Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible?

Why? Just because they have scales and lay eggs? You seemed to imply that before.The Linnaean system seems fairly subjective, to me, I guess. Are dinosaurs classified as "reptiles" in it, just because they always have been?Thanks for helping clear this up, though. You don't mind, I hope, if I ask these questions?

He's still here, I guess.

So, hypothetically, if that suite had, for instance, 8 characters, how many would an organism have to have to fall under that classification? 7? 5? 2? Is that how it works? I guess I can see the subjectivity in determining what group consistutes a clade, but it seems like determining who is in the clade is a lot less subjective.

In what context is "penis" not "penis"?Do you read Hebrew? Don't you think it's a bit ludicrous of you to adamantly deny that the Hebrew word used means "penis" when you don't actually speak a word of that language? Sounds reasonable to me.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-04-2004 11:24 AM

Well, there's some pretty steep differences. Not the least of which is that dragons are fairy tales, and dinosaurs are a family or archosaurs that went extinct 65 million years ago.And the fire-breathing, flying, shapeshifting, magic, etc. Funny, but I've never seen a single one of you "average Joes" do anything but either accept the veracity of the scientific theory of evolution over creationist clap-trap, or run off with your tail between your legs. As it happens, you do actually need to comprehend evolution before you can "get in."

Oh? You're so sure it's His word? Did you ask him? Or did you just trust what the book says about itself? That's pretty credulous, don't you think?Nonetheless, as far as "repulsiveness" goes, you've already demonstrated that you're a far more repulsive, intolerant person than Jar, in this very statement alone. I would say that, like science in general, it spreads more like an antidote - undoing the damage caused by religion and dogmatic thinking over the past 1500 years. That's a flat-out lie. There we go again. Nothing about belief in God mandates a belief in the Bible. Those are two separate articles of faith. Anyone can write a book and say "God wrote this" on the first page; they'd wind up with about as much evidence that their book was the "word of God" as you have for the Bible. Well, then, retreat back into your little church, and bury your nose in your little bible. If you can't handle the fact that someone might come to entirely reasonable conclusions about the evidence put before them, then, quite frankly, the rest of us out in the world can do without you. You don't know the first thing about Jar, but you're already sure that he's an amoral abortionist kiddie-raper simply because he offered his opinion on scientific matters. Why don't you look up what your book says about judging people?

The Senate does not rule on judicial proceedings. This decision was by the Maryland Court of Appeals, not the US Senate. As a secular humanist, let me tell you that the answer is "absolutely nothing."Unlike your religion, which can't keep its nose out of matters that it is distinctly unequipped to investigate, secular humanism is a fairly narrow series of statements about how people are supposed to live. It has no origin stories whatsoever, and mandates no particular belief in any doctrinal points about the nature of the universe, or whatever.Evolution is science, not secular humanism. These words are not synonyms. We do teach the Bible in schools - in both English literature classes (being as it is a very important piece of literature to the English-speaking world) and comparative religions classes. Where it doesn't belong is in a science classroom. Evolution, being science, does belong.We don't teach music in mathematics courses; we don't teach first aid in sociology courses; we don't teach religion in science courses. It really is just that simple.

Jar I have to say that I think this is bad form. It's bad enough that admins are allowed to participate as normal people in threads that they administer, but slapping the guy down as both an admin and youself doesn't seem sporting. And I think it's asking a lot of people to draw the distinction between admin and normal "modes", when a lot of the admins seem to blur that distinction whenever possible. (I appreciate that MrHambre seems to avoid this behavior.)I know all us regulars play along with Minnemooseus's lead and pretend like the admins are like separate personalities, and we do so because we're all on friendly terms, but I think it's asking too much to expect the new people, especially the new creationists, to just jump in and play along, as though the convention was so brilliant as to be obvious.

Again, a distinction that we as friends might play along with, but why would you expect him to?I guess that, as an Admin, I would expect to be held to a standard that includes not just avoiding scandal, but avoiding arguably legitimate behaviors that might be interpreted as scandalous. After all it doesn't keep a thread on topic if the admins are doing things that stimulate the creationists to complain.I'm not saying that you're abusing your admin powers to dominate a discussion. But you're perilously close to appearing to do so. But, you know, take it or leave it. Just wanted to let you know as a friend.

Off-topic; these are better suited to the biblical inerrancy forums.I'd ask you to take them there, but don't bother - none of these are legitimate means for discerning information about what is real and what is not. That you have an accurate copy of a lie doesn't make the lie a truth. Lies are not assumed to be true simply because they are hard to disprove - the exact opposite is true, in fact. Documents are considered "guilty" (or suspect) until they are substantiated, because he who asserts must prove. (And, in fact, none of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses. Absolutely none of it.) And the willingness of people to die for something proves nothing; every religion has its martyrs, and even atheists have died for what they believed.