Men and Dinosaurs

[eye_of_the_storm]

^ this image is historically accurate

I just wanted to point that out because apparently people here are not able to come to their own conclusions...

and need ralis and friends to say what is and isn't real...

Soo fortunate to have such people... guiding lights!

haha

Edited August 7, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

[skydog]

In a way this thread is sort of proof of how "scientists" would react.

Edited August 7, 2013 by skydog

[eye_of_the_storm]

In a way this thread is sort of proof of how "scientists" would react.

 

damn fanatics

 

haha

[Marblehead]

I personally believe humans have been around for millions of years (or more) and potentially came from other planets/ had the ability to travel space / solar systems galaxies etc

 

 

Well, you caused me a good laugh. Thanks.

[Marblehead]

Did the belief in "Dragons" come about, because someone in ancient times found some Dinosaur remains ?

I have heard no good scientific study concerning this but it is my belief that this is what happened.

[Marblehead]

^ this image is historically accurate ... Bullshit.

 

 

I apologize for modifying your statement but I just couldn't resist.

[Marblehead]

So what happened to all the dinosaurs that man walked with?

 

Man killed and ate them all.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Marblehead

[eye_of_the_storm]

haha

hmmmmmmmm

[Marblehead]

haha

 

hmmmmmmmm

 

Such a beautiful animals. Worthy of picturing it twice.

[Apech]

So what happened to all the dinosaurs that man walked with?

 

Man killed and ate them all.

 

Would you like fries with your McSTEGOSAURUS?

[Marblehead]

Would you like fries with your McSTEGOSAURUS?

Yes, and double that please.

[Marblehead]

BTW That tiger eats meat. All you vegetarians better be careful.

[eye_of_the_storm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXh7y9zIwjw

[thelerner]

truth does not fear investigation

 

if the science is good it will stand the test...

mainstream $cience fails again...

 

Do you work for the Rockerfella foundation Ralis? or Lerner?

Yup, the institute paid me $6,600 to write that. If the truth comes out then..then..we'll lose the Paleontologist vote. Kidding we're paid only $66 and its the geologist support we're after.

Edited August 7, 2013 by thelerner

[zerostao]

So what happened to all the dinosaurs that man walked with?

 

Man killed and ate them all.

no the dinosaurs killed and ate us all,

where have you been?

[Basher]

OMG, David Icke is beginning to sound like a Tao Bum !!!

[Stosh]

 

a lack of evidence does not constitute as inherent evidence.

 

There is no evidence that the dinosaurs DID NOT co-occupy earth with humans, simply because we have not yet found evidence that they have. That is false logic.

 

There is no evidence proving a precice entrance of human influence in this world, only evidence that we have existed as far back as the earliest dated remains found.

 

Moral of the story:

If everything is false until proven true, you're ignorant.

If everything is true until proven false, you're gullible

 

 

If no evidence exists to prove or disprove the presence of dinosaurs during mankind's beginnings... then don't argue about it, only speculate.

 

 

 

Arguing over a lack of evidence is pathetic as it gets.

 

If there is evidence to support conclusion A , and A is not B , and there is no evidence to support B , the evidence is proving B to be false. Should evidence for B be found then the issue isnt reconciled , but in the mean time , the more reasonable argument is to conclude A is true.

For instance , I dont bother to wear my anti-dinosaur suit most days, because I believe they are extinct. ( excluding birds and tuatara if you want to include them as dinosaurs).

 

I can prove there are no dinosaurs here in the room with me , and likewise everywhere we might look

But you cant prove that they are anywhere lookable.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Stosh

[Apech]

If there is evidence to support conclusion A , and A is not B , and there is no evidence to support B , the evidence is proving B to be false. Should evidence for B be found then the issue isnt reconciled , but in the mean time , the more reasonable argument is to conclude A is true.

For instance , I dont bother to wear my anti-dinosaur suit most days, because I believe they are extinct. ( excluding birds and tuatara if you want to include them as dinosaurs).

 

 

The fact that you possess an anti-dinosaur suit as indicated in your post is most telling. Why would you have such a thing if you did not perceive a risk ... and why would we not then be drawn to the conclusion that after all dinosaurs are not extinct and in fact walk the earth (in which ever part of the globe you live). And that you sir, are in daily peril.

[Stosh]

The fact that you possess an anti-dinosaur suit as indicated in your post is most telling. Why would you have such a thing if you did not perceive a risk ... and why would we not then be drawn to the conclusion that after all dinosaurs are not extinct and in fact walk the earth (in which ever part of the globe you live). And that you sir, are in daily peril.

Im not taking any chances. Oh wait ! I am! OOps

Edited August 7, 2013 by Stosh

[rene]

If there is evidence to support conclusion A , and A is not B , and there is no evidence to support B , the evidence is proving B to be false.

 

Not necessarily. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Stosh]

Not necessarily. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes , I agree , The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

but we are not in a position of an absence of evidence.

Regarding dinosaurs

Since the existence of, is exclusive of ,the non existence of them,,

proof that they arent here like , just looking around,, implies disproof of them being around.

I didnt say they couldnt be anywhere, just that the evidence that they are nowhere we have looked , and weve done a statistically reasonable amount of looking on terra firma.

One can find bones of them, and then there are none , one can age them , and then there are none even to do an age on. etc etc so they did leave bones and they are ageable and they would be expected to be visible , and so forth , so that which is not around may be a dinosaur.

The two arguments arent equal in strength.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Stosh

[Apech]

Im not taking any chances. Oh wait ! I am! OOps

 

 

There is no need for you to hide or suppress your secret knowledge of the dinosaurs since you are among friends here. These savage seeming beasts, no matter how monstrous and un-natural they may appear, are indeed children of nature just as man is and also in their own way, just as noble. That they may roar and tear flesh from the bones of their weaker cousins may seem primitive, atavistic and out side the greater harmony which Heaven ordains. But rest assured that even these cold bloodied giants of the lizard world are also part of that Great Whole in which we all live and have our being. Keep your hidden knowledge if you wish but know that with us, your mammalian brothers, you have the benefit of all the kindest regard and support you may wish for. Adieu.

[Marblehead]

no the dinosaurs killed and ate us all,

where have you been?

I could go all over the place with numerous responses to that but I think I will just leave it alone.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

If there is evidence to support conclusion A , and A is not B , and there is no evidence to support B , the evidence is proving B to be false. Should evidence for B be found then the issue isnt reconciled , but in the mean time , the more reasonable argument is to conclude A is true.

For instance , I dont bother to wear my anti-dinosaur suit most days, because I believe they are extinct. ( excluding birds and tuatara if you want to include them as dinosaurs).

 

I can prove there are no dinosaurs here in the room with me , and likewise everywhere we might look

But you cant prove that they are anywhere lookable.

 

You cannot prove a negative, least of all with the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.

Granted: UNTIL such a time that living dinosaurs are discovered, there is no sense in proclaiming it. but until there is proof that they have, in fact, been eradicated, it is not wrong or illogical to suspect they could still exist.

 

 

Granted: T-rex is gone, we wont see him anymore, but they say he evolved into a chicken too... so apparently I cant argue that chickens are dinosaurs...

 

 

But crocks and gators are supposedly surviving dinosaurs. so they DO still exist... just not the megalithic Brontosaurus or huge stegosaurs...

 

 

Weather or not stegosaurs were ridden by humans or not is not arguable until either

 

A: evidence of tamed and ridden dinosaur bones turn up

or

B: indisputable geologic findings detail the exact fate of all the "missing dinosaurs".

 

 

 

even death by asteroid is still disputable. crocks obviously survived if it was an asteroid, so other waterborne and subterranean monsters could have survived as well.