The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

5uspect

Thats the sad thing. Whatever about J C's bizarre trolling and childish behaviour there are people who post here (and in A&A) who don't seem to understand the simple principles of science and are proud of it!

PDN

5uspect wrote:

Thats the sad thing. Whatever about J C's bizarre trolling and childish behaviour there are people who post here (and in A&A) who don't seem to understand the simple principles of science and are proud of it!

Now that I haven't seen. Could you give some examples of those who are proud to be ignorant?

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

Thats the sad thing. Whatever about J C's bizarre trolling and childish behaviour there are people who post here (and in A&A) who don't seem to understand the simple principles of science and are proud of it!

I think that's part of the general arts-science divide. The "liberal arts", always having been part of the education of a "gentleman", still have huge snob appeal, whereas science is a little too utilitarian, and thereby associated with trade. As a result, it remains socially acceptable, even desirable, to say "I know nothing about science", because it implies you are above needing to know such things. The statement "I know nothing about literature", on the other hand, is an admission that implies you are uncultured, poorly educated, and so forth.

It is not particularly surprising that Creationists should hold such 18th century values, given that they so often appear to be arguing against 18th century science.

PDN wrote:

Now that I haven't seen. Could you give some examples of those who are proud to be ignorant?

In the sense of "not ashamed"? You, for example, and Brian. I'm sure you don't list it as an accomplishment as such, but it is a position you are perfectly happy to defend.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Not sure if anybody remembers the story last year or the year before about the university lecturer who said he was pulled out of his car and beaten by creationists he said that he was going to teach a course called "Creationism and other Myths" or something like that. Anyhow, this year, vigilante creationism is on the prowl again, with professors in the Department of Biology in the University of Colorado who have receiving death threats for teaching evolutionary biology:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/colorado_threats

I wonder what our wolfsbane would make of this? I'm sure it's the fault of closed-minded scientists, as usual!

robindch

PDN wrote:

Could you give some examples of those who are proud to be ignorant?

...and Jakkass too, who posted recently that he's happy not to know very much about the real world. Says "ideas" are his thing.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

In the sense of "not ashamed"? You, for example, and Brian. I'm sure you don't list it as an accomplishment as such, but it is a position you are perfectly happy to defend.

That is a very far cry from saying people are proud of being ignorant of basic scientific principles.

It is, in my opinion, impossible for anyone to be a polymath. Therefore all of us should be honest enough to admit that our knowledge is deficient in certain areas.

I, for example, am pretty ignorant when it comes to most branches of science. I also admit that I cannot speak Urdu or Armenian. That's hardly boasting, just acknowledging that we all have different interests and strengths.

Others on these forums are evidently deficient in their knowledge of history, of literature, of theology, of spelling and punctuation, or of logic. I see that as nothing to be ashamed of, especially if their choices of career and lifestyle mean that such knowledge would be of minimal value to them. Is science so special that those who call themselves scientists feel it is necessary to sneer at those who have other interests?

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Now that I haven't seen. Could you give some examples of those who are proud to be ignorant?

Sure, there are several examples you included:

A few pages age you said:

PDN, post 6137 wrote:

I believe that something happened that caused the sun, from the standpoint of those on earth, to stand still. With my limited knowledge of science it would seem to me that would involve the earth to stop rotating. However, I am content to know that a miracle happened without getting overly exercised by the precise mechanism by which the miracle occurred.

I asked you about this as I found your lack of desire to understand the scientific ramifications worrying, tho maybe you're trying to distance yourself from J C who has an answer for everything.

You then dismissed the entire point (and science as a consequence) stating that you believe in an omnipotent god, ignoring the improbableness of what you believe:

PDN wrote:

You post on the Christianity board, presumably in the knowledge that Christians believe in an omnipotent God. You argue against God being able to do something because it is difficult. Then, when a Christian, quite reasonably, refers to God's omnipotence, you try to dismiss this central tenet of Christianity as if were a ploy - as if they invented God's omnipotence in order to dodge your question.

Dismissing it as "a bit difficult" ignores all scientific knowledge on the matter.
I do in fact think that the omnipotence of God and religion in general is a ploy (not by you) developed by people who didn't have any answers to difficult questions.

We've, as just pointed out, have had BrianC dismiss the efforts of the posters here by saying that he doesn't understand what we're saying and seems content not to understand. A quick trawl through some past threads should show up more.

Perhaps proud is the wrong word here. Maybe its just an attitude towards science that reduces it to stamp collecting in your view.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

That is a very far cry from saying people are proud of being ignorant of basic scientific principles.

Really? It's a perfectly standard meaning of the phrase 5uspect used.

PDN wrote:

It is, in my opinion, impossible for anyone to be a polymath. Therefore all of us should be honest enough to admit that our knowledge is deficient in certain areas.

I, for example, am pretty ignorant when it comes to most branches of science. I also admit that I cannot speak Urdu or Armenian. That's hardly boasting, just acknowledging that we all have different interests and strengths.

Again, what 5uspect is pointing up is that there's more to it than that. It's "I neither know, nor need to know, because what I know trumps it anyway".

There are certainly those who are both ignorant of, say, theology, unwilling to learn about it, and dismissive of it - and that is an example of the attitude in question - "not ignorance, but iggerance", as my grandfather used to say.

PDN wrote:

Others on these forums are evidently deficient in their knowledge of history, of literature, of theology, of spelling and punctuation, or of logic. I see that as nothing to be ashamed of, especially if their choices of career and lifestyle mean that such knowledge would be of minimal value to them. Is science so special that those who call themselves scientists feel it is necessary to sneer at those who have other interests?

It's hard to see how an interest in science is irrelevant to those who choose to argue the scientific truth of Creationism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

It's hard to see how an interest in science is irrelevant to those who choose to argue the scientific truth of Creationism.

Wouldn't it be better to make that point in response to someone who has argued for the scientific truth of creationism?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Others on these forums are evidently deficient in their knowledge of history, of literature, of theology, of spelling and punctuation, or of logic. I see that as nothing to be ashamed of, especially if their choices of career and lifestyle mean that such knowledge would be of minimal value to them.

Where on Earth are spelling, punctuation, and logic of 'minimal value'?

PDN wrote:

Is science so special that those who call themselves scientists feel it is necessary to sneer at those who have other interests?

Aside from the specific context of Creationism as above - the essential principle of science is that of empiricism - the testing of hypothesis by reference to observed facts.

This principle, that of testing your hypothesis by reference to facts, and the requirement it places on the hypothesiser to come up with testable implications of his/her hypothesis, is the principle that is not often grasped. Again, I cannot see where this principle is unimportant, or of 'minimal value'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to make that point in response to someone who has argued for the scientific truth of creationism?

Like, say, Brian, who also posts here? The first reply is not aimed at you as such - see the second reply (immediately before this one). I did think the discussion was general!

Certainly, I accept that you have not argued for the scientific truth of Creationism, and that scientific knowledge may in that sense be of minimal value to you, although I should be very surprised if you make no use of empiricism in your life. Do you examine things from a purely rationalist perspective?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Where on Earth are spelling, punctuation, and logic of 'minimal value'?

Think of musicians, footballers, actors etc. Some people can build successful careers with little or no ability in literacy or logic.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Think of musicians, footballers, actors etc. Some people can build successful careers with little or no ability in literacy or logic.

In the specific execution of their career skills (actually kicking the ball, or playing the flute), perhaps, but that rather assumes that a career, and a life, consists only of the execution of the specific skills...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

That is a very far cry from saying people are proud of being ignorant of basic scientific principles.

It is, in my opinion, impossible for anyone to be a polymath. Therefore all of us should be honest enough to admit that our knowledge is deficient in certain areas.

The difference is that, to take history for example, you would never encounter anybody who will purposefully fail to understand that it happened in the past. Certain people seem to think that the central principles of science don't really matter. Look at how many people have said the ridiculous phrase "maybe it just looks old", when refering to the age of the Earth.
What you are saying would be correct, if it concerned the details of science. Usually it is very basic facts such as the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years), that show their real ignorance about. The age of the Earth is a simple fact to find out, yet if you asked most people here what is the age of the Earth, you'd either get "It's only a few thousand years" or "such things don't matter". I'd imagine it's the underlined response that 5uspect is taking about, because if you were truely ignorant you'd say "I don't know" or "I'm not too interested in those kind of things".

Imagine if you asked somebody when Rome fell and they said "such things don't matter", instead of "I'm not into history".

Galvasean

robindch wrote:

Not sure if anybody remembers the story last year or the year before about the university lecturer who said he was pulled out of his car and beaten by creationists he said that he was going to teach a course called "Creationism and other Myths" or something like that. Anyhow, this year, vigilante creationism is on the prowl again, with professors in the Department of Biology in the University of Colorado who have receiving death threats for teaching evolutionary biology:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/colorado_threats

I wonder what our wolfsbane would make of this? I'm sure it's the fault of closed-minded scientists, as usual!

Violently attack anyone who disagrees with you. I'm fairly sure that is not the Christian ethos.
Also, I notice many Creationists say that scientists are telling lies when teaching/studying evolution. What exactly have they to gain from telling these lies? Did they never consider that the scientists might be merely misinformed by a weighty body of evidence and its not a deliberate attempt to spread lies?

PDN

Son Goku wrote:

The difference is that, to take history for example, you would never encounter anybody who will purposefully fail to understand that it happened in the past. Certain people seem to think that the central principles of science don't really matter. Look at how many people have said the ridiculous phrase "maybe it just looks old", when refering to the age of the Earth.
What you are saying would be correct, if it concerned the details of science. Usually it is very basic facts such as the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years), that show their real ignorance about. The age of the Earth is a simple fact to find out, yet if you asked most people here what is the age of the Earth, you'd either get "It's only a few thousand years" or "such things don't matter". I'd imagine it's the underlined response that 5uspect is taking about, because if you were truely ignorant you'd say "I don't know" or "I'm not too interested in those kind of things".

Imagine if you asked somebody when Rome fell and they said "such things don't matter", instead of "I'm not into history".

It would depend on the context. If we are discussing Roman history then obviously such a response would be inappropriate. However, if we were discussing football then a question about the fall of Rome would be an irritation and deserving of a dismissive response.

Similarly, if people want to argue about the age of the earth then I'm happy to let them. It's not interesting to me, and I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the subject, so I don't get involved.

However, if we are discussing other subjects in the Christianity forum, and people ask irrelevant questions about evolution or the age of the earth that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, then I feel justified to respond by saying, "I don't know and I don't care."

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

It would depend on the context. If we are discussing Roman history then obviously such a response would be inappropriate. However, if we were discussing football then a question about the fall of Rome would be an irritation and deserving of a dismissive response.

Come on, I don't need "How to have conversations 101", obviously I'm talking about a discussion in a scientific context.

The context it is said in is usually a scientific one, as in "I don't care, it is 6,000 years old no matter what so-called evidence you have", after somebody has presented a lot of evidence. That's the point, an attitude that faith/confidence trumps observation, which people are proud of.
You mightn't have been on the forum long enough to see it.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

However, if we are discussing other subjects in the Christianity forum, and people ask irrelevant questions about evolution or the age of the earth that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, then I feel justified to respond by saying, "I don't know and I don't care."

Evolution is antithetical to Genesis, thus challenging the veracity of scripture which Christianity considers the "truth".
Surely that makes it very important if you favour objectivity.

robindch

whoever wrote:

http://gprime.net/video.php/proofofcreationism

Was going to do this over breakfast, but didn't get time...

"If evolution is right, then by subjecting this <waves peanut butter around> to energy [...] just occasionally, I should find new life inside."

I love it -- creationism in a (pea)nutshell. This image will stay with me.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Evolution is antithetical to Genesis, thus challenging the veracity of scripture which Christianity considers the "truth".
Surely that makes it very important if you favour objectivity.

Evolution is antithetical to a particular interpretation of Genesis. However, there are many Christians who believe evolution to be entirely consistent with the veracity of Scripture. That, of course, would be a valid subject for a thread. However, to attempt to interrupt discussions on other subjects with questions concerning evolution shows both ignorance and bad manners.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Evolution is antithetical to a particular interpretation of Genesis. However, there are many Christians who believe evolution to be entirely consistent with the veracity of Scripture. That, of course, would be a valid subject for a thread. However, to attempt to interrupt discussions on other subjects with questions concerning evolution shows both ignorance and bad manners.

Unfortunately, that's a very hard discussion to hold without it degenerating into creationists-versus-evolutionists. It is, however, very relevant here in this thread (which has of course already degenerated as far as possible in that direction), so perhaps you could outline your compatible position (and/or others, if you're feeling cagey)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Galvasean
No species of rhino has a big bony frill, bird like hips or a crocodile like tail or beak.

Can I quote from Wikipedia on this matter at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops

“Although no complete skeleton has been found, Triceratops is well-known from numerous partial specimens collected since the introduction of the genus in 1887.”

….so reconstructions of the Triceratops skeleton are based on INCOMPLETE skeletons.

……and I have NEVER seen a bird running around on FOUR legs ……so ‘bird like hips’…I think NOT, in the case of the Triceratops ........ or do you also think that a Rhino has the backside of a bird!!!

…. equally, the ‘crocodile-like tail’ turns out to be a ‘mammalian tail’ similar to those of Cattle!!!!

….and the ‘beak’ turns out to be a narrow mouth with TEETH…..just like the Black Rhino’s narrow mouth!!!:cool:


Galvasean
Does the wide mouthed rhino have a beak? NO.
Does the black rhino have a beak? NO.

…and does the Triceratops have a beak? ..NO.

....it had a narrow mouth with teeth ……just like the Black Rhino’s narrow mouth!!!:cool:


Galvasean
You will not find ANY texts, not even Creationist ones which say rhinos (mammals), Komodo dragons (lizards) and crocodiles (crocodilians) are dinosaurs.

…...you DO find Evolutionist texts that claim that the Rhino-like Triceratops, and the Komodo-like Dino-lizards as well as Crocodiles lived during the so-called ‘Age of the Dinosaurs’!!!!!:eek:


MooseJam
Tyranosaurus rex and man were cohabiting ? if this was the case why is there no records of these creatures in any old texts or cave paintings or anything,

There is indeed such evidence…..Dinosaurs were cohabiting with Mankind and were called ‘Dragons’ and Pterodactyls were called ‘Thunderbirds’!!
…..and you can read about them here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/thunderbirds.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp


Wicknight
Well thank God we aren't talking about mammals then.

Unfortunately, for Evolution, we ARE talking about Mammals!!!

BTW, does your expressed gratitude to God indicate that you are becoming a ‘Theistic Atheist’ or something???


Originally Posted by J C
This would indicate that a one year old Brachiosaurus would have been about 3 metres tall and less than 2 metres at the shoulders

Wicknight
No actually it wouldn't, since Dinosaurs aren't Mammals, as you well know.
Some Dinosaurs were reptiles …..but others (like the Brachiosaurus and Triceratops) WERE mammals!!:)


Wicknight
1.This is a bio-chemical reaction. That wouldn't work under water, it needs air.

It is a cementation process – and just like all cement it will set in air AND under water.:cool:

Wicknight
2 - You really haven't read the articles you linked to. It is a combination of bacteria that is not found naturally in nature, otherwise this would be happening all over the place. So who added the huge amounts of agent during the Flood? God?

The bacteria are found naturally in soils!!!

The limiting factor is the availability of Calcium….and the subterranean waters that burst forth during Noah’s Flood were full of Calcium…..as well as Sodium and Chlorine...!!!!

Wicknight
3 - You really really haven't read the articles you link to. THis produces sandstone. And not particularly strong sand stone. It doesn't explain any of the other rocks, even if one ignored 1 & 2
I ask again, how did the Flood produce the sedimentary rocks containing fossils (because it damn sure wasn't this way)

This newly discovered process produces Sandstone that is TWICE as hard as foundation concrete!!!!

It is thought that the other major Sedimentary Rock, Limestone, was formed by the precipitation and setting of enormous amounts of Calcium Carbonate that was released suspended in the underground waters that "burst forth" during the Flood.

…..and that is exactly how Sandstone and Limestone WERE formed!!!:D


Wicknight
Unfortunately I meet people like JC out here in the real world (mostly friends of friends).

…..so your friends are even becoming Creationists.....can I be your friend too???!!!!


Wicknight
Anyone who reads the Indo newspaper or watches the Late Late Show or Newsnight knows that there is a lot of ignorance out there when it comes to evolution and science in general, propagated by Christians and Muslims who refuse to accept the natural world around them. Harmless some might say, but it is having an effect on medicine and science research in America and I fear the same here.

Creation Science is indeed becoming mainstream……and it started NOT "on the The Late Late Show"....but on the Boards.ie…:) !!!!

BTW, discoveries like the sandstone example above, would have been made even faster if Creation Science was more prevalent……..

……..equally, did you know that the Thyroid Gland was originally classified as as a so-called ‘vestigial organ’ – because it has no duct for it's secretions ??
When people had an enlarged Thyroid (or goitre) it was routinely removed. It was a young Professor of Surgery, Theodore Kocker, who discovered that some patients were going insane a few years after their operation…..and he found that if he left any part of the Goitre behind, the patients didn’t become psychotic. It was not until 30 years later that Thyroxine was discovered, and the essential nature of the Thyroid Gland and it’s endocrine hormone were confirmed!!!


Wicknight
Wacky Creationism is no long contained within the Christian Bible Belt of America, it has spread to the UK, Europe and even Ireland. Understanding how to argue with these people (when logic and reason will not work) is helpful.

Creation Science is not ‘whacky’.......

…..and here is more evidence of Creationism going mainstream…….

……a recent issue of the New Scientist (p 54-55, 9th December 2006) published an interview with Biblical Creationist and Geophysicist, Dr. John Baumgardner who developed a new model of convection in the Earth’s mantle when he worked in the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Other topics covered in the New Scientist article includes Dr. Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics model of the Genesis Flood, and a report on his interactions as a scientist who is a Creationist, with his colleagues in Los Alamos.
His fellow scientists gave him a lot of respect for upholding his position, even when they disagreed with him. Great to see New Scientist publishing this portrait of a great Christian Geophysicist.:D


Wicknight
It is one of the problems I think someone like Richard Dawkins has, he doesn't understand how someone could actually believe any of this nonsense, so he is ineffective when debating with them. To debate successfully one must understand why people believe the opposite to you.

I really like Professor Dawkins, as a person.......and I would like to sit down with him over a pint and 'blow the breeze' with him on 'the origins question'!!!!

Every recent debate, that I am aware of, between Creation Scientists and Evolutionists has ended in victory for the Creationists.........but this is understandable when you consider the fact that all life was actually Created!!!:D


Galvasean
I will admit that I let my frustration get the better of me and for that I am very sorry.

.......none of us are perfect....
…and I accept your apology and I forgive you.
...as a former Evolutionist, I can confirm that I was also very frustrated when I first learned about the invalidity of Evolution!!!:D


Jeremiah 16:1
A lot of effort is going into making pieces of the jigsaw of science fit by clipping corners, forcing pieces that don't go together against each other, and disregarding or painting over whole sections.

Evolutionists may have to engage in such activity……but the Creation model perfectly fits all observations…….because it describes what ACTUALLY happened!!!:D


Son Goku
population is governed by the Logistic Map discovered by Pierre François Verhulst, although it wasn't fully appreciated until Chaos Theory came on the scene in the 1970s.

You’re needlessly complicating a relatively simple phenomenon…..

If you start with 2 people and they have 4 children in the second generation…..who become 2 couples who have 4 children each, you have 8 children in the third generation….who become 4 couples who have 4 children each, you have 16 children in the fourth generation ……and so on up to the 33rd generation when you will have over 8 BILLION people!!!

If we assume an average generation length of 35 years, this could occur in only 1,155 years.

In reality, the population is likely to have expanded much more rapidly initially. The long lived healthy earlier generations of Mankind (with consequently delayed Menopause) probably had average family sizes of 20 children or more. The expansion rate would then have slowed down as resource limitations, war, disease and reduced longevity took their toll.

In any event the achievement of a population of 6 billion people during the 4,475 +/-500 years that have elapsed since the Flood would have been VERY EASY!!!


Wicknight
As Abraham Lincoln said -

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

...and that is one of the reasons why Evolution is being rejected by increasing numbers of scientists!!!

zod

J_C, if the dinosaurs were saved on the ARK what happened to them ?

Did they repopulate the dinosaur population on earth after.. and then subsequently die off.. or did Noah fail to save them ?

Also where did the olive branch come from that the dove brought back ?

J C

zod wrote:

J_C, if the dinosaurs were saved on the ARK what happened to them ?

Did they repopulate the dinosaur population on earth after.. and then subsequently die off.. or did Noah fail to save them ?

Also where did the olive branch come from that the dove brought back ?

Dinosaurs did repopulate .......but became subsequently extinct.....some possibly in the Ice Age that immediately followed the Flood......

.....while others were probably hunted into extinction by Man...as the numerous accounts of 'dragon slaying' in folk stories testify!!!:D

.....and there may be some still alive, yet undiscovered in the more remote areas of the Earth!!!

It is thought that some trees survived uprooted and floating in driftwood and soil 'mats'.
Equally, the Flood only covered the highest land to a depth of 15 cubits (or 7 metres) and the Flood would have receeded from this land within days of reaching peak.
.....so the Olive tree from which the Dove plucked the leaves was either floating on the surface of the Waves.......or rooted to the spot on some of the higher land!!!

Bisar

Ok, I'm not even going to try to debate the science stuff cos there seem to a lot of more qualified people than me on here. This is purely a request for information. What was the point of the flood? If the purpose was just to wipe mankind of the face of the earth then surely an omnipotent god could have just snapped his fingers (or whatever it is that deities snap) and the job would have been done and everyone would have been a lot happier. Plus god could have sat back right now and watched the evolutionists try to explain why the entire human race (minus 8 people) instantaneously died for no earthly reason.

Giblet

Blatant Lies. You are just making up facts you twist reality towards your claims.

It had very obvious back teeth seen on this fossil, and a very refined, sharpened beak at the front, not even wide enough to accomodate teeth. I suppose the top edge of the beak was "sharpened" over time. (In the many examples found of course).

You are clearly making this stuff up. Give up, you're not fooling anyone.


And of course, an olive branch floating on the top of the ocean waves doesn't really have the impact of the Dove finding LAND and returning to Noah. I mean, surely there were hundreds and thousands of bits of debris floating around in this flood.

Scofflaw

Giblet wrote:

You are clearly making this stuff up. Give up, you're not fooling anyone.

Ah well - he's fooling the only person that really matters...

By the way, did we cover the fact that rhino horns are made purely of keratin (same as your fingernails), whereas Triceratops' horns are bone?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Giblet

J C wrote:

Galvasean


Can I quote from Wikipedia on this matter at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops

“Although no complete skeleton has been found, Triceratops is well-known from numerous partial specimens collected since the introduction of the genus in 1887.”

….so reconstructions of the Triceratops skeleton are based on INCOMPLETE skeletons.

Which fit together magically eh?

……and I have NEVER seen a bird running around on FOUR legs ……so ‘bird like hips’…I think NOT, in the case of the Triceratops ........ or do you also think that a Rhino has the backside of a bird!!!

Bird "like" hips applies both hips resembling the singular hips of a bird, but you already know that, so either you are reaching or you really are just unbelievably ignorant. A child could come to that conclusion. Also, I like that you use anecdotal evidence... "I have never, therefore..." You would go crazy if such tact was used against you. Of course we have this as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithischia

…...you DO find Evolutionist texts that claim that the Rhino-like Triceratops, and the Komodo-like Dino-lizards as well as Crocodiles lived during the so-called ‘Age of the Dinosaurs’!!!!!:eek:

Of course the "Rhino-like" would be your words or a very inaccurate description. Don't let that get in your way though.

There is indeed such evidence…..Dinosaurs were cohabiting with Mankind and were called ‘Dragons’ and Pterodactyls were called ‘Thunderbirds’!!
…..and you can read about them here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/thunderbirds.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp

Oh please, citing a biased article. Grow up, you aren't explaining yourself to children.

…..so your friends are even becoming Creationists.....can I be your friend too???!!!!

Selective reading again as usual. Friend of a friend. No amount of smilies can hide your lunacy and deception (deceiving only yourself, of course)

Creation Science is indeed becoming mainstream……and it started NOT "on the The Late Late Show"....but on the Boards.ie…:) !!!!

It's like a car crash, we can't stop watching.

...and that is one of the reasons why Evolution is being rejected by increasing numbers of scientists!!!

Scientists like you? Or actual Scientists?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Evolution is antithetical to a particular interpretation of Genesis. However, there are many Christians who believe evolution to be entirely consistent with the veracity of Scripture. That, of course, would be a valid subject for a thread. However, to attempt to interrupt discussions on other subjects with questions concerning evolution shows both ignorance and bad manners.

It's bad manners to question you saying "evolution is not important". I thought this thread was all about evolution. PDN, I respect you depth of knowledge and your challenging posts, but you remind me sometimes of my childhood Priests who didn't want certain questions.

5uspect

Bisar wrote:

Ok, I'm not even going to try to debate the science stuff cos there seem to a lot of more qualified people than me on here.

Ask as much about science as you wish, don't be afraid to do so! People post here to inform people about what science actually says, not what J C thinks it says. (BTW way J C has not demonstrated that anything he says is remotely related to science in any shape or form)

Bisar wrote:

This is purely a request for information. What was the point of the flood? If the purpose was just to wipe mankind of the face of the earth then surely an omnipotent god could have just snapped his fingers (or whatever it is that deities snap) and the job would have been done and everyone would have been a lot happier. Plus god could have sat back right now and watched the evolutionists try to explain why the entire human race (minus 8 people) instantaneously died for no earthly reason.

You'd almost think that its a story dreamed up by bronze age old men who didn't know better?