Dinosaurs & Creationism

Hespera · Jun 29, 2009

Well rosen, you are right to an extent. Suppose we had a way to settle it, yes they do,no they dont exist.

suppose we bet. i put up a thousand against your hundred. you gonna take the bet?
a thousand against ten dollars on the chupacabre? then the chimera? Ten thousand to your ten dollars? Then we do the a few dozen more mythical critters. Ten and ten and ten will start to add up!

Do you actually think that any large spectacular animals could exist anywhere and never be noticed?

rosenherman · Jun 29, 2009

Hespera said:
Well rosen, you are right to an extent. Suppose we had a way to settle it, yes they do,no they dont exist.

suppose we bet. i put up a thousand against your hundred. you gonna take the bet?
a thousand against ten dollars on the chupacabre? then the chimera? Ten thousand to your ten dollars? Then we do the a few dozen more mythical critters. Ten and ten and ten will start to add up!

Do you actually think that any large spectacular animals could exist anywhere and never be noticed?

No, but stranger things have happened.

Hespera · Jun 29, 2009

Stranger things have happened? Oh? Like what?

WilliamduBois · Jun 29, 2009

rosenherman said:
Just because you've never seen one, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Until evidence arrives that shows they do, it's best to assume the null-position (ie: they don't), because you cannot provide evidence of the non-existance of such an animal.

Unless you also want to believe in that teapot orbiting Mars?

jpcedotal · Jun 30, 2009

Believe in a bone, but not the Bible...

Don't yall realize this is the ultimate goal of all science theory (not science in general), no matter what the subject?

I will put my faith in God, not man.

jpcedotal · Jun 30, 2009

uke2se said:
Or maybe the authors of those passages made it all up? Seems like the most plausible possibility.

I would argue the same with geologists. Did you know that when something more recent is found under a more ancient finding, especially in buried cities, it is ignored for the sake of the theory?

Theory is a dangerous game....where man is present so is deceit.

jpcedotal · Jun 30, 2009

Hespera said:
There is no animal like that nor was there ever. No more than the Cyclops, the hippogriph, mermaid, bigfoot, chupacabre etc and so on.

I don't discount the dinosaur, but it did walk with man. Geology is a waste of unproven findings and ignorant theory.

jpcedotal · Jun 30, 2009

corvus_corax said:
Sounds like a fire breathing sea dragon is more like it

Actually it speaks of mythical creatures like fire breathing sea dragons, Unicorns, satyrs, cockatrices and 4 legged insects.
Go figure

It is more real than what yall are sayin..it is in the Book and nothing in the Book has ever been disproved.

iremouth · Jun 30, 2009

jpcedotal said:
Believe in a bone, but not the Bible...

Don't yall realize this is the ultimate goal of all science theory (not science in general), no matter what the subject?

I will put my faith in God, not man.

And why do you believe in the bible? other than the fact that someone told you that the bible was true, and why do you believe there is a God? other than the fact that someone told you there is a God.

Hespera · Jun 30, 2009

jpcedotal said:
I don't discount the dinosaur, but it did walk with man. Geology is a waste of unproven findings and ignorant theory.

Of course, a bone however humble you can hold in your hand and see it. With a bit of experience, you can say which bone from what animal. So here is something undeniably real and identifiable. its not something to "believe in". A book a fables is.

The dinos and men bit is of course, false as could be demonstrated in countless ways.

The thing about the goal of science being something against god is kind of strange, but ok, thats what you think. As for geology...if believing things like that represents the amount of knowledge and thought that goes into what you think, it aint worth much.

Hespera · Jun 30, 2009

jpcedotal said:
I would argue the same with geologists. Did you know that when something more recent is found under a more ancient finding, especially in buried cities, it is ignored for the sake of the theory?

Theory is a dangerous game....where man is present so is deceit.

Geologists dont do ancient cities, but you have no examples of people finding recent things below ancient. That is made up. If you want to criticize, go ahead but made up examples just illustrate that you have no point to make except about yourself.

Falsehood and deliberate deception of self or others is, yes, a dangerous game. Dont do it.

And ad homs, like that geologists ignore data for the sake of theory, is not debate.
Its just a moldy ad hom that again shows that the one using it has nothing real to say.

Jester4kicks · Jun 30, 2009

jpcedotal said:
I would argue the same with geologists. Did you know that when something more recent is found under a more ancient finding, especially in buried cities, it is ignored for the sake of the theory?

Theory is a dangerous game....where man is present so is deceit.

Psst.... men wrote the bible, men translated it, and men printed it for distribution.

WilliamduBois · Jun 30, 2009

Did you know that when something more recent is found under a more ancient finding, especially in buried cities, it is ignored for the sake of the theory?

No, I didn't. I'm sure you can back up this accusation, because I know you wouldn't be lying yourself, would you?

Although... you're human. Then there could be deceit...

You've got nothing.

Baggins · Jun 30, 2009

jpcedotal said:
I would argue the same with geologists. Did you know that when something more recent is found under a more ancient finding, especially in buried cities, it is ignored for the sake of the theory?

Theory is a dangerous game....where man is present so is deceit.

So you think that all geologists lie do you?

I am a geologist and I use the theory and practice of geology everyday of my working life in order to prospect oil, quite successfully for something that you claim is all deceit.

I object to being called deceitful by someone as ignorant as you, you obviously have little idea of what geology is and what geologists do but you are willing to call us all deceitful because our work contradicts your ignorantly simplistic interpretation of your religious book.

What a lovely person you must be to condemn hundreds of thousands of geologists over 2 centuries as deceitful just because you cannot justify your interpretation of a religious book.

I am reminded of Ghandi's quote of how unchristlike most Christians are.

Hespera · Jun 30, 2009

Baggins said:
So you think that all geologists lie do you?

I am a geologist and I use the theory and practice of geology everyday of my working life in order to prospect oil, quite successfully for something that you claim is all deceit.

I object to being called deceitful by someone as ignorant as you, you obviously have little idea of what geology is and what geologists do but you are willing to call us all deceitful because our work contradicts your ignorantly simplistic interpretation of your religious book.

What a lovely person you must be to condemn hundreds of thousands of geologists over 2 centuries as deceitful just because you cannot justify your interpretation of a religious book.

I am reminded of Ghandi's quote of how unchristlike most Christians are.

If the description of the character of geologists, and the way they work were accurate, id think the same as our poster does.

He has is so badly wrong its almost deliberate. Well, it is deliberate on the part of people who have gone out of their way to deceive him in the name of their religion.

I dont really want my beliefs about the world to be based on something that is as completely wrong as that.

Its as if he didnt want to visit China because he thought they all wear pigtails, theyd try to make him eat rats and attack with a cleaver if he didnt.

I mean, its fine to not want to go to China, or to like the bible, but why make your choices based on entirely imaginary reasons?

uke2se · Jun 30, 2009

jpcedotal said:
I would argue the same with geologists. Did you know that when something more recent is found under a more ancient finding, especially in buried cities, it is ignored for the sake of the theory?

Theory is a dangerous game....where man is present so is deceit.

Prove it.

jpcedotal · Jun 30, 2009

WilliamduBois said:
No, I didn't. I'm sure you can back up this accusation, because I know you wouldn't be lying yourself, would you?

Although... you're human. Then there could be deceit...

You've got nothing.

What about...

The Taylor Trail, McFall Trail, Ryals Track, Morris Track, Burdick Track

Of course all of these have been "disproved" by geologist and evolutionists because if ANY of these were legit, two major "worldly" theories would fall to the waste side.

These were not given the same "non-opinionated" study as the dinosaur tracks RIGHT beside them in some cases. The dinosaur tracks were studied with the mind-frame of "proving" the authenticity, where these human tracks were studied with the mind frame of "disproving" them. If something is found to further these opinions then it becomes some great discovery, but when something is found that might make these "scientists" stop and think...well, best to just cover it back up or destroy its credibility...which is what yall are fixin to do to this post.

That's why all those "purty" words yall are using are better for SCI-FI than actual science. There is no open-mindness for any discoveries that goes against the pretend man-made rule. I have no respect for evolution or geology...go dust the dirt from the monkey and leave the Bible alone.

jpcedotal · Jun 30, 2009

Baggins said:
So you think that all geologists lie do you?

I am a geologist and I use the theory and practice of geology everyday of my working life in order to prospect oil, quite successfully for something that you claim is all deceit.

I object to being called deceitful by someone as ignorant as you, you obviously have little idea of what geology is and what geologists do but you are willing to call us all deceitful because our work contradicts your ignorantly simplistic interpretation of your religious book.

What a lovely person you must be to condemn hundreds of thousands of geologists over 2 centuries as deceitful just because you cannot justify your interpretation of a religious book.

I am reminded of Ghandi's quote of how unchristlike most Christians are.

If geology/evolution or anything else goes against one word of the Bible, then it is just pretend and you spent time and money learning the lie.

uke2se · Jun 30, 2009

jpcedotal said:
What about...

The Taylor Trail, McFall Trail, Ryals Track, Morris Track, Burdick Track

Of course all of these have been "disproved" by geologist and evolutionists because if ANY of these were legit, two major "worldly" theories would fall to the waste side.

These were not given the same "non-opinionated" study as the dinosaur tracks RIGHT beside them in some cases. The dinosaur tracks were studied with the mind-frame of "proving" the authenticity, where these human tracks were studied with the mind frame of "disproving" them. If something is found to further these opinions then it becomes some great discovery, but when something is found that might make these "scientists" stop and think...well, best to just cover it back up or destroy its credibility...which is what yall are fixin to do to this post.

That's why all those "purty" words yall are using are better for SCI-FI than actual science. There is no open-mindness for any discoveries that goes against the pretend man-made rule. I have no respect for evolution or geology...go dust the dirt from the monkey and leave the Bible alone.

So, you're going to seriously bring up these debunked cases of obvious frauds and mistakes? Get an education for your God's sake!

uke2se · Jun 30, 2009

jpcedotal said:
If geology goes against one word of the Bible, then it is just pretend and you spent time and money learning the lie.

Yes, if geology goes against one word of the Bible, the Bible is just pretend and you spent time and money learning the lie. It's good that you accept this.

Dinosaurs & Creationism

Junior Member

Sparkly rainbow butterfly kitten

Junior Member

BenderBendingRodriguez

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Active Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Warning - The following may cause you to think

BenderBendingRodriguez

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Active Member

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads