CreateDebate


Doherty95's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Doherty95's arguments, looking across every debate.
Doherty95(299) Clarified
3 points

Can you explain how the laws of thermodynamics can be used to support the existence of an external being?

1 point

No idea there are many possibilities as to what was before the big bang, and until we can find a way to test these ideas it will remain a mystery.

Doherty95(299) Clarified
1 point

Just to make sure you understand the multiverse hypothesis wasn't formulated as a desperate attempt to explain the so called fine tuning of our universe. The multiverse is a prediction from our current theories.

Doherty95(299) Clarified
1 point

I cannot even remember learning much if anything about the revolutionary war at school. We would do ww1 and 2, the Napoleonic wars and the British civil war if any. I didn't take history far at all at school, so they may have learnt that, but I am not sure.

Around two years at most America was on their own, I wasn't denying this. The person who used the revolutionary war used it as an example of America being better than Britain (I'm taking England in this debate to mean Britain). I just pointed out that they had the french, Spanish and Dutch on their side. So it isn't a good example.

However I don't agree with the debate, because there are things at which America are better and there are others at which Britain is better.

Doherty95(299) Clarified
1 point

I've actually decided to clarify instead now because as someone else has also said I don't agree with this debate.

First in the Revolution, we did beat Britain in the battles, and the French gave us Naval support! Other than that we took loans from the Dutch and Spain.

When you say in the battles it seems as if you are insinuating that America won every battle, which isn't true.

The Spanish attacked other areas of the empire as well as the french. The dutch as far as I know only loaned money and gave supplies, as you said.

Then during the War of 1812. Scared the British navy, and slaughtered them on the Great Lakes and New Orleans.

I will like to point out, you may already know that the United states declared war, and the treaty of Ghent meant the conditions at the beginning of the war were kept. I don't see how you can claim any sort of victory in the war. Also during the war Britain had actually gained land, which was returned in the treaty. You name two battles, when there were plenty in the war that you lost as well.

I'm not saying they didn't bore the brunt of the war, they did, but I really do think that without support from the US, Britain would have succumbed to Germany. We gave them money, planes (and pilots), tanks, ships, and arms. Without that Britain would be speaking German.Britain may have had a more powerful navy, but you guys were spread thin across your empire, and the Germans would have concentrated it more locally. And even if the navy prevented a landing, Germany would have taken to the air and either bombed the navy or just airlifted the army over the channel.

Russia may have have eventually have defeated Germany anyway, but anyway I don't think that Germany would have invaded Britain. I'm not sure that we would have pushed them back through France without the Americans help though.

Also without America's help the other allies would have sustained far more damage, but I do think considering we are an island, they would not have been able to invade us like they did France or anyone else, I think our navy would have been enough to at least stop an invasion, if the Germans even attempted one.

I will add I am not belittling the importance of America in ww2, they were an important ally in the war. The war would have probably been lost or taken far longer without the Americans, however I don't think it is likely that Hitler would have attempted to take Britain. Bombed the hell out of us yes, but they'd have to take the channel first and that would have been a task.

1 point

America did kick Britain's butt twice

Course you did... wanna say when because I bet that isn't the case.

and saved them during WW2

America did not save the British. The USA did make contributed considerably to the war, but Russia and Britain did far more in the war. Also it would be unlikely that Germany would have invaded Britain considering we had the most powerful navy. We may not have gotten France back but I doubt Germany would have invaded Britain.

I don't agree with the question, but I don't think you were correct.

1 point

Are you forgetting you had the french, spanish and dutch on your side in that war?

Doherty95(299) Clarified
2 points

Heres one for the Babylonian and Biblical comparison

Genesis was thought to be written whilst the Jews were captive in Babylonia. The Noah's ark story was written during this time (after the epic of Gilgamesh was written), so it is likely that they got the story from the Babylonians.

-Dont you think thats a more reason to believe that a Great Flood did happened?

They are too far from each other that so they had different perspective. Yet, they are too close that their stories are too similar to be different events?

If the civilisations are in close proximity, then they will heavily influence each other. Many myths associated with one God can be adopted by another religion and there God/Gods swapped in for the other God/Gods. The Jews were captives in Babylonia and were heavily influenced by them, so it is not unlikely that they adopted myths and ideas from them.

1 point

Not really necessary. You just have to target the greatest civilization of their time. It was a local flood yes, but the impact affected the world as the center of trade and technology was devastated.

So you agree that it was a local not a world wide flood?

That was what my point was.

A flood could have massive effects, however I will like to make a distinction. A local flood with far reaching effects is not the same as a world wide flood.

Historical records says so that a flood really happened in the middle east. And the similarities of flood myths all over the world shares too many similarities to be fictional

Can you give a couple of examples so I can look them up to see the similarities.

Also I will try to address a couple of similarities one would expect to find.

Most if not all cultures believed in a God or Gods. Out of these I think it would be reasonable to say that a lot of them would see these Gods playing an active role in the world. Many of these cultures would also think that natural disasters are punishments sent from the Gods/God.

Just from that you can expect that a flood story would probably involve punishment from a God/Gods.

That is probably one of the main similarities, but I don't know what flood stories you are talking about so I cannot address more than that almost certain similarity that the stories will share.

Ridiculous as it may sound. But the bible is still a history book. (corrupted by artistic imagination, though)

I would say the bible is more a book of stories most of which are not historical but are symbolic in some sense. Some events may be based in history but of these I would say few are historically accurate.

Doherty95(299) Clarified
1 point

Genesis says the waters flooded the earth for 150 days. It also claims that the ark came to rest on mountains Ararat 5 months after the rain which caused the flood started. It then took a further 2.5 months for the tops of mountains to become visible according to genesis. So the flood waters would have to be at a considerable height for much longer than the 40 days Nox0 said, so Nox0's figure was being generous.

2 points

If you are arguing for a local flood, than it could be the case. It won't work for a world wide flood because of the size of the meteor needed and the flood waters would leave geological evidence. Also it wouldn't fitmany of the claims of the flood story such as the entire world being flooded enough for the mountains to be buried under water for 150 days.

If I granted you that it was a local flood, it would mean genesis was vastly exaggerated and inaccurate. Also the local flood wouldn't explain the alleged size of the boat (unless that is also exaggerated). If the entire story is exaggerated and inaccurate than the biblical flood is false. It may be based on a real one but the biblical one is not true.

3 points

There are several problems with the Noah's ark story.

1) There is no evidence of a worldwide flood in the geological records ( If you think there is provide some).

2)If the human race survived through 8 people 6,000 years ago we wouldn't have the genetic diversity we have now.

3) The change in salinity caused by the flood waters would have killed fresh water fish.

4a) There is not enough space on the ark for two of every species. Even if it was possible it would be impossible to get the genetic diversity for each species from two or even 7 pairs of the animals.

4b) If you argue its not species it was kind. First define kind and secondly that makes the problem of genetic diversity even worse.

5) Wooden boats of that size are unstable and wouldn't survive. USS Wyoming is a prime example, the largest wooden ship ever built (smaller than Noah's ark is claimed to be).

6) Many animals have specific conditions in which they need to survive, how could all the different conditions be catered to on the ark.

2 points

Two of every kind of bird

3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird,

The birds are listed separately from the 'clean' and 'unclean' animals. It is a contradiction because it says 7 pairs of every kind of bird, but in chapter 6 it said 2 of every kind of bird. Which is it 7 or 2?

1 point

The problem is the justifications for all these acts are terribly weak. If anyone used them to defend their actions you wouldn't accept it at all, so why accept it here?

2 points

Genesis 6:

20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Genesis 7:

2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Two of every kind of bird and then in the next chapter 7 pairs of each kind of bird.

1 point

Free will. He does not impede on that. How do you know that there were babies? Small children? It just said men. Every man was corrupt.

So they were not reproducing?

There was no child anywhere in the world?

I find that completely unbelievable.

Also it doesn't mention women, so was the world without women?

Man is used in the KJV and in the NIV it is translated as the human race. Man and Mankind can be used to mean the human race.

How did he kill them all if they are here today? Or how did he kill them all if he still put some on the ark?

Okay I will change the wording slightly.

This doesn't justify God killing all but two (7 in some cases) of each kind of animal. Did all the animals that were not on the ark deserve to drown for the sins of man?

Unless this was all the animals in the world at that time which is again completely unbelievable, how is it justifiable?

Again? Satan is an eternal angel. God granted him that. He doesnt impede or break his promises.

False. Satan is eternal. He was am angel. Like I said. He wont impede on that.

If God cannot destroy Satan, why doesn't he imprison him instead?

If he had enough reason to kill almost everyone on the planet, he surely has enough reason to imprison Satan.

1) This was a point to future Christians. He is saying that through faith in him you can endure the greatest of tribulations. That isnt an abuse of power. It wasnt to prove a point. Not a monster or immoral. Not at all.

How does this justify allowing Satan to kill the family?

Even if it was a point to future Christians, how does that make it moral. If God allowed Satan to torture someone for their entire life to show future Christians that no matter how bad things get they could be worse. Does that make the torture a moral act?

Like I said. God did. Now how do you prove his love? Just by saying "all is well"? No.

I see so when someone wrongs me to show my love I should get myself tortured and killed?

How in any way does that show love?

If it shows love wouldn't it be more loving for God to be in hell getting tortured for eternity to forgive our sins?

Where did it say God turn he into the pillar? Show me that. Also like I said free will. He does not interfere with that.

Genesis 19

25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

If intervening earlier would somehow contradict free will but killing them all doesn't?

He intervened into Jonah's life, into the life of Noah, Moses, Abraham, Joshua and many more according to the bible, so if that is your argument it doesn't hold up.

1) For not believeing which is deliberately rejecting God

If you don't think there is a God you are not deliberately rejecting him because you don't think there is anything to reject. So if he does exist you are not deliberately rejecting him.

2) Showing no respect for the life he gave to you

Do you want to clarify what you mean by this?

How would one show respect for the life he gave you?

3) You followed Satan for all your life.

So not believing means you followed satan your whole life?

You cannot be a Good person if you don't believe in God?

4) I am sure a person would sin during their lifetime.

According to the bible everyone sins. So if only the believers in Jesus get their sins forgiven it doesn't show an all loving God it shows a God who picks favourites.

So you cant say it isnt justified. Also Satan pulls you into hell. If you ignkre Satan amd follow God you dont go there. Hell wasnt made for humans. It was made for Satan and his angels.

It isn't justified, if two people did lived identical lives but one believed in Jesus and the other didn't. It isn't just to send one to burn for an eternity and to send the other to heaven.

1 point

That is false. If you even steal a nickel you stole a nickel and they will remember that you stole that nickel. God has already forgiven you but you have already sinned and thus you have weight on you. You knew what was right and wrong and stole it. You deliberately stole the nickel. That sin is weighted on you. Angels record this and you gave into the devils temptation and followed what the flesh wanted. It is not as simple as you think. Sin is sin and if you sin you will gain that baggage.

The crimes all have finite effects. Stealing a nickel would barely have any effect on the person and I highly doubt anyone would remember it, not even you. The effects of all crimes will eventually come to an end. In no way is a crime eternal.

Also if God has forgiven you wouldn't the weight of that sin gone?

1 point

I guess it depends on the person. Some people believe he is justified because of the reasons for his actions. For example people ask "Why did God flood the Earth?". Well here is a verse.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” - Genesis 6:5

Here is a link: http://answersfromthebook.org/2009/10/07/why-did-god-send-the-flood/

So he flooded the Earth because mankind was just corrupt to the fullest. Meaning they sinned continously with no regret.

So people wonder "Why did God do what he did to Job?".

That is a valid question of course but the answer is pretty much in the beginning of the book.

Why didn't he intervene before it got to that state, so he didn't have to kill them all?

God must have known befor it got to that state what was to come, so if he didn't want to kill them all why didn't he intervene to steer it away from this corruption?

Also why did all the children have to die?

Especially the babies, they would be too young to be wicked surely?

Also this doesn't justify God killing all the animals. Did they deserve to drown to death for the sins of man?

Another thing why hasn't God destroyed Satan yet like he destroyed everyone in the flood?

Surely any reason he would have to destroy them he would have equal reasons to have destroyed Satan.

So people wonder "Why did God do what he did to Job?".

That is a valid question of course but the answer is pretty much in the beginning of the book.

" To answer that question we have to go back to the beginning of time when God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve with the fruit in the Garden of Eden. We should probably ask the same question here. Why would God allow Satan to tempt them? All the worlds problems, injustices, and tragedies that have happened since the beginning of time can be traced back to this moment when Adam and Eve decided to listen to Satan instead of believe that God could satisfy the desires of their hearts." PastorJeffsBlog.Blogspot.com

Here is the link: http://pastorjeffsblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-god-allow-satan-to-hurt-job.html?m=1#!

It basically said that you cannot force someone to love you or do right. Satan was never forced to do right or love God and he choose the path or hatred. With Job God primarily wanted to show to things.

1) To show Christians that with faith in God you can go through the fire and the flames and carry out the life on your lot. Also one thing people think is that God did all that. It was actually Satan. Satan asked for permission and God granted it knowing that Job may complain but remain faithful.

2) God wanted to set the bar saying that if Job can endure this than any person with God's faith can survive and conquer what they have in their lot.

What God did to Job was clearly an abuse of power. If anyone allowed someone to kill all of someones children and torture that person to prove a point, they would be considered a monster and the act immoral. How is proving a point to Satan a justifiable reason to allow Satan to do that.

Even if it was to show those two things you mentioned, if someone did the above to show people no matter how bad things get it could get worse. Also to show that if they can endure that than you can endure anything. does any of that justify it?

Also how does letting Satan test Job justify him allowing Satan to kill all of Job's family?

Some people also wonder why God had to make his only son be a Martyr instead of just speaking healing amomg the earth.

Main this is to show the world his love. There is no other way he could do so and forgive every person for their sins. It is supposed to show the extreme amount of love God has for mankind. I cant name another way to show extreme love.

Here is another link for that though: http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/why-did-jesus-have-die-our-sins

My response depends on whether Jesus is seen as the son of God or God himself.

If Jesus is seen as God's son my response is simple. If someone had wronged me, does it show more love for me to give my son as a human sacrifice or just to forgive them?

If Jesus is God than God sacrificed himself unto himself to save us from himself.

You say There is no other way he could do so and forgive every person for their sins., however I don't see how you get to this. God set blood sacrifice as the way to atone sins, he could have just forgiven them.

The prime reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed was because of the massive amounts of sin that was commited daily. One of the critical parts of the story is where God said he would save the city if even 10 people were righteous in the city. Abraham was able to bring God down to 10 but Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because not even ten existed. The sins were countless and so God sent angels down to rescue Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, and his wife and two daughters. They received a specific order which was to not look back while God destroyed the city because of the wickedness that existed there. Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt. Then God destroyed the city with supposed meteors.

" The Bible states that the fire and sulfur, or brimstone, rained down "from the Lord out of the heavens" (Genesis 19:24, NIV) - Christianity.About.com

God apparently knows what we are thinking, he knew that Abraham wouldn't find 10 people. So he was going to destroy the cities anyway.

Also he could have intervened earlier, to stop them from being so corrupt.

Also Lot's wife being turned to a pillar of salt for disobeying God. God gives many commandments in the bible, and everyday people disobey them. Why doesn't he turn them into a pillar of salt?

Why is it justifiable to turn Lot's wife but no one else?

The final one I want to touch one is the point of hell. Why would God make Hell as a place for punishment? Isnt it brutal or wicked or un-loving? Also if humans only have finite crimes why must they spend eternity there?

These are all very good questions. Hell itself was never created for humanity. It was initially for Satan and his angels since they rebelled. This was their punishment especially since they did not regret what they did for pride was what Satan had in his heart. So Hell is primarily for Satan and the fallen angels. Next Adam sinned. When sin was released into the world hell became entangled with it. God didnt punish Adam and Eve with hell but Adam entangled it by his choice to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. With this happening a being will be born into sin. So God wants you to follow his path so you can go to heaven. Satan however wants you to join him and thus will give you the sight of your heart's desires. God sent his only son to become a martyr so all of man kind would be forgiven for their sins. This is to make heaven even more obtainable for humans. However Satan is still the prince of this world so he has control over the earth.

The bible says in revelation that non believers will go to hell. Is this a good reason to be tortured for eternity?

Is it moral for a God to torture someone for an eternity for not believing?

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

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.

1 point

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?

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.


1 of 11 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]