The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

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

So one is a terrible lizard and the other is a big lizard? Neat.

J C

studiorat wrote: »

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.

.......where did you get this 300,000 year 'lark' from....the Earth's Magnetic Field will be NEGLIGIBLE in less than 20,000 years!!!!!

.....and unless we are raptured LONG before that.....we will be 'frazzled' by the Solar Winds ....and all of the 'half-assed' Monkeys out there....will ALSO be 'frazzled'!!!!:pac::):D

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

So one is a terrible lizard and the other is a big lizard? Neat.

Terrible reptile!

J C

PDN wrote: »

So one is a terrible lizard and the other is a big lizard? Neat.

....and some of the 'terrible lizards' have actually turned out to be 'terrible MAMMALS'......but schhss....don't tell the Evolutionists.....it would spoil ALL of their carefully painted drawings of 'Dinos in Swamps'!!!

....and the poor dears could even become 'all emotional' on us and start calling down the wrath of the 'Evolution God' upon us!!!!:eek::pac::D

.....I just can't cope with seeing a grown Evolutionist cry!!!!!:D:eek:

J C

studiorat wrote: »

Terrible reptile!

....or, as I have said, 'Terrible Mammal'!!!:D

J C

studiorat wrote: »

I don't need savin' thanks.
Brontosaurus wouldn't have been able to breath if it was a mammal though.

....and WHY not???

studiorat wrote: »

So why aren't you up in the phoenix park looking for elephant eggs?

.....because they are microscopic....just like those of the 'Bronto'!!!!!

......and BTW, do you make a habit of searching for Mammal eggs in the grass???:D

......must be some 'fun' to be with you at a picnic ....when you start your 'quest' for mammal eggs!!!!!:eek::D

robindch

J C wrote: »

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

Funny -- in a country like, say the USA, where between 85 and 90% of the population are creationists, at least in part, I must say that you credit the 10-15% who aren't with the most remarkable powers! A true sign of the strength of the theory, and its upholders, you will agree! And a sign of how frightened the creationists are too, of course! Even with a nine-to-one advantage, they're too scared to stand up and be counted.

Unless they don't exist, of course. That would explain the impressive silence, wouldn't it?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So one is a terrible lizard and the other is a big lizard? Neat.

OT, but while deinos can mean terrible, Richard Owen who came up with the term in the middle of the 19th century meant it more in terms of its other meaning of wonderful or magnificent. He was referencing the size of dinosaurs, rather than how scary they may look.

Personally I prefer this version, considering how spectacular some of the larger (often herbivore) dinosaurs were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

J C

studiorat wrote: »

I don't need savin' thanks.

.....oh YES you DO need to (freely) believe on Jesus Christ to be Saved from Eternal Perdition......
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

robindch

J C wrote: »

.....and unless we are raptured LONG before that.....we will be 'frazzled' by the Solar Winds ....and all of the 'half-assed' Monkeys out there....will ALSO be 'frazzled'!!!!:pac::):D

Out of interest, JC, have you visited the West Nile any time in the last few years?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

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

So you admit that you have thus far failed to publicly identify a single creation scientist? I agree.

J C wrote: »

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

Waitaminute, so you can identify a creation scientist? Please do so...

J C

robindch wrote: »

Funny -- in a country like, say the USA, where between 85 and 90% of the population are creationists, at least in part, I must say that you credit the 10-15% who aren't with the most remarkable powers! A true sign of the strength of the theory, and its upholders, you will agree! And a sign of how frightened the creationists are too, of course! Even with a nine-to-one advantage, they're too scared to stand up and be counted.

Unless they don't exist, of course. That would explain the impressive silence, wouldn't it?

....80-90% of Americans are Creationists (your figure)....and AMAZINGLY none of their CHILDREN can be taught Creation Science in Public School.....and yet they MUST BY LAW be taught Evolution (which is paid for by the taxes of the 80-90% who are CREATIONISTS).......I guess these 10-15% Evolutionists MUST indeed be VERY powerful!!!!:eek::D

.....and certainly powerful enough to have any science teacher sacked .....who decided to even whisper the word Creation in Science Class!!!:pac::):D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

OT, but while deinos can mean terrible, Richard Owen who came up with the term in the middle of the 19th century meant it more in terms of its other meaning of wonderful or magnificent. He was referencing the size of dinosaurs, rather than how scary they may look.

Personally I prefer this version, considering how spectacular some of the larger (often herbivore) dinosaurs were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

....so the Reptile Dinos were 'Terrible Lizards' .....
......and the Warm Blooded ones were 'Magnificent Mammals'!!!!

......making PROGRESS at long last!!!!:pac::):D

robindch

J C wrote: »

they MUST BY LAW be taught Evolution

Indeed. Quite apart from the mild matter of honesty, there's also the faintly more intractable matter of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has been interpreted to mean that it is illegal to fund religious indoctrination with federal money.

Bummer, eh?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, JC, have you visited the West Nile any time in the last few years?

.....you are getting very cryptic Robin!!!!!!:)

J C

robindch wrote: »

Indeed. Quite apart from the mild matter of honesty, there's also the faintly more intractable matter of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has been interpreted to mean that it is illegal to fund religious indoctrination with federal money.

Bummer, eh?

.....it would appear that it is illegal to fund religious indoctrination with federal money......

.....with the NOTABLE exception.....of the religion of Atheistic Humanism and it's pet scientifically invalid theory of Materialistic Evolution!!!!!

......bummer all right!!!!:pac::):D

robindch

J C wrote: »

me wrote:

Out of interest, JC, have you visited the West Nile any time in the last few years?

.....you are getting very cryptic Robin!!!!!!:)

Google is your friend.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Google is your friend.

.....and you have now gone more cryptic than a group of Masons that are confronted with a trowel and a bucket of cement!!!!!:D

medeame

QUOTE 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 QUOTE

erroneously thinks that the Roman empire determinded the text or Canon of scripture.... oh dear PDN you really do not know your ancient or relgious history do you. The Roman empire was in control of 3/4 of the known world, already ripped off the ancient greeks and many other cultures to suit themselves, christianity was only taken on board because it was a toss up. The pagan sun god had his birth/feastday on 25th dec, this was adopted as the birthday of the son of God, as was his divine status. Ancient texts you refer to, in Greek or Sandscrit or Hebrew will have a record of this.

As for my education and degrees, well, i studied under some of the greates historians, ancient classicists and archaeological experts, but i guess you think they dont know what they are talking about either!

Anyway, i cant be bothered to keep addressing the same points, just to say, yes i believe it to be an attack on my integrity and sensebility when you tell me my knowledge comes from The Davinci code, and equally as a historian, you tell me i do not know history.

Classical history is my forte, read any literature you care to name on feasable articulate and research orientated academics about the Roman & Greek empire and see how christianity and its popularity was used and manufactured by initially Constantine and Justinian etc...
Like i said, religion easily controls the masses, especially when you get people to believe that the Bible in its present state, is the word of God, nothing could be further from the truth, and that is historical fact there for all to study if they care to broaden their minds and open classical literature, or look at archaeological and art evidence.

Continue to have a nice day, i am delighted to discuss anything openly, and again i reiterate, my historical facts come from years of study under excellent lectureres and professors who presented and backed up classical and historical papers with impecable research and clear and prudent evidence.

On a last note, as regards articals on Nicaea on wikipedea, it is a good source of encyclopedic work yes, many articals are up there, as anyone can post, however, it is NOT guaranteed as authentic or correct unless backed up and all of its sources footnoted, even the monitors of wikipedea tell you that, so i would not quote it as ultimate truth, just interesting reading, that can through human error, not be accuratly factual in many cases.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

OT, but while deinos can mean terrible, Richard Owen who came up with the term in the middle of the 19th century meant it more in terms of its other meaning of wonderful or magnificent. He was referencing the size of dinosaurs, rather than how scary they may look.

Personally I prefer this version, considering how spectacular some of the larger (often herbivore) dinosaurs were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

....have a look at the Wiki article you have just linked to where you will find the following gem of wisdom...and I quote:-

"Dinosaurs stood erect in a manner similar to most modern mammals, but distinct from most other reptiles, whose limbs sprawl out to either side."......
....and all this has been known as far back as 1909!!!!

.....so how long does it take an Evolutionist to 'cop on' to the fact that some Dinosaurs were Mammals.....about 100 years after everybody else....for some....longer for others!!!:D

......over and out!!!!:cool::eek::pac::):D;):p

studiorat

J C wrote: »

....and WHY not???

Because Brotnowhat'ye'me callits were too big to breath with a mammailan respiratory system, well not big enough really cause their if they had mammal lungs they would not have fitted inside them. So it was either an unknown system or an Avian one.

J C wrote: »

......and BTW, do you make a habit of searching for Mammal eggs in the grass???:D

J C wrote: »

......must be some 'fun' to be with you at a picnic in 'mixed company'....when you start your 'quest' for mammal eggs!!!!!:eek::D

Man! is that some sort of sexual reference?

studiorat

J C wrote: »

....and WHY not???

Because Brotnowhat'ye'me callits were too big to breath with a mammailan respiratory system, well not big enough really cause their if they had mammal lungs they would not have fitted inside them. So it was either an unknown system or an Avian one.

J C wrote: »

......and BTW, do you make a habit of searching for Mammal eggs in the grass???:D

J C wrote: »

......must be some 'fun' to be with you at a picnic in 'mixed company'....when you start your 'quest' for mammal eggs!!!!!:eek::D

is that some sort of sexual reference?

studiorat

J C wrote: »

.....oh YES you DO need to (freely) believe on Jesus Christ to be Saved from Eternal Perdition......
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

I need saving from you.

J C wrote: »

....and WHY not???

Because Brotnowhat'ye'me callits were too big to breath with a mammailan respiratory system, well not big enough really cause their if they had mammal lungs they would not have fitted inside them. So it was either an unknown system or an Avian one.

J C wrote: »

......and BTW, do you make a habit of searching for Mammal eggs in the grass???:D

J C wrote: »

......must be some 'fun' to be with you at a picnic in 'mixed company'....when you start your 'quest' for mammal eggs!!!!!:eek::D

is that some sort of sexual reference?

medeame

QUOTEThis 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 QUOTE

Have already made my views on wikipedia on another post, your other websites, newadvent.org is obviously in favour of the new advent bible, anyway, here is your evidence for xmas day: "birthday of Mithras and/or the Feast of Saturnalia (which the catholics co-opted to use for the birth of Christ)" from A Neopagan Guide To Established Current and Ancient Pagan Practices and you must surley understand the the council came together to discus getting the best take on christianity, arianism and paganism, what was suitable and what was not in an attempt to control, why else do you think the council happened?
want someone elses opinion?
....... The Holy Spirit is not a Trinity, but is the "Mind", and "Character" of Yahweh. The Trinity is a pagan concept, absorbed and taught by pagan christian churches.

lastly i totally agree with syntax, papari, archaeological and artistic evidence being available to all who care to study it, this does not however state the exact records of the coucil composition, as it not extant. I totally regect your comments that always seem to come back to accusations of possesing no knowledge other that 'urban legend'. why is it anything you do not believe or understand, you quickly dismiss as urban legand or davinici codeism?

ho hum, this debate over weather a bible is the word of God, or mearly the manipulation of the powers that be, could go on forever, and oo look, it has lasted over 2000years already.

Galvasean

So much palaeontological ignorance in such a short space of time. Alright I'll hep you all out (probably wasting my time but...).

wolfsbane wrote: »

Galvasean said:
Care to give a round number?

Here's an image of a very basic dinosaur 'family tree'. You would definately need to take representatives of each dino pictured. there are a several more families not represented on the chart (it's a bit out of date). Of course this is assuming your definition of 'kind' is very broad.
http://museumvictoria.com.au/prehistoric/image_html/mr007171.html

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

For starters a komdo dragon (a type of lizard) has a spawled to the side standing stance and a dinosaur has an upright standing stance.
A lizard has a 3 chambered heart while dinosaurs had 4 (just like birds).
There are many other differences too, but these are probably the two most obvious.

J C wrote: »

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

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

By all means display your own ignorance to the world. No one ever said evolution makes something from nothing.

J C wrote: »

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

Sounds like he wasn't an atheist at all. Atheism being the lack of belief in Gods and what not.

J C wrote: »

.....or indeed a Triceratops and a Rhino?

I explained this to you before. Do you remember the pictures?

Here's a couple more:

Rhino skeleton:
http://www.okc.cc.ok.us/biologylabs/Images/Evolimages/rhino_skeleton.jpg

Triceratops skeleton:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/80/58980-004-8CFEDB8E.jpg

You don't even have to look closely to see clearly that the two skeletons belong to VERY different animals.

J C wrote: »

.....or a Bronchiosaurus (from the shoulders down) and an Elephant (from the shoulders down)

Bronchiosaurus? Wow, now J C is making up dinosaurs to aid his arguments.
Maybe you mean Brachiosaurus? If so your comparison is very wrong.

Brachiosaurus skeleton:
http://www.wisegorilla.com/images/dinosaurs/brachiosaurus3.jpg

Elephant skeleton:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19550/19550-h/images/104skeleton.jpg

Hardly the same J C. The bones are different shapes, sizes and numbers.

J C wrote: »

....or a Bronchiosaurus (from the shoulders up) and a Giraffe (from the shoulders up)

Giraffe skeleton:
http://juliegele.com/courses/644/photos/Giraffe_Skeleton2.jpg

Very different from the elephant. Very very different from the Brachiosaurus.

studiorat wrote: »

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

Some dinosaurs are still with us. We call them birds.

J C wrote: »

and YES everything that the Evolutionists told you about Dinosaurs will have to be completely REVISED!!!!

It is constantly being revised. That's what makes palaeontology a science. In fact there was a time when the orthodox view was similar to your own, until research and evidence proved otherwise.

J C wrote: »

...let me see....the Komodo Dragon IS a big lizard!!!:D

Correct!

J C wrote: »

....and the Branchiosaurus....was a big warm-blooded MAMMAL!!!!:D

If by 'Branchiosaurus' (is this the same thing as you 'Bronchiosaurus'?) you mean a sauropod (long necked) dinosaur then no.
Big? Yes.
Warm blooded? Not in the same way mammals are. As a gigantotherm the sauropod's huge size would store heat particularly well. Similar physiology is observed in the modern great white shark.
Mammal? Nope. It's a dinosaur.

J C wrote: »

.....Oh yeah!...and the Mammals aren't extinct either!!!

Correct!

J C wrote: »

....and the Branchiosaur's pelvis (and straight down legs) were just like an Elephants!!!!:pac::):D

See above pictures.

PDN wrote: »

So one is a terrible lizard and the other is a big lizard? Neat.

Please PDN, don't feign ignorance in an attempt to get a rise out of certain posters. You are so much better than that.

J C wrote: »

....and some of the 'terrible lizards' have actually turned out to be 'terrible MAMMALS'......but schhss....don't tell the Evolutionists.....it would spoil ALL of their carefully painted drawings of 'Dinos in Swamps'!!!

As it happens the old paintings of large dinosaurs living in swamps using their long necks like snorkels have been proven to be wrong. The pressure generated by the water would crush their stomachs after prolonged amounts of time living in such a state. And has I have shown you above the dinosaurs certainly were not mammals.

J C wrote: »

....and the poor dears could even become 'all emotional' on us and start calling down the wrath of the 'Evolution God' upon us!!!!:eek::pac::D

Please point me to some sort of source about this 'Evolution God'. I doubt he's real.

J C wrote: »

.....I just can't cope with seeing a grown Evolutionist cry!!!!!:D:eek:

Then stop posting your willfully ignorant rubbish.

J C wrote: »

....and WHY not???

.....because they are microscopic....just like those of the 'Bronto'!!!!!

As it happens sauropod (long neck dinosaur) eggs were about the size of soccer balls. Here is one compared to a chicken egg:

http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/images/castz.jpg



Personally I enjoy answering queries related to dinosaurs etc. but in J C's case I'm getting annoyed with him saying things which have been shown time and time again to be simply false.

Galvasean

The last page of this thread wont open for some reason.

I blame the Atheist conspiracy trying to stop people from seeing my post which dismantles J C's arguments...

or something.

Galvasean

[QUOTE=J C;57429774"Dinosaurs stood erect in a manner similar to most modern mammals,[/QUOTE]

I missed this one. Note that 'similar to' does not mean the same as.

If you insist on calling dinosaurs mammals I will have to insist you stop trolling.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....so how long does it take an Evolutionist to 'cop on' to the fact that some Dinosaurs were Mammals.....about 100 years after everybody else....for some....longer for others!!!:D

Actually dinosaurs are more related to birds

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually dinosaurs are more related to birds

In fact technically speaking, birds are dinosaurs, or at the very least the direct descendants of certain dinosaurs.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Please PDN, don't feign ignorance in an attempt to get a rise out of certain posters. You are so much better than that.

I'm not feigning ignorance at all. I was making a pun based on the etymology of the word 'dinosaur' (Greek for 'terrible lizard'). If Wicknight is correct about the terrible bit being better translated as 'great' (due to their size) then the pun becomes even better when applied to the statement "One is a big lizard and the other is a dinosaur". That would be akin to disinguishing between two drinks by saying "one is a Café Noir and the other is a black coffee".