Dinosaurs Never Existed! - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-25-2006, 01:13 AM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
This is true for the most of us i guess,....
Your point being what exactly?
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 09:38 AM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:52 PM
I think the Cain question is an interesting one.

I've always believed that the Bible was inspired by God but written by men. As such they wrote in their own words and with their own understanding of the time. The message of the Bible is timeless, I believe, but the events of the Bible are rooted in the perceptions and culture of the people who wrote it.

A lot of extremism develops when people are unable to see that. I remember when I was kid and I'd read about how the people of Israel set up a stone monument to God's deliverance as they passed through the Jordan and the scripture read "and it [the monument] is still there today" and I think. . .wow, it's STILL there! Amazing! Of course now I realize that the monument might still have been there when the text was written but that certainly doesn't mean that it's still there now! At any rate I think this can apply to many Biblical statements, comments about "the whole world" (which would really reflect the whole world that the writer new of), "the sun standing still", and so on. The Bible is not meant to be a science or history textbook (though there are certainly elements of history and perhaps even science to a degree found in it ). It is a document of faith.

For this reason, I suppose it's possible that the Flood described in Genesis might not have been truly worldwide. It's possible that the Creation may have actually taken place differently than Moses perceived it. That these things may have happened differently than was understood by the writer does not bother me.

For me, I believe in the six day creation. One of the key reasons is that like 80's, I believe the concept of sin relies heavily on the concept of literal creation, since death could not have existed before sin entered the world. I realize that scientifically the weight of the evidence may lie elsewhere, but then scientifically the weight of the evidence doesn't much support the existence of God either. If I'm going to believe in God, then I'm already being "unscientific." I believe in a Being that has the power to operate outside the laws of known science, so why would I suddenly trip over a "special creation" that operates outside the findings of known science? And again this is NOT to say that God did not in fact, use some other method, some type evolution for example as part of Creation. If that turns out to be the case, then fine. It's not the end of the world (It's the beginning. . . )
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 09:42 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


The argument that these physicists make is that universe itself is condusive to the stability of matter and energy at this point in time and that if any physical constant was a little different then this wouldn't be possible; you will find that the arguments they are making are not pleas to God rather ones to the anthropic principle - if the universe wasn't the way it is then it wouldn't be the way it is and we wouldn't be around to see it.
You're really going to tell me that the quotes Aeon mentioned wherein the phycists specifically mention God are not actually pleas to God or a Creator? Come on now. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 10:22 AM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I don't take it half-heartedly, I don't accept it at all.

And if one doesn't accept that tale then the concept of original sin goes out the window and the rest of the theology unwinds - who needs a saviour when they don't need to be saved?

I have read a good deal of evidence on the subject, I have had the opportunity to get hands on with the evidence -the objectivity of science means we must try and disregard assumptions; Dinosaur fossils make perfect sense in the context of vertebrate evolution over the last 250 million years - the finds coming out of China of feathered therapods and transitional forms are the evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds that has been expected for some time now.
Unfortunately, Darwinists spent the 20th century extensively researching for evidence to back up the theory of random mutations that evolve into an entirely different species. They found no species in the entire 20th century that mutated into a different physical being. Granted, I'm sure we all accept that there are changes in the gene pool. Science supports it, as does the book of Genesis. That's not the argument. Genetic mutations from ape to man is the argument. But because no evidence was found, the Darwinists insisted that an entire century was not enough time for them to gather this evidence. Could it be another reason for the Darwinists to insist that the earth is possibly billions of years old?

Would the book of Genesis survive the test of time if it claimed that dinosaurs existed before we discovered them?

There is merit in the findings of "dinosaur-like" fossils that have been found in places like India and China, not far from the findings of human remains. I wouldn't discredit the view that mankind once lived amongst the dinosaurs so easily, given the findings in our lifetime.

Quote:
Are Dinosaurs Really Extinct?
Taken from the writings of Ken Ham
(While you may not agree with him on all things scientific, he's a good Australian, nonetheless. )

One cannot prove an organism is extinct without having knowledge of every part of the Earth’s surface simultaneously. Experts have been embarrassed when, after having declared animals extinct, they were discovered alive and well. For example, explorers recently found elephants in Nepal that have many features of mammoths.

Scientists in Australia found some living trees that they thought had become extinct with the dinosaurs. One scientist said, ‘… it was like finding a “live dinosaur.” ’

When scientists find animals or plants they thought were extinct long ago, they call them ‘living fossils.’ There are hundreds of ‘living fossils,’ a big embarrassment for those who believe in millions of years of Earth history.

Explorers and natives in Africa have reported sighting dinosaur-like creatures, even recently.

These have usually been confined to out-of-the-way places such as lakes deep in the Congo jungles. Descriptions certainly fit those of dinosaurs.

Cave paintings by native Americans seem to depict a dinosaur—scientists accept the mammoth drawings in the cave, so why not the dinosaur drawings? Evolutionary indoctrination that man did not live at the same time as dinosaurs stops most scientists from even considering that the drawings are of dino saurs.It certainly would be no embarrassment to a creationist if some one discovered a dinosaur living in a jungle. However, this should embarrass evolutionists.

And no, we could not clone a dinosaur, as in the movie Jurassic Park, even if we had dinosaur DNA. We would also need a living female dinosaur. Scientists have found that to clone an animal they need an egg of a living female, as there is ‘machinery’ in the cyto plasm of the egg that is necessary for the new creature to develop.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 10:25 AM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I think the Cain question is an interesting one.
I realize that scientifically the weight of the evidence may lie elsewhere, but then scientifically the weight of the evidence doesn't much support the existence of God either. If I'm going to believe in God, then I'm already being "unscientific." I believe in a Being that has the power to operate outside the laws of known science, so why would I suddenly trip over a "special creation" that operates outside the findings of known science?
These are my beliefs, also, though I've never worded it as well as you have done here.

Good job!
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 10:31 AM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Jonathan Wells is another great skeptic if you haven't heard of him. He has two phDs - one in biological science and one in theology.

This article is a must if you love good satire, especially if you haven't heard any on why Darwinism should not have a monopoly in science class.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/w...evolution.html

Quote:
Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 01:13 PM   #67
War Child
 
Devlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 922
Local Time: 06:52 PM
It's kind of like the whole Men have one less rib than women thoery that's passed around in Christianity.
Absolutely not true (as proven by any number of autopsies done on many a cadaver for manya reason) and yet, you'll get a lot of Christians who will refer to the creation of eve by using one of Adam's ribs. Logically, it doesn't make sense, but.. I've come to find that not much of it is logical.
__________________
Devlin is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 01:17 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Devlin
It's kind of like the whole Men have one less rib than women thoery that's passed around in Christianity.
Absolutely not true (as proven by any number of autopsies done on many a cadaver for manya reason) and yet, you'll get a lot of Christians who will refer to the creation of eve by using one of Adam's ribs. Logically, it doesn't make sense, but.. I've come to find that not much of it is logical.
I don't find the Piltdown Man to be logical, yet it's somehow logical to presume a monopoly of Darwinism in the classroom. "Science" has had a fraudulent past.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 03:06 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I don't find the Piltdown Man to be logical, yet it's somehow logical to presume a monopoly of Darwinism in the classroom. "Science" has had a fraudulent past.
And science exposed that hoax, there is more to palaeoanthropology than a single debunked specimen.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 03:22 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Hey hey! Let's play telephone for the extent of recorded history. I'll wager we can spontaneously generate a few dozen purple monkey dishwashers. Oops, I mean purple monkey wash basins.

I don't want to offend those of us who are pro-handwashers (myself included).

__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 06:41 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Unfortunately, Darwinists spent the 20th century extensively researching for evidence to back up the theory of random mutations that evolve into an entirely different species. They found no species in the entire 20th century that mutated into a different physical being. Granted, I'm sure we all accept that there are changes in the gene pool. Science supports it, as does the book of Genesis. That's not the argument. Genetic mutations from ape to man is the argument. But because no evidence was found, the Darwinists insisted that an entire century was not enough time for them to gather this evidence. Could it be another reason for the Darwinists to insist that the earth is possibly billions of years old?

Would the book of Genesis survive the test of time if it claimed that dinosaurs existed before we discovered them?

There is merit in the findings of "dinosaur-like" fossils that have been found in places like India and China, not far from the findings of human remains. I wouldn't discredit the view that mankind once lived amongst the dinosaurs so easily, given the findings in our lifetime.
Ugh. "Darwinists"? Try scientists.

Secondly, evolution takes place over thousands and millions of years, not a century; that's why "no species in the entire 20th century...mutated into a different physical being." Evidence of mutations that lead to evolution have been more than discovered, and we have genetic and fossil evidence, amongst other substantial scientific evidence, to show the progression of evolution. At this point, the only people who don't believe in evolution are the willfully blind, because it is about as safe as the theory of gravity--that is, the details of what causes gravity are apt to change, but the notion of gravity itself is never going to go away.

Third, Genesis is complete bunk. If "Darwinism" is ever substantially modified in our scientific future, it will be modified with science. Creationism, according to Genesis, was disproven decades ago, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that fact. It also doesn't help that "Adam and Eve" seem to be a completely bastardized retelling of the Sumerian creation myth, as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

If people want to believe that God created the world, either as a literal retelling of Genesis or through some form of "intelligent design," then so be it. However, as the notion of God can never be observed scientifically, it has absolutely no place in science. It is wholly in the realm of religion, and I'll leave the debate between young earth creationism, intelligent design, and theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) to church.

And dinosaurs never lived with humans. Ever.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 06:46 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
DreamOutLoud13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hell For Certain, Kentucky
Posts: 15,088
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
For this reason, I suppose it's possible that the Flood described in Genesis might not have been truly worldwide. It's possible that the Creation may have actually taken place differently than Moses perceived it. That these things may have happened differently than was understood by the writer does not bother me.
The great thing about the deluge is that stories of it exist in many vastly different ancient civilizations. Maybe it's mostly just a sort of "urban legend" in ancient history.

But if you consider that the flood only covered a small area, Noah's flood does have some basis in Scientific fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_%...l_Flood_Theory
Quote:
A theory that found support with archaeologists Max Mallowan and Leonard Woolley is the local flood theory that links the Ancient Near East flood myths to one specific river flood of the Euphrates River that has been radio-carbon dated to about 2900 BC at the end of the Jemdet Nasr Period. The Epic of Atrahasis tablet III,iv, lines 6-9 clearly identifies the flood as a local river flood: "Like dragonflies they [dead bodies] have filled the river. Like a raft they have moved in to the edge [of the boat]. Like a raft they have moved in to the riverbank." The WB-444 Sumerian king list places the flood after the reign of Ziusudra, the flood hero in the Epic of Ziusudra that has numerous parallels to the other flood stories. According to archaeologist Max Mallowan [6] the Genesis flood "was based on a real event which may have occurred in about 2900 BC... at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period."
__________________
DreamOutLoud13 is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 06:50 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
This article is a must if you love good satire, especially if you haven't heard any on why Darwinism should not have a monopoly in science class.
Science should have a monopoly in science class. Factual studies like math and science are not open to mob rule.

"Intelligent design" is not science. It cannot be declared a "scientific theory," just because a bunch of Christians came together one day and decided it to be so. ID proponents, as such, show an utter lack of understanding of the scientific process. No matter what you want to call it, ID is a theology with psueudoscientific elements, designed to infiltrate science with religion. Nothing more.

If ID proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to work through the scientific process; but it doesn't help that the core of it is not verifiable. Why "God"? Why not the Sumerian goddess, Ninhursag? Why not a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow? Because all three are equally unverifiable.

Contrary to all the FUD, science makes no statement on God, one way or another. It makes no opinion on God's existence or non-existence, because that's a question that science doesn't care to answer, since God does not exist in the concrete realm. Science deals solely with concrete evidence and observation, coupled with scientific theory that is backed up with concrete mathematics. If people wish to fill the blanks with God, they can do it on their own time.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 07:01 PM   #74
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 12:52 PM
I actually feel sorry for those who deny or ignore science...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-25-2006, 08:04 PM   #75
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I actually feel sorry for those who deny or ignore science...
Especially when it comes to medical care.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com