Dinosaurs
Fundiesaurus Rex

West Hartford, CT

#98 Jun 10, 2009
Perhaps the dinosaurs become so biologically enlightened that they ceased from heterosexual coupling and embraced their queerness, thus rendering themselves obsolete.
Ball of Fire

United States

#99 Jun 10, 2009
Fundiesaurus Rex wrote:
Perhaps the dinosaurs become so biologically enlightened that they ceased from heterosexual coupling and embraced their queerness, thus rendering themselves obsolete.
What happened? Did you decide to quit being "awesome" for a minute?
BiblicalTRUTH

AOL

#100 Jun 10, 2009
There were no dinosaurs. God put "dinosaur" bones on the earth before The Flood so they could be burried in the deluge. God is just testing our faith.

But, "Unicorns" did exist. The Bible says so.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#101 Jun 10, 2009
BiblicalTRUTH wrote:
There were no dinosaurs. God put "dinosaur" bones on the earth before The Flood so they could be burried in the deluge. God is just testing our faith.
But, "Unicorns" did exist. The Bible says so.
So did sayeth the "Irish Rovers"!

Since: Jun 09

Saint Louis, MO

#102 Jun 11, 2009
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
They were right... it was done in the soccer stadium in Chicago. We developed the atomic bomb from those studies.
You are simply tossing out all science based on your opinions... a meaningless endeavor.
Yeah, they were right, but tons of their peers said that it was impossible. Shows how smart all of those "other scientists" were. Oh, but now we all believe it, why? All those guys said so? you're willing to believe them everytime they change their minds.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#103 Jun 11, 2009
Barney Stinson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, they were right, but tons of their peers said that it was impossible. Shows how smart all of those "other scientists" were. Oh, but now we all believe it, why? All those guys said so? you're willing to believe them everytime they change their minds.
You have a very distorted view of science and history...

It's funny; at one point, scientists are criticized for being conservative as to possibilities; the next minute, they're condemned for "outrageous claims"...

Make up your mind...

Keep in mind that the results of science...like evolutionary biology, geology, etc., are used endlessly world-wide to consistently carry out human endeavors; the "science" is proven accurate over and over again in medicine, resources recovery, transportation, and on, and on...

Since: Jun 09

Saint Louis, MO

#104 Jun 11, 2009
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a very distorted view of science and history...
It's funny; at one point, scientists are criticized for being conservative as to possibilities; the next minute, they're condemned for "outrageous claims"...
Make up your mind...
Keep in mind that the results of science...like evolutionary biology, geology, etc., are used endlessly world-wide to consistently carry out human endeavors; the "science" is proven accurate over and over again in medicine, resources recovery, transportation, and on, and on...
ok. now take everything you are saying, apply it to the people that criticize the bible and biblical scholars, and put your conclusions in a two page typed essay, single spaced, 12 point font. Have it on my desk by monday.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#105 Jun 11, 2009
Barney Stinson wrote:
<quoted text>
ok. now take everything you are saying, apply it to the people that criticize the bible and biblical scholars, and put your conclusions in a two page typed essay, single spaced, 12 point font. Have it on my desk by monday.
Son... I've been a professional scientist for 30 years. It would take at least that long to teach you what I know...

Try getting some education in earth sciences... Astronomy, Geology, Evolutionary History, Biology...

Try to get back to me by late next year...

“Jesus forgives..... ”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106 Jun 11, 2009
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Son... I've been a professional scientist for 30 years. It would take at least that long to teach you what I know...
Try getting some education in earth sciences... Astronomy, Geology, Evolutionary History, Biology...
Try to get back to me by late next year...
I don't think you really have learnt it for 30 yrs full, Bob. Don't tell me that you never sleep for the rest of your 30 yrs geological career. For me, I sleep 6 - 8 hours a day but only spend less than a minute on geology daily. To me, that's so little to learn: 30 yrs x 12 mths x 30 days x 24 hrs x 1 min = 259,200 minutes. But if you read geology 24 hrs daily: 30 x 12 x 30 x 24 x 60 = 15,552,000 minutes. So the percentage of your life devoted to geology is only 259,200/15,552,000 x 100%. It's about 15 to 18% of your life. If one takes other subjects, a geology lesson could be missed in a day.

Since: Jun 09

Saint Louis, MO

#107 Jun 12, 2009
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Son... I've been a professional scientist for 30 years. It would take at least that long to teach you what I know...
Try getting some education in earth sciences... Astronomy, Geology, Evolutionary History, Biology...
Try to get back to me by late next year...
*facepalm*

Okay, for your benefit, i'll stop using my fancy "logic" and "examples" and give it to you straight. Let me know where i lose you this time.

People say the bible can't be trusted because they think that each of the authors could have made stuff up to placate the people, and that each subsequent author only agreed with what other had said, and that they were not hearing the word of god.

Do you understand so far?

I was repeating all of those arguments, but turned around on science. My goal was to make those same statements, so that you could see how stupid they sound. Now, you see how stupid it sounds when people say it about the bible.

Do you understand so far?

In as much as pro-science/anti-bible people attempt to dismiss the teachings of the bible because of things they have seen in science, a biblical scholar studies the bible and the history of the times to discover the truths within its pages.

We still okay?

So, some biblical scholars accept the theroy that the story of creation, and the use of the term "day" might not be what we consider a "day" now. Each of those could have been years, or millions of years. Our calendar was not figured out the day Adam became self-aware.

Still with me?

So it is entirely possible that Adam lived many hundreds or thousands of our "years", and he had many children, and those children had children, and so on. Each of them moved further and further away around the world, and the earth was popluated this way. We find it hard to believe, since we are used to a mating couple being fertile for 30 years max, producing 1-4 offspring. Back then, it is possible that Adam and Eve were fertile for 800 years, and produced 500-700 offspring. Then each of those children began moving to different regions, and they produced hundreds of offspring, and so on.

Still follow?

The bible is not a complete account of history, but that doesn't make it less true or less helpful in leading your life. The bible only focuses on Cain and Able, because their story taught a valuable life lesson. In fact, the bible never documents the birth of a daughter for Adam and Eve, but it had to happen, or Eve would be the only woman in existence. There is more to the world than is presented in the bible.

Still okay?

Dismissing the bible because it doesn't include a complete account of the creation process before Adam, or even a detailed account of the next thousand years, does not make sense. There is more to history than what is accounted in the bible.

Almost done, you still okay?

So the conclusion is that there is not just more to history than what is in the bible, but there is more to this world than we can ever find out in our lifetime. So maybe it would take you 30 years to explain geology to me, but when we would have time for me to explain to you the intricies in labor economics and human resource development? Trust me, there is so so so much that you don't know. And there is probably plenty that you do "know" that isn't even true.

I hope you made it to here, if not, i'll try to use smaller words for you next time, or explain it in terms of rocks or something.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#108 Jun 12, 2009
Barney Stinson wrote:
<quoted text>
*facepalm*
Okay, for your benefit, i'll stop using my fancy "logic" and "examples" and give it to you straight. Let me know where i lose you this time.
People say the bible can't be trusted because they think that each of the authors could have made stuff up to placate the people, and that each subsequent author only agreed with what other had said, and that they were not hearing the word of god.
Do you understand so far?
I was repeating all of those arguments, but turned around on science. My goal was to make those same statements, so that you could see how stupid they sound. Now, you see how stupid it sounds when people say it about the bible.
Do you understand so far?
In as much as pro-science/anti-bible people attempt to dismiss the teachings of the bible because of things they have seen in science, a biblical scholar studies the bible and the history of the times to discover the truths within its pages.
We still okay?
So, some biblical scholars accept the theroy that the story of creation, and the use of the term "day" might not be what we consider a "day" now. Each of those could have been years, or millions of years. Our calendar was not figured out the day Adam became self-aware.
Still with me?
So it is entirely possible that Adam lived many hundreds or thousands of our "years", and he had many children, and those children had children, and so on. Each of them moved further and further away around the world, and the earth was popluated this way. We find it hard to believe, since we are used to a mating couple being fertile for 30 years max, producing 1-4 offspring. Back then, it is possible that Adam and Eve were fertile for 800 years, and produced 500-700 offspring. Then each of those children began moving to different regions, and they produced hundreds of offspring, and so on.
Still follow?
The bible is not a complete account of history, but that doesn't make it less true or less helpful in leading your life. The bible only focuses on Cain and Able, because their story taught a valuable life lesson. In fact, the bible never documents the birth of a daughter for Adam and Eve, but it had to happen, or Eve would be the only woman in existence. There is more to the world than is presented in the bible.
Still okay?
Dismissing the bible because it doesn't include a complete account of the creation process before Adam, or even a detailed account of the next thousand years, does not make sense. There is more to history than what is accounted in the bible.
Almost done, you still okay?
So the conclusion is that there is not just more to history than what is in the bible, but there is more to this world than we can ever find out in our lifetime. So maybe it would take you 30 years to explain geology to me, but when we would have time for me to explain to you the intricies in labor economics and human resource development? Trust me, there is so so so much that you don't know. And there is probably plenty that you do "know" that isn't even true.
I hope you made it to here, if not, i'll try to use smaller words for you next time, or explain it in terms of rocks or something.
Nope...

The rocks (geology), and a LOT of other sciences say no. The Bible is a mix of truth and myth...I didn't say it's not a valuable book. i don't dismiss the teachings of the Bible...

But... Genesis... except as the MOST general of statements... directly contradicts every piece of "worldly evidence". There was no "Noah's Flood", for example (was there some guy whose homestead and family washed down the Euphrates during a big rain? Could be...)

Your version of the "Adam story" is no more realistic than the Bible's version...geologic dating and the fossil record both point to a different history. There's no "room" for Adam and Eve as literal people... but it's a nice story!

Since: Jun 09

Saint Louis, MO

#109 Jun 12, 2009
FossilBob wrote:
Your version of the "Adam story" is no more realistic than the Bible's version...geologic dating and the fossil record both point to a different history. There's no "room" for Adam and Eve as literal people... but it's a nice story!
What geological dating counters my theory that the world was created possibly millions of years before man was created? And that throughout that time, it is likely that the host of animals lived before man, and many died, as is natural for animals to do?

If fossils have the answers, why do we find petrified wood, animal bones, dinosaur bones, plant life, and insects, but we don't ever find prehistoric people?
Because the world existed for a long long time before man was created. There were creatures similar to today's ape, but God created the self-aware, intelligent man in the garden of eden.

as for the noah flood, people have a very small view of the world. I think it is likely there was a large flood in the region, and it wiped out many people and animals. And God instructed noah to build the arc and collect the animals and be spared.(also, not every animal in the world, just the animals that noah knew of, which to him, was every animal in the world. God wanted him to save animals from that region.)

You might not see any real evidence towards the location of the garden of eden, but it really doesn't take long for nature to reclaim developed land and hide it.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#112 Jun 12, 2009
Barney Stinson wrote:
<quoted text>
What geological dating counters my theory that the world was created possibly millions of years before man was created? And that throughout that time, it is likely that the host of animals lived before man, and many died, as is natural for animals to do?.
That's essentially what modern geology DOES say... So... that's fine!
Barney Stinson wrote:
<quoted text>

If fossils have the answers, why do we find petrified wood, animal bones, dinosaur bones, plant life, and insects, but we don't ever find prehistoric people?
We do find such remains...
Barney Stinson wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the world existed for a long long time before man was created. There were creatures similar to today's ape, but God created the self-aware, intelligent man in the garden of eden...
That doesn't fit so well... There is a continuum of fossil species extending back from modern humans; where one draws the line between "Human" and "not-Human" is problematical! Even young-Earth creationists have trouble there...

Modern Humans date back about 100,000 years; older Hominids date back a million and more years; when you get that far back, they don't look like modern Humans, but they still look "human". Take a look at the following webpage... and decide where you would "draw a line":)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare....

“Jesus forgives..... ”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#113 Jun 12, 2009
Well FBob, a scientist has confused the scars with the monkeys'. In fact human has been around ever since they come to this world through the intelligent creation of God. What you see in the websites is simply speculation of a human who thinks that the monkey is his ancestor.

“Jesus forgives..... ”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#114 Jun 13, 2009
CORRECTION:

Well FBob, a scientist has confused the SKULLS with the monkeys'. In fact human has been around ever since they come to this world through the intelligent creation of God. What you see in the websites is simply speculation of a human who thinks that the monkey is his ancestor.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#115 Jun 13, 2009
Today we are modern Humans. Similar skeletons are found in deposits back to about 100,000 years ago.

As we look at rocks that are older, we find skeletons of beings who were similar to us...

And in older and older sediments...we find skeletons of beings less like us.

...and less like us...

and less like us.

So... the further back in time we go, the less like "us" the skeletons look. At what point do we "draw a line"? In fact, there is no one point where we can...Humans evolved over a long time; there was no one point in time where they "became Human".

Change the color "red" slowly to the color "blue"... When does it become "purple"; when does it become "blue"?

“Jesus forgives..... ”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#116 Jun 13, 2009
FossilBob wrote:
Today we are modern Humans. Similar skeletons are found in deposits back to about 100,000 years ago.
As we look at rocks that are older, we find skeletons of beings who were similar to us...
And in older and older sediments...we find skeletons of beings less like us.
...and less like us...
and less like us.
So... the further back in time we go, the less like "us" the skeletons look. At what point do we "draw a line"? In fact, there is no one point where we can...Humans evolved over a long time; there was no one point in time where they "became Human".
Change the color "red" slowly to the color "blue"... When does it become "purple"; when does it become "blue"?
I think those skeletons were not of the monkeys but the earliest humans. They mey look alike but not necessary monkey's. I would prefer that a monkey has been evolving from a human or a human is the ancestor of the monkeys. It is only the flaw thinking of the scientist that believe that a those skeleton were those similar to a monkey and they thought that human is the descendant of a monkey.

“Trying to make sense of it all”

Since: Oct 07

Lake Titicaca!

#123 Jun 14, 2009
Divine Alien wrote:
<quoted text>
I think those skeletons were not of the monkeys but the earliest humans. They mey look alike but not necessary monkey's. I would prefer that a monkey has been evolving from a human or a human is the ancestor of the monkeys. It is only the flaw thinking of the scientist that believe that a those skeleton were those similar to a monkey and they thought that human is the descendant of a monkey.
I see you're still as nuts as ever.

“Therefore, CHOOSE ...”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124 Jun 14, 2009
IGetAKickOutOfYou wrote:
<quoted text>
They died out on Friday, March 13, 4007 B.C. at approximately 11:52 a.m.
And, THAT is in the Bible...book of II Opinions

;-0

“Therefore, CHOOSE ...”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125 Jun 14, 2009
As a Christian who believes the Bible is inerrant (and it is), and educated as a Geologist, I am amazed at Christians who insist the Bible is a scientific discourse from God - WHEN IT IS *EXPLICITLY* NOT THE CASE QUOTING NONE OTHER THAN GOD HIMSELF:

The Bible, explicitly, says the following:

(a) man was given *dominion* over the earth, and to have it over all creation eventually.

(b) God may be known by the things that are made, aka the creation itself.

(c) God is
(i) not concerned with scientific discourse
(ii)*explicitly* leaves that to man as a heritage, to demonstrate man's glory (which further demonstrates God's glory, having created man in the first place), and for man's pleasure/joy via taking dominion over creation.

The above is *explicit* in scripture.

The following are *not* explicit:

1. The world was created in 6 24-hour days.

2. Adam was the first human being created.
A. Adam was the first *documented* case of a human being creation.
B. Adam is first in Christ's *lineage*- he was not the ONLY human beings on the earth - and nothing less than scripture, explicit scripture, supports that very claim: creation itself is ALSO a revelation from God, the Bible says so. AND, mankind's dominion per God-given appointment.

NOTHING...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about this takes a single iota away from the message of the Bible. It DOES show how fallible Christians are, reading into the Bible what is not there.(And, the fact hundreds of seminaries teach otherwise doesn't make it any more correct).

Using the Bible as a science text is like using an auto maintenance manual for a cookbook. "Evolution vs. Creationism" is a FALSE DICHOTOMY.

The Bible IS inerrant: about the message it *IS* giving mankind:

1. mankind is, by nature, lacking both the character and competence to rule over creation without 'wasting and destruction in their paths'. That is, a standard less than acceptable by God (and that should be *good news* to believers and non-believers alike). Aka, this is "sin".

2. Mankind is appointed to *choose* in this life the values, standards and authorities it will live by.

3. God will appoint an age for #2 to occur, while redeeming mankind's failures (Christ was appointed *before* the world began) to choose correctly (because God is perfectly just, yet also loving).

4. Then, there will be other *ages* to come.

In the meantime, God is *explicit*: the creation is under the dominion of mankind. Via his God-given faculties: the world is what it is Geologically. Claiming God changed all the physics, chemistry and biology by fiat is so against all that God reveals about Himself in scripture alone: NOT TO MENTION THE *FACT* God says look to the creation itself to reveal who He is.

As The Father stated: my people perish from lack of *knowledge*.(Note: He didn't say 'faith', but *knowledge*. And, note the tons of scriptures admonishing Christians to "get wisdom" and "be wise". "Wisdom" in modern terms: COMPETENCE)

God didn't wave a wand to create the world.

He isn't waving a wand to save you.

He isn't waving a wand to redeem mankind.

He isn't waving a wand to convert your nature through a calling.

God doesn't do magic. He does miracles. Many would be wise to take to heart the difference.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Intelligent People Question Everything 21 min messianic114 845
Bible Interpretation 35 min messianic114 1,550
Just A Talk With You Christians. 40 min Big Al 444
Why did Christ come to Earth? 54 min messianic114 648
Acrylic Lectern Benefits (Feb '15) 1 hr varttu 2
Poll The Greatest Threat to America's Security (Sep '15) 2 hr Gary Coaldigger 4,800
Why lie about the truth? Christian mistranslat... 3 hr Big Al 1,277
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 6 hr ROG 20,802
More from around the web