Posted on 07/28/2008 2:17:21 PM PDT by Soliton
Show me the bones.
If your dinos are cavorting about with humans, their bones should be found in the same strata. They are not. Most modern human sites are in sediments (soils). Dino bones are in rock. That's cuz they are millions of years older.
Thousands of archaeologists worldwide are poking into human habitation sites, and we find all manner of bones--but no dinos. Where are they?
Face it, scientists are right and creationists are wrong. Dinos died out 65 million years ago and humans started up just within the last million+ years.
If you disagree--show me the bones!
All antediluvian shorelines and almost certainly 99% of antediluvian human habitat are now beneath the waves, along with 99.9% of all mixed human/dinosaur bone-yards. It's a safe bet tht what we call continental shelves are merely antediluvian ocean boundaries.
Morgan's "Aquatic Ape" theory is nonsense. Just check out the scientific literature and you'll see how well regarded that idea is.
All antediluvian shorelines and almost certainly 99% of antediluvian human habitat are now beneath the waves, along with 99.9% of all mixed human/dinosaur bone-yards. It's a safe bet tht what we call continental shelves are merely antediluvian ocean boundaries.
Nonsense. Sea level rise since the purported date for the global flood (ca. 4350 years ago) has been just a few meters. There are tens of thousands of older habitation and use sites which have been tested and which lack dinosaur bones. Dinosaur bones are big--some much larger than mammoth and mastodon, yet bones from mammoth and mastodon and other megafauna are routinely found. Where are the dinosaur bones? (Down in the rock where they belong!)
Face it, the global flood is a myth and the idea that humans cavorted with dinosaurs is on somewhat less solid footing than the Easter Bunny.
They’ve been finding cities beneath the waves; off Japan, off India, and even off of Cuba, 2000’ beneath the waves. Do your own google searches on ‘cuba’, ‘under water’, ‘city’, and ‘Zelitsky’.
I don't really care what idiots think; Morgan's theory is entirely logical and supported by the facts. Her theory is more or less outside of the theory of evolution and I don't see it being necessary to believe in evolution to grasp the fact that she is correct in thinking that humans originally lived in water. The biggest visual difference between us and apes is our legs being the major limbs and that is an adaptation for swimming and wading. A land animal trying to evolve into bipedalism wouldn't make it.
Believe in one nutty idea, why not believe in them all, eh?
Why should I give a rat’s *** over your idea of what’s “nutty”? The news stories involving submerged cities are real enough.
That would require bacteria capable of producing proteins nearly identical to those of chickens, wouldn’t it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.