Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[Thundercrack85]

I'd say there is definitely a legitimate conspiracy angle. I don't think anyone who's seriously studied it would deny that there is a lot of secrecy, and official silence surrounding the subject.

Shouldn't be surprising, since most sightings took place in the middle of the Cold War. By comparison there aren't too many declassified files on bigfoot.

 

[Dr.]

Radiocarbon dating is notoriously flimsy, and basically amounts to educated guess work. Results are based on the presumed amount of Carbon 14 in the animal when it died. To add even further instability in the results, countless things can contaminate the Carbon 14 reading - everything from the composition of the soil or water a fossil is encased in, to the chemical contents of the air.

The accuracy of radiometric dating techniques is actually quite robust and reliable. The margins of error for the various isotope decay rates are understood and the circumstances by which “contamination” occurs (e.g., carbon exchange reservoirs) are well known and duly accounted for.

Moreover, there is some overlap among the different isotopes, such that one can represent a check against another. And C14 dates have been verified/calibrated against varves (sediment layers) dendrochronology (tree ring dating - which is accurate to the year, going back farther than 10,000 years).

 

[rodhulk]

This website thinks it's just an Indian rhino (maybe with some leaves behind it?) It does look like it has horns when it's viewed straight on.

While I understand their point on the ear issue, it should be equally pointed out that an indian rhino does not have the plates (or whatever it is called) on it's back. The stone carving definitley seems to show that however. Perhaps it's another dino that is yet to be discovered (maybe a family member of what the creationists thought it was).

 

[chaseter]

Ok then give me information from these testings. I want to know what happened in these laboratories with these fruit flies, mice, and bacteria.



Actually, there are no transitional fossils. Those so-called transitional fossils were proven to not be transitional fossils after all.



I'm glad you brought up that ape/human DNA similarity bull-ish.

Apes could NEVER evolve into humans and this is why:

Steve Jones
Scientist, Evolutionist

An exceptional quote to begin with, revealing that specific, pinpointed similarities between two separate species can mean very little. Baboons, according to research, share 90% of their DNA with human beings. Does this, therefore, make them 90% human? The answer, in light of this quote, is absolutely not. Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, also noted concerning man/monkey genetic differences:

"Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution?

Source - http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm

That little fact alone tears up the evolution fairy tale.

So you think we are the literal children of two people, Adam and Eve? Why is incest bad today then?

Where in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't occur? Were we not molded from the Earth? What if we started out as a tiny single celled organism?

Why do we have an appendix if we don't need it? Could it be that it once had a use? Why do we have a tail bone? Why do a lot of people have to have their wisdom teeth removed and why are a lot of children today being born without them? Why do snakes have bone joints where legs would have been?

Why does it say in the Bible that we cannot live longer than 114 years but people have?

 

[Lighthouse]

Kentucky Evolution Fight: GOP Lawmakers Upset State Exams Test Students On 'Made Up' Theory

These people actually hold positions of authority!!

 

[Piper Maru]

5th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
[YT]HzmbnxtnMB4[/YT]

Disputing the weary canard that evolution is a religion, and therefore somehow equal to creationism.

 

[Thundercrack85]

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

Irony... overload.

 

[BestGirl]

While I understand their point on the ear issue, it should be equally pointed out that an indian rhino does not have the plates (or whatever it is called) on it's back. The stone carving definitley seems to show that however. Perhaps it's another dino that is yet to be discovered (maybe a family member of what the creationists thought it was).

That's why I suggested that it could be leaves behind it. The other animals in that section of the temple seem to have decorative elements in their backgrounds as well. There's a bird, in particular, that seems to have the exact same plate-like features behind it.

 

[Lighthouse]

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

Irony... overload.

It's also just plain false.

 

[rodhulk]

That's why I suggested that it could be leaves behind it. The other animals in that section of the temple seem to have decorative elements in their backgrounds as well. There's a bird, in particular, that seems to have the exact same plate-like features behind it.

The pates on the dino (rhino?) appear to be strategically put in place as part of the animal's back, no way they are leaves or else there would be others around and/or at least more scattered around in the carving. There is another animal there but the plates/leaves are definitely not a part of the animal from my POV. As for the bird, if I'm looking at the same pic as you, there are scattered plates/leaves around but only in the background... except on/by the neck, there appears to be something but it would be doubtful they would be there, it doesn't look natural at all and appear like they could be in the background, just a little closer.

 

[rodhulk]

There are other parts that describe a talking serpent....as well of a man splitting open a sea, creating a man out of sand, etc....

Scripture is not a reliable place to look for counter-evidence, when religion itself has yet to define and confirm which parts are literal and which are metaphorical, and what the specific/unique references are.


And again, what is it that you suspect made dinosaurs so much harder to draw than other animals that were drawn...especially seeing how much bigger they were.

Who's 'attempting' what here?


Again, the idea and expression of it came from creationists, as an attempt to defame evolution. I didn't say you specifically did. You implied that evolution planted the idea. Thankfully, now you know they didn't.

Job 40 and 41 could very well be describing dinosaurs. Evidence such as the tail moves like a cedar, elephant/hippo have small tails. Now, in Job 40, the scripture doesn't say the tail is necessarily long and might only move like a cedar, but it could also mean long like a cedar. Just the reference to a cedar is interesting but of course, in itself, doesn't prove it was a dino. But we cannot deny the suggestion. Job 40 also describes the animal/dino as probably being very, very tall as it only goes into the shade of trees when it lies down.

Job 41 shows that fire breathes out of it, and it is the king of all creation in terms of might and cannot be hurt by any of man's weapons at the time. There is no animal today that can fit that description, even back in the day I'm certain... alligators/crocs are in no way the animal being talked about in Job 41. I don't see this at all.

And I never said dinos were harder to draw than other animals. I said that to draw them, people must have seen them back then to know what they looked like.

Finally, the whole idea of that "creationists started something with the bones being planted by God" or whatever was said..... the whole point I was trying to make is why even bring that up as no person here brought it up (not saying you did this with bad intentions and I can tell by your post you didn't mean it that way, so all is good).

I'm also going to add something to this but it will be in response to another poster who quoted me on something. I also like the UFO stuff you guys brought up, you might be surprised coming from me, but there is some interest on my "christian" part in regards to that, I'll post something tomorrow.

 

[moviedoors]

Finally, the whole idea of that "creationists started something with the bones being planted by God" or what have you..... the whole point I was trying to make is why even bring that up..no person arguing on the side of creation in this thread brought it up, so it was pointless to throw that out,

No, it's not pointless. No one in this thread has said that. But creationists most certainly have said that. I've heard that very idea from my aunt. So it's fair game.

 

[rodhulk]

The bible mentions "behemoth" anf "leviathan" they are described as large beasts. Dragons and sea serpents were mentioned in old writings and legends too but we dont take them literally. Most likely all these beast references were either heresay or exagerations. Even if they werent there is no context of size or description given to these beasts in the bible and they are only mentioned once. Thats not enough evidence to prove dinosaurs roamed the earth with mankind. Plus im pretty sure scientists have determined that given the size of dinosaurs the amount of oxygen in todays atmosphere and even the atmosphere of 6,000 years ago wouldnt sustain them.

I'm not sure about the atmosphere stuff, things could have been much different back then than we currently know... but....

..... it is interesting to note that the people of the past didn't have all of our language and terminolgy and so used words to best describe things as they saw it ("behemoth" and "Leviathan" could fit that bill). While this might be a stretch to some, I wouldn't put it past the possibility that when people talked about dragons in the past, could they have actually been referring to what we know as dinosaurs. I say this because the description in Job 41 is one that tells us that fire came out of the animal/dino's breath. In other words, dinosaurs may have been seen back then and used in literature much more than we think.

 

[rodhulk]

No, it's not pointless. No one in this thread has said that. But creationists most certainly have said that. I've heard that very idea from my aunt. So it's fair game.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying and agree, there are some christians who believe that very thing, all I'm saying is that the wording in the original post made it sound like all creationists will resort to that tactic under certain cicumstances, but we most definitely don't and the poster (Kalmart) didn't mean the creationists in this thread. So, all is cool now, I hope.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Creationism has so many problems, it's hard to know where to begin.

It's not really even limited to evolution. Creationism picks a fight with all the branches of science.

Astronomy, biology, geology, physics...

Hell it even picks a fight with basic math.

 

[Marvolo]

Here is Job 41 (NIV quoted for clarity) with full Leviathan description. It describes what sounds like a dragon. I am curious tho if any descriptions of dragons predating this one is in existence. I would guess dragons have been in folk lore sense before the written word. Most likely the stories were passed from generation to generation until written down. But we cant serioualy take this as fact of dragons existing. I mean is there any anatomical way fire could be internally created without, well, magic? Ill say this, Job has great bits in it and imo is easily one the most interesting books in the bible. Here is the chapter:

1 Can you pull in Leviathan*with a fishhook*****or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2*Can you put a cord through its nose*****or pierce its jaw with a hook?
*3*Will it keep begging you for mercy?*****Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4*Will it make an agreement with you****for you to take it as your slave for life?*
5*Can you make a pet of it like a bird****or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6*Will traders barter for it?****Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7*Can you fill its hide with harpoons****or its head with fishing spears?
*8*If you lay a hand on it,****you will remember the struggle and never do it again!*
9*Any hope of subduing it is false;****the mere sight of it is overpowering.*
10*No one is fierce enough to rouse it.*****Who then is able to stand against me?
*11*Who has a claim against me that I must pay?*****Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12*“I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,*****its strength*and its graceful form.
13*Who can strip off its outer coat?****Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?*
14*Who dares open the doors of its mouth,*****ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15*Its back has[c]*rows of shields****tightly sealed together;*16*each is so close to the next****that no air can pass between.
17*They are joined fast to one another;****they cling together and cannot be parted.
18*Its snorting throws out flashes of light;****its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
*19*Flames*stream from its mouth;****sparks of fire shoot out.
20*Smoke pours from its nostrils*****as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21*Its breath*sets coals ablaze,****and flames dart from its mouth.*22*Strength*resides in its neck;****dismay goes before it.
23*The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;****they are firm and immovable.24*Its chest is hard as rock,****hard as a lower millstone.*25*When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;*****they retreat before its thrashing.*
26*The sword that reaches it has no effect,****nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.*27*Iron it treats like straw*****and bronze like rotten wood.
28*Arrows do not make it flee;*****slingstones are like chaff to it.
29*A club seems to it but a piece of straw;*****it laughs*at the rattling of the lance.
30*Its undersides are jagged potsherds,****leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.*
31*It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron****and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.*
32*It leaves a glistening wake behind it;****one would think the deep had white hair.
33*Nothing on earth is its equal*—****a creature without fear.
34*It looks down on all that are haughty;*it is king over all that are proud.*”

 

[chaseter]

It's more than likely a crocodile. Last year they caught a 20 and a half foot long croc in the Phillipines. Back then, I bet there were a lot of monster size crocs before man started exterminating them. I wouldn't be shocked if 25+ foot crocs were around 2000 years ago.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Probably, but I wouldn't call an alligators legs graceful in the slightest. Though the description of its underside leaving a trail in the dirt definitely points to one. Dinosaurs bellys were all very much off the ground.

 

[Bill]

All this conjecture at what it is, and it is probably some creature that exists only in the mind of the author.

 

[rodhulk]

Job 41 could be talking about a 'sarcosuchus" which lived, according to evolution, 112 million years ago. They were able to grow to the length of a city bus (or about 37-40 feet). In other words, a super croc. But would they have been able to exhale fire and smoke... and also, would they have been impervious to man's attack with spears, arrows, etc....

I'd like to throw out an "ankylosaurs" because of it's "armored" body and possible low belly (underside) but being a herbivore, I don't think it's teeth would match the description of Job 41:14. Plus, it's chest doesn't seem hard as per Job 41:23.

About it's underside in Job 41:30, could the underside scripture is talking about be it's tail. For example, one can say, "the butterfly's wings have a mottled brown pattern on the underside." Here, the underside being talked about is the wings, not the body. Could the same be true in Job 41:30 in reference to a dinosaur's tail?

Regardless, we really don't know what animal/dinosaur is being talked about here, but it definitely "can" fit the description of something from the dinosaur era.

 

[chaseter]

If man lived with dinosaurs...you would think Abraham would have had to fend off raptors and rex's from his sheep herd.

 

[childeroland]

Exactly -- most likely Job's Leviathan and Behemoth are creatures of Canaanite mythology. There's probably no way to know if the poet had specific creatures in mind, but he gives us no reason to think he did or that these creatures actually existed, or that he would know if they existed or not.

 

[rodhulk]

It really depends on where they were. Example, in my city of Ottawa, there are almost no bear sightings even though they aren't far away in the province of Quebec. They keep to their territory. The same might be true with the dinos. The Job scripture seems to suggest they stay in their area, it just warns "man" to stay in his/her area.

This is just a suggestion to the problem.

 

[childeroland]

Why would it matter where they were, particularly since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that humans and any of these creatures existed at the same time?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Not sure if this has been posted, so forgiveness in advance.