Does the existence of dinosaurs cause a kink in the theory of creationism? Or, is it simply a convenient omission from the Bible? How do you explain dinosaurs from the confines of religion and creationism? Are you of the mindset that dinosaurs are simply an elaborate hoax?
they cant co-exist.
Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-07-29 15:38:46)
Creationism isn't more real than flying seals, thats how they co-exist
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
Some Creationists would say that missing links in the evolutionary chain of man changing from apes to man are kinks in the theory of evolution.
I have no idea what you're trying to say, Sh1fty2k5
Personally I agree that they can not co-exist, and I say that as a firm believer in God. I feel that evolution was guided by God. As for the omission of dinosaurs from religious texts, I've never looked at religious texts as anything other than metaphor anyway. As products of man, they can not be perfect works of literature. Perfect products of religion, perhaps, but religion is purely a concept of man to explain and understand God.
As to why we don't see hybrids today, I have two simple explainations to that, one of which appeals purely to science, the other is explained by the "divine evolution" theory I hold.
one - the entire concept of evolution is the theory of species adapting to better suit their environment. The environment monkeys now inhabit is better suited to their physiology than a human's. They are better equipped to function in the limbs of trees.
two - as evolution was guided by God in my opinion, this is easily explained by just that. It was and is being controlled and guided.
Personally I agree that they can not co-exist, and I say that as a firm believer in God. I feel that evolution was guided by God. As for the omission of dinosaurs from religious texts, I've never looked at religious texts as anything other than metaphor anyway. As products of man, they can not be perfect works of literature. Perfect products of religion, perhaps, but religion is purely a concept of man to explain and understand God.
Some would say that we are still evolving.SEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
As to why we don't see hybrids today, I have two simple explainations to that, one of which appeals purely to science, the other is explained by the "divine evolution" theory I hold.
one - the entire concept of evolution is the theory of species adapting to better suit their environment. The environment monkeys now inhabit is better suited to their physiology than a human's. They are better equipped to function in the limbs of trees.
two - as evolution was guided by God in my opinion, this is easily explained by just that. It was and is being controlled and guided.
Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-07-29 15:07:35)
when the bible was written they weren't out digging up dinosaurs
if you lived a couple thousand years you might see it happenSEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
Does anyone answer the actual question? Science doesnt proclaim to know everything. Creationism on the other hand...Big McLargehuge wrote:
Some Creationists would say that missing links in the evolutionary chain of man changing from apes to man are kinks in the theory of evolution.
which does nothing but support that the bible was a fabrication of man to explain what we then knew rather than a religious text handed down by God to answer the questions of the history and genesis of the world. It was written of the first time man was said to exist and was subsequently wiped out. Why would it not also be written of a previous dominating species on the planet that was wiped out?SEREMAKER wrote:
when the bible was written they weren't out digging up dinosaurs
uh....creationism COULD have created dinosaurs and they just died off? so...im still kinda missing why they could not have coexisted
as I said in the original post - they are omitted from religious texts. Why is this? They also in and of themselves provide very compelling examples of evolution within their own time on this Earth.
EDIT: Also, creationism subscribes to a school of thought that all events on the planet are monitored, controlled, and the product of God. For that to be the case, he would have destroyed them. Certainly for reasons pertinent enough to be passed on to future stewards of this Earth.
EDIT: Also, creationism subscribes to a school of thought that all events on the planet are monitored, controlled, and the product of God. For that to be the case, he would have destroyed them. Certainly for reasons pertinent enough to be passed on to future stewards of this Earth.
Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-07-29 15:15:20)
are you willfully ignorant or just stupidSEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
Young earth creationists believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together. In job he mentions a 'behemoth' and some think that it was a dinosaur. Heres a link to some creationist stuff.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
yea, but to what extent of evolution? its not like a huge big t-rex turned into a flying dinosaur, they may have changed a little such as the teeth or something like that, and thats called macro and micro evolution, there are differences, and not all creationists say that evolution doesn't happen, because it does, just not to the extent that evolutionists think, just a thought
Science doesn't shows that we came from a "monkey". It shows that the 4 different species evolved from one species; orangutans evolved from it, as well as gorillas, apes, and humans (don't confuse the word monkey with ape). Depending on the enviroment were in will depend if we evolve at all. It's called survival of the fitest or natural selection. To see a big difference in physical traits evolve doesn't take thousands of years, but millions of years.
the fact that we are able to witness micro evolution seems to lead to a natural conclusion that macro evolution must then exist, does it not? On a large enough scale, multiple micro evolutionary events would seem to produce one macro evolutionary step, would it not?
no, actually, it hasnt ever happened, if youre talking about dinosaurs, we have seen that there were micro evolutionary changes, but they never jumped into another species, so....it hasnt happened yet, it MAY of happened, but there is NO proof, so until then, no, it woud not produce a macro evolutionary step
that's rather a function of your definition though, isn't it? If you see another species become prevailent at the same time another is on its decline or shortly thereafter, and they exibit similarities, that could be interpreted as a macro-evolutionary step. If you then define that as simply the creation of another species, then that is a self-defeating definition which can not be overcome as a function of it's design.
I guess we will all have to wait till BF2142 comes out to see how the future will be........
If we evolved from monkeys does that mean it is OK to throw poop back at them while at the zoo?SEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
and so the thread deteriorates
and yet it seems like some people do not under stand the simple theory behind evolution.PuckMercury wrote:
the fact that we are able to witness micro evolution seems to lead to a natural conclusion that macro evolution must then exist, does it not? On a large enough scale, multiple micro evolutionary events would seem to produce one macro evolutionary step, would it not?
but has there ever been a new species sprouting when a similar species died off? if there was, fine, im not looking for an arguement or a flame war, im just trying to show you another pov, and i am not aware of a circumstance in which a new species sprouted when another recently died off
I didn't take it that you were. I was challenging your posted logic, not you specifically.
Look at Archaeopteryx.
Look at Archaeopteryx.