[Debate] Dinosaurs Co-Exist With Man/Have Co-Existed With Man

[NarutoVsGoku]

Say this all to the Academic community : Proffesors , Doctors = PPL = who have researched the subject for 30+ years and they all say = this :


Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, approximately 230 million years ago, and became the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the beginning of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (65.5 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur groups at the close of the Mesozoic era. The fossil record indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic, and consequently they are considered a type of dinosaur in modern classification systems.[1][2] Some birds survived the extinction event that occurred 65 million years ago, and continue the dinosaur lineage to the present day.



Humans do not have co excited with Dinosaurs : All of this BS on the internet is made up by evangelical book of genesis readers = creationists ( not very intelligent people).


Do not believe/support the ideas of people who dismiss science as its whole.


The process of Evolution is 100% correct and has been proven.

​

yes but ignore the fact that ancient civilizations around the world have depicted dinosaurs and depicted people living with them. the pictures and scuptures are undeniably dinosaurs, and there fossils of dinos and humans together. thats fact, its not a theory or conspiracy, its fact that there re fossils that had both dino and human remains.

but why are those ignored by you? if i could talked to a scientist, i'd ask them the same thing.

none of the internet stuff is bs or made up, they provided artifacts. they are remains of the past. and its up to us to interpret the vaild reasons behind why the Incas had pictures of dinosaurs, or why the egyptians had pictures of dinosaurs, or why there are legends around the world of dragons, or why there are footprints of humans and dinos, or why there has been accounts and witnessing reports of the loch ness monster, creatures that resemble pleisosaurs and creatures that resemble pterodactyls, from people of reputable and credible backgrounds, why? and you ignore the artifacts and stick to the lie that has been given to you that you came from a monkey.

evolution itself is not scientific, never has been proven fact and can never will, because evolution claims things evolve in a timespan of billions and millions of years, but no one can observe that or claim it to be true, it is not and cannot be experimented on, it is not scientific because it cant be proven using the basic scientific method.


"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]"

evolution cannot be observed, measured, experimented or measured for realibility. cannot be tested by the scienific method, which is used to term things scientific. to call evolution scientific is an oxymoron itself.

One of your argument is old cave paintings depicting Dinosaurs with humans. Although there are no such paintings i am aware of but still i'll assume you are right.That proves nothing. I've sen cave paintings depicting people slaying dragons, lifting mountains, growing wings, levitating and defying many other laws of physics and nature. Does that mean anything ? No,of course not.Ever heard about Ajanta caves ? That place is full of ancient paintings and many of them are screwed up.

i just made you aware. if you dont believe me then look it up for yourself, you choose to be ignorant? its easy to just believe what you are told and not find answers for yourself isnt it?

Ajanta caves have nothing to do with this, stick to the point. and did you not read my point on the dragons thing? did you read this thread at all? dragons are the name of dinosaurs of the past.

That's quite laughable considering how nonsensical your claim is that you'd call me ignorant for pointing out the facts. Suit yourself, bro keep believing dinos and man co existed, and showing pictures from religious sites that claim to prove it. Despite having all the evidence thrown at your face, if your still dumb enough to believe that dinos and man lived at the same time, then there's nothing i can do to help you, i'm afraid.

Erm, and if you take an absolutely literal interpretation of everything Genesis says, then you believe that there is a giant ocean(water vault) above the sky as well:

You must be registered for see links

look up what an "ad hominem"

just becuse they are from religious sites and religious people does not make them false or invalid. they presented artifacts, they presented evidence that suggest dinos lived with man and you ignore them just because it came from religious people? you are a fool and ignorant for doing so. i dont buy into evolution but it doesnt mean i hate science, doesnt mean i dont agree with physicsor chemistry or biology, in fact i love science and all those things.

you want something scientific? eplain to me how is it possible for a t rex fossil to have tissue in it if its supposedly 65 millions years old?

you did not provide any evidence, you begged the question, said "well scientists say dinos are millions years old and never lived with man so its true", ignored what i said and just said "well its not true cuz it came from reliigous people" which s a fallacy, invalid arguement.

let m tell you this that the science has not always been right. you think im wrong because science of this age says evolution is true, even though it has never been proven and it cant be proven. there was a time when sientists believed that abiogenesis. during this time is when evolution came about from Darwin because abiogenesis was deemed to be a scientific thing. but abiogenesis has long been disproven and with that evolution should have as well because abiogenesis is the only way evolution could have been true.

if you dont know at all what im talking about then go educate yourself. and look into it.

and the water vault i the sky, well what is in the sky? clouds. dont clouds have water droplets or ice crystals? when it rains whats falling? water right? where does that water comes from the sky right? why? because theres water in the sky... right? plus the sky i blue which i believe is the reflection of the ocean right? so um maybe that explains why genesis describe the sky as a water vault.

this is getting ridiculous so ill be ridiculous:
ppl who believe in evolution made

You must be registered for see images

and give us ppl like:

You must be registered for see images

creationists give us ppl like

You must be registered for see images

my point: the world of science (i.e. the smartest ppl) is largly dominated by evolutionists because they get evolution and see how creationists are desperately holding onto the bible

yes, your arguements are ridiculous. you post a pic of a genius next to Sarah Palin and then thats supposed to prove your point? didnt you claim you were a scientist before and yet this is the best you can come up with an arguement? so you're saying evolutionists are so great because you post a pic of a satelite and Prof Hawkin and creationists are dumb by posting Palin?

appeal to belief
appeal to authority
appeal to popularity

your point is invalid and fallacious

oh and fyi there are scientists who dont buy into evolution

 

[Aze]

yes but ignore the fact that ancient civilizations around the world have depicted dinosaurs and depicted people living with them. the pictures and scuptures are undeniably dinosaurs, and there fossils of dinos and humans together. thats fact, its not a theory or conspiracy, its fact that there re fossils that had both dino and human remains.

but why are those ignored by you? if i could talked to a scientist, i'd ask them the same thing.

none of the internet stuff is bs or made up, they provided artifacts. they are remains of the past. and its up to us to interpret the vaild reasons behind why the Incas had pictures of dinosaurs, or why the egyptians had pictures of dinosaurs, or why there are legends around the world of dragons, or why there are footprints of humans and dinos, why? and you ignore the artifacts and stick to the lie that has been given to you that you came from a monkey.

evolution itself is not scientific, never has been proven fact and can never will, because evolution claims things evolve in a timespan of billions and millions of years, but no one can observe that or claim it to be true, it is not and cannot be experimented on, it is not scientific because it cant be proven using the basic scientific method.



i just made you aware. if you dont believe me then look it up for yourself, you choose to be ignorant? its easy to just believe what you are told and not find answers for yourself isnt it?

Ajanta caves have nothing to do with this, stick to the point. and did you not read my point on the dragons thing? did you read this thread at all? dragons are the name of dinosaurs of the past.



look up what an "ad hominem"

just becuse they are from religious sites and religious people does not make them false or invalid. they presented artifacts, they presented evidence that suggest dinos lived with man and you ignore them just because it came from religious people? you are a fool and ignorant for doing so. i dont buy into evolution but it doesnt mean i hate science, doesnt mean i dont agree with physicsor chemistry or biology, in fact i love science and all those things.

you want something scientific? eplain to me how is it possible for a t rex fossil to have tissue in it if its supposedly 65 millions years old?

you did not provide any evidence, you begged the question, said "well scientists say dinos are millions years old and never lived with man so its true", ignored what i said and just said "well its not true cuz it came from reliigous people" which s a fallacy, invalid arguement.

let m tell you this that the science has not always been right. you think im wrong because science of this age says evolution is true, even though it has never been proven and it cant be proven. there was a time when sientists believed that abiogenesis. during this time is when evolution came about from Darwin because abiogenesis was deemed to be a scientific thing. but abiogenesis has long been disproven and with that evolution should have as well because abiogenesis is the only way evolution could have been true.

if you dont know at all what im talking about then go educate yourself. and look into it.

and the water vault i the sky, well what is in the sky? clouds. dont clouds have water droplets or ice crystals? when it rains whats falling? water right? where does that water comes from the sky right? why? because theres water in the sky... right? plus the sky i blue which i believe is the reflection of the ocean right? so um maybe that explains why genesis describe the sky as a water vault.



yes, your arguements are ridiculous. you post a pic of a genius next to Sarah Palin and then thats supposed to prove your point? didnt you claim you were a scientist before and yet this is the best you can come up with an arguement? so you're saying evolutionists are so great because you post a pic of a satelite and Prof Hawkin and creationists are dumb by posting Palin?

appeal to belief
appeal to authority
appeal to popularity

you point is invalid and fallacious

oh and fyi there are scientists who dont buy into evolution

You do not have valid expertice do discuss on these subjects.

First human beings who where able to walk on 2 legs where homo erectus.

They lived 1.3-1.8 million years ago.

Homo Sapiens are practicaly 200 thousand years old species.

We started using tools about 50-55 thousand years ago.

Oldest villages are around 12 thousand years old.

The first civlication is about 6 thousand years old = Sumerians.


Dinasaurs walked the earth 100+ million years ago.


Call = proffesor = Richard Dawkins = Tell him your story.

He will have a good laugh


And you seem to think highly of your "Prime Intelligence"

And oh , you just "proved" Evolution wrong.

Wat are you waiting for , go and get your Nobel Prize now.

That kind of discovery needs a Nobel Prize.





Ill write something for you Big and clear : EVOLUTION DOES NOT NEED AN APPROACH OF FAITH DO BELIEVE IN IT , EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.


It's called Theory of Evolution for a reason , since it was its Original name.

We Also Have Theory of Relativity = lays basis for every Satelite out of space , all their navigation and communication systems are based on this theory.

Theory of Thermodynamics = lays basis for absolutely every chemical system and laws surrounding them.

Theory of Evolution = Explains , how everything is chosen by natural selection , and the stronger will survive , and life orginisms , will change their shape , their habidation , based on enviorment.



IF EVOLUTION IS WRONG BY YOUR STATEMENT = THEN WE WOULD BE SINGEL CELL LIFE ORGANISMS CURRENTLY , AND I WONT BE POSTING THIS.




Evolution explained = come at me bro , turn proffesor Richard Dawkins statements against him and prove him wrong.

Prove EVOLUTION WRONG TO THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY = AND YOU WILL WIN A NOBEL PRIZE = SINCE THEN YOU HAVE PROVEN COUNTLESS OF SCIENTIST WRONG DURING CENTURIES OF KNOWLEDGE.







NarutoBase = wont get you much attention.

But I'm willing to protect Evolution theory from people like you , who are blinded in their ignorance , and do not posses common sense of anykind.


Do not hate me..

Hate the Creationists who manipulate people to believe things , that are not scientificaly accurate = complete BS

And Creationists = Do have manipulated people do follow them = A fact.

I was raised Cahtolic , and I did believed in GOD until the age of 13 and so.

I thinked , that the world was 6000 years old lol = Look how stupid I was.

Now currently i'm into science and rational thinking , And i know , that Universe is Billions of years old = And at one point all matter was in an Infinite dense state = and at some point all that energy was unleashed = with a big bang = since the microwave radiation still excists = the echo of the big bang.

Longest reply on NarutoBase?​

 

[Olorin]

yes, your arguements are ridiculous. you post a pic of a genius next to Sarah Palin and then thats supposed to prove your point? didnt you claim you were a scientist before and yet this is the best you can come up with an arguement? so you're saying evolutionists are so great because you post a pic of a satelite and Prof Hawkin and creationists are dumb by posting Palin?

appeal to belief
appeal to authority
appeal to popularity

your point is invalid and fallacious

oh and fyi there are scientists who dont buy into evolution

i told you they were gonna be ridiculous
no i didnt prove my point but you didnt either
fyi thats not a satellite
well yes if you believe the earth is 6.000 years old than by my standards you are stupid = Palin
and no scientists around here are creationsists because that would mean that they could not possible work on the science of physics normally (because according to it the earth isnt 6000 years old) , well not modern physics anyway

i could repost the evidence on the dinosaur issue but it has already been done, it has already been done by trivial science programmes like discovery and NGC, look it up its the fastest way in paleontology 101

 

[NarutoKage2]

plus the sky i blue which i believe is the reflection of the ocean right? so um maybe that explains why genesis describe the sky as a water vault.

This guy is serious or what?

You must be registered for see links

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

The blue color of the sky that you see is due to the effect of the atmosphere on the wavelength of visible light. Not because it reflects the ocean, do you think the atmosphere above us is a giant mirror lol?
An education, its a great thing to have before making yourself look like a fool on the internet. Your statement pretty much sums up the credibility of everything else your saying as well.

 

[Aze]

yes but ignore the fact that ancient civilizations around the world have depicted dinosaurs and depicted people living with them. the pictures and scuptures are undeniably dinosaurs, and there fossils of dinos and humans together. thats fact, its not a theory or conspiracy, its fact that there re fossils that had both dino and human remains.

but why are those ignored by you? if i could talked to a scientist, i'd ask them the same thing.

none of the internet stuff is bs or made up, they provided artifacts. they are remains of the past. and its up to us to interpret the vaild reasons behind why the Incas had pictures of dinosaurs, or why the egyptians had pictures of dinosaurs, or why there are legends around the world of dragons, or why there are footprints of humans and dinos, or why there has been accounts and witnessing reports of the loch ness monster, creatures that resemble pleisosaurs and creatures that resemble pterodactyls, from people of reputable and credible backgrounds, why? and you ignore the artifacts and stick to the lie that has been given to you that you came from a monkey.

evolution itself is not scientific, never has been proven fact and can never will, because evolution claims things evolve in a timespan of billions and millions of years, but no one can observe that or claim it to be true, it is not and cannot be experimented on, it is not scientific because it cant be proven using the basic scientific method.


"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]"

evolution cannot be observed, measured, experimented or measured for realibility. cannot be tested by the scienific method, which is used to term things scientific. to call evolution scientific is an oxymoron itself.



i just made you aware. if you dont believe me then look it up for yourself, you choose to be ignorant? its easy to just believe what you are told and not find answers for yourself isnt it?

Ajanta caves have nothing to do with this, stick to the point. and did you not read my point on the dragons thing? did you read this thread at all? dragons are the name of dinosaurs of the past.



look up what an "ad hominem"

just becuse they are from religious sites and religious people does not make them false or invalid. they presented artifacts, they presented evidence that suggest dinos lived with man and you ignore them just because it came from religious people? you are a fool and ignorant for doing so. i dont buy into evolution but it doesnt mean i hate science, doesnt mean i dont agree with physicsor chemistry or biology, in fact i love science and all those things.

you want something scientific? eplain to me how is it possible for a t rex fossil to have tissue in it if its supposedly 65 millions years old?

you did not provide any evidence, you begged the question, said "well scientists say dinos are millions years old and never lived with man so its true", ignored what i said and just said "well its not true cuz it came from reliigous people" which s a fallacy, invalid arguement.

let m tell you this that the science has not always been right. you think im wrong because science of this age says evolution is true, even though it has never been proven and it cant be proven. there was a time when sientists believed that abiogenesis. during this time is when evolution came about from Darwin because abiogenesis was deemed to be a scientific thing. but abiogenesis has long been disproven and with that evolution should have as well because abiogenesis is the only way evolution could have been true.

if you dont know at all what im talking about then go educate yourself. and look into it.

and the water vault i the sky, well what is in the sky? clouds. dont clouds have water droplets or ice crystals? when it rains whats falling? water right? where does that water comes from the sky right? why? because theres water in the sky... right? plus the sky i blue which i believe is the reflection of the ocean right? so um maybe that explains why genesis describe the sky as a water vault.



yes, your arguements are ridiculous. you post a pic of a genius next to Sarah Palin and then thats supposed to prove your point? didnt you claim you were a scientist before and yet this is the best you can come up with an arguement? so you're saying evolutionists are so great because you post a pic of a satelite and Prof Hawkin and creationists are dumb by posting Palin?

appeal to belief
appeal to authority
appeal to popularity

your point is invalid and fallacious

oh and fyi there are scientists who dont buy into evolution

All of your claims are out of content relating to reality.

They are in Fantasy and Delusion.


If you can present this "evidence" to the academic community = and get their approval = then sir you have just won a nobel prize.​

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

You do not have valid expertice do discuss on these subjects.​

Argumentum ad hominem

invalid argument is invalid...

First human beings who where able to walk on 2 legs where homo erectus.

They lived 1.3-1.8 million years ago.

Homo Sapiens are practicaly 200 thousand years old species.

We started using tools about 50-55 thousand years ago.

Oldest villages are around 12 thousand years old.

The first civlication is about 6 thousand years old = Sumerians.


Dinasaurs walked the earth 100+ million years ago.

according to the theory of evolution.. you are begging the question just by explainging it.. i understand full well what the theory is.. i know what it teaches and what its about. no need to waste yours or my time by explainging it..

try explaining why there are historical artifacts and evidences that disproves it? if a fossil of a dinosaur and human are found together, dating back to the same time, do you undermine it because it does not fit your theory? or do you acknowledge it and rethink about what you believe?

Call = proffesor = Richard Dawkins = Tell him your story.

He will have a good laugh

there are thousands of scientists just as mar who disagree with Dawkins. if you find Dawkins to be better then them and think evoution is right just because Dawkins thinks so then your appealing to authority.

btw your also appealing to ridicule.

And you seem to think highly of your "Prime Intelligence"

strawman

And oh , you just "proved" Evolution wrong.

straw man

Wat are you waiting for , go and get your Nobel Prize now.

That kind of discovery needs a Nobel Prize.

straw man

straw man...

appeal to ridicule

Ill write something for you Big and clear : EVOLUTION DOES NOT NEED AN APPROACH OF FAITH DO BELIEVE IN IT , EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.

appeal to ridicule

begging the question

It's called Theory of Evolution for a reason , since it was its Original name.

and your point is........................?

We Also Have Theory of Relativity = lays basis for every Satelite out of space , all their navigation and communication systems are based on this theory.

Theory of Thermodynamics = lays basis for absolutely every chemical system and laws surrounding them.

irrelevant

irrelevant

red herring

red herring

Theory of Evolution = Explains , how everything is chosen by natural selection , and the stronger will survive , and life orginisms , will change their shape , their habidation , based on enviorment.

i agree with natural selection, i agree the "most fit" (not "stronger") will survive, agree organisms adapt to their environment.

but organisms cannot change shape or change species. this has never been recorded, never been seen, never been experimented and is not scientific at all.

also you must believe that life came from non living things too huh? because thats where the whole evolution process began. abiogenesis. which is not scientific and has been proven false.

IF EVOLUTION IS WRONG BY YOUR STATEMENT = THEN WE WOULD BE SINGEL CELL LIFE ORGANISMS CURRENTLY , AND I WONT BE POSTING THIS.

um no..... hasty generalization is hasty generalization...

Evolution explained = come at me bro , turn proffesor Richard Dawkins statements against him and prove him wrong.

i havent checked the vid but i promise i will

Prove EVOLUTION WRONG TO THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY = AND YOU WILL WIN A NOBEL PRIZE = SINCE THEN YOU HAVE PROVEN COUNTLESS OF SCIENTIST WRONG DURING CENTURIES OF KNOWLEDGE.

many scientists have came forth and proved it wrong. many religious leaders have so as well. in fact many people in general have came out and proven to be wrong.

fact of the matter is evolution doesnt have any evidence to support it. not even the fossil records. i mean come on you get a bunch of bones, put them in the order that you want and say "well this guy came from this and that guy came from that, and booya Ev Oh Luuuu Shun!"

just because humans skull resembles ape skulls does not mean we share a commo ancestory. in fact why is it that homo erectus and homo sapiens are different species? just because homo erectus were supposedly dumber? had different shaped skulls? different lifestyles and way of living? then by definition wouldnt that make people of different races and countries "different species"? because a white person in america has a different shaped skull from a black guy from africa and they have a general different level of education and lifestyle.

NarutoBase = wont get you much attention.

But I'm willing to protect Evolution theory from people like you , who are blinded in their ignorance , and do not posses common sense of anykind.

not looking for attention. a nice debate maybe. maybe get some people thinking a lil bit.

and there we have the truth!! you are will to protect evolution even if there are emprical evidence of it being false! you will protect what you believe till your last breathe huh? well good for you.

Do not hate me..

straw man

i dont hate you. why would i? just because we have different opinions? why do people think that someone will hate him just because his opinion is different?

Hate the Creationists who manipulate people to believe things , that are not scientificaly accurate = complete BS

i think you are the one being manipulated sir. in school, the media, tv, even by those deemed highly eduated would have you believe something is scientifically true when it is not scientific at all.

but feel free to believe that you came from monkeys if you wish.

And Creationists = Do have manipulated people do follow them = A fact.

and evolutionists have manipualted the majority of people to follow them. either follow them or be made fun of and called stupid if you dont. even if your a scientist and dont believe evolution you get shunned. - a fact

I was raised Cahtolic , and I did believed in GOD until the age of 13 and so.

I thinked , that the world was 6000 years old lol = Look how stupid I was.

yes you were raised to believe in God, i imagined something tragic happened or you just bought into the bull and now you renounced God and eve hate him. you think you were stupid because you did not agree with the popular belief. and thats how the they have conditioned people to be, believe evolution and be smart or believe creation and be stupid.

Now currently i'm into science and rational thinking , And i know , that Universe is Billions of years old = And at one point all matter was in an Infinite dense state = and at some point all that energy was unleashed = with a big bang = since the microwave radiation still excists = the echo of the big bang.

Longest reply on NarutoBase?

​

i am also into science and rational thinking.

doesnt mean i beleive the universe is bllions of years old or was an infinite dense state (being an infinite dense space? that doesnt even make sense. how could it be infinite? cant be measured?) big bang, pool of life, matter configuring itself into living single cells, fishes turning into monkeys and monkeys turning into apes... right..

no ive seen longer... no homo

i told you they were gonna be ridiculous
no i didnt prove my point but you didnt either
fyi thats not a satellite
well yes if you believe the earth is 6.000 years old than by my standards you are stupid = Palin
and no scientists around here are creationsists because that would mean that they could not possible work on the science of physics normally (because according to it the earth isnt 6000 years old) , well not modern physics anyway

i could repost the evidence on the dinosaur issue but it has already been done, it has already been done by trivial science programmes like discovery and NGC, look it up its the fastest way in paleontology 101

yes i did.

idk what it is but i dont care its irrelevant.

personal attacks is personal attacks

why is it you feel the need to insult others by calling them stupid, Sarah Palin is far from stupid and i am far from stupid. creationists are far from stupid and there are scientists who do not believe in evolution, they are extremely far from stupid. but thats what people like you do, those who disagree with the theory of evolution get called stupid even if the person is a credible scientist they get shunned from the scientific world..

just like when people were coming out saying the world was round, or that flies and maggts do not come from garbage or rotted meats (abiogenesis), etc.

again you are appealing to poplarity/authority/belief. plus with some personal attacks and strawmens to throw into it huh?

This guy is serious or what?

You must be registered for see links

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

The blue color of the sky that you see is due to the effect of the atmosphere on the wavelength of visible light. Not because it reflects the ocean, do you think the atmosphere above us is a giant mirror lol?
An education, its a great thing to have before making yourself look like a fool on the internet. Your statement pretty much sums up the credibility of everything else your saying as well.

excuse my mistake and thank you for pointing it out and throughly explaining why the sky is blue. its not that i was really trying to really get into it but my point is there was a reason why the sky was described as an ocean in the sky. thank you again for thuroughly exlaining it and saving me the trouble.

no just because i make one mistake doesnt mean everything else i said is less credible or wrong. you point out one mistake and try to sum up the rest of my revious comment is fallicious.

why dont you try to come up with better arguements fr yourself without personally attacking credibility of a person? because its not about my crediblity or the credibility of the people who made the websites and vids i posted, its about the credibility of the fossils, the tissue in the t rex fossil, the historical artifacts from around the world, the eye witness accounts and etc. thats what you should be talking about and not trying personal attacks.

look up straw man fallacy... and ad hominem.

edit: btw how the fuk you ignored everything else that i saidin my last comment to you and solely and purposely attack one mistake i made?!?!?!? lmaooo i see what you tried to do there... you thought you were going to make a good arguement by ignoring everything i said and just focusing on a mistake? you really thought that?

 

[Makoto]

yes but ignore the fact that ancient civilizations around the world have depicted dinosaurs and depicted people living with them. the pictures and scuptures are undeniably dinosaurs, and there fossils of dinos and humans together. thats fact, its not a theory or conspiracy, its fact that there re fossils that had both dino and human remains.

but why are those ignored by you? if i could talked to a scientist, i'd ask them the same thing.

none of the internet stuff is bs or made up, they provided artifacts. they are remains of the past. and its up to us to interpret the vaild reasons behind why the Incas had pictures of dinosaurs, or why the egyptians had pictures of dinosaurs, or why there are legends around the world of dragons, or why there are footprints of humans and dinos, or why there has been accounts and witnessing reports of the loch ness monster, creatures that resemble pleisosaurs and creatures that resemble pterodactyls, from people of reputable and credible backgrounds, why? and you ignore the artifacts and stick to the lie that has been given to you that you came from a monkey.

evolution itself is not scientific, never has been proven fact and can never will, because evolution claims things evolve in a timespan of billions and millions of years, but no one can observe that or claim it to be true, it is not and cannot be experimented on, it is not scientific because it cant be proven using the basic scientific method.


"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]"

evolution cannot be observed, measured, experimented or measured for realibility. cannot be tested by the scienific method, which is used to term things scientific. to call evolution scientific is an oxymoron itself.



i just made you aware. if you dont believe me then look it up for yourself, you choose to be ignorant? its easy to just believe what you are told and not find answers for yourself isnt it?

Ajanta caves have nothing to do with this, stick to the point. and did you not read my point on the dragons thing? did you read this thread at all? dragons are the name of dinosaurs of the past.



look up what an "ad hominem"

just becuse they are from religious sites and religious people does not make them false or invalid. they presented artifacts, they presented evidence that suggest dinos lived with man and you ignore them just because it came from religious people? you are a fool and ignorant for doing so. i dont buy into evolution but it doesnt mean i hate science, doesnt mean i dont agree with physicsor chemistry or biology, in fact i love science and all those things.

you want something scientific? eplain to me how is it possible for a t rex fossil to have tissue in it if its supposedly 65 millions years old?

you did not provide any evidence, you begged the question, said "well scientists say dinos are millions years old and never lived with man so its true", ignored what i said and just said "well its not true cuz it came from reliigous people" which s a fallacy, invalid arguement.

let m tell you this that the science has not always been right. you think im wrong because science of this age says evolution is true, even though it has never been proven and it cant be proven. there was a time when sientists believed that abiogenesis. during this time is when evolution came about from Darwin because abiogenesis was deemed to be a scientific thing. but abiogenesis has long been disproven and with that evolution should have as well because abiogenesis is the only way evolution could have been true.

if you dont know at all what im talking about then go educate yourself. and look into it.

and the water vault i the sky, well what is in the sky? clouds. dont clouds have water droplets or ice crystals? when it rains whats falling? water right? where does that water comes from the sky right? why? because theres water in the sky... right? plus the sky i blue which i believe is the reflection of the ocean right? so um maybe that explains why genesis describe the sky as a water vault.



yes, your arguements are ridiculous. you post a pic of a genius next to Sarah Palin and then thats supposed to prove your point? didnt you claim you were a scientist before and yet this is the best you can come up with an arguement? so you're saying evolutionists are so great because you post a pic of a satelite and Prof Hawkin and creationists are dumb by posting Palin?

appeal to belief
appeal to authority
appeal to popularity

your point is invalid and fallacious

oh and fyi there are scientists who dont buy into evolution

You provide valid points that they simply choose to ignore, and reply with an appeal to authority and popularity instead of actually thinking for themselves. This kind of thinking is what hindered scientific progress and learning about our world when people refused to believe in Christopher Columbus, until he proved them wrong at a period of late dark ages early renaissance. Science isn't about trusting authority, it's not about believing what others say is true, science is actually questioning and challenging authority and theories, it's how theories can evolve and we can sort out the facts from the beliefs. Anyone who says evolution is true because scientists and the majority of people believe it to be true doesn't know science.

You brought up this thread as a means of a discussion where everyone can discuss their viewpoints and you have shared your viewpoints. I can also tell you're quite knowledgeable in the subject because people would never equate dinosaur with dragon because they're two different words talking about different species, or are they? You bring up the point they are the same, and I would have to agree because the word dinosaur didn't exist thousands of years ago when people referred to them as dragons, and I also agree it is a valid point that you mention that dragons and dinosaurs have so many physical similarities that I would agree makes it possible that dragons in reality are dinosaurs.

I would also like to add to what you said about evolution. It seems that the observable evolution we've seen is speciation and microevolution, but we have yet to be able to observe, test, and reproduce the evolution that happens that can not only create new species, but create new and different families in order altogether. The first lifeforms were bacteria, and, according to evolutionary theory, evolved over time to eventually become us. We've seen all kinds of evolution occuring for the genus and species classifications of living organisms, but we have yet to observe, test, and reproduce evolution to the extent of fish becoming land animals, and eventually birds coming along later and so on and so forth. Even the cambrian explosion is a source of intense debate among evolutionists, and that alone should raise questions since evolution is known to not happen that quick.

There is so much to comment on, but long story short, I gave you a rep and sent a friend request. I hope you accept. You researched the topic well and have provided good arguments for a good discussion for which I have yet to see a good argument against.

this is getting ridiculous so ill be ridiculous:
ppl who believe in evolution made
satellites
and give us ppl like:
Stephen Hawking
creationists give us ppl like
Sarah Palin

my point: the world of science (i.e. the smartest ppl) is largly dominated by evolutionists because they get evolution and see how creationists are desperately holding onto the bible

As for you, my friend, the world of science is largely dominated by evolutionists because they don't truly understand evolution. 76% of doctors in the medical community believe in God, and 55% believe in the afterlife. Bear in mind these are professionals who have studied and understood evolution, how the body works, and how medicine works. These are some of the most educated members of society, and the majority believe in God. And before you say I'm making it up, google it. Then come to me and tell me how the smarter you are, the less religious you are because, to state the obvious, doctors are some of the most, if not the most, educated members of our society.

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

You provide valid points that they simply choose to ignore, and reply with an appeal to authority and popularity instead of actually thinking for themselves. This kind of thinking is what hindered scientific progress and learning about our world when people refused to believe in Christopher Columbus, until he proved them wrong at a period of late dark ages early renaissance. Science isn't about trusting authority, it's not about believing what others say is true, science is actually questioning and challenging authority and theories, it's how theories can evolve and we can sort out the facts from the beliefs. Anyone who says evolution is true because scientists and the majority of people believe it to be true doesn't know science.

You brought up this thread as a means of a discussion where everyone can discuss their viewpoints and you have shared your viewpoints. I can also tell you're quite knowledgeable in the subject because people would never equate dinosaur with dragon because they're two different words talking about different species, or are they? You bring up the point they are the same, and I would have to agree because the word dinosaur didn't exist thousands of years ago when people referred to them as dragons, and I also agree it is a valid point that you mention that dragons and dinosaurs have so many physical similarities that I would agree makes it possible that dragons in reality are dinosaurs.

I would also like to add to what you said about evolution. It seems that the observable evolution we've seen is speciation and microevolution, but we have yet to be able to observe, test, and reproduce the evolution that happens that can not only create new species, but create new and different families in order altogether. The first lifeforms were bacteria, and, according to evolutionary theory, evolved over time to eventually become us. We've seen all kinds of evolution occuring for the genus and species classifications of living organisms, but we have yet to observe, test, and reproduce evolution to the extent of fish becoming land animals, and eventually birds coming along later and so on and so forth. Even the cambrian explosion is a source of intense debate among evolutionists, and that alone should raise questions since evolution is known to not happen that quick.

You researched the topic well and have provided good arguments for a good discussion for which I have yet to see a good argument against.



As for you, my friend, the world of science is largely dominated by evolutionists because they don't truly understand evolution. 76% of doctors in the medical community believe in God, and 55% believe in the afterlife. Bear in mind these are professionals who have studied and understood evolution, how the body works, and how medicine works. These are some of the most educated members of society, and the majority believe in God. And before you say I'm making it up, google it. Then come to me and tell me how the smarter you are, the less religious you are because, to state the obvious, doctors are some of the most, if not the most, educated members of our society.

oh my god.. thank you.. i seriously almost want to cry but im to manly and macho.. lol seriously thank you it feels like a ton of weight has been lifted and i know thats cliche but i just let out a great sigh of relief that someone finally have gotten "it"!

not that i was trying to force my ideas down someones throat, or trying to make people beleive or agree but i just wanted to get people thinking and really think about the other possibilities, to think maybe what theyve been told is not entirey true and that maybe theres other possible answers.

i love the Colombus analogy even though i dont like Colombus personally but i love the analogy. man you just got exactly what i said and i hope you look into this thread furth and look into the subject for yourself, something i was asking everyone to do from te beginning was to look into it themselves and decide from themselves and not be biased.

also thank ou about the survey with Doctors believing in God and the after life.. i didnt know that

lastly i dont think speciation has been seen but i know micro evolution to be observed and true. speciation is new specie arising from different species right? that hasnt happened, not even in bacterias or single celled organisms. correct me if im wrong.

maybe im wrong but i have to look more into specation.. bottom line different species or new species arising has never been recorded or witnessed.

anyways thanks again man.. welcome to NB btw.

 

[Aze]

You provide valid points that they simply choose to ignore, and reply with an appeal to authority and popularity instead of actually thinking for themselves. This kind of thinking is what hindered scientific progress and learning about our world when people refused to believe in Christopher Columbus, until he proved them wrong at a period of late dark ages early renaissance. Science isn't about trusting authority, it's not about believing what others say is true, science is actually questioning and challenging authority and theories, it's how theories can evolve and we can sort out the facts from the beliefs. Anyone who says evolution is true because scientists and the majority of people believe it to be true doesn't know science.

You brought up this thread as a means of a discussion where everyone can discuss their viewpoints and you have shared your viewpoints. I can also tell you're quite knowledgeable in the subject because people would never equate dinosaur with dragon because they're two different words talking about different species, or are they? You bring up the point they are the same, and I would have to agree because the word dinosaur didn't exist thousands of years ago when people referred to them as dragons, and I also agree it is a valid point that you mention that dragons and dinosaurs have so many physical similarities that I would agree makes it possible that dragons in reality are dinosaurs.

I would also like to add to what you said about evolution. It seems that the observable evolution we've seen is speciation and microevolution, but we have yet to be able to observe, test, and reproduce the evolution that happens that can not only create new species, but create new and different families in order altogether. The first lifeforms were bacteria, and, according to evolutionary theory, evolved over time to eventually become us. We've seen all kinds of evolution occuring for the genus and species classifications of living organisms, but we have yet to observe, test, and reproduce evolution to the extent of fish becoming land animals, and eventually birds coming along later and so on and so forth. Even the cambrian explosion is a source of intense debate among evolutionists, and that alone should raise questions since evolution is known to not happen that quick.

You researched the topic well and have provided good arguments for a good discussion for which I have yet to see a good argument against.



As for you, my friend, the world of science is largely dominated by evolutionists because they don't truly understand evolution. 76% of doctors in the medical community believe in God, and 55% believe in the afterlife. Bear in mind these are professionals who have studied and understood evolution, how the body works, and how medicine works. These are some of the most educated members of society, and the majority believe in God. And before you say I'm making it up, google it. Then come to me and tell me how the smarter you are, the less religious you are because, to state the obvious, doctors are some of the most, if not the most, educated members of our society.

The % of Doctors in the medical community who believe in god = Have nothing to do with Evolution.



Evolution is a term used to describe natural selection and the progress of species.

Life is a self replicating proccess.

Evolution is just a term , that explaing real thing , that you can measure , observe.

You can explain Evolution = By Scientific method = It's true.​

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

​

holy crap thank you for wasting 14 mins of my life.. what does any of this have to do with what ive been talking about this whole time in my thread with the idea dinosaurs and man co existing??!

Red Herring is Red Herring!!!

The % of Doctors in the medical community who believe in god = Have nothing to do with Evolution.



Evolution is a term used to describe natural selection and the progress of species.

Life is a self replicating proccess.

Evolution is just a term , that explaing real thing , that you can measure , observe.

You can explain Evolution = By Scientific method = It's true.​

when was the last time anybody ever saw a species turning into another species? and no i dont mean looking at bones. and i mean by nature and not made in a lab like a liger or mule.

it hasnt been observed you say? so its not scientific. by definition it is not

also where did the first cell come from?!?!

and third please we are getting off track i didnt want to get into an arguement about evolution being true or not but have people discussion about stuff like these

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[Ninpou]

Homosapiens in existence at the same time as Dinosours is a definite no but its possible that Homoerectus was in existence but they were only intelegent enough to use stone tools and fire not draw what they see.

 

[Aze]

holy crap thank you for wasting 14 mins of my life.. what does any of this have to do with what ive been talking about this whole time in my thread with the idea dinosaurs and man co existing??!

Red Herring is Red Herring!!!

I was using this to prove that Evolution is correct = and there is no denying in it.


Now to your evidence.


Do you know , that it's scientificaly impossible for "human" beings to walk around with "Dinosaurs" = Since the time lines do not fit.

The time lines do not fit , have you done research about the time lines?

Of Dinosaurs(exctinct species) and Homo Erectus (our ancestors)

Dinosaurs got exctinct about 60-65 million years ago.

Human ancestor walked the earth on two legs over 1 milion+ years ago.

And Homo Sapiens 200 thousand years ago.

By your statement your wrong by the factor of 57-65 = if Homo Erectus walked with Dinos.


Or by a factor of 300+ if Homo sapiens walked with dinos.


Do you see there is extreme time cap between your opinion = And = It = lacks the basic scientific evidence = All wat you have are some pictures.

Pictures = There is a reason to question the authentity of pictures in the first place.


Also I must say to you , that in some sense you are correct.

I have even myself walked together with a descendant of the Dinosaurs = Namely Birds.

Birds are the direct lineage of some dinosaurs.


Also , I have seen a similar discussion about some one finding a 30+ million years old human finger , and some one finding metalic tools over 100 million years old = And in the end they all ended up being hoaxes.


Question the evidence , try to debunk it.


Currently all wat you have sayed = is just an opinion = and not scientific fact.

 

[MidKnight]

So what you are saying is that man was also present during the extinction of Dinosaurs right? That doesnt make that much sense tbh. How would dinosaurs not survive, but man does?

 

[Aze]

You must be registered for see images

Aliens?

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

There is more evidence , indicating this fantasy of aliens in ancient times rather than man walking with dinosaurs lol.

Humans have allways had wild imagination

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

Homosapiens in existence at the same time as Dinosours is a definite no but its possible that Homoerectus was in existence but they were only intelegent enough to use stone tools and fire not draw what they see.

the artifacts i posted in this thread disproves your comment

I was using this to prove that Evolution is correct = and there is no denying in it.

that guy didnt prove evolution. he took a board, added half a ball, than another half a ball until he had a ball with a lil hole and put a lens in front and said "this is how the eye developed" even though scientists have never ever witnessed this actual development to even happen...

and you thought that was scientific proof? you dont know what science is. besides all Dawkins proved is that past animals need a to be in a dark room and a flash light flashed in their eyes so they could even see a shadow or a vague image. notice when the lights in the room were on you couldnt see an image on the screen but when the lights were dark and flashing a flashlight on the ball then you could see an image...

fail.

Now to your evidence.


Do you know , that it's scientificaly impossible for "human" beings to walk around with "Dinosaurs" = Since the time lines do not fit.

The time lines do not fit , have you done research about the time lines?

Of Dinosaurs(exctinct species) and Homo Erectus (our ancestors)

Dinosaurs got exctinct about 60-65 million years ago.

Human ancestor walked the earth on two legs over 1 milion+ years ago.

And Homo Sapiens 200 thousand years ago.

By your statement your wrong by the factor of 57-65 = if Homo Erectus walked with Dinos.


Or by a factor of 300+ if Homo sapiens walked with dinos.


Do you see there is extreme time cap between your opinion = And = It = lacks the basic scientific evidence = All wat you have are some pictures.

Pictures = There is a reason to question the authentity of pictures in the first place.


Also I must say to you , that in some sense you are correct.

I have even myself walked together with a descendant of the Dinosaurs = Namely Birds.

Birds are the direct lineage of some dinosaurs.


Also , I have seen a similar discussion about some one finding a 30+ million years old human finger , and some one finding metalic tools over 100 million years old = And in the end they all ended up being hoaxes.


Question the evidence , try to debunk it.


Currently all wat you have sayed = is just an opinion = and not scientific fact.

so if the artifact that is found in nature does not fit the timeline created by faulty imperfect men, who did not live for billions and millions of years to witness evolution in the first place, then the historical artifact or fossil is wrong?


hmmmmmmmmmm i think there is something wrong with this logic.. dont you?

these fossils and artifacts have been found, they dont fit with what evolution says so they are wrong?...

theres many different fossils of human prints and dinosaur prints but because evolution says dinos and humans never lived together then those fossils are, wrong?

im really here scratching my head..... how do you favor the words of man then scientific, historical evidence...?

hmm ancient civlizations draw and sculp dinosaurs. well creatures that resemble dinosaurs. dinosaurs that took us hundreds of years to even figure out what they would look like only based on their bones, these civilizations thousands and thousands years old knew what dinosaurs looked liked before we had te knowledge or technology to even GUESS what they looked liked based on their bones and those historical drawings, paintings and sculptures are wrong? hmmm

witness accounts of dinosaurs, all around the world, for hundreds and thousands of years, some by credible people, and all those people must have lied and been a hoaxed right? hmmmm.....

i just dont get it.. so we have to base all the fossils and historical artifacts on the timeline huh? cuz evolution is fact huh, even though it has never been witnessed, which is agaisnt the scientific method, making it NOT scietific... hmmmmm

soooooooo what do you do when theres evidence agaisnt evolution? you question the credibility of the evidence and try to debunk it!! and thats exactly what people have been doing agaisnt the inca paintings, the Dinosaur Land full of human and dinosaur fossils in Texas, the dragon stories, the Loch Ness monster and witness accounts of mokele mbembe. discredit the artifact, discredit the people. because it "doesnt fit the timeline" like you said.....

thank you!

again you appeal to athority, belief, novelty, and popularity.

please just watch this vid.. its long but watch it..

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

So what you are saying is that man was also present during the extinction of Dinosaurs right? That doesnt make that much sense tbh. How would dinosaurs not survive, but man does?

no.. not what i'm saying at all..... look into the thread a lil more

You must be registered for see images

Aliens?

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

There is more evidence , indicating this fantasy of aliens in ancient times rather than man walking with dinosaurs lol.

Humans have allways had wild imagination

has nothing to do with this..

has there been footprints of humans and aliens together? like the footprints of humans and dinos together?

yes evolution is probably the most wildest thing created from the imagination of humans... see what i did there?

 

[Aze]

the artifacts i posted in this thread disproves your comment



that guy didnt prove evolution. he took a board, added half a ball, than another half a ball until he had a ball with a lil hole and put a lens in front and said "this is how the eye developed" even though scientists have never ever witnessed this actual development to even happen...

and you thought that was scientific proof? you dont know what science is. besides all Dawkins proved is that past animals need a to be in a dark room and a flash light flashed in their eyes so they could even see a shadow or a vague image. notice when the lights in the room were on you couldnt see an image on the screen but when the lights were dark and flashing a flashlight on the ball then you could see an image...

fail.




so if the artifact that is found in nature does not fit the timeline created by faulty imperfect men, who did not live for billions and millions of years to witness evolution in the first place, then the historical artifact or fossil is wrong?


hmmmmmmmmmm i think there is something wrong with this logic.. dont you?

these fossils and artifacts have been found, they dont fit with what evolution says so they are wrong?...

theres many different fossils of human prints and dinosaur prints but because evolution says dinos and humans never lived together then those fossils are, wrong?

im really here scratching my head..... how do you favor the words of man then scientific, historical evidence...?

hmm ancient civlizations draw and sculp dinosaurs. well creatures that resemble dinosaurs. dinosaurs that took us hundreds of years to even figure out what they would look like only based on their bones, these civilizations thousands and thousands years old knew what dinosaurs looked liked before we had te knowledge or technology to even GUESS what they looked liked based on their bones and those historical drawings, paintings and sculptures are wrong? hmmm

witness accounts of dinosaurs, all around the world, for hundreds and thousands of years, some by credible people, and all those people must have lied and been a hoaxed right? hmmmm.....

i just dont get it.. so we have to base all the fossils and historical artifacts on the timeline huh? cuz evolution is fact huh, even though it has never been witnessed, which is agaisnt the scientific method, making it NOT scietific... hmmmmm

soooooooo what do you do when theres evidence agaisnt evolution? you question the credibility of the evidence and try to debunk it!! and thats exactly what people have been doing agaisnt the inca paintings, the Dinosaur Land full of human and dinosaur fossils in Texas, the dragon stories, the Loch Ness monster and witness accounts of mokele mbembe. discredit the artifact, discredit the people. because it "doesnt fit the timeline" like you said.....

thank you!

again you appeal to athority, belief, novelty, and popularity.

please just watch this vid.. its long but watch it..

You just ignored a scientific valid point.

The time lines do not match for your opinion.

Humans have had wild imaginations for a long time.

They have drawn alot more complicated things in ancient times = than "dinosaurs".

Ancient people where surrounded by lizards and snakes.

But they may have interpeted them differently.



A painting from 13'th century.

You must be registered for see images

21'st century.

You must be registered for see images

This was the average difference about 700+ years.

now Imagine caveman from 20000 years ago?

or 40k years ago?

Would you say their depictions are accurate to our modern times?

The answer is no.​

 

[Frikid]

omg sooo big posts in this thead...

guess You have to do DINO posts if you wanna discuss about dinosaurs xd

i always had to much interest on dinosaurs but they said on discovery that the dinosaurs extinct a long time ago and thats why we only find fossils and bones of them.

I think i read in biology that we use method of carbon dating to tell how old bones of dinosaurs are believe they are wayy older than so6p...
i don't think humans ever lived with dinosaurs, i only believe my eyes...
if i saw a dragon in reality i would believe you

P.S : i didn't read any of those HUGE posts U_U

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

You just ignored a scientific valid point.

The time lines do not match for your opinion.

Humans have had wild imaginations for a long time.

They have drawn alot more complicated things in ancient times = than "dinosaurs".

Ancient people where surrounded by lizards and snakes.

But they may have interpeted them differently.



A painting from 13'th century.

You must be registered for see images

21'st century.

You must be registered for see images

This was the average difference about 700+ years.

now Imagine caveman from 20000 years ago?

or 40k years ago?

Would you say their depictions are accurate to our modern times?

The answer is no.​

the first picture is a depiction o a mother holding her child. the second is a depiction of a man. the style of art has change over years but to decipher and conclude what is being depicted in a cave drawig, or a past art or current art of todays time is not that hard, especially if its not abstract..

also your making a hasty generalization with just 2 pictures made from two different time periods and different regions of the world! art is also very different in different parts of te world but all over the world theres depictions of these creatures that resemble dinosaurs, your ignoring how much they look like dinosaurs and trying to say theyre lizards and snakes? please....

again you are not addressing the paintings or FOSSILS but trying to debunk them, discredit them and undermine them..

even if you question the paintings like these

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

and sculptures like these

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

and everything else on this link

You must be registered for see links

what about the fossils of human and dinosaur footprints.. i have posted enough throughout this thread... should we discredit those too because it does not fit the timeline?

omg sooo big posts in this thead...

guess You have to do DINO posts if you wanna discuss about dinosaurs xd

i always had to much interest on dinosaurs but they said on discovery that the dinosaurs extinct a long time ago and thats why we only find fossils and bones of them.

I think i read in biology that we use method of carbon dating to tell how old bones of dinosaurs are believe they are wayy older than so6p...
i don't think humans ever lived with dinosaurs, i only believe my eyes...
if i saw a dragon in reality i would believe you

P.S : i didn't read any of those HUGE posts U_U

i can understand not reading the huge posts.. when you find the time you should read some of them, at least mines, and then come back to me and we can discuss...

some cool stuff in the posts from everyone really

 

[Makoto]

The % of Doctors in the medical community who believe in god = Have nothing to do with Evolution.



Evolution is a term used to describe natural selection and the progress of species.

Life is a self replicating proccess.

Evolution is just a term , that explaing real thing , that you can measure , observe.

You can explain Evolution = By Scientific method = It's true.​

Doctors believing in God has nothing to do with evolution? How so? Just claiming that doctors believing in God has nothing with evolution doesn't make it so. By the way, an argument was used how scientists were intelligent and therefore didn't believe in God, I countered that argument by giving a valid claim that you can research on your own that just because you understand evolution and just because you study science and become more intelligent, it doesn't mean you stop believing in religion. Doctors are arguably the most educated members of society, and doctors believe in God and the afterlife, despite the "overwhelming" evidence for evolution and against creation, but the point isn't evolution vs creation, I'm simply stating my points and, like NarutoVsGoku, I wish to have a good discussion.

oh my god.. thank you.. i seriously almost want to cry but im to manly and macho.. lol seriously thank you it feels like a ton of weight has been lifted and i know thats cliche but i just let out a great sigh of relief that someone finally have gotten "it"!

not that i was trying to force my ideas down someones throat, or trying to make people beleive or agree but i just wanted to get people thinking and really think about the other possibilities, to think maybe what theyve been told is not entirey true and that maybe theres other possible answers.

i love the Colombus analogy even though i dont like Colombus personally but i love the analogy. man you just got exactly what i said and i hope you look into this thread furth and look into the subject for yourself, something i was asking everyone to do from te beginning was to look into it themselves and decide from themselves and not be biased.

also thank ou about the survey with Doctors believing in God and the after life.. i didnt know that

lastly i dont think speciation has been seen but i know micro evolution to be observed and true. speciation is new specie arising from different species right? that hasnt happened, not even in bacterias or single celled organisms. correct me if im wrong.

maybe im wrong but i have to look more into specation.. bottom line different species or new species arising has never been recorded or witnessed.

anyways thanks again man.. welcome to NB btw.

Thank you for the warm welcome on NB. I've been here for a while, I just haven't been posting or anything but lately I've been seeing threads that are worth posting on, such as this one. According to how speciation is defined, it's where a species converges in two different species that with enough time, cannot produce a viable offspring that can reproduce. Note that this kind of evolution is pretty much microevolution, just a little larger, it's not the kind of evolution that we both disagree with, the kind of evoluion that occurs through millions of years and changes fish into land animals and all that. But if you want a strong piece of evidence even scientists can't deny, it's the cambrian explosion. It's the mystery of evolution. Anyways, keep on with the sound arguments and logical thinking.