How do God Believers deal with Dinosaurs.. .

[aidanjm]

"... for me religion is synonymous with not asking questions... religious thinking is robotic thinking, it's oh we do things because it's what our ancestors did, it's what my father did, my grandfather." - Madonna

 

[compuwiz1]

In these times, when the world seems to be going to hell in a handbasket, it would sure be great, if we could put a gps on one of those handbaskets! Then we would know exactly where hell is, how long it took to get there, and how far away it is. 🙂

And where are these tubes that the world is going down? Has anyone ever seen these supposed tubes? 😉

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Here's what I learned in my 10 years in Sunday School combined with my understanding of the present scientific model of the universe.

As recently as 150 years ago, LOTS of people tried to count backward through the bible to discover the origin of everything. Pretty much that adds up to about 6500 years. Bah.

What a simple answer. Why would you want a simple God?

The bible as written in a much simpler time for a much simpler audiance. And while there are wonderful lessons to be learned in that book... It would be a mistake to take it literally.

Seriously... God is infinitely intelligent. Would he have just conjured up our existence out of wholecloth? *BAM* Adam, Eve, T-Rex, caribou, oil, Trump's hair. That seems a little simple for an omnipotent being don't you think?

An amazing rule of physics states that the more we know about an object's speed, the less we know about its location. And the more we know about an objects location, the less we know about its speed. This means that if we manage to pinpoint an object's exact location in time we know absolutely nothing about it's velocity and vice versa. The theory goes that if we could calculate both the speed and location of an object we would be able to predict its path, and how it will interact with other objects and their locations and velocities and so on.... In short, we'd be able to predict the future.

But as it stands we can't do either.

We can't even line up a cue ball and fire it off at an exact angle and velocity so as to sink every ball on the table in one shot.

Enter God. (Or random chance for you atheists)

Waving a magic wand and producing planets and stars... the universe as we know it... in one stroke is too easy... What a lazy God that would be.

This guy put all the matter of the universe into one pin-prick sized mass and fired the cue ball. Not only was he able to put every ball in the pocket (so to speak), he was able to know the exact velocity and location of every particle of matter he put into motion. And not only was he able to track what we can't in the wildest limits of theoretical physics... He did it like he was lining up the eight ball in the corner pocket. He put every sub-atomic particle in the universe into a specific motion. He calculated the exact trajectory, velocity and location of every sub-atomic particle in the matter that kicked off our existence to the point that he knew where and when hydrogen would form from quarks and muons and gluons and coelesce into stars that would eventually go nova and create helium that would coalesce into new stars that would collapse and super nova and would produce progressively heavier elements that would eventually form solar systems and planets... and eventually complex chains of carbon molecules that spontaneously divide into other complex chains of carbon molecules. Algae, amoebas, corals, vetebrates, mammals, us. All from one cue shot.

And what makes us so special? How is it that we are created in the image of God?

To this day we still struggle with the question of right and wrong. And that is probably an odd side track to our original purpose. (assuming that we are the end of the chain... or even had a purpose to begin with) Because on a grander scale we are trying to understand how this universe works. The result of a 15 billion year old cue shot is a group of fundamental building blocks that has achieved the ability to combine into complex groups and observe the world around itself and eventually, one day, understand that world.

And should we be the intended part of that cue shot to finally understand both how and why the universe is what, how, where and why it is... God will have achieved his goal in creating something in his image. A playmate... conversationalist capable of dealing on his level. Whatever you want to call it.

I guess you could say that God was bored and needed someone to talk to. Or lonely? I suppose it doesn't matter except to the person who is trying to rationalize his existence.

heh, that is the longest most worthless thing i've ever read, i usually stop before, but i felt like i had to to answer.

Ofcourse we can predict the future, meteorologists do it every day, it's just about how complicated the scale is. And with time, give it 30 years, we'll be able to do loads and loads of predicting. As computers grow stronger. (around 2019 a computer will be as smart as a human)
And yes that pool shot is possible, ofcourse it is, there's just too many factors involved to do it by hand.

First you have to define why you believe in god.
You were raised to believe in god, and then you apply belief to what limited knowledge you have of your surroundings. That in itself is a good argument against religion.
There's no evidence what-so-ever to believe in god.

 

[lyssword]

I don't think meterologists are so good, they get forecast wrong like 40% of the time.. at least where I live, cuz we get crazy random weather, 1 day rain next one sunny then rain etc..

 

[DotheDamnTHing]

Originally posted by: beer
simple, they are Jesus Horses

😀

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am curious to know how certain religions deal with the FACT that dinosaurs were here first?

Easy. "God put them there, purposely, to test our faith."

Remember, since the god is regarded by believers as being omnipotent and omniscient, it can do anything, including being responsible for any evidence that might test the faith.

 

[Shiizu]

satan planted them there to fool the unworthy 😉

 

[Uhtrinity]

LDS missionaries once told me that dinosaurs came from another planet that collided with ours. Guess that is what you get when you send out 18 - 20 year olds to preach / sell your religion. Others told me they coexisted with man and were on Noahs Ark.

 

[Todd33]

It never ceases to amaze me that people try to fit the Bible with reality. It's oil and water. Con men from 3,000 years ago explaining a world they don't understand, ignore it and read something worthwhile.

 

[dmcowen674]

Dino's were birds FTW

 

[Strk]

God is big into practical jokes, of course! That and skeeball.

 

[conehead433]

Actually simpler than any explanation given here - What's for Bar-B-Que?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: lyssword
You could have just used the magic Google thingy, but I guess thats too much to ask. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

Did the Dino's attend Church???

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Here's what I learned in my 10 years in Sunday School combined with my understanding of the present scientific model of the universe.

As recently as 150 years ago, LOTS of people tried to count backward through the bible to discover the origin of everything. Pretty much that adds up to about 6500 years. Bah.

What a simple answer. Why would you want a simple God?

The bible as written in a much simpler time for a much simpler audiance. And while there are wonderful lessons to be learned in that book... It would be a mistake to take it literally.

Seriously... God is infinitely intelligent. Would he have just conjured up our existence out of wholecloth? *BAM* Adam, Eve, T-Rex, caribou, oil, Trump's hair. That seems a little simple for an omnipotent being don't you think?

An amazing rule of physics states that the more we know about an object's speed, the less we know about its location. And the more we know about an objects location, the less we know about its speed. This means that if we manage to pinpoint an object's exact location in time we know absolutely nothing about it's velocity and vice versa. The theory goes that if we could calculate both the speed and location of an object we would be able to predict its path, and how it will interact with other objects and their locations and velocities and so on.... In short, we'd be able to predict the future.

But as it stands we can't do either.

We can't even line up a cue ball and fire it off at an exact angle and velocity so as to sink every ball on the table in one shot.

Enter God. (Or random chance for you atheists)

Waving a magic wand and producing planets and stars... the universe as we know it... in one stroke is too easy... What a lazy God that would be.

This guy put all the matter of the universe into one pin-prick sized mass and fired the cue ball. Not only was he able to put every ball in the pocket (so to speak), he was able to know the exact velocity and location of every particle of matter he put into motion. And not only was he able to track what we can't in the wildest limits of theoretical physics... He did it like he was lining up the eight ball in the corner pocket. He put every sub-atomic particle in the universe into a specific motion. He calculated the exact trajectory, velocity and location of every sub-atomic particle in the matter that kicked off our existence to the point that he knew where and when hydrogen would form from quarks and muons and gluons and coelesce into stars that would eventually go nova and create helium that would coalesce into new stars that would collapse and super nova and would produce progressively heavier elements that would eventually form solar systems and planets... and eventually complex chains of carbon molecules that spontaneously divide into other complex chains of carbon molecules. Algae, amoebas, corals, vetebrates, mammals, us. All from one cue shot.

And what makes us so special? How is it that we are created in the image of God?

To this day we still struggle with the question of right and wrong. And that is probably an odd side track to our original purpose. (assuming that we are the end of the chain... or even had a purpose to begin with) Because on a grander scale we are trying to understand how this universe works. The result of a 15 billion year old cue shot is a group of fundamental building blocks that has achieved the ability to combine into complex groups and observe the world around itself and eventually, one day, understand that world.

And should we be the intended part of that cue shot to finally understand both how and why the universe is what, how, where and why it is... God will have achieved his goal in creating something in his image. A playmate... conversationalist capable of dealing on his level. Whatever you want to call it.

I guess you could say that God was bored and needed someone to talk to. Or lonely? I suppose it doesn't matter except to the person who is trying to rationalize his existence.

heh, that is the longest most worthless thing i've ever read, i usually stop before, but i felt like i had to to answer.

Ofcourse we can predict the future, meteorologists do it every day, it's just about how complicated the scale is. And with time, give it 30 years, we'll be able to do loads and loads of predicting. As computers grow stronger. (around 2019 a computer will be as smart as a human)
And yes that pool shot is possible, ofcourse it is, there's just too many factors involved to do it by hand.

First you have to define why you believe in god.
You were raised to believe in god, and then you apply belief to what limited knowledge you have of your surroundings. That in itself is a good argument against religion.
There's no evidence what-so-ever to believe in god.

How odd you found it worthless crap. I thought it was great.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: lyssword
I don't think meterologists are so good, they get forecast wrong like 40% of the time.. at least where I live, cuz we get crazy random weather, 1 day rain next one sunny then rain etc..

Careful there! Don't want to challenge his faith. He is a true believer.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: glenn beck
ummmmm does say in Genesis that GOD created animals first....

so is that why we are so similar to a certain group of them?

So are you of the opinion that a religous person automatically disbelieves in evolution?

Unless they are hypocritical. If youre religious and accecpt the findings of evolution, when do you apply your empirical philosophy (science based) versus your belief (faith based)? When its convenient and it supports your current view? These are two fundamentally different perspectives you know? I would say they are diametrically opposed.

 

[1prophet]

It is funny that many educated people consider those that believe in God to be dinosaurs and are hoping they will suffer the same fate.😉

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: glenn beck
ummmmm does say in Genesis that GOD created animals first....

so is that why we are so similar to a certain group of them?

So are you of the opinion that a religous person automatically disbelieves in evolution?

Unless they are hypocritical. If youre religious and accecpt the findings of evolution, when do you apply your empirical philosophy (science based) versus your belief (faith based)? When its convenient and it supports your current view? These are two fundamentally different perspectives you know? I would say they are diametrically opposed.

My point in my overly-long post earlier is that the two are not diametrically opposed. That they are in fact one in the same. You can look around at everything in the universe... heh, everything in your back yard for that matter... and choose to believe that it all happened by sheer dumb luck if you want to.

Or you can look at everything and try to envision an infinitely huge and infinitely complicateed Rube Goldberg device made up of subatomic particles that all had to interact in a specific way and at specific times to bring us to this point and wonder at the intellect of the entity that put the whole thing in motion.

I suppose my belief in God is just giving credit where credit is due.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
My point in my overly-long post earlier is that the two are not diametrically opposed. That they are in fact one in the same. You can look around at everything in the universe... heh, everything in your back yard for that matter... and choose to believe that it all happened by sheer dumb luck if you want to.

Or you can look at everything and try to envision an infinitely huge and infinitely complicateed Rube Goldberg device made up of subatomic particles that all had to interact in a specific way and at specific times to bring us to this point and wonder at the intellect of the entity that put the whole thing in motion.

I suppose my belief in God is just giving credit where credit is due.

Thats your perspective, albeit wrong. I have never seen any evidence of a creator. In fact, if there is one it is a really damn dumb engineer/designer. Take the mammalian retina for example, its BACKWARDS. Yet some invertabrates like the octopus have forward facing retinas. Maybe in your world this means that your creator created the mammalian retina, realized its mistake, and then created the retina for the octopus? I dont, i see a logical evolutionary explaination (which you find via google--just stay away from faith-based sites). Believe in your faith-based creator if you like, im sticking with an empirical perspective that makes no claims without evidence. Do i know how life originated? Nope, not enough evidence yet. Which is it, do you make claims with or without evidence? Seems to me you do BOTH, much like a hypocrite would. Enjoy.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
My point in my overly-long post earlier is that the two are not diametrically opposed. That they are in fact one in the same. You can look around at everything in the universe... heh, everything in your back yard for that matter... and choose to believe that it all happened by sheer dumb luck if you want to.

Or you can look at everything and try to envision an infinitely huge and infinitely complicateed Rube Goldberg device made up of subatomic particles that all had to interact in a specific way and at specific times to bring us to this point and wonder at the intellect of the entity that put the whole thing in motion.

I suppose my belief in God is just giving credit where credit is due.

Thats your perspective, albeit wrong. I have never seen any evidence of a creator. In fact, if there is one it is a really damn dumb engineer/designer. Take the mammalian retina for example, its BACKWARDS. Yet some invertabrates like the octopus have forward facing retinas. Maybe in your world this means that your creator created the mammalian retina, realized its mistake, and then created the retina for the octopus? I dont, i see a logical evolutionary explaination (which you find via google--just stay away from faith-based sites). Believe in your faith-based creator if you like, im sticking with an empirical perspective that makes no claims without evidence. Do i know how life originated? Nope, not enough evidence yet. Which is it, do you make claims with or without evidence? Seems to me you do BOTH, much like a hypocrite would. Enjoy.

:laugh:

Lighten up Francis. I'm not denying evolution. Never did. Evolution is why we don't live in trees (or ooze from one place to the next if you want to go back that far). Just think for a minute about the incredible, unrepeatable chain of events that began 15 billion years ago. It's a chain of events that led to an amassing of molucules (you) sitting in front of another mass of molucules (your computer) frustratingly banging out flame posts to another (slightly more complex 😛 ) mass of molecules (me).

Like I said, you can choose to give credit where credit is due or you can believe that it's all just a happy accident. I'll assume I can place you in the "happy accident" group.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: Forsythe


heh, that is the longest most worthless thing i've ever read, i usually stop before, but i felt like i had to to answer.

Ofcourse we can predict the future, meteorologists do it every day, it's just about how complicated the scale is. And with time, give it 30 years, we'll be able to do loads and loads of predicting. As computers grow stronger. (around 2019 a computer will be as smart as a human)
And yes that pool shot is possible, ofcourse it is, there's just too many factors involved to do it by hand.

First you have to define why you believe in god.
You were raised to believe in god, and then you apply belief to what limited knowledge you have of your surroundings. That in itself is a good argument against religion.
There's no evidence what-so-ever to believe in god.

Predicting the future is something we do all the time. The truth is, we CAN predict the future. The unfortunate catch to that is that we cannot predict the future accurately. Often times, we are completely wrong when we predict.

The differences between predicting and knowing is far greater than a normal person can particularly conceive. Prediction is an opinion or thought based on a pool of evidence. Call it the irony of chain events. If A = B and B = C, then by the law of prediction, A = C. Given by the evidence shown, it can be assumed or predicted that A equals C.

A good example: If the clouds over New York City have been keeping a steady path to Syracuse, then by law of prediction, those same clouds will reach Syracuse and give Rain or Snow.

Now, knowing the future is a bit different. Knowing is the ability of understanding or conceiving the thought of evidence that has been proven or otherwise. For example: 1 + 1 = 2. By knowledge of basic mathematical principals, it can be proven as a fact that 1 + 1 = 2. If none of us knew basic math, then 1 + 1 = 2 would simply be a prediction. There is no knowledge placed there; simply assumptions.

Now that I got that out of the way.

We cannot actively say we "know" the future. God can easily say it. However, for a person who does not believe in God, he or she tend to give us humans too much credit. Much more credit than we deserve. Some things on this planet happen without any scientific reasoning. In fact, a lot of it contradicts science.

An area that we increasingly know little about: The Universe. Science says that everything is based off a form of kinetic or potential energy property; in which energy cannot be created or destroyed. At least, that is how our minds think. To every action, there's an equivlent reaction. By these same principals, we cannot phantom something as large scale as the creation of the universe. Some may disagree with me, but what I'm about to say is really the only example I can use to make my point. Science says that in the beginning, there was a big bang in which everything started. However, that contradicts the proven scientifical theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed. For an explosion to happen, there has to be an action for that reaction to occur. Others say there were gases that existed before the bang even occured. However, there's no explaination of where those gases came from or how they were put there in the first place.

Point being, science cannot define everything. So, it's only logical for people to turn towards religion.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
My point in my overly-long post earlier is that the two are not diametrically opposed. That they are in fact one in the same. You can look around at everything in the universe... heh, everything in your back yard for that matter... and choose to believe that it all happened by sheer dumb luck if you want to.

Or you can look at everything and try to envision an infinitely huge and infinitely complicateed Rube Goldberg device made up of subatomic particles that all had to interact in a specific way and at specific times to bring us to this point and wonder at the intellect of the entity that put the whole thing in motion.

I suppose my belief in God is just giving credit where credit is due.

Thats your perspective, albeit wrong. I have never seen any evidence of a creator. In fact, if there is one it is a really damn dumb engineer/designer. Take the mammalian retina for example, its BACKWARDS. Yet some invertabrates like the octopus have forward facing retinas. Maybe in your world this means that your creator created the mammalian retina, realized its mistake, and then created the retina for the octopus? I dont, i see a logical evolutionary explaination (which you find via google--just stay away from faith-based sites). Believe in your faith-based creator if you like, im sticking with an empirical perspective that makes no claims without evidence. Do i know how life originated? Nope, not enough evidence yet. Which is it, do you make claims with or without evidence? Seems to me you do BOTH, much like a hypocrite would. Enjoy.

:laugh:

Lighten up Francis. I'm not denying evolution. Never did. Evolution is why we don't live in trees (or ooze from one place to the next if you want to go back that far). Just think for a minute about the incredible, unrepeatable chain of events that began 15 billion years ago. It's a chain of events that led to an amassing of molucules (you) sitting in front of another mass of molucules (your computer) frustratingly banging out flame posts to another (slightly more complex 😛 ) mass of molecules (me).

Like I said, you can choose to give credit where credit is due or you can believe that it's all just a happy accident. I'll assume I can place you in the "happy accident" group.

I never meant that post to come off as flames--apologies. Regardless, if you think that this "impossible" chain of events was the result of a creator what evidence of that do you have? If you dont have any, all you have is faith that your sunday school teacher spoke with this creator. Back to my original question. So, when do you rely on faith and when do you rely on empirical evidence? If you rely on faith in the absence of empirical evidence, fine. That is the least hypocritical stance, yet still hypocritical in MANY instances. I prefer ignorance--in that we dont know YET. I dont need any fantastic explainations, i look at the evidence. You, and others of your ilk, dont.

 

[Moonbeam]

Point being, science cannot define everything. So, it's only logical for people to turn towards religion.

This is so profoundly true but religious people refuse to see it. For example when it comes to knowledge of God, many scientists fail to have any. They therefore invent a religious God to explain the religious God of others and into which they invest a similar faith to explain their own ignorance. Once you can explain away all belief in God as merely a need to explain that which we are ignorant about we we have successfully invented a God to explain away God.

Religions are all old bridges to reality created by scientists of the past who had verified and proven a path to God. It is reality and not the bridges that count. Knowledge of God can be had only with knowledge of the self. How can anybody know God who does not know what he feels. Hell, almost nobody is even aware of the unconscious nature of feelings.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

What evidence are you asking for?

If you accept the curent model of the universe as having started from a point of matter smaller than the head of a pin then the only real difference between your position and mine is this.

Me: God gave it a push.
You: It spontaneously began expanding.

And then there is the debate as to how the point of matter came to be in the first place... To which God is as plausible an answer as any other.

After you get past that part we're pretty much on the same page. The rest is just trying to figure out how it all works. (Science!)

 

[daveymark]

Well, Kent Hovind says...