frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Dinosaurs are a children's fairy tale

2



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Here's the story of a little 5 year old boy who found a dinosaur fossil. Probably planted there by his dad.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=boy+finds+dinosaur+montana&view=detail&mid=4529774778EA560A3FB04529774778EA560A3FB0&FORM=VIRE
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    natbarons said:
    @erfisflat , of course they believed the earth was flat back then, because they didn't have the technology to discover the real round earth. U until Columbus they believed the Earth was flat. Also, curved water is possible, there is something called gravity. Dinosaur fossils are find with special equipment in many cases there fore average people can't go out and find them especially without know how to find them. All of your points are not scientifically accurate and the same goes for the Earth being flat and diansours not exsisting. Maybe some scientific theories aren't accurate, but these are just scientific fundamentals which are basically confirmed at this time of society.
    I agree with you but the Greeks knew 5000 years ago the Earth was not flat. Educated people during the time of Columbus knew it was spherical. Columbus thought the Earth was smaller than it actually was 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Here's the story of a little 5 year old boy who found a dinosaur fossil. Probably planted there by his dad.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=boy+finds+dinosaur+montana&view=detail&mid=4529774778EA560A3FB04529774778EA560A3FB0&FORM=VIRE

    Got to get'm while they're young. Nice plaster cast, got to keep the delusion alive. Next, take the kid to Mars!




    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @Fredsnephew

    I mean, I've given conclusive evidence for a flat, stationary earth, covered with a dome. To me, that kinda takes a steamy sh!t on big bangism, evolution, and all that nonsense. To me that puts us in a very special and unique place, doesn't it? That is the great deception in the Bible. I believe religion is nonsense,  but theism does not equal religion. 

     Amen , .. nor does religion equal God. "gods" yes, .. but not God.
    Hey buddy, do we have an O.P. on Big-Bangism?
    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    I’m actually interested in the psychology of people who genuinely think that a substantial fraction of history or science is outright fabricated, is the issue pathological? Physiological? Or anthropological?

    I’d be particularly interested if there is any link to Cannabis. Anecdotally 100% of the conspiracy theorists I know IRL are heavy smokers; and we know that there is a causal link between weed use and paranoia.


    Oh come on @Gooberry tell me that's not all they do at 666CERN is smoke pot, and come up with crazy words like "quarks" "bosons", .. "leptons", .. and "moo-ons", and when they write one down to get it ready to announce it to the mindless human-ape-population, I can see them take another toke and laugh their assh off.
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Fredsnephew

    I mean, I've given conclusive evidence for a flat, stationary earth, covered with a dome. To me, that kinda takes a steamy sh!t on big bangism, evolution, and all that nonsense. To me that puts us in a very special and unique place, doesn't it? That is the great deception in the Bible. I believe religion is nonsense,  but theism does not equal religion. 

     Amen , .. nor does religion equal God. "gods" yes, .. but not God.
    Hey buddy, do we have an O.P. on Big-Bangism?
    I don't think we do yet, and it's a great idea. You want the honors, or you want me to type up the ridiculousness of the magical creating explosion from nothing?
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Evidence for Big Bang:

    "1. Redshift of Galaxies

    The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang

    Cosmic Microwave Background
    Credit: NASA/WMAP Team

    2. Microwave Background

    Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

    This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct

    The Sun is a fairly new star
    Credit: NASA

    3. Mixture of Elements

    As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right.

    You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang

    Credit: NASA/ESA

    4. Looking back in time

    The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.

    Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.

    From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory."

    https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid


    EmeryPearsonAgility_Dude
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Evidence Dad made a plaster cast and hid it for his son to find. Good thing no one will think to check what it's made of.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Wow, @evidence, would you look at all that NASA CGI and baseless claims. NASA, which means "to deceive" in Hebrew, was formed with a task in mind. To hide God's firmament, effectively claiming, without evidence, that we are on a ball in an infinite vacuum, and that the stars are other suns, unfathomably far away (unfalsifiable). I hate to discuss this here though, it has almost nothing to do with dinosaurs, except that one disproves the other.

    https://cor.gsfc.nasa.gov
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Pogue
    That really is some great sci-fi reading. What about this star. How many light years away is it? How much red shift is this star emitting and how do we prove this?

    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Fredsnephew

    I mean, I've given conclusive evidence for a flat, stationary earth, covered with a dome. To me, that kinda takes a steamy sh!t on big bangism, evolution, and all that nonsense. To me that puts us in a very special and unique place, doesn't it? That is the great deception in the Bible. I believe religion is nonsense,  but theism does not equal religion. 

     Amen , .. nor does religion equal God. "gods" yes, .. but not God.
    Hey buddy, do we have an O.P. on Big-Bangism?
    I don't think we do yet, and it's a great idea. You want the honors, or you want me to type up the ridiculousness of the magical creating explosion from nothing?


    OK, I will then, but it will be unorthodox as my understanding of God is, .. just a warning.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence Dad made a plaster cast and hid it for his son to find. Good thing no one will think to check what it's made of.

    There was nothing unusual there to begin with, it's the charade they put on after. Just like the Vegas shooting.
    What Vegas shooting?
    Oh, the outdoor theater play they put on, didn't you hear?
    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Wow, @evidence, would you look at all that NASA CGI and baseless claims. NASA, which means "to deceive" in Hebrew, was formed with a task in mind. To hide God's firmament, effectively claiming, without evidence, that we are on a ball in an infinite vacuum, and that the stars are other suns, unfathomably far away (unfalsifiable). I hate to discuss this here though, it has almost nothing to do with dinosaurs, except that one disproves the other.

    https://cor.gsfc.nasa.gov


    Perfect example to start a new thread on Big-Bang. 


    • We wish to understand when the first stars in the universe formed, and how they influenced the environments around them.
    • How did dark matter—which is pervasive, mysterious, and not at all understood—clump up in these very early times, pulling gas along with it into dense concentrations that eventually became galaxies?
    • How did galaxies evolve from the very first systems to the types we observe "in the here and now," such as the Milky Way in which we live?
    • Supermassive black holes are apparently pervasive in the universe, and we wish to understand when in the early universe they first formed and how they have affected the lives of galaxies in which they reside.


    https://cor.gsfc.nasa.gov
     or this:

    Pogue said:
    Evidence for Big Bang:

    "1. Redshift of Galaxies

    The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang

    Cosmic Microwave Background
    Credit: NASA/WMAP Team

    2. Microwave Background

    Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

    This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct

    The Sun is a fairly new star
    Credit: NASA

    3. Mixture of Elements

    As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right.

    You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang

    Credit: NASA/ESA

    4. Looking back in time

    The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.

    Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.

    From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory."

    https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid




    I mean what more proof do we need, right?
    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Here's the story of a little 5 year old boy who found a dinosaur fossil. Probably planted there by his dad.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=boy+finds+dinosaur+montana&view=detail&mid=4529774778EA560A3FB04529774778EA560A3FB0&FORM=VIRE

    I just realized how appropriate your post was in the O.P.: "Dinosaurs are a children's fairy tale"   @SuzyCreamcheese
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • @Evidence A dinosaur conspiracy! Do they have a secret handshake?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    How did dinosaurs procreate with those huge tails? Could you imagine a stegosaurus in the missionary position?
    Do you also disbelieve in porcupines?
    EmeryPearsonAgility_Dude
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @Pogue
    That really is some great sci-fi reading. What about this star. How many light years away is it? How much red shift is this star emitting and how do we prove this?

    Ah, the famous "Real star up close" as shot by a random YouTube. Let me just see what info I have on that world renowned star. Hmm, appears to be part of the "vague and pointless stuff erfisflat posts" constellation.

    Care to list what star it actually is?
    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Wow, @evidence, would you look at all that NASA CGI and baseless claims. NASA, which means "to deceive" in Hebrew, was formed with a task in mind. To hide God's firmament, effectively claiming, without evidence, that we are on a ball in an infinite vacuum, and that the stars are other suns, unfathomably far away (unfalsifiable). I hate to discuss this here though, it has almost nothing to do with dinosaurs, except that one disproves the other.

    https://cor.gsfc.nasa.gov

    Amen !
     Wow, I mean just how "in your face" can NASA get, .. the snake tongue over the S in NASA, and now this: which means "Deceiver"! How about them Trannies that MrE is posting, .. I mean my God, just how lost are we?
    Sometimes it gets overbearing and I feel like an Ostrich and want to duck my head in a hole.
    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence A dinosaur conspiracy! Do they have a secret handshake?


    I don't know, .. but I see that they do take young High-school girls in cheap Motels:



    Camera ready and all, .. (she had to go and mention about the school not teaching evolution, that 'spoiled the moment', got the camera on him and started talking about it instead??)
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Pogue
    That really is some great sci-fi reading. What about this star. How many light years away is it? How much red shift is this star emitting and how do we prove this?

    Ah, the famous "Real star up close" as shot by a random YouTube. Let me just see what info I have on that world renowned star. Hmm, appears to be part of the "vague and pointless stuff erfisflat posts" constellation.

    Care to list what star it actually is?
    That one isn't listed, obviously. Here procyon.

    EmeryPearsonEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited February 2018

    NASA image.


    Verifiable video still.


    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Pogue
    That really is some great sci-fi reading. What about this star. How many light years away is it? How much red shift is this star emitting and how do we prove this?

    Ah, the famous "Real star up close" as shot by a random YouTube. Let me just see what info I have on that world renowned star. Hmm, appears to be part of the "vague and pointless stuff erfisflat posts" constellation.

    Care to list what star it actually is?
    That one isn't listed, obviously. Here procyon.

    If it's so obvious, why did you make the mistake of asking irrelevant questions?

    For Procyon, just wiki the details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procyon
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Pogue
    That really is some great sci-fi reading. What about this star. How many light years away is it? How much red shift is this star emitting and how do we prove this?

    Ah, the famous "Real star up close" as shot by a random YouTube. Let me just see what info I have on that world renowned star. Hmm, appears to be part of the "vague and pointless stuff erfisflat posts" constellation.

    Care to list what star it actually is?
    That one isn't listed, obviously. Here procyon.

    If it's so obvious, why did you make the mistake of asking irrelevant questions?

    For Procyon, just wiki the details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procyon
    You say it is obvious, but you can't state it. 
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Can't your reasoning be applied to any historical process, however? For example, like this: "Historians would have us believe that Ancient Rome existed and was the most prosperous civilization of its time - however, it was conquered by barbarians, and all traces of its existence were erased over the countless centuries. Only a pseudo-scientist would look at the remains of Roman architecture and the scriptures found and dream up the likes of Caesar or Colosseum".

    Is there any scientific evidence you would consider then? Because, strictly speaking, any evidence you are considering is already, at least, a few milliseconds old (due to our organism requiring some time to process the data it receives). Hence "nothing has ever existed" is the only conclusion your logic would lead to. And in that case, the very concept of "existence" is questionable.

    Humanity has found a very large variety of bones and other remains consistent with the current theories on dinosaurs and their history over the millennia. Birds' biology also is highly consistent with what we would expect from species originated from dinosaurs. While skepticism is always healthy in considering presented evidence, I would like to hear what theory you would propose to explain all these findings.
    EvidenceAgility_Dude
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Can't your reasoning be applied to any historical process, however? For example, like this: "Historians would have us believe that Ancient Rome existed and was the most prosperous civilization of its time - however, it was conquered by barbarians, and all traces of its existence were erased over the countless centuries. Only a pseudo-scientist would look at the remains of Roman architecture and the scriptures found and dream up the likes of Caesar or Colosseum".

    Is there any scientific evidence you would consider then? Because, strictly speaking, any evidence you are considering is already, at least, a few milliseconds old (due to our organism requiring some time to process the data it receives). Hence "nothing has ever existed" is the only conclusion your logic would lead to. And in that case, the very concept of "existence" is questionable.

    Humanity has found a very large variety of bones and other remains consistent with the current theories on dinosaurs and their history over the millennia. Birds' biology also is highly consistent with what we would expect from species originated from dinosaurs. While skepticism is always healthy in considering presented evidence, I would like to hear what theory you would propose to explain all these findings.

    @MayCaesar .. even Evolutionist admit that; "evolution/speciation of one species into another completely different species never happens!"
    As for digging up ancient Romans, we would find skull and bones. Now saying that these Roman skull & bones used to be lizards millions and billions of years ago, is pseudoscience.
    ErfisflatAgility_Dude
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Can't your reasoning be applied to any historical process, however?"

    Rome is not a great example, aside from several written records, a lot of the structures still stand today, and do align with those records. No human accounts of dinosaurs exist. Even the bones that were originally found are sketchy at best. Anyone can go to Rome and see, touch and verify those buildings exist, not so for dino bones.

    "Is there any scientific evidence you would consider then?"

    Most definitely. It's not about "how old" per se, but how verifiable the information is.

    "Humanity has found a very large variety of bones and other remains consistent with the current theories on dinosaurs and their history over the millennia."

    By "humanity", you mean mostly museum curators and paleontologists. Right? Of course those with vested interest in the continuation of such a fairy tale will do what is needed to keep it alive. Please refer to the OP.
    "If you honestly believe a single miner, farmer, ditch digger, foundation layer, etc. should never have found a dinosaur by now, you are gullible." As for what fossils were actually found, I believe that a few thousand years ago, the world was a lot different, goant animals did exist, as well as giant humanoids, which have been covered up, but are now coming to light. The flood killed off most everything, and turned them to mud fossils.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    Dinosaurs existed. But, wether evolution exists is still a question.
    Erfisflat
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    Speaking of Giants, I was in Talladega, Alabama today, admiring the small mountains we were riding towards/ through, thinking that they could have been some great animal or humanoid, stopped at a stop light, looked over and saw this @Evidence! Had to snap a picture!

    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Speaking of Giants, I was in Talladega, Alabama today, admiring the small mountains we were riding towards/ through, thinking that they could have been some great animal or humanoid, stopped at a stop light, looked over and saw this @Evidence! Had to snap a picture!


    Here is where my wife lived for a time as a child, her parents little house facing this island called: "Lalaking bukid" "Boy island".

    Image result for lalaking bukid dinagat island philippines

    and here is the "Girl-Island", the picture of the one in the veterinary clinic looks like the "Pregnant girl Island" that's also there.
    Image result for babaeng bukid dinagat island
    "Babaeng bukid" Surigao, Dinagat Island Philippines.


    Image result for babaeng bukid dinagat island

    Drowned, the end of the Titans.

    Hey buddy, how about we move here, .. there are over 7,000 islands to choose from:
    Image result for babaeng bukid dinagat island
    Looks like an eyeball of one of the Titans, .. lol. These are some of the islands near my wife's family, we went there for "Lechon" - (pig roast) on bamboo boats the last time I visited them.

    Erfisflat
  • TheShaunTheShaun 52 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    There have been people not associated with the science community that have accidentally discovered fossils. So, it can't be just a fabrication by scientists.

    Of course some (if not all) bones in a museum that allows you to touch them are going to be fake. They don't want people ruining the real bones by years of being touched by dirty hands.

    There are animals alive today with large tails or spikey backs. It doesn't stop them from procreating.

    On a side note: You've never proven a flat Earth in your previous debates. Nor has anyone. You only stated what convinced you the Earth is flat, regardless of the truth, or lack there of, to that information.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "There have been people not associated with the science community that have accidentally discovered fossils. So, it can't be just a fabrication by scientists."

    I'll bet the number is under ten. How do you know they aren't associated with the science community? A curator's great niece or a paleontologist's neighbor's mailman? You don't, it's called a broad assumption.

    "Of course some (if not all) bones in a museum that allows you to touch them are going to be fake. They don't want people ruining the real bones by years of being touched by dirty hands."

    What is more dirty than an old rock bone? Human hands? You really just said that?

    "There are animals alive today with large tails or spikey backs. It doesn't stop them from procreating."

    Name one. Not quills or something that folds down or is flexible and is easily folded down either.

    "You've never proven a flat Earth in your previous debates. Nor has anyone. You only stated what convinced you the Earth is flat, regardless of the truth, or lack there of, to that information."

    Baseless opinion.

    @TheShaun
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    I'll bet the number is under ten. How do you know they aren't associated with the science community? A curator's great niece or a paleontologist's neighbor's mailman? You don't, it's called a broad assumption.
    I personally found a belemnitida fossil when playing with sand near my home as a kid; and my father decades before me found a Trilobite fossil, which predates humanity by approximately 250 million years. These are not remains of dinosaurs, but they are remains from nearly the same historical period. Dinosaur fossils specifically are commonly found during organized high school trips in Latin America, for example. And it is not hard to lease a sample from a museum and to apply simple chemical analysis methods to confirm their age.

    Your theory does not explain all these facts. The only way your theory can be correct is if all the world governments have been carefully hiding an unbelievable number of objects across the whole planet for thousands years, and somehow managed to tweak their chemical signature to be equal to that of objects dozens millions years old. According to Occam's Razor principle, "dinosaurs existed" is a much more reasonable explanation of the observable facts than your bloated theory with thousands assumptions that cannot be proved experimentally.
    TheShaunErfisflat
  • TheShaunTheShaun 52 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    MayCaesar already covered your question about the science community. So, I'll just address the rest.

    They clean the fossils. Human hands have bacteria on them all the time. Especially kids. People touching the fossils every day would cause them to eventually be ruined.

    You're reducing the options to only being able to fold spikes for procreation. There are other methods to procreate while avoiding spikes. Such as approaching the female from different angles or the female laying on her side.

    Based on the fact that none of your points confirm your theory. You are convinced it's confirmed, but do not possess 100% proof.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "I personally found a belemnitida fossil when playing with sand near my home as a kid; and my father decades before me found a Trilobite fossil, which predates humanity by approximately 250 million years."


    This is an assumption. You are basing this entirely on evolutionists findings.

    " These are not remains of dinosaurs, but they are remains from nearly the same historical period. "

    Same assumption, different wording.

    "Dinosaur fossils specifically are commonly found during organized high school trips in Latin America, for example."

    Key words are "organized trips" get me?

    "And it is not hard to lease a sample from a museum and to apply simple chemical analysis methods to confirm their age."

    Please, explain in detail how this "chemical analysis" definitively proves that a former bone turned rock is as old as they say. Then we have an argument.

    "Your theory does not explain all these facts."

    These arent facts. These are widely supported theories, which you appear to know very little about.

    "The only way your theory can be correct is if all the world governments have been carefully hiding an unbelievable number of objects across the whole planet for thousands years,"

    Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

    "and somehow managed to tweak their chemical signature to be equal to that of objects dozens millions years old. "

    Chemical signature, lol youre hilarious.

    "According to Occam's Razor principle, "dinosaurs existed" is a much more reasonable explanation of the observable facts than your bloated theory with thousands assumptions that cannot be proved experimentally."

    I see it the other way around,@MayCaesar

    "MayCaesar already covered your question about the science community. So, I'll just address the rest."

    And I suppose you support this "chemical analysis" theory...

    "They clean the fossils. Human hands have bacteria on them all the time. Especially kids. People touching the fossils every day would cause them to eventually be ruined."

    You do realize that these are rocks, correct? It's a very good excuse, you can buy it, but I'm a bit more skeptical. I dontd just accept everything the institutions say, as you may can tell.

    "You're reducing the options to only being able to fold spikes for procreation. There are other methods to procreate while avoiding spikes. Such as approaching the female from different angles or the female laying on her side."

    Actually, I've done no such a thing. I merely pointed out that flexible quills are not the same as bony spikes or plates. You've so far dodged the challenge, unsurprisingly. Once again, please back up your statement.: "There are animals alive today with large tails or spikey backs. It doesn't stop them from procreating." Or admit it, like most of yours, is a baseless claim, supported by nothing more than a feeble mind grasping at straws.

    "Based on the fact that none of your points confirm your theory."

    Opinion.

    "You are convinced it's confirmed, but do not possess 100% proof."

    I could say the same for you, @TheShaun
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Well, if you just want to be stubborn and ignore all theories and evidence, replying to them with "Scientists said so, so I don't believe them" - then nothing can change your mind. You are somewhat like a child who learned that all Santa Clauses he heard of all this time were fiction - and who, faced with hard evidence that all those Santa Clauses kindergarten parties were actors, tries to cling to the last few straws connecting him to his preferred world: "But... Even if those were actors, and even if nobody has ever seen a real Santa Claus, does not mean the real Santa Claus does not exist!"

    In my experience, people who behave like this eventually give up on the pointless stubbornness. I suppose it takes different amount of time for different people to get over it, however.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Well, if you just want to be stubborn and ignore all theories and evidence, replying to them with "Scientists said so, so I don't believe them" - then nothing can change your mind. You are somewhat like a child who learned that all Santa Clauses he heard of all this time were fiction - and who, faced with hard evidence that all those Santa Clauses kindergarten parties were actors, tries to cling to the last few straws connecting him to his preferred world: "But... Even if those were actors, and even if nobody has ever seen a real Santa Claus, does not mean the real Santa Claus does not exist!"

    In my experience, people who behave like this eventually give up on the pointless stubbornness. I suppose it takes different amount of time for different people to get over it, however.
    Just as I expected, you havent a clue what you were talking about.

    Heres the thing. Santa claus is like the dinosaur. Stay with me.

    Me: " Santa isn't real, there is no evidence of his existence."

    You: "but who did we see at the mall?!?(museum) How did all those presents (bones) get under the tree?

    Me:"Those were all actors, and your parents (scientists) are lying to you."

    You:" But all the parents in the world wouldn't lie to us!

    Come back when you have a legitimate argument, let it stew a while.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    We can also replace santa with "ball earth flying through a vacuum at over a million miles per hour" too.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gravity, black holes, etc, etc.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    Hey @evidence, "statue" or fossil? Can you get a hold of these chemicals @TheShaun and @MayCaesar mentioned, so that I may prove how old this mud fossil is?  :p

    https://www.heraldnet.com/news/digging-in-a-cairo-slum-a-massive-pharaoh-statue-is-found/
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Hey @evidence, "statue" or fossil? Can you get a hold of these chemicals @TheShaun and @MayCaesar mentioned, so that I may prove how old this mud fossil is?  :p

    https://www.heraldnet.com/news/digging-in-a-cairo-slum-a-massive-pharaoh-statue-is-found/

    Forget the chemical test @Erfisflat .. by the time we get to it at the Grand Egyptian Museum, we'll only have a plastic mold to fondle, .. you know, with our dirty hands.

    The real mud fossil Giant will be in here somewhere, .. with the rest of the F.E. evidences!?




    Erfisflat
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -  
    Dinosaurs USED to exist, before being killed by the giant meteor that hit Earth. We know they existed because of their skeletons being found underground, though we have not see the skeleton of the biblical character Jesus who is alleged to still exist.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Dinosaurs USED to exist, before being killed by the giant meteor that hit Earth. We know they existed because of their skeletons being found underground, though we have not see the skeleton of the biblical character Jesus who is alleged to still exist.
    I've never seen a dinosaur bone. Who is this we? Oh you mean those plaster casts they have in the museums? :D :D
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Dinosaurs USED to exist, before being killed by the giant meteor that hit Earth. We know they existed because of their skeletons being found underground, though we have not see the skeleton of the biblical character Jesus who is alleged to still exist.

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Agility_DudeAgility_Dude 62 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat,

    Hi this seems like a debate I want to participate in because I have had a bit of a passion for prehistoric life for a decade now. I think that there are a few key facts that are misunderstood here.

    Firstly, fossils aren't even bones. They're rocks. If they were bones they would decompose right away. Here is a quote taken from a website on how most fossils are formed:

    "Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. As the encased bones decay, minerals seep in replacing the organic material cell by cell in a process called "petrification." Alternatively the bones may completely decay leaving a cast of the organism. The void left behind may then fill with minerals making a stone replica of the organism."

    http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html

    This is why fossils look different in color from each other and why not only bones can fossilize, but tracks, skin, eggs and in very rare occasions, even skin. Here are some fossilized raptor eggs:

    Raptor Eggs

    Here is a fish fossil, not sure what species it is tho:

    Fish Fossil

    Here is some fossilized skin:

    Image result for fossilized skin

    If these were bones, they would be white too. You mentioned previously how is you ask people who work at fossil museums they'll say that the ones displayed are fake and that the real ones are in the back. Now this is not entirely true. The majority of the fossils displayed are casts, where a person copies the shape of a fossil and replaces it with some substance (I don't know the details of this). At least in the fossil museum that I've been to, there are still real fossils. The majority, however are casts. This is due to how delicate fossils are. Do you really think that a fossil Brachiosaurus could stand up like how it does in fossil form without collapsing?

    Image result for brachiosaurus fossil cast

    One of the claims you make is that only scientists discover fossils, which is not the case. Sure, the vast majority of fossils are discovered this way, but not all. Have you ever heard of Irritator?

    "Near Santana do Cariri in eastern Brazil, commercial fossil-poachers dug up a chalk nodule containing a large skull. This nodule was acquired by fossil traders who illegally sold it — the trade of fossils is since 1973 prohibited by law in Brazil — to Rupert Wild of the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart. At the time it was assumed to be the skull of a giant basal pterosaur. The region is famous for its pterosaur finds, and the German museum had often bought such pieces. As it promised to be a unique discovery of singular importance, German and British pterosaur experts were contacted to study the exemplar. A paper describing the specimen as a pterosaur had already been submitted for publication, when the authors were quickly disabused of the notion it had been a flying reptile by the peer review, in which it was pointed out that the fossil belonged to a theropod.[4]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritator#History_of_discovery

    Of course this is one of many examples of people not involved in the scientific community finding a fossil.

    Let me ask you something: If the fossils are fake, why would they sell them at gift shops? Wouldn't this allow skeptics to test to see if they are fake? That's strange.

    Last argument. When asked about the motives of scientists lying in paleontology, you mention the bone wars. This is a false analogy. The bone wars was a rivalry between two paleontologists, Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh. They both hated each other and wanted to collect more fossils than the other. So they both went about massive searches to discover more dinosaurs. Both found tons including some of the most famous dinosaurs today.

    This isn't a power game. It's a rivalry between two enemies.


    You know what I recommend you do? In the next year, go visit a fossil museum. I think you'll have your mind changed.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @Agility_Dude
    "Hi this seems like a debate I want to participate in because I have had a bit of a passion for prehistoric life for a decade now. I think that there are a few key facts that are misunderstood here.

    Firstly, fossils aren't even bones. They're rocks. If they were bones they would decompose right away. Here is a quote taken from a website on how most fossils are formed:"

    "Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. As the encased bones decay, minerals seep in replacing the organic material cell by cell in a process called "petrification." Alternatively the bones may completely decay leaving a cast of the organism. The void left behind may then fill with minerals making a stone replica of the organism.

    http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html

    This is why fossils look different in color from each other and why not only bones can fossilize, but tracks, skin, eggs and in very rare occasions, even skin. Here are some fossilized raptor eggs:"

    Raptor Eggs
    These are assumed to be raptor eggs, they could be eggs from any animal.

    "Here is a fish fossil, not sure what species it is tho:

    Fish Fossil

    Fish existed, I agree.

    "Here is some fossilized skin:

    Image result for fossilized skin

    If these were bones, they would be white too. You mentioned previously how is you ask people who work at fossil museums they'll say that the ones displayed are fake and that the real ones are in the back. Now this is not entirely true. The majority of the fossils displayed are casts, where a person copies the shape of a fossil and replaces it with some substance (I don't know the details of this). At least in the fossil museum that I've been to, there are still real fossils. The majority, however are casts. This is due to how delicate fossils are. Do you really think that a fossil Brachiosaurus could stand up like how it does in fossil form without collapsing?"

    I made this exact point on the first page. As you agree, the actual fossils are nothing but rocks that "seeped in" to it's enclosure. At the same time, someone could create a fossil out of an existing rock, and the chemical composition would be the same.

    Image result for brachiosaurus fossil cast

    "One of the claims you make is that only scientists discover fossils, which is not the case. Sure, the vast majority of fossils are discovered this way, but not all. Have you ever heard of Irritator?

    "Near Santana do Cariri in eastern Brazil, commercial fossil-poachers dug up a chalk nodule containing a large skull. This nodule was acquired by fossil traders who illegally sold it — the trade of fossils is since 1973 prohibited by law in Brazil — to Rupert Wild of the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart. At the time it was assumed to be the skull of a giant basal pterosaur. The region is famous for its pterosaur finds, and the German museum had often bought such pieces. As it promised to be a unique discovery of singular importance, German and British pterosaur experts were contacted to study the exemplar. A paper describing the specimen as a pterosaur had already been submitted for publication, when the authors were quickly disabused of the notion it had been a flying reptile by the peer review, in which it was pointed out that the fossil belonged to a theropod.[4]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritator#History_of_discovery"

    I believe my statement was that fossils are mostly found by museum curators, paleontologists, and those that benefit from these fossils. This would include fossil poachers.

    "Of course this is one of many examples of people not involved in the scientific community finding a fossil.

    Let me ask you something: If the fossils are fake, why would they sell them at gift shops? Wouldn't this allow skeptics to test to see if they are fake? That's strange."

    What gift shop sells dinosaur bones? I'm not arguing that all fossils are fake, just those that belonged to alleged dinosaurs. There is a lot more to this story that you don't know.

    "Last argument. When asked about the motives of scientists lying in paleontology, you mention the bone wars. This is a false analogy. The bone wars was a rivalry between two paleontologists, Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh. They both hated each other and wanted to collect more fossils than the other. So they both went about massive searches to discover more dinosaurs. Both found tons including some of the most famous dinosaurs today."

    And tons of them were also found to be fakes.

    "This isn't a power game. It's a rivalry between two enemies.


    You know what I recommend you do? In the next year, go visit a fossil museum. I think you'll have your mind changed."

    Most people have been to the museums to see the fake fossils.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • We are told these "dino fossils are millions of years old" and that soft tissue by no means could survive all that time.

    Low and behold now some scientist have found soft tissue in some T-Rex bones https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/t-rex-soft-tissue-discovery_n_4349214.html

    Science says “The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.” How convenient of a story is that? Why did the Egyptians bother with embalming mummies if proteins tie themselves in knots?

    Real Science Radio note in an article...https://kgov.com/bel/20060807 ;

    "* "65-million" Year Old T. rex Soft Tissue: [This description includes updates from our RSR List of Not So Old Things!] North Carolina State University discovered original biological tissue from a supposedly65-million-year-oldd Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone, with transparent and pliable blood vessels containing red blood cells!  See photos here and at MS-NBC, the original 2007 Nat'l Geographic report, 2009 Nat'l Geo. confirmation, and the Hell Creek Formation excavation site worked by famed paleontologist Jack Horner of Montana State University. In 2011 ten leading universities and institutes including Harvard, the University of Manchester, and the University of Pennsylvania have verified that presumed dinosaur material is indeed original biological material from a dinosaur! Combined with the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long such biological molecules could survive, this is another reason why creationists refer to dinosaurs as missionary lizards. Interestingly, PZ Myers just recently mocked RSF and repeated the now widely-discredited evolutionist hope that the "soft-tissue" dinosaur finds were "biofilm" contamination from bacteria. But as Bob Enyart summed it up, "This is a dinosaur."

    * 2007 UPDATE: From New Scientist: "[Harvard's John] Asara nailed the case when he purified Schweitzer's samples and ran them through an ion-trap mass spectrometer... he was able to reconstruct the amino acid sequences of seven collagen fragments. Collagen evolves very slowly, and all the fragment sequences matched those of living species, including chickens, newts, and frogs."

    So, T Rex's taste like chicken...


    ErfisflatEvidence
  • Agility_DudeAgility_Dude 62 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat:


    "These are assumed to be raptor eggs, they could be eggs from any animal."

    Raptor eggs are never found in Africa. The only eggs this size in real life are from ostriches, which live only in Africa. Strange.

    What about ammnoite fossils? Are they fakes?



    This is a fossil of a 28cm x 33cm x 4cm ammonite. This can't be anything in real life because nothing has this bone structure and nothing similar comes to this size.

    "As you agree, the actual fossils are nothing but rocks that "seeped in" to it's enclosure. At the same time, someone could create a fossil out of an existing rock, and the chemical composition would be the same."

    Sure. How would you make it? For casts they make a mould of the original fossil and then pour this special sediment into the mould and then wait for it to dry. How can this be replicated with for example, limestone?

    Another question: How do you explain fossil digging sites:

    Image result for fossil digging sites

    They were dug up from the ground! Not made from elephant bones! In my local museum you can even see people continue to unearth the fossils live! They wouldn't do this if it was fake.

    "What gift shop sells dinosaur bones? I'm not arguing that all fossils are fake, just those that belonged to alleged dinosaurs. There is a lot more to this story that you don't know."

    Sorry if I said dinosaur bones I made a mistake. They sell trilobite fossils, megalodon teeth, ammonites, etc. sometimes in gift shops and rocks and minerals stores. I have some fossils myself in my room. Let's take megalodon teeth. Why are they 3 times larger than great white shark teeth, yet are very similar? It seems strange. It's almost as if its descendants randomly mutated smaller and the larger ones were wiped off the earth by natural selection. Evolution you might say!

    Image result for megalodon tooth vs great white

    "And tons of them were also found to be fakes."

    Yes, SOME of them were fakes. You imply that some were real in your very own message!
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Raptor eggs are never found in Africa. The only eggs this size in real life are from ostriches, which live only in Africa. Strange.

    Strange, but not conclusive. You're assuming life on Earth has always existed as it does today. In some creationism theories, life was a LOT different than it is today. See my debate: "What is devil's tower?"

    "What about ammnoite fossils? Are they fakes?



    This is a fossil of a 28cm x 33cm x 4cm ammonite. This can't be anything in real life because nothing has this bone structure and nothing similar comes to this size."

    This is not a dinosaur. See above rebuttal.

    "Sure. How would you make it? For casts they make a mould of the original fossil and then pour this special sediment into the mould and then wait for it to dry. How can this be replicated with for example, limestone?"

    We don't seem to be on the same page. I'm not saying fossils are all fake. My position is that dinosaurs never existed. Limestone fossils I'm ok with. Large animals no doubt existed, due to pre flood conditions, and an abundance of oxygen back then. For example, this is a fossil of a creature that probably existed pre flood:


    "Another question: How do you explain fossil digging sites:

    Image result for fossil digging sites

    They were dug up from the ground! Not made from elephant bones! In my local museum you can even see people continue to unearth the fossils live! They wouldn't do this if it was fake."

    Are they "designated dinosaur fossil sites"??? Strange.

    "Sorry if I said dinosaur bones I made a mistake. They sell trilobite fossils, megalodon teeth, ammonites, etc. sometimes in gift shops and rocks and minerals stores. I have some fossils myself in my room. Let's take megalodon teeth. Why are they 3 times larger than great white shark teeth, yet are very similar? It seems strange. It's almost as if its descendants randomly mutated smaller and the larger ones were wiped off the earth by natural selection. Evolution you might say!"

    I wouldn't say randomly mutated, or evolved, I'd say that their growth was stunted, from lack of oxygen in the air, due to an abrupt ending to life pre-flood. Maybe you're starting to get it?


    EvidenceAgility_Dude
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Agility_Dude identify the fallacy?
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch