Dinosaurs

[Herman Hedning]

That looks real sciency. But I think this one is better.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That looks real sciency. But I think this one is better.

It is better, since their gaps are getting larger as the science progresses.

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray | Science | The Guardian

Their claims of mutation all but given up on in the real world. Only in theory is it basically a viable option.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[Davian]

I am not "falsifying mainstream science as a whole"

You certainly have not, even though the majority of which seems to conflict with what you have told me of your beliefs.

I stated that "Evolutionists have been faking, altering, hiding, dismissing, and ignoring data for years."

I was asked to give proof and I did.

You did no such thing. Examples of how the system finds and exposes errors and misconceptions shows the strengths of scientific methodology, not its weakness.

People who want to believe otherwise are following a theory based on a lot of misinterpreted data and extrapolated by men and women that are not afraid to fake, alter, hide, dismiss, and ignore data."

(my bold)

This is what you have failed to provide evidence for, that this is what the theory of evolution is based on. You have found a few Chevrolet Corvairs and Ford Pintos and declared that the automotive industry is out to kill us.

The point of my post was to have you admit to your bias in this situation - that you need for the theory of evolution to be faulty for your religious beliefs to be true. Is that not the case?

 

[Queller]

Lol I can copy and paste too.

Care to address the argument rather than engage in ad hominem attacks? Do you think the information would change is I typed it all out by hand?

 

[Queller]

I stand corrected, you are right. It is for both clean and unclean. However, as another poster has pointed out, the phrase "the male and his female", in no way shape or form deduce the age or maturity.

As I pointed out, you most certainly can. The very words and phrasing used are more than sufficient to deduce that.

I guess I should have made myself clear. I believe that the atmosphere changed at the time of the flood. When the canopy was removed and the founts of the deep opened up. This changed the earths atmosphere and the large animals, like brontosaurus, were unable to adapt.

Why not, specifically? Other large animals such as elephants, mammoths, and whales were able to adapt to the changed atmospheric conditions just fine. What was so different about dinosaurs that prevented them from adapting?

Not to mention that many species of dinosaur were the same size as, or smaller than, many of the large animals we have today. Why wasn't say, compsognathus, able to adapt? They were no bigger than a turkey.

The link I posted was taken from an evolution based site that believes in millions of years etc. It shows scientific data that the atmosphere was, at one time, quite different. I did this so I would not get bantered for using a "creationist biased" site.

Yes, the atmosphere was quite different hundreds of millions of years ago. Your claim needs the atmosphere to be quite different 5,000 years ago. What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Sorry for confusing you.

You didn't confuse me at all.

 

[Queller]

Say's you. I don't believe that this is the case.

Good for you. So what?

There is no absolute for your reasoning.

Did I claim there was?

 

[Queller]

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.

No he doesn't. I've read Coyne's article in Nature and nowhere does he say it needs to be thrown out. What he said was;

"First, for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution."

You can read Coyne's own further words on this here.

The peppered moth story is solid

He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5

So?

Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8

These are not Coyne's words. They are the Carl Wieland's words (the author of the article).

According to the footnotes of that article, the statement is credited to Sargent T.R. et al. in M.K. Hecht et al, Evolutionary Biology 30:299–322, Plenum Press, New York, 1998. I did a google search of that particular book, looking for the word "indoctrinated" and that word appears nowhere in the entire book.

 

[Queller]

It could well have been a giant. This is a proven fact too.

Nearly 13 feet tall? Sure. Pull the other one.

Giants did exist and have been in the writings of history of many cultures and nations.

So have wizards and witches, unicorns and pegasi. That doesn't mean they are real.

 

[Queller]

The problem is that photo's were staged, the moths rarely rested on trees in the day, the wings of a live peppered moth were not extended, birds were not their only worry but bats were. Bats use echolocation that doesn't involve the color of wings.

This throws the methodology and ethics of the experimentation and its conclusions into question.

And, still, this is taught as solid proof of evolution.

Again, proof of half truths, cover ups, exaggeration, fabrications etc, to keep the farce of evolution alive

You do know that better designed experiments related to industrial melanin have been conducted and came to virtually the same conclusion as the original, right? Coyne even acknowledges that fact.

 

[Queller]

It is better, since their gaps are getting larger as the science progresses.

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray | Science | The Guardian

The first two sentences after that deliberately controversial headline?

"A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus. The spectacular fossilised skull of an ancient human ancestor that died nearly two million years ago has forced scientists to rethink the story of early human evolution."

Their claims of mutation all but given up on in the real world. Only in theory is it basically a viable option.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Exactly how do you think that article means that the idea of mutations has been given up on in the real world?

 

[JacksBratt]

I'd never even heard of it until a creationist brought it up, and I know I'm not the only one.

You had never heard of Nebraska man?

Really?

But, you know it was a "mistake" and by one guy and it was in the National Geographic and no papers or , or, or.......

Ya, OK.

 

[JacksBratt]

That looks real sciency. But I think this one is better.

The most realistic of all would be...

 

[JacksBratt]

No, it's not. It's really not.



So are dragons, fairies, vampires and werewolves.

Well, okay, maybe werewolves aren't a good example. They exist. I know, because I read about them on that link you showed me with the giant footprint. There were pictures and everything.

Please explain the hundreds of newspaper articles and journal entries of early Americans that found the huge skeletal remains.
The fact that almost every North American Indian tribe has stories and tales of the giants that had red hair, six fingers, double rows of teeth, man eaters, that they had to deal with.
The fact that remains have been found in many places in North and South America as well as other parts of the world.
The skulls that are real evidence of huge heads, and skulls with different sutures and plates than normal humans.
Tiwanacu and Puma Punku, Sacsayhuaman, The Trilithon at Baalbeck including the "stone of the south" or "the stone of the pregnant woman.
It is obvious that something strange was going on long before the Smithsonian was here to hide it all. There are unexplainable large structures and technology beyond what we have today to explain it.

You cannot deny all of it. Something was going on.

 

[lasthero]

You had never heard of Nebraska man?

In case you missed the point of that sentence. Let me repeat it.

UNTIL A CREATIONIST BROUGHT IT UP

You are not the first creationist to bring this up to me. I've heard it. A lot. You're not as original as you think. In fact, I don't think a month has gone by on this forum where I haven't seen some creationist bring one of your PRATTS up like it's something that's completely new and no one's ever seen before. Creationists like you have been trotting this stuff out since before I was before. Before you were born, probably. It's old hat.

ADD: And Nebraska Man was never in National Geographic. That was archeoraptor. You can't even keep your PRATTs straight.

 

[lasthero]

Please explain the hundreds of newspaper articles and journal entries of early Americans that found the huge skeletal remains.

Citation needed.

The fact that almost every North American Indian tribe has stories and tales of the giants that had red hair, six fingers, double rows of teeth, man eaters, that they had to deal with.

EVERY North American tribe? Citation needed.

The fact that remains have been found in many places in North and South America as well as other parts of the world.

Allegedly. Strangely enough, you don't find these in any museums. Even creationist ones.

It is obvious that something strange was going on long before the Smithsonian was here to hide it all.

Yes, the evil Smithsonian Insitute is hiding all the giant fossils because...REASONS. But funnily enough, creationist can NEVER seem to get their hands on any of them. You'd think Ken Ham, with all his money, would be able to get at least one. Maybe the Discovery Institute, or AIG or any of the other creationist organizations that could raise up the money for a few digs. But no - THE EVIL SMITHSONIAN always beats them to the punch.

Sheesh.

There are unexplainable large structures and technology beyond what we have today to explain it.

Not really.

You cannot deny all of it. Something was going on.

And the answer has to be giants.

 

[Davian]

Please explain the hundreds of newspaper articles and journal entries of early Americans that found the huge skeletal remains.
The fact that almost every North American Indian tribe has stories and tales of the giants that had red hair, six fingers, double rows of teeth, man eaters, that they had to deal with.
The fact that remains have been found in many places in North and South America as well as other parts of the world.
The skulls that are real evidence of huge heads, and skulls with different sutures and plates than normal humans.
Tiwanacu and Puma Punku, Sacsayhuaman, The Trilithon at Baalbeck including the "stone of the south" or "the stone of the pregnant woman.
It is obvious that something strange was going on long before the Smithsonian was here to hide it all. There are unexplainable large structures and technology beyond what we have today to explain it.

You cannot deny all of it. Something was going on.

That's right! Just look at these pictures!

 

[lasthero]

You know what's weird about all the alleged giant bones?It's always JUST giant bones.

If there were a race of giants living on Earth, you'd think they would have giant things, too. Giant house. Giant weapons. Giant clothing. Stuff like that - but no - it's always just the bones.

And what's the point of the Smithsonian surpressing the existence of giants? Even if giants existed, it doesn't mean that the Bible is completely right. or anything. How would it give credence to the Bible over any other mythology that includes giants? And just because the Bible has things that exist doesn't make it completely true. No one said that Bible had absolutely no accurate descriptions of the world. It'd be like arguing that, because Noah used doves and doves actually exist, the Flood story is true. What kind of logic is that?

And even if i assume the Smithsonian is full of a bunch of filthy atheist scum who telepathically know every time a giant bone is discovered and they had some kind of hit squad on tap that immediately swoops down and confiscates it before it gets in the local news or any god-fearing scientists take a look at it, how does this help them.I guess the implication is that they know that evolution is a lie or whatever, but if that's the case, then they're really creationists, in which case they believe in God, in which case they know God won't be happy with them for leading people astray and likely send them to hell. And on top of that, they spend this money to keep the stuff quiet, but there's no financial gain. You can't make money off something you're hiding.

So, i mean, just...gah!

 

[JacksBratt]

Originally Posted by JacksBratt

Please explain the hundreds of newspaper articles and journal entries of early Americans that found the huge skeletal remains.
​

Citation needed.

Citation? You want a citation for old newspaper articles regarding giant skeletons and skulls and other remains? Well, your in luck. We now have the internet. It may have a lot of garbage but there is also a huge amount of truthful sites. You are an intelligent person, I am sure you will find many of both kinds to meet your approval. They can't hide all the proof. They can try to blow it off but it is out there if you look.

The fact that almost every North American Indian tribe has stories and tales of the giants that had red hair, six fingers, double rows of teeth, man eaters, that they had to deal with.

EVERY North American tribe? Citation needed.

Again, there are lots of sites, many not even creationist sites, that have this information. And, again, you cannot hide all the truth.

The fact that remains have been found in many places in North and South America as well as other parts of the world.

Allegedly. Strangely enough, you don't find these in any museums. Even creationist ones.

Mt. Blanco Fossil museum in Texas, Gold Museum in Lima, Humboldt Museum at Winnemucca Nevada, Nevada State Historical Society Museum in Reno. The medical school at WITS University, Johannesburg. Aparently, if you go to Peru there are skulls and skeletons of giants in no short supply. I guess the Smithsonian can't reach it's grubby paws everywhere.

Here is a link to an evolution site that isn't following the rules of debunking any data on giants.

Enormous Footprint Discovered In South Africa: Did Giants Once Roam The Earth? | Collective-Evolution

It is obvious that something strange was going on long before the Smithsonian was here to hide it all.

Yes, the evil Smithsonian Insitute is hiding all the giant fossils because...REASONS.

Really? You can't think of any reasons? Not one? How about the fact that if giants lived on this earth the following would be true:

1/ The Bible story of Goliath would be backed up or at least plausible.
2/ The Bible detail of Joshua, Caleb and the other 10 spies reporting to Moses that "there are men in the land and we are like grass hoppers to them"
3/ The American native Indians may not have been the first to inhabit this land, there goes the land bridge theory. Giants came from the middle east to flee from Joshua and the formidable force he had backing him.
4/ If there were giants way back in time, that built all these humungous unexplainable structures, evolution needs another goal post maneuver. The technology that was needed, the vast size of the creations and the aw some precision is enough to kill the idea that we were still apes at the time.
5/ It would show that we have lost some technology not gained it.

But funnily enough, creationist can NEVER seem to get their hands on any of them. You'd think Ken Ham, with all his money, would be able to get at least one. Maybe the Discovery Institute, or AIG or any of the other creationist organizations that could raise up the money for a few digs. But no - THE EVIL SMITHSONIAN always beats them to the punch.

I believe that the evil smithsonian will be proven to be a huge fraud. More and more evidence will be brought forward, presented, exposed and the egg will be on their face no matter who or how they try to cover up their pathetic attempts to kill the truth.

There are unexplainable large structures and technology beyond what we have today to explain it.

Not really.

Yes, really. The technology, power and magnitude of the beings that did these is unexplainable.

You cannot deny all of it. Something was going on.

And the answer has to be giants.

Like I said. Something, way different than what we have on earth today, was going on...... Certainly something that would put a big hiccup in the fable of evolution.

 

[lasthero]

Originally Posted by JacksBratt

Citation? You want a citation for old newspaper articles regarding giant skeletons and skulls and other remains? Well, your in luck. We now have the internet. It may have a lot of garbage but there is also a huge amount of truthful sites. You are an intelligent person, I am sure you will find many of both kinds to meet your approval. They can't hide all the proof. They can try to blow it off but it is out there if you look.

Jack, I know you live in a srange fantasy land where the rules of typical logic don't apply, but here in the real world, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. It's your claim, you provide evidence for it.

Again, there are lots of sites, many not even creationist sites, that have this information. And, again, you cannot hide all the truth.

And again, don't make claims then demand that the people who question said claims look them up for you. That's intellectuly lazy. And stupid.

Mt. Blanco Fossil museum in Texas, Gold Museum in Lima, Humboldt Museum at Winnemucca Nevada, Nevada State Historical Society Museum in Reno. The medical school at WITS University, Johannesburg. Aparently, if you go to Peru there are skulls and skeletons of giants in no short supply. I guess the Smithsonian can't reach it's grubby paws everywhere.

So I look up the first one and find this

The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a creationist museum in Crosbyton, Texas, opened in 1998.[1] Its motto is "Digging up the facts of God's Creation: One fossil at a time."

The warehouse-sized museum contains a mixture of fossilized skeletons and cast replicas. The replicas include a juvenile Triceratops, a full-sized mastodon skeleton, the largest hadrosaur leg ever found, and the world's largest ice age bison skull. Real bones displayed include the head of a metoposaur, and once included the world's largest four-tusked mastodon skull.[2]

The museum also bases the Mount Blanco fossil excavation team who go on digs and investigate fossil evidence according to a creationist view.[3] The museum has collaborated with Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, in casting alleged mixed human and dinosaur footprints.[4][5] Those prints have been strongly criticized as incorrectly identified dinosaur prints, other fossils, or outright forgeries.[6]

Not a good start.

Here is a link to an evolution site that isn't following the rules of debunking any data on giants.

Enormous Footprint Discovered In South Africa: Did Giants Once Roam The Earth? | Collective-Evolution

First off, this is just a blog. Second, I can't help but notice that this is the same footprint that appeared in that website with the werewolves. Kind of a one trick pony, aren't you?

Really? You can't think of any reasons? Not one? How about the fact that if giants lived on this earth the following would be true:

1/ The Bible story of Goliath would be backed up or at least plausible.

It wouldn't back up the Goliath story any more than the existence of a donkies backs up the story about one talking, or the existence of crosses backs up the ressurection story. You really have painfully low yet selective standards of evidence.

2/ The Bible detail of Joshua, Caleb and the other 10 spies reporting to Moses that "there are men in the land and we are like grass hoppers to them"

See above.

3/ The American native Indians may not have been the first to inhabit this land, there goes the land bridge theory. Giants came from the middle east to flee from Joshua and the formidable force he had backing him.

In order to determine who was here first, we'd have to use dating techniques, which I seriously doubt you accept. Even then, how does it take away the land bridge theory? Giants can't walk on bridges?

4/ If there were giants way back in time, that built all these humungous unexplainable structures,

You' haven't provided evidence that giants built anything, even if they did exist, which you also haven't provided evidence for.

evolution needs another goal post maneuver. The technology that was needed, the vast size of the creations and the aw some precision is enough to kill the idea that we were still apes at the time.

Again, determing when something was built would require dating techniques, and again, I seriously doubt you accept said techniques as viable. With that said, this sentence is worded so poorly that I can't make out your point.

5/ It would show that we have lost some technology not gained it.

You haven't shown this, and again, we'd have to date said technology to make such a statement. And even if true, this has nothing to do with evolution.

I believe that the evil smithsonian will be proven to be a huge fraud.

That doesn't surprise. You believe a lot of weird stuff. You still haven't shown the Smithsonian profits by surpressing all this stuff, though.

Yes, really. The technology, power and magnitude of the beings that did these is unexplainable.

It's explainable. And even if it's not, just because something is unexplainable doesn't mean you can just throw any wild guess in and expect it to be taken seriously.

Like I said. Something, way different than what we have on earth today, was going on...... Certainly something that would put a big hiccup in the fable of evolution.

You just keep telling yourself that.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hmm, the giants covered up by the Smithsonian is familiar.

JacksBratt, do you post on YouTube as NephilimFree?