independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)PHI said: Dancelot said: wrong assumption to begin with. Me or evolutionists or whoever do not have to accept or to proof ANYTHING about the bible. Only the few people, who for unknown reasons, take Genesis literal, THEY have the burdon of providing evidence. When I see Spiderman and my small human mind and "mans standards" can't explain how one could climb up walls, does that make him God? No. Because I perfectly know it's a story, written by humans. As long as someone quite simply negelects science and just relies on his faith, no problem at all. I respect that position completetly. But the moment that creationists wants to prove their story by using scientific methods, they have to accept scientific counter arguments, and their horrendous fantasies beeing shot down by REAL scientists. Simple thing really. yeah thanks for your honesty, and you are to be comended for you position and your intelligence. Thank you for understanding my point. I really can not comprehend, why some of those who believe in creation, have to prove every little detail about it. I always thought pure faith should be enough. That was religion is about. My guess it that those are NOT so firm in their believes as they claim to be and need something more evident to fight their insecurity. Who knows... “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: PHI said: yeah thanks for your honesty, and you are to be comended for you position and your intelligence. Thank you for understanding my point. I really can not comprehend, why some of those who believe in creation, have to prove every little detail about it. I always thought pure faith should be enough. That was religion is about. My guess it that those are NOT so firm in their believes as they claim to be and need something more evident to fight their insecurity. Who knows... yes pure faith that it did happen is enough for me and i am sorry for my acusing you of something you cant be forced to believe in. (thats kinda of hard to understand, but i think youll get my point.) who are you friends? I dont like 'em! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As many of you know, I'm a Christian, but I want to clarify that not all folks who are of a Judeo-Christian faith agree with the creationist's take on Genesis.
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JediMaster said: As many of you know, I'm a Christian, but I want to clarify that not all folks who are of a Judeo-Christian faith agree with the creationist's take on Genesis.
To me (and this is just my opinion. I'm not trying to bash anyone who believes one way or another), the story told in Genesis is an incredibly simplified one, made for all generations to understand. Look at it this way, if the Bible is the Word of God (which I do believe it to be), it still was written for humankind. To me, the tale told in Genesis is boiled down to the nitty gritty. Its NOT intended to be a blow-by-blow account of the creation story, but rather a sort of cliff notes version that anyone, be they a caveman or a scholar, could get the jist of. God knew that we wouldn't be able to understand all the complexities of it, so he boiled it down to the most simple possible language (would a cave-dwelling early human be able to understand the concept of being a carbon-based lifeform? No. he might, however, grasp the concept of being made from "the dust of the earth"). What is important about this story is NOT whether or not a day to God is 24 hours, but rather that we understand that God created all we see. Its also important that we see the consequences of the actions of the people mentioned in this tale. For centuries, there were scholars of the Torah (many of them contemporaries of Jesus), who did NOT consider that Genesis was dictated to man by God, but rather thought of it as a complex parable where the important details and lessons of creation were taught. Many felt, in fact, that the first THREE books of the Torah should be kept in a seperate section as an addendum to the Torah, and not actually be included as history. Of course, some of the details in all three books were considered true history, mixed in with a healthy dose of metaphor, so it ultimately was left alone. Now, I'm not advocating that everyone go home and tear out Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus (I'm not saying I even 100% agree with this theory), I'm just trying to illustrate the point that even devout scholars have argued that the events in these books were largely educational stories. This hardly makes any of these books "false". In fact, quite the contrary. The information and lessons learned from these books are, in my opinion, divinely inspired wisdom. Science and religion need not be at odds. I've noticed that many creationist and evolutionist spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove each other wrong. Well, fact of the matter is, no one can know for sure all the details of the beginning of the world, or of humankind. God and the universe are so much more complex than we can EVER hope to grasp (be it from religion or science). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but to say you have all the answers is foolish, at best. Many Biblical scholars today disagree on the meaning of Genesis, and many scientist disagree on the anthropic principle. From my point of view, many are missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately, I couldn't care less if Adam & Eve were actually cast out of the Garden of Eden, or whether my ancestors swung from trees. I have a personal relationship with the Living God, and I see the truth in the creation story, regardless of whether it was meant to be taken literal or metaphorically. THAT is what is important, in the long run. I think, as the years go by, science and religion become much closer to one another. They are really looking at the same thing from different angles.  agreed 
I mm Christian myself. And actually I never met someone here in Europe personally that took Genesis word by word, like ED does for example. And this even tough I went to a catholic school and about 98 percent of my friends and family are christians. Is this more of an US thing or something? “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: JediMaster said: As many of you know, I'm a Christian, but I want to clarify that not all folks who are of a Judeo-Christian faith agree with the creationist's take on Genesis.
To me (and this is just my opinion. I'm not trying to bash anyone who believes one way or another), the story told in Genesis is an incredibly simplified one, made for all generations to understand. Look at it this way, if the Bible is the Word of God (which I do believe it to be), it still was written for humankind. To me, the tale told in Genesis is boiled down to the nitty gritty. Its NOT intended to be a blow-by-blow account of the creation story, but rather a sort of cliff notes version that anyone, be they a caveman or a scholar, could get the jist of. God knew that we wouldn't be able to understand all the complexities of it, so he boiled it down to the most simple possible language (would a cave-dwelling early human be able to understand the concept of being a carbon-based lifeform? No. he might, however, grasp the concept of being made from "the dust of the earth"). What is important about this story is NOT whether or not a day to God is 24 hours, but rather that we understand that God created all we see. Its also important that we see the consequences of the actions of the people mentioned in this tale. For centuries, there were scholars of the Torah (many of them contemporaries of Jesus), who did NOT consider that Genesis was dictated to man by God, but rather thought of it as a complex parable where the important details and lessons of creation were taught. Many felt, in fact, that the first THREE books of the Torah should be kept in a seperate section as an addendum to the Torah, and not actually be included as history. Of course, some of the details in all three books were considered true history, mixed in with a healthy dose of metaphor, so it ultimately was left alone. Now, I'm not advocating that everyone go home and tear out Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus (I'm not saying I even 100% agree with this theory), I'm just trying to illustrate the point that even devout scholars have argued that the events in these books were largely educational stories. This hardly makes any of these books "false". In fact, quite the contrary. The information and lessons learned from these books are, in my opinion, divinely inspired wisdom. Science and religion need not be at odds. I've noticed that many creationist and evolutionist spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove each other wrong. Well, fact of the matter is, no one can know for sure all the details of the beginning of the world, or of humankind. God and the universe are so much more complex than we can EVER hope to grasp (be it from religion or science). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but to say you have all the answers is foolish, at best. Many Biblical scholars today disagree on the meaning of Genesis, and many scientist disagree on the anthropic principle. From my point of view, many are missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately, I couldn't care less if Adam & Eve were actually cast out of the Garden of Eden, or whether my ancestors swung from trees. I have a personal relationship with the Living God, and I see the truth in the creation story, regardless of whether it was meant to be taken literal or metaphorically. THAT is what is important, in the long run. I think, as the years go by, science and religion become much closer to one another. They are really looking at the same thing from different angles. agreed
I mm Christian myself. And actually I never met someone here in Europe personally that took Genesis word by word, like ED does for example. And this even tough I went to a catholic school and about 98 percent of my friends and family are christians. Is this more of an US thing or something? I believe so. In fact, I think its more of a fundamentalist thing, dating back to our puritanical roots. Most folks in the US don't really get into it either.
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: JediMaster said: As many of you know, I'm a Christian, but I want to clarify that not all folks who are of a Judeo-Christian faith agree with the creationist's take on Genesis.
To me (and this is just my opinion. I'm not trying to bash anyone who believes one way or another), the story told in Genesis is an incredibly simplified one, made for all generations to understand. Look at it this way, if the Bible is the Word of God (which I do believe it to be), it still was written for humankind. To me, the tale told in Genesis is boiled down to the nitty gritty. Its NOT intended to be a blow-by-blow account of the creation story, but rather a sort of cliff notes version that anyone, be they a caveman or a scholar, could get the jist of. God knew that we wouldn't be able to understand all the complexities of it, so he boiled it down to the most simple possible language (would a cave-dwelling early human be able to understand the concept of being a carbon-based lifeform? No. he might, however, grasp the concept of being made from "the dust of the earth"). What is important about this story is NOT whether or not a day to God is 24 hours, but rather that we understand that God created all we see. Its also important that we see the consequences of the actions of the people mentioned in this tale. For centuries, there were scholars of the Torah (many of them contemporaries of Jesus), who did NOT consider that Genesis was dictated to man by God, but rather thought of it as a complex parable where the important details and lessons of creation were taught. Many felt, in fact, that the first THREE books of the Torah should be kept in a seperate section as an addendum to the Torah, and not actually be included as history. Of course, some of the details in all three books were considered true history, mixed in with a healthy dose of metaphor, so it ultimately was left alone. Now, I'm not advocating that everyone go home and tear out Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus (I'm not saying I even 100% agree with this theory), I'm just trying to illustrate the point that even devout scholars have argued that the events in these books were largely educational stories. This hardly makes any of these books "false". In fact, quite the contrary. The information and lessons learned from these books are, in my opinion, divinely inspired wisdom. Science and religion need not be at odds. I've noticed that many creationist and evolutionist spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove each other wrong. Well, fact of the matter is, no one can know for sure all the details of the beginning of the world, or of humankind. God and the universe are so much more complex than we can EVER hope to grasp (be it from religion or science). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but to say you have all the answers is foolish, at best. Many Biblical scholars today disagree on the meaning of Genesis, and many scientist disagree on the anthropic principle. From my point of view, many are missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately, I couldn't care less if Adam & Eve were actually cast out of the Garden of Eden, or whether my ancestors swung from trees. I have a personal relationship with the Living God, and I see the truth in the creation story, regardless of whether it was meant to be taken literal or metaphorically. THAT is what is important, in the long run. I think, as the years go by, science and religion become much closer to one another. They are really looking at the same thing from different angles. agreed
I mm Christian myself. And actually I never met someone here in Europe personally that took Genesis word by word, like ED does for example. And this even tough I went to a catholic school and about 98 percent of my friends and family are christians. Is this more of an US thing or something? Do you mean, accepting Jesus, born again Christian? You don't seem to take ANY of the Bible word for word (not to mention have a loose grasp of scientific principles) so what can you (Dancelot) trust about the Bible?   "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: the ocean floor rapidly lifting up 6500 feet?? smoothed out earth's surface?? what kinda nonsense is that now?? Did Mount Everest grew to his current height within only 6,000 years? and if all the water came out from under earth's surface with volcanos, the ocean floor would have to SINK down actually, to fill the "vacuum"... anyway, no geologic evidence for all of this garbagae whatsoever, quite the opposite 
dang, do you even read what crap you cut&paste in here? Yeah, by large scale sedimentary deposits. Just like geology shows. Do you have any grasp on science? Again it seems creationists aren't reallly so sure about that subject either. I came across quite a few "explanations" on the "missing water" issue. No consistency whatsoever. Creationists can't even agree with themselves within their OWN pseudo world. Dude, just make it easy on yourself: just say God made the waters by MIRACLE, and also made it disappear again. Don't pretend "scientific" arguments where there are none.
Same with evolution. That's why their called theories....  this is to good to be true! Wherever you copied this one from, it's total and utter bullshit undermining your credibility more and more (wait.. nothing left to undermine really)
First: just 8000 species/genus whatever?!?! Hahaha! the only thing this article proves is the authors total lack of education on bilogy. There are over hundred thousand separate and distinct species of birds and land animals TODAY (most of them unable to crossbreed), and not even counting the much bigger number of already extinct species, not counting dinsoaurs, insects etc. Before, you were always insisting on the species (NOT the genus) and new ones can not come from macro-evolution. So what now? Following creation AND bilogy it's impossible for all of them to come from just 8000. You must not be following biology in mainstream science magazines because I posted on another topic an article from science that stated all dogs came from one wolf kind. You continue to ignor and select evidence as it fits your agenda. "perhaps only 55 different ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs"... again this is absolutely laughable. seems the guy backed this "information" on his kindergarten book on dinsoaurs, that "perhaps" (how scientific and trustworthy his words sound) had 55 types in it. and in the bible there is also no talk of "eggs" taken onto the ark, eggs also can't walk two by two as far as I know. What you will come up next? Perhaps Noah just put DNA inside tubes and cloned all of the species afterwards? those are hilarious fantasies and not backed up by even one quote from the bible. so once again someone is trying to re-write the "word of God" to fit the agenda.
The article was talking about the size of eggs relative to the size of young dino's. It didn't say the eggs walked onto the ark. You're getting really ridiculous here. 
Second: whoever wrote all of that bollox doesn't even know the content of the bible (NOT a vey good starting point I must say
 ) 8000 x 2 = 16,000 yep, that is correct. But remember what you said on the other thread?? It was NOT only two of a kind, but 7.. 9.. clean.. unclean... whatever!! How quick we forget, huh? Oh dear, you're shooting down your OWN arguments, leaving me without a job in here The ark could actually hold 32,000 comfortably. Did you read the post? some more thoughts.. the "male female pair" description of thh bible also fails when talking about insects. you can not take just one pair of bees or ants, you HAVE to take the whole bunch. Just the queen and one male, even without females to take care of the brood, will die soon.
or what about deadly bacteria.. how were they transported without killing humans and animals? but then again probably insects and bacteria were not on the ark according to Genesis... only birds and land animals, am I right? then how did they survive? Genesis says quite clearly that ALL life outside the ark was killed even if you totally forget about the animals. you never explained how the plants survived. where they also on the ark? Space is really getting tight there... Insects were not taken nor plants. They could survive the devastation. Have you seen the "Common Sense for Evolutionists" post? By the way, the Bible states all flesh will die. Thanks Dancelot for pointing out my not being quite clear in speaking of insects. I meant to say that insects were not ordered, per say, to enter into the ark. You won't hear mention of insects in the Genesis account of the flood. Nor were plant species taken on the ark. But insects, plant seeds and spores could have easily been taken inadvertantly. Besides that, some insects could have survived outside the ark. Only flesh in whose nostrils is breath, died. That does not include aquatic species or insects or diseases. In the 100 years Noah spent building the ark (Gen. 5:32 and Gen. 7:6) certainly all kinds of insects and critters got onboard inadvertantly. In a very short time in Spring, my shed out back is filled with a host of them. [Edited 4/7/05 10:32am] [Edited 4/11/05 10:14am] "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: Dancelot said: agreed
I mm Christian myself. And actually I never met someone here in Europe personally that took Genesis word by word, like ED does for example. And this even tough I went to a catholic school and about 98 percent of my friends and family are christians. Is this more of an US thing or something? Do you mean, accepting Jesus, born again Christian? You don't seem to take ANY of the Bible word for word (not to mention have a loose grasp of scientific principles) so what can you (Dancelot) trust about the Bible? Tell y'all the truth, on these boards is the first time I've ever heard tell of dinosaurs on the ark. I mentioned that to my parents in the US over the phone, and they just about fell over laughing - they had never heard it either! Suffice to say, it's interesting to know what different people believe, for whatever reasons. For that matter, P&R kind of helps me keep up with what's going on in the US... especially with the way the religious right seems to be trying to take over everything. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said: Eternaldragon said: Do you mean, accepting Jesus, born again Christian? You don't seem to take ANY of the Bible word for word (not to mention have a loose grasp of scientific principles) so what can you (Dancelot) trust about the Bible? Tell y'all the truth, on these boards is the first time I've ever heard tell of dinosaurs on the ark. I mentioned that to my parents in the US over the phone, and they just about fell over laughing - they had never heard it either! Suffice to say, it's interesting to know what different people believe, for whatever reasons. For that matter, P&R kind of helps me keep up with what's going on in the US... especially with the way the religious right seems to be trying to take over everything. Why would anyone laugh about dino's on the ark? The Bible does say one of every animal. Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different 'kinds' of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably 'teenagers' or young adults. http://www.answersingenes...on_ark.asp "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: Heiress said: Tell y'all the truth, on these boards is the first time I've ever heard tell of dinosaurs on the ark. I mentioned that to my parents in the US over the phone, and they just about fell over laughing - they had never heard it either! Suffice to say, it's interesting to know what different people believe, for whatever reasons. For that matter, P&R kind of helps me keep up with what's going on in the US... especially with the way the religious right seems to be trying to take over everything. Why would anyone laugh about dino's on the ark? The Bible does say one of every animal. Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different 'kinds' of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably 'teenagers' or young adults. http://www.answersingenes...on_ark.asp I guess they just found it absurd, somehow. Maybe imagining a giant Bront tail (I know, they have another name now, but I can't remember it) sticking out of one of the windows? Nevermind, you did a good deed... You gave a couple of old folks a good laugh. We all need more humor and happiness these days.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 ..... BULLSEYE!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: For animals each “kind” would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus” (plural genera), meaning that only about 8,000 animal genera (including some extinct animals), and when multiplying by two, meant that over 16,000 animals had to be aboard. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like ‘kind’, it should be clear that Noah did not have to carry 2 sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine ‘kind’, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!! Are you all of a sudden accepting EVOLUTION? Does Darwin suit your needs only to explain the plausibility of the Ark?
I would like to see any reputable scientist lend credence to the "micro-evolution" of the horse, zebra and donkey from a common ancestor whom Noah rescued from the flood. Furthermore...you neglected to explain how...exactly...the Platypus wound up in Australia from the mountains of Turkey (where the Ark allegedly berthed). And the Kiwi in New Zealand. And the Bison in North America. And the Llama in Peru. And the (now extinct) Giant Sloth in Patagonia. AND by the way...I'd be curious to know how Neanderthal Man and Homo-Erectus Man fits into the Creationist theory. If Prince.Org shuts down, I'm writing SLAVE on my left buttcheek! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleJedi said: Eternaldragon said: For animals each “kind” would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus” (plural genera), meaning that only about 8,000 animal genera (including some extinct animals), and when multiplying by two, meant that over 16,000 animals had to be aboard. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like ‘kind’, it should be clear that Noah did not have to carry 2 sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine ‘kind’, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!! Are you all of a sudden accepting EVOLUTION? Does Darwin suit your needs only to explain the plausibility of the Ark?
I would like to see any reputable scientist lend credence to the "micro-evolution" of the horse, zebra and donkey from a common ancestor whom Noah rescued from the flood. No. I am accepting the scientific fact that animals can and do change WITHIN their species. Much variety exists in each species DNA but it is/was ALREADY there. There is no upward change. Only lateral change. All dog species came from one or two type of created wolf species, all horses from one or two types of created horse species. Just as biology shows. (Science, 22 November 2002 details how all dogs came from a wolf species. A reputable source in answer to your question. I'm sure the same applies to a horse.) But you'll never see a bird turning into a lizard no matter how much time you give a group of birds to mate and reproduce. You'll still always get a bird. Here are some things scientists reported: Chicago Field Museum of Natural History on the topic of ‘macroevolution’. Reporting on the conference in the journal Science, Roger Lewin wrote: "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." Francisco Ayala (Associate Professor of Genetics, University of California), was quoted as saying: … but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate. The fact that this article reaches essentially the same conclusion in the following pages can thus hardly cause it to be regarded as radical. Nevertheless, the vast majority of even well-educated people still persist in ignorance of this. That is, they believe that "Big Change = Small Change x Millions of Years." Furthermore...you neglected to explain how...exactly...the Platypus wound up in Australia from the mountains of Turkey (where the Ark allegedly berthed). And the Kiwi in New Zealand. And the Bison in North America. And the Llama in Peru. And the (now extinct) Giant Sloth in Patagonia.
Same way Indians wound up in America along with all the other species we have here. Most walked. You don't mean to purpose that each continent had it's own evolutionary moments (if we accept the evolutionary theory) all at the same time, do you? A Platypus can tolerate salt water so wouldn't have had to traverse that much land let alone desert to get to Australia. Are you aware of the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South America—almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia?. (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) A fossil find in New South Wales in 1984 indicated the platypus was once a larger animal, with teeth. That find is consistent with other indications that the platypus today has lost information possessed by its more robust ancestor AND by the way...I'd be curious to know how Neanderthal Man and Homo-Erectus Man fits into the Creationist theory.
They were ordinary men. Not hairy cave men that walked slouched down. They fit into the creationists theory quite well as they were not primitive men. "Now that comparable data is available it appears clear that if H. sapiens includes all the people alive in the world today, their ancestors in the Late Pleistocene and “archaic” H. sapiens like Dali and Xujiayao then vault thickness can not be used to distinguish H. erectus from H. sapiens."Brown, P., cranial-vault thickness in Asian Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, in: Franzen, J.L., ed., 100 Years of Pithecanthropus: The Homo Erectus Problem, Courier Forschungs Institut Senckenberg 171, pp. 33–45, 1994. These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and humans. * Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)—150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an "ape-man". It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind. * Ramapithecus—once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape). * Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)—a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years. * Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)—based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay. * Pithecanthropus (Java man)—now renamed to Homo erectus. See below. * Australopithecus africanus—this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like. * Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below). Currently fashionable ape-men These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature. * Australopithecus—there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil "Lucy". However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that ‘Lucy’ and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee. * Homo habilis—there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types—such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an "invalid taxon". That is, it never existed as such. * Homo erectus—many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together. Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, “then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7). "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
both are theories and neither have been proven yet both have strong hypotheses. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SassyBritches said: both are theories and neither have been proven yet both have strong hypotheses.
..... BULLSEYE! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: Dancelot said: agreed
I mm Christian myself. And actually I never met someone here in Europe personally that took Genesis word by word, like ED does for example. And this even tough I went to a catholic school and about 98 percent of my friends and family are christians. Is this more of an US thing or something? Do you mean, accepting Jesus, born again Christian? You don't seem to take ANY of the Bible word for word (not to mention have a loose grasp of scientific principles) so what can you (Dancelot) trust about the Bible? this is my personal matter and not subject of the thread topic, which still remains "common sense for Creationists" but feel free to start another thread on religion, christians, Jesus or whatever and invite me there “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: Yeah, by large scale sedimentary deposits. Just like geology shows. Do you have any grasp on science?
In case you're talking about your twisted world of pseudo scientific fantasies, then yes. I don't get that at all. But I'm in good company No one around does 
Hey, but if you can present geologic proof (not from creationist crapsites) that the ocean floor got lifted up rapidily 6000 feet, I stand corrected. Same with evolution. That's why their called theories...
You have a point here. You must not be following biology in mainstream science magazines because I posted on another topic an article from science that stated all dogs came from one wolf kind. You continue to ignor and select evidence as it fits your agenda.
Stop cut&pasting my posts, stick to your creationist sites
But you're missing the point again. Dang, learn to READ!! Of course, no one denies that dogs came from wolf, that's common knowledge and we often talked about it before. But you constantly mix up species and genus. YOU said many times before, that different "species" went onto the ark. You also said that a new "species" can not come from evolution (and don't make me dig out the old threads). Since there are WAY OVER 8000 species today that can not crossbreed(!) where did they come from?? There was no new creation by God after the first week of Genesis, was it? The article was talking about the size of eggs relative to the size of young dino's. It didn't say the eggs walked onto the ark. You're getting really ridiculous here.
Point missed again. In the bible there is NO talk about eggs on the ark. Actually no word about dinos at all. God did order Noah to bring the animals inside, he never orderd something about eggs. If you take the bible literal then stick to it damit. Why should the writer of genesis - guided by God himslef! - forget about writing about the eggs? What else did he forget then maybe? And on the other hand why should Noah do something God DIDN'T order? The speculation about eggs is irrelevant and however you look at it, someone is very disrespectfully reading things into the bible and therefore putting words into God's mouth. The ark could actually hold 32,000 comfortably. Did you read the post?
You don't get even the most simple contents at all, do you? OK... the calculation is simply FALSE, because: the writer obviously didn't know about the number of animals (i.e. about the content of the bible). In order to do a correct calculation, we would have to know from every animla which one is clean and which one is unclean. THEN you can do the multiplications and see what final result we get. Unless you have a list in Genesis of all the 8000 (in reality much much more!) with exact clean/unclean indications all of your posting is pointless. Ironically this was a reply to my post, when you challanged me that I wouldn't know about the exact number of animals. Right! I don't know. Just like you, the writer of the crapsite or anyone else. Next. Insects were not taken nor plants. They could survive the devastation. Have you seen the "Common Sense for Evolutionists" post?
By the way, the Bible states all flesh will die. See other thread. and about some other points... about the food supply, logistics of loading the ark, feeding and cleaning (all done by 8 people!), plants and insects surviving under water (some can yes, but nowhere all of the existing plants today could!), picking up animals all over the world and bringing them back to their original place after the flood... all of this you ignored
There is enough evidence that it is an inaccurate story, scientifically speaking rubbish, and oh so easily disproven. Every child can see this by just having a glance at the discrepancies in posted lists and links. Why can't you? . [Edited 4/8/05 4:39am] “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: Heiress said: Tell y'all the truth, on these boards is the first time I've ever heard tell of dinosaurs on the ark. I mentioned that to my parents in the US over the phone, and they just about fell over laughing - they had never heard it either! Suffice to say, it's interesting to know what different people believe, for whatever reasons. For that matter, P&R kind of helps me keep up with what's going on in the US... especially with the way the religious right seems to be trying to take over everything. Why would anyone laugh about dino's on the ark? The Bible does say one of every animal. Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different 'kinds' of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably 'teenagers' or young adults. http://www.answersingenes...on_ark.asp Why would anyone laugh? Well, because on the whole that is considered a pretty ludicrous theory. I believe in the story of Noah's ark, but I don't think for one second that their were velociraptors on board.
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wtf?! Dinosaurs on the 'ark'? When exactly did the last dinosaur walk the earth?
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jon said: wtf?! Dinosaurs on the 'ark'? When exactly did the last dinosaur walk the earth?
Evolution is logical if somewhat hard to prove due to the immense time scales involved. Creationism cannot use scientific fact to try and justify itself. It is a faith based belief. So, use your faith to argue your point for creationism and use science to argue your point for evolution. But please, dont start painting fantastical pictures of dinosaurs on boats, oceans rising 9km, mountains forming in a few thousand years, and then use science to try and prove the point. Because I can assure you, there is no scientific fact that would EVER confirm sea-faring dinosaurs and sea-level rises of 9km! 10,000 years aint enough time to even boil an egg in the grand scheme of things... Thats just too funny! It does nothing for your argument although it does make for a great new story for Pixar! They still do. A growing amount of evidence is suggestive of the fact that flying reptriles have been known to be contemporaneous with humans before and since the Genesis Flood (~4,300-4,400 years ago). The Creation Evidence Museum has sponsored expeditions to Papua New Guinea which have resulted in eyewitness night sightings of bioluminescent pterosaurs (see Isa.14:29 & 30:6), the most recent being in August 1994 and 1996. The nationals (and missionaries) speak of flying reptiles with wingspans up to 25' across and those having the macabre habit of scavenging gravesites for food. Such grisly behavior of "winged serpents" is corroborated on p.132 of Bill Cooper's eye-opening book, 'After The Flood' (1995), published by New Wine Press, and by the "Companion Tape to 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'," hosted by Charlton Heston, and available from B.C. Video Inc./P.O. Box 97/Shelburne, VT 05482 (ph.# 1-800-846-9682). From China there were claims that more than 1,000 people had seen a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang.1 From Scotland came the latest Loch Ness monster sighting: Mrs Edna MacInnes reported on June 24 that she had seen a 15-metre-long creature with a neck like a giraffe in Loch Ness.2 From Canada, Professor P. LeBlond of the University of British Columbia told a meeting of zoologists about the many sightings of ‘Caddy’—short for Cadborosaurus—around the British Columbia coast and as far south as Oregon. The remains of a three-metre juvenile ‘Caddy’ have actually been found in the stomach of a whale.3 It’s been a big year for monsters. Russian scientists were startled to find remains of dwarf mammoths on Wrangel Island, off the Siberian coast, which they said were living only 3,700 years ago.4 And British explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell returned from an isolated Nepalese valley in March with photos of living creatures which looked something like mammoths or extinct stegodons. 5 1. Lai Kuan and Jian Qun, ‘Dinosaurs: Alive and Well and Living in Northwest China?’, China Today, Vol. XLII No. 2, February 1993, p. 59. 2. The Weekend Australian, 26–27 June 1993, p. 15; Radio National (Australia) 8 am news report, 25 June 1993. 3. ‘Is Caddy a mammal?’ Science Frontiers, May–June 1993, p. 2; Penny Park, ‘Beast from the Deep Puzzles Zoologists’, New Scientist, 23 January 1993, p. 16. 4. ‘Reassessing the marvellous mammoths’, The Age (Melbourne), 29 March 1993. 5. ‘The elephant that time forgot’, The Mail on Sunday, 23 May 1993. Sea floor rising NOT scientific? 
Catastrophic plate tectonics The model proposed by Baumgardner begins with a pre-flood super-continent (‘Let the waters ... be gathered together into one place’ Genesis 1:9) and dense ocean floor rocks. The process starts with the cold and dense ocean floor beginning to sink into the softer, less dense mantle beneath. The friction from this movement generates heat, especially around the edges, which softens the adjacent mantle material, making it less resistant to the sinking of the ocean floor. The edges sink faster, dragging the rest of the ocean floor along, in conveyor belt fashion. Faster movement creates more friction and heat in the surrounding mantle, reducing its resistance further and so the ocean floor moves even faster, and so on. At its peak, this thermal runaway instability would have allowed for subduction at rates of meters-per-second. This key concept is called runaway subduction. The movement of earth’s crustal plates during ‘runaway subduction.’ The sinking ocean floor would displace mantle material, starting large-scale movement throughout the entire mantle. However, as the ocean floor sank and rapidly subducted adjacent to the pre-flood super-continent’s margins, elsewhere the earth’s crust would be under such tensional stress that it would be torn apart (rifted), breaking up both the pre-flood super-continent and the ocean floor. Thus, crustal spreading zones would rapidly extend along cracks in the ocean floor for some 6,000 miles where the splitting was occurring. Hot mantle material displaced by the subducting slabs would well up, rising to the surface along these spreading zones. On the ocean floor, this hot mantle material would vaporize copious amounts of ocean water, producing a linear geyser of superheated steam along the whole length of the spreading centers (perhaps the ‘fountains of the great deep’? Genesis 7:11; 8:2). This steam would disperse, condensing in the atmosphere to fall as intense global rain (‘and the flood-gates of heaven were opened’ Genesis 7:11). This could account for the rain persisting for 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:12). Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics global flood model for earth history is able to explain more geological data than the conventional plate tectonics model with its many millions of years. For example, rapid subduction of the pre-flood ocean floor into the mantle results in new ocean floor that is dramatically hotter, especially in its upper 60 miles, not just at spreading ridges, but everywhere. Being hotter, the new ocean floor is of lower density and therefore rises 3,000 to 6,000 feet higher than before and implies a dramatic rise in global sea level. This higher sea level floods the continental surfaces and makes possible the deposition of large areas of sedimentary deposits on top of the normally high-standing continents. The Grand Canyon provides a spectacular window into the amazing layer-cake character of these sediment deposits that in many cases continue uninterrupted for more than 600 miles. Uniformitarian (‘slow and gradual’) plate tectonics simply cannot account for such thick continental sediment sequences of such vast horizontal extent. Moreover, the rapid subduction of the cooler pre-flood ocean floor into the mantle would have resulted in increased circulation of viscous fluid (note: plastic, not molten) rock within the mantle. This mantle-flow (i.e., ‘stirring’ within the mantle) suddenly altered the temperatures at the core-mantle boundary, as the mantle near the core would now be significantly cooler than the adjacent core, and thus convection and heat loss from the core would be greatly accelerated. The model suggests that under these conditions of accelerated convection in the core, rapid geomagnetic reversals would have occurred. These in turn would be expressed on the earth’s surface and recorded in the so-called magnetic stripes. This has been duplicated and varified by other science magazines: S.A. Weinstein, Catastrophic Overturn of the Earth’s Mantle Driven by Multiple Phase Changes and Internal Heat Generation, Geophysical Research Letters, 20:101-104, 1993. P.J. Tackley, D.J. Stevenson, G.A. Glatzmaier, and G. Schubert, Effects of an Endothermic Phase Transition at 670 km Depth on Spherical Mantle Convection, Nature, 361:699-704, 1993. L. Moresi and V. Solomatov, Mantle Convection with a Brittle Lithosphere: Thoughts on Global Tectonic Styles of the Earth and Venus, Geophysical Journal International, 133:669-682, 1998. 20. S.P [Edited 4/8/05 9:11am] "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You gotta love it really. Now the loch ness monster is being wheeled out as proof of creationism...
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jon said: You gotta love it really. Now the loch ness monster is being wheeled out as proof of creationism...
Thankyou for the laugh, I will enjoy my pint even more with the new wisdom I have aquired. Pub beckons...! Yeah, maybe a ton of people just saw floating sticks..... And heat doesn't rise.... "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm pretty certain all those dinos that have been sighted were cloned from those dino bones you told us about in your other thread, ED!
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JediMaster said: Eternaldragon said: Why would anyone laugh about dino's on the ark? The Bible does say one of every animal. Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different 'kinds' of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably 'teenagers' or young adults. http://www.answersingenes...on_ark.asp Why would anyone laugh? Well, because on the whole that is considered a pretty ludicrous theory. I believe in the story of Noah's ark, but I don't think for one second that their were velociraptors on board. jurassic ark  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JediMaster said: I'm pretty certain all those dinos that have been sighted were cloned from those dino bones you told us about in your other thread, ED!
Of course, that would explain it. No way they came off the ark... "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
XxAxX said: JediMaster said: Why would anyone laugh? Well, because on the whole that is considered a pretty ludicrous theory. I believe in the story of Noah's ark, but I don't think for one second that their were velociraptors on board. jurassic ark 
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
