[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

You have not offered any explanation as to how anyone would have had the forethought to create figurines that depicted different dinosaurs in their proper forms prior to the 1980's. 1953 is well before Paleontology would even consider that dinos were warm blooded and nimble.

The only explanation offered by disingenuous-talkorigins is circumstantial and should not be called proof since it is refutable.

I don't need to.
The hoax has already been exposed by an archaeologist that was on site at the time of a major find..

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

At least ICR and AIG are sincere about what they believe.
..................

But not about the science they post.
Deception is not an act of sincerity.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

I can carry on more than one conversation at the same time. I can even chew bubble gum while I do it.

But can you stay to topic and realize it

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I don't need to.
The hoax has already been exposed by an archaeologist that was on site at the time of a major find..

That is controversial.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

That is controversial.

Only in that creationists refuse to confront the findings and keep repeating what has been reputed.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

But not about the science they post.
Deception is not an act of sincerity.

IMO they are sincere about the science they post. They believe it. I believe much of it

talkorigins is a group of atheist hacks pretending to be Christians, imo. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Only in that creationists refuse to confront the findings and keep repeating what has been reputed.

You still have not offered any ideas as to how individuals in 1953 would know to form figurines that depicted dinosaurs in their true form which was completely unknown until the 1980's. Even then Paleontologist argued about correct forms.

[valis]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

SUDDEN APPEARANCE:
Are you aware that "ALL CULTURES BEGAN SUDDENLY" and were fully developed? A long preliminary period is not supported by archaeology. Before cities on earth, there was nothing. There was no transition whatsoever between the ancient civilizations and any primitive forebearers. They were at their peak from the beginning. :

wrong again. Try reading up on the Sumerians and the Assyrians, and those that preceded them.

Then read up on the mayans and the aztecs. Should keep you busy for a bit.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

IMO they are sincere about the science they post. They believe it. I believe much of it

talkorigins is a group of atheist hacks pretending to be Christians, imo. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

You know the Bible very well.
But then there are many pretending to be Christians that do.

As far as science and reality go......you simply don't know squat.....imo of course


I'll ask you this question.......does the truth about reality have to be denied to be a Christian.....in your opinion?

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Only in that creationists refuse to confront the findings and keep repeating what has been reputed.

Repute how "hacks" in 1953 would have known how the entire Paleontologist community was wrong about dinosaurs being coldblooded, lethargic, tail dragging reptiles???

Hmmmm???

Repute that Mr Poopy pants.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

#1 I don't trust talkorigins as they are biased. Other sources are required.

#2 Saying it was a hoax doesn't make it a hoax. The discoverers persisted that it was a genuine find in 1953 before dinosaurs were recognized as nimble.

#3 The fact that the figurines depicted actual dinosaurs in their correct form that varied from all paleontology of the time is unassailable. If you cannot do better than "those guys just were lucky" in how they guessed true dinosaurs carried themselves or their flesh on their bones then your proof is dead in its tracks (pun intended).

#1 I don't trust imrippinit on this topic as s(he) is biased. Other sources are required.
#2 Denying it was a hoax when clearly it was places imrippinit in a category of blind naysayers. Whether the discoverers insisted it was a genuine find is to totally ignore the facts in front of your face.
#3 What we now believe to be true about the correct form of dinosaur depiction has no relevant bearing of the fact that the figurines were newly cast by a population with the motivation to plant false artifacts in the hope of further gain!!!

-- Tom

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I'll ask you this question.......does the truth about reality have to be denied to be a Christian.....in your opinion?

That is tricky, but as long as one truly believes that Christ shed His blood and died for the sins of the world before rising again then they are a true Christian in my eyes. However, what is important is how Christ sees whether or not one is a true Christian and not just a poser claiming fire insurance.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

That is tricky, but as long as one truly believes that Christ shed His blood and died for the sins of the world before rising again then they are a true Christian in my eyes. However, what is important is how Christ sees whether or not one is a true Christian and not just a poser claiming fire insurance.

Good answer.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

#3 What we now believe to be true about the correct form of dinosaur depiction has no relevant bearing of the fact that the figurines were newly cast by a population with the motivation to plant false artifacts in the hope of further gain!!!

Speculation does not a hoax make.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Good answer.

Thank God!