Do you belive that Dinosaurs once existed?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
You forget that the flood has scientific evidence. The correct origin may not exist, but the Bible's roots can be traced much farter back than that of any other manuscript in existance, predating all other writings. It has yet to be proven wrong on ANY count, and so far stands by its promise as being the one true record of mankind's creation.

There is NO, NONE, ZERO evidence of ANY worldwide flood ever having occured in any geological strata on this planet.

As far as your short treastie on why the bible is perfect when in fact I posted a quote WITH the historical information of it's origin is frankly boggeling. Maybe you should re-read what I quoted again.

It MUST be flawed because the humans CAN NOT be more than 50,000 years old. The Earth, though it does a good job insulating heat from the sun has always been cooling down. The crust is gradually growing thicker. You can look with a satellite from space and detect the Earth as a "hot spot" giving off more heat than it receives. Therefore, if the Earth is cooling down, it must logically at one time have been hotter. I'm not saying it has always cooled at the same rate, but there is an obvious limit to how hot it could have been to sustain life (an entirely molten Earth could obviously not sustain life). Going back in time while gradually warming, the Earth would have been too hot for humans to live on in a matter of thousands, not millions of years. It would then be entirely molten long before the second billion. Whatever you're measuring, it's not time.

That is the biggest crock of bullsh!t I've read in quite a while and believe me, there is a lot posted on here. Your little anecdotal evidence is meaningless and has no basis in fact and shows a fundemental lack of education in both geology and science in general.

"Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable, and in practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if it can be checked by some historical means."

Carbon dating ISN'T as reliable as even you think joohang

"It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this scheme."

It can't measure "stone" as you say at all. If all the preserved organic plant or animal has been replaced by minerals as old as the entire earth, would they not all date nearly the same?

A common tatic by those who wish to decieve on matters where people are not fully educated is to take a multi-disciplinarian science and attack a single brach of the science involved and point out that it doesn't support any of the conclusions. For example when discussing fossils, young earth creationists (or as they should be called liars) like to point out that radiometric carbon dating is only accurate to just under 100,000 years. What they fail to point out to the lay observer is that multi-disciplinarian science is involved and contains not only radiometric dating of non-carbon isotopes but geology, biology, archeaology and many other fields. This is often why "teams" investigate fossil digs.

 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
Originally posted by: CZroe


That must be the single STUPIDEST post I've ever seen on Anandtech!

Stick around.... you ain't seen nothin yet... the post you referred to doesn't even scratch the surface... (and it was a joke.... dork.)

 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
Originally posted by: Maetryx
Creationism is based on faith which is rationally undisputable.

That is absolutely false.

I am not nearly sufficiently familiar with Creationist theory to argue the point with you... I gave my limited and admittedly biased opinion. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Creationism is based on the idea that an omnipotent God created the universe a very short while ago... the conviction that this is "absolute truth" is based on a faith which is not and should not be open to argument.

 

VFAA

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2001
1,176
0
0
...well i was wondering do a lot of the christian population belive that?
No.
so Do you belive that Dinosaurs once existed?
Yes.
And how does that play in with ur belife of god and creation?
As a Roman Catholic, I believe that God created Earth. How humans were created you ask? I trust the science as it says humans most likely evolved from monkeys. My religion has no problems with that argument as long as at some point during the human evolution God stepped in and gave us a soul.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: sandigga
There is NO, NONE, ZERO evidence of ANY worldwide flood ever having occured in any geological strata on this planet.
no?
suuuure its not PROOF but i would definitely consider it evidence....

want more evidence?

Columbia University researchers William Ryan and Walter Pittman speculated in their 1997 book "Noah's Flood" that when the European glaciers melted, about 7,000 years ago, the Mediterranean Sea overflowed into what was then a smaller freshwater lake to create the Black Sea.

Last year Ballard found indications of an ancient coastline miles out from the current Black Sea coast. The new discovery provides evidence that people once lived in that now inundated region.

Maybe you missed the part where they said it wasn't a worldwide flood and was totally localized to the black sea area? The myth was futher established in india when the recently discovered city off the coast was flooded and the greeks told of atlantis (islands in the mediterantian) were flooded which has since been found they believe. All this flooding was a result of glacial melt and NEVER constituted a worldwide flood whereby an ark was constructed. The very concept of an ark with every living thing on board is absurd. The jews borrowed the flood myth from babylonia <sp> when they were in captivity and rewrote it to match their cultural wishes.
 

VFAA

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2001
1,176
0
0
People, let's take one important thing into consideration. Back than, people only knew of Europe and Middle East. When the flood occured (and it did happen whether it was God or science doing it) known lands were affected by it. Therefore, people assumed it was the "world flood" since they didn't explore our planet yet. They believe the whole world was only where they lived.

Understood?
 

globalstud

Banned
Sep 10, 2002
205
0
0
You must understand. When the people of the world finally face the reality of their limited existence, there will be anarchy?

 

UDT89

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2001
4,529
0
76
i believe in evolution and darwin

i believe in the big bang theory

just wondering where the stuff came from that made the big bang theory happen. I agree that the planets started with some sort of process like the big bang, but where did the universe come from? Thats the true question.
 

VFAA

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2001
1,176
0
0
Originally posted by: UDT89
i believe in evolution and darwin

i believe in the big bang theory

just wondering where the stuff came from that made the big bang theory happen. I agree that the planets started with some sort of process like the big bang, but where did the universe come from? Thats the true question.

I wonder that myself. Though I support the Big Bang Theory, but where did the universe come from?

That's where faith comes into play. I believe God made it.
 

fatbaby

Banned
May 7, 2001
6,427
1
0
Originally posted by: VFAA
People, let's take one important thing into consideration. Back than, people only knew of Europe and Middle East. When the flood occured (and it did happen whether it was God or science doing it) known lands were affected by it. Therefore, people assumed it was the "world flood" since they didn't explore our planet yet. They believe the whole world was only where they lived.

Understood?

13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

17"And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.


It states in the bible it is a worldwide flood. Yet the "evidence" sandigga pointed out only pertains to the black sea (middle east)
 

VFAA

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2001
1,176
0
0
Originally posted by: fatbaby
Originally posted by: VFAA
People, let's take one important thing into consideration. Back than, people only knew of Europe and Middle East. When the flood occured (and it did happen whether it was God or science doing it) known lands were affected by it. Therefore, people assumed it was the "world flood" since they didn't explore our planet yet. They believe the whole world was only where they lived.

Understood?

13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

17"And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.


It states in the bible it is a worldwide flood. Yet the "evidence" sandigga pointed out only pertains to the black sea (middle east)

hehe we can play this game all night long and we still won't solve it. There's a lot of theories and very little support for facts in the bible. I mean, do you honestly belive God created Earth in 7 days and the first 2 humanoids were Adam and Eve? Even Pope says that's just a myth to make the story easy to brake down for learning kids :).
 

fluxquantum

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2000
2,398
1
71
Ugh... You can't just mix and match to make your own religion if the ideas involved are DIRECTLY contradictory. The Bible says the Earth was CREATED and the animals were CREATED. To believe otherwise is to say the Bible is false. To believe in something that you know is false at the same time is not only sacreligous, but also psychologically wrong.

who are you to say that science and religion are contradictory? i believe in what i believe. we do not know the mind of god. i never said the bible was false. mankind's interpretation of the bible could be flawed. how does one book explain it all? doesn't make sense. anyways, that is straying away from the topic. like i said. i am catholic and i believe dinosaurs exist. in my heart and mind science and religion can mix.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: VFAA
People, let's take one important thing into consideration. Back than, people only knew of Europe and Middle East. When the flood occured (and it did happen whether it was God or science doing it) known lands were affected by it. Therefore, people assumed it was the "world flood" since they didn't explore our planet yet. They believe the whole world was only where they lived.

Understood?

What time frame are you speaking of?
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: CZroe
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Tominator
Amazing!

We have no dinosaur bones. We have fossils!

Even if one were to prove a timeline of earth's existence, which is presently impossible, it is purely speculative when dinosaurs actually lived and the reason they died out.

The Bible describes 'behemoths' and other unexplained animals. No explanation is given.

Remember all the posters in school. The ones showing an ape and it's stages to becoming human? It was a lie and science has proven itself wrong so many times to lean on it as proof one way or the other is laughable at the least yet promotes theories as fact.

I do not know and neither do you!

I would rather trust a method that works to solve it's own imperfections than rely on the supposed perfections of:

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include an additional twelve books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books began in about 1000 B.C. and continued for more than a thousand years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods and were usually unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations were made to the originals by various copyists and editors.

Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. In spite of what the Gospel authors say, biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness to his ministry.


Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories--stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional--were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.
You forget that the flood has scientific evidence. The correct origin may not exist, but the Bible's roots can be traced much farter back than that of any other manuscript in existance, predating all other writings. It has yet to be proven wrong on ANY count, and so far stands by its promise as being the one true record of mankind's creation.

Actually, the flood story is more widespread than you think. Every single culture in the known world has a flood story - including cultures that had no contact with Judeo-Christian culture until the last few centuries.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: CZroe
Originally posted by: fluxquantum
i happen to be catholic. i do believe in evolution and i do believe that dinosaurs existed. for those who don't believe that is their freedom to do so. it's really difficult trying to convince them otherwise.
Ugh... You can't just mix and match to make your own religion if the ideas involved are DIRECTLY contradictory. The Bible says the Earth was CREATED and the animals were CREATED. To believe otherwise is to say the Bible is false. To believe in something that you know is false at the same time is not only sacreligous, but also psychologically wrong.

I guess the Pope needs to start studying the bible then, huh?
rolleye.gif
 

BlamoHammer

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2002
2,259
0
0
These "dinosaurs" you speak of are nothing but a hoax! That damn Steven Spielberg....he's hoodwinked everyone into thinking these absurd creatures walked the Earth millions of years ago. The audacity of the man to place full sized skeletons around the globe of hundreds of different species! SOMEBODY is in need of attention...
 

VFAA

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2001
1,176
0
0
Originally posted by: Zakath15
Originally posted by: VFAA
People, let's take one important thing into consideration. Back than, people only knew of Europe and Middle East. When the flood occured (and it did happen whether it was God or science doing it) known lands were affected by it. Therefore, people assumed it was the "world flood" since they didn't explore our planet yet. They believe the whole world was only where they lived.

Understood?

What time frame are you speaking of?

lol what time frame do you think? It's all black on white... Just have to pay attention to it :).
 

CyberCowboy

Senior member
Apr 16, 2001
247
0
0
Originally posted by: amnesiac 2.0
So do these good, God-fearing Christians want to explain the large skeletal and fossilized remains that we find from archeological digs?

they were planted by the government. Area 51 is where they make them.

 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: CyberCowboy
Originally posted by: amnesiac 2.0
So do these good, God-fearing Christians want to explain the large skeletal and fossilized remains that we find from archeological digs?

they were planted by the government. Area 51 is where they make them.

:Q

RUN, ET, RUN!!

:D