BTW, why DID the WTS have that dinosaur on the inside cover of the old green bible?
It's so embarrassing to realize just how stupid we must have looked, going door to door with our WTS pseudo-science.
StAnn
ONE CREATIONIST EXPLANION FOR DINOSAURS DEMISE
by badboy 32 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
megs
I am obviously confused
-
DanTheMan
I can't get into the heads of fundie xtians who believe in a 6000 year old earth, dinosaurs co-existing with humans, etc.
The only way i can understand it is that at some point in their lives, they must have made such an emotional commitment to their absolutist worldview that they can never reneg on it without experiencing a complete breakdown. The mental hoops that they jump through to maintain their blustering, "I'm right, you're wrong, and boy-oh-boy are you going to get it in the end" mentality are simply staggering. -
gaiagirl
One of the publications from the WTBTS clearly shows a Tyrannosaurus, or similar theropod dinosaur, drowning the rising floodwaters outside the Ark. Water is up to its head, and partly into its mouth. Can't remember the title of the book, perhaps someone remembers it and can post the image?
-
reniaa
I myself am neutral on dinosaurs but found to interesting things you may like to see
first and completely authentic the books on dinosaurs have to be rewritten because of a recent find
The fossilized mammal, repenomamus robustus, lived in the Mesozoic era. The find revealed that some large-sized mammals living in that era may be carnivorous and brave enough to compete with dinosaurs for food and living space.
Undigested bones, including teeth and limbs, of a small dinosaur were found in its stomach, said Li, a CAS researcher. Theunbroken joints meant that the mammal tore and gobbled the prey, almost without biting and chewing, Li said.
Before the latest find, he said, most scientists assume that mammals in the Mesozoic era were fairly small and nocturnal. They were supposed to eat insects and dare not to reach dinosaurs.
The new finds challenge the long-held view and proved that someprimitive mammals were larger than small-sized dinosaurs. Scientists had previously believed that they ate small animals andwalked around in daylight, Li said. Based on the analysis, the devoured dinosaur was one-third of the size of the mammal
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200501/14/eng20050114_170624.html
next is a much challenged issue on dinosaurs in fact said to be completely fake and yet there are some interesting anomolies that suggest dinosaurs may have been on the ark but judge for yourself if fake or not lol.
BOTTOM-CENTER IS A SAUROPOD DINOSAUR WITH DIRMAL FRILLS, DANGLING A MAN IN THE AIR WITH THE MANS LEG IN ITS' MOUTH.BOTTOM-RIGHT SHOWS FIVE DINOSAURIAN CREATURES, A SAUROPOD, A TWO HORNED CERATOPS, A STEGOSAURUS, A PTEROSAUR AND A CARNIVORE TYPE DINOSAUR EATING A FISH.
THESE 9 BURIAL STONES ARE FROM THE MORE THAN 300, FROM THE COLLECTION OF Dr. JAVIER CABRERA, THAT DEPICT SPECIFIC TYPES OF DINOSAURS. FOR YEARS THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMUNITY HAS DISCOUNTED THESE BURIAL STONES AS FAKES BECAUSE "EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT MAN EVOLVED WELL AFTER THE DINOSAURS WERE EXTINT."
PALEONTOLOGISTS USE TO RIDICULE THE ROSETTE SKIN PATTERN AND THE DIRMAL FRILLS PRIOR TO THE 1990's. SINCE THEN FOSSIL DINOSAUR SKIN CLEARLY SHOWING ROSETTE SKIN PATTERNS (SEE OUR WEB PAGE, "THE CERAMIC DINOSAURS OF ICA PERU") AND IN GEOLOGY, DEC.,1992 DIRMAL FRILLS WERE CONFIRMED FOR THE FIRST TIME.
IT IS OBVIOUS TO ANY OPEN MINDED RESEARCHER THAT THE PEOPLE WHO CARVED THESE STONES SAW THESE CREATURES WITH THEIR OWN EYES.
THERE ARE 1100 OF THESE BURIAL STONES IN Dr. CABRERAS' COLLECTION IN ICA PERU. THEIR ART FORM AND LOCATION OF FINDS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INCA CULTURE, c.a. 500-1500 AD. IN THE 1570's THE INDIAN CHRONICLER, JUAN DE SANTA CRUZ PACHACHUTI LLAMGUI WROTE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE INCA PACHACHUTI MANY CARVED STONES WERE FOUND IN THE KINGDOM OF CHINCA, IN CHINCHAYUNGA. HE ALSO STATES THAT SOME OF THESE STONES WERE TAKEN BACK TO SPAIN AT THAT TIME.
ON OCTOBER 3, 1993, THE OJO, LIMA DOMINGO, A MAJOR NEWSPAPER IN LIMA, PERU DESCRIBED A SPANISH PRIEST TRAVELING IN THE AREA OF ICA IN 1525 INQUIRING ABOUT THE UNUSUAL ENGRAVED STONES WITH THE STRANGE ANIMALS ON THEM.
THESE HISTORICAL RECORDS VARIFY THE EXISTANCE OF THESE STONES BEFORE THE 1800's WHEN "MODERN" MEN BEGAN TO LEARN ABOUT THE PAST EXISTANCE OF DINOSAURS.
THESE DINOSAUR ENGRAVED BURIAL STONES ARE POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT THE CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONARY WORLD VIEW IS NOT TRUE!
THIS BEING TRUE, THE "EVOLUTIONARY" ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMUNITY HAS DELIBERATLY SUPPRESSED THE EVIDENCE YOUR SEEING HERE FOR YEARS.http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread314211/pg1
Most believe these were just made by a farmer needing some cash :)
Reniaa
-
MissingLink
No, this find was not huge news. It's been known that there were mammals around with dinosaurs. These were not the same mammals we got now though. This is the one you mention - that "eats dinosaurs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
It was a big rat that was most likely nocturnal and scavanged whatever dead stuff it could find. -
Gerard
Believe it or not, the new Museum of Earth History in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, USA, a creationost museum, has "scientific exhibits displayed in a totally biblical setting with explanations quoting biblcal passages." Here's the one on Dinosaurs:
Were Dinosaurs on the Ark of Noah?
Yes. From a biblical standpoint, it is extremely clear that God created all land animals on day six of the creation week (dinosaurs are land animals), and that He gathered two (male and female) of each kind of land animal into the ark. Therefore, dinosaurs were included in this group. This is reinforced by statements in Genesis 7, which say that all animals with the breath of life came by pairs into the ark.educate: Did Dinosaurs Live with Man? Evidence from fossilized footprints, ancient artwork, literature and fossils all strongly support the fact that dinosaurs and humans did co-exist:
Human and dinosaur tracks have been found together in several places, including the famous tracks near Glen Rose, TX.
Museum: http://www.moeh.org/main/discover.htm
Considering their ridiculous conclusions, it is unbelievable they can be so hypocrites to mention science and bible in the same sentence.
-
jaguarbass
I'm not a big fan of the bible or the Ark nowadays but back in my other life I can say there are many good arguments for the dinosaurs being on the ark.
People believe what they want to believe. If you dont want to believe in the bible or the ark, there are lots of good arguments and evidence not to believe.
The trick is figuring out what is true.
If it was important to believe in an ark or anything else, I doubt it would be tricky.
If I was going to put on my bible, arc defending hat. I would go with the argument that there were baby dinosaurs on the arc, and after the flood they died off for various reasons.
If you believe in a flood, then before the flood the earth was under a canopy which would have changed the atmosperic pressure, things would have lived longer and grown larger.
They find fossils of not only giant lizzards, but giant humans.
Florida is full of baby dinosaurs.
The little lizard kind and the flying kind. The alligators and crockadilse are dinosaurs.
Just like modern man is related to ancient man.
If you want to belive in the arc, the bible and the flood. After the dinosaurs that survived got big man who started eating them killed them off by eating them. They also killed them off because the were a nussance.
But I dont think the dinosaurs would have gotten big after the flood because the canopy was gone and the atmosperic pressure changed.
People that dont believe in god or the bible say the dinosaurs were not well designed for survival.
And everybodies interpretation of history seems to support that.
So if they ever survived and existed at all there is some logic to beleivng that they lived under different atmospheric conditions where everything was bigger including the vegetation.
-
Brother Apostate
Spend more time researching the real answers.
Spend less time asking stupid questions.
BA- Take my advice.
PS- Or not.
-
Farkel
: I'm not a big fan of the bible or the Ark nowadays but back in my other life I can say there are many good arguments for the dinosaurs being on the ark.
Rubbish.
:People believe what they want to believe. If you dont want to believe in the bible or the ark, there are lots of good arguments and evidence not to believe.
No. ALL the evidence and sound arguments leads one NOT to believe.
:The trick is figuring out what is true.
No trick there. It is all explained by science.
If it was important to believe in an ark or anything else, I doubt it would be tricky.
It is not tricky.
:If I was going to put on my bible, arc defending hat. I would go with the argument that there were baby dinosaurs on the arc, and after the flood they died off for various reasons.
Bad assumption. There was not enough room and/or food for other animals, let alone the dinosaurs. Question: how could the Ark hold enough fresh meat for just say, Lions for 13 months? Lions ONLY eat meat, fresh meat. Contrary to WTS pictures, they don't eat straw. They cannot even digest straw.
:If you believe in a flood, then before the flood the earth was under a canopy which would have changed the atmosperic pressure, things would have lived longer and grown larger.
Rubbish.Here's the scientific evidence from a scientist friend of mine who is a graduate of MIT and he is an impeccable researcher. If you really care about this subject, take the 6 to 8 hours it takes to read his research and then (if you can) rebut his arguments:
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-general-description-of-flood.html
Farkel