Do you believe that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time?

[bsobel]

Bingo, exactly what your heroes have done and you support.

When someone comes into OS and answers a simple XP question with 'run Linux' it should be a vacation offense. Just as coming into all these other threads and spouting this crap. Aren't there enough threads created by you or actually on topic that you can respond this way in?

What did you actually add in value to this thread?

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Where is it written in the Bible that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time?

Did I specifically say that the Bible said this? Reread my post. That being said, anyone that is familiar with the Bible knows that it says alot more than is apparent to a casual reader.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Oxaqata

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Way off. It was dictated to Moses around 1446BC.

Yes, thats the Christian/Jewish belief but if I remember correctly most historians believe it was written in the 5th or 6th century BCE.

While it is true that there are some scholars with some very strange ideas, I have never come across any credible scholar that would attribute a date such as that. I suspect that you are the "scholar" in question. If not so, then provide a link. There is no basis for attributing such a date.

 

[Red Dawn]

Proof that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Where is it written in the Bible that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time?

Did I specifically say that the Bible said this? Reread my post. That being said, anyone that is familiar with the Bible knows that it says alot more than is apparent to a casual reader.

I could make the same claim about the Harry Potter series.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Enig101
The Bible was written by human beings (inspired by God or otherwise). I think it's sort of a leap to assume that when they write "day" it is some unit of time that is not a day.

When it comes down to it, I would have thought the concept of time is largely meaningless to God.

really explain this then Einstein --
http://www.netrover.com/~numbers/bible-numbers-2a.html or this..
http://www.timelinescroll.com/html/earth_ages.html or this ...
http://www.theology.edu/ntintro/2pet.htm or this...
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/day_thousandyears.asp


can we say together to Enig 101 -- Open mouth unsert foot??

Actually, the key idea here ('a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day') lends more support to the idea that time is relatively meaningless to God than to the literal replacement of '1000 years for a day'.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Enig101
The Bible was written by human beings (inspired by God or otherwise). I think it's sort of a leap to assume that when they write "day" it is some unit of time that is not a day.

When it comes down to it, I would have thought the concept of time is largely meaningless to God.

really explain this then Einstein --
http://www.netrover.com/~numbers/bible-numbers-2a.html or this..
http://www.timelinescroll.com/html/earth_ages.html or this ...
http://www.theology.edu/ntintro/2pet.htm or this...
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/day_thousandyears.asp


can we say together to Enig 101 -- Open mouth unsert foot??

Actually, the key idea here ('a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day') lends more support to the idea that time is relatively meaningless to God than to the literal replacement of '1000 years for a day'.

:gift:

You win!

Religion is more Philosophy than Science, some understand, some don't. Those who don't end up taking bizzare and easily disproven positions. They can't admit to it though, because their whole concept is based on the Scientific, Factual, Literal assumption of the book(s). To change course(understanding) midstream undermines everything they believe, causing a crisis.

Biblical Literalists have fallen into Idolatry, without realizing it. They view the Book with higher regard than the Message(s) within the Book. They'll argue useless details with great passion and forever, but they ignore the point of it all. Jesus had the same problem when he was around. The Religious leaders would setup little tests that were quite Literal to the Sacred texts(Old Testament), but Jesus would just :rolleyes; them and say "Whateva". It has come full circle and once again the Message is lost to those more interested in playing the part without actually doing the part.

Christianity is a spent force and has been for a very long time. There's always the exceptions, like Mother Theresa and others who have gone to great lengths to live the Message, but those people are few and far between. Creationists, Anti-Abortionists, Anti-Gay Marriage, and myriads of others raising a ruckus are parts of their own little Cults with only a vague connection to what was once called Christianity.

 

[IronWing]

Looking at the Bush Whitehouse, I have to answer "Yes, man and dinosaurs live together".

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: sandorski
:gift:

You win!

Religion is more Philosophy than Science, some understand, some don't. Those who don't end up taking bizzare and easily disproven positions. They can't admit to it though, because their whole concept is based on the Scientific, Factual, Literal assumption of the book(s). To change course(understanding) midstream undermines everything they believe, causing a crisis.

Biblical Literalists have fallen into Idolatry, without realizing it. They view the Book with higher regard than the Message(s) within the Book. They'll argue useless details with great passion and forever, but they ignore the point of it all. Jesus had the same problem when he was around. The Religious leaders would setup little tests that were quite Literal to the Sacred texts(Old Testament), but Jesus would just :rolleyes; them and say "Whateva". It has come full circle and once again the Message is lost to those more interested in playing the part without actually doing the part.

Christianity is a spent force and has been for a very long time. There's always the exceptions, like Mother Theresa and others who have gone to great lengths to live the Message, but those people are few and far between. Creationists, Anti-Abortionists, Anti-Gay Marriage, and myriads of others raising a ruckus are parts of their own little Cults with only a vague connection to what was once called christianity.

Thank you, very well said, IMHO.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Oxaqata

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Way off. It was dictated to Moses around 1446BC.

Yes, thats the Christian/Jewish belief but if I remember correctly most historians believe it was written in the 5th or 6th century BCE.

Only SATANIC historians.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Looking at the Bush Whitehouse, I have to answer "Yes, man and dinosaurs live together".

Yes, but did they coexist peacefully, just like how man and fish will?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Where is it written in the Bible that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time?

Did I specifically say that the Bible said this? Reread my post. That being said, anyone that is familiar with the Bible knows that it says alot more than is apparent to a casual reader.

I thought we were talking about a "literal" interpretation of the Bible? Reading between the lines is hardly literal.

 

[DealMonkey]

All this thread has managed to prove, is that bilical literalists can claim liberties with the bible and twist things around to mean anything they want! A "day" equals a 1,000 years. A "sparrow" is really referencing the dinosaurs. Jesus Tapdancing Christ, "up" equals "down" and "right" equals "left" the bible "code" surely tells us so! How awesome is that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: sandorski
:gift:

You win!

Religion is more Philosophy than Science, some understand, some don't. Those who don't end up taking bizzare and easily disproven positions. They can't admit to it though, because their whole concept is based on the Scientific, Factual, Literal assumption of the book(s). To change course(understanding) midstream undermines everything they believe, causing a crisis.

Biblical Literalists have fallen into Idolatry, without realizing it. They view the Book with higher regard than the Message(s) within the Book. They'll argue useless details with great passion and forever, but they ignore the point of it all. Jesus had the same problem when he was around. The Religious leaders would setup little tests that were quite Literal to the Sacred texts(Old Testament), but Jesus would just :rolleyes; them and say "Whateva". It has come full circle and once again the Message is lost to those more interested in playing the part without actually doing the part.

Christianity is a spent force and has been for a very long time. There's always the exceptions, like Mother Theresa and others who have gone to great lengths to live the Message, but those people are few and far between. Creationists, Anti-Abortionists, Anti-Gay Marriage, and myriads of others raising a ruckus are parts of their own little Cults with only a vague connection to what was once called christianity.

Thank you, very well said, IMHO.

I also agree with much of what sandorski said:

s: Religion is more Philosophy than Science, some understand, some don't. Those who don't end up taking bizzare and easily disproven positions. They can't admit to it though, because their whole concept is based on the Scientific, Factual, Literal assumption of the book(s). To change course(understanding) midstream undermines everything they believe, causing a crisis.

M: Yup

s: Biblical Literalists have fallen into Idolatry, without realizing it. They view the Book with higher regard than the Message(s) within the Book. They'll argue useless details with great passion and forever, but they ignore the point of it all. Jesus had the same problem when he was around. The Religious leaders would setup little tests that were quite Literal to the Sacred texts(Old Testament), but Jesus would just :rolleyes; them and say "Whateva". It has come full circle and once again the Message is lost to those more interested in playing the part without actually doing the part.

M: Double yup. Religion is a bridge to reality and many Christians are worshiping the bridge and not crossing. They have mistaken the finger pointing at the moon for the moon.

s: Christianity is a spent force and has been for a very long time. There's always the exceptions, like Mother Theresa and others who have gone to great lengths to live the Message, but those people are few and far between. Creationists, Anti-Abortionists, Anti-Gay Marriage, and myriads of others raising a ruckus are parts of their own little Cults with only a vague connection to what was once called christianity.[/quote]
Thank you, very well said, IMHO.

M: Possibly so as a spent force. I do not know. Certainly all here described is happening. Personally, I think Mother T to be also just another kind of fanatic in the area of birth control. But what I think is also true and not mentioned here are the innumerable numbers of simple Christians that try follow the way and add to the good in the world every day. I believe there are many wise and loving Christians who feel in there hearts the 'Divinity' that emanated from Christ. He awakened and in his story one can still feel 'the call'. And it's not like so many go off the deep end over nothing. Something was there to cause such a stir.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: maluckey
So you presume to know how long a day is to God? Show me in the Old testament where this is explained...

Interesting play on this - before Earth was created, there was no "day," since "day" is defined by the time it takes for Earth to rotate once about its axis. So how could God, on the first day, do anything, when "the day" had not yet come into existence?

Originally posted by: Harvey
True science is also about testing theories to confirm their validity. That's the direct opposite of religion, which depends on faith, even in the absence of confirming evidence and even in the presence of contractory evidence.

For me, religion is useless. I'll stick with science.

It is for this reason too that Creation Science and intelligent design are not true sciences. It is not falsifiable, therefore it cannot qualify as legitimate scientific theory.

Originally posted by: homercles337
But it does make you a hypocrite. The two can not coexist. With one perspective you seek all information that contradcits your current perspective. With the other you ignore all evidence that contradicts you current perspective. If i had to write a definition of hypocrite that would be it.

Doublethink: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
"1984"

Originally posted by: bsobel

Your post made me cry, this website explaining your view made me weep.

Wow. Love sites like that.

"No scientist observed dinosaurs die. "
Implication is that this nullifies their views.
No Christian has ever observed God either. I guess there is a similar implication about the existence of God then.

"They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal."
Yes, they imagine this, despite the fact that have seen animals evolving, adapting to their environments. It's been seen in fruit flies in laboratories, and in ground finches in the Galapagos.

"In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs?they are all 100% dinosaur!"
Wow. Very nice argument. :roll: What are their specific criteria to classify something as being "100% dinosaur"? Some of those dinosaurs are bipedal, some weren't, some had feathers, some didn't, some were omnivorous, some where carnivorous, some were exclusive herbivores, some may have been warm blooded. Nope, everything there is 100% absolutely the same.

"God therefore judged sin with death."

So your kids misbehave for the first time. What do you do? A stern, "NO"? Nah, go for eternal condemnation. That's the ticket.

"Because of this wickedness, God warned a godly man named Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a Flood."
So your still young kids start to go bad. Maybe a detention facility would be in order? Nope. Kill them all. Good idea. No more of this Super-nanny reality TV BS. Just have the police come over and shoot the misbehaving kids. That's the "God tested and approved" method of problem solving. I guess kill all their friends too, and their pets. They're all wicked anyway.
Then there are still the outstanding logisitcs problems of caring for thousands of animals for 40 days. They'll be hungry, they'll put out various excretions, and they'll need adequate oxygen.
In addition, the long-standing question: where'd all the water go? If it was high enough to cover Mt Everest, well, that's a hell of a lot of water. A quick calculation shows that that's approximately 4,530,488,766.37 cubic kilometers of water. 1 cubic meter has a mass of 1000kg. 1 cubic kilometer would be 1,000,000,000,000 kilograms.
Total mass of all the water: 4,530,488,766,370,000,000,000 kg
Current mass of Earth: 6.0 * 10^24 kg.
That's a mass increase of about 0.0755%. Small percentage perhaps, but it's still a lot of mass to just vanish into nothing.

"This great animal, called ?behemoth,? is described as ?the chief of the ways of God,? perhaps the biggest land animal God had created."
When I was little, I saw a garter snake. It was a big one too. A really big snake. It might have been 3 feet long. But it was the biggest I'd ever seen, so I said it was "really big."
If someone's never seen an animal bigger than a squirrel, and then one day they happen to see a mountain lion, well damn, that's got to be the hugest animal in the world.
"Behemoth" and "biggest" are subjective words.

"You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists? ideas, they will always be able to concoct an ?answer? because evolution is a belief."
Hm, alright, so they again say that evolution should not be given any credibility because it's "a belief." I guess belief in God shouldn't be given any credibility either.

"The Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross, but on the third day, rose again, conquering death, so that anyone who believes in Him and accepts Him into his or her life, is able to come back to God and live for eternity with the Creator."
There it is again. Anyone who believes in God gets to good afterlife. I thought beliefs were irrelevant though?

 

[Seekermeister]

Vic,

I'm just curious. Supposedly, a "literal" interpretation of the Bible will tell us that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time. Yet I've read the Bible and it says no such thing.

The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible, is that you need to understand what to read literally and what is symbolic. Even with that understood, you have to study the translation factor and to look for what is said in an implied fashion. None of this can distort the literal word, if done properly. However, it is too often done improperly by Christians and nonChristians alike, but with very different end results.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Of course--Adam and Eve rode to church on them.

Then where did they go?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Vic,

I'm just curious. Supposedly, a "literal" interpretation of the Bible will tell us that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time. Yet I've read the Bible and it says no such thing.

The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible, is that you need to understand what to read literally and what is symbolic. Even with that understood, you have to study the translation factor and to look for what is said in an implied fashion. None of this can distort the literal word, if done properly. However, it is too often done improperly by Christians and nonChristians alike, but with very different end results.

I never met a person who had the worng interpretation of anything in their own opinion. The world is one big war of one 'only right interpretation' against another. Of course this is my interpretation so I am doubtlessly wrong and can admit it only, of course, because I am not an anybody. I am a nobody.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Vic,

I'm just curious. Supposedly, a "literal" interpretation of the Bible will tell us that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time. Yet I've read the Bible and it says no such thing.

The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible, is that you need to understand what to read literally and what is symbolic. Even with that understood, you have to study the translation factor and to look for what is said in an implied fashion. None of this can distort the literal word, if done properly. However, it is too often done improperly by Christians and nonChristians alike, but with very different end results.

Excuse me, but this is bullsh!t. You don't get to pick and choose your "literal" interpretation and decide which is the "proper" interpretation based upon your own prejudices. That is sinful.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Harvey
For me, religion is useless. I'll stick with science.

Science does not contradict my religious beliefs.

But it does make you a hypocrite. The two can not coexist. With one perspective you seek all information that contradcits your current perspective. With the other you ignore all evidence that contradicts you current perspective. If i had to write a definition of hypocrite that would be it.

The problem is too many, fundamentalists of both sides (really, I don't know a term that would work for those who say science nullifies all) simply insist that each cannot coexist. The idea that one cannot believe in both science and religion is foolish.

I don't see science contradicting any of my religious beliefs, nor my faith contradicting any of my views on science; then again, I don't take the bible literally.

And for the record, I fully believe in evolution and that the universe is several billion years old.

Nice avoidance. How about addressing my post? How do you internally resolve your hypocrisy? Or are you a cafeteria christian, picking and choosing whatever you, and you alone deem "comfortable."

Well, for starters, I'm Jewish. Secondly, what hypocrisy? The truth is, you're just as bad as the fundamentalists who regularly condemn science.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: fitzov
Of course--Adam and Eve rode to church on them.

Then where did they go?

To meet up with the Flintstones for some fruit harvest/snake consultation...we all know the rest of the story.




:brokenheart:

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
All this thread has managed to prove, is that bilical literalists can claim liberties with the bible and twist things around to mean anything they want! A "day" equals a 1,000 years. A "sparrow" is really referencing the dinosaurs. Jesus Tapdancing Christ, "up" equals "down" and "right" equals "left" the bible "code" surely tells us so! How awesome is that?

Watch that blasphemy, boy.



The term is Jesus Tittyfvcking Christ.

 

[Trell]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: fitzov
Of course--Adam and Eve rode to church on them.

Then where did they go?

They probably wnet out to the diner for brunch and then back home to watch TV.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Vic,

I'm just curious. Supposedly, a "literal" interpretation of the Bible will tell us that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time. Yet I've read the Bible and it says no such thing.

The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible, is that you need to understand what to read literally and what is symbolic. Even with that understood, you have to study the translation factor and to look for what is said in an implied fashion. None of this can distort the literal word, if done properly. However, it is too often done improperly by Christians and nonChristians alike, but with very different end results.

Excuse me, but this is bullsh!t. You don't get to pick and choose your "literal" interpretation and decide which is the "proper" interpretation based upon your own prejudices. That is sinful.

One thing that I do not need, is for you to define the word "sin" for me. I have a far better teacher than you. I said nothing about reading any bias into the Bible, only how it must be read to receive the greatest amount of truth from it. If that is too difficult for you to understand, that is your problem, not mine.

 

[classy]

If anyone reads the first few chapters of Genesis you will say clearly that the way some the scriptures are worded it eludes to a time on this planet before man, Pre-Adam.