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.
You have that almost correct. The problem is the false literal interpretation of the Bible that brings it to disrespect. As predicted, “Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715)
Although I realize that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, I believe that the article is true according to the understanding currently held by scientists.
"Science" holds to the fact that life cannot arise from inanimate matter. So our very brilliant evolutionary scientists suggest that life came from space - like that's some kind of loop hole to get around the fact that life cannot arise from inanimate matter. Excuse me, but what kind of answer is this! The life, no matter where it comes from, must have a Creator - according to science (Even though they don't want to say that). Either that or life has always existed. But if there is no Creator and nothing had always been, until, the Big Bang. Then that was one magically big bang - for apparently this huge explosion created life - as also seen in our science studies
. Every time there's a huge explosion we have to figure out what to do with all the new life that was created from it.
"Science" holds to the fact that life cannot arise from inanimate matter. So our very brilliant evolutionary scientists suggest that life came from space - like that's some kind of loop hole to get around the fact that life cannot arise from inanimate matter. Excuse me, but what kind of answer is this! The life, no matter where it comes from, must have a Creator - according to science (Even though they don't want to say that). Either that or life has always existed. But if there is no Creator and nothing had always been, until, the Big Bang. Then that was one magically big bang - for apparently this huge explosion created life - as also seen in our science studies
. Every time there's a huge explosion we have to figure out what to do with all the new life that was created from it.
I think Sarah is trying to say, "What is the mechanism for speciation?"
And by that, we do not mean one kind of finch becoming another kind of finch, but how does a reptile become a bird? How can you account for the 500 functions of the liver, including the ability to regenerate? How can you account for the function of the eye from sightless? How can you go from being one thing, with so many chromosomes, to another creature, with a totally different number of chromosomes?
The paradigm of creation has always been the best model to explain origins. It is just that people let their atheistic world view blind them to the truth of what both science and the Bible have said!
Canines will always be canines. They will never turn into felines, or primates!
And by that, we do not mean one kind of finch becoming another kind of finch, but how does a reptile become a bird? How can you account for the 500 functions of the liver, including the ability to regenerate? How can you account for the function of the eye from sightless? How can you go from being one thing, with so many chromosomes, to another creature, with a totally different number of chromosomes?
The paradigm of creation has always been the best model to explain origins. It is just that people let their atheistic world view blind them to the truth of what both science and the Bible have said!
Canines will always be canines. They will never turn into felines, or primates!
Hey Dr. Spock Hurd
Still waiting for you with your mighty education to address the following in a manner that makes complete sense........
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?
Still waiting for you with your mighty education to address the following in a manner that makes complete sense........
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?
K
Darwin himself said his theory could be disproved if the fossils didnt back him up I believe.Its become a religion for atheists now. The fossils dont back up the theory.There should be endless missing links found but they're still searching for one that isn't a pigs tail or a turkey wing."When I see a hundred missing links" then I'll reconsider.For now its just a fairy tale.
You are not paying attention. She didn't say natural selection and speciation in her post I responded to She said common ancestor, as in common descent.
The title of this thread is "What of the dinosaurs?" Questions are asked in the first post regarding the age of the dinosaurs and T. rex eating people.
In the article cited below regarding a new dinosaur discovery you will find this paragraph:
"Paradoxically, this small carnivorous dinosaur belongs to the same family as the large tyrannosaurus which appeared 228 million years ago and lived until 65 million years ago and from which some modern birds have evolved."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Complete-fossil-of-small-dinosaur-found-in-South-
Korea/articleshow/45261393.cms
In all the posts on this thread to date, nobody has presented any alleged evidence that has not been successfully refuted that T. rex and other non-avian dinosaurs did not become extinct over 65 million years ago and did not coexist with humans.
Right?
The title of this thread is "What of the dinosaurs?" Questions are asked in the first post regarding the age of the dinosaurs and T. rex eating people.
In the article cited below regarding a new dinosaur discovery you will find this paragraph:
"Paradoxically, this small carnivorous dinosaur belongs to the same family as the large tyrannosaurus which appeared 228 million years ago and lived until 65 million years ago and from which some modern birds have evolved."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Complete-fossil-of-small-dinosaur-found-in-South-
Korea/articleshow/45261393.cms
In all the posts on this thread to date, nobody has presented any alleged evidence that has not been successfully refuted that T. rex and other non-avian dinosaurs did not become extinct over 65 million years ago and did not coexist with humans.
Right?
Good morning Crack in the Box.....
No one can accurately know when T-Rex went extinct....not you, not me, nor can Dr. Spock with all of his regurgitated knowledge......sorry to bust your bubble.....it is all supposition, guesses and circular reasoning.......regardless of what you may think you know!
No one can accurately know when T-Rex went extinct....not you, not me, nor can Dr. Spock with all of his regurgitated knowledge......sorry to bust your bubble.....it is all supposition, guesses and circular reasoning.......regardless of what you may think you know!
Obviously you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, but c'mon man, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
What do you mean by "accurately" exactly? What is your acceptable margin of error?
Accurately as in the exact moment in time, as Bishop Ussher calculated for the creation, no. Erroneously calculated, although Young Earth Creationists agree with the 6,000-year-old ballpark.
On the one hand, we have the overwhelming credible scientific evidence indicating dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago.
On the other hand, we have Young Earth Creationists who say dinosaurs roamed the earth only 4,000 to 6,000 years ago and coexisted with humans. There is no credible scientific evidence for that conclusion.
It's real easy for me to pick one or the other. What about you?
But hey, maybe we could settle this by just picking a number in the middle, 'eh?
That works for me, do you think it works for Young Earth Creationists?
What do you mean by "accurately" exactly? What is your acceptable margin of error?
Accurately as in the exact moment in time, as Bishop Ussher calculated for the creation, no. Erroneously calculated, although Young Earth Creationists agree with the 6,000-year-old ballpark.
On the one hand, we have the overwhelming credible scientific evidence indicating dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago.
On the other hand, we have Young Earth Creationists who say dinosaurs roamed the earth only 4,000 to 6,000 years ago and coexisted with humans. There is no credible scientific evidence for that conclusion.
It's real easy for me to pick one or the other. What about you?
But hey, maybe we could settle this by just picking a number in the middle, 'eh?
That works for me, do you think it works for Young Earth Creationists?
You think that stating Noah took only "mammals, birds and reptiles" onto the ark helps your situation? Do you realize how few insects, if any, would be able to survive conditions resembling an open ocean during a storm? What is your rational? This claim, as I see it, represents a complete failure in logic.
Also, I don't know that any amphibians could survive such an environment either. How many amphibians can you name that live either in the open ocean or on a lake and never come to land? Would they be capable of procuring food under such conditions? You know, you could do the experiments, though you might not want the animal rights activists to find out. I suspect most amphibians placed into such conditions would simply drown.
Also, there are no salt water amphibians, with the exception of one species of saltwater frog. Because of their permeable skin the majority can tolerate only fresh water and after the oceans flooded the land there would be no fresh water left. That would be a serious problem for Noah and his family as well.
Oh, last point. What is your source for knowing that there were no insects or amphibians on the ark?
Also, I don't know that any amphibians could survive such an environment either. How many amphibians can you name that live either in the open ocean or on a lake and never come to land? Would they be capable of procuring food under such conditions? You know, you could do the experiments, though you might not want the animal rights activists to find out. I suspect most amphibians placed into such conditions would simply drown.
Also, there are no salt water amphibians, with the exception of one species of saltwater frog. Because of their permeable skin the majority can tolerate only fresh water and after the oceans flooded the land there would be no fresh water left. That would be a serious problem for Noah and his family as well.
Oh, last point. What is your source for knowing that there were no insects or amphibians on the ark?
D, I actually burst forth with a hearty guffaw when I read this, but are you not one of those who frequently regurgitated material copied from other sites without giving credit?
You don't have to answer.
You don't have to answer.
The only thing I cut and pasted was the foot prints of a human and dinosaur in rock from Texas (supposedly) and I should have qualified my post as the Dr. Spock statement was actually directed at Dr. GS Hurd......sorry if you took it to mean yourself....and I am not ever afraid to answer bro.
Hey Cycel,
The only thing I cut and pasted was the foot prints of a human and dinosaur in rock from Texas (supposedly) and I should have qualified my post as the Dr. Spock statement was actually directed at Dr. GS Hurd......sorry if you took it to mean yourself....and I am not ever afraid to answer bro.
The only thing I cut and pasted was the foot prints of a human and dinosaur in rock from Texas (supposedly) and I should have qualified my post as the Dr. Spock statement was actually directed at Dr. GS Hurd......sorry if you took it to mean yourself....and I am not ever afraid to answer bro.
It is the lack of critical thinking in your answers that is concerning.
Why did you post the pic of the supposed human and dinosaur footprints if you know it was bogus?