Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Im curious about something that I havent found an answer too...maybe there isnt one. I dont know. So I bring it to you....maybe you can help me figure this out or some one can point me ina direction to where I might find the answer....

According to the bible...Adam and Eve were the first people created....course through the history God gets pissed and decides to start over making Noah and his family our ancestors....


so where then does the cavemen and dinosaurs fit in to the picture...we know they existed....

I have not read all of the Bible so maybe I missed a part where they are talked about.

What I was taught in school contradicted what the bible taught, so I tried to make them both fit because I didn't want to believe anyone would lie to me......So.......

I remember really trying to make them both fit together..

Meet Eve........lol

.....and Adam?



Im sorry but thank you...I needed that laugh today.

Err....err....God put them there to test our faith....err....

It was Earth V1,0 bata.

It was made when God was just a child, but when he grew up, he made Earth V1.5 released.

no doubt.


Ive asked preachers and the like about this and I get nothing...no one can explain it to me.


I mean like were Adam, Eve, Noah and his family dumbshits...like cavemen and were there dinosaurs with them....I know I sound silly but Im trying to piece this together....If Im to believe Adam and Eve were not cavemen....then they were not the first people God created.


Something just isnt right here hmm

Im not trying to discredit the Bible...I do think its a story book based on some truth....But you would think in all the books of the Bible....there would be some mention of where are dinosaurs and cavemen came from and where in history were they if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman....


*shrugs*

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
no doubt.


Ive asked preachers and the like about this and I get nothing...no one can explain it to me.


I mean like were Adam, Eve, Noah and his family dumbshits...like cavemen and were there dinosaurs with them....I know I sound silly but Im trying to piece this together....If Im to believe Adam and Eve were not cavemen....then they were not the first people God created.


Something just isnt right here hmm

Im not trying to discredit the Bible...I do think its a story book based on some truth....But you would think in all the books of the Bible....there would be some mention of where are dinosaurs and cavemen came from and where in history were they if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman....


*shrugs*

Your post strangely reminds me of "Life, the Universe and Everything"...hmm....or at least the end of the prequel....

The bible is an account, some say fiction with sprinklings of facts, that covers a period of time from when Adam and Eve were first on earth. But if you accept scientific data rather than the bible as truth, then you would know that the earth is billions of years old and life has been sustained here for that long, from microorganisms to present day man. Therefore, I would think it inconceivable that dinosaurs would have ANY part in the bible, since biblical accounts comprise such a finite amount of time in the earth's history.

According to Kent Hovind, Dinosaurs are really old Lizards that didn't stop growing.

I've heard that also.

Originally posted by debbiejo
What I was taught in school contradicted what the bible taught, so I tried to make them both fit because I didn't want to believe anyone would lie to me......So.......

I remember really trying to make them both fit together..

Meet Eve........lol

Poor Adam...

There are more explanations for this - perhaps the explanation is not 'There is no God', but ''Bible was not written by such deity''

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There are more explanations for this - perhaps the explanation is not 'There is no God', but ''Bible was not written by such deity''

Yes, or maybe the bible was written as a fictional metaphor.

there are two views espoused by various creationist "science museums" in the united states. One that says that dinosaurs lived with humans and were killed in noah's flood (YABBA DABBA DOO!), the other is that satan put dinosaur bones in the earth to test faith.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
there are two views espoused by various creationist "science museums" in the united states. One that says that dinosaurs lived with humans and were killed in noah's flood (YABBA DABBA DOO!), the other is that satan put dinosaur bones in the earth to test faith.

lol That was one of the excuses my 9th grade religion teacher gave.....God put dinosaur bones in the ground for humans to study, or Satan put them in to test faith....But the moral of the story was that she thought Dinosaurs were fake.

right. Did she refer to oil as Lucifer's diarrhea?

The explanation I was given was that yes the bible says that big G made the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh. This is apparently what HE told us. So what about dinosaurs and stuff well a day is just a term that we use for the set length of time it takes this planet to revolve around it's own axis, other planets have much longer and much shorter days. Therefore what is a day to an infinate being such God? It could well be many thousands of years to such mortals as us wee homanids. So there you have it God turned chaos into 'hell' in what he called 6 days but what to us was really hundreds and thousands of years and the dinos and neanderthals we're just part of the perfection process!




Not that any of this matters cuz according to the Hitch Hikers Guide the planet Earth is just a massive lab experiment run by mice to find the number of the Universe...




(EDIT - According to my little girls fav cartoon dinosaurs are alive and well, only 3" high, and live in a land that is accessed through a magic bucket! )

Originally posted by ~Da Moose~
The bible is an account, some say fiction with sprinklings of facts, that covers a period of time from when Adam and Eve were first on earth. But if you accept scientific data rather than the bible as truth, then you would know that the earth is billions of years old and life has been sustained here for that long, from microorganisms to present day man. Therefore, I would think it inconceivable that dinosaurs would have ANY part in the bible, since biblical accounts comprise such a finite amount of time in the earth's history.

Originally posted by NoMindMe
The explanation I was given was that yes the bible says that big G made the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh. This is apparently what HE told us. So what about dinosaurs and stuff well a day is just a term that we use for the set length of time it takes this planet to revolve around it's own axis, other planets have much longer and much shorter days. Therefore what is a day to an infinate being such God? It could well be many thousands of years to such mortals as us wee homanids. So there you have it God turned chaos into 'hell' in what he called 6 days but what to us was really hundreds and thousands of years and the dinos and neanderthals we're just part of the perfection process! both of these make a little bit of sense....or thats what I will say as an explanation as to why Im nodding my head yes as I read the screen




thanks though...that certainly gives me something to think on....very interesting hmm



Originally posted by NoMindMe

Not that any of this matters cuz according to the Hitch Hikers Guide the planet Earth is just a massive lab experiment run by mice to find the number of the Universe...

that movie was a little weird....but I loved them getting smacked around by fly swatters from the ground or something ... maybe i should watch it again.....Im not quite remembering it properly I think

Originally posted by NoMindMe

(EDIT - According to my little girls fav cartoon dinosaurs are alive and well, only 3" high, and live in a land that is accessed through a magic bucket! ) 3' high, now thats what I call evolution! Hell yeah Baby!

I want that bucket! shock

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your post strangely reminds me of "Life, the Universe and Everything"...hmm....or at least the end of the prequel.... What is that, a movie?


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There are more explanations for this - perhaps the explanation is not 'There is no God', but ''Bible was not written by such deity'' the probability of this being so, is high in my opinion.

Shelbert Lemon> The Bibles account of how many things happened is in glaring contradiction to established science.

Here are a few examples http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

ENjoy

Ive got some reading to do now, thank you Omega...site bookmarked.

Originally posted by The Omega
Shelbert Lemon> The Bibles account of how many things happened is in glaring contradiction to established science.

Here are a few examples http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

ENjoy

Damn. Nice.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, or maybe the bible was written as a fictional metaphor.

Sure, I concur with that also.

they don't fit into the bible quite simply because the bible was written by common man in an age where little was known about our natural world. Those common men with little knowledge asked questions but did not yet have the resources or knowledge to find the answers. They simply pulled answers out of their ass that made sense to them..........ofcourse it only made sense to them because they had little of the information about our natural world that we do today.

Some guys sits down and wonders how the world came to be. He has no knowledge of how it came to be so he just makes up a story that appeases him. We can't fault him for that. He had no evidence to the contrary.....or any evidence at all for that matter. We can however fault the dolts who still believe his story today...............because we do have knowledge, we do have evidence.....and all of it contradicts his made up story to which he had none of either.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
they don't fit into the bible quite simply because the bible was written by common man in an age where little was known about our natural world. Those common men with little knowledge asked questions but did not yet have the resources or knowledge to find the answers. They simply pulled answers out of their ass that made sense to them..........ofcourse it only made sense to them because they had little of the information about our natural world that we do today.

Some guys sits down and wonders how the world came to be. He has no knowledge of how it came to be so he just makes up a story that appeases him. We can't fault him for that. He had no evidence to the contrary.....or any evidence at all for that matter. We can however fault the dolts who still believe his story today...............because we do have knowledge, we do have evidence.....and all of it contradicts his made up story to which he had none of either.

I don't think that the intent of the original writers was to deceive or was done through pure ignorance. I think they were doing the exactly what we do, taking what information they had and making sense of it; kind of like old theories of how the world started. I do agree that the true fools are those how still hold on this outdated theory.

how was it not done through pure ignorance? We're talking old testament here........3,000 years ago, what information did any person on this earth have about the creation of our universe, star, planet or any of the natural cycles that occur on it? They had none.........none at all. Therefore any story they dreamed up was born of ignorance.....

Originally posted by Evil Dead
how was it not done through pure ignorance? We're talking old testament here........3,000 years ago, what information did any person on this earth have about the creation of our universe, star, planet or any of the natural cycles that occur on it? They had none.........none at all. Therefore any story they dreamed up was born of ignorance.....

My understanding of "pure ignorance" is to ignore information that is available.

no....

ignorance by very definition is to not know information..........

look it up........

Originally posted by Evil Dead
no....

ignorance by very definition is to not know information..........

look it up........

Ok, in that case, everything we say now is ignorance, because we don't have all the information.

Shaky........argue with with Webster, not me....

there is a big difference from having no information to not having all information that is possible to be gained about any certain subject........

Originally posted by Evil Dead
Shaky........argue with with Webster, not me....

there is a big difference from having no information to not having all information that is possible to be gained about any certain subject........

IMO you have an incorrect attitude about the people of the past. They were just as smart as we are, but when I read your posts I get the impression that you are calling them stupid. Maybe I'm misreading...

fin

they were just as smart as our civilization today eh?

c'mon now............they lacked the intelligence to build the most basic components of the complex machines and systems we use today to gain our knowledge with.

There's a reason why they didn't understand something they couldn't see with the naked eye............they had yet to develop the intelligence to build the components to assemble an electron microscope........

this all leads back to the topic at hand.....

why didn't they have any information on how the earth, sun, stars, etc. were formed? They had not even begun to become intelligent enough to build the complex machinery we use today for geology, astronomy, biology, etc...........

If you went back in time and showed the most brilliant scientist 3,000 years ago a picture of some far off nebula taken by the Hubble telescope..........he would have no idea what you were showing him. He would be confused how this "apparition" appeared on your sheet of papyrus at all........

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
What is that, a movie?

Nope, a book (or Radio show). It's a sequel to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"...there's a movie to that.....


Seems Shakya's personal definitions get him into arguments a lot lately.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
...Seems Shakya's personal definitions get him into arguments a lot lately.....

You have a difficult time distinguishing between arguments and disagreements. I believe that the people who wrote the bible were just as smart (brain power) as we are today; ED believes differently. We just disagree, and that is all. He will not come back and attack me in other threads because the fact that we disagree is not a big deal. I agree with ED 95% of the time, but not 100%.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have a difficult time distinguishing between arguments and disagreements. I believe that the people who wrote the bible were just as smart (brain power) as we are today; ED believes differently. We just disagree, and that is all. He will not come back and attack me in other threads because the fact that we disagree is not a big deal. I agree with ED 95% of the time, but not 100%.

I am not referring to this disagreement, I was talking about your definition of "ignorance"....on the issue I agree with you...I think they were just as smart or at least almost as smart....

How can they be considered even near as smart or intelligent when they had no where even remotely close to the same amount of information or knowledge as we do? They didn't even know why the grass was green.......or why the sky appeared blue.......or what oxygen was.....the very basics of our fundamental natural world. They had no idea what a cell was......an atom......a sub-atomic particle......they had no idea what a virus was....a bacteria.......... much less their affects or the countless methods of treating them.

all they basicly knew was behaviour they observed around them....and anatomy..........which is a far cry from our knowledge of today. They saw stars moving across the sky....observing the behaviour to know they exist but they didn't even know what a star was..........I don't even see a comparison.

If our knowledge today was the high point on a scale, 100..........their knowledge was a 3.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
How can they be considered even near as smart or intelligent when they had no where even remotely close to the same amount of information or knowledge as we do? They didn't even know why the grass was green.......or why the sky appeared blue.......or what oxygen was.....the very basics of our fundamental natural world. They had no idea what a cell was......an atom......a sub-atomic particle......they had no idea what a virus was....a bacteria.......... much less their affects or the countless methods of treating them.

all they basicly knew was behaviour they observed around them....and anatomy..........which is a far cry from our knowledge of today. They saw stars moving across the sky....observing the behaviour to know they exist but they didn't even know what a star was..........I don't even see a comparison.

If our knowledge today was the high point on a scale, 100..........their knowledge was a 3. Cause Intelligence has nothign to do with knowledge. The question is, if a cavemen was born today, raised as we are today, would he be less intelligent or would he be equal...and I think ti would be very close....

point taken.....I wouldn't say caveman but certainly someone from 3,000 years ago would have the same capacity.

this however was not the point of discussion. Shaky stated that a man 3,000 years ago had comparible knowledge to us........therefore he didn't think their stories were born out of pure ignorance. I later changed the point of contention to intelligence......which I see now was misleading. Originally he said they were smart.......which is directly based on the amount of knowledge one has, not the capacity to attain it. Equal intelligence.......quite possibly.......as smart, not even close.

Yes if smarts is conneceted with knowledge obviously there is no comparing us to cavemen....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause Intelligence has nothign to do with knowledge. The question is, if a cavemen was born today, raised as we are today, would he be less intelligent or would he be equal...and I think ti would be very close....

Well I wouldn't go back to caveman, but people of 10,000 years ago were modern humans, and if you could transport one as an infant to today and raise it and educate it, he/she would be the same as anyone else.

So if they had the same potential, what did they do with it?

IMO we have lost much of the knowledge they had. It was different and more connected with their lives then the knowledge we have today.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
point taken.....I wouldn't say caveman but certainly someone from 3,000 years ago would have the same capacity.

this however was not the point of discussion. Shaky stated that a man 3,000 years ago had comparible knowledge to us........therefore he didn't think their stories were born out of pure ignorance. I later changed the point of contention to intelligence......which I see now was misleading. Originally he said they were smart.......which is directly based on the amount of knowledge one has, not the capacity to attain it. Equal intelligence.......quite possibly.......as smart, not even close.

That was not the point I was making. We had a misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
Im curious about something that I havent found an answer too...maybe there isnt one. I dont know. So I bring it to you....maybe you can help me figure this out or some one can point me ina direction to where I might find the answer....

According to the bible...Adam and Eve were the first people created....course through the history God gets pissed and decides to start over making Noah and his family our ancestors....


so where then does the cavemen and dinosaurs fit in to the picture...we know they existed....

I have not read all of the Bible so maybe I missed a part where they are talked about.

* dinosaurs fit here, bro...

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good."
Genesis 1:24-25

* am i right?

maybe, maybe not. But for something really strange when you're thinking about dinosaurs read Job 40 and 41.

maybe in the dark ages.i don't mean that midevil bs

my favorite part about this argument is RCdating. Sure, the Earth is 4,000 years old. Quantum mech is fine when i powers your cell phone or your CD player (you'll use those without question) but its not ok when it tells you that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and dinosaurs existed.

or maybe before adam and eve where kicked out.then the were the cavemen

Originally posted by debbiejo
What I was taught in school contradicted what the bible taught, so I tried to make them both fit because I didn't want to believe anyone would lie to me......So.......

I remember really trying to make them both fit together..

Meet Eve........lol i want me a piece of that

Originally posted by debbiejo
naughty

Originally posted by peejayd
* dinosaurs fit here, bro...

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good."
Genesis 1:24-25

* am i right? I dont see how this is so. If it was so good why did he erase it, and begin instead with Adam and Eve....If it was so good and he did not erase it...then Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman.


and btw...Im no bro.

Yeah, it could of been an elephant, or some other extinct animal.....Animals are always going extinct..........hey could of been a dragon.......King Arthur talk about those..........

According to many scattered fragments extant, man's lower nature was symbolized by a tremendous, awkward creature resembling a great sea serpent, or dragon, called leviathan. All symbols having serpentine form or motion signify the solar energy in one of its many forms. This great creature of the sea therefore represents the solar life force imprisoned in water and also the divine energy coursing through the body of man, where, until transmuted, it manifests itself as a writhing, twisting monster---man's greeds, passions, and lusts.
BTW........I'm no bro. either....

lol that sounded great...maybe my head is still too foggy to comprehend though this morning....I didnt quite catch all that. bag

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yeah, it could of been an elephant, or some other extinct animal.....Animals are always going extinct..........hey could of been a dragon.......King Arthur talk about those..........

According to many scattered fragments extant, man's lower nature was symbolized by a tremendous, awkward creature resembling a great sea serpent, or dragon, called leviathan. All symbols having serpentine form or motion signify the solar energy in one of its many forms. This great creature of the sea therefore represents the solar life force imprisoned in water and also the divine energy coursing through the body of man, where, until transmuted, it manifests itself as a writhing, twisting monster---man's greeds, passions, and lusts.
BTW........I'm no bro. either....

This was a response to my post about Job right?

Animals (both real and mythical) are used as symbols all the time. The lion is a symbol of royalty, the lamb a symbol of meekness. Being a symbol doesn't indicate that a creature doesn't exist and the creatures described in Job are referred to as real creatures, not symbols. I could almost accept that Behemoth was an elephant or something (other than the tail like a cedar part).

Sounds to me like some animal we haven't scientifically documented (correct me if I'm wrong please - not a zoologist). To me Behemoth sounds kind of like a brontosaur and leviathan sounds kind of like a plesiosaur. Impossible of course since both were already extinct by that time, but it is interesting.

The Dinosaurs aren't REAL people !

Lucifer just CREATED Science and REASON as a way to pull you way from your GOD and CREATOR.

It's not real ! Science is too confusing anyway, religion is muchh muchh easier. ALL you gotta do is SAY YES YES YES YES


All you gotta do with religion is BLINDLY accept what they tell you to beleive without questioning it.

With Science you ACTUALLY have to TAKE the INITIATIVE to RESEARCH AND LEARN and you gotta OPEN YOUR MIND...ahhh im too lazy for that crap,

I HATE THINKING FOR MYSELF...i'd rather somebody just tell me "this is real" and ill just say "okay i beleive"









ahhhhha

hahahhahah
hahhahahahhahahaaa

Or you could do the research and still have faith. Believe it or not there are a lot of scientists who are still religious. I think they even outnumber the atheist scientists.

Yes ur right.

Scientists are not immune to religious bias.

What i said before is a joke. Don't take it seriously.

But you have to understand...my joke...some people ACTUALLY think that way.

SOME religious people ACTUALLY beleive this...that science is a false way to look at something. That Science is the devil's lure....thats rediculous.

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
I have not read all of the Bible so maybe I missed a part where they are talked about.

No, you didn't miss it.



That is incorrect, as birds didn't exist for many millions of years after the creation of the world, towards the end of the dinosaurs reign. Likewise the early oceans were most certainly not filled with "great sea creatures" - rather jelly fish and little things like that. "And every living creature that moves"? It might sound pedantic but virtually no species alive in todays world was present at the beginning, or even in the first few million years following. Hell, in the case of all major mammals, birds and sea creatures, they didn't exist for many millions of years after.



I guess they could fit in with the "beasts of the earth" - but it doesn't sound very dinosaury. And as above - "everything that creepeth" - when everything that creepeth most certainly did not get all created at once. And the use of the word cattle/livestock after their kind? There was not a single species during or before the reign of the dinosaurs that qualifies that descriptor, or for a long time after.



That's not so strange - it is quite possible that such creatures might have existed, though one expects there would be some evidence of such massive beasts, especially with iron bones and such. However, it could quite possibly have been a dinosaur - extinct yes, but fossilised bones have been turning up since ancient times, and in such times the answer to the unexplained, such a strange beasts, was to it was mythological. Minotaurs, cockatrices, griffins, dragons etc Or even downright fiction - people had imaginations then as well. Or mistakes - it is believed that the mermaid myth has it's origins linked to delusional sailors seeing manatees down deep and thinking they were part fish part human.

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
I dont see how this is so. If it was so good why did he erase it, and begin instead with Adam and Eve....If it was so good and he did not erase it...then Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman.


and btw...Im no bro.

* the dinosaurs are not appropriate to exist when humans will be created... still, Adam and Eve are the first man and woman...

Originally posted by peejayd
* the dinosaurs are not appropriate to exist when humans will be created... still, Adam and Eve are the first man and woman...

If I was God I'd have left the dinosuars, then when Adam and Eve ate the fruit kicked them out of the Garden and waited to see how long they'd last before they got eaten.

Yes, it's true, I'd be a loving, just God that liked dinosaurs more then people.

well if ur christian or a christian denomination,i like how it has demon in it :], then dinosaurs and "cave men" are magic, thats the only way to describe them......just magic.

or possibly pixie dust sprinkled on the sinners and turned them into beasts of sin.

YAY for christianity!!!

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
If I was God I'd have left the dinosuars, then when Adam and Eve ate the fruit kicked them out of the Garden and waited to see how long they'd last before they got eaten.

Yes, it's true, I'd be a loving, just God that liked dinosaurs more then people.

Reminds me of the FedEx commercia where the guy gets fired and stomped on I love that.

Hey guys, I'm going to try to answer some of these questions and give some of my views.

CAVEMEN - when we hear cavemen, we automatically think of an early version of man that wasn't very intelligent like we have seen in cartoons and such since we were kids. Caves have been a common place to live throughout history and in Austrailia there is a town where a lot of people still live in caves due to the high heat... they even have TV in their caves. I am a fomer U.S. Army Infantryman, and I spent a lot of time in the middle east. That whole area has so many mountains and so many caves, and until you have experienced the heat in that part of the world I don't think you can understand how good living in a cave could sound. The Bible mentions people living in caves in many places, the first spot I know of is in Genesis 19:13... and other instances such as where David lived in a cave to hide from Saul. Somewhere in this thread somebody asked something along the lines of cavemen were obviously not as intelligent as we are today because they didn't have the things we do today. A lot of the artwork in caves and tools and methods proved they were intelligent, they just had to start from ground zero... why didn't we have some of the things we have today thirty years ago? Were we not as intelligent 30 years ago? Of course we were, we were developing new technology that led to things we have today. "Cavemen" invented the wheel right? Didn't some of that technology eventually go into the car you drive? They were starting at a time with very little "technology", so things they developed seem primitive, when really, some things were very clever and prove how intelligent they were.

DINOSAURS - my views of the Dinosaur. We all know they existed, we've got the bones all over the place. Did man coexist with them? If you believe the Bible they did. What happened to them? The best view I've heard and the one I believe as well... when God flooded the earth, Noah was to take 2 of every animal on board so they could repopulate the earth (if you read the account, he took more than two of many animals for other uses) A little aside, I think carbon dating is very flawed, most studies prove it's very flawed and I don't buy the timelines given by these scientists. But almost every scientist in the field, whether they believe the age of the earth according to carbon data, agree that there was a massive flood and that flood caused drastic climate changes on the earth. I believe that in God's amazing plan, Dinosaurs no longer had a place and that they weren't able to survive due to a combination of not being able to live in the new climate and possibly due to the lack of food... imagine how little there would be to eat for something that size when almost every animal is dead and so much of the vegetation has been destroyed.

Guys, the basis of Christianity is Faith. There are many things on both sides of the spectrum, creation vs. evolution vs. well... won't even go into scientology, things that neither group has been able to prove and probably never will be able to. So whatever you believe, you are believing in faith. Gods word has been proven in so many ways, google it and look at some of discoveries made that support the Bible's account. He wants us to have faith in Him, to believe he sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to shed His blood as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins... and that He defeated the grave just like he said he would. He has given us a ticket to heaven, all we have to do is believe and ask. I put my faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... and you might ask me "what if you're wrong". Well, if I'm wrong, I live a good life where I have a purpose and have a fullfilled feeling, die and there is nothing after that, I haven't lost anything. What about the ones who didn't believe, when they die and it turns out they were wrong? Don't be one of them. Every one of you that have posted or read on here, you have had God tug at your heart because you took the time to look into it. I imagine most of you have spent a lot of time battling in your head, trying to find answers to these questions... Satans calling card is confusion, and I bet so many of you are so confused about it all, you get frustrated and angry which keeps you from finding the answers. Don't let Satan win, don't be lazy. You can't afford to risk not finding the answers. I encourage all of you to search, don't just google it... get your butt out of bed, get to a church. Don't sit in the back row daydreaming and bolt for the door as soon as it's over. The Pastor will be there, go up and to talk to him after the service. Say hey preacher, I have so many questions, can you take the time to speak with me. Will he have all the answers? No. He's living on faith too, but I promise you that you will get some answers that could just change your life. Go grab a Bible, I really reccomend an NIV STUDY BIBLE. A Study Bible has explanations for the scriptures at the bottom of every page. It's an invaluable source for understanding what your reading. I pray that all of you find the answers.

Archaeologists dont use radioactive carbon dating to tell the age of dinosaur bones. IIRC, they use Potassium-Argon. If C-14 dating is as flawed as you say it is, it would have been long abandoned by the archaeologists themselves, long before some fundies found out about it, exaggerate it, and use it against on any scientific encroachment on Bible "truths". Besides, most archaeologist use more than one dating method to date their samples.


Here is something to ask you Pastor . . . . mine hates me . He doesnt want to answer any more of my questions.

Does zombies exist during the time of Jesus?

Matt. 27:50-54.
'And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit . . . . the earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs and after Jesus resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.'

I bet if Ash and his boomstick were there, people might mistaken him for the Messiah .

The quantum mech behind RC14 dating is based on the same theories as CD burners and your cell phones. You trust them right? Its accurate and certianly more accurate than any religious schemes of dating historical objects.

Originally posted by FrazierW19
Guys, the basis of Christianity is Faith. There are many things on both sides of the spectrum, creation vs. evolution vs. well... won't even go into scientology, things that neither group has been able to prove and probably never will be able to. So whatever you believe, you are believing in faith.
Not true. Some of us believe fact, not somehting written in an anonymous book.
Originally posted by FrazierW19
Gods word has been proven in so many ways, google it and look at some of discoveries made that support the Bible's account.
Oh really. FYI, fact almost never suports the bible's views. Thats why religion has had to change so much over history, they're pretty consistantly wrong.
Originally posted by FrazierW19
He wants us to have faith in Him, to believe he sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to shed His blood as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins... and that He defeated the grave just like he said he would. He has given us a ticket to heaven, all we have to do is believe and ask. I put my faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...
Thanks for your opinion. and btw, how do you know your god's true will?
Originally posted by FrazierW19
and you might ask me "what if you're wrong".
Exactly.
Originally posted by FrazierW19
Well, if I'm wrong, I live a good life where I have a purpose and have a fullfilled feeling, die and there is nothing after that, I haven't lost anything. What about the ones who didn't believe, when they die and it turns out they were wrong? Don't be one of them.
Personally, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. I have lived a good life and have purpose and a fulfilled feeling. I'm athiest. Haveing a good life is not exclusive to religion. What happens when you die and your consciousness blinks out of existance, if you could think at that point, imagine how stupid you'd feel living your whole life around what many consider to be false pretenses.
Originally posted by FrazierW19
Every one of you that have posted or read on here, you have had God tug at your heart because you took the time to look into it. I imagine most of you have spent a lot of time battling in your head, trying to find answers to these questions...
Most of mine have been answered and those answers have nto come from any religion. Religous "answers" only seem to undermine its goals.Originally posted by FrazierW19
Satans calling card is confusion, and I bet so many of you are so confused about it all, you get frustrated and angry which keeps you from finding the answers. Don't let Satan win, don't be lazy.
I know answers, I find them myself. I'd rather be honestly confused than blindly accept an ubstitantiated "truth." Its called bieng honest with yourself and not giving in to false pretenses just because you feel temporarily uncomfortable.
Originally posted by FrazierW19 You can't afford to risk not finding the answers.
You're Christian god is not everyone's answer. If you're actually intellecual, answers should only lead to more questions. Its not a dead end you just accept and become satisfied with.
Originally posted by FrazierW19
I encourage all of you to search, don't just google it... get your butt out of bed, get to a church. Don't sit in the back row daydreaming and bolt for the door as soon as it's over. The Pastor will be there, go up and to talk to him after the service. Say hey preacher, I have so many questions, can you take the time to speak with me. Will he have all the answers? No. He's living on faith too, but I promise you that you will get some answers that could just change your life. Go grab a Bible, I really reccomend an NIV STUDY BIBLE. A Study Bible has explanations for the scriptures at the bottom of every page. It's an invaluable source for understanding what your reading. I pray that all of you find the answers.
No thank you. If you wnat to debate thats fine, but don't waste your time tring to convert people. Its blatnatly offensive and quite frankly wrong. We can make up our own opinions, we don't need you and your dogma to make them for us.

Sorry for the trip, but i ran out of editing time....

I wanted to expand on this:
Originally posted by FrazierW19
Satans calling card is confusion, and I bet so many of you are so confused about it all, you get frustrated and angry which keeps you from finding the answers. Don't let Satan win, don't be lazy.
I know answers, I find them myself. I'd rather be honestly confused than blindly accept an ubstitantiated "truth." Its called bieng honest with yourself and not giving in to false pretenses just because you feel temporarily uncomfortable. The way of blindness is accepting answers to fill in gaps in your soul, no matter how many flaws there may be. The way of enlightement is learning on your own terms who you are, learning waht you are and seeking truth, no matter how long it takes you to get there. "Confusion is the way of the devil" is a ploy made up by religions doctirne to scare those who might doubt the presence of god and the authority of the church into submitting to their every will. There is nothing wrong with having answers. Id rather fill my holes with the concrete of knowledge than the religious sand that crumbles under the slightest of scrutinies. If confusiton is the way of your devil, then your gods way is obedient blindness.

Seems to me the Bible is full of confusion, hence all the denominations....and persecuting each other...

Don't forget your thoughts........Even thinking things are a sin.........

Originally posted by debbiejo
Don't forget your thoughts........Even thinking things are a sin.........

So, then you and I are doomed!

Cavemen and dinosaurs? Well, wasn't it some caveman who wrote the Old Testament?

Sometimes i swear thinking is a Christian sin.

Originally posted by Alliance
Sometimes i swear thinking is a Christian sin.

I believe it is...

Originally posted by Alliance
Sometimes i swear thinking is a Christian sin.



quote of the week. add any organised relegion in place of Christian though. along with the word 90% of socitial cultures.

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
Im curious about something that I havent found an answer too...maybe there isnt one. I dont know. So I bring it to you....maybe you can help me figure this out or some one can point me ina direction to where I might find the answer....

According to the bible...Adam and Eve were the first people created....course through the history God gets pissed and decides to start over making Noah and his family our ancestors....


so where then does the cavemen and dinosaurs fit in to the picture...we know they existed....

I have not read all of the Bible so maybe I missed a part where they are talked about.

Dinosaurs and cavemen are lies that scientists made to turn us into atheists.

do u have proof of this?? explain........

Didn't cavemen evolve from dinosaurs?

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
Im curious about something that I havent found an answer too...maybe there isnt one. I dont know. So I bring it to you....maybe you can help me figure this out or some one can point me ina direction to where I might find the answer....

According to the bible...Adam and Eve were the first people created....course through the history God gets pissed and decides to start over making Noah and his family our ancestors....


so where then does the cavemen and dinosaurs fit in to the picture...we know they existed....

I have not read all of the Bible so maybe I missed a part where they are talked about.

The bible is wrong, simple.

Originally posted by Boris
The bible is wrong, simple.

The bible is symbolic; the people who take the bible literally are the ones that are wrong.

Originally posted by Mindship
Didn't cavemen evolve from dinosaurs?

No, they evolved more directly form small mammals that coexisted with dinosoars. But these ancestors did have thier own common ancestor. But there was no direct evolving "from."
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible is symbolic; the people who take the bible literally are the ones that are wrong. Very true, it is no different than any other set of mythology, its meant to fill in gaps in human perception, serve as a general philosophical guide, and keep the adherents in line.

And our thoughts?..our thoughts...where do they come from?

I dunno. Do you?

Just another theory..........."Intelligence?"

Everything must evolve from something else right??

Human intelligence, not spiritual.

I didn't say Spiritual now did I

You want me to say it don't you......you want me to say the "S" word.........ok "S word"......still nothing wrong with that......haha

I dont want you to use the "I" word. "intellignce," in refereance to non physical thing, indicates a conscious spiritual pervasiveness. There is no such thing.

ie. "Intelligent Deisgn"

Intelligence doesn't always mean what it is defined it to mean...It's only the meaning that man gives it......


'I' word...."I' word......

Well, if you intend to give it a menaing other than its defined one, it'd be nice to specify, especially if you're out of the mainstream.

Originally posted by Alliance
No, they evolved more directly form small mammals that coexisted with dinosoars.

I was joking...I guess I should not quit my day job.

Ok.

Ya, right...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, right...

I doubt you even read the passage.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, right...
I have to admit, this shows little respect.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
I doubt you even read the passage.

Point one: The Earth is ~ 4 billion years old not 6,000.

Point two: Humans evolved from other apes ~ 5 million years ago, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Dinosaurs and humans never lived at the same time.

You make some good points ESB-1138. Because of its uniqueness and antiquity Job is thought by many scholars to be earliest writing in the history of the world. Some would date to around 3000-4000BC, some earlier. It describes a world and a situation far different the world we live in today. I believe that Job may have existed around the same time as Adam and Eve, being closely descended from the people created in Genesis 1. There is some evidence that would indicate that the world given an age undeserving of it. Many believe that dinosaurs were wiped out by the flood and that weight of water covering the entire earth could have compressed the soil and rock to create a seemingly older crust. That is one thought. Others claim that the dinosaurs existed and died between the sixth and seventh days and the behemoth and leviathan are last remnants of these extinct species. It is something that we can never know for certain.

proven to be true eh? Well, please.....enlighten the rest of the world to this factual evidence. Incredible claims require incredible evidence, please share it with us. As it's impossible to prove a negative, the obligation of evidence falls on those making the positive assertion.



really? again......please enlighten us to this "evidence". A difference of one day you say.......well surely you have all the recorded data of human and dinosaur fossils having the same carbon level at your disposal.........



wow.......like an ostrich with it's head in the sand. You accept the fact that we humans know how most natural cycles work.......you take a scientists word for it when they tell you it's going to rain tomorrow. hell, you take everything scientists have to say to heart. You use the computers they invented because, you drive the automobile they invented, you trust the clocks they invented.......but when it comes to something your mommy and daddy told you was true when you were a kid, all of a sudden the scientists don't know what they're doing. They're wrong. Remember......scientists invented the computer you're using right now, mommy and daddy told you Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny were true.



well by all means, let's hear it. Exactly by what means do they explain the dinosaur bones released 1000x the amount of carbon than any and every other animal you claim to have existed at the same time. What exactly made them so special.......



your book, which you base your entire belief system upon, is flawed from your very first sentence. "god" created Eve from Adam's rib. Surely you are not doubting the existence of DNA are you? I mean....we have even cloned animals using their DNA. The DNA in Adam's rib is the exact same DNA that resides in every other cell in his body. If this is used to create Eve (coughclonecough)......how is it she was not an exact physical reproduction of Adam?....which is what clones are. Simple.....the primitive screwheads who wrote the book had no clue what DNA was or that it existed so they didn't even bother trying to dodge the subject while making up their quaint tale.......



talk talk talk..........you talk about proven, truth and evidence.......yet have given nor referenced any. put up or shut up zealot.

"There seems to be a reference" is the important phrase. You want the bible to be fact, so you dilute your self to believe that it is more then it really is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Point one: The Earth is ~ 4 billion years old not 6,000.

Point two: Humans evolved from other apes ~ 5 million years ago, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Dinosaurs and humans never lived at the same time.

I don't know much about carbon dating, but I have a slightly off-topic question if someone knows.

Would an enormous flood as described in the Noah portion of the Bible impact the accuracy of carbon dating? It seems that the large amount of water required for such a flood would alter the system in some way that may have impacted this.

It also seems scientifically difficult to explain how an event such as this could possibly have occurred. Given this I believe it possible that the flood described could have been limited in scope to the small area that would have been considered by Noah to be the world. If this were the case it would have implications on interpretation of passages of the Bible that use the term "world". It could also alter the interpretation of other terms in that the understanding of the individual speaking in the text could have impacted the meaning of language used in the text similarly in other instances.

I don't really care if it would or not, my beliefs aren't impacted by the possible age of the Earth and its inhabitants, or by the possible alterations in these interpretations.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't know much about carbon dating, but I have a slightly off-topic question if someone knows.

Would an enormous flood as described in the Noah portion of the Bible impact the accuracy of carbon dating? It seems that the large amount of water required for such a flood would alter the system in some way that may have impacted this.

It also seems scientifically difficult to explain how an event such as this could possibly have occurred. Given this I believe it possible that the flood described could have been limited in scope to the small area that would have been considered by Noah to be the world. If this were the case it would have implications on interpretation of passages of the Bible that use the term "world". It could also alter the interpretation of other terms in that the understanding of the individual speaking in the text could have impacted the meaning of language used in the text similarly in other instances.

I don't really care if it would or not, my beliefs aren't impacted by the possible age of the Earth and its inhabitants, or by the possible alterations in these interpretations.

Check this out:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Check this out:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

I actually saw the video of this, I had forgotten about it.

The video left the concept unverified. There was verification that the black sea was in fact freshwater at one point, but was inconclusive as to the rest of the theories.

Originally posted by Regret
I actually saw the video of this, I had forgotten about it.

The video left the concept unverified. There was verification that the black sea was in fact freshwater at one point, but was inconclusive as to the rest of the theories.

I am waiting for them to go down there and make some big find. Maybe Noah's ark.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am waiting for them to go down there and make some big find. Maybe Noah's ark.



My opinion is that there will never be much evidence for religion. If there is it will be a disappointment to the religious people out there.

Originally posted by Regret


My opinion is that there will never be much evidence for religion. If there is it will be a disappointment to the religious people out there.

Only those people who spend their time trying to prove the bible as fact will be disappointed. The people who realize their religion as something inside of their life, will not care.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't know much about carbon dating, but I have a slightly off-topic question if someone knows.

Would an enormous flood as described in the Noah portion of the Bible impact the accuracy of carbon dating? It seems that the large amount of water required for such a flood would alter the system in some way that may have impacted this.

It also seems scientifically difficult to explain how an event such as this could possibly have occurred. Given this I believe it possible that the flood described could have been limited in scope to the small area that would have been considered by Noah to be the world. If this were the case it would have implications on interpretation of passages of the Bible that use the term "world". It could also alter the interpretation of other terms in that the understanding of the individual speaking in the text could have impacted the meaning of language used in the text similarly in other instances.

I don't really care if it would or not, my beliefs aren't impacted by the possible age of the Earth and its inhabitants, or by the possible alterations in these interpretations.

Not really on the Carbon dating front. Contamination is possible, and taken into calculations, but a world wide flood would affect other dating techniques.

And they think they may have found the site of the mythological flood. The Sumerians experience a large amount of flooding that entered into their cultural conscious (but it was just normal flood the likes of which always happen) - they recorded it, excavations reveal a datable silt layer - but it was miles away from being a world drowner, and didn't kill everybody, nor even wipe out the Sumerian culture (that occurred naturally later.) Of course it must be remembered the Sumerians were influential on other cultures that followed - including the Jews. I am inclined to believe that the "great flood" of the bible might in fact be an example of a religion appropriating and adapting another cultures myths.



They thought they found that as well, turned out to not be true. And they never will find the Biblical Noah's ark, as it is impossible for such a ship to exist in serving the function it did in those days. There are barely any ships today that could even give the slight impression of holding 2 of every species, and enough food to keep them going for 40 days. Yes, one of the few things I will say is impossible - Noah's ark. A boat carry a family and a few goats perhaps, but unless it is a Tardis there is no way a boat back then could carry even a fraction of the worlds animal life (let alone all the insects and birds and other things.)

Here's another thing to prove that Dinosaurs did in fact live with humans. Go look at every ancient culture and you will find one thing in common with them; they all in one way or another feature a dragon. Now then how could almost all the cultures of old have the same beast? They could not have any contact with one another but yet Japanese, British, Aztec, and some many others have a dragon in their culture.

Also about Carbon dating; how do we know that has been proven correct? In fact this proves that carbon dating is not accurate:

http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/c14/

you're using a geocities page as credible evidence.

Originally posted by Alliance
you're using a geocities page as credible evidence.

And people thought I was harsh for giving him the nut.

It was predestined apparently.

Originally posted by Alliance
you're using a geocities page as credible evidence.

So you are saying that's false? Mind backing up your claim.

I have seen a lot of evidence of the existence of the Ark. Frozen splinters of wood dating from about 4000BC were found on Mt. Arafat and several spy planes have reported seeing a large wooden boat half covered in ice on Mt. Arafat. The Russians supposedly photographed the Ark during WWI, but the photos were supposedly lost in the Revolution.

Did you know there is a alien face on Mars!

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Here's another thing to prove that Dinosaurs did in fact live with humans. Go look at every ancient culture and you will find one thing in common with them; they all in one way or another feature a dragon. Now then how could almost all the cultures of old have the same beast? They could not have any contact with one another but yet Japanese, British, Aztec, and some many others have a dragon in their culture.

Also about Carbon dating; how do we know that has been proven correct? In fact this proves that carbon dating is not accurate:

http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/c14/

The "Dragons" of the ancients are inspired by EXPOSED dinosaur fossils. Since they lack modern scientific knowledge, they let their imagination run wild. They also ERRONEOUSLY assumed that it is from an animal that died recently. This is according to Discovery Channel.

And yet Job points out different creatures that resemble and sound like a Dinosaur.

Job 40:15-24
Behold now behemoth, which I made with three; he eats grass like an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar (a huge tree) the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lives under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastes not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierce through snares.

At first sounds like an elephant of hippo but a few things around about that:

1.) Neither has a tail like a cedar tree which is one of the biggest trees
2.) Neither has bones that would be described as bars of iron
3.) "he is the cheif of the ways of God" meaning he is the biggest creature God has made. Sure God has made the hippo and elephant to be big but they are not the biggest.
4.) He drinks up a river. Neither hippo nor elephant can drink up a river.

That leaves to one conclusion that this passage speaks of the Brachiosaurus which has been proven to be the biggest creature ever found on earth (some may be bigger but they are related to the Brachiosaurus)

Originally posted by Alliance
Did you know there is a alien face on Mars!
Yes I did.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes I did.

THAT MUST MEAN THERE ARE ALIENS fear

Untill we figured out it was just a bad picture that a buch of people made crazy sh*t up about.

I have wrote a large thesis on creationist theories. I believe that man before the flood was far more advanced than we are now. I like my thesis because I can use to explain almost anything unusual in antiquity.

And what is this inceredible evidence that warrants this "thesis." And what wonderful acedemic institution supported this research.

An unpublished thesis
It is not related to my field of research which is psychology so I can't gain anything by using it. Its not really complete anyway, but it summarizes and rationalizes the ancient world for me. Studying archaeology and the ancient world is a pastime of mine. I actually did most of my research when I wasn't a Christian.
It revolves purely around theories based on the existence of Atlantis before the flood. It is based on the fact that it would take modern man 600 years to build the great pyramid of Egypt even if built at an incredible pace. The incredible cities of the ancient world defy modern explanation.
Here's a picture of Copan, a Mayan city:
http://www.southamericanfiesta.com/destinations/honduras/images/copan.jpg
Here's a picture inside one of the temples:
http://www.bennerwc.com/ancientman/03_maya.html
If you look at it you will plainly see a man with hands on controls, his feet on pedals, in a rocket ship with flame coming from the engine at the bottom. Man used to able fly thousands of years ago. I find this mind boggling.

rockets were made thousand of years ago. The Greeks have many stories as well about people who could fly.

Pretty crazy though. I really think they could.

I see you have a penchant for absurd ideas.

I'd like do see you guys fly with wings and donated bird feathers.

Antlantis is a myth and while its FASCINATING to believe in myths, when it comes down to it...they are still just myths.

I can't see the picture that well, I'll look for another one.

ANcient technology was amazing, the Romans had steam power, glass windows, the Aztecs had quartz lenses...many cool things existed, that doesnt mean that we should go on a speculation spree.

The thesis sounds weak. Pyrimids likly were built faster than 600 years. And a tru thesis would never be based on a myth (BASED ON, not have a myth as its main subject matter). YOu cant base intellectual analysis on fiction.

Levianthans are usually thouguht of as sea "creatures."

1. Myths can spread. Dragons could be so terrifying that traveelers would pass them on as bedtime stories. And your term "dragon" is a strech. I can't believe that every culture has a dragon. What about native americans? What about Africans? People outside of the amil loop of the the Erasian trade routes.

2. Skull passages coul be for other things, just because you think that they could do this, doesnt mean they could. There are likely millions of other Hypotheses in addition to yours.

3. Explaining one dinosoar doesnt explain many. Don't you think people would have observed different types?

4. If there were dinosaurs, where are they now? How come human and dinosaur bones have not been found together?

1. Myths can spread. Dragons could be so terrifying that traveelers would pass them on as bedtime stories. And your term "dragon" is a strech. I can't believe that every culture has a dragon. What about native americans? What about Africans? People outside of the amil loop of the the Erasian trade routes.

Before their could be contact with Mexico, Japan, and China they all had dragons. The ancient Aztec who had no contact with the east had dragons. Eskimos had dragons in their culture. Almost every ancient culture had some type of dragon. Dragons were terrifying creatures.

2. Skull passages coul be for other things, just because you think that they could do this, doesnt mean they could. There are likely millions of other Hypotheses in addition to yours.

And so far none has been proven true. I on the other hand can back up my word with science.

If the dragon had a second pair of lungs so they can produce helium they would be able to have enough of a lift for some to fly and others to be able to breath fire. All they needed was a second pair of lungs. Just watch "Dragons" on animal planet; they explain it in a way that seem to fit them perfectly.

3. Explaining one dinosoar doesnt explain many. Don't you think people would have observed different types?

And I have shown 2 different types. The Bible mentions Dragons 21 times alone and they also use other words for them: Leviathan, Behemoth, Unicorn, and Tanniyn.

4. If there were dinosaurs, where are they now? How come human and dinosaur bones have not been found together?

God's ultimate plan if for man. Dinosaurs did not fit in with his plans. Where would they fit in today? And who is to say that no human remains were ever found around or near Dinosaur bones. People tend to make bigger deals about Dinosaur bones then humans.

And another thing; Dinosaurs were the biggest creatures on earth. They were made without fear. They are the chief ways among God. I doubt any human would dare approach one.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Before their could be contact with Mexico, Japan, and China they all had dragons. The ancient Aztec who had no contact with the east had dragons. Eskimos had dragons in their culture. Almost every ancient culture had some type of dragon. Dragons were terrifying creatures.
Really, would you like to back up that claim?
Originally posted by ESB -1138
And so far none has been proven true. I on the other hand can back up my word with science.

If the dragon had a second pair of lungs so they can produce helium they would be able to have enough of a lift for some to fly and others to be able to breath fire. All they needed was a second pair of lungs. Just watch "Dragons" on animal planet; they explain it in a way that seem to fit them perfectly.
You're a fool to claim you use science.
Helium is a toxic gas and idont know of any other anatomical system in nature that produces Helium let alone stores it.

Don't make up fake reasons to justify your sensationalism.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
And I have shown 2 different types. The Bible mentions Dragons 21 times alone and they also use other words for them: Leviathan, Behemoth, Unicorn, and Tanniyn.
Oh whoopee!. There are many more types that look VERY different. Any fool could classify them differently. I'm sorry, but your evidence falls way short.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
God's ultimate plan if for man. Dinosaurs did not fit in with his plans. Where would they fit in today? And who is to say that no human remains were ever found around or near Dinosaur bones. People tend to make bigger deals about Dinosaur bones then humans.


Oh really? if your god has such a great plan...why were they made in the first place? Dinosoaur bones have not been founf with human bones.

Really, would you like to back up that claim?

Aztec
http://www.newodysseyart.co.uk/Tenochtitlan_002.jpg
And it was said that the "God" was a dragon: Quetzalcoatl

China
http://angelabode.net/Gallery/data/media/1/chinese-dragon.JPG

Japan
http://www.athenasweb.com/img/16thCentDragonOutline.GIF

Africa
http://www.strangescience.net/pics/twohead.gif

List:
Romanian: balau
Germanic: lindworm
Salvic: zmaj
Tatar: Zilant
Chuvash: Vere Celen
Welsh: Y Ddraig Goch

You're a fool to claim you use science.
Helium is a toxic gas and idont know of any other anatomical system in nature that produces Helium let alone stores it.

Don't make up fake reasons to justify your sensationalism.

Possible because of a paired flight bladders, filled with hydrogen produced by the activity of symbiotic bacteria within the dragon's guy. Also, a dragon's bones may not have been solid but were honeycombed with gas spaces, rather like the hollow bones of modern birds. This would reduce the weight of the skeleton without sacrificing strength, a necessary adaptation to fligh.

Accumulation of hydrogen within the flight bladders meant that the dragons could increase in volume quite rapidly as the bladders expanded: the dragons could also contact the bladders by venting gass, perhaphs as a means of controlling altitude, or by combusion during fire-breathing.

Fire-breathing in dragons were based on production of copious amounts of combustible gas, principally hydrogen. The hydrogen could have been produced by bacteria resident in the dragon's gut: all verebrates have an abundant gut flora, often crucial to difestion and other physiological functions.

Oh whoopee!. There are many more types that look VERY different. Any fool could classify them differently. I'm sorry, but your evidence falls way short.

And you provided no proof.

Oh really? if your god has such a great plan...why were they made in the first place? Dinosoaur bones have not been founf with human bones.

Why would humans go near dinosaurs? It has been said that only their creator dares approach them.

Originally posted by ESB -1138


Why would humans go near dinosaurs? It has been said that only their creator dares approach them. If dinosaurs were as numerous as science says would they have had much of a choice in the matter?

How many dinosaurs were there? Then again; how many people were there? The less you have of one the easier it would be to avoid the other.

i see your point

All you proved with those pictures is that snakes existed in every culture. Good job.

First its helium, now its hydrogen, you clearly have broblems with your facts. If dragon bones are lightweight like those of birds, how come most dinosaur bones are not? It seems you have issues.

You can rationalize a mechanism all you want. Orgnaic combustion is possible. However, much like problems in Cinderella, your shoe does not fit the foot.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
And you provided no proof.
I'm not the one making sensationalist claims. You prove positives not otherwise.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Why would humans go near dinosaurs? It has been said that only their creator dares approach them.
This doesn't answer my question at all. It doesnt even address it.

Originally posted by Alliance
All you proved with those pictures is that snakes existed in every culture. Good job.

First its helium, now its hydrogen, you clearly have broblems with your facts. If dragon bones are lightweight like those of birds, how come most dinosaur bones are not? It seems you have issues.

You can rationalize a mechanism all you want. Orgnaic combustion is possible. However, much like problems in Cinderella, your shoe does not fit the foot.


I'm not the one making sensationalist claims. You prove positives not otherwise.


This doesn't answer my question at all. It doesnt even address it.

Why would they all call their dragons something different if they were snakes?

They weren't called dragons.

Originally posted by Alliance
They weren't called dragons.

And they had other names in the Bible. Different cultures have different languages.

Yes and words mean different things. You just absolutely proved my point.

But all those cultures have a different word for snake. If they were snakes why call them something else?

The only thing you have done is but together a collection of snakes and said that they're all dragons.

You have no case.

I saw this thing on Dragons on the History Channel.....
There were 2 theories for Dragons appearing everywhere
1.)Back when we were Monkey Like creatures(yes that's against your religion despite being proven ) there were 3 main predators, Snakes, Birds, and Cats, which is basically the look of a Dragon, it was built-in genetics to run from those, and t know the Predators, eventually the images combined, and you now have a Dragon

2.)Ancients found bones of Dinosaurs, like Pterodactyl, and knew nothing like them, so they made images of what they may have looked like

Originally posted by Alliance
The only thing you have done is but together a collection of snakes and said that they're all dragons.

You have no case.

I say nah; because what is the purpose of naming an animal something if it already had a name? Why call an elephant in English anything else besides an elephant?

Ummm...what?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Ummm...what?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Ummm...what?

What do you call a snake?

A snake....it's differant in each language, what are you getting at?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
A snake....it's differant in each language, what are you getting at?

Why make a new name for something that has already been given a name?

Because people developed in differant areas of the world....

and they have different languages. Words can change menaing too.