EvC Forum: evolution and the extinction of dinos

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: evolution and the extinction of dinos

Peter

Member (Idle past 1510 days)

Posts: 2161

From: Cambridgeshire, UK.

Joined: 02-05-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 74 of 93 (614934)
05-09-2011 9:27 AM

Reply to: Message 73 by jar
05-06-2011 8:18 AM

I was looking at a King James Bible ... if that makes much difference.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 73 by jar, posted 05-06-2011 8:18 AM		jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 9:47 AM		Peter has replied

Peter

Member (Idle past 1510 days)

Posts: 2161

From: Cambridgeshire, UK.

Joined: 02-05-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 76 of 93 (614965)
05-09-2011 1:01 PM

Reply to: Message 75 by Theodoric
05-09-2011 9:47 AM

All in Genesis?

I was merely questioning the target of the flood, only to find that god basically changes his mind at the last minute and selects one human family and a bunch of animals to survive.

God commands Noah to take a pair of ALL flesh though ... so surely he meant Noah to take all those Dino. species with him too. Maybe the Ark wasn't big enough so Noah skipped a few and hoped no-one would notice.

I ... I think I may have wandered off thread there -- sorry.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 9:47 AM		Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 1:09 PM	Peter has replied
	Message 79 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 2:00 AM	Peter has replied

Peter

Member (Idle past 1510 days)

Posts: 2161

From: Cambridgeshire, UK.

Joined: 02-05-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 78 of 93 (615097)
05-10-2011 9:49 AM

Reply to: Message 77 by Theodoric
05-09-2011 1:09 PM

Re: Noah

I see what you mean, although I think in the version I just looked chapter 7 says to take the clean animals in sevens (the male and his females) rather than seven pairs, but anyhow not exactly the same as chapter 6.

The same is true of genesis 1 & 2 BTW.

Maybe it's like the radio news: they run through the highlights then go over the same stories again with a little more detail

From my PoV it is perfectly acceptable to consider that he bible is an amalgamation of different stories handed down in different tribes before finally being written down.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 1:09 PM		Theodoric has not replied

Peter

Member (Idle past 1510 days)

Posts: 2161

From: Cambridgeshire, UK.

Joined: 02-05-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 86 of 93 (615304)
05-12-2011 7:14 AM

Reply to: Message 79 by Robert Byers
05-12-2011 2:00 AM

Clean and Unclean Animals ...

Is the clean referring to the 'kosher' animals? Or did that get defined later on?

If it IS as the above then there are mammals on the unclean list (pigs, bats, ... probably some more).

Your post suggest you are happy with the fossil record as a source of chronology of species, in which case why are there no human remains alongside dinos if they co-existed? Some dinos were about man-sized so hydro-dynamic sorting won't wash there.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 79 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 2:00 AM		Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 3:21 AM	Peter has replied
	Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2011 2:56 AM	Peter has seen this message but not replied

Peter

Member (Idle past 1510 days)

Posts: 2161

From: Cambridgeshire, UK.

Joined: 02-05-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 91 of 93 (615908)
05-18-2011 6:39 AM

Reply to: Message 89 by Robert Byers
05-18-2011 3:21 AM

Re: Clean and Unclean Animals ...

Robert Byers writes:

Peter writes:

Is the clean referring to the 'kosher' animals? Or did that get defined later on?

If it IS as the above then there are mammals on the unclean list (pigs, bats, ... probably some more).

Nothing to do with kosher.
The fossil record simply indicates the creatures living at the time that area with its sediment/life within was fossilized.
The areas that have fossils need only be seen as special segments of the world at that time. so just the wilderness areas and not close to humans. likewise the humans lived in areas overcome and changed by the sediment loads or separation of the continents.
I never expect or want to find humans living with these great assemblages of creatures. Dino fossils are from the wilderness areas on the old earth.
For the record i don't accept there are dinos. Rather there are just kinds and some kinds had like features. they just define the creatures by the few like features. Just as their are no such groups as mammals or reptiles.

Dino, mammal, reptile ... they are just conveniences so that we all understand what we are talking about.

Genetic research is indeed finding areas where supposed relationships may not be as expected (although I always though hippos looked more like whales with legs than anything else ... but that's just me).

Wilderness areas???:

Given the size and supposed strenght of the kinds formerly known as dinosaurs I would find it highly unlikely that man would not have found a way to tame and harness them.

In which case we might expect some artifact of man within the same strata as the kinds formerly known as dinos.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 05-18-2011 3:21 AM		Robert Byers has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	DrJones*, nwr, Tanypteryx
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0