A plan for a better debate with 1inChrist...

[Bandersnatch]

What about dragons? Nearly ever culture has stories of dragons and big creatures.

By that extention of logic, werewolves/skin walkers/whatever exist as well.

Dinosaur bones PROVE that these dragons actually lived, lived and walked with humans.

Not really, just that dinosaurs existed at one point in time. For example, if I was to keel over in an elephant graveyard, and my bones were discovered 200 years later fossilized, my bones would be in the same place, but I never died at the same time.

EDIT: Darn, you got to it first, Ashles.

 

[1inChrist]

It is important to distinguish between stories and Recorded Fact.

So you are saying you can distinguish better than I can?

Nearly every culture talks of magic and many cultures talk of lightning being cast down by Gods. It doesn't make these things true.

We aren't talking about magic. We are talking about animals.

Most cultures believed rain could be brought by prayer. We don't think this now.

Who's we? Are you assuming because people today believe it that it's true?

This is not evidence - it is stories. If you can't distinguish between these two then you will be unable to debate in any serious way.

There are stories of wolves and horses. Stories that have supernatural elements to them. Are we to assume that because there are supernatural stories of horses and wolves that wolves and horses do not exist? Is it not possible that dragons were real animals but like other animals, had supernatural tales ascribed to them? Just because animals are in supernatural stories does not mean they aren't real animals.

Absolutely not. Dinosaur bones prove only that dinosaurs existed.

True. However this discussion is when did dinosaurs live. I've shown the dating methods are flawed and have also shown that dragons are spoken of in nearly every culture.

I think mine is a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Ashles]

A mastodon skeleton, found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."—Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8

There are two interesting things here.
One, the Review and Herald hardly appears to be an unbiased reporting source.
Two, it is criticising radiocarbon dating which isn't being debated yet.
No-one is denying mastodons existed with humans. They existed up to 10,000 years ago which would have them coexisting with humans.
Please return to the debate.

 

[Ashles]

So you are saying you can distinguish better than I can?

I think the point is that I can distinguish at all. You don't appear to be able to.

We aren't talking about magic. We are talking about animals

We are talking about real existing things versus imaginary. Dragons are imaginary.

Who's we? Are you assuming because people today believe it that it's true?

Do you not believe in weather patterns then? Did hurricanes only hit Florida because they were prayed for? Are the people of Haiti suffering because they prayed for it? Do you believe weather is under our control by prayer?

There are stories of wolves and horses. Stories that have supernatural elements to them. Are we to assume that because there are supernatural stories of horses and wolves that wolves and horses do not exist?

Are we to assume that because men exist Superman exists?

True. However this discussion is when did dinosaurs live. I've shown the dating methods are flawed and have also shown that dragons are spoken of in nearly every culture.

You have not shown the dating methods are flawed at all. You have quoted highly unreliable facts from websites that do not show the slightest interest in scientific knowledge, then pretend they have scientific facts. Go figure.
I do not deny that dragons are spoken of in many cultures. This demonstrates exactly nothing. Many cultures speak of stars being mere spots of light a couple of hundred miles above our heads. Do you believe this too?

I think mine is a reasonable conclusion.

Well if you do then you have no ability to tell fact from fiction, or any real ability to analyse anything sensibly in the real world.

If this debate is going to continue with you believing every story that is in existence without any sensible analysis then, sadly, cbish was right from the start.

It is impossible to debate with someone who will just deny the evidence that disagrees with them and believe everything, no matter how ludicrously based, that agrees with them. Literally impossible.

I gave it a shot but this really is hopeless. You are either a troll or... no the alternative is too upsetting.

If anyone else wants to carry on from here feel free.

 

[Operaider]

What about dragons? Nearly ever culture has stories of dragons and big creatures. The Bible, for one mentions behemoths. The problem lies when people classify certain history as ''mythology''. Dinosaur bones PROVE that these dragons actually lived, lived and walked with humans. The methods used to dating these bones are totally flawed. Is it not reasonable to believe that they walked with man when they are recorded in almost every culture?

It is not reasonable to believe such a thing in the 21st century, when we know better. In the prehistoric age it made sense. Someone would find the bones of a dinosaur, and report back to his tribe. Not knowing it was a fossil, and hence died millions of years ago; they would be understandably concerned. They might speculate what it looked like while alive. Did it fly? Could it breathe fire? Could it talk? Word would spread of such a find. Other countries would also have found dinosaur bones as well, since they were not restricted to one region. Fear of such beasts would spread. People would make up stories about such creatures (see the bible). These stories would tell of giant creatures and the heroes that slayed them (see Beowulf). Such stories would be written down for future generations to learn. Thousands of years later man will prove that he hasn't come very far when 1inC takes these stories for fact.

 

[Operaider]

There are stories of wolves and horses. Stories that have supernatural elements to them. Are we to assume that because there are supernatural stories of horses and wolves that wolves and horses do not exist? Is it not possible that dragons were real animals but like other animals, had supernatural tales ascribed to them? Just because animals are in supernatural stories does not mean they aren't real animals.

Wow, here you actually make sense. Dragons are real animals, or rather were real animals. Today we call them dinosaurs. We know about dinosaurs today for the same reason they knew about dinosaurs thousands of years ago. Not from living with them, but from finding fossils.

I think mine is a reasonable conclusion.

Don't give into the devil by using reason

 

[geni]

We aren't talking about magic. We are talking about animals.

Drangons as portrayed have a number of magical propeties

There are stories of wolves and horses. Stories that have supernatural elements to them. Are we to assume that because there are supernatural stories of horses and wolves that wolves and horses do not exist? Is it not possible that dragons were real animals but like other animals, had supernatural tales ascribed to them? Just because animals are in supernatural stories does not mean they aren't real animals.

No for a nmebr of reasons. Dragons as commonly described make no sense. it is claimed they could fly but thier wings where way too small for that. It is claimed they could breath fire with nothing else on earth can do.

True. However this discussion is when did dinosaurs live. I've shown the dating methods are flawed and have also shown that dragons are spoken of in nearly every culture.

Carbon 14 dateing is not used to determine the age of fossiles. Please explain the flaws in the follwoing papers

Butkovskaya NI, Kukui A, Pouvesle N, et al.
Rate constant and mechanism of the reaction of OH radicals with acetic acid in the temperature range of 229-300 K
J PHYS CHEM A 108 (34): 7021-7026 AUG 26 2004

Falgayrac G, Caralp F, Sokolowski-Gomez N, et al.
Rate constants for the decomposition of 2-butoxy radicals and their reaction with NO and O-2
PHYS CHEM CHEM PHYS 6 (16): 4127-4132 2004

Dunlea EJ, Ravishankara AR
Measurement of the rate coefficient for the reaction of O(D-1) with H2O and re-evaluation of the atmospheric OH production rate
PHYS CHEM CHEM PHYS 6 (13): 3333-3340 JUL 7 2004


and there are another 3,209 papers where that lot came from (search term reaction rate search titles only)
Why does this matter? well there is a dating technique that uses excatly the same methods as these papers and you have claimed that dating techneques are unrelible please explain the falws in these papers and basic reaction rare chemistry. If you can't then there is at least on dating techneque you have not shown to be flawed.

 

[Operaider]

I find it odd that you don't think carbon dating is authentic because we don't know if "the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is constant". We do know that it is constant now, so what you are suggesting is that it changed over time. Even though carbon is an element and elements can't change over time. Otherwise they are no longer the same element. I think you are thinking of animals which have been shown to evolve over time. But, that can't be it since you previously stated that you don't believe in evolution. Odd, so you believe that elements can evolve, but not animals?

 

[1inChrist]

I think the point is that I can distinguish at all. You don't appear to be able to.

See you are just attacking me and not the facts. Ok, I am a Christian, yes. Why do you automatically assume I'm stupid because I have accepted Christ as my Savior?

We are talking about real existing things versus imaginary. Dragons are imaginary.

How are they imaginary when science has discovered their fossils?

Do you not believe in weather patterns then? Did hurricanes only hit Florida because they were prayed for? Are the people of Haiti suffering because they prayed for it? Do you believe weather is under our control by prayer?

Personally? I believe God controls nature.

Are we to assume that because men exist Superman exists?

Superman is known to be fiction. Infact, I bet you can find out who created superman. Which would prove he's not really based on a real man but someone's imagination. Can you find the person who created the so-called dragon ''myth''?

You have not shown the dating methods are flawed at all.

I have shown the dating methods are based on assumptions that cannot be validated. Blindly following these assumptions has many philosophical problems.

You have quoted highly unreliable facts from websites that do not show the slightest interest in scientific knowledge, then pretend they have scientific facts. Go figure.

Don't attack the sources, attack the facts. Are those quotes true or false?

I do not deny that dragons are spoken of in many cultures. This demonstrates exactly nothing. Many cultures speak of stars being mere spots of light a couple of hundred miles above our heads. Do you believe this too?

No, there is no evidence that stars are just spots in the sky. There is however, evidence through fossils that gigantic creatures existed at one time.

Well if you do then you have no ability to tell fact from fiction, or any real ability to analyse anything sensibly in the real world.

This is an assumption. You are assuming that because my opinion is different than yours and mainstream science that I don't have the ability to tell the difference between imaginary and the real world.

If this debate is going to continue with you believing every story that is in existence without any sensible analysis then, sadly, cbish was right from the start.

I don't believe every fictional story, because I deny evolution

It is impossible to debate with someone who will just deny the evidence that disagrees with them and believe everything, no matter how ludicrously based, that agrees with them. Literally impossible.

Why is my belief that dinosaurs lived with humans ludicrous?

I gave it a shot but this really is hopeless. You are either a troll or... no the alternative is too upsetting.

I'm getting sick and tired of you skeptics just dismissing all of my arguments because you think I'm a troll. Do you think it's easy to answer all the posts people throw at you here? Go to Christian message board that's as busy as this one, post an argument against Christianity and tell me how easy it is to answer all the posts one by one that you are sure to get.

 

[apoger]

Ok, I am a Christian, yes. Why do you automatically assume I'm stupid because I have accepted Christ as my Savior?

We are not calling you stupid.
We are calling you ignorant.

This is not automatic nor and assumtion.
It is due to the evidence provided by your postings.

Your acceptance of Christ as you Savior has nothing to do with this. Again, it is due to the evidence provided by your postings.

How are they imaginary when science has discovered their fossils?

We have discovered the fossils of dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs are not dragons (although they may have inspired the legends).

I have shown the dating methods are based on assumptions that cannot be validated.

You have not replied to the original dating method which was to examine the geological layers that the fossils are found in.

Let's address that before we move on to more complicated methods.

Why is my belief that dinosaurs lived with humans ludicrous?

Because it contradicts the strong evidence that we have at this time.

I'm getting sick and tired of you skeptics just dismissing all of my arguments because you think I'm a troll.

Your arguments are not being dismissed becuase you are a troll. They are being dismissed because they lack logic and evidence.

Saying that men and dinosaurs coexisted is roughly the same as claiming that the moon is made of cheese, or that the world is flat. Our knowledge of the universe has progressed beyond such nonsense. The evidence for the age of dinosaurs is overwhelming. Your denial of the current state of human knowledge is simply willful ignorance.

If you are honestly interested learning about evolution then please check out "Talk Origins" at: www.talkorigins.org

You need to make some effort to educate yourself. That's all there is to it. No amount of help from the "skeptics" is going to work, until you are willing to help yourself.

 

[Operaider]

See you are just attacking me and not the facts. Ok, I am a Christian, yes. Why do you automatically assume I'm stupid because I have accepted Christ as my Savior?

I don't think anyone has called you stupid. I can't say they're not thinking it. I just havn't seen anyone post it. This is also not due to your belief in God, atleast not entirely. It all goes back to your logic = devil's handywork comment. While we can try not to rub your face in it, it does make debating you some what futile. How can someone possibly look at the facts when they think it was all put in place as a trick from Satan.

How are they imaginary when science has discovered their fossils?

Science discovered the fossils of dinosaurs not dragons. Just because there are stories about dragons in the past doesn't mean they existed. There are stories about dragons today too. Hell, Jurasic Park even shows dinosaurs living with humans. But, we all know it's just a story.

Personally? I believe God controls nature.

I won't knock you for this. If you believe that God exists that would be a logical hypothesis.

Superman is known to be fiction. Infact, I bet you can find out who created superman. Which would prove he's not really based on a real man but someone's imagination. Can you find the person who created the so-called dragon ''myth''?

Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster (creators of Superman) are both dead. Just like the creaters of the dragon myth. You can therefor not ask them if it was based on fact or not. So you need to use other sources. All other sources show that both stories are merely embelishments of a common themes. Superman being based on facination with outerspace and a desire to be something more than human. Dragons being based on the discovery of dinosaur bones and the fear of the unknown.

I have shown the dating methods are based on assumptions that cannot be validated. Blindly following these assumptions has many philosophical problems.

Actually you have merely posted more assumptions based on a lack of basic scientific knowledge. Specifically that the the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is not constant. This has not been shown to be true, it is merely an attempt to question scientific research by implying a flaw that isn't there. Notice he doesn't state that there is any proof that the carbon dioxide cycle isn't constant.

No, there is no evidence that stars are just spots in the sky. There is however, evidence through fossils that gigantic creatures existed at one time.

no one is saying there isn't

This is an assumption. You are assuming that because my opinion is different than yours and mainstream science that I don't have the ability to tell the difference between imaginary and the real world.

Once again this is based on your Logic = devil's work comment

I don't believe every fictional story, because I deny evolution

how very witty

 

[Kitty Chan]

Discusion ! remember

Couple original questions were . . .

Humans not or walking with dinos

I take it if they walked with dinos its a young earth and if not its a old earth?? Is this right?

and the dragon fossils

Where and when did they find dragon fossils?? Or is it just a idea that some of the dinosaur bones could have been dragons??

Which led to the topic of the leviathon mentioned in the bible, suggestion on that, diverse cultures (ie Scots and Canadian Indians) have lake "monsters" so maybe at one time there was something. But they were only monsters in size kinda like whales, anyway thats my take on that.

 

[Kopji]

If myths of giant creatures are found in many cultures how does one appearing in the Bible prove or disprove it?

Lothan was adopted into the Bible as Leviathan and originates in Ugaritic mythology:

...Once texts were discovered relating the ancient Canaanite creation story of Baal's defeat of Lothan, the primeval sea monster (the story goes back as early as the 14th century bce; var. Lotan, Lawtan, Lat = goddess in Canaanite), similar to Tiamat overpowered by Marduk, the source of Leviathan became clear. Leviathan is a variation on the same name, representing the chaos existing before creation and subdued when order was established by the male god...
http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/leviathan.html

(and there's plenty of religious sources that state this, many many Bible scholars and texts.)

 

[1inChrist]

Ok, two people have replied to my points. Which one should I reply to Apoger or the other guy?

 

[1inChrist]

We are not calling you stupid.
We are calling you ignorant.

Oh! My mistake.

This is not automatic nor and assumtion.
It is due to the evidence provided by your postings.

What? Name one ''ignorant'' thing I have posted.

Your acceptance of Christ as you Savior has nothing to do with this. Again, it is due to the evidence provided by your postings.

Yes it does. You are all bitter towards Christianity.

We have discovered the fossils of dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs are not dragons (although they may have inspired the legends).

Dinosaurs/dragons same thing!

You have not replied to the original dating method which was to examine the geological layers that the fossils are found in.

Can you name one dating method that is not based on any assumptions whatsoever?

Because it contradicts the strong evidence that we have at this time.

Your evidence isn't strong. It's based on ASSUMPTIONS. You assume everything acted the same back then as it does today.

Your arguments are not being dismissed becuase you are a troll. They are being dismissed because they lack logic and evidence.

Let's assume the dating methods scientists use were all found to be flawed and useless tomorrow. Then, would it be reasonable to assume that dragon stories were based on real animals?

Saying that men and dinosaurs coexisted is roughly the same as claiming that the moon is made of cheese, or that the world is flat. Our knowledge of the universe has progressed beyond such nonsense. The evidence for the age of dinosaurs is overwhelming. Your denial of the current state of human knowledge is simply willful ignorance.

No it's quite different.

If you are honestly interested learning about evolution then please check out "Talk Origins" at: www.talkorigins.org

It's just anti-God propaganda. Are you honestly telling me that the there is no agenda from evolutionists to take God out of our society? If there is no agenda why do they hate creation scientists just because of their Christian beliefs?

You need to make some effort to educate yourself. That's all there is to it. No amount of help from the "skeptics" is going to work, until you are willing to help yourself.

Why do I need help? I have my Salvation. I will go to Heaven when I die. I will not suffer an eternal death in the Hellfire. Jesus has gave me all the help I will ever need.

 

[Kopji]

Answer Apoger

I'm not sure I've seen any points though...

"Points":
People lived when Mastodons did, but nobody's arguing that.

The Bible repeats old myths about giant beasts, so if we actually found that dragons or dinos lived with people would that make all the other non biblical myths true too?

There is no evidence people lived when Dino's did. Except some myths indicate that maybe they did. See above.

The thread hardly seems fair. On the one hand we have scientists and skeptics who are obliged to examine and weigh evidence. If the evidence shows us to be wrong we are obligated to revise our views.

1inchrist on the other hand, is not bound by any rules that would force a re-evaluation of his belief. Any argument or reasoning that refutes his axioms are by definition false. (That's the nature of axioms).

If he's feeling overwhelmed by his "no-lose" stance he can always invite Christian friends over.

 

[Kopji]

The world and everything in it was created instantly 15 minutes ago.

Prove otherwise.

 

[Kitty Chan]

If myths of giant creatures are found in many cultures how does one appearing in the Bible prove or disprove it?

Lothan was adopted into the Bible as Leviathan and originates in Ugaritic mythology:

(and there's plenty of religious sources that state this, many many Bible scholars and texts.)

Kopj

Im not speaking of proving or disproving the Bible, Im stating that it mentions actually in passing a giant creature as do other sources possibly including what you may know.

Im thinking if different sources agree on for example a large creature with a huge tail swimming in the water maybe there is something to it. Maybe Nessie was there at one time. . .

Now, Im saying this while thinking that the tv wasnt invented back in the day and it would be hard to come up with similar descriptions. Or Im underestimating the communication ablilities between an indian tribe in the BC interior of Canada speaking with Scotland. Both of whom claim lake "monsters".

As to why its no longer around, we have killed off many animals, why not it.

 

[Kopji]

Kitty Chan
I agree that many myths could have origin in some kind of fact.

You might be interested in some fairly recent research on a kind of wave called a "seiche" that occurs in certain deep and narrow lakes. These currents can move very large objects around a lake that appears still on the surface.

Loch Ness and Lake Champlain are two such lakes, and both have monster legends associated with them.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Seiche

 

[Stitch]

The world and everything in it was created instantly 15 minutes ago.

Prove otherwise.

It's your claim - you prove it