• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dinosaurs or God? Which is more real?

Which one?


  • Total voters
    43

Heyo

Veteran Member
Hi Samantha,

I offered you an education about the earth in your OP on that topic but you didn't take me up on that. Maybe is was because I was late to that discussion and you had moved on.
I'm repeating that offer on this topic. I will convince you that fossils are real to your own satisfaction if you are willing to invest the same time into that exchange that you have invested into "The Land before Time" and the diverse creationist sources.

Deal?
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
I've pretty much renounced use of the word "God," so I won't be commenting on that.

But if dinosaurs are fake, I suppose birds are fake as well, since they're descendants of dinosaurs.
Birds are fake. We've been lied to all this time. They're made of people.


Sorry. That was soylent green. Birds are real. So are dinosaurs. Belief in gods is real too. Some people do it all the time. Others don't feel a need to.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I find Hanlon's Razor a very imperfect statement. There's malice, stupidity, brainwashing and ignorance.
I agree that the original version is a bit snarky. But I like it for that snark.
If you want a milder version use "Don't attribute to malice, what can be equally explained by incompetence.". Incompetence can be caused by stupidity, brain washing or ignorance.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Yes, What does that have to do with my dinner?

51zjzmQsu8L._SX359_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Hi Samantha,

I offered you an education about the earth in your OP on that topic but you didn't take me up on that. Maybe is was because I was late to that discussion and you had moved on.
I'm repeating that offer on this topic. I will convince you that fossils are real to your own satisfaction if you are willing to invest the same time into that exchange that you have invested into "The Land before Time" and the diverse creationist sources.

Deal?
I would love to see it happen, but I am not optimistic.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
I love dinosaurs and Jurassic Park movies.
They are great.

giphy.gif


I believe they are created that is for sure.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member

Very real. Regardless of hilarious blog posts.

Well, the Archaeopteryx turned out to be a hoax

Where did you get that silly idea?

, but we can trust our other fossils right? Well...

Legit fossils that were validated by the harsh scrutiny of scientific inquiry, yes.

When did dinosaurs live?

Dinosaurs lived about about 245 to 66 million years ago.

The thing is, these fossils are made of bones, but the oldest of these are only 2.8 million years old, not 66 million.

Stop joking.
https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/skeleton-mystery-dont-bones-decay-decompose.html

The problem with these mineralized bones is that they are no different from stones that have been sculpted into the shape of skulls or teeth or whatever else. The other problem is that even fossils eventually get ground to dust meaning that tens or hundreds of millions of year pass and there is not even bone-shaped stones remain.

So then, if there aren't real fossils, what exactly is this?

dino1-438722.jpg


It's a fossil and your nonsense of these things not existing... is obvious nonsense?
I mean... it's right there.............

In simplest terms, a moneymaking scheme. After all, these "bones" which are at best only able to be dated with carbon dating up to 95000 years (not even 1 million)


:rolleyes:

Carbon dating isn't used to date fossils millions of years old.
Sounds like you are as ill-informed as you possibly could be.

, after which it is impossible to find either intact genetic material or a sufficient about of carbon. So they're paying for plastic casting, and bits of rock, or strung together bones of more recent animals cobbled together through sketchy techniques.

dinoskel.jpg


So which are more real? I mean, we have at least anecdotal accounts of miracles and stuff, but we can't see God typically. But we have "fossils" of dinosaurs, which are possibly fake.

Also, everyone here must do a Land Before Time marathon. Yup yup yup.

You must pick up a high school grade science book that talks about fossils, what they are, how they are found and how they are dated and identified.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
I said both.

Dinosaurs are cool :)

Also, what do you mean archaeopteryx is a hoax?

It was found to be a hoax by other paleontologists.

"Archaeopteryx lithographica: The Ultimate Fraud"

Basically, about four "examples" of Archeopteryx were found, and each time it resembled the bones of another dinosaur. And there were no feather impressions which should be the case if the thing that fell in the mud had feathers.

Personally, I could technically agree that dinosaurs exist (mainly that they're cool) or dismiss them as nonsense (that it's a giant con game is somehow also cool) with about equal amounts of interest.

But I generally draw the line and say NO WAY, when people start to tell me "dinosaurs are birds". Not only do 100% of them look completely dorky switching scaled creatures to feathered ones, but even a basic examination of dinosaurs reveals reptilian anatomy.
Reptiles have cervical, dorsal, sacral, and caudal vertebrate. So do dinosaurs. Birds do not even have the same bone anatomy!

Dinosaurs if they lived, died out. What it means to die out, is that their genes hit a dead end and something killed them off. Birds and mammals grew out of OTHER evolutions. The nearest relative of a dinosaur is clearly an iguana. Not a parakeet.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It was found to be a hoax by other paleontologists.

"Archaeopteryx lithographica: The Ultimate Fraud"

Basically, about four "examples" of Archeopteryx were found, and each time it resembled the bones of another dinosaur. And there were no feather impressions which should be the case if the thing that fell in the mud had feathers.

Personally, I could technically agree that dinosaurs exist (mainly that they're cool) or dismiss them as nonsense (that it's a giant con game is somehow also cool) with about equal amounts of interest.

But I generally draw the line and say NO WAY, when people start to tell me "dinosaurs are birds". Not only do 100% of them look completely dorky switching scaled creatures to feathered ones, but even a basic examination of dinosaurs reveals reptilian anatomy.
Reptiles have cervical, dorsal, sacral, and caudal vertebrate. So do dinosaurs. Birds do not even have the same bone anatomy!

Dinosaurs if they lived, died out. What it means to die out, is that their genes hit a dead end and something killed them off. Birds and mammals grew out of OTHER evolutions. The nearest relative of a dinosaur is clearly an iguana. Not a parakeet.

"Creation science"
No wonder you are so confused.
Its kind of sad.

BTW, crocodiles are much closer to
dinosaurs than lizards like iguanas.

I bet you care so little for accuracy that you
will not check, still less admit you are wrong.
 
Last edited:

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Carbon dating isn't used to date fossils millions of years old.
Sounds like you are as ill-informed as you possibly could be.

You must pick up a high school grade science book that talks about fossils, what they are, how they are found and how they are dated and identified.

I often wonder if people like you actually think or just regurgitate what other people tell you, until it's fixed in your mind.

The ability to do critical thinking is the ability to challenge even your own past teachings if somehow the don't match up. This means that if a high school text says it, this doesn't automatically make the high school text book true. A biology text book said "We used to believe in spontaneous generation but (after the findings of people like Pasteur) we now know that no life force exists." Okay, two quick points. Pasteur's findings only disprove spontaneous generation - not "life force" and claiming to "know" something now is conceited - by showing that a sterilized broth will no longer produce bacteria (except that it will rot given enough time, implying heat-resistant bacteria, but one thing thar won't happen is flies spontaneously generating inside a closed glads container). Two, Pasteur actually found life generating under certain circumstances (I think mainly compost) but suppressed many of these results to defeat his rival Beauchamp and have a scientific monopoly. He also did so because he was a religious fanatic and believed only God can create life. It's all mentioned in The Dream And Lie of Louis Pasteur. Where it's not mentioned? Your high school science textbook. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe because if people started getting all the facts about their science leaders they might no longer consider them infallible?

The Dream & Lie of Louis Pasteur by R. B. Pearson

Look carefully at the bones I gave you. And do me a favor and question what some book told you in favor of deciding for yourself. Whatever that is, it's still better than a high school textbook because it comes honestly from you.

-----------------

Person with dark hair, I actually have trouble with mixing up lizards and reptiles. But yes, the bone model of a gator or croc is probably much more related. In any case they are both closer in bone structure than they are to birds. So I think the finer points could stand to be revised (understanding of the diff btwn lizards and reptiles better) while keeping the probably not birds part intact.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I often wonder if people like you actually think or just regurgitate what other people tell you, until it's fixed in your mind.

The ability to do critical thinking is the ability to challenge even your own past teachings if somehow the don't match up. This means that if a high school text says it, this doesn't automatically make the high school text book true. A biology text book said "We used to believe in spontaneous generation but (after the findings of people like Pasteur) we now know that no life force exists." Okay, two quick points. Pasteur's findings only disprove spontaneous generation - not "life force" and claiming to "know" something now is conceited - by showing that a sterilized broth will no longer produce bacteria (except that it will rot given enough time, implying heat-resistant bacteria, but one thing thar won't happen is flies spontaneously generating inside a closed glads container). Two, Pasteur actually found life generating under certain circumstances (I think mainly compost) but suppressed many of these results to defeat his rival Beauchamp and have a scientific monopoly. He also did so because he was a religious fanatic and believed only God can create life. It's all mentioned in The Dream And Lie of Louis Pasteur. Where it's not mentioned? Your high school science textbook. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe because if people started getting all the facts about their science leaders they might no longer consider them infallible?

The Dream & Lie of Louis Pasteur by R. B. Pearson

Look carefully at the bones I gave you. And do me a favor and question what some book told you in favor of deciding for yourself. Whatever that is, it's still better than a high school textbook because it comes honestly from you.

-----------------

Person with dark hair, I actually have trouble with mixing up lizards and reptiles. But yes, the bone model of a gator or croc is probably much more related. In any case they are both closer in bone structure than they are to birds. So I think the finer points could stand to be revised (understanding of the diff btwn lizards and reptiles better) while keeping the probably not birds part intact.
You do realize that a compost pile is far from sterile, don't you?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm watching The Land Before Time, parts 1-7 or so, on account of missing my cat, and needing something mindless. And yes, I can definitely tell you that it is cute and entertaining. I can also tell you that the series is probably not good food for impressionable young minds, since along with dinosaurs, along with talking/singing dinosaurs, along with in at least one episode dinosaurs coexisting with simple mammals like squirrels, the message of the story is the same trite multiculturalism that is so sickening 2010 or so onward. "We can all live together in harmony" even though some of the group are legit meat eaters, and the story ends before adulthood for a good reason. Their sharptooth buddy Chomper would quickly find bugs aren't enough, and eat all of his "friends."

But it got me thinking, just how real are these dinosaurs?

Well, the Archaeopteryx turned out to be a hoax, but we can trust our other fossils right? Well...

When did dinosaurs live?

Dinosaurs lived about about 245 to 66 million years ago.

The thing is, these fossils are made of bones, but the oldest of these are only 2.8 million years old, not 66 million.

https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/skeleton-mystery-dont-bones-decay-decompose.html

The problem with these mineralized bones is that they are no different from stones that have been sculpted into the shape of skulls or teeth or whatever else. The other problem is that even fossils eventually get ground to dust meaning that tens or hundreds of millions of year pass and there is not even bone-shaped stones remain.

So then, if there aren't real fossils, what exactly is this?

dino1-438722.jpg


In simplest terms, a moneymaking scheme. After all, these "bones" which are at best only able to be dated with carbon dating up to 95000 years (not even 1 million), after which it is impossible to find either intact genetic material or a sufficient about of carbon. So they're paying for plastic casting, and bits of rock, or strung together bones of more recent animals cobbled together through sketchy techniques.

dinoskel.jpg


So which are more real? I mean, we have at least anecdotal accounts of miracles and stuff, but we can't see God typically. But we have "fossils" of dinosaurs, which are possibly fake.

Also, everyone here must do a Land Before Time marathon. Yup yup yup.

Let's see.. Satan had placed fake dinosaur bones/fossils as a distraction to lure humanity away from God.

It's because a vague compilation with completely unknown authors told you so.

Am I close?
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Hi Samantha,

I offered you an education about the earth in your OP on that topic but you didn't take me up on that. Maybe is was because I was late to that discussion and you had moved on.
I'm repeating that offer on this topic. I will convince you that fossils are real to your own satisfaction if you are willing to invest the same time into that exchange that you have invested into "The Land before Time" and the diverse creationist sources.

Deal?

I didn't take you up on it, because I wrote my post, then went back to my life.

"Fossils are real" is a completely stupid statement. What does it mean to be real? Unless you can answer this question, I'm not convinced you can tell me anything.

As for me, my dad once showed me a pair of shoes and told me "It looks real, right? Well it's mostly empty space on the microscopic level."

When things fossilize to the point of being stone, they are the Ship of Theseus. All parts have been replaced and there is only the image of a bone left, not its actual living tissue.

-----------------

NowhereMan, there is nothing I hate more in debate than hearing a straw man.

No, Satan did not place these bones. They were large bones that people found, scuffed up a bit using unscrupulous techniques, and put next to other old stuff so the layers looked old. They were placed by people wirh an axe to grind in pushing evolutionary theories, and they were placed by greedy ppl hoping to quickly make millions from gullible buyers, and they were placed by people who work for nearby museums to the dig site who collect steady traffic from people who cannot get enough of dinosaurs.

Before dinosaurs, there were freak shows. Mermaids, bearded ladies, mislabeled jars. Before freak shows, people assembled large cow bones into dragons. Humans do this for two reasons, because they want to imagine not being alone, and because they know "there's a sucker born every minute" and peoplw will throw away good money to entertain themselves.

Could there be dinosaurs? Absolutely. However, without any sense of disbelief, the public risks being conned. Any field where there is big funding being passed around, the stakes of blind belief are especially high. Or do you want to buy these opossum bones that I separated, and placed together as a baby dragon?
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I often wonder if people like you actually think or just regurgitate what other people tell you, until it's fixed in your mind.

That's what you do when you come on here spamming links to creationist propaganda sites that say what you want to hear because it agrees with your dogmatic religious beliefs.


The fact of the matter is the claim I responded to was wrong: carbon dating isn't used for anything millions of years old, because carbon dating is only usefull for dating thins that are about 50.000 years old at most. Look it up. It might prevent you from saying stupid things like that in the future, which exposed your vast vast ignorance on these topics.

The ability to do critical thinking is the ability to challenge even your own past teachings if somehow the don't match up. This means that if a high school text says it, this doesn't automatically make the high school text book true

And the same goes for your bible, btw.


A biology text book said "We used to believe in spontaneous generation but (after the findings of people like Pasteur) we now know that no life force exists."


No biology textbook says that to my knowledge. So I wonder what you are quoting from.
Perhaps you can share a link.

Okay, two quick points. Pasteur's findings only disprove spontaneous generation - not "life force" and claiming to "know" something now is conceited - by showing that a sterilized broth will no longer produce bacteria (except that it will rot given enough time, implying heat-resistant bacteria, but one thing thar won't happen is flies spontaneously generating inside a closed glads container). Two, Pasteur actually found life generating under certain circumstances (I think mainly compost) but suppressed many of these results to defeat his rival Beauchamp and have a scientific monopoly. He also did so because he was a religious fanatic and believed only God can create life. It's all mentioned in The Dream And Lie of Louis Pasteur. Where it's not mentioned? Your high school science textbook. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe because if people started getting all the facts about their science leaders they might no longer consider them infallible?


Unlike you with your Jesus, I don't consider anybody to be infallible.

Look carefully at the bones I gave you

What bones? The T-rex picture?

And do me a favor and question what some book told you in favor of deciding for yourself.

No, I'll leave it to the professional paleontologists etc to study such findings and form conclusions. I'm not qualified to do so as I lack the necessary knowledge, credentials, education,...

I don't second guess my doctor's diagnoses either, thinking I can "do better".
I might ask another doctor for a second opinion ("peer review" in the sciences), but I won't pretend to know better.

Whatever that is, it's still better than a high school textbook because it comes honestly from you.

And let's just ignore the fact that *I* don't have the required knowledge or credentials to second guess the conclusions of professionals and their peers who dedicated decades of their lives to studying this stuff.

Person with dark hair, I actually have trouble with mixing up lizards and reptiles. But yes, the bone model of a gator or croc is probably much more related. In any case they are both closer in bone structure than they are to birds. So I think the finer points could stand to be revised (understanding of the diff btwn lizards and reptiles better) while keeping the probably not birds part intact.

So tell us all, what's your education level? What are your qualifications / credentials?
What makes you think you are in any kind of position where you can second guess the conclusions from professional scientists while expecting to be taken seriously?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Hi Samantha,

I offered you an education about the earth in your OP on that topic but you didn't take me up on that. Maybe is was because I was late to that discussion and you had moved on.
I'm repeating that offer on this topic. I will convince you that fossils are real to your own satisfaction if you are willing to invest the same time into that exchange that you have invested into "The Land before Time" and the diverse creationist sources.

Deal?

You are talking about an animated cartoon?? Are you kidding?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
That's what you do when you come on here spamming links to creationist propaganda sites that say what you want to hear because it agrees with your dogmatic religious beliefs.


The fact of the matter is the claim I responded to was wrong: carbon dating isn't used for anything millions of years old, because carbon dating is only usefull for dating thins that are about 50.000 years old at most. Look it up. It might prevent you from saying stupid things like that in the future, which exposed your vast vast ignorance on these topics.



And the same goes for your bible, btw.





No biology textbook says that to my knowledge. So I wonder what you are quoting from.
Perhaps you can share a link.




Unlike you with your Jesus, I don't consider anybody to be infallible.



What bones? The T-rex picture?



No, I'll leave it to the professional paleontologists etc to study such findings and form conclusions. I'm not qualified to do so as I lack the necessary knowledge, credentials, education,...

I don't second guess my doctor's diagnoses either, thinking I can "do better".
I might ask another doctor for a second opinion ("peer review" in the sciences), but I won't pretend to know better.



And let's just ignore the fact that *I* don't have the required knowledge or credentials to second guess the conclusions of professionals and their peers who dedicated decades of their lives to studying this stuff.



So tell us all, what's your education level? What are your qualifications / credentials?
What makes you think you are in any kind of position where you can second guess the conclusions from professional scientists while expecting to be taken seriously?

Education level? Surely you jest.
 
Top