Celtic Heroes

Yeah I agree. But you can't exactly disprove a deity because it's a matter of faith and belief. You can argue against evolution though.
That is another thing that tends to decrease the possibility in a deity, in my opinion. It is completely faith. A story that has been passed on, translated, and distored so many times that it just has so many contradictions and exaggerations. A story that was told to a child in order to reduce the fear of phenomenon that were unknown.

if you look at the real facts then intelligent design has a lot of evidence in its favor. faith is a big part of it but its not just that. its understanding. it is really hard to explain this to an atheist but its kinda like you just know its true. now everyone thinks that what they believe in is true but its just knowledge that it is true. im not talking about doctrine, just the knowledge that there is a god.

Oh my. This topic is long.

Note: The following post is in response to the 6 photos posted by Rochoh2000 claiming proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. I wrote this as a private message, and did not intend to post it publicly, however Rochoh2000 has stated that he wants me to post it in the thread. I have left it as is, hence the private message "tone" of the piece.

Anyway, I've looked at your linked images. Thank you for providing the sources... Not sure about other people, but I couldn't view them before. I looked at the locations of the photos as well... that was telling for some.

1. Dinosaur and “Human” tracks: These photos come from the Paluxy Valley (Glen Ross, Texas). There is a very famous Creation Museum there because of the tracks. Unfortunately... the museum is mostly suspect; the owner is a semi-fraud named Carl Baugh. He has a fake degree from a fake "university"... that he was the president of
Most Creationists stay away from him because he is a nut-job.

The photos are real, and the tracks are real, but they are not human. Even Creationist scientists admit they are dinosaur tracks that have partially filled in with sediment (ie. a large track loses the toe clarity because other dirt has filled in the toe area)

Here is a simple diagram showing what happened: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... V9xNmUr8bw

Here is a synopsis of the science, and the problem with the Creationist view: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

Note in that synopsis, that reputable Creationists no longer use the Paluxy valley as any sort of "proof." Only Carl Baugh and another guy claim their validity... because his museum relies on it. His museum has a lot of fake garbage as well, such as "ica stones." showing humans and dinosaurs. I will mention them below.

Real Creationists agree that the tracks are dinosaur, and here is a good article where Creationists admit they are not human: http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/

It's a long read, but one of the important paragraphs is this: "In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin. The Taylor Trail appears, obviously, dinosaurian, as do two prints thought to be in the Turnage Trail. The Giant Trail has what appears to be dinosaur prints leading toward it, and some of the Ryals tracks seem to be developing claw features, also."

Here is what the Creationist body thinks (I think they are find too kind): "[Avoid] Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour."

2. Dinosaur and “Giant” track: This photo is also from the Paluxy valley site... Unlike the other prints (which were real but in bad condition) this print is a simple fake. It is a forgery made to make it look like a dinosaur stepped on an existing giant human footprint.

They were proven fake by cross-cutting/core sampling. To explain, you know that there are different layers of dirt in the ground, right?. I am sure you have seen it. If I were to step in wet sand, or soft mud, my imprint would push the top layer down, compressing the others. (You can also imagine what would happen if you took three layers of Play-Doh, then pressed your thumb into it.)

But when the prints in the area in the photo you provided was cross cut, this was found: "One of the three-toed dinosaur tracks and both types of man prints have been cross-sectioned. In each instance the rock layers end abruptly at the edge of the track, indicating that they are not the result of a foot stepping into soft mud but are produced by carving."

Sorry. A modern fake... and I will tell you who did it in the next part.

3. Crisp Dinosaur and “Giant” Footprints: This one was really hard to track down at first. I suspected that it was also from the Paluxy Valey because of the resemblance (three toed dino with “human” tracks), but some web sites said the photo was from a location in Turkmenistan. Other sites said that it was from Paluxy. Obviously that caused a problem, because if we don’t know where a photo comes from, it may as well have been made by me in my garage with a box of plaster.

Finally I was able to verify that it is a photo from Paluxy. It is of the same carved fake above. I was able to find out more about the area though: The fake prints mostly come from the 1930s. During the Depression, many local people tried to make money by selling dinosaur prints. They cut them right out of the riverbed, leaving huge potholes. (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... HL2aQpsSOw) Then they tried to make MORE money by carving these “giant” footprints beside dinosaur prints and selling them. It is important to note that clear "giant" prints were not noted before the 1930s, only the worn ones like in photo #1. But then they popped up out of the blue when there was a market for them.

You can download a good research paper that talks about the issue here: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/235/ The Paluxy part is at the end, in Twentieth Century Myths.

4. Animal Carving: Yeah, that is a cool carving. It is from a temple in Cambodia. The Creation Museum pushes it as a stegosaurus, and at first glance, it looks a bit like a Stegosaurus, certainly. But it isn’t.

There are a few reasons we know it wasn’t a dinosaur (and definitely not a stegosaurus) that the ancient Cambodians were carving. First and foremost is the anatomy.
a) The Stegosaurus had quite a small head, with an elongated neck. That carving shows a big head with almost no neck.
b) The Stegosaurus had a spiked tail. That animal does not.
c) To the best of my knowledge, dinosaurs did not have external ears. That carving does. Quite prominent as well.

Furthermore, the Stegosaurus has only been found in what is now North America.

As for what looks like the stegosaurus plates on the back, it is more likely that it is a design. In fact, that design is seen behind other animals at the same temple, and you can also see it surrounding the circle in your photo.

Here are some other carvings showing the same pattern… you can see it faintly behind this bird: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 5ChhcYuTHW

Here is the pattern behind some monkeys (photo is turned, sorry)… https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 8N0heNbmTw This photo also shows a carving of a lotus flower alone (on the right... or bottom if it were turned correctly).

It can be might seen behind the halfman-half beast at the bottom of this (same pillar as the photo in question, actually) https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 1XmICdMWUp

The pattern is either a lotus pattern or a Buddhist halo (they might be one in the same), and is quite common in Buddhist art: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... qJwkpPTyx9

The animal itself is almost certainly a Sumantran Rhinocerous, which, unlike the stegosarus, was native to the area. Compare the carving to this: http://www.google.ca/imgres?sa=X&biw=10 ... =113&ty=80


5 & 6. Acambaro figures: These are not authentic either. They were all “discovered” by one chap… or rather, he is said to have seen one laying about while riding his horse. He then paid farmers for each one they brought him.

Tests showed they were fired in a kiln in the mid 20th century.

Furthermore, investigation tells us this: “He [an examining archeologist] concluded that the figurines were indeed fakes: their surfaces displayed no signs of age; no dirt was packed into their crevices; and though some figurines were broken, no pieces were missing and no broken surfaces were worn. Furthermore, the excavation’s stratigraphy clearly showed that the artifacts were placed in a recently dug hole filled with a mixture of the surrounding archaeological layers. DiPeso also learned that a local family had been making and selling these figurines to Julsrud for a peso apiece since 1944”

It’s a bit sad in a way… yeah, these are a hoax… but I feel bad for the guy (Julsrud) for being duped into buying them.

They are very similar to something else the Carl Baugh museum displays… Ica Stones (also showing humans and dinosaurs together, fakes passed off as Incan Art) Again… all made in the 20th century to sell to suckers.


Though I think that we can concluded that there are explanations for the photos you provided (either mistaken analysis or blatant fraud) it doesn't say anything about your beliefs. I am not at all trying to attack your belief system. All I am saying is that these photos cannot be used as any sort of evidence against evolution.

I encourage you to believe what you believe, but I would ask you to try and verify claims before you believe them. Some things you should just avoid. Here is a site you might find useful. It is a reputable Creation site: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think- ... ld-not-use

Thanks for the challenge. I enjoy researching... it keeps my synapses firing

read my latest post!

That... is a lot of writing.

First off, I am not the regular creationist. I don't believe that God just went *poof* and everything appeared. Yes, the Bible kinda says that but i don't think we got the whole story. Why? because we aren't ready or can't comprehend it. I suppose that the big bang could have happened but I don't know. Also, I would like to thank Dersu for discussing this topic with me as I learned things about the evolutionist view. You can't argue about something that you don't know anything about! That is a big problem about creationists. They don't know the opponents' tactics! One of General Patton's victories was won because he was up all night studying the opponents' tactics. Now, I am not saying that us two should be enemies but I have a part of me that just wants truth to be dominant.

In my previous reply, I tried to show that humans and dinosaurs lived together. Dersu replied and showed that the photos are not proof. I will admit that it cannot be proven that man and dinosaur lived together, but it cannot be proven that they didn't.

How is evolution supposed to work? Mutation and natural selection. Most creationists will disagree, but both of those are true and proven principles. One example used to prove natural selection is the peppered moth. Creationists say that this is hoax. Well, it is true that the pictures were staged but they were just demonstrating the different moths. The dark moths became more dominant because of the polluted trees that they rest on were darker so the birds could not see the dark moths as easily so they ate the light moths more.

Evolution is supposed to work by random cell mutations and rarely, the mutation will be beneficial and it increases the animals' chance to survive, and produce offspring. There is now a chance, that the offspring will be born with the same mutation, and have a better chance to survive and produce more offspring and eventually the enhanced animal will be dominant. This is incorrect. Let me show you why.

First, lets look at the chance of this. Cell mutation does occur, rarely, and even more rarely the mutation is beneficial but 99.99% of the time it isn't. But, sometimes it is. Now lets look at the chance that it will produce offspring with the same mutation, even more remote. But, after millions of years, maybe. What is something that creationists use to combat this? The Bombardier Beetle. We say that it could have not been possible by chance because the two special abilities had to occur at the same time. Now lets see what evolution has to say. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html)

So there is excess chemical from making the cuticle tan? And that makes the insect distasteful to other predators? Well I guess that it would have helped them survive better, after they had already been tasted. Everything had to happen perfectly, otherwise the insect would blow itself up. This theory would require several perfect random genetic mutations, overall, the chance with that theory is just as remote; if not worse. It is not just the beetle that shows this, our bodies are the same. One body part would be useless without another or many others or visa-versa.

Also, the fossil record does not support evolution. The closest species to a human (or any species, for that matter) is still so greatly different that it is impossible that it could have happened in a single genetic mutation. Look at this picture.
http://www.google.com/imgres?espv=210&e ... =60&ty=115

This is how camels were supposed to have evolved. Yes, they have found the five different species, but nothing in between. It is impossible that the genetic mutation could be that great. I hope that explains better what I mean. But to me now, it is so obvious that evolution did not occur that it is just a fact.

Now there is something that people call micro-evolution. I personally do not think that it should be called that, because it is not evolution. It is where a single species is adapted to their environment. A good example of that is the Galapagos Islands. The birds' beaks increased in size by over 10%. The genes can adapt themselves to their environment a little bit. But it has nothing to do with random genetic mutations and it does not take years or generations and they still have the same DNA for their species (except the adapted genes can be passed on) . Here is another example: I work around woodworkers. I don't do alot myself, but others do. And they do alot of lifting, carving etc. and their torso is much larger than the average person. In fact I would say that body-building is just adapting your body to work stronger.

I have no intention of making this raging war go on between evolution and creationism, just for the truth to be out. I believe that many scientists don't come forward with these things because it will ruin their reputation and most likely their job. I did say many, not all. Most probably really believe in what they really say, and will even deceit or not tell the whole story (on both sides) to get people to believe in what they say. NOT all. To everyone reading this, have a great day!

WAIT!!! i have a real picture of a real dinosaur!!! it proves that they still exist!!! XD

Here's a hint about the bible and creation. We use our knowledge about God to determine certain things. We know that God can neither Deceive or be Deceived. In other words. He did not create the earth in 7 days and then make it seem like its been around for millions of years as this would be a deception. Its more likely that we should not take '7 days' literally. If you don't then things make a great deal more sense.

Here's a hint about the bible and creation. We use our knowledge about God to determine certain things. We know that God can neither Deceive or be Deceived. In other words. He did not create the earth in 7 days and then make it seem like its been around for millions of years as this would be a deception. Its more likely that we should not take '7 days' literally. If you don't then things make a great deal more sense.

this is exactly what i mean in the beginning of my last reply. but i think there are some problems with our modern science as far as dating.

I would like to say that I did not make my posts to try to say you should not believe in Evolution, only that it has not been proven as some people have previously claimed. This is a discussion about belief and Evolution is a belief like any other, claiming it is proven fact (which it is not) is basically cramming it down the throat of someone who does not believe it (implying: I am right because science says evolution is right so even though you can believe something else you are wrong) and is offensive to anyone who does not believe in it.
Science is observation and only involves that around us that we can observe, how the earth came about, whether through aliens, a giant explosion or a god/gods is information about the past and cannot be explained by means of science. You may scientifically prove that every time you set a log on fire it will burn, but it is not possible to scientifically prove that you set a log on fire and it burned.
This is why I do not think evolution should be taught in science classes unless it is taught objectively and other points of view are presented as equals.
It is also why I find it ridiculous when people say something like "choosing to believe in science over religion", it is perfectly feasible to believe in both, even though belief in a god may contradict the laws of thermodynamics, so does the big bang theory as well as macro evolution, so they are on the same ground as far as logical or scientific acceptance. You do not have to choose between believing in trees or believing in ferns.
The same can be said for the age of the earth, we do not and, with our current level of knowledge and technology, cannot, know how old the earth actually is, putting those who choose to believe in a young earth on the same ground as those who believe in an old earth.

These topics are open to discussion, but some have actually used a mocking tone towards others beliefs and I see this as unacceptable and offensive even when I hold the same view as some of them.

Our knowledge of the universe around us is incredulously limited, humans do not know even 1% of all there is to know. In what we do not know or understand there is plenty of room for every belief to be a reasonable explanation. Research and experience for yourself, do not simply accept in the religions or even sciences you have grown up hearing until you have verified them for yourself.

I have tried to remain as objective as possible in my posts and if I have not, I apologize, I never intended to take a side, only a stand against people who claim to be right, or more right in their belief than someone else.

This is a little off topic, but is there any other topic that has gotten so many incredibly long posts?
When I first found this it was already 24 pages long and reading through it all was quite a chore. @.@