Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:Bgood, I find it kind of amusing because it was the people present whos claims about what they were seeing with their own eyes that are important.

The page starts of by talking about how creationists often claim . . . I find that rather unimportant. The peolpe that actually where there have the opinions that are the most important.

So fo you the most important thing is a claim...

Does it interest you that noone made these claims until 2 months after the pictures were taken?

It was the company executives who took notice, as far as I know they were not on the boat.
=)

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: Once such evidence is found and confirmed, the theory of the coexistence of man and dinosaurs will be well on the way to acceptance.

No it wont.

Sure it will, have you ever heard of the coelacanth?
Who can deny physical evidence?

Jbuza wrote:Canuckster

Why is this not the case?

Are you claiming to know the toality of the fossil record, or do you assume that it must be a certian way for flood geology.

If these dinosaurs were alive at the time of Noah, why were they not on the ark? Do you have a textually consistent explanation?

Which animals are found on the ark and which were not? I cannot explain this wihtout knowing which animals you find to be on the ark and which you do not.

Jbuza,

This is typical of what I've observed. There's an appeal to how we can't know things for sure and everything is so uncertain.

Of course we haven't observed all the fossil record. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, then why do we find the fossil records that we do in different layers? If a large number of mankind AND dinosaurs died at the same time in a worldwide flood, would it make sense that at least SOME of the fossil record would demonstrate coexistence? Would you expect to find SOME comingling of remains? If not in the same site then at least at the same layer?

As to the Ark, let the text speak for itself,

Gen 6:19-22

This text of course does not speak to any dinosaurs. It simply says all flesh. Is it your contention that Dinosaurs were alive at the time of Noah, and therefore included with "all" the other animals?.

What happened to them? Were they already dead? Were they present on the ark? If so what happened to them afterwards?

Do you have explanations or viable theories or do you just know what you "don't" believe?

Bgood, look at the actual pictures being presented and tell me that it might even look like the skull.

The scientists were either drunk or they decided to cover it up and put something else on display. (That is if that skull is the plesiosaur that was found)

I understand though, scientists are people too and sometimes people can drink just enough to distort reality.

godslanguage wrote:



Bgood, look at the actual pictures being presented and tell me that it might even look like the skull.

The scientists were either drunk or they decided to cover it up and put something else on display. (That is if that skull is the plesiosaur that was found)

ROFL!!

Sorry godslanguage

If you read the thread carefully, Jbuza changed the subject.
This skull is of a Dunkleosteus. It was in response to Jbuza stating that there is no evidence for ancient life.

I replied to your post separately.

Then you admit that the so called plesiousaur is not a type of whale?

godslanguage wrote:Then you admit that the so called plesiousaur is not a type of whale?

Did you read the response? The skull belongs to a whale. The original skull is on display at the California Academy of Sciences.

Here's a more recent specimen which washed ashore in 2003.

Yes, its seems that I misunderstood it now that I read it over, sorry about that.
But, the point is, its good that you posted the skull of the whale because the actual photos have no resemblence whatsoever. And anyone who tries to imply its a whale should be ignored.

gone

Jbuza wrote:I'm sure that I don't know which animals were alive when Noah loaded all flesh into the ark.

Apparantley the historical accounts of the past ~5000 years indicate that some of the flesh living during that period were great lizards, so it seems reasonable to conclude that in order for them to survive to our time they must have been on the ark.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with accounts of recent dinos, but it seems that those who don't want that to be true simply marginalize and redicule. I guess that is easier than actually confronting the evidence.

Here is more mythology for you. I call it that to prepare you for your dismissal of it.

http://yowbooks.com/html/kolbrin_kt_extinction.html

What ridicule?

I'm asking you reasonable questions.

I think you are mistaking persistence in the face of your evasiveness and projecting things that I am not intending.

godslanguage wrote:Yes, its seems that I misunderstood it now that I read it over, sorry about that.
But, the point is, its good that you posted the skull of the whale because the actual photos have no resemblence whatsoever. And anyone who tries to imply its a whale should be ignored.

What do you mean look at photo #1, the beaks are identical. Plus it has an eye on the side well below the medial line like a whale.

They recovered the skull in 1925, IT IS ON DISPLAY...
believe whatever you want buddy.
=D

Jbuza wrote:I'm sure that I don't know which animals were alive when Noah loaded all flesh into the ark.

Apparantley the historical accounts of the past ~5000 years indicate that some of the flesh living during that period were great lizards, so it seems reasonable to conclude that in order for them to survive to our time they must have been on the ark.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with accounts of recent dinos, but it seems that those who don't want that to be true simply marginalize and redicule. I guess that is easier than actually confronting the evidence.

Here is more mythology for you. I call it that to prepare you for your dismissal of it.

//yowbooks.com/html/kolbrin_kt_extinction.html

Are you kidding me?

Here try these book while you're at it.

The Diamond Sutra

Does referencing a book validate it?
Do you beleive the entirety of what is written in Kolbrin bible?

Have you even read it?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:I'm sure that I don't know which animals were alive when Noah loaded all flesh into the ark.

Apparantley the historical accounts of the past ~5000 years indicate that some of the flesh living during that period were great lizards, so it seems reasonable to conclude that in order for them to survive to our time they must have been on the ark.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with accounts of recent dinos, but it seems that those who don't want that to be true simply marginalize and redicule. I guess that is easier than actually confronting the evidence.

Here is more mythology for you. I call it that to prepare you for your dismissal of it.

//yowbooks.com/html/kolbrin_kt_extinction.html

Are you kidding me?

Here try these book while you're at it.

The Diamond Sutra

Does referencing a book validate it?
Do you beleive the entirety of what is written in Kolbrin bible?

Have you even read it?

Good grief!

I just checked the text referenced on this.

Now we're using Egyptian wisdom texts as evidence of Dinosaurs at the time of the Exodus?

The thing is being marketed in part as a resource for how to address Global Warming!

WHY THIS BOOK COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE: Global warming has become a planetary crisis. We sense the worst is yet to come and the ancients tell us similar events have happened before. They've seen natural catastrophes we've yet to see, and lived through tribulations we've yet to endure. This is why they began writing about their experiences 3600 years ago for the benefit of those yet unborn. All this plus their dire prophesies for our near future come to us in the 11 books of The Kolbrin Bible. It is your history. It is your future. Surviving it, is your choice.

gone

gone