Were there dinosaurs in Satyug?

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

Actually that is not the case I think. There have been fossils of human and dinosaur footprints found together (Yes Together) in many places. And, there have been sightings in Africa of Dinosaurs still alive (today) in some of the swamp areas. There are only a few and when the locals of the swamp areas were shown picture of Dinosaurs (artist concepts) they picked out two which were like creatures they have seen. (The swamp areas are mostly unexplored, even by the state). And by the way who even named the creature a Dinosaur? The creature, before being called a dinosaur, was called a Dragon by everyone and there have been many stones found (like the Ica Stones) portraying dinosaurs and humans together. I'm not saying they co-existed for a fact, because we can't know and only Waheguru ji knows. I'm just trying to get across the point that these scientists don't know much and can't be sure.

Secondly about the extinction of the dinosaurs, no one even knows for sure how they came to be extinct. There is the hypothesis of 65 million years ago but be real, did anyone see that (apart from Waheguru, if that asteroid really hit). And if so where is the evidence?

Thirdly about evolution. There has been absolutely no evidence at all for evolution. No transitional fossils between kind of animals and the evidence actually goes against evolution. 

2nd half of the video tells us the probability of even just 10 steps of evolution occuring perfectly and how it had to be a miracle, eliminating atheism.

And also if humans evolved (I'm not attacking you Dally at all, sorry if I seem like I am) where are the hundreds of species that had to be between monkeys and Humans?

I don't think that any ape man half species ever existed. Dhan Guru Maharaaj has never said anything on this.

Also Maharaj has never said that early humans were not Caveman. When Man was created by Preetam Pyare Waheguru ji, man was good and not barbaric as he was in Satyug, as far my understanding goes.

Correct me if I've got something wrong. Again, I'm just trying to get the point across that scientists can't be sure.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ

I hear what you are saying. As much as I Iove science it's patently obvious (to me) that it doesn't answer everything and that a lot of it is conjecture or one particular interpretation of data (amongst many possible interpretations). Having been in an academic setting a number of times and having worked in academia too (albeit briefly) I know that anyone who considers 'research' from universities to be the result of some pristine pursuit of truth will be a lulloo of epic proportions. Research can be motivated too, like pharmaceutical 'research' skewed in a particular way, historical 'research' that is really biased by racial or nationalist agendas (our own Sikh historical research is not uncontaminated by this either!). Research into genetics is another way that white supremacists may embed their ideas into the general public consciousness - who start believing in stuff without having a real clue about the strengths and weaknesses behind the techniques used. 

Regarding yugas. There are other possible interpretations like that they metaphorically represent spiritual states. Or maybe they take quite an advanced period of Indic human development as their starting point.

I mean look at where most of us here are from (Panjab). If we look at surviving evidence like the Vedas (one the oldest if not THE oldest book by humans with a sophisticated content. The ruins of Harappan civilisation. The apparently advanced grasp of biology and physiology (as evidenced by the development of yoga), literature production, weapon manufacture etc. It points to an advanced civilisation existing a long time ago. I mean even the way painti is structured with it's systematic breakdown of sounds into aspirated, unaspirated, voice, tonal, nasal is mind blowing when we consider that the advance grasp of sound and biology that underpins it - was around thousands of years ago in the land of our ancestors (that's if the understanding that Sanskrit was originally developed in Panjab is correct). 

Looking at us now it seems unreal that our own ancestors could have been so advanced, sophisticated and productive given our current simple-minded jungly state.

 I am confused about reconciling the yugas thing with evolutionary theory. Like I said, it might have taken a pinnacle of societal development as it's starting point, and used that as the model to aspire too?

And come on evolutionary theory has got some merit. I mean sabre tooth tigers, things going extinct in living memory like dodos, the development of 'exotic animals' in isolated locations like the emu, or Komodo dragon.  

[RajKaregaKhalsa1]

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Homo Neanderthals lived amongst Homo Sapiens and there have been numerous other humans such as Denisovians. 

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ

We need to do research ourselves. Today we are being spoon fed lies by atheist scientists. These Neanderthals also never existed. There has been no proof of them ever existing and why would Akaal Purakh even need to create them? 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/neanderthal-man-never-existed-and-8-other-forgeries-rivka-levy

So much more on this topic.

30 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

 And come on evolutionary theory has got some merit. I mean sabre tooth tigers, things going extinct in living memory like dodos, the development of 'exotic animals' in isolated locations like the emu, or Komodo dragon.  

Yeah I understand where your coming from but just because a bird went extinct, that doesn't prove evolution. Evolution by the way (in the biological sense) has 2 meaning:

There is macro evolution (changing of one kind of animals to another)

And micro evolution (variation between species)

Variation between species happens e.g. there are loads of types of cows, dogs etc. However a cow, dog becoming a non dog or a fish becoming an amphibian or whatever never happens. Macro evolution doesn't happen.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ

[dallysingh101]

20 minutes ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

 

There is macro evolution (changing of one kind of animals to another)

And micro evolution (variation between species)

Variation between species happens e.g. there are loads of types of cows, dogs etc. However a cow, dog becoming a non dog or a fish becoming an amphibian or whatever never happens. Macro evolution doesn't happen.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ

That's an interesting idea. How and why do you think  the scientific community has it so wrong then? 

[dallysingh101]

Just now, dallysingh101 said:

Variation between species happens e.g. there are loads of types of cows, dogs etc. However a cow, dog becoming a non dog or a fish becoming an amphibian or whatever never happens. Macro evolution doesn't happen.

Look, theoretically it could be a mutation very early on in a primitive lifeforms existence (a micro evolution) that subsequently results in the significant difference we see between creatures later on. 

Say like proto-tadpoles which may have been purely water based then some mutations occurred where some of their respiratory systems changed to allow them to survive out of water for longer than others (albeit briefly) and these types interbreeding, passing on those mutations and actually strengthening them. 

So you'd get that split between purely sea based creatures and amphibious ones like that. 

[puzzled]

3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

The Sumerians and later Egyptians worshipped a Durga-esque deity; a female Goddess of war. There was an Akkadian personality who was named Naram-Sin. He is frequently depicted with the head of a lion, etc. Read up on ancient cultures and the deities they worshipped, and you'll begin to realise why our Guru Sahibs were so dismissive of the so-called Gods. It affirms your belief in the bachchans of our Guru Sahibs instead of creating doubt.

so the devi devte didn't exist ?  or did they exist but weren't indian?   

[MisterrSingh]

19 minutes ago, puzzled said:

so the devi devte didn't exist ?  or did they exist but weren't indian?   

No and yes. As someone earlier stated, there are TOO many coincidences, similarities, and shared mythologies, across the pre-historical civilisations and the later Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, for every culture to have its own pantheon of divine beings responsible for their own particular part of the world. 

Why'd do you think Guru Nanak Dev Ji states that there have been many, many iterations of the likes of Brahma, Indra, Shiva, etc., who've lived and died countless times? Because these so-called gods aren't immortal and are susceptible to death. Sure, they may have greater lifespans compared to us humans, but it seems they too must eventually die. Even if you were to limit this to the exclusive idea of Indian personalities, the line in Japji Sahib can still be accurately applied. My theory is that they're "gods" (as we humans view them) in much the same way a dog or a cat perceives humans and -- if animals are capable of some form of rudimentary recognition of life-forms -- consider us to be different to their own species in a way that they perhaps perceive us to be an advanced life-form. I also believe their human-like personality traits such as pride, anger, jealousy, lust, etc., are why they were given such short shrift in Gurbani. They established systems for their own worship instead of encouraging the exclusive worship of the One.

[BhForce]

3 hours ago, puzzled said:

so the devi devte didn't exist ?  or did they exist but weren't indian?   

They immigrated to India, you know like the goray that come to work in Bangalore.

[Ranjeet01]

10 hours ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ

We need to do research ourselves. Today we are being spoon fed lies by atheist scientists. These Neanderthals also never existed. There has been no proof of them ever existing and why would Akaal Purakh even need to create them? 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/neanderthal-man-never-existed-and-8-other-forgeries-rivka-levy

So much more on this topic.

Yeah I understand where your coming from but just because a bird went extinct, that doesn't prove evolution. Evolution by the way (in the biological sense) has 2 meaning:

There is macro evolution (changing of one kind of animals to another)

And micro evolution (variation between species)

Variation between species happens e.g. there are loads of types of cows, dogs etc. However a cow, dog becoming a non dog or a fish becoming an amphibian or whatever never happens. Macro evolution doesn't happen.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ

You're not a Flat Earther are you?

[RajKaregaKhalsa1]

3 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

You're not a Flat Earther are you?

Lol, I'm not a flat Earther. I'm just saying there is no evidence for evolution (atheistic evolution). 

[puzzled]

3 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

You're not a Flat Earther are you?

The earth could be flat lol    someone once told me it's a sphere with a dome on it