal chariots for parades and special occasions, and using dragon parts for medicinal purposes. Interestingly, the twelve signs of the Chinese zodiac are animals, eleven of which are everyday, extant creatures (rat, horse, dog, ox, rabbit, tiger, snake, ram, monkey, rooster, dog, and pig.) The twelfth is the dragon. Why would the Chinese include the “mythological” dragon with these common living animals? And we trust Marco for other history why not also dinosaurs or "Dragons"?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Good question. Why do so many explorers report seeing unicorns? We don't really know the true answer.
Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn, which they located in India, a distant and fabulous realm for them. The earliest description is from Ctesias who described them as wild asses, fleet of foot, having a horn a cubit and a half in length and colored white, red and black.[1] Aristotle must be following Ctesias when he mentions two one-horned animals, the oryx (a kind of antelope) and the so-called "Indian ass".[2][3] Strabo says that in the Caucasus there were one-horned horses with stag-like heads.[4] Pliny the Elder mentions the oryx and an Indian ox (perhaps a rhinoceros) as one-horned beasts, as well as "a very fierce animal called the monoceros which has the head of the stag, the feet of the elephant, and the tail of the boar, while the rest of the body is like that of the horse; it makes a deep lowing noise, and has a single black horn, which projects from the middle of its forehead, two cubits in length."[5] In On the Nature of Animals (Περὶ Ζῴων Ἰδιότητος, De natura animalium), Aelian, quoting Ctesias, adds that India produces also a one-horned horse (iii. 41; iv. 52),[6][7] and says (xvi. 20)[8] that the monoceros (Greek: μονόκερως) was sometimes called cartazonos (Greek: καρτάζωνος), which may be a form of the Arabic karkadann, meaning "rhinoceros".
Viceroy63 wrote:Ok then how do you explain the hundreds of documented photos and carvings and drawing of dinosaurs, other wise known as dragons through the earth in recent history when supposedly no one has seen a dinosaur in over 65,000,000 years?
http://www.skygaze.com/content/strange/Dinosaurs.shtml
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.-----
Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.----
Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... z2LpskDSn0
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
[Could it simply be that the carbon dating method is also based on assumptions and providing us with false dates measuring in Centuries and not eons of time and what they are saying is millions of years old is probably only thousands if not simply hundreds of years old?]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvmWOKMpFZ0
Marco Polo lived in China for 17 years, around 1271 A.D. Upon his return from Asia, he reported of families raising dragons, yoking them to royal chariots for parades and special occasions, and using dragon parts for medicinal purposes. Interestingly, the twelve signs of the Chinese zodiac are animals, eleven of which are everyday, extant creatures (rat, horse, dog, ox, rabbit, tiger, snake, ram, monkey, rooster, dog, and pig.) The twelfth is the dragon. Why would the Chinese include the “mythological” dragon with these common living animals? And we trust Marco for other history why not also dinosaurs or "Dragons"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCc ... re=related
comic boy wrote:I have seen huge Monitor Lizards in Thailand , 10-12 feet long , my friend has seen even bigger ones on the island of Komodo , the locals even call them dragons. I would hazard a guess that travellers such as Marco Polo encountered the same during their travels in Asia , find another straw to clutch at .
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh please! Scientists don't "accept" evolution either, they just accept that the theory might be true and there is no other competing theory with anything like the same kind of evidence.
The Roman Catholic Church is not in the position of mandating science. They tell parishioners if something is opposed by the Bible or not. In this case, not... therefore your claim that the evolution is inherently opposed to Christianity is just plain false.
PLAYER57832 wrote:The official and unofficial position is that evolution is not contradicted by the Bible.
PLAYER57832 wrote:The rest is not specified within the Bible, is based on ideas, and for various reasons that have more to do with changing science than theology, the position is unofficial.
PLAYER57832 wrote:ALSO.. there are some variations on that, another reason for it being unofficial. Nowhere does it say that evolution is diametrically opposed to the Bible, that the two are inconsistant as you claimed.
You are more than nit-picking my words, pretending that things are being said that have not and not standing by yours.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Yeah, and evolution is still a theory, not proven... so again, your words are garbage.
PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL
no dice. You have shown your idiocy yourself quite nicely. continue if you will, but you make it clear you have no pretense of truth.
OH, by the way, your claim was that Christianity, the Bible so inherently opposes Evolution that they have an inherent vested interest in declaiming it. I simply told you the truth, that they are not opposed to Evolution at all.
So go on with your blathering.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh please! Scientists don't "accept" evolution either, they just accept that the theory might be true and there is no other competing theory with anything like the same kind of evidence.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users