Are dragons more real than dinosaurs?

Caduceus said:
Joe Rogan is starting to believe
Click to expand...

I think having the establishment come after him for the vaccine stuff has caused Joe to challenge every belief he's ever held.

For example, here's Joe back in 2019, arguing with Candace Owens about climate change. I wonder if he still blindly believes that climate change is real because "science says so".

 
Last edited:
Dragons as they are commonly depicted as flying megalizards breathing fire don't exist, the largest flying animals were pterodactils that weighed 250lb-300lb, they had wingspans of 35ft-40ft to enable them to fly.

hq720.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bizet said:
I think having the establishment come after him for the vaccine stuff has caused Joe to challenge every belief he's ever held.

For example, here's Joe back in 2019, arguing with Candace Owens about climate change. I wonder if he still blindly believes that climate change is real because "science says so".

Click to expand...


Rogan can't alienate the normies and his large purple-pilled audience. He is also kind of dumb when it comes to science, so he is unable to criticize the global warming narrative.

Candace is obviously right, but she also isn't well qualified to expose the global warming scam. It looks like Rogan chose this subject in order to discredit her, knowing her limitations there.
 
Dragons may well have existed in the way that kraken existed compared to a giant squid. There was probably some kind of giant lizard, like an overgrown komodo dragon, and just like the kraken, people who saw it blew it out of all proportion for the sake of storytelling. Other huge animals existed not so long ago, look at the moa, giant beavers and ground sloths.

That said, I can't believe nobody has made any mother-in-law jokes yet.
 
Matsufubu said:
Dragons may well have existed in the way that kraken existed compared to a giant squid. There was probably some kind of giant lizard, like an overgrown komodo dragon, and just like the kraken, people who saw it blew it out of all proportion for the sake of storytelling. Other huge animals existed not so long ago, look at the moa, giant beavers and ground sloths.

That said, I can't believe nobody has made any mother-in-law jokes yet.
Click to expand...

So you believe dinosaur bones were really dinosaurs ?
 
Secrets of the Ica Stones by Dennis Swift was a pretty good resource I read years ago in my creationism phase. A lot of Ica stones depict dinosaurs (and homosexuality) clear as day. Swift did his homework and tried to scientifically verify the stones he was able to possess. He compared a fresh cut stone (hoax stone) to the discovered stones and under a microscope it seemed to show the stones are authentic. The patina on the old stones can't be faked and bits of debris from the saw appear under a microscope on the fake. I thought the book was pretty good, I thought Swift made a genuine effort to expose the truth with an interesting and unique archeological discovery, and it was clear in his book that atheist evolutionists continue to try to cover this stuff up. I used to think scientists were interested in the truth, no matter where the evidence pointed, but Covid, atheism, pronoun garbage, and more has shown me people aren't interested in truth unless they are Christian.

lqavqxrkljjd1.jpeg
I personally believe dinosaurs, aka dragons (translated as whales in KJV genesis) existed in the antediluvian period and many did not survive after the flood. I believe the theory that some of the more reptilian ones grew to enormous size because they lived an incredibly long time pre-flood. I think I read somewhere most dinosaurs were actually pretty small, like chicken sized. A lot of fossil sites look to be places that were buried rapidly or deposited millions of bones in one area, evidence of rapid catastrophic events necessary to create fossils in the first place. I believe all the megafauna were from the pre-flood Earth. I can also easily believe early post-flood humans would have hunted to extinction the animals that posed the biggest threat to life, like the short-nosed bear. The size of some fossilized insects indicate conditions were different pre-flood. To me it isn't a big deal, there was a pre-flood and post-flood Earth, it's not like we're talking about things that cannot possibly exist, but to atheists and evolutionists, they cannot believe anything other than their lies so they can have buttsex and fornicate.
 
Caduceus said:
Yes, that's the point of this thread.
Dinosaur bones are actually dragon bones, and the images we have of dinosaurs are all false.
It's a theory that's been around for over a decade or more.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

The prevalent images of "dinosaurs" are science fiction for the masses. It's sad because, these monsters are fed to children from an early age and they become enamoured with them, so I am not sure how to break the spell. It's a gateway to evolution and atheism.

At the very least, we can say as a starting talking point that paleontology is and was from the beginning, a fraudulent field, dominated by charlatans.
 
Last edited:
KomnenAl said:
I am not sure how to break the spell. It's a gateway to evolution and atheism.
Click to expand...

This is a great point and something I think about a lot. Dinosaurs have a huge impact on the "6 gorillion years ago" propaganda that is part and parcel of the modern materialistic/deterministic/evolutionist/Darwinian "Scientism" worldview. It's tough because a lot of people will instantly label you a loony or 'fundamentalist scientifically illiterate Christian creationist' type right out of the gates, but if you can respectfully continue the dialogue with just a few informed takes & observations, there might be headway possible to at least open peoples' minds a bit.

Ideas worth broaching in such discussions:
  • Evolution in the sense of "all species developed from other earlier species through random mutation over the course of billions of years" is not testable and therefore not scientific but rather a philosophy.

  • Examination of presuppositions: most if not all evolutionists begin their reasoning with the assumption that God does not exist. Granted that presupposition, evolution MUST be true as there is no other possible explanation. However if you approach both worldviews evenhandedly (this is the hard part for most modern atheists), the evolutionary worldview is nowhere near as obvious or self-evident as it's presented in modern culture.

  • The evolutionary worldview is completely over-reliant on the thought-terminating cliché that "anything is possible given infinite iterations." For example, I've done a lot of research and yet to find any compelling defense of the "irreducible complexity" critique of evolution. The example I usually use is that for an eye, even an extremely primitive eye, to be useful enough for survival that it spreads to all the population from random mutations, must necessarily be evolved SIMULTANEOUSLY with the interpretive neural infrastructure to correctly parse the eye's sense data and react appropriately. One of these things without the other provides zero benefit to survival, and the chances of both of them happening simultaneously are absolutely laughable. "But with enough gorillions of years... it would definitely happen! It's science bro! Gorillions of years!"

  • Ancient dating methodology is not as 'rock solid' as it is presented to be and relies on various assumptions about natural processes.
    • E.G. If we observe a certain rate of a natural process like sedimentation or decay of materials in present times, this is used to backdate evidence of those processes happening in the past. But there's no guarantee that those processes did, in fact, always happen at the same rate that they do presently; furthermore catastrophic geological events can greatly or entirely disrupt the ability to accurately date materials from the distant past.
  • Darwin & co. clearly had a vested philosophical interest in promoting their theories, see: the Huxley family's connection to Darwin and their subsequent roles in things like NWO projects, eugenics, and so forth. I've even heard reports that Darwin did some kind of channeling or lucid dreaming type stuff in his process but I haven't found proof of that yet.
 
I started a thread on the topic of evolution a while back. I touched a bit on how there was some computer science professor who thought there was a good argument to be made that mathematically there isn't enough time for the evolutionary process to generate the results it's supposed to generate even when you grant the millions of years that evolutionists say have passed in the universe.

Wutang

Thread 'Critique of evolution'

In the days when the Roosh forums was dedicated to game, evolutionary psychology was often employed in order to understand the nature of women and on how to seduce them as well as in debates over male vs female behavior, particularly in amorous relationship. Roosh was no exception in using the findings of evo-psych in order to facilitate his game. At one point he began to turn his back on evo-psych - not due to religion since this was a few years prior to his conversion but from reading the book "Darwinian Fairytales" which was written by a guy who was a pretty stern atheist.

I myself...
  • Like
 
Dinosaurs are real, no question. Many artifacts are fake, mostly because they have market value, but dinosaurs are real.
 
Cooper said:
Dragons as they are commonly depicted as flying megalizards breathing fire don't exist, the largest flying animals were pterodactils that weighed 250lb-300lb, they had wingspans of 35ft-40ft to enable them to fly.

hq720.jpg
Click to expand...
my good friend where in bible they talk dinosaur?

dinosaur fake my friend, not real. bible talk about giants and beast, dinosaur 🦕 🦖 invented by same people that say human evolution is real not god creation.

please my friend this js christian website, no no Christian talk plz.
 
Cooper said:
Dinosaurs are real, no question. Many artifacts are fake, mostly because they have market value, but dinosaurs are real.
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure ?
Most bones in museums (especially the big displays) are ALL replicas, and the originals are only a small fraction of the replicas....meaning they have "imagined" what the entire creature looked like based on a very limited sample of real bones.

Plus they only show the real bones to a very small approved group of people for verification and testing.
 
Last edited:
What about Jack Horner? He has his own bones. Drilled into them, cut them open, noticed some things, like how what scientists thought was a different species of dinosaur was actually a juvenile version. The Triceratops isn't the adult, he thinks Styracosaurus is the completed adult due to the grain of the bones, how not fully adult bones appear different than fully adult. He was able to cut into the bones because they're his, scientists are obviously handtied and guessing with whatever they have access to. Jack did a speech on it, it's probably on Youtube, who knows what else he has discovered since then. Atheist scientists are always inflating the number of species in their categorization, but categorization itself isn't "science" it's a logical system devised by Linnaeus. It's a good way to identify things due to the practical limitations of the human mind, but the whole "this became this new species" is abstract, especially with extinct animals.
 
thinkreadwritecode said:
What about Jack Horner? He has his own bones. Drilled into them, cut them open, noticed some things, like how what scientists thought was a different species of dinosaur was actually a juvenile version. The Triceratops isn't the adult, he thinks Styracosaurus is the completed adult due to the grain of the bones, how not fully adult bones appear different than fully adult. He was able to cut into the bones because they're his, scientists are obviously handtied and guessing with whatever they have access to. Jack did a speech on it, it's probably on Youtube, who knows what else he has discovered since then. Atheist scientists are always inflating the number of species in their categorization, but categorization itself isn't "science" it's a logical system devised by Linnaeus. It's a good way to identify things due to the practical limitations of the human mind, but the whole "this became this new species" is abstract, especially with extinct animals.
Click to expand...

I remember there are was also another guy with real "dinosaur" bones who found various hints they were less than 800 years old, coinciding perfectly with all the dragon iconography across Europe in the middle ages.
 
Caduceus said:
What makes you so sure ?
Most bones in museums (especially the big displays) are ALL replicas, and the originals are only a small fraction of the replicas....meaning they have "imagined" what the entire creature looked like based on a very limited sample of real bones.

Plus they only show the real bones to a very small approved group of people for verification and testing.
Click to expand...

Real bones are rare and highly valuable, there is a market for that, with very high figures for well-preserved skeletons of "glamorous" species like t-rex and other large dinos:


List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

You can't mechanically reproduce bones, let alone ancient dinosaur bones, they have a complex granular lattice structure. Fake bones would be easy to spot. I suppose you could pass real individual bones from mammouth (which aren't that rare) or large mammals for dinosaurs, but those wouldn't pass a basic inspection from an expert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top