What of the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Are you aware that Noah ONLY TOOK mammals,birds and reptiles on the ark? He did not take insects,amphibians etc.
Mammals,birds and reptiles make up only about 1.5% of the animals species.
Animals: estimated 3-30 million species
|
|--Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
| `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
| |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
| |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
| |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
| |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
| |--Echinoderms: 6,000 species
| |--Annelida: 12,000 species
| `--Arthropods
| `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
| |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
| `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
`--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
|--Amphibians: 5,400 species
|--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
|--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
`--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species
How Many Animal Species Inhabit Our Planet?
I didn't address the mountains in that post. I addressed what you asked in the post I quoted.
Mammals,birds and reptiles make up only about 1.5% of the animals species.
Animals: estimated 3-30 million species
|
|--Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
| `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
| |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
| |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
| |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
| |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
| |--Echinoderms: 6,000 species
| |--Annelida: 12,000 species
| `--Arthropods
| `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
| |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
| `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
`--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
|--Amphibians: 5,400 species
|--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
|--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
`--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species
How Many Animal Species Inhabit Our Planet?
I didn't address the mountains in that post. I addressed what you asked in the post I quoted.
She doesn't necessarily argue for evolution, but from the interior of the theory of evolution. For instance, there are people who feel uncomfortable that the idea of incest is implied in the first books of Genesis. Yet, when the evolution theory says the same thing, they no longer feel uncomfortable. So I guess she tried to make a point from the mindset of a person that believes in evolution.
JackH;1780372[U said:
]Personally, I value Dr. Hurd's contributions[/U], and I am a Christian. I perceive his objective as educating people, for the most part.
Has Dr. Hurd provided much credible information regarding dinosaurs, dating methods for determining the age of fossils, and related matters?
MY QUOTE STARTS HERE
SO Jack, you follow the views of someone who by his own testimony cannot know what he is talking about and still waiting on the answer to the following line of truth from the good ole Doctor's mouth.....
I am still waiting on a logical answer to my question.....
Re: What of the dinosaurs?
Originally Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd
I think the easiest path to atheism is Bible, or Q'uran study coupled with discussions with fervent creationists.
I still stuggle to maintain a properly scientific agnostic perspective.
My Quote begins here!
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
If you are really agnostic by definition then your view and what you believe and teach is a total farce because according to your belief ANY REALITY (including the age of the earth, dino bones and evolution to name a few ) is UNKNOWN and probably UNKNOWABLE....
So....you argue that which you do not know and or cannot know according your own testimony!
How does that jive with your most highly prized education, and boast concerning your education, and what you say you know....Just asking?
Has Dr. Hurd provided much credible information regarding dinosaurs, dating methods for determining the age of fossils, and related matters?
MY QUOTE STARTS HERE
SO Jack, you follow the views of someone who by his own testimony cannot know what he is talking about and still waiting on the answer to the following line of truth from the good ole Doctor's mouth.....
I am still waiting on a logical answer to my question.....
Re: What of the dinosaurs?
I think the easiest path to atheism is Bible, or Q'uran study coupled with discussions with fervent creationists.
I still stuggle to maintain a properly scientific agnostic perspective.
My Quote begins here!
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
If you are really agnostic by definition then your view and what you believe and teach is a total farce because according to your belief ANY REALITY (including the age of the earth, dino bones and evolution to name a few ) is UNKNOWN and probably UNKNOWABLE....
So....you argue that which you do not know and or cannot know according your own testimony!
How does that jive with your most highly prized education, and boast concerning your education, and what you say you know....Just asking?
One advantage any biologist will have is that your so-called evolutionary phases are utterly without any basis in science.
We track the origin of sexual reproduction to Yeast! Yes! Yeast. This is because they have the earliest (most primitive) genetic chemistry that can produce reproductive cells with only 1/2 of their genes expressed. This is the difference between creationism and reality.
NOVA Online | Life's Greatest Miracle | How Cells Divide: Mitosis vs. Meiosis (Flash)
So, after a very long number of generations- hundreds of billions of generations between ~2,500 million years ago, and 840 million years ago - there was finally a egg, and a sperm, and they were not always from the same individual. In fact today, there are millions of organisms that produce both "male" and "female" gametes. Some can fertilize themselves, others even have both "sexes" but avoid self fertilization.
We have the track of these simple single cell sexual organisms, to mammals. We can track these mammals from egg layers, to humans that are all still living witnesses to evolution.
We track the origin of sexual reproduction to Yeast! Yes! Yeast. This is because they have the earliest (most primitive) genetic chemistry that can produce reproductive cells with only 1/2 of their genes expressed. This is the difference between creationism and reality.
NOVA Online | Life's Greatest Miracle | How Cells Divide: Mitosis vs. Meiosis (Flash)
So, after a very long number of generations- hundreds of billions of generations between ~2,500 million years ago, and 840 million years ago - there was finally a egg, and a sperm, and they were not always from the same individual. In fact today, there are millions of organisms that produce both "male" and "female" gametes. Some can fertilize themselves, others even have both "sexes" but avoid self fertilization.
We have the track of these simple single cell sexual organisms, to mammals. We can track these mammals from egg layers, to humans that are all still living witnesses to evolution.
Okay? This doesn't really answer how many animals Noah had on the ark or how they all evolved so quickly. Again, none of what your'e arguing is backed by science.
You linked an article trying to support your argument that evolution is wrong, and it turned out that the article didn't even say what you claimed it said. Talk about a fail!
There's no point in addressing your arguments if you're going to ignore my counters. If I specified what parts of Genesis I disagreed with exactly, then you would start posting about how I'm wrong about whatever specific claim I made. Then you would never go back and support your Smithsonian argument - you would move on as if you never made the mistake.
I'm done beating around the bush. For now on when I debate evolution, I want to make sure arguments are addressed. I told you I would answer many of your questions but I needed us to first finish our conversation about the Smithsonian. There's no reason to go on about Genesis if we're not even past the article you linked.
You keep asking questions as if one answer should prove all of evolution.
You ask question A. Question A is answered.
You claim answer A doesn't answer question B. Question B is answered.
You ask question C. Question C is answered.
Every answer you're given, you essentially ignore it and ask a new question. You keep acting like the answer to Question A should answer literally every question you might have about evolution.
Ask questions, take down answers. You do a lot of the former but none of the latter.
Also, Bowman, I never claimed the universe didn't have a beginning. I said I disagreed with all of Genesis - which was admittedly poor wording on my part since I should have known you would pick a part what I said. Heck, you could have even argued, "So you don't believe there are such things as days?" You keep looking for "AH HA!" moments to try and best me in our discussions rather than trying to actually carry on a bloody conversation.
You linked an article trying to support your argument that evolution is wrong, and it turned out that the article didn't even say what you claimed it said. Talk about a fail!
There's no point in addressing your arguments if you're going to ignore my counters. If I specified what parts of Genesis I disagreed with exactly, then you would start posting about how I'm wrong about whatever specific claim I made. Then you would never go back and support your Smithsonian argument - you would move on as if you never made the mistake.
I'm done beating around the bush. For now on when I debate evolution, I want to make sure arguments are addressed. I told you I would answer many of your questions but I needed us to first finish our conversation about the Smithsonian. There's no reason to go on about Genesis if we're not even past the article you linked.
You keep asking questions as if one answer should prove all of evolution.
You ask question A. Question A is answered.
You claim answer A doesn't answer question B. Question B is answered.
You ask question C. Question C is answered.
Every answer you're given, you essentially ignore it and ask a new question. You keep acting like the answer to Question A should answer literally every question you might have about evolution.
Ask questions, take down answers. You do a lot of the former but none of the latter.
Also, Bowman, I never claimed the universe didn't have a beginning. I said I disagreed with all of Genesis - which was admittedly poor wording on my part since I should have known you would pick a part what I said. Heck, you could have even argued, "So you don't believe there are such things as days?" You keep looking for "AH HA!" moments to try and best me in our discussions rather than trying to actually carry on a bloody conversation.
The only sense you make is nonsense.
I am interested mostly in evidence and facts not views.
Do you use an Apple computer or phone?
No, of course you don't, because Steve Wozniak is an atheist. Or agnostic. He has said he doesn't know the difference.
I went to a new doctor this morning. Did I ask if she was a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist? No. I didn't ask if she was a Mormon or agnostic either. I was interested in her expertise in a particular scientific field.
I don't care what religion you are. Based upon your posts, you have very little knowledge that could possibly be useful to me.
Dr. Hurd, however, does provide credible information about subjects that interest me. He has expertise in certain scientific fields. I say he has expertise, not because he is a Ph.D., but because what he says about dating fossils and such checks out as best as I can determine.
On the other hand, Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind), one of YECs poster boys, is a Ph.D. What he says about dinosaurs and such does not check out, as far as I am concerned. Incidentally, his doctoral dissertation is a total joke, and he got it from an unaccredited diploma mill. Likewise ICR, AiG, and CMI do not check out, as far as I am concerned. Far from it.
It's about credibility with me. You have very little. Dr has quite a bit.
I am interested mostly in evidence and facts not views.
Do you use an Apple computer or phone?
No, of course you don't, because Steve Wozniak is an atheist. Or agnostic. He has said he doesn't know the difference.
I went to a new doctor this morning. Did I ask if she was a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist? No. I didn't ask if she was a Mormon or agnostic either. I was interested in her expertise in a particular scientific field.
I don't care what religion you are. Based upon your posts, you have very little knowledge that could possibly be useful to me.
Dr. Hurd, however, does provide credible information about subjects that interest me. He has expertise in certain scientific fields. I say he has expertise, not because he is a Ph.D., but because what he says about dating fossils and such checks out as best as I can determine.
On the other hand, Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind), one of YECs poster boys, is a Ph.D. What he says about dinosaurs and such does not check out, as far as I am concerned. Incidentally, his doctoral dissertation is a total joke, and he got it from an unaccredited diploma mill. Likewise ICR, AiG, and CMI do not check out, as far as I am concerned. Far from it.
It's about credibility with me. You have very little. Dr has quite a bit.
Yeah you bet and by definition you reject the truth of the following...as you are FOLLOWING a man who by his own mouth and stance states that he cannot know any possible reality....so keep flapping those lips of yours crack in the box....
Originally Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd
I think the easiest path to atheism is Bible, or Q'uran study coupled with discussions with fervent creationists.
I still stuggle to maintain a properly scientific agnostic perspective.
My Quote begins here!
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
If you are really agnostic by definition then your view and what you believe and teach is a total farce because according to your belief ANY REALITY (including the age of the earth, dino bones and evolution to name a few ) is UNKNOWN and probably UNKNOWABLE....
So....you argue that which you do not know and or cannot know according your own testimony!
How does that jive with your most highly prized education, and boast concerning your education, and what you say you know....Just asking?
I think the easiest path to atheism is Bible, or Q'uran study coupled with discussions with fervent creationists.
I still stuggle to maintain a properly scientific agnostic perspective.
My Quote begins here!
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
If you are really agnostic by definition then your view and what you believe and teach is a total farce because according to your belief ANY REALITY (including the age of the earth, dino bones and evolution to name a few ) is UNKNOWN and probably UNKNOWABLE....
So....you argue that which you do not know and or cannot know according your own testimony!
How does that jive with your most highly prized education, and boast concerning your education, and what you say you know....Just asking?
Yeah you bet and by definition you reject the truth of the following...as you are FOLLOWING a man who by his own mouth and stance states that he cannot know any possible reality....so keep flapping those lips of yours crack in the box....
Originally Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd
I think the easiest path to atheism is Bible, or Q'uran study coupled with discussions with fervent creationists.
I still stuggle to maintain a properly scientific agnostic perspective.
My Quote begins here!
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
If you are really agnostic by definition then your view and what you believe and teach is a total farce because according to your belief ANY REALITY (including the age of the earth, dino bones and evolution to name a few ) is UNKNOWN and probably UNKNOWABLE....
So....you argue that which you do not know and or cannot know according your own testimony!
How does that jive with your most highly prized education, and boast concerning your education, and what you say you know....Just asking?
I think the easiest path to atheism is Bible, or Q'uran study coupled with discussions with fervent creationists.
I still stuggle to maintain a properly scientific agnostic perspective.
My Quote begins here!
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
If you are really agnostic by definition then your view and what you believe and teach is a total farce because according to your belief ANY REALITY (including the age of the earth, dino bones and evolution to name a few ) is UNKNOWN and probably UNKNOWABLE....
So....you argue that which you do not know and or cannot know according your own testimony!
How does that jive with your most highly prized education, and boast concerning your education, and what you say you know....Just asking?
More debasing...
You were exposed for having a meritless assertion for the rejection of scripture.
Further, you were shown that the world's largest museum and research center for natural history does NOT show that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are genomically linked to any other hominid.
Repeatedly claiming that you were not answered is so sophomoric that it is pitiful...
The first thing that we can both agree upon...
Perhaps, in the future, you will stop making these assertions that simply make you look even more silly when someone calls you out...
Its a simple step by step process in dismantling your meritless assertions.
First scripture, and then Smithsonian.
What's your hurry?
You are acting like you are about to get banned...
If you now claim that the Universe had a beginning then you must concede that Gen 1 is correct...as it also states that the Universe had a beginning.
Score one for the chapter that you deny as truth...
You were exposed for having a meritless assertion for the rejection of scripture.
Further, you were shown that the world's largest museum and research center for natural history does NOT show that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are genomically linked to any other hominid.
Repeatedly claiming that you were not answered is so sophomoric that it is pitiful...
The first thing that we can both agree upon...
Perhaps, in the future, you will stop making these assertions that simply make you look even more silly when someone calls you out...
Its a simple step by step process in dismantling your meritless assertions.
First scripture, and then Smithsonian.
What's your hurry?
You are acting like you are about to get banned...
If you now claim that the Universe had a beginning then you must concede that Gen 1 is correct...as it also states that the Universe had a beginning.
Score one for the chapter that you deny as truth...
No. I wasn't. I keep asking you over and over to show me the segment that states this.
Because you literally refuse to show me the segment of the article that supposedly supports your claim. You can copy and paste it, you can copy it manually, you can take a screenshot, there are numerous ways you can do this.
I'm not in a hurry, I just want to finish our Smithsonian conversation before moving onto something else.
First of all, Genesis 1:1 claims that God created the heavens and the Earth. I disagree with this. This isn't the same as claiming the universe has no beginning. The claim is that I don't agree that God created the heavens and the earth.
So no, Genesis 1:1 is not correct, but nor do I believe there wasn't a beginning.
Again, Genesis 1 talks about there being different days. If I don't agree with Genesis, does that mean I disagree with the concept of there being days? No.
Second, I still want an answer to the Smithsonian article you posted. You said it made a particular statement - I can't find that statement. Please post the statement word for word so we can move on. That's literally all I'm asking. Or, you can admit you goofed up - that would work too.
Because you literally refuse to show me the segment of the article that supposedly supports your claim. You can copy and paste it, you can copy it manually, you can take a screenshot, there are numerous ways you can do this.
I'm not in a hurry, I just want to finish our Smithsonian conversation before moving onto something else.
First of all, Genesis 1:1 claims that God created the heavens and the Earth. I disagree with this. This isn't the same as claiming the universe has no beginning. The claim is that I don't agree that God created the heavens and the earth.
So no, Genesis 1:1 is not correct, but nor do I believe there wasn't a beginning.
Again, Genesis 1 talks about there being different days. If I don't agree with Genesis, does that mean I disagree with the concept of there being days? No.
Second, I still want an answer to the Smithsonian article you posted. You said it made a particular statement - I can't find that statement. Please post the statement word for word so we can move on. That's literally all I'm asking. Or, you can admit you goofed up - that would work too.