I have asked this before, but as far as I know I didn't get a real answer. If dinosaur fossils are from dinosaurs that lived here 60 million years ago, why can we find them, but can't locate as many of the "intermediary" fossils from all transition animals that are currently proposed by scientists. And, imo, the ones that they have found are either from diseased animals/people or the scientists just put them together incorrectly. Either way, there should be more intermediary fossils than dinosaur fossils...and they're not here (because they never existed).
What of the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Attempts have been made to date the figures using thermoluminescence (TL) dating. The earliest results, from tests done when TL dating was in its infancy, suggested a date around 2500 BC.[SUP][5][/SUP] However, later tests contradicted these findings. In 1976, Gary W. Carriveau and Mark C. Han attempted to date twenty Acámbaro figures using TL dating. They found that the figures had been fired at temperatures between 450 °C and 650 °C, which contradicted claims that these figures had been fired at temperatures too low for them to be accurately dated. However, all of the samples failed the "plateau test", which indicated that dates obtained for the Acámbaro figures using standard high-temperature TL dating techniques were unreliable and lacked any chronological significance. Based on the degree of signal regeneration found in remeasured samples, they estimated that the figures tested had been fired approximately 30 years prior to 1969.[SUP][9]
[/SUP] Remember they had dated the figures 2500 BC and which that means that science is playing a guessing game. They did it with the shroud of Turin and so on, and which they has their own belief system of how old things are by comparing it with other things or methods that they believe of certain age. And so can science explain how the pyramid was built? How did those massive stones were laid on top of one another in perfect formation that you can't even slide a credit card between them? Right if someone has thrown their underwear in the laundry, they can come up with a theory that it has been in the laundry for decades by measuring the dirt and grime that was in the material itself.
The 5,300 Year Old Mesopotamian Diplodocus on an ancient cylinder seal.
This ancient cylinder seal, currently housed at the Louvre Museum portrays sauropod like creatures as well as giant “birds” or pterosaurs. The seal is from Mesopotamia, approximately 3300 B.C. (Moortgart, Anton, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia, 1969, plate 292., presumably seen by the artist.
I would ask that the interested reader note the points of similarity between a close-up of the “sauropod” depiction created by rolling the cylinder with the skull of Diplodocus Longus. This is the basis for me to call this creature and the consistent comparisons below diplodocus depictions.
It may not be possible to readily identify the specific similarity of the Euhelopus sauropod depiction with that of the Tang Dynasty artifact. On the right we’ve placed the unedited drawing of the Euhelopus skull (except that we tinted it red) on top of the artifact for comparison. What do you think? Bird or sauropod?
These Neolithic Cultural Jades differ from the traditionally collected “burial jades” from the traditional archeological burial sites of Hongshan and Liangchu, discovered in the 1920s and 1930s.Source
Here it is shown in comparison to Yangchuanosaurus. “Yangchuanosaurus is an extinct genus of metriacanthosaurid theropod dinosaur that lived in China during the late Oxfordian (and possibly Kimmeridgian) stage of the Late Jurassic, and was similar in size and appearance to its North American contemporary, Allosaurus.
It hails from the Upper Shaximiao Formation and was the largest predator in a landscape which included the sauropods Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus as well as the Stegosaurs Chialingosaurus, Tuojiangosaurus and Chungkingosaurus”…Wikipedia
[/SUP] Remember they had dated the figures 2500 BC and which that means that science is playing a guessing game. They did it with the shroud of Turin and so on, and which they has their own belief system of how old things are by comparing it with other things or methods that they believe of certain age. And so can science explain how the pyramid was built? How did those massive stones were laid on top of one another in perfect formation that you can't even slide a credit card between them? Right if someone has thrown their underwear in the laundry, they can come up with a theory that it has been in the laundry for decades by measuring the dirt and grime that was in the material itself.
The 5,300 Year Old Mesopotamian Diplodocus on an ancient cylinder seal.
These Neolithic Cultural Jades differ from the traditionally collected “burial jades” from the traditional archeological burial sites of Hongshan and Liangchu, discovered in the 1920s and 1930s.Source
Here it is shown in comparison to Yangchuanosaurus. “Yangchuanosaurus is an extinct genus of metriacanthosaurid theropod dinosaur that lived in China during the late Oxfordian (and possibly Kimmeridgian) stage of the Late Jurassic, and was similar in size and appearance to its North American contemporary, Allosaurus.
It hails from the Upper Shaximiao Formation and was the largest predator in a landscape which included the sauropods Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus as well as the Stegosaurs Chialingosaurus, Tuojiangosaurus and Chungkingosaurus”…Wikipedia
Jack, the problem I have with "science" is not the study of the natural world, but the bias of scientists that push that God cannot be the explanation for our existence. They are so busy trying to prove that God doesn't exist that they can't produce true science.
As far as the Bible goes, KJ is okay, but I do not read it. I read the NASB - and yes, I know it's not perfect, but I suppose that's why God gave us the Holy Spirit. The main point of the Bible is Godly Love for our fellow man. That doesn't mean that we must agree with him/her, but that we care for each other.
1 John 2:7-11
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. [SUP]8 [/SUP]On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining. [SUP]9 [/SUP]The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. [SUP]10 [/SUP]The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. [SUP]11 [/SUP]But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
These verses are not talking about our blood relatives, but everyone. We can reference the beginning of this very chapter:
1 John 2:1-2
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; [SUP]2 [/SUP]and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
1 Corinthians 8:10-13
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? [SUP]11 [/SUP]For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. [SUP]12 [/SUP]And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. [SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
As far as the Bible goes, KJ is okay, but I do not read it. I read the NASB - and yes, I know it's not perfect, but I suppose that's why God gave us the Holy Spirit. The main point of the Bible is Godly Love for our fellow man. That doesn't mean that we must agree with him/her, but that we care for each other.
1 John 2:7-11
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. [SUP]8 [/SUP]On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining. [SUP]9 [/SUP]The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. [SUP]10 [/SUP]The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. [SUP]11 [/SUP]But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
These verses are not talking about our blood relatives, but everyone. We can reference the beginning of this very chapter:
1 John 2:1-2
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; [SUP]2 [/SUP]and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
1 Corinthians 8:10-13
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? [SUP]11 [/SUP]For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. [SUP]12 [/SUP]And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. [SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
You are all over the place and every which way including loose.
Nothing you have posted convinces me that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 65 million years ago or coexisted with humans.
The overwhelming body of reputable scientific evidence indicates that dinosaurs did not roam the earth less than 65 million years ago and did not coexist with humans.
To convince me otherwise, I need to see some credible evidence from reputable scientific sources, not wing-nut websites. Show me information that is published in peer-reviewed reputable scientific journals and the like.
Nothing you have posted convinces me that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 65 million years ago or coexisted with humans.
The overwhelming body of reputable scientific evidence indicates that dinosaurs did not roam the earth less than 65 million years ago and did not coexist with humans.
To convince me otherwise, I need to see some credible evidence from reputable scientific sources, not wing-nut websites. Show me information that is published in peer-reviewed reputable scientific journals and the like.
I feel that I need to tell you that I am not trying to push a pre-creation existence. I just don't think that I can make an argument one way or the other based on what I read in Genesis 1. However, I do believe that everything we see, besides water and earth (ground, dirt), was created during the six days of creation (according to the Bible, which I do consider a trust worthy source). But Genesis 1 does not say that God created the earth or water during the six days of creation. I don't know why, but it is what it is. The earth and the water were here before the first day, according to the Bible. The Bible only says that God divided the waters during the 2nd and 3rd days. Maybe He created the earth and waters immediately before the first day, but I, personally, can't make that claim, because I don't know.
Another thing that I find interesting, is that Peter says, "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." I am not sure if Peter is referring to physical fire, but it is interesting that scientists say that the earth started as a molten ball and then cooled. So, if Peter is being literal, then it is going to end the same way.
I used to find that more interesting before I considered the possibility that Peter was referring to spiritual fire. Again, I don't know...strong feelings, but no absolutes on this topic.
I used to find that more interesting before I considered the possibility that Peter was referring to spiritual fire. Again, I don't know...strong feelings, but no absolutes on this topic.
The world is foolish in the eyes of God - i don't think a Christian should care what they thing
Evolution isn't observable - no one has ever seen, in the span of all human history one kind change into another
It isn't testable - the amount of time it would take, it is impossible, we have tried with fruit flies - nothing
It isn't repeatable - no one can reproduce the results
It's a bunch of nonsense, grasping at straws, ultimately to disbelieve the Bible and Jesus Christ. Get into the level above a BA, and you learn a lot more than superficial stuff High School teaches you.
Creation as well is not testable, observable, or repeatable - but the Bible is Historical, not Scientific - that changes much
What we want...No. But "they" have taken God out of our schools (as much as they can) and we must stand up for God. Scientists are proposing a "No God Theory". And besides that, they are breaking their own rules to make Evolution a theory. They assume that their dating methods are accurate, but there is no way to confirm the dating process beyond a fairly limited amount of time.
I think that science is doing that to themselves. It had taken many of years for people to accept it, and now people are getting smarter and distrusting. Like there is too many weight loss pill and drink that science has created and say that it is safe, but turn out it isn't. As its says in the scriptures to not trust man for they doesn't know what they are doing.
All science is doing is experimenting to see what happens afterward, and which they doesn't know what it does from the beginning.
Here's an video of science at work..
<strong>[video=youtube_share;vYEXzx-TINc]http://youtu.be/vYEXzx-TINc[/video]
All science is doing is experimenting to see what happens afterward, and which they doesn't know what it does from the beginning.
Here's an video of science at work..
<strong>[video=youtube_share;vYEXzx-TINc]http://youtu.be/vYEXzx-TINc[/video]
The 5,300 Year Old Mesopotamian Diplodocus on an ancient cylinder seal.
This ancient cylinder seal, currently housed at the Louvre Museum portrays sauropod like creatures as well as giant “birds” or pterosaurs. The seal is from Mesopotamia, approximately 3300 B.C. (Moortgart, Anton, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia, 1969, plate 292., presumably seen by the artist.
I would ask that the interested reader note the points of similarity between a close-up of the “sauropod” depiction created by rolling the cylinder with the skull of Diplodocus Longus. This is the basis for me to call this creature and the consistent comparisons below diplodocus depictions.
What do you think? Bird or sauropod?
What do you think? Bird or sauropod?
As I said before, "Now, they no longer look like dinosaurs. Note that the Egyptians are known for creating fanciful creatures and animal-human gods. My question here is: Why don't creation web sites show such images as this piece of pottery? Answer: It would undermine their claim that the other image is that of a dinosaur."
Take note 4Enlightenment, these are not sauropods. Do you finally agree?
We were discussing these at length about six days ago. They are legitimate ancient Egyptian artifacts but the images are not sauropods. They are stylized lions. The same motif is used on the artifact shown below, but the detail is much better:
As I said before, "Now, they no longer look like dinosaurs. Note that the Egyptians are known for creating fanciful creatures and animal-human gods. My question here is: Why don't creation web sites show such images as this piece of pottery? Answer: It would undermine their claim that the other image is that of a dinosaur."
Take note 4Enlightenment, these are not sauropods. Do you finally agree?
As I said before, "Now, they no longer look like dinosaurs. Note that the Egyptians are known for creating fanciful creatures and animal-human gods. My question here is: Why don't creation web sites show such images as this piece of pottery? Answer: It would undermine their claim that the other image is that of a dinosaur."
Take note 4Enlightenment, these are not sauropods. Do you finally agree?
So then you are a scientist with an advanced degree?
Where did you get your Ph.D.? I'm just wondering if it is the same place Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) got his.
If you are a scientist, then I assume you prefer reading scientific material, as opposed to a Ken Ham comic book portraying dinosaurs and humans as coexisting.
Please show me some articles from your scientific journals with articles indicating that the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
Where did you get your Ph.D.? I'm just wondering if it is the same place Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) got his.
If you are a scientist, then I assume you prefer reading scientific material, as opposed to a Ken Ham comic book portraying dinosaurs and humans as coexisting.
Please show me some articles from your scientific journals with articles indicating that the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rexfinally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rexunearthed in Montana. Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
Scientist will go all out of their way to make up stories because they believe that everyone is an idiot and they will listen to them over anyone else. They should receive the World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement, because they are great for making up fake analysis and words. Their mentor must of had been Roald Dahl, because he is great for making up words. I know those artifacts are real and I do believe that they will protect their investment by debunking others. They need people to support them, and without the people support, then there is no funding.
The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rexunearthed in Montana. Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
Scientist will go all out of their way to make up stories because they believe that everyone is an idiot and they will listen to them over anyone else. They should receive the World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement, because they are great for making up fake analysis and words. Their mentor must of had been Roald Dahl, because he is great for making up words. I know those artifacts are real and I do believe that they will protect their investment by debunking others. They need people to support them, and without the people support, then there is no funding.
Well, this doesn't look like any being that I've had seen before, but where did they get this illustration from?
What illustration? Are you talking about the sphinx that you posted an image of? I am pointing out that the the so-called sauropod motif is nothing of the sort. These are stylized lions with stretched necks. Do you now agree that they are not dinosaurs. See below:
The story about mermaids must of derived from a fish that had walked on the shores, and then the story had spread from it about mermaids, like the stories about unicorn. Trying to explain about life in other part of the world to someone that never heard or been there; in the listener mind will come up with all sort of images.