Enoch2021 - There are only 4 possible "rational" conclusions that can be drawn based on the above "evidence" (I have Thousands more):
Only 4...do you have a source for that or is it simply by your subjective prerogative? And thousands more of what? ...hopefully of some rational conclusions. So you could only come up with 3 rational conclusions (actually two)...yet I would assert my list is quite as “rational” as yours. At best the only “evidence” (oh, here we go into your overuse of equivocation) is quite debatable.
1. Humans Lived with Dinos.
Rational though with scant support.
2. Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs)
3. ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design. Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones."
Could you point me to your support/source stating that flesh anatomy, skin color, and design are completely understood by paleontologists?
4. All said Ancient Cultures "Guessed".
Rational conclusions cease..... do you deny that exaggerated and fantastical creatures were portrayed in art/statues across many cultures, and often based on actual living creatures?
Except the Evidence I just Provided. But of Course, the "Hard Physical Evidence" you mean Time Machine evidence, right? And, Obviously, when "Hard Evidence" is provided it withers away under the relentless Equivocation Parade that's waiting in the Bull Pen
Except the evidence that you provided, as noted, is hardly conclusive and remains ambiguous and debatable. Yes, a time machine would help...and perhaps hard physical evidence from other than simply ambiguous human art. You were the one who talked about two or more related concepts to form coherence or something, so where are the other lines of evidence?
Well on most sites, just posting a "Link" is considered Intellectually Dishonest and Lazy...
As is your wont to have little regard for context consider that the link was informational as to radiometric dating not based on a specific point of argument but on dating methods in general. There is nothing intellectually dishonest or lazy about posting such a link. It would be, perhaps, if a more specific or narrowed point was raised, however that was not the case. I appreciate that you then continue on and on, but understand it is quite meaningless as to the discussion.
I knew you couldn't post a reply without @ least 1 Logical Fallacy, in this case: The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy:
When in doubt posit a fallacy...as I’ve noted to you on other threads your attempts fail. So, if you join a scientific organization that requires you to take an oath regarding a mandated bias / presupposition / entrenched view then how would you term the organization? Actually, the "No True Scotsman" applies to certain organizations not to my contention.........
Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, Astrophysics Journal, Science, adsabs harvard.edu, Astronomy, Physics Bulletin, Molec. Biol. Evol, et al)
So from this array of reading material please point me to the articles/source that assert that radiometric dating is false, that ancient art is proof of dinosaurs, that superposition and correlation are unreliable so that fossil/rock dating is purely circular?
So you're saying "science" isn't concerned about "proving" or "disproving" anything, eh?
If you read more carefully...but yes, in a YEC way. Creation science, somewhat of an oxymoron, seeks to prove only a young earth, and/or only seek to attempt to disprove any science that posits otherwise, sorry “secular” science. So what I was saying was that scientists follow a method that leads in a direction, as opposed to following a direction and making sure the answers fit that direction...see the difference?
I may or may not continue this but if I do is it possible for you to limit your innocuous fluff? When you go off on your attempt to belittle it makes it very difficult to find any “meat” in your position.