First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Post Reply Theory: Dinosaurs were actually the "Dragons"
3318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / NW
Offline
Posted 3/17/16

paul25454 wrote:


Mico171 wrote:

Chances are, our ancestors saw the fossilized bones of dinosaurs, & made stories of dragons based off that.

It would explain why so many different cultures has Dragons mixed into their stories.


That is highly likely. I do believe in that. Here in North America though that is a different story. I'm not too sure because mainly it is all oral history but Native Americans have talk about the Thunder bird. According to some tribes it existed but no actually evidence has shown up.


With the Great Spirit there is also the giant turtle that drifts in the ocean that all life rides on. How did native Americans know about plate tectonics? Yeah people found bones in the ground, which is why stories are of dragons that live underground. So one asks "where are all these bones they found?" Dug up.

Just think in 100 years.. 50 years after all the rhinos and elephants are hunted to extinction those will be myth.
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

evilotakuneko
I tried before, a couple of times I think, but his Biblical Glasses must be molecularly bonded or something.

Again, not true - I subscribe to the intelligent design argument which is based solely on observable scientific evidence, casting aside both biblical and evolutionary molecularly bonded glasses - try doing the same.
28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

evilotakuneko wrote:
Tangoed with that one before I take it?


No, this thread is my first encounter actually. I was totally unprepared. >.>



dougeprofile wrote:
Again, not true - I subscribe to the intelligent design argument which is based solely on observable scientific evidence, casting aside both biblical and evolutionary molecularly bonded glasses - try doing the same.


Intelligent design is just a rebranding of creationism. It has no scientific basis either. But then you haven't demonstrated any understanding of what science actually is to begin with.

Really, you should just say "I do not understand what science is or how it works" whenever you feel the need to post. Just for convenience's sake.
Posted 3/17/16

runec wrote:


evilotakuneko wrote:
Tangoed with that one before I take it?


No, this thread is my first encounter actually. I was totally unprepared. >.>



dougeprofile wrote:
Again, not true - I subscribe to the intelligent design argument which is based solely on observable scientific evidence, casting aside both biblical and evolutionary molecularly bonded glasses - try doing the same.


Intelligent design is just a rebranding of creationism. It has no scientific basis either. But then you haven't demonstrated any understanding of what science actually is to begin with.

Really, you should just say "I do not understand what science is or how it works" whenever you feel the need to post. Just for convenience's sake.


I gotta say Runec I love how you hate on everyone, although it's annoying sometimes it can be truly inspiring. Carry on with the hate sir, carry on.
28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/17/16

bethos30 wrote:
I gotta say Runec I love how you hate on everyone, although it's annoying sometimes it can be truly inspiring. Carry on with the hate sir, carry on.


In my defense I only hate on people I don't lik-wait, that came out wrong.

Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

runec wrote:


bethos30 wrote:
I gotta say Runec I love how you hate on everyone, although it's annoying sometimes it can be truly inspiring. Carry on with the hate sir, carry on.


In my defense I only hate on people I don't lik-wait, that came out wrong.



At least you're honest!
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

runec wrote:
Intelligent design is just a rebranding of creationism. It has no scientific basis either. But then you haven't demonstrated any understanding of what science actually is to begin with.

Really, you should just say "I do not understand what science is or how it works" whenever you feel the need to post. Just for convenience's sake.

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism; creationism is the label evolutionists dismissively use in leu of reasoned arguments; creationism is... an ignorant rebranding of Intelligent Design. Contrary to your insinuation, it is because of science that I reject evolutionism.
13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

runec wrote:
-snip-


Then, if you intend to seriously engage him, I bid you good luck. If not, then have fun.


evilotakuneko wrote:
The denialism is strong with that one



Intelligent Design has nothing to do with creationism;


Q.E.D.

Either way, I think I'll make popcorn.

Figuratively, I mean. I actually don't like popcorn. In fact, I hate it. Having braces for so long during my teen years may have had something to do with that.
28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

dougeprofile wrote:
Intelligent Design has nothing to do with creationism; creationism is the label evolutionists arrogantly use in leu of reasoned arguments.


It has everything to do with creationism. It's just a "smarter" sounding term to try and make it sound legitimate and take another swing at cramming into public education. It has no empirical evidence and nothing that can even be tested by scientific method. It's a fancy god of gaps argument.

Also, using the term "evolutionist" as a pejorative to make it sound like a scientific theory is on level with your fever dream is idiotic. Do you consider yourself a proponent of gravitism? Are you a gravitist? I mean, gravity is "just a theory" after all. What about cells? Do you believe in cells? Are you cellist? I mean, that's cell theory. Its "just a theory" too. Are you for or against cellism? Atoms? Are you an Atomist? I mean, that's "just a theory".




dougeprofile wrote:
Contrary to your declaration, it is because of science that I reject evolutionism.


"I do not understand what science is or how it works"
28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/17/16

bethos30 wrote:
At least you're honest!


Hmm, I should update my profile pic accordingly.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/17/16
no these are the dragons

Humms 
10537 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 3/17/16
Well..... dragons are real, they just aren't your typical winged fire breathing creatures they speak of in folk lore or mythology.

A lizard. On a small scale, some are almost the size of humans, some species of lizards have been around for hundreds of years. To say that dinosaurs were actually the dragons, I mean in a way it wouldn't be entirely false, but I mean it actually can't be possible, considering humanity has probably connected with the discovery of dragons before they have discovered the identification on dinosaurs. Why? I couldn't tell you, I'm not a buff in this sort of topic, I do not study ancient cultures, but what really matters is that we have considered dinosaurs to be prehistoric creatures who simply died out. Where as dragons are still known to be labeled as historic creatures since man has written about the encounters of such creatures.

Meh I could be wrong, but just my opinion.
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

runec wrote:
It has everything to do with creationism. It's just a "smarter" sounding term to try and make it sound legitimate and take another swing at cramming into public education. It has no empirical evidence and nothing that can even be tested by scientific method. It's a fancy god of gaps argument.

Also, using the term "evolutionist" as a pejorative to make it sound like a scientific theory is on level with your fever dream is idiotic.

I do not understand what science is or how it works


If you don't understand how science works, it is never too late to learn! I like these guys as they are always willing to debate evolutionists:

Darwin's Doubt + Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer
Intelligent Design by William Dembski
Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells
Discovery.org

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory backed by testable empirical evidence (contrary to evolutionist doctrine); public eduction should teach the controversy ...but unwilling to permit any challenge to their theory evolutionists use pejorative words like "creationism" to defame opponents. It is evolutionists who have resorted to a "god of the gaps" argument, not ID proponents; it is evolutionists too who insist that the products of an intelligence argument advocated by ID scientists MUST and can only refer to God.

Buddhist temple's aside, I remember seeing some cave paintings that looked like dinosaurs as well along with some other animals.
28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

dougeprofile wrote:
If you don't understand how science works, it is never too late to learn! I like these guys as they are always willing to debate evolutionists:

Darwin's Doubt + Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer
Intelligent Design by William Dembski
Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells
Discovery.org


Stephen C Meyer, a known fraud that misrepresented the work of other scientists in an attempt to get ID into public schools and the chief proponent of the entire movement trying to sneak Creationism into the public system.

William Dembski, an evangelical Christian from Meyer's organization.

Jonathan Wells, another religious asshole who likewise denies that HIV causes AIDs. Also from Meyer's organization.

Discovery.org, a Christian organization all 3 of the above belong too which has been trying to push ID into public schools by falsely claiming there's some sort of scientific controversy over evolution. Who has been condemned both by the scientific community and the courts for their bullshit.

Yeah, real wide range of expert opinions there. Of course they're willing to "debate", they're all the main architects of this bullshit to begin with.



dougeprofile wrote:
Intelligent Design is a scientific theory backed by testable empirical evidence (contrary to evolutionist doctrine); public eduction should teach the controversy ...but unwilling to permit any challenge to their theory evolutionists use pejorative words like "creationism" to defame opponents.


ID is widely rejected by the scientific community. There is no controversy beyond the one Discovery invented.



dougeprofile wrote:
it is evolutionists too who insist that the products of an intelligence argument advocated by ID scientists MUST and can only refer to God.


Yes, I'm sure an institution founded largely by Christians, funded largely by Christians, that caters specifically to Christian conservatives and straight up stated its goal was to reaffirm "God's reality" is totally not the one advocating that their push for ID refers to God.





36200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 3/17/16

dougeprofile wrote:


runec wrote:
It has everything to do with creationism. It's just a "smarter" sounding term to try and make it sound legitimate and take another swing at cramming into public education. It has no empirical evidence and nothing that can even be tested by scientific method. It's a fancy god of gaps argument.

Also, using the term "evolutionist" as a pejorative to make it sound like a scientific theory is on level with your fever dream is idiotic.

I do not understand what science is or how it works


If you don't understand how science works, it is never too late to learn! I like these guys as they are always willing to debate evolutionists:

Darwin's Doubt + Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer
Intelligent Design by William Dembski
Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells
Discovery.org

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory backed by testable empirical evidence (contrary to evolutionist doctrine); public eduction should teach the controversy ...but unwilling to permit any challenge to their theory evolutionists use pejorative words like "creationism" to defame opponents. It is evolutionists who have resorted to a "god of the gaps" argument, not ID proponents; it is evolutionists too who insist that the products of an intelligence argument advocated by ID scientists MUST and can only refer to God.

Buddhist temple's aside, I remember seeing some cave paintings that looked like dinosaurs as well along with some other animals.


The best (and most accessible) debunking of the idea that intelligent design is science I've seen is "Intelligent Design on Trial", a documentary put out by PBS. It covers the famous Dover trial. It goes over the court proceeding and features interviews from people on all sides of the discussion. It was the finding of the court that intelligent design is not science. I watched it when I first became interested in the debate, and I found it very fair.

You can watch it for free on PBS's website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.