CreateDebate


Debate Info

46
93
Yes No
Debate Score:139
Arguments:106
Total Votes:141
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (41)
 
 No (62)

Debate Creator

lolzors93(3225) pic



Do evolutionists deny history?

There is significant historical data showing that dinsoaurs and humans coexisted. There is ancient art of a man riding a triceratops, of a man riding a brachiosaurus, of a man being terrorized by a T-Rex, and much more. Therefore, because evolutionists say that dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, while man but a few hundred thousand years ago, they must have some sort of explanation for these depictions of dinosaurs that came about before Darwin and are either (a) forgeries or that (b) humans were able to remember through oral tradition the details of multiple dinosaurs. Which is it? Forgeries on such a scale that a stegosaurus has been implanted on the side of a Cambodian temple and can still be seen today? Evolutionists deny history to try and say that the theory is true.

Yes

Side Score: 46
VS.

No

Side Score: 93
4 points

Maybe some of them do reject your explanation of those pictures. However if you presented your evidence to them they'd study it and try and find an explanation. If the conclusion was against what they previously thought to be true then they would change their views.

Whereas presenting evidence to a Christian can be very dangerous indeed. You give them some evidence that isn't in the bible. They look at it... and start screaming "god says no!!! And so does Jesus!!!" Repeatedly. They then feel so unwell that they have to spend the next few days praying to God to make the evil scienists go away. You risk completely destroying their minds. They may even feel compelled to go to a forum, such as this one, focus on one tiny unexplained thing, to try and debunk millions of collective hours of research. Poor Christians :(

Side: Yes
Nox0(1393) Clarified
1 point

Your post is on the wrong side of the argument. Please edit your post and click on the red YES and swap it o NO. Thank You.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5666) Disputed
3 points

No. They reject either the validity or significance of said data.

Side: No

Jurassic Park clearly depicts people and dinosaurs coexisting. I don't know why evolutionists think they have a leg to stand on.

Side: Yes
Casimir(1) Disputed
3 points

Haven't been those dinosaurs reanimated from fly in 60 000 000 piece of amber? :D

Side: No
1 point

Oh what a delicate web we weave.

Side: Yes
XXX0(1) Disputed
2 points

Smelling troll .

Side: No
XXX0(1) Disputed
2 points

Smelling troll .

Side: No
1 point

I have PROOF that man walked with Dinosaurs , the evidence that I bring is indisputable, PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt.

Link below, Please take my evidence with an open mind, the world does not need any more close mined idiots.

Supporting Evidence: Indisputable PROOF!!! (www.benpadiah.com)
Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, there is achually proof on how long the earth has existed, evolutionists claim it existed for Millions of years.

Side: Yes
1 point

yep they are closed minded

Side: Yes
6 points

There is no evidence supporting any of your statements. Your belief in Jesus riding dinosaurs is just retarded. there is no way around it You are retard, a fail of parenting and I'm ashamed that I'm from same species as you are.

Side: No
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

doesn't leads anywhere try it again .

Side: No
Jungelson(3959) Disputed
1 point

Forgive me if I do not believe what some crack-pot- conspiracist says. You ever see any of this on the news, newspapers ( excluding the Sun and Daily Mail, they're for imbeciles..!) And everything else. I am sure I can find someone willing to testify, along with some friends, that they themselves are Jesus Christ. But are you going to take their word for it because they supposedly have " a doctorate in Jesus Christisty". Nein. You will not.

Carbon dating says otherwise, we never find fossils or mankind and dinosaurs of the same time, Evolution says otherwise, only Christians seem to believe man came first, the fossils of dinosaurs simply stop at around 65,000,000, indicating their time of extinction ( gulf of Mexico...) Ad some more things that will surely bore you. Fact is, it's your word against mine. Shall i too post some links for you to marvel at??

Side: No
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

Can you state which drawing exactly you think is credible please. Then we can talk about it. Most of them have an explanation that isn't supernatural.

Side: No
2 points

Little debunking of this bullshit :)

Enjoy freak
Side: No
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

There are a lot of assumptions in his argument from an initial look. He assumes that science is correct in what they find first and doesn't take into consideration variables that go against it by citing the sources that the evidence tries to go against

Side: Yes
Nox0(1393) Disputed
2 points

there is no real evidence For Jesus on T-rex only hoaxes nothing more and only retard could follow them.

Side: No
1 point

And that is called begging the question.

Side: Yes
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

They are based on logic and reason, not bronze age fallacy with faked evidence. You have no evidence, nothing, few blobs on the wall...

Side: No
2 points

Also EVOLUTION IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING THAN PRACTICALLY EVERY OTHER BELIEF MOST "DARWINIST S" HOLD I SWEAR IF I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE MORE TIME I WILL GO ON A GENOCIDAL RAMPAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: No
2 points

Therefore, because evolutionists say that dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, while man but a few hundred thousand years ago, they must have some sort of explanation for these depictions of dinosaurs that came about before Darwin and are either (a) forgeries or that (b) humans were able to remember through oral tradition the details of multiple dinosaurs.

I am afraid this is a false dichotomy. Fossils were around in the past, so they could have found skeletons of dinosaurs or other prehistoric animals.

Many of the depictions have been shown to be forgeries and even if they were not, it doesn't follow that that dinosaurs existed with humans.

Side: No
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

There are countless numbers of answers that one could find. It is not a false dichotomy because it is a narrowed in version of the more probable answers to the problem. I'm not sure you understand what a false dichotomy is because if it is as strict as you are portraying it to be, then every argument with two variables is a false dichotomy because one can always add in extra illogical responses. A false dichotomy, therefore, is one in which it narrows the most probable, with everything else being highly improbable, so as to demonstrate the facts of the position.

Furthermore, there are multiple different portrayals over all the world of these beings living in correspondence with humans. The probablity of different cultures from around the world all portraying these beings as living along side humans is miniscule.

Side: Yes
Doherty95(299) Disputed
2 points

There are countless numbers of answers that one could find. It is not a false dichotomy because it is a narrowed in version of the more probable answers to the problem. I'm not sure you understand what a false dichotomy is because if it is as strict as you are portraying it to be, then every argument with two variables is a false dichotomy because one can always add in extra illogical responses.

This is what you said;

they must have some sort of explanation for these depictions of dinosaurs that came about before Darwin and are either (a) forgeries or that (b) humans were able to remember through oral tradition the details of multiple dinosaurs. Which is it?

You have provided these as the only two options. Considering you said at the end which is it? you cannot try and say you were not holding these as the only two options just the two most probable.

The fact is there are more options which are not illogical. One of which is that they found dinosaur fossils, which we know ancients have done.

I'm not sure you understand what a false dichotomy is because if it is as strict as you are portraying it to be, then every argument with two variables is a false dichotomy because one can always add in extra illogical responses.

I didn't mention adding illogical options, unless you want to argue that ancients finding dinosaur fossils is illogical...

Furthermore, there are multiple different portrayals over all the world of these beings living in correspondence with humans. The probablity of different cultures from around the world all portraying these beings as living along side humans is miniscule.

Many of the depictions have been shown to be fake. However if you can provide an example of some of these so called dinosaur depictions which have not been shown to be forgeries it will be nice to see them.

Side: No
2 points

Even if dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, it wouldn't disprove evolution. Crocodiles live with us now and also lived at the time of the dinosaurs (I think :S ) but this doesn't disprove evolution either.

Side: No
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Therefore, to demonstrate history is to demonstrate that the dating methods are not correct, the geologic data is inaccurate, and much more. There are far greater repercussion than meets the eye, which would all break down to show that evolution is not true.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

The fact that so many underlining principles of science would have to be disproved in order for your theory to fit doesn't bother you? Do you not believe anything at all of scientific research? Science class was just a fairy tale for you... it scares the shit out of me that there's people in a developed country that refuse education so much.

Side: No
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

Dating is very correct. It's based on laws of Physics .

Side: No
2 points

1. Equating a smattering of crudely drawn pieces of art by superstitious and creative people (the meanings of said art can only be speculated about) as "history" is a bit like photoshopping a muscular body under Woody Allen's head and calling it "Computer Science".

2. The first Paleontologists gave us the notion of dinosaurs by assembling fossils into a logical order. It is not inconceivable that our ancestors could have done the same.

3. Creationists deny history in the form of relative dating methods such as stratigraphy, which consistently and persistently fail to show evidence of any dinosaur cohabiting with modern organisms, particularly hominids.

Side: No
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

1. Equating a smattering of crudely drawn pieces of art by superstitious and creative people (the meanings of said art can only be speculated about) as "history" is a bit like photoshopping a muscular body under Woody Allen's head and calling it "Computer Science".

They are strikingly similar to what dinosaurs. Please refer, then, to number 2's response.

2. The first Paleontologists gave us the notion of dinosaurs by assembling fossils into a logical order. It is not inconceivable that our ancestors could have done the same.

Therefore, they must have lived along side humans or their legends were passed down through oral traditions. You have proven my point because these people could not have known about dinosaurs if they (dinosaurs) were around millions of years before humans.

3. Creationists deny history in the form of relative dating methods such as stratigraphy, which consistently and persistently fail to show evidence of any dinosaur cohabiting with modern organisms, particularly hominids.

Relative dating techniques have been proven wrong via "known" and corroborated history through multiple sources, actually. Furthermore, that is begging the question: to say that the evidence here that would disprove the dating methods is not real because the dating methods say so.

Side: Yes
MuckaMcCaw(1970) Disputed
1 point

First, I apologize for taking so long to respond. This was a crazy weekend. Anyway...

They are strikingly similar to what dinosaurs.

Even humans and horses are done using minimal detail in most cases. Regardless, extrapolating the meaning and origin of these pictures is reliant almost entirely on speculation. It better serves as confirmation bias than solid evidence.

Therefore, they must have lived along side humans or their legends were passed down through oral traditions.

False dichotomy. Another, far more credible, option is that they found the fossilized skeletons and assembled them through logic and knowledge of the anatomies of various other animals. Just like paleontologists who themselves had no living dinosaurs or even good oral traditions to pull from.

Relative dating techniques have been proven wrong via "known" and corroborated history through multiple sources, actually.

I suspect you would find it very difficult to disprove the laws of stratigraphy through "Known history" yet could practically prove these same laws by playing in a sandbox. They biggest problem you run into with stratigraphy are the various uncomformities created by geological activity. But: a)these are easy to identify and account for, b) it doesn't change the fact that modern forms don't appear in strata with dinosaurs and the flora and fauna from their era. A T. Rex chowing on a bear would be pretty hard to ignore, but we've never found anything like that. And this isn't just animal fossils. Fossils of plants and even bacteria colonies found in either era give more proof that we are dealing with vastly different ecologies. Since stratigraphy is relative dating, it doesn't, by itself, tell how long ago dinosaurs lived. But it does tell us that there was a VAST gap between them and modern forms. How would you account for this gap?

Side: No
2 points

There are usually explanations. Three of the most likely are 1) its not a dinosaur but rather an animal that looked similar to a dinosaur for example lizards. 2) even if it were a dinosaur they could have drawn it from fossils. There would have been plenty of them quite near the surface. 3) they took the animals of the day and modified them and just by chance they ended up looking something like a dinosaur.

Side: No
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

The first one is illogical. Why? Because there are numerous depictions that look exactly like dinosaurs. For example, the triceratops being ridden by a man.

The second one is illogical. Why? Because they would have to have reconstructed them to understand how they stood. And this would have had to happen all over the world. Therefore, because paleontologists were the first to do so, then that is an illogical and highly improbable answer.

The third is illogical. Refer to the first.

Side: Yes
2 points

There is significant historical data showing that dinsoaurs and humans coexisted.

Jurassic Park the movie does not count.

There is ancient art of a man riding a triceratops, of a man riding a brachiosaurus, of a man being terrorized by a T-Rex, and much more.

We also have ancient depictions of half human half animal creatures that have magical powers.

Therefore, because evolutionists say that dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, while man but a few hundred thousand years ago, they must have some sort of explanation for these depictions of dinosaurs

Because you know, how could they know what they look like? It's just not possible, they weren't there when they were alive! ...Wait... why do WE know what they look like, we obviously aren't alive while those ancient dinosaurs were. ;)

Also we should note, such great detail that these monster-dragon type depictions probably have. Nearly any average child will imagine the same types of monsters can on any ancient depiction could be recognized as what we now acknowledge to be dinosaurs. In the simple realm of imagination; they're just monsters.

that came about before Darwin

Darwin did not discover dinosaurs.... and he's not that old.

and are either (a) forgeries or that (b) humans were able to remember through oral tradition the details of multiple dinosaurs. Which is it?

False Dilemma.

Forgeries on such a scale that a stegosaurus has been implanted on the side of a Cambodian temple and can still be seen today?

Proof?

Evolutionists deny history to try and say that the theory is true.

Lolzors, are you a troll? ;)

Side: No
1 point

From what i can see these are pictures drawn by humans, correct? Pictures can be used in various different ways, for example hyroglyphics - to pass on information, or can be used to express someones creativity and emotions. Whats to say that maybe these paintings rank alongside works like Picasso's in what they "mean". History is the most vital part of an evolutionists work, so denying history would be a pretty futile excercise for them to carry out. Sure they probably bend a few facts to suit their theories, but denying history. No.

Side: No
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

You seem to actually understand the basic analysis of history. So tell me, why do many of these beings look quite a lot like dinosaurs? Did they just imagine them?

Side: Yes
possum1(37) Disputed
1 point

Who's to say our version of what dinosaurs looked like is correct? The images we've constructed using a dinosaurs fossils only take us so far. The rest is imagination. How do we know that a t-rex wasn't purple? That they had huge hunches on their backs that actually doubled them over? They could very well of imagined what they would look like. There are too many variables and uncertainties for anybodies opinion to be right or wrong as it's simply guesswork.

Side: No
1 point

If you have all the data and facts why not print them up and become world famous for your amazing discoveries ...you might even get a noble prize !!!! If you put some of these ideas to a group of village idiots you would reduce them to tears of laughter.....

Side: No

man riding a triceratops, man being terrorized by a T-Rex

Ica Stones of Peru:

- Not only have Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana admitted to forging the stones, they showed the BBC how they made the stones with a dentist's drill, cow dung and shoe polish in 1977.

- Additionally, the Ica stones depict open-heart surgery, organ transplants, blood transfusions, brain surgery, telescopes, flying machines, caesarean sections, the last supper, the crucifixion (with spikes inaccurately through the palms), and herbivorous dinosaurs eating humans. No corresponding artifacts have been found, e.g. hospitals, observatories, airports, etc.

- Microphotographs by Vicente París showed sandpaper granules and color markings

a man riding a brachiosaurus

Acámbaro figures:

Archaeologist Charles C. Di Peso examined the figures and found:

- surfaces displayed no signs of age

- no dirt was packed into their crevices

- some figurines were broken, but no pieces were missing and no broken surfaces were worn

- the excavation’s stratigraphy clearly showed that the artifacts were placed in a recently dug hole filled with a mixture of the surrounding archaeological layers

- Thermoluminescent Dating was done on the figures in 1976 that showed the figures to have been made around 1939, shortly before their "discovery"

stegosaurus has been implanted on the side of a Cambodian temple

Ta Prohm carving:

- The carving differs from stegosaurus in many respects including: the size and shape of the head, the presence of horns or large external ears, stegosaurus plates are more pointed and triangular, more numerous (in double rows), and rather than uniform the plates are larger toward the middle than at the head or tail

- Assuming a stegosaurus ignores chameleons or other far more possible animals and the fact that background lobes are found in other carvings at the site

- The temple was built less than 1000 years ago, are you proposing that stegosaurs were walking around Cambodian only hundreds of years ago and that nothing documents their existence except this one crude carving?

In general:

If I show you a papyrus with a depiction of Ammut (part lion, hippopotamus and crocodile), does that make evolution wrong since they haven't found fossils for a lippopodile?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

What you have provided is barely evidence much less extraordinary evidence. You are competing against millions of studies from dozens of scientific fields over hundreds of years of observation. Don't you think if they were all 10,000% wrong you would have more than a few carvings to show for it?

Our current science makes successful predictions (WMAP, Tiktaalik, etc.), can you say the same?

Partial list of references:

American Antiquity 18(4) (1953):388-89 "The Clay Figurines of Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico." Di Peso, Charles C.

American Antiquity 41(4) (1976):497-500 "Thermoluminescent Dating and the Monsters of Acambaro", Carriveau, G. W.; Han, M. C.

"Confront: ... Las hizo Basilio Uchuya." Mundial, No. 6, January 17, 1975

Report by Vicente París

Presentation of Michael Palomino (in Spanish)

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/livptero.htm

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm

Picture of bird with similar lobing

Picture of Basilio Uchuya with Dinosaur drawing

Side: No