Precisely.GotMex? wrote:
The religion in question was created a couple thousand years ago. They had no clue about prehistoric times and the existence of dinosaurs, thus, they didn't think to incorporate it into the creation of their religion... The scope of their history was rather limited since most of the animals and humans resemble modern day animals and humans. Their "time before time" probably only meant a few hundred to a few thousand years. Small flaw huh...
If people decided to create these religions now a day, you would probably see stuff about dinosaurs, and all of that stuff physics people have discovered. You know, to cover all their bases.
ive gotten into a debate about dinosaurs with several religious people, diffrent christian beliefs. almost all of them said the same thing, "THE DEVIL PUT IT THERE TO PUT A HOOD OVER YOUR EYES AND KEEP YOU FROM SEEING THE TRUTH OF OUR LORD".
you can't fight that generic reply, cause they can say it for everything and believe themself to be correct. of course, funny enough, everyone of them immediately came to the conculsion that I was obviously doubting that there is a god, because I dared to bring up the dinosaurs.
you can't fight that generic reply, cause they can say it for everything and believe themself to be correct. of course, funny enough, everyone of them immediately came to the conculsion that I was obviously doubting that there is a god, because I dared to bring up the dinosaurs.
i think if ur not Christian, you shouldnt speak for them. ffs
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
I'm Catholic. I'm not a bible thumping expert but this is my idea, not belief (watch Dogma). I think the theory of evolution is valid. I don't think the bible's creation story is. Historically, Genesis was written during the Israelites exile in Babylon. The Babylonians already had a very similar creation story in their religion. Therefore it can be guessed that a Jewish scribe might have taken note and decided that the Jewish faith needed a story of creation to call their own.
What I think is a better explanation is 'intelligent intervention'. That being that God influence the course of Earth's history in order for man to come about. Scientific data shows that the chances of humans rising to existence and even the odds of the right conditions for the creation of life at all falling into place are next to zero.
Believe what you want. This is just what I think
What I think is a better explanation is 'intelligent intervention'. That being that God influence the course of Earth's history in order for man to come about. Scientific data shows that the chances of humans rising to existence and even the odds of the right conditions for the creation of life at all falling into place are next to zero.
Believe what you want. This is just what I think
Last edited by Ganko_06 (2006-11-30 08:07:11)
But this is the young Earth theory. Yes, these people play off the fact that one day is equal to 1000 years, which is why they claim the earth isn't more than 7-10K years old. There is way too much evidence that would indicate that the Earth and the fossils that have been found are far older than that. To counter that the religious groups try to discredit the accuracy of the dating methods that science uses.LaidBackNinja wrote:
If I were Christian I would go with this one.dubbs wrote:
Some Christians believe that the measurement of a day could have been a lot longer. This comes from a different passage in the Bible that says a 1000 years is like a day to God. It basically is saying that God is greater the time itself, and exist outside of time. Thus, a day could have been 1000 years, or any given amount of time. With that being explained, this group of people believe that dinosaurs could have lived, and died during the creation story.
This has actually been debated to death in the Debate and Serious Talk forum.
The story about Adam and Eve is a metaphor, there are lots and lots of those in the Bible. This particular metaphor can mean many things, like for example that man and woman are parts of each other, that they are only truly complete when together. But thats not the point here, if you want to learn more about it talk to your local priest.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
How do religious people explain dinosaurs?
Wernt Adam and Eve like the first living things ever created? If not were they created after the dinosaurs, must have been right cause if the dinos went extict surely humans would? That would mean Dinosaurs disprove even more of the bible right??
As for that disproving the bible, well a metaphor dosen't mean adam and eve actually existed. Its not the point of this passage in the bible to actually say how life came to be on the earth, but to show the relation of man and woman. Dinosaurs are not mentioned anywherein the bible, and that dosen't mean the bible denies their existance. It just dosen't talk about them.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Which should make ppl question why the testament was changed in the first place.....BolvisOculus wrote:
Well, the Bible isn't meant to be taken as absolute fact, especially the Old Testament (in the Christian religion). It's more guidlines as to how to live your life, and a lot of it is taken from the New Testament.
It was originally called The Testament, not The Testament revision 1 ( it was meant to be an end all and be all). But was changed to be new and improved, and marketted to the sheep. Who do take it in.
There is no place I am aware of that in all the Bibles that says Dinosaurs didn't exist. The idea that fossils were placed on Earth to test Man's faith is one concocted by a human(s) to defend religion against science. lol Science was God's idea in the first place.
The biggest problem with this R v E debate is the assumption that the Bibles are literal documents and that one Day in Genesis equals a standard earth day. The simple test is this.
"God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." OK the next line after those establishes what may be interpretted as "physical" days.
Now that whole exercise explained in the first sentences probably took trillions of years but I don't think the concept of "trillion" was "invented" by humans in 4000 BC. We have a tenfold vocabulary than they did so we can be more specific about things. So how would they write it? Metaphorically.
The concept of "Day" is often used to express a passage of time not 24 hours on the clock. I am not an anthropoblblioevolutionist researcher so the translation of "Day" in the old documents to English may have many meanings. There are frequent references to long passages as a "Day".
If religion is addressing the spiritual realm then how can it be measured in physical terms? It can't so people use metaphors, analogies, parables to address it. In the "Old Testament" God is credited with directing that Mankind be scientific ("go number and name the things of the world") then Solomon is credited with revealing God's wisdom by stating "there is nothing new under the Sun, no not one thing". This basically says Man is a noob. Noobs get confused in the face of fast paced or overwhelming odds or data and attempt to make rules to protect themselves from the vastness of existence.
There is no need to compare or contrast religion vs evolution because the two address different realms. Religion explains Man's spiritual path and the health and feeding of the eternal soul where science focusses on the physical universe.
For me I have decided not to form an opinion, or memorize someone else's, about the perception of contradiction between Religion and Science. I will just wait and see.
You are gods, define your world. <--- Jesus and Moses pretty much said it all with those ideas.
The biggest problem with this R v E debate is the assumption that the Bibles are literal documents and that one Day in Genesis equals a standard earth day. The simple test is this.
"God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." OK the next line after those establishes what may be interpretted as "physical" days.
Now that whole exercise explained in the first sentences probably took trillions of years but I don't think the concept of "trillion" was "invented" by humans in 4000 BC. We have a tenfold vocabulary than they did so we can be more specific about things. So how would they write it? Metaphorically.
The concept of "Day" is often used to express a passage of time not 24 hours on the clock. I am not an anthropoblblioevolutionist researcher so the translation of "Day" in the old documents to English may have many meanings. There are frequent references to long passages as a "Day".
If religion is addressing the spiritual realm then how can it be measured in physical terms? It can't so people use metaphors, analogies, parables to address it. In the "Old Testament" God is credited with directing that Mankind be scientific ("go number and name the things of the world") then Solomon is credited with revealing God's wisdom by stating "there is nothing new under the Sun, no not one thing". This basically says Man is a noob. Noobs get confused in the face of fast paced or overwhelming odds or data and attempt to make rules to protect themselves from the vastness of existence.
There is no need to compare or contrast religion vs evolution because the two address different realms. Religion explains Man's spiritual path and the health and feeding of the eternal soul where science focusses on the physical universe.
For me I have decided not to form an opinion, or memorize someone else's, about the perception of contradiction between Religion and Science. I will just wait and see.
You are gods, define your world. <--- Jesus and Moses pretty much said it all with those ideas.
nicely put.OpsChief wrote:
There is no place I am aware of that in all the Bibles that says Dinosaurs didn't exist. The idea that fossils were placed on Earth to test Man's faith is one concocted by a human(s) to defend religion against science. lol Science was God's idea in the first place.
The biggest problem with this R v E debate is the assumption that the Bibles are literal documents and that one Day in Genesis equals a standard earth day. The simple test is this.
"God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." OK the next line after those establishes what may be interpretted as "physical" days.
Now that whole exercise explained in the first sentences probably took trillions of years but I don't think the concept of "trillion" was "invented" by humans in 4000 BC. We have a tenfold vocabulary than they did so we can be more specific about things. So how would they write it? Metaphorically.
The concept of "Day" is often used to express a passage of time not 24 hours on the clock. I am not an anthropoblblioevolutionist researcher so the translation of "Day" in the old documents to English may have many meanings. There are frequent references to long passages as a "Day".
If religion is addressing the spiritual realm then how can it be measured in physical terms? It can't so people use metaphors, analogies, parables to address it. In the "Old Testament" God is credited with directing that Mankind be scientific ("go number and name the things of the world") then Solomon is credited with revealing God's wisdom by stating "there is nothing new under the Sun, no not one thing". This basically says Man is a noob. Noobs get confused in the face of fast paced or overwhelming odds or data and attempt to make rules to protect themselves from the vastness of existence.
There is no need to compare or contrast religion vs evolution because the two address different realms. Religion explains Man's spiritual path and the health and feeding of the eternal soul where science focusses on the physical universe.
For me I have decided not to form an opinion, or memorize someone else's, about the perception of contradiction between Religion and Science. I will just wait and see.
You are gods, define your world. <--- Jesus and Moses pretty much said it all with those ideas.
OK you are wrong in several ways, the bible does not claim that God made man first, He made man LAST, and i would also like to ask how you can say dinosaurs existed before man and the other animals. there are many fossil records with both Dinos and present day creatures next to each other.
BTW- science mostly SUPPORTS CREATION... if one takes an UNBIASED look at the fossil record it is VERY inconsistent. it does not prove much for either side, evolution or creation... and so far no distinct "missing link" has been found. yes they have found some strange extinct creatures but no missing links. THEY HAVE NEVER FOUND A CREATURE IN THE PROCESS OF MUTATING, and if the animals had to make all those mutations from a worm to a human you should be able to find millions of missing links... even Darwin said that if no missing links where found then his THEORY was incorrect... we haven't found the missing links...
evolution= failed
BTW- science mostly SUPPORTS CREATION... if one takes an UNBIASED look at the fossil record it is VERY inconsistent. it does not prove much for either side, evolution or creation... and so far no distinct "missing link" has been found. yes they have found some strange extinct creatures but no missing links. THEY HAVE NEVER FOUND A CREATURE IN THE PROCESS OF MUTATING, and if the animals had to make all those mutations from a worm to a human you should be able to find millions of missing links... even Darwin said that if no missing links where found then his THEORY was incorrect... we haven't found the missing links...
evolution= failed
Wrong. Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author of the first five books of the old testament. These books known as the Pentateuch (meaning "five volumed book"), were referred to in Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the Law of Moses . Moses was never exiled in Babylon. When he fled Egypt after killing a man, he went to Midian which was located in the southeastern Sinai and west central Arabia, flanking the eastern arm of the Red Sea. After Moses Led the Exodus out of Egypt, The Jewish people wandered the countryside for 40 years before entering the promised land. Moses was not permitted to enter the promised land and so died on Mt Nebo in Moab.Ganko_06 wrote:
Historically, Genesis was written during the Israelites exile in Babylon.
why don't you read the bible then come back and post you retarded twit... the names Old and New testament come from the fact that the word testament is used with the meaning of "covenant" as in an agreement between God and His people, the Old testament covers the period before the time of Christ and God's covenant with Mosses and the Hebrews, The New testament covers the Life of Christ, who came into this world to bring us the new covenant: salvation through the Catholic Church.JaggedPanther wrote:
Which should make ppl question why the testament was changed in the first place.....BolvisOculus wrote:
Well, the Bible isn't meant to be taken as absolute fact, especially the Old Testament (in the Christian religion). It's more guidlines as to how to live your life, and a lot of it is taken from the New Testament.
It was originally called The Testament, not The Testament revision 1 ( it was meant to be an end all and be all). But was changed to be new and improved, and marketted to the sheep. Who do take it in.
so i advise that you know what you are talking about b4 you open you mouth... so that you don't display you ignorance...
I've always wondered if there is no such thing as evolution, how do they explain dogs? I mean, we all know that our dogs came from wolves and were breed for different traits or whatever. Doesn't that EXACTLY prove that EVOLUTION is non-disputable?
I disagree with religion. Especially those based on fear. "If you do this, you'll suffer for eternity. If you don't do this, you'll suffer for eternity." I mean I can understand wanting to give people morals and such, but when more than one religion surfaces, and they confilct, what then? Holy wars? Who's to say Islam is right and Budhism wrong? Obviously whole continents of people are going to suffer for eternity, merely because of where they were born and what their parents belived in. The way I see it, religion is 99% demographic. That alone makes me dissagree with any and all religions.
I disagree with religion. Especially those based on fear. "If you do this, you'll suffer for eternity. If you don't do this, you'll suffer for eternity." I mean I can understand wanting to give people morals and such, but when more than one religion surfaces, and they confilct, what then? Holy wars? Who's to say Islam is right and Budhism wrong? Obviously whole continents of people are going to suffer for eternity, merely because of where they were born and what their parents belived in. The way I see it, religion is 99% demographic. That alone makes me dissagree with any and all religions.
Last edited by King_County_Downy (2006-11-30 09:49:05)
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
I can not give you the answer you all are looking for but I can say that God Created Heaven and Earth 6000 years ago and dinosaurs did in fact exist 6000 years ago I can also tell you that 4000 years ago that there was a flood that only 8 people survived I will give you a hint in the bible it talks about a Flood DO you remember the story Noah’s Ark?? Well if not I will send you to a website that what help any and all people get there questions answered about Dinosaurs and the age of earth. There is Guy By the name of DR. Kent Hovind. HE has a website called drdino.com ( http://drdino.com/downloads.php ) if you go to this website click on the Downloads tab or click on the link it takes your right there at the top of the web page then either right click to save the target or click on the target to stream the video's but there is about 7 videos to watch there about 2-3 hours long but I can assure you if you have 2-3 hours I can assure you some of your questions will be answered. IF you go to google videos and type Kent Hovind you can search for his videos and watch some debates on your questions. IF you do not then I can assure you that none of your questions will be answered and that your only going off your own of faith of what others have told you and what you believe. I have watched this guy and I can assure you he explains the age of earth and dinosaurs the best. The Two best Videos to watch are The " The Age OF Earth" and “The Garden of Eden" IF some are offend by this I will apologize now and if your not then continue to watch the other videos and you might learn something about the bible. And what it has to offer
6000 years ago? That aint right.
Ever heard of Carbon Dating? It's not a new internet dating site that's sweeping the nation.
Ever heard of Carbon Dating? It's not a new internet dating site that's sweeping the nation.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
That can't possibly be right. The last Ice Age was a definite event and it was 10,000 years ago.aib73412 wrote:
I can not give you the answer you all are looking for but I can say that God Created Heaven and Earth 6000 years ago
FAIL...King_County_Downy wrote:
I've always wondered if there is no such thing as evolution, how do they explain dogs? I mean, we all know that our dogs came from wolves and were breed for different traits or whatever. Doesn't that EXACTLY prove that EVOLUTION is non-disputable?
It is called genetics and is an example of micro-evolution... yes it changes slight features about the dog such as appearance and size, but the dog never becomes anything but a dog... they are all still dogs...
but if a dog changes to a cat, that is Macro-evolution and it is impossible in genetics... and it is impossible to have Macro-evolution happen by "random chance" mutations because Newton's second law of thermodynamics states that all things DEGRADE not improve... therefore a positive mutation is impossible...
Last edited by JohnLeavitt (2006-11-30 10:17:31)
Check your sourcesStrngs012 wrote:
Wrong. Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author of the first five books of the old testament...Ganko_06 wrote:
Historically, Genesis was written during the Israelites exile in Babylon.
Wikipedia wrote:
The text of Genesis makes no claim about authorship; the traditional Jewish, and later Christian, belief was that the book was dictated in its entirety by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. For a number of reasons, this view is no longer accepted by most biblical scholars, who instead accept the proposal known as the documentary hypothesis which postulates a redactor, possibly Ezra (5th century BC), compiling from earlier sources. Scholarly debate instead addresses the question whether these earlier sources included a post-exilic production (i.e., post-dating 583 BC), or a product of the Kingdom of Judah under Josiah (7th century BC), or whether some elements might even date back to the United Monarchy (10th century BC).
BTW the earth cannot be older that 20,000 years... here is why: the earth is slowly losing its gravity at the rate of 5% every 100 years... so if the earth is more that 20,000 years old then there would have been more that 10 G's of gravity, and humans can't live in more that 10 g's, life would not be possible... therefore the earth cannot be older thatn 20,000...
So how do you explain rocks that have been carbon dated back to 3 million years ago? Is carbon dating a myth?JohnLeavitt wrote:
BTW the earth cannot be older that 20,000 years... here is why: the earth is slowly losing its gravity at the rate of 5% every 100 years... so if the earth is more that 20,000 years old then there would have been more that 10 G's of gravity, and humans can't live in more that 10 g's, life would not be possible... therefore the earth cannot be older thatn 20,000...
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
carbon dating is BS, example... this guy took a stalactite from the bottom of the Lincoln memorial that had grown there after the memorial had been built... he had it to be carbon dating tested and the result was 5 million years... lol Carbon dating is flawed... MASSIVELY!!!!
Last edited by JohnLeavitt (2006-11-30 10:34:21)
Damn those scientists! They lie to me!
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
that is rediculous. those creationists believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old. so how come dinosaurs werent mentioned in the bible?
http://thatvideosite.com/video/1120
http://thatvideosite.com/video/1120
I missed it somewhere, who said that man was created first? Who said man wasn't? We have no proof either way only evidence to suggest one or the other. The cool thing is it doesn't matter yet.JohnLeavitt wrote:
OK you are wrong in several ways, the bible does not claim that God made man first, He made man LAST, and i would also like to ask how you can say dinosaurs existed before man and the other animals. there are many fossil records with both Dinos and present day creatures next to each other.
BTW- science mostly SUPPORTS CREATION... if one takes an UNBIASED look at the fossil record it is VERY inconsistent. it does not prove much for either side, evolution or creation... and so far no distinct "missing link" has been found. yes they have found some strange extinct creatures but no missing links. THEY HAVE NEVER FOUND A CREATURE IN THE PROCESS OF MUTATING, and if the animals had to make all those mutations from a worm to a human you should be able to find millions of missing links... even Darwin said that if no missing links where found then his THEORY was incorrect... we haven't found the missing links...
evolution= failed
Maybe I am a purist but science must not only conclusively prove something exists is but also conclusively disprove something to be able to make a claim either way. It is unscientific to say to a beiliever you can't prove God so God doesn't exist, that is not a scientific process lol. The argument that there where giant lizards or scaly birds 50 million years ago therefore God doesn't exist isn't a scientific finding, it is a belief system based on perceptions a few "facts" just like religion.
Mr Leavitt while what you say is true science has uncovered evidence that adaptive mutation can occur in a two-generation cycle, in lower multi-celled creatures. None so far as I know, in complex critters like humans have been identified yet.
So which religion is right? I don't want to waste my life with false hopes and blind faith if I'm just going to end up in hell anyways.
And also, why can't animals go to heaven? Isn't that kind of arrogant of us? Why doesn't god care what his other animals do? They don't have any moral expectations?
And why do we have aquatic skin? Our fat attaches to our skin, not to our muscles like all other land mamals. Are we geneticly altered to allow our brains the edge it needs to comprehend self awareness? (as in, we know that we will someday die)
And also, why can't animals go to heaven? Isn't that kind of arrogant of us? Why doesn't god care what his other animals do? They don't have any moral expectations?
And why do we have aquatic skin? Our fat attaches to our skin, not to our muscles like all other land mamals. Are we geneticly altered to allow our brains the edge it needs to comprehend self awareness? (as in, we know that we will someday die)
Last edited by King_County_Downy (2006-11-30 10:45:52)
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it