dinosaurs lived with man proof academic books

[Ophiolite]

I would agree that I would not thank someone who adds the nonsense of evolution that already floods the internet, but that's not what I did.

Unfortunately the lack of serious evidence to support your assertions does render your extensive post nonsense. I applaud you for seeking to aid the OP in his quest. However, I note that sincerity and accuracy are not the same thing.

 

[cre8id]

No it does not. Stegosaurs didn't have spikes on their backs, they had plates. The "plates" in the carving are leaves in a jungle which is where one would observe a Sumatran rhino - and I already showed that the nose, ears and tail don't match that of a stegosaur.

Well, no one can say you're biased, right? (Oh brother!)

You said, "The "plates" in the carving are leaves in a jungle which is where one would observe a Sumatran rhino".

You sure are assuming a LOT and interjecting that into the picture of the carving. Would the "leaves" automatically align with the curvature of the animal's spine? I don't think so... and if you were honest about it, neither would you.

You also said, "and I already showed that the nose, ears and tail don't match that of a stegosaur".
Have you ever looked at all the species of dogs we have today? Compared their skills? Sizes? Snout lengths and widths? There is quite a variety there... all in line with Creationists predictions and claims.
How about Triceratops? They have three horned varieties, two horned varieties, and, if I am not mistaken, even a single horn variety.
So, would you not agree that the same amount of variety could not exist in the Stegosaurs species also? You seem to think this is unrealistic, but it is most certainly not.

I also noted that many of the carvings had "simplified" renditions of many known animals, so the tail spikes may have been missing per the variation available, or they could have been simply left off by the carver.

No, it's a known species - the Sumatran rhino.View attachment 189329

The dogmatism of naturalism showing it's ugly face again.

And stegosaurs have spikes on their tail (which the Ta Prohm carving lacks) have thin snouts (the Ta Prohm carving has a fat snout) and they lack external ears (which the Ta Prohm carving has). It's almost as if you didn't even read my post because you're not addressing any of these problems for those claiming it's a stegosaur.

Answered above in the first part... the same principle of variation applies.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@cre8id, you might want to redo your text post since it's quite unreadable.

 

[cre8id]

@cre8id, you might want to redo your text post since it's quite unreadable.

Sorry, I accidentally hit the 'Post' button long before it was ready. Should be posted correctly now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry, I accidedentally hit the 'Post' button long before it was ready. Should be posted correctly now.

Yeah, that's fixed it now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, no one can say you're biased, right? (Oh brother!)

You said, "The "plates" in the carving are leaves in a jungle which is where one would observe a Sumatran rhino".

You sure are assuming a LOT and interjecting that into the picture of the carving. Would the "leaves" automatically align with the curvature of the animal's spine? I don't think so... and if you were honest about it, neither would you.

You also said, "and I already showed that the nose, ears and tail don't match that of a stegosaur".
Have you ever looked at all the species of dogs we have today? Compared their skills? Sizes? Snout lengths and widths? There is quite a variety there... all in line with Creationists predictions and claims.
How about Triceratops? They have three horned varieties, two horned varieties, and, if I am not mistaken, even a single horn variety.
So, would you not agree that the same amount of variety could not exist in the Stegosaurs species also? You seem to think this is unrealistic, but it is most certainly not.

I also noted that many of the carvings had "simplified" renditions of many known animals, so the tail spikes may have been missing per the variation available, or they could have been simply left off by the carver.

The dogmatism of naturalism showing it's ugly face again.

Answered above in the first part... the same principle of variation applies.

For one who claims the other side to be dogmatic, I'd expected you to offer something else apart from claims, like, actual evidence.

 

[cre8id]

For one who claims the other side to be dogmatic, I'd expected you to offer something else apart from claims, like, actual evidence.

I never said I wasn't biased. I offered a linked page earlier with several pieces of evidence. The question isn't so much about the evidence itself but the biased spin which is applied to the evidence, and whether one can or will question their biases which filters the "evidence" as acceptable or not.
Since I used to be completely on the "other side" of the creation/evolution issue (I was a totally naturalistic atheistic evolutionist before becoming a Christian), I have dealt with my evolutionary biases. After my conversion, I adopted theistic evolution... until I started seeing some major theological problems with that POV. I am now a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), which, yes, has some problems... but, then, so does the evolutionary POV.

Note: EVERYONE IS BIASED! Even the scientists in the lab coat or field gear.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I never said I wasn't biased. I offered a linked page earlier with several pieces of evidence. The question isn't so much about the evidence itself but the biased spin which is applied to the evidence, and whether one can or will question their biases which filters the "evidence" as acceptable or not.
Since I used to be completely on the "other side" of the creation/evolution issue (I was a totally naturalistic atheistic evolutionist before becoming a Christian). After my conversion, I adopted theistic evolution... until I started seeing some major theological problems with that POV. I am now a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), which, yes, has some problems... but, then, so does the evolutionary POV.

No, here's the thing: you made a lot of claims in your previous post but you presented not a single piece of evidence to support your claims.
Also, the fact that feel the need to explain your 'previous position' as a 'totally naturalistic atheistic evolutionist' really tells me that you weren't, since I have seen the claim used by so many people who have suddenly become Young Earth Creationists.

 

[Skreeper]

I adopted theistic evolution... until I started seeing some major theological problems with that POV. I am now a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), which, yes, has some problems... but, then, so does the evolutionary POV.

So what you are saying is that you threw out science because it contradicts your religious beliefs?

 

[Speedwell]

...until I started seeing some major theological problems with that POV.

Like what?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Here's the Dino carving in the Cambodian temple:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's the Dino carving in the Cambodian temple:

View attachment 189347

It's not a dinosaur.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

It's not a dinosaur.

What is it ?

 

[Skreeper]

Here's the Dino carving in the Cambodian temple:

View attachment 189347

It has already been pointed out that the carving is very clearly not a stegosaurus.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

It has already been pointed out that the carving is very clearly not a stegosaurus.

i didn't say it was..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is it ?

It's a Sumatran Rhino. You know, a common animal that lives in Sumatra and looks absolutely nothing like a stegosaurus.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

i didn't say it was..

The video you embeded does.

 

[Speedwell]

Assuming that carving was actually an attempt to represent a stegosaurus,

Is it your position that stegosauri existed as recently as 800 years ago?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

The video you embeded does.

Well i know that, i was just posting it.

 

[cre8id]

No, here's the thing: you made a lot of claims in your previous post but you presented not a single piece of evidence to support your claims.

Well, here is a page listing quite a few things to look at on different subjects:
Creation answers (frequently asked questions)
Q&A - creation.com

More to the point on dinosaurs and man:
Is there evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted in the recent past?
This is a subheading under this link:
Dinosaur Questions and Answers - creation.com

Also, the fact that feel the need to explain your 'previous position' as a 'totally naturalistic atheistic evolutionist' really tells me that you weren't, since I have seen the claim used by so many people who have suddenly become Young Earth Creationists.

You are strongly insinuating I am lying, and I never take such accusations lightly.

I don't really care what you personally think about me, but if you ever insinuate or accuse me of lying again, I WILL report you! And that goes for anyone else here!

What I told you was the truth! I was a very "in your face" almost militant naturalist atheist at one time (from my early teenage years until I was in my twenties)... whether you believe it or not.

So keep your derogatory opinions about people being liars to yourself unless you can back it up (and I KNOW you can't) or I, for one, will do everything I can to get you banned from these forums!