It is a bit provocative, but it is a valid criticism nonetheless. Dinosaurs and humans living together is a fantasy I would attribute to a schoolchild. An educated person who believes such is simply blinding themselves willfully. If that is how they wish to live, well it has its advantages, but I prefer to see things more honestly.Originally posted by: Beachboy
Of course man and the dinosaur lived at the same time. Haven't you ever heard of the Flintstones? Duh.
P.S. I hate these thinly veiled attempts to mock the bible and people of religion.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,946
- 31,483
- 146
BS. I'm not very religious, and I don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. But as a cultural window, and histrorical text (a lot of it is historically accurate), it is essential. Plus, it's near impossible to make sense of English Literature, Rennaisance art, etc without a functional knowledge of the Bible. It is an essential tool.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,946
- 31,483
- 146
Exactly. In no way does science contradict religion. The two are very different, and accepting one in no way limits you from accepting the other. Evolution vs Creation is a different matter. The two can not coexist. Creationism flatly denies the central truths of Evolution through natural selection. Accepting Creationism means that you understand neither your faith nor science.
Now...I feel that it's possible that as we uncover more through science, a lot of the Bible's significance will dwindle, as it has throughout history. I find it hard to believe that pure rationality will ultimately destroy religion; but I can also imagine that it will eventually happen.
I think you'll find that there are much, much fewer scientists who hold science to be the absolute truth than there are religious people who hold their religion as absolute. Anyone with a bachelor's degree in a scientific field knows the limits of science are finite (though expanding rapidly, certainly). The majority of scientists will readily admit that science is fallible. I'm afraid the "fundamentalism" comes from the religious types pretty much exclusively.
I am not saying that there are not many religious people who are open-minded enough to accept that science is a valid and accurate view on the natural universe though. Similarly, I expect many scientists will agree that it is possible that there is a god of some sort, even if they are atheistic generally.
As for the Bible, yes it has worth as a cultural and historical text, but that is not the context of this discussion. We are discussing scientific merit.
I am not saying that there are not many religious people who are open-minded enough to accept that science is a valid and accurate view on the natural universe though. Similarly, I expect many scientists will agree that it is possible that there is a god of some sort, even if they are atheistic generally.
As for the Bible, yes it has worth as a cultural and historical text, but that is not the context of this discussion. We are discussing scientific merit.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,521
- 600
- 126
So...if the Bible talks about a creature, such as a dinosaur, but really doesnt have the latin for the current name, doesn't that offer some kind of evidence for scientists?
Isn't it possible that some survived until 4000 years ago? I mean we werent there. Plus its the only creature to get such a LENGTHY description.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,946
- 31,483
- 146
Absolutely. Fallibility is the central functionality of science. Science operates to disprove, not to prove. If I had to remember the number of meetings, lectures, and conferences I've been to where the course of discussion tends to focus on what is wrong with another scientist's research, rather than what is right about it...well, I'd have to remember more than one! (btw--last part of that comment is an understatement for those of you that are ironically disabled)
if evolution is a continuum, then "man" and "dinosaur" have always existed simultaneously, and probably still do. (if birds are descendants of dinos)
the delineation of life into species is man-made, in nature "man" is just one form of a string of life going back to the beginning of life.
the delineation of life into species is man-made, in nature "man" is just one form of a string of life going back to the beginning of life.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
FYI: "leviathan" means whale, "behemoth" means hippopotamus.
The entire book of Job is a parable, a fictional story for the teaching of a moral lesson, and both whales and hippopotamuses would have been very exotic animals to ancient Hebrews.
Personally, I think it's kind of a bummer the dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. I bet their meat was damn tasty. Could you imagine the barbecues??
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,521
- 600
- 126
hippopotamuses???? ROTFL
That description no where near describes a hippopotamus.
Tail like cedar? No its more like a rope.
Behold, if a river overflow, he trembleth not; He is confident, though a Jordan swell even to his mouth. - No it sinks to the bottom. Not really good at floating.
"It is the first of the great acts of God-- only its Maker can approach it with the sword. - Yes the Hippo is so grand that only God can take it on. Yeah...thats it.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The word "behemoth" means hippopotamus. I didn't make that up. How often do you think ancient Hebrews traveled into the jungles of Africa? The description was written by someone who probably never saw a hippopotamus in his whole life. You think they had National Geographic back then?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Translators never picked a word. Every translation of Job 40:15 that I am aware of uses the Hebrew word "behemoth."
You totally ignore what I am telling you. The word "bahemah" literally means "beast" in ancient Hebrew (there is another reference in Isaiah 30:6 in which the Hebrew word is directly translated as "beast" from the original texts and has wider meaning), and it is generally accepted that the Job reference means the hippopotamus (in fact, the Russian language word for a hippopotamus is behemoth).
I'm not ignoring the description. You're just insisting on interpreting literally that which is not meant to be interpreted literally. Remember, there were no National Geo's or even cameras 2500 years ago, and the journey from Israel to the Congo would have taken several months of extremely dangerous travel. Plus, are you aware of what hippos are like in real life? They're some of the meanest and most dangerous man-killers on the planet.
I always figured things like giants and behemoths are part of ancient texts, like the Bible, because even in ancient times they would have found the odd dinosaur bone, and needed some way to explain it.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
That's possible, and is believed to be the origins of the various dragon myths.
Joseph Campbell believed that the Job references of leviathan and behemoth were examples of Yahweh bragging about defeating the prior gods of the giant snake and giant ox. Anyone trying to interpret the references as dinosaurs though is really going out on a limb as far as blending ancient religious tradition with modern science.
Technically the evolved descendants of dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago (and still do today), but as for a dinosaur that science considers to have been extinct for millions of years like a tyrannosaurus rex or brontosaurus, well there is no evidence of that type of animal being on Earth in any recent times. I suppose it is possible, but highly unlikely.
From a scientific (or just logical) perspective, the Bible talking about a vague monstrous creature is basically a legend, unless the description is sufficiently accurate to coincide with a known dinosaur species. The problem with your argument is you are starting by assuming that the Bible is accurate. From a scientific viewpoint you can not assume any text is accurate, modern or ancient, because humans imagine things, make things up, or misinterpret the facts. There are many ancient tales of mythical beasts and serpents. A simple example would be the "sea serpents" believed to exist in medieval times. This would have been sailors seeing whales or something, and then telling stories of monsters which gradually become even more fantastic to form the notion of sea monsters and serpents.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,946
- 31,483
- 146
This is an interesting concept. Did this just occur to you or have you encountered this theory somewhere? I'd like to read more...
Actually, most hard-core paleantologists tend to imagine that they are in fact witnissing dinosaurs in their daily lives when they interact with birds. They cream their pants over this stuff.
Sure they lived at the same time. Where do you think the eating of Brontosaurus burgers came from. 
It's a fairly well-accepted principle of evolution. Richard Dawkins, the noted evolutionist, calls the separation of the continuum of life into species "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind". Whenever anyone attempts to make a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" they are exhibiting this flaw in common thought. We only divide animals into species because the practice dates back before evolutionary theory, and if there's one thing humans are bad at, it's breaking tradition.
Incidentally, there's a movement in taxonomy to completely eliminate the old system of classification and instead use molecular evidence to determine the relation of all living things to each other. I have to say I think this is a terrific idea, as it would eliminate any residual confusion that is inevitable when an entire discipline is turned on its head (as biology was when Darwin first published his theory).
If you'd like to read more about this and other enlightening evolutionary topics, I highly recommend "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins. A lucid and fascinating read.
Assuming the conclusion to prove it is the crux of the creationist argument. While it is a fatal flaw, good luck getting them to admit it.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,946
- 31,483
- 146
Don't worry, I'm well-versed in evolutionary theory (which is why I don't read Dawkins. --Perhaps I am too sweeping in considering anything else written by the man who wrote "The Selfish Gene" to be tripe; but it is what made him famous...so, as his major theories propounded within that are tripe, I imagine the rest are as well)
Yeah, I hate the words "macro" and "micro" evolution. likewise "evolutionist." What no Fundie or Creationist will ever understand is that supporting Darwin's theory of natural selection in no way puts you into a club, or cult--believing in evolution does not equate to subscribing to an ideal. No evolutionary theorists use macro or micro evolution. It isn't in the legitimate literature....simply b/c, the two (if they were legitimate concepts) are the same. I like when people use words that they invent, to apply to and attack a concept they have little hope of understanding. Wait; I don't like it...I find it aggravating. It wouldn't bother me if their ignorance were self-contained; but these people try to enforce such ignorance on their own children and worse yet--other peoples' children, as if they have some infallible right to do so. I find these tactics to be extremely dangerous to the culture and economic well-being of our country...
Molecular classification seems like the way to go. Working in the molecular field, this is how we think anyways. ...I don't so much as consider different species anymore but sequences. Maybe it becomes impersonal; but it's the most accurate way to classify.
EDIT: I forgot to explain what I found interesting abotu the continuum: Yeah, that is something that isn't new to me...what I actually hadn't considered through it though, is more philosophical, really. The idea that I am still living with dinosaurs or bromeliads....Sure, I do feel a sense of awe walking through a fern forest (A really cool thing), for some reason, I never equated that recognition to the feeling. Tom's statement drove it home I guess, in that I never considered such an elegant connection to the past.
I love the idea of our cells (and us) only existing b/c of ancient prokaryotic invasion/engulfment. Sure, it's not the most well-supported theory in evolution, but it makes sense. While this has always fascinated me...I never considered it on a grander scale. Cool stuff. I have Gould's Opus; but I haven't attempted to crack it's 1600 pages. I stick to his other stuff...
Evolution is obviously a continuum, though I admit it is not something one ponders specifically and it is interesting to think about. For the purposes of this discussion, I would say "dinosaur" refers to the point of evolution that defines species such as T-rex, etc.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter