1. Dinosaurs who didn't die in the mass extinction were the dragons of ancient myth.
2. Dinosaurs never existed and are just used as pro-evolution propaganda.
3. Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible as Behemoth and Leviathan.
My response would be no, no, and definitely no.
π
You only got the second one right. 33%.
share
No, I got all three of them right. Anyone who says I did not is either stupid or ignorant.
π
No, you're stupid or ignorant. Only 33% right. The probability of the existence of God is around 67% using Bayes' Theorem calculations for conditional probabilities. I don't expect you believe Satan brought evolution to Nimrod around 4400 years ago (at Tower of Babel, a ziggurat), but you shouldn't believe the religion of uniformitarianism either. It can't explain the Cambrian explosion. It can't explain the dinosaurs extinction due to the global flood. The large asteroid part of the was rendered pseudoscience as it was shown it happened much earlier.
share[deleted]
# 2 has already been done, MJF. Check out the major hoax of The Piltdown Man.
shareHistorical science and archaeological evidence show that dinosaur and man once co-existed.
https://christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/video.html
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that christiananswers might be a bit biased....
shareIt's creation science or secular science. You can't have both, so the arguments are going to be biased either way. They're going to be based on worldviews and one has to decide who has the better science and arguments.
sharescience is science.
there's not creation science, or secular science, or jewish science, or muslim science.
there's just science, & it's the best way we have of figuring out what's real & what's not real.
the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to everyone.
and we are all smelly, filthy, hairy apes.
you can accept the truth or deny it, but the facts are the facts.
If you believe that, then you are deluding yourself. Science is not just science. It's always been about differences of scientific opinion like, "You do not even know what you are freaking talking about!"
It's understandable there is immediate tension between the two views. It's creation science vs atheist science of evolutionary thought and ToE today. It's based on worldview. It's not about what's real and what's not. It's about arguing about what's real and what's not.
We have the same facts and evidence, but a difference of scientific opinion. I say it's atheist science because today God, the supernatural and the Bible are not accepted and systematically eliminated.
If you're a creationist, then you could lose your job and your papers won't be peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Creation scientists have to peer-review each others works. This system means they won't be awarded a Nobel Prize either unless they conform to the secualr views. It's a rigged system. Before the 1850s and uniformitarianism took over, God, creation and supernatural was routinely accepted as a valid worldview.
If the SLOT applies, then evolution can't possibly be true because of entropy. You can be described a smelly, filthy, hairy ape, but I'm a human being with a developed brain and intelligence. I can walk bipedally. I'll assume you can't. Humans are different from apes. The observational science shows apes are not bipedal, have small cranial capacity and do not develop human sized brains. This is testable and falsifiable. All evolution has is fossil evidence and hypothesis, i.e. forensic evidence, which could be wrong. We can't observe what happens in millions and billions of years.
Furthermore, the radiometric dating would be way off if there was a global flood. One can't do radiometics on underwater organisms. You do not even know what a fact is. It's something both parties can use. I'll just laugh at your lack of science and believing in fairy tales and move on.
well, you certainly managed to cram in almost all of the misguided tropes creationists have been trotting out for decades in one dreary wall of text.
i'm not going to waste my time wading through this litany of tired arguments. there's lots of resources for that. in fact, i just checked & was quite delighted to see the talkorigins archive is still online. that was one of my favourite resources back when the internet was becoming a thing, and tearing it up with creationists seemed like a fun way to spend my evenings. i'm really too old & tired for that now.
all i'll say is that there are very simple reasons why the supernatural & biblical receded in the 1800s, & that's because darwin & wallace gave us the most complete explanation for how we came to be, and every piece of evidence we've gathered since then, fossil, genetics, everything, has supported that solution.
and that is that.
I'm surprised at how man creationists there are on Moviechat. I've already come across 3 in my short time here!
sharei don't rattle my chains around message boards much these days, so i don't encounter it very often. i usually vent my spleen on twitter now, and i don't see much of that type of discussion there, at least among the people i follow.
it always surprises me whenever i come upon a creationist trotting out there arguments - it feels so late nineties to me. but of course there are loads of those poor, deluded souls about, and they still say the same bloody things. but what else could they say? it's not like they have any new arguments, or people doing 'research.' so they just recite the same things like a robot that's been broken for 40 years.
My entire family is Catholic and far as I know, none of them believe any of that nonsense thank God, no pun intended! Maybe they are just "Casual Catholics" lol.
shareI once encountered a guy in an internet forum who claimed he " wasn't a Christian but a Roman Catholic. " Okey-dokey, that explains some things.
shareBaptized and Confirmed here. Still not sure what they're trying to sell me. If I ever get married, it certainly won't be in a church. I'll never forget what a colossal waste of time Sunday School was as a kid. I can think of a million ways I could have better spent my time.
shareVery similar to a die-hard atheist in the same forum that kept using expressions like, " God only knows " and " Thank God ! " Of course , she always had a justification for that.
shareI'll never forget what a colossal waste of time Sunday School was as a kid. I can think of a million ways I could have better spent my time.
I'm more of an Agnostic than an Atheist.
shareThe "advantages" we have come more from colonialism, slavery, exploitation of the great majority of the world and its people, than anything of theological origin. For the first thousand years after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the Christian world was no better off than anywhere else. Until they got better guns and ships and realized they could enslave everybody else in order to get themselves up at the top. Their religion was incidental. It was guns and wealth extraction that gave the Christian world its advantages, and still do.
sharecreationist beliefs are pretty uncommon among catholics as far as i know. i think a few papal pronouncements have played a little footsie with the concept of intelligent design (particularly in the benedict era), but generally speaking it's not catholics raising a fuss about this stuff. it's mainly a belief held among evangelicals, and misguided people in general.
shareThanks for the info. I did not know what. Good to know.
share
These are the first ones I've encountered.
π
That is not that. Try trueorigins.org archive. It's observable science, i..e observe, test, falsify science vs evolution's mostly historical or forensic science. Who's zooming whom?
shareI had to type in a limited amount of time. I agree. Less is probably more.
But this is a topic that immediately challenges one's worldview and they must respond.
Jason,
Dude, science is science. If it cannot be proven, then science rejects it as fiction or myth. Sorry.
BTW, next time throw a paragraph break or two into your post. It will make it much easier to read.
π
Science before 1850s accepted creation throughout human history. Many of the greatest scientific minds were Christian. That's just the way it was. Evolutionary thinking changed it so God, the supernatural and the Bible were not accepted anymore and rejected because God and the supernatural could not be observed, tested and falsified. The Bible was treated as religion instead of scientific hypothesis.
share
Yes, and science in Greek times thought the universe revolved around the Earth. They were wrong.
That's the thing about Science. It accepts what it thinks is true until it discovers it's not. Science is a constantly self correcting process. When something is disproved, Science discards it.
π
Indeed
share
True. And if it cannot be proven, Science rejects it as fiction.
π
No one can get an ape to walk bipedally. Someone taught a gorilla sign language though ha ha.
sharei don't even really want to engage with you, to be honest - as i said earlier, i'm just too old & tired to fight over something so silly - but i'd actually love to know what it is you think this proves.
do you think that, because we can't make apes walk & talk like humans, that is a proof against evolution? do you think that, if we could take animals that have different pelvises & brains & vocal cords and make them walk & talk this would be a proof of evolution?
btw, chimps do occasionally walk on two legs, will occasionally do it for short distances.
Btw, evolution does not hold that man descended from apes. That's a popular misconception. It holds that man and apes descended from a common ancestor.
π
There's really no argument against science when it's observable, testable and falsifiable. It's not just that, but cranial capacity which the evo scientists avoid. Forbidden and hidden science even created a hybrid, but it can only last one generation. And your last statement just backs up what I stated. Their physiology does not allow them. People just believe all this evolutionary thinking because they do not want to believe in God. And just do what they want and not have to face the consequences.
sharei've read this paragraph 3 times, & i'm really struggling to find out exactly what it is you're saying.
i know you didn't answer my question.
you may believe that people believe in evolution because they don't want to believe in god. that's simply wrong, for many reasons. because people all over the world have discovered multiple evidences for evolution, because every strand of biological science supports it. because religious people, many extremely religious, accept it due to the evidence, even if their faith tells them that they ought to prefer not to accept it.
anyway, i'm just going to do what i should have done in the first place and walk away. i don't mean this in an insulting way, i mean in in the most dispassionate, clinical sense: your words pretty clearly show that you don't know what you're talking about, and your responses are too incoherent to have a discussion.
happy movie-chatting to you, regardless.
What I am saying is creation science and its scientists are the ones with observable, testable and falsifiable science in regards to humans and apes. The evos have historical or forensic science where they look to seek what happened in the past by assuming it was the same as today, i.e. uniformitarianism. This is wrong because things were different in the past. For example, radiometric dating cannot be used on rocks that were underwater. It would get wrong readings.
shareApes and chimps do walk on two legs. There's one in the White House.
share
And nobody ever did.
If you study it, you would discover that Evolution does NOT posit that man descended from apes. That is a common misunderstanding and misconception. Evolution actually holds that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.
π
It doesn't matter whether they were apes (which they were), ape-humans (none found, just a forensic argument) or australophicines (which were apes). Apes are apes and humans are humans. Otherwise, we could do experiments to show that like we do with artificial selection or breeding of race horses, better marijuana, ligers and so on.
share
That's what I said. Both descended from a common ancestor. Why are we still discussing this?
π
There are common ancestors, but not a tree of life. You keep getting it wrong, so that's why I end up keep correcting you. Better now than later. You're around 33%, so the probability for your argument isn't good. That means it's 67% for the believers.
share
I'm at 100% correct, and I have long since grown bored with this conversation. So just go ahead and believe whatever you want. I could not care less.
Bye!
π
No it doesn't, because they didn't. And BTW, your link doesn't work.
π
You just make assertions which by definition are claims backed up by nothing. Arguments are that which can be backed by evidence. Just copy and paste my link. It still works for me.
share
Okay, you want proof, here's your proof. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, as I said several times. Unfortunately this simple statement does not appear to have registered with you. So, read it and weep, and
then please leave me alone.
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-homo-pan-last-common-ancestor-03220.html
π
First, there are no proofs in science so you're wrong again. That's math. Science only has best theories. Anyway, what you provided is an example of historical or forensic science and it isn't always correct. Even the first sentence is an assumption. That the earth was the same as today. It wasn't. We had a land of giants when dinosaurs roamed the earth. There was no way a pteranodon would have been able to fly if the atmosphere was the same as today. All you got are artist's renderings which isn't evidence.
sharehttps://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
shareYours is argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity) fallacy. The Bible has predicted this as the gate to heaven is narrow while the gate to the lake of fire is wide. I believed in evolution first, but started questioning it in 2011. In 2012, I started to compare evolution to what the Bible said. I found science does back up the Bible.
shareDragons were definitely dinosaurs, just like Nessie still being around today.
I used to think dinosaurs never existed but the more I learn and research it, all that fossil evidence is pretty compelling.
Surely you jest, Tandy.
π
I agree. We have explored outer space and the moon more than what we explored under the water. Nessie could very well be a plesiosaur based on the information gathered. Secular scientists write it off because they have no explanation since to them dinosaurs died millions of years ago. However, their radiometric dating is wrong. One they had to make assumptions that the earth was the same as today. What they do not believe was that the global flood reset the rocks's radioactive decay. One can't perform radiometric dating on rocks from the oceans.
shareCould I just say, for one moment, that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?:
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end.
That is the theory that I have and which is mine, and what it is too.
That would be the theory of an elk...
Nice Monty Python homage Russ, or should I say Ann Elk?
π
Jackson Chameleon = modern day Triceratops
Brown Basilisk Lizard (Jesus Lizard) = modern day T-Rex
dinosaurs still exist, only smaller
before the flood everything lived 10 times longer
reptiles never stop growing in size
Jesus is real
Actually the modern descendants of the dinosaurs are the birds, oddly enough.
π
and some reptiles
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1796
They're related to Dinos.
π