HOME | DD

Guyverman avatar

Guyverman — Creationism...


Creationism...
Published: 2011-09-17 22:49:35 +0000 UTC; Views: 6133; Favourites: 89; Downloads: 42
Redirect to original
Description Greetings, I wish to present a stamp I just made. I only wish to express disagreement. I find this a sombre personal subject and have wheeped several times in shame because of what you will eventually read in the second half of these comments.

For all my life, I've been raised in a non-religious environment and thus, I am 100% secular and dwelt into science rather than the ever-popular superstition that a deity(s) exists. As a result, I am a firm ATHEIST and personally consider religion in general a leftover from the era before we had today's knowledge and technology to independently make theories and observations of our own to discover the mountain ranges worth of evidence against such a theory that there is a magical man in the sky performing everything we see and experience in life.

It is true that individual messages on how to be a proper neighbor in holy books such as the Bible and Koran are very heartfelt. But to me, the actual stories found within them as simply fairy tales and If anyone chooses to believe in God, good for them, but how does if differ from believing in fairies, unicorns, dragons, gnomes and mermaids? Also, if you're going to believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, then I'm afraid that you might as well believe that the Earth is still flat and that the sun revolves around it.

In addition to the tidal waves of mysticism people let themselves be absorbed by until this very day, Religion, especially the Abrahamic ones, such as Christianity have been the source of more hypocrisy and harm than beneficial among us humans in the past 2000 years. Even today, there are poor young souls facing blindfolded manipulation by their superiors to hate and condemn everything beyond what can be explained by them, or within various out-dated texts and questions are forbidden. As a result, sinful horrors have been frequently performed in which names like God, Jesus Christ and Muhammad's have been used in order to justify as most feeble excuses. Because of the long period of time combined number of things that have happened along with the caliber of their immorality, the aforementioned named have been tainted beyond redemption in my eyes.

Notable examples are :

1. The Witch Hunt which killed more than even The Holocaust.
2. The Crusades performed upon the Muslims by arrogant Knights and Bishops. If The Crusades never occurred, the Muslim world may not have eventually devolved into the wreckage it is today.
3. The cruel injustices performed on the wise and progressive scientific minds of the Renaissance era like Galileo who simply wanted to question the way things were.
4 The Vile Spanish Inquisition which not only terrorized and slaughtered non-believers in Europe, but wiped out entire indigenous races within the Americas all in the name of God. This loathsome faction is deemed by many as the precursors to Hitler and his Nazi scum.
5. The Indian Residential schools within Canada, in which youths were forcefully taken from their loving parents to be assimilated into the European way of life. Murders, Molestation and Starvation was endured by the poor students in which the Church needed to take full responsibility for the infliction.
6. It is used to justify pure prejudice. Because of this, we still see a titanic prosecution and delay of civil rights and equality of women, homosexuals, non-married couples, atheists like myself and even religions by other religions that excruciatingly drags on to this day tragically.
7. The smite of inability to separate faith and state in Muslim countries and vengeful terrorism by madmen from the Taliban and Al Qaeda who possess a sickening obsession for the Koran until they are driven mad and value Allah over their fellow man.
8. India's caste system which although is legally no-longer existent nor does it have any connection with the Abrahamic faiths, still thrives strongly due to superstition spawned by the Hinduism and Sikhism majority. The poor are deemed sub-human all because of this.
9. As many good Christians that I admit there are in this world, Christianity is simply to much of a fear-based and miracle-driven religion in mainstream society that values faith a little more exclusively than it should. Even true Islam promotes a rich variety of activities and more freedom of thought such as secularism and seeking (along with preserving) knowledge, which allowed science to survive past the Dark ages of Europe.

If there really someone like God or Jesus Christ, why would they allow all these things to be occur in their name and why do they not immediately intervene?

It is inevitable everyone. Just like the Greek pantheon before it, the sagas of the Bible, Koran, Torah and possibly even the Hindu Gods will dwindle into the status of mythology with no true spiritual significance among us human beings in the far future. Spirituality of any variety has served its purpose in this world and there is simply no longer a appropriate place for it when it, along the general human mind is modernizing and changing so rapidly over time.

Good day, favorites and comments will be appreciated.

NOTE : Any hateful comments from religious fundamentalists will be REMOVED!!!

Guyverman ;) (Wink)
Related content
Comments: 129

PaulthoredPaulthored [2020-02-12 22:43:40 +0000 UTC]

"... which allowed science to survive past the Dark ages of Europe... "

:facepalm:

Science didn't really get started until the Scientific Method was invented, discovered, and/or codified. In Europe... Christian Europe.


 (TL;DR in Edit's if you want)


Without Christian/Christian-Educated  proto-scientist's wondering how to find the Natural laws. The Natural Law's that a Creator known for being a being law & order put into His Creation...

The Scientific Method, and thus science, wouldn't exist.


Also, Galileo Galilee (tldr in edits)

Thanks for Listening. trying to keep it short.

Peace. :peace: :nod:

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SomeDude1887SomeDude1887 In reply to Paulthored [2020-09-11 14:48:41 +0000 UTC]

A lot of the scholars and scientists of the time were from what would now be the Middle East as well.


From what I've heard, Europe in medieval times had started to have less scholars as a direct result of Rome's messy collapse. After that collapse they had moved to the Byzantine empire, located in what is now western Asia, which was the last vestige of Roman society.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PaulthoredPaulthored In reply to SomeDude1887 [2020-09-12 03:17:14 +0000 UTC]

Scholars Yes. Scientists, not so much.

  At least, not until after the scientific method was invented, and the idea spread. (Literally all but one of the 50+ scholars who invented the scientific method, were Avowed Christians. And even the odd man out, was educated at Christian Academies.)


There's a lot of Lazy historical perspectives involved with this...

   Since we know Science, as this thing that deals with knowledge. We then tend to simply refer to anything WE would classify as science or scientific exploration/research, as the terminology we are familiar with.


It would probably be more appropriate to refer to Scholars, tinkerers, Alchemists, or even just Educated individuals.

   With troves of random knowledge, but nothing like the scientific method for comparing it all.

   Trees growing Actual Animals as Fruit, was just as believable as anything like water wheels.

....


As for how the collapse of Rome, made knowledge in middle ages Europe increasingly rare...

   That was basically because the only people able to do any kind of systematic attempt to save Roman books, was the Church.

Everyone else was essentially, to busy (with survival) to make the time/effort/expense, to preserve the books and Scroll's of Rome.

 Even king's, might only have a bookshelf or two. Compared to the archives of the various monasteries.


Not saying that the Other areas weren't Literate, or knowledgeable...

   Just, more because of passing down knowledge about...

Do this thing, and this Happens!

  Not anything about what's actually happening, from a causal perspective.


Ya dig?

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

PaulthoredPaulthored [2019-05-29 22:55:05 +0000 UTC]

judge not an idea/belief by what people have done with it 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TradekeepTradekeep [2019-05-01 01:55:26 +0000 UTC]

All creationists shall see their creator as soon as possible.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PsionicsKnightPsionicsKnight [2019-01-24 05:17:48 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, me neither. I mean, I’ll be honest; I did as a kid, at least to a certain extent (I mean, I believed that a six-day Earth creation was perfectly correct with the Earth being millions of years old, but... like I said, I was a kid).

Nowadays, I accept evolution as a fact and understand how damaging creationism is to everyone around it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PaulthoredPaulthored In reply to PsionicsKnight [2020-02-10 00:50:52 +0000 UTC]

Evolution, of the long term species into another species, is not a Fact. It has not been Scientifically proven.
It's barely a well accepted Hypothesis, at best.
Micro evolution, as opposed to Macro evolution of the above, has been observed Scientifically.
Dog/Cat breeding is essentially Micro Evolution. That Darwin's Finch, that recently received a title for being a new species of the Darwin's Finch, is an example of micro evolution.

But while micro evolution provides evidence that suggests the probability that Macro Evolution is true...
It doesn't Scientifically prove Macro Evolution is true.

And while I don't know which brand of Creationism you are referring to...
I can say that as far as the Bible is concerned, nothing that has been Scientifically Proven, contradicts the Bible.
Mainly it's just the opposite case.
It's not like the Greek gods or the Viking pantheon, where you can find evidence of those beliefs being demonstrably wrong Scientifically.
Because belief in the Bible directly inspired the creation of the Scientific Method. Of the 52, or so, people involved in the creation of the Scientific Method...
Only one, wasn't a Christian. Something Secularism/Atheism likes to forget about, or downplay. ( And it was 90%+ likely, that one non-christian was still Trained by Christians and/or had studied the Bible. It was just a matter of course during that time period.)

And while Secularists/Atheists seem to think that Evolution (and supposedly the attached Beliefs of Life from nothing, & Universe from nothing) disproves the Biblical Narrative...
It actually doesn't.
Oh, when people put their own Religious beliefs & bias's into the Hypothesis's/Science's... They conclude that it does... But the actual Science doesn't care about the Biblical Narrative one way, or the other.

To point out what I mean, in the Bible...
God created Adam/Eve as fully realized & grown adults. Perfectly capable of doing anything that a fully grown adult would normally be able to do.
Walk without problems or muscles uncoordination... Talking with someone else and being able to understand what is being said... Not be blinded by eyes that were unused to accepting light... Etc...
God created them with a History of having grown up, even though they were literally less than a day old.
Similarly, the universe is created with its own History. Fully realized and detailed with a logical growth pattern for if it was just arriving at the point where Humanity burst onto the scene. That's ignoring the possibility of God using the Flood to Recreate/Refresh/Change his creation, while wiping out previous generations marks on the world.

Like I said before, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Creationism... But if you meant that it is not Scientifically acceptable to accept/believe in the Bible...
You Are Dead Wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PsionicsKnightPsionicsKnight In reply to Paulthored [2020-02-10 05:52:37 +0000 UTC]

Okay, first off, tl;dr.

Second; the first thing you said has already been disproven. There are mountains of evidence for evolution being real, and the vast majority of Christians around the globe accept both evolution and the existence of God. Just check out this chart: assets.pewresearch.org/wp-cont…

Third; many of the stories in the Bible are meant to be taken metaphorically.

Of course, I'm pretty sure you aren't going to listen to me, and will just assume I'm an evil false Christian because I don't believe the Bible is meant to be taken 100% literally or I refuse to be skeptical about something that is only really controversial in American Christian churches.
So, I'm not even going to engage with you after this. You have every right to believe what you want, but that doesn't mean its true, and it also doesn't mean that spamming people with a novel is going to "prove" you are right.

Have a blessed day, sir or madam.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PaulthoredPaulthored In reply to PsionicsKnight [2020-02-10 23:34:37 +0000 UTC]

Read it. Evolution is not a fact.

Short-term, Variations of a species, like Race or Dog Breeding...

  That has been Scientifically Proven, using the Scientific Method.


Long term, Species into completely new species or even new types of species evolution...

   Has NOT been Scientifically Proven, using the Scientific Method.


The first one can have its observations Interpreted as evidence for the long term, life forming/complexing from nothing, evolution...

   But, it proves nothing. And requires Biased interpretation to conclude that it is sufficient to Theorize the Hypothesis of Long term evolution. Basically ignoring the Scientific Method to do so.


I'm dealing in Scientific Facts here, not popular culture. It doesn't matter how popular the Beliefs about evolution are, if they aren't concluded from scientifically sound observations, they are not science.


...What does the Bible has to do with this, other than providing an alternative to the Beliefs of evolutionists??


God Bless your reading on this matter.

and God Bless you and yours!!

Peace Sign Emoji

👍: 0 ⏩: 4

PaulthoredPaulthored In reply to Paulthored [2026-06-23 22:02:14 +0000 UTC]

Yay know... pithy Non Sequitur/Ad Hominin style comments...

Really drive home how Little Critical thinking is being applied to the this topic.

Additionally, it's been 6yrs since my comment. Ya might have wanted to reaffirm my position before making a fool of yourself... @NaturalistWarrior

Incidentally, first time hearing about Mr. Hovind.

As Deviantart doesn't allow me to edit my comment so long after making them... (something that I confess finding things to both Like & Dislike about said policy)

I am forced to clarify something here.

Evolution does Not answer the Abiogenesis question, nor is there Scientific Evidence that Proves all life has common ancestry.

Because Science, only examines Present Day Evidence, and therefore can only guess at historical events leading to the present results.

Evolution of a Species... that is, changes in a Type of animal over time/generations/ lifetime happen.

Changes between types of Animals/Plants, doesn't. At least, not naturally.

Furthermore, I reject the Religion which has sprung up around the idea of Evolution...

Based on 3 factors...

Education/Academia literally shutting off any in classroom fair examination of the leading alternative, or the Inherent problems with Evolutionary Religion.

Abiogenesis.

Unreducible Compexity.

I suppose if the previous two are problems Inherent, then a 3rd would be the lack of Proof. Evidence not being proof, anymore than the Christ Myth Theory being Debunked would count as more than Evidence of Christianity being True...

To point out... I'm already giving Evolution benefits of Doubt here.

I assume Carbon Dating is tenable, that the examination of Fossils is done in earnest, that Evolutionists aren't dismissing obvious issues with determinations of Evidence in favor of their pet religion/version of Evolution.

Basically, I'm assuming the Science is generally sound, I'm just questioning the Scientists Conclusions. (Kinda like the guys using Wisconsin Dells/Western Scablands to question Geological timetable assumptions)

Frankly speaking.... I'm finding more evidence of God of the Gaps style Assumptions in Evolutionary beliefs, than i am Proof that Evolution is the be all/end all to Life.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NaturalistWarriorNaturalistWarrior In reply to Paulthored [2026-06-22 17:52:06 +0000 UTC]

I got to go to the bathroom really bad, I ate way too much sushi. I think I'll sneak over and use Kent Hovind's.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PaulthoredPaulthored In reply to Paulthored [2020-02-11 22:13:00 +0000 UTC]

I don't appreciate being Blocked, just because your position can't be defended using the Scientific Method.

I originally was just "Okay, just think about it. Peace!"
Now I'm thinking that its sad that you can't be scientifically objective about your beliefs... 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PsionicsKnightPsionicsKnight In reply to Paulthored [2020-02-11 05:18:30 +0000 UTC]

Please stop sending me these messages. They are annoying, uncalled for, and I would appreciate it if you'd stop now.

Thank you and goodbye.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Meztli72Meztli72 [2018-08-11 06:39:08 +0000 UTC]

The same way I don't support Darwin's theory of evolution, although it's very interesting. And I Love Science, believe or not. :) (Smile)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PRM03PRM03 In reply to Meztli72 [2019-03-06 15:57:19 +0000 UTC]

Good, because "Darwinism" is not identical to the modern evolutionary synthesis anyway. Darwin was neither the first nor the last to study evolution. A theory is just an explanation to how something works; evolution is an observable fact.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

PaulthoredPaulthored In reply to PRM03 [2020-02-10 00:59:52 +0000 UTC]

Observable Fact??
Are you daft man?!?

Scientifically acceptable methods for testing evolution, don't exist. The Scientific Method simply doesn't allow for proper experiments to take place involving evolution...
It takes too long to get results...
Let alone, repeat those results.... Confirm the Observations... And then have others independently preform the experiments and confirm the results.
Humans don't live that long. And this isn't like some stellar observations that only take place once a century or something...

Stop getting your Religious Philosophical beliefs/bias's, interpreted into Scientific Method level Science.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PRM03PRM03 In reply to Paulthored [2020-02-22 13:46:57 +0000 UTC]

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

PaulthoredPaulthored In reply to PRM03 [2020-02-25 23:41:47 +0000 UTC]

edit, i didn't mean to sound dismissive. that is genuinely an interesting video.

Thanks :clap: :thumbsup:

but again, it is akin to selective dog breeding. not evolution.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PaulthoredPaulthored In reply to PRM03 [2020-02-25 23:35:58 +0000 UTC]

That nice. They are still Bacteria though... not even made the leap to multi-cellular life. poor proof/evidence for the evolution of species.

just the equivalent of  dog/cat breeding or human races.


definitely not proof... Though i do understand why people tend to take evolution of species as the Gospel Truth.

just gotta remember that it's based upon unscientific assumptions.

After all, scientists after carbon dating assumed that all geological features took 10k years at a minimum to form.

---then they discovered the Wisconsin Dells & the Missoula Floods/Scablands were made in days or weeks.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_floods

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PRM03PRM03 In reply to Paulthored [2020-02-26 15:45:33 +0000 UTC]

It's clear that your confusion comes from misunderstanding what evolution is.


Genes have different variants and each one is called an allele. The percentage of certain alleles in a specific population will change over time - this is what evolution is. It's simply the modification of the frequency of alleles. And the percentage will change constantly because evolution is inevitable and only stops if said population completely ceases to exist (extinction). Different alleles make different phenotypes, and phenotypes become more different through time because the allele frequencies will continue to change more and more (and mutations will increase the genetic diversity). This means microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same process. The only difference is how much time you are taking into consideration when studying. You are not a clone of your father or mother - the difference is very small, but temporally distant generations look much more different from each other (before the Holocene, humans couldn't properly digest lactose. Now, approximetely 35% of people can. Or you can just compare Homo sapiens to Homo habilis and see a drastic morphological difference).


That experiment was very simple (it was just antibiotics + bacteria in a petri dish). It didn't make multicellular organisms - but, as I explained above, evolution is not a "change of kinds" (whatever that means) but simply a modification of the allele frequencies in a population, which happened in the experiment. A different experiment did make multicellurity out of unicellularity though:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39558-8 .


No one takes "evolution of species as the Gospel Truth". Science is not a religion, scientific publications are not holy books, and scientists are not prophets. The two things are not comparable. Evolution is basic biology, not a bunch of "unscientific assumptions". One of the most important biologists of the 20th century was a Christian called Theodosiurs Dobzhansky. His most famous quote is "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which was written on a medallion in the main hall of the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic institution. Dobzhansky also said: "Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."


Carbon-14 dating is only used for things less than 50,000 years old. Anything older than that needs other forms of radiometric dating (such as potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating). The most accurate scientific estimate of the Earth's age is  4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.49 to 4.59 billion years). Enough time to transform the fisrt prokaryotes into every lifeform that exists and has existed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Meztli72Meztli72 In reply to PRM03 [2019-03-10 16:28:32 +0000 UTC]

Darwin is the most well known researcher of the subject. We need more research. All theories allow humanity to understand our Universe scientifically. As time goes by, we find scientific proofs. :) (Smile)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheDreamVistaTheDreamVista [2018-03-01 03:48:44 +0000 UTC]

I thought this was suppose to be a full critique on creationism, not mostly on religion.

👍: 2 ⏩: 0

villainsprofilevillainsprofile [2018-01-10 18:38:24 +0000 UTC]

"Any hateful comments from religious fundamentalists will be REMOVED!!!"
Isn't that a cop out? If you're going to judge what the Bible says, then why shouldn't we judge what you say or do? Hypocrite.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-22 08:44:51 +0000 UTC]

I have a question.
In the Creationist belief you say that Noah's ark had dinosaurs on it if I remember correctly? And we have the size of the boat as it is stated in the Bible. Noe explain to me how you fit two Mamenchisaurus, Argentinosaurs, Dreadnoughtus, on this ark, and tell me why just the massive weight of these creatures wouldn't crush the arks wooden floor? Once you've come up with whatever reason you could somehow fit 6 (2 of each species) gigantic sauropods onto this boat, explain to me how you fit all the other species of Sauropod, and the other massive amount of dinosaur species? 
I'm honestly curious about what you have to say.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-23 14:46:53 +0000 UTC]

Adult Sauropods are massive. Very good.
now can you tell me what baby Sauropods are?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-23 17:11:39 +0000 UTC]

A fair point, I'll give you that.
But does it state in the Bible anywhere that the gigantic species would have to be babies? That would seem like an important detail

On a separate note if we are to assume that Behemoth and Leviathan are dinosaurs, why would they only describe two species out of the thousands that have been discovered?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-23 19:30:31 +0000 UTC]

Who said the Bible was a biology book? I mean it would be nice if the Quran made a list of the flora and fauna, wouldn’t it?

also you forgot dragons.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-23 19:47:03 +0000 UTC]

Dragons? I don't understand.. dragons as a species basically can't exist sense there are no 6 limbed species that are vertebrates? Vertebrates either have 4 legs, 2 legs and 2 arms, or 2 legs and 2 wings. Dragons have 4 legs and 2 wings or they have 2 arms 2 legs and 2 wings, also how would they breathe fire or any other type of breath weapon?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-23 20:16:04 +0000 UTC]

When was the term ‘dinosaur’ coined? Well after the term ‘dragon’ was deemed for a giant reptilian creature with bird-like features.

Essentially, I’m projecting that dragons are dinosaurs and many legends about dragons may have been true. Even the part of them breathing fire.
I mean if we found fossils of fireflies or glow worms, how would we have known if they could mix certain chemicals in their bodies to luminate  themselves? We wouldn’t because chemicals are not easy to fossilize.
And skunks, we couldn’t have known about its defense mechanism if it was first discovered fossilized.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-23 20:48:16 +0000 UTC]

That is true, but nobody has found fossils of creatures resembling dragons, even ptearsaurs don't resemble them at all, as much as I would love for dragons to be a actual species we would have found bones of something, especially if they lived up till the age of humans

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-23 22:05:51 +0000 UTC]

Um, we did find bones of dragons. Scientists just call them dinosaurs because they are adamant on admitting anything out their unimaginative brains.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-23 22:22:27 +0000 UTC]

But our out of all the hundreds of dinosaur species we've seen, none resemble the dragons described in those legends, plus only really small dinosaurs like Archeopterx could even glide/fly, so how could dinosaurs be he creatures we see in the Dragon myths?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-23 22:53:40 +0000 UTC]

Some dragons were real but some may have been figments of people’s imagination.

Like centaurs came about because Greeks first saw a person riding a horse for the first time.
And mermaids came about because sailors discovered manatees for the first time.

Sometimes first encounters of new things can get muddled by getting details wrong and subsequently new legends and myths were born.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-23 23:08:05 +0000 UTC]

I suppose so, but dragons and dinosaurs seem like a bit of a stretch

Why do we not see dragons with feathers? Or at least the proto-feathers that most dinosaurs (at least on the Therapod side) possess?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-23 23:14:24 +0000 UTC]

And how about legends of Thunderbirds the Native Americans had? They very well could have been Pterosaurs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-23 23:32:46 +0000 UTC]

I find it unlikely that Thunderbirds are Pterosaurs, they match the description of a normal bird if prey and if a creature like Quetzalcoatlus was fly around we probably would have seen one by now

As for Chinese Dragons they are built extremely serpentine and if they are based of a extinct animal it would more likely be Gigantophus or Titanoboa

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-24 06:07:24 +0000 UTC]

Actually in the current atmosphere, something like the Quetzalcoatlus probably wouldn’t be able to get off the ground hence their extinction.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-24 06:09:03 +0000 UTC]

Hmm, that could be one explanation

On the topic of extinction, what happened to all the dinosaur they were on the Ark? Where did ALL of them go?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-24 06:37:23 +0000 UTC]

Well, it very well could just be a combination of many things that naturally make any species go extinct. Like Sauropods. The air they used to breathe in changed after they flood. Having those long necks takes longer for the lungs to take in oxygen and would thus dry out their throats quicker.
But more likely, they were driven to extinction by man as they were the biggest sources or meat or proved to a primary danger to the people and their crops or were hunted simply for fame and glory to slay a dragon as they would have been called at those times. There were no animal protection laws those days so it so made the dinosaurs extinct or at the very most, extremely scarce.
You remember reading Marco Polo? He wrote somewhere that in China, the emperor’s chariot was drawn by a pair of horse-sized reptilian creatures.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-24 06:55:32 +0000 UTC]

I could see that happening but I don't see how humans could wipe out ALL the dinosaurs, surely some of the thousands of species would have survived to the modern era if that is to be believed

As for Marco Polo, how would a human go about taming/domesticating and sort of dinosaur? And if so why would that species be wiped out with the others if it was domesticated/domesticatable?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-24 13:20:43 +0000 UTC]

I don’t see how humans could wipe out all of the dodo birds either but...
And also, whales. Humans have been capable of killing things bigger than them since the dawn of sin. So it’s not infathamable humans could take down a T-Rex with a couple of spears.

I wouldn’t have the first clue. Ask the Chinese of the 12th Century.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-24 17:52:05 +0000 UTC]

While I would agree enough primitive humans could kill a Tyrannosaurus, there is a enormous difference between the Dodo and the entire dinosaur species

While dodos were flightless and basically defenseless herbivores that lived exclusively on 1 island on the planet

Dinosaurs include thousands of species that live across the entire earth, and many of them are lethal carnivores. I don't think it is possible that we could have wiped out ALL the dinosaurs

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-24 19:30:22 +0000 UTC]

The tenacity of human beings are what separates us from the animal kingdom.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-24 20:39:26 +0000 UTC]

True, but I can't see it even being remotely possible just from the standpoint of logic that ancient humans could kill off EVERY species of dinosaur, not because we are not strong enough but because there are just SOO many different species that some would have to have survived, it's impossible that every single species was killed

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-24 21:28:03 +0000 UTC]

Let’s put it this way, how many bears do you ever see in the wild within a year?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-24 21:31:20 +0000 UTC]

Maybe one if I'm lucky, why?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-24 21:41:23 +0000 UTC]

That illustrates something about dinosaurs also being hard to find. Not to say that many of the species are extinct but I happen to be one of the few people in the world who believe at least a few are still alive.
Bears have grown accustomed to steer clear from humans (if unprovoked) and likely so have the dinosaurs. When someone in a rugged town reports a bear, what do they do? They try to hunt down that bear to either kill it or drive it away from their town. It is very likely that we’d do the same if dinosaurs were as common as bears, but then again, we have residential houses around Loch Ness despite the many reports of sightings in the past (and so much more can be said for the unreported sightings too).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

1423Ostafrikasaurus1423Ostafrikasaurus In reply to villainsprofile [2019-01-24 21:54:57 +0000 UTC]

It just doesn't make sense, while I love things like cryptozoology, I just can't see that we wouldn't have found some dinosaur species by now if any at all survived, with modern technology it just makes less and less sense that these animals are still existing from the thousands a species that once existed

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

villainsprofilevillainsprofile In reply to 1423Ostafrikasaurus [2019-01-23 23:10:39 +0000 UTC]

Have not seen how Chinese dragons look?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CorallianassaCorallianassa [2017-12-18 19:44:30 +0000 UTC]

I agree with the general message. Creationism is scientifically complete nonsense. (All religion is, in my opinion).
However, not all of your points are correct. The witch hunts killed much less than the holocaust. The witchhunts killed thousands of people, while the holocaust killed 6 million jews (11 million people in total). The indigenous races in the Americas suffered most under the diseases brought by Europeans, not actual violence. Violence was also a very major factor, and was completely inexcusable, but it was not entirely religiously motivated: political expansionism was a greater drive behind it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0


1 | Next =>