Total Posts:188|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dinosaurs Don't Prove Evolution

merbear2536
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 4:11:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

...nor does it prove creation. I am not sure what point you are trying to make?
Mrlowe
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 4:23:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

You know, there have been a lot of claims on this website of "fatal flaws" in evolution, but I have yet to see a single one that could stand the scrutiny. Do you know why? Well firstly, fatal flaw is taking it wayyy too far. Even if a creationist found a flaw in the theory of evolution, the theory would have to be reworked a little bit, but that would not destroy our entire body of knowledge. Secondly, because the vast majority of creationists don't understand that unexplained observation does not equal flaw.

As far as this one goes, well, I have a few things to say. I didn't watch the video, though I think it's the same one I saw years ago. I watched the opening of it though, so I think I get the gist of where it's going.

I'd like to point out a few flaws myself in this little theory they have going:

1. Only Asian and European cultures have dragons in their mythology, and both are very different from one another. Asian dragons are literally just serpents with legs, so European dragons are the only ones that even remotely resemble dinosaurs.

If Dinosaurs were all over the Earth, why do we not also see dragon mythos in African and Native American cultures?

2. The concept of European dragons came around during the Middle Ages. Why are there no recorded documents of dragons or dinosaurs during Roman times or before?

3. Why do the vast majority of even European dragons not look anything like dinosaurs did? A few do, but even in Europe, most looked serpent-like or just completely different from dinosaurs.

4. Even the ones that did resemble dinosaurs only resembled certain kinds of dinos. Why are there no triceratop-like dragons, or pterodactyl-like dragons?

5. The modern version of a dragon (the one that most closely resembles dinosaurs) came around long after we discovered fossils and started drawing accurate depictions of dinosaurs.

6. Could it have been possible that people in the middle ages found fossils of large dinosaurs and drew creatures they thought the fossil might have looked like?
merbear2536
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 6:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 4:23:36 PM, Mrlowe wrote:
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

You know, there have been a lot of claims on this website of "fatal flaws" in evolution, but I have yet to see a single one that could stand the scrutiny. Do you know why? Well firstly, fatal flaw is taking it wayyy too far. Even if a creationist found a flaw in the theory of evolution, the theory would have to be reworked a little bit, but that would not destroy our entire body of knowledge. Secondly, because the vast majority of creationists don't understand that unexplained observation does not equal flaw.

As far as this one goes, well, I have a few things to say. I didn't watch the video, though I think it's the same one I saw years ago. I watched the opening of it though, so I think I get the gist of where it's going.

I'd like to point out a few flaws myself in this little theory they have going:

1. Only Asian and European cultures have dragons in their mythology, and both are very different from one another. Asian dragons are literally just serpents with legs, so European dragons are the only ones that even remotely resemble dinosaurs.

If Dinosaurs were all over the Earth, why do we not also see dragon mythos in African and Native American cultures?

2. The concept of European dragons came around during the Middle Ages. Why are there no recorded documents of dragons or dinosaurs during Roman times or before?

3. Why do the vast majority of even European dragons not look anything like dinosaurs did? A few do, but even in Europe, most looked serpent-like or just completely different from dinosaurs.

4. Even the ones that did resemble dinosaurs only resembled certain kinds of dinos. Why are there no triceratop-like dragons, or pterodactyl-like dragons?

5. The modern version of a dragon (the one that most closely resembles dinosaurs) came around long after we discovered fossils and started drawing accurate depictions of dinosaurs.

6. Could it have been possible that people in the middle ages found fossils of large dinosaurs and drew creatures they thought the fossil might have looked like?

I believe this is a fatal flaw because if the universe is not billions of years old, as I believe this video proves, then the whole base of evolution is gone. Evolution could not have possibly happened in a few thousand years.

Response to #1: there actually is dragons in cultures from every continent. The video explains this as you would clearly see if you watched the video. I would suggest next time that before you try to disprove something you fully understand what you are trying to disprove.

Response to #2: The same type of dragon "founded" in Europe during the Middle Ages was already around before then in different regions of the world. I do not have an answer as to why the Romans do not have dragon carvings or stories. I do however belive that archeology was not the Romans main concern. There is also many dinosaur fossils buried under Greek temples.

Response to #3: As I am sure you know, whenever a story is passed down through generations, details are lost. Also, people tend to dramatize things. It is much more impressive to have killed a flying, fire-breathing dragon than any other animal. And you have to remember that back then these were just common animals. Compare it to today whenever a son and dad come home from a fishing trip they will say they caught one this big *stretching out arms as far as they can* when really they maybe caught one a foot long.

Response to #4: There are evidence of different kinds of dinosaurs. In the video they explain the thunderbird (pterodactyl) in the Rockies, the sauropod-like dinosaurs in Australia and the t-rex-like dinosaurs in Europe.

Response to #5: There are plenty of artifacts that closely resemble dinosaurs we have discovered today. I encourage you to watch the video.

Response to #6: Yes it is possible. But there is numerous amounts of evidence from ancient times that show dinosaurs very similar to the fossils we find today.
Mrlowe
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 7:35:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 6:10:01 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 4:23:36 PM, Mrlowe wrote:
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

You know, there have been a lot of claims on this website of "fatal flaws" in evolution, but I have yet to see a single one that could stand the scrutiny. Do you know why? Well firstly, fatal flaw is taking it wayyy too far. Even if a creationist found a flaw in the theory of evolution, the theory would have to be reworked a little bit, but that would not destroy our entire body of knowledge. Secondly, because the vast majority of creationists don't understand that unexplained observation does not equal flaw.

As far as this one goes, well, I have a few things to say. I didn't watch the video, though I think it's the same one I saw years ago. I watched the opening of it though, so I think I get the gist of where it's going.

I'd like to point out a few flaws myself in this little theory they have going:

1. Only Asian and European cultures have dragons in their mythology, and both are very different from one another. Asian dragons are literally just serpents with legs, so European dragons are the only ones that even remotely resemble dinosaurs.

If Dinosaurs were all over the Earth, why do we not also see dragon mythos in African and Native American cultures?

2. The concept of European dragons came around during the Middle Ages. Why are there no recorded documents of dragons or dinosaurs during Roman times or before?

3. Why do the vast majority of even European dragons not look anything like dinosaurs did? A few do, but even in Europe, most looked serpent-like or just completely different from dinosaurs.

4. Even the ones that did resemble dinosaurs only resembled certain kinds of dinos. Why are there no triceratop-like dragons, or pterodactyl-like dragons?

5. The modern version of a dragon (the one that most closely resembles dinosaurs) came around long after we discovered fossils and started drawing accurate depictions of dinosaurs.

6. Could it have been possible that people in the middle ages found fossils of large dinosaurs and drew creatures they thought the fossil might have looked like?

I believe this is a fatal flaw because if the universe is not billions of years old, as I believe this video proves, then the whole base of evolution is gone. Evolution could not have possibly happened in a few thousand years.

Response to #1: there actually is dragons in cultures from every continent. The video explains this as you would clearly see if you watched the video. I would suggest next time that before you try to disprove something you fully understand what you are trying to disprove.

Response to #2: The same type of dragon "founded" in Europe during the Middle Ages was already around before then in different regions of the world. I do not have an answer as to why the Romans do not have dragon carvings or stories. I do however belive that archeology was not the Romans main concern. There is also many dinosaur fossils buried under Greek temples.

Response to #3: As I am sure you know, whenever a story is passed down through generations, details are lost. Also, people tend to dramatize things. It is much more impressive to have killed a flying, fire-breathing dragon than any other animal. And you have to remember that back then these were just common animals. Compare it to today whenever a son and dad come home from a fishing trip they will say they caught one this big *stretching out arms as far as they can* when really they maybe caught one a foot long.

Response to #4: There are evidence of different kinds of dinosaurs. In the video they explain the thunderbird (pterodactyl) in the Rockies, the sauropod-like dinosaurs in Australia and the t-rex-like dinosaurs in Europe.

Response to #5: There are plenty of artifacts that closely resemble dinosaurs we have discovered today. I encourage you to watch the video.

Response to #6: Yes it is possible. But there is numerous amounts of evidence from ancient times that show dinosaurs very similar to the fossils we find today.

1. I just did a quick google search. I found absolutely nothing for Native American or Australian dragons or any creatures resembling a dinosaur. I'd like a source for both. A video explanation isn't a trustworthy source the majority of the time, especially not one coming from a biased documentary.

2. The different region of the world was the Middle East, which I truthfully just kind of grouped in with Europe since those had the same kind of dragon. And I'm certain none of these cultures had archaeology as their main concern, but I'm sure some artist somewhere in the absolutely gigantic empire that was the Roman Empire sculpted a dinosaur if they were around in that era.

3. No, by nothing like dinosaurs, I really mean NOTHING LIKE DINOSAURS. I don't mean a T-rex with wings and can breath fire, I mean snakes or other small reptiles with wings. Most (European) Dragons share many more traits in common with smaller reptiles and lizards than dinosaurs.

4. Thunderbird is a bird. That's it. No dinosaur explanation require; and since birds may be a direct ancestor to ancient dinosaurs, it makes sense that Thunderbird exhibits features you'd expect from a dinosaur... because birds have similar features.

5. I don't have the time to watch a video over an hour. Can you just list some of the artifacts for reference?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:10:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

Response: Of course dinosaurs do not prove evolution. The evidence that dinosaurs even existed is flawed enough. So it can't possibly prove another flawed concept such as evolution.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

Of the few animals for which we have a fairly complete evolutionary record is the horse. All the main stages of the evolution of the horse have been preserved in fossil form.

Over 60 million years, the horse evolved from a dog-sized creature that lived in rainforests into an animal adapted to living on the plains and standing up to 2 metres high.
In the process its multi-toed feet, that were adapted for walking across the forest floor, evolved into single-toed hooves more suited for running over open country.

Micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses reproduce rapidly and can evolve in a relatively short time. One example is the bacterium E. coli. Its DNA can be damaged or changed during replication, and most of the time this causes the death of the cell. But occasionally the mutation is beneficial (to the bacteria). For example, it may allow resistance to certain antibiotics. When those antibiotics are present, the resistant bacteria have an advantage over the bacteria that are not resistant. Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are an increasing problem in hospitals.
Scientists can now examine the DNA from different species of organism and use the data produced to see how closely related the two species are to each other. By collecting a lot of this data, scientists can compare the results with conventional ideas about how organisms have evolved. What they found was that DNA data supported the conventional theory of evolution.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Mrlowe
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:10:47 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

Response: Of course dinosaurs do not prove evolution. The evidence that dinosaurs even existed is flawed enough. So it can't possibly prove another flawed concept such as evolution.

1. I shouldn't do this because you're you and you're quite possibly the most illogical person I've ever met, but how do dinosaurs existing create a flaw in evolution?

2. How is evolution flawed?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:25:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:20:44 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

Of the few animals for which we have a fairly complete evolutionary record is the horse. All the main stages of the evolution of the horse have been preserved in fossil form.

Over 60 million years, the horse evolved from a dog-sized creature that lived in rainforests into an animal adapted to living on the plains and standing up to 2 metres high.
In the process its multi-toed feet, that were adapted for walking across the forest floor, evolved into single-toed hooves more suited for running over open country.

Micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses reproduce rapidly and can evolve in a relatively short time. One example is the bacterium E. coli. Its DNA can be damaged or changed during replication, and most of the time this causes the death of the cell. But occasionally the mutation is beneficial (to the bacteria). For example, it may allow resistance to certain antibiotics. When those antibiotics are present, the resistant bacteria have an advantage over the bacteria that are not resistant. Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are an increasing problem in hospitals.
Scientists can now examine the DNA from different species of organism and use the data produced to see how closely related the two species are to each other. By collecting a lot of this data, scientists can compare the results with conventional ideas about how organisms have evolved. What they found was that DNA data supported the conventional theory of evolution.

Response: Proof of physical change requires observation. No one has ever seen a species evolve into another species. So evolution is clearly false.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:33:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:24:52 PM, Mrlowe wrote:


1. I shouldn't do this because you're you and you're quite possibly the most illogical person I've ever met, but how do dinosaurs existing create a flaw in evolution?

2. How is evolution flawed?

Response: Rather, you shouldn't do this because you know what will happen next...another deluded atheist will be exposed.

1. The existence of dinosaurs is flawed. Not that it creates a flaw in evolution.

2. Evolution is flawed and proven as fiction from several facts:

1.Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.

2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.

3. Creation by chance or randomness causes disorder, not a repeating pattern. One can easily see and prove this. Try throwing a bucket of paint on the wall to create a checkerboard pattern without choosing to align the paint. You can"t. Proving that repeating patterns are the result of intelligent design, not randomness or chance. So the theory of evolution is false since we see the same patterns of similarity in a species, which cannot derive from randomness.

4. Science insist on claiming evolution is fact and people believe it because scientists say so. Yet scientists are guilty of making up lies to prove evolution, such as the case of Piltdown man and javaman, (both are fake fossils) which were made up by scientists to prove evolution.

5.Scientists even went further in their lie by capturing an African boy named Ota Benga and putting him in a zoo with monkeys to try to prove he was proof of evolution. The boy eventually committed suicide.

Five facts that show evolution is false and scientists are liars when claiming it is true.
Mrlowe
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:05:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:33:25 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:24:52 PM, Mrlowe wrote:


1. I shouldn't do this because you're you and you're quite possibly the most illogical person I've ever met, but how do dinosaurs existing create a flaw in evolution?

2. How is evolution flawed?

Response: Rather, you shouldn't do this because you know what will happen next...another deluded atheist will be exposed.

1. The existence of dinosaurs is flawed. Not that it creates a flaw in evolution.

2. Evolution is flawed and proven as fiction from several facts:


1.Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.



2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.


3. Creation by chance or randomness causes disorder, not a repeating pattern. One can easily see and prove this. Try throwing a bucket of paint on the wall to create a checkerboard pattern without choosing to align the paint. You can"t. Proving that repeating patterns are the result of intelligent design, not randomness or chance. So the theory of evolution is false since we see the same patterns of similarity in a species, which cannot derive from randomness.


4. Science insist on claiming evolution is fact and people believe it because scientists say so. Yet scientists are guilty of making up lies to prove evolution, such as the case of Piltdown man and javaman, (both are fake fossils) which were made up by scientists to prove evolution.


5.Scientists even went further in their lie by capturing an African boy named Ota Benga and putting him in a zoo with monkeys to try to prove he was proof of evolution. The boy eventually committed suicide.

Five facts that show evolution is false and scientists are liars when claiming it is true.

1. lol wut? You don't think dinosaurs existed?

2. Yes. And we've observed micro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro over an extremely long period of time. And since, according to the theory of evolution, macro evolution generally takes millions of years, it makes sense that we don't see it happening every day. Providing such a claim though is not false because it's the result we get from extrapolating all known (and scrutinized, unlike most creationist) evidences.

3. Randomness by definition causes every single thing to happen. Give me an infinite number of atoms and an infinite amount of time and I will make you an infinite amount of perfectly equal checkboards. I'll also make infinity piles of rubbish, but I'll still make the checkerboards.

And the theory of evolution is to separate life from non life. Evolution by definition is not random. Mutations ARE random, but only beneficial or neutral ones pass on from generation to generation. That makes logical sense because detrimental mutations will not help an organism pass on it's genes. I've heard the comparison that it's kind of like throwing a bunch of different buckets of unknown substances onto a wall and seeing which ones stick.

4. And guess who also determined those were fakes? Not creationists, but other scientists who scrutinized those two fakes and discovered that they didn't help their theories. Because although many scientists value accolades and honors above actual research, a majority mainly care about the truth.

5. This just... what? That doesn't even make any sense. And you trying to group all scientists into one category is ignorant and disingenuous. There are some stupid scientists. You've given me two examples of them. I can give you a thousand examples of scientific research done right for every two examples you find wrong.
merbear2536
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:11:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 7:35:31 PM, Mrlowe wrote:

1. I just did a quick google search. I found absolutely nothing for Native American or Australian dragons or any creatures resembling a dinosaur. I'd like a source for both. A video explanation isn't a trustworthy source the majority of the time, especially not one coming from a biased documentary.

2. The different region of the world was the Middle East, which I truthfully just kind of grouped in with Europe since those had the same kind of dragon. And I'm certain none of these cultures had archaeology as their main concern, but I'm sure some artist somewhere in the absolutely gigantic empire that was the Roman Empire sculpted a dinosaur if they were around in that era.

3. No, by nothing like dinosaurs, I really mean NOTHING LIKE DINOSAURS. I don't mean a T-rex with wings and can breath fire, I mean snakes or other small reptiles with wings. Most (European) Dragons share many more traits in common with smaller reptiles and lizards than dinosaurs.

4. Thunderbird is a bird. That's it. No dinosaur explanation require; and since birds may be a direct ancestor to ancient dinosaurs, it makes sense that Thunderbird exhibits features you'd expect from a dinosaur... because birds have similar features.

5. I don't have the time to watch a video over an hour. Can you just list some of the artifacts for reference?

#1: "The Indians shuddered as they looked at the monster"s skeleton. The bird had fallen so hard they thought, that its bones were partly sunk in the rock. But the braves could see that its wingspread was as big as four tall men standing on top of one another. The strange creature had fierce claws on its wings, as well as on its feet, and the beak was long and sharp. There was a long, bony crest on its head. The Indians knew that they had never seen a bird like it before." Geis, D., Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, p. 9, 1972. There is many more stories of Indian encounters. Almost all use a different word for this creature than they do for a regular bird. The Indians recognized the difference between a "bird" and this creature or else they would have used the same word.

"The Bunyip, then, is represented as uniting the characteristics of a bird and of an alligator. It has a head resembling an emu, with a long bill, at the extremity of which is a transverse projection on each side, with serrated edges like the bone of the stingray. Its body and legs partake of the nature of the alligator. The hind legs are remarkably thick and strong, and the fore legs are much longer, but still of great strength. The extremities are furnished with long claws, but the blacks say its usual method of killing its prey is by hugging it to death. When in the water it swims like a frog, and when on shore it walks on its hind legs with its head erect, in which position it measures twelve or thirteen feet in height." The Geelong Advertiser 2 July 1845 in Peter Ravenscroft's Bunyip and Inland Seal Archive. I do not know of any other animal with these characteristics.

#2: This quote is from Heridotus before Rome in The History of Heridotus, Book Two "There is a region moreover in Arabia, situated nearly over against the city of Buto, to which place I came to inquire about the winged serpents: and when I came thither I saw bones of serpents and spines in quantity so great that it is impossible to make report of the number, and there were heaps of spines, some heaps large and others less large and others smaller still than these, and these heaps were many in number." Unfortunately I could not find any specifc evidence of dinosaurs in Rome but will try to when I get more time. I am sure there is evidence I just have not had the time to dig deep.

#3: In the original manuscript of Beowulf, it appears that the monster is very similar to a T-Rex. Over the years it has been discovered that Beowulf was actually a true story by the tombs of characters have been discovered and buildings being unearthed and dated to approxamately the same time the story was written. Over the years the story has been "dramatized" and now longer is considered true.

#4: The people that described the thunderbird did not use the word they used for "bird". If thunderbird and a regular bird were the same they would have used the same word. See #1 quote.

#5: There are many artifacts used in the video. Many of them can be found on the internet. I also do not have the time to record every single artifact but will try to if I find the time. The video is done by several doctors, professors, archelogists, and paleontologists so I doubt they would risk their reputation and their belief by putting out false evidence.
Mrlowe
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:29:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:11:00 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 7:35:31 PM, Mrlowe wrote:

1. I just did a quick google search. I found absolutely nothing for Native American or Australian dragons or any creatures resembling a dinosaur. I'd like a source for both. A video explanation isn't a trustworthy source the majority of the time, especially not one coming from a biased documentary.

2. The different region of the world was the Middle East, which I truthfully just kind of grouped in with Europe since those had the same kind of dragon. And I'm certain none of these cultures had archaeology as their main concern, but I'm sure some artist somewhere in the absolutely gigantic empire that was the Roman Empire sculpted a dinosaur if they were around in that era.

3. No, by nothing like dinosaurs, I really mean NOTHING LIKE DINOSAURS. I don't mean a T-rex with wings and can breath fire, I mean snakes or other small reptiles with wings. Most (European) Dragons share many more traits in common with smaller reptiles and lizards than dinosaurs.

4. Thunderbird is a bird. That's it. No dinosaur explanation require; and since birds may be a direct ancestor to ancient dinosaurs, it makes sense that Thunderbird exhibits features you'd expect from a dinosaur... because birds have similar features.

5. I don't have the time to watch a video over an hour. Can you just list some of the artifacts for reference?

#1: "The Indians shuddered as they looked at the monster"s skeleton. The bird had fallen so hard they thought, that its bones were partly sunk in the rock. But the braves could see that its wingspread was as big as four tall men standing on top of one another. The strange creature had fierce claws on its wings, as well as on its feet, and the beak was long and sharp. There was a long, bony crest on its head. The Indians knew that they had never seen a bird like it before." Geis, D., Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, p. 9, 1972. There is many more stories of Indian encounters. Almost all use a different word for this creature than they do for a regular bird. The Indians recognized the difference between a "bird" and this creature or else they would have used the same word.

"The Bunyip, then, is represented as uniting the characteristics of a bird and of an alligator. It has a head resembling an emu, with a long bill, at the extremity of which is a transverse projection on each side, with serrated edges like the bone of the stingray. Its body and legs partake of the nature of the alligator. The hind legs are remarkably thick and strong, and the fore legs are much longer, but still of great strength. The extremities are furnished with long claws, but the blacks say its usual method of killing its prey is by hugging it to death. When in the water it swims like a frog, and when on shore it walks on its hind legs with its head erect, in which position it measures twelve or thirteen feet in height." The Geelong Advertiser 2 July 1845 in Peter Ravenscroft's Bunyip and Inland Seal Archive. I do not know of any other animal with these characteristics.

#2: This quote is from Heridotus before Rome in The History of Heridotus, Book Two "There is a region moreover in Arabia, situated nearly over against the city of Buto, to which place I came to inquire about the winged serpents: and when I came thither I saw bones of serpents and spines in quantity so great that it is impossible to make report of the number, and there were heaps of spines, some heaps large and others less large and others smaller still than these, and these heaps were many in number." Unfortunately I could not find any specifc evidence of dinosaurs in Rome but will try to when I get more time. I am sure there is evidence I just have not had the time to dig deep.

#3: In the original manuscript of Beowulf, it appears that the monster is very similar to a T-Rex. Over the years it has been discovered that Beowulf was actually a true story by the tombs of characters have been discovered and buildings being unearthed and dated to approxamately the same time the story was written. Over the years the story has been "dramatized" and now longer is considered true.

#4: The people that described the thunderbird did not use the word they used for "bird". If thunderbird and a regular bird were the same they would have used the same word. See #1 quote.

#5: There are many artifacts used in the video. Many of them can be found on the internet. I also do not have the time to record every single artifact but will try to if I find the time. The video is done by several doctors, professors, archelogists, and paleontologists so I doubt they would risk their reputation and their belief by putting out false evidence.

1. If it's a myth (which I personally find likely), then it's no different than any monsters from other mythologies. Just take a normal animal and add some extra terrifying features to it. Obviously making it 5x larger than normal, adding extra sharp claws and wings just make it look cool. Long bony crest is interesting, but eye witness reports are proven to be very unreliable.

Bunyips are probably myths. Resemblance to dinosaurs could be coincidental or they could be because some natives found a fossil.

2. Thanks. Definitely interesting stuff. Maybe that's a starting point for how dragons were introduced to Europe from the middle east (which I'm guessing were introduced from Asia since Asia has had the concept of dragons for a bit longer than Europe and the Middle East).

3. Once again very interesting. Still, as you said, the concept of European dragons were always similar to T-rex line dinosaurs. It's no surprise that a legend would have a T-rex like dinosaur as its antagonist.

4. It's called a thunderbird, and it's probably a myth. If it's not, then it's probably a pretty awesome winged animal, whatever it is. If it's a dinosaur and it's still around, then that doesn't prove evolution wrong, it just proves that a species of dinosaurs have somehow survived into modern times. If it's just a giant bird, well, that's a bit less interesting but much more realistic expectation.

5. Eh, most have already lost a good deal of their reputation just by admitting they're creationists. And I didn't say the evidence was false, I just wanted to know what the evidence was really. And maybe provide some alternate reasons for that evidence being where it was aside from "dinosaurs walked with man".
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:55:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:05:31 PM, Mrlowe wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:33:25 PM, Fatihah wrote:

1. lol wut? You don't think dinosaurs existed?

Response: There is no such thing as a dinosaur. You actually think dinosaurs existed? Then the laugh is on you for believing in such science fiction. It's a lie. Piltdown man and javaman are clear examples of scientists lying about fossil records, and you have no logical evidence as to what happened to dinosaurs that they no longer exist.

2. Yes. And we've observed micro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro over an extremely long period of time. And since, according to the theory of evolution, macro evolution generally takes millions of years, it makes sense that we don't see it happening every day. Providing such a claim though is not false because it's the result we get from extrapolating all known (and scrutinized, unlike most creationist) evidences.

Response: Macroevolution has never been observed, Thus it is false.
3. Randomness by definition causes every single thing to happen. Give me an infinite number of atoms and an infinite amount of time and I will make you an infinite amount of perfectly equal checkboards. I'll also make infinity piles of rubbish, but I'll still make the checkerboards.

Response: All of which is debunked by the fact that you fail to create a checkerboard pattern without choice yourself. Thus providing firsthand evidence that randomness cannot create a repeating pattern.

And the theory of evolution is to separate life from non life. Evolution by definition is not random. Mutations ARE random, but only beneficial or neutral ones pass on from generation to generation. That makes logical sense because detrimental mutations will not help an organism pass on it's genes. I've heard the comparison that it's kind of like throwing a bunch of different buckets of unknown substances onto a wall and seeing which ones stick.

Response: And creation from randomness cannot create a repeating pattern, supported by your own inability to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice.
4. And guess who also determined those were fakes? Not creationists, but other scientists who scrutinized those two fakes and discovered that they didn't help their theories. Because although many scientists value accolades and honors above actual research, a majority mainly care about the truth.

Response: Then that means that claiming something is true because science says so is flawed since scientists themselves lie. You now need proof that the scientists are speaking truthfully. You have none.

5. This just... what? That doesn't even make any sense. And you trying to group all scientists into one category is ignorant and disingenuous. There are some stupid scientists. You've given me two examples of them. I can give you a thousand examples of scientific research done right for every two examples you find wrong.

Response: It makes perfect sense. If the evidence was clear, then there is no need for extreme lies by those who are authorities in the field.

Once again proving evolution is false and nothing but science fiction.
Mrlowe
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:02:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:55:54 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:05:31 PM, Mrlowe wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:33:25 PM, Fatihah wrote:

1. lol wut? You don't think dinosaurs existed?

Response: There is no such thing as a dinosaur. You actually think dinosaurs existed? Then the laugh is on you for believing in such science fiction. It's a lie. Piltdown man and javaman are clear examples of scientists lying about fossil records, and you have no logical evidence as to what happened to dinosaurs that they no longer exist.

2. Yes. And we've observed micro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro over an extremely long period of time. And since, according to the theory of evolution, macro evolution generally takes millions of years, it makes sense that we don't see it happening every day. Providing such a claim though is not false because it's the result we get from extrapolating all known (and scrutinized, unlike most creationist) evidences.

Response: Macroevolution has never been observed, Thus it is false.
3. Randomness by definition causes every single thing to happen. Give me an infinite number of atoms and an infinite amount of time and I will make you an infinite amount of perfectly equal checkboards. I'll also make infinity piles of rubbish, but I'll still make the checkerboards.

Response: All of which is debunked by the fact that you fail to create a checkerboard pattern without choice yourself. Thus providing firsthand evidence that randomness cannot create a repeating pattern.

And the theory of evolution is to separate life from non life. Evolution by definition is not random. Mutations ARE random, but only beneficial or neutral ones pass on from generation to generation. That makes logical sense because detrimental mutations will not help an organism pass on it's genes. I've heard the comparison that it's kind of like throwing a bunch of different buckets of unknown substances onto a wall and seeing which ones stick.

Response: And creation from randomness cannot create a repeating pattern, supported by your own inability to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice.
4. And guess who also determined those were fakes? Not creationists, but other scientists who scrutinized those two fakes and discovered that they didn't help their theories. Because although many scientists value accolades and honors above actual research, a majority mainly care about the truth.

Response: Then that means that claiming something is true because science says so is flawed since scientists themselves lie. You now need proof that the scientists are speaking truthfully. You have none.

5. This just... what? That doesn't even make any sense. And you trying to group all scientists into one category is ignorant and disingenuous. There are some stupid scientists. You've given me two examples of them. I can give you a thousand examples of scientific research done right for every two examples you find wrong.

Response: It makes perfect sense. If the evidence was clear, then there is no need for extreme lies by those who are authorities in the field.

Once again proving evolution is false and nothing but science fiction.

You are seriously the stupidest person I have ever met on this site.

1. You can go to a freaking museum and see giant skeletons of dinosaurs. You want to tell everyone ALL of them are fake? Seriously? You're bloody delusional.

2. You're stupid and refuse to actually address my argument.

3. Randomness given enough time will produce a pattern. That is how probability works you stupid imbecile.

4. And you need proof that they're all lying. I'll take my chances on saying that there's not a mass conspiracy among the scientific ranks, thanks.

5. It doesn't make perfect sense and you're still stupid. The evidence is clear and the only extreme lies are far and in between. Your logic is seriously fundamentally flawed. You need a serious look in the mirror. I hope you're a troll, I really do.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:05:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:25:45 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:20:44 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

Of the few animals for which we have a fairly complete evolutionary record is the horse. All the main stages of the evolution of the horse have been preserved in fossil form.

Over 60 million years, the horse evolved from a dog-sized creature that lived in rainforests into an animal adapted to living on the plains and standing up to 2 metres high.
In the process its multi-toed feet, that were adapted for walking across the forest floor, evolved into single-toed hooves more suited for running over open country.

Micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses reproduce rapidly and can evolve in a relatively short time. One example is the bacterium E. coli. Its DNA can be damaged or changed during replication, and most of the time this causes the death of the cell. But occasionally the mutation is beneficial (to the bacteria). For example, it may allow resistance to certain antibiotics. When those antibiotics are present, the resistant bacteria have an advantage over the bacteria that are not resistant. Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are an increasing problem in hospitals.
Scientists can now examine the DNA from different species of organism and use the data produced to see how closely related the two species are to each other. By collecting a lot of this data, scientists can compare the results with conventional ideas about how organisms have evolved. What they found was that DNA data supported the conventional theory of evolution.

Response: Proof of physical change requires observation. No one has ever seen a species evolve into another species. So evolution is clearly false.

In case of bacteria , evolution can be seen by our own observation. And about other animals, if you can observe for millions of year then that too can be observed. But adaptations can be observed in relatively short time.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:11:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:02:55 PM, Mrlowe wrote:


You are seriously the stupidest person I have ever met on this site.

1. You can go to a freaking museum and see giant skeletons of dinosaurs. You want to tell everyone ALL of them are fake? Seriously? You're bloody delusional.

2. You're stupid and refuse to actually address my argument.

3. Randomness given enough time will produce a pattern. That is how probability works you stupid imbecile.

4. And you need proof that they're all lying. I'll take my chances on saying that there's not a mass conspiracy among the scientific ranks, thanks.

5. It doesn't make perfect sense and you're still stupid. The evidence is clear and the only extreme lies are far and in between. Your logic is seriously fundamentally flawed. You need a serious look in the mirror. I hope you're a troll, I really do.

Response:

1.Going to a museum to see fake fossils is not proof. Dummy. What's next? Are you going to tell us to pick up a spider-man comic as proof that spider-man exist? Stop being retarded.

2. Your weak rebuttals shows where the idiocy stems from.

3. Stating randomness creates a repeating pattern while failing to create one randomly yourself is the very definition of a retard. Only a retarded person would suggest speculation over firsthand evidence. Retardation is not proof. Dummy.

4. The fact that the evidence is false is clear proof that they are lying. Only a dumb and deluded atheist says otherwise.

5. It makes perfect sense, supported by the idiocy in your flawed logic to prove a single thing.

Debunked as usual.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:13:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:05:46 PM, debateuser wrote:


In case of bacteria , evolution can be seen by our own observation. And about other animals, if you can observe for millions of year then that too can be observed. But adaptations can be observed in relatively short time.

Response: And in the case of bacteria, that proves that bacteria evolves. Not macroevolution.
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:16:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 2:52:13 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
This video shows a very big flaw and I think a fatal one with the theory of evolution. I would like to know what some evolutionists think about this. I know it is rather long but if you get the chance please check it out no matter what your beliefs. It provides some very good information and insight to the flaws of evolution.

http://m.youtube.com...

Cool.
Dude... Stop...
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:16:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Macroevolution is a religious term and has nothing to do with science.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:16:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:13:43 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 10:05:46 PM, debateuser wrote:


In case of bacteria , evolution can be seen by our own observation. And about other animals, if you can observe for millions of year then that too can be observed. But adaptations can be observed in relatively short time.

Response: And in the case of bacteria, that proves that bacteria evolves. Not macroevolution.
Macroevolution takes time. DNA evidence and complete fossil record of horse prove theory of evolution
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:22:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:16:56 PM, debateuser wrote:

Macroevolution takes time. DNA evidence and complete fossil record of horse prove theory of evolution

Response: Macroevolution is false. So it takes no time. So any DNA evidence and fossil records that suggest it is true are also false.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:31:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:22:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 10:16:56 PM, debateuser wrote:

Macroevolution takes time. DNA evidence and complete fossil record of horse prove theory of evolution

Response: Macroevolution is false. So it takes no time. So any DNA evidence and fossil records that suggest it is true are also false.

We are discussing theory of evolution. DNA evidence and fossil records of horse prove theory of evolution. Its an example.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:34:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:31:23 PM, debateuser wrote:


We are discussing theory of evolution. DNA evidence and fossil records of horse prove theory of evolution. Its an example.

Response: And the theory of evolution is false, since it is based on a false concept of repeating patterns originating from randomness. Therefore, any DNA evidence or fossil records that suggest otherwise are false examples.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:39:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:22:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 10:16:56 PM, debateuser wrote:

Macroevolution takes time. DNA evidence and complete fossil record of horse prove theory of evolution

Response: Macroevolution is false. So it takes no time. So any DNA evidence and fossil records that suggest it is true are also false.

How very unscientific of you. You make a conclusion without evidence, and say all evidence that goes against said conclusion is false just in order to keep saying your baseless conclusion is true.

Very unscientific.

Maybe you should act like a real scientist. Look at the evidence and then make a conclusion based off of all the evidence to back up your conclusion.

I will provide a link for you to start your research.
29+ Evidences of "Macroevolution": http://www.talkorigins.org...

Good luck
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:39:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:34:17 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 10:31:23 PM, debateuser wrote:


We are discussing theory of evolution. DNA evidence and fossil records of horse prove theory of evolution. Its an example.

Response: And the theory of evolution is false, since it is based on a false concept of repeating patterns originating from randomness. Therefore, any DNA evidence or fossil records that suggest otherwise are false examples.

And tell what time it took according to religion , for living organisms to be formed. Any religious book.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:47:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:39:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:


How very unscientific of you. You make a conclusion without evidence, and say all evidence that goes against said conclusion is false just in order to keep saying your baseless conclusion is true.

Very unscientific.

Maybe you should act like a real scientist. Look at the evidence and then make a conclusion based off of all the evidence to back up your conclusion.

I will provide a link for you to start your research.
29+ Evidences of "Macroevolution": http://www.talkorigins.org...

Good luck

Response: Rather, you should understand the difference between science and brainwashed. For a science is based on observable and testable evidence. Brainwashing is claiming something is true because a book or link says so, with no proof the author is speaking truthfully. So the fact that you just presented a link as evidence, instead of observable and testable evidence of a species evolving into another, is proof of brainwashing, not science.

Once again showing evolution as science fiction.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:51:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:39:24 PM, debateuser wrote:


And tell what time it took according to religion , for living organisms to be formed. Any religious book.

Response: None that I am aware of. Yet not knowing how long it took to be formed does not mean that they were not formed.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:53:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:47:39 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 10:39:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:


How very unscientific of you. You make a conclusion without evidence, and say all evidence that goes against said conclusion is false just in order to keep saying your baseless conclusion is true.

Very unscientific.

Maybe you should act like a real scientist. Look at the evidence and then make a conclusion based off of all the evidence to back up your conclusion.

I will provide a link for you to start your research.
29+ Evidences of "Macroevolution": http://www.talkorigins.org...

Good luck

Response: Rather, you should understand the difference between science and brainwashed. For a science is based on observable and testable evidence. Brainwashing is claiming something is true because a book or link says so, with no proof the author is speaking truthfully. So the fact that you just presented a link as evidence, instead of observable and testable evidence of a species evolving into another, is proof of brainwashing, not science.

Once again showing evolution as science fiction.

Since you do not like links, I will no longer give them.

1. In 1905 de Vries found that some of his evening primroses, Oenothera lamarckiana, had developed a variant number of chromosomes that was not able to be bred with the original plant. The new species was then named Oenothera gigas.
2. A sterile hybrid of the primrose species Primula verticillata and primula floribunda were crossbred. The offspring were fertile, therefore showing macroevolution, and were named Primula kewensis.
3. The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.
4. The flower tragopogon mirus independently originated, indicating macroevolution of the tragopogon species.
5. Tragopogon micelius was found by Owenby in 1950 to have originated in through various hybridizations.

Also, what science REALLY is.
Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

So, this shows that evolution is science, not brainwashing.

Maybe you should learn to study things objectively, without bias.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO