CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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 :(
No. Its the scientific method. Part of science is based on faith. When you start any experiment you take certain things for granted and you have faith in previous theories. For example, if you drop a ball but instead of falling to the floor, it actually floats up to the ceiling the very last thing you'd do is challenge the theory of gravity. It is an established theory. You'd probably wonder if there was a magnetic in the roof (having faith that the concept of magnetism) or that the ball is filled the helium (having faith in the concept that helium floats).
The difference between scientific faith and religious faith however is that in science we're willing to be proven wrong (although even with science it takes overwhelming evidence to change what has previously been thought in a field).
I think that you are misusing the word "faith". What you are talking about is actually "expectation" based on previous experience. If I fail I redo the experiment and then again and again until I'm really sure that the "unexpected" outcome is not a result of systematic or random error. Then I publish my results, my paper will be peer reviewed and then readers will start redoing my experiment and confirm it or point out my fail. It has nothing to do with feelings and my personal beliefs...
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.
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??
Hmm... So simply because someone has a doctorate in something does not mean that they are correct... yet, the people who do Carbon Dating have doctorates, for the most part... yeah....
Furthermore, Carbon Dating has been proven invalid along with Potassium-Argon dating because they have both yielding inaccurate ages for things we know they dates for. However, that is pointless in regards to dinosaurs. Why? Because they are both short-term radiometric dating tools. Their half-lives are much less than that of the age of the dinosaurs. Please research radiometric dating before trying to comment about it. However, we shouldn't take people with doctorates seriously so why not use K/Ar dating for dinosaurs?!
Furthermore, regardless of the dating done by inaccurate methods, it still does not explain how multiple depictions of dinosaurs came about before Darwin.
Wait..... didn't just a moment ago support young earth creationism?
Also Adam naming the current living species before sin would have been UNLIKELY at best, adding dinosaurs (of which there were more than a thousand different species) would make it physically impossible EVEN WITH a supposed few hundred years of life.
I do support young earth creationism. I believe that dinosaurs and man were in the same time period.
Also Adam naming the current living species before sin would have been UNLIKELY at best, adding dinosaurs (of which there were more than a thousand different species) would make it physically impossible EVEN WITH a supposed few hundred years of life.
What? Adam didn't name every species; he named every kind.
That's why I said 'claiming' to. Any idiot can post on their blog " Ooh, guess what guyzz, I have a Doctorate". It's called lying.
Ever thought perhaps, like now, thousands of years ago humans found the fossilised skeletons of dinosaurs and drew their interpretations of them?? No, obviously not, No let's go against logic and reason then shall we. And another thing I have just thought of. The bones of dinosaurs are only fossils, imprints gradually filled in over millions of years. Fossilisation on this scale cannot take place in just a few thousand years. So then, why no human bones that are fossilised? Because dinosaurs are a hell of a lot older than humans.
Your entire response presupposes evolution. It is an anachronism and, thus, a denial of history. How could things become fossilized? Pressure is the answer. Could a Great Flood not do this?
No, great pressure alone is not enough. And a great flood is certainly not enough! You need extreme pressure and extreme heat that of which a flood could not deliver. But most of all you need time. And a hell of a lot of it. As far as your great flood goes, it would have needed to happen millions of years ago, and for all the water in the world to have been focused on a few dozen square miles.
Have you heard of isostatic adjustment? It is a geologic term for when you take off pressure at a certain point or add pressure at a certain point, then the earth equalizes and either is pushed downwards or rises upward--just like a plank of wood in water. Usually it is in reference to glaciers. However, it suggests in the Bible that when the Great Flood happened, water from the deep of the earth rose to the surface. If this were the case, then the earth's rock size would decrease as the water would press down upon it. Moreover, this water that came from the deep earth would be super heated from the earth's innards. Therefore, a great flood would quite easily reshape the earth, boil any it's path, and fossilize any creature that stood in its way. We have fossils of dinosaurs that appear as if they were simply alive one minute and dead the next. That is why there is the theory of a great comet hitting the earth. Furthermore, the comet is said to have hit the sea. Continued, after the flood, it can be argued that intense climactic events would have happened as a result of this intense event. Therefore, it is entirely probable that the Great Flood happened and resulted in the fossilization of the dinosaurs.
I've had Geophysics in my second year isostatic adjustment reached it's max. about 20,000 years ago in it's 100 000 years cycle. To compress all the energy transfer into 40 days (flood). You would cause a huge explosion that would literally tear Earth apart. There is no way how to bypass it.
Well, someone has never heard of continental drift..!
And it says all this in the Bible does it? This entirely accurate book written by different people at different times hundreds of years after the events it describes from word of mouth translated several times. And you're trying to convince me that the Bible explained to you that the great flood mentioned it ( one of my favorite stories when I was a child actually) changed the geology of the earth, created bouts of extreme pressure in places and fossilised dinosaur bones.
Oh obviously, what's to dispute?!
And you also forgot to mention that pressure and heat is not enough you need a lot, a LOT of time.
And according to die-hard Christians who try to prove the existence of dinosaurs with humans, there were dinosaurs on the arc. So why then, do we find no evidence of the dinosaurs that came after the flood? Were there no dinosaurs on the arc? If so, why not, after all Noah loaded two of every animal on there. So what happened to the dinosaurs afterwards? Why no mention??!?!?!??!??!?!?!
Your theory is flawed, come back when you can piece it all together in to something legitimate.
And you also forgot to mention that pressure and heat is not enough you need a lot, a LOT of time.
This is begging the question.
So why then, do we find no evidence of the dinosaurs that came after the flood?
Lizards grow their entire lives. It is, therefore, entirely likely that dinosaurs are simply large lizards that, now, do not have enough life time to grow that large.
What utter crap! We don't find dinosaurs now because lizards aren't growing. My friend, I see very little point in arguing with you if you cannot tell the difference between a comodo dragon and a philosoraptor..! Honestly, believe me cold blood and scales does not mean dinosaur! Oh this made me smile! No doubt lizards are relatives of dinosaurs, but to say that they are midget dinosaurs?! How can I argue with that?! Anything I saw you will just reply with some fanciful proclamation that " No sir, you are wrong, it is highly possible that God decided he didn't like dinosaurs and clicked his fingers and turned them to lizards, then he stood on the dead bodies of dinosaurs creating immense pressure and heat and that fossilised their bones, lah lah lah..."
Well, according to science 90% of dinosaurs, or around that number because that statistic could have changed now by a few percentages, are under 2 ft tall. If you consider that before the flood every person lived around 10x the lifespan of a human nowadays, then you can multiply the size of a fully grown lizard by 10 and get the size of a lizard before the flood. That size is approximately what we see dinosaurs to be. Therefore, dinosaurs are actually evidence for the Bible being true. Its only logical; its only scientific.
Well the Bible has given ages of people and they did not live 10x longer than people of today. And it is not scientific, it really isn't, I hope other people are reading this so they can see what you're saying.
Except that dinosaurs have much more in common with birds than lizards. So even if your ludicrous proposition had any ground to stand on, using lizards as an example is still kind of pointless.
Lizards grow their entire lives. It is, therefore, entirely likely that dinosaurs are simply large lizards that, now, do not have enough life time to grow that large.
No it's not possible to grow to large, you will be simply running out of oxygen and bones would crush.
What about doing some self study before replying nonsense?
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
Well, from his analysis of the Cambodian temple dinosaur, contrary to what the man says in the video, is evidence for dinosaurs being around. His argument is that dinosaurs are X from what we think. Therefore, because the image does not show a perfect display of the supposed dinosaur, it is not a dinosaur. However, he ignored the fact that the same people could barely portray a human. No animal has the features of that of the one on the temple other than the stegosaurus. Whether it was around during the time of Jesus is irrelevant to the debate and a red herring at large.
The stegosaurus doesn't have the features of the one on the temple. As the video said, the stegosaurus has a tiny head compared to its body. If you are going to ignore certain features I could argue it is a pig, rhino or even a chameleon. The size of the head compared to the body, makes it more likely to be one of those.
I'm not sure you understand historical analysis. The depiction is curved due to space constraints. Its a lot harder, also, than you think to create designs in rock. Therefore, it can easily be argued that this is a stegosaurus that was made by people who could barely create other recognizable figures on the wall. And if it is not a stegosaurus, then what is it? Its some sort of dinosaur for sure. What you are doing is creating anachronisms, which is a denial of history.
I'm not sure you understand historical analysis. The depiction is curved due to space constraints.
I made no comment on it being curved. If making something curved makes its head swell up than it may be relevant to what I said. However it wouldn't make the head swell up, so I fail to see what relevance it had to my argument.
Its a lot harder, also, than you think to create designs in rock.
I know it is hard, I have never said it isn't. However I don't see what you are trying to argue with this.
Therefore, it can easily be argued that this is a stegosaurus that was made by people who could barely create other recognizable figures on the wall.
If this is a stegosaurus, the person clearly hadn't seen one before. Here is a few reasons why it does not look like a Stegosaurus.
1) A stegosaurus has a small head, the picture has a large head
2) The picture seems to have horns or something similar coming out of the back of its head. A stegosaurus wouldn't have these.
3) A stegosaurus has unmissable tail spikes, these don't appear on the picture.
If it is a stegosaurus, it is a poor depiction of one.
And if it is not a stegosaurus, then what is it?
It could be a chameleon with the lobes being exaggerated spines, it could also be a lizard.
The lobes could be decoration as some people think they are because they appear to not be attached to the body. As well the other carvings having background decorations, it's likely this would as well. If the lobes are decoration, it could be a rhino or a pig.
Its some sort of dinosaur for sure.
I don't see why this would be the case.
What you are doing is creating anachronisms, which is a denial of history.
Can you please tell me how I am in any way doing this?
I made no comment on it being curved. If making something curved makes its head swell up than it may be relevant to what I said. However it wouldn't make the head swell up, so I fail to see what relevance it had to my argument.
You would have to constrain it. The stegosaurus did not necessarily always have its head out; many bones have been discovered with a small head close to the body. When trying to depict that with constraints shows that it could have happened every easily.
I know it is hard, I have never said it isn't. However I don't see what you are trying to argue with this.
Because it is hard to carve, it makes it difficult to not get key features.
If this is a stegosaurus, the person clearly hadn't seen one before. Here is a few reasons why it does not look like a Stegosaurus.
1) A stegosaurus has a small head, the picture has a large head
2) The picture seems to have horns or something similar coming out of the back of its head. A stegosaurus wouldn't have these.
3) A stegosaurus has unmissable tail spikes, these don't appear on the picture.
If it is a stegosaurus, it is a poor depiction of one
1) The large head can be many things: it could actually be the neck and they tried to fit in too much. It also could be an emphasis on the head and caused to be disproportional.
2) That could be the neck....
3) But there is one on the tail...
Its not supposed to be a perfect one. Ancient drawing aren't about detail. They are about trying to portray what they want to show. That is why I am saying that evolutionists deny history--they don't understand that this is evidence for some stegosaurus type looking being.
It could be a chameleon with the lobes being exaggerated spines, it could also be a lizard.
The lobes could be decoration as some people think they are because they appear to not be attached to the body. As well the other carvings having background decorations, it's likely this would as well. If the lobes are decoration, it could be a rhino or a pig.
And now you are imagining things. The point is this, though: the first time one looks at this they think it is a dinosaur... that is what the ancients wanted to get across and they have done so.
I don't see why this would be the case.
It looks like one and looks like nothing else.
Can you please tell me how I am in any way doing this?
Refer to before: you're applying modern art style to ancient. That is an anachronism.
You would have to constrain it. The stegosaurus did not necessarily always have its head out; many bones have been discovered with a small head close to the body. When trying to depict that with constraints shows that it could have happened every easily.
This doesn't explain why the head in no way resembles a stegosaurus...
Because it is hard to carve, it makes it difficult to not get key features.
Are you arguing that the head is inaccurate because it is hard to carve?
The head is completely different to a stegosaurus, so if this is what you want to argue than why can it be trusted to be accurate in any way if it is so inaccurate on a key feature.
1) The large head can be many things: it could actually be the neck and they tried to fit in too much. It also could be an emphasis on the head and caused to be disproportional.
How could it possible be the neck? It shows the outline of the head, there is no neck on the picture. Also if they wanted emphasis on the head wouldn't they also have spent more time on making the features accurate? It does not resemble a stegosaurus head so that throws into doubt them wanting to put emphasis on the head.
2) That could be the neck....
I want to know have you seen the picture? The picture shows two horn like things coming out of the back of the head. How can you argue these two things are a neck?
3) But there is one on the tail...
A stegosaurus has both back plates and tail spikes. These spikes are not plates and are unmissable if you would have seen a stegosaurus, it is a striking detail missed.
Its not supposed to be a perfect one. Ancient drawing aren't about detail. They are about trying to portray what they want to show. That is why I am saying that evolutionists deny history--they don't understand that this is evidence for some stegosaurus type looking being.
It is about accuracy, the picture if it is meant to be a stegosaurus has striking inaccuracies. Which one wouldn't expect if they actually had seen one.
And now you are imagining things. The point is this, though: the first time one looks at this they think it is a dinosaur... that is what the ancients wanted to get across and they have done so.
You asked me what else it could be and completely ignored them as me imagining things.
A Meller's Chameleon resembles the picture more if you take the lobes into account.
Also looking at some other carvings, they have identical lobes being used as decoration. If you take the lobes out it, it resembles a rhino.
I highly doubt looking at this that the ancients were trying to portray a stegosaurus, if they were they wouldn't have the striking errors which it contains.
It looks like one and looks like nothing else.
I gave examples of what it resembles more and you ignored them with out a response to any of them.
Refer to before: you're applying modern art style to ancient. That is an anachronism.
I am looking for accurate features, if the features are completely inaccurate than how can you trust it?
And your complete response demonstrates that evolutionists deny history. As I have pointed out: ancient art is not about accuracy. Therefore, to apply realism to the ancients is anachronism and a denial of the authenticity of the past. The being on the wall is clearly some sort of lizard. What lizard, regardless if it is a stegosaurus or not, has the types of back protrusions so extreme as this picture demonstrates? It is a dinosaur. The majority of people who see this for the first time think that it is a dinosaur. That is what the ancients wanted the people to do: to see the picture and know it was X.
And your complete response demonstrates that evolutionists deny history. As I have pointed out:
You have shown this by again by ignoring most of what I said.
ancient art is not about accuracy.
Look at the other carvings they are pretty accurate, if this is meant to be a stegosaurus, they must have done it blindfolded.
You argued that only a stegosaurus has the features of the carving. I pointed out this is untrue. Main features are missing or completely wrong, whilst other features which a stegosaurus doesn't have appear. So even if you want to argue these away with they were not meant to be accurate, than a simple response will be how can you trust any features to be in any way accurate, when the others are completely wrong.
The being on the wall is clearly some sort of lizard.
That is untrue.
If the lobes are part of the decoration, which they most probably are because there are other carvings one being of a swan with these lobes as decorations. Also all the other carvings from the temple which I have seen have some sort of decorative background, so it is unlikely this also doesn't. If that is the case it could be a Rhino, a pig.
What lizard, regardless if it is a stegosaurus or not, has the types of back protrusions so extreme as this picture demonstrates? It is a dinosaur.
The lobes are most probably decoration. However even if they were not, it more closely resembles a chameleon with the 'spikes' on its back exaggerated.
The majority of people who see this for the first time think that it is a dinosaur
This to be honest even if true this would be irrelevant. This is because the majority of people won't know much about what a stegosaurus looks like other than its back plates. The people at the time if they had seen them would have known more about a stegosaurus than that. So arguing that because people when they first look at it see a dinosaur doesn't hold much weight, the picture needs to be looked at in more detail than just a quick superficial look. Also it should be looked at by people who actually know what the animal looks like. Asking people who don't know what the animal actually looks like to identify it makes no sense.
That is what the ancients wanted the people to do: to see the picture and know it was X.
If they wanted to portray a stegosaurus they did a poor job. The lobes are most probably decoration, and it more closely resembles a rhino or a pig.
Looking at it, it seems to be clear that that the argument that it is a stegosaurus does not hold, up. The lobes are most probably decoration, and it resembles other animals far more than it does a stegosaurus. In conclusion it appears that the carving is most probably not a stegosaurus, but a rhino or a pig.
You really don't understand ancient art. I'm sorry but I'm not going to debate you on this any longer. You have demonstrated my point: that evolutionists deny history.
The back protrusions are positive evidence that it is not a pig or rhino. The second horn that you said was on the head is actually another protrusion. The first horn could easily be the neck. It all falls together. Furthermore, as I have pointed out and you disregarded: most people who see this would think it is a stegosaurus or some type of like dinosaur. That is what the ancients wanted for people to recognize. Anything other than that fact of history, then you are creating anachronisms again and, thus, revert into denying history. These same people could barely draw a human; why would one think that they could draw a stegosaurus accurately? Furthermore, simply because the majority of people don't know what one looks like in modern times does not negate the fact that we might not know what one looks like in modern times. From logic, what science can tell us through bones and fossils is that humans could have ears anywhere else besides the side of the head. Many beings have extra fills of cartilage on their bodies that create extra bulkiness. Therefore, you are, yet again creating anachronisms, by assuming that what scientists know about the stegosaurus is correct. Cartilage could have been all around its head and we don't know about it. Therefore, the image in the picture is most likely a stegosaurus or some like dinosaur.
You really don't understand ancient art. I'm sorry but I'm not going to debate you on this any longer. You have demonstrated my point: that evolutionists deny history.
I have in no way denied history. I'm afraid that you seem to prove the point most people hold that creationists start with the conclusions and look for anything that can resemble evidence for their position. Even if it doesn't hold up they will still cling on to it. You can stop responding if you like, I think that if anyone reads this I have done enough to show how the position doesn't hold up.
I will congratulate you on one thing, it seems you have finally responded to what I have said.
The back protrusions are positive evidence that it is not a pig or rhino.
You seemed to ignore what I said about the lobes/protrusions. If you look at the other carvings they all have a background. There is a carving of a bird with identical lobes on. So is it more likely that these lobes are part of the background. If you than look at this picture it appears to be a pig or a rhino.
The first horn could easily be the neck. It all falls together.
Look at the other carvings it is clear that is not a neck.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out and you disregarded: most people who see this would think it is a stegosaurus or some type of like dinosaur.
I disregarded it and gave reason for it.
That is what the ancients wanted for people to recognize.
You assert this, however as I have said look at the other carvings around it, if it was meant to be a stegosaurus they did an incredibly poor job in comparison.
Anything other than that fact of history, then you are creating anachronisms again and, thus, revert into denying history.
I'm afraid this is untrue. Again I will say the majority of the people today don't know what a stegosaurus looked like. If you compare the two the differences are striking they actually bare very little resemblance. The ancients don't appear to be portraying a stegosaurus.
These same people could barely draw a human; why would one think that they could draw a stegosaurus accurately?
The carvings of humans bare far more resemblance to a human than the carving you are arguing about does to a stegosaurus. The carving bares more resemblance to a rhino or a pig.
Furthermore, simply because the majority of people don't know what one looks like in modern times does not negate the fact that we might not know what one looks like in modern times.
If we don't know what a stegosaurus looks like now, you cannot argue that is a stegosaurus. How can you if we don't know what one looks like?
From logic, what science can tell us through bones and fossils is that humans could have ears anywhere else besides the side of the head. Many beings have extra fills of cartilage on their bodies that create extra bulkiness. Therefore, you are, yet again creating anachronisms, by assuming that what scientists know about the stegosaurus is correct.
First I will ask if you can define what you mean by anachronisms because the way you are using it here appears to be different from my understanding of the word. Cartilage could have been all around its head and we don't know about it. Therefore, the image in the picture is most likely a stegosaurus or some like dinosaur.
It was on the other discussion you mentioned about how accurate the depiction of a triceratops was, now when I mention the inaccuracies here you play the I'm assuming science is correct card, which is exactly what you are doing when pointing to resemblances for the triceratops. I could also say triceratops had this cartilage and it looks nothing like the depiction, however I am sure you wouldn't accept that. Also it would take a lot of cartilage to make that carving look anything like a stegosaurus.
Therefore, the image in the picture is most likely a stegosaurus or some like dinosaur.
If what we think a stegosaurus looked like is correct that isn't the case. If we don't know what one looks like your argument cannot be made, because we cannot say this looks like x if we don't know what x looks like.
There is about 200 000 various "sculptures" in many museums that looks like animals or aliens or spaceships. So one of them looks little like a dinosaur. It's nothing special.
Yet, this "sculpture" was made before Darwin was even alive... Therefore, to have enough knowledge to create some sort of recognizable figure is historically significant to show that the information has either been passed down through oral tradition, it has been forged, or it is evidence in support of dinosaurs living with humans and, thus, a display of the evolutionist's denial of history.
Yet, this "sculpture" was made before Darwin was even alive... Therefore, to have enough knowledge to create some sort of recognizable figure is historically significant to show that the information has either been passed down through oral tradition, it has been forged, or it is evidence in support of dinosaurs living with humans and, thus, a display of the evolutionist's denial of history.
..or it's a part of mythology as any another supernatural creature or just fantasy. What about sculputers that looks like spaceships is it proof that they could build them or it just looks similar?
That is exactly what I was talking about. Creatards are not scientist. The have a delusion and looks for anything similar to it so they found a toy that is (barely) similar to one kind of dinosaurs. They ignore that this kind of dinosaur required oxygen over 34% which is lethal for human after few days... but you tend to ignore it too...
1) There are multiple dinosaur records all over the world by humans. Therefore, the probability of them all having these notions of dinosaurs, which are different to one another, is highly improbably and, therefore, inductively illogical.
2) Who says that dinosaurs need oxygen over 34%? That is assuming that scientists know what they are talking about in regards to the data that they have accumulated in regards to dinosaurs. That is called begging the question and another logical fallacy.
There are multiple dinosaur records all over the world by humans. No there are none. You have one very inaccurate thing.
Yes all large dinosaurs needed much more oxygen saturated in air because of their size an bug like lungs. This is a simple fact that means that you cannot have dinosaurs and people in same place for more than very few days.
No there are none. You have one very inaccurate thing.
There are multiple. The one in Cambodia is not just the only one.
Yes all large dinosaurs needed much more oxygen saturated in air because of their size an bug like lungs. This is a simple fact that means that you cannot have dinosaurs and people in same place for more than very few days.
Who says that the size of their lungs were not proportionate to their size? Who says that they need more oxygen? There are many questions that are raised from what you said and none of them can be answered without making assumptions. Therefore, your argument, as I have been saying, is begging the question.
There are multiple. The one in Cambodia is not just the only one.
I would like to see the others :D
Who says that the size of their lungs were not proportionate to their size?
Let's take for example your favorite Stegosaurus:
Size of their chest in combination of lungs type makes literally impossible for them to survive in our atmosphere. It's like you living at 20,000 feet altitude.
Size of their chest in combination of lungs type makes literally impossible for them to survive in our atmosphere. It's like you living at 20,000 feet altitude.
Have you ever seen actual cave paintings? It does looks like many things. I see dragon :D You see stegosaurus someone may see unicorn... it's only your fantasy.
There is also a little thing with oxygen requirements that dinos had and present amount of oxygen and yes we would not survive in atmosphere that is required by dinosaurs
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
I didn't mention adding illogical options, unless you want to argue that ancients finding dinosaur fossils is illogical...
The one you suggested was illogical. If the ancients were able to reconstruct the dinosaur before paleontologists were able to, then we would see completely formed dinosaurs above the layer of strata that the dinosaurs originally came from. We don't see that. Furthermore, if you take notice to the triceratops one.. it clearly shows a weapon that was used by people in the age proper. That means that it was most likely a story of those people themselves. Moreover, because these ancient art are all over the world, then multiple people would have to find these dinosaur bones and reconstruct them and all depict what they think was the past through art. However, we don't see that, again. Therefore, your extra add one was an illogical one.
The one you suggested was illogical. If the ancients were able to reconstruct the dinosaur before paleontologists were able to, then we would see completely formed dinosaurs above the layer of strata that the dinosaurs originally came from. We don't see that. Furthermore, if you take notice to the triceratops one.. it clearly shows a weapon that was used by people in the age proper. That means that it was most likely a story of those people themselves. Moreover, because these ancient art are all over the world, then multiple people would have to find these dinosaur bones and reconstruct them and all depict what they think was the past through art. However, we don't see that, again. Therefore, your extra add one was an illogical one.
I asked you to provide an example of the art, you haven't done that so I tried searching for it. It is part of the collection of stones which are most probably faked. A couple farmers who apparently discovered the stones have admitted faking them.
My example of another option wasn't illogical I am working from just the so called stegosaurus carving because the Isa stones are fakes. It is completely inaccurate so it could be explained by the people finding parts of a skeleton ( I don't think this is the case) for reasons I explained. You are yet to provide evidence for these depictions of the same animals from different areas in the globe. Can you actually provide something to show this.
I asked you to provide an example of the art, you haven't done that so I tried searching for it. It is part of the collection of stones which are most probably faked. A couple farmers who apparently discovered the stones have admitted faking them.
The Ica Stones? They admitted that they were fake at first and then later recanted because they didn't want to get in trouble for trading ancient artifacts. They then recanted the recant. So we don't know if they are or are not.
My example of another option wasn't illogical I am working from just the so called stegosaurus carving because the Isa stones are fakes. It is completely inaccurate so it could be explained by the people finding parts of a skeleton ( I don't think this is the case) for reasons I explained. You are yet to provide evidence for these depictions of the same animals from different areas in the globe. Can you actually provide something to show this.
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.
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.
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.
The main idea I have heard is that science is good at explaining present times, but the same techniques can't be used to describe the past. Pretty wacky, right?
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?
Such as? The theory of evolution? Science itself disproves that.
Do you not believe anything at all of scientific research?
I love science! However, what they tell us a lot of the time is not true. Take one of my professors Freshman year; he said that they a lot of the times ignore significant data that is opposed to the dominant view of X. He said that scientists make too many assumptions.
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.
I love science, yet again... I understand it more than you think... And I'm a bit more educated than you think...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
If you look at my comments my opinions are trying to elaborate on "do evolutionists deny history" not so much whether humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Which they probably didn't if we compare the research for and against.
That is the point. The images are not exact replicas of how we perceive dinosaurs today, which is historically significant at showing that they are not forgeries. However, they have distinct characteristics that make them look like certain dinosaurs such as the horns on the triceratops and the protrusions on the back of the stegosaurus. So how did these people know about the dinosaurs, then? They look like dinosaurs.
Here;s the problem with that statement: it assumes that dating is correct. The dating methods, if I am right, would be proven incorrect. Therefore, your statement is begging the question.
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.....
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?