U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2017, 08:06 AM
 
Location: In God's Hand
1,100 posts, read 539,774 times
Reputation: 126

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder View Post
Alligators and crocodiles have changed little over the last 65 million years and still coexist with man. A salt water crocodile can grow to over twenty feet in length.
A Coelacanth was long assumed extinct for 66 millions of years ago, but they were discovered being alive in 1938 off of the coast of South Africa.

Then there are other sightings that were rationalized away or ignored completely in the science world.

20th Century Dinosaurs

The point of the OP is that science should consider that an extinction level event does not necessarily mean all dinosaurs were killed off. As the evolution theory is in the realm of only the theoritical where it cannot be observed nor proven, then they have to entertain the possibility that some dinosaurs have survived when physical evidence of men having seen a dinosaur are surfacing.

But that would mean after millions of years, the dinosaurs should be dominating the earth again.. unless..

Their dating methods are flawed and that the last extinction level event happened within human history like the Biblical global flood.

What else can be throwing the unobserved and unproven theory of evolution for a loop to consider?

The huge errant dating results for how old mankind is in relations to the evolutionary timetable.

Evolution Heresies - Herejias en La Evolucion

[quote][font=Arial][color=#422100] The view of the history of man accepted by conventional archaeology is that Homo sapiens evolved roughly 30,000 to 50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Later, humans crossed the Bering Straits land bridge into North America around 15,000 years ago. Thus there cannot be any indigenous man-made artifacts in North or South America older than around this date.

The trouble with this theory is that it can be maintained only by ignoring literally scores of archaeological finds that are unquestionably much older.

Last edited by Tallysmom; 01-14-2017 at 11:27 AM.. Reason: When quoting copyrighted text, only quote a few sentences, not whole passages. Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2017, 08:17 AM
 
Location: In God's Hand
1,100 posts, read 539,774 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Sez you.

And very few others.

That one carving which could be interpreted several ways -- not unlike your bible, by the way -- hardly "proves" man and dinosaurs co-existed.

As a previous poster said, the only dinosaur kin we share the planet with at present, are chickens and other birds. (Though crocs, turtles and others are kissin' cousins.)

Quit trying to force-fit evidence to prop up your beliefs and try to open your mind to other possibilities - and probabilities - that are much more likely to lead to truth.
Force-fit is the process that evolution theorists have been doing for quite some time. It is too bad you have not recognized that at all, especially when punctual equilibrium or rapid macro evolution was presented to "disprove" gradual macroevolution because there are huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records..... even though gradual macroevolution was force fit to us that there are so many evidence of supposed transitional fossils in the fossil records that gradual macroevolution must be true. * Not *

Of course, evolutionists fall back point is that science is always evolving and blah blah blah....but they are refusing to acknowledge that the new proposed theory is still only an assumption as well because the evolution theory as far as macroevolution is concern will always remain in the realm of the unobserved and the unproven, and yet we are being force-fit to believe in the evolution theory as being true when it is not.

And when you couple that with the information as to why scientists are motivated in that false science for their careers is because our government will give grants to that effect. Is that force fit enough for you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 08:21 AM
Status: "Amused by BF/V." (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
23,353 posts, read 12,079,766 times
Reputation: 10656
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit View Post
Force-fit is the process that evolution theorists have been doing for quite some time. It is too bad you have not recognized that at all, especially when punctual equilibrium or rapid macro evolution was presented to "disprove" gradual macroevolution because there are huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records..... even though gradual macroevolution was force fit to us that there are so many evidence of supposed transitional fossils in the fossil records that gradual macroevolution must be true. * Not *

Of course, evolutionists fall back point is that science is always evolving and blah blah blah....but they are refusing to acknowledge that the new proposed theory is still only an assumption as well because the evolution theory as far as macroevolution is concern will always remain in the realm of the unobserved and the unproven, and yet we are being force-fit to believe in the evolution theory as being true when it is not.

And when you couple that with the information as to why scientists are motivated in that false science for their careers is because our government will give grants to that effect. Is that force fit enough for you?
LOL! Absolute nonsense. Paranoid much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 08:24 AM
 
Location: In God's Hand
1,100 posts, read 539,774 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
Regarding the Ta Prohm carving (at Angkor Wat in Cambodia), what do you think the carving represents?
That mankind had seen a dinosaur to be able to carve it, and thus the evolutionary timetable should be thrown out as having any basis in reality when it was never observed nor proven to be true.

Even their dating methods has to be circumspect.

Evolution Heresies - Herejias en La EvolucionIgnoring physical evidence that men have seen dinosaurs should make scientists doubt the evolutionary timetable as anything to go by as a fact or even as an estimated guideline for dating anything beyond human history since it cannot be proven by anyone going past human history.

Real science as applied is when theories can be observed and proven. The evolution theory is not real science, nor can it ever be when macroevolution can never be observed nor proven.

Last edited by Tallysmom; 01-14-2017 at 11:22 AM.. Reason: You've quoted this already and quoted too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 08:34 AM
 
Location: In God's Hand
1,100 posts, read 539,774 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
LOL! Absolute nonsense. Paranoid much?
Let the readers decide by watching this movie from among other things about how our government gives grants to scientists as well as people being threatened if they speak against the evolution theory.

Where is that academic liberty?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

Like it or not, the evolution theory is nothing more than some grandiose representation of spontaneous generation but on a longer time table where it cannot be observed nor proven to be true and yet we are force fit by compromised science to accept it as true.... and you cannot even see that, can you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 08:58 AM
 
Location: In God's Hand
1,100 posts, read 539,774 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette View Post
A fake, a rhino, a water buffalo, a chameleon, or more likely something totally mythical, like the monkey-goat-lion thing 2 down on the column from it.
It is too bad that there are no other pictures of the carvings surrounding that one for a close up, but I understand by your reply that you are giving all kinds of reasons for denying this physical evidence.

First you offer that it is fake.... obviously, you are not reading the article nor see the surroundings from which that carving was photographed from , and so hardly a fake.

Second, you offer other viewings of the carving which greatly differ from each other for you to see them as all possibilities. Other viewings see it as possibly a rhino, but hardly anything else. The explanations for the rock plates on that rhino as being leaves is absurd to me so that is why I see a dinosaur.

Third, you offer something that you claim to see by obscurity 2 down on the column from it when you are rejecting what you plainly see as depicted close up for all to see.

Thank you for sharing what you think may be explanations against it as a physical evidence. It does pay to consider all angles in discerning this physical evidence, and I do leave it for readers to discern as well.

However, having a list of doubts without proving or disproving the physical evidence is hardly a reason for ignoring the physical evidence , but many do that, because they do not have "time" to even consider it. They just go with what is force fit unto them that the evolution theory is true even though they have never observed macroevolution, themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 09:38 AM
 
20,301 posts, read 15,654,940 times
Reputation: 7415

dinosaur carving in cambodian temple - Bing images





pictures of stegosaurus - Bing images


skeleton of stegosaurus - Bing images


skeleton of stegosaurus - Bing images



If the Cambodian temple carving is supposed to be a representation of a Stegosaurus, it's not a very accurate representation at all unless it was carved by a six year old child. Notice the difference in the head in the carving with that of the actual size and shape of the head of a Stegosaurus. There is no similarity at all. And what are those horn like protrusions on the head in the carving? Furthermore, the shape of the 'plates' in the carving are not the shape of the plates on a Stegosaurus.

If dinosaurs, specifically, the Stegosaurus had survived into the 12th century A.D. when I think that carving was supposed to have been made, there would have had to have been a large enough population base to keep the species from dying out. In that case there should be evidence of that. Thus far, no such evidence has been found.

The evidence is that dinosaurs became extinct some 65 million years ago due either to the Chicxulub asteroid impact which occurred 65 million years ago, or to a combination of factors in which the Chicxulub asteroid may have simply been the last straw in a chain of events such as massive volcanic activity which would have caused climatic changes, and diseases which may have been killing off the dinosaurs even prior to the asteroid impact. Scientists really aren't sure of the exact cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs. But the geological evidence is that they did become extinct many millions of years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
4,035 posts, read 3,272,161 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit View Post
I believe the movie Jurassic Park has removed all doubts to what I was referring to as a dinosaur, but seemingly, your opinion that a chicken is a dinosaur is noted, even though science does not consider a wooly mammoth nor a pteranodon as a dinosaur simply because of the time period they are living in.
The present consensus is that birds are theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic. They're closely related and share many anatomical features.

When did a movie become the canonical source for what is and is not a dinosaur?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
4,035 posts, read 3,272,161 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
If the Cambodian temple carving is supposed to be a representation of a Stegosaurus, it's not a very accurate representation at all unless it was carved by a six year old child. Notice the difference in the head in the carving with that of the actual size and shape of the head of a Stegosaurus. There is no similarity at all. And what are those horn like protrusions on the head in the carving? Furthermore, the shape of the 'plates' in the carving are not the shape of the plates on a Stegosaurus.
The claim that it's a stegosaurus is exactly equivalent to the "I'm not saying it's aliens, but ..." crowd's claim that old paintings and carvings and petroglyphs contain evidence of alien craft and alien visitors. Their fallacy is reading an artistic representation from a different culture through their modern lenses. Ditto with this being a stegosaurus; all we can say is that it's some animal, real or mythological, and we have no way of determining which -- with some spiky things behind it that may represent trees or buildings or mountains for all we know.

We don't assume all Egyptians only presented themselves in stylized poses when in public, or that Christian saints walked around with glowing circles above their head. Those are called artistic conventions -- but that doesn't stop fundamentalists of various stripes from reading whatever they like into the evidence of history to support their own belief systems. And that's called wishful thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 10:36 AM
 
5,188 posts, read 3,006,082 times
Reputation: 17711
I'm okay with the possibility of it being a representation of what they thought the fossils may have looked like as a living animal. They were an ancient peoples but there's no reason to believe they had sub-standard reasoning powers.


Why wouldn't they think the bony plates went across the back? Where else on that creature could you fit a row of bony plates that size? Dig more than one up and discover it also had bony plates scattered with it and it would be easy to come to the conclusion that the bony plates must somehow be part of the animal.


What will future civilization think of us and our huge collections of reassembled bones and even our reconstructions to living animals? Will they think that we lived among those dinosaurs or might they think that we are leaving a representational history of what we think we know?


As far as the less than accurate depictions I think you will find the same all over the world. The beautiful cave paintings in France are stylized yet seem to represent some kind of a gazelle like creature. Have you seen the Mayan animal glyphs?

It takes some creative analyzing to recognize that they represent actual living creatures that the Mayans were familiar with. So why expect the representations to be exact picture perfect duplicates. The stone carvers were artists, imaginative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top