Living dinosaurs

[AntonS]

I know many people who believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and is dead now. I sometimes visit the website www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com) (OOPARTs and ancient high technology). Some people says that they even have seen dinosaurs. Do you think that dinosaurs are alive or simetimes alive, such as an yeti. As for me, i do. But i'm not sure. I have realized that i have known almost nothing about whatever. God does what He wants to do.

[Sacrificial Ram]

I know many people who believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and is dead now. I sometimes visit the website www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com) (OOPARTs and ancient high technology). Some people says that they even have seen dinosaurs. Do you think that dinosaurs are alive or simetimes alive, such as an yeti. As for me, i do. But i'm not sure. I have realized that i have known almost nothing about whatever. God does what He wants to do.
The pictures shown have been shown to be decomposing bask sharks, or whales..

The Pauluxy river have been shown to be either misrepresenting dino tracks as human,or some are actually fraud.

Frankly, that site is very humorous, but I wouldn't take it seriously.

[AntonS]

There are many facts about high technology that was before the Flood on the website www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com). There are also many facts about giants who lived in those days. When i visited this site for the first time i knew only about thread-shaped tungsten spirals found in the Ural mountains, but there are many other facts on the website. If someone does not believe me, search the Web for it (eg keywords are "tungsten, artefacts, Ural mountains"). To view photos and information click on the link: www.mystae.com/streams/science/russcrew2.html (http://www.mystae.com/streams/science/russcrew2.html)
I believe that tungsten spirals with molybdenum core (see pictures) were used for light bulbs many thousands of years ago (for example 112000 years ago when the Egyptian civilization was strong and Egyptians drove after Israelites). Electric bulbs were in use from before 112000 years ago, before the Flood! Then men's old age was about 800 years. Besides the electric bulb they had in use self-propelled vehicles ie cars, airplanes, they did nuclear investigations. The radio was also in use. But they had not computers and mobile phones because they failed to make such digital technique because of the Flood. However there were bistables and similar devices. There are not too much about those men in the Bible. They was strong and famous from the earliest times. Noah had many knowledges. He had three sons. There were their wifes from which the Earth was inhabited. He had 600 years old when the Flood appeared, he was wise and very aware in comparison whith today's people. Many of those scientific achievements were in use after the Flood. For example, 112000 years ago Egyptians droved after Israelites using self-propelled vehicles ie cars. The car was with the compression ignition engine (so-called diesel), rubber tyres, electric headlights. The car moved quietly.

[wattsr1]

Gidday Anton,


You wrote:-

There are many facts about high technology that was before the Flood on the website www.s8int.com. There are also many facts about giants who lived in those days.

You read what the owner of that website thinks are facts. There are many sites on the web which make claims for facts that I just do not accept – for example, that the world is flat, that the Americans did not land on the moon etc.

Do you also accept that the world is flat or that the Americans did not land on the moon because some web sites claim so? If not, then why do you accept that the claims on the www.s8int.com site are fact?


Regards, Roland

[Dr.GH]

Well Anton, I am afraid that you have been badly mislead. In fact, you were lied to repeatedly. The information that could expose the truth to you can not be revealed on this website becuse it will be deleted.

Too bad.

[AntonS]

Do you also accept that the world is flat or that the Americans did not land on the moon because some web sites claim so? If not, then why do you accept that the claims on the www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/) site are fact?I believe that the World has spheroidal image in the 3-D manifold that human's eyes can see in. I also want to say that 'World' is acceptable to be defined as 'the 3-D manifold that the planet Earth is in'. Then the World is a hypersurface. I believe Americans did land on the moon. What i posted in the previous post is based on what God said to me when i was baby and in the womb. If you does not accept something it does not mean that it is false.I am afraid that you have been badly mislead. In fact, you were lied to repeatedly. The information that could expose the truth to you can not be revealed on this website becuse it will be deleted.You believe, i do not. I believe there are the truth, you believe the truth is another. But i hope it will be evident in the future that i have said the truth in the previous post. In any case, almost everyone will be able to check whether it is really correct. Do not fear and do think. If two man say the same words, it does not mean that they both are right or wrong. Maybe one is right, the other one is wrong. Some webstes about living dinosaurs, flat Earth, giants, president Bush, president Putin, about whatever - may be false. But some websites about living dinosaurs, flat Earth, giants, president Bush, president Putin are true. Attention: About living dinosaurs. It does not mean that dinosaurs are alive. Are dinosaurs alive? Some people say that they saw living dinosaurs. Maybe some of them are wrong. But some of them may be right. I believe some people are right about it. Do you believe that ancient dinosaurs are still alive or sometimes alive? Is yeti sometimes alive?

[wattsr1]

Gidday Anton,

Thanks for your reply.

You wrote:-

If you does not accept something it does not mean that it is false.

I agree. Equally, if you accept something, that does not mean that it is true. And both of these arguments apply to each of us.

Professional archaeologists do not find these things you talk of in the archaeological record.

The claims made by that web site are problematical to say the least. It is a cross between a YEC/OEC/Conspiracy web-site and as such, all claims need be taken with a bucket of salt, rather than a pinch of salt.

Mainstream thinking is often shaken and then reshaped by surprising discoveries but the surprises listed on that web site do not fall into such a category.

Perhaps the following, taken from that site, should caution you (the highlighting is mine):-

If the Bible account is true, evidence in the form of archeological artifacts and the like Should be occasionally found in the fossil and archeological record--and they are!
On subsequent pages we discuss some of the evidence that indicates that what we've been told by science may not be entirely accurate. One note of caution: this information comes from a variety of sources with a variety of beliefs and ideas behind them. Our viewpoint is that of Christians who belief that there is one God and that He created the universe at some time in the past nowhere near millions or billions of years ago. Exactly how long ago is besides the point. We believe that there was a worldwide flood and that evolution as an explanation for our existence is a fairy tale. If you believe differently perhaps we can agree that what we're being told about origins and the past is seriously flawed.

If the author is serious, then by accepting these ideas which stem from a “variety of beliefs and ideas” as an antidote to the “seriously flawed” ideas that the mainstream tells us about origins, then he is whistling in the dark.

If mainstream ideas about the past are seriously wrong then he needs to address those ideas, rather than relying on hearsay from other beliefs and ideas.

This reminds me of a very short debate I had with a YEC on the “No Answers in Genesis” site. He told me that he had proof that dinosaurs lived with humans. I asked him if that proof was Paluxy River in the U.S. – because AiG is starting to abandon Paluxy as good anti-evolution evidence. My opponent responded with a link to AiG. That link provided an article from a Russian newspaper and described a report by a journalist, who knew someone who knew someone who claimed to have seen dinosaur and human footprints in some mountain range in Russia. (I forget the exact details – but may be able to locate them if you wish).

That report was so credible that even AiG had a disclaimer at the end of the link, suggesting that, because of the quality of the sources, care be taken when using this report as evidence against evolutionists.

Well goodness me. Mainstream thinking has to be attacked by maintaining a third rate piece of evidence? AiG abandons Paluxy River as good evidence and yet it maintains this report with a warning plastered at the end!!!!

This site – s8int - with its reliance on suspect information, coupled with a warning about the sources of that information, is hardly credible evidence that something is wrong with mainstream thinking and that we are not being told about it.

Trust me. I have exchanged letters with scientists at AiG. Their critiques of the mainstream as lacking much evidence for its supposed myths is really themselves looking in the mirror.

And one other thing. The site author writes:-

Our viewpoint is that of Christians who belief that there is one God and that He created the universe at some time in the past nowhere near millions or billions of years ago. Exactly how long ago is besides the point. We believe that there was a worldwide flood and that evolution as an explanation for our existence is a fairy tale.

What a cop out.

Exactly how long ago is part of the point for at least a couple of reasons:-

1) Biblical literalists (YEC and OEC) spend some time arguing (often heatedly) amongst themselves on this issue. Often it does seem to be as important an article of faith as is the creation, the 6 days creating, the flood etc. That is, YECs at least deem this point to be as essential for salvation as is the idea that the world was created in 6 days, that the Flood occurred etc.
2) The time at which the earth was formed constrains models and therefore what can be said about things such as creation or evolution or the flood. IOW it has a lot to do with origins – despite what the author claims.

Given that you appear to accept the claims of this web site, I presume you accept the author’s statement about the creation of the earth. This prompts the following question.

What evidence can you bring to bear to support your claim that you are unsure of when the earth was created but you know that it was not “millions or billions of years ago”?

And a final question:-

How do you know what God said to you when you were a baby and in the womb?

Regards, Roland

[JamesD]

Man, I used to think the X-Files was goofy. Art Bell aint got nothin' on this kid. www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com) Landover, move over. Please tell us more. I'll go wrap my head in tin foil. (shiney side out) You haven't eaten any moldy rye bread have you?! Wild mushrooms maybe? You are writting this from INSIDE the asylum?!

Please tell me you're not walking the streets, free and unmedicated! :eek:
The doctors and nurses are there to make you feel better. But you have to take the pills everyday!

Just when you think it couldn't get any stranger. Thanks. You've renewed my faith in the lunatic fringe. Slay those dragons Don Quixote.
WOW

[One Bad Pig]

The information that could expose the truth to you can not be revealed on this website becuse it will be deleted.


Why do you say this?

[AntonS]

Professional archaeologists do not find these things you talk of in the archaeological record.Spiral-shaped micro objects was found by engineer-mineralogist Regina Akimova in 1991. It was a large geological expedition. All tests point to an age for the objects of between 20000 and 318000 years. To learn more click on the link http://www.ufoarea.com/main_relics3.html (in Russian click on the link http://www.kp.ru/daily/23098/22793/ )Mainstream thinking is often shaken and then reshaped by surprising discoveries but the surprises listed on that web site do not fall into such a category.That website embarrasses, but only if you are not ready to read and consider. 'Mainstream thinking' is almost useless abstraction. We's and they's are often a technique to deceive. People are varied. I believe everyone has his own beliefs. If he is mistaken, it is his own mistake. There are facts. Check facts, rather than site owner's beliefs. Site owner is not a dishonest man. This site is a collection of OOPARTs. Since this, it may embarrass. But it is a progressive part of science. Wait for some years (2, 5, 10 - i do not now exactly), and you will see, i believe.

Quote from www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/): On subsequent pages we discuss some of the evidence that indicates that what we've been told by science may not be entirely accurate. One note of caution: this information comes from a variety of sources with a variety of beliefs and ideas behind them.

'Evidence' is also almost useless abstraction. Evidences are always conditional. It is impossible to prove anything. For example, it is impossible to prove that i have five fingers on the hand. I can show my hand and ask someone: 'How many fingers do i have on the hand?' They may answer: 'five'. But it is not proof.

Quote from www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/): Our viewpoint is that of Christians who belief that there is one God and that He created the universe at some time in the past nowhere near millions or billions of years ago. Exactly how long ago is besides the point.

I believe that the World's existing is around 13.7 billions of years, but it is not a point of this website.

Quote from www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/): We believe that there was a worldwide flood and that evolution as an explanation for our existence is a fairy tale.

Evolution is not a fairy tale. Evolution refers to development of the flesh. The man is an angel in the flesh. He is not 3-D creature. Flesh is the soil, it stems from bananas, bread etc, from monkeys, from soil. Body is similar to a doll. I'm an angel. The man is a complicated creature. The first man is Adam, Eve is a suitable helper. Christ is God in the flesh. Satan in the flesh is a very resourceful man, he is the particular single person, not imagined, he is not an image of plurality of men. But i do not know who he is. Was he? Is he? Will he be? The animal differs from the man in connection between body and angel.

Quote from www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/): If you believe differently perhaps we can agree that what we're being told about origins and the past is seriously flawed.

I repeat: the site owner is not a dishonest man.If the author is serious, then by accepting these ideas which stem from a “variety of beliefs and ideas” as an antidote to the “seriously flawed” ideas that the mainstream tells us about origins, then he is whistling in the dark.That site's information is not 'trust me and you will be saved'. It is not also a show. The aim is not to embarrass someone or show that someone is quite fooled. It is site owner's view.Exactly how long ago is part of the point for at least a couple of reasons
1) Biblical literalists (YEC and OEC) spend some time arguing (often heatedly) amongst themselves on this issue. Often it does seem to be as important an article of faith as is the creation, the 6 days creating, the flood etc. That is, YECs at least deem this point to be as essential for salvation as is the idea that the world was created in 6 days, that the Flood occurred etc.
2) The time at which the earth was formed constrains models and therefore what can be said about things such as creation or evolution or the flood. IOW it has a lot to do with origins – despite what the author claims.Yes, i agree. But it is not a point of this website. There is a library of facts.How do you know what God said to you when you were a baby and in the womb?When i was in the womb, i knew almost all things which i know today. I knew about my future and about some other things. When i was a baby i knew those things too. Then i had forgotten almost all those things. And then, with being 20 years old, i began to remember.

[sylas]

Spiral-shaped micro objects was found by engineer-mineralogist Regina Akimova in 1991. It was a large geological expedition. All tests point to an age for the objects of between 20000 and 318000 years. To learn more click on the link http://www.ufoarea.com/main_relics3.html (in Russian click on the link http://www.kp.ru/daily/23098/22793/ )

Oh my.

That is a page about "out of place artifacts". The first on the list is the "Coso artifact". I knew of this one already; it is screamingly funny. I mean rolling in the aisles howling funny.

Anton, your page is not sensible. It says this about the Coso artefact.
500,000 YEAR OLD SPARK PLUG KNOWN AS THE COSO ARTIFACT was unearthed in the Coso Mountains, California, while looking for unusual rocks. One of these pieces of rock contained inside remains of some kind of device. Beneath the outer layer of hardened clay, pebbles and fossil inclusions was a hexagonal shaped layer of a substance resembling wood, softer than agate or jasper. This layer formed a casing around a three-quarter inch wide cylinder made of solid white porcelain or ceramic, and in the center of the cylinder is a two millimeter shaft of shiny metal core, about .08 inch (2 millimeters) in diameter. Also, surrounding the ceramic cylinder are rings of copper, mostly corroded. Embedded too in the rock, though separate from the cylinder, are two more man-made items - what look like a nail and a washer. The rock, in which the artifact resembling a spark plug was found, was dated to about 500,000 year old. Those who manufactured this artifact had to possess an advanced technology.

The real truth is that in fact is it not all that advanced... the artefact is rather like a 1920s style Champion brand spark plug, as used in a Model T and Model A Ford. Strike that. The Coso artefact is exactly like a 1920s style Champion brand spark plug as used in a Model T and Model A Ford.

A hilarious discussion of this artefact, hugely enjoyable for the descriptions of all the various people who took it seriously, is available at The Coso Artifact: Mystery from the Depths of Time (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html) by Pierre Stromberg, available at talkorigins.

The comment about dating the rock in which the artefact was found is simply moonshine. It was found by three individuals who were out looking for geodes. They threw their samples into a bag, and when they got home to check, this one looked curious.

No published geological analysis is available. Zilch. Although the finders said their were looking for geodes, there is in fact no indication that this spark plug was actually in a geode. Quoting the cited FAQ:
Geodes consists of a thin outer shell, composed of dense chalcedonic silica, and are filled with a layer of quartz crystals. The Coso Artifact does not possess either feature. Discoverer Virginia Maxey referred to the material covering the artifact as "hardened clay" and noted that it had picked up a miscellaneous collection of pebbles, including a "nail and washer." Analysis of the surface material is noted as having a hardness of Mohs 3, which is not very hard and certainly much softer than chalcedony.

The identification of the artefact is also a matter of record. Quoting the FAQ again, Stromberg describes how it was identified.
... To help the authors of this article identify the Coso Artifact, they decided to turn to a little-known group of experts - The Spark Plug Collectors of America.

Letters were sent to four different spark plug collectors describing the Coso Artifact, including Ron Calais' X-rays of the object in question. Collectors were asked if they could identify what they saw in the photos. The collectors were expected to provide some vague hints, or to not be able to identify the artifact at all. Their actual answers were stunning.

On September 9, 1999, Chad Windham, President of the Spark Plug Collectors of America called Pierre Stromberg of Pacific Northwest Skeptics. Windham initially suspected that Stromberg was a fellow spark plug collector, writing incognito, with the ostensible motive of hoaxing him. His fears were compounded by the fact that there is an actual line of spark plugs named "Stromberg." Windham had also contacted another spark plug collector, strongly suspecting that he was the culprit, and made a point of looking up the website of Pacific Northwest Skeptics to ensure it actually existed.

Though Stromberg repeatedly assured Windham that his intentions were purely for research, he was puzzled why Windham was so suspicious and asked him to explain. Windham replied that it was so obvious to him that the artifact was a contemporary spark plug, the letter had to be a hoax. "I knew what it was the moment I saw the x-rays" Windham stated. He also added that it was not uncommon at all for spark plug collectors to play pranks on one another.

"Are you sure it's a spark plug?" Stromberg asked?

"There's no question about it, " Windham replied, barely containing his laughter, "it's a spark plug."

Stromberg asked Windham if he could identify the particular make of the spark plug. Windham replied he was certain that it was a 1920's era Champion spark plug. Stromberg was stunned by the collector's certainty, but Windham insisted that he had nailed the identification. Windham offered to send two identical spark plugs, the only possible but slight difference being the diameter of the packing nut at the base of the plug. Stromberg accepted Windham's offer and a few days later a package arrived in the mail.

Ten days after the phone call with Windham, Pierre Stromberg received a phone call from Bill Bond, founder of the Spark Plug Collectors of America, and curator of a private museum of spark plugs containing more than two thousand specimens. Bond said he hadn't spoken to Windham, but said he thought he knew the identity of the Coso Artifact, "A 1920s Champion spark plug." Spark plug collector Mike Healy also concurred with Bond and Windham's assessment about the spark plug. The fourth collector, Jeff Bartheld, Vice-President of the Spark Plug Collectors of America contacted Stromberg via postal mail on October 18, 1999, and also confirmed that the artifact was a 1920s Champion spark plug. To date, there has been no dissent in the spark plug collector community as to the origins of the Coso Artifact.

However, the "spiral shaped objects" that Anton mentions above are not something I had previously heard about. Given that the first was so funny, I was very hopeful of a good story here as well! Alas, no such luck.

The spirals look a bit like shavings and debris from conventional metal works. The dates mean nothing without some kind of proper documentation... particularly in the light of the wholly imaginary claims about dating of the Coso artefact given on the same page. The main investigator is a Dr Johannes Fiebag. He is also well known for finding alien artefacts on the Moon, and for his sterling work to help traumatized victims of alien abductions.

Cheers -- Sylas

[wattsr1]

Gidday Anton,


I am going to tackle bits and pieces of your post.

s8int.com:- We believe that there was a worldwide flood and that evolution as an explanation for our existence is a fairy tale.

Anton:- Evolution is not a fairy tale.

You disagree with the s8int site on the nature of evolution then or have I missed something here? If you do disagree then I am glad. Evolution definitely is not a “fairy tale”. On the assumption that you disagree with s8int on this point then statements you make about “facts”, “evidence” and “useless abstractions” leave me puzzled.

Evolution refers to development of the flesh. The man is an angel in the flesh. He is not 3-D creature. Flesh is the soil, it stems from bananas, bread etc, from monkeys, from soil. Body is similar to a doll. I'm an angel. The man is a complicated creature. The first man is Adam, Eve is a suitable helper. Christ is God in the flesh. Satan in the flesh is a very resourceful man, he is the particular single person, not imagined, he is not an image of plurality of men. But i do not know who he is. Was he? Is he? Will he be? The animal differs from the man in connection between body and angel.

This is way over my head. All I know is that I have a material existence, that I have a mind which I assume derives from my material existence, that I evolved from ape like creatures etc. This stuff we can get evidence for.

I would want satisfactory evidence that I am an angel, that the first man was Adam, that Christ is God in flesh etc. How do you know that I am an angel and that the first man was Adam etc?

Your statements are largely a collection of unsubstantiated to partly substantiated assertions. The paragraph is a ramble. Do you have solid evidence for any of this?

That website embarrasses, but only if you are not ready to read and consider.

Do you think that reading and considering is the same as accepting? Do you read and consider (and therefore accept) everything you come across? How do you handle a website which says that the world is spherical while another that says it is flat; one that says that cold fusion is reality and another that says it is not; one that says Christ is God and one that says Christ is not God? These are all contradictory claims which we can all read and consider but are still going to have to accept one or the other and run the risk of being wrong and therefore embarrassed.

'Mainstream thinking' is almost useless abstraction. We's and they's are often a technique to deceive. People are varied. I believe everyone has his own beliefs. If he is mistaken, it is his own mistake. There are facts. Check facts, rather than site owner's beliefs. Site owner is not a dishonest man. This site is a collection of OOPARTs. Since that, it may embarrass. But it is a progressive part of science. Wait for some years (2, 5, 10 - i do not now exactly), and you will see, i believe.

What is so useless about the term “mainstream thinking”, notwithstanding that people are varied and have their own beliefs?

Certainly my beliefs are different to all people, including those who “supposedly think like me”. Yet we share enough beliefs to make the categorization of “mainstream” useful. We all agree that the world is spherical, that life evolved, that I exist, that the material exists, that the scientific method tells us about the material world around us etc. You stated that the web site deals with facts. If these can be classified as such then presumably a group of people accept them. Are not a set of facts upon which most people agree – “mainstream thinking”? You told me that the world is spherical. Most Westerners agree with this despite that fact that all have “different beliefs”. So do you really argue that the thought “the world is spherical”, cannot be called “mainstream thinking”?

Given that most in the scientific community accept the theory of evolution and that the owner of the site argues that such thinking is wrong – then immediately you have a thought which is part of “mainstream thinking”. The owner of the site does not. It is as simple as that.

To argue otherwise is to be ignoring the obvious, don’t you think?

You stated that I should check the facts rather than the site owner’s beliefs. Well even though I am a bit lazy, I just cannot physically check every claim for a fact that is made before me. I would have thought that the owner of the web site would have done that, rather than just collecting stories and putting a warning up that there could be problems because of the sources. In what sense are these claims facts, if even the owner of the site has to put such a disclaimer up?

That he might have wished to collect odd stories and publish them is one thing, but it is another to collect odd stories and publish them as evidence against mainstream thinking and kind of disclaim their veracity. It is another thing again for you to claim that those stories are fact or that they contain fact.

I gather you have not checked the factual content of those stories since you claim to have been told them by God in the womb. If those stories are factual then, what of the claims of the debunkers - Sacrificial Ram post #2, Sylas post #11? Have you checked the claims of the debunkers?

IOW, why should I trust your claims for the reason you provide? I shall have more to say on this later.

If some one formed a George Bush web site and collected stories from all of his enemies and posted them, with a warning that these stories need to be treated with caution due to the nature of the sources, but to trust the site nevertheless because all of the stories are true and factual, what would you say to me? Accept them because they are fact? How can they be accepted as fact when even the owner recognizes that the sources could be suspect in some manner?

Essentially this is what you wish me to do here.

You are correct, the owner of s8int.com is not lying. Flat earthers do not lie when they post either. The owner of the George Bush web site probably would not be lying either. I am not even remotely suggesting that lies are involved here. I am suggesting that the owner of s8int.com is credulous and he has you “hook line and sinker”.

It really is not good enough to argue in this manner.

It stretches my credulity when the owner of s8int.com informs the reader that evolution is a fairy tale, that the reader has been deceived by the scientific establishment, and uses as evidence a set of articles that are against mainstream thinking on many issues – and for which he has to offer some kind of disclaimer.

Then my credulity is stretched even further when you tell me that these articles contain facts.

In what sense are they facts? If the owner thought the articles had worthwhile content then why did he not check them out before posting them? If he is happy with their content then why offer a disclaimer.

That site's information is not 'trust me and you will be saved'. It is not also a show. The aim is not to embarrass someone or show that someone is quite fooled. It is site owner's view.

I do understand that the site is not attempting to convert me to Christianity – although I suspect that is a secondary motive. Either way – it is reasonable if the site is attempting to “save” me. The owner is entitled to do it. But he is attempting to show me that my acceptance of what most scientists accept is incorrect. I use the word “embarrass” in that sense. He is attempting to show me that I am wrong.

It is quite reasonable for him to do that.

Again though, I make the point – in what sense are these facts? They are claims. Claims (and facts) require evidence and argument to establish themselves. Claims do not just pop into truthfulness. Even those dates you gave at the beginning of your posting are claims which require their own body of evidence and argument. They are not facts per se. How can they be? If you think otherwise then read Sylas’ post #11.

How did the claimant know that these spirals have a date of between “20000 and 318000 years”? Your very wording:-

All tests point to an age for the objects of between 20000 and 318000 years.

points to the fact that tests had to be done to determine this date range. How reliable is this range? Given the spread of years one could say that the age determination is not very secure. You use words of equivocation yourself. So in what sense are these facts?

How factual is the site given that the owner has that disclaimer I have already mentioned on several occasions? Like I said, some honest people say that the earth is spherical. Other honest people say that it is flat. Two contradictory “facts” about the same attribute for the earth.

From your argument, I must read and consider both viewpoints in order to avoid embarrassment. Well I am still going to have to choose one claim over another since the claims are contradictory. I cannot hold to them both. Hence I run the risk of being wrong and therefore embarrassed, no matter how much I may wish otherwise. And to decide one over the other I am going to have to consider the evidence. That is unavoidable.

'Evidence' is also almost useless abstraction. Evidences are always conditional. …

What is so useless about the word “evidence”?

Allow me to assume that everything on that website, s8int, is factual. That is, every point made by these disparate authors is a fact. What do you want me to do with these “facts”? If I am to believe the author of the site, I am to understand that these “facts” demonstrate that the mainstream is wrong on the issue of “evolution”. If I am to understand you, then it is not so much that evolution is wrong, rather is is that there is much that the mainstream has gotten wrong.

Therefore, how are you using the “facts” on this site? You are using them as evidence for your assertion that the mainstream has gotten so much wrong.

You are using your facts as evidence. If you are going to do this then why on earth argue that the word “evidence” is nearly useless? You may think so but you act otherwise!

Let me explain this in another way. Everything you say that I disagree with is wrong simply because I was told by the spiritual being from Venus that you are wrong and I am right.

Now what are we going to do since you are definitely wrong and I am definitely right. How are we to resolve this conundrum without appealing to evidence?

… It is impossible to prove anything. For example, it is impossible to prove that i have five fingers on the hand. I can show my hand and ask someone: 'How many fingers do i have on the hand?' They may answer: 'five'. But it is not proof.

Here you are using pop philosophy. It is well known that it is “impossible to prove anything” unless you are going to operate within a system somewhat like a mathematical system, where, providing you accept the rules you can prove that 2+2=4.

However people who then take this argument, as you have done, to rebuff my argument concerning the consequences of the disclaimer, quickly run into trouble.

If you are really serious with your argument then I volunteer to be your surgeon to remove those extra three fingers on your right hand. I have had no medical training but you do have 8 fingers on that hand and wish them to be removed. Trust me, I know what I am talking about and I shall remove them painlessly and for a very small fee of $1,000 per finger. A normal surgeon would probably charge a several thousand dollars per finger. Oh, you don’t want them removed because they do not exist? Trust me they exist as easily as five fingers exist. They are there and you cannot prove anything, not even that you have only five fingers.

Does the use of evidence in order to make a strong case for having only five fingers and not eight, suddenly sound appealing to you?

And just what are facts? They are bits of information for which we claim certainty – which is kind of a way of saying “for which we claim proof”.

Or do you argue that the certainty/proof of facts just exists. If so, then how did you prove that apparently un-provable fact?

When i was in the womb, i knew almost all things which i know today. I knew about my future and about some other things. When i was a baby i knew those things too. Then i had forgotten almost all those things. And then, with being 20 years old, i began to remember.

It is very hard for me to know what to do with a statement such as this. That you believe this, I have no doubt, but there is no experimental evidence (is there?) that embryos/fetuses can know that which they will later know as adult human beings – beyond that which is genetically programmed in some manner.

How do you know that the things you now remember, you once knew as a baby, particularly since you had forgotten them? And how do you know that God put them there?

You make the claim but provide me with no evidence – so how am I to treat it? I treat it like I do with any other claim of a similar nature – with extreme skepticism, notwithstanding the fact that you are undoubtably a sincere person.

We have this thing called the scientific method – a set of ideas designed to open claims up to investigation in a manner that all can view the methodology, the data, the theories and determine if results are in accordance with theory or not.

As far as I can see, there is no reason to accept your special claim. I can do nothing with it. If I told you that my ideas are correct because an alien from Venus visited me and revealed all to me – would you argue, or would you just accept?

There is nothing I can argue about with this claim of yours – no theoretical underpinning, no data to confirm it etc. I must take your word for it. The problem is that your claim is way, way out. If you wish me to accept it then you are going to have to offer some evidence.

From my view point you have a mind that frequently goes into deja vu and my understanding is that deja vu is beginning to be understood as the mind convincing itself that its owner had been in a particular situation before. That is, part of the mind sees something and another part says “guess what – you have been here before”. Whether that fits you or not, I do not know. However I do believe there is some peer reviewed scientific evidence for that view point.

Our minds are very easily fooled – magicians rely on that attribute all the time.

We rely on logic and procedures such as the scientific method in order to sort genuine but misguided claims, from genuine but correct claims. Give me some good peer reviewed literature to go on and I shall be more open to your claim.

Frankly Anton, I think you read to much pop psychology, conspiracy theories, ufo stories, popular religious texts and grab a bit of this and a bit of that in order to create a world view which lacks any coherence.

Little wonder you accept as fact – articles from a site which the owner sort of disclaims; and for which several “facts” have already been debunked (See Sacrificial Ram with Post #2 and Sylas, post 11)


Regards, Roland

[AntonS]

I would want satisfactory evidence that I am an angel, that the first man was Adam, that Christ is God in flesh etc. How do you know that I am an angel and that the first man was Adam etc?Evidence does not exist. I can explain.
Quote from my one post:
Do i have a mental disorder? It is impossible to prove. It is possible to believe. But the truth exists. Those who believe in reality are right, the rest are mistaken. I believe the Earth has the spheroidal image, though i have no proof of it.
For example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 What is the next? 6? Where do you know from? The next number may be 14, 50,1309768
Something may be considered to be conditionally proved. If ... then a theorem is proved. If experiment to check a law of physics was done 1000 times, that law may be considered to be proved, but what will happen the 1001st time? Almost no-one knows.
Evidence refers to individual feeling. It is an abstraction.
Do you have solid evidence for any of this?No. I also do not want to convince you more.Do you think that reading and considering is the same as accepting?No, i do not.How do you handle a website which says that the world is spherical while another that says it is flat; one that says that cold fusion is reality and another that says it is not; one that says Christ is God and one that says Christ is not God?I wait for God to tell me what is right.What is so useless about the term “mainstream thinking”, notwithstanding that people are varied and have their own beliefs?Similar beliefs is acceptable. Mainsream thinking is acceptable too. I consider it to be useless because it cause difficulties for me. It may be useful for someone, but i hate such approach.
We all agree that the world is spherical, that life evolved, that I exist, that the material exists, that the scientific method tells us about the material world around us etc.'We all'? Where do you know from? I do not agree. Life is not evolved. Flesh is evolved. Scientific method is a method to check.In what sense are these claims facts, if even the owner of the site has to put such a disclaimer up?The fact is a thing that is the truth. The planet Earth is spheroidal. If it is true, it is a fact. For example, imagine: president Putin visited president Bush. Why did he do it? One person says it is for reason #1. The second person says it is for reason #2. The third person says it is for reason #3. But the truth exists. President Putin visited president Bush for particular reason. Someone may think however he like, but the truth exists, and sometimes the truth has no absolut evidences, or even any evidences.I gather you have not checked the factual content of those stories since you claim to have been told them by God in the womb. If those stories are factual then, what of the claims of the debunkers - Sacrificial Ram post #2, Sylas post #11? Have you checked the claims of the debunkers?I have checked the content of those stories because i have been told by God. I think everyone knows Him. He is Lord. He is God for some people. The rest knows Him as Lord, not as God. I'm sure, Sylas is mistaken. Cars, electricity, rubber was being used for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands years. Sacrificial Ram is also mistaken, i believe.I do understand that the site is not attempting to convert me to Christianity – although I suspect that is a secondary motive.If it is a secondary motive, or even the first motive - is it bad? Everyone has the right to express his thoughts for any purposes.The owner is entitled to do it. But he is attempting to show me that my acceptance of what most scientists accept is incorrect. I use the word “embarrass” in that sense. He is attempting to show me that I am wrong.He show his view. You do not agree with him. If people disagree, it is not bad.Accept them because they are fact? How can they be accepted as fact when even the owner recognizes that the sources could be suspect in some manner? Essentially this is what you wish me to do here.Yes, i wish you to accept. But it is impossible to make someone to do or accept something he do not want to. If you accept www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/), i will be glad.It stretches my credulity when the owner of s8int.com informs the reader that evolution is a fairy tale, that the reader has been deceived by the scientific establishment, and uses as evidence a set of articles that are against mainstream thinking on many issues – and for which he has to offer some kind of disclaimer.If you do not want to accept, do not accept! You simply fear to think! It is also impossible to deceive someone, unless he want to be deceived. It is his weakness.some honest people say...Honest people are rare.What do you want me to do with these “facts”?I want you to accept them.If I am to believe the author of the site, I am to understand that these “facts” demonstrate that the mainstream is wrong on the issue of “evolution”.I think the following. Science is not entirely accurate. Evolution as an explanation of our existance is a fairy tale. Evolution is not a fairy tale. Evolution is not an explanation of our existance. I almost completely agree with www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/) 's owner.You are using your facts as evidence.This evidence is conditional. It refers to me. If you consider stories to be not the evidence, do not believe in it.You make the claim but provide me with no evidence – so how am I to treat it?Think, check, find, be not lazy. I guess you do not want to know the real truth.

[wattsr1]

Hello Anton,



Anton at the start

But the truth exists. Those who believe in reality are right, the rest are mistaken.

Anton at the end

I guess you do not want to know the real truth.

I live in Adelaide, capital of South Australia.

Some 30 years ago, a local claimed that he was told by God, that He would destroy the city as punishment for its sins.

That was one reality.

A few people took him serioulsy and moved out of the city – to interstate locations.

That was one reality.

Most of us stayed in the city and went to work. Because of the media fenzy whipped up by the weirdness of the case – some even held a party in the city on that very day the city was to be destroyed.

That was one reality.

So, should I have listened to the man who got his information from God? Should I have acted on the truth? Or should I have remained ignorant of reality and not wanted to know the real truth?


Regards, Roland

PS. Given that “evidence” is a useless concept, do you wish me to be your surgeon or not?

[AntonS]

If a man says that he got his information from God, it does not mean that he got his information from God. It also refers to me.

[wattsr1]

If a man says that he got his information from God, it does not mean that he got his information from God. It also refers to me.


Gidday Anton,

How do you know that “it does not mean that he got his information from God”?

And which person should I have believed – him or the others? And why?


Regards, Roland

[AntonS]

How do you know that “it does not mean that he got his information from God”?It also does not mean that he did not get his information from God. If someone dishonest says he get an information from God, it does not mean anything. To judge if someone is dishonest is a difficult matter. But who wishes to err may err.And which person should I have believed – him or the others? And why?Do not believe each of them. But when you will be as sure as you are sure you have five fingers on the hand - then choose who is right.

As to angels, i think the following. Angels are material too. They have physical bodies, N-dimensional bodies, their bodies are not tied to the World.

[wattsr1]

It also does not mean that he did not get his information from God. If someone dishonest says he get an information from God, it does not mean anything. To judge if someone is dishonest is a difficult matter. But who wishes to err may err.Do not believe each of them. But when you will be as sure as you are sure you have five fingers on the hand - then choose who is right.

As to angels, i think the following. Angels are material too. They have physical bodies, N-dimensional bodies, their bodies are not tied to the World.


Gidday Anton,


How am I to decide whether someone is dishonest or not? How am I to judge whether someone is dishonest or not? (Wishing to err has nothing to do with this argument. That is a red herring.)

How can one be as sure as one can be?

On what basis do I have to choose something e.g. that which is right?


Regards, Roland

[AntonS]

How am I to decide whether someone is dishonest or not? How am I to judge whether someone is dishonest or not?I do not know. Decide on your own or ask someone else.Wishing to err has nothing to do with this argument. That is a red herring.That argument is not for wishing to mistake.

Who does really believe in living dinosaurs? I believe. Someone else?

[wattsr1]

Gidday Anton,

Roland:- How am I to decide whether someone is dishonest or not?

Anton:- I do not know. Decide on your own or ask someone else.

Why do you now argue “I [Anton] do not know” when you have just finished telling me that “it might mean that he got his information from God; and it might mean that he did not get his information from God” and you have taken away my ability to use evidence on account of it being a “useless abstraction”?

And why should I trust anybody by adopting your epistemology? Others will only provide me with information that I shall have to regard as evidence and either accept or reject. But evidence is a “useless abstraction” as far as you are concerned. And they might be trustworthy. But then again they might not be.

How do I “decide for [myself]”? That was my question to you!

Are you sure that your “ I do not know” was not a copout because your epistemology is meaningless?

I asked:-

Roland:- On what basis do I have to choose something e.g. that which is right?

I did not ask what you believed about living dinosaurs as against what someone else believed. Given your epistemology which says that a man may or may not be trusted and that evidence is a useless abstraction – how do you answer my question?


Regards, Roland

[AntonS]

How do I “decide for [myself]”? That was my question to you!How can you decide whether you have 5 fingers on the hand or not? Maybe you see at your hand, ask someone. Then you believe you have N fingers on the hand. How are you to decide something? Ask someone, see, look for an answer. Maybe you should, for example, read and try to realize the Bible, from Genesis to the end of NT. But i'm not sure.

[wattsr1]

How can you decide whether you have 5 fingers on the hand or not? Maybe you see at your hand, ask someone. Then you believe you have N fingers on the hand. How are you to decide something? Ask someone, see, look for an answer. Maybe you should, for example, read and try to realize the Bible, from Genesis to the end of NT. But i'm not sure.


Gidday Anton,

You argue:

1) that the word “evidence” is meaningless and therefore (I presume) the concept is useless and;
2) that I cannnot trust a man who claims that God has told him something, anymore than I can trust him, and therefore (I presume) you cannot trust a man who makes any claim, any more than I can trust him.

Then in your world, what is the point of looking and asking? “Looking”, concerns the gathering of evidence which is useless and “asking” concerns trusting – which cannot be done.

Why even should I read the Bible? Either it is implicity expecting me to trust it (impossible) or use it as evidence (useless).

So my questions still stand.

The point I am trying to make in all this is, whether you like it or not, “evidence” is a useful word and we need evidence, logical thought and sound argument to decide these issues – even at the risk of being wrong.

Disclaimers for articles attached to a web site that still argues for these articles as evidence against a proposition – hardly makes for sound argument.

Why should I bother to check when the owner of that site cannot do his homework in the first place? Why should I do his homework for him? Even more pointedly, why should I trust him if others have shown some of his articles to be of no merrit – yet he still posts them?


Regards, Roland

[AntonS]

The word 'evidence' refers to individual fillings. Evidence is facts or signs that show clearly that something exists or is true (www.ldoceonline.com (http://www.ldoceonline.com/)). That word is almost useless for a couple of people, but it may be useful for a particular person. 'Evidence' is not meaningless. 'Useless' is conditional too.
Why even should I read the Bible? Either it is implicity expecting me to trust it (impossible) or use it as evidence (useless).To trust is possible. Do not trust a man, trust Lord. Evidence is not useless for you. The Bible is for those people who want to read it.
Why should I bother to check when the owner of that site cannot do his homework in the first place? Why should I do his homework for him? Even more pointedly, why should I trust him if others have shown some of his articles to be of no merrit – yet he still posts them?Maybe you should not. I believe there are truth on the site www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/). I believe, site owner have done a suitable homework. If he believe, why should you trust him? I do not know too. Do not trust him. You must not do any efforts to check. Do not check. That site is his own site. He also must not do any efforts. It is normally. You must not do anything. If you do not trust me, decide on your own or ask someone else whether there are truth or not.

[wattsr1]

Gidday Anton,

You appear to be arguing for belielf based on a faith which has no epistemological underpinning

That is fine, execpt that you have no reason to believe, and you have no reason not to believe.

Some how this discussion has come back to this point several times before.

You may have the last words, if you have anything to add.

Thankyou for your time,

Roland

[AntonS]

Whoever believes in living dinosaurs, please, write anything here too.

God manages time as He wants to manage. He can take an ancient dinosaur in His hand and put him in another point of time.

[Jack777]

I went to the site and looked around and went to links. I suppose anything is possible, but they must only have the little ones lurking about. The ones with bellies as big as a bus would hard not to run across. Just the copralites would be bigger than most people. I am thinking that is kind of crappy evidence though.

[AntonS]

Just the copralites would be bigger than most people.What does 'copralites' mean?

[Jack777]

Copralites are the remains of dung from animals. If dinosaurs are lurking about, there is likely some cave or someplace that their droppings would be deposited. I think one cave had giant sloth dung people found a long time ago and they are extinct, well, I think so at least. I saw a book I skimmed through that made a circumstantial argument for living dinosaurs that was not too convincing, well, not at all really. The giant dinosaurs in South America that I think are extinct had bellies as big as buses, just the bellies. If there are small thunder lizards it seems someone would have physical evidence. Copralites are a likely piece of evidence likely to be found as it does not move around.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I went to the site and looked around and went to links. I suppose anything is possible, but they must only have the little ones lurking about. The ones with bellies as big as a bus would hard not to run across. Just the copralites would be bigger than most people. I am thinking that is kind of crappy evidence though.

Not necessarily.

Just because an animal is big, it doesn't mean it's scat (later fossilized to coprolite) is likewise big. Deer for instance are twice my mass at least, and yet their scat is in the form of little pellets maybe a centimeter in diameter. Even the largest member, the moose, has a scat only about 1 inch in diameter. There's just a lot of them.

Very large coprolites have been found (up to about 40 cm), but some are believed to be amalgamations of several 'scatting' events.

See a picture of what is thought to be a single large piece of T. rex turd here (http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/king-sized-coprolite.html). Not man sized, but a whopper nonetheless.

[Jack777]

Well that is kind of a relief in case the dinosaurs are lurking about.

[AntonS]

I think the following. For example, yeti is not always alive or is not always in the usual point of time - i do not know exactly. Christ is alive, but He is not in the usual point of time and He is not in the usual 3-D manifold, ie usual hypersurface.
I've seen the film 'Walking With Dinosaurs. The Ballad of Big Al'. Al was a good dinosaur. And God likes him, but usually He does not like ancient dinosaurs. Al was ill. Al wished to drink water, God said him to go to a river, but that river had dried up, God said him to lie on the ground of that river, and he lied and died, 145 millions of years ago.

[Jack777]

It has been over seven years ago since a book was published that has gained little attention. It is no wonder that it has not. The evidence contained is recorded by someone who knows what he is talking about and it shows that the Theory of Evolution and what we think is true is a total fraud in reference to humans. People were different long ago. There were some who could see in the dark, pitch dark. People lived a lot longer, a lot, lot longer. The book is:

Cuozzo, Jack, Buried Alive, Master Books, Green Forest, Arizona, 1998. Oddly, the kind of investigators considered on the fringes are also publishing fantastic things that sound like evidences against evolution. Many of us realized that evolution is not true before the "fringe" element started in earnest. Science makes a mistake clinging to outmoded theories.

"There was also in Schwaller "a grey zone of speculation where true and false did not apply" - for example, in his conviction that mankind had not evolved, but 'devolved', from 'giants who once walked the earth to a near-animal state... vowed to cataclysmic annihilation, while an evolving Élite gathers all of human experience for a resurrection in spirituality."



Wilson, Collin, From Atlantis to the Sphinx, Fromm International Publishing Corporation, New York, 1996

Ragnarok anyone?I bought the book by Cuozzo new after it came out, but I have ran across it used in several used bookstores. In the past few years I have run across too many actual records of the history of humans on the planet to entertain things are the way evolutionists say they are in regards to almost anything. In fact, evidence makes the Bible seem a lot more faithful to history than supposed science does. I think that physical evidence found and the testimony in the Bible and other records of humankind such as Ovid's Metamophoseon debunk dearly held beliefs about human "evolution." It was a nice idea to comfort the so-called superior or "favoured races" of Darwin and the thinking of people in a world where they saw misery and could not stand the thought. One small piece of evidence is presented below from an online source derived from original sources. Mankind is devolving, not evolving. "Pssssst, don't tell anybody." I do not think it is a conspiracy and I do not think conspiracy theories are ever true, but things are different than the way we think, the way we were taught. If science wants to be a babysitter and foster fairy tales for whatever reason, that is fine in some sense, we have freedom of religion in this country. The trouble is that denying the truth is not ever healthy and a very unhealthy group of Pharisees has risen to the occasion and they are not Jewish, they are evolutionists. What compounds matters is evident from the records below. I think science has to hold onto false beliefs for some reason. I do not know if it is pride and arrogance only, or just plain ignorance. Part of it may be fear, part of it may be that science just does not have the ability to explain things away, and maybe science just does not want to be thrown into a panic; so science sticks to the lies. There is plenty of evidence available besides this.

John Williams, Giant Human Remains From Records and Sources All Over the World

Giant Skeletons in America:



In July, 1877, four prospectors were looking for gold and silver outcroppings in a desolate, hilly area near the head of Spring Valley, not far from Eureka, Nevada. Scanning the rocks, one of the men spotted something peculiar projecting from a high ledge. Climbing up to get a better look, the prospector was surprised to find a human legbone and knee cap sticking out of solid rock. He called to his companions, and together they dislodged the oddity with picks. Realizing they had a most unusual find, the men brought it into Eureka, where it was placed on display. The stone in which the bones were embedded was a hard, dark red quartzite, and the bones themselves were almost black with carbonization. When the surrounding stone was carefully chipped away, the specimen was found to be composed of a leg bone broken off four inches above the knee, the knee cap and joint, the lower leg bones, and the complete bones of the foot. Several medical doctors examined the remains, and were convinced that anatomically they had indeed once belonged to a human being, and a very modern-looking one. But an intriguing aspect of the bones was their size: from knee to heel they measured 39 inches. Their owner in life had thus stood over 12 feet tall. Compounding the mystery further was the fact that the rock in which the bones were found was dated geologically to the era of the dinosaurs, the Jurassic - over 185 million years old. The local papers ran several stories on the marvelous find, and two museums sent investigators to see if any more of the skeleton could be located. Unfortunately, nothing else but the leg and foot existed in the rock." Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth--Jochmans http://www.ior.com/~kjc/pages/strange.htm (http://www.ior.com/~kjc/pages/strange.htm/t_blank)



In 1947 a local newspaper reported the discovery of nine-foot-tall skeletons by amateur archeologists working in Death Valley. The archeologists involved also claimed to have found what appeared to be the bones of tigers and dinosaurs with the human remains. Ivan T. Sanderson related a curious story about a letter he received regarding an engineer who was stationed on the Aleutian island of Shemya during World War II. While building an airstrip, his crew bulldozed a group of hills and discovered under several sedimentary layers what appeared to be human remains. The Alaskan mound was in fact a graveyard of gigantic human remains, consisting of crania and long leg bones. The crania measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown. Since an adult skull normally measures about eight inches from back to front, such a large crania would imply an immense size for a normally proportioned human. Furthermore, every skull was said to have been neatly trepanned (a process of cutting a hole in the upper portion of the skull). Sanderson tried to gather further proof, eventually receiving a letter from another member of the unit who confirmed the report. The letters both indicated that the Smithsonian Institution had Collected the remains, yet nothing else was heard. Sanderson seemed convinced that the Smithsonian Institution had received the bizarre relics, but wondered why they would not release the data. He asks, "...is it that these people cannot face rewriting all the textbooks?"




In Lompoc-Rancho California, in 1833, soldiers discovered a skeleton 11' 9'' long which was covered with boulders that featured an unidentified writing. A similar writing was unearthed on the isle of Santa Maria off the cost of Los Angeles.




In 1833,soldiers digging a pit for a powder magazine at Lompoc Rancho, California, hacked their way through a layer of cemented gravel and came up with the skeleton of a giant man about twelve feet tall. The skeleton was surrounded by carved shells, huge stone axes, and blocks of porphyry covered with unintelligible symbols. The giant was also noteworthy in still another respect: He had a double row of teeth, both upper and lower. This particular giant, incidentally, bore marked similarity to another, that of a giant man with double rows of teeth whose skeletal remains were dug up on Santa Rosa Island, off the California coast. Subsequent research has shown that he, or his descendants, feasted on the small elephants which once lived on that island and which have vanished like the giants who ate them, countless ages ago.

[AntonS]

If Darwin was mistaken, it was his own mistake. Who wishes to err may err. Newton's laws are not completely true, ie they are false on its own. Evolution is similar to Newton's laws.

[Evo-Devo]

I know many people who believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and is dead now. I sometimes visit the website www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com) (OOPARTs and ancient high technology). Some people says that they even have seen dinosaurs. Do you think that dinosaurs are alive or simetimes alive, such as an yeti. As for me, i do. But i'm not sure. I have realized that i have known almost nothing about whatever. God does what He wants to do.

I have believed for years that dinosaurs were not reptiles they were not lizards they were not cold blooded they were something completely different from every species today. I then learned about a new theory that said that the Dinosaurs that walked bipedally, ie... Velociraptor, Tryannasuars rex, evolved into birds. Now I looked into it and sure enough alot of the bones in such Dinosaurs are the same bones in all birds, ie.. the wishbone. So I believe that Dinosaurs are still around they are everywhere, and who knows there may have been prehistoric birds that preyed on humans.

[NeilUnreal]

I don't believe any of the "traditional" large dinosaurs like T.Rex, Triceratops, etc. are still alive, but I do secretly hope there really still is one living in some remote, steamy jungle somewhere...

-Neil

[shunyadragon]

Well that is kind of a relief in case the dinosaurs are lurking about.

Birds

[Evo-Devo]

I've seen the film 'Walking With Dinosaurs. The Ballad of Big Al'. Al was a good dinosaur. And God likes him, but usually He does not like ancient dinosaurs. Al was ill. Al wished to drink water, God said him to go to a river, but that river had dried up, God said him to lie on the ground of that river, and he lied and died, 145 millions of years ago.

I totally resent what you have to say if the "Discovery Channel" knew about what you were saying ie.."I've seen the film 'Walking With Dinosaurs. The Ballad of Big Al'. Al was a good dinosaur. And God likes him, but usually He does not like ancient dinosaurs. Al was ill. Al wished to drink water, God said him to go to a river, but that river had dried up, God said him to lie on the ground of that river because I too have seen that program, as it is not a film, and it is not just one program it is a mini-series, and in that show it never says anything about "GOD" telling him what to do it is instincts that every animal, dinosaur or human, has. So I will be contacting my uncle who happens to work for the Discovery Channel and tell him that you are using their education movies to fight your pointless debate to try to brainwash every person into believing in Christ, and that the only way to saved from hell is to worship "your" god because only "your" god has that power.

Evo-Devo
p.s. seeing that I'm sure that you dont know what that is it mean Evolutionary Developement.

[bandecoot]

I totally resent what you have to say if the "Discovery Channel" knew about what you were saying ie.."I've seen the film 'Walking With Dinosaurs. The Ballad of Big Al'. Al was a good dinosaur. And God likes him, but usually He does not like ancient dinosaurs. Al was ill. Al wished to drink water, God said him to go to a river, but that river had dried up, God said him to lie on the ground of that river because I too have seen that program, as it is not a film, and it is not just one program it is a mini-series, and in that show it never says anything about "GOD" telling him what to do it is instincts that every animal, dinosaur or human, has. So I will be contacting my uncle who happens to work for the Discovery Channel and tell him that you are using their education movies to fight your pointless debate to try to brainwash every person into believing in Christ, and that the only way to saved from hell is to worship "your" god because only "your" god has that power.

Evo-Devo
p.s. seeing that I'm sure that you dont know what that is it mean Evolutionary Developement.



Evo-devo Welcome to hell. Anton is a sincere enough person but hardly worth arguing with. Please believe me on this. The rest of us mostly ignore his ...how shall I say this? Novel veiws on certain things.

Check your private message box please.

[Maimonides]

I know many people who believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and is dead now. I sometimes visit the website www.s8int.com (http://www.s8int.com/) (OOPARTs and ancient high technology). Some people says that they even have seen dinosaurs. Do you think that dinosaurs are alive or simetimes alive, such as an yeti. As for me, i do. But i'm not sure. I have realized that i have known almost nothing about whatever. God does what He wants to do.

I absolutely think that dinosaurs are alive: substantial evidence points to a theropod ancestry for birds. Theropods were the group of dinosaurs that produced T. rex, Allosaurus, Deinonychus, etc. etc. They were bipedal, and many of them were feathered to some degree. The fossil record supports this progression, with smaller theropods developing more complex feathers and eventually becoming birds. Feathers probably originally evolved for thermal insulation, and only later became co-opted for flight. Because smaller animals can flap their arms/wings more rapidly, these pre-birds were selected for small size (plus, of course, if you're smaller you weigh less and can therefore glide, a necessary prerequisite to flight). Theropods such as Microraptor gui had assymettrical flight feathers (in this case on all four limbs), and a generally bird-like morphology. And of course, the first ostensible bird, Archaeopteryx, possessed many dinosaurian features.

But as to non-birds, no, I greatly doubt it. The end-Cretaceous mass extinction some 65 million years ago was one of the worst catatrophes (although not the worst), ever to befall life on this planet. The world was destroyed and completely transformed. That said, I would love nothing better than to be proven wrong on this issue...

[Maimonides]

I have believed for years that dinosaurs were not reptiles they were not lizards they were not cold blooded they were something completely different from every species today. I then learned about a new theory that said that the Dinosaurs that walked bipedally, ie... Velociraptor, Tryannasuars rex, evolved into birds. Now I looked into it and sure enough alot of the bones in such Dinosaurs are the same bones in all birds, ie.. the wishbone. So I believe that Dinosaurs are still around they are everywhere, and who knows there may have been prehistoric birds that preyed on humans.

You may be interested to know, then, that there is substantial evidence that Raymond Dart's Taung baby (Australopithecus africanus) was taken by an eagle. Indeed, in Kenya today modern children up to an astonishing six years of age have been known to be taken by eagles, sad to say.

On a completely different page, a bird called the cassowary lives in New Guinea and northern Australia. It is related to the ostrich, emu, kiwi, rhea, and is large and flightless. It is a very territorial and dangerous bird, and has been known to regularly attack humans, although it does not prey on them.

[Maimonides]

It has been over seven years ago since a book was published that has gained little attention. It is no wonder that it has not. The evidence contained is recorded by someone who knows what he is talking about and it shows that the Theory of Evolution and what we think is true is a total fraud in reference to humans. People were different long ago. There were some who could see in the dark, pitch dark. People lived a lot longer, a lot, lot longer. The book is:

Cuozzo, Jack, Buried Alive, Master Books, Green Forest, Arizona, 1998. Oddly, the kind of investigators considered on the fringes are also publishing fantastic things that sound like evidences against evolution. Many of us realized that evolution is not true before the "fringe" element started in earnest. Science makes a mistake clinging to outmoded theories.

"There was also in Schwaller "a grey zone of speculation where true and false did not apply" - for example, in his conviction that mankind had not evolved, but 'devolved', from 'giants who once walked the earth to a near-animal state... vowed to cataclysmic annihilation, while an evolving Élite gathers all of human experience for a resurrection in spirituality."



Wilson, Collin, From Atlantis to the Sphinx, Fromm International Publishing Corporation, New York, 1996

Ragnarok anyone?I bought the book by Cuozzo new after it came out, but I have ran across it used in several used bookstores. In the past few years I have run across too many actual records of the history of humans on the planet to entertain things are the way evolutionists say they are in regards to almost anything. In fact, evidence makes the Bible seem a lot more faithful to history than supposed science does. I think that physical evidence found and the testimony in the Bible and other records of humankind such as Ovid's Metamophoseon debunk dearly held beliefs about human "evolution." It was a nice idea to comfort the so-called superior or "favoured races" of Darwin and the thinking of people in a world where they saw misery and could not stand the thought. One small piece of evidence is presented below from an online source derived from original sources. Mankind is devolving, not evolving. "Pssssst, don't tell anybody." I do not think it is a conspiracy and I do not think conspiracy theories are ever true, but things are different than the way we think, the way we were taught. If science wants to be a babysitter and foster fairy tales for whatever reason, that is fine in some sense, we have freedom of religion in this country. The trouble is that denying the truth is not ever healthy and a very unhealthy group of Pharisees has risen to the occasion and they are not Jewish, they are evolutionists. What compounds matters is evident from the records below. I think science has to hold onto false beliefs for some reason. I do not know if it is pride and arrogance only, or just plain ignorance. Part of it may be fear, part of it may be that science just does not have the ability to explain things away, and maybe science just does not want to be thrown into a panic; so science sticks to the lies. There is plenty of evidence available besides this.

John Williams, Giant Human Remains From Records and Sources All Over the World

Giant Skeletons in America:



In July, 1877, four prospectors were looking for gold and silver outcroppings in a desolate, hilly area near the head of Spring Valley, not far from Eureka, Nevada. Scanning the rocks, one of the men spotted something peculiar projecting from a high ledge. Climbing up to get a better look, the prospector was surprised to find a human legbone and knee cap sticking out of solid rock. He called to his companions, and together they dislodged the oddity with picks. Realizing they had a most unusual find, the men brought it into Eureka, where it was placed on display. The stone in which the bones were embedded was a hard, dark red quartzite, and the bones themselves were almost black with carbonization. When the surrounding stone was carefully chipped away, the specimen was found to be composed of a leg bone broken off four inches above the knee, the knee cap and joint, the lower leg bones, and the complete bones of the foot. Several medical doctors examined the remains, and were convinced that anatomically they had indeed once belonged to a human being, and a very modern-looking one. But an intriguing aspect of the bones was their size: from knee to heel they measured 39 inches. Their owner in life had thus stood over 12 feet tall. Compounding the mystery further was the fact that the rock in which the bones were found was dated geologically to the era of the dinosaurs, the Jurassic - over 185 million years old. The local papers ran several stories on the marvelous find, and two museums sent investigators to see if any more of the skeleton could be located. Unfortunately, nothing else but the leg and foot existed in the rock." Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth--Jochmans http://www.ior.com/~kjc/pages/strange.htm (http://www.ior.com/~kjc/pages/strange.htm/t_blank)


In 1947 a local newspaper reported the discovery of nine-foot-tall skeletons by amateur archeologists working in Death Valley. The archeologists involved also claimed to have found what appeared to be the bones of tigers and dinosaurs with the human remains. Ivan T. Sanderson related a curious story about a letter he received regarding an engineer who was stationed on the Aleutian island of Shemya during World War II. While building an airstrip, his crew bulldozed a group of hills and discovered under several sedimentary layers what appeared to be human remains. The Alaskan mound was in fact a graveyard of gigantic human remains, consisting of crania and long leg bones. The crania measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown. Since an adult skull normally measures about eight inches from back to front, such a large crania would imply an immense size for a normally proportioned human. Furthermore, every skull was said to have been neatly trepanned (a process of cutting a hole in the upper portion of the skull). Sanderson tried to gather further proof, eventually receiving a letter from another member of the unit who confirmed the report. The letters both indicated that the Smithsonian Institution had Collected the remains, yet nothing else was heard. Sanderson seemed convinced that the Smithsonian Institution had received the bizarre relics, but wondered why they would not release the data. He asks, "...is it that these people cannot face rewriting all the textbooks?"




In Lompoc-Rancho California, in 1833, soldiers discovered a skeleton 11' 9'' long which was covered with boulders that featured an unidentified writing. A similar writing was unearthed on the isle of Santa Maria off the cost of Los Angeles.




In 1833,soldiers digging a pit for a powder magazine at Lompoc Rancho, California, hacked their way through a layer of cemented gravel and came up with the skeleton of a giant man about twelve feet tall. The skeleton was surrounded by carved shells, huge stone axes, and blocks of porphyry covered with unintelligible symbols. The giant was also noteworthy in still another respect: He had a double row of teeth, both upper and lower. This particular giant, incidentally, bore marked similarity to another, that of a giant man with double rows of teeth whose skeletal remains were dug up on Santa Rosa Island, off the California coast. Subsequent research has shown that he, or his descendants, feasted on the small elephants which once lived on that island and which have vanished like the giants who ate them, countless ages ago.


And Graham Hancock thinks there was a civilization on Mars, and another under the Antarctic ice. For enough time searching through the pseudo-science, quackery, unwarranted inferences and even outright lies of the fringe element you can bag a pretty kettle of red herrings. Of course ancient myths are always helpful, too.

As for the giant humans I have never heard a single credible source for such things. I have some familiarity with the prehistory of the Channel Islands and they (like most but not all of the Americas) remained preliterate before Europeans came. The pygmy mammoths may in fact have been extirpated by (quite modern) human beings. As for the claims of Jurassic burials, a far more plausible explanation (that also happens to have reality on its side) is that they were intrusive to the Jurassic horizon, i.e. dug in and deposited later. I'm aware of at least two such cases offhand; in both the inference was an obvious one (usually it's fairly easy to tell when something has been deposited in older layers by digging down and burying).

Evolution is a fact bolstered by the overwhelming weight of available evidence. Many fossil discoveries and inferences from extant biota have revealed the basic truths of human descent. It may not have the allure of fantasy and myth, but it has the benefit, at least, of being true.

[quaist]

God does what He wants to do.

Yes and no.

I don't think that there are any kinds of dinosaurs anymore at all. It's the same thing as Nessie: Some people saw it, but there are no proofs.

[AntonS]

because I too have seen that program, as it is not a film, and it is not just one program it is a mini-series, and in that show it never says anything about "GOD" telling him what to do it is instincts that every animal, dinosaur or human, has. So I will be contacting my uncle who happens to work for the Discovery Channel and tell him that you are using their education movies to fight your pointless debate to try to brainwash every person into believing in Christ, and that the only way to saved from hell is to worship "your" god because only "your" god has that power.

Evo-Devo
p.s. seeing that I'm sure that you dont know what that is it mean Evolutionary Developement.Even if dinosaurs are alive, it does not mean anything about evolutionary development. God is almighty. To see a real living dinosaur today is possible. Does it mean anything concerning evolution? I don't think that it does. You are not right.

Al lived long time ago, and I got to know about Al not from this program, God who created Al told me about Al.

If you believe in evolution, do you still not believe in God?
(I am sure there are a lot of foolishness about evolution, even if evolution is partly true) To not believe in God and in the truth of the Bible is foolish, whether you believe in evolutionary development or not.

[FreezBee]

Yes and no.

I don't think that there are any kinds of dinosaurs anymore at all. It's the same thing as Nessie: Some people saw it, but there are no proofs.
:thumb: Yes, as always: believing is seeing.

- FreezBee

[rogue06]

If Nessie is going to be used as "proof" of dinosaurs still surviving and co-existing with man, does that mean that Bigfoot can be used to "prove" a Missing Link?