Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wadsworth

New member
cheeezywheeezy

cheeezywheeezy

Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
quoting bymers:

"...the one that has always seemed to be the most troubling in this respect is Jesus' dying words (according to Mark and Matthew) - "Why have you forsaken me?" - which at least appears to indicate not only disagreement with God's plans, but doubt."

Just a comment about the statement "Why have you forsaken me?" Ironically I have been asked about this same exact thing at least three times in the past few months. So if you care here's my thoughts...

Suppose I come up to you and I say "Knock Knock"

You will more than likely respond with a "Who's there"

Why? Because everyone knows from experience and repitition of the joke that the response to "Knock Knock" is "Who's there". As an aside I use "everyone" as a figure of speech becuase obviously not every single person knows this.

I believe that similarly when Jesus was on the cross and said (Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34)"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Everyone knew what He was talking about. No...He wasn't telling a Knock Knock joke...but in a like manner once He said that...He was telling His Jewish audience that knew the scriptures "Hey...you know what I'm quoting...think about the rest of it.

He was quoting the lyrics to a song. Or more accurately...a Psalm. In fact it was Psalm 22:1.

I think that when the Jewish audience heard Him so that line they began to think about the Psalm 22. More specifically starting with verse 12. In affect Jesus was telling the audience that that Psalm was about Him.

This is where we read about no bones of Jesus were broken etc...

So I do not believe that God left Jesus or anything along those lines. But rather He was telling them that He was fulfilling this "prophecy" written such a long time ago. Including the casting of lots for His clothing etc..."

Just my thoughts.

Your thoughts put me in mind of the school of thought which suggests that Jesus manoevered himself into a mock crucifiction in order to try to demonstrate that Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled through him. This is plausible if he had a fixation that he was the messiah come to fulfill the Law of Moses. He would go through a mock crucifiction, accept drugs on a sponge to assuage the pain, and make sure beforehand that the usual Crurifragium, (breaking of the legs), would not be administered. When he was "dead", he would be taken down, and after sleeping off his drugs, and having his wounds tended , his supporters would engineer a "resurrection|", so that the prophecies might be fulfilled. If you find this far-fetched, consider in the Phillipines to-day, how local Christians get themselves crucified, nails and all, just to be like Jesus. from "Wadsworth"
 

Wadsworth

New member
Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I realize that you are playing the "anything is possible" card, but I recall you stating previously that you were a theist. So in that regard, I find your above arguments to be somewhat misleading. My main point, (which you didn't really dispute) is that if God exists, there is a very high probability that this God would have communicated with His creation. I made this argument in response to your "probabilities rule" sentiment. We can differ on whether or not we think God actually has communicated to us, but that doesn't change the logical probability for it.


I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree with much of your sentiment here. However, I think you are limiting God to some degree by assuming that God would communicate with us only in one way - internally. Like most Christian philosophers, I believe God has revealed himself to us in THREE ways - 1) through Creation (there is much you can learn about a creator by studying his/her creations) - 2) human conscience, (our inbred moral compasses imply a moral agent is it's originator) - and, 3) Holy Writ (although its not a perfect method of communication, it can be useful for corporate instruction).

Since mankind is a social species, God knew that we would need organization, government, leadership, etc. While it is true that some have corrupted or misused God's message, it is ALSO true that many have not. It seems that skeptics (like yourself) tend to cynically adopt "the glass is always half empty" view when observing religion. As rationalist, I take neither the overly opimistic or overly pessimistic view; since the truth is - humans have both properly used, AND improperly misused God's written revelation.

The fact that some have misused a thing does not mean the thing wasn't worth creating. For example, many have used knives to prepare food, while many others have used knives to stab and kill other people. Does the fact that some have misused knives to stab and kill people mean that the knife should have never been invented? Likewise, does the fact that some have misused God's written word mean that God should never have given it?



I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely."

Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You have to be kidding me. You think the theory of evolution is NOT philosophical??? More on this below......



The chance results of the Big Bang have everything to do with life on earth. If the earth was located even slightly closer or farther away from the sun, life would not exist. If the moon was larger or smaller, life would not exist; if the sun was different type of star; life would not exist; if the electromagnetic force was of a slightly different value; life would not exist; etc., etc. To say that the chance-results of the Big Bang have nothing to do with evolution, is asinine.

Furthermore, please show me an example of even ONE instance where chemical compounds were observed to mindlessly assemble themselves into a living organism. This is never been observed to occur in the natural world, and even intelligent designers ("scientists") have not been able to make living organisms out of chemicals, even employing all of their intelligence and benefits of modern technologies. Only a mythologist would suggest that blind, mindless forces accomplished a creative feat that all the world's scientists cannot.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Perhaps we have different ideas about what "science" is. I understand science to be a discipline that empirically satisfies the scientific method's proof criterion. This means that a scientific theory must be based on experiments that are testable, observable, and reproducable. The origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the last 4 billion years of biological history of life on earth are NOT directly testable, observable, OR reproducable. Therefore, origin theories are not even remotely "scientific". Most origin theories are inductive, philosophical postulations. Some of these postulations involve some types of experiments, but these experiments are usually ASSUMED to have some correlation to a hypothesized event millions of years ago; but as long as the hypothesized event remains unobservably buried millions of years in the past, any and all correlations made to it are fancied out of *speculation*. That my friend, is philosophy; not "science".


I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Erm, in your attempt to sound clever you overlooked the fact that I was proposing TWO concepts, not just one. Here they are:

Concept X - God exists.
Concept Y - God communicates to creation.


My argument was this - If concept X is true, concept Y is very probable. Are we clear now?



You speak in parables my friend. WHO is claiming anything about "magic"? And just what is magic? Are black holes "magical" because all laws of physics break down at their points of singularity? Is uncaused universes popping into existence uncaused out of nothing - "magic"?




As I pointed out before, the origin theories are not "science", nor do they represent "evidence". There is no "evidence" that universes pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. No experiment has proven such a thing can occur, or ever has occured. There is no evidence of eternally existent universes, or of singularities of infinite density. All of these things are just concepts; ideas - not "evidence".........they are PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS. There is no evidence that species can hump themselves into different species, just given enough generations and the right environments. Geneticists have only discovered limitations within each species' capacity for change. Many of the naturalistic origin theories contain mythical concepts that have never been directly observed, tested, or reproduced...........therefore, those origin theories are not "science".


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scrimshaw I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If Christianity as whole opposed skepticism, or skeptical thinking, why is there numerous Christian Apologetics ministries throughout the world, not to mention tens of thousands of volumes of Christian literature that critiques other philosophical/religious ideas? Perhaps what you are saying that Christians believe in being skeptical towards other beliefs, but not their own. If that is what you mean, then I would ask you - what makes Christians different than anyone else? I have yet to encounter an individual or organization of individuals that forthrightly practices self-skepticism. It is human nature to defend one's own ideas, and attack any contrary ideas. You do it, I do, Christians do it, scientists do it, atheists do it, Muslims do it, Democrats do it, Republicans do it, etc. Perhaps everyone who believes in anything and attempts to defend it - is a "cultist"??????

One of you; is it Scrimshaw?, seems to be having trouble confusing Philosophy and Science. He states that origin theories are not science; but science is all about proposing hypotheses and theories, and then testing them. Cosmological theories are at present being tested by space based probes which measure x-Ray, gamma-ray, optical , microwave and infra-red cosmic radiations. Is this not science in practice, testing its origin-theories? Similarly, a recent ice-core sample from Antarctica has obtained samples going back nearly a million years, of atmospheric gases at that time, and of microfossils. Is this not empirical science testing scientific theories of the origin of life?
Similar ice-core samples from Greenland have dated traces of life back to 3.81 billion years. Is this not empirical science? You can attach the term "philosophy" to these enterprises as a flyer if you must. Scientists have to philosophise initially in order to produce scientific hypotheses, and then the practical scientific methods kick in to produce the results. Also the (scientific) Theory of Evolution may reasonably be coupled with a philosophical point of view, ie the validity of Metaphysical Naturalism, but if it is testable, by examining fossils, core samples, molecular genetic evidence, (which it is), then I am sorry, "my friend", but it is science whether you like it or not. It is an error to allow a hatred for a naturalistic world-view, based on religious fundamentalism, to warp what should be rational thinking. from "Wadsworth"
 
Last edited:

Wadsworth

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by PureX
Except that it's obvious that God (if God exists) has not done so. At least not in a way that we have been able to grasp. How to be a human being is written into our genetic code, but why human beings exist is not; at least not that we know of. Or maybe it is there, but we haven't been able to recognize it, yet, sort of like not being able to see the forrest because of all the trees.

Another possibility is that there simply is no "reason" that we exist other than that we can. Maybe the answers we keep looking for belong to questions that are moot. Maybe being itself is the 'why'.
Well, I'm not a god, but even I know that if I want person "M" to know something, telling person "W" and expecting person "W" to convey the idea accurately to person "M" is foolish. The message will ALWAYS get garbled, and as often as not, person "W" will use the fact that he has information that person "M" needs to manipulate person "M" or to puff himself up falsely.

I have to believe that whatever "God" wants us to know. We already know. Because I can't assume that a god that could create all that exists would be so stupid or weak that he couldn't put in our minds what he wanted to be there.
First, I don't know of any "evolutionists". Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical proposition. There are no "evolutionists" except maybe for scientists or historians who study the theory of evolution itself. If they exist, I have never met one.

If you are referring to people who generally accept the theory of evolution as the most plausable and workable concept of biomechanical change, then as one of those people I can safely say that I do find it quite extraordinary. And although the Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolutionary theory I'm guessing that even most cosmologists find the Big Bang extraordinary, too, even though they know that chemicals "mindlessly assemble themselves" into all sorts of new compounds all the time. How much luck or accident is involved in this process, though, none of us can really say.

But I agree that human beings often do not view reality the same way, and so what one will see as unlikely, another will see as commonplace. There is nothing I can do about this, nor should I have to. I guess we will each have to decide for ourselves what we think is extraordinary, and what is not. Just as we will have to decide for ourselves what is evidence for the probable and what is not. But the fact that we are so easily confused doesn't negate the fact that the process of following established probabilities is mostly all we have to go with, and is worth trying as best we can.
Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. One is not the other. Both may sometimes investigate the origins of humanity, but that doesn't mean they become the same endeavor. They don't, and they aren't.
Well, sure, if I'm right about concept "X", then it will be VERY likely that I am right about concept "X". But if I am not right about concept "X", it will be very unlikely that I am right about concept "X". But it's the "if" that carries all the weight, here, not how right I think I am.

When people believe that myth and magic are reality, and that science and experimentation are just fantasy and wishful thinking, they will very like view their myths as "history" and magic as commonplace. So of course to those folks science and whatever evidence it produces will always appear "wild" and "unbelievable" and too extraordinary to accept. Likewise, to people who believe that the scientific process is the most unbiased and reasonable way to learn about the world around them, myth and magic will appear to be very poor evidence for any realistic view of existence. People are different, but the difference itself doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong.

I realise people are different, and have different points of view, but I would dispute that this doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong. How do we define right as opposed to wrong? I would say by applying reason and logic. Now I know fundies are trying to hijack both of these to support their own world view, so what else can we claim for the side of reason? I would say the application of the principles of cause and effect, and Inductive principles, (which though imperfect in theory are nevertheless of lasting dependency): in other words, turning water into wine is magic; you may say why not magic?- well we have no verifiable regular day to day evidence of magic, so i would suggest (IMHO), that magic is false, compared with events which are known to be reliably causally connected, over a long observable period of time.
We have to make this distinction between alleged magic, and natural processes, otherwise madness will reign, and I will have as good a reason to claim that I get to work on a magic carpet, as to drive rationally and causally in by rational and causally operated automobile. from "Wadsworth".


I do understand the difference. But I have to tell you that I have encountered so many Christians who are of the "cult" variety that I have ceased to even call myself a Christian, anymore. It's been made overwhelmingly obvious to me that what is currently being called Christianity is in reality and practice just another blind cult based on myth, magic, and willful ignorance.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by Wadsworth I realise people are different, and have different points of view, but I would dispute that this doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong. How do we define right as opposed to wrong? I would say by applying reason and logic. Now I know fundies are trying to hijack both of these to support their own world view, so what else can we claim for the side of reason? I would say the application of the principles of cause and effect, and Inductive principles, (which though imperfect in theory are nevertheless of lasting dependency): in other words, turning water into wine is magic; you may say why not magic?- well we have no verifiable regular day to day evidence of magic, so i would suggest (IMHO), that magic is false, compared with events which are known to be reliably causally connected, over a long observable period of time.
We have to make this distinction between alleged magic, and natural processes, otherwise madness will reign, and I will have as good a reason to claim that I get to work on a magic carpet, as to drive rationally and causally in by rational and causally operated automobile. from "Wadsworth".
Well, the thing about reason and logic is that they're sort of like an Excel program. The computations will be accurate, but if you put the wrong numbers in the little boxes, you'll still get wrong numbers back in the end. We all use reason and logic, but we keep coming up with different conclusions because we put different information into the process to start with.

To a lot of people, magic is real. They pray for a good parking space at the Pigly-Wigly and there it is! Thus, they reason that prayer has magical power. When the parking space is not there, they reason that the God they pray to wanted them to walk that day, and as they walk they will be looking for some event to justify having to do so. So when they stop and help an old lady put a box in her trunk, they reason that God made them walk so that they could help the old lady. And on and on it goes.

Everyone uses reason and logic, even lunatics. What is missing in some people, about some things, is skepticism. We need to be skeptical about how we reason and what "logical" conclusions we are accepting. We need to doubt ourselves and to act on that doubt by looking for ways to prove ourselves wrong. But few of us ever really do this. And some of us are so frightened of being wrong that we become obsessed with avoiding it at almost any cost.

I don't believe in magic, either, if the word is defining a state that defies natural laws. However, I do believe that natural laws allow for things to happen that we do not yet understand. If the word "magic" is referring to this sort of event, then I believe magic does happen. I realize that I am making a claim of naturalism for something that I am then claiming not to understand, and that this is somewhat contradictory. But I will stand by it anyway, because A; there are many natural things that we do not yet understand, and B; there is no evidence that I know of that can validate a claim for "supra" naturalism.
 

Wadsworth

New member
Originally posted by PureX
Well, the thing about reason and logic is that they're sort of like an Excel program. The computations will be accurate, but if you put the wrong numbers in the little boxes, you'll still get wrong numbers back in the end. We all use reason and logic, but we keep coming up with different conclusions because we put different information into the process to start with.

To a lot of people, magic is real. They pray for a good parking space at the Pigly-Wigly and there it is! Thus, they reason that prayer has magical power. When the parking space is not there, they reason that the God they pray to wanted them to walk that day, and as they walk they will be looking for some event to justify having to do so. So when they stop and help an old lady put a box in her trunk, they reason that God made them walk so that they could help the old lady. And on and on it goes.

Everyone uses reason and logic, even lunatics. What is missing in some people, about some things, is skepticism. We need to be skeptical about how we reason and what "logical" conclusions we are accepting. We need to doubt ourselves and to act on that doubt by looking for ways to prove ourselves wrong. But few of us ever really do this. And some of us are so frightened of being wrong that we become obsessed with avoiding it at almost any cost.

I don't believe in magic, either, if the word is defining a state that defies natural laws. However, I do believe that natural laws allow for things to happen that we do not yet understand. If the word "magic" is referring to this sort of event, then I believe magic does happen. I realize that I am making a claim of naturalism for something that I am then claiming not to understand, and that this is somewhat contradictory. But I will stand by it anyway, because A; there are many natural things that we do not yet understand, and B; there is no evidence that I know of that can validate a claim for "supra" naturalism.

I agree with you:"garbage in, garbage out".---- hence the use made of logic by lunatics and fundies, and their spurious claim to be acting rationally. The reason I think, why some people bring god into everything, as in your parking space, and old lady examples, is that they regularly commit the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo proper hoc", - a furthur example of which might be, "I sneezed, and the Empire State building collapsed, I had better try and control my sneezes." Christians seem to be particularly blind to this type of fallacy, as well as circular argument or question-begging fallacies. Of course we do not yet understand all natural processes, but in that case we have to look for causal connections that would explain them. whereas i think "magic", like miracles, are violations of causality. Hume said that because events are juxtaposed they do not prove a causal connection, but I think that is only partially true. A causal connection for instance between Fire and Burning can be observed at a common sense level, but it can also be explained rationally at a chemical level, eg oxidation effects, which would tend to support the observation of connection between them.-- Wadsworth
 

Bigotboy

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bigotboy,



Is this the most banal, ridiculous, childish statement any one has EVER made here..

Boo Hoo poor BB.. we have told you a million times where these things come from. They evolved from earlier species. The original life was probably formed from a mix of chemicals and environmental conditions. You just choose not to listen.

Your mind is closed to anything but a mythological explanation of “God did it”

When clearly God didn’t do it..

A bird comes from its parents. One provides the Egg and the other the sperm.. God clearly does not manufacture every living creature.. we know they come about naturally.. why would anyone assume he ever did ?? It doesn’t make sense.

BTW Cya BB.. it not like you added much of any relevance anyway..LOL..jk !

Dear Aussie, if you would learn the English language you would notice that I was looking for empirical (you might want to consult www.dictionary.com for this word) evidence for dogs coming from beetles, or whatever you propose for your evolutionaly scheme. I already have a belief based on faith, I'm looking for hard evidence to change that belief. You may want to take your index fingers, but them into your ears and give a sharp tug. That will release your head from your rear end and you can navigate over to "Origins> life from non life" and pick up on the discussion. I await your towering intellect.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
BB,

I thought you were leaving !

Dear Aussie, if you would learn the English language you would notice that I was looking for empirical (you might want to consult www.dictionary.com for this word) evidence for dogs coming from beetles, or whatever you propose for your evolutionaly scheme.

To most of us Evolution is a FACT. Evolution means change over time and the evidence in the fossil and geological record is VERY clear.

1. The Earth is very old
2. We know that many different creatures have existed on this planet
3. We know that they lived in different times
4. We know that they did not coexist
5. We know that there is a clear progression of ever more complex creatures (in other words we don’t see birds appearing before fish in the fossil record)

All this makes it clear that

1. Either some sort of evolutionary process happened
2. Some higher being kept revisiting and seeding the planet (recreating)
3. Some higher being created all as is including a bunch of fake fossils.

Now as 2 & 3 seem ridiculous 1 seems the obvious choice. But science has not been happy to just accept 1 they have examined the proposed process extensively. They know that :

1. Creatures do mutate
2. Creatures with successful traits have increased survival chances
3. Creatures with sexual attraction have increased survival chances
4. Creatures adapt to their environment
5. The evolutionary process has been observed (insect and bacterial immunity etc)
6. The genomes of creatures that have been mapped show they are all related
7. Science actually uses molecular genetic manipulation based on evolutionary prediction to make genetically based medicines

Now I KNOW that the only thing that will make this clear for you is a time machine.. but I have to ask why do you accept that atoms exist ? You can’t see them. Do you accept what scientists tell you.. I never saw an atom mentioned in my Bible !

I already have a belief based on faith, I'm looking for hard evidence to change that belief.

Why should evolution change that faith. I hope your faith is not dependant upon evolution or life forming naturally or I am afraid it is in for a HUGE test one day.

You may want to take your index fingers, but them into your ears and give a sharp tug. That will release your head from your rear end and you can navigate over to "Origins> life from non life" and pick up on the discussion. I await your towering intellect

I would actually say that “heads stuck up arses” is usually reserved for those that reject science and believe in mythology. What do you mean by life from non-life. Who decides what is life.. arbitrary ‘ol mankind ? That question is like saying fire can’t come from non fire.. err but it can and does .. can water come from non water ? Yep, what about iron from Non iron.. Yep again..

You know the nuclear furnace of a Star produces other elements from Hydrogen and Helium, you know that elements form molecular bonds with other element.. why is it such a stretch for you to have chemicals forming into amino acids, proteins and simple self replicating molecules ?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If "evolution is change over time" then I would have to be labelled a believer in evolution. However, since I don't believe that new features can arise via random mutation and natural selection then this probably means I am not an evolutionist but instead am a creationist.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
BobB

If "evolution is change over time" then I would have to be labelled a believer in evolution. However, since I don't believe that new features can arise via random mutation and natural selection then this probably means I am not an evolutionist but instead am a creationist.

Bob.. if you believe change over time has occurred then the only creation that is compatible is creation and recreation and recreation.. etc.. is that what you really believe ?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
BobB



Bob.. if you believe change over time has occurred then the only creation that is compatible is creation and recreation and recreation.. etc.. is that what you really believe ?

How so?

Creation followed by change within kinds is perfectly compatible with the evidence. The long ages concept is merely an inference which arises from believing that radiometric dating (and evolutionary processes) implies long ages.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Bob,

So Ok.. radiometric, and carbon dating are wrong ?

Basing age on time for sediment to occur is also wrong ?

The other thing is the layering of fossils.. fossils are always found in layers meaning that the different types did not co-exist.. which means the world was inhabited by entirely different bunches of species at different times.

So under your assumption of 1 creation event that would mean that man coexisted with trilobites and Dinosaurs ???

The evidence for man coexisting with dinosaurs would be OVERWHELMING.. not just a biblical reference to behemoth and leviathan.. we would have cave paintings, legends, evidence in ancient middens, evidence of killing and being killed.. dinosaur artefacts by the bucketload.

Dino’s would have RULED mans imagination and world.. you cannot honestly believe man and dino coexisted.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bob,

So Ok.. radiometric, and carbon dating are wrong ?

That is too general a statement. Carbon dating seems to work for several thousands years, but then seems to run into increasing difficulty, probably due to the fact that materials are not completely closed to gain or loss of radioactive components.

Long age methods can not be independently verified and results may be due to factors currently not fully understood.

Basing age on time for sediment to occur is also wrong ?

This approach is so silly it is surprising to hear it mentioned.

The other thing is the layering of fossils.. fossils are always found in layers meaning that the different types did not co-exist..

One could say the same thing about creatures found in different habitats around the world.


which means the world was inhabited by entirely different bunches of species at different times.

Or alternatively was inhabited by different species at different locations, all living at the same time.

So under your assumption of 1 creation event that would mean that man coexisted with trilobites and Dinosaurs ???

The evidence is quite clear that man and dinosaurs co-existed.

The evidence for man coexisting with dinosaurs would be OVERWHELMING.. not just a biblical reference to behemoth and leviathan.. we would have cave paintings, legends, evidence in ancient middens, evidence of killing and being killed.. dinosaur artefacts by the bucketload.

And of course we do have all of the above.

Dino’s would have RULED mans imagination

And of course they did precisely that.

you cannot honestly believe man and dino coexisted.

I believe that one should follow the evidence regardless of where it leads, despite the evolutionary thinking that is the current fad in our modern society.

I will have to admit that I thought as most skeptics up until 20 years ago. At that time I seriously looked at the evidence in great detail for the first time in my life and was stunned to discover that evolution had no sound scientific and analytical basis. It took me a while to get over that shock and realize that a society can believe fervently in things that sound good but are not actually true (e.g. Communism). On the other hand, things that are basically true can sometimes be discredited by most members of a given society, particularly if the truths are distorted or watered down by many of its adherents and foes alike (e.g. Christianity).
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Bob,


Fossils occur in the SAME place in different strata. We don’t have fossils of modern creatures appearing in ancient strata even though they exist in the same place today !

Would you say that the evidence for man and Dino coexisting would be at LEAST as strong as say.. lions ?

Yet what evidence exists AT AL for Dino coexistence.. first let me completely rid you of the ridiculous evidence for coexistence.

1. The mention of Behemoth and leviathan in the Bible.. mentioned fleetingly .. lions mention 100’s of times.. what would be more interesting to a human a T Rex or a lion ?
2. Dragon Legends… No dinosaur Flew and No dinosaur breathed fire. Therefore we can admit Dragon legends are just myths.. (probably spawned from ancient men discovering TRex fossils)
3. Ancient St American stone carvings showing Dinosaurs.. 1 Lot was an admitted fake.. the other also included many mythical impossible beings .. like half man half bird etc.. they were imaginary creatures.

Now stack these pathetic pieces of evidence up against what we have for lions.. every culture where they existed mentions them in art, drawing and text. They retain artefacts of them.. skins, teeth manes. Tails etc,

To believe man and dinosaurs co existed is to divorce yourself from any form of reality.. it bespeaks someone desperate to maintain a strange mythological interpretation of a religious text !
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bob,
Fossils occur in the SAME place in different strata.

How can something be in the same place in different strata? You might try rewording that.[/quote]

We don’t have fossils of modern creatures appearing in ancient strata even though they exist in the same place today !

The terms "modern" and "primitive" are inventions. All fossil creatures were alive at essentially the same time.

Would you say that the evidence for man and Dino coexisting would be at LEAST as strong as say.. lions ?

It is probably true that essentially all dinosaurs are now extinct, so the case could never be as strong as for creatures not extinct, since we could not actually observe them as being contemporaneous with men.

Yet what evidence exists AT AL for Dino coexistence.. first let me completely rid you of the ridiculous evidence for coexistence.

1. The mention of Behemoth and leviathan in the Bible.. mentioned fleetingly .. lions mention 100’s of times.. what would be more interesting to a human a T Rex or a lion ?

It is possible that dinosaurs may be mentioned more times in scripture than are lions. This is because the word "beast" is mentioned 193 times and this term covers a lot of territory. Also the word dragon appears 27 times.

2. Dragon Legends… No dinosaur Flew and No dinosaur breathed fire. Therefore we can admit Dragon legends are just myths.. (probably spawned from ancient men discovering TRex fossils)

Sorry, dinosaur like creatures did fly. American Indians called them "Thunderbirds". The "fire breathing" could be an interpretation error mistaking the cold weather phenomenon of "seeing one's breath" or something else not currently understood similar to the bombardeer beetle

3. Ancient St American stone carvings showing Dinosaurs.. 1 Lot was an admitted fake.. the other also included many mythical impossible beings .. like half man half bird etc.. they were imaginary creatures.

Since humans are currently experimenting with man/mouse hybrids the possibility of creatures with mixed characteristics verifies my concept that the Flood was necessary to prevent the human race genome from being polluted by genetic experimentation (of course many of the myths were certainly exaggerations).

Thus the Bible states the real reason Noah was selected to perpetuate the human race ("Noah was perfect in his generations").

Now stack these pathetic pieces of evidence up against what we have for lions.. every culture where they existed mentions them in art, drawing and text. They retain artefacts of them.. skins, teeth manes. Tails etc,

The dinosaurs were undoubtedly mostly destroyed by the Flood and since the larger ones probably bred slowly would have been few in number by the time of the lion evidence you mention.

To believe man and dinosaurs co existed is to divorce yourself from any form of reality.. it bespeaks someone desperate to maintain a strange mythological interpretation of a religious text !

On the contrary, your inability to conceive of the possibility of man coexisting with dinosaurs, based on the evidence I mentioned, means that you are dogmatic and closed minded on the subject.

BTW, you might be interested to learn that dinosaurs are mentioned more times in the Torah than are lions. The books of the Bible written at much later dates than the Torah of course mention lions slightly more often than they mention dinosaurs for the simple reason that the vast majority of the dinosaurs had become extinct by then.
 
Last edited:

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Bob,

I guess as you are now about the 10th person I have come across who believes the literal mythology of the Bible I should stop being so stunned by it.

The amount of twists and turns you have to put your mind through to hang onto this literal interpretation are truly mind boggling.

You would never give any other story such incredible leeway.

How can something be in the same place in different strata? You might try rewording that.

You might try re-understanding ! You do KNOW that different strata are “stacked” upon each other at a single site ? As you dig down you find fossils at different levels.. you don’t find a fossilised cow underneath a fossilised dinosaur !

The terms "modern" and "primitive" are inventions. All fossil creatures were alive at essentially the same time.

Why don’t we have fossils of creatures I see today in the same strata as dinosaurs then ???

It is probably true that essentially all dinosaurs are now extinct, so the case could never be as strong as for creatures not extinct, since we could not actually observe them as being contemporaneous with men.

Mammoths are now extinct and mans interaction with them is CLEAR.

It is possible that dinosaurs may be mentioned more times in scripture than are lions. This is because the word "beast" is mentioned 193 times and this term covers a lot of territory. Also the word dragon appears 27 times.

So every time we see “beast” they mean Dinosaur ??

Like this one..

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Love to find the fossil for that guy !

And this ?

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

So all Noah took into the Ark where Dino’s.. yet they were the ones who didn’t make it.. oops someone stuffed up big time !

Etc etc.. NO ONE would take most beast references in the Bible to mean dinosaurs.. please don’t insult our intelligence Bob !

Sorry, dinosaur like creatures did fly. American Indians called them "Thunderbirds". The "fire breathing" could be an interpretation error mistaking the cold weather phenomenon of "seeing one's breath" or something else not currently understood similar to the bombardeer beetle

Thunderbird were part of the mythology the American Indians.. why do you discount everything else they say and latch onto one bit that supports dragons.. rather selective huh ? The only flying “dinosaur” were Pterodactyl’s types and if you think they look ANYTHING like any dragon legend you have ever seen you are mad !

The cold breath thing.. have you ever seen a bunch of cows in the Early morning.. puffing out steam like no mans business.. trouble is we KNOW what it is .. we do it to.. we DO NOT attribute it to fiery breath.. just the same as ancient people would NOT have !

Since humans are currently experimenting with man/mouse hybrids the possibility of creatures with mixed characteristics verifies my concept that the Flood was necessary to prevent the human race genome from being polluted by genetic experimentation (of course many of the myths were certainly exaggerations).

No society in the past had the sophistication to come even CLOSE to genetic manipulation. Inferring they did is another clutch at a bunch of straws to maintain your literalist fantasy !

The dinosaurs were undoubtedly mostly destroyed by the Flood and since the larger ones probably bred slowly would have been few in number by the time of the lion evidence you mention.

Yet didn’t Noah take the “Beasts” on board the Ark ?. Why don’t we have lion fossils around dinos.. Why don’t we have lion teeth marks in Dino fossils ??

On the contrary, your inability to conceive of the possibility of man coexisting with dinosaurs, based on the evidence I mentioned, means that you are dogmatic and closed minded on the subject.

I suppose I should face the fact that somewhere in this world in spite of their own intelligence will be men who totally disregard their own sense of logic to follow religious fantasies.. while I certainly don’t put you in the same bracket (thank your own God) the 9/11 bombers spring to mind !
 

SOTK

New member
Originally posted by Bigotboy
Dear Aussie, if you would learn the English language you would notice that I was looking for empirical (you might want to consult www.dictionary.com for this word) evidence for dogs coming from beetles, or whatever you propose for your evolutionaly scheme. I already have a belief based on faith, I'm looking for hard evidence to change that belief. You may want to take your index fingers, but them into your ears and give a sharp tug. That will release your head from your rear end and you can navigate over to "Origins> life from non life" and pick up on the discussion. I await your towering intellect.

:chuckle:
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bob,
I guess as you are now about the 10th person I have come across who believes the literal mythology of the Bible I should stop being so stunned by it.
Surveys show that more people believe the Bible than do believe the modern mythology of evolution. Try broadening your circle of humans.

The amount of twists and turns you have to put your mind through to hang onto this literal interpretation are truly mind boggling.

This statement applies to your simplistic view of the fossil record. See the next quotation for a beautiful example.

You might try re-understanding ! You do KNOW that different strata are “stacked” upon each other at a single site ? As you dig down you find fossils at different levels.. you don’t find a fossilised cow underneath a fossilised dinosaur !

Cows tended to avoid dinosaurs. :doh:

Why don’t we have fossils of creatures I see today in the same strata as dinosaurs then ???

Actually we do since dinosaur fossils generally appear on the top of the ground.

Mammoths are now extinct and mans interaction with them is CLEAR.

Mammoths were post Flood in great numbers and more easily hunted than dinosaurs.

So every time we see “beast” they mean Dinosaur ??

Did I say that? NOT.

So all Noah took into the Ark where Dino’s.. yet they were the ones who didn’t make it.. oops someone stuffed up big time !

Since only a few of each kind were saved the ones that were fossilized can safely be assumed to have not been saved.

Etc etc.. NO ONE would take most beast references in the Bible to mean dinosaurs.. please don’t insult our intelligence Bob !

I simply observed that beast is a generic term and was translated by the King James interpreters according to the world view existing at the time of the Middle Ages.

Thunderbird were part of the mythology the American Indians.. why do you discount everything else they say and latch onto one bit that supports dragons.. rather selective huh ? The only flying “dinosaur” were Pterodactyl’s types and if you think they look ANYTHING like any dragon legend you have ever seen you are mad !

Your lack of knowledge in this area is showing.

The cold breath thing.. have you ever seen a bunch of cows in the Early morning.. puffing out steam like no mans business.. trouble is we KNOW what it is .. we do it to.. we DO NOT attribute it to fiery breath.. just the same as ancient people would NOT have !

Perhaps. Perhaps not, but you seem to be inconsistent about the knowledge level and reasoning ability of ancient people.

No society in the past had the sophistication to come even CLOSE to genetic manipulation

What is your evidence for such a dogmatic opinion?

Yet didn’t Noah take the “Beasts” on board the Ark ?. Why don’t we have lion fossils around dinos.. Why don’t we have lion teeth marks in Dino fossils ??

I would think lions and dinosaurs might have lived in different locales, for obvious reasons.

I suppose I should face the fact that somewhere in this world in spite of their own intelligence will be men who totally disregard their own sense of logic to follow evolutionary fantasies.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Bob,

This statement applies to your simplistic view of the fossil record. See the next quotation for a beautiful example.

The irony of YOU saying I have a simplistic view of the fossil record. When you don’t even ACCEPT the fossil record was laid down over millions of years. I assume you are one of these strange creatures that refuses to accept what geologist, anthropologists and archaeologists have said for almost 200 years. The Earth is old and it surface is laid down in DISTINCLTY definable geological layers.

In these layers we DO NOT find fossils of ANY modern creatures mixed with fossils of ancient creatures.

Cows tended to avoid dinosaurs.

You wanted a simpleton answer.. so I guess you gave one. Do you realise just how much that answer epitomises the childish myopia of the biblical literalist. It is a classic Kent Hovind style statement that if you really think about it is about as stupid a thing as you could say.

MOST dinosaurs were HERD animals who ate the same stuff cows (buffalo) do. Dinosaurs also filled EVERY niche and were found on every part of this planet. If cows and Dinosaurs existed at the same time they WOULD be found in the same strata.

Actually we do since dinosaur fossils generally appear on the top of the ground.

On top of the ground in ancient strata that has been worn away.

Mammoths were post Flood in great numbers and more easily hunted than dinosaurs.

What another ridiculous statement. You remember my statement about the hoops you have to put your mind through ?

Dinosaurs came in all shapes and sizes. PLENTY of them were smaller and FAR easier hunted than a Mammoth. Yet we have NO evidence of any of them being hunted AT ALL !

Did I say that? NOT.

No but you implied it, you said

It is possible that dinosaurs may be mentioned more times in scripture than are lions. This is because the word "beast" is mentioned 193 times and this term covers a lot of territory. Also the word dragon appears 27 times.

That implies most of these references COULD have been dinosaurs.. but when you read then NONE of them sound like they could have been dinosaurs !
quote:

Since only a few of each kind were saved the ones that were fossilized can safely be assumed to have not been saved.

Why didn’t Noah take all the dino species on the Ark ? if he did how could these creatures that dominated the planet not survive the aftermath.

I simply observed that beast is a generic term and was translated by the King James interpreters according to the world view existing at the time of the Middle Ages.

And meant cattle, sheep, lions etc etc .. KNOWN beasts !

Your lack of knowledge in this area is showing.

Unlike your which was shown to be so evident ???

Perhaps. Perhaps not, but you seem to be inconsistent about the knowledge level and reasoning ability of ancient people.

Ancient peoples were just as clever as us. Their trouble was they had far more gaps in their knowledge.. hence they invoked far more god than we do to fill those gaps.

What is your evidence for such a dogmatic opinion?

Any society that could manipulate genes would have left compelling evidence behind. They would have had sophisticated communications (writing etc). We would have examples of their experiments etc.. you find me an ancient ½ man ½ half beast skeleton and I will rethink my position !

I would think lions and dinosaurs might have lived in different locales, for obvious reasons.

What obvious reasons??.. again you seem to forget MOST dino’s were herbivores.. PERFECT prey for lions. Modern predators and prey “hang out” together.. as well as modern predators also occupy the same niche. Your obvious reasons are another HOOP you just jumped through.. you should join the circus !

I suppose I should face the fact that somewhere in this world in spite of their own intelligence will be men who totally disregard their own sense of logic to follow evolutionary fantasies.

There is a big difference.. your mythology dictates how you view the world.. you CANNOT abandon in regardless of evidence. I can abandon evolution INSTANTLY if better evidence comes along.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I can abandon evolution INSTANTLY if better evidence comes along.

Baloney. there is no evidence whatsoever to support the fairytale that all creatures evolved from a hypothetical protocell.

On the contrary it is obvious that life could only have been created by a super intelligent being.

Yet you passionately deny this and like many others latch onto the modern day fairytale, because you hate the idea that you will have to someday account for your sinful actions to an all powerful God who created the universe and life within it.

Bowing down is something you will eventually have to do even though every fiber in your being rebels at such a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top