Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Theory of Prehistoric Dinosaurs

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,311
Likes
8,502
#1
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,773
Likes
4,599
#2
Great post.

Tech meets the b*****it of (qu)ac(k)edemia. I love it.

The only explanation that permits the existence of dinosaurs (dragons, anyone?) is a biblical one. The Deluge qualifies as a worldwide cataclysmic event-- it's chronicled by Christians, Jews and Muslims, alike... and really, every culture has a flood 'myth.' Funny that it's overlooked-- but certainly not surprising.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
2,865
Likes
5,066
#4
This is so stupid. Radiocarbon dating is not the only method of determining age of objects, some elements have way longer half lives. How do you think we are able to determine the age of the earth?
The argument of the size is also stupid because we have somethings known as whales. There are probably even more massive creatures at the bottom of the ocean. And it is absolutely not against the laws of physics because people in the earlier ages used to be waaaaay taller than us. The size of the planet is a factor in determining the size of its inhabitants.

The argument about "human would have been wiped out too" is ridiculous. Dinosaurs existed before humans.

If you are going to point of scientific flaws then why is "not in the bible" your argument. And since people here are allergic to science anyway I would recommend you to look up the story of the Prophet Hud a.s. or the people of Ad. Those were gigantic people with monstrous strength.


-"everyone would be finding these bones in their backyard"
well Karen have you ever dug beyond the crust in your freaking backyard?

This is pretty much top 10 dumb reasons why dinosaurs didn't exist, compiled by someone who doesn't know science.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,073
Likes
10,744
#5
1E3F1B06-E4FA-4C46-B3A6-BD534EF90F7D.jpeg

The scientist who has been dubbed the “Father of Intelligent Design” and author of the groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box contends that recent scientific discoveries further disprove Darwinism and strengthen the case for an intelligent creator.

In his controversial bestseller Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, arguing that science itself has proven that intelligent design is a better explanation for the origin of life. In Darwin Devolves, Behe advances his argument, presenting new research that offers a startling reconsideration of how Darwin’s mechanism works, weakening the theory’s validity even more.

A system of natural selection acting on random mutation, evolution can help make something look and act differently. But evolution never creates something organically. Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.

In addition to disputing the methodology of Darwinism and how it conflicts with the concept of creation, Behe reveals that what makes Intelligent Design unique—and right—is that it acknowledges causation. Evolution proposes that organisms living today are descended with modification from organisms that lived in the distant past. But Intelligent Design goes a step further asking, what caused such astounding changes to take place? What is the reason or mechanism for evolution? For Behe, this is what makes Intelligent Design so important.

Review

"Behe's latest masterpiece takes the evidence marshaled in defense of the unbounded power of blind evolution and deftly brings it to the opposite conclusion: evolution is self-limiting by design. Time for the Behe-bashers to retire."--Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute and author of Undeniable

"I highly recommend this book to both proponents and skeptics of Darwinian evolution as it will open new avenues of thought and creativity regarding this important subject."--Russell Carlson, professor emeritus of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia

"Behe introduces new molecular-level facts that sink the Darwinian view of life once and for all: Darwinian mechanism sometimes helps survival of an organism but always by damaging or breaking genes. The conclusion is clear: life is the product of a mind."--Matti Leisola, DSc, professor emeritus of bioprocess engineering at Aalto University, Finland

"Darwin Devolves is a must read. Behe presents comprehensive and convincing arguments that genomic reduction is responsible for numerous classic examples of species adaptive radiation, challenging Darwin's 'mutation and selection' mechanism as the source of life's diversity."--Scott A. Minnich, Professor and Program Coordinator NIH Idaho INBRE

"Michael Behe has been keeping committed Darwinists awake nights for years. Built on solid science, it's going to be harder than ever for critics to spit it out just because they don't like its taste. Darwin Devolves is going to cause a lot more sleepless nights."--The Stream

 





Last edited:

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,311
Likes
8,502
#9
Lil' Jihadist and Lizzy the Christie Fundie agree on Dinosaurs being a Satanic plot

breaking news at 6
I mean, if you think questioning the existence of dinosaurs = being ISIS...... you're free to think what you want, I guess. I don't think the issue with ISIS is them standing in a desert somewhere questioning the existence of dinosaurs. If that was all they were doing, no one would really care.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,073
Likes
10,744
#11
If Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Together, Why Don’t We Find Human Fossils with Dinosaur Fossils?

by Bodie Hodge on May 4, 2006; last featured February 13, 2007

Often, people believe that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then they didn’t live together. This is a false assumption. If human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren’t buried together.

As the floodwaters advanced during the global Flood, humans would have fled to higher ground, swam or held on to floating debris for as long as possible.

Also, human corpses bloat and therefore float on the water’s surface. Hence very few, if any, humans would be buried by sediment. Instead they would have rotted and decayed without fossilization.

It is expected that marine creatures and plants were the first things buried and fossilized, since they are at a lower elevation and couldn’t escape the sediment and water. When we look at the fossil record we find:

95% of all fossils were marine organisms.
95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants/trees.
95% of the remaining 0.25% were invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% were vertebrates, mostly fish.1,2
So, we shouldn’t expect to find many human fossils at all. There is still the possibility of finding human fossils in the lower levels of Flood sediments, but the creation/Flood model doesn’t require it.

Remember, we don’t find human bones buried with coelacanths either, but we live together today (coelacanths are a type of fish, which scientists claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago but have recently been found alive). And some may even be enjoying them for dinner!
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,773
Likes
4,599
#13
"And since people here are allergic to science anyway I would recommend you to look up the story of the Prophet Hud a.s. or the people of Ad."
That makes it even funnier.

"I got science.. Prophet (fill in the blank) says so!"
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,773
Likes
4,599
#14
If Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Together, Why Don’t We Find Human Fossils with Dinosaur Fossils?

by Bodie Hodge on May 4, 2006; last featured February 13, 2007

Often, people believe that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then they didn’t live together. This is a false assumption. If human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren’t buried together.

As the floodwaters advanced during the global Flood, humans would have fled to higher ground, swam or held on to floating debris for as long as possible.

Also, human corpses bloat and therefore float on the water’s surface. Hence very few, if any, humans would be buried by sediment. Instead they would have rotted and decayed without fossilization.

It is expected that marine creatures and plants were the first things buried and fossilized, since they are at a lower elevation and couldn’t escape the sediment and water. When we look at the fossil record we find:

95% of all fossils were marine organisms.
95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants/trees.
95% of the remaining 0.25% were invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% were vertebrates, mostly fish.1,2
So, we shouldn’t expect to find many human fossils at all. There is still the possibility of finding human fossils in the lower levels of Flood sediments, but the creation/Flood model doesn’t require it.

Remember, we don’t find human bones buried with coelacanths either, but we live together today (coelacanths are a type of fish, which scientists claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago but have recently been found alive). And some may even be enjoying them for dinner!
It is expected that marine creatures and plants were the first things buried and fossilized, since they are at a lower elevation and couldn’t escape the sediment and water. When we look at the fossil record we find...​

Good stuff, Red. :)

I watched this yesterday afternoon-- the video shows exactly how the layers were laid down, over the world, during the course of the entire Deluge event.

 





Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,793
Likes
3,554
#17
This is so stupid. Radiocarbon dating is not the only method of determining age of objects, some elements have way longer half lives. How do you think we are able to determine the age of the earth?
The argument of the size is also stupid because we have somethings known as whales. There are probably even more massive creatures at the bottom of the ocean. And it is absolutely not against the laws of physics because people in the earlier ages used to be waaaaay taller than us. The size of the planet is a factor in determining the size of its inhabitants.

The argument about "human would have been wiped out too" is ridiculous. Dinosaurs existed before humans.

If you are going to point of scientific flaws then why is "not in the bible" your argument. And since people here are allergic to science anyway I would recommend you to look up the story of the Prophet Hud a.s. or the people of Ad. Those were gigantic people with monstrous strength.


-"everyone would be finding these bones in their backyard"
well Karen have you ever dug beyond the crust in your freaking backyard?

This is pretty much top 10 dumb reasons why dinosaurs didn't exist, compiled by someone who doesn't know science.
Technically radiometric dating is based on assumptions and is about as accurate as Ancestry genetic testing. So we really don't know the age of the earth, just what 'experts' have told us since the data they have collected is theoretical
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,073
Likes
10,744
#19
Technically radiometric dating is based on assumptions and is about as accurate as Ancestry genetic testing. So we really don't know the age of the earth, just what 'experts' have told us since the data they have collected is theoretical
You have to ask how the Evolutionists account for the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur remains...

 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
2,865
Likes
5,066
#20
Technically radiometric dating is based on assumptions and is about as accurate as Ancestry genetic testing. So we really don't know the age of the earth, just what 'experts' have told us since the data they have collected is theoretical
Not "theoretical" but an approximate. Its still more accurate than "bible said so".

That makes it even funnier.

"I got science.. Prophet (fill in the blank) says so!"
Thats not what i said at all I meant that the people who are allergic to science because of religion would also be wrong either way because neither religion and nor science agrees with them.