The Dreaded Dinosaurs Debate

[Mallon]

There are many trinkets, drawings, carvings, sculptures, and temples built and dedicated to "dragons"(dinosaurs). They're in every ancient civilization almost. There have been human tracks crossing and following dinosaur tracks found in Texas.

But those have all been shown to be hoaxes.

Many people believe that not all dinosaurs have died off. There are people who claim that there are still pterosaurs still alive off of New Guinea. There are also stories of things like champ and the lock-ness monster that date back to only 50 years ago. There are also many parts of the rain forests left undiscovered that some small dinosaurs could still be living in.

And yet no one seems to be able to produce evidence for any of it. Like aliens.

 

[tmanz12]

But those have all been shown to be hoaxes.

Not even close, even though most evolutionists would like to think so. There is also a Nazca line dinosaur. Good luck proving that wrong.

And yet no one seems to be able to produce evidence for any of it. Like aliens.

There reports from natives originally in that area to families picnicking in the 1950s. That many people don't just lie about it for kicks.

 

[tmanz12]

You need to understand the language. "tail sways like a cedar" does not mean a "tail". "Tail" was used in King James' time as a euphemism for penis. The text is saying that behemoth has a big dick.

Behemoth is also found in Babylonian literature (which the writers of Job would be familiar with) and is a mythical creature.

Also, we need to look at the context. The context is an argument with Job over whether God was just to cause all the misfortunes to befall Job. Job says not. God says yes. In context God is claiming to knowledge of a beast that Job has never seen (and never will).

But again, that's for the argument. God's Creation says that humans and dinos never co-existed. Why are you forcing God into a lie?

That is laughable and could not be farther from the truth. Look up the Hebrew. You're applying English words from Latin in the bible when the Tanakh was writtin at least 800 years before the bible was written and not in Latin. Let alone the fact that English wasn't even a language at the time.

I'm going to listen to the people back then about what happened back then and not people now. Scientists saying that nobody in the past saw what they saw are like blind men mocking people for believing in clouds.

 

[Mallon]

Not even close, even though most evolutionists would like to think so. There is also a Nazca line dinosaur. Good luck proving that wrong.

Many dinosaur carvings have been shown to be fraudulent. For example...
Ica stones
Acambaro figurines
Human and dinosaur footprints

Even Answers in Genesis and ICR cautions against citing the Paluxy tracks as evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together.

There reports from natives originally in that area to families picnicking in the 1950s. That many people don't just lie about it for kicks.

Sure they do. Remember Robert Patterson's bigfoot film? Remember Surgeon's photo of Nessie? All admitted hoaxes.

Don't you find it strange that animals as large as dinosaurs should be so reclusive?

 

[tmanz12]

Many dinosaur carvings have been shown to be fraudulent. For example...

Sure they do. Remember Robert Patterson's bigfoot film? Remember Surgeon's photo of Nessie? All admitted hoaxes.

Don't you find it strange that animals as large as dinosaurs should be so reclusive?

"There are some fake Ica stones. People will do anything to make a buck. But did science test the Ica stones to see if they were "all" fake? Nope. And there is a reason for that. They only tested the ones they knew were fake to discredit the ones that were not. Remember when I said that it was a common tactic to discredit something, then make a group, and put everything else in that group they want to be fake also? This is just that same tactic being used here. Find a few fakes, confirm they are fake, then say: they are "all" fake. And what if the creationist would apply this same tactic to evolution's evidence? How quick would people start to really question the evolution theory, and it's supporting evidence?"

There are pictures of a stegosaurus on an ancient Cambodian temple that are authentic.

I cant post links because I don't have 50 posts yet, but there are figurines everywhere that look exactly like dinosaurs. Not just from Mexico either there are also pictures of some type of sauropod carved into Egyptian trinkets and in tombs. There are also burial cloths and cave paintings that look exactly like dinosaurs. And they're everywhere in just about every ancient civilization its not just one or two.

 

[Blayz]

There are pictures of a stegosaurus on an ancient Cambodian temple that are authentic.

Apologies in advance for posting where I shouldn't, but I visited the ancient Cambodian temple in question 2 weeks ago, and have to say, it really did look like a stegosaurus. There is sadly only 1 amongst the thousands of carvings, and it's 1000 years old (built 9th to 12th century) so not ancient like the pyramids are.

Still, it really looks like a stegosaurus. Got a pic and everything.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

The facts:

1. we find dinosaur remains in numerous places on the earth.
2. the dinosaurs seem to have become rather suddenly extinct about 65 million years ago.
3. there are no authenticated examples of dinosaur remains or fossils being found with human remains or fossils.

So I conclude:

1. either the dinosaurs were made by God in one instant of special creation or
2. the dinosaurs were formed through the mutation of a predecessor organism, which in turn came from another predecessor organism, which in turn..... you get my drift; evolutionary theory.
3. the dinosaurs became extinct because they could not survive some change in the environment that occurred, or
4. if man was around when the dinosaurs were alive, he either lived in a different place, or was not present in enough abundance yet to form fossil remains that were preserved along with dinosaur bones.

 

[Papias]

tmaz wrote:

The Hebrews didn't have a word for sphere so they use the same one as they use for circle.

Tmaz, did you see my reply earlier? I pointed out that they did have a word for "sphere". The ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is "duwr", which is used in the Bible when a sphere is meant, such as in Isaiah 22:18. The word used in Isaiah 40:22, which you are referring to, is "chuwg", which means a flat, drawn circle, like you'd get from using a drafter's compass.


And tmaz, being that all the evidence we have shows that humans never lived with dinosaurs (other than modern birds, which are technically "dinosaurs"), don't you think that the creationist flintstone argument is as silly and as damaging to Christianity as your "the mid-atlantic ridge was caused by a comet (or as you put it, "commit") impact."?

Not only is it laughable, but it's also pointless. Creatures do survive with little change in evolution often, and finding a dinosaur alive today would be fully consistent with evolution. To argue against evolution you'd need to find dinosaur fossils in the precambrian.

Papias
​

 

[Papias]

Blayz wrote:

I visited the ancient Cambodian temple in question 2 weeks ago, and have to say, it really did look like a stegosaurus. There is sadly only 1 amongst the thousands of carvings, and

Wow, what a trip! It's worth acknowledging your post just for that!

I've seen that picture too, and it does look a lot like a stegosaurus. However, out of thousands of carvings (or actually 10s of thousands or more, when you include those elsewhere in the world), is it any surprise that one looks similar too any one of the literally thousands of dinosaur species?

It seems that just random chance should dictate that we'd get at least a few dozen matches, so this one is hardly relevant.

And that would be the case even if it were a perfect match, yet, as you can see by looking at the actual images below, it's close, but not the same. The cambodian image lacks tail spikes, instead having another plate, the body vs. legs are a different proportion, the head in the cambodian image is much larger - a lot more like a mammal head, not a dinosaur, and so on.

*sigh*

So we're back to seeing why so many people seem to think Christians are gullible, ignorant fools. With people claiming that Ankor Wat somehow supports a literal reading of Genesis, it's hard to argue against.

Papias

 

[matthewgar]

Apologies in advance for posting where I shouldn't, but I visited the ancient Cambodian temple in question 2 weeks ago, and have to say, it really did look like a stegosaurus. There is sadly only 1 amongst the thousands of carvings, and it's 1000 years old (built 9th to 12th century) so not ancient like the pyramids are.

Still, it really looks like a stegosaurus. Got a pic and everything.

If it's the carving I'm thinking of, it's debunked by the same carving, the head is wrong, but more importantly, the "plates" are on the inside and the OUTSIDE of the carving, and are obviously decorative parts of the carving, and not part of the animal. Also the tail spines are missing.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/files/2009/03/temple-stegosaurus-rhinoceros-300x252.jpg

Notice the plates on the outside of the circle that the animal is in, they are the same, plus one plate is at the bottom of the tail.

But even a more important thing, even if this was a carving of a stegasaurus, who is to say it's not recreated from bones, some have thought that the legends of dragons and other mythical creatures might very well have been created by bones of dinosaurs and other extinct animals.

 

[matthewgar]

Blayz wrote:

I visited the ancient Cambodian temple in question 2 weeks ago, and have to say, it really did look like a stegosaurus. There is sadly only 1 amongst the thousands of carvings, and

Wow, what a trip! It's worth acknowledging your post just for that!

I've seen that picture too, and it does look a lot like a stegosaurus. However, out of thousands of carvings (or actually 10s of thousands or more, when you include those elsewhere in the world), is it any surprise that one looks similar too any one of the literally thousands of dinosaur species?

It seems that just random chance should dictate that we'd get at least a few dozen matches, so this one is hardly relevant.

And that would be the case even if it were a perfect match, yet, as you can see by looking at the actual images below, it's close, but not the same. The cambodian image lacks tail spikes, instead having another plate, the plates are a different shape (pointed in the real stegosaurus, rounded in cambodia), the body vs. legs are a different proportion, the head in the cambodian image is much larger - a lot more like a mammal head, not a dinosaur, and so on.

*sigh*

So we're back to seeing why so many people seem to think Christians are gullible, ignorant fools. With people claiming that Ankor Wat somehow supports a literal reading of Genesis, it's hard to argue against.

Papias

Also as I mentioned, the plates, are on the outside of the circle the stegasaurus is in. It's like that sauropod indian drawing where they ignore the other 30% of the image that shows something more akin to a winged dragon, and just focus on the parts that match their preconcieved ideas.

 

[Mallon]

"There are some fake Ica stones. People will do anything to make a buck. But did science test the Ica stones to see if they were "all" fake? Nope. And there is a reason for that. They only tested the ones they knew were fake to discredit the ones that were not. Remember when I said that it was a common tactic to discredit something, then make a group, and put everything else in that group they want to be fake also? This is just that same tactic being used here. Find a few fakes, confirm they are fake, then say: they are "all" fake. And what if the creationist would apply this same tactic to evolution's evidence? How quick would people start to really question the evolution theory, and it's supporting evidence?"

Glad to see you admit that many of the supposed dinosaur carvings you mentioned are fake.
Can I please ask you to cite your quote?

There are pictures of a stegosaurus on an ancient Cambodian temple that are authentic.

I buy that. The animal in those pictures looks nothing like a Stegosaurus, though, aside from the plates on the back. The head is most certainly nothing like that of a Stegosaurus. Is that a horn coming out of the head? An ear, maybe? Stegosaurus didn't have that.

Out of curiosity, do you believe in aliens, tmanz? There are many old carvings and paintings that depict what look like spaceships and alien creatures. Not to mention many sightings, crop circles, etc. For example...

If you accept these ambiguities as positive evidence for the existence of dinosaurs, then surely you accept the existence of aliens, for which there is much more 'evidence'. Right?

 

[shernren]

I buy that. The animal in those pictures looks nothing like a Stegosaurus, though, aside from the plates on the back. The head is most certainly nothing like that of a Stegosaurus. Is that a horn coming out of the head? An ear, maybe? Stegosaurus didn't have that.

If anything, those dinosaur carvings prove conclusively that humans and dinosaurs never lived together.

​

 

[DaisyDay]

Look, here is a miniature dragon/dinosaur:

Here is a stegosaurus with chin spikes as well as back spikes:

 

[Mallon]

Look, here is a miniature dragon/dinosaur:

Here is a stegosaurus with chin spikes as well as back spikes:

Just so we're sure, that was a joke, right? Because YECs really do argue that dinosaurs are just big lizards (which they're not).

 

[Willtor]

Daisy, as Mallon points out, it's a dangerous line you tread when you don't use smilies. Not that I'm one to cast stones -- I often don't use smilies when I should...

 

[Chesterton]

Just so we're sure, that was a joke, right? Because YECs really do argue that dinosaurs are just big lizards (which they're not).

Ridiculous. They are not "big" lizards; they are "terrible" lizards or "fearfully great" lizards. Everyone knows that. Sheesh.

 

[RipleyCountyChristian]

I believe dinosaurs existed because there is obvious evidence for their existence....just because the Bible doesn't mention them means nothing. Dinosaurs have nothing to do with the Bible....yeah God made them, but still...

 

[Papias]

Ripley wrote:

I believe dinosaurs existed because there is obvious evidence for their existence....just because the Bible doesn't mention them means nothing.

But all that so called "evidence" is simply man's interpretation. Those supposed bones, tracks, eggs, nests, poop, and burrows can be each interpreted to be something other than a dinosaur, and all evidence must be interpreted. The plain reading of the text of the Bible gives no support to that "dinosaur" idea.

Are you following the words of God or the words of men? Where will that lead you? Do you think you can stomach wanton baby killing, gay flirting, and other heinous sins?


Papias

 

[Dark_Lite]

"There are some fake Ica stones. People will do anything to make a buck. But did science test the Ica stones to see if they were "all" fake? Nope. And there is a reason for that. They only tested the ones they knew were fake to discredit the ones that were not. Remember when I said that it was a common tactic to discredit something, then make a group, and put everything else in that group they want to be fake also? This is just that same tactic being used here. Find a few fakes, confirm they are fake, then say: they are "all" fake. And what if the creationist would apply this same tactic to evolution's evidence? How quick would people start to really question the evolution theory, and it's supporting evidence?"

Right. There was a conspiracy to cover up the creationism evidence. It makes so much sense.

Except, it doesn't. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "some" of the Ica stones are not fakes? I'm going to guess none.