How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs. That is my opinion. Many animals right now are on the verge of death. Same back then. Adam lived over 800 years, or did he hit 900? Can't remember. Imagine the strength, the ruggedness of man during the first 1000 years of civilization. Just men worrying about meat for their families, tilling the land. Oh, what a great time to be alive. And dinosaurs, imagine looking at them soley as meat. Food for months! Then they are also looked at as predators, so men probably tried to kill as many as possible for their own safety and nothing else.
What is the point I tried to make? I don't know. Um, dinosaurs were here, they roamed the earth, we killed them just like we have killed other species of animals. Done.
46 comments
"food for months"
And they kept this meat from spoiling for months how, exactly? Not that that's the least likely thing in the post, of course.
Actually my favorite part is "Or did he hit 900?" So casual, like, "did Queen Victoria take the throne in 1836 or '37? I forget..."
"How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs. That is my opinion."
Your opinion is baseless and foolish.
"Many animals right now are on the verge of death. Same back then. Adam lived over 800 years, or did he hit 900? Can't remember. Imagine the strength, the ruggedness of man during the first 1000 years of civilization. Just men worrying about meat for their families, tilling the land. Oh, what a great time to be alive. And dinosaurs, imagine looking at them soley as meat. Food for months! Then they are also looked at as predators, so men probably tried to kill as many as possible for their own safety and nothing else"
Except that the fossil record paints a far, far different picture.
What is the point I tried to make? I don't know. Um, dinosaurs were here, they roamed the earth, we killed them just like we have killed other species of animals. Done."
Again, the fossil records indicate otherwise.
Oh yes, I am glad that you are "done", my brain is ready to implode from the proximity to that much stupid in such a small space.
Have a nice day.
"How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs."
In science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. Not only does your fantasy not fit the definition of a theory, it's so rare as to have you as its only supporter. Though, I may have read something similar in one of Dr. Seuss' books ..
Secondly, if a god created anything as massive as many of the dinosaurs were Adam would have been, at best, instant toe jam; and certainly there would be at least ONE mention of them in the only authoritative book you recognize. I mean Cain killing Abel and all that begetting would have paled to that of a T-Rex running rampant; or a Ornithomimus and Deinocheirus speeding after elusive prey.
Imagine the strength, the ruggedness of man during the first 1000 years of civilization.
Are you suggesting that after god made the dinosaurs and Adam civilization began, and thrived, over a time span of 1,000 years? Just how long do you think our civilization would last if all these biblical dino's were brought here and we had, oh, the odd spear and a few sling-shots?
Take your time to think this scenario through ... I'll wait.
Gee, now I have this mental image of Methuselah, Lamech and Noah riding bare-back on triceritops' yelling, Yee-Ha !!!
Award nomination for the:
D rivel
U nfit (to)
H eed
ok Time...if Adam was so skilfull as to kill all the big critters.......how much did he travel????You cant remember?....was that before or after you were there?......and all things being equal...I am one of the others of creation.,sort of, cuz I believe in many dieties.
"How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs"
There's no verb connected with the subject of this sentence. In context, the verb appears to be 'live', in the past tense (i.e. 'lived), but lacking that word, this sentence makes no sense. Get thee back to English 101, you bumbling idiot.
We are causing extinctions of various species largely because humans are now 6 billion strong and counting, taking over the ecosystems and leaving these animals with too little room to live in. Adam's immediate group couldn't have overpopulated six counties, let alone six continents!
And that's just one of the foolish aspects of this "theory"; I won't even bother getting into the asinine ages ascribed to the early figures in Genesis, let alone the basic veracity of the various myths in it.
~David D.G.
Ah-ha .. went to the thread and found this, the progenitor (and it is fightening that she has reproduced, and is at this very moment teaching said offspring how to spell .. and talk .. and think ...):
"I was listening to the Christian radio station and this guy had called in about how to deal with people who believed only in evolution. This guy was saying there were no dinasours as a way to aurge the evoluationary theory.
Hank Hanegraaff that is the Bible answer man told him well, yea there were dinasours...no one denies that as they have fossils to prove it...but the problem with the Darwin theory is there are no fossils showing how animals supposely 'evolved' from one thing to another.
As Hank went on explaining all this to this fellow he said in the book of Job there is a clear describition of a dinasour...I forget if he named it or not...but one of the large ones that lived in or near water and ate plants. (my son would probably know...lol)
He said people try to say this animals describtion is more like an elephant or hippo.
So I looked it up and checked three different translations in this passage. Very interesting if you know anything about dinasour. I am forced almost daily to read something about dinasous...lol. That is what I get for having a kid! ha!"
Yup. All my dina's are sour and it seems this shows a slight stepping back on the part of creationist. They can't fight the facts of the fossil record, so they are attempting to shove the whole time-line (from cauldron of bio-soup to dinosaurs to modern man) into the required 6,000 years. Thus, T-Rex and man HAD to have co-existed.
The elastic in the knickers of verisimilitude is stretch beyond even its limits.
"How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs."
Well, to start with, I can't grasp it because your sentence makes no sense.
"That is my opinion."
What is your opinion? You mean, making no sense is your opinion? I'll buy that alright.
"Many animals right now are on the verge of death."
Do you mean many species are on the verge of extinction? That is true.
"Same back then."
Yes, species have been going extinct since the first species was replaced by another. So what?
"Adam lived over 800 years, or did he hit 900? Can't remember."
Don't worry your little head about that 100 years. As the whole tale is a fiction, an hundred year more or less is of no importance.
"Imagine the strength, the ruggedness of man during the first 1000 years of civilization. Just men worrying about meat for their families, tilling the land. Oh, what a great time to be alive."
Indeed. Working hard from sunrise 'til sundown, with no equipment but the simple tools you could make for yourself. Sounds great.
"And dinosaurs, imagine looking at them soley as meat. Food for months!"
Uh huh, except that human beings and dinosaurs missed each other by millions and millions of years.
"Then they are also looked at as predators, so men probably tried to kill as many as possible for their own safety and nothing else."
Some paradise, huh? If I may quote you "Oh, what a great time to be alive." What exactly would have been great about being hunted by predatory dinosaurs?
"What is the point I tried to make?"
Yes, please tell us. I've been waiting with bated breath.
"I don't know."
What do you mean, you don't know. You prattle on and on with no idea what your point is? Not that I'm really surprised though.
"Um, dinosaurs were here, they roamed the earth, we killed them just like we have killed other species of animals. Done."
I think you mean "Dumb."
How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs.
Man can't grasp this "theory" of yours because it is completely insane and does not mech with physical evidence.
That is my opinion.
Oh, so it's your "opinion" now, is it? First a theory that later boils down to opinion. What else have you got up that sleve of yours?
What is the point I tried to make? I don't know.
That makes two of us.
""How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs"
There's no verb connected with the subject of this sentence. In context, the verb appears to be 'live', in the past tense (i.e. 'lived), but lacking that word, this sentence makes no sense. Get thee back to English 101, you bumbling idiot."
Hrm. You probably know better than I, but I see grasp as the verb, with man as the subject. Everything after the word "theory" is just, probably grammatically incorrect, a description of said theory.
How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs.
How about the lack of evidence to support such a hypothesis?
What is the point I tried to make? I don't know.
You're not alone in that.
@Hadanelith"How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs"
There's no verb connected with the subject of this sentence. In context, the verb appears to be 'live', in the past tense (i.e. 'lived), but lacking that word, this sentence makes no sense. Get thee back to English 101, you bumbling idiot.
I think he's saying that men killed the dinosaurs from the time of Adam up until the time of the flood. Not that it's any more accurate, but I think it's gramatically correct, aside from the repeated "the" (though it would be clearer if reworded or if some commas were added to set off "in the time of Adam up until the flood" as a single phrase).
Let´s put it clear, if there was a SLIGHT suspicion that there were dinosaurs(wasn´t the Bible written or inspired by God?), wouldn´t they mention?. Besides, since when a man can live 800 years?. Please, stop making nonsense from the beginning. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE DINOSAURS EXTINGUISED FROM INTENSIVE HUNTING, living with humans side by side, and not knowing it.
In the blue corner, Keokime and friends. In the red corner, T-Rex, in a peevish mood. Place your bet.
Why do they always focus on dinos? Killing of dinosaurian megafauna is quite believable compared to wiping out 15,000+ species of trilobites. Or the 1,800 genera of ammonoids, each of one or more species?
How come man can't grasp the theory that men in the time of Adam up until the the flood killed all the dinosaurs.
That's not a theory - it's just a baseless invention pulled out of Keokime's ass. If humans ate dinosaurs, how come their bones have never been found buried in human garbage heaps? We've certainly found plenty of other bones, clam shells, etc. dumped by early man. How come their bones and teeth were never used to make tools?
Jessica:
Evidence for the Great Flood: Nothing but fables.
Evidence AGAINST the Great Flood: The geological record, the biological record of corals and trees, and the laws of physics and chemistry.
Evidence for an asteroid killing off the dinosaurs: The iridium layer in the K-T boundary worldwide and the Chixulub impact crater (of the right size and at the right age for the event).
Whether this impact was itself fully responsible for killing off the dinosaurs is in some academic dispute, but that it happened is considered fact as far as I know, and it certainly would have done a lot toward killing off the dinosaurs if it wasn't enough to do it all by itself outright.
~David D.G.
Most people believe that an asteroid hit the Earth,
There's a reason for that. It's called "evidence". You know, like an enormous crater?
but I believe the global Flood happened which put the dinosaurs into extinction.
Funny, then, how records of civilization continue uninterrupted - in both Egypt and the Far East - through the time you believe the flood occurred. Kinda big thing not to notice, a cataclysmic flood miles deep and all. The geological record shows no evidence suggesting a worldwide, cataclysmic flood either.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.