dinosaurs lived with man proof academic books

[Astrophile]

Here's the Dino carving in the Cambodian temple:

View attachment 189347

First, if you listen to the video, particularly between about 32 and 50 seconds, you can hear dinosaurs calling in the background.

Second, fossil stegosaurs have been found only in Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous rocks (see Stegosaurus - Wikipedia and Wuerhosaurus - Wikipedia). If stegosaurs didn't die out during the Early Cretaceous but survived until 800 years ago, why are there no fossil stegosaurs from Upper Cretaceous, Paleogene, Neogene and Pleistocene rocks?

 

[cre8id]

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

Not exactly. I threw out what I consider a whole group of poorly supported theories for a framework which works better.

 

[Queller]

That's a better picture and reasoning.

So you don't think it's a dinosaur any more?

I think the other animal looks monkey like to me .

I'm not aware of any monkeys with spiny plates on their heads.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not exactly. I threw out what I consider a whole group of poorly supported theories for a framework which works better.

And what scientific background do you have to make that statement?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I'm not wrong though. You made the assumption that it was an unknown dinosaur. Even if you phrase it as a question, if you make a statement which has no grounding, then it's still an assumption.

If you can't tell the difference then I guess you must think people keeping making assumption when they're making suggestions. It must be a very confusing world for you? How do you see this:

Perhaps sometimes it's just a suggestion?

I am making a statement.

 

[cre8id]

What this boils down to is that the Bible doesn't say man lived with dinosaurs and there is no scientific evidence for it either, but it must be true if the Creationist interpretation of Genesis is correct. Therefore it is true, because the alternative is unthinkable.

It's the same kind of reasoning that allows Creationist to assert that the Fountains of the Deep erupted with such force during the Flood as to blow chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid Belt. It doesn't say so in the Bible, but if you deny it you're calling Christ a liar.

The Bible does not directly say anything about the Trinity either, yet all true Christians believe in the Trinity as an essential doctrine of Christianity.

And the only creationist I know of that teaches what you said about the asteroids, etc. Is Dr. Walt Brown. And he nowhere claims that if you don't agree with his idea, then you are calling Christ a liar. You are the one exaggerating things to a point of ridiculousness.

 

[cre8id]

Can you give us a scientific source? Like a study in a peer-reviewed journal perhaps? A site called creation.com might not be the best source for scientific studies.

Yet they have a number of scientists on their staff that write a lot of the articles.

 

[Skreeper]

yet all true Christians believe in the Trinity as an essential doctrine of Christianity.

Careful buddy, calling others "not true Christians" violates forum rules.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

So you don't think it's a dinosaur any more?

I'm not aware of any monkeys with spiny plates on their heads.

It might be an undiscovered dinosaur but it does seem more like the Rhino.

That could be monkey hair

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you can't tell the difference then I guess you must think people keeping making assumption when they're making suggestions. It must be a very confusing world for you? How do you see this:

Perhaps sometimes it's just a suggestion?

I am making a statement.

You're still making a unevidenced claim to try and make the actual science fit with your preconceived religious beliefs.

 

[Skreeper]

Yet they have a number of scientists on their staff that write a lot of the articles.

Doesn't matter if the findings and "studies" don't get cross-examined and peer-reviewed. They might be "scientists" but most of the time what they are actually doing is not science.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

You're still making a unevidenced claim to try and make the actual science fit with your preconceived religious beliefs.

I've never had preconceived religious beliefs about this issue because before and after I became a Christian I never believed that dinosaurs and people lived together. It was only through research into the evidence for and against that I came to the understanding that they did co-exist.

Now you have made an assumption

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've never had preconceived religious beliefs about this issue because before and after I became a Christian I never believed that dinosaurs and people lived together. It was only through research into the evidence for and against that I came to the understanding that they did co-exist.

Now you have made an assumption

No, you have proven my point. If you had done some actual scientific research, you would see that the evidence does not support the claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and to accept that claim, you would have to belief that the Earth is much younger than actual science shows, which is based around...? A preconceived religious belief about the age of the Earth.

 

[Speedwell]

The Bible does not directly say anything about the Trinity either, yet all true Christians believe in the Trinity as an essential doctrine of Christianity.

So why are you not out digging up physical evidence for it?

And the only creationist I know of that teaches what you said about the asteroids, etc. Is Dr. Walt Brown. And he nowhere claims that if you don't agree with his idea, then you are calling Christ a liar. You are the one exaggerating things to a point of ridiculousness.

No, but some of his followers do, using the same reasoning. And that was my point: Man living with dinosaurs is just as much of a self-serving conclusion as Brown's theory of the Asteroid belt.

 

[cre8id]

That's not a Sumatran Rhino.
THIS is a Sumatran Rhino"

This is a slightly different angle of the claimed Stegosaurus carving showing the details of the head:

Given the horns and lack of tail spikes. It looks pretty similar to me.

What horns? There are only two horns on the rhino, one above the nose, the other above and between the eyes... not on the sculpture.

The closest thing to the two tall spikes on the sculptured head are the ears on the rhino.
[/QUOTE]


And as to the "plates" running down the back, here's another carving on the same temple with similar "plates" around the head.

What animal is that exactly?

Nope the head and tail are both wrong if it is supposed to be a Stegosaurus. If it is a Sumatran Rhino, only the claimed "plates" are wrong.

So based on major features alone, the Sumatran Rhino is a closer fit; one major difference vs. two. [/QUOTE]

Those are not plates around the head, they are not that similar to the dinosaur sculpture. It is obvious that what is around the head of this very fanciful mythological beast is a depiction of locks of hair.

Nowhere, that I know of, do creationists deny the depiction of mythological creatures in this temple. I know at least one of the articles that I linked to mentioned the fact that there were mythological creatures depicted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@cre8id, I'm still waiting for you to say what your scientific background is for you to definitely 'throw out' the theory of evolution and replace with Young Earth Creationism.

 

[cre8id]

No, you have proven my point. If you had done some actual scientific research, you would see that the evidence does not support the claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and to accept that claim, you would have to belief that the Earth is much younger than actual science shows, which is based around...? A preconceived religious belief about the age of the Earth.

And if you did some actual research of the creationists sites (I personally like Institute for Creation Research and Creation Ministries International) you might find some surprising work done on radiometricly dating techniques, showing they are deficient, tree ring dating, ice core dating, anomalous fossil finds, a different theory of cave formations, why abiogenesis is impossible, etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And if you did some actual research of the creationists sites (I personally like Institute for Creation Research and Creation Ministries International) you might find some surprising work done on radiometricly dating techniques, showing they are deficient, tree ring dating, ice core dating, anomalous fossil finds, a different theory of cave formations, why abiogenesis is impossible, etc.

Now why would I put my trust in creationist sites, sites that deliberately and periodically misrepresent, in other words lie, about mainstream science over actual scientists who study and show God's creation for what it is?

 

[Skreeper]

And if you did some actual research of the creationists sites (I personally like Institute for Creation Research and Creation Ministries International) you might find some surprising work done on radiometricly dating techniques, showing they are deficient, tree ring dating, ice core dating, anomalous fossil finds, a different theory of cave formations, why abiogenesis is impossible, etc.

I am aware of the pseudoscience these people spread. And their work is not "surprising" to the scientific community since every time the claims were tested they turned out to be wrong or the methods creationists used were flawed or misused.

 

[cre8id]

@cre8id, I'm still waiting for you to say what your scientific background is for you to definitely 'throw out' the theory of evolution and replace with Young Earth Creationism.

I am not a scientist, and I never claimed to be one. My technical skills are in the mechanical engineering field. I have always had a strong interest in science, even from an early age... between that and the very liberal Methodist Church I was forced to attend as a youngster (which taught that the Bible was largely myths which taught moral truths), I became an atheist at an early age... a naturalistic atheist (there are other types, I have since found out).

I still like to read about new discoveries in science in the more popular news type magazines, but I'm retired now and I won't waste my time any more with searching scientific journals.