ARGOSY Posted January 25, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) The first ever temple, Gobekli Tepe has a stone carving of a cynognathus. Lion? No way. http://www.openhandweb.org/Gobekli_Tepe%3A_a_key_to_humanity's_history An Egyptian tablet depicted two captured dinosaurs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer_Palette Stegosaur of Angkor http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2012/07/preah-khan-temple-mystery-door-of.html Plus thousands more. I guess evolutionists think each of those is a hoax http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dinoglyfs.htm I am not sure what your links are supposed to show, only the last one has anything that looks like a dinosaur. A cynogathus does not look like a dinosaur, but its one of the most common early Triassic predators. Compared to any modern predator, that Gobleki Tepe carving resembles a cynogathus. Its further down the page, its the predator that looks like its crawling down the pole. A simplified toy version of that dinosaur is virtually a perfect replica of the stone carving: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/toysoldierhq/zmxpl755.jpg What do you think the Egyptian creatures on the tablet are, those two with the intertwined necks? Look like dinos to me. And thanks for admitting the third one. Plus the fourth link shows many, many more examples. People see what they want to see, most of those look as much like a dinosaur as the burnt toast looked like Jesus. that's fine. The neutrals who follow this discussion will see that you are under emphasizing the resemblance and make their own judgment. By not facing what is obvious you are helping the creationist cause. Hey, if you look at those and see proof of dinosaurs and man I am happy for you, but don't go getting all bent out of shape because not everyone agrees with you. While there might be some lurking, there are no neutrals in this discussion, everyone has their mind made up and is out to prove the other person wrong. Why cant people be happy believing what they believe without trying to make everyone else think like them? I wasn't "bent out of shape", I've got no problem with you whatsoever. I am just really happy that all over the world there are people who observe these debates, and the creationist position keeps gaining strength. Edited January 25, 2014 by ARGOSY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 25, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) I wasn't "bent out of shape", I've got no problem with you whatsoever. I am just really happy that all over the world there are people who observe these debates, and the creationist position keeps gaining strength. If you say so. Seems that in order to gain strength you would need something new, not things that have been debunked 1000 times already. Edited January 25, 2014 by LookingForAnswers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted January 25, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) I wasn't "bent out of shape", I've got no problem with you whatsoever. I am just really happy that all over the world there are people who observe these debates, and the creationist position keeps gaining strength. If you say so. Seems that in order to gain strength you would need something new, not things that have been debunked 1000 times already. Well I posted something new in the radiometric thread, and no-one had a good answer for that. I was referred to old evolutionist debunking arguments that were frankly irrelevant. And I've never heard of a good explanation for early civilizations knowledge of dinosaurs. Edited January 25, 2014 by ARGOSY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 25, 2014 The 4th link was very interesting and it was very informative to me, when you outlined case after case of massive floods occurring all over the world. I've always believed in the New Earth Theory, but now I can use this information to better support it when I discuss it with skeptics. LFA, what answers are you looking for here? Because, it doesn't look like you are looking for anything but affirmation of your own beliefs. No one here is an expert on every subject that comes up. But, we try hard to make a strong case for our faith and beliefs. The answers I am looking for are in the area of faith, not science. Oddly enough I don't have this desire that the rest of you have to make everything think like you or attack them till they do. Why not just state your beliefs and accept what other people believe? Is that really too much to ask? I happen to believe the earth is more than 6000 years old, why does that raise such fear in those that don't agree with me? After being involved with these discussions here, it seems obvious to me, the FEAR from the YEC camp is that we are not applying the scripture according to their way of interpretation and thus we are not promoting the things of God. Practically speaking, we are allowing evolution in by accepting an old universe. They want to nip that topic- evolution- in the bud, and they perceive us old agers as hindering that cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted January 25, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 25, 2014 The global flood mentioned in Genesis is a far better explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs than a 6-mile wide asteroid/meteorite hitting the earth or a volcano. Maybe for you it is. No, it is THE best explanation. The asteroid or volcano explanation make no sense given that we have species of animals still around that are believed to have been contemporary with the dinosaurs. Given the conditions that are supposed to have resulted from the meteor hit or the volcano, no life at all should have survived. A mass exinction due to the flood is a better explanation. Actually, I find it more amusing that when science corroborates Biblical narratives (i.e. studies of dinosaur bones suggests a flood), Shiloh (and others) hails science.........but when it doesn't (i.e. old earth theory), well science is constantly changing and should be dismissed.... I would think two approaches to this question far more consistent: a) claims by paleontologists are to be taken a priori as highly questionable, since they are found by at worst, sinful man, at best, fallible man b) claims by paleontologists (as scientists) are irrelevant and should never be consulted, today they corroborate, tomorrow they refute. Instead it seems we are allowed to pick and choose: whenever scientists agree with the Bible (or rather, our reading of the Bible) then science is a worthy partner in Biblical studies: when they don't, science is a highly questionable enterprise and ought not be trusted. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Actually, I find it more amusing that when science corroborates Biblical narratives (i.e. studies of dinosaur bones suggests a flood), Shiloh (and others) hails science.........but when it doesn't (i.e. old earth theory), well science is constantly changing and should be dismissed.... I would think two approaches to this question far more consistent: a) claims by paleontologists are to be taken a priori as highly questionable, since they are found by at worst, sinful man, at best, fallible man b) claims by paleontologists (as scientists) are irrelevant and should never be consulted, today they corroborate, tomorrow they refute. Instead it seems we are allowed to pick and choose: whenever scientists agree with the Bible (or rather, our reading of the Bible) then science is a worthy partner in Biblical studies: when they don't, science is a highly questionable enterprise and ought not be trusted. clb "Shiloh (and others) hails science" That "and others" I'm assuming is me? "Instead it seems we are allowed to pick and choose:" Strawman. We're not picking and choosing, we have a problem with: "Scientific Claims" and "Claims" that Scientists make! See the difference? To be "Scientific" or claim "Scientific Evidence" then it has to conform to the 7 Step Scientific Method.... 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Your examples: "a) claims by paleontologists....." "b) claims by paleontologists (as scientists)...." Paleontology is a study about the past. Please show me any postulate or "Claim" that they make and then put it into the "Scientific Method". Good Luck So, "paleontologists (as scientists)" Does that infer some type of Authority or validity of Truth? Are you using "as scientists" as a Pseudo "stand in" for the lack of the Scientific Method?? Some equal statements concerning claims they (or insert: any "science" discipline) make without the Scientific Method: "paleontologists (as Seattle Seahawk's fans)...." "paleontologists (as Democrats)...." "paleontologists (as Surfers)...." No disrespect to you or paleontologists meant but "Scientific Evidence/Claims" means "Scientific Method"...Period, end of story. Savvy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 The Bible tells us that man and dinosaurs were contemporaries “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: . . . His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God.” (Job 40: 15-19) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted January 26, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,817 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 26, 2014 Blessings Shiloh... I agree as I have also read in Gods Word a very extensive description of the leviathon in Job 41 and as mentioned in Isaiah 27th chapter...... With love,in Christ-Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 26, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 26, 2014 Blessings Shiloh... I agree as I have also read in Gods Word a very extensive description of the leviathon in Job 41 and as mentioned in Isaiah 27th chapter...... With love,in Christ-Kwik Behemoth-Why not elephant? As for Leviathan-why not crocodile? I'm not sure Dino's were considered sea creature. the Lord will punish with his sword— his fierce, great and powerful sword— Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea. I have not read any commentary that says either of these are dinosaurs. Is it possible you are trying to stretch God s word to make it say what you desperately want it to say? Is it possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Blessings Shiloh... I agree as I have also read in Gods Word a very extensive description of the leviathon in Job 41 and as mentioned in Isaiah 27th chapter...... With love,in Christ-Kwik Behemoth-Why not elephant? Because the tail of an elephant doesn't resemble a cedar, per the above passage. As for Leviathan-why not crocodile? I'm not sure Dino's were considered sea creature. Because crocodiles don't live in the deep ocean. They live close to land. That is where you normally find them. The description given is of a prehistoric sea monster of some kind. Is it possible you are trying to stretch God s word to make it say what you desperately want it to say? Is it possible? That's pretty rich coming for you given how you twisted the Scriptures in Job to prove that stars were created the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts