Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Anomalocaris]

Humans are only a species of primate because Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. So it does not prove anything that they are there.

Again the creationist ape babbles whatever appears to him to set him apart from the apes. It is as if whatever seem to him to support his creation myth must by that property alone be near enough to the truth to disseminate.

In fact Statler Waldorf was placed in the ape family in classification system devised by Carl Linnæus - a creationist for there was no real choice at the time - in 1735. Evolution itself was not propounded by Darwin for another 124 years, in 1859.

I have to say that while I have no problems being in the ape family, I do rather resent the implication that I am somehow related within several thousand generations to creationists.

[Autumnlicious]

Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. Based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence.

Fixed that for ya.my bold

Intentionally misquoting someone by using the [quote ] function is a very severe offense on every other fourm I have been on. I hope that is also the case on this forum.

Being a delusional pillock who would redefine fundamental axioms to get his way is a more serious offense.

I'm with Ace's feeling on this bird - it's abusing our trust to spout out nonsense.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I don't remember which of you made that funny mistake. I just assume you all believe Brontosaurus was real.

That was you, Statler. Even little childrens' shows like 'Harry and his Bucketfull of Dinosaurs' don't make arsehat mistakes like that. >.>

Since the word "dinosaur" was not created until the 19th Century by Richard Owen (Creationist) I would not expect to see an ancient Hebrew word for it. However the word "dragon" is used numerious times in the Old Testament. It is used symbolically at times but also used when talking about everyday animals.

Your Achilles' heel has been bolded for your review and consideration. The Bible is not to be taken literally, it speaks figuratively, often containing metaphors rather than addressing what it is actually elaborating upon therefore open to anyone's interpretation. You can play semantics with us all day if you like: Dragons aren't dinosaurs.

If I ran into a dinosaur before the word dinosaur was created I probably would describe them as dragons as well.

What? Now you're just messing with us.

I am sure you are also aware that Creationists believe in speciation (sometimes more so than Evolutionists) so to point to one and pretend he believes in common descent without a Creator is dishonest. Still does not change the fact that a Creationists named your beloved Dinosaurs, ironic.

Still does not change the fact your beloved Creationist agreed with Darwin that evolution did actually occur. Such a shame.

Humans are only a species of primate because Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. So it does not prove anything that they are there.

You mean taxonomists - they established biological orders.

---

Is this a serious post? Someone needs to learn what "literal" means. Literal means that you interpret something according to the literary method it was written in. If it is a poem, you interpret it as a poem, if it is a metaphor you interpret it as a metaphor. It's not my fault you use the word incorrectly.

---

---

Humans are only a species of primate because Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. So it does not prove anything that they are there.

Again the creationist ape babbles whatever appears to him to set him apart from the apes. It is as if whatever seem to him to support his creation myth must by that property alone be near enough to the truth to disseminate.

In fact Statler Waldorf was placed in the ape family in classification system devised by Carl Linnæus - a creationist for there was no real choice at the time - in 1735. Evolution itself was not propounded by Darwin for another 124 years, in 1859.

I have to say that while I have no problems being in the ape family, I do rather resent the implication that I am somehow related within several thousand generations to creationists.

---

You are completely right, you are far more similiar to those poop chucking apes than you are to the civilized men known as Creationists.

[Anomalocaris]

you are far more similiar to those poop chucking apes than you are to the civilized men known as Creationists.

You speak out of the heat of the moment. When you are calmer you would agree that we never touch your creation myth, much less chuck it at anyone.

[Statler Waldorf]

you are far more similiar to those poop chucking apes than you are to the civilized men known as Creationists.

You speak out of the heat of the moment. When you are calmer you would agree that we never touch your creation myth, much less chuck it at anyone.

Cute

[Loki_999]

What else would you like to know?

Ah, wasn't i clear. Well, first off, if you are going to make statements like Job used them as work animals (you said something like that...?) then give me the relevant sources for this assumption. Same goes for Leviathan (i recall that one) and Behemoth.

What I was more after was your belief about how and when dinosaurs existed. Were they on the ark? If so, how did they fit. If not, why not? God commanded two of every animal. "One cannot go against the word of God" - great quote from Dune.

[KichigaiNeko]

Enjoy your dream Statler W .....at least it is yours. (In accurate as it is)

[Minimalist]

"The Assertion" comes up with another assertion!!

If I told you what I really thought of you I'd get a nasty PM from Adrian because this board makes a virtue out of tolerating abject stupidity under the guise of 'tolerance.'

[LastPoet]

If I told you what I really thought of you I'd get a nasty PM from Adrian because this board makes a virtue out of tolerating abject stupidity under the guise of 'tolerance.'

I feel your pain Min, but this kind of apologetic troll is best countered with ignoring it, as even your wittier response wouldn't make a dent on the delusion...

[Tiberius]

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='100589' dateline='1287685459']
Intentionally misquoting someone by using the

function is a very severe offense on every other fourm I have been on. I hope that is also the case on this forum.

It isn't.

He quoted something you said, and then put his own "correction" in bold. Afterwards, he said he told you he'd "fixed" your quote, put a wink smiley, and then said "my bold".

Nobody could read that post and come to the conclusion that you said what he quoted you as saying.