Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Statler Waldorf]

Thanks SW. Its great I now know your position on the Dinosaur/Ark business. I would respond now, but I am incredibly drunk (its my birthday today!) so I'll save my response for later this weekend or early next week.

In the meantime, the floor is open for anyone else to comment on Dinosaurs being on the ark.... all i can say, is who had the job of cleaning up the T-Rex's shit?

Happy Birthday

---

---

As for the Ark, yes Noah would have had them on the Ark too.

Space really would not have been an issue because there really are only about 50 true "kinds" of dinosaurs.

Back to the nonsense about "kinds", huh?

Okay, tell me this - are a garter snake and a cobra the same "kind" (they're both snakes!). How about a polar bear and a panda (they're both bears!)? How about a tiger and a house cat (they're both cats!)? How about an eagle and a toucan (they're both birds!)? How about a gorilla and a spider monkey (they're both apes!)? I could go on and on....

Where exactly is the dividing line that distinguishes a "kind"?

These dinosaurs were all different sizes from smaller than a chicken to the sauropods.

You really should stay off that answersingenesis website. It'll rot your brain.

If space really was an issue Noah could have taken Juvenile ones on the Ark.

Because young T. Rexes would only bite off your fingers, as opposed to adults which would bite off your head.

I don't think he needed to conidering the huge amount of space he had on the Ark.

A boat that couldn't have possibly been built given the technology of the time.

These dinosaurs most likely survived after the Ark and sparked many of the dragon stories in China and Europe.

Then when do you think all the dinosaurs died off? Because this scenario is just ridiculous.

There have been modern stories of alleged dinosaur sightings in Australia and Central Africa.

Unsubstantiated anecdotal bullshit.

People who have seen these creatures describe them very accurately despite some of them never even knowing about dinosaurs.

And people have also "seen" and provided descriptions of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the Abominable Snowman. Unfortunately, there is no concrete evidence that any of these creatures actually exist or existed.

We find pictographs that closely resemble dinosaurs.

I've never seen a pictograph of a T. Rex, a Triceratops or a Stegasaurus. You'd think people would have drawn pictures of these amazing beasts. Instead, we have pictures that could easily be representations of common lizards. Occams's Razor.

The finding of Coelacanth amongst serveral other species of animals and trees has shown that animals that supposedly lived millions of years ago could still live today.

And this is supposed to prove......?

---

You really didn't prove much with this post. A few quick points. If we had found fossils of bigfoot and people who had never seen these fossils accurately described the creature based off of sightings I would most likely take their word for it. The fact that we can show tribesman in Australia a fossil of a duck-billed dinosaur leg and they can draw exactly what that animal looked like is pretty amazing. You would have been one of those guys laughing at the reported sightings of Coelacanth in the early 19th century. Then you would have looked like a fool after the 1930s. The ark actually could have been built very easily given the amount of time Noah was given and the help and technology he had. It didn't have to sail, just float. It's actually a very sturdy design. Actually there are temple carvings of stegosaurus, long before its fossils were every discovered. What does the fact that there were dinosaurs as small as chickens and as large as sauropods have to do with AIG? If you do not believe this then maybe you need to read up on your dinosaurs.

P.S. AIG knows that brontosaurus never existed, maybe you guys should read their work more.

---

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

Fixed that for ya. my bold

Just to point out that was a deliberate missquote for humerous effect.
Just learnt that is against the rules. #slaps own wrist#

He's a creationist...evidence means nothing in this thread.

No, I just know that evidence doesn't actually "talk". It requires interpretation. I am just more intellectually honest than you are. I can interpret all the evidence to fit my worldview, you can only interpret some of it to fit your's.