Dinosaurs and Man

[Cinjin]

I have a better video. And! It's only 8 minutes long.

Your welcome.

Richard Dawkins puts it on blast!!

When was this video made? In the late 70's? And it took them three years? There has been a lot of skeptics that have looked at the foot tracks and concluded that they are dinosaur tracks, based on Kuban's analysis. But this video was made as a backer for the evidence claimed and presented, disproving the former claims of Kuban. Steven M. Stanely made a cast from one of the tracks and, as you can plainly see from the footage, reveals it to be a human footprint. Again, WATCH THE VIDEO.

Did YOU watch the video??? Seriously, you are one poorly assembled spacesuit sir.

How can you possibly be this obtuse?? You want your silly bible to be true SOOO badly that you are willing to poke out your own eyes to avoid seeing the truth.
Even thousands of christian brothers will begrudgingly admit that humans weren't around while dinosaurs were on the planet.

Get over it.

[KichigaiNeko]

#59

[Godscreated]

I have a better video. And! It's only 8 minutes long.

Your welcome.

Richard Dawkins puts it on blast!!

When was this video made? In the late 70's? And it took them three years? There has been a lot of skeptics that have looked at the foot tracks and concluded that they are dinosaur tracks, based on Kuban's analysis. But this video was made as a backer for the evidence claimed and presented, disproving the former claims of Kuban. Steven M. Stanely made a cast from one of the tracks and, as you can plainly see from the footage, reveals it to be a human footprint. Again, WATCH THE VIDEO.

You can't hope to get these people to look at anything that could be evidence against what they believe. Their moto is our science is better than anyone else's, so don't show us anything, we don't need to see it because ours is the only right way. They are and always will be blind, because they choose to be, and then they will say there is no such thing as free will.

[Justtristo]

It's Don Patton...another of those creationist "phd's" of questionable value.

The only thing fossilized here is the bullshit.

The fact that many prominent creationists actually have legitimate PhD's, for example one Emil Silvestru has a PHD in Geology!. Has made myself not take into account the qualifications of anybody making an argument. Anybody who actually is arguing well for their position (like Richard Dawkins) don't resort to trying to point out they have a PhD (which he does) or Robert M Price for that matter (who has two PhD degrees).

[Ace Otana]

First of all, if the Lord God put instinct into every animal so that they sense drastic changes in weather, then He put it in their instinct to travel to the Ark, which is still on top of Mt. Ararat, and gave them instinct not to harm another creature while on board. Second, why do you insist that the Ark needed fully-grown animals?

Firstly, animals can detect changes in the air and movements in the ground. Their senses are far greater than ours. They have a natural early warning system that allows them the time to flee and survive natural disasters. It's got fuck all to do with Noah's ark which cannot float, which I'll get to.

For animals around the planet to migrate to the ark, they'll need the appropriate climate for which suits them individually and to have the right food available to them. Many animals won't be able to reach the ark because many would be on different continents. The other problem is that the ark cannot float due to the material it's made from and the size and shape of it. The hull will buckle and the ship will break apart. Smaller vessels in the past suffered structural failer due to their size.
The other problem is inbreeding, it's fatal for the species. Inbreeding causes all kinds of problems. Such as infertility (the off spring cannot reproduce), organ failer (fatal), immune system failer and many others.
The other problem is having the right space, climate and food for each animal. Even today with our technology we won't be able to pull it off. The inbreeding alone is something we can't overcome.

And all that is just the tip of the ice berg.

[Panglossian]

I highly doubt that it rests on Mt. Masis. Do you know how many animals that ship would have had to carry? How much the food would have been? There is no way Noah's little dingy could have supported two of each animal, his family and the food required to feed all of them.

Watch "The history and the facts about the Ark of Noah". It clearly gives mathematical equations about how many species were on the Ark (for some reason did he did not include insects, worms, etc. but nevertheless, there still would be plenty of room on board). The plant-eaters ate hay, grains, etc. The meat-eaters ate dried meat.

Well if we're going to go into history to prove Noah's Ark, it's worth mentioning the fact that the Euphrates river (Turkey, Syria, Iraq) floods every Spring/Summer. However - according to archaeologists - there was a great storm around 130bc that caused the river to flood much more severely than it usually does. It then burst its banks, overflowed the levis and started sweeping away entire villages, killing hundreds, maybe thousands of people. One survivor was a local Sumerian king called Ziusudra, who managed to find a commercial barge - loaded with livestock - and rode the flood downstream and into the Persian Gulf, where he ran aground.
The Noah's Ark story isn't supposed to be interpreted literally. It is a story of redemption and new beginnings, and to take it to heart is bordering on insanity; you cannot get 5million species onto a boat (well, 10million as it's two of each), then correctly establish isolated, sustainable habitats on-board so that the amphibians had water, the cats had taurine in their diet so they didn't go blind, all African animals had a hot environment, whilst Arctic/Antarctic animals had a cold environment etc etc. then correctly distribute them around the planet so that the marsupials were in Australia, pandas in China etc etc.
Also, how did Noah accomodate all the marine life? They wouldn't have survived in the sea after that amount of rainwater, so where did he put the blue whale? Or the whale shark? Or the Portugese man o'war? It seems god instructed him to save only the animals known to man at the time, and extended the life-span of a certain few who wouldn't last 40days.
If you genuinely believe all this happened, I suggest you seek mental help...fast.

EDIT: Damn, ace beat me to it

[Erinome]

...And because he felt just so dern terrible about killing all everyone on earth, god invented refracted light. Mind you, this omniscient being was fully aware that humanity would still assfuck gleefully and try to rape angels, but in his mysterious logic, he did away with the first batch anyway. Now the refracted light, invented just a few thousand years ago by jesus, is a reminder that god is a murderous fuck up, and he's learned a lesson that he already knew. Now every time you see a rainbow, kids, think of jesus and how perfect he is. Glory be to our zombified demigod! Amen.

[Panglossian]

When was this video made? In the late 70's? And it took them three years? There has been a lot of skeptics that have looked at the foot tracks and concluded that they are dinosaur tracks, based on Kuban's analysis. But this video was made as a backer for the evidence claimed and presented, disproving the former claims of Kuban. Steven M. Stanely made a cast from one of the tracks and, as you can plainly see from the footage, reveals it to be a human footprint. Again, WATCH THE VIDEO.

You can't hope to get these people to look at anything that could be evidence against what they believe. Their moto is our science is better than anyone else's, so don't show us anything, we don't need to see it because ours is the only right way. They are and always will be blind, because they choose to be, and then they will say there is no such thing as free will.

"Our science"? There is only one scientific method, you cretin, and all that which creationists hope to pass off as "science" is totally devoid of any kind of legitimate factual evidence. Scientists do not care what it says in the bible, they only wish to ascertain a more accurate estimation of truth. It is coincidence that it usually contradicts your holy book, nothing more. There's no global conspiracy, no deity laying false paths and - infact - almost 70% of scientists believe in a god, so how could they possibly wish to exploit religion? "Our science", honestly! How could you possibly be that ignorant?

[Erinome]

Watch "The history and the facts about the Ark of Noah". It clearly gives mathematical equations about how many species were on the Ark (for some reason did he did not include insects, worms, etc. but nevertheless, there still would be plenty of room on board). The plant-eaters ate hay, grains, etc. The meat-eaters ate dried meat.

Do you know how many species live on this planet? Evidently not.

If I made a documentary entitled "The history and the facts about Unicorns and how jesus killed them all" would you believe everything I say in it? What if I made sodomizing villains of all the unicorns? I bet you'd believe it.

[Zen Badger]

I got to the bit where he says "contradicts the bible" and quit.

If this man is a real scientist I'm the pope.

He'll be one of those peanuts that automatically rejects anything that isn't in accordance with his stupid book.

And that is not science.