Let's talk dinosaurs

their is extensive fossil record of what has been coined "dinosaurs" whether or not they look exactly like your picture is another question.

do you have an issue with fossils?

Ok..... how do we know that they aren't just fake?

i get that some people might find it hard to believe that animals of their size existed, fucking mamenchisaurus is retarded levels of huge
the most solid evidence i know of however, is that many modern birds share similar skeletal structures to dinosaurs
pic related is a majungasaurus and a duck

Attached: Dino_bird.jpg (999x629, 810K)

Lol, pretty much. Just don't ever ask for a scientist to prove their "science". You will just get barked at with 8th grade level insults.

What exactly do these people study at school? How to yell over people, and get angry when people question them? Fascinating...

You didn't come here looking for a debate, you assumed ("these people who are on the side of atheism") you were already right and all you did was spout nonsense. Face it atheism is a small percentage of the population, Atheist in America make up 3% of the population and its rarely atheist pushing far left shit, in fact you get a lot of centrist atheist who push back against the left and though they are usually centrist they are still no where near as bad as the left and far left who are majority (by a large margin) christian.

Blue Whales are the largest animal to have ever existed and its around today, I don't see how the size is the issue.

Hmmmm. I think scientists should get excited about trying to explain these things to the world again. Maybe come out with a dvd that disproves flat earth, and disproves "fake dinosaurs" once and for all.

I'm surprised they haven't done that already, it's just a bunch of guys laughing maniacally like they have destroyed someone for calling them retarded. I'm thinking a degree in science is similar to a babies rattle at this point. They just shake it around in everyone's face so the adults can be like "Yes dear, we see your degree/rattle. It's very nice! Have fuuuuun sweetie!"

if you are not convinced - go buy one and test it for yourself

they are 99.9 percent not fake based on reason and logic but if you need physical proof go and do it - its not against the law

also - ask yourself - who gains what out of them being fake. imagine the effort required to fool the entire population on something like dinosaurs. now ask yourself - what would make it worth the trouble?

I cant think of anything

I'm just trying to trigger a scientist into owning me. So far it just seems like they get more and more angry the more they realize they can't prove shit.

>philosphy student
Oh, you're retarded, makes sense.
How do you know that everything isn't fake?

To disprove christianity, strip the people of their faith, and instill a one world totalitarian communist government

But that would nev......oh wait

That's what she said

So you just want that one comment to call you a retard to give you the confirmation bias you seek?

Have you seen one in real life? No? Then fuck off

OH here comes the scientist everyone. SHHHHHHHHH quite, take a seat. He has something really important to say!

I assume you weren't finished, and you are tying up one hell of an argument good chap! Just so you know, all you have done so far is use an ad hominem attack, and then a strawman argument.

But we all know that you have more to say than that. Please humble me good sir.

Already found one He beat you to it

I found a fossil in a river once. Was a little bug like thing and looked like one of the original pokemon.

how does dinosaurs existing disprove Christianity? serious question

I am a confirmed practicing catholic - and i believe in the fossil record

>he beat you to it
beat me to what? I never called you a retard or implied I might.

They live in water so theu can grow massive
Imagine one walking on land

Timetable of millions of years is inaccurate. The only explanation of how dinosaurs fossils are found buried together The way they are is evidence of a worldwide flood. Not only was it a flood but the earth itself opened up causing mountains to rise and land to be buried probably in the matter of hours.

Attached: IMG_1165.jpg (1024x684, 629K)

>Maybe come out with a dvd that disproves flat earth
Here's a really good series about why falt earth is retarded, since that's something you want, apparently. Isn't really related to dinosaurs.
youtu.be/JgY8zNZ35uw
It's got lots of maths and things.
Tons of groups put out presentations about current science, maybe you should watch them instead of complaining the lack of things that do exist.

THAT'S NOT HOW SPINOSAURUS LOOKED. STOP USING SHITTY 2011 BBC FAGGOT FOOTAGE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: Watermelon.jpg (700x700, 117K)

>All Christians Are Cucks
archive.is/X8Tqk

>All Christians are Cucks #2
archive.is/iFGqR

>All Christians are Cucks #3
archive.is/J3Y6Z

>All Christians are Cucks #4
archive.is/pBMGf

>All Christians are Cucks #5
renegadetribune.com/christians-cucks-3/

>Cucktianity: What Is A Covenant
archive.is/Fdsxo

>Cuck Identity
archive.is/qQPMf

>Cuck Identity #2
archive.is/ICpaJ

>Indoctrination
archive.is/RgZOY

Synagogue of Satan debunked
youtu.be/pfvd9JsEG-4
youtube.com/watch?v=cLU6oms0j4o

Attached: 1502288971442.jpg (1252x626, 354K)

biblehub.com/luke/3-33.htm
>the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah

biblehub.com/hebrews/7-14.htm
>For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah

biblehub.com/luke/4-15.htm
>He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
biblehub.com/john/1-11.htm
>He came to his own people, and even they rejected him.

His own people aka Jews.

biblehub.com/john/4-22.htm
>You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

Samaritans aka Gentiles.

JESUS WAS A JEW.

Attached: 1502100870954.png (775x5983, 2.4M)

>Christians, how do you deal with the dinosaur question?
Dinosaurs are no problem. Some add up the list of lineages and add 7 days to get the age of the universe, and that is at odds with dinosaurs. But consider this: That the 7 days that occur in the creation account are actually the 7 days in which it is revealed to Moses. On the first day, such and such is revealed to him. On the second day, such and such. And so on. Then the scriptures are correct, and one doesn't have to throw out how the history of the earth matches the account in Genesis 1 so well. (The earth being covered in water, the order of appearance of plants and different kinds of animals, the appearance of man at the end, etc.)

I mean you said "are you just waiting for one scientist to call you a retard?"

And that guy called me a retard before you could say that. Just sharing a laugh... but also yeah my point is just kind of being proven over and over again in this thread.

I MEAN IT'S STILL KIND OF UP FOR DEBATE BUT IT WAS MOST LIKELY A QUADRUPED OF SOME KIND.

I called you retarded because you're philosophy student, not because you think dinosaurs are fake. Yes, that's another reason you're retarded but not really the root of the issue.

I think the biggest enemy of Christianity is Darwinism. How can God have created us as it says in Genesis, but Darwin said that we evolved from fish?

I'm familiar with this argument, and it seems passible. Darwin's evolution though, that's the big one.

I guess the bible didn't say anything that suggests there wouldn't be dinosaurs

Were they real, yes. Did they look and act the way you’re told, no one truly knows. In my lifetime T rex has changed dramatically.

Problem is that scientists talk in terms of fact instead of theory. Why discoveey channel is no longer informative, but pure entertainment.

Problem with hardcore theists, one overstatement or new discovery and its “we were lied too” “that one thing, makes it all a lie.”

WOW. MIND FUCKING BLOWN DUDE. You have so clearly showed everyone here that you are smarter than me. Just look at that argument. WOOOOOOOOOOO. Where did you learn to talk like an 8 year old?

>I think the biggest enemy of Christianity is Darwinism. How can God have created us as it says in Genesis, but Darwin said that we evolved from fish?

simple, god created fish...

you are getting caught up on the details and specifics - which were written by humans - humans error friend.

>tardnoise.
Read Descartes.
Fuck off.

>it's another I'm special because I know some unknown knowledge thread.
Boomer brainlets are the worst.

Well it makes sence, considering that the scientific method is affirming the consequent, which is an invalid argument.

If A, then B

A therefore B

If (I conduct a study that produces this specific set of results) then B(scientific conclusion)

(I conducted a study that produced this specific set of results) therefor B

That is the refutation of the scientific method's validity, but it goes even deeper.

So has there EVER been ONE conclusion that was made based on the results of a study that was proven to be FALSE? YES? OK. That means that NOTHING can be PROVEN by the scientific method.

BOOM, scientific method refuted. Anyone? How about you You sound educated, and high IQ.

desu you haven't responded to anyone arguments, you only respond to the person not preventing one to then say ha no argument.
>talk like an 8 year old
ad hominem
Anyway its late, I genially wish you well. Here have a nice video, should bring joy to all Humans.

Attached: a good day.webm (480x480, 1.92M)

>Problem is that scientists talk in terms of fact instead of theory. Why discoveey channel is no longer informative, but pure entertainment

...
It's "scientific journalists" that present these as facts.
Case in point, when scientifics identify a different kind of red pigement in neanderthels, "scientific journalists" claim .
Any channels is always entertainment.
Read books.

>that 30 year old boomer who triggers scientists that don't know shit about shit

Attached: 30boomerrockfromthesun.png (380x349, 52K)

Just look up Dr. Dino. He'll clear up all your confusions.

The old make pretend to make an argument, and then bail right before I can refute it. Meh, have a good one.

>The 18 year old Boomer who thinks he k ow more than someone that dedicated their life's work to a single subject after googling dinsours aren't real.

Attached: 1530159782903.jpg (376x349, 22K)

>dedicated their life's work to a single subject
>can't make one single argument in defense of their life's work

Today was fun

hows that job at starbucks working out?

Come get it boys. Scientific method refuted. And after I'm done with y'all....

I WANT HOLYFIELD BAYYYYBEEEEEEE

Thank you for teaching me why Dinosaurs are real.

>muh you studied philosophy so I'm right

(me an intellectual)

Fascinating.....

Common brat who call hypothesis, theory and theory, facts, and then wonder why he will never get it.

mongrel through and through.
The scientific method is:
1 observe & notice something worth understanding
2 create an hypothesis that explain why it work this way
3 test with falsifiable experiment
(most hypothesis die here)
4 if it survived the experimental stage, either refine the hypotheis to test further or pose a theory to be discussed.

5 IF accepted by most people learned in the matter, then pose the theory as a paradigm until a better explanation is found.

6 keep trying to invalidate your theory to find a better explanation or choose another topic.

You (((religion))) can't pass the 1st step. You go straight to the pilpul without observation.

>Darwin's evolution though, that's the big one.
Right. There is surely some adaptation, but materialists want to explain the entire development of all biological function as being sourced from evolution. Interestingly, the parts of evolution which would be most problematic for Christianity, also happen to be the parts for which there is the least evidence. E.g. on the origin of life: despite many decades of searching, there are no known methods by which this could even *speculatively* have happened. E.g. there is a problem with DNA being useless on its own, requiring proteins to duplicate and produce other proteins. But the proteins cannot exist without the DNA. Attempts to find a pathway around this have all failed.

Likewise, on speciation instead of continuous change, fossils indicate abrupt jumps, which would require that things rapidly evolve to local maxima, and then when conditions change evolve so rapidly so as not to show up in the fossil record.

Also, the genetic code (which maps from sets of 3 nucleotides to an amino acid) turns out to be an extreme outlier for error minimization, despite not being able to evolve (the genetic code evolving would kill an organism, and evolutionists agree, as all known life uses the same genetic code.)

>Muh single and only point of confliction can't be debunked
>It's all wrong
Stop purposedly thinking like a nigger faggot.

I'm not even that guy, you just sound like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

You ignored part of my argument. Has there EVER been a conclusion that was made based off of the results of a study done using the scientific method that was proven wrong?

Yes, they are proven wrong all of the time. So if they have been wrong before, how is it not possible for them to be wrong again?

I don't blame you for dodging that argument.... IT"S A GOOD ONE BAYYYBEEEEEEEEE

>(the genetic code evolving would kill an organism, and evolutionists agree, as all known life uses the same genetic code.)

Just need to check something.
What does evolve means? According to you, I mean.

Ok wait a minute, let me approach this in a different way. So you are saying that scientists come up with a THEORY (belief) based off of studies that have already been proven time and time again not to be conclusive?

SO..... science is a religion then....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh

KEEP MAKE BELIEVE LARPING

HOW IS HE MAKING THESE ARGUMENTS? AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH

Attached: Friendly.png (1280x800, 373K)

That's a common description used, but unfortunately does not accurately describe even physics, the most hardcore of the sciences. E.g. sometimes theories come before observations requiring them. (E.g. General Realtivity.) Some things which are true are not falsifiable. But if from that you conclude they are false, then you will look like an idiot when someone affirms them - because some statements are affirmable but not falsifiable!

But more to the point I think the other guy was saying: science frequently relies on induction, which is an okay rule of thumb but is known to be logically invalid. That is, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises. It's unfortunate, but does add an element of unreliability to the mix.

>Has there EVER been a conclusion that was made based off of the results of a study done using the scientific method that was proven wrong?
That sentence doesn't actually means anything unless I completely approximate the meaning of most individual word.
>conclusion?
>a study done using...???

None of what you are describing is related to the scientific method.
>implying evoluare (to unroll what was there in latin) wasn't approved by the holy roman church, heretical kike.

BINGO. Scientism is a religion, just like everything else. Please sign the guest book on the way out!

>What does evolve means? According to you, I mean.
Well, in physics (my field of training), it just refers to development over time. But when speaking of biology, it refers to a system in which there is some stochastic element of change coupled with a means of selecting a subset on a fitness landscape.

In the case of the genetic code though, it simply doesn't change in any significant way, so it is not at all controversial to say it doesn't evolve.

>just straight up pretending not to see what is so blatantly obvious

YOU NEED HIM BACK FROG

>muh you didn't say it right

Everyone know's what I'm saying bruh

Attached: Mussolini react.jpg (315x251, 17K)

That's incorrect though.
When you think you are inducing, you are still using observation you have personally registered.
Sorry Hume, but there is no actual induction with humans, we aren't conscious of most of our brain processes.
As for the general relativity, knowing how kiked the subject is, I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Paradigm are beliefs, not theory.

You are a moron.

it's simple, you use the information available at the time.
you know how you thought Santa was real by the evidence in your sock? well once you're able to comprehend the logistics, you start forming new conclusions

HOLY FUCK. YOU ARE RIGHT. SANTA CLAUSE DUDE! FUCK. BURN THE BIBLE!

So you are wrong, and then you are wrong again, and you keep being eternally wrong, until you die.

I WISH I WAS A SCIENTIST BAYYBEEEEEEEEEEE