Dinosaurs Never Existed! - Page 6 - 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, 09:18 PM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:09 PM
Quote:
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.
Thats right, I am not going to mutate into a different human being - but my offspring will be different than I am and will experience selection on their reproductive success just as I do. Sex is great at producing variation - much quicker than just waiting for an advantageous mutation..
Quote:
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.
Yes it is, it is the mutations and upset development pathways that enable speciation; if you accept genetic drift (i.e. neutral mutations at random times) then it is a natural concequence that beneficial mutations will be selected for and speciation will occur - you need a mechanism for that not to happen to maintain static life on Earth.[/quote]Genetic mutations from ape to man is the argument.[/quote]Yes, and the great thing about comparative DNA studies is that we can see how much we have in common with other apes and where the differences lie on a genetic level. Turns out we are more closely related to Chimps than we are to Monkeys - just as we would expect.

Quote:
But because no evidence was found, the Darwinists insisted that an entire century was not enough time for them to gather this evidence.
Neanderthal man, Cro Magnon man, Homo Errectus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis etc. The fossil and molecular evidence from these finds all lend credence to Evolution.
Quote:
Could it be another reason for the Darwinists to insist that the earth is possibly billions of years old?
The Earths Age is constrained on the basis of radioisotopes inside minerals, the oldest Zircons we have go back well over 4 billion years. But heres the rub, life may have started early (~3.9Ga) but we didn't see any real animals until the Ediacaran and we only started seeing significant hard bodied organisms in the Cambrian (543 Million Years Ago) and it took until around 360 Mya for the first tetrapods to crawl onto land. Human evolution is constrained to only a few million years before present from a common ancestor of other apes, the fossil evidence supports this as does the genetic evidence (the degree of relatedness). The age of the Earth was not invented to allow evolution to occur it is a fact derived through the application of physics and chemistry independently that just happens to support the timescales required for evolution to occur (remember that Darwin had problems with the speed of evolution because in the 19th Century the age of the Earth was a mystery).
Quote:
Would the book of Genesis survive the test of time if it claimed that dinosaurs existed before we discovered them?
No because we would still have evidence for the formation of the world, but you would have discovered proof of time travel. which would be great.
Quote:
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.
Define dinosaur like? Bird bones are dinosaur bones and we get them to this day, they are however distinctive due to the fusing of the hand and foot bones.

The other important fact to consider is that you may be dealing with an unconformity in the rock so you have erroded away the surface to a level containing dinosaur bones and then later on you bury human remains in a new deposit - obviously this unconformity is detectable on the basis of what microfossils and pollen are present in each bed and the cutting off of sedimentary structures. All the evidence we have accumulated points to humans appearing over 60 million years after Dinosaurs went extinct.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 11:10 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Especially when it comes to medical care.
Anyone remember the stance taken towards test tube babies back in the early days? It was before the internet and I was too young to give a crap or pay attention. I have wondered what the positions of the political parties and churches were back then especially since fertility treatments have now become almost routine and there are tons of people running around thanks to that scientific endeavour.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 03:02 AM   #78
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:09 AM
I'm arriving a little late for that particular phase of the discussion but I wanted to toss in my two cents on a couple of the questions 80s raised. While it's impossible to know how the illiterate majority perceived the creation narrative(s) in Jesus' day, in rabbinic discourse at least, it would not have been considered strange or heretical to cite an allegorical interpretation of some particular scriptural passage as support for a legal opinion. Interpreting narrative passages of scripture allegorically or symbolically, or using embellishments drawn from midrashic lore, was quite acceptable, and various Talmudic commentators advanced various exegetical and hermeneutical rules and procedures for doing this. To cite one example pertinent to Genesis, in one Talmudic passage on the topic of whether it's permissible to graft together different types of grass, one rabbi rules that Yes, it's the "nature" of grasses to mix together, then justifies this by appealing to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 as depicting God "creating" each thing in accord with the form it "chose" to take. Quoting Gen. 2:1 he concludes, " ' The heavens and the earth were finished, and all צְבָאָם ' -- for צְבָאָם may also be read 'in their chosen forms' " (i.e., tzivanam, "in the forms they chose" as opposed to the usual reading of צְבָאָם as tziva'am,"in their array"). Two other rabbis concur; a third objects that since God nonetheless "agreed to" each type of grass individually, therefore surely it's wrong for man to fuse them himself.

( I can't believe a passage about grafting grass was the one that came most clearly to mind for me out of all the ones I could've picked!)

Anyhow, obviously this doesn't resolve one way or the other how literally either Jesus or the particular Pharisees he's addressing understood the creation narrative(s), but the point is that even if he had indicated he didn't (for example) take the creation of Eve from Adam's "rib" literally, that by itself wouldn't have caused the Pharisees to attack his "ruling"--what they really wanted was to get him to take sides in their own disputes over divorce, and he parries back in true rabbinic fashion, countering their attempt to force his focus on Deuteronomy 24 by firing back his own unique take on Genesis 1-2. From my POV, this passage--or more correctly, the version of it in Matthew 19, where Jesus qualifies his position (for his disciples' ears only) as "whoever divorces his wife, except for ' porneia ', and marries another commits adultery"--is of interest because it indicates that Jesus in fact sided with the Shammaite Pharisees, who dominated the Sanhedrin in the years of his ministry, rather than with the Hillellite Pharisees who dominated it in his youth (Hillel died around 20 AD), on the specific issue of divorce. (I've left porneia untranslated because I realize that Catholics and *most* Protestants disagree with each other intensely on its meaning here, but that's beside the point--point being, he clearly rejected the Hillelite case for interpreting Deuteronomy 24 broadly in favor of the Shammaite case for interpreting it as "ONE exception only.") Which leads me, at least, to wonder if these Pharisees who approached him might've been suspicious Shammaites (or, alternatively, hopeful Hillelites) to whom he didn't want to give the satisfaction of his assent--Jesus being an "independent" with, IMHO, nonetheless noticeably Hillelite leanings overall, in a time when ferocious partisanship characterized relations between the two camps.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 01:35 PM   #79
War Child
 
Devlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 922
Local Time: 07:09 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 that still doesn't disprove the fact (yes, FACT: try opening the chest cavity of a man and a woman and counting their ribs) that men do NOT have one less rib than women. That's just all too easy to prove; it doens't require much.
__________________
Devlin is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 02:34 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Devlin



..and that still doesn't disprove the fact (yes, FACT: try opening the chest cavity of a man and a woman and counting their ribs) that men do NOT have one less rib than women. That's just all too easy to prove; it doens't require much.
Did you ever open Adam's chest to see how many ribs he had?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 04:32 PM   #81
Refugee
 
Muggsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I live in colombia, with a box of watercolors and butterflies in my tummy
Posts: 2,033
Local Time: 02:09 AM
well... that rib story is just a way to justificate the inferiority of women in the society. besides, (maybe the people who knows best about this can help me ) as long as i've heard, human embryos are female if they don't receive the hormones who will turn then in to male beings. so... in some way women came first?

besides... i didn't paid 3 bucks for seeing a giant farm chicken



* if you really think I wasted my money.... I can accept checks * LOL
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 06:18 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy
well... that rib story is just a way to justificate the inferiority of women in the society.
Do you really believe that? Or were you just kidding?

I simply think it is the author's way of saying we are of the same physical and spiritual essence.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 06:23 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
I'm arriving a little late for that particular phase of the discussion but I wanted to toss in my two cents on a couple of the questions 80s raised. While it's impossible to know how the illiterate majority perceived the creation narrative(s) in Jesus' day, in rabbinic discourse at least, it would not have been considered strange or heretical to cite an allegorical interpretation of some particular scriptural passage as support for a legal opinion. Interpreting narrative passages of scripture allegorically or symbolically, or using embellishments drawn from midrashic lore, was quite acceptable, and various Talmudic commentators advanced various exegetical and hermeneutical rules and procedures for doing this. To cite one example pertinent to Genesis, in one Talmudic passage on the topic of whether it's permissible to graft together different types of grass, one rabbi rules that Yes, it's the "nature" of grasses to mix together, then justifies this by appealing to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 as depicting God "creating" each thing in accord with the form it "chose" to take. Quoting Gen. 2:1 he concludes, " ' The heavens and the earth were finished, and all צְבָאָם ' -- for צְבָאָם may also be read 'in their chosen forms' " (i.e., tzivanam, "in the forms they chose" as opposed to the usual reading of צְבָאָם as tziva'am,"in their array"). Two other rabbis concur; a third objects that since God nonetheless "agreed to" each type of grass individually, therefore surely it's wrong for man to fuse them himself.

( I can't believe a passage about grafting grass was the one that came most clearly to mind for me out of all the ones I could've picked!)

Anyhow, obviously this doesn't resolve one way or the other how literally either Jesus or the particular Pharisees he's addressing understood the creation narrative(s), but the point is that even if he had indicated he didn't (for example) take the creation of Eve from Adam's "rib" literally, that by itself wouldn't have caused the Pharisees to attack his "ruling"--what they really wanted was to get him to take sides in their own disputes over divorce, and he parries back in true rabbinic fashion, countering their attempt to force his focus on Deuteronomy 24 by firing back his own unique take on Genesis 1-2. From my POV, this passage--or more correctly, the version of it in Matthew 19, where Jesus qualifies his position (for his disciples' ears only) as "whoever divorces his wife, except for ' porneia ', and marries another commits adultery"--is of interest because it indicates that Jesus in fact sided with the Shammaite Pharisees, who dominated the Sanhedrin in the years of his ministry, rather than with the Hillellite Pharisees who dominated it in his youth (Hillel died around 20 AD), on the specific issue of divorce. (I've left porneia untranslated because I realize that Catholics and *most* Protestants disagree with each other intensely on its meaning here, but that's beside the point--point being, he clearly rejected the Hillelite case for interpreting Deuteronomy 24 broadly in favor of the Shammaite case for interpreting it as "ONE exception only.") Which leads me, at least, to wonder if these Pharisees who approached him might've been suspicious Shammaites (or, alternatively, hopeful Hillelites) to whom he didn't want to give the satisfaction of his assent--Jesus being an "independent" with, IMHO, nonetheless noticeably Hillelite leanings overall, in a time when ferocious partisanship characterized relations between the two camps.
Thanks for another wonderful insight Yolland! There is some material here I can use in my next Bible Study
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 06:29 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy
as long as i've heard, human embryos are female if they don't receive the hormones who will turn then in to male beings.
You're correct. Fetuses are, by default, female in function and appearance, even if a Y chromosome is present. Now the presence of the Y is supposed to trigger an intricate sequence of hormone releases in both the mother and the fetus. However, genetic mutations in the mother or the fetus can render that process ineffective, thus leading to the presence of the "XY female." This person is wholly female in appearance, including the lack of a penis and a shallow vagina, while being genetically male.

This does throw in quite a wrench into that Adam and Eve creation myth.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 06:36 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


You're correct. Fetuses are, by default, female in function and appearance, even if a Y chromosome is present. Now the presence of the Y is supposed to trigger an intricate sequence of hormone releases in both the mother and the fetus. However, genetic mutations in the mother or the fetus can render that process ineffective, thus leading to the presence of the "XY female." This person is wholly female in appearance, including the lack of a penis and a shallow vagina, while being genetically male.

This does throw in quite a wrench into that Adam and Eve creation myth.

Melon
How so? Let's assume the story of Adam and Eve is true. Wouldn't the Fall explain any genetic mutations?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 06:55 PM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
How so? Let's assume the story of Adam and Eve is true. Wouldn't the Fall explain any genetic mutations?
It doesn't change the fact that, in short, "men come from women," not the other way around. That's not a genetic mutation.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 07:12 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


It doesn't change the fact that, in short, "men come from women," not the other way around. That's not a genetic mutation.

Melon
But the story in Genesis doesn't contradict that men come from women (Adam and Eve were created - not born.) Cain and Able are sons that were born from Eve.

The Creation event in Genesis was a one time event. Childbirth is an ongoing event as a result of the Fall.

I don't see how childbirth alone "debunks" the story of Adam and Eve. I'm not saying you have to believe it - I'm just saying that your logic seems a bit flawed here.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 07:12 PM   #88
Refugee
 
Muggsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I live in colombia, with a box of watercolors and butterflies in my tummy
Posts: 2,033
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Do you really believe that? Or were you just kidding?

I simply think it is the author's way of saying we are of the same physical and spiritual essence.
if it were so... why the author didn't write that God created man and woman at the same time? He's God, it wouldn't be that hard

Lore.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 07:17 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy

* if you really think I wasted my money.... I can accept checks * LOL
What about Paypal.

God could have been some kid who said I like reptiles and made the huge creatures to walk around and then got bored of them and then Boom. Dinosaurs existed before humans and I don't think that the later people would have known.

I mean if you think about it we have people say how did the egyptians build the pyramids, or this and that. It's like we have our minds erased on all previous knowladge.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 07:22 PM   #90
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I don't see how childbirth alone "debunks" the story of Adam and Eve. I'm not saying you have to believe it - I'm just saying that your logic seems a bit flawed here.
You missed his point, it wasn't about childbirth.
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 02:09 AM.


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