Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 11:19 AM
38 online now:
PaulK, Tanypteryx (2 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,618 Year: 3,655/19,786 Month: 650/1,087 Week: 19/221 Day: 19/36 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Dinosaurs explained biblically
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 107 (21407)
11-02-2002 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NimLore
11-02-2002 4:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by NimLore:
With your last statement I see hope in you yet.

If you are interested in seeing what I believe love to be than look up 1 Corinthians 13:4 to 8
and compare it with 1 John 4:8
I recommend you read the whole chapter of 13 and give it a serious thought session.


They don't answer the question. 1 Corinthians 13:4 to 8 doesn't speak of love at all and 1 John 4:8 is circular and meaningless in this context. Hell, torment, and the devil are made up by those, like you, who want both revenge on their perceived enemies and to feel that hey are superior over those who don't believe as they do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 4:20 PM NimLore has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 5:53 PM nos482 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 107 (21408)
11-02-2002 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by gene90
11-02-2002 5:09 PM


Neanderthals are not a human ancestor.

Not our direct ancestor, but still in the same tree and still interfertile. Their ancestors left Africa before ours did and they evolved along the way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 11-02-2002 5:09 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by djknight, posted 03-27-2009 10:06 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 107 (21409)
11-02-2002 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by gene90
11-02-2002 5:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Neandarthals were inititally assumed by early researchers to be ancestral modern humans and that belief has never really died out, despite the evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

This is a convenient example of how science works; new facts come to light and sometimes cause old ideas to be changed. I think most of the evidence regarding Neanderthals not being our ancestors is from mtDNA extracted from remains. In recent years there has also been a contention about the ultimate demise of the Neanderthals, whether they merely went extinct or whether they interbred with the invading H. sapiens. Again, the evidence is against interbreeding but the issue is still kind of controversal and will continue to be until much more information is collected.


Wouldn't it be more like the invading Cro Magons?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by gene90, posted 11-02-2002 5:26 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 107 (21410)
11-02-2002 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by gene90
11-02-2002 5:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Yes. I suppose you're a bad influence.

Better a bad influence than no influence at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 11-02-2002 5:29 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
NimLore
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 107 (21411)
11-02-2002 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by gene90
11-02-2002 5:09 PM


About the Ica Stones.. Are there tests able to be done that can identify when these stones were carved?
If they are real than obviously some people would try and counterfeit them just like money.. great for tourist trade...
It is just like many of bones in museums are only replicas of the true thing.. So I do not think the Ica Stones can be dismissed as of yet.

And the math of the ark says that 125,000 sheep sized creatures could fit into it.. yet we only have..what.. 18,000 or so identified land animals as of yet.. if any of the creatures that were born from an egg where brought on as eggs they would not need food, and if they were younger like babies than there food intake would be minimal as it is.. and if all the creatures were taken in as babies than.. hmmm... If Moses could survive for 40 days and nights without food or water than the matter of food is a non issue Exodus 34:28, I guess that is the benefit of having faith.

And there are many reasons to believe that dinos and man coexisted, cryptozoology... sure I would think that some accounts are fabricated, but I find it hard to believe all accounts are fabricated...
Let me blow your mind for a moment.. Look at the verse in Revelation 12:9.... I believe that Satan could very well have been a dinsoaur... HAHAHA I can just imagine your thoughts now...
Add up the sciptures that allude to it... the reason that "Serpents" are the way they are today is because of a curse.. otherwise I would say dinos would be all over the place unless we killed them...

I most certainly am open to correction if it is due.. and if you think it is due, it does not mean it is true.. You see in my doctrine it states that if you do not believen Christ Jesus as having been on earth, and was crucified to death and than rose again three days later, than I can conclude that you have been deceived and so I do not put much merit in your arguments if you fall in that category.. just as someone else judged me with... You are obviously easily convinced of lies...(now I do not write that to anyone in particular, but everyone in particular that does not believe in the only begotten Son of God)

Concerning fossils and there construction.. everyone of them has to be made very quickly otherwise it is impossible for them to be made.. if a fish or a whale washes on shore and is not covered instananeously with the right amount of waters, minerals and what ever else than it fully decomposes... so the thought of any of them being covered by many thousands of years of sedimentary to fossilise can be scrapped. Correct me if I am wrong, but give me the scientific observation that can challenge that a fossil can be made in that way.

pteradactyls are not dinosaurs? Enlighten me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 11-02-2002 5:09 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 11-02-2002 6:21 PM NimLore has not yet responded
 Message 38 by TrueCreation, posted 11-02-2002 7:07 PM NimLore has not yet responded
 Message 40 by gene90, posted 11-02-2002 10:30 PM NimLore has not yet responded
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 11-03-2002 11:14 AM NimLore has not yet responded
 Message 42 by mark24, posted 11-03-2002 11:27 AM NimLore has not yet responded
 Message 44 by nator, posted 11-03-2002 10:44 PM NimLore has not yet responded

  
NimLore
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 107 (21412)
11-02-2002 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nos482
11-02-2002 5:34 PM


Ok you obviously have no training inside of Koine Greek...
1 Corinthians 13 is about the word Agape.. and that same word is what is in 1 John 4:8 and as well as John 3:16...

[This message has been edited by NimLore, 11-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nos482, posted 11-02-2002 5:34 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nos482, posted 11-02-2002 7:26 PM NimLore has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 107 (21417)
11-02-2002 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NimLore
11-02-2002 5:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by NimLore:
So I do not think the Ica Stones can be dismissed as of yet.

Then you have to provide positive evidence.

quote:
And the math of the ark says that 125,000 sheep sized creatures could fit into it.. yet we only have..what.. 18,000 or so identified land animals as of yet..

18,000? How did you come to this figure?

And please don't confuse 'named species' with 'total species'

Also, why are we restricting this to land animals?

And, lets not forget food, fresh-water, and waste disposal.

quote:
if any of the creatures that were born from an egg where brought on as eggs they would not need food,

Ever notice that not many eggs remain dormant for a whole year. Even if eggs were brought on board, they would hatch within a few weeks or so and then need to eat. That is, if they even hatched. Eggs need the appropriate environment or they die.

quote:
and if they were younger like babies than there food intake would be minimal as it is..

Most animals reach very close to maturity is a year.

quote:
If Moses could survive for 40 days and nights without food or water than the matter of food is a non issue Exodus 34:28, I guess that is the benefit of having faith.

Yes, you get to believe whatever you wish.

quote:
And there are many reasons to believe that dinos and man coexisted, cryptozoology...

No there aren't. There is no evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs and man coexisted.

quote:
Let me blow your mind for a moment.. Look at the verse in Revelation 12:9.... I believe that Satan could very well have been a dinsoaur... HAHAHA I can just imagine your thoughts now...

I feel that it is not my mind that is blown.

quote:
Add up the sciptures that allude to it... the reason that "Serpents" are the way they are today is because of a curse.. otherwise I would say dinos would be all over the place unless we killed them...

Evidence...?

quote:
I most certainly am open to correction if it is due.. and if you think it is due, it does not mean it is true.. You see in my doctrine it states that if you do not believen Christ Jesus as having been on earth, and was crucified to death and than rose again three days later, than I can conclude that you have been deceived and so I do not put much merit in your arguments if you fall in that category..

Translation: Anyone who disagrees is wrong. So much for searching for caring about the truth.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
{Fixed UBB code for one of the quotes, and debolded some of the text in the process - Adminnemooseus}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 5:47 PM NimLore has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 107 (21425)
11-02-2002 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NimLore
11-02-2002 5:47 PM


"Concerning fossils and there construction.. everyone of them has to be made very quickly otherwise it is impossible for them to be made.. if a fish or a whale washes on shore and is not covered instananeously with the right amount of waters, minerals and what ever else than it fully decomposes... so the thought of any of them being covered by many thousands of years of sedimentary to fossilise can be scrapped. Correct me if I am wrong, but give me the scientific observation that can challenge that a fossil can be made in that way."
--Fossils will not decompose quickly at the bottom of lakes in anaerobic conditions. Also, you have an enormous misconception in sedimentology and deposition. After watching all them Hovind videos you must be aware of the concept of uniformitarianism. While you were brainwashed into Hovinds twisted misrepresentation of the concept, the gradual deposition of sediments is sometimes carried out in a catastrophic manor as well. Say by the mechanism of landslides and such. In a mainstream POV, after studying it a bit, you will notice much of the reason why we find various fossils is from burial in lakes and the bottom of other bodies of water.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 5:47 PM NimLore has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 107 (21430)
11-02-2002 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NimLore
11-02-2002 5:53 PM


Originally posted by NimLore:

Ok you obviously have no training inside of Koine Greek...

Training is irrelevant since the vast majority of Christians aren't bible scholars.

1 Corinthians 13 is about the word Agape and that same word is what is in 1 John 4:8 and as well as John 3:16...

Define what you think love is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 5:53 PM NimLore has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1901 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 40 of 107 (21442)
11-02-2002 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NimLore
11-02-2002 5:47 PM


[QUOTE][B]Are there tests able to be done that can identify when these stones were carved?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

No.

[QUOTE][B]If they are real than obviously some people would try and counterfeit them just like money.. great for tourist trade...[/QUOTE]

[/B]

The problem is that there are no "real" examples. There has been no archeaological dig to recover any. The only place to obtain them is to buy them from the people who are carving them. If we sent somebody to dig them up himself rather than buying them from somebody, then it would be different.

[QUOTE][B]So I do not think the Ica Stones can be dismissed as of yet.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

No point in dismissing them because there is no reason to accept them yet. It's a South American cottage industry, carving rocks and selling them to tourists. If Real Science got involved then I would be more likely to take it seriously.

[QUOTE][B].. if any of the creatures that were born from an egg where brought on as eggs they would not need food[/QUOTE]

[/B]

They would, however, need incubation and the right level of humidity.

[QUOTE][B]and if they were younger like babies than there food intake would be minimal as it is..[/QUOTE]

[/B]

What would they be fed? What about the animals that required milk, or regurgitated food from a parent?

[QUOTE][B]If Moses could survive for 40 days and nights without food or water than the matter of food is a non issue Exodus 34:28, I guess that is the benefit of having faith.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I have a better explanation. An alien mothership sucked them all up and put them in cryogenic suspension for fourty days and fourty nights.

That is, as you said, the benefit of having faith.

[QUOTE][B]And there are many reasons to believe that dinos and man coexisted[/QUOTE]

[/B]

How do you explain that lack of overlap in the fossil record?

[QUOTE][B]cryptozoology...[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, of about as much value as astrology and alchemy. Believers in that subject expect us to accept that there are dinosaurs in Loch Ness, yet one never dies, floats up the surface, and stinks up half of Scotland. Likewise, there are ape-men running around in the Pacific Northwest, but no bodies are ever found. Yet despite the fact that human murder victims turn up around national parks all the time, proving that there are essentially no reaches of forest somebody doesn't occasionally wander into.

Cryptozoology is like the Ica Stones. As soon as you bring Nessie to the local aquarium, we will take it seriously, but not before, because there is no other reason to believe there are large, hitherto unknown creatures in a First World nation than some very questionable eyewitness accounts, just as easily explained by a wake, a log, or a seal.

[QUOTE][B]than I can conclude that you have been deceived and so I do not put much merit in your arguments if you fall in that category..[/QUOTE]

[/B]

That sounds like an excuse to ignore anything you find inconvenient to your worldview. If you consider yourself right because you just ignore anything that implies you are wrong, how sure are you that you really are correct?

[QUOTE][B]You are obviously easily convinced of lies[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I have the same opinion of you. Creationists have filled your head with lies about neanderthals, the workings of science, and the fossil record. Yet the scientists here could set you straight, but you already said you will not hear of it. That's not only being convinced of lies, it is remaining willfully ignorant of the way things really are.

[QUOTE][B]Correct me if I am wrong, but give me the scientific observation that can challenge that a fossil can be made in that way.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

It takes centuries for bones to decompose. That's a fact of archeaology. They dig up old remains all the time.

But quick burial happens all the time. Animals drown in a river, their bones sink to the bottom and are covered by sand. They wander into a bog and sink into the mud. They die in the desert and are covered by a dune. They're buried by a mudslide. A volcano erupts and they are engulfed in a pyroclastic flow. Fossilization is more common than most people think.

[QUOTE][B]pteradactyls are not dinosaurs? Enlighten me.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

They're flying reptiles. They're no more dinosaur than lizards you might find in your backyard.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 5:47 PM NimLore has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3274 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 41 of 107 (21455)
11-03-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by NimLore
11-02-2002 5:47 PM


quote:
pteradactyls are not dinosaurs? Enlighten me.

Nimlore,

Pterosaurs are NOT dinosaurs, neither are plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, & icthyosaurs.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html

quote:
Not everything big and dead is a dinosaur. All too often books written for a popular audience include animals such as mammoths, mastodons, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and the sail-backed Dimetrodon. Dinosaurs are a specific subgroup of the archosaurs, a group that includes crocodiles and birds, whereas mammoths and mastodons are mammals. Other archosaurs included the pterosaurs, relatives of dinosaurs but not true dinosaurs. More distantly related to true dinosaurs were the marine plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs. These were marine reptiles, not dinosaurs or even close relatives of them. Dimetrodon is neither a reptile nor a mammal, but a basal synapsid -- that is, an early relative of the ancestors of mammals.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinomm.html

quote:
What is the scientific diagnosis of what is a dinosaur, and what is just another archosaur? Several skeletal characteristics are currently used as diagnostic dinosaurian features. You may also view a large-screen picture (44K gif) of a dinosaur skeleton for a lesson in anatomy.

Some basic dinosaurian modifications to the ancestral archosaurian skeleton: Reduced fourth and fifth digits on the manus (hand); pes (foot) reduced to 3 main toes; three or more vertebrae composing the sacrum (region of the vertebral column which attaches to the pelvis); and an open acetabulum (hip socket; see below). Some of these features were modified during the evolution of later groups, but these features are considered to be synapomorphies, or shared derived features, for the Dinosauria; the first dinosaurs had these features, and passed them on to their descendants.


Hope this helps,

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 5:47 PM NimLore has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by gene90, posted 11-03-2002 2:17 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3274 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 42 of 107 (21456)
11-03-2002 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by NimLore
11-02-2002 5:47 PM


Nimlore,

[B][QUOTE]
Concerning fossils and there construction.. everyone of them has to be made very quickly otherwise it is impossible for them to be made.. if a fish or a whale washes on shore and is not covered instananeously with the right amount of waters, minerals and what ever else than it fully decomposes... so the thought of any of them being covered by many thousands of years of sedimentary to fossilise can be scrapped. Correct me if I am wrong, but give me the scientific observation that can challenge that a fossil can be made in that way.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Incorrect.

Fossils can be formed quickly or slowly, depending on conditions. In fact, there is no real requirement for decay to stop after fossilisation has begun, provided the organic material remains. In most cases fossilisation of, say, vertebrates, requires fairly rare conditions. That is, anoxic, dry, rapid burial, high concentrations of preserving molecules like hydrogen sulphide. Any of the above could allow for burial & subsequent mineralisation. The minerals don't have to be present "in the right amounts" at all, they can be brought in in dissolved form.

For example, the fossilised mummy of Leonardo, a juvenile brachylophosaurus.

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/isgsroot/dinos/judithriver/judithRiverDinosaurs/leonardo/leonardo.html

quote:
"Murphy theorized that the 22-foot brachylophosaurus died on a remote sandbar, inaccessible by predators, which might have scattered the remains. As a result, it dried out in the sun, which preserved its tissue in a leathery fashion until it was buried by earth and then fossilized. The impressions, known as trace fossils, occur when the dinosaur's skin mummifies and over time is replaced by minerals. They are so rare because the conditions had to be just right in terms of sediment and oxygen levels. Otherwise, the animal's soft tissue decays without leaving a trace."

"Leonardo, the mummy Brachylophosaurus, under preparation at the Phillips County Museum. Head and neck in the foreground."

The most important part of fossilisation is the prevention of decay for long enough, so as permineralisation can take place. Can a whale that has been washed up become fossilised? Almost certainly not.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 5:47 PM NimLore has not yet responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1901 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 43 of 107 (21458)
11-03-2002 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by mark24
11-03-2002 11:14 AM


Isn't Nessie supposed to be a pleisiosaur? That would make using it as "evidence" of recent dinosaurs useless. Guess that leaves them with Mokele-Mbembe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 11-03-2002 11:14 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 107 (21478)
11-03-2002 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NimLore
11-02-2002 5:47 PM


OK, we have had a detailed discussion some months ago about the specifics and logistics of feeding animals on the ark. Nimlore, perhaps you would like to read through the thread and comment?

In particular, John Paul and I had a disussion of how just how much food and fresh water two horses would have required to survive for an entire year.

The thread is in the "Geology and the Flood" topic, and it's called "Animals on the Ark".

Review messages #9, 15, 29, 53, 54, 55, 63 for the horse feeding discussion

Review messages #58, 64, 93, 96 for general ark construction and flood myth problems.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 5:47 PM NimLore has not yet responded

    
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 107 (21503)
11-04-2002 6:39 AM


quote:
.. You see in my doctrine it states that if you do not believen Christ Jesus as having been on earth, and was crucified to death and than rose again three days later, than I can conclude that you have been deceived and so I do not put much merit in your arguments if you fall in that category.

OK, Nimlore - lets have a proper look at this shall we?

Firstly, since I do believe that Our Lord became incarnate, was crucified, died and was buried, and rose again on the third day, you can't use this to ignore the points I make, which, scientifically, are by and large exactly the same as those made by non-believing scientists. This, in turn, strongly implies that Christian belief doesn't actually have any effect whatsoever on the validity of one's scientific statements.

Secondly, it's clear that you associate Christian belief with creationism. Well, whatever floats your boat. But please don't try to make it compulsory for the rest of us, there's a good chap. Your association of faith with Biblical literalism puts an intellectual stumbling block in front of people. And then you start stamping your little foot that people can't just throw their brains away and become YECs. You effectively disrail any attempt to make the Faith credible at an intellectual level.

[This message has been edited by Karl, 11-04-2002]


  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019