Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins Forum

Welcome to our forum. Feel free to post a message.  If you would like to debate me please contact first. Any messages that are not appropriate will be deleted within 24 hours. Thank you!

Forum: Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins Forum
Start a New Topic 
   Board|Threaded
Author
Comment
Hard Evidence

Phillip, on your Home Page there is a post from 2007 containing photos that are supposedly "Hard Evidence" supporting the belief that dinosaurs coexisted (and still coexist) with man. Not being able to reply to that post (too old?) I thought I’d try here.

Mankind has for thousands of years had the ability to tell stories, to embellish in order to entertain or empress. The legend of St. George and the Dragon is an example. Just because there is a tale, and depictions of St. George and the dragon in various art forms, does not mean the dragon actually existed.

Is this particular hieroglyph anywhere else or just on the piece in this museum? Could it be photoshop? Perhaps altered 150 years ago or so? In any case, in the 19th century when Europe was fascinated by all-things-Egyptian, many fakes were produced and sold to wealthy collectors and museums. If this is the only piece this hieroglyph is found, I’d be leery.

Many of the other photos shown are outright hoaxes,the man holding a Pterodactyl (or whatever it is), bipedal lizard etc. Most (if not all) of the Ica stones are hoaxes. And what’s with that skull? Who is that in the picture? If that is a Jurassic rock layer as claimed, why is the skull (which strangely isn’t even close to having the same type of coloring as any of the surrounding rock) sitting on top of the ground? Are there any pictures of it in situ? In other words, it’s not very convincing.

Actually, I don’t really see anything in any of the photos that would lead me to believe they are living dinosaur photos. I would just say "I don't know" to some, but evidence? Hardly.

Throughout history, mankind has drawn stylized interpretations of animals. If you are to believe the highly stylized animals are dinosaurs or dragons or whatever, then you must believe in aliens from outer space, or at least that ancient man had flying machines and other advanced equipment. http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientaircraft.html

So basically “The Hard Evidence” is not evidence at all.

How you found this site: just lucky i guess

Email  
Re: Hard Evidence

Sorry, here is the page with his "hard evidence".

Email  
Re: Hard Evidence

Quote: Sprockets

Throughout history, mankind has drawn stylized interpretations of animals. If you are to believe the highly stylized animals are dinosaurs or dragons or whatever, then you must believe in aliens from outer space, or at least that ancient man had flying machines and other advanced equipment. http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientaircraft.html

So basically “The Hard Evidence” is not evidence at all.


Man, you seem crazy (but all I have is evidence, not proof of that). I can't follow your logic.

Everytime somebody on here disagrees with the idea of creation, they don't show proof to the contrary, they just throw out more alternative ideas. Show US the proof that YOU'RE right!

How you found this site: Browsing

Email  
Re: Hard Evidence

So, It’s been about a year and no response from Phillip, I figured as much though. But ohmygosh there is a comment, albeit a strange one. Hi Jim!

“I can't follow your logic.”

Is that because you have been indoctrinated in Christian beliefs and do everything you can to try to make the Bible sound like some sort of science textbook?
Maybe it’s just your reading comprehension?
Or maybe you’re just “crazy”?

“Everytime somebody on here disagrees with the idea of creation…”

Well here’s the thing Jimbo, if you had read my post and actually looked at Phillip’s “Hard Evidence” post to which I was referring I mentioned nothing about creation I just disputed his “Hard Evidence”. And if you had bothered to read my post I had some legitimate questions about, and alternative explanations for, his “evidence”.

“…they don't show proof to the contrary,”

First of all THEY do, and I think you know that, but you will continue to ignore anything that goes against your beliefs anyway so it doesn’t really matter.
Second, I don’t have to show proof, I was disputing the so-called evidence and giving legitimate reasons why they are not evidence.
So if you don’t like what I say then give me some proof that Phillip's “Hard Evidence” is indeed hard evidence!

Email  
Re: Hard Evidence

The logic is perfectly clear, there are no huge jumps. If you cannot follow that logic, perhaps you shouldn't converse with people, especially about scientific evidence.

Get your own FREE Forum today! 
Report Content ·  · Counters & Site Stats   Free Blogs   Free Guestbooks   Free Web Hosting 
Powered by Bravenet