Man and dinosaur coexisting

2404 · Dec 13, 2015

Scripture says that there were giants and that should settle it.
I understand that the giants were of a mixed tree and not the sons of Adam (sons of God) but through the lineage of Cain.
In regard to dinosaurs:
If it is accepted that before the flood that it was a highly scientific age is it possible that the dinosaurs were a result of genetic engineering?

USincognito · Dec 13, 2015

Isaiah55:6 said:
Pterodactyl?

Pterosaurs weren't even dinosaurs, much less dragons.

Isaiah55:6 said:
They looked exactly like human footprints until Dawkins little buddy Glen Kuban destroyed them over night with an iron bar. They didn't want that little secret getting out.

Mendacious Creationist slander. That never happened.

Isaiah55:6 said:
Look at all the artifacts and cave drawings. It was the other way around. Man was hunting the dinosaurs.

Yet, for some strange reason, we never find dinosaurs bones with sword or spear marks, we never find dinosaur body parts in trash middens, and we never find hides, horns, frills or feathers kept as trophies.

Do you have an explanation for those facts?

USincognito · Dec 13, 2015

Isaiah55:6 said:
How do you know they couldn't breath fire? The bombardier beetle shoots fire from his back side.

No it doesn't. You need to read up on this stuff before posting so you don't embarrass yourself.

Isaiah55:6 said:
What frauds?

Anything associated with Mr. Carl Baugh or ex-con Hovind.

Isaiah55:6 said:
Like I said before, most of the big dinosaurs couldn't survive after the flood do to climate change.

Debating a subject must be so easy when one can just make stuff up.

JacksBratt · Dec 13, 2015

Dr GS Hurd said:
You never worked in a hospital. You never read the scientific literature; (3 out of 16,200 recent articles)

Puchta, H., & Fauser, F. (2014). Synthetic nucleases for genome engineering in plants: prospects for a bright future. The Plant Journal, 78(5), 727-741.

Lindgren, C., Mordenfeld, A., & Hallman, M. (2012). A Prospective 1‐Year Clinical and Radiographic Study of Implants Placed after Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Synthetic Biphasic Calcium Phosphate or Deproteinized Bovine Bone. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 14(1), 41-50.

Joshi, N., Reverte-Vinaixa, M., Díaz-Ferreiro, E. W., & Domínguez-Oronoz, R. (2012). Synthetic Resorbable Scaffolds for the Treatment of Isolated Patellofemoral Cartilage Defects in Young Patients Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Evaluation. The American journal of sports medicine, 40(6), 1289-1295.

Three out of 16,800 recent articles;

Cavadas, P. C., Thione, A., Carballeira, A., & Dominguez, P. C. (2013). Lymphedema after upper limb transplantation: scintigraphic study in 3 patients. Annals of plastic surgery, 71(1), 114-117.

Murphy, B. D., Zuker, R. M., & Borschel, G. H. (2013). Vascularized composite allotransplantation: an update on medical and surgical progress and remaining challenges. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 66(11), 1449-1455.

Diaz‐Siso, J. R., Bueno, E. M., Sisk, G. C., Marty, F. M., Pomahac, B., & Tullius, S. G. (2013). Vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation–state of the art. Clinical transplantation, 27(3), 330-337.

And so on ...

In all of these cases the transplanted item is already alive. You cannot take a perfectly healthy organism that has all the components of a living being but is not alive, and then bring it too life. I'm not talking about using a d'fib machine to bring someones heart back to a state of rhythm. We have no vessel that we can keep life in. We have no way of giving something, that is not living, a spark or breath or injection or any shape or form of "life".

We pass life on to our children by way of a living sperm cell and a living ovum. You can transplant a living heart, lung, liver, kidney and it will continue to live but it was already "alive".

-57 · Dec 13, 2015

Armoured said:
What "plenty more"? Cite?

Did you visit the link? They're there.

-57 · Dec 13, 2015

Lets not forget the Delk print.

PsychoSarah · Dec 13, 2015

-57 said:
Lets not forget the Delk print.

Because you know, a source with a front page like this certainly isn't biased http://www.bible.ca . That was sarcasm

-57 · Dec 13, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
Because you know, a source with a front page like this certainly isn't biased http://www.bible.ca . That was sarcasm

It's biased towards the truth.

PsychoSarah · Dec 13, 2015

-57 said:
It's biased towards the truth.

That is not how bias works. In any case, not a peer reviewed journal; I could photoshop a more convincing fake fossil than that. I can tell just by glancing at the image that it isn't real. What kind of footprint is that supposed to be, a Pokemon's? Real animal footprints made in mud are not this even in depth, because as they walk, they don't lift their limbs straight up. Think of how you walk, for example. For most people, as they pick up one leg to make a step, they briefly push down at the front of the foot as they lift up the heel. This makes footprints highly slanted.

Isaiah55:6 · Dec 13, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
That is not how bias works. In any case, not a peer reviewed journal; I could photoshop a more convincing fake fossil than that. I can tell just by glancing at the image that it isn't real. What kind of footprint is that supposed to be, a Pokemon's? Real animal footprints made in mud are not this even in depth, because as they walk, they don't lift their limbs straight up. Think of how you walk, for example. For most people, as they pick up one leg to make a step, they briefly push down at the front of the foot as they lift up the heel. This makes footprints highly slanted.

Even Dawkins himself didn't say they were fakes. He just said they were an illusion caused by erosion.

PsychoSarah · Dec 13, 2015

Isaiah55:6 said:
Even Dawkins himself didn't say they were fakes. He just said they were an illusion caused by erosion.

-_- that still means presenting them as fossils is incorrect. I can tell that it isn't a fossil footprint, but as I am unfamiliar with these erosion patterns, I would never have been able to identify it as such.

Either way, it is being faked as a fossil footprint on this site.

Isaiah55:6 · Dec 13, 2015

USincognito said:
Pterosaurs weren't even dinosaurs, much less dragons.

My point was perhaps that is where the legends of flying dragons came from.

USincognito said:
Mendacious Creationist slander. That never happened.

There are two sides to every story. I'm just saying these guys have a lot to lose if it was proven that evolution was false. Before and after the time Richard Dawkins was doing his 'debunking' of the dinosaur/human footprints documentary, the human footprints were in pristine condition. Richard Dawkins chose for whatever reason not to show the actual human footprints he was claiming to debunk in his documentary that he flew half way around the world to make. The main 'atheist' source Dawkins used for his documentary was Glen Kuban. It was reported by Glen West, Texas residence that after the Hawkins documentary was finished and also after the Dallas crime lab had authenticated the human footprints mixed with dinosaur that Glen Kuban was seen in the excavation site destroying the human tracks before allegedly leaving quickly before notice.

USincognito said:
Yet, for some strange reason, we never find dinosaurs bones with sword or spear marks, we never find dinosaur body parts in trash middens, and we never find hides, horns, frills or feathers kept as trophies.

Do you have an explanation for those facts?

Doesn't mean there are none. And besides even if they were found we would just be told it's a hoax.

Isaiah55:6 · Dec 13, 2015

Dinosaur inside a mammals stomach

http://www.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html

A beaver fossil dated over 100 million years before evolutionist believed larger mammals were around. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1787

If evolutionists were wrong about mammals coexisting with Dino's, couldn't they be wrong about man and Dino?

USincognito · Dec 13, 2015

-57 said:
Lets not forget the Delk print.

Yeah, even Creationists admit it's a fake.
http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2008/08/alvin-delk-cretaceous-footprint.html

USincognito · Dec 13, 2015

Isaiah55:6 said:
My point was perhaps that is where the legends of flying dragons came from.

They weren't. Neither European nor Asian dragons look anything like Pterosaurs. Well that and the 65 million years between the extinction of pterosaurs and human civilizations.

Isaiah55:6 said:
There are two sides to every story.

No, there's mendacious Creationist slander and there's the facts.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/brian.htm

Brian Johnson works as a technical artist and display curator at Bob Jones University. He is a creationist with a long time interest in the origins controversy.

I do not have time to give the response that I would like, but from the research that Glen, Ron Hastings, and I did at the Taylor site last summer [1997], I can say that Glen did not destroy any tracks. He, probably more than any one else in the world, has an interest in preserving and recording what is in the river bed. I saw no evidence of any human tracks during the three days that I was there.

Isaiah55:6 said:
The main 'atheist' source Dawkins used for his documentary was Glen Kuban.

A. What the heck is an "atheist source"?
B. Glen Kuban is not an atheist. He's a Christian.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/gkbio.html

Isaiah55:6 said:
It was reported by Glen West, Texas residence that after the Hawkins documentary was finished and also after the Dallas crime lab had authenticated the human footprints mixed with dinosaur that Glen Kuban was seen in the excavation site destroying the human tracks before allegedly leaving quickly before notice.

As Brian Johnson's testimony shows, this never happened.

USincognito · Dec 13, 2015

Isaiah55:6 said:
If evolutionists were wrong about mammals coexisting with Dino's, couldn't they be wrong about man and Dino?

"Evolutionists" weren't wrong about mammals coexisting with dinosaurs. Eutherians evolved in the early Cretaceous or possibly the last Jurassic. That's been known for quite a while.

-57 · Dec 13, 2015

USincognito said:
Yeah, even Creationists admit it's a fake.
http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2008/08/alvin-delk-cretaceous-footprint.html

I visited that sight and couldn't find where creationist admitted it was a fake. What's up with that?

-57 · Dec 13, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
That is not how bias works. In any case, not a peer reviewed journal; I could photoshop a more convincing fake fossil than that. I can tell just by glancing at the image that it isn't real. What kind of footprint is that supposed to be, a Pokemon's? Real animal footprints made in mud are not this even in depth, because as they walk, they don't lift their limbs straight up. Think of how you walk, for example. For most people, as they pick up one leg to make a step, they briefly push down at the front of the foot as they lift up the heel. This makes footprints highly slanted.

You said "I could photoshop a more convincing fake fossil than that."
...go ahead. Your problem is that the fossil prints are real. That is you can touch them...study them. No photoshop required.

Why don't you go walk through some mud. Different speeds, landing on different parts of the foot etc, and report back on all of the different variations you come up with. If you don't want to get your feet dirty go for a barefoot strowl on the beach walking near the water...walking a few feet above where the waves stop and you'll also see variations that show your simple description isn't really an adequate refutation.

PsychoSarah · Dec 13, 2015

-57 said:
You said "I could photoshop a more convincing fake fossil than that."
...go ahead. Your problem is that the fossil prints are real. That is you can touch them...study them. No photoshop required.

As stated by another person in this thread, they are apparently the result of an erosion pattern. It just happens to look kinda like a foot. It still is fake to call it a fossil.

-57 said:
Why don't you go walk through some mud. Different speeds, landing on different parts of the foot etc, and report back on all of the different variations you come up with.

Sure, it even has been rainy lately. If the ground is still wet on Tuesday, when I don't have exams, I'll try that out. It would be interesting to compare it to other human footprints; I have a dexterity problem all throughout my body, so I walk stiffly with exaggerated, jerky movements. I'm not much of a photographer though. Hmm, I will try walking, jogging, and sprinting. If you are smart and can see something in the background for size reference, you could even calculate my speed!

-57 said:
If you don't want to get your feet dirty go for a barefoot strowl on the beach walking near the water...walking a few feet above where the waves stop and you'll also see variations that show your simple description isn't really an adequate refutation.

A little dirt on my feet is not a problem, although assuming I am anywhere near a beach is. Those still aren't fossil footprints, though. Heck, if it wasn't so cold in my area right now, I would bring my bearded dragon along to do the same; compare those footprint patterns to mine. Some human footprints in mud https://globalunison.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/5400462285_96888c2557.jpg https://upitno.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/human-footprints-in-mud-in-the-grand-canyon.jpg http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/two-footprints-wet-mud-927065.jpg and a fossil one https://gerryco23.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/adolescent-footprint.jpg

-57 · Dec 13, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
As stated by another person in this thread, they are apparently the result of an erosion pattern. It just happens to look kinda like a foot. It still is fake to call it a fossil.

Sure, it even has been rainy lately. If the ground is still wet on Tuesday, when I don't have exams, I'll try that out. It would be interesting to compare it to other human footprints; I have a dexterity problem all throughout my body, so I walk stiffly with exaggerated, jerky movements. I'm not much of a photographer though. Hmm, I will try walking, jogging, and sprinting. If you are smart and can see something in the background for size reference, you could even calculate my speed! A little dirt on my feet is not a problem, although assuming I am anywhere near a beach is. Those still aren't fossil footprints, though. Heck, if it wasn't so cold in my area right now, I would bring my bearded dragon along to do the same; compare those footprint patterns to mine. Some human footprints in mud https://globalunison.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/5400462285_96888c2557.jpg https://upitno.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/human-footprints-in-mud-in-the-grand-canyon.jpg http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/two-footprints-wet-mud-927065.jpg and a fossil one https://gerryco23.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/adolescent-footprint.jpg

Thanks for the links. They do show vast differences.

Man and dinosaur coexisting

Newbie

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

Chaotic Neutral

Active Member

Chaotic Neutral

Active Member

Active Member

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency