What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs...(In the point of view of many Christians)

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike

I wonder sometimes if man didn't use dinosaurs as beasts of burden in the construction of megalithic structures.

You mean like this?





Sorry...couldn't resist!

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


That was kind of funny

Marco Polo wrote the following account in his book, The Travels of Marco Polo:

"Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth [that is, 50 feet long and 100 inches in girth]. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long (1961, pp. 158-159)."

"Polo continued his chapter by explaining how the local citizens of the area hunted and killed the creatures. He noted that the creatures were nocturnal (assisted by “eyes larger than a loaf”), dwelling in “caverns” during the day to avoid the heat. After the creatures killed their prey, Polo wrote that they would find a water source such as a lake, spring, or river. The serpents’ massive bodies left “deep impressions” in their paths “as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands” (p. 159). The creatures followed these same rutted paths regularly. Since their route was predictable, the natives buried large “wooden stakes tipped with sharp iron spikes, which they cover with sand” (p. 159). Polo reported that these spikes so severely wounded the creatures that they died quickly." www.apologeticspress.org...

This is a non-religious based source. No doubt, many believed his accounts to be true. Today, however, the science paradigm dismisses this report because it cannot fit into the model of their theories. And everyone who holds science as the source of truth will likewise dismiss it. Kids today have no clue or perception that most of our ancestors were riding horses just over 100 years ago because their reality is today only. Science could tell them that dinosaurs lived 200 billion years ago and they'd just accept it as fact, never once questioning their 'god' called science.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Marco Polo wrote the following account in his book, The Travels of Marco Polo:

"Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth [that is, 50 feet long and 100 inches in girth]. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long (1961, pp. 158-159)."

"Polo continued his chapter by explaining how the local citizens of the area hunted and killed the creatures. He noted that the creatures were nocturnal (assisted by “eyes larger than a loaf”), dwelling in “caverns” during the day to avoid the heat. After the creatures killed their prey, Polo wrote that they would find a water source such as a lake, spring, or river. The serpents’ massive bodies left “deep impressions” in their paths “as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands” (p. 159). The creatures followed these same rutted paths regularly. Since their route was predictable, the natives buried large “wooden stakes tipped with sharp iron spikes, which they cover with sand” (p. 159). Polo reported that these spikes so severely wounded the creatures that they died quickly." www.apologeticspress.org...

This is a non-religious based source. No doubt, many believed his accounts to be true. Today, however, the science paradigm dismisses this report because it cannot fit into the model of their theories. And everyone who holds science as the source of truth will likewise dismiss it. Kids today have no clue or perception that most of our ancestors were riding horses just over 100 years ago because their reality is today only. Science could tell them that dinosaurs lived 200 billion years ago and they'd just accept it as fact, never once questioning their 'god' called science.

It's not just Scientists that doubt Marco Polo's stories anymore.....Many historians are fairly convinced that (at the very least) Marco Polo was a great exaggerator! Some even doubt that he ever went to China at all, as there are very obvious things he never mentions (such as The Great Wall)

Here's a few links about the subject

knownworld.wordpress.com...


website.lineone.net...

and of course I couldn't leave out the Cracked article that talks about this!
www.cracked.com...

Originally posted by Sinny
Nothing existed before 6,000 years ago! Remember?!

LOL

eh eh yes and not long ago they claimed the world was flat and the centre of the universe

We are told the universe is sterile but for earth eh eh, no other humans evolved, as unimaginably old and immense the universe is they say microbes might (might) live on other planets eh eh

Creationism is a steaming load of crap. All the evidence says so. As for God putting the fossils there to test your faith. I think an all powerful creator wouldn't need to do that.

That being said I believe the Bible and other ancient writings, religious or not contain some grains of truth. Maybe some dinosaurs did survive extinction, particularly ocean dwelling reptiles. All the stories from ancient mariners seem to point in this direction. Also I believe dragons were just misidentified dinosaurs. I also believe that giants did walk the earth at one time. Not creations of god but maybe a as of yet unidentified ancestor of modern man. Or even possibly an Alien race. Anything is possible but creationism is just too much.

Originally posted by TheIrishJihad
Creationism is a steaming load of crap. All the evidence says so. As for God putting the fossils there to test your faith. I think an all powerful creator wouldn't need to do that.

What evidence in particular? Evolutionists are still using the geological dates that the non scientist lawyer Charles Lyell pulled out of his butt. And yet people still reference them to prove millions of years? The fossils are a result of a worldwide flood. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of fossils are marine invertebrates, followed by insects and plants. Land dwelling mammals and reptiles make up less than 1% of all fossils, and dinosaurs make up only a tiny fraction of that.

As for the question of man and dinosaurs coexisting... The word dinosaur was created in the 1800s, so you will never hear it used before then. Perhaps there was another word used to describe a large reptile, how about dragon? Interestingly enough, pretty much every culture around the planet has a word for a similar now extinct creature.

you stuck yourself right in by saying "you could care less what people believe",do people like you not realise that means you care.it is one of my pet hates on here,I think you meant "I could not care less" or was it a sign of your passive aggressive post about Christians.it seems that atheists like you try to brainwash more than any Christian that I've ever met.

65 million years ago, a race of intelligent dinosaurs that were bi-pedal, had farming, had culture, high society and even technology forsaw the coming of the astroid that would hit earth and wipe out everything. They quickly made moves to ensure the survival of their species by building space ships and leaving earth. 65 million years of evolution and advancement and you have the Reptilians. Some people describe the Annunaki as reptilians, others will call these dino badies draconians.

Originally posted by krazykanuk

Originally posted by onthedownlow
I believe that biblical days are refferences to eras of time, not measurements of time. While I don't think dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago, I can't be so quick to discount legends of mythical creatures and dragons in our not to distant path. Truth is, Science relies on constants, but we have a very limited proof of constants and we are unsure of the role atmosheric abnormalities might have in these constants- our biggest window is about three thousand years, yet there is still anomalies in that extremely small span of time. Perhaps the debate should be more phylisophical and less combative?

Your poor grammar and spelling dicate to me your level of education. Hence, there would be nothing that we could rationally discuss.

This is my frustration with religious fanatics (Christians being the worst). They are largely feeble-minded and uneducated. They take the easy way out and do not think for themselves. They put all of their trust and faith into a religious book; that was written over millennia; by a motley crew of crazy "stone-age" dudes; who claimed to have been commissioned by God to write down so called truths; to back up their religious claims, rather than to investigate the cold, hard facts!

edit on 7-7-2012 by krazykanuk because: typo

edit on 7-7-2012 by krazykanuk because: grammar...see. I fix mine!

ha ha ha,poor grammar,the irony...over use of punctuation much in that last paragraph?you by your own statement are the ignorant,closed minded one,oh and blotchy too.

reply to post by dayve


Technically they're stil around today - we call them birds

However, dinosaurs as such disappeared from the fossil record ~65mya and whilst some may have survived some time after in Antarctica (species already adapted to a dark and cold climate) there is no evidence for their survival beyond that time frame.

btw always intrigues me that people harp on about dinosaurs surviving and co-existing with humans, but never cynodonts, for example. Or even more recent families like amphicyonids. Why is this?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by solomons path

 

Following the definition of dinosaur, you are correct. Coelacanth is unique, and crocodiles or birds does not have the same power in this argument. My point was, and is, be careful when you try to mock someone for their beliefs, because you open yourself up for the same (as my post above on the grammar Nazi). I never used the term epoch either. Logically speaking God would not communicate with early humans and say well I did this and it took 4 billion years, then I did this and it took 320 million years, then this took 1.2 billion years. Sometimes less is more, and using terms they understand such as day makes far more sense.

I haven't mocked anyone's beliefs. I didn't start this thread and have conceded to the point that dinos do live with humans in two posts now. I have "mocked" (although I'd say more criticized) how misinterpretation gets bandied around as a catch all to those things that don't line up with a biblical view, when convenient for an argument though.

I think your explanation mocks human intelligence. From all the evidence we have, it seems the ancients were quite a bit more adept at things like astronomy and mathematics than most give them credit for. Are you to tell me that early humans wouldn't know the difference between one day and a millennium? Or even a single verses many? Did god talk down to early humans like children, even though he created them and should have known full well the scope of their intellectual prowess. If we can understand today, so to could the ancients. Some would even say they could have understood better.

I understand your point about less is more, but how are we to know that is the case? Did god oversimplify and leave for further generations to interpret or is it to be taken literally? How do we know today and who's to say which sections are which? And that is what I'm "mocking" essentially. There seems to be a convenience to interpretation that doesn't translate from one believer to the next or from sect to sect. If god's word is infallible there should be congruence between his message and his believers (made in his image, no?) . . . there shouldn't be a watered down version for a species that is fully capable of understanding not only the facts and actions, but also the abstractions. Wouldn't you think?

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by Pressthebutton
I'll just stick to the obvious here, we have so many sites that predate that number! One of the most well known of these I think is Gobeki Tepe,

The site isn't just old, it redefines old: the temple was built 11,500 years ago—a staggering 7,000 years before the Great Pyramid, and more than 6,000 years before Stonehenge first took shape.

Thanks

I'm not really seeking a significant contribution to the topic here, but this much I can address.

What you'll find is that the majority of our dating methods are reliant on the concept of uniformity. Uniformity is demonstrably false, however. Take, for example, the speed of light. The commonly accepted viewpoint up until the mid-19th century was that light was instantaneous. Not only was that theory then proven to be false, but in the intervening years, subsequent results have shown that the speed of light is slowing down.

Now, with this being the case, numerous other assumed constants are called into question, including (notably, on this topic) decay rates for various substances. Let's use C-14 dating as an example, given that most people are familiar with it. If we assume that C-14 has a uniform half-life, then we can safely measure the age of any given rock with some accuracy. If, however, the half-life of C-14 does not follow a uniform pattern, or if, like the speed of light, the decay rate has slowed down on an exponential scale, then suddenly the time frames we're talking about are not only incorrect, but they are potentially SIGNIFICANTLY incorrect.

Now, I'm not suggesting that everything your friend has posited on facebook is correct (I disagree with some of the comments you've relayed, on multiple levels), but it's not black-and-white wrong as you seem to think it is.

Post ONE paper that agrees with your 'views'. And do it honestly. I bet you can't...

[of course you can't - you're a muppet]

DAVID, A. (2005, April 12). Speed of light may be slowing, as experts challenge Einstein. Age, The (Melbourne). p. 1.

Luntz, S. (2006, Is light slowing down? Australasian Science, 27, 13-13. Retrieved from ezproxy.utas.edu.au...://search.proquest.com/docview/223707876?accountid=14245

Courtland, R. (2009). Is the universe slowing down?. New Scientist, 202(2703), 6-7.

Merali, Z. (2007). Is time slowing down?. New Scientist, 196(2635/2636), 8.



...your turn.

So far bunk . . . The first two don't bring up anything on google, so post actual links to docs please.

The third is not about what you were talking about before (VSL cosmology). It's about this . . .

ABSTRACT The article discusses an analysis of nearby supernovae. It states that the analysis suggests space might not be expanding as quickly as it once was, a hint that the source of dark energy may be more exotic than originally thought. According to the article, the evidence has suggested that dark energy is constant, though its effect on the universe has become stronger as the universe has expanded and the gravitational force between objects weakens with distance.

Courtland, Rachel

You didn't claim that Dark Energy was not constant, but Light. And that article doesn't prove it is not a constant either. Right now, cosmologist are have a hard time figuring out why the expansion of the universe is speeding up. They offered the possibility that DE is not constant, as a reasoning, but are no more sure of that than any other possibility. They are still researching.

The fourth example I had to pay for . . . not worth it when it is talking about time slowing anyway, not light as you proposed before. Time has never been seen as a constant.

My suggestion (in including the third and fourth examples) is that there is no difference between light and time in terms of how we perceive them. Time HAS been seen as a constant... though not since the theories of relativity. Light has also been seen as a constant - and prior to that, as an instantaneous phenomenon.

The links I put in my post were from e-Journals.
Whether you can view them or not isn't entirely relevant. You wanted sources, I gave them... these are sources I can read and access.

reply to post by Awen24


Time doesn't exist. It's a mathematical concept used to describe the change of energy states.

The speed of light is the only constant. You can bend and contort light anywhich way you possibly can, but it's speed will remain constant.

I wouldn't call a few fundamentalist groups, "many Christians". Most Christians don't believe nonsense like this. It's only the literalists, and even they have strayed away from the whole dinosaurs living with humans claim. Not once, ever, has a human or any modern animal been found in the same layer as a dinosaur. This would easily falsify our methods of dating the rock layers. So far it's been perfect in that regard and the layers are never mixed. I wonder why that could be?

reply to post by Awen24


"The links I put in my post were from e-Journals.
Whether you can view them or not isn't entirely relevant. You wanted sources, I gave them... these are sources I can read and access."

What? Whether or not someone can access a cited source at this site is not considered relevant? I think this statement is galling.

Originally posted by solomons path
I haven't mocked anyone's beliefs. I didn't start this thread and have conceded to the point that dinos do live with humans in two posts now.

And I never replied to you, I replied to the OP who WAS mocking people. You felt the need to respond. Since we both agree mocking people is not a good idea we should leave it at that.

I think your explanation mocks human intelligence. From all the evidence we have, it seems the ancients were quite a bit more adept at things like astronomy and mathematics than most give them credit for. Are you to tell me that early humans wouldn't know the difference between one day and a millennium? Or even a single verses many? Did god talk down to early humans like children, even though he created them and should have known full well the scope of their intellectual prowess. If we can understand today, so to could the ancients. Some would even say they could have understood better.

Because after thousands of years (about 100,000 years according to the fossil record) people understood astronomy you think God should talk to the very first men as if they understood astronomy? Or did people 100,000 years ago understand astronomy and mathematics? Early man was like a child, in a world they did not understand, simply because they have a brain capable of understanding means nothing.

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants- Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton understood whatyou do not, that his intelligence alone did not allow him to reach the understanding he attained, it was the work of those who came before him. Who came before the very first man? Whose backs could they stand on?

I understand your point about less is more, but how are we to know that is the case? Did god oversimplify and leave for further generations to interpret or is it to be taken literally? How do we know today and who's to say which sections are which? And that is what I'm "mocking" essentially. There seems to be a convenience to interpretation that doesn't translate from one believer to the next or from sect to sect. If god's word is infallible there should be congruence between his message and his believers (made in his image, no?) . . . there shouldn't be a watered down version for a species that is fully capable of understanding not only the facts and actions, but also the abstractions. Wouldn't you think?

I addressed part of that in my last section. Expanding on that, do you think Hell is a literal lake of fire? Or do you think it is possible that Hell is beyond our comprehension, and so we are given images of something our mind can make sense of to try to attempt to understand how horrific a fate it is. I think the only times we are not to take it literally is when a concept could not be understood, and the most suitable concept is used so mankind could fathom the truth in any way.

Ive been told by my b in law who is a born again "crackhead" christian that the dinosaur bones that we found are the work of the devil to deceive us into thinking the world is older than it is

My retarded sister in law believes that crap too. There's no limit to the fantastical contortions christians will go through rather than admit their beliefs (and their families') are bogus. We can count years in ice rings in the arctic to hundreds of thousands of years: definite proof that the earth is not young.

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by dayve

 

It doesn't explain anything. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a) the world is only 6k years old, b) that dinosaurs and humans co-existed (there's a good 60-odd million year gap between the two) and c) that giants ever existed. It only makes sense to someone who's trying desperately reconcile their religious dogma with the known facts (and completely ignoring the facts that contradict their dogma).

None of it matters anyway... You could say transformers roamed the earth millions years ago, it makes no difference to me. It says nothing about dinosaurs in the bible, this is just my opinion.

the Bible refers to the behemoth and the leviathan, both arguably dinosaurs.
the Dragon of Ishtar (Babylonian gate) more resembles a dinosaur than any other animal.
I still say that many, maybe most people, blindly accept mainstream science as 'gospel' with as much 'faith' as religious people. few of us have been around more than 50 or so years so we're all accepting what others tell us.

reply to post by works4dhs


The difference is that with science you don't have to take anyone at their word, you can go out and validate any claims yourself. The fact it takes a lot of time and effort to reach a level of training you are fit to do so is another matter indeed and partly explains why we have a lot of armchair "scientist" eho are ignorant yet are quick yo attack science.