Dinosaurs Never Existed! - Page 7 - 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 09-26-2006, 07:28 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Fetuses are, by default, female in function and appearance, even if a Y chromosome is present.
Melon
Until what stage are fetuses female in function and appearance? Until birth? 3 months? 6 months?

I believe we found out my boy was indeed a boy around 16 weeks.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 07:43 PM   #92
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Until what stage are fetuses female in function and appearance? Until birth? 3 months? 6 months?

I believe we found out my boy was indeed a boy around 16 weeks.
Three months is the approximate stage of sexual differentiation. Prior to that, all fetuses have a uterus and ovaries like any other female, in addition to testicles. The presence of the Y chromosome is supposed to trigger the destruction of the uterus and ovaries, with additional "masculinizing" hormones. Sometimes only the destruction of the uterus and ovaries occur, with a complete failure of masculinizing hormones. Hence, we have the XY female. Sometimes both fail. Hence, we have the intersexed.

The lack of a presence of a Y chromosome (an important distinction, instead of saying the presence of XX) is supposed to trigger the destruction of testicles. Hence, our default configuration is female, not male, because it takes effort to be male and a lack thereof to be female.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 07:48 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy
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
That is an aquatic farm reptile isn't it (a Mosasaur).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 07:49 PM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:15 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?
How is the fall mutanogenic? Were they exposed to different undamaging solar radiation in the Garden? Did their cellular machinery replicate their chromosomes 100% perfectly?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 07:50 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 03:15 PM
I have a bigger dinosaur book than any of you.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 08:16 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
How is the fall mutanogenic? Were they exposed to different undamaging solar radiation in the Garden? Did their cellular machinery replicate their chromosomes 100% perfectly?
In the context of the "story" - the Fall is responsible for everything that is not perfect.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 08:30 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Three months is the approximate stage of sexual differentiation. Prior to that, all fetuses have a uterus and ovaries like any other female, in addition to testicles. The presence of the Y chromosome is supposed to trigger the destruction of the uterus and ovaries, with additional "masculinizing" hormones. Sometimes only the destruction of the uterus and ovaries occur, with a complete failure of masculinizing hormones. Hence, we have the XY female. Sometimes both fail. Hence, we have the intersexed.

The lack of a presence of a Y chromosome (an important distinction, instead of saying the presence of XX) is supposed to trigger the destruction of testicles. Hence, our default configuration is female, not male, because it takes effort to be male and a lack thereof to be female.

Melon
Actually, just to clarify - you need to have a Y chromosome in order to get testicles. The female is indeed the default pathway, but In females you never see any sort of testicles develop (assuming normal development). The required hormones for testicle development are only encoded on the Y chromosome.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 09:36 AM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 11:15 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.
It doesn't disprove the theory, but it does discredit those who have attempted to prove man/ape heritage. And on the rib, if I took my rib out, and if I had a son, it wouldn't mean my son would be born without a rib. That is not an opinion, but a biological fact.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 11:32 AM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
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..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.
I accept that uniqueness in reproduction is a biological fact, and that some traits will seep through while others will be left behind. I don't see a reason to believe why this would contradict any religious or spiritual belief, including Creation. You may call that "random mutations", I prefer to call it genetics. In any event, they give a unique touch on the next generation. We're on the same page at this point, regardless.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Quote:
Genetic mutations from ape to man is the argument.
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.
I'm sure apes have a lot in common with other walking mammals as well. But contradictory evidence points out that apes and humans have different numbers of chromosomes per cell. It would take a drastic change in the course of many years in order for a generation of apes to become a generation of men.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Quote:
Neanderthal man
Scientists found out that it was likely to be a man with medical problems and that you'd find in a human skull. An authority reported in Nature, 1970, that every Neanderthal child's skull studied so far showed signs compatible with severe rickets.

Quote:
Cro Magnon man
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon
For all intents and purposes these people were anatomically modern, only differing from their modern day descendants in Europe by their slightly more robust physiology and brains larger capacity than that of modern humans.
It's an interesting find, and in a way contradicts what many evolutionists believe (correct me if I'm wrong) - that man progressed from an ape, and man will continue to progress into something more robust than its current form. As a Creationist, I find this to be a plus rather than a minus in support of my views. I believe that we have been on Earth just about as long as any other creature.

Quote:
Homo Errectus
Two sides to every story.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
Throughout much of the 20th century, anthropologists have debated the role of H. erectus in human evolution. Early in the century, due to discoveries on Java and atZhoukoudian, it was believed that modern humans first evolved in Asia. This contradicted Charles Darwin's prediction of African origins. However, during the 1950s and 1970s, numerous fossil finds from East Africa (Kenya) yielded evidence that the oldest hominins originated there. It is now believed that H. erectus is a descendant of earlier hominins such as the Australopithecus and early Homo species (e.g., H. habilis).
"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment"

- Henry Morris, 1974

Quote:
Skull Shows Homo Erectus One Big Happy Family
Wed Mar 20, 6:20 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The skull of an unfortunate early human chewed up by a lion or a hyena a million years ago may help show that our ancestors evolved in Africa and then spread through the world, scientists said on Wednesday.

The million-year-old skull clearly belongs to the species known as Homo erectus -- a robust early human who stood upright and used tools, the report, published in the science journal Nature, says.
I see as much pro-creation support in this finding as I see pro-evolution support, if not more.

Quote:
Australopithecus
In a 1995 biology text published by Prentice Hall, the two authors state: "At the present time, scientists cannot agree on how many species of Australopithecus there were or whether or not they were the ancestors of human beings."

One of the reasons why scientists have debated this is because the Australopithecus findings strongly resemble apes. That doesn't necessarily imply that they are in fact a finding that supports ape > man evolution. For example, the living pygmy chimpanzee walks upright. It doesn't necessarily defy Creation.

Quote:
Homo habilis
There were many features on this finding that baffled evolutionists: its tiny stature, for starters. It was just as short as "Lucy," the alleged 3.8-million-year-old adult female, who was discovered in Ethiopia. The postcranial skeleton was just as ape-like as "Lucy", who was, according to the evolutionist timeline, two million years older than this 1.8-million-year-old female.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Quote:
The Earths Age is constrained on the basis of radioisotopes inside minerals, the oldest Zircons we have go back well over 4 billion years.
There is an uncertainty regarding the age of the Earth - given the Homo habilis finding for example - we found it to be flawed when taken literally. Granted, it is a good tool to give us an idea of the chronological timeline in the occurance of these findings. As you may know, salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping it. If this was really happening for billions of years at a similar rate, there would be much more salt in the sea.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Quote:
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).
Much about science - especially evolutionary biology - should be accepted as theoretical. I say that because there are always new findings that defy what you were taught to believe. W.B. Provine, an atheistic evolutionist, admits, "Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed." All dating methods assume unproven theories to contend the age of the earth. Due to the contradictory findings, they should not be taken literally. They should be reformed, and I'm sure there are scientists who are working to reform the methods of carbon dating and other timescaling methods as we speak.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Quote:
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.
My point about Genesis withstanding the test of time is that if Genesis claimed that dinosaurs existed thousands of years before we found the fossils, it would take a leap of faith to believe "the hype." Many skeptics before our time would pound believers for believing something so apparently ridiculous without anything to back it up with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Quote:
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.
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/DINOSAURLIKE

Yes, there are birds to this day that heavily resemble dinosaurs, and an ID Theorist would surely contend that if not standing dinosaurs, then pterosaurs, were either on the Ark, or they were able to flee the flood by simply flying above it. I have no doubt in my mind that some birds that still exist are heirs of pterosaurs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Quote:
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.
The evidence leads me directly to the extinction of dinosaurs (and the survival of mankind), climate change, natural disasters, and such. Given that dinosaurs had different genetic makeup, it is possible that they rotted out much quicker than homo sapien remains did.

There are many theories out there as to why carnivorous dinosaurs became extinct, as did many plant-eating dinosaurs. Many evolutionists accept the theory that they were eliminated by an asteroid. If this were the case, than why didn't this kill off apes? Better yet, why didn't it affect our health at all? We've seen what the Atomic Bomb can do to genetics, Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes to mind.

Did the earth adapt changes that made it incapable for dinosaurs to live on? Surely they weren't the only creatures that became extinct.

Wow, that took a while to type.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 01:11 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by preciousstone
OK so who was the unknown WOMEN that Cain and Abel, the "first" sons of Adam and Eve- the ONLY people on earth, mated with to make the beginning of the world?

Answer that, will you?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...cains_wife.asp

Quote:
Cain’s brothers and sisters
Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this Earth.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—‘And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.’ This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, ‘The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.’11

The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, they were commanded to ‘Be fruitful, and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28).
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 02:58 PM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
I accept that uniqueness in reproduction is a biological fact, and that some traits will seep through while others will be left behind. I don't see a reason to believe why this would contradict any religious or spiritual belief, including Creation. You may call that "random mutations", I prefer to call it genetics. In any event, they give a unique touch on the next generation. We're on the same page at this point, regardless.
A mutation is a term for changes in an organisms genetics and it can occur on different levels up to and including chromosomal.


Quote:
I'm sure apes have a lot in common with other walking mammals as well. But contradictory evidence points out that apes and humans have different numbers of chromosomes per cell. It would take a drastic change in the course of many years in order for a generation of apes to become a generation of men.
Your right, a one generation leap is drastic – which is why we are not discussing a one generation change and looking at many generations over a large time scale separated by geography with breeding and interbreeding between populations. Also as far as chromosomes go look into the polyploidy of angiosperms and plant speciation (observable and testable) as well as Downs Syndrome and Klinefelter's; examples where chromosomes don’t quite match up.

Quote:
Scientists found out that it was likely to be a man with medical problems and that you'd find in a human skull. An authority reported in Nature, 1970, that every Neanderthal child's skull studied so far showed signs compatible with severe rickets.
Their assertions are disproven by the mitochondrial DNA evidence which shows them as different from modern humans

Quote:
It's an interesting find, and in a way contradicts what many evolutionists believe (correct me if I'm wrong) - that man progressed from an ape, and man will continue to progress into something more robust than its current form. As a Creationist, I find this to be a plus rather than a minus in support of my views. I believe that we have been on Earth just about as long as any other creature.
Evolution is not by definition a progressive thing, it is merely favouring the most competitive and best suited organism for a specific niche, in the context of human evolution there were definitely a lot of dead ends of which we are the sole surviving species; in terms of physical robustness and intellect we are probably not entirely unique among homonoids and given different conditions would have been outcompeated.

Quote:
Two sides to every story.

"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment"

- Henry Morris, 1974
Funny, degenerate in culture – and all from stone tools – I question the assertion given the regional extent of this species and the morphological differences that show up consistently.

Quote:
I see as much pro-creation support in this finding as I see pro-evolution support, if not more.
How so?

Quote:
In a 1995 biology text published by Prentice Hall, the two authors state: "At the present time, scientists cannot agree on how many species of Australopithecus there were or whether or not they were the ancestors of human beings."
And that is correct, just like we don’t think that Archaeopterix was the ancestor of true birds – evolution is always taking place and it will usually lead to dead ends (hence extinction), species that go nowhere – it is very likely that from common ancestors a variety of species of early homonoid arose, we certainly have evidence to that effect, this does not disprove evolution it simply puts a context on the fossil record, an important distinction that must be made by any objective observer.

Quote:
One of the reasons why scientists have debated this is because the Australopithecus findings strongly resemble apes. That doesn't necessarily imply that they are in fact a finding that supports ape > man evolution. For example, the living pygmy chimpanzee walks upright. It doesn't necessarily defy Creation.
But it totally supports evolution.

[qupte]There were many features on this finding that baffled evolutionists: its tiny stature, for starters. It was just as short as "Lucy," the alleged 3.8-million-year-old adult female, who was discovered in Ethiopia. The postcranial skeleton was just as ape-like as "Lucy", who was, according to the evolutionist timeline, two million years older than this 1.8-million-year-old female.[/quote]

Quote:
There is an uncertainty regarding the age of the Earth - given the Homo habilis finding for example - we found it to be flawed when taken literally. Granted, it is a good tool to give us an idea of the chronological timeline in the occurance of these findings. As you may know, salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping it. If this was really happening for billions of years at a similar rate, there would be much more salt in the sea.
Firstly 3,000,000 years is small fried on the canvass of 4,500,000,000 years that we have. Secondly the concept of the residence time for elements, elements cycle through the Earth, it is a dynamic system; salt is being removed from the oceans through halite dissolution, sea-spray at the margins, zeolites on the sea floor etc. at a rate equal to addition, it is in equilibrium – the most obvious proof of this contention is that seawater salinity changes through time are reacting to the amount of freshwater locked up in ice and not continuously being increased, the system is in equilibrium. Furthurmore the addition of salt does not come dominantly from freshwater as the freshwater streams bring in carbonates.

Quote:
Much about science - especially evolutionary biology - should be accepted as theoretical. I say that because there are always new findings that defy what you were taught to believe. W.B. Provine, an atheistic evolutionist, admits, "Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed."
Yes, he is saying that science changes and that the theories to explain the facts adapt and change – the state of knowledge is constantly evolving and wrong ideas are discarded for ones that offer better explanations, biblical literalists see this as an admission of weakness in science I may only venture on the basis that they see their tome as the unchanging truth but to a scientist this is plainly stating what the philosophy of scientific investigation is, it is never going to be the 100% unchangeable truth because the potential to be disproved is inherent to theory; it may require some very extraordinary evidence to do so but it will be possible.
Quote:
All dating methods assume unproven theories to contend the age of the earth. Due to the contradictory findings, they should not be taken literally. They should be reformed, and I'm sure there are scientists who are working to reform the methods of carbon dating and other timescaling methods as we speak.
Bollocks, our understanding of radioactive decay is rooted in application of physics and mathematics for the theoretical as well as experimental observation; Carbon dating is useless beyond a few thousand years and we use other radioisotopes to calculate ages; results are internally consistent and are applied in economic geology where they yield big payoffs.
Quote:
My point about Genesis withstanding the test of time is that if Genesis claimed that dinosaurs existed thousands of years before we found the fossils, it would take a leap of faith to believe "the hype." Many skeptics before our time would pound believers for believing something so apparently ridiculous without anything to back it up with.
It doesn’t matter what is claimed, what matters is the evidence; the evidence contradicts a literalist interpretation of genesis.
Quote:
Yes, there are birds to this day that heavily resemble dinosaurs, and an ID Theorist would surely contend that if not standing dinosaurs, then pterosaurs, were either on the Ark, or they were able to flee the flood by simply flying above it. I have no doubt in my mind that some birds that still exist are heirs of pterosaurs.
Pterasaurs are reptiles, birds are flying dinosaurs – there are big morphological differences between the two that distinguish them (namely the manner of flight, birds with their fused carpals and tarsal bones with flight muscles on a big keel and pterasaurs with their thin membranes and elongate fingers.

Furthurmore your pissing on your own shoes by saying that an "ID theorist" would be using the arc in their argument, since ID proponents constantly try to argue (but have failed in a court of law) that ID is not religion or repackaged creationism. ID is religion; your use of the term in the context of the fantasy tale that is Noah just lets the mask slip.

Quote:
The evidence leads me directly to the extinction of dinosaurs (and the survival of mankind), climate change, natural disasters, and such. Given that dinosaurs had different genetic makeup, it is possible that they rotted out much quicker than homo sapien remains did.
Human beings and Dinosaurs DID NOT LIVE TOGETHER. That is the first and most obvious flaw in the logic train, secondly while there are obviously differences between Dinosaurs and Mammals we are still made of the same types of organic material and would have decomposed at the same rate. The argument that you are making contradicts taphonomy.

Quote:
There are many theories out there as to why carnivorous dinosaurs became extinct, as did many plant-eating dinosaurs. Many evolutionists accept the theory that they were eliminated by an asteroid. If this were the case, than why didn't this kill off apes? Better yet, why didn't it affect our health at all? We've seen what the Atomic Bomb can do to genetics, Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes to mind.
Well it didn’t kill off the apes because they didn’t exist then, secondly the Alverez hypothesis has taken a beating recently given that the Chixculub Impact occurred 300,000 years before the K-T Iridium Layer, it was not the impact that occurred when the Dinosaurs went extinct. The current thinking is delving into the micropalaeontological evidence for climate change (reversals in Foraminifera coiling and the like), it is very cool stuff and yields insight into the mechanisms of mass extinction which may help us understand out current, if true, biodiversity crisis.

Quote:
Did the earth adapt changes that made it incapable for dinosaurs to live on? Surely they weren't the only creatures that became extinct.
That’s right, you ask the logical question; the K-T event saw off a lot of species across many taxa, we lost the ammonites for good, mammals took a beating but pulled through, the Dinosaurs mostly went extinct bar the birds and a lot of gastropods were lost; the evidence is consistent with a period of large scale environmental stress across the entire globe.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 10:39 PM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...cains_wife.asp
Looks like incestuous marriages are a-okay, guys.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 11:38 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Lemon Meringue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 3,851
Local Time: 09:15 AM
I am coming in late, but thought I'd throw in a comment about dinosaurs and the Bible. Some believe that dinosaurs are referred to as Leviathan in the Bible and are mentioned in several places in the Old Testiment.

Isaiah 27:1: "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

Psalms 74:14: "Thou didst crush the heads of the Leviathan, thou didst give him for food to the desert people."

Book of Job 3:8 "Lo let the night be solitary, let no joyful cry be heard in it. Let them curse it who curse the day who are ready to awake the Leviathan"

Psalms 104:25,26: "O Lord, how manifold thy works, in wisdom you have created them all. So is this great and wide sea... there go the ships and the Leviathan which you have created to play therein"
__________________
Lemon Meringue is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 04:33 AM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Looks like incestuous marriages are a-okay, guys.

Melon
The real pity is that Ken Ham (the guy who started Answers in Genesis - an Australian no less) is able to peddle ignorance as an affirmation of faith; not only that people willingly want to believe at the expense of the evidence.

There is an inherent and intuitive part of humans that goes against common sense and reason, it is manifested in superstition and fetishism of objects - be it a creationist, "healing crystal" fancier or anti-nuclear campaigner the visceral reaction that are displayed when these intuitive "truths" are challenged shows the power of belief against reason.

Creationism is not an answer, it is a metaphor and myth - the assertions made about the formation of the Earth and the history of life are demonstrably false and proponents must ignore the mainstream and distort the extreme to give their case the semblence of quality investigation, there is no big conspiracy of Godless scientists out to corrupt society with sinful naturalistic evolution in the classroom, having comprehension of the way the world is and has been does not make one have lower moral fibre than somebody who willfully stays in the dark.

Science needs good communicators and defenders in the mainstream, by subverting science education for the next generation a nation will be commiting economic suicide.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 06:37 AM   #105
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment"

- Henry Morris, 1974
I was careless in my response, I should have remembered who Henry Morris was; he is the main proponent of flood geology in the latter half of the 20th Century - the idea that the sedimentary sequences we see are all from a Noachian deluge - he represents pure pseudoscience his ideas about geology are patently false and his opinion is effectively worthless other than highlighting fallacies in creation "science".
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer 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 10:15 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