NationStates Jolt Archive

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

:eek: Oh my god! Why did no one think of this before? Like when evolution was thought up? There'd have been a massive debate that still goes on to this day and then gets brought up on an internet forum!

Hello!?!? They were the demons that God sent the flood to kill. You really aren't too up on history, are ya?

I don't believe in cats. I have never seen one, and they were never mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, I conclude cats don't exist and are a communist conspiracy to send us to Hell :p

If you really were interested in debating creationism vs. evolutionism, you would read a bunch of information concerning both sides first. I bet you'll even find the answer the creationists have to your dinosaur question.

This is true for all debates, ladies and gentlemen. I grow weary of reading discussions in the NationStates forum that have already been discussed many, many times elsewhere.

The dinosaurs were just ordinary animals that grew to great size in the beginning when the world was newly created. Things were different then. Remember people lived well past 700 years old.

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

There were lots of animals that weren't mentioned in the Bible, believe it or not.

I don't believe in cats. I have never seen one, and they were never mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, I conclude cats don't exist and are a communist conspiracy to send us to Hell :p

"There are no cats in america, and the streets are paved with cheese" - An American Tail.

Or "God put the Bible into things people would understand, so he just called them lizards or some such".

I don't believe that at all. I think that's a load of crap. But I'll get some satisfaction when someone comes in and says it for real.

Man. If I were 700, I'd be so big. . . Who's the tough guy now, dinosaurs?

Hello!?!? They were the demons that God sent the flood to kill. You really aren't too up on history, are ya?
But aren't demons at least slightly intelligent? I mean, the stegosaurus had a brain the size of a walnut.

There were lots of animals that weren't mentioned in the Bible, believe it or not.
Yes, but not all animals are gigantic kick ass killing machines are they?

What purpose would dinosaurs have in the bible anyway? The book of Tyran and Stego? :confused:

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

Thank you for your ultimate proof. While we're arguing through use of fallacies and illogical statements, I can prove that atheists are worng because the majority of the world believes in God. Wow, I'm smart.
These kind of moronic arguments can be used, and are used, by either side. Calling them "ultimate" either proves you to be slightly inadequate mentally, or too willing to believe in what other people tell you.

But aren't demons at least slightly intelligent? I mean, the stegosaurus had a brain the size of a walnut.

I don't get what the point of arguing with you science people is. It doesn't matter how many times I cite the good book or christianthinktank.org, you're always like 'But radiocarbon this' or 'But facts that.' Giving me a headache.

Or "God put the Bible into things people would understand, so he just called them lizards or some such".

I don't believe that at all. I think that's a load of crap. But I'll get some satisfaction when someone comes in and says it for real.

Those who wish to support the Bible should confine themselves to making logical arguments, not the sort that you just mentioned.

"There are no cats in america, and the streets are paved with cheese" - An American Tail.

Let us never speak of Fifel goes West though.

People will believe what they want to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Frankly, that goes for both sides. There are hints in scientific research of "dinosaurs" that still exist today, for pete's sake.

And biblical descriptions of "leviathan" and "behemoth" could possibly refer to dinosaurs. Then again, maybe they refer to alligators and elephants.

Tell me, Malaclypse, is it permissible for anyone to disagree? Or maybe to disagree with you? Is it any skin off your posterior?

And btw, Christians aren't the only culture with creation stories. http://www.worldandi.com/public/1998/cljul98.htm

People will believe what they want to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Frankly, that goes for both sides. There are hints in scientific research of "dinosaurs" that still exist today, for pete's sake.

And biblical descriptions of "leviathan" and "behemoth" could possibly refer to dinosaurs. Then again, maybe they refer to alligators and elephants.

Tell me, Malaclypse, is it permissible for anyone to disagree? Or maybe to disagree with you? Is it any skin off your posterior?

And btw, Christians aren't the only culture with creation stories. http://www.worldandi.com/public/1998/cljul98.htm

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anytime. ;)

Meh ...

Behemoth in Job 40:15-24

It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees, In a cover of reeds and marsh.”

Sounds an awful lot like a brachiosaurus to me.

Leviathon is described in the Hebrew as "tanniyn" (lizard) and also bears a striking resemblance to the kronosaurus as described in Job 41, Psalm 104:25-26, and Isaiah 27:1.

Not really much different from all the legends of Dragons and whatnot. Just depends on what you're really looking for.

And btw, Christians aren't the only culture with creation stories. http://www.worldandi.com/public/1998/cljul98.htm
But only Christians feel the need to constantly hammer it into non-believers!

Thank you for your ultimate proof. While we're arguing through use of fallacies and illogical statements, I can prove that atheists are worng because the majority of the world believes in God. Wow, I'm smart.
These kind of moronic arguments can be used, and are used, by either side. Calling them "ultimate" either proves you to be slightly inadequate mentally, or too willing to believe in what other people tell you.
Well la dee da mister hoity toity, well how about this then asshole: dinosaurs are NOT a fallacy and that is NOT an illogical statement. I mean jesus, you don't BELIEVE in dinosaurs any more than you BELIEVE that you are typing on a computer. Also its quite funny that although you have told me how "moronic" I am about 4 times in your statement, yet you haven't actually challenged what i'm saying. This is clearly because I am right. Why bother debating it? Dinosaurs existed, if you dont think that then I think you need to get back to your hut you zealot.

People will believe what they want to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Frankly, that goes for both sides. There are hints in scientific research of "dinosaurs" that still exist today, for pete's sake.

And biblical descriptions of "leviathan" and "behemoth" could possibly refer to dinosaurs. Then again, maybe they refer to alligators and elephants.

Tell me, Malaclypse, is it permissible for anyone to disagree? Or maybe to disagree with you? Is it any skin off your posterior?

And btw, Christians aren't the only culture with creation stories. http://www.worldandi.com/public/1998/cljul98.htm
The problem isn't that some people belive in a religious creation story, the problem is that they want their religious creation stroy taught as science when it clearly is not.

Well la dee da mister hoity toity

Best. Comeback. Ever.

Well la dee da mister hoity toity, well how about this then asshole: dinosaurs are NOT a fallacy and that is NOT an illogical statement. I mean jesus, you don't BELIEVE in dinosaurs any more than you BELIEVE that you are typing on a computer. Also its quite funny that although you have told me how "moronic" I am about 4 times in your statement, yet you haven't actually challenged what i'm saying. This is clearly because I am right. Why bother debating it? Dinosaurs existed, if you dont think that then I think you need to get back to your hut you zealot.

Right, because I said dinosaurs didn't exist. The argument that you were presenting was not that dinosaurs existed, but that the possible absence of their mention in the Bible prooves that Christianity is "a crock". That is a fallacious argument.
As it happens, the existence of dinosaurs is quite well documented, and I actually got to visit a paleontological dig in the badlands of Alberta (near the Tyrell museum). Kindly read what I said, and don't add your own interpretation.

The problem isn't that some people belive in a religious creation story, the problem is that they want their religious creation stroy taught as science when it clearly is not.

Ta-dow! Of course I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, so long as it's filed under mythology and so long as we don't focus exclusively on Mary's babydaddy, but also tell the kids that the world is balanced on the back of a big turtle in the middle of the ocean and that the titans duked it out and vomited each other into the heavens.

if you dont think that then I think you need to get back to your hut you zealot.

Incidentally, its actually an apartment in the slummy part of town. As a university student, I can't afford much more than that. Also, although apparently I don't believe I'm typing on a computer, the Dell stickers attached at numerous points to its structure make that unlikely.
Oh whoops. I guess I should shut up and go sacrifice a goat in my hut while calling on God for rain to drown the evil-doer. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a zealot, and not everyone who agrees with you but disagrees with your argument is a zealot.

The problem isn't that some people belive in a religious creation story, the problem is that they want their religious creation stroy taught as science when it clearly is not.

How's about the idea of "pluralism", and "tolerance". Or, say, honesty? Teach this:

"There are many popular theories of the origins of the universe, the world, and humanity. Here are some samples:

"Many scientists, atheists, agnostics, and others believe that the universe, world, and humanity were all created through random chance events. We call this the evolutionary theory, and here's where we can go for more detailed information.

"Some scientists, many religious people, and others believe that the universe was created through some sort of intelligent design. They disagree on the point at which 'natural selection' became a factor. Some think the universe was intelligently designed, but the world was created through chance events. Some think the world was designed, but life was created through chance events. Some think life was designed, but humans were created through chance events. Some believe that humans were designed, and that chance events only factor for minor mutative adaptations, rather than the creation of new species. Here's where we can go for more detailed information on each of these belief systems."

Present the facts and let the individual look into it in more detail and make their own conclusions.

Why not?

If you really were interested in debating creationism vs. evolutionism, you would read a bunch of information concerning both sides first. I bet you'll even find the answer the creationists have to your dinosaur question.

This is true for all debates, ladies and gentlemen. I grow weary of reading discussions in the NationStates forum that have already been discussed many, many times elsewhere.
Yes, but THIS TIME, it'll be DIFFERENT!
I think we have different smilies! :fluffle: :gundge: :sniper:
Besides, someone might get it right! The hopeful shall prevail! It's our honor and duty to toil upon this holiest of endeavours!
Oy! Oy!

How's about the idea of "pluralism", and "tolerance". Or, say, honesty? Teach this:

"There are many popular theories of the origins of the universe, the world, and humanity. Here are some samples:

"Many scientists, atheists, agnostics, and others believe that the universe, world, and humanity were all created through random chance events. We call this the evolutionary theory, and here's where we can go for more detailed information.

"Some scientists, many religious people, and others believe that the universe was created through some sort of intelligent design. They disagree on the point at which 'natural selection' became a factor. Some think the universe was intelligently designed, but the world was created through chance events. Some think the world was designed, but life was created through chance events. Some think life was designed, but humans were created through chance events. Some believe that humans were designed, and that chance events only factor for minor mutative adaptations, rather than the creation of new species. Here's where we can go for more detailed information on each of these belief systems."

Present the facts and let the individual look into it in more detail and make their own conclusions.

Why not?
The problem is those pesky facts. They support evolution, not creationism. Plus creationism isn't science because it starts with the idea that god made everything then selects facts to support that hypothesis and eliminates any facts that contradict it. Evolution, on the other hand, starts with the facts, all of them, and puts a theory together to fit them. When facts that don't fit with the current evolutionary theory arise they aren't rejected. Evolutionary theory is changed and refined so it fits all the available facts.

But only Christians feel the need to constantly hammer it into non-believers!
Replace all instances of 'Christians' with 'Atheists' and remove the 'non-' from beleivers.

Right, because I said dinosaurs didn't exist. The argument that you were presenting was not that dinosaurs existed, but that the possible absence of their mention in the Bible prooves that Christianity is "a crock". That is a fallacious argument.
As it happens, the existence of dinosaurs is quite well documented, and I actually got to visit a paleontological dig in the badlands of Alberta (near the Tyrell museum). Kindly read what I said, and don't add your own interpretation.
How about you kindly suck my ass?

How's about the idea of "pluralism", and "tolerance". Or, say, honesty? Teach this:

"There are many popular theories of the origins of the universe, the world, and humanity. Here are some samples:

"Many scientists, atheists, agnostics, and others believe that the universe, world, and humanity were all created through random chance events. We call this the evolutionary theory, and here's where we can go for more detailed information.

"Some scientists, many religious people, and others believe that the universe was created through some sort of intelligent design. They disagree on the point at which 'natural selection' became a factor. Some think the universe was intelligently designed, but the world was created through chance events. Some think the world was designed, but life was created through chance events. Some think life was designed, but humans were created through chance events. Some believe that humans were designed, and that chance events only factor for minor mutative adaptations, rather than the creation of new species. Here's where we can go for more detailed information on each of these belief systems."

Present the facts and let the individual look into it in more detail and make their own conclusions.

Why not?
Science isn't about tolerance and pluralism. It's a very discriminating process that weeds out ideas that are wrong and leaves behind a clearer picture of the true workings of nature.

But aren't demons at least slightly intelligent? I mean, the stegosaurus had a brain the size of a walnut.
Remember, it's not necessarily the size, it's the folds and dendritic arrangements that make the difference. Einstein's brain was slightly smaller than average, to be sure.
...it's not the size that matters, it's how you use it ...
*retch*
Demons themselves are not purpseless. Au contraire, they're invited.

EDIT - also, i read a few places there was a supplementary type of brain matter, redundant in the spine at places (towards the back obviously) to better coordinate the nerve structure. Since i've never consciously eviscerated a dinosaur, though, i'm in the realm of conjecture.
*sigh*

How about you kindly suck my ass?

Nice thought. Well-developed too. I like the way you clearly and concisely expose my earlier statement as the horrible, horrible sham that it is. Logical and well thought out. Bravo. Bravo.

How is it even possible to go from "Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs" to "Bible is crock"? The stunning leap of [the absence of] logic boggles my mind.

I don't get what the point of arguing with you science people is. It doesn't matter how many times I cite the good book or christianthinktank.org, you're always like 'But radiocarbon this' or 'But facts that.' Giving me a headache.
Sounds like someone needs a good virtu-fluffle.
:fluffle:
I feel good now. It feels good to put off into obscurity anything that makes me feel inadequate! Yay for me!
And another virtu-fluffle so you can pass it on!
:fluffle:

How is it even possible to go from "Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs" to "Bible is crock"? The stunning leap of [the absence of] logic boggles my mind.
Fairly, it states clearly "Proof that Christianity is a crock", not "Bible is crock".
I guess you have to just abandon logic here and go on faith.
Maybe this will be the final crock that cooks that meddlesome dinosaur issue ONCE AND FOR ALL!
*grr*

I understand that "Christianity" was used, not the Bible, but the whole premise that Christianity is worthless is built upon the supposition that the Bible (by supposedly not mentioning dinosaurs) is incorrect, somehow. Thus, my comment. :)

Science isn't about tolerance and pluralism. It's a very discriminating process that weeds out ideas that are wrong and leaves behind a clearer picture of the true workings of nature.

Yes but in the case of the origin of life there is a problem. You cannot test it (untill someone goes back with a time travel device). And like it or not, abiogenesis has never happened under observable circumstances and the evolutionary fossil record has more holes than swiss cheese. Face it, creationism and evolutionism both have strengths and weaknesses.

Face it, creationism and evolutionism both have strengths and weaknesses.

That's perfect, and is a reason the way I feel the way I do. Lacking the ability to conclusively prove one way or another, I feel we aught to at least give passing reference to other beliefs - at least the ones that are represented by a large enough set of people.

(I think we can safely leave the UFOs out of it)

Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.

Meh ...

Behemoth in Job 40:15-24

It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees, In a cover of reeds and marsh.”

Sounds an awful lot like a brachiosaurus to me.

Leviathon is described in the Hebrew as "tanniyn" (lizard) and also bears a striking resemblance to the kronosaurus as described in Job 41, Psalm 104:25-26, and Isaiah 27:1.

Not really much different from all the legends of Dragons and whatnot. Just depends on what you're really looking for.
Sorry, gotta take contention with your statement. That's clearly a misinterpretation of scripture. When it says its "bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron." and "moves his tail like a cedar (especially that point)" leads me to conclude, clearly based on evidence, that it wasn't a brachiosaur but a DIPLODOCUS! Get with the program!
I'll defer to you're explanation of the kronosaurus since i'm not well informed on that issue.
And as for "He lies under the lotus trees, in a cover of reeds and marsh" then i think this is meant to be prophecy, since the evidence points clearly at my brother in law. Come to think of it, so does the line about "it eats grass like an ox."

At the same time, he does have a point. Surely, it (Bible) doesn't mention dinosaurs by the name we've come to know and love, but many people believe the passages quoted do refer to them in general.

I understand that "Christianity" was used, not the Bible, but the whole premise that Christianity is worthless is built upon the supposition that the Bible (by supposedly not mentioning dinosaurs) is incorrect, somehow. Thus, my comment. :)
Fair 'nuff!

How about you kindly suck my ass?

How about you kindly admit your complete and utter inablity to sustain your position?

Yes but in the case of the origin of life there is a problem. You cannot test it (untill someone goes back with a time travel device). And like it or not, abiogenesis has never happened under observable circumstances and the evolutionary fossil record has more holes than swiss cheese. Face it, creationism and evolutionism both have strengths and weaknesses.

Hear, hear.

Yes but in the case of the origin of life there is a problem. You cannot test it (untill someone goes back with a time travel device). And like it or not, abiogenesis has never happened under observable circumstances and the evolutionary fossil record has more holes than swiss cheese. Face it, creationism and evolutionism both have strengths and weaknesses.
Ok, Abiogenesis isn't the same as evolution. Plus you can indirectly test evolution. Make predictions about you would expect biology to be like if evolution was true, look around and see if the predictions are matched by reality. Evolution passes this test with flying colors. Creationism, on the other hand, can't be tested. Anything's possible if there is a supernatural agent to break natural laws. It's inherently unscientific.

Plus there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record. Creationists just refuse to see it.

Hear, hear.

Thanks. Always nice to see people who like my points :)

While I don't agree with Christianity, your argument is something like this:
"Because it is dark outside, there is obviously no sun, nor has it ever existed."

Just because it isn't mentioned now doesn't mean it was previously removed.

Ta-dow! Of course I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, so long as it's filed under mythology and so long as we don't focus exclusively on Mary's babydaddy, but also tell the kids that the world is balanced on the back of a big turtle in the middle of the ocean and that the titans duked it out and vomited each other into the heavens.
Hear, hear!
*clangs his broken bell*

Ok, Abiogenesis isn't the same as evolution. Plus you can indirectly test evolution. Make predictions about you would expect biology to be like if evolution was true, look around and see if the predictions are matched by reality. Evolution passes this test with flying colors. Creationism, on the other hand, can't be tested. Anything's possible if there is a supernatural agent to break natural laws. It's inherently unscientific.

Plus there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record. Creationists just refuse to see it.
"Echo-4 to base: this guy's brandishing dangerous logic, over?"
*high-five*

Replace all instances of 'Christians' with 'Atheists' and remove the 'non-' from beleivers.
...and then what? tell me more! i can't finish this one alone.
:rolleyes:

How about you kindly suck my ass?
Wait, we've already covered the infantile/coprophile aspect of the bible - but truly, unexplored remains the heady topic of felching. Surely someone here has some scripture depicting that, especially in context.

Ok, Abiogenesis isn't the same as evolution. Plus you can indirectly test evolution. Make predictions about you would expect biology to be like if evolution was true, look around and see if the predictions are matched by reality. Evolution passes this test with flying colors.


Not entirely true. The holes in the fossil record are still to large for evolutionists to claim logical progression in many cases. Also, several case studies which are textbook standards with regard to mutations have been debunked a long time ago (see pepperd moth, two spieces). While I can see evolution as a point of the changing in animals after they were created, I refuse to accept it as the origin of life. The statistical improbablitys of random chance causing it are comparable to that of detonating a nuclear warhead in a supermarket and at the detination cite afterwards, a strawberry gatuea is formed. In other words, beyond the nomal mathamatical impossibilty threshold. Also abiogenesis smaks the second law of thermodynamics in the face. Entropy demands a degridation from order to chaos. Order does not come out of chaos. On an extremely low level its possible (autem leaves falling in a pattern to make a letter on the ground) but not on the kind of molecualar complexity of a cell, or the changing of that cell.


Creationism, on the other hand, can't be tested. Anything's possible if there is a supernatural agent to break natural laws. It's inherently unscientific.

Plus there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record. Creationists just refuse to see it.

While I agree creationism to its extreme cant be tested (God's origins of life) there are scientific methods that support the creation tale and the age of the Earth being younger than most think. The Cambrian strata and reformed Radiometric dating support the idea of creationism. Of course, both these things are extremely debatable, but then so is much of evolutionism, for example the "missing link" between humans and apes. My point is that neither one can be proven for certianty as we dont have all the evidence. Its not that big a deal for me. I dont rearly care that much if the Earth is 10,000 or ten million years old. What annoys me is when people attempt to use science to disprove God. Many scientists will say "because we have proven X, Y and Z, God does not exist", which is stupid. Thats what angers me.

That's perfect, and is a reason the way I feel the way I do. Lacking the ability to conclusively prove one way or another, I feel we aught to at least give passing reference to other beliefs - at least the ones that are represented by a large enough set of people.

(I think we can safely leave the UFOs out of it)
No, that just doesn't tie up all the loose ends.
With artistic references to UFO's as well as a few biblical ones, from times early, my bet is on the idea that the UFO's provided the first rapture for only the faithful and devout of the dinosaurs (demons?) and left the rest of them to rot and suffer the sulphurous hell-fire that is our loving and just god's wrath.
Yeah, that ties up nicely.

But aren't demons at least slightly intelligent? I mean, the stegosaurus had a brain the size of a walnut.

but troodontids were actually pretty smart, for dinosaurs anyways

Not entirely true. The holes in the fossil record are still to large for evolutionists to claim logical progression in many cases. Also, several case studies which are textbook standards with regard to mutations have been debunked a long time ago (see pepperd moth, two spieces). While I can see evolution as a point of the changing in animals after they were created, I refuse to accept it as the origin of life. The statistical improbablitys of random chance causing it are comparable to that of detonating a nuclear warhead in a supermarket and at the detination cite afterwards, a strawberry gatuea is formed. In other words, beyond the nomal mathamatical impossibilty threshold. Also abiogenesis smaks the second law of thermodynamics in the face. Entropy demands a degridation from order to chaos. Order does not come out of chaos. On an extremely low level its possible (autem leaves falling in a pattern to make a letter on the ground) but not on the kind of molecualar complexity of a cell, or the changing of that cell.


.
1 The fossil record shows plenty of transitional species. Only one transition from one species to another is necessary to prove that evolution happens. It doesn't have to be proven in every case. Dinosaurs to birds is a great example. Recently feathered dinosaurs have been found. Archaeopterix has been known for quite some time.

2 A couple of flawed textbooks doesn't invalidate a scientific theory. Textbooks are rarely written by the scientists who work on the subjects they cover. They are compiled by publishing companies.

3 The random chance argument deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. It simply doesn't apply here.

4 No, creationists just like to leave out a fundamental part of the second law of thermodynamics. It chaos grows over time in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system. It gets energy pumped in by the sun. Life uses that energy to combat the tendency toward entropy. The universe is a closed system. The decrease in entropy on earth is outweighed by the increase in entropy caused by energy and particles shooting out of the sun.

While I agree creationism to its extreme cant be tested (God's origins of life) there are scientific methods that support the creation tale and the age of the Earth being younger than most think. The Cambrian strata and reformed Radiometric dating support the idea of creationism. Of course, both these things are extremely debatable, but then so is much of evolutionism, for example the "missing link" between humans and apes. My point is that neither one can be proven for certianty as we dont have all the evidence. Its not that big a deal for me. I dont rearly care that much if the Earth is 10,000 or ten million years old. What annoys me is when people attempt to use science to disprove God. Many scientists will say "because we have proven X, Y and Z, God does not exist", which is stupid. Thats what angers me.
When did I claim that evolution shows god doesn't exist? I didn't. I only said that creationism isn't science. Nothing that allows supernatural intervention into natural laws is scientific.

I have yet to hear any rebuttal to the argument that creationism, as a theory, is fundamentally flawed because it begins by taking its conclusion as an article of faith.

It's one thing to challenge evolutionary theory or to point out gaps in the fossil record, but this is all negative road stuff. It's like all the damn Dems arguing against private accounts without ever suggesting an alternative. You can disprove evolutionary theory, but this does nothing to prove that God did the deed in six days. In fact, there's nothing whatsoever that suggests that Biblical creation is fact except the Bible itself. As DC points out, this is anti-science. This is the ultimate in self-corroboration.

And in this light, there's nothing that privileges the Christian creation myth over the Greek or over the raven stories or our old friend the big turtle.

A few points of thought for you all:

1) Keep in mind that those in the Bible considered their 'world' to be centered around the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the Mid-east.

2) Brachiosaurus was first found in the Grand River Valley, in western Colorado, USA, in 1900. This incomplete skeleton was described by paleontologist Elmer S. Riggs, who named Brachiosaurus in 1903. In 1909, Werner Janensch found many Brachiosaurus fossils in Tanzania, Africa. Many Brachiosaurus fossils have been found, in North America and Africa. (Source link (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Brachiosaurus.shtml))

The first Diplodocus fossil was found by Earl Douglass and Samuel W. Williston in 1877 and was named by paleontologist Othniel C. Marsh in 1878. Many Diplodocus fossils have been found in the Rocky Mountains of the western USA (in Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming). Diplodocus means "Double-beamed." source link (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Diplodocus.shtml)

This goes to show that there had to be limited exposure to these "behemoths".

3) However, one must realize the location of the planetary plates in the time of the dinosaurs (Pangea). I know this itself would contradict #2, but there were still some changes in the landmasses, enough to isolate different sections.

4) In regards to intelligence, velociraptors were also quite intelligent. Perhaps we descended from them! (Damn that evolution!) O_O

5) In the meantime, while you all are fighting over whether creationism or science is right, I'll just be enjoying my life, day by day, living as the best kind of person I can be. When I die, I'll die knowing that I lived my life meaninfully and not wasting my hairs over a few immature arguments.

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

Ah, the merry sound of Bill Hicks' corpse being scavenged by teenage commies :)

Ya know, it's possible to believe in evolution AND creationism. They don't necessarily contradict each other...Just a thought...

I think God, on the off chance he exists, started evolution and left. I believe it's called Deism or some such, but I don't know. It makes sense. Explains evolution and explains how evolution could have started.

I think God, on the off chance he exists, started evolution and left. I believe it's called Deism or some such, but I don't know. It makes sense. Explains evolution and explains how evolution could have started.

ROFL, this is the best response yet...

A nonchalant God... XD

Not entirely true. The holes in the fossil record are still to large for evolutionists to claim logical progression in many cases. Also, several case studies which are textbook standards with regard to mutations have been debunked a long time ago (see pepperd moth, two spieces).
I don't suppose you've bothered to punch up "evolution", "anopheles", or "Avida", have you? How about "ambulocetus natans", for that matter? You really should update. At the very least, scientific integrity requires updating. To argue science you should at least try to keep up.

The statistical improbablitys of random chance causing it are comparable to that of detonating a nuclear warhead in a supermarket and at the detination cite afterwards, a strawberry gatuea is formed. In other words, beyond the nomal mathamatical impossibilty threshold.
Although a curious anology, and somewhat appealing, you have to consider the integrity of any argument assuming veracity when it requires in its function a lack of definition - that is literally what the function of infinity means. This applies to mathematic calculations as well as creationism (note: your use of what you think is a normal mathematical threshold of "impossibility"). You are arguing the same fallacy to support your argument but debunk another. As you said, you'd need a time travel capacity to prove it, and under the same principle, you can't actually determine the beginning or end of time. And lacking those definitions you simply can't logically argue the veracity of yours (or anyone else's) claims on probability in that matter.
Entropy demands a degridation from order to chaos.
That is a misinterpretation of a summation of the law. Further, it specifies that degredation occurs comparable to first set order, then into supplementary sets that are (temporarily) more accomodating than the primary (of the argument). It does not say that one system only accomplishes one dynamic and then, in failing, simply doesn't do anything other than disintegrate. Too many people argue that without knowing what it means.
Also, there are two systems which defy in the integrity of the second law of thermodynamics as a rule, though their nature somewhat bypasses physical law while providing ample change and response in a physical environment. Can you guess what they are? Someone here knows, i'm sure, as well as someone who can explain this better than myself.

Of course, both these things are extremely debatable, but then so is much of evolutionism, for example the "missing link" between humans and apes.
Again, you should look a little further into the cases that are there. Try Ethiopian finds for the last 3 years, specifically this past year.
My point is that neither one can be proven for certianty as we dont have all the evidence. Its not that big a deal for me. I dont rearly care that much if the Earth is 10,000 or ten million years old.
Fair enough.
EDIT- Drunk Commies did a better job of explaining the issue with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I am shamed. ;)

ROFL, this is the best response yet...

A nonchalant God... XD
George Carlin came up with it.
"Can we agree that God is incompetent, or at the least, the VERY LEAST, just doesn't give a shit?

"On the Seventh Day, God sat on the toilet of the universe (blackhole) and shat the Earth and all its progeny."

:)

Mind you, I consider myself a Catholic, but at the same time, I find it hard to refute evolution. I guess you could say I'm an evolutionary Christian... if there's any such thing...

I have yet to hear any rebuttal to the argument that creationism, as a theory, is fundamentally flawed because it begins by taking its conclusion as an article of faith.

but this is all negative road stuff. It's like all the damn Dems arguing against private accounts without ever suggesting an alternative.
Actually there are probably several dems that have announced better plans than that, it is irrational to assume that since you haven't heard any you can also assume that they haven't. It's about as logical as assuming that since most of the U.S. radio saturation these days has right-wing blowhards on it, the dems supposedly are too ashamed and wrong in their ways to have the public ear. Except that stupid f*cking argument that the media is supposedly owned by *the* "liberals". Look up who owns what media outlets and argue that with a straight face.
Greenspan has better ideas about what to do about it than Bush and his bunch of f*ckheads. But i could save that for some other thread.

Hey, I already brought up that point on this forum.

Ah, the merry sound of Bill Hicks' corpse being scavenged by teenage commies :)
1. Who's Bill Hicks?
2. Whats a teenage commie?

Not entirely true. The holes in the fossil record are still to large for evolutionists to claim logical progression in many cases. .


Species don't (can't) evolve en masse. Fossils are generally of common body forms and represent only an insignificant fraction of fauna and flora existing at that time. To be a fossil means to have been at the right place and wrong time to have been suddenly swept by a landslide or volcanic eruption.


Also, several case studies which are textbook standards with regard to mutations have been debunked a long time ago (see pepperd moth, two spieces). .



The peppered moth study is of natural selection not evolution.

Also abiogenesis smaks the second law of thermodynamics in the face. Entropy demands a degridation from order to chaos. Order does not come out of chaos. On an extremely low level its possible (autem leaves falling in a pattern to make a letter on the ground) but not on the kind of molecualar complexity of a cell, or the changing of that cell..


I'd suppose certain abiotic materials such as crystals, complex carbon chain molecules, etc. are the product of intelligent design too. It's actually called chemistry.



The Cambrian strata and reformed Radiometric dating support the idea of creationism. Of course, both these things are extremely debatable, but then so is much of evolutionism, for example the "missing link" between humans and apes.


The Cambrian period was a period of adaptive radiation occurring in the marine environment. Land had not yet even been colonized. I'm not even sure why a creationist would even mention the Cambrian period. :confused:

"On the Seventh Day, God sat on the toilet of the universe (blackhole) and shat the Earth and all its progeny."

:)

Mind you, I consider myself a Catholic, but at the same time, I find it hard to refute evolution. I guess you could say I'm an evolutionary Christian... if there's any such thing...

I'll take this a step further:

"Hence, the Big Bang"

I don't suppose you've bothered to punch up "evolution", "anopheles", or "Avida", have you? How about "ambulocetus natans", for that matter? You really should update. At the very least, scientific integrity requires updating. To argue science you should at least try to keep up.


Although a curious anology, and somewhat appealing, you have to consider the integrity of any argument assuming veracity when it requires in its function a lack of definition - that is literally what the function of infinity means. This applies to mathematic calculations as well as creationism (note: your use of what you think is a normal mathematical threshold of "impossibility"). You are arguing the same fallacy to support your argument but debunk another. As you said, you'd need a time travel capacity to prove it, and under the same principle, you can't actually determine the beginning or end of time. And lacking those definitions you simply can't logically argue the veracity of yours (or anyone else's) claims on probability in that matter.

That is a misinterpretation of a summation of the law. Further, it specifies that degredation occurs comparable to first set order, then into supplementary sets that are (temporarily) more accomodating than the primary (of the argument). It does not say that one system only accomplishes one dynamic and then, in failing, simply doesn't do anything other than disintegrate. Too many people argue that without knowing what it means.
Also, there are two systems which defy in the integrity of the second law of thermodynamics as a rule, though their nature somewhat bypasses physical law while providing ample change and response in a physical environment. Can you guess what they are? Someone here knows, i'm sure, as well as someone who can explain this better than myself.


Again, you should look a little further into the cases that are there. Try Ethiopian finds for the last 3 years, specifically this past year.

Fair enough.
(Is this doublespeak?)
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia - humankind's first upright walking ancestor.
Afar region - 3.8 to 4 myr old.
No name as i know of yet of species.
Also Ardipithecus Ramidus - TRANSITIONAL CREATURE with significant ape characteristics from as far back as 4.5 myr ago. Probably smaller than
Australopithecus Afarensis (note the name of the place and location in latin) from 'bout 3.2 myr ago (see Lucy fossil) 'round 4 ft tall.
First species here found at Mille, 37 miles from Lucy's discovery.

Maybe that helps. Maybe one of the investigator's names here, Anthony Mitchell from Associated Press, might help too, week of March 6, 2005.
Regards ....

1. Who's Bill Hicks?
2. Whats a teenage commie?

1: A comedian.

2: I wanna hold you wanna hold you tight, get teenage commies right thru the night, wahaya!

I'll take this a step further:

"Hence, the Big Bang"
Resulting, inevitably, in "The Big Flush"

Hey, has anyone reported this dude to the mods? He needs reprimanded, i'm sure it is against forum rules to call all religeous people "zealots" and telling them to "go back to their huts."

Species don't (can't) evolve en masse. Fossils are generally of common body forms and represent only an insignificant fraction of fauna and flora existing at that time. To be a fossil means to have been at the right place and wrong time to have been suddenly swept by a landslide or volcanic eruption.






The peppered moth study is of natural selection not evolution.




I'd suppose certain abiotic materials such as crystals, complex carbon chain molecules, etc. are the product of intelligent design too. It's actually called chemistry.






The Cambrian period was a period of adaptive radiation occurring in the marine environment. Land had not yet even been colonized. I'm not even sure why a creationist would even mention the Cambrian period. :confused:
Excellent. *bows*

Originally posted by Autocracima
Hey, has anyone reported this dude to the mods? He needs reprimanded, i'm sure it is against forum rules to call all religeous people "zealots" and telling them to "go back to their huts."

There is nothing flamebait about someone calling you a zealot.

Okay, I think that it is quite clear that the majority of people who have previously posted have ever seriously analysed this question. I don't mean to imply that I am any better, however, I assure you, I will not quote from christianthinktank.org or tell people who refute me to suck my ass. I would first like to mention that to say that 'dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible' is not the 'ultimate' anything. Secondly, I think it is ridiculous to say that if a dinosaur and a bird both have feathers, that it is a clear link, and it certainly isn't an argument against creationism. It does, however, bring up the question of why, if Natural Selection eliminates all mutations that are unfavourable, why feathers should have ever evolved from the protection of scales, considering that I cannot conceive of any possbile use for anything between the protection of scales and the lightness of feathers. But, that is hardly even an argument, just as it is no argument at all to say that if there is evolution, there is no creation. And it just shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject to say that the 'six days' of the bible must be completely literal (many primary Christian thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas I think, have said that it could represent the progression of importance, etc...), or to say that there is inrefutable scientific proof on the subject either way, or to say that Evolution by Natural Selection has not disregarded some facts. For instance, perhaps that through thousands of years of breeding dogs, with an intelligent human behind it, they have never produced any new species, just other dogs. Or, in that same way have fruit flies never given birth to anything but a fruitfly, despite being constantly zapped by x-rays. I, personally, do not think that Evolution accounts for the 'origin' of species, though I readily admit it could account for the variation 'within' species.

The answer to the dinosaur question is simple. Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. In the book of Job, which is said to be an account that is older than all of the books of the bible. Meaning that this story was told to generation to generation before the time of Abraham (most likely)....anyway the point being.....

in Job 41 the Leviathan is described in detail.

1 "Can you pull in the leviathan [a] with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? 2 Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? 3 Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? 4 Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? 5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? 6 Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? 7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? 8 If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! 9 Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering. 10 No one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me? 11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. 12 "I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form. 13 Who can strip off his outer coat?
Who would approach him with a bridle? 14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth? 15 His back has [b] rows of shields tightly sealed together; 16 each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. 17 They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. 18 His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. 19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. 21 His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth. 22 Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him. 23 The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable. 24 His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone. 25 When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing. 26 The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. 27 Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood. 28 Arrows do not make him flee;
slingstones are like chaff to him. 29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance. 30 His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. 31 He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair. 33 Nothing on earth is his equal- a creature without fear. 34 He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud."

Don't know about you but sounds like a dragon to me which would actually suport myths in other cultures that were actual dragons. Of course i could me wrong and i leave this scripture up to interpretation. You all asked the question and so i am providing a possible answer.

The Leviathan is also mentioned in
Job 3:8
Psalm 74:14
Psalm 104:26
Isaiah 27:1

I don't suppose you've bothered to punch up "evolution", "anopheles", or "Avida", have you? How about "ambulocetus natans", for that matter? You really should update. At the very least, scientific integrity requires updating. To argue science you should at least try to keep up.


Although a curious anology, and somewhat appealing, you have to consider the integrity of any argument assuming veracity when it requires in its function a lack of definition - that is literally what the function of infinity means. This applies to mathematic calculations as well as creationism (note: your use of what you think is a normal mathematical threshold of "impossibility"). You are arguing the same fallacy to support your argument but debunk another. As you said, you'd need a time travel capacity to prove it, and under the same principle, you can't actually determine the beginning or end of time. And lacking those definitions you simply can't logically argue the veracity of yours (or anyone else's) claims on probability in that matter.

That is a misinterpretation of a summation of the law. Further, it specifies that degredation occurs comparable to first set order, then into supplementary sets that are (temporarily) more accomodating than the primary (of the argument). It does not say that one system only accomplishes one dynamic and then, in failing, simply doesn't do anything other than disintegrate. Too many people argue that without knowing what it means.
Also, there are two systems which defy in the integrity of the second law of thermodynamics as a rule, though their nature somewhat bypasses physical law while providing ample change and response in a physical environment. Can you guess what they are? Someone here knows, i'm sure, as well as someone who can explain this better than myself.


Again, you should look a little further into the cases that are there. Try Ethiopian finds for the last 3 years, specifically this past year.

Fair enough.
EDIT- Drunk Commies did a better job of explaining the issue with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I am shamed. ;)
Don't be shamed. You did a better job with everything else.

Or "God put the Bible into things people would understand, so he just called them lizards or some such".

I don't believe that at all. I think that's a load of crap. But I'll get some satisfaction when someone comes in and says it for real.

Do me, and every other Christian a favour, have respect plz.

About the Bible not mentioning dinosaurs, it does! In the book of Job, it talks about the Leviathan and another beast which lived in the Mediteranian, both of which don't have anything alive (as far as we know) that would match.

Another thing for everyone out there, the flood was sent to kill off many of the sinners in the world, not the demons. The demons have a place called Hell or the Lake of Fire prepared for them. Also, all of their followers are also heading to that same place.

As someone said before, do some reasearch plz before you go into a debate about something like this or at least have a good idea about what your talking about (meaning not loose ideas which have absolutely no support).

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.
Remember those six days?
Those were not in 24 hour periods.
You see one the seventh day we reach the part opf the story that includes the garden.

So till you can prove those metaphorical days meant 24 hours each, you can't prove it is a crock.

Actually there are probably several dems that have announced better plans than that, it is irrational to assume that since you haven't heard any you can also assume that they haven't. It's about as logical as assuming that since most of the U.S. radio saturation these days has right-wing blowhards on it, the dems supposedly are too ashamed and wrong in their ways to have the public ear. Except that stupid f*cking argument that the media is supposedly owned by *the* "liberals". Look up who owns what media outlets and argue that with a straight face.
Greenspan has better ideas about what to do about it than Bush and his bunch of f*ckheads. But i could save that for some other thread.
To be fair, there is the *appearance* that repubs work much better on a mutual intent than dems do, unless you're talking about how who blocks legislation better, then i'd have to give that gift to the dems. Some of that could be attributed to the concurrent *appearance* that very, very few repubs balance any of their very influential decisions with due moral and/or ethical scrutiny, but again, their responses don't seem to vary from each other when they get caught. Blame it on the dems. Four years + and running.

Actually there are probably several dems that have announced better plans than that, it is irrational to assume that since you haven't heard any you can also assume that they haven't. It's about as logical as assuming that since most of the U.S. radio saturation these days has right-wing blowhards on it, the dems supposedly are too ashamed and wrong in their ways to have the public ear. Except that stupid f*cking argument that the media is supposedly owned by *the* "liberals". Look up who owns what media outlets and argue that with a straight face.
Greenspan has better ideas about what to do about it than Bush and his bunch of f*ckheads. But i could save that for some other thread.

I'm just yankin' yer chain, homie. I just wanted to use a totally inappropriate analogy in that argument. I'm fed up with that "player-hater" Zell Miller "against, against, against" line of argument. I wanted to see whether any neocon creationists would short circuit if forced to choose between arguing for Dems but against creationism, or against Dems but for evolution.

Don't be shamed. You did a better job with everything else.
Thank you.
Usually responses to me go more like,
"Don't be ashamed, you're too stupid to handle the subject material. You must have fallen down a lot when you were a kid."
Followed by,
"You'd probably do a better job with something else."
;)

I'm just yankin' yer chain, homie. I just wanted to use a totally inappropriate analogy in that argument. I'm fed up with that "player-hater" Zell Miller "against, against, against" line of argument. I wanted to see whether any neocon creationists would short circuit if forced to choose between arguing for Dems but against creationism, or against Dems but for evolution.
Yay! I knew you rocked! I think i've even posted that before. If not,
you ROCK.
I apologize for my hair-stem attenuation. I am indeed shamed again.
>balance shifting, mildly evening out<
*puts away his voodoo doll and darning needles*
;)

**snip**

You're talking to yourself again. Wrong thread.

Okay, I think that it is quite clear that the majority of people who have previously posted have ever seriously analysed this question. I don't mean to imply that I am any better, however, I assure you, I will not quote from christianthinktank.org or tell people who refute me to suck my ass. I would first like to mention that to say that 'dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible' is not the 'ultimate' anything. Secondly, I think it is ridiculous to say that if a dinosaur and a bird both have feathers, that it is a clear link, and it certainly isn't an argument against creationism. It does, however, bring up the question of why, if Natural Selection eliminates all mutations that are unfavourable, why feathers should have ever evolved from the protection of scales, considering that I cannot conceive of any possbile use for anything between the protection of scales and the lightness of feathers. But, that is hardly even an argument, just as it is no argument at all to say that if there is evolution, there is no creation. And it just shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject to say that the 'six days' of the bible must be completely literal (many primary Christian thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas I think, have said that it could represent the progression of importance, etc...), or to say that there is inrefutable scientific proof on the subject either way, or to say that Evolution by Natural Selection has not disregarded some facts. For instance, perhaps that through thousands of years of breeding dogs, with an intelligent human behind it, they have never produced any new species, just other dogs. Or, in that same way have fruit flies never given birth to anything but a fruitfly, despite being constantly zapped by x-rays. I, personally, do not think that Evolution accounts for the 'origin' of species, though I readily admit it could account for the variation 'within' species.
Two things:
Wasn't it Thomas Aquinas who also publicly appreciated the idea and pursuit of the reconciliation of faith in god AND scientifc pursuit?
-and-
fruit flies have had many, MANY abominations brought upon and through them in a lab. I think there may be more to that research than just thinking that they've only birthed other fruit flies *shudder*
Not refutation BTW, so i'll pass on the felching ;)

You're talking to yourself again. Wrong thread.
(Doublespeak)
?
;)
BTW, when this forum lags, which thread is that so i can amuse myself with sophomoric anecdote?

(Doublespeak)
?
;)
BTW, when this forum lags, which thread is that so i can amuse myself with sophomoric anecdote?

wOOt for random bullcrap!

Ya know, it's possible to believe in evolution AND creationism. They don't necessarily contradict each other...Just a thought...
Only by static earth "theory" do they contradict. I agree with you, and have posted as such on a few other threads.

wOOt for random bullcrap!
Cool!
...so, ya wanna come back to my place?
;)

I think God, on the off chance he exists, started evolution and left. I believe it's called Deism or some such, but I don't know. It makes sense. Explains evolution and explains how evolution could have started.
Zim-zum, or the art of contraction, methinks. Not much to hear about it that i've found, other than there is no way for the universe to function as long as the totality of god continues to permeate it, so god contracted itself in order to observe and allow the function of a working and possible universe to come to fruition.
I think. I may be spouting random bullcrap, i've been accused of such before.
;)

A few points of thought for you all:

1) Keep in mind that those in the Bible considered their 'world' to be centered around the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the Mid-east.

2) Brachiosaurus was first found in the Grand River Valley, in western Colorado, USA, in 1900. This incomplete skeleton was described by paleontologist Elmer S. Riggs, who named Brachiosaurus in 1903. In 1909, Werner Janensch found many Brachiosaurus fossils in Tanzania, Africa. Many Brachiosaurus fossils have been found, in North America and Africa. (Source link (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Brachiosaurus.shtml))

The first Diplodocus fossil was found by Earl Douglass and Samuel W. Williston in 1877 and was named by paleontologist Othniel C. Marsh in 1878. Many Diplodocus fossils have been found in the Rocky Mountains of the western USA (in Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming). Diplodocus means "Double-beamed." source link (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Diplodocus.shtml)

This goes to show that there had to be limited exposure to these "behemoths".

3) However, one must realize the location of the planetary plates in the time of the dinosaurs (Pangea). I know this itself would contradict #2, but there were still some changes in the landmasses, enough to isolate different sections.

4) In regards to intelligence, velociraptors were also quite intelligent. Perhaps we descended from them! (Damn that evolution!) O_O

5) In the meantime, while you all are fighting over whether creationism or science is right, I'll just be enjoying my life, day by day, living as the best kind of person I can be. When I die, I'll die knowing that I lived my life meaninfully and not wasting my hairs over a few immature arguments.
Cool! Thank you!
*bows*

Ok, Abiogenesis isn't the same as evolution. Plus you can indirectly test evolution. Make predictions about you would expect biology to be like if evolution was true, look around and see if the predictions are matched by reality. Evolution passes this test with flying colors. Creationism, on the other hand, can't be tested. Anything's possible if there is a supernatural agent to break natural laws. It's inherently unscientific.

Plus there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record. Creationists just refuse to see it.
You ROCK, btw.
Dunno if i posted that before. Felt i should reconcile.

Christianity isn't just rock and roll anymore

FOX news says its growing because it has embraceed rap as well.

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.That disproves christianity? The life death and alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the essance of christianity, not the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story.

You ROCK, btw.
Dunno if i posted that before. Felt i should reconcile.
Aw shucks. I'm just doing what satan pays me for.

Zim-zum, or the art of contraction, methinks. Not much to hear about it that i've found, other than there is no way for the universe to function as long as the totality of god continues to permeate it, so god contracted itself in order to observe and allow the function of a working and possible universe to come to fruition.
I think. I may be spouting random bullcrap, i've been accused of such before.
;)

At the very least compelling and plausible random bull-crap.
Deism is the belief in a creator(s) who started the universe and then left.

The problem isn't that some people belive in a religious creation story, the problem is that they want their religious creation stroy taught as science when it clearly is not.
No no no. The problem you're alluding to is that of compulsory tax-funded government schools.

No no no. The problem you're alluding to is that of compulsory tax-funded government schools.
Nobody's compelling anyone to attend a public school. They can opt for private education or home schooling. Public schools serve the common good in that they provide some level of skill in reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science and civics for all children. Without them we'd be a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.

How about you kindly suck my ass?
<PLONK!>

Without them we'd be a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.
We aren't already?

Welcome to the NS Jerry Springer show!

*throws a blunt object in a random direction*

I don't get what the point of arguing with you science people is. It doesn't matter how many times I cite the good book or christianthinktank.org, you're always like 'But radiocarbon this' or 'But facts that.' Giving me a headache.

My Mind is made up! Don't try to confuse me with facts!

We aren't already?
I know plenty of people who aren't.

That's perfect, and is a reason the way I feel the way I do. Lacking the ability to conclusively prove one way or another, I feel we aught to at least give passing reference to other beliefs - at least the ones that are represented by a large enough set of people.

(I think we can safely leave the UFOs out of it)
At the risk of sounding rather nutty, I wouldn't be so sure. The human animal has already succeeded in creating a virus in the lab and sending spacecraft beyond the orbit of Pluto. The possiblity that all (or perhaps some) life on Earth was brought here from elsewhere seems about as likely as anything else. Although, that still wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with currently reported UFOs.

The funny thing is that as you increase the probability of life beginning spontaneously on Earth, you increase the probability that it began on other worlds first.

This whole thread makes me laugh. Won't even go anywhere with any of it. Have fun guys.

What a collection of bad arguments >_< :-D

Honestly though, why would you want to prove either side wrong anyway? Let everyone believe what they want. If there is a god, we who don't believe in any god are pretty much screwed and if there isn't, then w00t, no one goes to heaven and we can all laugh at christians, jews, Buddhists and muslims (and all other religious minorities, yes) once we're dead. Assuming we can laugh once we're dead.

But trying to prove anyone wrong really doesn't solve any problems and it doesn't make YOUR belief any more believable. Me? I prefer pondering whether what I believe is right (as in, does it make me a good person?) rather than trying to prove anyone wrong.

And I'm willing to bet at least one other person said all that before me. But I will not read four pages now, I've got better things to do :-D

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.
this thread would be much more compelling if it werent based on a fundamental flaw

most christian sects do not believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

many christians sects do not believe that every bit of the bible is meant to be taken literally

only a teeny tiny number of chrisitan sects ( i can only think of the most strict of puritans) consider that the bible represents ALL of reality.

christianity is based on the belief that jesus christ is the savior and the only begotten son of god NOT on the inerrancy of the bible.

How on earth did you guys get so very off topic?? That's off topic too, I know. You don't have to tell me. But still, when you have an argument on a forum, you should at least stay on topic.
And by the way, just because dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible, that doesn't mean that Christianity is a crock. The Bible doesn't mention bears, and I bet someone got attacked by a bear in the last week. :D

How on earth did you guys get so very off topic?? That's off topic too, I know. You don't have to tell me. But still, when you have an argument on a forum, you should at least stay on topic.
And by the way, just because dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible, that doesn't mean that Christianity is a crock. The Bible doesn't mention bears, and I bet someone got attacked by a bear in the last week. :D
Staying on topic is for pussies.

ok...modern day proof that dinosaurs exist alongside Christians (and non-Christians)

Alligators, Crocodiles... ;)

I'm really surprised no one mentioned this earlier...

The Bible doesn't mention bears, and I bet someone got attacked by a bear in the last week. :D

Actually, it does.. (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202:24)

How on earth did you guys get so very off topic?? That's off topic too, I know. You don't have to tell me. But still, when you have an argument on a forum, you should at least stay on topic.
And by the way, just because dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible, that doesn't mean that Christianity is a crock. The Bible doesn't mention bears, and I bet someone got attacked by a bear in the last week. :D

Yo! Further proof that God is a crock!

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~2750803,00.html

{...snip...]
And I'm willing to bet at least one other person said all that before me. But I will not read four pages now, I've got better things to do :-D

Actually...there's eight pages :P

Actually, it does.. (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202:24)

Yeah, like I said: Further proof of the truth of creationism.

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0...2750803,00.html

Hey, has anyone reported this dude to the mods? He needs reprimanded, i'm sure it is against forum rules to call all religeous people "zealots" and telling them to "go back to their huts."
I don't know about that, but I would like to remind everyone that the forums have an ignore feature. Just copy the name, click "profile"->"buddy/ignore lists", paste the name in to a box on the right and update. It's not always necessary to appeal to authority when you want something done.

Yeah, "suck my ass" is alright, but "go back to your hut" really burns my toast.

I don't know about that, but I would like to remind everyone that the forums have an ignore feature. Just copy the name, click "profile"->"buddy/ignore lists", paste the name in to a box on the right and update. It's not always necessary to appeal to authority when you want something done.
Unless you live in the EU, you should know that you can't fix problems by ignoring them.

I don;t like ignoring people....maybe they will have a flash of intelligence that is slightly enlightening. But this happens rarely.

Nobody's compelling anyone to attend a public school. They can opt for private education or home schooling. Public schools serve the common good in that they provide some level of skill in reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science and civics for all children. Without them we'd be a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.
1. If children are not in tax-payer funded schools, they are requried to attend otherwise government approved schools, or if they are home-schooled the state government still retains the authority to determine was is taught to the children. For many, private schooling and and home schooling are cost prohibitive, or the oppourtunity cost is high enough that "free school" is much more attractive despite it's significantly lower quality. This would not necessarily be the case if the government school system did not exist.

2. Your belief in public good is a fallacy. Anything that you might label a public good benefits some more than others, while outright harming still others. The most obvious example of someone harmed by government schooling would be a competing school. Another would be those who graduate without knowing how to read.

3. Thanks to or expensive free government schools we pretty much are a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.

1. If children are not in tax-payer funded schools, they are requried to attend otherwise government approved schools, or if they are home-schooled the state government still retains the authority to determine was is taught to the children. For many, private schooling and and home schooling are cost prohibitive, or the oppourtunity cost is high enough that "free school" is much more attractive despite it's significantly lower quality. This would not necessarily be the case if the government school system did not exist.

2. Your belief in public good is a fallacy. Anything that you might label a public good benefits some more than others, while outright harming still others. The most obvious example of someone harmed by government schooling would be a competing school. Another would be those who graduate without knowing how to read.

3. Thanks to or expensive free government schools we pretty much are a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.
1 True, you don't want kids growing up thinking that the creation myth of a bronze age tribe is a scientific fact, so there has to be an approved curriculum.

2 Certainly some benefit more than others, but the only people harmed by an educated populace are those who seek to exploit the ignorant for profit or power.

3 Not true. The average American is much more well informed than people in third world nations that lack public education.

Meh ...

Behemoth in Job 40:15-24

It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees, In a cover of reeds and marsh.”

Sounds an awful lot like a brachiosaurus to me.

Leviathon is described in the Hebrew as "tanniyn" (lizard) and also bears a striking resemblance to the kronosaurus as described in Job 41, Psalm 104:25-26, and Isaiah 27:1.

Not really much different from all the legends of Dragons and whatnot. Just depends on what you're really looking for.

The Elder Malaclypse, you "counter" this statement yet.

Unless you live in the EU, you should know that you can't fix problems by ignoring them.

I don;t like ignoring people....maybe they will have a flash of intelligence that is slightly enlightening. But this happens rarely.
I shouldn't spend as much time reading these forums as I already do. There are so many threads where so many people feel compelled to add there $.02 (or is it just $.01) Ignoring idiots saves time. If they have something intelligent to say some else will probably quote it. Also I've spent a lot of time on usenet, where many newsgroups are unmoderated. The only way to get rid of people there is to ignore them, so it's what I'm used to.

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

Please read Job 40 verse 15 through the end of Job 41. I'd say those creatures sound rather like dinasaurs to me.

If you really were interested in debating creationism vs. evolutionism, you would read a bunch of information concerning both sides first. I bet you'll even find the answer the creationists have to your dinosaur question.



I found it, it goes something along the lines of "god put the dinosaur bones there to test our faith, duh" rather convienient don't you think, smells like bullshit to me

1 True, you don't want kids growing up thinking that the creation myth of a bronze age tribe is a scientific fact, so there has to be an approved curriculum.
You should be more specific. When you say "you", do you mean me? And when you say "kids", whose kids are you talking about? I have no legitimate authority to decide what should be taught to other people's kids.


2 Certainly some benefit more than others, but the only people harmed by an educated populace are those who seek to exploit the ignorant for profit or power.That is how you characterize those who run private schools?

3 Not true. The average American is much more well informed than people in third world nations that lack public education.You're comparing apples and potatoes. Addressing this argument further would take us too far off topic.

In case anyone is wondering how we got here, my basic point is that the issue of what is taught to children should be determined by their parents (creationism vs evolution), and that they wouldn't have to argue with each other over it if it weren't for socialized education.

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

You mean like the Leviathin in Job?

Why is creationism an invalid theory?

Creationists don't have any solid evidence beyond referencing the bible and trying to debunk evolution. However the bible itself was written by a bunch of Jews in Babylon and a host of people in the New testement writing about an event that took place decades beforehand. That combined with it having been translated so many times, and that some parts of the Bible were apparently less true than others and therefor removed, make it a rather unconvincing secondary source.

The valitity of a theory relies on trying to prove that your right through primary sources (such as experiments). That's it. Even if one theoy was proved wrong (which is impossible), that makes the other no more true than it was before.

I found it, it goes something along the lines of "god put the dinosaur bones there to test our faith, duh" rather convienient don't you think, smells like bullshit to me

Your absolutely right, that does smell like bullshit, that's why it probably isn't used. Instead you say that during the flood many of the land and aquatic creatures were probably killed and buried (not neccesarily that order) underneath the mud that was most likely churning at the bottom.

Yeah, "suck my ass" is alright, but "go back to your hut" really burns my toast.

Oh I don't know. I like my hut. It's cheap to heat. ;)

Yes but in the case of the origin of life there is a problem. You cannot test it (untill someone goes back with a time travel device). And like it or not, abiogenesis has never happened under observable circumstances and the evolutionary fossil record has more holes than swiss cheese. Face it, creationism and evolutionism both have strengths and weaknesses.

I would find it easier to believe that this was about inclusion and pluralism if the creationists were arguing for the inclusion of "all" creation belief theories - not just the one in the Bible.

Why is creationism an invalid theory?

Creationists don't have any solid evidence beyond referencing the bible and trying to debunk evolution. However the bible itself was written by a bunch of Jews in Babylon and a host of people in the New testement writing about an event that took place decades beforehand. That combined with it having been translated so many times, and that some parts of the Bible were apparently less true than others and therefor removed, make it a rather unconvincing secondary source.

The valitity of a theory relies on trying to prove that your right through primary sources (such as experiments). That's it. Even if one theoy was proved wrong (which is impossible), that makes the other no more true than it was before.

Might I say this, that evolution has flaws.

About the Bible, it has proof by that there are actually places and events that have been proven true. They have found cities where the Bible says it is, there is the fact that in Job it says that the Earth is suspended in nothing but held up by nothing, and the list goes on. About it's translation, the translations actually tend to be rather acurrate depending on the translation. These ppl were no idiots during the 15 and 1600's. The oldest translation that has been used the most is the KJV which uses all the letters that are the New Testament and verifies then to each other thus eliminating most errors.

Thank you for saying decades and not centuries. The New Testament probably wasn't written more than 30 yrs after his death but probably started maybe 3-5 yrs (not a clue when but it's mostly likely close to his death).

Nothing has been removed from the Bible. Anything missing either doesn't exist anymore because of the various times Jeruselum was burned or it never existed in the first place.

Experiments provide information, it's sorting the information or making out what it means is the problem. The "Neanderthal" skeletons are said to be a much more primative version of human beings. Did you know that those skeletons actually have many characteristics of arthritis and malnutrition? What if, they're the bodies of a bunch of elderlies or poor ppl that were in the wrong place at the wrong time and somehow died and were buried? Just a thought how making out the reason can be difficult.

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

"one in the eye for creationists" = "ultimate proof that Christianity is a crock"

Kid, if that's your version of critical thinking, you may be very much like the Creationists after all.

At the risk of sounding rather nutty, I wouldn't be so sure. The human animal has already succeeded in creating a virus in the lab and sending spacecraft beyond the orbit of Pluto. The possiblity that all (or perhaps some) life on Earth was brought here from elsewhere seems about as likely as anything else. Although, that still wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with currently reported UFOs.

The funny thing is that as you increase the probability of life beginning spontaneously on Earth, you increase the probability that it began on other worlds first.

Just one thing though, we created a virus. A non-living thing. Also, how much time probably went into making that first virus? Much. Now then, question, what is the probability that that virus would be created simply through random molecules combining?Notl ikely if you as me. Also, which came first, the virus or the bacteria?

As you said, you'd need a time travel capacity to prove it, and under the same principle, you can't actually determine the beginning or end of time. And lacking those definitions you simply can't logically argue the veracity of yours (or anyone else's) claims on probability in that matter.


Im not sure I fully understand what your saying here so forgive me if I misinterpret you, but what I think your saying is because no one knows HOW abiogenesis happened then you cant put a probablity on it. Is that it? Because the analogy basicly covered the notion that all the parts were there and that a completely random chance occured and thus something ordered came out of it.

Im not sure I fully understand what your saying here so forgive me if I misinterpret you, but what I think your saying is because no one knows HOW abiogenesis happened then you cant put a probablity on it. Is that it? Because the analogy basicly covered the notion that all the parts were there and that a completely random chance occured and thus something ordered came out of it.

Another intersting point for everyone out there, how can chaos be ordered or have a set pattern?

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

Hahahahaha, if you actually read the bible you would have seen the mention of Bahamut and Leviathan (yes just like the ff summons). They're described as giant creatures that cannot be tamed by man. There, im sure it was mentioned in the thread earlier but I just read the first page and decided to strike down your futile argument.

Hahahahaha, if you actually read the bible you would have seen the mention of Bahamut and Leviathan (yes just like the ff summons). They're described as giant creatures that cannot be tamed by man. There, im sure it was mentioned in the thread earlier but I just read the first page and decided to strike down your futile argument.

Sorry if I seem what off topic but I'm pretty sure it's spelled Behemoth.

Sorry if I seem what off topic but I'm pretty sure it's spelled Behemoth.

Bahamut in Hebrew.

Bahamut in Hebrew.

Wow. Never knew that, thx.

"one in the eye for creationists" = "ultimate proof that Christianity is a crock"

Kid, if that's your version of critical thinking, you may be very much like the Creationists after all.

How so?

Another intersting point for everyone out there, how can chaos be ordered or have a set pattern?

Pure chaos does not exist, IMO. Everything has an underlying structure that may or may not be apparent. Without structure (order) nothing would exist. That is not to say that certain phenomena cannot look very chaotic, because they certainly can. However, extreme fluidity or apparent randomness does not prove that a phenomena is entirely without order (structure). All we can assume from the fact that a phenomena appears to be random is that it appears to be random.

Hahahahaha, if you actually read the bible you would have seen the mention of Bahamut and Leviathan (yes just like the ff summons). They're described as giant creatures that cannot be tamed by man. There, im sure it was mentioned in the thread earlier but I just read the first page and decided to strike down your futile argument.
GOOD! Someone beat me to it. Excellent work. yes, these creatures are mentioned, in Job, which is recognized as the oldest book of the Bible. And yes, they were probably mostly killed out during the flood, although that doesn't mean that there weren't any on the ark. Likely they weren't able to adapt to the new environment they found after de-embarking and now the only remnants ar the ones you sometimes hear about in the deepest parts of the jungle, which may or may not be true.

Pure chaos does not exist, IMO. Everything has an underlying structure that may or may not be apparent. Without structure (order) nothing would exist. That is not to say that certain phenomena cannot look very chaotic, because they certainly can. However, extreme fluidity or apparent randomness does not prove that a phenomena is entirely without order (structure). All we can assume from the fact that a phenomena appears to be random is that it appears to be random.

Right. But why then do scientists or at least other supporters of evolution say that things came about through randomness or that the world is chaotic, or through chance since none of those statements then would be true.

Just a quick question, why wouldn't Deuteronmy or Exodus or Joshua or how about Genesis be considered the oldest book of the Bible?

How so?

Most creationists lack the ability to think critically about their own beliefs. That's not to say that all creationists lack this ability, because I've met some who do. Actually, most people, regardless of their belief system, lack the ability to think critically about their own beliefs, so it's certainly not a phenomena solely confined to creationists. I mentioned creationists more to make a point to this particular thread author than to make a general comment about creationists.

Another intersting point for everyone out there, how can chaos be ordered or have a set pattern?

A little off-topic, I admit, but Chaos theory has some answers for that- chaosdoesn't actually have a set, linear pattern, but there are regularities in the overall shape of the pattern. Chaos theory is about quite a bit more than the "butterfly effect" popularized in Jurassic Park, and it tries to find these hidden regularities in non-linear systems.

Right. But why then do scientists or at least other supporters of evolution say that things came about through randomness or that the world is chaotic, or through chance since none of those statements then would be true.

Because they make very different axiomatic assumptions than I do.

Because they make very different axiomatic assumptions than I do.

Lol :)

A little off-topic, I admit, but Chaos theory has some answers for that- chaosdoesn't actually have a set, linear pattern, but there are regularities in the overall shape of the pattern. Chaos theory is about quite a bit more than the "butterfly effect" popularized in Jurassic Park, and it tries to find these hidden regularities in non-linear systems.

But still, if it's chaos then how can it have a pattern or a path or even be predicted?

But still, if it's chaos then how can it have a pattern or a path or even be predicted?

Good question. Chaos theory actually implies the absence of total chaos, and what it replaces that with is complex non-linear systems presently beyond our ability to grasp (I believe I'm correct in this, but it's a hobby of mine, not something I'm involved with, so if I'm wrong let me know).
For instance, psychohistory, as used by Asimov is a good example of a complex system beyond our comprehension.

Nobody's compelling anyone to attend a public school. They can opt for private education or home schooling. Public schools serve the common good in that they provide some level of skill in reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science and civics for all children. Without them we'd be a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.

That sounds suspiciously like...

Good question. Chaos theory actually implies the absence of total chaos, and what it replaces that with is complex non-linear systems presently beyond our ability to grasp (I believe I'm correct in this, but it's a hobby of mine, not something I'm involved with, so if I'm wrong let me know).
For instance, psychohistory, as used by Asimov is a good example of a complex system beyond our comprehension.

So, it shouldn't actually be called the Chaos Theory, it should be called something like "We-Don't-Know-Why-It-Is" (a joke). Thx, never knew that. So basically, God's existence could be classified under the Chaos Theory, after all, he is something beyond our ability to grasp.

Nobody's compelling anyone to attend a public school. They can opt for private education or home schooling. Public schools serve the common good in that they provide some level of skill in reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science and civics for all children. Without them we'd be a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.

Even with them... :D

Originally Posted by Drunk commies
Nobody's compelling anyone to attend a public school. They can opt for private education or home schooling. Public schools serve the common good in that they provide some level of skill in reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science and civics for all children. Without them we'd be a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.

Unfortunately, in Canada (I'm not sure if it's the same in America) but we don't get to choose where our taxes go or to what school, etc so to go private would mean having to pay for two schools, one of which youare getting no benefit from.

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

Yes, the words dragon and behemoth were used back then.

Dinosaurs are actually talked about in the Bible more than any other animal, look for behemoth in the book of Job.

Perhaps Noah couldn't fit the big ones onto the ark and just decided to leave all the little ones behind too as to not discriminate on the basis of size. Since Noah was a good guy and probably felt guilty he may have removed all reference to dinosaurs from the part of the bible that had been written up to that point (just part of the book of Genesis if i recall my sunday school facts correctly). This would've been very easy if you realize he was also in possesion of the ONLY copy of the bible that wasn't waterlogged in all of the world.
My theory is very simple and accomodates both creationists and evolutionists.

Originally Posted by Drunk commies
Nobody's compelling anyone to attend a public school. They can opt for private education or home schooling. Public schools serve the common good in that they provide some level of skill in reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science and civics for all children. Without them we'd be a nation of drooling mouth breathers fighting for the chance to be on the Jerry Springer show.

Unfortunately, in Canada (I'm not sure if it's the same in America) but we don't get to choose where our taxes go or to what school, etc so to go private would mean having to pay for two schools, one of which youare getting no benefit from.

It's the same here, AFAIK.

Perhaps Noah couldn't fit the big ones onto the ark and just decided to leave all the little ones behind too as to not discriminate on the basis of size. Since Noah was a good guy and probably felt guilty he may have removed all reference to dinosaurs from the part of the bible that had been written up to that point (just part of the book of Genesis if i recall my sunday school facts correctly). This would've been very easy if you realize he was also in possesion of the ONLY copy of the bible that wasn't waterlogged in all of the world.
My theory is very simple and accomodates both creationists and evolutionists.

Firstly, Moses wrote the book of Genesis (or at least he's credited with it).

Secondly, God brought the animals to Noah, so God would have been making the choice.

Thirdly, unfortunately, religions tend not to blend well. Ppl do blend and work together but unfortunately, religions aren't the same.

AFAIK.

I'm sorry but I don't understand that word. Could you please explain?

So, it shouldn't actually be called the Chaos Theory, it should be called something like "We-Don't-Know-Why-It-Is" (a joke). Thx, never knew that. So basically, God's existence could be classified under the Chaos Theory, after all, he is something beyond our ability to grasp.

Only if you could graph his actions and then apply a fractal shape to the graph ;)

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.
The Bible doesn't mention a lot of things. It doesn't mention poison ivy. Does that discredit it?

Of course some think that the Behemoth and the Leviathan may be dinosaurs.

Only if you could graph his actions and then apply a fractal shape to the graph ;)

But how do you graph psycohistory and then how would you apply a fractional shape to it? Sorry if I'm being difficult.

I'm sorry but I don't understand that word. Could you please explain?

It's an abbreviation.

As Far As I Know

For anyone that wants to read more about the leviathan/behemoth, here is a link. Link - Its long but an interesting read. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=154)

But how do you graph psycology and then how would you apply a fractional shape to it?

Well- this is sketchy and off the top of my head, but-

if you could (theoretically) know every action that god (assuming his existence) took, and then decide what motivated those decisions, who benefited, etc., the graph them on simple scales (e.g. helps noone-helps everyone, locational graphs, etc.) you could possibly find a general shape of graph. Because a fractal shape can be applied at any level, you would then be able to predict with a certain degree of accuracy, where, and what sort of events would happen.
P.S. And I was just kidding with that last post, but I figured what the hell, I might as well take a shot at answering that.

Whoops, sorry, I answered the wrong question.
Take the general benchmarks of society (population, economic prosperity, really any kind of demographic data) and graph that. Obviously, you wouldn't predict specifics, such as people's names and what not, but conceivably you could get a general framework of the direction society is moving in.

Well- this is sketchy and off the top of my head, but-

if you could (theoretically) know every action that god (assuming his existence) took, and then decide what motivated those decisions, who benefited, etc., the graph them on simple scales (e.g. helps noone-helps everyone, locational graphs, etc.) you could possibly find a general shape of graph. Because a fractal shape can be applied at any level, you would then be able to predict with a certain degree of accuracy, where, and what sort of events would happen.
P.S. And I was just kidding with that last post, but I figured what the hell, I might as well take a shot at answering that.

Thx anyways. It's always good to have a few laughs. Sounds pretty interesting though, goes to show, "never judge a book by it's cover".

Firstly, Moses wrote the book of Genesis (or at least he's credited with it).

Secondly, God brought the animals to Noah, so God would have been making the choice.

Thirdly, unfortunately, religions tend not to blend well. Ppl do blend and work together but unfortunately, religions aren't the same.

First firstly: I'm saying that Noah had in his ability to alter any story preceding him and the ones during his time being that only he and his family survived the flood to pass the stories on. In his guilt he may have "neglected" to mention all those poor dinosaurs. His family wouldn't have spilled the beans because they would obey Noah (he could talk to God afterall)

Second secondly: Yes, God did bring the animals to Noah, but unfortunatley Noah couldn't fit them on his ark and left them to drown at the loading docks.

Third thirdly: Unfortunatley, you're correct. Perhaps I'll make a unifying religion that accomodates our scientific knowledge up to this point but keeps the blind,err, religious people happy so they still beef up my collection plate. I'll be the prophet and you all can do my bidding.

Everytime I see one of these stupid religion threads, I want to beat up Al Gore for inventing the internet.

:)

First firstly: I'm saying that Noah had in his ability to alter any story preceding him and the ones during his time being that only he and his family survived the flood to pass the stories on. In his guilt he may have "neglected" to mention all those poor dinosaurs. His family wouldn't have spilled the beans because they would obey Noah (he could talk to God afterall)

Second secondly: Yes, God did bring the animals to Noah, but unfortunatley Noah couldn't fit them on his ark and left them to drown at the loading docks.

Third thirdly: Unfortunatley, you're correct. Perhaps I'll make a unifying religion that accomodates our scientific knowledge up to this point but keeps the blind,err, religious people happy so they still beef up my collection plate. I'll be the prophet and you all can do my bidding.

First firstly firstly, I'm pretty sure God told Moses what to write, since much of what Noah would have told probably wouldn't last very long. Also, we all talk to God through pray.

Second secondly secondly, why would Noah let God's creation just die? After all, God was saving Noah's life and since God probably wouldn't be to happy about that then he would ahve made room if there wasn't any left (which seems unlikely since God might have only sent him young animals)

Third thirdly thirdly, I'd probably call you the Anit-Christ but since the Christians haven't disappeared yet then chances are you aren't, or at least, yet.

Everytime I see one of these stupid religion threads, I want to beat up Al Gore for inventing the internet.

:)

Lol. Who's Al Gore? Never heard of him.

i'm a may 2003 nation and this is my 32nd post. yes. How did a thread titled "Ultimate proof that Christianity is a crock" that cites the fact that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible illicit 12 pages of reponses?

i'm a may 2003 nation and this is my 32nd post. yes. How did a thread titled "Ultimate proof that Christianity is a crock" that cites the fact that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible illicit 12 pages of reponses?

Because we're very lousy at staying on topic.

A word comes to mind.

And that word is....

CHUNDERSPEW

Because we're very lousy at staying on topic.

i don't know what you're talking about

By the way, who wants to see Robots when it comes out?

Lets see if that gets tied into god somehow.

Dinasours are mentioned in some one in the bible but many animals are. Also how many dinsaour bones have been found in the middle east? Thats where most of the bible takes place.

Biggest point of all literally how would they fit in the ark :headbang:

i don't know what you're talking about

By the way, who wants to see Robots when it comes out?

Lets see if that gets tied into god somehow.

Well Robin Willams is the anit-christ, and hes doing the voice of that obnoxious red one. Therefore, boycot the movie on the basis its satanic.

i don't know what you're talking about

By the way, who wants to see Robots when it comes out?

Lets see if that gets tied into god somehow.

Wait, I'm sure that I can do it.
Man's creation of robots is the ultimate proof that christianity is true. Man was created in God's image, god created us, so we create robots in our image. Obviously creation is a recurring pattern, and proves the existence of a supreme creator.

Well, that was easier than I thought. I find it helps if I suspend both my capabilities of reasoning and intelligent thought, and replace them with rhetoric and absolute belief in whatever point of view I'm emotionally commited to.

Dinasours are mentioned in some one in the bible but many animals are. Also how many dinsaour bones have been found in the middle east? Thats where most of the bible takes place.

Biggest point of all literally how would they fit in the ark :headbang:

Swiss, you must think OUTSIDE the box. ;)

Seriously.
What's to prevent Noah from either carrying the EGGS onboard? Or the SMALL versions - the "kid-sized" dinos? If it takes hundreds of years for a tiny lizard to grow into the giant-sized dinosaur, there was PLENTY of space to store the small versions for a mere 40 days, no?

First firstly firstly, I'm pretty sure God told Moses what to write, since much of what Noah would have told probably wouldn't last very long. Also, we all talk to God through pray.

Second secondly secondly, why would Noah let God's creation just die? After all, God was saving Noah's life and since God probably wouldn't be to happy about that then he would ahve made room if there wasn't any left (which seems unlikely since God might have only sent him young animals)

Third thirdly thirdly, I'd probably call you the Anit-Christ but since the Christians haven't disappeared yet then chances are you aren't, or at least, yet.

Firstly first firstly firstly (my that looks stupid when you type it alot): Noah did God a pretty big favor by building that whole ark thing. it was a lot of work. i'm betting God agreed to keep it hush hush just the keep the old guy happy, he did live for hundreds of years. or maybe... god intended for the dinosaurs to die (he designed the ark to not be have enough cubits intentionally) told noah to make it a secret so several milennia later when their bones are discovered he could watch with amusement the rediculous discussions that ensue.

Secondly second secondly secondly: (see Firstly first firstly firstly)

Thirdly third thirdly thirdly: I'm the messiah. give me money.

Wait, I'm sure that I can do it.
Man's creation of robots is the ultimate proof that christianity is true. Man was created in God's image, god created us, so we create robots in our image. Obviously creation is a recurring pattern, and proves the existence of a supreme creator.

Well, that was easier than I thought. I find it helps if I suspend both my capabilities of reasoning and intelligent thought, and replace them with rhetoric and absolute belief in whatever point of view I'm emotionally commited to.


I like your style, grasshopper.

I like your style, grasshopper.

Thank you. I aim to please.

Swiss, you must think OUTSIDE the box. ;)

Seriously.
What's to prevent Noah from either carrying the EGGS onboard? Or the SMALL versions - the "kid-sized" dinos? If it takes hundreds of years for a tiny lizard to grow into the giant-sized dinosaur, there was PLENTY of space to store the small versions for a mere 40 days, no?


first off, i like my theory too much to let the prospect of eggs and kid-sized dinos to destroy it soo here i go.

Eggs: who would keep them warm. that sounds like a pain in the ass. (pun-o-meter just red-lined)

Kid-Sized: We'd still be living with a bunch of ministegos and such nonsense. Certainly something so cute would recieve the attention and care of all of humanity.

How about you kindly suck my ass?


:confused: exactly how would one "suck ass?" I mean...would you use a straw? The sheer physics of it is mind bogling... so much ass, so little mouth.

:confused: exactly how would one "suck ass?" I mean...would you use a straw? The sheer physics of it is mind bogling... so much ass, so little mouth.

Despite his impressive grasp of logical development, I doubt he has an answer for you.

I'm tempted to start another thread as a headquarters for a wide scale social experiment. We could start a credible internet rumor about how someone found proof of the dinosaur cover up headed by Noah and God himself. From here we would monitor how quickly it spreads throughout the media and the nation and note any changes in the original story, a giant game of telephone.

These girl scout cookies really mess with your head.

Christianity is fully true and real for those that believe (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404041) that it is true and real. Let people believe what they want. Their reality is just as valid for them as yours is for you.

Thanks be to God.

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.

:headbang: :rolleyes: *sighs* this is what happens when creationists make up the Christian majority on NS General. We get tits like this thinking they understand the debate.

Evolution has flaws.

That’s fine, but that still, in no way, supports creationism. If one theory is wrong, then the other is not automatically right (and I use “theory” loosely). The difference between evolution and creationism is that one at least TRIES to use experiment, archeological evidence, and observation to support it. Creationism simply points to the Bible and points out that it got some things right. So what? If my history text-book told me that the world was created by a bored school-child of a higher dimension and that one day he will create a protagonist to save our lousy skins, it would get no respect of mine even if it was right on about George Washington and the crossing of the Delaware. If creationism ever wants to be taken seriously as theory, it needs some DIRECT evidence of itself rather than the Bible

I didn’t phrase that correctly when I was referencing parts removed. More accurately, it was the works of some people that were simply not put into the Bible for some reason. Mostly because it didn’t portray the messages that the Christian founders wanted portrayed (and make no mistake- Jesus was not the founder of Christianity). I find it odd that a bunch of mere men had to decide which of another group of men’s work was divine.

As for the robots being proof of creationism… That does nothing but raise the question: Who created God? After all, something can’t just come from nothing without some sort of outside force, right? (Oh, the irony…)

And Noah’s flood killing the dinosaurs is perhaps the most ridiculous claim I’ve heard in a long time. You must realize that it takes a long time for fossils to form. Six thousand years, or whatever the number is, is not a long enough time. Dinosaurs died 65 thousand years ago, long before genesis supposedly happened.

Also, the fact that we see stars billions of light-years away means that it took billions of years for the light to reach us. That seems to be problem, considering that the universe is only several thousand years old.

Noahs flood killed all the dinosaurs??

That is interesting but I have a better question? When Noah ark landed and the animals dispersed what exactly did all the predators eat?

You know the lions tigers leopards etc all the snakes species etc lizards etc?

Since only a very limited amount of animals were on the ark only 2 or 7 depending if clean or unclean what did these predators do??

Some of the animals have appetites that cannot go for long periods of time without eating.

Oh the writer of that mythical story forgot to cover that angle.

dude, this is Noah we're taking about.
He's like centuries old. Do you really think he wouldn't have figured out speed? He got all the animals jacked up on speed so they were flipping out all over the ark, but not needing to eat for the whole time. And then of course when they got off the ark there were all the bloated corpses of the animals and people Noah didn't save, so the carnivores just chowed down on that when the got the munchies.
Everything in the bible is better with drugs... so much more exciting!

Um... i might be bound legally to do this, so erm... kids, say 'NO!' to drugs.

Christianity isn't just rock and roll anymore

FOX news says its growing because it has embraceed rap as well.
Pat Boone really charged up rock & roll for me. Mmmm, Pat Boone in leather.

MC Hammer did for "rap" right up until he bothered to admit his various infidelities and then i said to myself "hate the sin, love the sinner" and felt better and then went off to underline the better parts of the Gideons in the motel down the street.

Rammstein sorta brings up christian influences and ideas ..... and they light themselves on fire on stage sometimes. Although, one of their album covers was a blatant ripoff of a scorpions album cover. Hmmm.

Christian trip-hop? Any takers on that?

Aw shucks. I'm just doing what satan pays me for.
That sly prick owes me $40! Worst fellatio i ever got!
("Next time, don't be so f*ckin' eager!" - Natural Born Killers)
EDIT - no wait, that was probably the third worst i ever got.

Rammstein sorta brings up christian influences and ideas ..... and they light themselves on fire on stage sometimes. Although, one of their album covers was a blatant ripoff of a scorpions album cover. Hmmm.
I find that a couple of metalcore bands bring up Christian ideas in their music inadvertantly, or at least it seems so. I can't quite remember which though...
Christian trip-hop? Any takers on that?
How about Christian ambient? Christian power noise?
:D

I find that a couple of metalcore bands bring up Christian ideas in their music inadvertantly, or at least it seems so. I can't quite remember which though...

How about Christian ambient? Christian power noise?
:D
.... i smell a hit record!!!!
*nods*
I think the ambient might be taken but you've got a good angle on the christian power noise.

I find that a couple of metalcore bands bring up Christian ideas in their music inadvertantly, or at least it seems so. I can't quite remember which though...

How about Christian ambient? Christian power noise?
:D

Rush isn't metal, but I remember they have a couple of Christianity references. For instance, at the end of Distan Early Warning, Geddy says "Absalom, Absalom, Absalom." This is a direct quote of King David.

I find that a couple of metalcore bands bring up Christian ideas in their music inadvertantly, or at least it seems so. I can't quite remember which though...
Ah-ha!
Remembered one.

"This is my last serenade...
This is my last serenade...

This revelation is the death of ignorance
tangled in a state of suffocation
slave to self righteousness
damnation is on your lips

from sorrow to serenity, the truth is absolution
from sorrow to serenity, it's on your head
this is my last serenade
I feel you as you fall away
this is my last serenade
from yourself you can't run away

it's your choice, point the finger
but it's on your head
your destination is a choice within yourself
will you rise or become a slave
to self righteousness
open up your heart and gaze within

from sorrow to serenity, the truth is absolution
from sorrow to serenity, it's on your head
this is my last serenade
I feel you as you fall away
this is my last serenade
from yourself you can't run away..."
-"My Last Serenade", by Killswitch Engage

"Rise inside, free your mind
raise your fist to signify
we stand in defiance of hatred and deception
if I stand alone I will fight for you
the time has come to make a difference
why have we forsaken love
the time has come to raise our voices
so rise up and fight with me
embrace what we have
it might be the last time in this life we will rise
if we find the strength to unify
hatred is a weakness, you become the victim
I believe love will overcome
time has come to make a difference
why have we forsaken one another"
-"Rise Inside", by Killswitch Engage

"Make me feel serenity when all is revealed
so easy to look back in life
and question but I must seek the strength
to push forward
I want to see what's so beautiful inside
as we drink of life
absolve me through your suffering
teach me to inscribe
these words upon my heart
cover me with the shadow of your hand
I will not lose myself in everything that tears me down
because you stand by me
no one to blame for my transgressions
no one to blame but myself"
-"Temple From Within", by Killswitch Engage

At the very least compelling and plausible random bull-crap.
Deism is the belief in a creator(s) who started the universe and then left.
There were a few threads where some focally-minded people seemed intent on expressing deist bias on the part of the U.S. founding "fathers" and for some reason i didn't really come across that explanation at all, inferred or otherwise - i might have missed something. Is that really what it means?
*not being sarcastic*
OED says "a reasoned belief in the existence of god" but doesn't further elucidate. At least mine doesn't.

EDIT - Webster's says something more along your statement's line - "the belief that god exists and created the world but takes no part in its functioning"

Funny, some of the manifest-ers might want to know that, for their arguments' sakes.

Ah-ha!
Remembered one.

"This is my last serenade...
This is my last serenade...

This revelation is the death of ignorance
tangled in a state of suffocation
slave to self righteousness
damnation is on your lips

from sorrow to serenity, the truth is absolution
from sorrow to serenity, it's on your head
this is my last serenade
I feel you as you fall away
this is my last serenade
from yourself you can't run away

it's your choice, point the finger
but it's on your head
your destination is a choice within yourself
will you rise or become a slave
to self righteousness
open up your heart and gaze within

from sorrow to serenity, the truth is absolution
from sorrow to serenity, it's on your head
this is my last serenade
I feel you as you fall away
this is my last serenade
from yourself you can't run away..."
-"My Last Serenade", by Killswitch Engage

"Rise inside, free your mind
raise your fist to signify
we stand in defiance of hatred and deception
if I stand alone I will fight for you
the time has come to make a difference
why have we forsaken love
the time has come to raise our voices
so rise up and fight with me
embrace what we have
it might be the last time in this life we will rise
if we find the strength to unify
hatred is a weakness, you become the victim
I believe love will overcome
time has come to make a difference
why have we forsaken one another"
-"Rise Inside", by Killswitch Engage

"Make me feel serenity when all is revealed
so easy to look back in life
and question but I must seek the strength
to push forward
I want to see what's so beautiful inside
as we drink of life
absolve me through your suffering
teach me to inscribe
these words upon my heart
cover me with the shadow of your hand
I will not lose myself in everything that tears me down
because you stand by me
no one to blame for my transgressions
no one to blame but myself"
-"Temple From Within", by Killswitch Engage
One band, three songs!
I've never heard 'em, myself. I find that songs with words distract me in disconcerting ways.
"Wooly Bully", "Louie Louie", and "Joy To The World" ... amongst various others. Many restless nights and journal entries.

i would get involved in this thread, but after reading the first post I relized this guy is most likely an angry 10th grader goth ... or a troll

i would get involved in this thread, but after reading the first post I relized this guy is most likely an angry 10th grader goth ... or a troll
Don't let that stop the fun! Let that shining clown COME OUT!
:gundge:

What a collection of bad arguments >_< :-D

Honestly though, why would you want to prove either side wrong anyway? Let everyone believe what they want. If there is a god, we who don't believe in any god are pretty much screwed and if there isn't, then w00t, no one goes to heaven and we can all laugh at christians, jews, Buddhists and muslims (and all other religious minorities, yes) once we're dead. Assuming we can laugh once we're dead.

But trying to prove anyone wrong really doesn't solve any problems and it doesn't make YOUR belief any more believable. Me? I prefer pondering whether what I believe is right (as in, does it make me a good person?) rather than trying to prove anyone wrong.

And I'm willing to bet at least one other person said all that before me. But I will not read four pages now, I've got better things to do :-D
You know what, none of my conservative texts have the word "wOOt" listed in them anywhere, so you must be making that up (like those other 5 people who i saw use it before). Therefore your argument is flawed.
As far as laughing when i'm dead, i dunno, it's hard to laugh and not be breathing to do it. But i have some time left and maybe i could get it to work.
Thanks!

i would get involved in this thread, but after reading the first post I relized this guy is most likely an angry 10th grader goth ... or a troll
:eek:
Perhaps a Gothic troll!
http://img60.exs.cx/img60/3959/gothtroll2qs.jpg

Im not sure I fully understand what your saying here so forgive me if I misinterpret you, but what I think your saying is because no one knows HOW abiogenesis happened then you cant put a probablity on it. Is that it? Because the analogy basicly covered the notion that all the parts were there and that a completely random chance occured and thus something ordered came out of it.
Sorry, my toast got burnt so i missed some of my original point, but i think i meant that time can't be used in an equation having a relative value of infinity, and neither can probability (for a set) because there is no integral value to a concept with out defining parameters. Factoring it itself is a measure of something, thus parameters are defined within it, and therefore have value. The point being is the frame of reference on which to bear probability has to have a set value.
I think that's what i was typing about, i don't remember. I'll correct it later if i i was wrong.

Hahahahaha, if you actually read the bible you would have seen the mention of Bahamut and Leviathan (yes just like the ff summons). They're described as giant creatures that cannot be tamed by man. There, im sure it was mentioned in the thread earlier but I just read the first page and decided to strike down your futile argument.
Fourteen pages on this post ... futile argument ...
I don't get it.
:confused:
note, Gothic troll??
Self obsessed and prattling on about the mortal coil ... heh!

Pure chaos does not exist, IMO. Everything has an underlying structure that may or may not be apparent. Without structure (order) nothing would exist. That is not to say that certain phenomena cannot look very chaotic, because they certainly can. However, extreme fluidity or apparent randomness does not prove that a phenomena is entirely without order (structure). All we can assume from the fact that a phenomena appears to be random is that it appears to be random.
Query - have you visited Bottle's Complexity/Intelligent Design (poll) thread?
I haven't gotten caught up yet.

Everytime I see one of these stupid religion threads, I want to beat up Al Gore for inventing the internet.

:)
Hahaha!
Share a golden apple?
Note: Golden apple in older parlance was the APRICOT.
*nudge*
Skidoo!

Because we're very lousy at staying on topic.
Hear hear!
*clangs his cracked bell*

But only Christians feel the need to constantly hammer it into non-believers!

EXACTLY!!!!!

First firstly firstly, I'm pretty sure God told Moses what to write, since much of what Noah would have told probably wouldn't last very long. Also, we all talk to God through pray.

Second secondly secondly, why would Noah let God's creation just die? After all, God was saving Noah's life and since God probably wouldn't be to happy about that then he would ahve made room if there wasn't any left (which seems unlikely since God might have only sent him young animals)

Third thirdly thirdly, I'd probably call you the Anit-Christ but since the Christians haven't disappeared yet then chances are you aren't, or at least, yet.
I don't think they are the antichrist but i gotta say it is a little how they turned that one smurf into smurfette. *shudder*

Wait, I'm sure that I can do it.
Man's creation of robots is the ultimate proof that christianity is true. Man was created in God's image, god created us, so we create robots in our image. Obviously creation is a recurring pattern, and proves the existence of a supreme creator.

Well, that was easier than I thought. I find it helps if I suspend both my capabilities of reasoning and intelligent thought, and replace them with rhetoric and absolute belief in whatever point of view I'm emotionally commited to.
Scary. You're really on a roll here. Do you have any pamphlets i can study about you? I have some loose change .... and my mortgage! Drop on by for some strudel!
;)

Firstly first firstly firstly (my that looks stupid when you type it alot): Noah did God a pretty big favor by building that whole ark thing. it was a lot of work. i'm betting God agreed to keep it hush hush just the keep the old guy happy, he did live for hundreds of years. or maybe... god intended for the dinosaurs to die (he designed the ark to not be have enough cubits intentionally) told noah to make it a secret so several milennia later when their bones are discovered he could watch with amusement the rediculous discussions that ensue.

Secondly second secondly secondly: (see Firstly first firstly firstly)

Thirdly third thirdly thirdly: I'm the messiah. give me money.
Now what YOU'RE saying makes a lot of sense. I think i already am giving up a mortgage to Ubiqtorate but i've got some clothes i can give you and a firm handshake! C'mon in for strudel!

EDIT- Sorry with the smurfette thing. That's Gargamel (sp?). My bad.

:confused: exactly how would one "suck ass?" I mean...would you use a straw? The sheer physics of it is mind bogling... so much ass, so little mouth.
.... see "felch", wikipedia.
Or somewhere else that has low standards, like Stileproject.
Ever see South Park movie? No reason ....

I'm tempted to start another thread as a headquarters for a wide scale social experiment. We could start a credible internet rumor about how someone found proof of the dinosaur cover up headed by Noah and God himself. From here we would monitor how quickly it spreads throughout the media and the nation and note any changes in the original story, a giant game of telephone.

These girl scout cookies really mess with your head.
You know, that might just have earned you my taking out a SECOND mortgage. Karmic order needs to be restored ...

Noahs flood killed all the dinosaurs??

That is interesting but I have a better question? When Noah ark landed and the animals dispersed what exactly did all the predators eat?

You know the lions tigers leopards etc all the snakes species etc lizards etc?

Since only a very limited amount of animals were on the ark only 2 or 7 depending if clean or unclean what did these predators do??

Some of the animals have appetites that cannot go for long periods of time without eating.

Oh the writer of that mythical story forgot to cover that angle.
Another brandisher of dangerous logic....

I don't get what the point of arguing with you science people is. It doesn't matter how many times I cite the good book or christianthinktank.org, you're always like 'But radiocarbon this' or 'But facts that.' Giving me a headache.

Cite this, hon: your Good Book is only one of many holy documents the world over, all of which are blessed and all of which have a story to tell. Knowing that, we could as easily amend your statement to:

It doesn't matter how many times I cite the tales told by the Keeper of Histories or the town shaman, you're always like 'But radiocarbon this' or 'But facts that.'

Hey, under your reasoning, every creation story from the Mother Raven to Adam And Eve and the Titans is true, because someone somewhere sincerely believes it. The only way this could be remotely possible is if you postulate that all of it happened at once, each within its own dimensional reality, but that's quantum physics, and we know that you just hate Science.

GoodO Genius' heard of the Old Testament?
Dinosaurs in the New is amazing WOW!

Query - have you visited Bottle's Complexity/Intelligent Design (poll) thread?
I haven't gotten caught up yet.

I took a quick look and responded to the question. I didn't bother to read the whole thread because I seriously doubt that there is anything new for me in there.

I don't get what the point of arguing with you science people is. It doesn't matter how many times I cite the good book or christianthinktank.org, you're always like 'But radiocarbon this' or 'But facts that.' Giving me a headache.

Cite this, hon: your Good Book is only one of many holy documents the world over, all of which are blessed and all of which have a story to tell. Knowing that, we could as easily amend your statement to:

It doesn't matter how many times I cite the tales told by the Keeper of Histories or the town shaman, you're always like 'But radiocarbon this' or 'But facts that.'

Hey, under your reasoning, every creation story from the Mother Raven to Adam And Eve and the Titans is true, because someone somewhere sincerely believes it. The only way this could be remotely possible is if you postulate that all of it happened at once, each within its own dimensional reality, but that's quantum physics, and we know that you just hate Science.

You are aware that Poland was being ironic, don't you?

This thread tempts me greatly to make a thread entitled "Christianity's ultimate proof that you are a crock".

This thread tempts me greatly to make a thread entitled "Christianity's ultimate proof that you are a crock".

lol. hear hear

acording to the bible the world is something like 50 million years old, or so i gather..now if this is true how would you explain carbon dating
it would seem that if thair are such things as dieties then they are the creation of mans fear of what can not be explained..i would ask if christianity is the true religiaon then why does it cop up so recently in the past of man.why are there not paintings of the ark of the covenent in caves?..and why do we find examples of ancestor worship and not beleif in one allmighty god until recently?

acording to the bible the world is something like 50 million years old, or so i gather..now if this is true how would you explain carbon dating
it would seem that if thair are such things as dieties then they are the creation of mans fear of what can not be explained..i would ask if christianity is the true religiaon then why does it cop up so recently in the past of man.why are there not paintings of the ark of the covenent in caves?..and why do we find examples of ancestor worship and not beleif in one allmighty god until recently?

Firstly, the Earth according to the Bible is something like 6009 yrs.

Secondly, carbon dating has problems with that there are factors which affect the rate of it's decomposition. Also, you would need to know how much carbon was in the object when it was preserved. Another thing is that carbon 14 only last around I think it was 50,000 yrs so anything before that would have 0 carbon 14. Since no piece of coal has ever been found with 0 carbon then the Earth probably isn't over 50,000 yrs old.

Thirdly, the Jewish religion has been around for quite the time so there's evidence of a belief in one Almighty God. Since the Jews or Hebrews had a way of writting down history during Moses time then that would explain why there aren't cave drawings of the Ark of the Covenant. Also, not many ppl were allowed to even see te Ark of the Covenant after it's construction.

Fourthly, before the flood and even after, there were many ppl that probably rebelled against God and thus stopped worshipping him. Abram's father actually was an idol maker. So, idols and other religions weren't uncommon.

I don't think they are the antichrist but i gotta say it is a little how they turned that one smurf into smurfette. *shudder*

Sorry, dude but you totally lost me.

Firstly first firstly firstly (my that looks stupid when you type it alot): Noah did God a pretty big favor by building that whole ark thing. it was a lot of work. i'm betting God agreed to keep it hush hush just the keep the old guy happy, he did live for hundreds of years. or maybe... god intended for the dinosaurs to die (he designed the ark to not be have enough cubits intentionally) told noah to make it a secret so several milennia later when their bones are discovered he could watch with amusement the rediculous discussions that ensue.

Secondly second secondly secondly: (see Firstly first firstly firstly)

Thirdly third thirdly thirdly: I'm the messiah. give me money.

Firstly: why would God lie? If he was capable of lieing then he wouldn't be perfect. Also, God most likely tod Moses all the past.

Secondly (to your thirdly): The Messiah has come and died. He's coming again the same way he left the first time (that's the Rapture). Also, the Messiah would just say "give me money". Another thing is that, in order to fullfill all the prophesies of the Messiah would be practically impossible.

Because we're very lousy at staying on topic.

True, we often times don't stay on topic.

Firstly, the Earth according to the Bible is something like 6009 yrs.

Secondly, carbon dating has problems with that there are factors which affect the rate of it's decomposition. Also, you would need to know how much carbon was in the object when it was preserved. Another thing is that carbon 14 only last around I think it was 50,000 yrs so anything before that would have 0 carbon 14. Since no piece of coal has ever been found with 0 carbon then the Earth probably isn't over 50,000 yrs old.

Thirdly, the Jewish religion has been around for quite the time so there's evidence of a belief in one Almighty God. Since the Jews or Hebrews had a way of writting down history during Moses time then that would explain why there aren't cave drawings of the Ark of the Covenant. Also, not many ppl were allowed to even see te Ark of the Covenant after it's construction.

Fourthly, before the flood and even after, there were many ppl that probably rebelled against God and thus stopped worshipping him. Abram's father actually was an idol maker. So, idols and other religions weren't uncommon.
actually, its more like 10 000.

dude, this is Noah we're taking about.
He's like centuries old. Do you really think he wouldn't have figured out speed? He got all the animals jacked up on speed so they were flipping out all over the ark, but not needing to eat for the whole time. And then of course when they got off the ark there were all the bloated corpses of the animals and people Noah didn't save, so the carnivores just chowed down on that when the got the munchies.
Everything in the bible is better with drugs... so much more exciting!

Um... i might be bound legally to do this, so erm... kids, say 'NO!' to drugs.

Firstly, the animals were all herbivores before the flood and it wasn't until after the flood that some of then became carnivores, but ya, there'd be alot of bodies that were probably muched on.

Secondly, how is the Bible much better with drugs involved? So what, ppl now a days like to read something that involves drugs? Well, thhen why not add drugs into the theory of evolution. Ya, so now we have all these little bacteria going and using natural drugs and enhancing themselves thus causing their genetic structure to change.

Thirdly, has anyone answered my question as to which came first, the virus or the bacteria? I'd really like to know.

Fourthly, anyone know how bacteria get their nutrients? The don't have vacuales as far as I know so how do they get the nutrients to reproduce?

Hello!?!? They were the demons that God sent the flood to kill. You really aren't too up on history, are ya?Mythology. Not history.

Firstly: why would God lie? If he was capable of lieing then he wouldn't be perfect. Also, God most likely tod Moses all the past.

Secondly (to your thirdly): The Messiah has come and died. He's coming again the same way he left the first time (that's the Rapture). Also, the Messiah would just say "give me money". Another thing is that, in order to fullfill all the prophesies of the Messiah would be practically impossible.


Firstly first: who says lying is a flaw? i lie all the time and i'm perfect.

Secondly to my thirdly second: i don't care. give me money.

actually, its more like 10 000.

10 000 yrs for what? the age of the Earth? Supposedly, the Earth was created around 4004 B.C. Since the current date in 2005 then it's about 6009 yrs old.

first off, i like my theory too much to let the prospect of eggs and kid-sized dinos to destroy it soo here i go.

Eggs: who would keep them warm. that sounds like a pain in the ass. (pun-o-meter just red-lined)

Kid-Sized: We'd still be living with a bunch of ministegos and such nonsense. Certainly something so cute would recieve the attention and care of all of humanity.

Kid-Sized: grow up, can't survive in environment or ppl see them as great source of food and then they die off.

Eggs: what'd they do, roll onto the Ark? Kid-Sized seems more viable.

Firstly first: who says lying is a flaw? i lie all the time and i'm perfect.

Secondly to my thirdly second: i don't care. give me money.

Firstly, lying is a sin. So you aren't perfect (neither is anyone born that isn't God)

Secondly, keep your greedy paws off my money. :)

Firstly, the animals were all herbivores before the flood and it wasn't until after the flood that some of then became carnivores, but ya, there'd be alot of bodies that were probably muched on.

Secondly, how is the Bible much better with drugs involved? So what, ppl now a days like to read something that involves drugs? Well, thhen why not add drugs into the theory of evolution. Ya, so now we have all these little bacteria going and using natural drugs and enhancing themselves thus causing their genetic structure to change.

Thirdly, has anyone answered my question as to which came first, the virus or the bacteria? I'd really like to know.

Fourthly, anyone know how bacteria get their nutrients? The don't have vacuales as far as I know so how do they get the nutrients to reproduce?

most of you questions can be explained with 3 words: girl scout cookies.

I would have to say bacteria came first... this is just going by the fact that to mulitply viruses need a healthy cell to infect. But perhaps the first unicellular organism arrived before either virus or bacteria made their debut. then that cell got a virus (stupid things, don't even perform all the life functions), and bacteria didn't come until more complex organisms started strutting their stuff.

thirdly to your fourthly: i have no idea. sorry. perhaps jethro tull has the answers. Play that flute.

Christianity is fully true and real for those that believe (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404041) that it is true and real. Let people believe what they want. Their reality is just as valid for them as yours is for you.

True, but there is and always will be something called the Truth. What it is, we'll only know when we're dead.

most of you questions can be explained with 3 words: girl scout cookies.

I would have to say bacteria came first... this is just going by the fact that to mulitply viruses need a healthy cell to infect. But perhaps the first unicellular organism arrived before either virus or bacteria made their debut. then that cell got a virus (stupid things, don't even perform all the life functions), and bacteria didn't come until more complex organisms started strutting their stuff.

thirdly to your fourthly: i have no idea. sorry. perhaps jethro tull has the answers. Play that flute.

Firstly, if bacteria came first, why would viruses come after? Since viruses are actually much simplier than bacteria. Also, if the first cell got infected with the virus then the cell would die and that would be that since viruses usually kill their host.

I actually do play the flute. Also, I don't think I've every actually had any real girl scout cookies.

Firstly, lying is a sin. So you aren't perfect (neither is anyone born that isn't God)

Secondly, keep your greedy paws off my money. :)

God only told you lying was a sin. its all part of the cover up spearheaded by noah and God, and now we have evidence moses was involved.
I still maintain that whole purpose that dinosaurs weren't mentioned was because God wanted to listen to the explanations people come up with, like now.

Fine. Keep your money, but perhaps you can aid me in getting everyone elses money. you'll get a cut.

The dinosaurs were just ordinary animals that grew to great size in the beginning when the world was newly created. Things were different then. Remember people lived well past 700 years old.

Can I ask where is you evidence for this.. or what sources you use... This is the second time in a year ive heard someone say people of ancient times lived for phenominal life spans... and I've never heard of such a thing before... this is defying all my knowledge of anthropolgy

Dinosaurs. Thats it. Where was the mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Nope, not there, hmmm why's that you may wonder? Gigantic beasts roaming the earth and not even a tiny mention in the holy bible? Oh thats right! because they died thoasands of years before humans evloved, thats one in the eye for creationists.
Job 40:15-19
15 "Look at the behemoth, [a]
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail [b] sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

hmmmm....
vegetarian, incredible strength, HUGE

original Hebrew text translates 17 to 'His tail hangs like a ceder tree'

looks like a brachiosaurus...

:D thats valid as its in the bible
[i think you lose]

Hello!?!? They were the demons that God sent the flood to kill. You really aren't too up on history, are ya?

What?????? Bible evidence please.

Firstly, if bacteria came first, why would viruses come after? Since viruses are actually much simplier than bacteria. Also, if the first cell got infected with the virus then the cell would die and that would be that since viruses usually kill their host.

I actually do play the flute. Also, I don't think I've every actually had any real girl scout cookies.

at first i thought that viruses did come first becaues they are much simpler. but if they came first how would they have survived? viruses need healthy cells so they can replicate their protein thingamajiggers. thats why i presented the possibility that viruses only came to being after they had something to eat.

can you play aqualung? Thin mints are damned good. i suggest you start you girl scout eating life with those.

Firstly, if bacteria came first, why would viruses come after? Since viruses are actually much simplier than bacteria. Also, if the first cell got infected with the virus then the cell would die and that would be that since viruses usually kill their host.

I actually do play the flute. Also, I don't think I've every actually had any real girl scout cookies.

Isn't it evident that since all the cells didn't die some had mutations which allowed them to live... and so those mutations became the norm as they help cells survive virul infection ? its call micro evolution

God only told you lying was a sin. its all part of the cover up spearheaded by noah and God, and now we have evidence moses was involved.
I still maintain that whole purpose that dinosaurs weren't mentioned was because God wanted to listen to the explanations people come up with, like now.

Fine. Keep your money, but perhaps you can aid me in getting everyone elses money. you'll get a cut.

Firstly, why wouldn't lying be a sin. After all, lying never helps anyone out in the end.

Secondly, I'm guessing you want to be some sort of business owner don't you?

Can I ask where is you evidence for this.. or what sources you use... This is the second time in a year ive heard someone say people of ancient times lived for phenominal life spans... and I've never heard of such a thing before... this is defying all my knowledge of anthropolgy

The first say 6 chapters of Genesis give an account of how long each person lived. Many lived over 300 yrs at least (with the exception of Abel).

What?????? Bible evidence please.
his statement is invalid.
the flood happened because the world turned away from its creator. utter destruction happens to every corrupt civilization.
Babylon, greece, rome

there was no conspiricy, God just chose Noah to give life on earth another chance.