|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If, however, you are going to jump back to the old Linnaean system, & say crocs are reptiles, then in order to be consistent, dinosaurs are reptiles, too. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I would like to ask you what distinguishes Buzsaw's post from trolling? He's still here, I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There's a suite of characters that are considered reptilian, brain case structure, jaw structure, etc. it's not just eggs & scales. Dinosaurs are in possession of as many reptile characters as the next reptile. 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?
It's less objective than the cladistic system, IMHO. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, but take it in context. 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?
God is talking about this great creature He created to show His power and He throws in the fact that behemoth has a penis like a cedar? Sounds reasonable to me. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-04-2004 11:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I figured that most would consider a dragon a dinosaur guess not 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.
which just goes to show even us average Joes who couldnt possible comprehend evolution are able to get in and at least defend the only moral thing left in society today. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Jar, you have to be just the most repulsive person on the earth to sit there and make the claim that you are a christian but then support evolution; it is spitting in the face of God, to go as far as to say His word 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.
since evolution has been introduced to our soceities it has spread like cancer 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.
even though the Senate has ruled it to be a religion That's a flat-out lie.
which I believe to be true, as does any Christian who honestly believes in Christ. 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.
Like I said I maybe really inexpierence with the world, but from what you have demonstrated it is not something I am looking forward to... 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
yah ruled a religion in 1961 Torcaso v Watkins: The Senate does not rule on judicial proceedings. This decision was by the Maryland Court of Appeals, not the US Senate.
What does Secular Humanism teach when concerning creation of the universe 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.
So if it is so wrong to teach the Bible in schools how can we teach evolution? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's why I made the Admin post a general one and not to him. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024