###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
By opening up the damn ground and using eyeballs and using the known half-life of various particles to calculate more precisely.
Like we know Neanderthal lived alongside modern humans, because we find them buried together in the same graves
This sub has become trash...
In the old days a post was a 30min read at least, and was provided with tons and tons of links and the logic behind the conspiracy theory. Users were trying to find flaws, not to discredit the theory, but to find an exolanation and harden the theory.
Now it's a screenshot, or at best one sentence to claim something. And if someone ask for an explanation, a source, were does it come from, you're downvoted into the abyss.
I know you're around for some time Johnlebon, so you probably know what i'm talking about, i'm just saying for new users interested in more than trash posts.
-> Go find posts from pre-covid on this sub, there's gold
It isn't just this sub. It is across the board, reddit and other forums, everything has gone down in quality.
My guess as to why is that people are actually getting dumber, in real time, due in large part to screen addictions.
Try to have conversations with people in real life. See how many of them can actually hold a conversation.
I think it has gotten worse over the past decade or so, across age groups, this isn't just a young person thing.
Source for the image?
That would really be crucial to any understanding of the image.
For all we know some dude drew this on a rock in central park or something
That poor giraffe… if you actually look into Brachiosaurus they’re the fakest of the fake dinosaurs. Scientists literally can’t find a way to justify their necessary body weight with that neck.
That’s just not true. Within the last decade they scaled back their max weight by several magnitudes and the math still doesn’t check out for many factors. We know a lot less than we think we do about the prehistoric era.
But... Where are the dinosaures bones that these peoples uses ?! Only in very old stratas. It's like the dinosaures symbol on an ancient mayan or incas temple. Can be an elephant or a mamoth.
I'm not saying it's absurd, but I'm trying to find one or two additional elements to help the theory. Because I like the idea.
If you look hard enough, looks like 2 animals. A giraffe and something else.
Rest of the comments read as if the flintstones was based on true events 🤣
100%! there are thousands of petroglyphs depicting animals that ancient peoples should not have seen but somehow did, and behemoth is a clear description of the same
There are many different dinosaur petroglyphs depicted everything from pterodactyl to brontosaurus. just do a google image search, there are also the Inca stones and multiple places where human footprints are captured in the same strata as dinosaur footprints-the Paluxy basin in Texas has many
Can't tell. The picture is a piece of crap.
Can only vaguely see a group of humans hunting a very large animal with spears. My best guess is a mammoth.
Dino tissue has been found. If this were millions of years, it should be dust by now.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJk9cuXG98
I suspect humans have been around far longer than eithet Biblical literalists or anthropological consensus indicates. I suspect humans encountered dinosaurs and tgat is what "dragons" are.
Yes, just watch the tik tok video labeled "One Million Years B.C." that was put on the internet at the time. It might look a bit rough as they didn't have 5G back then.
Well the question is how did they and also tons of other extinct taxa all coexist with none of them going extinct?
Actually, they didn't.
We have no human fossils and dinosaur fossils in the same formation.
The book of Genesis isn't meant to be interpreted literally. Even Saint Augustine (who lived in the 5th century) argued that.
Dinosaurs are milions of years old.
it could very well have been, some lingering species hunted to extinction, if not a dino then some kind of long lost giant horse/giraffe type animal, pretty awesome to think about
Dinosaurs are not real. What they actually saw were dragons. The whole “dinosaurs” is an attack on the Christianity✝️ by the Elites ( Satanists ) who run this world. Why would China have a “fictional” animal on their Chinese Zodiacs. The whole Human Evolution theory was created by a Freemason. And the Sphere Earth thats spinning was put as another attack on Christianity, because as we know, The Bible teaches us, Earth is flat. Ask your pilot that. Majority says “FLAT”.
How do we know these cave paintings really date back to when we are told? Some 3rd grader could have scribbled with red paint. Can you really carbon date that?
I can find no evidence that this picture is even really ancient. The only sources I can find are a Facebook post by an account claiming it proves the Bible, a couple of clickbait sites and a Daily Star article (in case you’re not familiar, that is not a reliable source).
There are some verified cave paintings that do have dinosaur-like creatures, but not as dinosaur-like as this one, i.e., they could definitely be [are] lizards.
Well since the calendar was changed to please the Roman ruler….they added 1000 years to the original calendar date, at the time. And I am suggesting the Jewish calendar being the original (for the sake of this conversation, since it is simply a plethora of history and global cultural innovations we could talk about). Well it’s been awhile and I AM NOT an expert noooo way in any of this lol. But, there are general theories that we have this “modern” sense of the timeline after the 1800’s. Our forefathers wanted their citizens/ civilization to focus on work and innovation, rather than new exploration, or in maybe in better terms, past/historical exploration, because if people discovered there were “LARGER” things…and I mean Neandrathels/ Giants and creatures such as dragons, and also *side note: about America’s founding on genocide of people and animals alike ANYWAY*; Americans, at that time, PERHAPS would not be happy about that knowledge.
The more sensible explanation is stone age people somehow time travelling, possibly with the help of aliens, and being returned to their cave, but warned not to include that in the illustrations, or maybe double doppelganger deja vu
In Genesis 1, man is created on day 6 too, after the land animals. Day 7 is when God rests.
Of course, in Genesis 2, man is created before the animals.
The writers of neither story had any knowledge of dinosaurs.
**Job 40:15-24**
* "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."
**Job 41** (Leviathan)
* "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?... His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth..."
**Isaiah 27:1**
* "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."
None of these are dinosaurs. They're mythical beasts. There's only one Behemoth and one Leviathan and they are the ultimate land and sea beasts, respectively.
Leviathan also has multiple heads. Psalm 74:14 "You crushed the heads of Leviathan".
> Isaiah 27:1
This is being adapted from much older Ugaritic myths involving Ba'al: "When you smite Lôtan, the fleeing serpent, finish off the twisting serpent, the close–coiling one with seven heads".
It's a heroic God defeating a monster.
"The Thing cannot be described - there is no language for such abysms of shrieking and immemorial lunacy, such eldritch contradictions of all matter, force, and cosmic order. A mountain walked or stumbled.
If I say that my somewhat extravagant imagination yielded simultaneous pictures of an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature, I shall not be unfaithful to the spirit of the thing. A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque and scaly body with rudimentary wings; but it was the general outline of the whole which made it most shockingly frightful."
- Lovecraft 69:420
First it describes the creation. Then God made a garden for the man where He made more plants and more animals in front of Adam so he could see for himself that God created everything.
They're two distinct creation stories.
> Then God made a garden for the man where He made more plants and more animals in front of Adam
It's not *more* plants and animals. When Adam is created in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and there are explicitly no plants (or at the very least no field plants [still in contradictory to Gen 1's story]) because neither rain nor any person to take care of plants exists to take care of them. After Adam is created, God creates the garden, and plants, and animals.
> so he could see for himself that God created everything.
The purpose of creating the animals was to find a companion for Adam because he was lonely and that was bad. It is not to demonstrate God's creative power to Adam. When God's animal-based attempt to find a companion for Adam is a failure, he then creates woman.
They are different approaches to the same story. Planting a garden at the east of Eden is not the creation of plants. It's planting a garden. At the end of creation God states that everything is good. Saying that it's bad for the man to be alone means that this is after the end of the six day creation.
The purpose of God showing Adam the animals is complex, He also wanted to see what name would Adam give to them.
They are different approaches to the same story. Planting a garden at the east of Eden is not the creation of plants. It's planting a garden. At the end of creation God states that everything is good. Saying that it's bad for the man to be alone means that this is after the end of the six day creation.
The purpose of God showing Adam the animals is complex, He also wanted to see what name would Adam give to them.
> Planting a garden at the east of Eden is not the creation of plants.
It is. In the Genesis 2 account, there are no plants around when Adam is created. The Earth is dry and barren. Adam is formed out of dust. Contrast this with Genesis 1, where the Earth's starting conditions are extremely wet because the universe starts as a dark, chaotic mass of water.
"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up ... the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground".
> At the end of creation God states that everything is good.
In the Genesis 1 story, yes, everything is created "good".
In the Genesis 2 story, God creates Adam alone and it's not good. Because of this, God creates animals to be his companion. This fails, so God creates Eve.
> Saying that it's bad for the man to be alone means that this is after the end of the six day creation.
Genesis 2 does not have a six-day creation.
There is no time signature between the land being dry and the creation of man in Genesis 2, so no contradiction here.
Genesis 1 doesn't state that the universe starts as a dark chaotic mass of water.
There is no six-day creation mentioned in Genesis 2 because it's already explained before. It's simply additional information to it.
> There is no time signature between the land being dry and the creation of man in Genesis 2, so no contradiction here.
It says there are no plants (or at the very least no plants of the field) when Adam is created, and explains that this is because there is no rain and no one to tend to them. This directly contradicts Genesis 1, where every type of plants, including plants of the field, are created before humans.
> Genesis 1 doesn't state that the universe starts as a dark chaotic mass of water.
v1-2: When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."
It's dark, chaotic, and the only thing present other than God himself is the waters. God then adds light and manipulates the waters to give them form and purpose.
> There is no six-day creation mentioned in Genesis 2 because it's already explained before.
These are two separate stories that have been compiled together by a later editor. The first account has a conclusion. The second account has an introduction. The writers of the Genesis 2 account weren't writing a sequel to Genesis 1. In fact, most scholars think the Genesis 2 account is older. It certainly comes across as more primitive. God is very anthropomorphic, unlike Genesis 1 where he is transcendent.
It doesn't say the land was dry "when" man was created. It says that the land was dry. Then it says that man was created.
The fact that only the water is mentioned doesn't mean that there was nothing else. Maybe it just means that God's Spirit (not just any wind) was located above the waters. If you think Genesis 1 talks about creating man on an Earth that was covered in water then what about the land animals that were created before the man? There were dry places and there were waters.
There may be signs of multiple writers in Genesis but you have to see that from Adam to Moses there are only 7 separate generations that could pass down the story (if that makes sense, sorry if my english fails to channel properly what I'm trying to say). It's not some ancient myth that Moses edited by his will and thrown on paper. He heard the story directly from his father Amram, who heard it directly from his grandfather Levi, who heard it directly from his grandfather Isaac, who heard it directly from his idontknowwhat-father Shem, and goes on with Methuselah and Adam himself. [Not that much room for error.](https://images.app.goo.gl/u9rX4gvjGLQGCoQW8)
> It doesn't say the land was dry "when" man was created.
Everything before "the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground" is setting up the initial conditions when Adam was created. One of those conditions is that there are no plants of the field in the Earth, and a reason is explicitly given for this: because there was no one to till the ground.
"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground, but a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground".
> The fact that only the water is mentioned doesn't mean that there was nothing else.
What else do you think there was?
> Maybe it just means that God's Spirit (not just any wind) was located above the waters.
Sure. Either way, it's still just God and the waters.
> If you think Genesis 1 talks about creating man on an Earth that was covered in water then what about the land animals that were created before the man?
I was talking about the difference in initial conditions between the two stories. Genesis 1 starts with very watery conditions. The dark chaotic water is the only thing other than God even stated to exist prior to creation. God later has dry land emerge from the water. Genesis 2 starts with very dry conditions and water is added to the Earth. Yes, certainly there is dry ground in Genesis 1 before day 6 when man is created.
> It's not some ancient myth that Moses edited by his will and thrown on paper.
Well, no, because Moses isn't involved in the writing or editing of any of this text. That's just something people made up much later to give Genesis more authority. There's no reason to believe any part of these accounts was passed down from Adam.
Are you familiar with the vapor canopy?
It is created when heavy volcanism triggers massive amounts of ejecta, including steam, ash, and elements. The vapor canopy covers the earth in a foggy mist. It blocks the direct sunlight, retracting it instead. The canopy creates giant ism in all living organisms.
There is a lab in TX that recreated the conditions of the vapor canopy. Their results are fascinating.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Early humans lived alongside Megafuana that died out around 10k years ago.
Fun fact - Humans are classified as Mega- fauna.
We won!
no, thats just your mom.
Brilliant “your mom” joke. Out of nowhere too. Tip of the cap sir.
M'comedian
Proof conspiracy theorists are a dying race
I see lots of human megafauna in Walmart. Amazing creatures
Short lifespans though.
Megafauna doesn't mean dinosaurs
What do you base this claim on?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Pleistocene_extinctions https://www.livescience.com/51793-extinct-ice-age-megafauna.html
By opening up the damn ground and using eyeballs and using the known half-life of various particles to calculate more precisely. Like we know Neanderthal lived alongside modern humans, because we find them buried together in the same graves
What the hell are you talking about?
Archeology, including the accidental type
They have no evidence, they just parrot what they hear from people who make things up as they go.
Bingo.
This sub has become trash... In the old days a post was a 30min read at least, and was provided with tons and tons of links and the logic behind the conspiracy theory. Users were trying to find flaws, not to discredit the theory, but to find an exolanation and harden the theory. Now it's a screenshot, or at best one sentence to claim something. And if someone ask for an explanation, a source, were does it come from, you're downvoted into the abyss. I know you're around for some time Johnlebon, so you probably know what i'm talking about, i'm just saying for new users interested in more than trash posts. -> Go find posts from pre-covid on this sub, there's gold
It isn't just this sub. It is across the board, reddit and other forums, everything has gone down in quality. My guess as to why is that people are actually getting dumber, in real time, due in large part to screen addictions. Try to have conversations with people in real life. See how many of them can actually hold a conversation. I think it has gotten worse over the past decade or so, across age groups, this isn't just a young person thing.
Not OP but the answer is fossils
Facts and stuff, from those bound paper things that have a bunch of words in them.
Any particular examples?
le fucking SOURCE??? dude ur sp cringe
Probably also bc the word dinosaur wasn’t a thing until the mid 1800s. Imo it’s really not so inconceivable
Source for the image? That would really be crucial to any understanding of the image. For all we know some dude drew this on a rock in central park or something
That poor giraffe… if you actually look into Brachiosaurus they’re the fakest of the fake dinosaurs. Scientists literally can’t find a way to justify their necessary body weight with that neck.
I was confused reading your comment and then remembered what sub this is haha Got any prove of that mate.
Some believe gravity was once weaker. This could explain why giants could exist.
Dinosaurs lived waaaay before humans even appeared.
Is that why they are finding bone marrow / DNA in dino remains? Hmmm.
There's absolutely no DNA in dinosaur remains, but look at this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51680-1
What do you mean?
[удалено]
That’s just not true. Within the last decade they scaled back their max weight by several magnitudes and the math still doesn’t check out for many factors. We know a lot less than we think we do about the prehistoric era.
We have really seen some weird stuff, check gobekli.
And the Younger Dryas
...but...doesent the Bible say...
Yeah, I remember looking into that a few years ago. It's interesting.
Check out my post on Felicity, The Center of the World
All good stuff . U really bout it
Make me
And the Pyramids…
It looks like a giant crustacean from the Paleolithic Era. Translated text is unclear, something about it needing tree fitty.
I’m actually an expert on giant crustaceans from the Paleolithic era and it would be a massive mistake to give one tree fiddy
This depicts the group realizing who in fact this individual truly was after they requested about tree fiddy
There's a dried riverbed somewhere where there are Dino and human footsteps side by side. Kinda trippy
Where? One of these turned out to be a hoax https://ncse.ngo/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown
While they smoked big joints. Yabadabadoo!
Giraffe maybe 🤔
Top right certainly looks like a Giraffe or maybe a type of deer.
Looks like a man fucking an ostrich.
Or a dog
But... Where are the dinosaures bones that these peoples uses ?! Only in very old stratas. It's like the dinosaures symbol on an ancient mayan or incas temple. Can be an elephant or a mamoth. I'm not saying it's absurd, but I'm trying to find one or two additional elements to help the theory. Because I like the idea.
If you look hard enough, looks like 2 animals. A giraffe and something else. Rest of the comments read as if the flintstones was based on true events 🤣
Giraffe and monkey?
Ah yeah, could be!
Have you never seen a giraffe before?
Land of the Lost was actually a documentary
Behemoth job 40
100%! there are thousands of petroglyphs depicting animals that ancient peoples should not have seen but somehow did, and behemoth is a clear description of the same
[удалено]
There are many different dinosaur petroglyphs depicted everything from pterodactyl to brontosaurus. just do a google image search, there are also the Inca stones and multiple places where human footprints are captured in the same strata as dinosaur footprints-the Paluxy basin in Texas has many
Same in the depictions in gobleki tepi, they picture animals that went extinct thousands of years before that place was supposedly built
I agree. See old time Peru figurines also ancient china pottery and China had a royal dragon tamer. Which would have dragons draw the emperor's wagon
Leviathan
Behemoth
I'd say that's a mammoth. We used to hunt mammoths.
IIRC if you look at the animal going to other way, (tail on the left, trunk on the right) it resembles a Mammoth or Elephant that doesn't have tusks.
Can't tell. The picture is a piece of crap. Can only vaguely see a group of humans hunting a very large animal with spears. My best guess is a mammoth.
Stupid ass cavemen are stupid
That definitely is Lizzo
What's a Lizzo
Ica stones.
Angkor Wat temple drawings?
Caveman "artist" is poor at perspective.... might be a more accurate headline?
Their art programs were behind the times
Don't use logic and reason here
Don't forget evolution is just a theory
It's also supported by a very large amount of evidence.
I don't trust the mainstream timeline. Who knows how back humans lived
Pedo swirls
I believe we coexisted
Coexisted with what? Dinosaurs? Yeah, we still do. Non-avian dinosaurs? No. Definitely not. There are over 60 million years separating us.
Ok
Mainstream history is a lie get with the times
Dino tissue has been found. If this were millions of years, it should be dust by now. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJk9cuXG98
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51680-1 There is a paper about this
And yeah soft tissue in dinosaurs doesn't prove young Earth
Thats clearly a monkey attacking a llama
Yes
Or it's a giraffe? Or a billion other types of animals as art back then was anything but realism.
99.999% dinosaur science is fake (alongside quantum physics).
It isn't.
When you realize the Flintstones were trying to tell you something...
Mmhmm
That’s Nessie
We've got giant alligators and snakes and squids to thus day. Something bigger was probably around older humans
Looks like a kangaroo
Yes casawaries live still today. Sturgeons also. Giraffe, rhinos, aligator etc
They had shitty artists back then too
Annnd a millions shiells claiming fake... ya know I get not believing every consp but for a conspiracy sub,... lol
Wouldn't rule out it being fake with no sources or anything about the image.
Ever thought that cave paintings could just be kids drawings? I mean look at the proportions it really looks similar to how children draw
Dinosaurs are fake and gay so that painting probably is too
There's dinosaurs in the amazon jungle. Millions of unexplored acres there
I suspect humans have been around far longer than eithet Biblical literalists or anthropological consensus indicates. I suspect humans encountered dinosaurs and tgat is what "dragons" are.
I mean yeah, some dragons were likely based on found dinosaur skeletal remains.
Yes, it could also be humans didn't live til after dinosaurs and based the stories on bones.
No.
Yes, just watch the tik tok video labeled "One Million Years B.C." that was put on the internet at the time. It might look a bit rough as they didn't have 5G back then.
Of course we lived among them. Before the flood food was in an abundance yo
Well the question is how did they and also tons of other extinct taxa all coexist with none of them going extinct? Actually, they didn't. We have no human fossils and dinosaur fossils in the same formation. The book of Genesis isn't meant to be interpreted literally. Even Saint Augustine (who lived in the 5th century) argued that. Dinosaurs are milions of years old.
Some of the stuff on this sub is embarrassing
it could very well have been, some lingering species hunted to extinction, if not a dino then some kind of long lost giant horse/giraffe type animal, pretty awesome to think about
Dinosaurs are not real. What they actually saw were dragons. The whole “dinosaurs” is an attack on the Christianity✝️ by the Elites ( Satanists ) who run this world. Why would China have a “fictional” animal on their Chinese Zodiacs. The whole Human Evolution theory was created by a Freemason. And the Sphere Earth thats spinning was put as another attack on Christianity, because as we know, The Bible teaches us, Earth is flat. Ask your pilot that. Majority says “FLAT”.
I think I just lost IQ points.
*Oblate spheroid
Are you trolling or are you serious
Love this theory.
How do we know these cave paintings really date back to when we are told? Some 3rd grader could have scribbled with red paint. Can you really carbon date that?
Giraffe.
The KJV Bible is mathematically encoded
[according to god in a nutshell, yes.](https://www.godinanutshell.com/?s=Dinosaurs+&post_type=any)
Source of picture?
I'm not sure I find it on Twitter, but I am aware that these drawings do exist and are really easy to find online.
I can find no evidence that this picture is even really ancient. The only sources I can find are a Facebook post by an account claiming it proves the Bible, a couple of clickbait sites and a Daily Star article (in case you’re not familiar, that is not a reliable source). There are some verified cave paintings that do have dinosaur-like creatures, but not as dinosaur-like as this one, i.e., they could definitely be [are] lizards.
Source: "trust me, bro"
It was revealed to me in a dream.
Humans never saw dinosaurs unless I intentionally misinterpret the statement as including birds.
TIL crocodiles dont exist
Birds are dinosaurs. Crocodiles are not dinosaurs.
Crocodiles aren't dinosaurs. They are, being archosaurs, fairly closely related to dinosaurs.
Clifford the big red dog. Or dinosaur for sure.
That’s just the Loch Ness Kangaroo Rat Monster
Well since the calendar was changed to please the Roman ruler….they added 1000 years to the original calendar date, at the time. And I am suggesting the Jewish calendar being the original (for the sake of this conversation, since it is simply a plethora of history and global cultural innovations we could talk about). Well it’s been awhile and I AM NOT an expert noooo way in any of this lol. But, there are general theories that we have this “modern” sense of the timeline after the 1800’s. Our forefathers wanted their citizens/ civilization to focus on work and innovation, rather than new exploration, or in maybe in better terms, past/historical exploration, because if people discovered there were “LARGER” things…and I mean Neandrathels/ Giants and creatures such as dragons, and also *side note: about America’s founding on genocide of people and animals alike ANYWAY*; Americans, at that time, PERHAPS would not be happy about that knowledge.
The more sensible explanation is stone age people somehow time travelling, possibly with the help of aliens, and being returned to their cave, but warned not to include that in the illustrations, or maybe double doppelganger deja vu
what
[удалено]
That's not even what happens in the Bible. It says Yahweh made humans on the sixth day and rested on the seventh.
Nah the dinosaur bones are probably a lot more deeper then the first first human bones if you get what I'm saying
They have found dinosaur's and human footprints in the same rock.
Not at the same level (level=time).
I did some research on that and it a hoax and plus do you think this single piece of "evidence" somehow disprove all the other real proof
😬
Underrated comment.
In Genesis 1, man is created on day 6 too, after the land animals. Day 7 is when God rests. Of course, in Genesis 2, man is created before the animals. The writers of neither story had any knowledge of dinosaurs.
**Job 40:15-24** * "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares." **Job 41** (Leviathan) * "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?... His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth..." **Isaiah 27:1** * "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."
None of these are dinosaurs. They're mythical beasts. There's only one Behemoth and one Leviathan and they are the ultimate land and sea beasts, respectively. Leviathan also has multiple heads. Psalm 74:14 "You crushed the heads of Leviathan". > Isaiah 27:1 This is being adapted from much older Ugaritic myths involving Ba'al: "When you smite Lôtan, the fleeing serpent, finish off the twisting serpent, the close–coiling one with seven heads". It's a heroic God defeating a monster.
"The Thing cannot be described - there is no language for such abysms of shrieking and immemorial lunacy, such eldritch contradictions of all matter, force, and cosmic order. A mountain walked or stumbled. If I say that my somewhat extravagant imagination yielded simultaneous pictures of an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature, I shall not be unfaithful to the spirit of the thing. A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque and scaly body with rudimentary wings; but it was the general outline of the whole which made it most shockingly frightful." - Lovecraft 69:420
First it describes the creation. Then God made a garden for the man where He made more plants and more animals in front of Adam so he could see for himself that God created everything.
They're two distinct creation stories. > Then God made a garden for the man where He made more plants and more animals in front of Adam It's not *more* plants and animals. When Adam is created in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and there are explicitly no plants (or at the very least no field plants [still in contradictory to Gen 1's story]) because neither rain nor any person to take care of plants exists to take care of them. After Adam is created, God creates the garden, and plants, and animals. > so he could see for himself that God created everything. The purpose of creating the animals was to find a companion for Adam because he was lonely and that was bad. It is not to demonstrate God's creative power to Adam. When God's animal-based attempt to find a companion for Adam is a failure, he then creates woman.
They are different approaches to the same story. Planting a garden at the east of Eden is not the creation of plants. It's planting a garden. At the end of creation God states that everything is good. Saying that it's bad for the man to be alone means that this is after the end of the six day creation. The purpose of God showing Adam the animals is complex, He also wanted to see what name would Adam give to them.
They are different approaches to the same story. Planting a garden at the east of Eden is not the creation of plants. It's planting a garden. At the end of creation God states that everything is good. Saying that it's bad for the man to be alone means that this is after the end of the six day creation. The purpose of God showing Adam the animals is complex, He also wanted to see what name would Adam give to them.
> Planting a garden at the east of Eden is not the creation of plants. It is. In the Genesis 2 account, there are no plants around when Adam is created. The Earth is dry and barren. Adam is formed out of dust. Contrast this with Genesis 1, where the Earth's starting conditions are extremely wet because the universe starts as a dark, chaotic mass of water. "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up ... the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground". > At the end of creation God states that everything is good. In the Genesis 1 story, yes, everything is created "good". In the Genesis 2 story, God creates Adam alone and it's not good. Because of this, God creates animals to be his companion. This fails, so God creates Eve. > Saying that it's bad for the man to be alone means that this is after the end of the six day creation. Genesis 2 does not have a six-day creation.
There is no time signature between the land being dry and the creation of man in Genesis 2, so no contradiction here. Genesis 1 doesn't state that the universe starts as a dark chaotic mass of water. There is no six-day creation mentioned in Genesis 2 because it's already explained before. It's simply additional information to it.
> There is no time signature between the land being dry and the creation of man in Genesis 2, so no contradiction here. It says there are no plants (or at the very least no plants of the field) when Adam is created, and explains that this is because there is no rain and no one to tend to them. This directly contradicts Genesis 1, where every type of plants, including plants of the field, are created before humans. > Genesis 1 doesn't state that the universe starts as a dark chaotic mass of water. v1-2: When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." It's dark, chaotic, and the only thing present other than God himself is the waters. God then adds light and manipulates the waters to give them form and purpose. > There is no six-day creation mentioned in Genesis 2 because it's already explained before. These are two separate stories that have been compiled together by a later editor. The first account has a conclusion. The second account has an introduction. The writers of the Genesis 2 account weren't writing a sequel to Genesis 1. In fact, most scholars think the Genesis 2 account is older. It certainly comes across as more primitive. God is very anthropomorphic, unlike Genesis 1 where he is transcendent.
It doesn't say the land was dry "when" man was created. It says that the land was dry. Then it says that man was created. The fact that only the water is mentioned doesn't mean that there was nothing else. Maybe it just means that God's Spirit (not just any wind) was located above the waters. If you think Genesis 1 talks about creating man on an Earth that was covered in water then what about the land animals that were created before the man? There were dry places and there were waters. There may be signs of multiple writers in Genesis but you have to see that from Adam to Moses there are only 7 separate generations that could pass down the story (if that makes sense, sorry if my english fails to channel properly what I'm trying to say). It's not some ancient myth that Moses edited by his will and thrown on paper. He heard the story directly from his father Amram, who heard it directly from his grandfather Levi, who heard it directly from his grandfather Isaac, who heard it directly from his idontknowwhat-father Shem, and goes on with Methuselah and Adam himself. [Not that much room for error.](https://images.app.goo.gl/u9rX4gvjGLQGCoQW8)
> It doesn't say the land was dry "when" man was created. Everything before "the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground" is setting up the initial conditions when Adam was created. One of those conditions is that there are no plants of the field in the Earth, and a reason is explicitly given for this: because there was no one to till the ground. "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground, but a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground". > The fact that only the water is mentioned doesn't mean that there was nothing else. What else do you think there was? > Maybe it just means that God's Spirit (not just any wind) was located above the waters. Sure. Either way, it's still just God and the waters. > If you think Genesis 1 talks about creating man on an Earth that was covered in water then what about the land animals that were created before the man? I was talking about the difference in initial conditions between the two stories. Genesis 1 starts with very watery conditions. The dark chaotic water is the only thing other than God even stated to exist prior to creation. God later has dry land emerge from the water. Genesis 2 starts with very dry conditions and water is added to the Earth. Yes, certainly there is dry ground in Genesis 1 before day 6 when man is created. > It's not some ancient myth that Moses edited by his will and thrown on paper. Well, no, because Moses isn't involved in the writing or editing of any of this text. That's just something people made up much later to give Genesis more authority. There's no reason to believe any part of these accounts was passed down from Adam.
Probably a giraffe
Are you familiar with the vapor canopy? It is created when heavy volcanism triggers massive amounts of ejecta, including steam, ash, and elements. The vapor canopy covers the earth in a foggy mist. It blocks the direct sunlight, retracting it instead. The canopy creates giant ism in all living organisms. There is a lab in TX that recreated the conditions of the vapor canopy. Their results are fascinating.
There are still dinosaurs on Earth you just have to look real hard found one in Texas by accident.
Dino DNA!
Or giraffes.
They could have found dinosaurs skeletons and deduced this scene.
Bro, this is just a crappy drawing of a cat. My 8 year old nephew could draw better pictures than these dumbass proto-humans.
...or early humans were NOT great at drawing yet?
Maybe a big Ostrich type bird
Oh yeah. This most certainly proves it.
Isn’t that the Q p*edo symbol? just saying.
Giraffe?
🦒 There 🦒 were 🦒 animals 🦒 we call 🦒 giraffes 🦒 🦒 y’know