Richard Dawkins & Smash of Dinosaur / Human Footprints

Just to make it clear I am not here to try and prove anything I just thought I would share what I thought was an interesting video.

Richard Dawkins & Glen Kuban allegedly destroyed human footprints evidence (next to dinosaur's prints) because it didn't line up with what they believe. 12:24 in the video is interesting.




Try and watch it all before commenting.

Thanks.

Your video doesn't work.

Try this:


When you link youtube videos, you only need the part after the "=" sign.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ah yes thanks for that.

a reply to: PickledOnion

This reminds me of when they found soft tissue in t-rex fossils and had to "rethink how decay works". Instead, maybe we should rethink the age of dinosaurs.

Name the following animal:

"Grendel's swift hard claws
snatched at the first Geat
He came to, ripped him apart, cut
His body to bits with powerful jaws,
Drank the blood from his veins and bolted
Him down, hands and feet; death
And Grendel's great teeth came together,
Snapping life shut."

" but their points
Could not hurt him,
the sharpest and hardest iron
Could not scratch at Grendel's skin"

Hard Skin, Claws, and Killed with its powerful Jaws. This description of "Grendel" is from Beowulf, a story that the writers insist is real, but our contemporary historians do not because they think dinosaurs were extinct millions of years ago.

a reply to: PickledOnion

How can this man say anything is an insult to science when he is approaching this subject with the data he wants already known to him? It is in his interest to try make the Christian young earth look good, he even uses the term 'Occult Science'.

Allegedly is the word here. Never happened.
Dawkins has admitted that Darwin was wrong on many things and does not deny truth.

Adleast your not pushing it as true I suppose.

Watched it...watta load of crap. Religious views and youtube do not go hand in hand. Poor editing to meet their agenda.

Very interesting. Dawkins is as bad as a religious zealot and is why I don't hold him in high regard as a scientist. He is like a trash talking prize fighter who is more famous for his antics then fighting. He even rubs Atheists the wrong way. I wouldn't doubt he would destroy evidence to prove he is right. He is also a terrible philosopher. This whole subject has been going around since the 80's.

Not sure what we're supposed to see...

Is it me, or it's just incredibly annoying to watch someone making stupid comments without much evidence...

@Coperton - are you talking about this??

www.history.com...

Here is explanation - how....

www.scientificamerican.com...

Any questions??

a reply to: SuperFrog
How dare you speak the truth or link credible sources....do you even know what website you are on...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Not sure what we're supposed to see...

Is it me, or it's just incredibly annoying to watch someone making stupid comments without much evidence...

@Coperton - are you talking about this??

www.history.com...

Here is explanation - how....

www.scientificamerican.com...

Any questions??

My question to you, do YOU have any questions? Do you question "Scientific American"? I couldn't read the whole article without paying, but I assume they're going to say that iron must have the ability to preserve organic tissue for longer than we thought possible. Please question this absurdity.

"Mounting evidence from dinosaur bones shows that, contrary to common belief, organic materials can sometimes survive in fossils for millions of years"

^Heinous backtracking to maintain the million-years-old theory of dinosaurs. As I showed above, a living T-Rex is described in our historical records. The word "dinosaur" was first used at the same time the theory of evolution came out.

a reply to: PickledOnion

Wouldn't you think there would be more evidence of man in association with dinosaurs in other places besides Texas?

a reply to: cooperton
You believe that to be a description of a t-rex....lmao? You have to be trolling there right?

I hope your not as I don't want to take back all the tears and laughter you so kindly provided.

Could describe any large lizard...aka komodo dragon???

But thanks again as the style of your writing leads me to believe you are genuine

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: cooperton
You believe that to be a description of a t-rex....lmao? You have to be trolling there right?

I hope your not as I don't want to take back all the tears and laughter you so kindly provided.

Could describe any large lizard...aka komodo dragon???

Ahh yes, a komodo dragon that goes on murderous rampages and is capable of killing entire groups of people. If your laughable explanation for the monster described above is a komodo dragon, then this is the Bravest Couple on Earth

a reply to: cooperton
I apologise. You are correct it had to be a t-rex, the lack of description clearly points to an extinct animal reemerging. My bad.

No height, weight size, colour or species description does tend to mean t-;Rex. I was stupid enough to think it may just be an animal, like a wolf .

a reply to: cooperton

Beowulf is NOT claimed as a true story, it is known to take parts from many sagas and Scandinavian historical figures.
Grendel is a troll, I have never once heard of Grendel or his Mother claimed to be reptiles.
The third battle Beowulf takes part in is with a dragon, which are fictional like trolls. Anyway wouldnt the dragon be better proof for your dinosaur than a troll?

originally posted by: rossacus
I was stupid enough to think it may just be an animal, like a wolf .

A wolf's skin is not hard like the monster described. Strike two.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: cooperton
I apologise. You are correct it had to be a t-rex, the lack of description clearly points to an extinct animal reemerging. My bad.

Could've been an allosaurus. Notice I said t-rex-like creature? Please don't put your head back into the sand, actually think about this.

"Lo... Behemoth... Grass as an ox he eateth.
Lo... his power [is] in his loins, And his strength in the muscles of his belly.
He doth bend his tail as a cedar tree..."

Do you know of any land animals that have a tail as large as a cedar tree?

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: cooperton

The third battle Beowulf takes part in is with a dragon... wouldnt the dragon be better proof for your dinosaur...?

Yes:

Dragons were Dinosaurs

"dinosaur" was not a word until 1850, so any large serpentine creature observed prior to this date would have been referred to as a dragon.

Not sure if trolling or just stupid, trey baker is more than likely a charlatan.

a reply to: cooperton

Think Learningman man explained it pretty well.

Think to yourself where did I learn this as this is definetly not your own interpretation. Then think why did I listen to this guy. We find well preserved mammoths, yet no dinosaurs. Why you ask? Simple.....

I know these people sound convincing but please refrain from being led a stray.....

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: PickledOnion

This reminds me of when they found soft tissue in t-rex fossils and had to "rethink how decay works". Instead, maybe we should rethink the age of dinosaurs.

Name the following animal:

"Grendel's swift hard claws
snatched at the first Geat
He came to, ripped him apart, cut
His body to bits with powerful jaws,
Drank the blood from his veins and bolted
Him down, hands and feet; death
And Grendel's great teeth came together,
Snapping life shut."

" but their points
Could not hurt him,
the sharpest and hardest iron
Could not scratch at Grendel's skin"

Hard Skin, Claws, and Killed with its powerful Jaws. This description of "Grendel", meaning "bellowing", is from Beowulf, a story that the writers insist is real, but our contemporary historians do not because they think dinosaurs were extinct millions of years ago.

That doesn't describe a dinosaur either... There doesn't and has never existed an animal that can't be pierced by a sword AND is a predator.

a reply to: cooperton

Sorry but that reference is a Young Earth creationist site, how can we take it seriously?

British and norse *mythology* is full of dragons, usually worms or wyrms, and if you were to look up the descriptions from the stories you would see they have zero semblance to any known dinosaur.

You tried to equate Grendel as an Allosaurus, yet you know full well that in Beowulf Grendel dies after having his ARM torn from his shoulder. Not leg.

But I imagine you will use the dragon reference from now on, along with asserting that Beowulf, a story about the Danes, but written by anglo saxons after the cristianisation of england, as a true story,