An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[tzor]

But what does that have to do with the "Santa Claus" that is told to little Children now in the present. They are two very different things. The "Santa" that is told to little children with the reign deers and the North Pole and the presents, should not be told to anyone at all. Because it just is not true!

Do you tell children about how George Washington chopped down a cherry tree?

It's the same thing.

[Viceroy63]

Same thing. My response is that I just don't know but it was probably not true and then go into the bit about how history is written by the victors of wars.

[PLAYER57832]

But what does that have to do with the "Santa Claus" that is told to little Children now in the present. They are two very different things. The "Santa" that is told to little children with the reign deers and the North Pole and the presents, should not be told to anyone at all. Because it just is not true!

It is a story, a "folk tale" if you will.

Whether it is a good idea to tell children or not is another topic, but the truth is that kids learn from fantasy and stories. They learn to distinguish truth from fiction, learn the boundaries, AND learn to stretch their imaginations.

[Viceroy63]

Viceroy... you never did answer the last evolution post.

What was it? Another hundred questions wrapped in insults, pretending to be a comment?

[Viceroy63]

But what does that have to do with the "Santa Claus" that is told to little Children now in the present. They are two very different things. The "Santa" that is told to little children with the reign deers and the North Pole and the presents, should not be told to anyone at all. Because it just is not true!

It is a story, a "folk tale" if you will.

Whether it is a good idea to tell children or not is another topic, but the truth is that kids learn from fantasy and stories. They learn to distinguish truth from fiction, learn the boundaries, AND learn to stretch their imaginations.

And true Bible stories don't do that? And build up moral character as well!

[PLAYER57832]

Viceroy... you never did answer the last evolution post.

What was it? Another hundred questions wrapped in insults, pretending to be a comment?

Hmmm... you claim we are all liars and believers of lies, and that is "not an insult". We point out that every site you bring up is proven fraudulent or just irrelevant to evolution ans we are antagonistic?


Well.... consistent with the rest of your arguments.

Even so, I answered your prior enquiry and asked you to present some of the other, firm evidence to which you are privy.

[PLAYER57832]

But what does that have to do with the "Santa Claus" that is told to little Children now in the present. They are two very different things. The "Santa" that is told to little children with the reign deers and the North Pole and the presents, should not be told to anyone at all. Because it just is not true!

It is a story, a "folk tale" if you will.

Whether it is a good idea to tell children or not is another topic, but the truth is that kids learn from fantasy and stories. They learn to distinguish truth from fiction, learn the boundaries, AND learn to stretch their imaginations.

And true Bible stories don't do that? And build up moral character as well!

Actually, some Bible stories ARE fictional, "parables" and the like.

Fictional historic tales have similar purposes, to teach morals, to teach various issues. The story of Santa is actually not that much different, at least in its non-market co-opted form. But, what you see today in much children's "entertainment" is pure escapism. It follows what adults ask for and want, caters to children's immediate desires. Quite different from historical tales.

However, let's get back to evolution.
To pick the last set of posts, how is it that you think this conspiracy to hide Oil's origins would be supported by defeat of evolution?

[Viceroy63]

I never claimed that you are "ALL" Liars. I did state that the theory of evolution is a lie and I might have alluded to the principle of, "If if walks like a duck and talks like a duck..." But I never claimed that you are all liars. Just deceived and confused about the truth. That's all.

[PLAYER57832]

I never claimed that you are "ALL" Liars. I did state that the theory of evolution is a lie and I might have alluded to the principle of, "If if walks like a duck and talks like a duck..." But I never claimed that you are all liars. Just deceived and confused about the truth. That's all.

But we keep asking for evidence.. and you keep evading any challenge to your statements.

[Viceroy63]

But what does that have to do with the "Santa Claus" that is told to little Children now in the present. They are two very different things. The "Santa" that is told to little children with the reign deers and the North Pole and the presents, should not be told to anyone at all. Because it just is not true!

It is a story, a "folk tale" if you will.

Whether it is a good idea to tell children or not is another topic, but the truth is that kids learn from fantasy and stories. They learn to distinguish truth from fiction, learn the boundaries, AND learn to stretch their imaginations.

And true Bible stories don't do that? And build up moral character as well!

Actually, some Bible stories ARE fictional, "parables" and the like.

Fictional historic tales have similar purposes, to teach morals, to teach various issues. The story of Santa is actually not that much different, at least in its non-market co-opted form. But, what you see today in much children's "entertainment" is pure escapism. It follows what adults ask for and want, caters to children's immediate desires. Quite different from historical tales.

However, let's get back to evolution.
To pick the last set of posts, how is it that you think this conspiracy to hide Oil's origins would be supported by defeat of evolution?

But everyone knows that it's a fictitious example. No one is surprise to learn the truth. That Lazarus did not die and go to "Abraham's Busom." Except for those who want to believe that man goes on living after he dies.

[Viceroy63]

I never claimed that you are "ALL" Liars. I did state that the theory of evolution is a lie and I might have alluded to the principle of, "If if walks like a duck and talks like a duck..." But I never claimed that you are all liars. Just deceived and confused about the truth. That's all.

But we keep asking for evidence.. and you keep evading any challenge to your statements.

To which statements are you referring to?

[PLAYER57832]

But everyone knows that it's a fictitious example. No one is surprise to learn the truth. That Lazarus did not die and go to "Abraham's Busom." Except for those who want to believe that man goes on living after he dies.

I think you picked a VERY poor example. Try more some of Jesus Parables...debatably, some of the stories about David or Solomon.

Anyway, here is a significant quote:
If you want your children to be brilliant, read them fairly tales. If you want them to be geniuses, read them more fairy tales."
Its by Albert Einstein.

The thing is that kids need fiction, its why they themselves create it. It helps them to learn about the world around them. I, personally, don't tell my kids that Santa, as given, is real. I talk about Santa being the "spirit of Christmas", a secular spin-off of the real message. Learning that not all stories are real, but can still give us pleasure is important. Learning that the real truth is deeper than fiction is also important.

But again... what about evolution? And while it seems you have thought pretty critically about the Santa bit, you ignore any real criticism of your young earth ideas.

Your sole standard of what you consider "valid" is that things that agree with your ideas are "valid" and things that disagree are "not". At some point, to be considered anything more than a joke, you have to do better. You have to actually explain why, for example, in that Dakota example, the cyoung earthers are so inconsistant even in their own statements, and get such basic issues, like claiming that the strata are "the same as a Dinosaur National Monument"... just wrong.

OR, why it is that you seem to think discovering a couple of remnant populations of dinosaurs would somehow disprove all other evidence of evolution?

[Viceroy63]

And again; I never said anything about any "Young Earth" ideas! I do not believe that the earth is only 6,000 or 10,000 thousand years old but much, Much older.

Is that the statement you were referring to before???

[Gillipig]

The "rise" of ignorance? I think ignorance has been a common thing in human history, it's hardly started now. It's not like people all of a sudden got stupid.

[Viceroy63]

The "rise" of ignorance? I think ignorance has been a common thing in human history, it's hardly started now. It's not like people all of a sudden got stupid.

Ignorance and Stupidity are two very different things. In the case of Ignorance, one is simply not aware of the knowledge or information. In the case of Stupidity one is unable to understand it. But yes Ignorance and Stupidity have both been around since forever and a day.

[Lootifer]

In 1971 a heavy equipment operator made a startling discovery in a layer of Dakota Sandstone which is part of the Lower Cretaceous strata. The Lower Cretaceous strata is known for its dinosaur fossils according to the evolutionary time table and is supposedly 140 million years old. This is the same rock strata where numerous dinosaur fossils have been found at Dinosaur National Monument.

continued, from earlier post....



The skeletons of ten perfectly modern human beings were found fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone. At least four of the individuals were female, one was an infant, and the rest were men. The amazing thing is that some of the fossils were articulated or found in their natural body positions which indicates they were quickly buried by some sort of catastrophic flood and mud slide.

You can read the rest of this at...

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%2 ... trata.html

hmmm, and yet it seems they missed several details in their "scientific analysis", in particular that the formation where these bones were supposedly found are not the "same as" those found in Dinosaur National Monument. (a pretty big error, that.. such sloppiness leads nothing to the credibility of the claim at all!)

In 1971 a rockhound named Lin Ottinger was leading a field trip in the Big Indian Copper Mine (more recently called the Keystone Azurite Mine) near Moab, Utah, when he discovered major portions of two human skeletons bearing an interesting greenish color. A bulldozer there had recently removed about 15 feet of overburden, revealing the bones and inadvertently damaging some of them. Within days the find was investigated by archaeologist John Marwitt, who at the time was serving as Field Director for the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey.

Marwitt led the remainder of the excavation, describing the bones as resting in loose, poorly consolidated blowsand, in contrast to the consolidated, hard sandstone further from the bones, comprising the host formation at the site. He also indicated that all the bones were unfossilized, that is, not heavily altered or replaced with secondary minerals, and looked essentially modern, other than the greenish staining due to contact with the copper bearing sediments immediately surrounding the bones. Marwitt concluded that the bones were unquestionably intrusive burials, probably only hundreds of years old.

Marwitt conveyed his observations to a local reporter from the Times Independent newspaper in Utah, who also came to review the find. Unfortunately, as Marwitt later lamented, apparently the reporter was more interested in a "story" than the truth, and ended up presenting the find as a geologic "mystery" and ignoring much of what he described about it.

Subsequently strict creationist Clifford Burdick (1973) discussed the finds as likely out-of-place fossils in a CRSQ article, perhaps basing his article mainly on the newspaper account. The find was similarly sensationalized as "mysterious" in a longer story in Desert Magazine (Barnes, 1975), and a brief account in a 1978 book entitled Weird America by Jim Brandon, both of which neglected or misrepresented several aspects of Marwitt's observations.

During the mid-1980's Paluxy "man track" enthusiast Carl Baugh purchased one of the skeletons from Lin Ottinger. Baugh subsequently displayed the bones in his little "Creation Evidence Museum" in Glen Rose, Texas, as alleged examples of "out of order" fossils.

However, the largely unfossilized condition of the bones from the 1971 finds was personally confirmed by Ron Hastings and myself when we inspected them and visited with Lin Ottinger at his rock shop in Utah in 1988. Although we could not do any invasive work, we found, as others before us had, that the bones were rather were light-weight and largely modern appearing human bones, except for the green staining. Hastings, Kirk Person, and others also inspected the bones Baugh had in his museum around the same time, which appeared largely similar, that is, largely unfossilized.

In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.

In late 1997 and 1998 strict creationists Don Patton and David Willis claimed in an internet discussion group led by Jim Moore (which I participated in) that some green bones recently excavated in Utah represented stupendous anti-evolutionary evidence, showing supposed human bones in a Cretaceous deposit. They called the new finds as "Malachite Man" in reference to the green mineral malachite, the presumed source of the green color. However, the web site Willis referred us to, developed by Don Patton and his associate Dave Rudd, showed several photos which turned out to not be from recent excavations, but from the earlier excavations showing Lin Ottinger and the original "Moab Man" bones. A revised version of the web site, located at http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm better distinguishes between the 1971 and more recent finds, which did take place in the early 1990's. However, it omits most of the history described above and continues to make a number of unfounded claims about the site and bones, while neglecting mainstream work and writings, and even failing to cite creationist articles on the topic. Patton's web site (which he does not dispute as having been written by him, but which oddy omits his name as the author), states that the bones at the site included at least 10 individuals, including women and children, but provides no specific analysis of the bones to demonstrate how he came to this conclusion.

Patton's asserts that the bones under discussion contradict the geologic timetable and demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs lived together. The latter claim he attempts to bolster by stating that the bones are in the same Cretaceous, Dakota sandstone as the dinosaur bones at Dinosaur National Monument. However, as all geologists know, the bones at Dinosaur National Monument are in the Morrison formation, a Jurassic deposit, approximately 50 million years older than the Dakota Sandstone by conventional dating. Furthermore, since other workers report that the bones at Blue Indian/Keystone Azurite mine indicate that the bones were intrusive burials, the host formation is not particularly relevant to the case, even if it were the same as the one at Dinosaur National Monument, which it is not.


....

The article goes on for a couple of pages, pretty well detailed, pointing out more inconsistencies and errors by the young earth claimers as well as contrasting their "findings" with the analysis by true scientists.

The full article can be found here:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

Why is it that only those scientists who have creationist beliefs ever reach the types of conclusions you seem to think are "just given".. and instead say exactly the opposite?

You are more than welcome to bring up any example you think will prove your case.

So the question are:

1.)
Either modern man lived 65,000,000 years ago, or how else to you explain this?

There were some bones found, but as explained in the article I cited, the bones were not truly from the time of dinosaurs.
ONLY folks intent on trying to prove the earth young continue to cite this becuase it is just a nonsense claim.

The real question is why the young earth "scientists" insist on twisting every piece of data they get instead of just acting scientifically and reporting the facts as they actually happen?

2.)
Dinosaurs lived with man for thousands of years and there is some wrong with the explanation of the "Sedimentary Column" display used to explain evolution? And most importantly...

So, one find, shown to not be what you claim is enough to disabuse millions of other points of evidence?

Nice try, but no.

3.)
Why would this not make headlines all around the world?

I would think that a discovery like this would simply change everything!

It would, but most reporters do a better job of checking and verifying than this one guy who originally "reported' the story did.

Also, even if it were true a far more likely possibility would be that there were a remnant population of dinosaurs that persisted in that location into the time of human beings. in truth, the evidence does NOT show that the human remains existed in the time of dinosaurs at all, though.. it was a case of a false report, taken up by young earthers desperate to prove their "cause" and willing to pull up the flimsiest of "evidence".

So far I posted links that showed that Dinosaur Blood and Fresh DNA were discovered. Even Fresh Dinosaur Bone, not fossilized but recently dead dinosaurs bones.

We all know that there was DNA found in fossilized bones. The issue is your claim that this means they were fresh, rather than that the DNA was preserved. Your claim is just wrong. The information is remarkable, but not a dispute of evolution, as you try to claim.

Again, an honest reporter, scientists or student would address the real information and facts, not just pick out something that "seems to fit" and then proclaim it as proof that millions of points of real evidence are false.

Also I have posted links with the "Ica Stones" proving that man has seen living dinosaurs no more than 800 years ago tops and that the cave etchings by American Indians were also approximately 500 hundred years old.

YOu have shown some etchings and drawings, not proof that the people then saw living dinosaurs.

HOWEVER, even if they did, you have not explained why you believe this would utterly disprove evolution. Many ancient remnant populations have been found, in no way shape or form does this defeat the theory of evolution. Such claims just show that you don't understand the theory of evolution or what proof entails.... at all.

If it were just the Piltdown down man, then man, would I be so wrong and so very sorry and so humbly apologetic that it would embarrass even you. Oh, for shame, I would leave CC and not even come back under a different name because I would simply feel so terrible about myself, that my shame would not even let me get a good nights sleep. I would be a completely repented human being and ever so silent that I would not make another comment on any internet topics comments anywhere at all.

If it were just the piltdown man than you would be oh, so right in judging me a fool! But it is not just the Piltdown man but every single last exhibit that is used to portray evolution as factual and that is why I am not sorry in the least.

LOL

If you mean that almost every exhibit of human evolution has included that progression of man including the bit abotu "neaderthal to modern man", then sure, there are errors in most exhibits, though you fail to state that in most cases there is now (not in the past, but now) also an accompanying explanation to those drawings.


But... beyond that, I and others here have never disputed that there have been plenty of errors made in the study of evolution. You will find that to be the case in just about any field of science.. the broader and more encompassing, the more the errors. Errors and fraud, both. Errors are honest scientists who put forward ideas that wind up being proven false... of course you neglect the part about even the original submissions of these errors present them as theories or ideas, not "absolute facts". Per the fraud.. sure, you get thousands of people doing anything and some will be frauds (or steal or embezzle.. etc).
Happens in every (large) Christian church, too.

I have pointed out one very classic example.. that of the the 2 guys who finally proved that ulcers come from bacteria, and who got the nobel laureate just recently, but who up until shortly before that were considered laughing stocks. Unlike young earthers, though, they did not go out and make a campaign to say every other scientist was presenting false data, lying. They DID say other scientists were mistaken in their conclusions and just went about proving their case.

I also used to believe that evolution was true and even spoke in support of evolution but when I really looked at it, What was I really supporting and why? I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus. And believe me that when your young children know the truth and tell your neighbors young children the truth, you hear about it from your neighbors! Not the children but the parents. "What the hell is wrong with you sir...."

But I don't want my children growing up believing that I ever lied to them about anything and for nothing, and so I simply don't practice it.

WElll, too bad.. as long as you continue on this creationist track you are perpetuating a lie... and since you seem to tie it so heavily to your faith, you will find that they wind up challenging that as well.

Believe me, I have talked to more than a few young earthers going through crisis when they studied real biology and geology in the university.

This post Viceroy. It breaks down one of your arguments nicely. Care to refute?

[PLAYER57832]

And again; I never said anything about any "Young Earth" ideas! I do not believe that the earth is only 6,000 or 10,000 thousand years old but much, Much older.

Is that the statement you were referring to before???

You deny that the earth is as old as it is, that it took the long path of evolution to get species to where they are today.

Calling yourself a "Creationist" might appeal to your sense of having jusitification behind our view, but it is blasphemous to use the term "Creationist" to describe your views. Evolution is as much supportive of a creator as any other view. Evolution doesn't require acceptance of lies and denial of real evidence.

I and others keep challenging you to bring up your real and conclusive evidence... or even to explain why this idea you have that if you were to just find a single dinosaur and human co-existed, it would suddenly dispute the entire theory of evolution and prove all the evidence we see as false.

We are still waiting....

[Viceroy63]

I will say this much and perhaps more later on about the difference between Darwinism and Creationism. The two ideologies must conflict because of their basic understanding of how we got here. Under Darwinian evolution, life evolved over a period of millions of years, by accident, from other, lessor "evolved," life forms. But a Creationist believes the simple truth that we arrived here by an intelligent designer who purposely brought us into being through a divine action as revealed in the Bible.

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
-Genesis 2:7

There are no lower life forms mentioned in the creation account in fact all land walking life forms were created together. So any Darwinist or Evolutionist who claims to also believe in God and is a Christian is in fact lying to himself. Oops, there's that word again. Mind you that I am merely stating a fact and not actually calling any one a liar. But you simply can not believe that some thing is dry when it is wet or that one came because of the other in some kind of "Wet/Dry Vac." Marriage.

The real evidence indicates that the earth is millions if not billions of years old. But this does in no way prove that evolution has happened. That would be a confusion of the two and just because one is true does not make the other a truth also. The fact that you don't know where I stand on the age of the earth only shows that you are not really following my argument in the OP but are in fact just making projections based on other arguments with other people.

As to the latest argument of the theory of evolution being destroyed if we were to find out the truth that man and dinosaurs lived together...

It is really quite simple. The Darwinist claim that no man has ever seen a dinosaur because they died out 65 million years before man arrived on the scene. The Holy Bible claims that they were both created on the same exact day. They can't both be right! So if the Ica Stones and the Cave drawings and all of the evidence that is still being collected along with actual photograph's are true then that simply makes the theory of evolution, just about the biggest and best known fable on the planet.

And while I am on the subject of Fables; There is certainly nothing wrong with telling children fable's and bed time stories so long as it is understood by children and all alike that they are just that fables. Everyone knows that Cinderellas glass slipper fable is not true because glass breaks and if you walk on broken glass you get your feet cut up. Not a prince! The problem comes when we try to claim that the story is true.

And that is what is happening with the theory of evolution. There is no real evidence to support that hypothesis so other evidence is brought in to support it. Like, "Well Micro-mutations do occurs so evolution must occur also." Or, "Well the earth is at least millions of years old so that proves it that evolution is real." There is simply no evidence to support the theory of evolution and while it is presented as fact to an ignorant of the facts, population, it will be just as wrong as telling little children that Santa is a real person. All the similarities in all of the red suits of nature will never make it a fact.

[AndyDufresne]

The problem comes when we try to claim that the story is true.

Yes.


--Andy

[Symmetry]

It is really quite simple. The Darwinist claim that no man has ever seen a dinosaur because they died out 65 million years before man arrived on the scene. The Holy Bible claims that they were both created on the same exact day. They can't both be right! So if the Ica Stones and the Cave drawings and all of the evidence that is still being collected along with actual photograph's are true then that simply makes the theory of evolution, just about the biggest and best known fable on the planet.

Actual photographs?

[PLAYER57832]

I will say this much and perhaps more later on about the difference between Darwinism and Creationism. The two ideologies must conflict because of their basic understanding of how we got here. Under Darwinian evolution, life evolved over a period of millions of years, by accident, from other, lessor "evolved," life forms. But a Creationist believes the simple truth that we arrived here by an intelligent designer who purposely brought us into being through a divine action as revealed in the Bible.

See, here is the problem. What you claim the theory of evolution says and what it actually says just differ.. and sorry, but young earthers don’t get to change the theory so they can prove it false.


Evolution says that the evidence demonstrates life evolved over a long period of time. How, why is not covered. Whether randomly or through God… is irrelevant to the theory. That is not “my idea”, it is fact.

Conversely, the Bible says that God created the Earth, but did not give details on how it happened. Most likely because, like other questions not fully addressed in the Bible, the answers were not something that would be understood by the people of the day.

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
-Genesis 2:7

These words were figurative. They could just as easily apply to evolution as your ideas. In fact, much of the theory of evolution actually fits Genesis better than your ideas. The order is exactly as given in evolution, with the possible exception of whales (and that is questionable).

It is really quite simple. The Darwinist claim that no man has ever seen a dinosaur because they died out 65 million years before man arrived on the scene. The Holy Bible claims that they were both created on the same exact day. They can't both be right!

The Bible makes no mention of creation of dinosaurs, at all. This is a key fact in favor of evolution, actually.

So if the Ica Stones and the Cave drawings and all of the evidence that is still being collected along with actual photograph's are true then that simply makes the theory of evolution, just about the biggest and best known fable on the planet.

And, again, even if those things you have presented were real and true representations of dinosaurs living at that time.. it would not in any way disprove the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is not depended upon the death of all dinosaurs. The theory of evolution sits upon the development of new species over time. That some of the old ones persisted is a plain fact. Why would the presence of a few more species somehow negate the theory.

This is why you move from being an honest debator and believer to a fraud.

There is no real evidence to support that hypothesis so other evidence is brought in to support it. Like, "Well Micro-mutations do occurs so evolution must occur also." Or, "Well the earth is at least millions of years old so that proves it that evolution is real." There is simply no evidence to support the theory of evolution and while it is presented as fact to an ignorant of the facts, population, it will be just as wrong as telling little children that Santa is a real person. All the similarities in all of the red suits of nature will never make it a fact.

LOL….

A theory that depends upon denying every piece of real evidence that exists, which yours does, is no real theory. It is a lie. You cannot just keep claiming “evidence doesn’t exist” and present us with the garbage you pull up and claim any stretch of honesty and integrity.

[Viceroy63]

It is really quite simple. The Darwinist claim that no man has ever seen a dinosaur because they died out 65 million years before man arrived on the scene. The Holy Bible claims that they were both created on the same exact day. They can't both be right! So if the Ica Stones and the Cave drawings and all of the evidence that is still being collected along with actual photograph's are true then that simply makes the theory of evolution, just about the biggest and best known fable on the planet.

Actual photographs?

Yeah; That's hilarious. A bit 'ignant' of the facts but funny never the less.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEYk-mSdJXI

Now interestingly enough, during the American Civil War, a group of Union soldiers posed for a photo with a dead Pterasuar. You can find this about half way through the 4 minute video at the 2:00 minute marker. Although I really can not tell if they are Union soldiers or confederates, I assume as much because of the darkness of their Coats. The South uniform were more greyish in color and would appear white most likely. But the dead Pterasuar is obvious enough even for a blind man.



Other pics of Recent Dinosaurs:

[PLAYER57832]

Set aside any other evidence, the biggest problem with your 'all these pictures exist and are just being hidden because they disprove evolution" bit is that having a live dinosaur would not in any way dispute the theories of evolution.

That is just one of the many real points you keep ignoring.

[crispybits]

To be fair player he did (it was with a straw man but the response was there)

He said that the theory of evolution says that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

[ManBungalow]

Dinosaurs are people too!