Posted on 08/22/2008 6:29:13 PM PDT by Ron Jeremy
No matter how many times you restate this, it doesn’t appear to be logical.
We draw them because we have seen the historical representations and because we have the fossil record. In the times when the original cave drawings and the like were done, there were no fossil records to speak of because they didn’t possess the technology to reconstruct the bones.
We are not at the beginning of this discovery but somewhere way down the road, so everything we do is from historical evidence and hearsay. Everything they did had to be from first-hand perspective if it was to be in any way accurate.
Nice try, though.
It takes no more background education than the ability to type a few key words into a search engine and learn about a subject like how concrete is made or is used. Why that is not done truly is interesting.
Looking before you send off comments like this
“....your arrogant insulting technique spittling condescension..” would also provide you with some background information on the subject under discussion.
No one insulted you, did they? Yet you feel free to say,
“You’re quite adept at it, that protecting of your inadequacies.”. Now why is that?
Could it be because what you’re claiming in the discussion is so easily demonstrated to be wrong? Could that be it?
Have a nice day.
I will and thank you for the answer to my questions.
I don't buy that in the slightest. How do we know what the dinosaurs looked like? We find the bones laying around. Do we put them together perfectly? No, but we still know there were big dinosaurs. Why couldn't a human who found big bones 3,000 years ago surmise that they came from big monsters?
Sorry to impose logic into the argument. You don’t have to “buy” it. The facts are what they are.
In not all, but many of the cases the bones are found they are fossilized somewhat intact. Humans may not be perfect, but the human mind can work a jigsaw puzzle. You’re suggesting that maybe these bones were scattered about and found laying loose maybe miles away and some conspiratorial archaeologists decided to glue them together to fool a bunch of mindless morons. No. They save that for the prehistoric men.
Now, the skin and scales and fatty tissue and the like... purely our imagination.
And could they (early man) have assumed these bones came from monsters? Sure! But the order the bones were put together would have been a totally different animal than we would have put together with present technology.
Leaves too much to the imagination to come to the conclusions you’ve reached.
You ask: But the question is, have there been any “feet” tracks from about the same time as the ancient civilizations?
The answer is YES. In Glen Rose, Texas it has been found, for one.
Among others, IIRC.
The human/dinosaur footprint association in Glen Rose, Texas is so phony that even creationists generally advise against using it. Source
OK then, doesn't that prove my case? People 3,000 years ago found these fossils, too.
I also studied this particular Martial Art for a few years (middle 80's) and had to drop out because I had problems with one of my ankles. Participated in a few tournaments, and won a few trophies, but that was a long time ago. I had the pleasure of meeting Bill "Superfoot" Wallace when he did an exhibition. Supposedly, Master Byrne studied under the same instructor that taught Chuck Norris.
Anyway, saw your moniker and thought I'd inquire. Nice talking to you.....
So here’s the picture...
Caveman is digging with a rock. Caveman finds something curious. After some closer analysis and some careful scientific pondering, Caveman says, “Hmm... this strange article appears to be some sort of fossilized bone fragment.”
He then proceeds to carefully brush away the surrounding dirt with the aforementioned rock, his nimble Caveman fingers and a sharpened stick.
After many weeks of painstaking labor, he assembles the bones with some primitive form of glue and then correctly depicts its engraved form on his cave wall.
That’s what I’ve said for the last couple of posts.
Follow me now...
LOL. OK..I get your point. but.. (and i do not claim to be an expert on fossils) wouldn’t there also have been lots of finds of really big bones laying around?
Cool story. The man who started ITF is named C.S. Kim. Legend has it that he was one of Chuck Norris’ instructors when he was in the US Air Force and stationed in S. Korea. I hope I got all that correct. It’s been a while.
Fossils are generally in rock formations, and have to be chipped free.
But there were large bones lying around for all of human history. These included the critters that went extinct at the end of the last ice age, such as mammoth and mastodon, saber-tooth tiger, cave bear, dire wolf and a bunch of others.
But dinosaur bones would not have been just lying about with the rest of the bones.
Are you implying that there were two bigfoots on the Ark?
...Bigfeet....Bigfootses....
I’m not an expert either, but I play one on TV.
I’m sure they would have found big bones. I’m just not sure they would have known what to do with them. Laying around? Not if you believe the dinosaurs were millions of years before men. The bones would have been roughly the same place they are to day, give or take a few layers of dirt. I don’t believe the Dinosaurs were that old though.
Start watching some of the documentaries on Dinosaurs and listen to the commentary closely... I have rarely seen one of them that didn’t make the point in some part of the film that the bones of many dinosaurs, sometimes many species were located in what seemed to be an old river or body of water in vastly different parts of the world. I do know that the bones are more likely to be fossilized and preserved in a body of water because of the temperatures and sediment, but the number of them bunched up in one area are strange... unless there was some sort of global flood... hmmm.
I’m a sceptic by nature, so by nature I don’t believe everything somebody says. The subject of this article, if he is as the writer portrays it seems a little nutty to me, but that doesn’t invalidate every point he makes.
It never ceases to amaze me when folks call Christians closed minded and they, themselves just swallow and spit back out every bit of teaching they got in public schools as the gospel truth. I think we all tend to be a bit closed minded when it comes to our own beliefs, but I pray I never become so closed minded I forget how to learn, or so open minded my brain falls out.
Thanks for your responses. You made me think... Gordon
No, you are inferring that all by yourself. I will, however, implicitly state that Noah only took 2 of the "dog kind" on the ark some 4,000 years ago, and from that pair we have the enormous variety we have today. Coyote, wolf, fox, terrier, danes, sheepdog, etc. All dog kind, and most can easily interbreed. Ask any 3 year old, and he will identify them as 'dog'. Thus, those bigfeetses you referred to may be merely a type of mountain ape, who knows? Who cares?
It is quite possible, IMHO, we will find a living dino one day. There are numerous examples of "living fossils" that have not noticibly changed from the fossils found in the rocks we dig up. There are several examples, such as Horseshoe Crabs, Okapi, Cockroaches, Nautilii, etc. Some of these exist in rock dated 400 million years old, yet they appear today, living, identical to there fossils. 400 million years, and no apparent mutation/evolution.
One fascinating example is the The Cœlacanth, which according to the fossil record, dates back some 410 million years to the Devonian period. This animal was used as a major evolutionary link between the fish and land dwellers, with speculation that it crawled on land and had primitive lungs. Some publications suggested it was the most significant proof of evolution. However, when one was first caught in 1938, speculation was obliterated by fact. It was also discovered that the fish was in evolutionary stasis, and had not changed from it's fossilized ancesors.
Of course, the fish is not millions of years old, nor is the earth. People believe whta they want to, accepting evidence that agrees with their beliefs, and dismissing evidence that does not. Humans cannot be truly impartial and objective, however, that must be our goal.
Does genetic variation occur? Yes, but within kinds. Does Natural Selection occur? Yes, but it reduces the diversity of the gene pool within that kind. Do animals evolve? You must come up with a viable, workable definition you are happy with. I have observed that teachers in school, the Science Channel, and devoted evolutions tend to use varying definition based on their intentions. Does Genetic Mutation occur? Yes, but it is almost always deleterious.
One must make up his or her own mind as to what theory best explains the evidence we have.
monty python did it first.
Too unbelievable to even comment.
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.