i'm sure this has been raised an innumerable number of times but i am relatively new.

should not the bible have mentioned dinosaurs?

"Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life:domestic and wild, large and small"-- and it was done." Genesis 1:24, Good News Bible

It mentions some things that could be dinosaurs or dragons. But it also says pi is three and that there were giants.

It's called not taking shit literally.

No, Napoleon...it's called "studying the Bible".

The Bible refers to Leviathans (livyathan), Tanniyn, and Behemoths.

Please read this: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml for the entire explanation of the names and meanings of these creatures mentioned in the Bible.

Job 3:8 - May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.

Job 41:1 - Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope ?

Psalm 74:14 - It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

Job 40:15 - Look at the behemoth, 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 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.

Tail like a cedar ? What animal that is currently alive, or found in fossil form, can be compared to such a description ? Think about it.

The word 'Tanniyn' occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.”

I think 28 times is more than plenty to confirm their existence.

Furthermore, I think this website adequately describes how it is possible that the Bible was correct when it states that man and dinosaur roamed the earth at the same time. http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/dinosaurs.htm

I think you will find that 9 times out of 10, when you actually read the Bible you will find the answers to your questions.

That is, of course, if you believe in the validity and truth of the Bible (which I do).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Job 40:15 - Look at the behemoth, 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 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.



Satanists use "Behemoth" has one of the infernal names (One of the many names of Satan).

It does all depend on how you take the bible.

Example: The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days.

If the earth were not yet completed, then how could one measure a "day" in length?

Obviously the answer to this one is not of much importance, but some people actually think it means 7 of "our" days, others think a "day" could be any amount of time.



Take it as you will.



Personally? I beleive that weather or not dinosaurs roamed the earth is irrelevant to todays world. But thats just me.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

It mentions some things that could be dinosaurs or dragons. But it also says pi is three and that there were giants.

This is something i got quite awhile ago, and was wondering if anyone knows Hebrew enough to verify or refute it:



PI in the Bible

http://www.yfiles.com/pi.html

I did check the characters in the article and compared them to my Hebrew/Greek Original... they are the same characters. And also the word's against Strong's, to make sure that these are the correct words. I also looked up the numerical values of the letters.... All these things are correct in the article, according to these resources.

But i did get lazy and didnt check the math. Nor did i check the babylon;Egypt; values for PI.



My conclusion is that God's Word is not wrong, just misunderstood by man.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

My conclusion is that God's Word is not wrong, just misunderstood by man.

Do you concider the Bible to be God's word? It was written by men who might not have properly understood what God was trying to tell them.

QUOTE Originally posted by MasterPython:

Do you concider the Bible to be God's word?

Yup. I hope i've made that abundantly clear.

It was written by men who might not have properly understood what God was trying to tell them. /QUOTE

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/textbook.asp

In reguards to your statement, take special notice of the last two paragraphs.

The link is brocken.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, Napoleon...it's called "studying the Bible".

The Bible refers to Leviathans (livyathan), Tanniyn, and Behemoths.

Please read this: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml for the entire explanation of the names and meanings of these creatures mentioned in the Bible.

Job 3:8 - May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.

Job 41:1 - Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope ?

Psalm 74:14 - It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

Job 40:15 - Look at the behemoth, 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 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.

Tail like a cedar ? What animal that is currently alive, or found in fossil form, can be compared to such a description ? Think about it.

The word 'Tanniyn' occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.”

I think 28 times is more than plenty to confirm their existence.

Furthermore, I think this website adequately describes how it is possible that the Bible was correct when it states that man and dinosaur roamed the earth at the same time. http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/dinosaurs.htm

I think you will find that 9 times out of 10, when you actually read the Bible you will find the answers to your questions.

That is, of course, if you believe in the validity and truth of the Bible (which I do).

Those would have to be taken in a non-literal sense, because the last time I checked, there was no such thing as a first hand(human) account of dinosaurs.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The link is brocken.



Which one? I just checked them and they both worked for me.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Those would have to be taken in a non-literal sense, because the last time I checked, there was no such thing as a first hand(human) account of dinosaurs.



That is because you are starting from the belief that evolution/big bang is true and the Bible is wrong. Digital (and other Christians like ourselves) are starting from our belief that it is God's Word and that it is true.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

In reguards to your statement, take special notice of the last two paragraphs.

Link works now

It say because parts of the Bible are right all of it must be right.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

Satanists use "Behemoth" has one of the infernal names (One of the many names of Satan).

I was a medium (mental/spiritual gateway) priestess for a cult for 2 years. I have never heard of Satan referred to in this manner.

Are you meaning "Beelzebub" ?

quote:It does all depend on how you take the bible.

I take it as closely as I can with the interpretations given out of the original Hebrew and Aramaic that it was written in.

I take the parables as parables, and the rest as literal fact.

quote:Example: The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days.

If the earth were not yet completed, then how could one measure a "day" in length?

Obviously the answer to this one is not of much importance, but some people actually think it means 7 of "our" days, others think a "day" could be any amount of time.

It literally interprets as 7 days, meaning 24 hour periods of time (day and night are meticulously explained and repeated by the teller of the creation account in Genesis).

If you would like me to explain this and post references, I will. Just ask. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Take it as you will.

I take it as God intended it to be taken.

Literally.

quote:Personally? I beleive that weather or not dinosaurs roamed the earth is irrelevant to todays world. But thats just me.

Then why post ?

I tend to agree, that it does not really matter when it is all boiled down (salvation is the only important thing), however those that use the dinosaurs as an example of how the Bible isn't true need to have both sides of the story.

If dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time men did, then it would be fair to say evolution is wrong, which is the predominant belief justifying the idea that there is no God.

It is important to address it, as our coexistence with dinosaurs would prove that the Bible accurately depicted a certain time frame (which means that it is true).

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Do you concider the Bible to be God's word? It was written by men who might not have properly understood what God was trying to tell them.

God wanted specific men to interpret His visions, and so it is believable that He would make sure that they were accurately represented by the men He chose to bless with them.

His desire is to provide salvation from our sin...what motivation would He have in not assuring us every opportunity by providing an accurate handbook ?

He can do whatever He wants.

You made a good point, though.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The link is brocken.

I had no trouble with it.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Those would have to be taken in a non-literal sense, because the last time I checked, there was no such thing as a first hand(human) account of dinosaurs.

The scriptures I referenced ARE first hand accounts. They are speaking about these animals in a "present" tense.

How can that not be taken literally ?

That shows you didn't read them, or didn't understand them.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Link works now

It say because parts of the Bible are right all of it must be right.



No, what it is saying is that if the Bible is wrong on even one point, it can not be the inerrant Word of God.

But i think you knew this and are setting up for your next post.

Actualy I am wrong it says it's right because it's right.

Python - That was facetiousness, right ?

*lol*

Nope,

quote:We don’t expect lengthy scientific explanations with details on the force of gravity vs the humidity and wind speed to generate rain fall. We just want to know whether it is going to rain in our area. Yet we expect extensive scientific explanations in the Bible for it to be taken seriously.

If the weather forcast say it is going to rain up we would want a good scientific reason.

quote:The account of Jesus rising from the dead cannot be classified as only one form of truth; i.e. it cannot be a Christian or ‘religious’ truth without at the same time being a historical truth (unless language loses all of its meaning); and it cannot be historically true unless it is also scientifically true

In other words it's right because it's right.

Whether you're Christian, Muslim, or atheist, everyone is just going by faith. I only wish people would not consider these things "beliefs", but rather "ideas". People unfortunately die in the name of beliefs.

No, if you study the event, that statement would become more clear.

I think it is a little presumptuous, and I will admit that I have not yet taken the time to read it, so I don't know if the author expounds properly.

If he doesn't, he shouldn't have written anything to begin with.

For Rust's benefit, THAT would be an assertion.

*grins*

Beliefs are 100% justified by ideas.

I don't get your post, Keiko.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Whether you're Christian, Muslim, or atheist, everyone is just going by faith. I only wish people would not consider these things "beliefs", but rather "ideas". People unfortunately die in the name of beliefs.

And go to Hell over ideas.

Whoa...that was awesome.

Profoundly true.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The scriptures I referenced ARE first hand accounts. They are speaking about these animals in a "present" tense.

How can that not be taken literally ?

That shows you didn't read them, or didn't understand them.

The reason they have to be taken in a non-literal sense, is because it is IMPOSSIBLE for first hand accounts of dinosaurs to be made. This isn't a theory, it is FACT that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time, which is why, when reading the passages you provided, you must interpret and infer from what is presented. Humans did not live 65+ million years ago. I'm far from an evolutionist, but you cannot take everything in the bible literally. The Bible was written for DIFFERENT people a LONG TIME AGO. The old testament STORIES were written to show a point, much like Jesus' parables were told to show a moral.

I could understand taking some stuff in the new testament literally, but I do not understand how you can read what is written in the old testament and still take it literally.

WHO CARES

Napoleon - You haven't studied enough archeology then.

It HAS been proven that man and dinosaur existed at the same time.

I will post examples later.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Napoleon - You haven't studied enough archeology then.

It HAS been proven that man and dinosaur existed at the same time.

I will post examples later.

When you post your links, I don't expect to see the word GOD on the frontpage.

Edit: Or Jesus, Christ, christianity, Abraham, Adam, or eve.

I really am interested to see this proof.

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 02-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It HAS been proven that man and dinosaur existed at the same time.

I laughed out loud. Literally.



[This message has been edited by Viraljimmy (edited 02-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, Napoleon...it's called "studying the Bible".

The Bible refers to Leviathans (livyathan), Tanniyn, and Behemoths.

Please read this: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml for the entire explanation of the names and meanings of these creatures mentioned in the Bible.

Job 3:8 - May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.

Job 41:1 - Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope ?

Psalm 74:14 - It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

Job 40:15 - Look at the behemoth, 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 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.

Tail like a cedar ? What animal that is currently alive, or found in fossil form, can be compared to such a description ? Think about it.

The word 'Tanniyn' occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.”

I think 28 times is more than plenty to confirm their existence.

Furthermore, I think this website adequately describes how it is possible that the Bible was correct when it states that man and dinosaur roamed the earth at the same time. http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/dinosaurs.htm

I think you will find that 9 times out of 10, when you actually read the Bible you will find the answers to your questions.

That is, of course, if you believe in the validity and truth of the Bible (which I do).

The bible also refers to the devil as a serpent. Also on the giants passage. I heard many a preacher say that this is a reference to the children of fallen angels. So which is it?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

When you post your links, I don't expect to see the word GOD on the frontpage.

Edit: Or Jesus, Christ, christianity, Abraham, Adam, or eve.

I really am interested to see this proof.





So, you are essentially saying that the findings of archeologist's can't possibly lead them to conclude that there is a God, and that man and dinosaur existed at the same time ?

I should be able to post findings from ANY archeologist, to include Christians.

I am not saying this because all of my sources come from Christian perspectives...I just find it extremely intolerant of you to limit this conversation by excluding one group of scientist's, based on their spiritual beliefs, whether it bears any relevance to actual archeology or not.

Don't you ?

Try and think of it this way (not saying this is fact, just a consideration): it is possible that archeology has converted MANY athiest's to Christianity, since it proves many of the prophecies and history contained in the Bible.

Odd, eh ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



So, you are essentially saying that the findings of archeologist's can't possibly lead them to conclude that there is a God, and that man and dinosaur existed at the same time ?

I should be able to post findings from ANY archeologist, to include Christians.

I could care less what faith the archeologist is, I just care that the research you provide(still waiting for that by the way) isn't sponsered by some christian institute. I'd prefer it to be from a secular institute who would have nothing to gain by stating that humans and dinosaurs lived during the same time period.

quote:I am not saying this because all of my sources come from Christian perspectives...I just find it extremely intolerant of you to limit this conversation by excluding one group of scientist's, based on their spiritual beliefs, whether it bears any relevance to actual archeology or not.

I covered this already. Scientists(for the most part) put their own credibility before their faith. If you can find a source from a christian archeologist, then you could surely furnish the same findings from a non-christian archeologist.

quote:Try and think of it this way (not saying this is fact, just a consideration): it is possible that archeology has converted MANY athiest's to Christianity, since it proves many of the prophecies and history contained in the Bible.

Odd, eh ?

I'm still waiting for your proof. That's all I want. I could care less whether or not an archeologist converted to christianity. Someone else's actions or convictions have no bearing on my own.

I just want to see this "proof".

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I could care less what faith the archeologist is, I just care that the research you provide isn't sponsered by some christian institute. I'd prefer it to be from a secular institute who would have nothing to gain by stating that humans and dinosaurs lived during the same time period.

Are you saying that secular scientists are non-bias? Particles to people evolution has not been proven. There is no direct evidence of atheistic (darwinian or neo-darwinian) macroevolution. Secular scientists are also bias based on their interpetation of the same evidence (fossils and such).

You say that secular scientist have nothing to gain "by stating that humans and dinosaurs lived during the same time period". That depends on that/those particluar scientists. If they happen to be athiests, they gain subjective morality if their case against supernatural origin is strengthened (by not acknowledging or endorsing christian findings).

At any rate, i have seen in books and on cable, many ancient archeology finds (?) that depicted dinousaur looking creatures and discriptions. And I have no idea whether the archeologists that discovered these were secular or not. (some of those books i used to have, but gave them away to my brother.. i'll see if he still has them, the next time i see him)

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Are you saying that secular scientists are non-bias? Particles to people evolution has not been proven. There is no direct evidence of atheistic (darwinian or neo-darwinian) macroevolution. Secular scientists are also bias based on their interpetation of the same evidence (fossils and such).

You say that secular scientist have nothing to gain "by stating that humans and dinosaurs lived during the same time period". That depends on that/those particluar scientists. If they happen to be athiests, they gain subjective morality if their case against supernatural origin is strengthened (by not acknowledging or endorsing christian findings).

At any rate, i have seen in books and on cable, many ancient archeology finds (?) that depicted dinousaur looking creatures and discriptions. And I have no idea whether the archeologists that discovered these were secular or not. (some of those books i used to have, but gave them away to my brother.. i'll see if he still has them, the next time i see him)

Is non-partisan a better term? I just want research that is from someone with no vested interest in the outcome. Applies to anyone who wants a particular finding to be found, both atheists and christians.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Are you saying that secular scientists are non-bias? Particles to people evolution has not been proven.

Depends on what you mean by "proven". There are no 100% certainties in Science. If that were the cause Science would not change, which is not the case, since Science changes the moment new (and credible) evidence is introduced which points to another direction.

So, if by "proven" you mean, with 100% certainty, then nothing has been. Not even your existence.



quote: There is no direct evidence of atheistic (darwinian or neo-darwinian) macroevolution.



Completely false.

Let me see if I understand.

All the REAL scientific evidence

points to a creation by god a

few thousand years ago, as well

as a global flood that destroyed

all animals except for Noah's Ark?

And all the vast galaxies in space

are there so we have stars to

see at night.

And we've been lied to for all

these years! Why is the scientific

community covering all this up?

Is it that they work for... Satan?

What a fool I've been! Maybe I

should ask Jesus to come into my

heart, so that I can see the truth.

Let's all pray.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Napoleon - You haven't studied enough archeology then.

It HAS been proven that man and dinosaur existed at the same time.

I will post examples later.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It cannot be said with any kind of validity that Creationism is science.

Just as Evolution is not science.

They are both "theories" (since neither has been definitely proven), with supporting scientific evidence.



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have posted much more detailed, almost incomprehensible (to the LAYMEN) science on this forum before, and no one bothered to read it.

It was either too difficult, or they didn't want to see the truth in the science presented.



Often mentioned, seldom witnessed...

You ask for science, and then call it incomprehensible.

If you really wanted the answers, you'd consider all points of view, even within science.

Just for everyone's benefit, I didn't write one word of that last quote posted.

You have just proven that it doesn't matter if I provide the "science" you demand in order to justify my beliefs, yet when I do they are not even read.

Why ? You are scared of the implications, as I have said before.

What if there really is a God ?

Thanks for your input, Xtreem.

Not because I agree or disagree, but because it was insightful.

I think many forget to be "fair" in their objective thinkings.

So do you have links to back up your claim?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Completely false.

No, not even close to completely false.

Napoleon - Yes. I wouldn't have made it if I didn't.

But I also have a life, to include a very demanding full time job, and two small children.

Patience is a virtue.

(I am still wondering if it will make any difference to you anyway...)

quote:Depends on what you mean by "proven". There are no 100% certainties in Science. If that were the cause Science would not change, which is not the case, since Science changes the moment new (and credible) evidence is introduced which points to another direction.

You can say that, and then in the same breath claim that this thinking is logical enough to justify denying that God exists ?

*peeks under Rust's skirt*

Just checking to see if you have a straight face on or not.

Ok, this is not "proof", but I just wanted to see what you all thought.

- http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

Does that look fake to you ? (getting off topic a little in order to discuss something non-religious, but please Lost...just humor me !)

Anyway, it looks fake to me, and I can't reference anything factually, since Stefan doesn't seem to know the full names of anyone save the Professor.

If these fossils are real, they are in GREAT shape (which is what makes me suspicious).

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-12-2005).]

It's actually a prank.

http://www.nmsr.org/onyatemn.htm

http://www.nmsr.org/april_fool.html

Cool, thanks ! I searched Snopes.com and a few others, but couldn't find anything.

I figured it was bull, but they did a great job.

Just goes to show...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Cool, thanks ! I searched Snopes.com and a few others, but couldn't find anything.

I figured it was bull, but they did a great job.

Just goes to show...



...That you're extremely suggestible for even presenting a hoax site with explanation attached, and that there is no evidence supported by a credible insitution?

Ok, this is not "proof", but I just wanted to see what you all thought.

-DS

Get a life, Squirrel.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Is non-partisan a better term? I just want research that is from someone with no vested interest in the outcome. Applies to anyone who wants a particular finding to be found, both atheists and christians.



How do we determine if someone has no vested interest in the outcome.

All i was saying is that scientist can have bias also:

http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_station/station_detail.php?PRKey=9

quote:Originally posted by AngrySquirrel:



...That you're extremely suggestible for even presenting a hoax site with explanation attached, and that there is no evidence supported by a credible insitution?

I guess you can't read.

Therefore, I won't waste any further posts on responding to you.

Sorry.

*shrugs*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You can say that, and then in the same breath claim that this thinking is logical enough to justify denying that God exists ?

*peeks under Rust's skirt*

Just checking to see if you have a straight face on or not.

Of course. I really don't see anything wrong with doing so.

There is absolutely no evidence of the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. How did what I say change that in any way? You see, the logic in believing no god exists comes from there not being any evidence for its existence, even when there has been countless of opportunities for their to be evidence; and moreover, the existence of material evidence contradicting the various claims made by religions that hold this god as existing.

Something not being able to be proven 100% does not mean it does not have evidence supporting it, it does not mean it cannot be reproduced, it does not meant it cannot be tested, etc. It mean that Science is not so blind as to accept something to be irrefutable.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

No, not even close to completely false.



Here's the evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, either refute this, or admit that you were mistaken or lied.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



How do we determine if someone has no vested interest in the outcome.

All i was saying is that scientist can have bias also:

http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_station/station_detail.php?PRKey=9

Which is why I'd prefer the research to come from someone who is least likely to be biased.

I don't want to read scientist's opinions, I want to read the facts that they discovered by using the Scientific Method to answer a question.

I just want a site with information only. Research that allows me to draw conclusions, not have the scientists make those conclusions for me.

Rust - You misunderstood...

What I couldn't believe you saying is that what you call "science" (for which you use as a scapegoat in your quest to defy your Maker) is wishy-washy, ever-changing, and not even remotely reliable.

I thought that was interesting.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-13-2005).]

Napoleon - It doesn't exist, my friend.

There is no such thing as 100% objectivity in this world. PERIOD.

Someone else used this analogy: if you removed the number 2 from existence, but insisted that the equation 1 + 1 still existed, how could you possibly EVER come to an answer that satisfies said equation ?

Evolutionist's have removed the possibility of a God/Creator...so, how then can they come to the answer they seek ?

It is not being found in the "physical evidence". Only more theories and hypothesis have risen from the rubble of earthly "proofs".

I still haven't posted, because I think it will be disregarded, and I am still human ya know.

But your intrigue on the subject is enlightening.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Rust - You misunderstood...

What I couldn't believe you saying is that what you call "science" (for which you use as a scapegoat in yoru quest to defy your Maker) is wishy-wasy, ever-changing, and not even remotely reliable.

I thought that was interesting.

1. I never called it "whishy-wasy", or unreliable.

2. Why wouldn't you believe I would hold the belief that it changed?

Again, Science is not so blind or ignorant to remain firm in a belief that is contradicted by the majority of facts. If the majority of the facts point to X, then Science would change to fit so. That is hardly "ever-changing" and the fact that it will always conform to the evidence makes it extremely reliable. Moreover, if the fact that it does change according to evidence makes it "wishy-wasy", then I wouldn't have it any other way.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Here's the evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, either refute this, or admit that you were mistaken or lied.

You're going to use evidence presented by a website who has the audacity to say, "The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact...so evolution is both a fact and a theory." with a straight face, yet you won't accept the evidence presented by Creation Ministries who has the audacity to say, "Our objective is to give people the opportunity to weigh evidences that the educational system refuses to show them so they can make an informed choice on what they choose to believe." ?!! ( http://www.creationministries.org/about.asp )

BIAS.

Why don't you try and refute it, Rust ? Do we look like scientist's ?

I think we could do just as good of a job as YOU can of proving or refuting anything on Talk Origins...but you won't, so why should we ?

I am not saying that to get out of doing it, but it would take a lot of time and research to dismantle it (because that is what is required of us), but you can't offer the same courtesy when we ask you to "dismantle our Bible", or science that supports Creationism.

HYPOCRACY.

I am a hypocrite in a lot of ways, but on this I stand firm.

Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than posting someone else's website, and saying, "Refute it, or admit that you are a liar."

That is just unbelievable.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Why [i]wouldn't[/i[ you believe that? Again, Science is not so blind or ignorant to remain firm in a belief that is contradicted by the majority of facts. If the majority of the facts point to X, then Science would change to fit so. That is hardly "ever-changing" and if the fact that it does change according to evidence makes it "wishy-wasy", then I wouldn't have it any other way.



Do you seriously believe that Christianity hasn't grown within it's own confines ?

Things are understood about the language of the Jews now than ever before. This presents new evidence to create new understanding.

How does that not apply to the same standard ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You're going to use evidence presented by a website who has the audacity to say, "The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact...so evolution is both a fact and a theory." with a straight face, yet you won't accept the evidence presented by Creation Ministries who has the audacity to say, "Our objective is to give people the opportunity to weigh evidences that the educational system refuses to show them so they can make an informed choice on what they choose to believe." ?!!

How is beleiving what the evidence points to, "bias"?



Must I ignorantly choose to believe creationism because they hold this facade of neutrality? I choose to beleive in evolution because the evidence DOES point that way. I'd rather believe in what the evidence points to than ignorantly believe the opposite because they have a facade of neutrality.



quote:

Why don't you try and refute it, Rust ? Do we look like scientist's ?

I think we could do just as good of a job as YOU can of proving or refuting anything on Talk Origins...but you won't, so why should we ?



Because Xtreem made the claim. He made the claim therefore it is up to him to back it up. We've gone through this before.

quote:I am not saying that to get out of doing it, but it would take a lot of time and research to dismantle it (because that is what is required of us), but you can't offer the same courtesy when we ask you to "dismantle our Bible", or science that supports Creationism.

1. I HAVE posted links refuting creatinist claims in the past.

2. I've asked you to post this evidence numerous times and you have not done so. How am I supposed to refute something that you haven't posted?

3. The Bible has already been refuted before as well. The only counter arguments to the refutations have been circular logic, which is a logical fallacy!

quote:Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than posting someone else's website, and saying, "Refute it, or admit that you are a liar."

That is just unbelievable.

He made the claim not I. I do not expect him to do the research himself; obviously he can take arguments/articles from Creationist sources that would refute the evidences I posted. The bottom line is, he made the claim thus he must back it up.

The only thing I have to back up is the fact that there is evidence, which I already did.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Do you seriously believe that Christianity hasn't grown within it's own confines ?

Things are understood about the language of the Jews now than ever before. This presents new evidence to create new understanding.

How does that not apply to the same standard ?



Yes, I do beleive that. The "changes" you speak of, would hardly constitute anything at all. It has not changed when faced with evidence against it, since it believes in creationism!

You make the "assertion" that Talk Origins is the end-all be-all...the EVIDENCE that what you believe is true. Don't you have just as much responsibility to "refute" and "support" accordingly to your beliefs as we do ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Napoleon - It doesn't exist, my friend.

There is no such thing as 100% objectivity in this world. PERIOD.

Someone else used this analogy: if you removed the number 2 from existence, but insisted that the equation 1 + 1 still existed, how could you possibly EVER come to an answer that satisfies said equation ?

Evolutionist's have removed the possibility of a God/Creator...so, how then can they come to the answer they seek ?

It is not being found in the "physical evidence". Only more theories and hypothesis have risen from the rubble of earthly "proofs".

I still haven't posted, because I think it will be disregarded, and I am still human ya know.

But your intrigue on the subject is enlightening.

I don't need 100% objectivity, just enough to where the validity of the research isn't in doubt.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You make the "assertion" that Talk Origins is the end-all be-all...the EVIDENCE that what you believe is true. Don't you have just as much responsibility to "refute" and "support" accordingly to your beliefs as we do ?

I'm saying it is evidence. The only one in need to refute or back up anything is xtreem, not me.

You're making the erroneous assumption that I haven't been critical of the evidence posted at talkorigins. That I was critical does not mean I didn't arrive at the conclusion that the evidence is correct.

Oh, I am sure you were critical of it. I would never suggest otherwise.

The problem lies in the fact that they are biased.

As I said before, there is no such thing as 100% objectivity.

I HAVE posted scientific evidence of Creationism. I don't see how refuting carbon-dating equals circular logic.

You never refuted THAT, but you expect me to refute YOUR science ?

You claim you have, but you haven't. I claim I have, but you say I haven't.

What are we supposed to do, Rust ? *raises an eyebrow*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The problem lies in the fact that they are biased.

Again, how is believing what the evidence points to, "bias"? Bias towards the truth? Thank you.

quote:

I HAVE posted scientific evidence of Creationism. I don't see how refuting carbon-dating equals circular logic.

Strawman, I never said that "refuting carbon-dating" euals circular logc.

quote:

You never refuted THAT, but you expect me to refute YOUR science ?

Actually, yes I have. I remember quite well that you created a topic about this issue, and posted 4 articles. All of which I replied to, and then Dark_Magneto as well as others did the same. You then never provided any counter-arguments to the arguments we provided

quote:

You claim you have, but you haven't. I claim I have, but you say I haven't.

What are we supposed to do, Rust ? *raises an eyebrow*

I have. That you forget is not my problem.

But here, lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that I haven't:

"Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods

Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:

1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work .

2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated :

1. Constancy of radioactive decay rates .

2. Contamination is likely to occur .

1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work

This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:

* First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.

How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.

* Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.

2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated

Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.

2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.

Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from <CK47LK.E2J@ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):

For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)

An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.

For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):

So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.

A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich (1991) . Among the phenomena they look at are:

* searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);

* searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;

* ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;

* data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;

* observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;

* the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);

* experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);

* absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);

* laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.

While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).

2.2 Contamination may have occurred.

This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.

Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



.......Evolutionist's have removed the possibility of a God/Creator...so, how then can they come to the answer they seek ?

Actually, this statement is not entirely correct. Evolutionists make no assertions as to the origins of life. Evolution theory deals with the changes in a pre-existing organism. Not on how the organism came into existance in the first place.

Whether the original organism was created by a god , or through completly natural processes, has no bearing on evolution theory.

Obviously though, it has a huge bearing on the existance of the Christian God, and the validity of the bible.

It is not the goal of science to disprove the existance of a god or creator.The goal of science is finding verifiable truth.

I agree with that 100%, Truckfixr.

I am not saying that they are "out to get God"...I guess it might have seemed that's what I was saying, but it's not.

Because of our (human) scientific evidence, rather, the conclusion is that there IS NO GOD.

But we find new things every decade, so...how can ANYTHING be conclusive ?

quote:Again, how is believing what the evidence points to, "bias"? Bias towards the truth? Thank you.

Triiiite.

If I present science that is supported by Creationist's, it's biased (even if it really proves something).

Therefore, when you present science that is supported by those that not only believe in evolution as fact (when it is NOT), but make it obvious that they oppose Christianity, you are presenting "evidence" that is biased as well.

Don't see how one is more conclusive than another.

RUST - "The only thing that these dating methods have proven is that they (Carbon, AR-K, Isochron, etc.) are completely unreliable. They are also non-scientific. Science is defined as knowledge derived from the observation, testing and study of evidence. These dating methods make several non-observable wild guesses (assumptions) in order to arrive at “old dates”.

Take AR-K dating as an example. Potassium 40 decays into argon 40. In Ar-K dating, and scientists can accurately measure the amounts of these elements in a rock. By assuming the rate of decay of Potassium to Argon (in Ar-K dating) has always been the same, an estimate is made as to how long it took to form the amount of Argon present. It is assumed that no argon was present when the rock being dated first formed. However, no one was there to observe how much argon was in the rock when it was made. Thusly the whole process is nothing more than a guessing game. There are from 11 to 23 such wild guesses associated with the radiometric dating methods. Other assumptions, such as the rock was never contaminated with argon from another source, equally invalidates the dates given.

For example, diamonds were dated at 6 billion years old. When it was pointed out that evolutionists claim that earth is only 4.6 billion years old, the “scientist” said, “There must have been argon present when the rocks formed which threw off the dates.” No kidding. Typically a wide range of ages are given by these methods with the date selected being the one which matches the geologic column. (see questions about this column). For more information and examples regarding the “old age” dating methods please review CESM DVD 2 or 3 and live Seminars 2,4 and 5."

These seminars can be found here: http://www.creationministries.org/seminars.asp

The science gets much more detailed as he (Russ Miller) goes along. I am not going to post it all here. If you would like to get a Creationist's view on the science of it all, feel free to get a copy of them. I have seen this guy in person, and he really knows what he is talking about. He may not be right (I am not saying he isn't, but I am saying it's a possibility), but what he is presenting is certainly science. The exact same can be said of evolution's scientist's.

Since science is supposed to be based on observation, we can just play a simple game of "telephone" and see that no two people think exactly alike, so how accurate can science be if it is based on human observation ?

The same issue affects how people perceive the Bible. While I think I have a pretty good grasp on it's contents, I am positive that I misunderstand MUCH of it. Does that mean I shouldn't talk about it at all ? Certainly not. I would die before I uttered a word if that were the requirement.

Things that were said to be "fact" two decades ago have been disproven, and have been replaced by new things that are said to be "fact".

Anyway, tangent. It's late. I have made my point, whether you all agree with it or not.

Gotta get some sleep.

QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

Must I ignorantly choose to believe creationism because they hold this facade of neutrality?

I realize that you were responding to Digital in this post, but there is a reason i am starting with this...

Have i said that creationism claimed to be neutral? In fact, i think i said, "That is because you are starting from the belief that evolution/big bang is true and the Bible is wrong. Digital (and other Christians like ourselves) are starting from our belief that it is God's Word and that it is true.".. which is to say: very few people in this world are neutral, and as one gets older, generally less neutral.

I choose to beleive in evolution because the evidence DOES point that way.

From your understanding. I choose to believe in creationism because that is where the evidence does point AND prior to that, so does God's Word.



This was the reason i started where i started:

quote:Because Xtreem made the claim. He made the claim therefore it is up to him to back it up. We've gone through this before.

because i think you are refering to this:

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Are you saying that secular scientists are non-bias? Particles to people evolution has not been proven.

Depends on what you mean by "proven". There are no 100% certainties in Science. If that were the cause Science would not change, which is not the case, since Science changes the moment new (and credible) evidence is introduced which points to another direction.

So, if by "proven" you mean, with 100% certainty, then nothing has been. Not even your existence.

Now Rust, how do i back up my claim that it hasnt been proven? If i had said that creation has been proven, then there would be something to back up. But since i said that "Particles to people evolution has not been proven", the best i can do to back this up, is to say that there are two opposing veiwpoints.

You even said that you choose to believe[/] where the [i]evidence points to.

1. I HAVE posted links refuting creatinist claims in the past.

we can go back and forth with links that go back and forth.

In fact, i'm reading a book now and just noticed the copyright on it is a few years old, so i decided to see how many refutes the author had (and the types of arguements against). I only looked at the first 5 or so, and 3 of them were debates back and forth between the author and the (3)refuters... (which i would imagine is the norm for peer review). His book refutes evolution (both Darwinian Theory and NDT), from a genetic perspective... my point is link vs. link: refute vs. refute... i am not here for the sake of arguement, although i do generally try (mosttimes not my best) to back up what i say (claim), for the simple purpose of showing that faith is not blind and just because Christian believe in God and His Word, they have looked at evidence to back up there own faith. Some more than others, but that would be true of both sides. Some people believe what the scientists say with little question, just like some Christians believe what the church leaders say with little question.

One of the biggest problems i see, is when Christians believe scientists prior to what God has to say. And much of that is due to "propaganda" that says that "particles to people" evolution has been proven.

3. The Bible has already been refuted before as well. The only counter arguments to the refutations have been circular logic, which is a logical fallacy!

Most refutes of the Bible have been from misunderstanding. And circular arguments have not been the only counter arguements... one case in point: {refute) the bible is wrong because it says PI = 3

{counter #1) the measurement used was cubit; we dont know if rounding to the nearest cubit is a factor; we also dont know from where radius was measured.. the vessel had a rim that was like a lily

{counter #2}PI is irrational number and PI = 3 is pretty close.. about 5% error

{counter #3} and my favorite : http://www.yfiles.com/pi.html

were these circular?

He made the claim not I.

this is what you were talking about:

[quote] Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

No, not even close to completely false.

Here's the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, either refute this, or admit that you were mistaken or lied.[/b]

I'm sorry Rust, my oversite. I did think you were talking to Digital. And i had been waiting for Digital's response. Anyway, now that you have brought this to my attention, i'll take a look at your site.

Would you do something for me though? Give me the definition of macroevolution that you use. Both specific and general. You say that scientist will go where the evidence points, right?

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

Also on the giants passage. I heard many a preacher say that this is a reference to the children of fallen angels. So which is it?

From the Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Giants

(1.) Heb. nephilim, meaning “violent” or “causing to fall” (Gen_6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying “wonder,” and hence “monsters” or “prodigies.” In Num_13:33 this name is given to a Canaanitish tribe, a race of large stature, “the sons of Anak.” The Revised Version, in these passages, simply transliterates the original, and reads “Nephilim.”

(2.) Heb. rephaim, a race of giants (Deu_3:11) who lived on the east of Jordan, from whom was descended. They were probably the original inhabitants of the land before the immigration of the Canaanites. They were conquered by Chedorlaomer (Gen_14:5), and their territories were promised as a possession to Abraham (Gen_15:20). The Anakim, Zuzim, and Emim were branches of this stock.

In Job_26:5 (R.V., “they that are deceased;” marg., “the shades,” the “Rephaim”) and Isa_14:9 this Hebrew word is rendered (A.V.) “dead.” It means here “the shades,” the departed spirits in Sheol. In 2Sa_21:16, 2Sa_21:18, 2Sa_21:20, 33, “the giant” is (A.V.) the rendering of the singular form ha raphah, which may possibly be the name of the father of the four giants referred to here, or of the founder of the Rephaim. The Vulgate here reads “Arapha,” whence Milton (in Samson Agonistes) has borrowed the name “Harapha.” (See also 1Ch_20:5, 1Ch_20:6, 1Ch_20:8; Deu_2:11, Deu_2:20; Deu_3:13; Jos_15:8, etc., where the word is similarly rendered “giant.”) It is rendered “dead” in (A.V.) Psa_88:10; Pro_2:18; Pro_9:18; Pro_21:16 : in all these places the Revised Version marg. has “the shades.” (See also Isa_26:14.)

(3.) Heb. 'Anakim (Deu_2:10, Deu_2:11, Deu_2:21; Jos_11:21, Jos_11:22; Jos_14:12, Jos_14:15; called “sons of Anak,” Num_13:33; “children of Anak,” Num_13:22; Jos_15:14), a nomad race of giants descended from Arba (Jos_14:15), the father of Anak, that dwelt in the south of Palestine near Hebron (Gen_23:2; Jos_15:13). They were a Cushite tribe of the same race as the Philistines and the Egyptian shepherd kings. David on several occasions encountered them (2Sa_21:15-22). From this race sprung Goliath (1Sa_17:4).

(4.) Heb. 'emin, a warlike tribe of the ancient Canaanites. They were “great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” (Gen_14:5; Deu_2:10, Deu_2:11).

(5.) Heb. Zamzummim (q.v.), Deu_2:20 so called by the Amorites.

(6.) Heb. gibbor (Job_16:14), a mighty one, i.e., a champion or hero. In its plural form (gibborim) it is rendered “mighty men” (2 Sam. 23:8-39; 1Ki_1:8; 1 Chr. 11:9-47; 1Ch_29:24.) The band of six hundred whom David gathered around him when he was a fugitive were so designated. They were divided into three divisions of two hundred each, and thirty divisions of twenty each. The captains of the thirty divisions were called “the thirty,” the captains of the two hundred “the three,” and the captain over the whole was called “chief among the captains” (2Sa_23:8).

The sons born of the marriages mentioned in Gen_6:4 are also called by this Hebrew name

i just skimmed through the last page of this thread, but since it has devolved into another futile back and forth, i'm just going to pose a question to the creationists here...

rust, and other evolution sympathizers, please allow me to carry out this route of debate for the time being...

so, xtians, if you would rank your conviction, which would you say that you believe more strongly - that the bible is the literal word of god - or that water has a molecular composition of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen?

yes, it's a loaded question, but it is straight to the heart of the matter.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

i just skimmed through the last page of this thread, but since it has devolved into another futile back and forth, i'm just going to pose a question to the creationists here...

rust, and other evolution sympathizers, please allow me to carry out this route of debate for the time being...

so, xtians, if you would rank your conviction, which would you say that you believe more strongly - that the bible is the literal word of god - or that water has a molecular composition of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen?

yes, it's a loaded question, but it is straight to the heart of the matter.



Because i'm curious where you are going with this....OK, Eil, i'll 'play'. Although your question could be posed at evolution, i wont. partly cuz it'll be more back and forth, and partly cuz im not 100% where you are going with this so it may bite me in the ass, twice.

So many years ago, in high school, we did the experiment that seperated water into its two components.

If i were to use this as the reference point for your rating question, I would call this 100% belief.

My belief that God's Word is true, is even higher than that.

But if i were to use, as the reference point for your rating question, my ability to cause fig trees to wither or to rearrange the mountains into the sea: then i would rate my belief in God's Word at about 85% and that of H2O at about 70%.

OK, make your point.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



If I present science that is supported by Creationist's, it's biased (even if it really proves something).

Therefore, when you present science that is supported by those that not only believe in evolution as fact (when it is NOT), but make it obvious that they oppose Christianity, you are presenting "evidence" that is biased as well.

Don't see how one is more conclusive than another.

So? If both are bias, as you claim, this is irrelevant. This serves nothing to the debate... because both sides would be bias as you say! It being bias does not mean it is not correct.

--

quote:"The only thing that these dating methods have proven is that they (Carbon, AR-K, Isochron, etc.) are completely unreliable. They are also non-scientific. Science is defined as knowledge derived from the observation, testing and study of evidence. These dating methods make several non-observable wild guesses (assumptions) in order to arrive at “old dates”.

Take AR-K dating as an example. Potassium 40 decays into argon 40. In Ar-K dating, and scientists can accurately measure the amounts of these elements in a rock. By assuming the rate of decay of Potassium to Argon (in Ar-K dating) has always been the same, an estimate is made as to how long it took to form the amount of Argon present. It is assumed that no argon was present when the rock being dated first formed. However, no one was there to observe how much argon was in the rock when it was made. Thusly the whole process is nothing more than a guessing game. There are from 11 to 23 such wild guesses associated with the radiometric dating methods. Other assumptions, such as the rock was never contaminated with argon from another source, equally invalidates the dates given.

For example, diamonds were dated at 6 billion years old. When it was pointed out that evolutionists claim that earth is only 4.6 billion years old, the “scientist” said, “There must have been argon present when the rocks formed which threw off the dates.” No kidding. Typically a wide range of ages are given by these methods with the date selected being the one which matches the geologic column. (see questions about this column). For more information and examples regarding the “old age” dating methods please review CESM DVD 2 or 3 and live Seminars 2,4 and 5."

Please read the articles I posted as ALL of this was already covered there.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I realize that you were responding to Digital in this post, but there is a reason i am starting with this...

Have i said that creationism claimed to be neutral? In fact, i think i said, "That is because you are starting from the belief that evolution/big bang is true and the Bible is wrong. Digital (and other Christians like ourselves) are starting from our belief that it is God's Word and that it is true.".. which is to say: very few people in this world are neutral, and as one gets older, generally less neutral.

If you know I was replying to DS, then it is irrelevant if YOU said they were neutral or not... Why even post this if this is completely irrelevant?

quote:

From your understanding. I choose to believe in creationism because that is where the evidence does point AND prior to that, so does God's Word.

There's evidence supporting Creationism!? The please post it.



quote:

because i think you are refering to this:

...

Now Rust, how do i back up my claim that it hasnt been proven? If i had said that creation has been proven, then there would be something to back up. But since i said that "Particles to people evolution has not been proven", the best i can do to back this up, is to say that there are two opposing veiwpoints.

You even said that you choose to believe[/] where the [i]evidence points to.

How you got that this is what I was referring to is beyond me. My statement came below a direct quote of yours.

You said, "

No, not even close to completely false" speaking that your claim that there was no evidence of macroevolution was not false.

THAT is what I quoted and thus THAT is what I referred to. I posted the evidence, and therefore it is up to you to refute it, or admit that you cannot.



quote:my point is link vs. link: refute vs. refute... i am not here for the sake of arguement, although i do generally try

Then please refrain from making these outrageouss allegations when you have nothing to back it up; neither the evidence nor the will to do so.

You wouldn't like me saying that I have proof that Jesus was a black-schizophrenic-hermaphrodite and then when asked to back this up, say "I don't like doing that", Right? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

Most refutes of the Bible have been from misunderstanding. And circular arguments have not been the only counter arguements... one case in point: {refute) the bible is wrong because it says PI = 3

{counter #1) the measurement used was cubit; we dont know if rounding to the nearest cubit is a factor; we also dont know from where radius was measured.. the vessel had a rim that was like a lily

{counter #2}PI is irrational number and PI = 3 is pretty close.. about 5% error

{counter #3} and my favorite : http://www.yfiles.com/pi.html

were these circular?

Absolutely non of those are refutations!

Let's take 1:

the measurement used was cubit; we dont know if rounding to the nearest cubit is a factor

This is irrelevant. The measure could have been meters, kilometers, miles or inches; it could have been all of thos since the porperty of the circle remains the same!

That property being C = 2r(PI) or C = d(PI). The property remains true regardless of the unit used.

Let's take 2:

"PI is irrational number and PI = 3 is pretty close.. about 5% error"

How do you even consider this a refutation is beyond me. So god was "close". How omnipotent of him! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Let's take 3:

This is the same as above. Even if we take their translations as true, even if we take the numerical values of the words as true, you're still left with an error something an infallible god cannot do!

quote:

I'm sorry Rust, my oversite. I did think you were talking to Digital. And i had been waiting for Digital's response. Anyway, now that you have brought this to my attention, i'll take a look at your site.

Would you do something for me though? Give me the definition of macroevolution that you use. Both specific and general. You say that scientist will go where the evidence points, right?[/B]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

my grandpa has a bible that talks about the devil making dinosaurs its weird

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



So many years ago, in high school, we did the experiment that seperated water into its two components.

If i were to use this as the reference point for your rating question, I would call this 100% belief.

My belief that God's Word is true, is even higher than that.

But if i were to use, as the reference point for your rating question, my ability to cause fig trees to wither or to rearrange the mountains into the sea: then i would rate my belief in God's Word at about 85% and that of H2O at about 70%.

OK, make your point.

how could i possibly make a point to you? you obviously show complete disregard to consistency and coherence. there is nothing higher than 100%. not only that, but then you claim that your conviction in the composition of water changes according to what it's referenced against in the bible. that makes no sense. you either have 100% conviction or you don't.

that's like saying that i'm pretty certain i have five fingers on my right hand, except for when someone calls me out on my belief in santa claus... then, i may have more or fewer fingers, i'm not sure, leave me alone, santa rules!

you don't see how nonsensical that is? it may feel good for the moment to resist the temptation to use your frontal lobe, but it's just a damnable rationalization.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:



Two different rating systems. Make your poiint using the 70% and 85%. And dont worry about my frontal lobe.

if you can't be bothered to make sense, then why should i?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Would you do something for me though? Give me the definition of macroevolution that you use. Both specific and general. You say that scientist will go where the evidence points, right?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[/B][/QUOTE]

What are the selections for evolution? Natural? Random?

I may have missed this in your link.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

What are the selections for evolution? Natural? Random?

I may have missed this in your link.



By "selections" I assume you mean how the different traits are "selected", then the answer is Natural Selection.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You ask for science, and then call it incomprehensible.

If you really wanted the answers, you'd consider all points of view, even within science.

Just for everyone's benefit, I didn't write one word of that last quote posted.

You have just proven that it doesn't matter if I provide the "science" you demand in order to justify my beliefs, yet when I do they are not even read.

Why ? You are scared of the implications, as I have said before.

What if there really is a God ?

Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? Stop with the red herrings, already. Besides, I'm an agnostic. I ask myself this question every day.

I was just pointing out the fact that you frequently mention evidence, but rarely provide any.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 02-14-2005).]

And, hey, it looks like I've caught you in an outright lie. You didn't say this? Bullshit.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have posted much more detailed, almost incomprehensible (to the LAYMEN) science on this forum before, and no one bothered to read it.

It was either too difficult, or they didn't want to see the truth in the science presented.

I took that quote from here (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003436.html). These lies and fallacies do not become you, Digital_savior. I just lost any respect for you that I had.



[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 02-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Here's the evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, either refute this, or admit that you were mistaken or lied.

Just so we remember; i said, "There is no direct evidence of atheistic (darwinian or neo-darwinian) macroevolution." .. (meaning that the evidences were interpeted)

And you replied, "Completely false."

To which i replied, "No, not even close to completely false"... (maybe i should have highlighted 'completely'.)

To which you replied, "Now, either refute this, or admit that you were mistaken or lied."

I did not lie. I was not mistaken. But as for refuting; I'm not going to put much effort into this, so my response should be filled with holes...

From your link:

Example 2: horses

As a second example, very complete fossil records should be smoothly connected geographically. Intermediates should be found close to their fossil ancestors.

Confirmation:

The Equidae (i.e. horse) fossil record is very complete (though extremely complex) and makes very good geographical sense, without any large spatial jumps between intermediates. For instance, at least ten intermediate fossil horse genera span the past 58 million years. Each fossil genus spans approximately 5 million years, and each of these genera includes several intermediate paleospecies (usually 5 or 6 in each genus) that link the preceding and following fossil intermediates. They range from the earliest genus, Hyracotherium, which somewhat resembled a dog, through Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Dinohippus, Equus, to Modern Equus. Every single one of the fossil ancestors of the modern horse are found on the North American continent (MacFadden 1992, pp. 99, 156-162). For more detail about the known evolution of the Equidae, consult Kathleen Hunt's thorough FAQ on Horse Evolution.

Potential Falsification:

It would be macroevolutionarily devastating if we found in South America an irrefutable Epihippus or Merychippus (or any of the intermediates in-between) from the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, the Miocene, or anytime before the Isthmus of Panama arose to connect North and South America (about 12 million years ago). Moreover, we should never find fossil horse ancestors on Australia or Antarctica from any geological era (MacFadden 1992; Brown and Lomolino 1998).

My hole filled response:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

General response to nothing in particular..(i like the part about "right-handed and "left-handed" molecules... but filled with holes:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

Again, just because i liked something in this article: extremophiles, in this case:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c004.html

I didnt read anything from this one, but i figured that it must have a whole lotta holes in it:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/life-complexity.html

More holes, just for fun:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c032.html



By the way, your comment, "Now, either refute this, or admit that you were mistaken or lied." sounds alot like you were hurt because i kicked your god (evolution), i'm sorry.

doesn't any christian find it strange that the entirety of creation 'theory' is built upon trying to discredit observations made by evolution scientists? the extent of the positive evidence proposed in favor of creation theory is words in a 4,000 year old book. no where in the fossil record has anyone come upon god's clay factory.

i mean skepticism is all good and fine, but don't get it twisted. it is skepticism of creationism which gave birth to evolution theory in the first place, not the other way around... creationism is nothing but a reaction to seriously damaging evidence.

and while there may be many observations, hypotheses, and pieces of evidence that are highly questionable in support of macro-evolution, (simply because of the complexity and spans of time inherent in the system) there are mountains more that support it. ultimately, those same pieces that are interpreted incorrectly will be rectified by the scientific community that was bold enough to question bias in the first place... not the mystics.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

The Equidae (i.e. horse) fossil record is very complete (though extremely complex) and makes very good geographical sense, without any large spatial jumps between intermediates. For instance, at least ten intermediate fossil horse genera span the past 58 million years. Each fossil genus spans approximately 5 million years, and each of these genera includes several intermediate paleospecies (usually 5 or 6 in each genus) that link the preceding and following fossil intermediates..

Were those millions of years before or after the flood? 58 million years? Wasn't the earth created about 6,000 years ago?

How long ago did mammoths live,

and giant sloths? Were they on

the ark?

Where do all the different races

of man come from - one family?

Did they evolve?

Do you know how many species of beetles

there are? They alone would have more

than filled the ark. I guess they evolved

since then too.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I did not lie. I was not mistaken. But as for refuting; I'm not going to put much effort into this, so my response should be filled with holes...

1. Whether you lied or where mistaken is what we will conclude after this. If you CAN refute the evidence, then you were correct. If you CAN'T, then you were incorrect. If you were incorrect you either didn't know this, and thus were mistaken, or did know this and therefore lied.

2. Again, if you're not going to put effort in your replies, then don't bother making the allegations in the first place.

quote:

My hole filled response:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html



quote:2. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.



What else does the author expect? Animals migrate. They move around. They do not stay in the same place, and die in the same place, simply because he/she would like it.

quote:3. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly "intermediate" stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

So? Simple variation in the number of ribs does not refute evolution. Humans, as well as other animals, can, and do have a varying number of ribs. Not all humans have 12 pairs of ribs.

quote:4. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

That's unnatural selection. Those horses were bred for their attributes, size being among them. Much like dogs.

quote:

General response to nothing in particular..(i like the part about "right-handed and "left-handed" molecules... but filled with holes:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

quote:

By the way, your comment, "Now, either refute this, or admit that you were mistaken or lied." sounds alot like you were hurt because i kicked your god (evolution), i'm sorry.

Please, don't flatter yourself. It was as statement aimed at stopping you from making more if these allegations, which you seldom back up.

As shown above, you haven't even left a dent on my "god" (what childish fetish for calling it that... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ), if anything you've successfully helped me to disprove more ridiculous claims, and for that, I thank you.

Now, since your couldn't refute the fact that there is evidence for macro-evolution, then is still up for you to do so. Either refute the existence of evidence, or admit that you either lied, or were mistaken.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-15-2005).]

This may get me flamed but it seems more often than not, that the most adamant religious groups are often among the most uneducated and naive people.

This isn't always true, of course. I'm not so blind as to believe that.

nah it wont get you flamed its true, seriously im a christian but some people are SO dumb this one girl refuses to belive dinosaurs ever existed...

i disbeleve evoloution but that is just dumb!

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I could care less what faith the archeologist is, I just care that the research you provide isn't sponsered by some christian institute. I'd prefer it to be from a secular institute who would have nothing to gain by stating that humans and dinosaurs lived during the same time period.

At any rate, i have seen in books and on cable, many ancient archeology finds (?) that depicted dinousaur looking creatures and discriptions. And I have no idea whether the archeologists that discovered these were secular or not. (some of those books i used to have, but gave them away to my brother.. i'll see if he still has them, the next time i see him)

I still havent seen my brother yet, but i did find something that pertains (about halfway into the article):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp

What part specifically?

quote:Furthermore, from the Bible we see that there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering before sin.24 If one takes Genesis to Revelation consistently, interpreting Scripture with Scripture, then death and bloodshed of man and animals came into the world only after Adam sinned. The first death of an animal occurred when God shed an animal’s blood in the garden and clothed Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21). This was also a picture of the atonement—foreshadowing Christ’s blood that was to be shed for us. Thus, there could not have been bones of dead animals before sin—this would undermine the gospel.

This means that the dinosaurs must have died after sin entered the world, not before, so dinosaur bones could not be millions of years old, because Adam lived only thousands of years ago.

I cannot take this seriously if it uses the bible as a historical reference point.

quote:Originally, before sin, all animals, including the dinosaurs, were vegetarian. Genesis 1:30 states: ‘And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, which has life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.’

This means that even T. rex, before sin entered the world, ate only plants. Some people object to this by pointing to the big teeth that a large T. rex had, insisting they must have been used for attacking animals. However, just because an animal has big sharp teeth does not mean it eats meat. It just means it has big sharp teeth.46

Again, using the bible to make scientific claims without evidence for support.

quote:The land animals (including dinosaurs) that were not on the Ark drowned. Many were preserved in the layers formed by the Flood—thus the millions of fossils. Presumably many of the dinosaur fossils were buried at this time, around 4,500 years ago. Also, after the Flood, there would have been considerable catastrophism, including such events as the Ice Age (What about the Ice Age?), resulting in some post-Flood formation of fossils also.

The contorted shapes of these animals preserved in the rocks, the massive numbers of them in fossil graveyards, their wide distribution, and some whole skeletons, all provide convincing evidence that they were buried rapidly, testifying to massive flooding.59–61

Another example of taking the bible as science.

quote:conclusion:If we accept God’s Word, beginning with Genesis as being true and authoritative, then we can explain dinosaurs and make sense of the evidence we observe in the world around us. In doing this, we are helping people see that Genesis is absolutely trustworthy and logically defensible, and is what it claims to be—the true account of the history of the universe and mankind. And what one believes concerning the book of Genesis will ultimately determine what one believes about the rest of the Bible. This in turn will affect how a person views him or herself, and fellow human beings, and what life is all about, including their need for salvation.

That's a big fucking "IF". If I choose to take evolution as fact, then I can conclude that Genesis is complete bullshit. This is not science. It's using religion to combat science.



And can you honestly tell me that he is not biased?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/About/ham.asp

He runs a company for the sole purpose of proving that the bible is factual down to every letter.

This contributor founded an organization just for defending the bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_sarfati.asp

This contributor is the CEO of a company that just defends the validity of genesis. Do you think that when he was writing this he was trying to look at the problem from both sides?

The next writer seems fairly open to the idea of evolution: "I came to see, after considerable prayer and study, that evolution is really a belief system parading as science. It is an alternative religion designed to banish the creator God to the realm of abstract philosophy only" Evolution is a religion designed to bannish God from philosophy. Do you think he may be a tad bit biased?

\http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/d_batten.asp



This is not proof. This is unfounded speculation with the sole purpose of defamming the credible theory of evolution.

I'd also like to point out that none of these contributors are paleontologists. None of them are qualified to talk about paleontology. None of them are fit to dismiss paleontoglogical discoveries or findings.



[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 02-26-2005).]

quote:Many people think the Bible is just a book about religion or salvation.* It is much more than this.* The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us the future destiny of the Universe as well. It gives us an account of when time began (see Chapters 2–5 in The Answers Book), and the events of history such as the entrance of sin and death into the world (How did bad things come about?); the time when the whole surface of the globe was destroyed by water (see Chapters 10–16 in The Answers Book); the giving of different languages at the Tower of Babel (How did all the different ‘races’ arise?); the account of the Son of God coming as man, His death and resurrection; and the new heavens and earth to come.



Ultimately there are only two ways of thinking: starting with the revelation from God (the Bible) as foundational to all thinking (biology, history, geology, etc.), resulting in a Christian worldview; or, starting with man’s beliefs (for example, the evolutionary story) as foundational to all thinking, resulting in a secular worldview.

just......wow....

so the first paragraph i've quoted here says: "The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us the future destiny of the Universe as well."

Damn, being raised catholic i wasn't indoctrinated with such bullshit; i had other kinds to root out of myself. however, this is fucking ridiculous. it's a collection of BOOKS. get over it. it's nothing special. just like any other book it has its good and its bad points. just because something is written down does not mean it's true.

The second paragraph instantly screams BIAS. science doesn't start with man's beliefs; modern science came about through questioning and testing to discover the truth. this site is so unbelievably biased it's not even funny.

How anyone can believe this stuff is beyond me. Fossilization takes a LONG time. This is why we have only a few fossilized humans remains: because it takes so long. 4000 years is not enough time to fossilize anything.

I have a challenge for creationists: Explain petroleum. I don't want some bullshit "God put it there" answer. Science may know everything (doesn't claim to), but at lesat attempts to come up with logical fact-based reasons as for why things are as they are. Creationists just say it MUST be this way because God said so. well great. Science comes up with THEORIES which are held until some better understanding can be reached.

I for one am not afraid with the idea that we can't know everything, and probably never will. Our puny human minds just can't understand the universe, and that's ok with me. Perhaps we'll evolve with brains better equipped to understanding the universe. Until then, i'm fine with not having all the answers.

"This topic has been argued back and forth on at least 6 forums I have been to and noone ends up winning in the end.

The whole reason people choose religion is to give them something to believe in/look forward to after death.

Think about it, if when you die is the same exact state as before you were born then at the time of your death did life really matter?

It was fun while it lasted, but if I died yesterday and there was nothing after life then I could give a shit less if I lived or not seeing that in this point in time, which is the present, you are going to not exist either way and you can't even reminisce about your life so in essence it was pointless.

Either way you are going to end up in non-existence as soon as the future reaches present and that would truly make life pointless if you understand what I am saying.

Its like watching a movie only once that you can't remember, no real point to it seeing as it will be done with and it will be as if you never even saw it."

-Dark_Magneto

[This message has been edited by MIND (edited 02-27-2005).]

Do you deny dogs evolved from wolves?

Where are the fossils?

I want to see the fossil record from

wolf to poodle.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

What part specifically?

(I only copy/pasted up to the point of the picture)

Are there other ancient records of dinosaurs?

British historical documents from ancient times to the 1900’s record encounters people had with dragons—and many of the descriptions fit well-known dinosaurs.37 The emblem on the flag of Wales (United Kingdom) is a dragon.

In the film, The Great Dinosaur Mystery,38 a number of dragon accounts are presented:

* A Sumerian story dating back to 2,000 B.C. or more tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.

* When Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.

* China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery and carvings.

* England has its story of St George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.

* There is the story of a 10th century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.

* In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several animals that we would call dinosaurs, as still alive. A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on 13 May 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.

Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaur-like creatures have also been found.39

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

( * When Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.

* England has its story of St George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.



I know I have not read the story about Alexander but it sounds alot like the St. George story. St. George killed the dragon so the villigaers would not have to keep sacraficing people to it. I know alot of Christian traditiond and stories are based on older pagan ones.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Do you concider the Bible to be God's word? It was written by men who might not have properly understood what God was trying to tell them.

Do I consider the bible to be God's words? No. Men wrote the bible. It wasn't even written for a very long time after those stories were suppost to have happened. Do you really think a story could go unaltered in anyway down through the many years until writting was invented?

On top of that, it seems like there has been some editting from time to time by the church it's self.



[This message has been edited by Nemisis (edited 02-28-2005).]

I cannot take this seriously if it uses the bible as a historical reference point.

Isnt that what you and i were discussing? You (and secular scientists) presuppose billions of years..(or atleast that the bible is wrong). And creationists (i would say Christians, but not all Christians believe in a young earth) start with God's Word and work from there.

Again, using the bible to make scientific claims without evidence for support.

Are there animals with "sharp teeth", that eat plants instead of meat?

Another example of taking the bible as science.

I disagree. This is an example of fitting the observation (of fossils) to creationist starting point (the biblical flood, in this case).

That's a big fucking "IF". If I choose to take evolution as fact, then I can conclude that Genesis is complete bullshit.

Exactly the point of the bias of the starting points.

This is not science. It's using religion to combat science.

In reguard to what you quoted, you are right..sorta. (God's Word starting with Genesis is not religion).

Apart from that, what is being used to combat secular--billions of years-- thinking of science, is creation science; the validity of creation science, i think, is not what we were discussing, but rather the bias of the starting points of these two types of science--- atleast that was what i thought we were discussing.



And can you honestly tell me that he is not biased? ]http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/About/ham.asp]http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/About/ham.asp[/b] ]http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/About/ham.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/About/ham.asp[/b)

No i cant honestly say this. And i dont think he would either. In fact on of his lectures is titled: " Facts and Bias: Creation vs. Evolution, Two Worldviews in Conflict"

You could reverse the order and title it: Facts and Bias: Evolution vs. Creation, Two Worldviews in Conflict: but i'm sure it was done on purpose (with 'fact' and 'creation' being first). This is a literary tool that is used very often in all sorts of writing.. the biggest one being in advertising... but evolutionists do this too. Both creationists and evolutionists use this sort of propaganda. And if it is used well, it is so subtle as not to draw attention to 'propaganda' but enhance the "cause".

He runs a company for the sole purpose of proving that the bible is factual down to every letter.

And his brother was a minister that believed and taught (until he died) the same thing. (as i think any religious teacher should believe and teach the doctrine of the faith that they subscribe to)

I think the difference is that Robert preached to (mainly) people that came to church-- presumably, mostly believers of that same faith. Where as Ken is trying to give believers some tools in defending the faith, AND also trying to show non-believers that the Word of God can be trusted. <<i'm talking about his motive here>>

He may be making big bucks with his company (i dont know how much he puts in his pocket vs. puts back into the ministry of AiG)... but this does not prove that money IS or IS NOT his motive. I have been to 2 AiG seminars (both were free - except for the books that i bought), and the speakers truly seemed to passionately believe what they taught.

This contributor founded an organization just for defending the bible.

j_sarfati

I dont understand what you are getting at here. Doesnt that make sense? If he believed the Koran, should he start an organization that defends the Christian Bible? No, he is a Christian and he is defending the Christian bible. Same-same with Ken Ham, and (hopefully) anyone else that has contributed to the support of AiG. People support the causes that they agree with.

This contributor is the CEO of a company that just defends the validity of genesis. Do you think that when he was writing this he was trying to look at the problem from both sides?

I dont know what was in his head at the time. Is he bias? Yes. But does that mean that he has no integrity? No. He may or may not have integrity (sp?)

The same thing can be asked of any scientist.. or person for that matter. Are secular scientists bias? Probably. Does that mean they have no integrity? No, it just means that they have a bias starting point, just like creation scientists (although different biased starting point).

The next writer seems fairly open to the idea of evolution: "I came to see, after considerable prayer and study, that evolution is really a belief system parading as science. It is an alternative religion designed to banish the creator God to the realm of abstract philosophy only" Evolution is a religion designed to bannish God from philosophy. Do you think he may be a tad bit biased?

Sure. Ok now that we have determined that there is bias in the creation scientist, let's ask a different question.

Does bias mean that a person's understanding is wrong?

I contend that both evolution scientists with the belief in billions of years and creation scientists with the belief of about 6000 years, are bias. From an earthly POV, they can both be wrong, but they can not both be right.

This is not proof. This is unfounded speculation with the sole purpose of defamming the credible theory of evolution.

The thing is that that is what creation scientists say about evolution and evolutionary scientist claim about creation. (in a nut shell)

I'd also like to point out that none of these contributors are paleontologists. None of them are qualified to talk about paleontology. None of them are fit to dismiss paleontoglogical discoveries or findings.

I did a search on 'paleontologists' on the AiG website and 155 matches came up with the search, but i only clicked on the second one. (i only scanned the article to see if this guy had a degree in paleontology. i did not read his bio). At the bottom it says: "(Dr Wise’s doctoral degree in palaeontology was completed at Harvard under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. See also his Interview in Creation magazine.)"

Again, i am sure that he is bias. Some of the people that are part of AiG were evolutionists at one time (or atleast that is their claim), and some have claimed that they had even been athiests. Although this, in itself, proves nothing, it does make you wonder if they did start with a different bias than the one they now (claim to) have.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/313.asp]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/313.asp

Edited to correct some bolding tags and to delete some reduntant comment that i thought i had already removed.

Edited a second time to point out why i edited

[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 02-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Were those millions of years before or after the flood? 58 million years? Wasn't the earth created about 6,000 years ago?



You misunderstood what i was saying, or else i misstated it. I believe that the creation was about 6000 years ago. I had quoted someone elses work, that talked about what evolution says about the subject.

Since you agree that the site you posted isn't scientific proof(which it isn't), then I don't really feel the need to make all the replies.

One question though, could find me this same research from a secular site(any site without religious orientation or committment)?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Since you agree that the site you posted isn't scientific proof(which it isn't), then I don't really feel the need to make all the replies.

One question though, could find me this same research from a secular site(any site without religious orientation or committment)?

where did i agree that it was not scientific proof? because it is creation science? Or because i agree that there is bias?

I said:

"This is not science. It's using religion to combat science."

You said:

"In reguard to what you quoted, you are right..sorta. (God's Word starting with Genesis is not religion).

Apart from that, what is being used to combat secular--billions of years-- thinking of science, is creation science; the validity of creation science, i think, is not what we were discussing, but rather the bias of the starting points of these two types of science--- atleast that was what i thought we were discussing."

You agreed that it isn't science. I wanted scientific proof. I normally don't ask for scientific proof when it comes to religion, but in this case there should be some. The site you provided is not scientific.

Also, can you find this same information from a scientific site that has no religious affiliation(i.e. is secular)?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I said:

"This is not science. It's using religion to combat science."

You said:

"In reguard to what you quoted, you are right..sorta. (God's Word starting with Genesis is not religion).

Apart from that, what is being used to combat secular--billions of years-- thinking of science, is creation science; the validity of creation science, i think, is not what we were discussing, but rather the bias of the starting points of these two types of science--- atleast that was what i thought we were discussing."

You agreed that it isn't science. I wanted scientific proof. I normally don't ask for scientific proof when it comes to religion, but in this case there should be some. The site you provided is not scientific.

Also, can you find this same information from a scientific site that has no religious affiliation(i.e. is secular)?



This was what you quoted, that you responded to as, "this is not science":

quote: quote:conclusion:If we accept God’s Word, beginning with Genesis as being true and authoritative, then we can explain dinosaurs and make sense of the evidence we observe in the world around us. In doing this, we are helping people see that Genesis is absolutely trustworthy and logically defensible, and is what it claims to be—the true account of the history of the universe and mankind. And what one believes concerning the book of Genesis will ultimately determine what one believes about the rest of the Bible. This in turn will affect how a person views him or herself, and fellow human beings, and what life is all about, including their need for salvation.

and your right, that in itself is not science. It is an explaination of the creationist starting point and the reason why it is important. Basically, if one is a Christian or a Jew, that person should believe in God, and that His word is true. With this starting point, everything we observe, should be looked at from this perspective first, especially if it is in direct contradiction to God's Word. (I'm speaking of Christians and Jews here)

When i said "sorta", i was refering to you being partly right about religion, not about science. And i still contend that. Genesis is not religion, but religion (Christian and Jewish) believe that it is the Word of God.

But what i also said was, "Apart from that, what is being used to combat secular--billions of years-- thinking of science, is creation science; ".

And this too, at least at the moment, is not religion. Creation science is science, but using God's Word for the basis of the framework.

In either type of science, if a result of an experiment or observed evidence does not fit what is predicted, it is set aside and looked at/tested again. For creation science, the expected result must fit with the understanding of scripture. In secular science results should fit with the scientific theory. The two key words here are 'must' and 'should'.

Anyway, the site about the dinosaurs that i think you are refering to, was posted only for some reference to ancient depictions of dinos, before we knew what dinos were. But to show that it is possible that man and dinos lived at the same time.. if not, how did they know what they looked like.

I had made a comment earlier that the books that i had some of this info in, were given to my brother, and i have not seen him in a while... I found this reference in the AiG site and posted it.

Other things (besides the books i gave to my brother, which he might not even have anymore, cause it was a long time ago..but he is a pack rat, so i have faith) that had references were from TV many years ago and i'm not sure how i can find those references. (some of those were back before cable, when there was only ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS)

Not to interrupt you and Napoleon's debate, I just want to comment on something.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

For creation science, the expected result must fit with the understanding of scripture. In secular science results should fit with the scientific theory. The two key words here are 'must' and 'should'.



So your basically saying that any research of evidence found must fit in with Scripture? So basically it comes back down to working backward from an answer. You're researching and finding evidence about something you already have the answer to.

It's very easy to find "evidence" for something if you already have in your mind an answer. It should go without saying that this goes for both creationists and evolutionists.

the difference is that evolutionary theory is far from complete. there are many unanswered questions as to the method and history of natural selection, and it is for precisely this reason that evolutionary biologists search for evidence to suport the theory... as opposed to creationists who believe the answer is complete, and the evidence must be collected to persuade others.

erroneously, fundamentalists will claim that evolution does the same thing to support itself as creationism - but, whereas true scientists search for supportive evidence while remaining receptive to contradicting evidence, creation 'scientists' will dismiss anything contradictory with some hokey rationalization... such as 'dinosaurs are explained in the bible!'

or 'the earth can't be millions of years old, it just looks like that 'cuz the good ol' flood has tricked our most intelligent people.'

or 'micro-evolution occurs, but not macro, because we can't see it, there's no evidence.'

that's my favorite. despite 'you've got to believe that jesus performed impossible feats, was crucified, and resurrected, even tho you can't see anything remotely like this in real life, because not only does the bible say it, but there are 'eye-witness' accounts! (disregard those extra ones that don't mesh with the official divinely inspired dogma)... plus, doesn't it just feel so good in your heart? doesn't it just tingle your nerves? aren't you just mesmerized by his love? DON'T QUESTION THE HYPNOSIS, HE'LL SEND YOU TO HELL!!! ... aren't you just so scared now? won't you just preach to others so that you won't be the only one scared? doesn't it just feel so good to project your irrational fears onto others? don't you just love confirming the fact that you're a sinner by lying to others, telling them that your love is borne of love, and not fear? don't you feel closer to heaven now?'

...eh... sorry, for that... it typed itself... must have been INSPIRED BY SATAN!!!! AHAHAHAAHHAAHAH!!!!



btw, before you psychoanalyze me and my reasons for writing this, take the plank out of your own eye.

I remember reading a verse, I think from Peter, that said something like: to God 1 day is as 10,000 and 10,000 are as 1 or something to that effect. So like a bunch of people already said, the 7 days of creation were not literally 7 days, it was just written this way to make it easier to understand.

Well, there's still a pretty big difference between millions of years and 60,000 years. Most creationsists I've talked to dismiss that explanation however. They believe it was literally 6 days.

quote:Originally posted by rodrat16:

my grandpa has a bible that talks about the devil making dinosaurs its weird

Wait...sorry to interupt all this, but this caught my eye. Let me get this straight...your GRANDFATHER(?) has a version of the Satanic Bible?

I remember back in the day, I was a hardcore literal creationist...but my interest in the sciences and in history were massive.

Throughout my childhood I was always confused when I read about dinosaurs and planets and saw them dated at millions (sometimes billions) of years old. I asked my parents about it, and being as they didn't really have an answer, they took me in to see my teacher at my private school. Mind you I was 8, had no real bias, or anything. I was an exceptional reading student, so my teacher gave me a few books written by Christian scholars in the realm of astronomy, biology, and the creation vs. evolution. That was probably the one thing I regret from my Christian upbringing...the rest was fine, but that set my understanding of life back a good 6 years...I wasn't able to quite understand the arguments for evolution, so the easily invalidated arguments against them that I read in those books stuck with me until I was 15, and finally had a good grasp on logic and the Scientific Method. I began to notive severe violations of the Scientific Method in much of the creationist literature I read, and I also began to notice accounts of historical events that contradicted the Bible. I also began to see internal contradictions, many of which I could sort out, but some which were blatant. Once my belief that the Bible was the infallible word of God crumbled, I lost my inflicted bias, and I began to dive into the sciences to explain things I once relied solely on the Bible to do.

It took me the whole of 2 weeks for my beliefs to flip upside down...all that was required was an end to my bias. I started with nothing but a want for knowledge, was inflicted with a bias towards Creationism, lost that, then saw the blatantly obvious.

quote:Originally posted by Garibaldi:

Well, there's still a pretty big difference between millions of years and 60,000 years. Most creationsists I've talked to dismiss that explanation however. They believe it was literally 6 days.

Well I for one do think that it was longer than 6 days.

quote:Originally posted by Shadowfox171:

Well I for one do think that it was longer than 6 days.

Heh, so do I

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

But what i also said was, "Apart from that, what is being used to combat secular--billions of years-- thinking of science, is creation science; ".

And this too, at least at the moment, is not religion. Creation science is science, but using God's Word for the basis of the framework.

And god's framework is science how? You can't just start at some arbitrary point that you get from the bible(6,000 some years) and work your way backwards. You have to start with what is in fron of you to reach the conclusions. You don't start with conclusions then try and find the facts that support that conclusion. This isn't science.

quote:In either type of science, if a result of an experiment or observed evidence does not fit what is predicted, it is set aside and looked at/tested again. For creation science, the expected result must fit with the understanding of scripture. In secular science results should fit with the scientific theory. The two key words here are 'must' and 'should'.

So any evidence on the earth created by god, that doesn't coincide with creation science should simply be disregarded?

quote:Anyway, the site about the dinosaurs that i think you are refering to, was posted only for some reference to ancient depictions of dinos, before we knew what dinos were. But to show that it is possible that man and dinos lived at the same time.. if not, how did they know what they looked like.

Not many scientist has ever claimed to know what dinosaurs looked like. It is well known that all pictures you see of dinosaurs are just guesses as to what they looked like.

I'd again like to ask you if you could find that same research from a secular site.

WELL??????

So any evidence on the earth created by god, that doesn't coincide with creation science should simply be disregarded?{/b]

Disreguarded? Or looked at differently?

Creationists do not disreguard fossils. Nor do they disreguard that dinosaurs lived on the earth. But when they believe that God's Word shows that the creation has only been around for a few thousand years, would it make sense for them to think that secular scientist are right when they interpret those same fossils as billions of years old? Especially when they have plausible, alternative answers..even though it goes against the mainstream thinking.

quote: quote:Anyway, the site about the dinosaurs that i think you are refering to, was posted only for some reference to ancient depictions of dinos, before we knew what dinos were. But to show that it is possible that man and dinos lived at the same time.. if not, how did they know what they looked like.

quote:[b]Not many scientist has ever claimed to know what dinosaurs looked like. It is well known that all pictures you see of dinosaurs are just guesses as to what they looked like.



Isnt it interesting that the petroglyph pictured on that site resembles what science, dinosaur books, and museums all depict as what a dinosaur looked like? The petroglyph was (presumably) drawn by ancient man, long before science made a guess at what (some) dinos looked like.

I know the picture that was on that site didnt show it, but that petroglyph also has dipictions of man.. among other things. (which i'll get to..sorta..in the next part)

I'd again like to ask you if you could find that same research from a secular site.

So far i can not find a secular web site that shows the research on these petroglyphs. In fact, none of the non-creation sites i looked at, show any petroglyphs that look like dinos, Let alone research on them.

However, one site i looked at (which was a creation site) told where one can go to look at this and some other dino looking petroglyphs.

In the last part i said, "..sorta..". This site shows "Petroglyphs in Context With Others".

The reason in posting this site is because it tells you where, in the real world, you can look at these glyphs for yourself. And decide, for yourself, what they look like.

http://www.rae.org/dinoglyph.html

This site also seems "fair" in that it does point out other (secular) interpretations of the glyphs.

A different site (it doesnt say anything about dino glyphs) says this,

"Kokopelli - Dinosaur National Monument

Religious functions have been ascribed to some of these painted and sculpted figures, but no one really knows their purpose or meaning. Rock art pictures are generally interpreted as depicting concepts of wild resource, fertility, and hunting magic (Stone)."

This site is just a general site on rock art. I'm adding it cause it has some very nice glyphs and some info on interpretation (or lack there of) http://www.thefurtrapper.com/Fremont_rock%20art.htm

Sorry, but here is another Christian oriented site. Whether any of this is true or not, i think you might find it interesting.

http://www.s8int.com/dinolit3.html

I also found this on the site, and only skimmed it... does anyone know of any, more recent, report(s) that confirm or deny this?

http://www.s8int.com/article1-simple.html

OK, getting late... enough of this foolishness... time for bed

God Bless You All

xtreem

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

Do I consider the bible to be God's words? No. Men wrote the bible. It wasn't even written for a very long time after those stories were suppost to have happened. Do you really think a story could go unaltered in anyway down through the many years until writting was invented?

On top of that, it seems like there has been some editting from time to time by the church it's self.



Have you tried writing a simple letter to a friend using a quill pen, bottled ink, low candlelight, and parchment paper ?

IT TAKES A LONG TIME.

Do you realize how many scrolls were written ?

Do you also realize that these scrolls had to be written with perfection, meaning that they couldn't have any grammatical errors, whatsoever ?

That means that every time they made a mistake, they had to start the whole scroll over.

It was a painstaking process...and I'll bet that you couldn't even do the alphabet without a mistake using the writing style and technique that was used to write the books of the Bible.

It is hilarious to think that the Bible should have just PLOPPED out of the authors' hands in what...less than a decade ?

Pffffft.

quote:This is not science. It's using religion to combat science.

"Creationists do not fight science. Science is defined as knowledge derived from the observation, study and testing of evidence. Most branches of modern science were begun by Creation believing scientists. Real science is a Christian’s best friend because observable, testable facts support Creation and destroy evolution. Darwinian Macro evolution is unobservable and non-testable so it is not science but rather a religious philosophy which rids the world of it’s Creator. Creationists are fighting to get the false science of evolutionism exposed for the religious belief that it is and return “science” to the study of observable evidence. For examples of false science in the textbooks, we suggest viewing CESM DVD 1 or seeing live Seminars 1 and 2." http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp

quote:Originally posted by Garibaldi:

Well, there's still a pretty big difference between millions of years and 60,000 years. Most creationsists I've talked to dismiss that explanation however. They believe it was literally 6 days.

It WAS literally 6 days.

That is why God made it a point of talking about the sun rising and setting on each day of creation.

He wanted it to be evident that He was working within the 24 hour period we call a "day".

Have you read Genesis ?

Wouldn't a secular site have just as much bias as a Christian site, Napoleon ?

For those who want to know, everything is not found on the INTERNET !

I am pushing this guy a lot lately, but that is because he has the most comprehensive collection of CD's with scientific evidence supporting the Bible online.

So, here: http://www.creationministries.org/resources.asp

If you really want to know the science behind Creationism, get this guy's stuff.

He's not only extremely intelligent, but he has several degrees to prove that he understands "science" well enough to form an educated opinion on whether the theory of evolution has any merit or not.

Napoleon, it's a couple of bucks. Start doing your own research. The answers are out there.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Have you tried writing a simple letter to a friend using a quill pen, bottled ink, low candlelight, and parchment paper ?

IT TAKES A LONG TIME.

Do you realize how many scrolls were written ?

Do you also realize that these scrolls had to be written with perfection, meaning that they couldn't have any grammatical errors, whatsoever ?

That means that every time they made a mistake, they had to start the whole scroll over.

It was a painstaking process...and I'll bet that you couldn't even do the alphabet without a mistake using the writing style and technique that was used to write the books of the Bible.

It is hilarious to think that the Bible should have just PLOPPED out of the authors' hands in what...less than a decade ?





Apparently god does a very poor job at inspiring people. One would think that while under the divine inspiration of god they would get the job done quicker and without mistakes...

How the HELL does that make any sense ?

God gave them vision, and inspiration.

He didn't take their hands, and write it for them.

*lol*

This just shows your complete ignorance of the Bible. (not stupidity, which means that your lack of understanding is not on PURPOSE)

I recommend that you actually read the Bible before you make anymore statements like that.

What I say makes total sense, when you have actually read the Bible cover to cover (and study the Hebrew/Jewish traditions, customs, and culture).

Again, I ask you...what are you so afraid of ?

I bet you'd have no problem reading a book on Buddhism.

Here's some information on SCROLLS, and how they were created: http://farms.byu.edu/dss/creation.html

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

How the HELL does that make any sense ?

God gave them vision, and inspiration.

He didn't take their hands, and write it for them.

*lol*

This just shows your complete ignorance of the Bible. (not stupidity, which means that your lack of understanding is not on PURPOSE)

I recommend that you actually read the Bible before you make anymore statements like that.

You implied that they could make a mistake (and thus have to start "from scratch") For divine inspiration to hold any wieght it must mean the authors of the bible couldn't make a mistake. If they could, then the bible loses any and all credibility it has (not that it has any anyways), since what we have now could be completely false, since it could be a mistake! Hence, what I said.

quote:

What I say makes total sense, when you have actually read the Bible cover to cover (and study the Hebrew/Jewish traditions, customs, and culture).

Again, I ask you...what are you so afraid of ?

I bet you'd have no problem reading a book on Buddhism.



I HAVE read the bible, though not completely. I've told you this numerous times before.

If you have only read some of it, you cannot know the whole story.

quote:You implied that they could make a mistake (and thus have to start "from scratch") For divine inspiration to hold any wieght it must mean the authors of the bible couldn't make a mistake. If they could, then the bible loses any and all credibility it has (not that it has any anyways), since what we have now could be completely false, since it could be a mistake! Hence, what I said.

I didn't imply that they could make a mistake...I SAID that they DID make mistakes !

Having divine inspiration doesn't make you without flaw ! The only perfect human being was Jesus Christ.

As with anything we do, it cannot be done well without many errors and much practice.

They had divine inspiration to know the things that God wanted us to understand.

They were not holy, blameless, sinless, perfect men !

They wrote and rewrote until the words, their meanings, the heights of the letters, etc. were all perfect (in man's eyes).

God inspiring them to write what He wanted had nothing to do with their talent in writing it.

I didn't say that they were writing the stories wrong...I am saying that the letter structure, the spacing, the story placement, all had to be right.

Keep on twisting, Rust.

Why haven't you read the whole thing ?

Grammatical/semantical produce errors in the story.

Thus, if you claim they can make grammatical/semantical errors, the whole Bible is suspect, and therefore loses any credibility it has!

Thank you for supporting my argument.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-04-2005).]

You implied that they could make a mistake (and thus have to start "from scratch") For divine inspiration to hold any wieght it must mean the authors of the bible couldn't make a mistake.

The divinely inspired authors werent the ones that Digital was refering to (atleast i dont think she was). The mistakes, i think, that she is refering to are the copying of the original manuscripts. (i know this begs the question, but i'll leave it go for now)

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

You implied that they could make a mistake (and thus have to start "from scratch") For divine inspiration to hold any wieght it must mean the authors of the bible couldn't make a mistake.

The divinely inspired authors werent the ones that Digital was refering to (atleast i dont think she was). The mistakes, i think, that she is refering to are the copying of the original manuscripts. (i know this begs the question, but i'll leave it go for now)



My mistake, apparently she was meaning this.

Nemisis was speaking of the bible, and thus the authors of the bible. So if DS is speaking of someone else then she's mistaken.

Moreover, if she's mistaken she said they were divinely inspired as well, which still means they couldn't have made mistakes, grammatical or otherwise.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Nemisis was speaking of the bible, and thus the authors of the bible. So if DS is speaking of someone else then she's mistaken.

Moreover, if she's mistaken she said they were divinely inspired as well, which still means they couldn't have made mistakes, grammatical or otherwise.



As far as i know, we have very few (presumed) original manuscripts. And those are not complete. As far as i know, what we have,(and what the bible is made of) are copies of the original manuscripts that are decades to centuries later than the originals.

So? I'm not debating otherwise.

I'm debating whether the original authors could have made grammatical/semantical errors when they were writing.

If they could, then that means the whole bible is suspect and loses all credibility.

Do you agree with that? It seemes you had to assume DS was talking about manuscripts...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Grammatical/semantical produce errors in the story.

Thus, if you claim they can make grammatical/semantical errors, the whole Bible is suspect, and therefore loses any credibility it has!

Thank you for supporting my argument.



You should be a woman, with such manipulation skills !

I wasn't saying that they could make errors in the CONTEXT...

Here's an example: I want to say the house is made of red brick - instead, I type "the house is made of bed rick"

I would have to go back and fix these errors.

I wasn't referring to historical errors, or account errors.

Knock it off.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You should be a woman, with such manipulation skills !

I wasn't saying that they could make errors in the CONTEXT...

Here's an example: I want to say the house is made of red brick - instead, I type "the house is made of bed rick"

I would have to go back and fix these errors.

I wasn't referring to historical errors, or account errors.

Knock it off.

That DOES change the meaning. The only reason it doesn't seem that way, is because you have the origina sentence above, to compare it.

Give the last sentence to someone, without him knowing the other one, and he could not possibly know whether that is what you wanted to say, or if that's an error. Thus changing the meaning of the sotry completely.

Again, if the authors were able to make those errors, then the whole bible is suspect.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So? I'm not debating otherwise.

I'm debating whether the original authors could have made grammatical/semantical errors when they were writing.

If they could, then that means the whole bible is suspect and loses all credibility.

Do you agree with that? It seemes you had to assume DS was talking about manuscripts...





I was just trying to be a little more clear.

We are just talking about two totally different things here.

I'll get back to ya...k ?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html

Ok but craig still has some good points down.

i cant beleive you theist havent taken the speckle of his arguement to both topics. i am a non-theist for the record...

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I was just trying to be a little more clear.

Okay, fine.

If you quote an argument I'm making I'm going to automatically assume you're offering a counter-argument.

P.S. Could you answer the question? Why did you assume DS was talking about other authors?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

P.S. Could you answer the question? Why did you assume DS was talking about other authors?

I assumed it because i am pretty sure that there are very few (if any) complete originals to compare with... so we cant tell if there were mistakes in the originals or not (from an earthly POV)

But there are many manuscripts that are copies, and in those, we can compare copies to copies. Also, it did sound as if she was describing the copying process that was used... i.e. if a mistake was found, the copy was destroyed and they started over.

I do agree with you, that if the original was divinly inspired, there (logically) should not be ANY mistakes. I mentioned "beg the question" and by this i meant that (logically, from an earthly perspective) it should seem that the copies should be Divinly protected from error, also. But that does not prohibit satan from throwing in a few false copies from time to time... i know, i just opened another can-o-worms with that statement, but oh, well.

Wife just went to bed and so should I... good night, Rust. I pray that God "shows" Himself to you (soon), this arguing with you is very tedious. (OK, maybe not the best prayer, but it is in my heart, so-- AMEN)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wouldn't a secular site have just as much bias as a Christian site, Napoleon ?

I see it in the opposite way. If you can find the same information on a secular site, that you also found on a christian creationist site, I would consider that validating the theory of creation.

If this is science then there should be science backing up your claims, no?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I assumed it because i am pretty sure that there are very few (if any) complete originals to compare with... so we cant tell if there were mistakes in the originals or not (from an earthly POV)

But there are many manuscripts that are copies, and in those, we can compare copies to copies. Also, it did sound as if she was describing the copying process that was used... i.e. if a mistake was found, the copy was destroyed and they started over.

I do agree with you, that if the original was divinly inspired, there (logically) should not be ANY mistakes. I mentioned "beg the question" and by this i meant that (logically, from an earthly perspective) it should seem that the copies should be Divinly protected from error, also. But that does not prohibit satan from throwing in a few false copies from time to time... i know, i just opened another can-o-worms with that statement, but oh, well.

Wife just went to bed and so should I... good night, Rust. I pray that God "shows" Himself to you (soon), this arguing with you is very tedious. (OK, maybe not the best prayer, but it is in my heart, so-- AMEN)



Rust, this is an overview of versions of translations...

http://www.backtothebible.org/bigquestions/bq_bigquestions.htm#version

...

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I see it in the opposite way. If you can find the same information on a secular site, that you also found on a christian creationist site, I would consider that validating the theory of creation.

If this is science then there should be science backing up your claims, no?



No.

I feel the same way about Evolution scientist's as you feel about Creation Scientist's.

I truly feel that in order to deny the existence of God, evolutionist's try and manipulate science to "crutch" their agenda.

Being the best and most advanced species is not a concept we want to let go of (which we would have to do, if we admit that we were created by something greater than us).

Science is predominantly ruled by ego...no matter how "objective" we all claim it to be.

There is always an agenda, no matter what.

Right. Which is why there's considerable Scientific work being done in order to prove the existence of extraterrestials in space...?

Hmm...nothing to say, eh ?











http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

So mainstream science really is just

a conspiracy to attack christianity?

I ask you this alot, Digital,

and you never reply.

I sort of know what you mean though.

Like how they call all those

demon-possessed people "schizos"

and "maniacs". Just made up words

to cover the supernatural forces

at work.

Another good one- there are little

invisible animals that get inside you

and make you sick! We both know

disease comes from sin...

and then their medicine men dose

you with their witchcraft potions,

pretending to take away the evil.

Nobody sees that only god heals.

The question is, who do these

"scientists" really work for?

I believe they sold their souls

to Satan for all the fame and fortune

they get from their "research science".

I am bored so I will throw the young earther's a bone. They found a dinosaur bone with soft tissue inside it.

HAHAHAHAHA !

Ok, you're cool again. *grin*

Do you have a link on it ?

And Rust, I honestly didn't come around for your last posts...surgery or something, I can't remember.

I wasn't avoiding the argument.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make wasn't that the manuscripts HAD errors. They were PERFECT upon completion.

I am saying that they had to do a complete scroll over again, if they DID make an error. The letters had to be the perfect height, etc.

Get it now ?

Nope I just remember reading about it somewhere. I is a t-rex and they had to break the bone to transport it and they found a viean and some other tissue.

Edit: Neither the scientist nore I have any idea how the bone got fosilised but the tissue didn't. On semi-realted news the new National Geographic has an article about the hobbits, They did not mention DNA test so I assume they bones were too old or something.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 04-07-2005).]

Do you know "where" they found it ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And Rust, I honestly didn't come around for your last posts...surgery or something, I can't remember.

I wasn't avoiding the argument.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make wasn't that the manuscripts HAD errors. They were PERFECT upon completion.

I am saying that they had to do a complete scroll over again, if they DID make an error. The letters had to be the perfect height, etc.

Get it now ?

1. I acknowledge that you might not been evading it, the point being, that deptstoremook might also not been evading it. He might have surgery, he might have a personal problem etc.

Hence you calling him out in a facetious matter, when you have done the same thing, is childish and hypocritical and as such I pointed it out

2.No. The fact that they could make errors, complete destroys any attempt at you claiming they could make a perfect manuscript at the end.

If they could commit errors in typing, you have absolutely no reason to believe there was no error in typing at the end, and moreover, it puts any Divine Inspiration in question.

So much so, that xtreem disagrees with you.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. I acknowledge that you might not been evading it, the point being, that deptstoremook might also not been evading it. He might have surgery, he might have a personal problem etc.

Hence you calling him out in a facetious matter, when you have done the same thing, is childish and hypocritical and as such I pointed it out

2.No. The fact that they could make errors, complete destroys any attempt at you claiming they could make a perfect manuscript at the end.

If they could commit errors in typing, you have absolutely no reason to believe there was no error in typing at the end, and moreover, it puts any Divine Inspiration in question.

So much so, that xtreem disagrees with you.



1. I didn't realize that I had done that in the same context. The ONE TIME I have said, "Nothing to say ?" I was bumping a thread.

2. So you don't believe in the "editting" process ? *lol*

We do it today...I believe people that do this for a living call themselves Editors.

Making a gramattical error doesn't change the text...I don't see how you could insinuate otherwise. That's just ridiculous.

I never made any sort of statement that would indicate that the Bible was written, without error, by every single author, every time he sat down to write it.

That doesn't change it's infallibility, or the fact that is was divinely inspired.

You're being purposely obtuse.

And the measure of what is right or not is not determined by whether another Christian agrees with me or not.

We have no alliance...and there has always been division in the church over what is "right", and what is not.

Though I don't recall Xtreem disagreeing with me.

He said he didn't know of any original manuscripts...that's completely different than what I am saying, though at it's very essence it bears no weight on whether I am right or wrong, since HIS knowledge, or lack of it, doesn't make it so.

MASTERPYTHON

Here ya go, man...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/24/rex.tissue.ap/

I love how they avoid the issue of the fact that tissue in this bone is possible because it may NOT be millions of years old.

They even go so far as to say how INTERESTING it is that tissue would be found in a 70 million year old fossil.

How's THAT for bias ?!

They also say that they don't even know how fossilization really works yet...so, my question is, how can they assert that the bone is 70 million years old, when they don't even know how it came to be fossilized ? Don't you need to understand the process, before you can claim to know the conclusion of it ?

I thought science was supposed to be about observation ?



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-08-2005).]

One last thing...

"The finding certainly shows fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed, Schweitzer said. Since the discovery, she has found similar samples of soft tissue in two other Tyrannosaur fossils and a hadrosaur."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

I think "assumed" is the key word in that paragraph.

As a Christian, I can't help but notice how much of "science" is assumption, and how much of it is actually provable fact.

This is why I think evolution is silly...because most of it is not only NOT provable (reproducable, whatever), but much of it is based on assumptions.

People base their entire religious outlook on Evolution...and it is mostly nothing more than assumption.

Scary.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



As a Christian, I can't help but notice how much of "science" is assumption, and how much of it is actually provable fact.

This is why I think evolution is silly...because most of it is not only NOT provable (reproducable, whatever), but much of it is based on assumptions.

People base their entire religious outlook on Evolution...and it is mostly nothing more than assumption.

Scary.



Why is that scary? Evolution theory never prompted anyone to murder, religion has though. I'd rather trust evolution's assumptions than religion's.

Digital_Savior: Here ya go, man...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/24/rex.tissue.ap/

I love how they avoid the issue of the fact that tissue in this bone is possible because it may NOT be millions of years old.

They even go so far as to say how INTERESTING it is that tissue would be found in a 70 million year old fossil.

How's THAT for bias ?!

...

They also say that they don't even know how fossilization really works yet...so, my question is, how can they assert that the bone is 70 million years old, when they don't even know how it came to be fossilized ? Don't you need to understand the process, before you can claim to know the conclusion of it ?

I thought science was supposed to be about observation ?

My, aren't we jumping to conclusions? The answer is so obvious that you should be ashamed. If you were to have read the article carefully, you would have known that the tissue itself was fossilized. The reason why it was soft was because they used a process to extract the minerals from it (which is what prevented them from decaying).

You're so desperate for ways to "disprove" the old age of the earth that you see everything as disproving it. It's sorta funny in a way.

it would seem being they once dominated the planet thier should of been some kind of specific mention of them....on another hand,why doesn't the bible mention cave persons?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

1. I didn't realize that I had done that in the same context. The ONE TIME I have said, "Nothing to say ?" I was bumping a thread.

2. So you don't believe in the "editting" process ? *lol*

We do it today...I believe people that do this for a living call themselves Editors.

Making a gramattical error doesn't change the text...I don't see how you could insinuate otherwise. That's just ridiculous.

I never made any sort of statement that would indicate that the Bible was written, without error, by every single author, every time he sat down to write it.

That doesn't change it's infallibility, or the fact that is was divinely inspired.



1. The point being you were being, for lack of a better term, an asshole,and being so for something you've done as well. Hence, I pointed out the hypocrisy.

2. Editting process is not infallibe, which is why there are errors in books that are printed, which is why there are revisions and second, third, fourth, editions, ad infinitum.

Also, as you yourself proved, a grammar mistake CAN change the meaning of a sentence.

Your example was:

"I want to say the house is made of red brick - instead, I type "the house is made of bed rick"

That DOES change the meaning, since those two sentences in your own examples ARE different.

You claim that the authors could make these errors, and in face of "the editing process" not being infallible, it means there possibility of error inthe bible exists, and as such, it loses credibility.

3. Extreeme DID disagree with you since he said that the writters COULD NOT make those mistakes.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-10-2005).]

who would win in a fight- jesus or a T-rex?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Why is that scary? Evolution theory never prompted anyone to murder, religion has though. I'd rather trust evolution's assumptions than religion's.

It's scary that people alllow the eternal state of their souls to be determined by such unprovable factors.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Why is that scary? Evolution theory never prompted anyone to murder, religion has though. I'd rather trust evolution's assumptions than religion's.

Oh, and I said "Christian", not "religion".

Take care to know the difference.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Posted by Clarphimous:

My, aren't we jumping to conclusions? The answer is so obvious that you should be ashamed. If you were to have read the article carefully, you would have known that the tissue itself was fossilized. The reason why it was soft was because they used a process to extract the minerals from it (which is what prevented them from decaying).

You're so desperate for ways to "disprove" the old age of the earth that you see everything as disproving it. It's sorta funny in a way.

Actually, no. You WISH I was that desperate to absolve my "perceived" ignorance.

However, I didn't say that I didn't recognize that the tissue was fossilized. I read the article, carefully. More than one version of it, too.

That point was that the POSSIBILITY of dinosaurs only being a few thousand years old is steadfastly ignored.

Why can't that be a possibility ? They base this supposed "lack of possiblity" on the fact that they believe they have accurately "dated" fossils...but I still say that if they don't even know how fossilization takes place, how can they say they even know it exists, or that it does in fact take millions of years to occur ?

All total speculation...so part of the speculation should be ANY and ALL possibilities.

But to allow such a possibility to be entertained, the science community would have to eat it's words (regarding "pseudo-scientists" - A.K.A. Scientist's that are Christian), and they will NEVER do that.

The silence of this issue has greater implications than even they realize.

Nice try.

Ooooooh looook at meeee, rather than dismissing what seems blatantly wrong, Im going to make things up and bend rules to try and say they're right. Nevermind logic or reason.

Dinosaurs were planted by the devil, and Jesus is coming for yOUR BRAINS!!!

Digital_Savior: Actually, no. You WISH I was that desperate to absolve my "perceived" ignorance.

However, I didn't say that I didn't recognize that the tissue was fossilized. I read the article, carefully. More than one version of it, too.

I'll admit, it was dishonest of me to blame it all on you. MasterPython was the one who told you that they found soft tissue inside it. He also said this:

Edit: Neither the scientist nore I have any idea how the bone got fosilised but the tissue didn't.

So he didn't know any better either, and he led you to believe that the tissue wasn't fossilized. The article was misleading, you don't need to deceive yourself about your confusion. If you still don't agree, you can read my analysis of your posts below.

I love how they avoid the issue of the fact that tissue in this bone is possible because it may NOT be millions of years old.

Paraphrasing -- "It is scientifically impossible for the tissue to be millions of years old, and scientists are avoiding the issue." The reason of why it is impossible is implied: that tissue would decay inside a bone. The thought of it being fossilized doesn't cross your mind.

They even go so far as to say how INTERESTING it is that tissue would be found in a 70 million year old fossil.

Paraphrasing -- "It is ironic that they would call soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil 'interesting'". The irony comes from your idea that the tissue is evidence that dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old, thus disproving Darwinian evolution.

Once we get past this, I'll respond to your other objections.

edit: fixed some wording

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 04-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dontdrinkbleach:

who would win in a fight- jesus or a T-rex?

Jesus can kill plants just by touching them and telling them to die, maybe he can do it to animals. That is if he is fast enough to do it before he gets his head bitten off.

In the CNN article it says that insect preserved in amber are other examples of really really old soft tissue. So unless you believe there is no such thing as really really old there is nothing imposible about really really old tissue.

http://www.creationministries.org/resources.asp

Haha yes...i am going to give money to someone defending 'intelligent design'.

There are so many holes in the bible that it just isn't even worth arguing about. It amazes me that the creation Vs evolution argument still even exists. Evolution wins in the end.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Here's some information on SCROLLS, and how they were created: http://farms.byu.edu/dss/creation.html

It took us Jews all that time to accurately and flawlessly transcribe each copy of the Torah and you go and print about a thousand different translations. There's something ironic in that.

Who cares if dinosours existed 17 million years or 3000 years agow. The only problem is that we dont see any dinosours in cave art. Heres some fun stuff... http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/death.html

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

do, however, think that scientists are avoiding the issue.

It seems perfectly logical to think that perhaps the reason the tissue was there was because it wasn't as old as they thought it was to begin with.

So, why haven't they ? They're avoiding the issue.



Maybe, it has something to do with the fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting creationism.

By your logic, (i.e. because they ignored something which does not have evidence supporting it, they must be avoiding the issue / making assumptions) one could argue that they were avoiding the issue of the pink flying dildo that puts soft tissue on fossils.

They DID ignore that didn't they? Nowhere in that article is the possibility of pink flying dildos depositing fossilized tissue is ever mentioned.

quote:Posted by Clarphimous:

Paraphrasing -- "It is scientifically impossible for the tissue to be millions of years old, and scientists are avoiding the issue." The reason of why it is impossible is implied: that tissue would decay inside a bone. The thought of it being fossilized doesn't cross your mind.

Your paraphrase isn't even remotely close to conveying my intended point.

I never even ASSERTED that it is scientifically impossible for tissue to be millions of years old.

I do, however, think that scientists are avoiding the issue.

It seems perfectly logical to think that perhaps the reason the tissue was there was because it wasn't as old as they thought it was to begin with.

So, why haven't they ? They're avoiding the issue.

quote:Paraphrasing -- "It is ironic that they would call soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil 'interesting'". The irony comes from your idea that the tissue is evidence that dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old, thus disproving Darwinian evolution.

This is, again, your gross misinterpretation (or intentional misrepresentation) of what I said.

I have no problem with them thinking ANYTHING about this is interesting. If they didn't, I would wonder at the validity of their title "scientist".

Where that statement comes from is NOT from my presupposition that dinosaurs fossils truly are only a few thousand years old, but from the lack of evidence supporting either theory (evolution vs. creation).

My problem is with their blatant disregard for the possibility that they aren't millions of years in the making, simply because of the theological implications.

They cling frantically to the theory of Evolution, which asserts that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old...and accept no other explanation.

They are being purposely obtuse.

I apologize if I did not make that clear.



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-11-2005).]

Digital_Savior: Your paraphrase isn't even remotely close to conveying my intended point.

I never even ASSERTED that it is scientifically impossible for tissue to be millions of years old.

I do, however, think that scientists are avoiding the issue.

It seems perfectly logical to think that perhaps the reason the tissue was there was because it wasn't as old as they thought it was to begin with.

It isn't logical to think that, because the tissue was FOSSILIZED. There is absolutely nothing about the tissue being fossilized that would imply that it is relatively young. Nothing. Without the idea that the tissue isn't fossilized, there is no way to conclude that it is evidence of youth.

The same applies to your second quote, which implies that the tissue is evidence of the youth of the bones:

They even go so far as to say how INTERESTING it is that tissue would be found in a 70 million year old fossil.

If you disagree, point out how the fossilized tissue shows that the bones may be younger than scientists believe.

quote:Maybe, it has something to do with the fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting creationism.

By your logic, (i.e. because they ignored something which does not have evidence supporting it, they must be avoiding the issue / making assumptions) one could argue that they were avoiding the issue of the pink flying dildo that puts soft tissue on fossils.

They DID ignore that didn't they? Nowhere in that article is the possibility of pink flying dildos depositing fossilized tissue is ever mentioned.

DS just basically got burnt. I was actually about to make the same exact point until i seen that someone beat me to it (not surprising as it is such an obvious flaw in Ds's argument).

http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica.htm

DS, you might find this interesting.