SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The dinosaurs that someone said may have existed in so remote area of the world which ancient people saw and made depictions .
-
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
Ironically if he had a 500 million year old figurine then evolution might be in a spot of bother. It would at the very least have a lot of explaining to do.
McBell
Unbound
What remote area of the world are you talking about?
Yes I did! /stomp C14 dating will prove me right! /stomp
Except the evidence indicates that never happened. These are 20th Century frauds.
That would be a problem. Of course it wouldn't have been properly dated using C-14 anymore than these were.
If these dinosaurs existed in this area of Mexico 2500 years ago, then where is the other evidence they were there? No fossils from 2500 years ago. Figures that appear to be species not found in that region by legitimate science. No other cultural references to dinosaurs from that period. The seem to be around but never found.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I was only responding to the speculation of some other poster.
So, one Dino figurine refutes evolution.
Elephant birds of Madagascar went extinct about 1000 years ago. The moas of New Zealand went extinct about 600 years ago. Evidence that they were around at that time are routinely discovered. Yet, examples of the largest land animals ever to exist are never found to support they were in Mexico 2500 years ago.
No. Not at all. Even if they were not frauds, it wouldn't refute evolution as already explained.
You likely will keep repeating this erroneous claim despite the evidence against it, but that won't make it suddenly become a truth.
It isn't unexpected that this is your best "evidence", but now you know that it isn't.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
One Dino figurine refutes evolution and billions of years forever.
The evidence supports the extinction of dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. This hasn't been refuted no matter how much flipping and flopping that some creationists have done with the most questionable of evidence. But if some dinosaurs happened to have survived up to 2500 years ago, it wouldn't be evidence to refuting the theory of evolution. It boggles the rational mind how someone could conclude that.
However, the evidence does indicate that some lineages of dinosaurs did survive in a fashion as the birds.
No. No it doesn't. Sorry.
Nope. It shows someone made a figure out of clay and fired it.
Could crocodiles be considered a living dino? There seems to be conflicting info of when they first appeared. I've found 94 million and 200 million.
They are related, but different lineages and not dinosaurs. I don't know the 200 million years old date, but around 90 million fits the reports as the age of crocodilians.
I wonder if the Acámbaro figures show people riding crocodiles or horses or hippos? Horses wouldn't have been in the area 2500 years ago either.
I'm very sorry for your loss. Better luck next time.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Actually I am happy that evolution has been eliminated forever.
And for this and so many other reasons, I don't see it possible to have a rational discussion with you.
You have done nothing and nothing has happened to the theory of evolution or anything in science as a result of the nothing you have done.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Evolution is the Theory of Nothing because they cannot answer some very simple questions.
Where did the universe come from?
If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?
If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect.
It also violates every law of conservation too.
If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?
If that thing always, existed that violates the law of increasing entropy.
If that thing has not always existed what was there before the thing that was prior our universe to come into being?
Please continue this until you get something that has always been.
And then that will violate the law of increasing entropy.
Where did the laws of nature come from?
Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?
Where did all energy come from?
Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?
Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?
What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many codons was it? When did it come into being?
Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?
In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?
If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?
What was the energy source for these reactions?
Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years/
How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?
What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself?
Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.
If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.
If it was RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.