Ugh... You can't just mix and match to make your own religion if the ideas involved are DIRECTLY contradictory. The Bible says the Earth was CREATED and the animals were CREATED. To believe otherwise is to say the Bible is false. To believe in something that you know is false at the same time is not only sacreligous, but also psychologically wrong.Originally posted by: fluxquantum
i happen to be catholic. i do believe in evolution and i do believe that dinosaurs existed. for those who don't believe that is their freedom to do so. it's really difficult trying to convince them otherwise.
Well, its description is pretty accurate. What else do we have a record of today that has a tail like that of a tree trunk?Originally posted by: Tominator
Amazing!
We have no dinosaur bones. We have fossils!
Even if one were to prove a timeline of earth's existence, which is presently impossible, it is purely speculative when dinosaurs actually lived and the reason they died out.
The Bible describes 'behemoths' and other unexplained animals. No explanation is given.
Remember all the posters in school. The ones showing an ape and it's stages to becoming human? It was a lie and science has proven itself wrong so many times to lean on it as proof one way or the other is laughable at the least yet promotes theories as fact.
I do not know and neither do you!
Originally posted by: Tominator
Amazing!
We have no dinosaur bones. We have fossils!
Even if one were to prove a timeline of earth's existence, which is presently impossible, it is purely speculative when dinosaurs actually lived and the reason they died out.
The Bible describes 'behemoths' and other unexplained animals. No explanation is given.
Remember all the posters in school. The ones showing an ape and it's stages to becoming human? It was a lie and science has proven itself wrong so many times to lean on it as proof one way or the other is laughable at the least yet promotes theories as fact.
I do not know and neither do you!
The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include an additional twelve books known as the Apocrypha.)
The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.
The composition of the various books began in about 1000 B.C. and continued for more than a thousand years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods and were usually unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."
No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations were made to the originals by various copyists and editors.
Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. In spite of what the Gospel authors say, biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness to his ministry.
Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of multiple authorship.
Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories--stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional--were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.
The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.
Originally posted by: Linflas
The fossil record now extends back into the Precambrian with some of the oldest in the range of 3.5 billion years old. To focus solely on dinosaur fossils obscures the extent and breadth of the fossil record of earths history.
Originally posted by: Tominator
Amazing!
We have no dinosaur bones. We have fossils!
Even if one were to prove a timeline of earth's existence, which is presently impossible, it is purely speculative when dinosaurs actually lived and the reason they died out.
The Bible describes 'behemoths' and other unexplained animals. No explanation is given.
Remember all the posters in school. The ones showing an ape and it's stages to becoming human? It was a lie and science has proven itself wrong so many times to lean on it as proof one way or the other is laughable at the least yet promotes theories as fact.
I do not know and neither do you!
Originally posted by: CZroe
Originally posted by: Linflas
The fossil record now extends back into the Precambrian with some of the oldest in the range of 3.5 billion years old. To focus solely on dinosaur fossils obscures the extent and breadth of the fossil record of earths history.
The fossil record does not reflect time, periods, or eras of any kind. There is no PROVEN dating method except the sheer impossibility fo rthe solar system to have sustained itself for even 1 billion years. If I provided an infinite sized cup of water that is leaking 3 drops per year with no information as to how much was in it to begin with and I ask "how old it is based on the level of water it currently contains?" this is how an evolutionist using carbon dating would do it:
He would estimate USING EVOLUTIONARY THEORY how old another infinite sized cup is, measure the water content, compare it to the cup I gave him and provide an estimate.
There is no way to know how much of the measured substance was there to begin with.
There is no way to know how fast it truly decomposes.
There is no way to know if the decomposition rate has been altered.
There is no way to know how old a previously existing sample is based on the content of a "new" sample today because both samples never had the same "level" of "water"
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Since science has confirmed that modern birds are the direct decendants of dinosaurs, there is simple proof that they existed.
They were delicious, and prehistoric pre-cambian trailer dwellers ate them, and scattered their bones around the sites of the
Jurassic Colonel Pre-Sanders parking lots.
You forget that the flood has scientific evidence. The correct origin may not exist, but the Bible's roots can be traced much farter back than that of any other manuscript in existance, predating all other writings. It has yet to be proven wrong on ANY count, and so far stands by its promise as being the one true record of mankind's creation.Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Tominator
Amazing!
We have no dinosaur bones. We have fossils!
Even if one were to prove a timeline of earth's existence, which is presently impossible, it is purely speculative when dinosaurs actually lived and the reason they died out.
The Bible describes 'behemoths' and other unexplained animals. No explanation is given.
Remember all the posters in school. The ones showing an ape and it's stages to becoming human? It was a lie and science has proven itself wrong so many times to lean on it as proof one way or the other is laughable at the least yet promotes theories as fact.
I do not know and neither do you!
I would rather trust a method that works to solve it's own imperfections than rely on the supposed perfections of:
The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include an additional twelve books known as the Apocrypha.)
The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.
The composition of the various books began in about 1000 B.C. and continued for more than a thousand years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods and were usually unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."
No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations were made to the originals by various copyists and editors.
Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. In spite of what the Gospel authors say, biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness to his ministry.
Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of multiple authorship.
Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories--stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional--were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.
The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.
Originally posted by: joohang
Originally posted by: Tominator
Amazing!
We have no dinosaur bones. We have fossils!
Even if one were to prove a timeline of earth's existence, which is presently impossible, it is purely speculative when dinosaurs actually lived and the reason they died out.
The Bible describes 'behemoths' and other unexplained animals. No explanation is given.
Remember all the posters in school. The ones showing an ape and it's stages to becoming human? It was a lie and science has proven itself wrong so many times to lean on it as proof one way or the other is laughable at the least yet promotes theories as fact.
I do not know and neither do you!
Are you trying to say that radiometric dating is flawed? I don't think that it matters whether those are actually "dinosaurs" or not. Yes, they are fossils. And yes, they are damn old. Even if our current science sucks donkey balls and is off by 1000% in accuracy, those bones are dated to be older than 5000 years.
Scientists do not promote theories as a fact. Talk to any good scientist and he or she will tell you that a theory is a theory, but it is called a theory because its foundations are very solid. Newtonian Physics, for instance, has its flaws but it is still taught and widely used even today because it works well in most situations. It is true that many theories have their flaws but that does not necessarily mean that they are "wrong." They are more likely to be incomplete.
You can look with a satellite from space and detect the Earth as a "hot spot" giving off more heat than it receives.
Originally posted by: globalstud
I have "faith" that dinosaurs existed.
Although my "faith" had tangible evidence, I won't dismiss others that have "faith" in stories.
Originally posted by: globalstud
You can look with a satellite from space and detect the Earth as a "hot spot" giving off more heat than it receives.
You've been looking at the Jovian stats dumbass.
Originally posted by: CZroe
Originally posted by: globalstud
You can look with a satellite from space and detect the Earth as a "hot spot" giving off more heat than it receives.
You've been looking at the Jovian stats dumbass.
No, Creation Research Institute semenars.
Originally posted by: baffled2
Do you belive that Dinosaurs once existed?
Heck, they exist now, if you need prooof just look at Harvey and Russ
Originally posted by: globalstud
CZ, maybe you should check out this
Originally posted by: CZroe
"Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable, and in practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if it can be checked by some historical means."
Carbon dating ISN'T as reliable as even you think joohang
"It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this scheme."
It can't measure "stone" as you say at all. If all the preserved organic plant or animal has been replaced by minerals as old as the entire earth, would they not all date nearly the same?