The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean · 02-10-2008 1:28am

PDN wrote: »

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".

The 'terrible' bit means 'fearfully great' as in so massive they instill fear (from the Greek word 'deinos'). The other part of the word dinosaur comes from the Greek word 'sauros' which can mean lizard or reptile.
Of course let's not let the name Richard Owen invented relegate the dinosaurs to lizard status. Despite being the world's most prestigious naturalist at the time, his knowledge pales in comparison to modern day ones.

irish_hic85 · 02-10-2008 1:45am

i am new to this debate and i hope i do not say what has already been said.

It seems to me that there is a considerable lack of respect and understanding amongst the people who post on this thread. A person may hold their beliefs strongly but that does not mean that they cannot repect anothers opinion. It seems to me that such a lack of respect is prevalent among the majority of people who have posted on this thread, regardless of whether they believe in evoltuion or in the bible. I do not profess to have a great knowledege of either but i am aware of a few facts:

(1) we are most certainly not descendants of monkeys or apes or whatever you wish to call them!! those who study the ''theory'' of evolution and profess it to be true do not believe we are descendants of monkeys but, instead, believe that both humans and monkeys are descendants from the same common ancestor. This common ancestor (i.e. the missing link) has never been found and may never be found. Therefore, the theory of evolution will still be called the ''theory'' of evolution until this link is discovered and will not be the ''fact'' of evolution. Similarly, those who criticise evolutionists, like JC has done, for suggesting that we are the cousins of monkeys are as childish as they are ignorant.
(2) to my limited knowledge there is nothing tangible in this world to suggest that GOD actually exists. all any religious person has in this regard is their beliefs. The bible is a text which has been written by man, not god, and its stories have been passed down from generation to generation by man, not god. Therefore, there is no concrete evidence to support the religious point of view rather than intangible faith. Similarly, there is nothing concrete to disprove it and those who put their utmost faith in the bible deserve respect not scorn.

To put in words that each side of the argument should understand when they look at their own perspectives: ''evolution is not an exact science'' and ''the word in the bible is not gospel''. Therefore people you miust remove your blinkers and realise that all any of us have is our faith, be it faith in the theory of evolution or faith in the bible. Therefore evolutionists we are not monkeys: we are humans so lets conduct ourselves as such whilst debating the issue. As for the religious, the book of proverbs states that ''A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions''. Lets not be fools

J C · 02-10-2008 7:52am

studiorat wrote: »

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.

....yeah....just like Blue Whales and Elephants have the lungs of 'birds'!!!!!!!:D:eek:

studiorat wrote: »

Man! is that some sort of sexual reference?

.....YOU asked me why I didn't search for Elephant eggs in the Phoenix Park.....and I was merely pointing out how preposterous this suggestion was.....

......and BTW have you some kind of 'hang-up' about sex......just like the other 'Atheist Puritans' on this thread!!!!!:D:eek:

J C · 02-10-2008 7:55am

studiorat wrote: »

I need saving from you.

.....Just like Jesus, my ONLY motivation is to prosper you.....and Save you....from yourself!!!!:D

.....yours in Christian love!!!!:D

Galvasean · 02-10-2008 12:53pm

irish_hic85 wrote: »

(1) we are most certainly not descendants of monkeys or apes or whatever you wish to call them!! those who study the ''theory'' of evolution and profess it to be true do not believe we are descendants of monkeys but, instead, believe that both humans and monkeys are descendants from the same common ancestor. This common ancestor (i.e. the missing link) has never been found and may never be found. Therefore, the theory of evolution will still be called the ''theory'' of evolution until this link is discovered and will not be the ''fact'' of evolution.

You say theory as if it's a bad thing (this has been covered before). A theory is a tried and tested scientific model which has evidence to back it up and is generally accepted. If you want to be that technical nothing is 'fact'. i don't hear people dismissing gravity for being 'just a theory'.
Also, I don't see how you need to find the exact common ancestor of monkeys and humans before evolution can be verified. Even so, there have been primitive primates discovered that lived during the Cretaceous period which may well be the common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.
There have also been several other 'missing links' found on the fossil record including Archaeopteryx, a missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds as well as Australopithecus, a type of prehistoric ape believed to be a possible ancestor of humans.

Oh, and welcome to the forum. :pac:

Flamed Diving · 02-10-2008 12:56pm

irish_hic85 wrote: »

i am new to this debate and i hope i do not say what has already been said.

It seems to me that there is a considerable lack of respect and understanding amongst the people who post on this thread. A person may hold their beliefs strongly but that does not mean that they cannot repect anothers opinion. It seems to me that such a lack of respect is prevalent among the majority of people who have posted on this thread, regardless of whether they believe in evoltuion or in the bible. I do not profess to have a great knowledege of either but i am aware of a few facts:

(1) we are most certainly not descendants of monkeys or apes or whatever you wish to call them!! those who study the ''theory'' of evolution and profess it to be true do not believe we are descendants of monkeys but, instead, believe that both humans and monkeys are descendants from the same common ancestor. This common ancestor (i.e. the missing link) has never been found and may never be found. Therefore, the theory of evolution will still be called the ''theory'' of evolution until this link is discovered and will not be the ''fact'' of evolution. Similarly, those who criticise evolutionists, like JC has done, for suggesting that we are the cousins of monkeys are as childish as they are ignorant.
(2) to my limited knowledge there is nothing tangible in this world to suggest that GOD actually exists. all any religious person has in this regard is their beliefs. The bible is a text which has been written by man, not god, and its stories have been passed down from generation to generation by man, not god. Therefore, there is no concrete evidence to support the religious point of view rather than intangible faith. Similarly, there is nothing concrete to disprove it and those who put their utmost faith in the bible deserve respect not scorn.

To put in words that each side of the argument should understand when they look at their own perspectives: ''evolution is not an exact science'' and ''the word in the bible is not gospel''. Therefore people you miust remove your blinkers and realise that all any of us have is our faith, be it faith in the theory of evolution or faith in the bible. Therefore evolutionists we are not monkeys: we are humans so lets conduct ourselves as such whilst debating the issue. As for the religious, the book of proverbs states that ''A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions''. Lets not be fools

Wumtastic!

toiletduck · 02-10-2008 1:32pm

irish_hic85 wrote: »

Similarly, there is nothing concrete to disprove it and those who put their utmost faith in the bible deserve respect not scorn.

Why? Is taking that book literally (which is what this thread is about) and believing in it, even against all evidence something to be proud of? Is willful ignorance a virtue now?

irish_hic85 · 02-10-2008 3:31pm

first of all i have merely stated the reasons why people on one side of the fence have difficulties in accepting the views of the people on the other side. i am simply pointing out that people should not be so condescending and dismissive, whatever their beliefs may be, when addressing this issue.

lack of understanding and respect is not a virtue either toiletduck. i'm sure you have read up on the theory of evolution and took such text literally despite the gaps in its evidence. i.e. you seemingly have blind faith in what you have researched, in a similar vein to someone who follows the bible.

as for galvaesean, clearly if the missing links you speak of have been found then they are not missing links! you speak of primates that may have been the missing link but your conclusion is weakened by its own words: it 'may' have been the missing link. therefore, it has not been proven. furthermore, of course you need to find the common ancestor for evolution to verified: thats the whole point of it!!!!! otherwise those who research could stop searching for the missing link simply because they believe it to be true and it is generally accepted. Moreover, your argument that it is generally accepted merely adds weight to my original post: it is not universally accepted and therefore you should have some respect for the opinions of others.

I never said that one side was right and the other side is wrong. i simply posited my ideas as to why you should respect other peoples opinions. maybe it is indicative that the only people who took offence to what i said, when i clearly showed both sides of the argument, are the ones arguing evolution.

Galvasean · 02-10-2008 3:53pm

irish_hic85 wrote: »

as for galvaesean, clearly if the missing links you speak of have been found then they are not missing links!

Notice how I use inverted commas, ie: 'missing-links' as this is an often used term. However this term is often used by doubters of evolutionary theory to add weight to their argument that there is not enough evidence to support evolution. I'm not going to coin the term 'found-links' to try balance it out.

irish_hic85 wrote: »

you speak of primates that may have been the missing link but your conclusion is weakened by its own words: it 'may' have been the missing link. therefore, it has not been proven.

Since science does not deal with absolutes using words like 'may' and 'probably' are much more appropriate than saying 'definately' or 'without doubt'. While certain aspects of evolutionary theory have been proven beyond what would be considered reasonable doubt, they are not 100% certain (as nothing can truly be confirmed 100% in science).

irish_hic85 wrote: »

furthermore, of course you need to find the common ancestor for evolution to verified: thats the whole point of it!!!!!

There have been many 'common ancestors' discovered in many branches of the evolutionary tree. Just because one specific (albeit not very specific in the case you are making) individual species being as of yet not discovered on the fossil record should not be enough to render everything we know about palaeontology and comparative embryology moot.

irish_hic85 wrote: »

otherwise those who research could stop searching for the missing link simply because they believe it to be true and it is generally accepted.

The search for 'missing-links' will never stop as long as the field of palaeontology still exists. More to the point of what I said above it is unreasonable to expect every missing creature in the fossil record to be discovered. Sadly, some may be lost forever. But rest assured efforts are being made to fill in the blanks, although there have certainly been enough gaps filled in already to show that evolution is happening.

irish_hic85 wrote: »

Moreover, your argument that it is generally accepted merely adds weight to my original post: it is not universally accepted and therefore you should have some respect for the opinions of others.

Nothing is universally accepted. There is always someone going to disagree with anything regardless of how much evidence is shown to them.
There are people who believe the Earth was created in 6 days. There are people who believe the Earth is flat. There are people who believe the Holocaust never happened. There are people who say AIDs does not exist. Some people believe the world's governments are run by a secret organization of lizard people etc.
If we were to give equal time and respect to the beliefs all of these people there wouldn't be much time left over for examining tried and tested ideas which have large amounts of evidence to back them up.

irish_hic85 wrote: »

maybe it is indicative that the only people who took offence to what i said, when i clearly showed both sides of the argument, are the ones arguing evolution

Maybe it might have something to do with the fact that the creationists have not been around to see your post yet? I did not take offense to your post (and don't see how you interpreted it as such). I merely decided to debate points which I do not agree with.

Don't get me wrong, I would cast aside my belief in evolutionary theory at a moment's notice, if a more plausible alternative could be presented to me. As of now this has yet to happen.

wolfsbane · 02-10-2008 7:56pm

Galvasean said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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/prehist.../mr007171.html

Thank you. About 25 pairs then.

25 pairs of juvenile dinos would not be a problem for accommodation on the Ark. Why did you think they would?

wolfsbane · 02-10-2008 8:28pm

AtomicHorror said:

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

No indeed. I'm a creationist but not a scientist. Those who believe evolution to be true but are not themselves scientists are still evolutionists. But the point was: it was claimed no scientists are creationists, and my list proves that to be a silly delusion.

Hypothetically, if I work in a cafe as a waiter to pay off PhD debts, does that make waiters scientists too?

You really need a course in logic. Any waiter who is also a scientist, is a scientist (and a waiter). This does not mean all waiters are scientists - but it also does not mean that no waiters are scientists.

How many of these guys are actually engaged in "creation science" research?

This list was of scientists engaged in the usual fields. I posted a list before of scientists engaged in creation research - I did not use it this time because the juvenile objection is made that any scientist who devotes him/herself to creation research has stopped being a scientist.

I try to accommodate the weak.

2Scoops · 02-10-2008 8:34pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

I posted a list before of scientists engaged in creation research - I did not use it this time because the juvenile objection is made that any scientist who devotes him/herself to creation research has stopped being a scientist.

I try to accommodate the weak.

That was never the objection and you know it. It was more like the list you gave had people writing essays but not performing any actual scientific investigations. Hence 'creation journalists', and not creation scientists. You haven't pointed out a single creationist scientific experiment yet. Not one.

Perhaps, like J C, you see something self-serving in the definition of a scientist as being someone who performs science or creation science as science about creation??

wolfsbane · 02-10-2008 8:39pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes Wolfsbane most scientists are ant-flood ... not anti Biblical Flood mind, just anti-flood in general ... :rolleyes:

seriously, what are you talking about? Are you honestly suggesting that the scientists were highly skeptical of the original claims not because (at the time) there was little evidence for how it could happen as put forward, but because they don't like the idea of floods, Biblical or otherwise? (catastropic, just like JC's "useful" is a matter of opinion)

I'm saying they were adverse to the idea of catastropic flood because it was too close for comfort to the Biblical model. That explains the fear that shut mouths for so long.

wolfsbane · 02-10-2008 8:48pm

ironingbored said:

Sorry? Dr. Humphreys? Doctor of astrology? Alchemy? Scientology?

I think that even debating with creationists almost gives them an air of credibility.

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
He received a B.S. degree in physics at Duke University, 1959–1963. After this, he moved to Louisiana State University (LSU) to study postgraduate physics. In 1969, while doing his dissertation research for LSU in the mountains of Colorado, he committed his life to Christ. In 1972, he was awarded a Ph.D. in physics, on cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon–nucleon interactions, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist due to both the biblical and scientific evidence. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company, designing and inventing equipment and researching high–voltage phenomena. While there, he received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine’s IR–100 awards.

Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.

The last decade at Sandia saw greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab–scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining two other U.S. patents, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion–fusion target theory.

Overall, Dr Humphreys’ reseach has been very wide-ranging:

Designed and theoretically analyzed thermonuclear fusion targets using radiation hydrodynamic codes.
Designed key high-voltage parts of Sandia’s 100-Terawatt Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II and conducted fusion power experiments on it. Same designs are in use today on Sandia’s Z machine.
Research on low-temperature solids and studies on superconductors.
Nuclear weapons projects, including stockpile engineering for W87 firing set.
Helped design new inkjet printer component and shared patent on it.
Developed high repetition-rate neutron tube driver and gamma-ray spectrometer for borehole logging applications. Patent on high-voltage power supply for it.
Patents on wide-bandwidth electric field sensor and high-voltage neutron tube supply. Designed lightning current waveform recorder which won IR-100 Award.
Studied electric fields and ion currents under ultrahigh voltage DC transmission lines.
Theoretical studies of relativistic velocity dependence of nuclear forces.

Yes, you wouldn't want a man like that getting any credibility. :pac:

wolfsbane · 02-10-2008 8:57pm

AtomicHorror said:

Seriously? C14 is manufactured by cosmic rays? Did they even proof read this piece of trash article?

What is your problem with C14 is manufactured by cosmic rays?

Look, there's no escaping the fact that C14 results are reproducible and testable. The results account for variable c14/c12 ratios because they are calibrated off a wide range of samples of known age.

The problem is that if C14 levels were different before and shortly after the Flood from what they were later, the calibration from samples of known age - from the later period - will be invalid.

J C · 02-10-2008 9:22pm

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

.....just like a MAMMAL!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

A lizard has a 3 chambered heart while dinosaurs had 4 (just like birds).

....and MAMMALS!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

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

....there would have to be MANY biological structures made from NOTHING along the way....IF Pondslime ever DID 'evolve' into Man!!!:D

......of course, Dr Michael Coates is perfectly correct that 'nothing comes from nothing'....and so Pondslime NEVER did evolve into Man!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

.....somewhat different MAMMALS allright......the ONLY skeletal differences between a Triceratops and a White Rhino are a larger tail size, a bony skull frill and forward pointing horns and a narrow 'beaked' mouth (that was more like a Black Rhino).
All of these are SUPERFICIAL differences.....but there aren't any FUNDAMENTAL skeletal features to indicate that the Triceratops was anything but a MAMMAL!!!!:cool::eek:

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

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

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

.......as I have already said....the Brachiosaurus (and apologies for the original typo) has the SAME skeletal structure as the Elephant (from the shoulders down)....and the Giraffe (from the shoulders up)!!!:)

Galvasean wrote: »

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

....and the rest (of the 'Dinosaurs still with us') we call Reptiles......and Mammals!!!:eek::)

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

.....so you nit-pick over a typo.....and you then claim that a Brachiosaurus.....was like a Great White SHARK!!!!!:eek::D

.......oh what a great big fertile imagination you have!!!!:pac::):D

J C · 02-10-2008 10:26pm

Galvasean wrote: »

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

.....SOME long-necked Dinos were reptiles.....
.....but could I ask IF anybody ever witnessed a Brachiosaurus laying this egg ..or any other egg???:D:)

....and could I suggest that it could have been laid by all manner of LARGE REPTILE or BIRD Dinosaur INSTEAD!!!!:pac::):D

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

....as I have said....I can't bear to see a grown Evolutionist WHINGING!!!!:pac::):D

J C · 02-10-2008 10:41pm

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia:-
"Dinosaurs stood erect in a manner similar to most modern mammals, but distinct from most other reptiles, whose limbs sprawl out to either side."....

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

.......the quote was "Dinosaurs stood erect in a manner similar to most modern mammals, but distinct from most other reptiles, whose limbs sprawl out to either side."

.....so not only were some Dinosaurs similar to Mammals......they were ALSO different from Reptiles!!!:pac::):D

.....pretty conclusive evidence that some Dinos were a type of Mammal....and NOT a Reptile!!!:D:)

....for everyone.....except those in the terminal stages of Denial!!!!:D

J C · 02-10-2008 10:45pm

PDN wrote: »

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".

....and in the case of Mammal Dinosaurs and Lizards.....one is a 'Café Noir'.....and the other is a 'Bloody Mary'!!!!!:)

J C · 02-10-2008 10:48pm

Galvasean wrote: »

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

.....I must remember that.......the next time that I look at a Dove.......or even a feather!!!!:pac::):P

Zombrex · 02-10-2008 11:02pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The problem is that if C14 levels were different before and shortly after the Flood from what they were later, the calibration from samples of known age - from the later period - will be invalid.

And calibration from samples of a known age from the earlier period ... ?

Or are you suggesting none exist?

J C · 03-10-2008 12:43am

wrote:

ironingbored said:
Sorry? Dr. Humphreys? Doctor of astrology? Alchemy? Scientology?

I think that even debating with creationists almost gives them an air of credibility.

wolfsbane
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
He received a B.S. degree in physics at Duke University, 1959–1963. After this, he moved to Louisiana State University (LSU) to study postgraduate physics. In 1969, while doing his dissertation research for LSU in the mountains of Colorado, he committed his life to Christ. In 1972, he was awarded a Ph.D. in physics, on cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon–nucleon interactions, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist due to both the biblical and scientific evidence. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company, designing and inventing equipment and researching high–voltage phenomena. While there, he received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine’s IR–100 awards.

Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.

The last decade at Sandia saw greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab–scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining two other U.S. patents, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion–fusion target theory.

Overall, Dr Humphreys’ reseach has been very wide-ranging:

Designed and theoretically analyzed thermonuclear fusion targets using radiation hydrodynamic codes.
Designed key high-voltage parts of Sandia’s 100-Terawatt Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II and conducted fusion power experiments on it. Same designs are in use today on Sandia’s Z machine.
Research on low-temperature solids and studies on superconductors.
Nuclear weapons projects, including stockpile engineering for W87 firing set.
Helped design new inkjet printer component and shared patent on it.
Developed high repetition-rate neutron tube driver and gamma-ray spectrometer for borehole logging applications. Patent on high-voltage power supply for it.
Patents on wide-bandwidth electric field sensor and high-voltage neutron tube supply. Designed lightning current waveform recorder which won IR-100 Award.
Studied electric fields and ion currents under ultrahigh voltage DC transmission lines.
Theoretical studies of relativistic velocity dependence of nuclear forces.

Yes, you wouldn't want a man like that getting any credibility. :pac:

....and especially when there are thousands more like him!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

toiletduck · 03-10-2008 12:54pm

irish_hic85 wrote: »

lack of understanding and respect is not a virtue either toiletduck. i'm sure you have read up on the theory of evolution and took such text literally despite the gaps in its evidence. i.e. you seemingly have blind faith in what you have researched, in a similar vein to someone who follows the bible

I have as much "blind faith" in evolution as I do in gravity, theory of relativity etc. If it's shown to be false/in need of modification then I would surely read the evidence for that and take it on board.

Other posters here on the other hand have repeatedly said that no matter what it shown or demonstrated by scientific inquiry, the bible will always be totally true for them (I think AiG put it best, but I'll have to look for their quote). I would call that willful ignorance and hardly worth any respect. That is the difference.

I mean I don't think you get it, it's not the perceived absence of a "missing link" for modern man or other holes in the theory of evolution which is why the creationist posters hold their views. The believe in the literal interpretation of the good book, nothing will sway them otherwise. They didn't come into this arena, with an open mind and undetermined "answer" to the question. They came in with preconceived endpoint and any twisting or manipulation of faults in favour of their argument is merely a bonus.

Do you also think that it's creationism vs evolution? In my opinion, cosmology and geology are far more damning of the creationist view. They get off lightly :pac:

I never said that one side was right and the other side is wrong. i simply posited my ideas as to why you should respect other peoples opinions. maybe it is indicative that the only people who took offence to what i said, when i clearly showed both sides of the argument, are the ones arguing evolution.

I didn't take offence

Galvasean · 03-10-2008 4:46pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Galvasean said:

Thank you. About 25 pairs then.

25 pairs of juvenile dinos would not be a problem for accommodation on the Ark. Why did you think they would?

Assuming the Ark was as big as it is claimed to be there shouldn't be too much trouble fitting the dinos on board the ark if your definition of 'kind' is very broad. As it happens there are over 300 genera of dinosaur know. If that were your chosen definition of 'kind' you would be looking at a lot more.
I'll play devil's advocate for a bit. Let us assume we only needed 25-30 'basal kind' of dinosaurs. How do you account for the accelerated speciation that the dinosaurs would have to go through to redistribute them onto the Earth, especially considering there were over 300 genera of dinosaur (which is a few thousand species)?
This speciation is vital if Noah were to follow through on God's wishes.
I don't think your definition of 'kind' should be so broad.

J C wrote: »

.....just like a MAMMAL!!

....and MAMMALS!!!

Yes J C there are similarities between dinosaurs and mammals. However a look at the fossil record has shown the two differently groups of animals to have evolved separately. The similarities are a result of convergent evolution (which is basically that animals which inhabit a similar ecological niche will almost certainly end up having similar attributes).
we only needed 25-30 'basal kind' of dinosaurs. How do you account for the

J C wrote: »

....there would have to be MANY biological structures made from NOTHING along the way....IF Pondslime ever DID 'evolve' into Man!!!

I don't know what you are basing this off.

J C wrote: »

......of course, Dr Michael Coates is perfectly correct that 'nothing comes from nothing'

Indeed...

J C wrote: »

....and so Pondslime NEVER did evolve into Man!!!:D

Quite the leap. You base this off the premises that nothing comes from nothing, yet it is obvious that is not what evolutionary theory states.

J C wrote: »

the ONLY skeletal differences between a Triceratops and a White Rhino are a larger tail size, a bony skull frill and forward pointing horns and a narrow 'beaked' mouth (that was more like a Black Rhino).

That's not really a beak. The word often associated here is 'lips'
http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/black-rhino_blog.jpg
Oh and not to mention every other bone is shaped differently.

J C wrote: »

All of these are SUPERFICIAL differences.....but there aren't any FUNDAMENTAL skeletal features to indicate that the Triceratops was anything but a MAMMAL!!!!

Back to my point on convergent evolution. Or you could just ignore it like you usually do. It has been mentioned to you several times in this thread.

J C wrote: »

.......as I have already said....the Brachiosaurus has the SAME skeletal structure as the Elephant (from the shoulders down)....and the Giraffe (from the shoulders up)!!!

And as I have already shown, no they do not. No amount of denying it will make the facts staring you in the face go away. A child could easily spot the differences. By denying such obvious things you are only making yourself look foolish.

J C wrote: »

(and apologies for the original typo)

Ah don't worry about it. Dinosaur names are notoriously tricky to spell.

J C wrote: »

....and the rest (of the 'Dinosaurs still with us') we call Reptiles......and Mammals!!!

The only living animals with a legitimate claim to being dinosaurs are birds.
I find it kind of daft that you can see enough similarities to call a mammal like a rhino or a giraffe a dinosaur, but not a bird which has even more.

J C wrote: »

.....so you nit-pick over a typo.....and you then claim that a Brachiosaurus.....was like a Great White SHARK!!!!!

In the fact that they are (or in Brachiosaurus' case were) both gigantotherms yes. I am not saying they are close relatives. One was a dinosaur and the other is a fish. Bear in mind 'gigantotherm' does not refer to a family of animal, but rather a means of keeping large creatures from losing heat too rapidly. In essence there was nothing wrong with my comparison.

J C wrote: »

.....SOME long-necked Dinos were reptiles.....

So by your logic some were reptiles and others were mammals. The sauropods must have been one very diverse group of dinosaur.
Perhaps we should just be old fashioned and call them dinosaurs?

J C wrote: »

.....but could I ask IF anybody ever witnessed a Brachiosaurus laying this egg ..or any other egg???

J C wrote: »

....and could I suggest that it could have been laid by all manner of LARGE REPTILE or BIRD Dinosaur INSTEAD!!!!:pac::):D

Since the sauropods had died out long before mankind evolved no one has seen it happen. However fossilized sauropod eggs have been found with baby sauropod bones inside. That is pretty conclusive evidence that it was a sauropod who laid the eggs

J C wrote: »

.......the quote was "Dinosaurs stood erect in a manner similar to most modern mammals, but distinct from most other reptiles, whose limbs sprawl out to either side."

.....so not only were some Dinosaurs similar to Mammals......they were ALSO different from Reptiles!!!

.....pretty conclusive evidence that some Dinos were a type of Mammal....and NOT a Reptile!!!

....for everyone.....except those in the terminal stages of Denial!!!!

That's not very conclusive at all J C. If you would bother to look at the ancestors of these animals and see how they came to get to that stage you would see that they are of different orders.

J C wrote: »

.....I must remember that.......the next time that I look at a Dove.......or even a feather!!!!

Please do.

side note: J C, could you please be more sparing with the amount of smileys you use per post? Boards.ie only allows 15 per message meaning when I multiquote you I end up having to delete several of them because the pictures quota gets exceeded. Thanks in advance.

Galvasean · 03-10-2008 5:02pm

A recent discovery on the dinosaur breathing system. It's very birdlike:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080929-new-dinosaur-missions.html

Hope you guys find it interesting.

J C · 03-10-2008 8:12pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Assuming the Ark was as big as it is claimed to be there shouldn't be too much trouble fitting the dinos on board the ark if your definition of 'kind' is very broad. As it happens there are over 300 genera of dinosaur know. If that were your chosen definition of 'kind' you would be looking at a lot more.
I'll play devil's advocate for a bit. Let us assume we only needed 25-30 'basal kind' of dinosaurs. How do you account for the accelerated speciation that the dinosaurs would have to go through to redistribute them onto the Earth, especially considering there were over 300 genera of dinosaur (which is a few thousand species)?
This speciation is vital if Noah were to follow through on God's wishes.
I don't think your definition of 'kind' should be so broad.

.....you are confusing TWO Speciation Episodes.....the Post-Creation Ante-Diluvian Episode....and the Post-Diluvian Episode!!!!:pac::):D

.......nearly ALL 300 'genera' of 'Dinosaurs' perished during the Flood.....and that is WHY we have such a complete fossil record of 'Dinosaurs' preserved in the lithified sediment of the Flood.....and it is also the reason why 'Dinosaurs' are (largely) not around today !!!

The originally Created Kinds (including the Dinosaurs) speciated before the Flood into a wonderous array of different creatures across ALL categories.

The Lord ONLY commanded Noah to take representatives of each 'Sort' of living animal ....a number of different creature SORTS which probably was only a FRACTION of the number of originally Created Kinds.....and certainly only a TINY PERCENTAGE of the number of species that developed during the MASSIVE Post-Creation /Ante-Diluvinan Speciation Episode.

......in turn the 'Sorts' that survived the Flood underwent a more limited Post-Diluvian Speciation Episode that continues, in a greatly attenuated form, right up to today!!!

There may only have been TWO representatives of EACH Dinosaur SORT on the Ark.....i.e. two Sauropod Mammal 'Dinosaurs', two Reptile 'Dinosaurs', Two Rhinos, etc.....so the total number of 'Dinosaur' SORTS on the Ark may have been less than TEN.......and some of the SORTS of Dinosaur that survived the Flood would appear to have become extinct since then.....others have survived and speciated ...and we call them White Rhinos, Black Rhinos, Indian Rhinos, Komodo Dragons, etc. today!!!!:D

Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

There is NO indication in the Bible that EVERY Created Kind had to be taken on board the Ark.....it was only a limited number of 'Sorts' (and with a bias towards representative pairs (and sevens in some cases)of useful/food producing Kinds....that were saved on the Ark from the Flood.

From this limited number of 'Sorts' of animals.....all modern species have speciated!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

Yes J C there are similarities between dinosaurs and mammals. However a look at the fossil record has shown the two differently groups of animals to have evolved separately. The similarities are a result of convergent evolution (which is basically that animals which inhabit a similar ecological niche will almost certainly end up having similar attributes).

......the taxonomic classification of Dinosaurs needs to be completely overhauled!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

Quite the leap. You base this off the premises that nothing comes from nothing, yet it is obvious that is not what evolutionary theory states.

.....as I have already said, there would have to be MANY biological structures made from NOTHING that pre-existed ....IF Pondslime ever DID 'evolve' into Man!!!

......of course, Dr Michael Coates is perfectly correct that 'nothing comes from nothing'....and so Pondslime NEVER did evolve into Man!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

That's not really a beak. The word often associated here is 'lips'
http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/black-rhino_blog.jpg
Oh and not to mention every other bone is shaped differently.

....every bone in an Elephant and a Giraffe is shaped differently.....but they are still BOTH Mammals.....and with a characteristic Mammal body plan!!!!

....ditto for the Brachiosaurus ....and the Triceratops......for example!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

Back to my point on convergent evolution. Or you could just ignore it like you usually do. It has been mentioned to you several times in this thread.

....it's actually BETTER explained by 'convergent Creation'!!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

And as I have already shown, no they do not. No amount of denying it will make the facts staring you in the face go away. A child could easily spot the differences. By denying such obvious things you are only making yourself look foolish.

......a child would identify the similarities.....it takes an exceptionally well qualified and brainwashed Evolutionist.....to NOT spot the fact that some Dinosaurs were MAMMALS!!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

The only living animals with a legitimate claim to being dinosaurs are birds.
I find it kind of daft that you can see enough similarities to call a mammal like a rhino or a giraffe a dinosaur, but not a bird which has even more.

....let me see...... Birds are light boned, two-footed and feathered.....Mammals are heavy boned, four-footed and NOT feathered....guess what, MOST Dinosaurs were heavy boned, four-footed .....and NOT feathered!!!!:eek::).
.....as I have said a child would identify the similarities between most Dinos and Mammals....as well as the FUNDAMENTAL differences with birds!!!!:)

Galvasean wrote: »

So by your logic some were reptiles and others were mammals. The sauropods must have been one very diverse group of dinosaur.

....indeed they WERE!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

Since the sauropods had died out long before mankind evolved no one has seen it happen. However fossilized sauropod eggs have been found with baby sauropod bones inside. That is pretty conclusive evidence that it was a sauropod who laid the eggs.

....as I have already said some 'Sauropods' may have been reptiles....but the Brachiosaurus were Mammals!!!

J C · 03-10-2008 8:14pm

Galvasean wrote: »

A recent discovery on the dinosaur breathing system. It's very birdlike:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080929-new-dinosaur-missions.html

Hope you guys find it interesting.

....probably was some kind of unusual 'Dinosaur' Species....that was killed in the Flood!!!
:pac::):D

J C · 03-10-2008 9:55pm

.....this thread reminds me of the 'Road Runner' Cartoon Series!!!!

....here you have the apparently wiley old 'Coyote' Evolutionists....who carefully craft complicated logical traps .......and end up falling into them themselves!!!!

.....and you have the 'Road Runner' J C who pops in .....and just when the 'Coyote' Evolutionists think they are are about to deliver a knockout blow.....the tables are turned on them and their own words 'blow up' in their faces!!!!

.....eh ... em...beep....beep!!!!:pac::):D:eek::P

.....the issues and the approaches of the 'Coyote' Evolutionists may vary .......but the result is ALWAYS the same.....a throughly defeated 'Coyote' Evolutionist........left flailing around in the dust of a departing victorious 'Road Runner' J C!!!!!

.....and the best part, is that the Evolutionists never 'see it coming'....and they are so dazed that they don't even realise their arguments have been metaphorically annihilated .....they sometimes even come back again to expose their already defeated arguments to further annihilation !!!!!

......beep........beep!!!!!:D

.................................................BEEP!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror · 03-10-2008 9:58pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:
What is your problem with C14 is manufactured by cosmic rays?

Natural processes do not "manufacture" things. To manufacture means to construct. Specifically to make by hand, but the term is used to describe something built by a person using tools of some kind. Cosmic rays cannot manufacture anything as they are not people, do not have hands and cannot use tools.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The problem is that if C14 levels were different before and shortly after the Flood from what they were later, the calibration from samples of known age - from the later period - will be invalid.

Firstly, the results would be inaccurate only for items that metabolised water during the flood. Anything else, including the animals and plants killed by the flood, would be unaffected by the reservoir effect. Can suggest another means by which error might be introduced? Secondly, the samples of known age used for calibration aren't just from "later periods". Tree ring samples are available which allow calibration to 8000 BC or so. The trees used for such calibrations are pines which can't metabolise sea water, thus no reservoir effect.

AtomicHorror · 03-10-2008 10:13pm

irish_hic85 wrote: »

(1) we are most certainly not descendants of monkeys or apes or whatever you wish to call them!! those who study the ''theory'' of evolution and profess it to be true do not believe we are descendants of monkeys but, instead, believe that both humans and monkeys are descendants from the same common ancestor. This common ancestor (i.e. the missing link) has never been found and may never be found. Therefore, the theory of evolution will still be called the ''theory'' of evolution until this link is discovered and will not be the ''fact'' of evolution. Similarly, those who criticise evolutionists, like JC has done, for suggesting that we are the cousins of monkeys are as childish as they are ignorant.

The human "missing link" is a myth. It's no longer perpetuated even by most creationists, who prefer now to focus on other gaps in the fossil record. "Theory" does not mean what you think it does. To non-scientists it means something unproven, an idea. Scientists call that "hypothesis". A "theory" in science is the highest level to which a scientific model can ascend. We can be no more sure of a model than when it is theory. Also, a "theory" is a model of reality. So we have a theory of gravity, but also the fact of gravity. One describes the other. So it is with evolution. It is theory and fact.

What you perceive as a certain arrogance regarding our defence of a "mere theory" is just the same certainty with which we would defend the theory of relativity. We have as much evidence for both.

irish_hic85 wrote: »

(2) to my limited knowledge there is nothing tangible in this world to suggest that GOD actually exists. all any religious person has in this regard is their beliefs. The bible is a text which has been written by man, not god, and its stories have been passed down from generation to generation by man, not god. Therefore, there is no concrete evidence to support the religious point of view rather than intangible faith. Similarly, there is nothing concrete to disprove it and those who put their utmost faith in the bible deserve respect not scorn.

Agreed. The problem arises only when creationists attempt to present their ideas as science or promote their inclusion in education.

irish_hic85 wrote: »

To put in words that each side of the argument should understand when they look at their own perspectives: ''evolution is not an exact science'' and ''the word in the bible is not gospel''.

Evolution really is quite an exact science. Most of the research now done by biologists working with mathematicians and computer scientists. Or scientists who are multidisciplinary. We even have some very good such scientists here in Ireland.

irish_hic85 wrote: »

Therefore people you miust remove your blinkers and realise that all any of us have is our faith, be it faith in the theory of evolution or faith in the bible. Therefore evolutionists we are not monkeys: we are humans so lets conduct ourselves as such whilst debating the issue. As for the religious, the book of proverbs states that ''A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions''. Lets not be fools

I know you're trying to encourage some civility in the debate and that is quite noble. Realise though that the only thing resembling faith a scientist has is this:

The universe has rules that can be determined by observation.

Beyond that, nothing is accepted without evidence and confirmation.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments