Dinosaurs

[peregrinerose 0]

Hippos don't have big honkin' tails though do they?

Oh does that ever sound like a bad joke though... 'what do they say about a guy with a big tail??'

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Kennedy 0]

Hippos have a powerful tail? News to me.

To the google machine!

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

By these illustrations God emphasized that if Job could not subdue the great creatures of the world, then he was in no position to question and counsel the God who had made these creatures

Now that we have the power to subdue the great creatures of the world (and drive them to extinction even) can we quit listening

illegible usually

[dropoutdave 0]

A couple of appropriate Bill Hicks quotes:

"You ever noticed how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved? Ya ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks liked He rushed it"

"You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in. He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith." I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. fuckin' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha." [mimes God burying fossils] "I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Now that we have the power to subdue the great creatures of the world (and drive them to extinction even) can we quit listening

It was given as an example in terms he could understand.

[jimmytavino 16]

Quote

What about if God didn´t exist? has any believer wondered that?
If we put faith aside, i have more proof of dinosaurs than God.

..But for years I have wondered,,
Did God create man or did Man create God ????

men and women have been on this planet in an "intelligent " form for over a Million years....
( Ok the Women ARE more intelligent.... but that's for another thread !!! )
This intelligence however was more of a curse than a blessing,,, early on..
Humans "knew"..........
they could "remember",,, could "conceptualize",, and could "modify the environment" I. E. make tools,,, improvise,,in a way different from other species,,, and could communicate with language...in a way different from other species..
However humans are also the most gullible life form on this planet,, By virtue of their "smarts"
they can be easily tricked....or led to believe ANYthing...
Humans.. knew only of their immmediate surroundings,,,, I do not think they could have concieved
the enormity of this planet,, of oceans, of deserts, of mountains,, etc...For sure there were more questions than answers..
Can you imagine how early humans might have thought about things like wind,,,, thunder,. lightning?... Night?? Day??? hahahaha...
So... I sometimes wondered Did man invent God??? in order to have an answer for "the unanswerable"...... it was simple,,,, it WAS some kind of explanation... and it somehow satisfied the normal curiousity of humans....
Of course... the whole concept of GOD.... may have begun 10 or 20 thousand years,,,( before the New testament,, before Jesus Christ,, )during a time when we KNOW there were large human populations,, located on different areas of the planet... including the North and South America continents .... It is very likely (to my optimistic way of thinking)... that These cultures, and clusters of sizable populations,, WERE visited by ( Gasp!! )... extra terrestrials.... hahahaha No really.....!!!! Man would have been so scientifically "dumb" that understanding of these beings would have been overwhelming.... If they came from the sky... If they had power,, and if they SHARED that... then It's likely the Humans would have revered the E. T. s......considered them Gods....
Vehicles for travel,, advanced systems of propulsion
certain high levels of knowledge,, all could have resulted in Humans,,, "Deifying" those visitors....
Yes yes... "Chariots of the Gods"... anyway.. I have often thought that the Mexican BASE site... Cave of the Swallows,,,, is NOT just the result of "ordinary erosion "..... From the first time I saw a diagram of the Subterranian Chasm.... I just KNEW....It was the remants of an E T rocket Launch.... at that site..
The power of the "rocket" vaporized the soft rock...starting at the surface,,, and expanding down and out,,, till the "Cave" was formed..........see what i mean about humans being gullible...?.
I'll admit I AM...!!!!... hahahaha... anyway,, fun to think about...
carry on......

[JackC 0]

Quote

Personally I think that there's no conflict between god and evolution; the bible is not a science book, and contains moral lessons rather than paleontology lessons.

Bill, you keep saying that but it is simply not true. The Bible does indeed attempt to be a science book. It makes existence claims and that puts it firmly in the scientific.

Take the virgin birth for example, Jesus either had a corporeal father or he didn't. There is no morality in this, it is simply a question of cold, hard, scientific fact. As another example, Genesis proposes an explanation for the origin of the universe. This subject we call cosmology and that again is cold hard science.

To say that the Bible is not a science book is blatantly false. It is science book, but most definately it is a diabolically bad science book.

As a book on morals, the Bible is pretty rubbish too. How many people actually think it is morally acceptable to stone adulterers, execute gays, and punish the grandchildren of offenders? People activley ignore the parts they don't like because it doesn't fit with their morals. How can the Bible be the definitive guide when the morals it defines are so repugnant to so many people?

So the Bible fails as a science book, fails as a book on morals, what possible use is left for it?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think that is what can be referred to as 'Blind Faith'

"Blind Faith" - it's a redundant combination of words. "Faith" is supposed to by blind by definition. That means it exists completely and utterly and totally (I can be redundant) without facts or proof.

Isn't that the whole point?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

So I guess god just put on some big dinosaur shoes, and stomped around in the river a few million years ago, knowing we would come by later and find the footprints...

Hey, that "Bigfoot" guy with the carved wooden feet did it for years...

Besides, I would like to think that my God has sense of humor and occasionally likes to have a little fun...

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Did God create man or did Man create God ?

It has been said that if the concept of god didn't exist, man would have had to create it.

Life was so bitterly hard in the past, that the idea of a better after-life for good people was the only thing that kept people going in the current life. It may well be simply a natural human idea, in order to salve our weary, troubled minds. In the same way that some people think that their dead loved-ones communicate with them from the after-life, as is being expressed in a thread in the Women's forum. It may "exist", only because people want it to exist, like rehmwa said, in an earlier post.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Bill, you keep saying that but it is simply not true. The Bible does indeed attempt to be a science book. It makes existence claims and that puts it firmly in the scientific.

Take the virgin birth for example, Jesus either had a corporeal father or he didn't. There is no morality in this, it is simply a question of cold, hard, scientific fact. As another example, Genesis proposes an explanation for the origin of the universe. This subject we call cosmology and that again is cold hard science.

If you read The Bible, it is clear that it was not meant to be a science book. The Bible is primarily a book of history that touches on every aspect of reality. It gives us the big picture. With regards to science, the big picture of the Bible enables us to understand the facts of the present. It’s not meant to tell you how a virgin birth occurred. It just states that it did in fact happen.

Quote

As a book on morals, the Bible is pretty rubbish too. How many people actually think it is morally acceptable to stone adulterers, execute gays, and punish the grandchildren of offenders? People activley ignore the parts they don't like because it doesn't fit with their morals. How can the Bible be the definitive guide when the morals it defines are so repugnant to so many people?

A better understanding of the laws of the time might clear this up. This has been discussed many times before.

Quote

The commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (i.e. the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultery, etc.) was the law of the nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and is not the civil law of any other nation.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I think that is what can be referred to as 'Blind Faith'

"Blind Faith" - it's a redundant combination of words. "Faith" is supposed to by blind by definition. That means it exists completely and utterly and totally (I can be redundant) without facts or proof.

Isn't that the whole point?

I don't agree. Blind faith would be faith in something without any evidence. You may not agree with the evidence that exists because it isn't necessarily scientific but it is historical. Different but still valid. I'm not denying the element of faith but it has foundation. Certainly not blind.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think that is what can be referred to as 'Blind Faith'

"Blind Faith" - it's a redundant combination of words. "Faith" is supposed to by blind by definition. That means it exists completely and utterly and totally (I can be redundant) without facts or proof.

Isn't that the whole point?

I don't agree. Blind faith would be faith in something without any evidence. You may not agree with the evidence that exists because it isn't necessarily scientific but it is historical. Different but still valid. I'm not denying the element of faith but it has foundation. Certainly not blind.

The need for 'evidence' is contrary to 'religious' faith. However, faith can be a good thing that prompts people to good behavior. So I don't necessarily carry a bad connotation with the term "Blind Faith" nor confuse it with being naive or foolish.

Now, "Historical evidence" does sounds like another oxymoron to me, also "historical accuracy", "military intelligence", "fair and balanced" or "Kerry Position". So we can disagree on that part at least.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JackC 0]

Quote

If you read The Bible, it is clear that it was not meant to be a science book. The Bible is primarily a book of history that touches on every aspect of reality. It gives us the big picture. With regards to science, the big picture of the Bible enables us to understand the facts of the present. It’s not meant to tell you how a virgin birth occurred. It just states that it did in fact happen.

Nevertheless, the Bible does encroach in scientific territory. Genesis is a scientific theory and it does not fit the evidence, therefore it is a crap scientific theory. You say the Bible gives us the big picture. I say that on close inspection of the details in your big picture, it's actually a load of bollocks. YMMV.

Quote

A better understanding of the laws of the time might clear this up. This has been discussed many times before.

I somehow knew you would bring this up and therein lies my point. You pick and choose which of gods laws you follow, to do this you have jumped on the division between moral, ceremonial and civil law and descided that some do not apply to you. Does it not bother you that you have to produce ever more convoluted ad hoc reasons why the laws laid down in the Bible somehow don't apply?

Now me on the other hand, instead of all these ad hoc reasons why god wanted this then but not now cos he sent himself to appease himself so that he wouldn't have to throw his creation into the hellfire that he himself created for the expressed purpose of punishing his creation which he actually loves, I just figured that the Bible makes absolute and complete sense if you realise it is grade one bullplop. Again YMMV.

[pajarito 0]

Faith – The assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

We do this all the time.

Blind Faith – Faith without evidence.

This would be superstition.

The Bible does not call anyone to blind faith. The Bible calls one to faith in its evidence.
Like I said before, you may not agree with the evidence but my point is that people do not have to enter into their faith blindly.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Nevertheless, the Bible does encroach in scientific territory. Genesis is a scientific theory and it does not fit the evidence, therefore it is a crap scientific theory. You say the Bible gives us the big picture. I say that on close inspection of the details in your big picture, it's actually a load of bollocks. YMMV.

The Bible tells stories whether you believe them or not. It does not explain scientific theory. By the way, how in your opinion does the story not fit the evidence?

Quote

I somehow knew you would bring this up and therein lies my point. You pick and choose which of gods laws you follow, to do this you have jumped on the division between moral, ceremonial and civil law and descided that some do not apply to you. Does it not bother you that you have to produce ever more convoluted ad hoc reasons why the laws laid down in the Bible somehow don't apply?

We in the US allow abortion as legal. That seems in my opinion to go against the moral law “You shall not kill (the original word is closer to murder).” However, that is just a law that we’ve established here in the US. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the view of any other nation. That in no way undermines the Christian moral law (i.e. 10 Commandments) just because we are primarily a Christian nation. In the same way, a law of the Nation of Israel is simply the law of that nation and is not necessarily a commandment from God.

Quote

Now me on the other hand, instead of all these ad hoc reasons why god wanted this then but not now cos he sent himself to appease himself so that he wouldn't have to throw his creation into the hellfire that he himself created for the expressed purpose of punishing his creation which he actually loves, I just figured that the Bible makes absolute and complete sense if you realise it is grade one bullplop. Again YMMV.

This is a very limited and uneducated view.

[billvon 3,080]

>The Bible does indeed attempt to be a science book. It makes
>existence claims and that puts it firmly in the scientific.

It tells stories. Do you believe that no story has any value if it is not 100% true?

>Take the virgin birth for example, Jesus either had a corporeal father or
> he didn't. There is no morality in this, it is simply a question of cold,
> hard, scientific fact.

And a question of translation. The original hebrew prophesy of Jesus described a normal birth; the greek translation of the same prophesy described a virgin birth. From there the confusion started. Different translations of the works of the apostles imply different things when it comes to whether she was a virgin or not; as documentation of what was originally an oral history, it contains a lot of errors that have accumulated over the years.

>To say that the Bible is not a science book is blatantly false.

It is no more a science book than my "Master Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas" is a book on morals.

>So the Bible fails as a science book, fails as a book on morals, what
> possible use is left for it?

So don't use it. Use the Koran, or learn the Dharma, or any other teaching you choose. Or make up your own. Whatever works for you.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And a question of translation. The original hebrew prophesy of Jesus described a normal birth; the greek translation of the same prophesy described a virgin birth. From there the confusion started. Different translations of the works of the apostles imply different things when it comes to whether she was a virgin or not; as documentation of what was originally an oral history, it contains a lot of errors that have accumulated over the years.

Just a thought concerning translation and the virgin birth.

Virgin Birth

Jay

[jumper03 0]

Quote

I heard from someone the other day that they don't believe dinosaurs ever existed. They are a Creationist and don't believe it was possible for dinosaurs to have lived.

I really don't understand how they can think this way especially since there is so much evidence that dinosaurs did, in fact, walk the earth.

This could be a debate between Creation and Evolution. I'm just thinking this lady is insane and no one else really thinks that way.

What do you think? Do you think dinosaurs really existed?

*jumper blinks, scratches his head, turns and walks away*

I'm not touching it with a ten meter pole. I've already been cast out by half of my family for being a geologist and talking of such. It's sad when you go home and can't talk about what you do because some close minded christians are holier than thou and can do no wrong....

Jump
-------------------

Scars remind us that the past is real

[JackC 0]

In reply to Pajarito

Quote

The Bible tells stories whether you believe them or not. It does not explain scientific theory. By the way, how in your opinion does the story not fit the evidence?

There are many criticisms of Genesis, you have probably read some of them. If not, I'm sure you can drive google.com just as well as me.

Quote

We in the US allow abortion as legal. That seems in my opinion to go against the moral law “You shall not kill (the original word is closer to murder).” However, that is just a law that we’ve established here in the US. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the view of any other nation. That in no way undermines the Christian moral law (i.e. 10 Commandments) just because we are primarily a Christian nation. In the same way, a law of the Nation of Israel is simply the law of that nation and is not necessarily a commandment from God.

You think abortion is morally wrong and you may have a point. Is capital punishment equally wrong?

"You shall not kill". You were in the Army right? No moral dilemma there then?

Quote

This is a very limited and uneducated view.

Thanks. Wanna compare educations?


In reply to Billvon

Quote

It [the Bible] tells stories. Do you believe that no story has any value if it is not 100% true?

Moby Dick is a good story with some interesting lessons, but I don't pray to a white whale.

Quote

Different translations of the works of the apostles imply different things when it comes to whether she was a virgin or not; as documentation of what was originally an oral history, it contains a lot of errors that have accumulated over the years.

Errors in translation, errors in recalling the oral tradition, errors in the science. By extension there must be a good chance of errors in the morality as well?

Quote

It [the Bible] is no more a science book than my "Master Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas" is a book on morals.

Your "Master Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas" doesn't make claims like those who divide by zero should be stoned to death. The bible does make claims about the origin of the universe. Is the origin of the universe a scientific or a moral question?

Quote

So don't use it. Use the Koran, or learn the Dharma, or any other teaching you choose. Or make up your own. Whatever works for you.

Likewise.

I think the Bible makes attempts at science, you don't. So be it.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

There are many criticisms of Genesis, you have probably read some of them. If not, I'm sure you can drive google.com just as well as me.

Right. Tunaplanet did the same thing not too long ago. He “googled” up a top 10 list of supposed Genesis contradictions of the internet not really wanting to discuss the context of any of it. I gave detailed explanations for each in this thread.

Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

If interested, just search for posts made by Tuna and myself. It’s long. Fair warning.

Quote

You think abortion is morally wrong and you may have a point. Is capital punishment equally wrong?

"You shall not kill". You were in the Army right? No moral dilemma there then?

You were generalizing with regard to ancient Jewish laws described in the Bible insinuating that the civil laws of ancient Israel might somehow in and of themselves be handed down by God and, therefore, be representative of Christianity as a whole. I was merely clarifying that they do not and there is a difference between the different laws described particularly in the Old Testament. Those seem to draw the most attention from skeptics. Your question above is simply an attempt at misdirection from what we were discussing in your previous post.

However, in reference to the commandment “You shall not “kill”, the Hebrew meaning of the word translated as "kill" actually means "murder" or "to slay someone in a violent manner unjustly." Fighting and killing the enemy in war is not what was described in the commandment as what not to do. There are rules of war, however, which must be followed.

Quote

Thanks. Wanna compare educations?

You’re probably very smart and have a distinguished educational resume. I just hold a B.S. degree in Management Information Systems from The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) with 8 years work experience in my field and a couple of industry certifications. I’m sure you’re well beyond the undergraduate level. However, without regard to your level of education, your generalizations within this topic of discussion seem elementary and that was what I was referring to.

Added: Just in case you’d like to read up on what the Bible has to say about either of these dilemmas you mentioned. I’ve found these useful.

War

Capital Punishment

[billvon 3,080]

>Moby Dick is a good story with some interesting lessons, but I
>don't pray to a white whale.

And Genesis is a good story with some interesting lessons, but I don't pray to a snake.

>Errors in translation, errors in recalling the oral tradition, errors in the
> science. By extension there must be a good chance of errors in the
> morality as well?

Of course. Heck, there are errors and contradictions in the constitution. But it would be silly to say "Hey, I found an error - therefore the entire constitution is invalid!" The important part is that we believe in it and it works for us, errors, amendments and all.

>Your "Master Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas" doesn't make
> claims like those who divide by zero should be stoned to death.

And the Bible doesn't contain Ohm's law. It would be just as silly to read the bible to find out what resistor to use as to read the handbook to find out about god,

>The bible does make claims about the origin of the universe. Is the
> origin of the universe a scientific or a moral question?

It is both! The behavior of the universe back until T=0 is a scientific question; beyond that it becomes more philosophical (moral, if you will.) It is speculation about the unknown.

[jakee 1,564]

Bill, I'm sure I've seen you post several times about the existence of god where you suggest that god is a sort of vague mystical force that binds the universe together and simply allows it to be. Surely this belief is not compatible with believing the bible to be divinely inspired.

If thats right (and I apologise if its not) then why defend the bible? Without divine inspiration its no more valid than any other book of moral philosophy whether god exists or not.

And you've got to agree that there is some fucked up shit in that book

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,080]

>If thats right (and I apologise if its not) then why defend the bible?
> Without divine inspiration its no more valid than any other book of moral
> philosophy whether god exists or not.

Is the constitution more valid than the Magna Carta? For us it is, because we use the constitution as the framework for our country (errors, contradictions and all) and it works. Similarly, the bible is the framework for many religions out there, and it works. It was written by men, and goes back to a time when information was passed by word of mouth, so it's going to contain errors. It also contains the history of an ancient people that had odd laws, so those are in there. It has also been used as a political tool at times, so _that_ influence is in there.

I don't think everything in the bible is correct. I don't think we should kill all the gays, and I don't think it's OK for soldiers of an invading army to rape all the city's virgins and kill everyone else. But that also doesn't invalidate the rest of it. Its validity rests primarily in its usefulness as a moral guide, and based on the number of people who successfully use it as one, it's a pretty valid one. As I said, there are other sources people might choose, from a host of other religions that they can choose. The bible is one valid one - provided you read it as such a guide and not an astrophysics text.

[tunaplanet 0]

Dinosaurs existed. God/Jesus/Holy Ghost/Santa Clause/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy did not.

Forty-two