No. Not at all.
-
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!
The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
They were C-14 dated.
There are other depictions of dinosaurs by ancient people.
History Daily
The odd thing is the reason for this fascination creationists have with proving the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs is that they think it will refute the theory of evolution. We discovered Coelacanths nearly nearly 90 years ago. A fish only previously known from 80 million year old fossils and finding living descendants only added to our knowledge of evolution.
Finding a creature or creatures thought to be extinct wouldn't refute the theory.
No. They were not.They were C-14 dated.
There are other depictions of dinosaurs by ancient people.
History Daily
historydaily.org
It makes no difference to evolution anyway. If dinosaurs (a pretty far fetching term but the one used in the articles) were found to exist in some corner of the world 2,500 years ago I fail to see how evolution is disproved.
In my next post I'm going to stomp my foot and demand you believe me so nerrrrrrrr.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Why are their fossils not in the newer rock layers and how did they stay the same.
McBell
Unbound
I believe the science based source I linked over the creationist source they linked.
What???
What is your profession again? Did you mention your expertise. I know you were keen to know that of others, but you seem sort of reluctant to let us know what yours is.
I can't imagine it is in science given what you post.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
If dinosaurs survived so that some ancient people saw them in some remote part of the earth, then some species of them must have survuved for over the last 65 million years or more. So there should be fossils of some of them in the newer rock layers.
also how did they remain the same for over 65 million years without evolution having changed them
McBell
Unbound
That's easy.
Dinosaurs did not survive to walk with humans.
As to the last part: Coelacanth
There is no evidence they survived and the lack of fossils in more contemporary strata supports that. They very likely would have evolved if they had survived. No reason to think they wouldn't have.
You are refuting your own claims.
It isn't just some species either. This collection of various figurines includes a number that represent dinosaurs not known from the very region these figures were found. As well as the fact that there is no other evidence for the existence of these dinosaurs during the last 4,000 years. If they were so widely known that people were using them to ride, then why no other evidence? Why do legitimate tests indicate they are only about 90 years old?
Like the Ica stones and out of place objects, they are frauds.
I thought it was ni or is it nee that you knights say?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
C-14 dating to 500 BC is a legitimate tests.
No it isn't.
Their fossils? Who are they?