The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....look at Postings #1 to #12630!!!!

I see a whole lot of evidence for evolution, a lot of you and wolfsbane denying that, and zero proof for creation.

Got any unique-to-creationism testable hypotheses for me yet?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I see a whole lot of evidence for evolution, a lot of you and wolfsbane denying that, and zero proof for creation.

Got any unique-to-creationism testable hypotheses for me yet?

.....I'm sorry....I cannot help you.....if you choose to believe you are a 'Monkeys Cousin'.....then I guess that's just about it!!!

.....I lay before you life and death says the Lord.....please (freely) choose life!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....I'm sorry....I cannot help you.....if you choose to believe you are a 'Monkeys Cousin'.....then I guess that's just about it!!!

I have no issue with sharing a common ancestor with other simians, but I certainly did not choose to believe that, any more than I chose to believe that the Earth orbits the sun.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....the point is that you can SIMULATE anything once you programme the computer to do the simulation

Well yes, you can. And one of the things you can simulate is Darwinian evolution. And when you do that you find that Darwinian evolution can do all the things you say it can't

So, as I said, these simulates demonstrate that these claims of yours are incorrect

J C wrote: »

....the screensaver on my computer will go on forever if I don't interrupt it....I could call it a simulation of a Perpetual Motion Machine

I'm not following? Why are you calling your screen saver a model of a perpetual motion machine? Do you understand what a perpetual motion machine actually is?

J C wrote: »

.....ditto with SIMULATIONS of Evolution!!!:D

But they aren't impossible

That is the point, that is what the computer simulations demonstrate. You are wrong.

medeame

really nice to see everyone being nice to each other and respecting different beliefs isnt it

cant anyone have a point of view on here without someone else tearing them personally to shreds:eek:

i would tell you all to grow up and stop quoting reams of the bible that was only put together because the roman empire desired some elements but changed and omitted others.

religion controls the masses, fair play to anyone who can think for themselves i say... and to add to my last post, God is subjective as is evolution. There is no right or wrong here and absolutelly no solid proof, only theories either way.

as regards being on broadband and answering imediatelly, i have better things to do than sit pontificating about something or someone over whom i have no proof and no control. But hey, this is a free democratic sight, so i respect all opinions weather i deem them right or wrong.

have a nice day people.

PDN

medeame wrote: »

i would tell you all to grow up and stop quoting reams of the bible that was only put together because the roman empire desired some elements but changed and omitted others.

This is a common misconception among those who get their information from fiction like 'The Davinci Code' rather than history or biblical studies.

All the available evidence indicates that the text of the various Biblical books was in its present form before the Edict of Toleration - in other words, before the unholy alliance between Church and State that gave the Empire any say in Christian affairs and issues. It is also clear that the books in our Canon of Scripture were already in use in churches before the Empire had any influence over the matter. The later Councils simply ratified the list of books.

If the Roman Empire really had the power to exclude anything from the Scriptures then you can be assured that the subversive Book of Revelation would never have made it into our Bibles.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Certainly every kind of dinosaur.

Even if you were to just take two of each dinosaur family that is still a lot of dinosaurs. If you were to take the basal form of each dinosaur family you would save a lot of space. Although then you'd have to explain how they rapidly evolved into the thousands of 'kinds' of dinosaurs known and then went extinct after the flood for no obvious reason.
Surely it would be a lot easier to take the 'they drowned in the flood' route, but then Noah wouldn't be taking two of each kind of creature onto the Ark, directly disobeying a command from God, which in other parts of the Bible has proven to be punishable by death.

Atomic Horror wrote:

Got any unique-to-creationism testable hypotheses for me yet?

J C wrote:

.....I'm sorry....I cannot help you.....if you choose to believe you are a 'Monkeys Cousin'.....then I guess that's just about it!!!

I bet if you provided some real evidence to suggest he isn't a "monkey's cousin" you'd have a better chance of having believe you (and by your logic save his immortal soul - wouldn't that be a very Christian thing to do?).

sunny2004

I have arrived, so it will all be sorted out soon, Now what was the question again ?

nunshaw

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Prove it.

Believing in God means thr proof is all around you, its in the bible. I trust in God and my belief in him is all I need.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

This is a common misconception among those who get their information from fiction like 'The Davinci Code' rather than history or biblical studies.

All the available evidence indicates that the text of the various Biblical books was in its present form before the Edict of Toleration - in other words, before the unholy alliance between Church and State that gave the Empire any say in Christian affairs and issues. It is also clear that the books in our Canon of Scripture were already in use in churches before the Empire had any influence over the matter. The later Councils simply ratified the list of books.

If the Roman Empire really had the power to exclude anything from the Scriptures then you can be assured that the subversive Book of Revelation would never have made it into our Bibles.

Edict of Toleration is a general term to describe a lot of declarations made and there have been many throughout history.

The Edict of Milan was Constantine. It was the "law" that legitimized Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. While not strictly a Roman Emperor, he was a Byzantine Emperor. (see near eastern roman empire)

It was Constantine who commissioned the first bibles. While the some texts went way back through the Jewish tradition, Pope Damasus 1 commissioned the translation of the bible to Latin. The Vulgate comes from the 16th Century. There's also some differences in the Ethopian books too.

So while the texts date back to the 1st Century, there were books that were dropped along the way. Revelations was nearly one of them too! Thomas Jefferson left it out of the Bible he edited.

marco_polo

nunshaw wrote: »

Believing in God means thr proof is all around you, its in the bible. I trust in God and my belief in him is all I need.

I would have though a man of with such a deep and secure faith as yourself would have no need to waste his time in here trying to convince us heathens that evolution never happened.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Edict of Toleration is a general term to describe a lot of declarations made and there have been many throughout history.

Ah sorry, I sometimes tend to use terms that presuppose a higher than average level of familiarity with the subject under discussion. That's what comes of teaching this stuff too many times to students. My bad. In a classroom discussion of Church History when discussing the period when the Canon of Scripture was being defined, and particularly regarding relationships between the Church and Empire, 'the Edict of Toleration' would refer to that of Galerius in 311 AD - http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2003/04/daily-04-30-2003.shtml This was significant because it marked the end of the most severe period of persecution of the Church. It also paved the way for Constantine's Edict of Milan.

The Edict of Milan was Constantine. It was the "law" that legitimized Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. While not strictly a Roman Emperor, he was a Byzantine Emperor. (see near eastern roman empire)

I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff from, but Constantine was the Emperor of the undivided Roman Empire and as such was enthroned in Rome. He did build Constantinople as a 'second Rome', which later became the seat of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine, or Eastern, Empire did not come into being as a separate Empire until the death of Theodosius in 395.

It was Constantine who commissioned the first bibles.

No, that would have been a guy called Marcion in 140 AD.

While the some texts went way back through the Jewish tradition, Pope Damasus 1 commissioned the translation of the bible to Latin. The Vulgate comes from the 16th Century.

We know that the Old Testament canon was in place by about 100 AD - so it would be hard to pin that one on Constantine.

In the case of the New Testament it would be the Greek text that is important - Latin or Jewish has nothing to do with it. BTW your date for the Vulgate is out by about 1100 years - try the early 5th Century.

So while the texts date back to the 1st Century, there were books that were dropped along the way. Revelations was nearly one of them too! Thomas Jefferson left it out of the Bible he edited.

It wasn't actually a Bible he edited. It was a book called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth which attempted to place some Bible verses from the Gospels in chronological order and chucked out those that referred to the supernatural.

Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian, so I think his butchering of the Bible has little relevance.

Galvasean

Move over Tiktaalik, it seems you might not be the 'missing link' after all!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080924-fish-fingers.html

Before the Creationists rejoice I'd suggest reading the article first.

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

Move over Tiktaalik, it seems you might not be the 'missing link' after all!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080924-fish-fingers.html

Before the Creationists rejoice I'd suggest reading the article first.

They are not a new species but are meerly of the newly discovered fish fingered kind.

Clearly they must have drowned during the flood.

Oh wait

Alternatively they may have got trampled by a herd of migrating Kangaroos

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Scientists who are also creationists. Very good. Not the same thing as creationists being scientists by definition really is it?

.....when the Creationists ARE scientists both terms are EQUALLY valid!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Hypothetically, if I work in a cafe as a waiter to pay off PhD debts, does that make waiters scientists too? How many of these guys are actually engaged in "creation science" research?

......Creation Scientists DON'T work in cafes......but it sounds like many of the Evolutionists may be overindulging on 'Café Latés'.....and 'Big Macs'!!!!!:pac::):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....when the Creationists ARE scientists both terms are EQUALLY valid!!!

And yet, you don't make reference to creation journalists, creation lawyers, creation trash collectors, creation shopkeepers, creation builders, creation doctors, creation footballers, creation webmasters etc. etc. ETC. I wonder why that is, unless you are trying to assume the authority of science for creation despite the fact there is no scientific evidence for creation. Both terms are patently not equally valid.

J C wrote: »

.....Creation Scientists DON'T work in cafes......

It appears they don't work anywhere, since none exist!

medeame

PDN wrote: »

This is a common misconception among those who get their information from fiction like 'The Davinci Code' rather than history or biblical studies.All the available evidence indicates that the text of the various Biblical books was in its present form before the Edict of Toleration - in other words, before the unholy alliance between Church and State that gave the Empire any say in Christian affairs and issues. .

Well firstly, my request to stop personally attacking people fell on deaf ears didnt it. i hold a masters degree in ancient history, so i do not need to read The Davinci Code for my information and rescent your implication that i cannot think for myself.

The council of Nicea was very real it was held for the first time in Bithyria (modern day Turkey) 325AD. It was the beginning of uniform doctine that would come to create a statement of belief. 25th December was the pagan sun God's feastday, something else appropriated at this council. Constantine the great who was emporer of the vast Roman Empire did have a huge amount of sway, indeed, he loved christianity so much, that he only dared be baptised on his death bed!
Later emperor's also removed the reincarnation part of texts- why, because, how can you control a nation if they think they will be reborn.
Quote -All the available evidence indicates that the text of the various Biblical books was in its present form before the Edict of Toleration - End Quote

I dont know what hard and fast evidence you refere to, because as a historian, i can tell you that is a sweeping statement, but, i am willing to listen if you can back up your sources.

Bishops at the council had 1 or 2 particular worryies (apart from deciding the date for easter and on which day of the week Jesus was crucified) at the meeting was weather to call Jesus devine or just a man, they settled on 'similar substance to God' when they could not agree. Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in the mid-4th century, "... the emperor ... convened a council of 318 bishops ... in the city of Nicea. ... They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God's holy and supremely excellent day.
(So, that obviously was not set in stone was it)

For it was variously observed by people .. ."

Anyway, people are entitled to their opinions, however, i will never be swayed from historical fact.
Have a nice day though.

PDN

medeame wrote: »

Well firstly, my request to stop personally attacking people fell on deaf ears didnt it.

No, it didn't fall on deaf ears at all. No-one has attacked you. There is a difference between pointing out false information in a post and personally attacking someone.

i hold a masters degree in ancient history, so i do not need to read The Davinci Code for my information and rescent your implication that i cannot think for myself.

Hmm, and JC is a scientist. We could play a game of 'my degree is bigger than your degree' - but that would be pointless since possessing a degree is no guarantee that we are in possession of accurate information. I did not imply that you can't think for yourself. However, if someone erroneously thinks that the Roman Empire determined the text or Canon of Scripture then they are certainly not getting that information from reputable academic sources. The Davinci Code is the usual suspect for such urban legends.

The council of Nicea was very real it was held for the first time in Bithyria (modern day Turkey) 325AD. It was the beginning of uniform doctine that would come to create a statement of belief. 25th December was the pagan sun God's feastday, something else appropriated at this council.

The Council of Nicaea was certainly real, it was held in Iznik, in the Region of Bithynia. It dealt mainly with the Arian heresy, but also addressed issues such as the date of Easter (not Christmas) and the prohibition of self-castration :eek:.

This is a very readable review of Nicea on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea and the decrees of the Council are here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm. There's another account of Nicaea here: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm. You will notice that in all these there is no mention of editing the Bible or, indeed, of the 25th of December.

The earliest evidence we have of Christians officially appropriating the 25th of December to celebrate the birth of Jesus was 9 years after Nicaea in 336 - in the Philocalian Almanac.

Later emperor's also removed the reincarnation part of texts- why, because, how can you control a nation if they think they will be reborn.

Do you care to produce any evidence for this extraordinary claim? Such evidence, if it existed, should be easy enough for you to produce. We have thousands of quotes from the Old and New Testament in many of the works of the pre-Constantine Early Church Fathers. We also have fragments, books and papyri from before 300 AD which, altogether, comprise about two thirds of our New Testament. Also, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are dated to the time of Constantine and contain the entire New Testament.

If your claim that later Emperors than Constantine removed references to reincarnation from the Bible had any substance to it whatsoever then proof would be easy and a devastating rebuttal to the Christian position. All you would have to do is quote from the pre-Constantine manuscripts, or from Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, the reincarnation passages that are now missing from the Bible. Nothing could be easier - but of course it has never been done, and cannot be done because the whole editing out of reincarnation story is another urban legend.

I dont know what hard and fast evidence you refere to, because as a historian, i can tell you that is a sweeping statement, but, i am willing to listen if you can back up your sources.

The hard and fast evidence is in the thousands of patristic quotations from Scripture and from all the manuscripts that date to before 300 AD. Now, would you care to produce any hard and fast evidence to support your sweeping statements to the opposite?

Anyway, people are entitled to their opinions, however, i will never be swayed from historical fact.

In order to be swayed from historical fact you need to have grasped a historical fact in the first place.

Have a nice day though.

Why, thank you. I'm having a wonderful day!

wolfsbane

Galvasean said:

Even if you were to just take two of each dinosaur family that is still a lot of dinosaurs.

Care to give a round number?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I see a whole lot of evidence for evolution, a lot of you and wolfsbane denying that, and zero proof for creation.

Got any unique-to-creationism testable hypotheses for me yet?

Here's one from The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy by D. Russell Humphreys:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm

Conclusion: the Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young

The trend in the IGRF data from the most accurate period, 1970 to 2000, is very clear. During that period the total energy - dipole plus non-dipole - in the observable geomagnetic field decreased quite significantly, by 1.4%. Though the data over the previous part of the century are less accurate, there was still an overall decrease of total energy. According to my geomagnetic model, whose general features agree with paleomagnetic and archeomagnetic data, the total field energy has always decreased at least at today’s rate, and it will continue to do so in to the future (Humphreys, 1990).

Today’s energy decay rate is so high that the geomagnetic field could not be more than a few dozen millennia old. Moreover, during the rapid polarity reversals of the Genesis Flood, and during the large fluctuations of surface field B for millennia after the Flood, the rate of energy loss was much greater than today’s rate. That shortens the age of the field even more. In the absence of any workable analytical theory (or data) to the contrary from the evolutionists, these data are quite consistent with the face-value Biblical age of the earth, about 6000 years.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well yes I meant "kind" or whatever subdivision you'd like to use. My question then is what happened to them? They became extinct after the flood?

Yes. But because it is so recent, some may remain.

BTW, what is the difference between a dinosaur and a Komodo dragon?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Move over Tiktaalik, it seems you might not be the 'missing link' after all!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080924-fish-fingers.html

Before the Creationists rejoice I'd suggest reading the article first.

QUOTE (from the above National Geographic Article):-
"Curiously, the radial bones of Panderichthys are more finger-like than those of Tiktaalik, a fish with stubby leg-like limbs that lived about five million years later.

Many scientists regard Tiktaalik as a "missing link": the crucial transitional animal between fish and the first tetrapods.

One possibility, Alhberg said, is that finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik, and that Tiktaalik's fins represented an evolutionary return to a more primitive form.

Michael Coates, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, called the new findings "intriguing" but is not convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers.

For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones, Coates said.

"Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped."

The structures are so peculiar, they might just be fragments of damaged bone, he added. "

....these guys don't whether these fish were coming or going in relation to their supposed place in 'Evolution'!!!!

.....NEITHER the Tiktaalik nor the Panderichthys are a missing link to ANYTHING....except THEMSELVES!!!!

.....and the 'fish fingers'.....are probably just crushed bone fragments.....

Ahoy there Captain Birds Eye!!!!!:pac::):D



QUOTE (from the above National Geographic Article):-
"Nothing comes from nothing in evolution"

.....so what CAN Evolution do then......NOTHING!!!!!!

.....an absolutely priceless quote.....
.....that just about sums up everything about Evolution!!!!:pac::):D

....I wonder is it a 'Freudian Slip'....and is Dr Michael Coates actually a Creation Scientist....without knowing it????!!!!:eek::D

....it's such a good quote....I have added it to my signature!!!:D

....it reminds me of an ATHEIST that I once knew......who blamed GOD for everything that was wrong with the World!!!!:D:eek:

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff from, but Constantine was the Emperor of the undivided Roman Empire and as such was enthroned in Rome. He did build Constantinople as a 'second Rome', which later became the seat of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine, or Eastern, Empire did not come into being as a separate Empire until the death of Theodosius in 395.

From memory, "Formation of Christendom" by Judith Herrin/Herron?. Don't have it to hand unfortunately. I think my point that he was a Roman, for brevity I said they were one and the same, you know yerself.

I'm not still not sure about Galerius. The Edict of Milan was 311 and was Licinicus and Constantine, in fact I reckon it was Licinicus and Constantine really just signed it. I could be wrong though.

PDN wrote: »

No, that would have been a guy called Marcion in 140 AD.

I'd have another look, he rejected the whole of the Hebrew Bible and was excomunicated by 144 and returned to modern Turkey . (Encyclopedia Britanica) He didn't like the Jewish infuluence in christanity. "Marcionism is more like Evengelical protestantism..."

Marcion!
Ohh! Look what I found! yours perhaps?

PDN wrote: »

We know that the Old Testament canon was in place by about 100 AD - so it would be hard to pin that one on Constantine.

Constantine commissioned the bibles containing both new and old testament. Am I detection a dis-interest in the Old Testament here PDN?
(another wink)

Constantine and the Council of Nicea (first?) did in-fact disregard the Arian teachings about Jesus being a man. Tore them up in public? Maybe someone could shed some light here? I don't have a reference for this. But it could be a source for the D. Brown stuff?

PDN wrote: »

In the case of the New Testament it would be the Greek text that is important - Latin or Jewish has nothing to do with it. BTW your date for the Vulgate is out by about 1100 years - try the early 5th Century.

Not sure where this is referring to ? Right, I was referring to the 55 Bibles Comissioned by Constantine. I was stating that the Old Testament was already in use by that stage.
Oddly enough I've come across another"First Bible" reference by Wycliffe?

PDN wrote: »

It wasn't actually a Bible he edited. It was a book called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth which attempted to place some Bible verses from the Gospels in chronological order and chucked out those that referred to the supernatural.

I stand corrected, that is something that I would be interested in reading. I've read the Bible and had a good go at the Quraan before you ask!

PDN wrote: »

Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian, so I think his butchering of the Bible has little relevance.

Well I haven't read it but I would think a book like this is a good idea, although I'm a dyed in the wool atheist (not agnostic) I do think one could learn a thing or two from reading a few of the "Good Books". The supernatural is a bad thing IMO.

On a personal note I know a bit about this because a few years back I got to wondering how the whole thing that started in Palastine ended up being run from the middle of Italy for so many years. (just in case you thought I was looking for answers!)

Nice discussing this with you as always.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

And yet, you don't make reference to creation journalists, creation lawyers, creation trash collectors, creation shopkeepers, creation builders, creation doctors, creation footballers, creation webmasters etc. etc. ETC. I wonder why that is, unless you are trying to assume the authority of science for creation despite the fact there is no scientific evidence for creation. Both terms are patently not equally valid.

....I wouldn't identify any of them publicly EITHER....in case they might also be sacked!!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

It appears they don't work anywhere, since none exist!

....dream on.....and keep taking the tablets!!!:pac::):D;)

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes. But because it is so recent, some may remain.

BTW, what is the difference between a dinosaur and a Komodo dragon?

.....or indeed a Triceratops and a Rhino?
.....or a Bronchiosaurus (from the shoulders down) and an Elephant (from the shoulders down)?!!!!:pac::):D

....or a Bronchiosaurus (from the shoulders up) and a Giraffe (from the shoulders up)?!!!!:pac::):D

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's one from The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy by D. Russell Humphreys:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm

Conclusion: the Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young

The trend in the IGRF data from the most accurate period, 1970 to 2000, is very clear. During that period the total energy - dipole plus non-dipole - in the observable geomagnetic field decreased quite significantly, by 1.4%. Though the data over the previous part of the century are less accurate, there was still an overall decrease of total energy. According to my geomagnetic model, whose general features agree with paleomagnetic and archeomagnetic data, the total field energy has always decreased at least at today’s rate, and it will continue to do so in to the future (Humphreys, 1990).

Today’s energy decay rate is so high that the geomagnetic field could not be more than a few dozen millennia old. Moreover, during the rapid polarity reversals of the Genesis Flood, and during the large fluctuations of surface field B for millennia after the Flood, the rate of energy loss was much greater than today’s rate. That shortens the age of the field even more. In the absence of any workable analytical theory (or data) to the contrary from the evolutionists, these data are quite consistent with the face-value Biblical age of the earth, about 6000 years.

.....and this is REAL TIME direct measurements.......which indicate that the Earth's geomagnetic field is declining so rapidly that it will be only half it's current strength in less than 2,000 years!!!!.....and a paltry 12% of it's current level in 6,000 years time.....and it will fall to only 1% in 13,000 years!!!

.......kinda put the 'millions of years' proponents in their place .....with a BANG......Oops, I almost forgot....I shouldn't use that WORD.....it might give the Evolutionists (invalid) ideas!!!:eek::pac::):D

studiorat

J C wrote: »

.....or indeed a Triceratops and a Rhino?
.....or a Bronchiosaurus' (from the shoulders down) and an Elephant (from the shoulders down)?!!!!:pac::):D

You're having a laugh now! This is an obvious Troll!
Please tell me you are not serious, please!

@ Wolfsbrane! The difference between a dinosaur and a kimodo dragon is one is a dinosaur and one is a big lizard! Guess which!

Both are a subclass reptilia. The most obvious difference in their pelvis, dinosaur's legs went straight down, a bit like our own. Lizards stick out at the side. Other differences are in things like the way their teeth fit into their jaws...

Oh yeah! Dinosaurs are extinct, lizards aren't.

J C

studiorat wrote: »

You're having a laugh now! This is an obvious Troll!
Please tell me you are not serious, please!

....be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord.....and YES everything that the Evolutionists told you about Dinosaurs will have to be completely REVISED!!!!:pac::):D

....and everything that the Athesists told you about God....will ALSO have to be completely REVISED!!!!:pac::):D

....and YES.....I would ALSO go and get Saved if I were you!!!:D

studiorat wrote: »

@ Wolfsbrane! The difference between a dinosaur and a kimodo dragon is one is a dinosaur and one is a big lizard! Guess which!

.....let me see....the Komodo Dragon IS a big lizard!!!:D
....and the Brachiosaurus....was a big warm-blooded MAMMAL!!!!:D

studiorat wrote: »

Both are a subclass reptilia. The most obvious difference in their pelvis, dinosaur's legs went straight down, a bit like our own. Lizards stick out at the side. Other differences are in things like the way their teeth fit into their jaws...

Oh yeah! Dinosaurs are extinct, lizards aren't.

.....Oh yeah!...and the Mammals aren't extinct either!!!
....and the Brachiosaurus' pelvis (and straight down legs) were just like an Elephants!!!!:pac::):D

studiorat

J C wrote: »

.....and this is REAL TIME direct measurements.......which indicate that the Earth's geomagnetic field is declining so rapidly that it will be only half it's current strength in less than 2,000 years!!!!.....and a paltry 12% of it's current level in 6,000 years time.....and it will fall to only 1% in 13,000 years!!!

The Sun's polarity changes every 11 years, the earth's takes about 300,000.
The Flux density also changes depending on where on the globe you measure it. We are agreed it's a globe aren't we?

Now, because the earth's magnetic field is getting "weaker" it doesn't actually mean it's going to reach zero. The magnet fields become twisted and tangled, before the polarity switches. So maybe we might get to see the northern lights on the equator.

The important thing is though that we will be protected from the "solar winds", just as we were the last time. By we I of course mean our monkey assed ancestors.

studiorat

I don't need savin' thanks.
Brontosaurus wouldn't have been able to breath if it was a mammal though.
So why aren't you up in the phoenix park looking for elephant eggs?