CLE Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Zoologistkid on September 11, 2018, 10:20:32 AM
-
I found something kinda funny, people are denying sightings of actual dinosaurs because of "science":
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20.
Evo-Cryptozoologists (as I like to call them) are saying that people can't be seeing dinosaurs (like the mountain boomers or the river dinos) because of their "discoveries". They say that all dinosaurs had fur/feathers, they say that dinosaurs couldn't roar (instead they could coo or mumble, really?), they also say that they had wrists like birds like this
(https://pre00.deviantart.net/eb3d/th/pre/f/2012/226/0/9/donsaur__hands_you_are_doing_them_wrong_by_spikeheila-d5b52y4.jpg) and other bizarre claims. Many things I find ironic, they are upset that Hellywood is showing off "false depictions" of dinosaurs when in reality their dinosaurs are really close to reality. Have any of you noticed this?
I am also annoyed by these "discoveries": all "non-avian dinosaurs" died out from the giant meteor or kt extinction (no evidence of it happening but people still believe it), all birds are dinosaurs, the closest relative to T.rex is a chicken (similarities do not equal relatedness), and more bizarre beliefs treated as fact.
-
I don't believe all dinosaurs are extinct,there are more and more weird "new" creatures being found,which,mainstream has possibly always known about but have hidden it away as it would disprove the millions of years theory.Meglogon's have been sighted also and very large bird type creatures but if they're put up on youtube then the videos dissapear very quickly again and it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to work out why.
-
Thanks, David for agreeing I too believe that they know that many creatures that they lie are extinct are really still around. The mainstream produces the dumbest ideas and excuses, too dumb in my opinion. For example, they say that Nessie can't be a plesiosaur because they say that plesiosaurs couldn't bend their necks like a swan (a man can come from an ape in 3 million years but a plesiosaur can't change their neck structure in 65 million years, how does that work?) or even dumber, say that Nessie may actually just be a giant eel (seriously?)
I have thought of something, sometimes I wonder if they lie about the animals like feathers being on dinosaurs because they want to make people believe that if they don't have the imagined traits it couldn't be an [insert animal here]. I mentioned they are trying to put fur on the flying reptiles known as pterosaurs, and when people say that they have seen one, the mainstream quickly mentions that the eyewitnesses couldn't be seeing pterosaurs because there was no fur seen on the pterosaur.
I have also noticed something else of interest, skeptics quickly say that many of the sightings of these creatures don't match up to one another. But leads to an interesting idea: what if the names we give these animals, like Nessie, are just a cover all for a bunch of animals? For example in loch ness, there have been sighting of gigantic salamanders that remind me of koolasuchus:
(https://www.newdinosaurs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/616_koolasuchus_bertramus.jpg)
The basic idea is that there are actually many different creatures being seen in an area and each one looks completely different from one another. The varying accounts are because eyewitnesses are seeing separate creatures, not because they are making things up like the mainstream says. Does that make sense?
-
When working with "academics" you quickly realise you're working with the most stupid people you have ever come across. I write this from experience as I have worked with 'academics" for many years.
If they were truly academic then they would know that evolution is impossible .... they are false converts to academia .... many are false converts to both academia and Christianity at the same time. They don't have enough brain power to join the dots or to put two and two together.
Luke 8 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
-
I know that Kevin it is such an easy thing to see.
What I mean is do you think many "scientists" create imaginary traits that they know are lies so that people will become brainwashed and then defend their brainwashing? I have seen multiple times, people will talk about eyewitness accounts and then say that these couldn't be true because the creature didn't have traits "discovered by science". Like feathers on dinosaurs, saying that plesiosaurs couldn't go on land, they couldn't roar, and other false ideas.
I also found something that Chris wouldn't like in the slightest you that kronosaurus he talked about in the dinosaur article? Turns out that there were many much larger Pliosaurs, on a list from one to seven in size, kronosaurus is number seven. Evolutionist claim Pliosaurs also couldn't bend their neck up like a swan, same insanity applies.
-
I found some information on Basilosaurus, that may help. They are the only known whale kind that could actually masticate or chew, which comes in handy when you got teeth like these:
(http://www.fossil-treasures-of-florida.com/images/AncientWhale.jpg)
They have found at least 14 different varieties of their kind, the two big ones are the basilosaurus group and the dorudon group. They could swim more like a sea serpent than the usual whale way of up and down. They had a large ear canal which may have helped hearing above water. It had ears that helped with echolocation and high-frequency hearing, the ears were asymmetrical like dolphins. This how big they think they grew
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Basilosaurus_SIZE_01.png/1920px-Basilosaurus_SIZE_01.png)
That's some of the information I've found, I've removed all of the Evo-junk and assumptions. According to evolutionists, this whale was not capable of being social like modern whales, it didn't have the ability to do echolocation or make high frequency sounds because it didn't have a melon (an organ used to create the sound; neither do bats but they can do it), it is a missing link, and other junk.
-
How do they think they know that the different sizes are specimens of different species rather than the same species at different ages or stages of maturity?
-
That's a very good question to ask, Jeanne, that reminds me of the Nanotyrannus fiasco. ;D To answer your question, though, they believe that they are different varieties because each group has its own qualities. For example, one of the dorudons, ancalecetus, was much more streamlined than a regular dorudon. For a comparison,
ancalecetus
(http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/a/ancalecetus-size.jpg) and dorudon
(http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/d/dorudon-size.jpg)
They may not be different species, that is a good point, Jeanne.
Onto another point, I have learned to dislike certain Evo-buzzwords: primitive, advanced, basal, early, terrestrial cetacean (land whale, oxymoron much?), non-avian dinosaurs, and other stupid terms. The evolutionists think they can find out everything about an animal just from its bones. Many of their buzzwords are ambiguous, so anything and everything could be considered primitive or advance. Modern whales have teeth that are the same, called homodont, but basilosaurids have heterodont or differentiated into canines, incisors, premolars, and molars. So why is the chewing, snake swimming, heterodont toothed, whale considered primitive to slurping, biting, homodont toothed whales?
It also reminds since the evolutionists took over the taxonomic system they can get to declare any animal apart of any evolutionary line. Baleen whales, or Mysticeti, have three different kinds of whales, Aetiocetids, Eomysticetids, and Mammalodontids had teeth but no baleen. Yet they are considered baleen whales, so much so, they even say that these had both baleen and teeth but there is no evidence of this. They even say they fed by suction of feeding, which started the growth of baleen, Really?
-
If paleontologists knew nothing about dogs, they'd probably think Great Danes and Chihuahuas were different species...
-
That reminds me, Jeanne, I wanted to show you guys this but I forgot about it. I even think Paleontologists would consider the two as completely different kinds of animals. Here is a Great Dane Chihuahua mix:
(https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aebRoMv_700b.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/61/8b/17618b056db7d0a4a81e6f76e3ca8547.jpg)
They are considered the rarest breed of dog and are not considered by the American kennel society to be an official breed.
I do think that basilosaurids (or zeuglodons as some people call them) are one of the many creatures that make up the sea serpent sightings. They had snake-like spines and other qualities that made them quite flexible. Other candidates include gigantic eels, or giant said to be extinct sea snakes (palaeophiids they are called grew from 7 to 10 m or 23 to 26 feet in length). Those lengths are more of a baseline though for we all know that snakes could grow to up to even bigger sizes. The funny thing is, though, is that evolutionists are still treated as the keepers of truth. They say that these are extinct, no snake could past 100 ft (or any other animal for that matter), that these sightings are just [insert very stupid excuse here], and yet people believe them! They'll create dozens of excuses all of which can be disproven and yet most people have never heard of those being questioned.
-
I found something completely interesting, the whole dinosaur to bird classification is so bad that two entirely different creatures are called the same species. For example, this is an Orinthomimus edmonticus, here is a dinosaur:
(https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2018/09/ornithomimus-edmontonicus-2-1.jpg)
and here is a bird:(https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2018/09/ornithomimus-edmontonicus-2-2.jpg)
There are at least five different families of dinosaurs that are claimed to have true pennaceous feathers: Oviraptorosaurians, Scansoriopterygidae, Eosinopteryx, Dromaeosauridae, and Troodontidae. The "feathered dinosaurs" in these groups are just birds. As bad as AIG is, they do provide good points at times:
Many members of these families do indeed have well-developed pennaceous feathers, but in each case the fossils appear to be birds and not dinosaurs. Trooidontidae is a very confusing family made of largely unknown and fragmentary species. The beak of Oviraptors is toothless like all modern birds, and some fossils have been found in what appears to be a nesting position on eggs. They also had a pygostyle and rib structure similar to birds. Many Dromaeosaurs have characteristics of birds such as being covered in pennaceous feathers, including large, aerodynamic wing feathers. They had long arms (wings) that could be folded against the body, and their tails were long with bony vertebrae lacking dorsal and haemal spines except at the base of the tail. Such a tail contrasts sharply with the tails of true theropod dinosaurs that are heavily muscled with haemal and neural spines
-
A few months ago after a heavy rain I was trying to get my motorcycle out of the jungle to the main road. As I was getting all muddy up ahead of me I saw what I thought was a black Dino toy, one I would of had when I was a kid just black. So I got excited and got off my bike and went to pick it up. I was about 10 feet or so from it before it turn around and ran into the jungle. It was about a arm length Maybe shorter. To be honest I stood there in shock, not knowing what to think.
-
Billy, you are in the territory of many dinosaur sightings. What kind of dinosaur could you describe it: theropod (walks on two legs), sauropod (long-necked ones), or four-legged ones like duckbills? I could maybe what it could be and it may be more interesting that way.
-
Okay, I just got to reading this thread again and noticed something I must have missed the first time around, or just didn't pay attention to: When did these so-called 'scientists' decide that reptiles had fur and/or feathers? I know that they think scales evolved into feathers, but what makes them think that modern reptiles (whether they think they're an extinct species or not) would have these traits?
-
Actually, Jeanne, that is quite easy to understand, the minute that these evolutionists got it into their head that birds came from dinosaurs, they began to look for evidence. What they found was a fuzzy structure sounding many fossils, the verdict: this was a form of protofeathers. Protofeathers mean feathers before feathers, however, "dinofuzz" as it is regularly called, cannot be feathers because it lacks things found in feathers like barbs, rachis, and other structures. The structure looks similar to fur and a similar structure was found in the flying reptiles, which are called pycnofibers.
There are explanations for this dinofuzz, however, that don't use evolution. One is that it is just a unique furlike structure not found in animals today like other traits such as enormous insects. The second one is that dinofuzz is actually just skin fraying as the animal fossilizes.
In your opinion, Jeanne, does it sound surprising that many so-called dinosaurs are turning out to be birds. Besides Dinofuzz, they have found true feathers on many fossilized creatures, however, due to evolutionist teachings, they are forced to say these creatures are dinosaurs, when in fact they are just birds, strange looking by today's standards but birds nevertheless.
I think that they also get the idea from the fact there are creatures alive today with fur like structures like this hairy bottomed frog:
(http://www.wild-facts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/HairyFrog1.jpg) and what about the Yeti crab:
(http://talltale.s3.amazonaws.com/furlobster.jpg)
Don't forget the evolutionist mantra: anything can become anything given enough time.
-
It is kinda like a edaphosaurus. Lol it took all day just to find a picture with the name to show you. I talk to the villagers about it and they did not even know there a dinosaurs like it. They say they are real rare. And is only ever seen after typhoon. They say they are real hard to catch but best eating on the island. And it seems they never catch them alive, only when they get themselves killed in the flood. That is about the only information I could find out about it.
-
Billy, from the sound of it you saw a small, possibly young one because they have found these creatures to be much larger:
(http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/e/edaphosaurus-size.jpg)
Those are not technically dinosaurs, they are in a group called synapsids or mammal-like reptiles. Evolutionists believe that some members of that group became mammals, I just think that they are just unique animals. Edaphosaurus is one the side of more reptilian than mammalian in their opinion. In my opinion, I think these creatures are neither mammals or reptiles but are their own unique group. Is the Platypus a beaver, duck, and otter hybrid? No, it is merely a unique animal like the synapsids.
Do these creatures sound interesting to you, Billy?
-
I think it is a reptile just because it was probably basking in the sun. But again I thought it was a toy so was not really paying any attention. There are a lot of things here that amazed me. Every time some creation I never seen, I only can pray to tell God how amazing he is. Last time was 3 or so days ago. A bug was on my bible, I know what kind it was I just have no idea how to spell it but I will try, cenepeed, it is long with many legs eats bugs. Well anyways that God so amazed me with it. So I flick it off and it left this bright blue glowing liquid of some sort behind. It only glows for about 15 seconds. It was not like a lighting bug glow, it was more like a molten steel bead like that kind of glow but blue. Well to come to find out it was it's insides, so when you squish it it's "blood" is what glows. God is so amazing, I just can't seem to come close to grasping his awesomeness.
-
Billy, you seem to have the same opinion on his creatures with me. I have spent hours looking his up creatures and seeing just how interesting these creatures. It is easier to give thanks to a creator than to give thanks to blind chance isn't it?
On the topic of synapsid, some may have had warm blood while others were clearly cold-blooded like edaphosaurus. Edaphosaurus is one of the more reptilian mammal-like reptiles and they think the sail was used for a display feature. Do these synapsid creatures sound interesting to you, Billy?
-
What els should amaze us is how long it took God to make all his creation. Blind chance is for blind people. If we look into the word of God we can find just as amazing creations. Above all the things that amaze me, the number 1 is the word of God. Animals that even amazed Solomon who got his wisdom from God. Beast with such greatness, only God is able to handle. Even the trees that were worthy for God's temple. The bible can amaze you in its self. From bees making honey in a lion to changing having white sheep give birth to speckle or black.
-
Hey guys, remember what I said about those "dinosaur" groups turn out to be birds. I researching the groups that are claimed to have feathers but not true feathers or pennaceous feathers as they are called. These groups are claimed to have filamentous or plumulaceous feathers, which are found in modern-day birds like this vulture:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEKCBp9WIAIZfBw.jpg)
These include the first fuzzy dinosaur they found, sinosauropteryx, and even a type of tyrannosaur, yutryannus. These creatures are claimed to have feathers but like I said not true feathers with rachis, barbs, and other structures. But actually, are said to more similar to fur, instead of the awesome complexity that is a feather. It is supposed to go scales, to filamentous, to plumulaceous, and to finally to pennaceous feathers. How this happened is left to, where else? Imagination.
However, they found something that certain dinosaur had, that is quite interesting: Bristles. Here is a Psittacosaurus, a type of horned dinosaur like triceratops, skeleton with bristles on its tail:
(http://www.senckenberg.de/images/content/museum/daueraustellungen/dinos/psittacosaurus.jpg) Some evolutionists have said that these bristles are feathers, however, this is like comparing your teeth to a whale's baleen. I think it is just God's awesome creativity with these bristles, the other structures are skin fraying as the animal fossilizes, which the most likely explanation, or could be unique furlike structures, which is the least likely explanation for those structures.
-
What is the difference between true feathers and pennaceous feathers
-
Pennaceous feathers are true feathers, I'm sorry if I confused you, Billy, ;D. The word pennaceous is merely the scientific word for true feathers, I'm sorry if I made it sound like they were two separate things.
-
So what would be feathers that are not true feathers and what is the difference between the 2
-
Filamentous feathers are the bristles found in many creatures they are just long unbranched structure like fur. Plumulaceous feathers are basically what down feathers are made of, this is a true feather:(https://www.kesslerandsons.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/feather-natural.jpg) and here is a down feather:(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Daune_down_feather.jpg/1200px-Daune_down_feather.jpg)
It is easy to see the difference isn't it, Billy?
-
Ok I now see I have seen birds with both. But here is something you might find interesting. In the book of job chapter 40 it describes behemoth. There is only one animal that I can find to fit the description and that is the long neck dinosaur. The way it sounds in the bible is behemoth is not afraid of the water. Probably spends a lot of time in water like a hippocampus. If you would to look at the skull of the long neck dinosaur you will find the top of his head has this hump. If you would to look at it from a top angle, it would appear that it might be a blow hole like a wales. What do you think of the top of behemoths head?
-
I think that some of the sauropods were aquatic in some ways, while others would go on land. They ranged in size from an elephant to the largest land animals, they were very interesting. Behemoth clearly was a sauropod, however, many young and old earth advocate don't want to believe that it was a sauropod, as you can see in this leavened website talk genesis:
http://www.talkgenesis.org/behemoth-cant-be-a-sauropod/ (http://www.talkgenesis.org/behemoth-cant-be-a-sauropod/) You can see the fallacies for yourself and the foolishness that this blind website has. Behemoth was a sauropod, not an elephant or a hippotamus or any other creature that has to any other thing but a dinosaur. This same website is trying to say that Halloween isn't Samhain, which is not true, it is a pagan holiday like Christmas.