explain dinosaurs?

edit:just realized how retarded the title reads http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) Oh well, you get my question.

[This message has been edited by Spic Power (edited 04-26-2005).]

http://informationcentre.tripod.com/boot.html BUt it said somewhere that god cleansed the earth of levithon or something. So no more dinos.

Doesn't explain little dinosaurs

or other early animals that

are long since extinct.

Not really important though.

The fossil record clearly

demonstrates evolution.

Later forms always follow

earlier forms, and the record

never backtracks.

What do you mean? Dinosaurs were cohabitant with humans. Its not entirely crazy to think such.

The book of Job recounts some interesting descriptions of dinosaurs. We can say that there were no archaeological expeditions active at any time previous so how did man even know about dinosaurs?

I hate opposable thumbs.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

What do you mean? Dinosaurs were cohabitant with humans. Its not entirely crazy to think such.



Then how do you explain the complete lack of evidence of any sort of interaction between the two species, the survival of humans when dinosaurs went extinct, or the 65 million year gap inbetween the latest dinosaur fossils and ourselves?

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

Then how do you explain the complete lack of evidence of any sort of interaction between the two species, the survival of humans when dinosaurs went extinct, or the 65 million year gap inbetween the latest dinosaur fossils and ourselves?

Exactly. Really, you have to be completely fucking stupid, or just plain delusional to think that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time.

They did not.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Exactly. Really, you have to be completely fucking stupid, or just plain delusional to think that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time.[/B]

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

I think the reason why most people find the idea of dinosaurs and humans living together is because of all the times you see it in the media. Usually it involves cavemen. Remember the Flinstones? And there were probably lots of other ones on television too.

I remember three video games at the moment that featured cavemen with dinosaurs... Trog for the NES, Chrono Trigger for the SNES, and Secret of Evermore for the SNES.

The catch is that none of these suggest that dinosaurs lived just a few thousand years ago. The way it was usually thought of is with the human race existing back into millions of years ago. But today we know that's not so.

Well absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You twats did not live during that time and there are no secular historical records of it, so you cannot disprove it at all.

However if you actually read andunderstand my post i tell you that ancient man had a description that modern man has known for at least a century when the ancient man did not have archaeological discoveries of any kind.

So, if the dinos died millions of years before man even existed, how did someone form an accurate description of one?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Well absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You twats did not live during that time and there are no secular historical records of it, so you cannot disprove it at all.

No secular records? How about, no records at all, unless the dinosaurs kept records, and there is no evidence of that.

Oh wait, there is a record... the fossil record. This record clearly indicates a 65 million year gap between the last of the dinosaurs and the first of the humans.

Furthermore, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, circumstantial evidence though it may be. But it sure as SHIT is not evidence that there WERE humans.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

However if you actually read andunderstand my post i tell you that ancient man had a description that modern man has known for at least a century when the ancient man did not have archaeological discoveries of any kind.

So, if the dinos died millions of years before man even existed, how did someone form an accurate description of one?

What leads you to the conclusion that ancient man made no archeological discoveries? Just because he did not realize that they were "archeological" in nature does not mean that the discoveries were not made.

Do you think that fossilized dinosaur bones have remained hidden in the earth for millions of years, only to reveal themselves in the past century or two? Some fossils can be found partially exposed from the surrounding soil, and would have been at the time of ancient man as well. Such a monstrous skeleton would certainly provide the basis for the description of a "leviathan."

The Bible does mention certain large beasts, such as the "Levaithon" and a few others (I can't quite remember).

But these are hardly examples of Dinosaurs and Humans coexisting. Seeing as how Dinosaurs and Humans would have very serious problems peacefully (relatively) existing side by side and the fact that not all dinosaurs are large...well, leviathons.

It's comparable to ancient "Dragon" myths, even less, since the Bible doesn't talk about these leviathons and other beasts too often.

These "leviathans" are described as fire-breathing creatures in the Bible.

This provides a very interesting problem to creationists.

They often claim that we have not found "missing-links" (we have of course found numerous ones, yet they refuse to accept them), and that this very supposed absence of evidence is evidence that they do not exist (thus they claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence).

Yet they conveniently do not apply this lack of logic to their beliefs, since if they take the bible as infallible, and literal, then they must believe fire-breathing dragons existed; fire-breathing dragons which we have found absolutely no evidence for, which wouldthen be evidence of absence!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Doesn't explain little dinosaurs

or other early animals that

are long since extinct.

Not really important though.

The fossil record clearly

demonstrates evolution.

Later forms always follow

earlier forms, and the record

never backtracks.

The fossil record is BS...any learned scholar will tell you that !

Animals that they use to date the Jurassic period have been found in the Triassic period as well...

Modern human skulls have been found next to trilobyte fossils...explain that, please ?

Everything you believe is based on a lie, and you have the nerve to criticize Creationist's ?

*laughs*

I'm sorry...I realize that last post to Jimmy was terribly catty.

I still get steamed at people who try to call me stupid for my beliefs, yet they know nothing about their own...or that their beliefs are like swiss cheese.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The fossil record is BS...any learned scholar will tell you that !



Really? Which is why the majority of "learned scholars" believe in evolution, not creationism?

quote:

Animals that they use to date the Jurassic period have been found in the Triassic period as well...

The Jurassic period comes after the Triassic! Of course there will be species that can be found in both. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Much like you can find evidence of Industrialization before what most history books cite as the beginning of Industrialization. How you can find Rococo art in the Baroque, and Baroque in the Renaissance, this continues ad nauseum!

These are arbitrary delineations which help to group up common geological aspects of a time period. Since it is arbitrary, any reasonable person should come to the conclusion that the above you mention will happen. That hardly refutes anything, since like I said, the Jurassic period comes right after the Triassic period!



quote:

Modern human skulls have been found next to trilobyte fossils...explain that, please ?

1. Please back this up.

2. Where something is found does not prove anything in and of itself, WHY it was found there, would.

quote:

Everything you believe is based on a lie, and you have the nerve to criticize Creationist's ?



Seeing as everything you said was false, it is obviously you who believe in a lie.

RUST:

Ever heard of the Bombadier Beetle ? If not, go Google it real quick.

Ok...now look up http://dinosauricon.com/genera/parasaurolophus.html

This "nasal" cavity that parasaurolophus had behind their heads could have been used for anything...horn-like mating calls, superior olfactory senses...OR...

As a series of chambers consisting of different enzymes that could create "fire"...similar in process to the Bombadier Beetle.

"It was a herbivore, a herding animal, falling into a rigid social hierarchy." http://www.prehistory.com/parasaur.htm

HOW COULD THEY EVEN BEGIN TO PRESUME THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR MIGRATING, MATING, and EATING HABITS ?

Let's take the teeth, for example. It is easy to tell which species are omnivores, which are carnivores, and which are herbivores, right ?

Well, doesn't this seem like a set of teeth that would be characteristic of a carnivore ? http://www.giantpandabear.com/DHTML/descript4.html

How can science assert that they know exactly what any given dinosaur ate, based on their teeth, if it is possible for an animal to be an herbivore, and have the teeth of a carnivore ?

Now, don't misunderstand...I am not trying to pass the hypothesis about the parasaurolophus (breathing fire) off as fact (or that it proves Creation).

I am trying to point out that all evolution has is guesses, which is what they claim keeps them from believing in God, and they teach it in our schools as if they have proven it to be fact.

And don't get me started on the Archaeopteryx.

where are the panda's teeth??

that dino thing is silly... and yet, i can't help wishing that i was a fire-breathing parasaurolophus... you wouldn't mess with that!!

i don't even have acid spit... WHY NOT ME!!!???

SOURCES:

1. dane cook

Ok, Rust...let's just see what the majority of evolutionist's "believe":

Haeckel: http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html

See the graph of the zygotes ? This was the clencher for evolutionsists...to be able to show that all embryo's look alike, thus supporting the hypothesis that human embryo's undergo a complex evolutionary progression during gestation was all they needed (Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny) to perpetuate the Theory of Evolution.

But it's been exposed as intentional fraud. "Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b)." (I say "intentional" because it would take a moron to truly think that embryo's at similar gestational stages look alike...they absolutely don't [and Haeckel wasn't a moron], so it must have been on purpose ! I have also heard that he doctored the photos, but I don't have a reference at this time.)

" But Haeckel's drawings are wrong. Photographing actual embryos at these stages, Richardson and colleagues show that Haeckel's drawings are oversimplified to the point of obscuring important differences between classes of vertebrates. The Richardson et al. paper does not dispute that there is a highly conserved embryonic stage among the vertebrate classes. Indeed, at the late tailbud stage, vertebrate embryos of most all classes possess "somites, neural tube, optic anlagen, notochord, and pharyngeal pouches." However, these authors do criticise the notion that this stage is nearly identical in all species and that differences beteen the classes can be resolved only after subsequent development. Rather, they discover significant differences between groups. Size is one distinctive marker. The scorpion fish embryo is 700 microns long at the tailbud stage, while the mudpuppy salamander measures some 9 millimeters. Heterochrony is another problem. In some species of direct developing frogs, and in monotreme mammals, limb buds are already present at the tailbud stage, whereas in other species, these are not seen until significantly later. Birds are characterized by their prominent mesencephalon. Whereas most amniote embryos have a heart by this stage, the zebrafish does not. (Teleosts such as zebrafish are even the exception to the rule mentioned above. They eventually possess a notochord, somites, pharyngeal pouches, etc., but they do not have the pharyngeal pouches until after the tailbud stage)." (all from the same link above)

HAECKEL'S EMBRYO'S ARE STILL IN TEXTBOOKS, BOTH COLLEGE AND PRIMARY, AS "PROOF" OF EVOLUTION !

Complete breakdown of Haeckel's influence on the Evolution community (this one is Christian, so you may consider it biased, if you like...but the truth is out there): http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm

Hmmm....

I know...I wouldn't mind being able to fly...and breathe fire.

That's ALL women need !! LOL

What do you mean, "where are the panda's teeth" ?

Right on the site I posted...*confuzzled*

There are two javascripted buttons on the right hand side of the page...you scroll over them and the page goes down or up.

Does that help ?



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-27-2005).]

So DS, what you're saying is that you have absolutely nothing to refute my counter argument, and therefore you moved on to spamming the thread with more of your propaganda? Two can play at that game. But I'll do you one better. I'll refute your propaganda, AND post my own, something you wouldn't even dare do.

quote:Ever heard of the Bombadier Beetle ? If not, go Google it real quick.

This "nasal" cavity that parasaurolophus had behind their heads could have been used for anything...horn-like mating calls, superior olfactory senses...OR...

As a series of chambers consisting of different enzymes that could create "fire"...similar in process to the Bombadier Beetle.

"It was a herbivore, a herding animal, falling into a rigid social hierarchy." http://www.prehistory.com/parasaur.htm

It could also been used to summon pink dildos to defend the dinosaur. Right? I mean, it sounds outrageous, but I can certainly entertain the remote possibility of pink dildos being stored. Why then don't we believe it was dildos they stored? Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. The same applies to this case. It is up to those making the claims to support this with evidence, until you do, there is absolutely no reason to think that it is true.

Here, a article refuting these allegations: http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/E.html

quote:HOW COULD THEY EVEN BEGIN TO PRESUME THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR MIGRATING, MATING, and EATING HABITS ?

Let's take the teeth, for example. It is easy to tell which species are omnivores, which are carnivores, and which are herbivores, right ?

Well, doesn't this seem like a set of teeth that would be characteristic of a carnivore ? http://www.giantpandabear.com/DHTML/descript4.html

How can science assert that they know exactly what any given dinosaur ate, based on their teeth, if it is possible for an animal to be an herbivore, and have the teeth of a carnivore ?

Like Eil pointed out, that doesn't show teeth, it shows feet. [EDIT: Read your following post, and I do not see any arrows. It's proabably my browser. But this is not important:]

But what does this have to do with anything? This is not evolution. Hell, this would apply to creationism as well, since they hold similar beliefs of what animals do/did etc.

Trying to explain what animals do, or did in the past has nothing to dowith evolution orcreationism, in and of itself. Both theories would rely on the same assumptions, so this is hardly relevant.

quote:Haeckel: http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html

See the graph of the zygotes ? This was the clencher for evolutionsists...to be able to show that all embryo's look alike, thus supporting the hypothesis that human embryo's undergo a complex evolutionary progression during gestation was all they needed (Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny) to perpetuate the Theory of Evolution.

But it's been exposed as intentional fraud. "Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b)." (I say "intentional" because it would take a moron to truly think that embryo's at similar gestational stages look alike...they absolutely don't [and Haeckel wasn't a moron], so it must have been on purpose ! I have also heard that he doctored the photos, but I don't have a reference at this time.)

Sorry, but no.

Haeckel did use erroneous pictures/drawings, but these have long since been corrected. Thus this refutes nothing, it's not even relevant today.

A refutation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

and here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

You see, Science corrects itself. Creationists do not.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2005).]

Now, a little spamming of my own.

A compiled list of creationist claims, and their refutations. That's all I need to post:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

quote:Originally posted by Spic Power:

explain dinosaurs?

edit:just realized how retarded the title reads http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) Oh well, you get my question.



Alrighty then. The bible tells us that 1/3rd of the Angels along with Luicifer were cast to the earth. Thus, the earth had been created before. When God said, "Let their be light." He gave permission for light to shine again, he didn't create it again. God also turned his back on the earth. He gave it to Luicifer, and turned. (Ice age) Who's to limit God's creation? Science isn't to disprove God, and it doesn't. Science is God's blueprint. When God turned from the earth, being that he is the light, it froze instantly. When he created Adam and Eve and gave them Domination over the earth, Adam and eve sinned and gave domination back to Luicifer,(God sent Jesus so man would have domination again. Whole nother chapter.) God had given the sun permission to shine again. Then, you have your fossils. Which were discovered by archeologist. Am I making sense? I could really clear this up? I'm speaking to you like you're a moron too, I'm sorry. If you don't get what I'm sayin' let me know, I'll clarify, and give scripture.

It's spelled LEVIATHAN! Not THON. That irritates me! I thought everyone knew this. Was Thomas Hobbes in vein?

i use firefox, so i opened the panda link in internet explorer and it worked... the teeth are consistent with those of a herbivore. the dental structure most directly linked with diet in mammals are the molars, not the inscisors.

actually, panda incisors seem to closely resemble those of the gorilla, which use them in a similar fashion to strip leaves off of slender branches in a sweeping motion. if you notice, there doesn't appear to be any ridge running down the back of each incisor, which is typical if that tooth is used to slice flesh. they're pointy, but not scissors-like. with no further examination of a panda's dental structure, the incisors alone would imply an omnivorous diet, a defense function, or that they're vestigial. they would not be strongly indicative of a strictly carnivorous diet.

my inexpert opinion.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 04-29-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

It's spelled LEVIATHAN! Not THON. That irritates me! I thought everyone knew this. Was Thomas Hobbes in vein?



vain

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

vain

HaHA that made me smile.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

vain

Aww That was cute. I'm blonde.. What's your excuse? Words that sound alike confuse me. Yes!

i'm vain and bald... so i resent people with warm hairy heads and point out their every error. i just assumed you had hair.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

i'm vain and bald... so i resent people with warm hairy heads and point out their every error. i just assumed you had hair.

Um, No. I'm bald. Bad assumption.

better to be safe than sorry... many hairy types pretend to be bald by shaving. you can never be too sure nowadays, they've infiltrated our ranks!

<does the secret 'curly hand flap' on top of head, followed by vigorous face rubbing and running in place>

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The fossil record is BS...any learned scholar will tell you that !

Any scholar learned in the bible, anyway.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sorry, but no.

Haeckel did use erroneous pictures/drawings, but these have long since been corrected. Thus this refutes nothing, it's not even relevant today.You see, Science corrects itself.

I'm still waiting for since to finish the job of correcting itself...

Haeckel made up those drawings in 1869. I think they were proven wrong less than ten years later.

When i was in junior high (in the 1970's), the science textbooks still had those drawings as "proof" of evolution.

I have no idea if they are still in highschool textbooks, but i think dragging their collective asses for about a hundred years is way beyond my procrastination skills.... hmmm, maybe i could learn something from evolutionists at that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Simple. There were 2 biblical floods, one where Earthv1 was destroyed, the other was Noah's flood. Basicly, stars exploded, hydrogen came out of them, everything collapsed, making everyting the state it was before the big bang.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

It's spelled LEVIATHAN! Not THON. That irritates me! I thought everyone knew this. Was Thomas Hobbes in vein?



Sorry, I'm not a biblical expert. I'm sorry my mistake with one letter irritated you so.

People who don't believe in evolution explain dinosaurs many different ways.: Natural phenomenon, aliens from a distant planet, that they actually did exist but died out (that they didn't evolve into other creatures), blah blah blah, bladitity blah blah, bloooooooooooo...

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Garibaldi:

Sorry, I'm not a biblical expert. I'm sorry my mistake with one letter irritated you so.



Leviathan is everywhere. If you've ever played final fantasy you should know how to spell it.

I'm a bit of both schools. There was some creationism involved, that could be explained by science. Like somebody said earlier, science is God's blueprint. You just have to find it.

I don't pretend to understand what happened millions of years ago, so I won't argue about that.

If the dinosaurs and pre-flood man

existed together, the bible

would make more than a vague

allusion to them.

I think they would have made a

big impression. Think about it.

Dinosaurs were plentiful and successful

in their time. They would have

been stepping on people's houses,

eating people, and people would

have been eating them.

Not to mention all kinds of other

large frightening creatures found

in the fossil record that are now

extinct.

There would have been regular

interaction, and it would be

clearly indicated in the bible.

Ok, if that's true, how many times have you seen a bear in the woods or one *come into your lawn and eat your dog*?

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

If the dinosaurs and pre-flood man

existed together, the bible

would make more than a vague

allusion to them.

I think they would have made a

big impression. Think about it.

Dinosaurs were plentiful and successful

in their time. They would have

been stepping on people's houses,

eating people, and people would

have been eating them.

Not to mention all kinds of other

large frightening creatures found

in the fossil record that are now

extinct.

There would have been regular

interaction, and it would be

clearly indicated in the bible.

that reminds me of bill hicks' bit about a brontosaurus in the new testament... 'thus did luke speak to the lord, "jesus christ, that's a big fucking lizard!"'

Digital_Savior: Ever heard of the Bombadier Beetle?

I'm surprised creationists are still using this argument. Then again, maybe that's not so surprising, considering they never take the time to criticize their own ideas.

Here's an excellent article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html) on Talk Origins about the bombardier beetle.

I challenge you to either admit you were wrong (which I've never seen you do) or debate it with me. If you decide to debate the subject, I only ask that you put everything in your own words so that I know you understand what you're talking about.

quote:Originally posted by Spic Power:

Leviathan is everywhere. If you've ever played final fantasy you should know how to spell it.

I never played Final Fantasy. Man, you fuck up one letter, and that's the point people focus on.

*sigh*

Garibaldi: I never played Final Fantasy. Man, you fuck up one letter, and that's the point people focus on.

I just beat Final Fantasy 2 (US) for the first time yesterday. And yeah, it had Leviathan. Although I usually thought of it as being spelled Leviathian, so I'm not much better off than you :p

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

If the dinosaurs and pre-flood man

existed together, the bible

would make more than a vague

allusion to them.





Vague allusion ? *LOL*

They are mentioned 27 times...more than any other animal, except for the Lion and the Lamb.

Now what ?

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Digital_Savior: Ever heard of the Bombadier Beetle?

I'm surprised creationists are still using this argument. Then again, maybe that's not so surprising, considering they never take the time to criticize their own ideas.

Here's an excellent article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html) on Talk Origins about the bombardier beetle.

I challenge you to either admit you were wrong (which I've never seen you do) or debate it with me. If you decide to debate the subject, I only ask that you put everything in your own words so that I know you understand what you're talking about.

1. What did that article have to do with my usage of it as a comparison to how dinosaurs could have possibly "breathed fire" ?

2. I wasn't using the Bombadier Beetle as an example of intelligent design.

3. The thoughts I post from others ARE my thoughts. I do it this way for two reasons: A. Nobody gives a rats ass about my opinion, and therefore the opinions of more educated, certified people fare much better, and B. the opinions I post are full understood by me, as I would not want to post something that ends up arguing my very point.

I don't need to admit that I am wrong, since I carefully study what I say before I say it, and therefore conclude that I am either right, or as close to right as I am going to get.

In real life, I am wrong all the time, and apologize more frequently than my pride would like me to. *laughs* However, when it comes to God and the Bible, much praying and discernment goes in to every thought and belief.

This is not to say that I CANNOT be wrong, but I maintain that it doesn't happen often, and RARELY on Totse, since I have time to think and revise before running my mouth. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

K ?

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Alrighty then. The bible tells us that 1/3rd of the Angels along with Luicifer were cast to the earth. Thus, the earth had been created before. When God said, "Let their be light." He gave permission for light to shine again, he didn't create it again. God also turned his back on the earth. He gave it to Luicifer, and turned. (Ice age) Who's to limit God's creation? Science isn't to disprove God, and it doesn't. Science is God's blueprint. When God turned from the earth, being that he is the light, it froze instantly. When he created Adam and Eve and gave them Domination over the earth, Adam and eve sinned and gave domination back to Luicifer,(God sent Jesus so man would have domination again. Whole nother chapter.) God had given the sun permission to shine again. Then, you have your fossils. Which were discovered by archeologist. Am I making sense? I could really clear this up? I'm speaking to you like you're a moron too, I'm sorry. If you don't get what I'm sayin' let me know, I'll clarify, and give scripture.

None of that conjecture is Biblical, and therefore you are on shaky ground, my friend.

I wouldn't continue to postulate on this subject until you have referenced the Bible further.

Eil, that was a great post about the teeth, and I will get back to you. Have to go.

quote:Originally posted by Seninant:

Ok, if that's true, how many times have you seen a bear in the woods or one *come into your lawn and eat your dog*?

Comparing dinosaurs to bears? You might want to revise your arguement, because if dinosaurs were alive today, they'd be all over our shit. See, dinosaurs can actually eat dogs, or humans, or bears. Bears eat fish.

Digital_Savior: 1. What did that article have to do with my usage of it as a comparison to how dinosaurs could have possibly "breathed fire" ?

2. I wasn't using the Bombadier Beetle as an example of intelligent design.

Oh, I see. My bad. I didn't read most of your post, and I jumped the gun.

Sometimes I forget that I'm not supposed to care...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Eil, that was a great post about the teeth, and I will get back to you. Have to go.

uh, cool. i added a disclaimer cuz i re-read it and realized it was mostly lazy conjecture which i worded too strongly... i usually take care not to do that, it must have been late. plus, i like gorillas and am always looking for opportunities to talk about 'em.

*adjusts collar* hehe, i really know shit about a panda's teeth...

i do know that they're not completely herbivorous animals! they eat small critters, and i think the red panda is more omnivorous.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

None of that conjecture is Biblical, and therefore you are on shaky ground, my friend.

I wouldn't continue to postulate on this subject until you have referenced the Bible further.

Actually, alot of that is biblical. Next time you read your OT, pray for wisdom and understanding.

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You don't know when the beginning was.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 3:1-5 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

We gave dominion to the devil.

John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

Jesus was sent to give us back domination. To set us free.

It's ALL biblical. Shaky ground? Truth you mean. My goodness, dear christian, have you read your bible at all? Or does it sit on your table collecting dust?



[This message has been edited by HellzShellz (edited 04-29-2005).]

Does it say the "serpent" is the

same as the "satan"?

So, the dinosaurs actually

came from the devils mating

with earth women, and the big

lizards are the giants the

bible said about!

It all comes together when you

think about it a little bit.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Actually, alot of that is biblical. Next time you read your OT, pray for wisdom and understanding.

Convenient to say, when you haven't provided any verses.

I think I have more than proven that I am not only capable of understanding God's word, but know when others aren't.

You haven't proven that you understand it at all with your uneducated rhetoric.

If you would like to show me the verses in which you feel your opinion is supported, please do.

I will promptly show you how you have misinterpretted the Bible.

The fact that we don't know when the beginning WAS doesn't prove your assertion that the earth is billions of years old.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I'm still waiting for since to finish the job of correcting itself...

Haeckel made up those drawings in 1869. I think they were proven wrong less than ten years later.

When i was in junior high (in the 1970's), the science textbooks still had those drawings as "proof" of evolution.

I have no idea if they are still in highschool textbooks, but i think dragging their collective asses for about a hundred years is way beyond my procrastination skills.... hmmm, maybe i could learn

something from evolutionists at that.



Are you even sure it was his drawings in the book?

There ARE similarities in embryos, that is not disputed by the Scientific community; what was erroneous was his interpretation of those similarities. If you saw drawings of embryos, then that certainly does not mean they were Haeckel's, nor does it mean they were wrong, as there ARE similarities.

Moreover, lets assume they were his; that hardly is the fault of science. Fault shitty publishers in their quest for money, not Science.

And since we're exchanging witty jabs at each

other, I'm still waiting for god to correct existence so as to justify labeling him as "benevolent". Us both could learn something about procrastination from the king of all procrastinators, god; after all, he has only taken an infinite amount of time, and counting, to correct this...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-29-2005).]

quote:

Posted by HellzShellz:

Alrighty then. The bible tells us that 1/3rd of the Angels along with Luicifer were cast to the earth. Thus, the earth had been created before. When God said, "Let their be light." He gave permission for light to shine again, he didn't create it again. God also turned his back on the earth. He gave it to Luicifer, and turned. (Ice age) Who's to limit God's creation? Science isn't to disprove God, and it doesn't. Science is God's blueprint. When God turned from the earth, being that he is the light, it froze instantly. When he created Adam and Eve and gave them Domination over the earth, Adam and eve sinned and gave domination back to Luicifer,(God sent Jesus so man would have domination again. Whole nother chapter.) God had given the sun permission to shine again. Then, you have your fossils. Which were discovered by archeologist. Am I making sense? I could really clear this up? I'm speaking to you like you're a moron too, I'm sorry. If you don't get what I'm sayin' let me know, I'll clarify, and give scripture.

quote:

Posted by HellzShellz:

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You don't know when the beginning was.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.



Genesis 3:1-5 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

We gave dominion to the devil.

John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

Jesus was sent to give us back domination. To set us free.

It's ALL biblical. Shaky ground? Truth you mean. My goodness, dear christian, have you read your bible at all? Or does it sit on your table collecting dust?

K. Lemme break this down realy simple for ya...

1/3 of the angels including Lucifer were cast out of heaven down to earth. This statement is true. I wasn't talking about this statement when I said that your post wasn't Biblical.

Satan was cast out of heaven after Adam and Eve were created, because God said the Creation was still "very good" on day 6 after man had been created. With this, I still agree.

Here is where you start to add what YOU derive from the words, instead of taking the Biblical account into consideration.

WHERE in the Bible does it say light already existed ? That He took it away, and brought it back ? While it is a logical theory, it just isn't in there. Why add to it ? Is it really such an important point that it must be over-analyzed to the point of making things up ?

WHERE is the scripture that tells us that God turned His back on earth ? I read the Genesis account again just now, just to be sure I hadn't missed it, and as I suspected, there was nothing describing this event. It seems to me that this is merely a figment of your imagination. The Ice Age had no relevance to the fall of Satan and God's reaction, as far as I can tell.

You also said that Adam and Eves sin gave dominance over the world "back" to Lucifer...he had it once he fell. He never lost it. This is also a completely unbiblical assertion.

God did not send Jesus so that man could gain dominance over the earth. Dominance will not be taken back until Christ's second coming. The Bible is very specific about this. If you'd like the verses, I can provide them, but it seems as though you think you know your Bible better than I do, so perhaps such an offering is not necessary.

What do fossils have to do with your broken, unparallel opinions ?

Genesis 1:1 doesn't give any reference to exact dates. The fact that we don't know when the beginning WAS doesn't prove anything. Neither does it have any relevance.

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross had nothing to do with dominance.

He took our place in judgement for our sins.

Dominance will not be regained until the second coming.

I understand my Bible perfectly well, and I don't think there has ever been a speck of dust on it.

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

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-29-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

K. Lemme break this down realy simple for ya...

1/3 of the angels including Lucifer were cast out of heaven down to earth. This statement is true. I wasn't talking about this statement when I said that your post wasn't Biblical.

Satan was cast out of heaven after Adam and Eve were created, because God said the Creation was still "very good" on day 6 after man had been created. With this, I still agree.

Here is where you start to add what YOU derive from the words, instead of taking the Biblical account into consideration.

WHERE in the Bible does it say light already existed ? That He took it away, and brought it back ? While it is a logical theory, it just isn't in there. Why add to it ? Is it really such an important point that it must be over-analyzed to the point of making things up ?

WHERE is the scripture that tells us that God turned His back on earth ? I read the Genesis account again just now, just to be sure I hadn't missed it, and as I suspected, there was nothing describing this event. It seems to me that this is merely a figment of your imagination. The Ice Age had no relevance to the fall of Satan and God's reaction, as far as I can tell.

You also said that Adam and Eves sin gave dominance over the world "back" to Lucifer...he had it once he fell. He never lost it. This is also a completely unbiblical assertion.

God did not send Jesus so that man could gain dominance over the earth. Dominance will not be taken back until Christ's second coming. The Bible is very specific about this. If you'd like the verses, I can provide them, but it seems as though you think you know your Bible better than I do, so perhaps such an offering is not necessary.

What do fossils have to do with your broken, unparallel opinions ?

Genesis 1:1 doesn't give any reference to exact dates. The fact that we don't know when the beginning WAS doesn't prove anything. Neither does it have any relevance.

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross had nothing to do with dominance.

He took our place in judgement for our sins.

Dominance will not be regained until the second coming.

I understand my Bible perfectly well, and I don't think there has ever been a speck of dust on it.

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





Quite honestly, I'm tired of arguing against you. Christians shouldn't stand against each other. They should listen to one another. The spirit might reveal to some what hasn't been revealed unto you. If you believed it to be truth, why even say anything in response? That's foolish. I'm sorry it has to do with Domination and freedom. Who is the master of sin? The Devil. When Adam and Eve gave into the devil, it was obvious that we would all give into the devil, on count of his deception. It we woudln't have gave into him, and gave dominion to him, there would have been no need for Jesus. I'm not going to tell you what you need to do anylonger. I'm going to pray for you. I'm going to pray that God convicts your heart and grants you wisdom, understanding, and strength as you read from the bible. May you see and percieve, hear and understand.

On the subject of Haeckel's embryos, here's what my high school Biology book says:

quote:Similarities in Embryology The early stages, or embryos, of many animals with backbones are very similar. This does not mean that a human embryo is ever identical to a fish or a bird embryo. However, as you can see in the figure below, many embryos look especially similar during early stages of development. What do these similarities mean?

[there are 3 pictures here, a chicken embryo, turtle embryo, and rat embryo]

There have, in the past, been incorrect explanations for these similarities. Also, the biologist Ernst Haeckel fudged some of his drawings to make the earliest stages of some embryos seem more similar than they actually are! Errors aside, however, it is clear that the same groups of embryonic cells develop in the same order and in similar patterns to produce the tissues and organs of all vertebrates. These common cells and tissues, growing in similar ways, produce the homologous structures discussed earlier.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The fact that we don't know when the beginning WAS doesn't prove your assertion that the earth is billions of years old.

What does prove that assertion, however, is the analysis of the radioactive decay of various elements, most notably Uranium-238.

*LOL*

So, who was there to determine the "beginning" of said trace elements ?

How can you verify that there has been absolutely NO contamination of any given test subject ?

You can't.

Therefore, these dating methods remain unusable, since they are unreliable, at best.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-30-2005).]

Shadout: You expect us to believe that your biology books said that Haeckel "fudged" the photos ?

There are almost NO similarities between the embryo's, so your book is still biased towards the evolutionist's view...that lied through his teeth.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:



Quite honestly, I'm tired of arguing against you. Christians shouldn't stand against each other. They should listen to one another. The spirit might reveal to some what hasn't been revealed unto you. If you believed it to be truth, why even say anything in response? That's foolish. I'm sorry it has to do with Domination and freedom. Who is the master of sin? The Devil. When Adam and Eve gave into the devil, it was obvious that we would all give into the devil, on count of his deception. It we woudln't have gave into him, and gave dominion to him, there would have been no need for Jesus. I'm not going to tell you what you need to do anylonger. I'm going to pray for you. I'm going to pray that God convicts your heart and grants you wisdom, understanding, and strength as you read from the bible. May you see and percieve, hear and understand.

This is our first disagreement. I find it interesting that when you are actually challenged on your misunderstandings, you are suddenly "tired".

Christians shouldn't FIGHT with each other. But that is not to say that we are above correcting each other about God's word.

Paul did it with James and Peter...and it changed the course of Christianity. IT allowed Gentiles the right to salvation, which they didn't have prior to Paul's correction.

I cannot sit around and let you present the Bible as something it is not. I just can't.

Then, after you are "sick" of debating (which this forum is for, by the way...you aren't going to get away with preaching without recourse !), you continue on, trying to ineffectually support your assertions.

What gave dominance to the devil over the earth was GOD, not man. Man's sin was a completely separate issue.

When Lucifer was cast out of heaven, God told him that he would have reign over the earth. This was PRIOR to the Original Sin (fall of man). I would like to see you conveniently twist the scripture around to get out of that one.

You can pray all you want, but I actually read my Bible with some kind of scrutiny and discernment...which is apparently something you lack.

But, you're right. It's useless...

Agree to disagree.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Shadout: You expect us to believe that your biology books said that Haeckel "fudged" the photos ?

There are almost NO similarities between the embryo's, so your book is still biased towards the evolutionist's view...that lied through his teeth.

No, the book actually gives pictures of those 3 embryos (chicken turtle and rat) side by side so you can see the similarities (which are obvious). I had to login to browse through the actual book (I keep the physical book at school) but I think you should be able to access the pictures without logging in, try this URL: http://www.phsuccessnet.com/ebook/products/0-13-190404-3/sb4181_bi6esena.png

QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

Are you even sure it was his drawings in the book?

You got a point. It was a long time ago and without having that book to look it up...

Moreover, lets assume they were his; that hardly is the fault of science. Fault shitty publishers in their quest for money, not Science.

Another point, but weaker. Should not the science teachers that reveiw the books (and order them) take some of the blame? But then again, that is assuming that the drawings are the ones in question.

And since we're exchanging witty jabs at each

other, I'm still waiting for god to correct existence so as to justify labeling him as "benevolent". Us both could learn something about procrastination from the king of all procrastinators, god; after all, he has only taken an infinite amount of time, and counting, to correct this...

LoL Well, you might see Him as procrastinating, i see Him as being patient. Patiently waiting for all the procrastinators to finally choose Him.

The science teachers don't choose the books, the district chooses from an assortment of State verified books on each of the subjects...and I'm willing to bet that school board members aren't exactly well educated in the sciences.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

This is our first disagreement. I find it interesting that when you are actually challenged on your misunderstandings, you are suddenly "tired".

Christians shouldn't FIGHT with each other. But that is not to say that we are above correcting each other about God's word.

Paul did it with James and Peter...and it changed the course of Christianity. IT allowed Gentiles the right to salvation, which they didn't have prior to Paul's correction.

I cannot sit around and let you present the Bible as something it is not. I just can't.

Then, after you are "sick" of debating (which this forum is for, by the way...you aren't going to get away with preaching without recourse !), you continue on, trying to ineffectually support your assertions.

What gave dominance to the devil over the earth was GOD, not man. Man's sin was a completely separate issue.

When Lucifer was cast out of heaven, God told him that he would have reign over the earth. This was PRIOR to the Original Sin (fall of man). I would like to see you conveniently twist the scripture around to get out of that one.

You can pray all you want, but I actually read my Bible with some kind of scrutiny and discernment...which is apparently something you lack.

But, you're right. It's useless...

Agree to disagree.



No, it's useless when you're narrow-minded. I know what I know and it's all I know. You don't think the church should become one accord, and many more things. No I don't think this is our first disagreement. I think you better read archives. We've disagreed on numberous occasions. I have one question, What is your faith? Does your faith allow you to be judgmental? By christ Jesus I am made whole, and lack nothing thereof. Dare you say I'm not made whole by my Saviour?

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

No, the book actually gives pictures of those 3 embryos (chicken turtle and rat) side by side so you can see the similarities (which are obvious). I had to login to browse through the actual book (I keep the physical book at school) but I think you should be able to access the pictures without logging in, try this URL: http://www.phsuccessnet.com/ebook/products/0-13-190404-3/sb4181_bi6esena.png

Sorry, but as I have posted before: http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html

There are Haeckel's drawings, and then actual photos of the same embryo's...notice how they look nothing alike.

Your science book is perpetuating evolutionist propaganda.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:



No, it's useless when you're narrow-minded. I know what I know and it's all I know. You don't think the church should become one accord, and many more things. No I don't think this is our first disagreement. I think you better read archives. We've disagreed on numberous occasions. I have one question, What is your faith? Does your faith allow you to be judgmental? By christ Jesus I am made whole, and lack nothing thereof. Dare you say I'm not made whole by my Saviour?

I am narrow-minded, and happy for it. I know what the scripture teaches, and that is that there is only ONE WAY to eternal life. That's through Christ. Everything else is man-made religion, and serves no purpose other than to separate people...to cause division.

I am narrow-minded, because I read the Bible, and live by it's tenets. I don't try to paint pretty cotton-candy colored pictures of God's world, because it just isn't so.

I never said that Christians shouldn't be unified. The fact that this is what you got out of what I said proves that you aren't understanding a word.

We have NOT disagreed on numerous occasions, since I have not really ever spoken to you before now. Why ? Though your posts are lacking in intelligence and proper grammar, they didn't really bother me, until you started trying to misrepresent the Bible.

I am a non-denominational Christian. Don't try and throw judgement in my face, since you are doing the very same thing. Does it make it right ? Certainly not. But I am not judging you as a person...I AM judging your ability to interpret scripture, which is a talent you are lacking in, at best.

If you believe in Christ as your savior, you are certainly redeemed. I never said otherwise. Besides, that is an issue between you and God.

What I do know is that you have a pretty twisted view of the Bible, and I am tasked (just as all Christians are) to seek the TRUTH in it only...and not our silly misperceptions.

If I see you say something that is entirely out of context or misinterpetted, I am not going to let it slide. You could lead an unbeliever astray with your ignorance.

Do you think the pastor of a church is without reprise, edit, or accountability ?

He has elders to look over his teaching, and redirect him when necessary.

You have a whole lot of pride for someone so "Christian"...that is all this is about. You don't want to be wrong, when in fact, you are so far from being right.

I am not trying to embarass you, or ridicule you. You brought it to this point. I am free to question your interpretation of the Bible just as much as any other Christian.

You took offense to that...that's not my problem. It's yours.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Another point, but weaker. Should not the science teachers that reveiw the books (and order them) take some of the blame? But then again, that is assuming that the drawings are the ones in question.

What Hexadecimal said. But not that this matters since you admit that you don't even know if it were his drawings or not.

Given that you only know that there were drawings, the only logical conclusion to reach is that the drawings are not from Haeckel.

quote:

LoL Well, you might see Him as procrastinating, i see Him as being patient. Patiently waiting for all the procrastinators to finally choose Him.

So he is waiting for people to abandon logic, which he created I might add, and choose the illogical, which would be choosing an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god that allows for suffering to exist? And you believe people not believing in him, are procrastinators?

Well, we simply have different views of that should be labeled as "procrastination". I don't think 'not doing something stupid' (not choosing to believe in an illogical and redundant being) should be labeled as procrastination. Just like I don't think I'm a procrastinator for not eating a bowl of cow turds.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Everything you believe is based on a lie, and you have the nerve to criticize Creationist's ?

Everything you believe in is based on a human fabrication. Violence on your kind.