A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
WelshBloke

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
32,876
11,018
136
rudeguy said:
No
Click to expand...

A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.
Click to expand...

I dunno, thats not the kind of shit that happens round here much. Unless you just use it to describe things when you cant be bothered to find out how they work.
 
D

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
Hayabusa Rider said:
51f%2BcNHRVOL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-57,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
Click to expand...

rofl... I thought that was a joke, so I checked on amazon and it's a real book and there are others like it??? Wow!! I wonder who reads this crap.. lol
 
WelshBloke

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
32,876
11,018
136
digiram said:
rofl... I thought that was a joke, so I checked on amazon and it's a real book and there are others like it??? Wow!! I wonder who reads this crap.. lol
Click to expand...


Drin is her tribe’s chief huntress; she lives for the thrill of the hunt. Men and sex hold no allure for her, as Drin has never found a partner to satisfy her. When a T-Rex descends upon her village, destroying it, Drin demands that the tribe’s hunters go in search of the beast and slaughter it. Opting for safety instead of revenge, the tribe moves to a new location, hoping that the big beast won’t follow them.
It does.
Drin taunts the beast, giving her tribes mates time to flee. As she runs, leading it through a gauntlet of traps, the thrill of the hunt soars through her blood, leaving her wet with desire. When the angry T-Rex corners the huntress in a box canyon, it seems more interested in her wet womanhood than in her flesh.
Click to expand...

o_O

:eek:

D:

:\

:sneaky:

:wub:

Although I'm now worrying what my Amazon suggestions are going to be next time I go there.
 
jhbball

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
rudeguy said:
A video of puppies being born.

If you actually look at what has to happen for life to form, and to form so perfectly...I don't see how you can consider that anything but a miracle.
Click to expand...

LOL. You are reaaaaaaaaallllllllly stupid.
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Gibsons said:
They still are scientific... whether they're wrong or right. You're trying to equate them to creationology.
Click to expand...

Oh...ok... I see our disconnect.

No, my point had nothing to do with creationists, but it was in reference to the fact that something being understood and accepted currently doesn't make it right.

I mean, history has proven that much. Many times, our understanding has been radially flipped. New evidence often shows itself.

In fact, there was an instance prior to 1843 where the Bible's mention of Assyrian King Sargon (not Sargon the Great) was mocked as pure myth, until evidence of his reign was unearthed.

My point isn't that one finding makes the Bible 100% true, but the more time passes, the more evidence is discovered, and the more people begin looking like idiots.
 
C

chiza

Junior Member
Apr 15, 2008
23
0
0
Rob M. said:
Oh...ok... I see our disconnect.

No, my point had nothing to do with creationists, but it was in reference to the fact that something being understood and accepted currently doesn't make it right.

I mean, history has proven that much. Many times, our understanding has been radially flipped. New evidence often shows itself.

In fact, there was an instance prior to 1843 where the Bible's mention of Assyrian King Sargon (not Sargon the Great) was mocked as pure myth, until evidence of his reign was unearthed.

My point isn't that one finding makes the Bible 100% true, but the more time passes, the more evidence is discovered, and the more people begin looking like idiots.
Click to expand...

It may not make it 100% correct, but in the age of the scientific method, it's usually pretty damn close. Why is that? But it's repeatable. By multiple people. In different labs. If you get the same result time after time, you're assumption is that you will always get that result. It's pretty rare now days that theories are blatantly wrong. Before the scientific method, people just made up theories that really would not hold up to scrutiny had they been tested.
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
chiza said:
It may not make it 100% correct, but in the age of the scientific method, it's usually pretty damn close. Why is that? But it's repeatable. By multiple people. In different labs. If you get the same result time after time, you're assumption is that you will always get that result. It's pretty rare now days that theories are blatantly wrong. Before the scientific method, people just made up theories that really would not hold up to scrutiny had they been tested.
Click to expand...

I am not saying scientific experiments can and will be proven wrong, but how we understand and interpret data, changes.

Much like archaeology, I've read examples of artifact dating not even be close when tested by more than one scientist, sometimes.

That doesn't mean said event did or didn't happen, but the dating and interpretation of time periods has HUGE implications of whether details written concerning said event are true or not.

For instance, if someone wrote a book based on his experience at the WTC when it was struck by planes and he places the date in 2140, dating the ruins to 2001 or around that time would falsify his account. It wouldn't falsify the even, though.
 
Juddog

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Rob M. said:
I am not saying scientific experiments can and will be proven wrong, but how we understand and interpret data, changes.

Much like archaeology, I've read examples of artifact dating not even be close when tested by more than one scientist, sometimes.

That doesn't mean said event did or didn't happen, but the dating and interpretation of time periods has HUGE implications of whether details written concerning said event are true or not.

For instance, if someone wrote a book based on his experience at the WTC when it was struck by planes and he places the date in 2140, dating the ruins to 2001 or around that time would falsify his account. It wouldn't falsify the even, though.
Click to expand...

Right but the big difference here is that science undergoes a continuous system of improvement. Religion - doesn't. If you can come up with a better theory or a better explanation of something that produces testable and predictable outcomes, then that theory becomes the new "best understanding" of something, in Science.

With religion, you have what's canon (ie the holy book of choice), and anything that proves anything wrong in that book is automatically discounted. There is no new version of the Bible that is put out every year that is a more complete version, same goes for the Quran, or any of the other holy scriptures. You have what was passed down for several thousand years and that's it, there is no room for modification, or improvement, or pointing out the parts that were wrong and fixing them.
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Juddog said:
Right but the big difference here is that science undergoes a continuous system of improvement. Religion - doesn't. If you can come up with a better theory or a better explanation of something that produces testable and predictable outcomes, then that theory becomes the new "best understanding" of something, in Science.

With religion, you have what's canon (ie the holy book of choice), and anything that proves anything wrong in that book is automatically discounted. There is no new version of the Bible that is put out every year that is a more complete version, same goes for the Quran, or any of the other holy scriptures. You have what was passed down for several thousand years and that's it, there is no room for modification, or improvement, or pointing out the parts that were wrong and fixing them.
Click to expand...

Dead Sea Scrolls.
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Juddog said:
Right but the big difference here is that science undergoes a continuous system of improvement. Religion - doesn't. If you can come up with a better theory or a better explanation of something that produces testable and predictable outcomes, then that theory becomes the new "best understanding" of something, in Science.

With religion, you have what's canon (ie the holy book of choice), and anything that proves anything wrong in that book is automatically discounted. There is no new version of the Bible that is put out every year that is a more complete version, same goes for the Quran, or any of the other holy scriptures. You have what was passed down for several thousand years and that's it, there is no room for modification, or improvement, or pointing out the parts that were wrong and fixing them.
Click to expand...


You are clueless. The same refinements in science is with honest Bible readers. For instance, the passage you idiotically quoted as Jesus promoting violence because he said "I will bring not peace but a sword", examining the surrounding contents would leave readers to believe how his teachings would be divisive, not that his intent is to bring harm to people.

There was a time when people thought he meant violence. That's a refinement, and thus, updated understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom