History Reveals Dinosaurs

[Jfrsmth]

How did you verify that it was a plesiosaur?

No remains to look at? No DNA testing?

I absolutely agree with you here. Which is why I already conceded that it is not a credible argument because we do NOT have sufficient support for those who think it is a plesiosaur. I mentioned it in a previous post, some pages ago.

 

[Jfrsmth]

*sigh* Did you read the pdf you posted? It's not even about the mormon plates. It's about other "artifacts". In fact, it's written by the FAIR lds organization, who claim the mormon plates are real, and the article is written to show that they critically look at evidence and reject frauds (hence the plates aren't frauds). You are posting evidence against your own claims.

What? Did you read pages 6-10 or just look at the heading and make your decision? If you are referring to the Padilla Plates:

"The Padilla plates have even more text that appears very similar to the Anthon transcript. They all really do look like evidence for the Book of Mormon. The problem is that they only look like evidence for the Book of Mormon when one does not look too closely, or if one refuses to accept the verdict of those who are trained in the fields that can tell us whether or not such artifacts are legitimate. These are not... These forgeries are too good to be true."

Page 10 of the text I attached to my post.

Papias, c'mon...

 

[The Cadet]

I saw the call early on (back then) and I'm calling it. Again, it is a sighting. What is the "hoax" that you are claiming? Why is testimony from natives considered "in-admissible" to this discussion?

Because people have spent 200 years looking for it and have found absolutely nothing.

 

[46AND2]

Hello Loudmouth, thanks for your time.

No, those kind of sources would be a far to limited.

A multitude of university websites, Loudmouth, they all hold to the same assumed
knowledge base. One size fits all in the scientific assumptions.

To enable a simple dialogue Loudmouth, how about we choose just one claim that
science has publicly pronounced. Then we can examine that claim in some depth,
and hopefully Loudmouth, arrive at some level of confidence in the claim.

The claim is the one made by science, regarding the age of the earth, science claims
that the earth is nearly five billion years old!

Do you wish to explore this extraordinary claim Loudmouth?

I do, I do! Which "assumption" would you like to discuss first?

 

[46AND2]

I saw the call early on (back then) and I'm calling it. Again, it is a sighting. What is the "hoax" that you are claiming? Why is testimony from natives considered "in-admissible" to this discussion?

Do you believe leprechaun sightings? Menehune? Chupacabra? Bigfoot? Yeti?

 

[lasthero]

Do you believe leprechaun sightings? Menehune? Chupacabra? Bigfoot? Yeti?

Hey, Chupacabra is real. I saw one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello Loudmouth, thanks for your time.

No, those kind of sources would be a far to limited.

A multitude of university websites, Loudmouth, they all hold to the same assumed
knowledge base. One size fits all in the scientific assumptions.

So let's see them.

To enable a simple dialogue Loudmouth, how about we choose just one claim that
science has publicly pronounced.

Let's go with the constancy of decay rates since that would tie in with radiometric dating and ultimately the topic at hand.

As evidence for discussion, let's look at Supernova 1987a (aka SN1987a). When stars explode like this, the shock wave will produce new elements through fusion. One of those elements is Nickel-56 which decays at a known rate here on Earth. When they measured the amount of 56Ni in SN1987a and measured its disappearance over time, they were able to measure the decay rate of 56Ni in the supernova. As it turns out, the decay rate of 56Ni is the same on Earth as it is in SN1987a.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1990MNRAS.245..570V/0000571.000.html

So why is this important? As you know, light takes time to travel. Using trigonometry alone, we can calculate how far away SN1987a. How is this done? The initial supernova explosion produced a pinpoint of light, as you would expect. However, a few months later a ring of debris was lit up by the supernova explosion. Using the time it took light to travel from the supernova to the ring of debris, and using the angle measured between the star and the ring, you are able to determine how far away the supernova is, and ultimately how far into the past you are observing.

As it turns out, SN1987a is 170,000 light years away, and we know this from using trigonometry. We know that decay rates were the same 170,000 years ago.

And this is just one piece of evidence supporting the conclusion (not assumption) that decay rates were the same in the past.

 

[Papias]

You are explaining away the evidence that supports my side without really even considering it. No offense to you personally, really, (we are just beginning to have a civil dialogue) but this is what I repeatedly encounter in these threads and on this forum.

No, I'm simply asking you to be consistent - and pointing out places where you are not being consistent.

There are only two main points to our discussion from our last few posts. These are:

1. Using ancient legends fairly. You ask that ancient stories about dragons be counted as evidence for dinosaurs, yet refuse to count similar ancient stories about other things as evidence. Specifically, each of these has ancient stories that are equally or more ubiquitous, yet you refuse to argue that they too are real:

• A. Flying people
• B. Flying horses
• C. people healed by gods
• etc.

Related to those, I had posted:

Are you kidding me? There are, in your words, "documented" cases of flying horses in cultures around the world, including from India, China, the Korean peninsula, the middle east, the mediterranean, Europe, Native Americans, and so on. Some of these flying horses include the tulpar, the uchchaihshravas, the vapushah patamgah, the cholllima, the kanthaka, pegasi, the al-burq, Johano-ai's horses, sleipnir, and more. the Add to this the many horse fossils found (since wings are light and don't fossilize well), and everyone agrees that these are contemporaneous with humans. There is a much stronger case for flying horses than there is for dinosaurs and humans coexisting - no decorated flower motifs are needed.

Similarly, the Mormon plates are better documented than ancient dinosaur sightings - being sworn to by 11 witnesses - yet you refuse to admit that as better evidence. Here is our exchange on that:

Papias wrote:

*sigh* Did you read the pdf you posted? It's not even about the mormon plates. It's about other "artifacts". In fact, it's written by the FAIR lds organization, who claim the mormon plates are real, and the article is written to show that they critically look at evidence and reject frauds (hence the plates aren't frauds). You are posting evidence against your own claims.

JF wrote:

What? Did you read pages 6-10 or just look at the heading and make your decision? If you are referring to the Padilla Plates:

"The Padilla plates have even more text that appears very similar to the Anthon transcript. They all really do look like evidence for the Book of Mormon. The problem is that they only look like evidence for the Book of Mormon when one does not look too closely, or if one refuses to accept the verdict of those who are trained in the fields that can tell us whether or not such artifacts are legitimate. These are not... These forgeries are too good to be true."

Page 10 of the text I attached to my post.

Papias, c'mon...

​

Here you cut out the text that says that the padilla plates are false, while the Book of Mormon (transcribed from the original Mormon plates given by the angel Moron) is real. Here is the whole quote from page 10:

​

"The Padilla plates have even more text that appears very similar to the Anthon transcript. They all really do look like evidence for the Book of Mormon. The problem is that they only look like evidence for the Book of Mormon when one does not look too closely, or if one refuses to accept the verdict of those who are trained in the fields that can tell us whether or not such artifacts are legitimate. These are not.

The Book of Mormon is itself true. These forgeries are too good to be true."
​

Help me out here - I'm trying to avoid suggesting that this removal of "The book of Mormon is itself true" is quote-mining.

The second main point is:

2. That the dating methods are reliable, and show that dinosaurs and humans never co-existed.

From that:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and literally dozens of others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"
If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll "just happen" to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests."​

Basically, if you are pointing to fossils as evidence of dinosaurs coexisting with humans, that "evidence" says the exact opposite, because dinosaur fossils are all much too old for your claim.

Perhaps referring to these two main topics - 1. the use of ancient stories, and 2 - the fossil evidence - will make this an easier discussion? After all, the fossil evidence better supports the idea of people seeing flying horses, since there are thousands of examples of horse fossils contemporaneous with humans, just as there are thousands of fossils of humans who have been healed - while there are zero fossils of dinosaurs that are contemporaneous with humans.

Best-

Papias

 

[46AND2]

Let's go with the constancy of decay rates since that would tie in with radiometric dating and ultimately the topic at hand.

As evidence for discussion, let's look at Supernova 1987a (aka SN1987a). When stars explode like this, the shock wave will produce new elements through fusion. One of those elements is Nickel-56 which decays at a known rate here on Earth. When they measured the amount of 56Ni in SN1987a and measured its disappearance over time, they were able to measure the decay rate of 56Ni in the supernova. As it turns out, the decay rate of 56Ni is the same on Earth as it is in SN1987a.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1990MNRAS.245..570V/0000571.000.html

So why is this important? As you know, light takes time to travel. Using trigonometry alone, we can calculate how far away SN1987a. How is this done? The initial supernova explosion produced a pinpoint of light, as you would expect. However, a few months later a ring of debris was lit up by the supernova explosion. Using the time it took light to travel from the supernova to the ring of debris, and using the angle measured between the star and the ring, you are able to determine how far away the supernova is, and ultimately how far into the past you are observing.

As it turns out, SN1987a is 170,000 light years away, and we know this from using trigonometry. We know that decay rates were the same 170,000 years ago.

And this is just one piece of evidence supporting the conclusion (not assumption) that decay rates were the same in the past.

Another evidence that decay rates have been constant (Taken from a thread I started a couple years ago):

...

As Uranium 238 decays through alpha-decay, the emitted alpha particles create damage to the surrounding rock, forming a sphere around the inclusion whose radius is dependent on the alpha particle decay energy.

They are called halos because we study them by looking at cross-sections of the sphere.

Now, it takes many decay events to form this visible sphere, since each atom that decays only produces one dot on the sphere. Something like 10^9 atoms of uranium need to decay in order to produce this sphere.

Since the half life of Uranium is about 4.5 billion years, in order for enough atoms to decay to form a halo, it would take hundreds of millions of years.

This is evidence of an old earth.

But there is more, it's also evidence that the decay constant of Uranium 238 has been constant for that time. Why?

Because the decay rate is inversely related to the decay energy. So, if the decay rate was faster in the past, the halo radius would be a different size. So, since the Uranium halos have a radius consistent with the decay energy that we observe today, we know that decay rates have not changed for hundreds of millions of years.

 

[SkyWriting]

"However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted."Then why does the text change immediately to dragons? And not to evidence of dragons, but legends of dragons? The standard European heraldic dragon has four legs and two wings.
No dinosaur had six limbs. How does this match the fossil evidence of dinosaurs at even the basic level of counting the number of limbs?

Then why does your post change immediately from Chinese legends to European dragons?
No Chinese dragon has six limbs. How does this European dragon match up with the Chinese dinosaurs at even the basic level of counting the number of limbs?

 

[loveofourlord]

Where did they get the images of creatures that we see in the fossil record?

....where did they get the images of creatures we see in the fossil record??? You really just asked that question that answers itself....

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then why does your post change immediately from Chinese legends to European dragons?

Seriously?

In the OP, Chinese dragons are almost an afterthought; they were hardly the main topic of discussion:

"For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is it at all possible to have an adult discussion about the following:

"Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.

Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old."

http://www.icr.org/men-dinosaurs/

It appears that this is a repeat question, but I'd like to start with a clean slate if possible.

You and I can indeed have an adult conversation if you so choose - I can not speak for the others.

Because some of the dinosaurs survived the cataclysm which wiped most of them from the face of the earth.

The earth was already flourishing with life prior to man. Life that has went extinct in several eras, after which all new forms of life arose. Then the last catastrophe struck.

In the oldest manuscripts there is a mark of a pause between the first and second verse. It may be as science tells us, that this globe existed millions of years ago; that it has been the habitation of numerous and varied races of animated beings; and that it has undergone many great destructions and creations before it was brought into its present state: none of these views are in the least discordant with the statement of the inspired historian, that “in beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

In twenty places in this chapter the verb “was” is used as the equivalent to “became”. The true meaning of the Hebrew word "hayah". "to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

The Earth "became" desolate and waste, (tohu wa bohu - used nowhere else together in the Bible except this verse and two other places, and always when used elsewhere point to a once flourishing condition that was then laid waste - Gen 1:2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23) and darkness overspread the Earth. At this time (man) did not exist prior, nor any of the current animals found with skeletons of modern man, except in a few rare cases as in one or two classes of reptiles and fish that survived this worldwide cataclysm, and the untold number before, told of before science had ever thought of such a thing as possible.

Comet, meteor? Who knows? It is quite accurate when interpreted properly. After unknown periods of time another act of creation occurred, this time with a notable exception, one worth bothering to describe in more detail, unlike any others that may have occurred previously. But then a new creation happened, the waters were separated from the waters (evaporation). "Let there be light...divided the light from the darkness". In Hebrew literally: " divided between the light and between darkness." Where all had previously been darkness due to the destruction, the addition of heat began separating the clouds. The events in the entire chapter are described as if one's viewpoint is from the earth.

It must be noted that the word 'ohr is not the same word used in verse 14 signifying "lights," or "luminaries," ma-'ohr; rather, it signifies "heat." the effect, which immediately followed is described in the name Day, which in Hebrew signifies "warmth."

So heat began penetrating into the depths after God acted, separating the clouds, letting light into the depths, the clouds had been so low as to contact the Earth itself. But heat allowed evaporation and the waters above were separated from the waters below and dry land appeared.

Every past form of life sprang from nowhere, lived for a time, different breeds of that kind prospering, then went extinct due to cataclysmic actions. In its place all new life once again sprang up, to again repeat the cycle. The Bible just affirms this, when it told you of the earth becoming desolate and waste, and the darkness that became upon it, encompassing it around. Hence the dinosaurs died out. It then described the "sixth" such event, when man himself was created.

This is the confusion between the two chapters of genesis. The animals created in the 5th creation were the dinosaurs - they went extinct. The animals created in the sixth creation along with man were mammals. This is why genesis one and two have different orders of creation. Not all went extinct in every cataclysm - some survived such as sharks and reptiles and some dinosaurs from the 5th creation.

There have been 5 - count them, 5 major extinction events. Mankind and the animals with him were created "after" this 5th extinction event, the 6th creative act.

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

Soon there will be a sixth destruction and a seventh and final creation in which all new forms of life will also arise - including an animal described as a lion that eats straw. 6 for the sixth creative act, 6 for mankind and 6 for the sixth destruction soon to be brought about by Satan. Only after this world is destroyed for the sixth time will the seventh and final creation begin again.

The flood does not count in this destructive sequence because all of the animals that were alive before it - were brought through it. No new creative acts were required to repopulate the earth. The animals then alive were able to repopulate the earth, unlike the other times when all new life had to be created. This is why there are no clear demarcation lines after the flood as in all the other extinctions were new life was created afterwards. The other destruction's are evident by the new life that then appeared - whereas the flood was merely a re-population of what already existed.

 

[The Cadet]

Because some of the dinosaurs survived the cataclysm which wiped most of them from the face of the earth.

We call them "birds".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We call them "birds".

Yah, you call quite a few things wrong - since birds already existed.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080208-bird-origins.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winged-victory/

 

[lasthero]

Yah, you call quite a few things wrong - since birds already existed.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080208-bird-origins.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winged-victory/

Your point?

 

[joshua 1 9]

That may be, it remains to be discussed further, however, as opposed to 1925, I visited Paluxy and saw the footprints in the stone.

One explanation is that the footprints were made by angels that were assigned by God to watch over the dinosaurs at the time. It is impossible that they were human footprints because humans require a different climate and a different atmosphere then the dinosaurs. Some people even believe that the sky was red back then and not blue as it is today. The only mammals alive during that period were very small.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Then I have a bridge for sale that you might be interested in.

Do you mean the London Bridge, which spans the Colorado River at Lake Havasu City, Ariz?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your point?

Obvious, your point?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Seriously?

In the OP, Chinese dragons are almost an afterthought; they were hardly the main topic of discussion:

"For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends."

And all of them have 4 legs, not 6.