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

[Stitch]

Yes it does. You are all bitter towards Christianity.

No I don't think we are bitter towards Christianity at all. We are trying to say that we want to leave Christianity out of the equation while we discuss the co-exitence of man and dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs/dragons same thing!

I beg to differ. Please can you show us fossil eveidence of a dragon as described by the "myths". People used to think unicors existed and presented a spiral horn as evidence. Many people were conviced for a long time until it became apparent that it was the horn of a living sea creature, the Narwhal (still around today). This does not mean that Narwhals and Unicorns are the same. There is evidence of one but not the other.

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

Your belief in a god and christ relies on assumuptions, everything does. Nothing wrong with that if you have research, testing and evidence to back it up. Dating methods have this, please show the test results that show the existence of a god.

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

Please provide your evidence to show that it does not. A hypothesis has been made and tested repeatedly, we cannot so far find any evidence to suggest that the above hypothesis is incorrect. If you can point to scientific testing that has repeatable shown that the hypothesis is incorrect then please do so.

Let's assume

So now it IS OK to assume things??? Please be consistent, either it is or it isn't.

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?

No, it would be reasonable to assume however that our dating methods are flawed. The 2 things are not connected directly.

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?

And we could claim the same for the evidence you put forward. It isn't a very strong argument, please can you show the flaws in the evidence provided rather than sweeping it all under the carpet?

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. [/B]

That is your belief and you are entitled to it, but I am not sure that it has much to do with Dinosaurs.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ehr, dragons. Dragons are based on fossils. Dinosaur fossils. The most tangible dragon myths originate in China, where large dinosaur fossils are occasionally laid free by landslides.

Take a look at the traditional Chinese and the mideival European dragon:

A flat head, long snake-like body, curved fin-like wings, and clawed legs distributed asymmetrically along the body. Have you ever seen a real creature, extinct or extant, looking remotely loke this? No, it makes absolutely no sense, anatomically.

But wait! Imagine the flattened, partly disordered skeleton of a large dinosaur (allosaur type), and make a naive reconstruction, where the bones are just clad in a layer of skin with little room for muscles or intestines, interpret the ribs as wings, and, *presto!* You have a traditional dragon.

Depictions of dragons dating from late 19th century and newer are much more dinosaur-like, but that is hardly surprising, since at that time, artists were aware of more realistic dinosaur reconstructions.

So, men HAVE walked beside dragons. But not live dragons.

Hans

 

[geni]

Yes it does. You are all bitter towards Christianity.

Why shuold I be bitter toward my own relgion?

Dinosaurs/dragons same thing!

Can't find species of fire breathing dinosaw

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

Whell the chemical one doesn't make many beyond objective ahared universe, 0+1=1 and 1+1=2

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

We know it did because we can look at the isotope ratios produced by the oklo reactor and know that the fine structure constant hasn't changed for 2 billion years. So no assumption there

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?

No becase the description decribe animals that make no atomical sense

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?

The Pope wants to take god out of society?

 

[Ashles]

So to recap - we never actually got an answer about the lack of dinosaur and human evidence in the same rock strata (dating methods entirely aside)?

 

[Kitty Chan]

So to recap - we never actually got an answer about the lack of dinosaur and human evidence in the same rock strata (dating methods entirely aside)?

Why dont we all be quiet and let Ashles and 1 in Christ type for a bit???

 

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by 1inChrist and not ammended by me in the slightest. Praise Potter!

(Replying to "We are talking about real existing things versus imaginary. Dragons are imaginary."):
How are they imaginary when science has discovered their fossils?

How many times do I have to tell you fools --- J.K. Rowling is inerrant.

Whereas the "behemoth" story is just silly. Unless you can produce a creature with bones made out of brass, which eateth grass like an ox. Incidentally, no dinosaur has the teeth of a grazing animal. This might be a problem. The huge majority of them would have been vegetarian, though, and there are, so far as I know, no legends of vegetarian dragons. By the way, are these dragons/dinosaurs ever recorded in cave paintings? Or do these just represent normal stone age fauna?

 

[voidx]

Well...that didn't last long. Nice try anyway. Let's back up and discover how at the very beginning it went south, with 1inChrists first sentence.

Here is what Ashles said:

Posted by Ashles
For example I will start with the simple claim that dinosaur fossils show up in rock layers that are thought to be exttremely old. They do not share those layers with human fossils.

Notice he is referring to rock layers, and the fact that dinosaur and human fossils do not show up, or share those same layers.

Here is what 1inChrist responds with:

Posted by 1inChrist
Dating methods are based on assumptions, here's a quote:

Straight off with a straw-man. To be clear. Ashles refers to what rock strata layers human and dinosaurs fossils are found in and why they are not found in the same layers. 1inChrist refers to Dating methods, specifically Carbon dating. Deflection right at the beginning.

So, 1inChrist, to repose the original question, what is your explanation for dinosaur and human fossils not being found in the same rock layers? If you think they do show up in the same layers, show some examples and explain why it seems to happen.

 

[hgc]

...

So, 1inChrist, to repose the original question, what is your explanation for dinosaur and human fossils not being found in the same rock layers? If you think they do show up in the same layers, show some examples and explain why it seems to happen.

Don't you read Hovind?!? The heavier bones sink, Dummy.

 

[cbish]

I told you this was hopeless!

 

[apoger]

I told you this was hopeless!

At least the thread may have been useful for someone that has been lurking and reading.

... there's always hope.

 

[Ipecac]

Sorry to butt in, but this is too juicy.

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

1inChrist, I take you up on this challenge. Here are several ignorant things you've said, and these are from the very same post above! (And I am not joking about this.)

You are all bitter towards Christianity.

Dinosaurs/dragons same thing!

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


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?

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.

 

[voidx]

Don't you read Hovind?!? The heavier bones sink, Dummy.

I feel so stupid now.

 

[1inChrist]

No I don't think we are bitter towards Christianity at all. We are trying to say that we want to leave Christianity out of the equation while we discuss the co-exitence of man and dinosaurs.

FINE.

I beg to differ. Please can you show us fossil eveidence of a dragon as described by the "myths". People used to think unicors existed and presented a spiral horn as evidence. Many people were conviced for a long time until it became apparent that it was the horn of a living sea creature, the Narwhal (still around today). This does not mean that Narwhals and Unicorns are the same. There is evidence of one but not the other.

I am not saying magical dinosaurs existed. I am saying that dragon myths are nothing more than supernatural stories about dinosaurs.

Your belief in a god and christ relies on assumuptions, everything does. Nothing wrong with that if you have research, testing and evidence to back it up. Dating methods have this, please show the test results that show the existence of a god.

Actually, no. No assumptions. God has revealed Himself to me through the Holy Ghost. He has proven Himself to me.

Please provide your evidence to show that it does not. A hypothesis has been made and tested repeatedly, we cannot so far find any evidence to suggest that the above hypothesis is incorrect. If you can point to scientific testing that has repeatable shown that the hypothesis is incorrect then please do so.

We are here in the present. Any attempt to date material things around us is based on the ASSUMPTION that nature worked the same back then as it does today.

So now it IS OK to assume things??? Please be consistent, either it is or it isn't.

No, it would be reasonable to assume however that our dating methods are flawed. The 2 things are not connected directly.

I'm saying let's assume for a moment that all dating methods are shown to be WRONG. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, ok? Then, would it be a possibility that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago?

And we could claim the same for the evidence you put forward. It isn't a very strong argument, please can you show the flaws in the evidence provided rather than sweeping it all under the carpet?

Maybe if you take off your materialistic glasses you will see the Word is the Truth.

 

[1inChrist]

Why shuold I be bitter toward my own relgion?

You're a Christian?

Can't find species of fire breathing dinosaw

How do you know dinosaurs didn't breathe fire?

Whell the chemical one doesn't make many beyond objective ahared universe, 0+1=1 and 1+1=2

How do we know math would be the same today as it was back then?

No becase the description decribe animals that make no atomical sense

Dragon myths are supernatural stories with dinosaurs in them.

The Pope wants to take god out of society?

The pope has been proven to be ANTI-GOD.

 

[Mojo]

I'm saying let's assume for a moment that all dating methods are shown to be WRONG. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, ok? Then, would it be a possibility that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago?

Yes, but then if we assume that dragons are silent and invisible, it would be a possibility that my bathroom is full of them.

Why assume that all dating methods are wrong? Where is your evidence for this?

The dating methods are what provide the evidence that dinosaurs did not coexist with humans. I doubt that you will convince anyone merely by claiming that any evidence that contradicts your position is wrong (although given the nature of the evidence it's probably your only option).

 

[geni]

You're a Christian?

By most widely accepted defintions yes

How do you know dinosaurs didn't breathe fire?

Anatomical studies. Thier shape is all wrong

How do we know math would be the same today as it was back then?

How do you know anything beyond "I think therefor there is thought?" Maths makes 2 assumptions 0+1=1 and 1+1=2 everything follows from that. If you want to argue these assumptions are flawed I don't think you are going to get very far.

Dragon myths are supernatural stories with dinosaurs in them.

But dragons are so different from dinosaurs. The greek dragon was more like a snake than anthing else. The Bulgarian dragon has 3 heads and snakelike body. The chinese dragon is also very snakelike and doesn't seem to have wings.

South american dragons are just wierd (mostly because they are not really dragons in the western sense we just chose to lable them as such).

Nouth america seems to have no legends of dragons at all.

What are labled dragons in africa are really giant snakes.

So the clasical dragon really on exists in 2 places europe and china.

The pope has been proven to be ANTI-GOD.

No he hasn't.

If you don't like the pope how about
Dr Rowan Williams head of the church of england?

 

[geni]

We are here in the present. Any attempt to date material things around us is based on the ASSUMPTION that nature worked the same back then as it does today.

This is not an assumption. Measurements form the oklo reactors show that things have worked the same way for the last 2 billion years at least.

I'm saying let's assume for a moment that all dating methods are shown to be WRONG. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, ok? Then, would it be a possibility that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago?

No. We find varius forms of natural mummies for things that lived a few thousand years ago. We havn't found any dinosaurs mummies.

 

[1inChrist]

By most widely accepted defintions yes

What do you believe?

Anatomical studies. Thier shape is all wrong

Well the fire breathing could be the mythology part of dinosaurs.

How do you know anything beyond "I think therefor there is thought?" Maths makes 2 assumptions 0+1=1 and 1+1=2 everything follows from that. If you want to argue these assumptions are flawed I don't think you are going to get very far.

This is the GLORIOUS thing about God. You see, you need not make any assumptions. God reveals Himself to you with the Holy Ghost. There are no assumptions because you KNOW Him and you know the Bible is His Word.

But dragons are so different from dinosaurs. The greek dragon was more like a snake than anthing else. The Bulgarian dragon has 3 heads and snakelike body. The chinese dragon is also very snakelike and doesn't seem to have wings.

Maybe those dragon myths were based on snaked, not dinosaurs then. Doesn't mean the dinosaur-like dragons in mythology aren't really dinosaurs.

No he hasn't.

Yes he has. He's very anti-Christian in many of his views.

If you don't like the pope how about
Dr Rowan Williams head of the church of england? [/B]

Ignroant. He supports homosexuality.

 

[geni]

What do you believe?

I'll save you some time here. By the standard you use I'm not a christain.

Well the fire breathing could be the mythology part of dinosaurs.

except when people did encounter giant lizards they didn't make them fire breathing animals (see Komodo Dragon)

Maybe those dragon myths were based on snaked, not dinosaurs then. Doesn't mean the dinosaur-like dragons in mythology aren't really dinosaurs.

But dinosaur-like dragons don't really apear untill moden times. It is posible through a massive streach of the imagination to describe the roman dragon as such bit thats about it.

Yes he has. He's very anti-Christian in many of his views.


Ignroant. He supports homosexuality. [/B]

Ok then how about Patriarch Alexiy II (head of the russian orthodox church).

 

[materia3]

geni avers:

North america seems to have no legends of dragons at all.

Not true. Native (North) Americans had and probably still have several serpent-like dragon legends or myths:

http://www.blackdrago.com/famous_northamer.htm


This is a wonderful site on dragon myths and anyone interested in the subject would enjoy it.:

http://www.blackdrago.com/index.html

A brief quote from its index page:

In different parts of the world, the word dragon carries different connotation. Some claim the creature is an evil being sent by the Great Evil to harm mankind. Others tell tales about benevolent dragons who sacrificed themselves to save humans or human friends. Both disaster and bounty have followed in their wakes.

In the modern world, dragons have spread as a wild fire; both through the internet and through books, they've grown. Out of all the creatures in mythology, the dragon is one of the most present. Where did this creature come from? Why do so many mythologies tell the tale of at least one dragon? These mysteries have yet to be explained.

This site is here to help you unlock the mystery of the dragon, and I hope it can be informative as well as entertaining. I have now grouped the information for easier reading. Simply select one of the twelve sections that you wish to visit...