|
22 Jun 05 - 07:34 PM (#1507457) Subject: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Hybrid ya...just thinkin, dinosaurs are real, we got bones and shit rite? so why doenst the bible have nething in there about them...*shurgs* |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:36 PM (#1507458) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,d.bunker Because the locusts ate them all. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:39 PM (#1507461) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad You can find several passages about Dinosaurs in the Book of Second Opinions. Chaper thirteen I think. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:41 PM (#1507465) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Hybrid "...Dinosaurs in the Book of Second Opinions. Chaper thirteen I think" and what would that be? im not to religious |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:42 PM (#1507469) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad Sorry Hybrid - That was my feeble attempt at a joke. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:42 PM (#1507470) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST well i dont know about that one guest,hybrid but i prefer melons ;) |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:45 PM (#1507472) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST lol, ah, np sleepless dad, :P, just bin on my mind for awile, making me go all "hmmmmmmm" and stuff |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:47 PM (#1507477) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John O'L The dinosaurs were busy eating up all the unicorns and so missed the boat, or so I'm led to believe... |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:48 PM (#1507479) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST that wooooould make sence :O |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:49 PM (#1507481) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Hybrid yeah, that would...you know, if unicorns were real and such |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:50 PM (#1507482) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,G-Spot Between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, a terrible event occurred making the created earth "void and without form". This event is spoken of by Jesus many centuries later, when he said "I saw Satan, fall to earth as lightning". He spoke of the "war against Heaven waged by Satan & also lost by Satan. Being cast out, Satan fell to earth, wreaking havoc upon all creation causing the "Void & formless" condition of the earth. Of course, God decided to remodel the place and create "Man in His Own Likeness", but satan was lurking, even as Martin Gibson still lurks here, and is still wreaking havoc. In the Gen. 1:1 & 1:2 interval, the dinos were destroted. At least, that was a theory presented to me some years ago. GS |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:55 PM (#1507489) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace This is addressed to all--not G-Spot specifically. 1) If yer gonna go quote the Bible, do it entire. Because if you're of a mind that God created the whole thing, and that he did so about 5000 years ago (along with the rest of the known Universe), then it ain't a giant leap to understand that God could create a dinosaur bone that's millions of years old and put it (them) in a 5000 year old Earth. IMO, of course. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:00 PM (#1507495) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST why would god put dinosaur bones in the earth? what would his point be? |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:01 PM (#1507499) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Hybrid ^^^sorry, that was me... |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:01 PM (#1507500) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,G-Spot Because he is like many of us. He likes to mess with our heads! GS |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:03 PM (#1507505) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,G-Spot The same reason He created Martin Gibson! |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:06 PM (#1507507) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Hybrid whyy would he wnat to mess w/ our heads? he does it enough by having people belive or not belive in him...dinosaurs MUST have bin real |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:15 PM (#1507516) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace Maybe to find out if we'd believe the Bible? Give jobs to anthropologists? Hide them from Fido? Beats me. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:20 PM (#1507523) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos The reason there are no dinosaurs in the darned Bible is because the guys who wrote the Bible were farmers who had no concept of fossils, the length of Earth's eons or anything related there to. They measured time in seasons, generations, and dates-since-catastrophes, but not much more. They had no sense of elements, such as carbon, and its variants such as Carbon-14, or how to measure such a length of time as a thousand years, except conceivably as a long list of grandparents. They were great poets, at times, and wonderful givers of advice, by why expect them to invent lasers or archaeology? There is also no mention of puffins in the darned Bible, nor of aerodynamic foil curves and their use in making flying machines, nor of the rate of acceleration of gravity, the chemistry of stainless steel, the frequencies of color, nor the number of planets in the solar system or the nature of remote clusters, quasars, or other galaxies. Some of us have learned some things since, however. No sense standing on your head about it. A A |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:22 PM (#1507527) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace And then there's that, too. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:40 PM (#1507540) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Hybrid ...smart ass... :( |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:42 PM (#1507542) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Job chapter 40... 15 Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:44 PM (#1507545) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST but, the bible is about certain thing...mostly about god is good, bla bla...but if he created dinosaurs...wouldent he have mentioned the 2 story high monsters walkin around? |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:46 PM (#1507550) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bee-dubya-ell There aren't any kangaroos in the Bible either, are there? That must mean that kangaroos don't really exist. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:50 PM (#1507555) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST ya, but he dint mention lots of things...that is a kangaroo, wow..like come on, wouldent u add that there was big things that dint stop eating terrorizing the planet b4 man? |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:53 PM (#1507557) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace They were long dead by the time 'man' came about. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 08:59 PM (#1507560) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace "There aren't any kangaroos in the Bible either, are there? That must mean that kangaroos don't really exist." They don't. The folks in Australia have mutated rabbits that look like giant mice with pockets. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 09:02 PM (#1507565) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: The Fooles Troupe No mention of the platypus either. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 09:46 PM (#1507593) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: wysiwyg Nor the bodhran, in the list of "praise the Lord with..." stuff. And I KNOW God didn't make the banjo, OK? ~S~ |
|
22 Jun 05 - 09:49 PM (#1507597) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: sixtieschick No potatoes either. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 09:52 PM (#1507600) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,G-Spot Nor Jerry Falwell. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 09:54 PM (#1507601) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace Well, if I have the choice, please mention the potato before even considering Jerry Falwell. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 10:05 PM (#1507614) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth If God had wanted man to play the piano, He would have given him 88 fingers. HAH! Missed me again!! Don Firth (dodging lightning bolt) |
|
22 Jun 05 - 10:32 PM (#1507632) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bee-dubya-ell Sure there are Dinos in the Bible. Especially in the New Testament. With all those Romans running around there had to be a Dino or two among 'em. Probably a few Tonys and Guidos as well. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 10:54 PM (#1507641) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Back then giants walked the earth ... Aquinas, Luther, Calvin show how to draw from these reservoirs of time-less wisdom. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 11:09 PM (#1507657) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Hybrid ...well, there was dinos, and god must just have misplaced that chapter in the bible ehy? kinda hard to miss something godzilla runnin around out there... |
|
22 Jun 05 - 11:14 PM (#1507661) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bobert Ahhh, yeah, lets get this right... God created all this in 7 days??? Explains a lot... Shouda put a little more thought into Adam and Eve... But in all seriousness, what a crock.... IOf one wants to take the Bible 100% then better watch every step fir fear of being damned 4 steppin' on a bug..... Bobert |
|
23 Jun 05 - 04:36 AM (#1507772) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche The Bible is not 100% accurate in the details, especially when translated, but if you are going to get hung up on things like that, you've missed the point. Besides, if you really, really want dinosaurs, they might have been leviathans. Bodhrans as such may not be mentioned, but you have tabrets, timbrels and cymbals. Some of which would definetly be frame drums. A day was not always 24 hours, and it can also reffer to a period of time. We even do it now, how many times have you heard people going "well back in the day" or "they were good in their day" etc. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 04:37 AM (#1507773) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Another point to remember is that the use of English has changed since the 1600s. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 07:22 AM (#1507833) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: gnu Don Firth... thanks for the belly laugh, artful dodger. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 07:35 AM (#1507838) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Bainbo Well, there's an awful lot of Bible-reading folk who say they're waiting for the 'Raptor. I think that's what they say ... |
|
23 Jun 05 - 08:11 AM (#1507871) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Job is considered the oldest book in the Bible. It doesn't pre-date the flood, but it does pre-date Abraham. Job mentions dinosaurs. Though dinosaurs were around for an apparently long time, even science marvels at how rapidly they disappeared (am I the only one who saw "Ice Age"? :^) ). There are still dinosaur-like creatures on the earth -- those that could continue to adapt to a severe change in climate -- those who could survive the ice age. Funny thing.....I always have to smile when the proposal is made that adding a few million years into the timeline makes creation any more possible. From my perspective, even if given a few million years, I couldn't create a universe. Conversely, a God who could create a universe in the first place would doubtless not need a few million years to do so. He might have used a few million years -- but that's beside the point of whether He might have needed a few million years. Job chapter 40... 15 Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 08:46 AM (#1507898) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche The behemoth is more probably an hipopotamus. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 08:53 AM (#1507909) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel a hippo tail sways like a twig. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 08:58 AM (#1507914) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Stu "Give jobs to anthropologists" . . . or palaeontologists even? Anyhow, there is plenty of mention of dinosaurs in the Bible: Noah's doves, crows etc. Birds are simply theropd dinosaurs by another name. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 09:06 AM (#1507920) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Tails aside (being poetic licence) if it's about any actual animal, it's clearly an hipopotamus. There is an interesting use of the plural to denote THE best of beasts. That, or it is a shortend form of the Beast of Waters, similar to what hippos were entitled in Mesopotamia, and if memory serves, Egypt. Hippos, along with crocodiles (identifed with Leviathan) had a mythical status as beasts of great power. Not saying it isn't a memory of dinosaurs, but that it is just as likely to be an hipopotamus. It's also undecided if the word used in the original (yakhpotz) means 'stiffen' or 'sway'. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 09:13 AM (#1507935) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly How would one conclude that poetic license would lead a poet to characterize a hippo's tail (a tail that is almost non-existant) as swaying like a cedar? Poetic license usually leads one to artfully rather than literally describe, but an artful description is still usually apt and accurate. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 09:24 AM (#1507949) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche It's not certain that the word means sway. In ancient Hebrew there is a root Kh/f/tz II which means to harden or stiffen. The other explanation, to bend, comes from Arabic usage, which might mean he's so powerful that even when his tail is swift it can bend. Sway is likely to be a mistranslation unless the meaning of the word has changed in 400 years. Does anyone have an OED? |
|
23 Jun 05 - 09:58 AM (#1507966) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Wolfgang Dinosaurs could not have lived and died before man brought sin and death into the world. (from a Christian website) To answer questions about dinosaurs and Creation, we must start our thinking with the Bible, and from there find the answers. If we trust the Bible as true, and accept theories compatible with scripture we will never have a problem. (from the same site) Well, if one reads the Bible as a book reporting undisputable facts such sentences result. Wolfgang |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:07 AM (#1507967) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,John Hardly One key rule in interpretation is that one doesn't look for a more obscure interpretation if the obvious one makes perfect sense. Why would one choose, when describing a hippo, to dwell on the tail -- a feature of the hippo that is hardly the first characteristic one would note. In fact, it is one of the last characteristics one would note UNLESS one was noting that it was almost non-existant. Why would the poet choose to describe the hippo: "...you know, that beast in the field whose tail can bend even when it is swift?" Why would he define the almost non-existant tail as "swift" or "bendable" when neither would bring to mind the beast he's describing? How much less tortured to merely assume he is talking about a beast with, you know, a HUGE tail -- a tail that resembles a cedar? If a poet was going to describe a cardinal (redbird) would he, as a point of definition, describe the cardinal as "you know.... the bird with the HUGE beak" when: 1. The cardinal doesn't have a huge beak 2. The cardinal would be best (most succinctly) described as "you know......the crimson songster" 3. To define the cardinal as the one with the huge beak would, no doubt, cause the reader to mentally picture the toucan, NOT the cardinal. But you are asserting that the "poet" in Job chose to describe the hippo as "you know...the one with the HUGE tail" when 1. The hippo doesn't have a huge tail 2. The hippo would better be described, not as the grass eating beast of the feild, but rather as the mud-water-wallowing beast. 3. Dwelling on the tail to describe the hippo doesn't lead the reader to think "hippo". I'm afraid that yours is tortured interpretation. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:18 AM (#1507971) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly ....and further, because "huge" doesn't fit, you choose to redefine the term (supposedly from the "original languages") for huge, cedar-tree-like, to something that makes no more sense when describing a hippo -- swift when bent. Neither one of your explanations fits the passage. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:27 AM (#1507978) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST well... perhaps the behemoth could have been an elephant and they couldn't figure out the front end from the back end, elephants eat grass. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:34 AM (#1507983) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the Bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Actualy, YOU are the one making the assumption that the tail is huge. Also he does not dwell so much on the tail as on the power of the beast. Aren't their tails short and fat, and can become stiff? You should remeber it's semi-mythical too. Another theory has tail as euphemism for penis. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:35 AM (#1507984) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST and I'm sure the bible mentions birds and everyone should know by now that dinosaurs were just really really big birds.....the impression of their feathers are fossilized in silt in China and maybe the behemoth was just a vegetarian komodo dragon that got drowned in the flood like the unicorn. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:43 AM (#1507992) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly What is "semi-mythical"? You mean that a hippo (your assertion, not mine) is mythical? So now you're saying that he's not describing a hippo, but rather, some semi-mythical beast? What is semi-mythical? Would that be a Unicorn as built by Peterbilt? |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:49 AM (#1507996) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST if it was an elephant, you'd think that someone would note it's odd practice of shoving grass up it's own ass, though. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:59 AM (#1508003) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche I am saying that hippos had a semi-mythical status as beasts of power and might. All the descriptions in there are to emphasize that. Frankly I don't see how it's really tortured when it had that staus in the folklore of the region. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 11:08 AM (#1508011) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,leeneia If you have a serious interest in the Bible as literature, read this 101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History -- by Gary Greenberg; Paperback I checked it out of my public library and found it fascinating. For example, the book described two Egyptian gods, Tohu and Bohu, who personified conflict. Imagine my feelings when a few weeks later I saw a notice in the Parisian underground which referred (in French) to the tohu-bohu of travelling on the underground! Where Genesis says in English that "the earth was void and without form," the original says that it was "tohu-bohu." Amazing the way words and ideas persist. ------ As for arguments about evolution, keep in mind that attacking evolution is a clever way for fundamentalists to get publicity and to drag religion into a realm where it does not belong - i.e., the selection of school boards. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 11:12 AM (#1508016) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,MMario could the bohemoth be a rhino? If I remember correctly a rhino tail would be more visible then would that of a hippo - and the images would be more appropriate I think. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 11:17 AM (#1508023) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Perhaps, but that's the role of the hippo in the Biblical world. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 11:35 AM (#1508042) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Pied Piper Of cause there are no Dinosaurs in the Bible, no one new they existed until relatively recently. The Universe is 13(ish) Billion years old, the Earth 4.2 (much less ish) life appeared at least 3.5 Billion years ago and modern human beings some time around 180 Million years ago. People who believes the Folk tails in the Bible are actual historical fact, are incapable of or un-willing to, accept the overwhelming evidence contradicting them. They prefer a nice warm patch of sand to berry their heads in rather than face reality. This kind of gutless self indulgence is all to common in religious people PP |
|
23 Jun 05 - 12:18 PM (#1508077) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Stu PP "modern human beings some time around 180 Million years ago." Shurley shome mishtake? That puts the appearance of modern humans smack in the middle of the Jurassic. Plenty of big dino's about then :) 130,000 years ago is more like it! You're right about Creationist theory though. A stroll down the grimy city street of ignorance that is. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 12:21 PM (#1508080) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST and for some reason or other they don't want to believe that a behemoth could be an elephant. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 12:37 PM (#1508097) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,John Hardly "Creationism" has moved on considerably. Just as evolution has "evolved" in its focus, postulations and beliefs, so "Creationism" has given way to "Intelligent Design". |
|
23 Jun 05 - 12:38 PM (#1508098) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos I am sorry, but the notion of fawning over a 3,000 year old book of morals, tribal misgivings, half-distorted histories and family tales and electing it as a source-book for stable scientific information is about as ridiculous as taking your ethical insights from Sesame Street or learning vocabulary from South Park or Homer Simpson. Don't have a cow, man! A |
|
23 Jun 05 - 12:48 PM (#1508107) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,MMario "Intelligent Design" an oxymoron if I ever heard one. given "Intelligent Design", the horse would not possess a caecum, but rather a rumen. nor would they have those vestigial bony splinters just above the hooves. Given "Intelligent Design" humans would not have a vermiform appendix - and the spine would be completly different. And the elephant? Platypus? Avacado? ""Intelligent"? |
|
23 Jun 05 - 12:57 PM (#1508114) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Leadfingers What is wrong wit the point of view that 'God created the world in seven days' is simply compressing the various pre historic periods into a scale that was halfway understandable to the people who DIDNT have the advantage of ANY formal education , other than what the priest told them in Church on Sunday ? |
|
23 Jun 05 - 12:58 PM (#1508117) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Intelligent design does not preclude adaptation (in fact, embraces it) and evolution does not require it. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 01:54 PM (#1508166) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche The Bible is not ment to be a scientific textbook, that is missing the point entirely. Hippos were THE symbol of brute strength, plenty of evidence for that. BTW, I read the Bible in Hebrew, no need for a middle man, so yes, there are a lot of translation problems in English. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 02:27 PM (#1508182) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Here are the entire verses about the Behemoth from the KJV: 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. 16 might be better rendered "Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his virility in the muscles of his belly." 17 "His tail stiffens as a cedar: the sinews of his thighs [or testicles] are tangled [or wrapped] together." 20 "The beasts of the mountains raise their voices unto him, and all the beasts of the field play there." All creatures worship him, due to his might. 21 "He is shaded by the lotus, the reeds surround him." This is a Nilotic refference. 22 "Behold, he reiveth up a river [or the level sinks] and panics not: he worries not when Jordan flows into his mouth." It is not absolutely clear the exact meaning of the first part, but it's clear that he is not frightened by the movement of water. 23 "He [the hunter] taketh it with his eyes: his [the Behemoth] nose is pierced by snares." Hunting refference, it is either strait, or rhetorical. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 02:35 PM (#1508189) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad Religion itself is a good example of evolution in action. Every time Science reveals something that further highlights the absurdity of Creationism, Religion moves the goal posts in order to accomodate it. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 02:48 PM (#1508193) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Every time Science reveals something that further highlights the absurdity of a previously held and workable scientific theory, Science moves the goal posts in order to accomodate it. 'twas ever thus and it always will be. That's how science works and that's how the intelligent religious will respond. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM (#1508196) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad A perfect example of it in action. Thanks. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 02:59 PM (#1508200) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Pied Piper Thanks for pointing out my error Stigweard, of cause it should have been "180 Thousand years" |
|
23 Jun 05 - 03:07 PM (#1508203) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Uncle DaveO While it is a fact that I'm an atheist, I have to say that the concept of Intelligent Design is not NECESSARILY in conflict with scientific ideas. If there's a god who/which designed and created (is creating?) and runs the world, there's no reason he can't progress by methods which we would perceive by scientific inquiry. I think it reasonable to say that such a god would have some means to go about his(?) its(?) her(?) construction process. Those means could well be what we perceive as the laws of nature. This point of view I suppose posits a quite different view of who/what that god is (if at all) from what is traditional, of course. Dave Oesterreich |
|
23 Jun 05 - 04:30 PM (#1508264) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "A perfect example of it in action. Thanks." Are you disagreeing with me and trying to contend that science does not correct itself when scientific method proves previous theory to be inadequate? ...or are you trying to have it both ways... that the religious are in the dark ages of ignorance if they disregard science... ...but "moving the goal posts" if they acknowledge and accomodate to it? |
|
23 Jun 05 - 04:37 PM (#1508265) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel THE CONFUSION OVER DINOS IN THE BIBLE REVEALED http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/darlost.jpg |
|
23 Jun 05 - 04:56 PM (#1508282) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad No, I'm not. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 05:18 PM (#1508303) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: gnu God is the lifestyle of the intelligent and the lottery of the ignorant. Both serve their purpose and bring prosperity and solace in their own way. And, that's a good thing. Keeps a lot of nere-do-wells off the street, on both sides. In the end, the values inherent in the true teachings of God are true. Even atheists would agree in principle, with exceptions. Re such exceptions, first and foremost, I met a Jesuit scholar who explained to me that the Bible was written to allow manipulation of the ignorant by the intelligent. A simple example : "Turn the other cheek." versus "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." There are many others, but you get the gist. And that's a good thing, as long as there are atheists to protect the ignorant, because, as Amos and others have pointed out, those who choose logic and rational thinking over deity are not bound by the constraints of religion. Thank Man for the the choice. I would hate to live on a flat earth... I am scared of heights. And, I would hate to see Jim Baker fuck over another bunch of lottery losers. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 06:48 PM (#1508375) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly gnu, I don't agree with your "Jesuit scholar". I'm not sure I understand the "lifestyle of the intelligent" bit (not intelligent enough I suppose). But I don't think that the religious are any more duped than the unreligious. Furthermore, the religious are just as likely as the atheists to call the Jim Jones's of the world into question. It's no more fair or logical to describe "the religious" as followers of Jim Jones than it is to compare "the atheists" to Stalin. The religious are in no more practical agreement with each other than they are with the atheist. They may find common ground when unfairly attacked as a single entity (for instance, if religious freedom is threatened they may find more reason to fight together, even though they don't agree in principle on any religious tenet), but they are not a single entity. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 02:54 AM (#1508641) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Hanibal had elephants....behemoths could have been now extinct elephants that liked to lie under extinct cedars and other big trees around the Dead Sea. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 03:13 AM (#1508647) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Suuuuuuuure they did guest. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 08:49 AM (#1508793) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel The religious are in no more practical agreement with each other than they are with the atheist fair enough but the Jesuit argument pertains to the intelligent subjugating the ignorant (enlightened vs. the gullible) via the ever changable biblical "word" transcribed by man and selectively repeated by men. Perhaps we should look to the Egyptians or the Zep Tepi for mention of dinosaur lore since scholars like Joseph Campbell have shown us that the Torah and Bible are at their very foundations variations on a theme of the Pharoic Egyptian religion. The Chinese Dragon is clearly dinosaur lore although some call it symbolic of comet or asteroid forbodings. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:02 AM (#1508799) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Uncle_DaveO GUEST 2:54 a.m. said, in part: behemoths could have been now extinct elephants that liked to lie under extinct cedars and other big trees around the Dead Sea. Is there any archaeological evidence that there were any such animals in that area in the relevant time period? I don't happen to be aware of it, if so. Dave Oesterreich |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:04 AM (#1508800) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/dragon3_copy.jpg |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:04 AM (#1508801) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "but the Jesuit argument pertains to the intelligent subjugating the ignorant (enlightened vs. the gullible) via the ever changable biblical "word" transcribed by man and selectively repeated by men. Sure, we've all seen it done. But it doesn't blanket the entire world of Scriptural interpretation and scholarship. Just because I can't make my way through a Calculus textbook does not diminish the textbook, nor the scholarship that went into it's printing. One could take the calculus book and taking advantage of my inability to understand higher math, mislead me using the textbook -- but that wouldn't lead one to conclude that that is or was the MAIN function of the calculus textbook. Yet, people love to have their great hate of religion reconfirmed by the extrapolation that, because some have misinterpreted and misused Scripture, then all do. "Perhaps we should look to the Egyptians or the Zep Tepi for mention of dinosaur lore since scholars like Joseph Campbell have shown us that the Torah and Bible are at their very foundations variations on a theme of the Pharoic Egyptian religion." I've heard this kind of thing all the time. You are completely confident that Campbell is not guilty of the kind of scholarship that you are positive that the other religious scholars do. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:05 AM (#1508804) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Uncle_DaveO Donuel (over)stated: The Chinese Dragon is clearly dinosaur lore although some call it symbolic of comet or asteroid forbodings. Aww, come on! Clearly? A speculation, at best. Dave Oesterreich |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:07 AM (#1508805) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly BTW, I would be for looking into ANY ancient text for mention of dinosaurs. I think it might be quite interesting. And just because I might conclude something different about agreement in ancient texts doesn't mean I don't find that agreement fascinating as well. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:28 AM (#1508821) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Uncle_DaveO Look all you want to in the most ancient texts you can unearth. Not only will you not find direct contemporary references to dinosaurs, but you will not find any folkloric ancestral recollections of them. Why would I say that so baldly? Because the existence of dinos and the existence of man just don't overlap by millions of years, from all evidence I've ever heard of. This whole thread was started, at least as I read the initial post, as a sort of joke, with a big tongue in cheek, but for some reason people have chosen to treat it as a real question. Weird! Dave Oesterreich |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:38 AM (#1508826) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Not all that weird, Dave. It does raise interesting questions to inquisitive minds. That we would want to discuss this and not, say, yet another thread on farts or Shatner isn't all that weird. And sure, maybe there are not ancient texts that talk of contemporary dinosaurs. But even that doesn't HAVE to lead to your dogmatic conclusion. I mean, even you would agree that another HUGE factor in the issue is that written word itself is not all that old -- mere thousands of years... ...and of the written word that was thousands of years old, even it is rare because of the materials on which it was written and the conditions in which it was kept (or not kept). But arrogant dismissiveness can be charming too! |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:47 AM (#1508835) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST The behemoth was a moth. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:48 AM (#1508836) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel " But it doesn't blanket the entire world of Scriptural interpretation and scholarship. Just because I can't make my way through a Calculus textbook does not diminish the textbook, nor the scholarship that went into it's printing. " ............ Great rhetoric John. It would probably get cheers from a religious audience. It sounds much better than saying man's stupidity is the problem - not the word of god. And it is an excuse that works for some. Indeed ignorance is no excuse. Yet it exists. Dwelling upon words such as Never and Always and All and other 'Blanket' statements does divide rather than unite understanding. The great hate of religion that you speak of is also a polemic divider. Yet it too exists. Still if you really want to compare a math book with scripture one should consider that the math book does not impel people to give up understading and simply accept a mistake or; the illogical, absurd, misprint, trite and opioniated interpretations as truth that one must accept on faith. I suppose what I hate (with a small h) is the western religious attempt to explain the "great unknowable" as a set of proposterous teachings that must be accepted on faith. Lose that faith and you are bad. Accept and pay for that faith and you are good. As in the teachings of the venerable and wise Penn and Teller ;) , thats just bullshit. ......... Uncle Dave , Aw comon, dragons don't look like dinosaurs to you ;) |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:54 AM (#1508838) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel Velikovsky made a career of searching ancient texts for cosmological events that shared a common time frame. I might take another look to see if he mentions any common dinosaur lore from divergent ancient sources. I think he was big on the dragon - comet connection though. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 11:09 AM (#1508851) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Wolfgang Every time Science reveals something that further highlights the absurdity of a previously held and workable scientific theory, Science moves the goal posts in order to accomodate it. (John Hardly) Complete nonsense, John. Why do you always try in this and similar threads to discuss how science works. You each time again only display a profound ignorance. Wolfgang |
|
24 Jun 05 - 11:12 AM (#1508852) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,JH Do you mean to say that science does not modify previously held (and up to that point, workable) theory when new evidence comes to light? |
|
24 Jun 05 - 11:50 AM (#1508854) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Well DaveO, I just thought that the elephants might have been a friend of the hippopotamus that lived in the reeds. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 11:54 AM (#1508856) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST But maybe they were mammoths who wandered down from Siberia for a look see. My husband maintains the behemoths were giant hedgehogs. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 11:57 AM (#1508857) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST The hedgehogs died out because they needed a symbiotic relationship with angry British gardeners and there weren't any. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 12:04 PM (#1508859) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Amos Religous impulses -- the quest for insight into the wider framework we seem to sense at play but have no genuine words for -- is not the problem. Embedding fixed ideas and antiquated superstitions into people's minds as an "answer" backed with great authority or great peer pressure is very much the problem. Fixed ideas are the downfall of the species. They are the antithesis of clear-eyed curiousity and intelligent exploration in all spheres, whether physical or metaphysical. The notion that the infinite force of consciousness which is said to have brought all existence into play, from quasars and clusters to quarks and bosons is, at one and the same time, curiously fascinated by the garments chosen by women in Afghanistan or what little children do with their peepees in Ohio, is patently ridickledockle. A |
|
24 Jun 05 - 12:17 PM (#1508861) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Amos, do you think regarding the behemoth that, "his tail stiffens like a cedar" could be a referring to an elephant's penis. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 12:40 PM (#1508865) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Why couldn't there have been dragons in China? Komodo dragons aren't that far away and they found the bones of really, really small elephants and people, not that far away on other islands. Komodos could have been really, really big when they were on the mainland, just like the elephants. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 03:10 PM (#1508894) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Are there any Komodo dragons in the bible? Did Noah have trouble keeping them separate from the really little elephants and thats why there are no really little elephants anymore or did the really little people kill all the elephants? |
|
24 Jun 05 - 03:39 PM (#1508917) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth As far as "moving the goal posts" is concerned, that's a misstatement of what science is all about. Science is always—always—open to new data, and scientists refine theories as that new data is discovered. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity did not negate Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. It merely subsumed them into a more sophisticated theory. Scientists are constantly testing their theories. The nearest thing to that that you will find in the field of theology are the theologians and Bible scholars who are looking for more documentation and better, more accurate translations of Biblical texts in the light of better knowledge of the history and idioms of Biblical times. In other words, to a degree, they attempt to use the scientific method. This tends to incur the wrath of those who contend that the King James Bible is the inspired (and literal, and unerring) Word of God. You can usually trust those who are seeking the truth. Beware of those who say they've found it.Don Firth |
|
24 Jun 05 - 03:42 PM (#1508922) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel The new/false bible http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm |
|
24 Jun 05 - 05:01 PM (#1508972) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Troll Thanks Donuel. Most interesting. troll |
|
24 Jun 05 - 05:14 PM (#1508982) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Einstein did not redefine the nature of gravity (relative to that described by Newton)? I think he did. I think he described the force behind gravity quite differently. But then, I'm a potter. What do I know? I don't think there's much difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying about science always open to new data. Well, except that I didn't do that cool underline thingy. I have corrected that with this post. And it doesn't change what I was saying relative to the no-win situation that the original "goal posts" comment implied. Again -- when Christians ignore new data in favor of old myth, superstition, whatever, they are "lost in the dark ages". But if they choose to alter their beliefs to reflect the reality of the new data, the poster who made the original "goal posts" comment claims that these Christians are "moving the goal posts". I'm pretty much in the "moving the goal posts" camp. I find the darn things never stay put! (once you start using that cool underline thing it's hard to stop -- it's just so.....you know....EMPHATIC!!). And I fully expect to find the goal posts in a different place then I left them most of the time. It's amazing how far away they actually are. Data just never stops. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 05:51 PM (#1509001) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Hilarious site, especialy the way they dwell on the Talmud. I've never seen any refferences to Jesus Christ in it (Messiah, yes, but they don't hold it's the same) would love to see what some religious and talmudic scholars of my acquantaince think when I tell them what the site says. The KJV is not the original Bible, but the best translation available. If anything, the Bible has more in common with Aramea and Mespotamia than Egyptian mythology and folklore. Yes, there are shared elements and influences, Egypt was a superpower after all. I am also sure the writer of Job had not actualy seen hipopotamuses, seems to have been native of Jordan valley. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 05:55 PM (#1509003) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Frankly, I may change my mind about some of the physics, but what part of the message of the Scriptures has science changed? |
|
24 Jun 05 - 05:58 PM (#1509007) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Was that before they cut all the really big trees down? You know, the ones that the elephants used to shade themselves under? |
|
24 Jun 05 - 06:04 PM (#1509010) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Troll The Messiah will come, yes, but he will not be the Son of God. Such an idea would be anathema to a Jew. The very watchword of the faith, The Shma, says,"Hear O' Israel. The Lord is our God. The Lord is One." This means, simply put, that God is not divisible. There is no Trinity, no three-in-one. God is One and Indivisible. Period. End of song. End of story. Those who try to use Talmudic writings to show that the Rabbi Jesus of Nazreth was the promised Messiah are barking up the wrong tree. ANY Talmudic scholar could tell them that. The Messiah, when he comes will be a man who is endowed by God with those attributes which he will need to accomplish his mission. But he will be only a man. Please don't quote me on this. I am not really sure that I believe any of it but I do like to try to keep the facts straight. troll |
|
24 Jun 05 - 06:25 PM (#1509030) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche That, more or less is the Talmudic view. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 07:36 PM (#1509086) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Re: the nature of gravity. Newton said frankly that he didn't know what its mechanism is. He tended to think that it might be some form of magnetism, but he left that up in the air (so to speak). Einstein theorized that it is the warping of space around a object, allowing objects to "roll in" toward the center (which of the two objects moves how much depends on the relative mass of the objects). But that is not locked in stone (sorry about the underline, but if I were saying this rather than writing it, I would vocally emphasize that word). "Gravitons" (like photons) have been hypothesized, but no one has yet found one, so we don't even know if they exist. Same sort of thing as neutrinos: a mathematical construct to balance a formula--until they figured out a way to look for them and, lo and behold, they found them. The goal posts (e.g., the answer to the question "What, exactly, is gravity?") haven't moved an inch. We're still trying to locate where they are. Don Firth |
|
24 Jun 05 - 07:46 PM (#1509093) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Well, that's just the way I remember hearing it as well. I guess I still see a continuum of altering based on new data and you don't see it that way. We can both use the underline though! And I still don't think it's unreasonable for the religious to also change their beliefs according to new knowledge. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 07:52 PM (#1509096) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: gnu Gravity is heavy, man. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 08:46 PM (#1509112) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Exactly, John. Within my experience, I know a fair number of religious folks who want a clearer picture of what it is they believe in and relish new information that may provide it. But then, I go to a fairly liberal (Oh, Gawd! There's that word again!) church. However, I've been to churches--or met people from those churches-- where they think they've got the whole thing locked in concrete, and they tend to be dogmatic, hard-nosed, and intolerant of any viewpoint but their own--including any new information that may upset their neat little applecart. Unfortunately, they are the ones who make the loudest noise about being "true Christians." See André Gide quote, above. Don Firth |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:16 PM (#1509133) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel Underline thingys are truely a trademark of sophistication and wisdom. I don't know how they are done. "Jesus had a twin brother" that sounds like its right out of Life of Brian. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 09:47 PM (#1509157) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Technical aside: Angle bracket "<" followed by a "u" followed by the other angle bracket, ">". Cancel it by doing the same thing again, but put a "/"in front of the "u". Voila! Underline. Same story with italics (replace the "u" with an "i"). Or boldface (replace with a "b"). A visual way of making it possible to use the kind of emphasis that you might use in actual speech. Easy enough with HTML code, but if you use a lot of underling, italics, and boldface in a manuscript you're submitting for publication, they might get a little unhappy with you. Drives type-setters nuts! 'Course computerizing publication may change all that, but too many different type-faces can make something look like a ransom note (letters cut out of a magazine and pasted to a piece of paper). Don Firth |
|
25 Jun 05 - 01:29 AM (#1509255) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST a fair number of religious folks want a clearer picture of what it is they believe in
The religious friends you know, may be lacking in FAITH |
|
25 Jun 05 - 04:14 AM (#1509295) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: DMcG Not all, GUEST. You remember that greatest commandment bit includes using your whole mind? All Don seems to be saying to me is that these people are striving to do so. Your view of the right way to respond to, for example, the Live8 concerts could and indeed normally should vary as your understanding of the issues involved grows. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 07:54 AM (#1509370) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Mary in Kentucky I like Don's statement: For example, Einstein's theory of relativity did not negate Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. It merely subsumed them into a more sophisticated theory. probably because that's a key illustration of one of my thinking models. Does anyone have a link to a website, or a suggested book, or just a summary of various thinking models using visual models? (see, I can use the underline thingy too) What I mean is...the goalpost analogy implies linear movement (to me) while Don's subset analogy implies Venn diagrams. Also, can anyone give several, more than two examples of "Science" changing a theory, and does the example fit the goalpost analogy or the Venn picture? I'm truly confused by this discussion. I get the feeling that folks are talking about different ideas, and heading off into different directions. (picture my wheel with spokes illustraion...;-)) |
|
25 Jun 05 - 08:21 AM (#1509377) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly I agree, Mary, and I too feel that there are two concurrent concepts confusing the conversation ( <<<<------How's THAT for alliteration?!!! ...and I think I'm to blame. I guess to put it simply, I was thinking of the way science is used practically, not scientific theory. Science is used in practical application -- applied sciences? -- and even though much of that practical application holds up, some of it goes by the wayside -- is proven wrong -- with subsequent data. Think of medicine. Nobody would claim that the medicine that came in the middle of last century was not based on science, yet, due to changes in new data, we now find that earlier practices, though well-meaning and based on the best that we had were wrong. We don't maintain those practical applications. We discard them. Further confusing the issue is the mass quantities of "junk science" clouding the atmosphere of lay science conversation. Add to that the confusion of many who think they know what they know, but don't actually. For instance, I don't argue that many (I'd maybe even concede -- a majority) of those who believe in creation don't know how to capably describe their belief or make their case intelligently. But I find the same level of ignorance among those who argue the practical details of evolution. They are cut more slack (not subject to the same derogatory language with which the creationists are described ) in the debate though, because, wrong as they are in the details of evolution, they are at least on the "right" side of the debate. Also, when I am talking about the "goal posts", I'm merely suggesting that the data is ever changing and so the conclusions and practical applications change as well. Don's use of the "goal post" is to say that the goal of science has never changed. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 08:21 AM (#1509378) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly |
|
25 Jun 05 - 08:49 AM (#1509382) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Stu In the study of science we are taught to question everything, to make our own interpretations and question them, and question the interpretations of others. This is not moving the goalposts, this is how we further our scientific knowlege and move on. As scientists, we understand many of our theories and conclusions are wrong. In my particluar field of interest, vertebrate palaeontology (but particularly dinosaurs), theories shift and change rapidly but progress in attemping to understand these animals is being made every single day. The goal of science? Truth. With the truths we learn from science we can understand our place in the universe. Creationism, intelligent design or whatever is not open to this constant, rigorous questioning and does not promote the idea the theory is there to be tested. If it says it in the Bible, it must be true, so the facts are made to fit the theory. I have no problems with faith and religion (I have not made my mind up yet), but Creationism is not a theory, it is religious dogma. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 09:04 AM (#1509388) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Frankham They ain't no dinos in the Bible. No Neanderthals nor monkeys too. They ain't no rhinos that are li'ble To reach the pages that we know is true. The Book is all ya' ever need to know about, The Grand Canyon made in Seven Days. God gave us all we ever need to crow about. We stand in the ign'rance of His praise. They ain't no dinos in the Bible. Only Holy stuff about the Fall of Man. Angels wings are all that's really fly'ble. Dumbin' down is in the Master Plan. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 09:19 AM (#1509397) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "Creationism, intelligent design or whatever..." Apples, oranges or whatever... Dumbin' down is in the Master Plan. I guess that, again, though I certainly know my share of "creationists" who can't argue their case intelligently... 1. I know at least as many "evolutionists" who can't frame the discussion intelligently either, and... 2. I know some very intelligent "creationists" whose experience has been HEAVILY in the sciences. For instance, my own brother would probably describe himself as a believer in creation. He graduated at the top of his class from dental school, in fact, got the highest score on the National Board exams that year, and then went on to specialize in periodontal medicine. He is currently president of his State dental organization. He doesn't fit with the currently held notion of uneducated where science is concerned. I understand that it makes one feel more confident in their own beliefs if they feel that the other side is peopled with ignorant fools. Take comfort in that if you wish, but I don't think you're right. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 10:20 AM (#1509445) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Mary in Kentucky In a brief search for examples, I found a statement that "moving the goalposts" refers to changing the rules, not changing the goal. For instance, requiring a scientist to submit more or different kinds of evidence than is usually required to prove an idea or theory. I originally thought "moving the goalposts" was negating a previously held theory. Such as, in medicine, bloodletting. Or in science history, Galileo and Capernicus, and whether the earth revolved around the sun. Also, the world is flat, etc. Now I'm just more confused as to what the original discussion was about. Also, my Venn diagram/Don's subsumed words: Newton/Kepler->Einstein -- but I can't think of more examples. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 10:42 AM (#1509465) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "Also, when I am talking about the "goal posts", I'm merely suggesting that the data is ever changing and so the conclusions and practical applications change as well. Don's use of the "goal post" is to say that the goal of science has never changed" Mary, The above is how I closed my post (the post where I AGAIN forgot to close out a code!!!). I do think that what you are describing is what I meant (the copernicus/galileo/etc thing) by changing what we hold as "scientific" fact. And what I'm saying is that -- as we functionally USE science (in medicine, in engineering, etc) we are constantly having to change how we do things and how we look at the world. Don is rightly pointing out that it is not science that is changing -- science goes on like the energizer bunny, merely discovering and analyzing new data. Science "concludes" very carefully -- for instance (back to the topic at hand) science has not "concluded" that the world was NOT created. But that is what is at issue with what is taught in science classes -- not that evolution is taught, but the step too far that science has concluded that there is not "creation". You are right in that neither one uses the term "moving the goalposts" in the manner that that term was originally intended (unfairly changing the rules mid-game AFTER one side has showed superiority. Don't mean to speak for Don (he does a fine job for himself). Just trying to explaini how I see the confusion. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 11:06 AM (#1509489) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos Frank: Brilliant versifyin', man! A |
|
25 Jun 05 - 11:24 AM (#1509502) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Perhaps God was just having fun with parallel dimensions and popped a couple of humans and a few other things, like elephants, into one of his old worlds that still had a bunch of old bones laying about from when he was fiddlin around with stuff before, that didn't quite work out right, but some of the old bones like komodo dragons in China weren't dead yet, but God forgot about that and he liked that dinosaurs had become birds, instead of large vicious beasts and fat grazers and so he left the birds around for the ones from the parallel dimension to look at. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 07:23 PM (#1509774) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Foolestroupe, I have a theory about the Platypus. I think it was late Saturday, and God was REALLY tired, so he delegated the final beast to a committee, and gave them a box of parts to work with. Same result as the average local government committee today. Don T. |
|
25 Jun 05 - 08:28 PM (#1509820) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: annamill John Hardly, 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. I believe in this behemoth guy. I'm sure I knew him once... VERY SEXY! Ooofff! As for Jerry Farwell, he is too in the bible, under false prophets ;-) Love, Annamill |
|
25 Jun 05 - 08:45 PM (#1509828) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: gnu Frank da Man! |
|
27 Jun 05 - 02:11 PM (#1511073) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: semi-submersible Donuel (24 Jun 05 - 08:49 AM) said: The Chinese Dragon is clearly dinosaur lore although some call it symbolic of comet or asteroid forbodings. Uncle DaveO demurred: Aww, come on! Clearly? A speculation, at best. Seemed a lot clearer than "speculation" to me. We're looking at a huge empire with effective written communication, countless scholars recording their observations of natural history among other topics, and widespread deposits of stone bones and teeth of great size and saurian form (I believe they're still known as "dragon bones" today). Now, Uncle DaveO, are you telling us all those great and powerful reptiles in Chinese lore have no clear connection with those mysterious fossils? Aww, come on! This is of course distinct from the "patently ridickledockle" (Thanks, Amos!) assumption that human oral history might extend back to times when large dinosaurs walked the earth. However, some brave or unlucky humans a little farther south may also have encountered giant monitor lizards which made today's Komodo dragons look stunted. |
|
27 Jun 05 - 02:16 PM (#1511079) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "John Hardly, 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. VERY SEXY!" *blushing here* I love the flattery, but to be completely honest I must admit that the sinews of my thighs aren't all that close. I'm actually a wee bit bow-legged. You got the "loins" thing right though. *kiss, kiss* |
|
27 Jun 05 - 02:23 PM (#1511089) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST See! John Hardly and his ancestors haven't spent generations on a small island like the komodo dragons and little elephants and become minaturized. |
|
27 Jun 05 - 02:49 PM (#1511106) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,TIA As a scientifc theory, Intelligent Design is useless. A scientific theory must at the very least ATTEMPT to explain something. Intelligent Design is an intellectual surrender..."it's too complicated for us to understand, so we'll say that somebody really really clever simply made it this way and give up". Even as a surrender, it gets us nowhere. Put another way: let's say that life on earth is simply too complex and organized to have happend out of nothing. Okay. Now, something so complex and organized must have been designed...and the designer must have been comlex and highly organized...and therefore cannot just have appeared out of nothing...so must have had a designer...who must have been................... Like I said, scientifically worthless. Oh, and I am a geologist. Anybody want me to fix their teeth? Good-humoured jab at the dentist brother above. No offense meant - really. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 06:31 AM (#1511497) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine OK Tia, so how much do you expect from someone who admits they don't have all the answers? All the answers? |
|
28 Jun 05 - 06:49 AM (#1511507) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Stu Well said Tia. Just because we don't understand thing doesn't mean we should assume it is supernatural in origin. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 07:45 AM (#1511532) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "Just because we don't understand thing doesn't mean we should assume it is supernatural in origin." 1. over half of the population believes in a supernatural origin (not a specific supernatural origin, but a supernatural origin). 2. science does not prove a supernatural origin, but it does not disprove it either. 3. in the schools, it is being taught as though science does disprove a supernatural origin. 4. more than half of the population pay the taxes that support the schools that are teaching their children that science disproves the supernatural (even though it does not). 5. the taxpayers are demanding a say in it -- they want science classes to acknowledge -- not that science proves the supernatural, but that science does not disprove the supernatural. 6. that's not asking too much. 7. when science does disprove the supernatural, then the anti-religious should have their way and the tax-paying religious should move on to their own private schools (and pay for both the public and private schools). 8. if science does not disprove the supernatural but insists on teaching as though it does it has, itself, become religion -- not science... 9. ...and if you reversed that and had the religious teaching something that they could not prove as fact (like their own creation account), you would be on the schools like mud on a pig, shutting them down until they stopped teaching what was not fact, but calling it fact -- especially if the issue was of major importance to your life and that of your families. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 09:38 AM (#1511612) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,TIA You are right. Science cannot disprove anything. Science cannot prove that leprechauns do not exist. Maybe all the testing done in the world so far has missed the critical leprechaun test. But, science does work towards an internally complete and consistent understanding of the universe. an understanding that does not rely upon the supernatural. It is not necessary, and it is unscientific, to plug the supernatural into every (or any) gap in our knowledge. I do not believe that creationists and ID'ers are simply asking that scientists acknowledge uncertainty. Scientists are far more concerned about recognizing and quantifying uncertainty that non-scientists. Nope, ID'ers are trying to install a permanent uncertainty into science. They are trying to wall-off a branch of inquiry. They are trying to shield kids (and adults) from scientifc findings (internally consistent and becoming more complete all the time) that conflict with their faith. Anyone with any level or type of faith is going to face this crisis at some point. Science will advance our knowledge of how the universe works, and faith-based explanations will ultimately come in conflict with that knowledge. The recently-departed Pope recognized this and made a great statement on it in about 1999 (and pardoned Galileo - 500 years late - for proclaiming findings that challenged the faith-based knowledge of his time). And finally, any family that recognizes the importance of taking the full 10 days of antibiotics for an infection is reaping the benefits of our modern understanding of evolution - whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 10:02 AM (#1511623) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Wolfgang I'm merely suggesting that the data is ever changing (John Hardly) if science does not disprove the supernatural but insists on teaching as though it does (John Hardly) John, you talk about something you do not understand to start with. The data are not ever changing. Each student studying an experimental science will as a part of his study have to repeat old experiments just to refind the same data he can read in his books. What happens is that new data are added which are not at odds (usually not) with the old data, but with old theories. The old theories have been able to predict beautifully the old data (and can still under the right circumstances) but cannot predict/explain new data. That's when a new theory is needed. This new theory will still make the same predictions for the realm of the old data for these do not vanish in the thin air and do not change. But the new theory may allow to understand why the old theory (example: Newtonian physics) is still a brilliant theory for low velocities and big masses but should be replaced by better theories for either very high velocities or very small masses. But the replacing theories make the identical (for practical purposes) predictions say for the curve of a cannonball. It is not at all the business of science to prove or disprove the supernatural. Science starts with the assumption that there is nothing supernatural (in our daily lives and laboratories). If supernatural forces would at a daily basis interfere with the laws of the world then there could be no natural laws. The quest is how far can we go without making any supernatural assumption. You'll find that even scientists who, in their private lives, are religious, will in their work as scientists not claim supernatural forces (well, there are exceptions as some intelligent design people, but nobody in science takes them serious). A question like 'how could life on Earth have originated?' has a lot of extrascientific responses like 'god willed it', but such a response is the abrupt end of a research endeavour for it does not allow any meaningful test and cannot be refuted by data. A real scientific program could look at the probable atmospheric conditions billion years ago, could think of lightnings, comets etc. as triggers of early self replicating molecules. Scientists in their jobs just do not care about the supernatural. They never set out to disprove it or prove it, they just try how far the approach without assuming supernatural influence carries. And if they can explain (not in all detail yet, but in general) how species can have evolved from self replicating molecules they are happy. What they say is: I can explain it without any supernatural assumption and not that they have disproved creation. Creation is not their business. In Newton's calculations, the planets were not in stable orbits and for the solar system to remain stable, a little tip from god, now and then, was necessary to bring a planet back into the correct orbit. A French scientist did improve Newton's calculations on the planet paths and found that with this improvement god's interference was not necessary to come to stable orbits. When Napoleon heard of this he asked the scientist whether this meant that there is no god. The reply was that god is an 'unneccessary hypothesis'. That sums it up pretty well. Napoleon, like you, thinks in terms of prove or disprove of god (creation). The scientist told him implicitely that his question was nonsensical and told him that he didn't need god for his theory to work. The question whether there still is a god and a creation is outside of science. One could explain all creation without god and still believe that a god made the laws that allow for a creation without any supernatural interference. These are just two completely different things. If a pupil comes into a non-religious school with biology as a subject she can safely expect to be taught the present theories from science and not those from creation. Scientific theories are by their very nature godless theories and I consider the demand that in science fields theories needing supernatural interference may be taught as well just as stupid and nonsensical like if a mother sends her kid into a religious school and demands that he may not join in prayer. The 'intelligent design' school of thoughts only pretends to have a scientific interest. There are a lot of debates on the field of evolution and many competing theories, but there is no 'intelligent design' theory being taken serious except among a small circle of religiously interested. There is just no real debate, noone in science takes these people serious. Wolfgang |
|
28 Jun 05 - 10:08 AM (#1511625) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly I don't disagree with you, Wolfgang, about what science is. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 10:12 AM (#1511629) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly BTW, very nice post TIA, and I agree with it as well. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 11:53 AM (#1511707) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad 8. if science does not disprove the supernatural but insists on teaching as though it does it has, itself, become religion -- not science... That's just wrong. Science is systematic and formulated knowledge. It's absurd to say it is both 'not science' and 'science.' |
|
28 Jun 05 - 12:13 PM (#1511723) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Sure, possibly I'm wrong. Maybe you are misunderstanding me. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 12:43 PM (#1511743) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Le Scaramouche Frankly, I believe in God but have no idea how the world was created and I'm not going to speculate because I've no particular knowledge in science. Simply unqualified. Never been that interesting to me, as, say, history, literature or philosophy. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 01:37 PM (#1511771) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad Sure, possibly I'm wrong. Maybe you are misunderstanding me. Maybe. Then again, maybe not. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 01:40 PM (#1511774) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly ...but maybe? |
|
28 Jun 05 - 01:48 PM (#1511778) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad Or maybe not ... |
|
28 Jun 05 - 01:52 PM (#1511781) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Damn. You keep moving the goalposts. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 01:56 PM (#1511782) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: TheBigPinkLad The position of the goalposts is relative, John. It's all Einstein's fault. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 05:58 PM (#1511984) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: semi-submersible John Hardly, your post of 28 Jun 05 - 07:45 AM is a superb explanation of what's wrong with "scientific" claims in the theological field. I would grant schools the right not to mention the supernatural outside of social science classes, but no right to attack such concepts (unless by use of accurate data to refute faulty claims of fact). John, can you explain as lucidly, what you mean by "Intelligent Design"? Many of us have it confused with old-line Creationism. Wolfgang said: One could explain all creation without god and still believe that a god made the laws that allow for a creation without any supernatural interference. Bravo! Though nature as I perceive it does not speak to me in voices, when I study or spend time in contact with a healthy ecosystem, certain ideas impress themselves quite strongly upon my consciousness: The universe is complex past my or any human's understanding. It is clearly superhuman and we're part of it. While life exists, it is irrepressible, and dynamic equilibrium is its usual state. There is a satisfying sense of beauty in this. Whatever creative force or emergent patterns shape this bubble of life (whose operation depends on death and suffering) within the unimaginable void, that creator is definitely not governed by human values. |
|
28 Jun 05 - 06:04 PM (#1511988) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: semi-submersible Whoops, sorry John, you did discuss it previously. Cancel thread drift request. |
|
29 Jun 05 - 12:02 AM (#1512191) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: HuwG When Darwin completed his work, "On the origin of species", his publisher (Murray) urged him to add just three words, "by the Creator" to the final sentence. This, he said, would avoid all dispute and opposition to the book. Darwin refused. In his observations, he saw no evidence for the hand of the Creator. Possibly another observer (such as Darwin's nemesis, Fitzroy) might have made the same observations, and tacked the last remark on. However, this would be an assumption, based on the observer's own faith, rather than an observation. (The opposite, that Darwin's omission of the remark was also an assumption, can be argued. However, Darwin had previously been trained for a position in the Anglican clergy, and might have been expected to assume the presence of the Creator's hand. Finding no direct evidence for one, he changed his views.) |
|
29 Jun 05 - 01:43 AM (#1512206) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Perhaps he noticed the very small elephants on isolated islands. |
|
30 Jun 05 - 01:03 AM (#1513023) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Songster Bob My Jr. High science teacher had a simple answer to the question of religion -- "Religion answers, 'why?' and science answers, 'how?'" Now, that's simplistic as well as simple, but it covers the bases, to me. I see a continuum -- science is god-free, religion is science-free, and 'intelligent design' is logic-free. Sorry, a better answer is that intelligent design doesn't advance religion or science very much, but at least it isn't bound to the 'metaphor-as-actual-fact' literal reading of the origin stories in the Bible. Science can't answer the questions religion brings, so science has to eliminate the study of God. God is not knowable through science. Intelligent design attempts to combine science and religion, which can't be done as such. Actually, if I were a science teacher, my 'intellligent design' course would be the first day: "The universe is so complex, many have assumed it has a designer, a creator. Accept this as a theory or not. Science doesn't tell us anything about this designer, but the rest of the semester, we will learn what science CAN tell us about." "Open your books to Chapter One." Bob |
|
30 Jun 05 - 05:44 AM (#1513117) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: JohnInKansas Forget about the dinosaurs. At Nuremberg Chronicles please click on the "Sheet 12: Other Nations" thumbnail for the large view and explain to me what happened to all these other people who were known to exist (outside Nuremberg) in 1493. You will probably need to kill the propaganda popup. It's harmless. (Yes, it's a thread drift; but I thought it rather quaint.) John |
|
30 Jun 05 - 06:32 AM (#1513141) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John O'L I dunno what happened to the people John, but that's a very interesting reference work you've thrown into the equation. I'm particularly intrigued by the bloke with the one big foot. Wonder what happened to his ilk. |
|
30 Jun 05 - 06:55 AM (#1513153) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly What? the guy on the bottom right is practicing a primitive form of birth control by fighting off storks with a shield and club? |
|
30 Jun 05 - 07:56 AM (#1513200) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks An article in the _New Yorker_ within the past two months about Intelligent Design is required reading for anyone interested. |
|
30 Jun 05 - 08:00 AM (#1513206) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: JohnInKansas The only one I see that resembles anyone I've seen recently is the second one down on the right, perhaps. That big mouth resembles an ex motherinlaw just a bit, maybe. Of course the guy doing something strange with the little deer may be an ancestor of some of those in the big sheep country? We probably have experts who can advise us on that tribe. It's probably all explained in the text, but I get a headache trying to pick out any of what it says. The document is well enough known to be translated somewhere on the web, but I haven't looked for it. I suppose it was "modern science" in the 1490s. John |
|
30 Jun 05 - 08:50 AM (#1513244) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Blissfully Ignorant "the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." Could the behemoth have been a sumo wrestler, perhaps? |
|
30 Jun 05 - 09:18 AM (#1513265) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John O'L I've been wondering... Since animals evolved from plants, which breath carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, how come animals evolved to breath oxygen and emit carbon dioxide? It's proven to be a handy symbiosis, but it can't have been in response to any environmental advantage to be had at the time surely - or can it? Please note that I have drawn no conclusions, I'm just wondering. |
|
30 Jun 05 - 09:22 AM (#1513268) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Blissfully Ignorant I've never heard that animals evolved from plants....although, it could explain why my dog poops a brick every time he sees a lawnmower. That mutt has issues, man... |
|
30 Jun 05 - 09:24 AM (#1513269) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Stu "An article in the _New Yorker_ within the past two months about Intelligent Design is required reading for anyone interested." Have you got an online reference for this GWT? |
|
30 Jun 05 - 09:38 AM (#1513283) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel Penn and Teller did a marvelous program this monday on this very subject of Creative Design* To demonstrate their point they held a vote on whether they believed a certain duck was male or female - without evidence of looking. Science is not democratic. They also made the point that there is a group called the Raillians that believe in Creative Design but the Christian Creation designers want nothing to do with them. You see the Raillians have chosen space aliens as the Creator. *(otherwise known as the religious fundamentalist right wing condemnation of science in lieu of Creationism) |
|
30 Jun 05 - 09:44 AM (#1513291) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,MMario well - when you get down to it, plants also need oxygen and produce c02 as part of their basic metabolism. However, when they are photosynthesizing, *THAT* process uses Co2 and ends up with an excess of 02. One theory does have plants and animals deriving from the same (theoretical) unicellular life form. Other theories have them deriving from seperate lines. |
|
30 Jun 05 - 09:55 AM (#1513298) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel I have lost track of how many mass extinctions the Earth has suffered. It may be over 6 by now. Way prior to land creatures the most powerful mass exctinction had wiped the slate clean of all oceanic life forms. The following regeneration of sea life had no resemblence to the prior forms. I assume all forms have had an RNA DNA foundation. Perhaps on the 7th extinction Shiva will rest. |
|
30 Jun 05 - 09:59 AM (#1513302) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "One theory does have plants and animals deriving from the same (theoretical) unicellular life form. Other theories have them deriving from seperate lines." Then science doesn't know? *wink* |
|
30 Jun 05 - 10:12 AM (#1513303) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Of course science doesn't know. Niether does religion. Nobody knows... all we have is theory, dogma and guesswork. Although i will say this...if someone inteligently designed me, they could have made a little more of an effort... |
|
30 Jun 05 - 10:15 AM (#1513304) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,MMario Donuel - some theorize that RNA is a "leftover" from a seperate evolutionary line. there is some evidence that mitochondria are a formerly freeliving life form that became symbiotic with the mainstream life forms very early on. Extra-nuclear genetics is currently on about the level of understanding as regular genetics was during Mendel's day. |
|
01 Jul 05 - 07:30 AM (#1513585) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Jack The Lad The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot reported on Thursday that 6000 yr old hippopotamus bones have been found while excavating a building site in Tel Aviv. The bones are among those of many other animals all of which seem to have been eaten by the inhabitants of a chalcolithic village discovered on the site. The bones bear the marks of the scraping of flint tools , suggesting that the meat was removed for eating- probably after having been cooked. The area was situated on or near the banks of a river or stream, and marshy areas, which probably housed hippos. this is the first discovery of hippo bones in this part of the pre Canaanite area. Mammoth bones had been discovered in the north of Israel, around the Jordan River- but this is the first evidence of hippos, some 3000 yrs before the first Israelites appeared on the scene. Jack The Lad |
|
01 Jul 05 - 08:47 AM (#1513597) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST Lefty: Herds of 'em? Curly: ee-yup. Lefty: You mean to tell me they was hippopotamusboys that'd drove huge herds o' hippos up from the African continent? Curly: ee-yup Lefty: Wasn't they an everlovin' bugger t'try an' brand? Curly: Brandin' weren't nuthin'. They hides're like wood'n they nary feel a thing. It's the ropin' a wranglin' 'em that's the pain. Even them li'l one's'll weigh 'bout as much as a small house. Lefty: I betcha they made one thunderous sound when they was on a drive -- the whole herd a'poundin' they hoofs! Curly: ee-yup. They useta be nary a hunnerd more pyramids back afore the hippo drives. |
|
01 Jul 05 - 11:34 AM (#1513711) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Paul Burke One theory does have plants and animals deriving from the same (theoretical) unicellular life form. Other theories have them deriving from seperate lines. Whose theory derives them separately? Both are DNA/RNA based: for two separate life- forming processes to come up with the same extremely complex answer WOULD be coincidence on a gale-in-a-scapyard scale. It is probable that life originated only once, at least on our planet. Though it was probably based on a much simpler chemistry than nucleotide chains. It would probably please the Christians to know that one candidate is self- replicating structures sometimes found in ....... clay. |
|
01 Jul 05 - 12:00 PM (#1513736) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "probably" So we're not talking science here then? *grin* |
|
01 Jul 05 - 12:24 PM (#1513752) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Stu It is probable that life originated only once, at least on our planet stigWeard's Theory of Pan-Galactic Ecosystems states that in years to come we will find that ecosystems will encompass entire solar systems, and probably even entire galaxies. Planets are seeded by metorites and comets, with planetary bombardment being the main mechanism for creating these meteorites, which then land on nearby worlds, spreading microscopic life forms that happpend to be on the rock that was blasted off the originating planets surface. Given the tenacity and resilience of life (look no further than that for a true miracle!), it is entirely possible life is zooming around the cosmos, evolving into myriad forms we cannot even imagine. With luck, one day some lucky folks will get to go and discover all these life forms. Who needs religion to see the wonder and depth of the universe? Hallelujah! |
|
01 Jul 05 - 12:26 PM (#1513754) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel M mario & Paul Burke, If previous life forms like the powerhouse mitochondria are hitch hiking symbioticly in current lifeforms and genetic data is sometimes passed between different species one might be able to theorize a mutated throw back to be able to occur. I have seen two people in my life that looked exactly and dramaticly like Neanderthals. That certain life forms only exist in one small area it is reasonable to belive that they arose there and are not merely leftovers from a more ubiquitous past. The Human Geonome Project is down the road from me. It is a gigantic facilty. It has inspired some short stories of a genre I call scientific poetry: Deep within the megalithic Human Genome building in Gaithersburg Maryland Dr. Mendez took a nap and within his dream, not a voice but a consciousness spoke to him, in the language of soul. The souls of all living things all the way back to Pre Cambrian times. When he awoke the meaning of his dream was still swimming before his eyes. He stared at DNA language for the last 7 years. Now it all made sense in a way he could not quantify but he knew it was subjectively true. Sometimes the simple beauty almost made him cry. You see, between the clumps of familiar groups of amino acids there are sequences we call genes Between the genes are immense stretches of DNA that are likened to a desert. Some even called those regions junk DNA since they would not correspond to any physical trait or protein building functions. Dr. Mendez now knows what those vast genetic deserts contain and can read them like a book. Like the voice of God in his ear he takes dictation from the grand genome. Fired for missing too many meetings Dr. Menendez now works from home. Writing down the common threads of life he stacks the papers on his shelf. He learned we were never alone. From a greater time we are but seedlings of our former and future self. Back in Maryland where he worked whenever his name comes up you can hear people say: "he acted strange, he really seemed wound up." They may never know how strange a story that was ever told by so strange a man who does not grow old because he has the plans. |
|
01 Jul 05 - 12:31 PM (#1513761) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST I misspoke - go back fer eno' and yes, common ancestor to plant and animal. Many differences as to when the split occurred - including pre- or post en-nucleation (which they believe may have occurred multiple times in seperate lines of evolution) there are some "oddities" around even on earth - thermo-syntetics, "sulfer eating" bacteria, etc. |
|
01 Jul 05 - 12:38 PM (#1513767) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel ...nano bacteria |
|
01 Jul 05 - 12:50 PM (#1513775) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bill D this is not online yet, as they seem to stay a week behind, but here, for your edification, is today's "Tom, the Dancing Bug", scanned from today's edition of the Washington Post, as I would probably forget about it in a week.... The artist does have a certain leaning, I admit...but is sometimes too close to the meat of the issue for comfort...*grin* |
|
02 Jul 05 - 09:34 AM (#1514163) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Wolfgang Then science doesn't know? *wink* "probably" So we're not talking science here then? *grin* (John Hardly) 'best fitting hypothesis' or 'theory able to explain all data so far' is never about knowing and has never been. Even for Einstein's theory there are competing theories. Sometimes two theories are both able to explain the data known so far (and wait for an experiment able to decide between them which is wrong, but not which is right, BTW). I'm all for pupils learning good science and that means how to test conflicting theories and how to deal with different theories explaining the same data. I'm of course for the advanced among them to learn different theories about evolution, punctuated equilibrium and all those, but none of the theories they should learn will even remotely be similar to 'intelligent design' or will have the age of the earth remotely similar to some thousand years. John, read a good bock about scientific methodology. Wolfgang |
|
02 Jul 05 - 09:36 AM (#1514164) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly UP <<---------lighten there. (and quit being so damn condescending) |
|
02 Jul 05 - 10:02 AM (#1514179) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel Thanks Bill, I always like to see a good cartoon with heart. |
|
18 May 07 - 04:30 PM (#2055845) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: katlaughing Thought this was of interest: This Memorial Day, the religious right will launch one of the most outrageous campaigns to date in their war on science: the $27 million "Creation Museum" in Petersburg, Kentucky. The "Museum," which was built by the religious right organization Answers in Genesis (AiG), is dedicated to the falsehood that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, claims that humans and dinosaurs coexisted a few thousand years ago, and has but one goal: to institutionalize the lie that science supports these fairytales. This institution is only the most recent example of the religious right's war on science education - whether in the form of anti-evolution stickers in textbooks or the promotion of intelligent design in the classroom. In all of these cases the religious right has sought to create controversy where none exists. However, in the case of the "Creation Museum" they have gone one step further: instead of acknowledging their contempt for science, they have decided to claim that science actually proves inherently anti-science propaganda. While AiG has the right to spend $27 million promoting a lie, it is imperative that as concerned citizens we let America know the true dangers of their nefarious campaign. If anyone is interested in signing a petition about this, please Click Here. |
|
18 May 07 - 04:35 PM (#2055847) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,282RA >>Answers in Genesis (AiG), is dedicated to the falsehood that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, claims that humans and dinosaurs coexisted a few thousand years ago<< And where is this claimed in Genesis? |
|
18 May 07 - 05:23 PM (#2055876) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Joe Offer I don't know if I could say that most Christians don't take the Bible as a scientific or historical document, but there certainly a good many believing Christians who see the Bible as primarily a document of faith, not science. There are many Christians who believe that God created through the wonderful, natural process called evolution. They see the "dinosaur dance" that the fundamentalists do, as quite entertaining. As for the 6,000-year age of the earth - that's somebody's extrapolated calculation. Many conservative Christians don't put much credence in that, either. -Joe- |
|
18 May 07 - 06:15 PM (#2055921) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth I've been told that some enthusiastically religious individual worked this out some years back. He came up with the info that God created the earth a 9:30 a.m., January 19, 4004 B.C. I understand that the method he used was to go systematically through the "begats" (a section of the Bible that usually leads congregations to doze off) and carefully count back to Adam. I assume that, to be so precise, he had birth certificates for everyone on the list. . . . Don Firth |
|
18 May 07 - 06:27 PM (#2055933) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace "BISHOP USSHER DATES THE WORLD: 4004 BC James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a Wednesday'." |
|
18 May 07 - 06:27 PM (#2055934) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: katlaughing Some of them have put $27 million's worth of credence in it, Joe!:-) |
|
18 May 07 - 06:39 PM (#2055947) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace Having read that, I decided to send a letter to Bishop Ussher and see if he has included leap years in his calculations. I haven't heard back yet, but that may be because, Canada Post and/or the Irish equivalent are slow with letters. When I do, I'll post it here. |
|
18 May 07 - 06:40 PM (#2055950) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace Damn! Talk about misuse of the comma. My apologies. |
|
18 May 07 - 08:40 PM (#2056029) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk No dinosaurs in the Bible? Yeah...so? Look, there are also no Japanese in the Bible, no kangaroos, nothing about the Hawaiian Islands, no mention of Antarctica, and not a word about North, Central, or South America! Furthermore there is nothing said about Buddha or Lao-Tse or Krishna, though all of them were well known in large areas of the world when Jesus was alive (or at the time he was reputed to be for those of you nitpicking sods who want to fight with people about whether he even existed or not). There's a ton of stuff that's not in the Bible. Not a word there about lemurs, trilobites, stalactites, athlete's foot fungus, the color "avocado"... But why would you expect it to be in there? Give it a rest. The Bible was written for the people of the time. They weren't interested in any of that stuff I mentioned above (exept maybe athlete's foot?), and neither were the scholars and scribes who wrote the books in the Bible. They weren't going to write about things they didn't consciously know about or care about now, were they? I don't think so. The people who presently think the world is about 6,000 years old are a certain fundamentalist splinter group within Christianity, and they do not speak for all Christians. They do not speak for a majority of Christians. It all got started by Bishop Ussher, just like certain mythical nonsense about Columbus got started by Washington Irving. Some people will always be willing to believe mythical nonsense...as long as it's the first thing they have heard on the matter, and as long as they heard it from someone they trusted. It was Bishop Ussher's opinion that the world is about 6,000 years old. His opinion is strictly his opinion, and if some credulous people want to go and believe it because their daddy and his daddy and his granddaddy believed it....well, that sort of thing has been going on ever since the first sentient humans crawled on the face of the Earth. A lot of people believe silly stuff about George Washington too. That's the way it goes. People love a good story. |
|
18 May 07 - 09:07 PM (#2056042) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,282RA >>No dinosaurs in the Bible? Yeah...so? Look, there are also no Japanese in the Bible, no kangaroos, nothing about the Hawaiian Islands, no mention of Antarctica, and not a word about North, Central, or South America! Furthermore there is nothing said about Buddha or Lao-Tse or Krishna, though all of them were well known in large areas of the world when Jesus was alive (or at the time he was reputed to be for those of you nitpicking sods who want to fight with people about whether he even existed or not).<< No mention of the pyramids. No mention of the Sphinx. No mention of cats, curiously enough. Whales but no cats. |
|
18 May 07 - 10:33 PM (#2056099) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth "BISHOP USSHER DATES THE WORLD: 4004 BC. . . ." Thanks, Peace. More authoritative than my informant. I'll--uh--update my books on cosmology. Don Firth |
|
18 May 07 - 10:40 PM (#2056106) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Didn't Fred and Wilma Flintstone ride to their local Southern Baptist Church on Sunday mornings on the back of a dinosaur? Don Firth |
|
18 May 07 - 10:51 PM (#2056120) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: frogprince Our local xtian bookstore has several books for kids with references to the proof that dinosaurs and man co-existed.(The crossing dino tracks, I think in Texas, where one set looks a bit like huge human prints right where the tracks cross). Long decades ago, at least one leading fundamentalist proposed that the devil created the dinosaur bones to mislead people. Even most of the fundamentalists rolled their eyes at that one, but I think there are still a few adherants to the theory. |
|
18 May 07 - 10:52 PM (#2056122) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Joe Offer I thought the guy who drew the B.C. cartoons was a fundamentalist Christian - didn't that comic strip have dinosaurs? Does that mean it's a mistake to pigeonhole people and define their beliefs without giving them a chance to speak for themselves? -Joe- |
|
18 May 07 - 11:00 PM (#2056125) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: frogprince He was a hard core fundamentalist. He said that when he started the strip he believed in things like primitive man, but after he learned better, he just continued them in the strip as humor. |
|
18 May 07 - 11:22 PM (#2056132) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel "there are also no Japanese in the Bible, no kangaroos, nothing about the Hawaiian Islands, no mention of Antarctica, and not a word about North, Central, or South America! Furthermore there is nothing said about Buddha or Lao-Tse or Krishna" wrong They are all there and more. They are simply in bible code... in for a penny in for a lb. I betcha you will find big foot, big butt and Ben's Big and tall shop' phone number if you use that bible code thingy. |
|
18 May 07 - 11:36 PM (#2056137) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Oh well, you can find all that stuff in the palm of your hand too, Donuel...if you want to badly enough. ;-) People find what they look for. They don't find what they don't look for, specially if they never even thought of looking for it in the first place. It's always been that way, always will be. People in biblical times had no reason on Earth to either know about dinosaurs or be talking about them in some religious text. This subject is always royally screwed up by people who take the Bible literally as the one and only and complete Word of God...and their loyal opponents at the opposite extreme of the argument who seem to imagine that everyone who believes in "God" or is "religious" must be someone who takes the Bible literally as the one and only and complete World of God. That leaves a whole lot of people who aren't even in the argument between those 2 zealous extremes. Like, probably, most of us here.... |
|
19 May 07 - 03:56 AM (#2056218) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Pardon the Segue: When were dinosaur bones first discovered and by whom? Seems like it must have been a BIG day. |
|
19 May 07 - 09:11 AM (#2056351) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bee http://rfreeman.myweb.uga.edu/GEOL3350_'4HistoryDinoSt.htm Here, Ebbie - it's a nice list of early discoveries and attempts to explain what the bones might be. |
|
19 May 07 - 12:26 PM (#2056470) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Yeah, so the idea of something such as a "dinosaur" did not even occur to anyone until the early 1800's. How could the writers of the Bible have written about something that wasn't even a known concept at the time in which they were writing? ;-) They wrote about stuff they could relate to, and stuff which they thought was important enough to merit writing about. They did mention something about a dragon, in that Satan was referred to as a dragon in some passage. The prevalence of dragon myths in old legends in many parts of the world is an interesting phenomenon, given that the dragon seems to combine features of legged reptiles, snakes, and birds. It also is normally said to "breathe fire". Perhaps the dragon legends had some kind of conscious or subconscious link to the dinosaurs that once inhabited the Earth. Then again, maybe not. I doubt that anyone will ever be able to figure it out. |
|
19 May 07 - 03:06 PM (#2056562) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Thanks, Bee. It's a fascinating website. It's not surprising that fossils and bones had been discovered hundreds of years before a scientific explanation was attempted, but it was a great leap to understanding that all those bits and pieces were of a totally different epoch. If I remember correctly - not that I was there - the tales of gorillas were not vindicated until the late 1800s. Isn't it good to realize that NOW we know everything. *G* |
|
19 May 07 - 03:30 PM (#2056575) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Did humans and dinosaurs co-exist? Of course! Here is authentic, irrefutable documentation: HERE (commemorative stamp). Further proof HERE. Don Firth |
|
19 May 07 - 03:39 PM (#2056579) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace ". . . but leave them alone and they'll come home, dragon there tails behind them." Well, they're in nursery rhymes, anyway. |
|
19 May 07 - 03:52 PM (#2056594) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Dinosaur love songs: Last night I dreamt I was a brontosaurus,Don Firth |
|
19 May 07 - 04:00 PM (#2056600) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk I think it's a great shame that the brontosaurus got renamed the apatosaurus. It doesn't sound half as good. |
|
19 May 07 - 04:40 PM (#2056622) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Apparently there are some paleontologists, notwithstanding the mix-up of heads, who contend that the brontosaurus and the Apatosaurus should be regarded as two separate species, but they seem to be in the minority. And the word "brontosaurus," which has a nice, massive ring to it, has gone into the popular lexicon. When Jim put the above verses together, between the beer and the Mexican laughing-tobacco, he wasn't making particularly fine paleontological distinctions. Don Firth |
|
22 May 07 - 12:34 PM (#2058432) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Wolfgang What will happen if a tyrannosaur running to the East meets a tyrannosaur running to the West? Tyrannosaur wrecks. Wolfgang |
|
23 May 07 - 12:22 PM (#2059108) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie lol |
|
23 May 07 - 02:10 PM (#2059173) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: katlaughing A Big Bang! |
|
23 May 07 - 06:03 PM (#2059349) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Followed by a nasty argument. |
|
24 May 07 - 01:15 PM (#2059990) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Can you just imagine T-Rex mating season? |
|
24 May 07 - 03:22 PM (#2060098) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos I could, Ebb, but I don't think I want to... A |
|
25 May 07 - 04:37 AM (#2060481) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Buck Evgenisis Trex is a sort of imitation lard sold in the UK. I can't imagine how it could be used in mating. |
|
25 May 07 - 12:26 PM (#2060772) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk It would be a lively time, wouldn't it? |
|
25 May 07 - 04:33 PM (#2060943) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos Don't go there, Leedle Hack; you are starting down a slope that may be even slipperier than your own imagination can tolerate!! A |
|
25 May 07 - 08:08 PM (#2061064) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel Creation Science Museums are open nation wide in the USA this summer. There should be one within 90 minutes of every huge city. With the use of Animatronics, the museum exhibits prove that the world is 6,000 years old. My favourite is the torture chamber where animatronic priests show heretic scientists the errors of their ways. I wonder what else the millions of dollars for the construction of these museums could have done that might have helped mankind. |
|
25 May 07 - 08:15 PM (#2061071) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Loopey Yeah! They could've used the money to erect statues of William Shatner at the entrances of all larger towns and cities... Damn shame, isn't it? |
|
26 May 07 - 11:32 AM (#2061336) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: katlaughing Here's what some of us are doing against the creation museums: click here. Be sure to check out the I got stupider Tee-shirts!. |
|
26 May 07 - 01:24 PM (#2061378) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie I keep being reminded of the rule of the Ayatollahs. On this track 50, 20, 10 years from now this country will be the only "Christian" nation left. And it will be enforced. |
|
26 May 07 - 03:22 PM (#2061430) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Yes, well, you can always escape to Canada if that should occur. |
|
26 May 07 - 03:47 PM (#2061444) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie I'm not so sure, LH. Canada has tightened its requirements a great deal in recent years; my guess is the rules will become even more stringent as time passes and the US becomes ever more bizarre. |
|
26 May 07 - 04:08 PM (#2061456) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Don't underestimate the Discover Institute. When it comes to peddling their ideas, these people know what they're doing. I had never heard of the Discover Institute until one evening some months ago when I watched a science show on television. At least, I thought it was a science program. The TV schedule listed a program entitled "The Privileged Planet." From the blurb, it sounded like a one-shot Nova-like program. I am somewhat addicted to such programs about astronomy, cosmology, and such, so I watched it. The show (which, incidentally, is available on DVD) was beautiful. It had excellent production values and graphics, and in this respect, it ranked right up there with the best of Nova or Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. The general thrust of the show was that the Earth is, indeed, a privileged planet. And they lined up a whole string of—yes--facts, such as how Earth lies in a "temperate zone" (just the right distance from the sun to allow water to exist in a liquid state), and how this, in turn, allows other things to take place, making Earth hospitable to cellular life. As I recall, it didn't mention evolution, which, with a lot of folks, would have raised a red flag immediately. It went on to point out that the Earth is sufficiently far from the galactic center not to be endangered by the intense radiation that might exist there, and that it does not lie within a dense cloud of gas and dust, such as many stars (and, presumably, their planets) do, so we are positioned to be able to see out into space and discover our unique place in the cosmos. So I'm watching the show, thinking, "Yeah, that's true. Yes, that's right." And, for some reason, I'm beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable. Somewhere in the last twenty minutes of the hour-long show, it sank in that this whole program was doing a masterful job of leading the viewer down the primrose path. It was a brief for "intelligent design!" Without saying so in so many words, the way they had lined out the information—and most of it was factual—it was set up to lead a person, particularly a scientifically naïve person, but a fairly scientifically sophisticated layman as well, to the conclusion that all of this could not have happened without being carefully planned out ahead of time and designed that way. Intelligently. They offer no alternative explanations. Such as: on sheer happenstance alone, there is a vast number of possibilities that exist in a cosmos as unimaginably huge as the one we inhabit. For example, the majority of stars in the universe are main sequence stars (about 90%). The sun is a main sequence star. Knowing what we know about the way stars are born, it would be unusual for such a star not to have a planetary system such as our solar system. And the way planetary orbits sort themselves out (simple celestial mechanics), most main sequence stars would have at least one planet in the "temperate zone" that would allow liquid water to exist. And how does the water get there? In the earlier stages of formation of the system, by being bombarded by comets—balls of ice and dirt—and other debris as the gravitational fields of the newly formed planets "vacuum" the leftover rubble out of their immediate orbits. Whether or not the water stays there depends mostly on the temperature of the planet, largely a function of its distance from its sun. If we apply astronomer Frank Drake's "formula" ("if only one of 100 stars is main sequence, and only one in 100 main sequence stars has planets, and only one planet in 100 has liquid water. . . ." and so on), we still come up with a galaxy that is teeming with life. And Drake's "one in 100" premise is, intentionally, exceedingly conservative. It is certainly likely—without having to invoke the supernatural—that at least a small percentage of that life develops intelligence. Given the laws of physics and chemistry (including, of course, biochemistry), and on the basis of sheer numbers alone, the universe, including our own galaxy, could easily be a very crowded place. But this "documentary" tried to convey the impression that the Earth—and the life thereon—is totally unique in this whole vast universe. I'm sure a lot of people bought it. And will continue to buy it whenever and wherever the program or the DVD is shown. Believe me, these people know how to get their message across. Don't underestimate them! Don Firth |
|
26 May 07 - 04:35 PM (#2061468) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Alice One of the methods of "thought reform" used to recruit people into an ideology... feed little facts a bit of a time, mixed with untruths until eventually a person swallows it all... but you can't eat an elephant in one bite. You can if it is fed a bite at a time. |
|
26 May 07 - 06:04 PM (#2061511) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos Maybe this planet is something like Australia once was -- a dumping ground for the unwanted DNA from ancient star civilizations. 'Course, Australia is special, too! :D A |
|
26 May 07 - 09:33 PM (#2061591) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Like you, Don, I figure that there are probably a great many inhabited planets rather similar to the Earth out there in the Universe, and that they are all no doubt many millions or billions of years old. Some of them must have what we would term intelligent life too. But why should that be taken as an argument against the concept of God? The fact that it is puzzles me about as much as the fact that some people think the Earth is only around 6,000 years old. But then, every opinion is based on certain underlying broad assumptions, isn't it? You have to find out what someone's broad assumptions are before you really have a clue what they are talking about when they voice an opinion. People tend to jump to a lot of false conclusions, based on their assumption that people who don't share their own opinion are probably stupid, ignorant, or crazy.... ;-) Such is often not the case at all. For instance, I know 2 extremely intelligent and well-informed people who are Jehovah's Witnesses. They are the kind of people who are bound to do well in life, because they are smart, hard-working, well educated, and have very good character and self-discipline to boot! I wish I was as capable in general life skills as those two people are. Seriously. And yet they believe all kinds of strange (to me) religious stuff I could never believe...for one simple reason: they take the Bible as God's Word. And I don't. I take it as a series of religious books written in ancient times by a series of religious people who probably thought that they were doing God's work as best they understood it at the time. Accordingly, I do not take the Bible as authority, but my friends do. If I didn't already know them well, I might make some totally ill-founded assumptions about their intelligence, etc....and they might do likewise, I suppose, about mine. As it is, we mutually respect and like one another and we accept that we differ in some basic beliefs. |
|
27 May 07 - 03:29 PM (#2061938) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth "But why should that be taken as an argument against the concept of God?" It shouldn't, really. If a person assumes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it should be taken literally (i.e. the fundamentalist view), then if you contest the idea that God created the Heavens and the Earth in an actual six calendar days and that dinosaurs either did not exist or co-existed with Adam and Eve, then that person might assume that you are arguing that God doesn't exist. But I offer a different view. My reading and study of astronomy and cosmology, with it's preponderance of evidence, indicates to me that the universe began 13 billion years ago with the Big Bang, and that then the working out of the laws of physics and chemistry eventually produced the earth and us. And an immense amount that we have yet to learn about. Hence, rather than assuming that I have total knowledge of the origins of "Life, the Universe, and Everything," I am open to new information and, if necessary, revision of that which was previously assumed to be true. Including the possibility that it may have all been started by some kind of deity or higher intelligence—the nature and purposes of which we do not know (no matter what the claims to the contrary). My fundamentalist friend worships a fairly puny God (barely more than a modestly talented wizard with an ego problem, who can't seem to get it right and has to keep messing with it) compared to the kind of intelligence that it would take to create this vast universe by merely saying, "Let there be Light!" followed by an immense KA-BOOM!!! and the rest, this deity (?) knows, will follow without further interference or tinkering. Those laws of physics and chemistry, that the Deity knows full well, eventually produce the Earth and we who reside upon it. And the intelligent, technological kangaroo-like beings who inhabit Alpha Centauri Two, the highly intelligent octopus-like creatures on Wolf 359's single water planet who are not technological, but who are poets and communicate telepathically, the intelligent, technological, and very human-like inhabitants of Procyon Four, and the small, humanoid space-faring inhabitants of Sirius Three who occasionally drop in here to see what we're up to. . . . And these, our brethren, in our fairly immediate neighborhood in the galaxy, whom we have yet to meet (as far as we know). One can believe that there is a God—a being capable of creating this whole, immense universe (and perhaps an infinite number of others)—without buying the idea that the world was created a mere 6,000 years ago and that the "Wizard" in question dug up river mud and literally molded some dude named Adam out of it, then laid down a lot of "do's" and "don't's." Like I say: kinda puny compared to the hypothetical God I can imagine might possibly exist. One likes to know of course. Some folks simply can't stand uncertainty, so they have to make up myths they can believe in. But I find that I am fairly comfortable with mystery. I prefer that to operating on totally irrational assumptions and vociferously denying obvious facts. Mystery is fine. If I knew absolutely everything, life would be boring as hell. There wouldn't be anything left to learn. Don Firth |
|
27 May 07 - 07:22 PM (#2062041) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Well said, Don. I agree that your fundamentalist friend's version of God is very small..."puny", as you put it. |
|
28 May 07 - 06:20 AM (#2062277) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Folkiedave A paradox which no christian has ever managed to explain to me is the question of omniscient and omnipotence. These are mutually incompatible for if God is omniscient then he must already know how he is going to change the world using his omnipotence. But that means he cannot change his mind about his intervention which means he is not omnipotent. Anyone help me out with this one? |
|
28 May 07 - 09:42 AM (#2062330) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Taking the Bible "literally" is not the "fundamentalist" point of view. Describing it as such is a distortion of the "fundamentalist" point of view. |
|
28 May 07 - 10:57 AM (#2062372) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Hey! That's an amusing way of looking at it, Folkiedave. I doubt that anyone can help you out with it. But it's based on a number of questionable assumptions. One of them is that God "intervenes". For that to be the case, God would have to be separate, correct? I mean, you have to be separate from a situation in order to intervene, don't you? What if God is not separate from anything? If so, then God would automatically know about everything, right? So there you have the omniscient quality, at least. As for the omnipotent quality, that means: all-powerful. Well, I guess if God were the source of all energy behind all acts that occur that would make God all-powerful...in the sense that without God there, there'd be no energy and nothing would happen. But these are just theories I'm proposing as possible answers to your questions... Maybe life as we know it is a bit like a gigantic computer game...God being the intelligence that created the game as well as providing the electricity and creating the machinery that allows the game to function and play out. Thus God is equivalent to game designer, computer manufacturer, and power company. Let's figure a game like one of the Sims adventures...or Rome: Total War....or some other game with a fictional world peopled by an unlimited number of apparently freely acting characters. That's us. ;-) Now note that the game is designed in such a way that all the characters have what certainly appears to be a good measure of free will to make their own decisions. They react intelligently (well, somewhat intelligently) to things done by the other characters in the game. They interact. They agree and disagree. They change their minds. They live and die. They win and lose. Now tell me, is the designer of the game and the person playing the game omniscient and omnipotent in regards to what happens in the game? Yes and no. If I take the "God" role while I'm playing "Rome: Total War" then I am omniscient, because I start the game up, I play it, I obsere its progress, and I can turn it off if I want to. HOWEVER....since the game is designed to give all its characters the ability to make decisions and use what appears to be their own free will while the game is running...and it is....things can happen which I didn't plan on while I was playing the game! And they do. Some danged country decides suddenly to attack Rome, and I wasn't expecting them to. Plague strikes one of my cities and kills off my best general! An earthquake devastates my capital! I could intervene, I suppose, by just turning the darn game off and starting over, but it would be more fun to play it out and see what happens. Am I omniscient and omnipotent in this game that I and I alone am in charge of? Yes and no. Maybe I don't want to be omniscient and omnipotent in regards to everything in the game, because it would simply be too boring. It would be pointless. So maybe I prefer a situation where my omnipotence and my omniscience are put aside in order to create a more exciting and interesting situation. I like the fact that the characters in the game have a certain amount of free will, and that unexpected things happen. It makes the game worth playing. But without me (the player in charge), there is no game. Another theory for you to consider... |
|
28 May 07 - 11:20 AM (#2062387) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: katlaughing Ah! So...we are here to relieve God's boredom!**bg** |
|
28 May 07 - 11:35 AM (#2062399) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Well put, Little Hawk. Meaty. |
|
28 May 07 - 12:00 PM (#2062422) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Folkiedave Taking the Bible "literally" is not the "fundamentalist" point of view. Describing it as such is a distortion of the "fundamentalist" point of view. Then what is the fundamentalist view regarding the literalness of the bible. Clearly they cannot believe in the Old Testament - unless they have never really read it of course.....And the New Testament is dodgy historically. So where does the bible fit into funadmentalist belief? |
|
28 May 07 - 12:55 PM (#2062455) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Alice As Fundamentalism originally referred to a Protestant movement in the 20th century, one of its basic beliefs was the literal truth of the bible. That is one of five faith doctrines of Protestant fundamentalism. Now, the word is starting to be applied to faiths other than Protestant Christianity. It is used to describe strict adherance to beliefs and literal scriptures, but the definition seems to be morphing and becoming more broad. Look in the dictionary, and you will see the definition of the 5 fundamental Christian doctrines, but listen to the media and you will hear the word used in many ways. Wikipedia discusses these changes of the meaning on its page about Fundamentalism. Bible literalism was basic in the beginning of Christian Fundamentalism, but apparently because some people now who call themselves Fundamentalists don't always believe in bible literalism, the word needs to be re-defined. |
|
28 May 07 - 02:12 PM (#2062505) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "Then what is the fundamentalist view regarding the literalness of the bible."[sic] Just as there are many who accept evolution, but misunderstand and wrongly describe it by examples of grey and/or white moths, or by some fish's "want to" causing it to grow legs so it could explore the land... ...there are fundamentalists who do not understand, nor can they correctly explain the finer points of "verbal plenary inspriration". To reject evolution because some lay people so thoroughly butcher the explanation of it, is as stupid as describing fundamentalism as "taking the Bible literally". What they believe is that the Bible is the inspired word of God -- a book of grace whereby God communicated to man through man. They believe that the actual, flawless scripture would be the first one written. Therefore, though they would contend that the various versions contain the word of God, no one translation or version is perfect. They would say that proper interpretation of scripture would accept cultural context -- that the scripture, to be best understood would have to first understand that much of it was written to a specific recipient. They would say that proper interpretation of scripture would also accept historical context -- that some of what was written will not be understood if explained into the wrong timeframe. They would say that that which is meant to be literal, and theological/ethical/moral principle, is, indeed, to be taken literally -- don't steal, don't murder, don't listen to Billy Ray Cyrus. They would say that that which was written as poetry is meant to be read as poetry. They would say that that which was written as symbolism is meant to be read as symbolism. And they would say that no part of what is the accepted canon should stand on its own -- if it seems not to fit with the rest of scripture, the principles of the rest of scripture should supercede. Thus, you wouldn't likely take one small part of scripture and safely assume a whole new cult around that small part -- especially if it seems to contradict the rest of the word. |
|
28 May 07 - 04:14 PM (#2062568) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Unfortunately, John, not all fundamentalists share your view of what "fundamentalism" means. Nor does the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:— fun•da•men•tal•ismAlso, fundamentalist acquaintances of mine have told me in no uncertain terms that this is precisely what the word means—and what they believe. And I'm guessing that what they would say about your idea of fundamentalism is that you're trying to keep a foot in both camps: the fundamentalist position as they see it, and a more liberal interpretation of the Bible, which they would not find acceptable. Now that's not my idea. I'm not making up any definitions of fundamentalism, I just using the term the way the dictionary defines it and fundamentalists themselves use it, so I'm not the person you need to argue with. Meanwhile, back at the ranch. . . . Regarding the matter of omniscience and omnipotence, there is a very interesting and thought-provoking concept put forth in the extraordinary novel, The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell. Because it deals with space travel and alien contact, many people regard this as science-fiction, but it's significant that not all that many literary reviewers do, and in most bookstores, you find it under "General Literature" rather than "Science Fiction." It's the story of an expedition to the nearby Alpha Centauri system which includes a number of Jesuit priests (Jesuits were in the forefront of many early explorations, such as Marquette and Jolliet in North America), including Father Emilio Sandoz, a linguistics expert. They make contact with the inhabitants of the planet Rakhat. At first, things go well. But soon, all goes horribly wrong. In the process, Father Sandoz, whose enthusiasm for the expedition included high hopes about meeting "God's other children," loses his faith in God. [Non-believers, have no fear: no matter what your religious beliefs—or lack thereof—this is any exceptionally book, and well worth reading.] When Father Sandoz, as far as they know, the sole survivor of the expedition, is rescued by a second expedition and brought back to Earth, the Jesuit council that helped sponsor the first expedition tries to find out what happened. What went wrong? But Father Sandoz refuses to talk about it. But then, they do learn—and, although it does not deny the existence of God—it challenges everyone's faith. In the last pages of the book, a small group of Jesuits are walking in a garden, mulling over what they have learned, and the following conversation takes place (I don't think a "spoiler alert" is necessary; other than the significance of the book's title, I'm not really giving anything away): "There is an old Jewish story that says in the beginning God was everywhere and everything, a totality. But to make creation, God had to remove Himself from some part of the universe, so something besides Himself could exist. So He breathed in, and in the place where God withdrew, there creation exists."I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys reading novels of ideas. Novels of ideas that are also cracking good adventure stories. Don Firth |
|
28 May 07 - 04:44 PM (#2062586) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly You claim to know some. I was raised one. I went to a fundamentalist elementary school. I went to a fundamentalist junior high school. I went to a fundamentalist high school. I went to a fundamentalist college. I took courses at a fundamentalist seminary. I've attended a score or more fundamentalist churches and am related to a good score or more fundamentalist believers. I have known THOUSANDS of fundamentalists. I DO have a foot in both worlds. Your bigotry allows you the belief about the OTHER world that makes you most comfortable -- a view of that world from the comfort of your non-religious world. |
|
28 May 07 - 04:50 PM (#2062594) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth John, when you feel you have to toss words like "bigot" around when others are trying to have a reasonable discussion, my tendency is to simply dismiss you as the very bigot you accuse me of being. If you persist in personal insults, then I'll simply write you off as having nothing to say that's worth wasting time on. Come on, John! You can do better than that! Don Firth |
|
28 May 07 - 05:08 PM (#2062605) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth ". . . the comfort of your non-religious world." And you know that my world is a "non-religious" one, eh? From your apparently narrow fundamentalist viewpoint, I guess you might interpret what I believe that way. Like the early Catholic Church not regarding Protestants as true Christians. I could say something like, "Okay, who's the real bigot here?" But I will refrain. Don Firth |
|
28 May 07 - 07:35 PM (#2062673) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk I think a bigot is simply someone who has no respect for certain people who are different from himself or herself just because they're different, isn't it? If so, one could find both religious and non-religious bigots of every variety out there, I'm sure... ;-) John, you said... "...there are fundamentalists who do not understand, nor can they correctly explain the finer points of "verbal plenary inspriration". " You're not kidding!!! Even my dog has failed utterly to do that, and he's a genius. Just ask him. Matter of fact, I don't think I know anyone who has succeeded in correctly explaining the finer points of verbal plenary inspriration. Sheesh. Maybe we should ask Batman about it. Or Noam Chomsky. Or Teribus. But definitely not Spaw. Gotta be someone out there who can appreciate those finer points and articulate them so the rest of us can understand. |
|
28 May 07 - 09:00 PM (#2062734) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly LH, LOL!!! |
|
28 May 07 - 09:02 PM (#2062736) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk ;-D |
|
28 May 07 - 10:03 PM (#2062756) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: frogprince I can't match John's total "score". I went to public elementary and high schools. I attended a fundamentalist church. I attended a major fundamentalist Bible Institute for three years. The college where I finished my bachelors (after a Navy hitch) was of fairly liberal religious affiliation, but I didn't take religious courses there. The seminary I graduated from is generally considered evangelical, but is not fundamentalist by most definitions. John, in your own opinion, is it possible to be a fundamentalist without literally believing (for examples) 1. that God ordered Abraham to kill his son Isaac, as a test of faith, and then praised and rewarded him for being willing (however reluctantly) to do as he was told. 2. that God ordered the Israelites to kill a number of groups of heathens to the last man, woman, and child? Dean |
|
28 May 07 - 10:12 PM (#2062762) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Most Amish are about as fundamentalist as one can get. The parts of the Bible that don't make sense, they believe that we don't "yet" understand, but that if one did understand, all would be clear. The Bible is inerrant- after all, it pronounces the equivalent of a curse on anyone who changes a jot or tittle. This is true, they believe, even though they, of all people, are well aware that some things are lost in translation. |
|
28 May 07 - 10:19 PM (#2062764) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Well, that doesn't auger well for all those bishops in Byzantium who changed a whole bunch of jots and tittles when they put together the officially sanctioned version of the Bible that everyone goes by now, does it? |
|
28 May 07 - 10:30 PM (#2062770) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth I have looked up the definition of "fundamentalism" in the dictionaries on the reference shelves of my wife's and my library. This includes copies of Merriam-Webster, Webster's New World, American Heritage, Random House, and the Oxford English Dictionary (two volume edition, but complete; four pages from the multi-volume set on each page, and it needs to be read with a magnifying glass [supplied by the publisher]). Give or take a few minor variations in syntax, the definitions are identical to the one (Merriam-Webster on-line) that I posted above. As I said, John, your argument is not with me. It's with the compilers of dictionaries. Those who want to make up their own definitions may very well run the risk of being misunderstood. As far as my not being sufficiently acquainted with those of the fundamentalist persuasion to know what they believe, I submit the following randomly selected samples from my many encounters with those who profess to be fundamentists: While staying at a physical therapy sanitarium in Denver, for a couple of months I shared a room in the establishment with a minister who considered himself to be a fundamentalist—"one of the only true Christians," he informed me. We had a number of interesting discussions. Let us say that it quickly became obvious that, although I told him I was already a member of a church, he was hell-bent on "saving my soul." The church I went to was, at least according to him, "not truly Christian" (despite the fact that it had been around since the sixteenth century and had always been regarded as such, except, perhaps, by the Vatican). He used such stock expressions as "you must be 'Born Again,'" and "you must be washed in the Blood of the Lamb," and "you must accept Christ as your Savior," and when asked "Now, just what, exactly, does that mean? What is it that I actually have to do?" he was reduced to merely repeating the same kind of rubber-stamp rhetoric. He was like a robot that had been programmed from The Evangelist's Handy Phrase-Book, apparently without understanding what the words he was using actually meant well emough to explain them to an obvious dullard like me. He had discussions with another patient there who was also a minister—from one of the more "main-stream" churches. This man was quite a theologian. In the process of the discussions, he recommended to my roomy that he might investigate translations of the Bible other than the King James Bible, such as the Standard Revised Edition, The Living Bible, the English Standard version, and others, in order to compare translations. He also suggested the writings of a number of theologians. My roomy responded by waving his copy of the King James Bible and saying, "Why should I waste my time on that stuff when I have everything I need right here?" It struck me that the man no longer considered it necessary to think. He already had all the answers. Or, at least, was sure he knew where to look them up. And this man was not unique. I've encountered many like him over the years. Such as Ivan Ingman, whom I met while working at Boeing. He would drop by my drawing table and try to save my soul. I was not the only recipient of his attention. His mission seemed to be to save the souls of the entire staff of the Renton Plant engineering support department. He seemed to pay particular attention to me, apparently because first, by then, I knew quite a bit of the Bible, and when he quoted a verse at me, I would quote it right back to him in context and show him that it didn't really mean what he was trying to make it mean. He apparently considered me a challenge. Also, unlike many others, I hadn't said, "Ivan, go away, or I'll shove a T-square where the sun doesn't shine!" Ivan was rarely at his own drawing table doing his own work. He was frequently reprimanded for this, and for interrupting the work of the other production illustrators. He ignored the reprimands because, he said, he was doing God's Work, and that was more important. When Boeing eventually fired him, he tried to file a suit for religious discrimination. And then, there was the horde of young aspiring Evangelists from a local Bible College (Pentecostal) who descended on Seattle's University District in the mid-Sixties, intent on bringing the Gospel Message to the hippies and the druggies and—the worst of the worst!—those sinful and degenerate coffeehouse folk singers! And going back a bit, when I was in the Boy Scouts (from age thirteen to eighteen), every time I went to summer camp (usually two weeks at Camp Parsons up on Hood Canal—Hey! Camp Parsons! I hadn't noticed that before!), several times during each two-week session, we lads were treated to visiting evangelists who regaled us with their sermons and entreaties. The Boy Scout of America is a far more religious organization than most people realize. Believe me, I've been evangelized and fundamentalized by the best of them! So please don't try to tell me that I don't know what fundamentalism is about. Personally, I am of a considerably more philosophical than emotional bent. I have studied the philosophers from Thales and Aristotle and Plato up through Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre, and even more recent philosophers, including even Ayn Rand. This does not mean that I agree with what they all say (that would be impossible!). But I have read them and considered what they have written. And I have read the writings of a number of theologians, such as Walter Wink, John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Barbara Rossing, Elaine Pagels and, earlier on, the non-fiction of C. S. Lewis. In addition, I've had many long, interesting, and enjoyable conversations with pastors Bruce Pond, Jon Nelson, Eldon Olson, Linda Larson, Julie Josund, Verlon Brown, John Lindsay, Shannon Anderson, and Bishop Lowell Knutson. So kindly do not presume to claim you know anything about my life. "Non-religious" or otherwise! I am open to any and all ideas. This does not mean, however, that I will accept them without scrutiny. Don Firth P. S. "He is so intent on getting to Heaven that he is of no Earthly use!" —Mark Heinzig, the son of an African missionary, a former neighbor. |
|
29 May 07 - 03:07 AM (#2062884) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie I'm not sure, Little Hawk, that they believe that ever happened. :) |
|
29 May 07 - 06:44 AM (#2063003) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,PMB A paradox which no christian has ever managed to explain to me is the question of omniscient and omnipotence. For it to be a real paradox, you need the third postulate- that God is infinitely good. God could be omniscient and all- powerful, and be using the world to play with us like a cat plays with a mouse. Such a god would of course be purely evil, and his followers would be evil in a minor sort of way (because everything human is in a minor sort of way). Or God could be omnipotent and all-loving but not omniscient, so soemtimes rather blundering in his actions, like the little girl who cuddled her pet rabbit to death. Or omniscient and all- loving, but not omnipotent. This is essentially the Manichaean "good" god, who is opposed by the far stronger evil god (who created matter), and needs our help to rescue the good trapped within the evil of the world. But don't ask religion to make sense, or someone will ask me to explain the Trinity next, and just how many wills, and of what sort, Jesus has (or had).. |
|
29 May 07 - 11:33 AM (#2063171) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk No, Ebbie, I bet they don't. ;-) Don, I thoroughly enjoyed your stories about your past encounters with people who wanted to "save" you... PMB - Or god could enjoy a situation where every sentient being has free will. If so, it would explain pretty well everything that's going on now, wouldn't it? No point blaming the "bad" stuff on God, really...when all of us are perfectly free to make our own mistakes and engage in our own silly behaviour if we want to. As for the Trinity, well, anyone can look at a 3 dimensional Universe in 3 symbolic ways if they want to. Why not? |
|
29 May 07 - 11:48 AM (#2063185) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Folkiedave They believe that the actual, flawless scripture would be the first one written. Therefore, though they would contend that the various versions contain the word of God, no one translation or version is perfect. They would say that proper interpretation of scripture would accept cultural context -- that the scripture, to be best understood would have to first understand that much of it was written to a specific recipient. They would say that proper interpretation of scripture would also accept historical context -- that some of what was written will not be understood if explained into the wrong timeframe. They would say that that which is meant to be literal, and theological/ethical/moral principle, is, indeed, to be taken literally -- don't steal, don't murder, don't listen to Billy Ray Cyrus. They would say that that which was written as poetry is meant to be read as poetry. They would say that that which was written as symbolism is meant to be read as symbolism. Whilst at first that looks like a comprehensive answer it does lead me to ask the obvious question - how am I to know which is which? If the bible is (as you suggest) that the various versions contain the word of God then I need more help. Let me take some examples: As far as I can gather, animals went into the Ark two by two and then God drowned the world - and everyone and thing in it, including children except for one family. What made them lucky and to be honest wasn't that a bit drastic? In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - Lot and his family were saved as uniquely righteous. A couple of angels were sent to warn Lot and the people of Sodom gathered around demanding the right to sodomize them - what else!! Genesis 19:5 Certainly Lot refuses which looks good for someone uniquely righteous; until you realise he offers his two virgin daughters as replacements!! Genesis 19:7-8. After their mother was turned into a pillar of salt the daughters get their father drunk and he makes them both pregnant. Genesis 19:31-36 Now I am not sure whether this is of the time; allegory; poetry; or what but it seems to me a very weird a way to behave. But no doubt some fundamentalist will be able to explain it to me...... (The same thing happens a bit later in Judges 19:25-6 where an unnamed Levite hands over his virgin daughter and his concubine for gang raping - so clearly there was a lot of it about!! Not such a happy ending this time - she dies and so he kindly cuts her into twelve and distributes her into all the coasts of Israel). I wonder if this is the book you would really choose to lead your life by?? |
|
29 May 07 - 12:29 PM (#2063213) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Ah, Folkiedave, you don't understand. |
|
29 May 07 - 12:40 PM (#2063222) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Folkiedave - "how am I to know which is which?" You are to do what you do in every other situation in life and use your own intelligence, your own powers of understanding, and your own best judgement. Don't expect that everyone else will agree with whatever conclusions you arrive at. ;-) "As far as I can gather, animals went into the Ark two by two and then God drowned the world - and everyone and thing in it, including children except for one family. What made them lucky and to be honest wasn't that a bit drastic?" That is probably a symbolic tale, a very simplified version of something that happened where various people and creatures survived a great inundation...but it is exceedingly unlikely that it would have happened in precisely the manner described in the Bible with Noah, his family, the animals two by two, etc. In fact, I would submit that the part about all the animal species is completely unbelievable. Noah could not have managed that part. Are you aware that a great many non-Christian, non-Judaic cultures also have folk tales about a great flood in ancient times? The North American Indians, for example, have such tales. So do oriental peoples. They do not say anything about Noah and his family, they describe other survivors of the flood. The Judaic tale probably arose from a specific group of people in a certain geographical area who were explaining it as they best understood it and best remembered it... "In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - Lot and his family were saved as uniquely righteous. A couple of angels were sent to warn Lot and the people of Sodom gathered around demanding the right to sodomize them - what else!! Genesis 19:5 Certainly Lot refuses which looks good for someone uniquely righteous; until you realise he offers his two virgin daughters as replacements!! Genesis 19:7-8." Well, that tells you something about the relative status and importance of men vs. women in the culture of the time, doesn't it? ;-) A patriarch was very important, his daughters were not. This is shocking to a modern audience. It would not have been nearly as shocking to the audience for whom it was written, I would gather. Those who are "saved" in time of great calamity (meaning that they survive it) usually go about constructing a story afterward which proves that they were saved because they were more righteous than those who perished. (and they probably believe it...) On the other hand, it could be another symbolic tale, a parable, told in order to prove a point of some kind. There were many such tales in ancient times, and people took them quite seriously as a form of moral guidance. "After their mother was turned into a pillar of salt the daughters get their father drunk and he makes them both pregnant" That is indeed a hilarious example of Old Testament weirdness! I guess maybe this was a case of "the end (continuance of the familial line) justifies the means"??? ;-) "I wonder if this is the book you would really choose to lead your life by??" Yeah, it's strange, isn't it? But what people have always done is that they first of all interpret the Bible and filter it through the understanding of their own society, their own time and culture. Then they mainly focus on the parts they can relate to best and they give less attention to the parts they don't relate to so well. People are very adaptable, and they will find ways of adapting to a book like the Old Testament once they have made the initial decision to believe in it. It's just like millions of people adapting to a political philosophy, regardless of what is done in the name OF that political philosophy. Consider the horrible things that have been done (at times) in the name of Communism, Naziism, or the British or American systems. Pogroms, death camps, invasion and plunder, destruction of Native people's entire way of life, dropping atomic bombs on cities, etc... Yet millions of well-meaning people have subscribed to those systems and still do. They choose to focus on the good points of the system and not to take much notice of the bad ones. It's the same with a religion. |
|
29 May 07 - 12:52 PM (#2063235) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "John, in your own opinion, is it possible to be a fundamentalist without literally believing (for examples) 1. that God ordered Abraham to kill his son Isaac, as a test of faith, and then praised and rewarded him for being willing (however reluctantly) to do as he was told. 2. that God ordered the Israelites to kill a number of groups of heathens to the last man, woman, and child?" Sure, I suppose it's possible for a fundamentalist to do an honest and thorough search of the Bible, using good methodology, and conclude that those examples weren't "literal". That said, I think I can safely say that every fundmentalist that I know would tell you that those two passage describe real, historical events. ....BUT... ...not all of them, or even (in some cases) meaningful majorities of them would tell you what you must conclude about those historical events. |
|
29 May 07 - 12:54 PM (#2063237) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Folkiedave, when I asked my roomie in Denver and the guy leaning his elbows on my drawing table at Boeing about things such as than, their response was either to tell me that I had to have "faith," (in what and about what?) or become tight-lipped and end the conversation by walking away. Job got screwed over pretty good. And it was all just to win a bet. Don Firth |
|
29 May 07 - 01:40 PM (#2063287) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: frogprince I really believe that the great majority of Christian fundamentalists simply filter their beliefs through their own intelligence and human decency, without realizing the degree to which they do it. The implications of much of what God supposedly literally did in the Biblical narratives just never really "click in" in their thinking. At the very raggedest fringes, despised by even most fundamentalists, you will find the Fred Phelps types, who are quite willing to accept a conception of God as a hateful, pitiless sadist and to serve "him" as such. Dean |
|
29 May 07 - 01:46 PM (#2063293) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Or maybe The Bible, to them, makes sense in a way you have not explored, or dismiss. Just maybe there are ways to interpret the events of the Bible and not conclude what you demand that they conclude from them. |
|
29 May 07 - 01:56 PM (#2063300) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth John, I have always been told--by fundamentalists--that the Bible is not to be interpreted, it is to be taken literally. And that this is what it means to be a fundamentalist. Now you're saying that's not true? Please explain. Don Firth |
|
29 May 07 - 01:59 PM (#2063302) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "Now you're saying that's not true? Please explain." I already have. There is a difference between not explaining, and not explaining to your satisfaction. |
|
29 May 07 - 02:12 PM (#2063311) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Then we get back to there apparently being different definitions of "fundamentalism." You seem to be using one different from the dictionary definition or from what I have heard from people I've met who tell me they are fundamentalists. John, there is no need to feel animosity toward me because I'm asking these questions. I'm not challenging you, I'm trying to understand. Don Firth |
|
29 May 07 - 02:12 PM (#2063312) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: JohnInKansas demanding the right to sodomize them ... ? I'm told that this interpretation did not appear until ca. 89 AD, a few hundred years after the original story. John |
|
29 May 07 - 02:41 PM (#2063357) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: frogprince Don, in fairness to John Hardly, he explained the position taken by a major share of those fundamentalists who have at least tried to sort out their beliefs in an intelligent way. If you had "been there", you would know that his definition is much more genuinely representative than what you are apt to get from a general dictionary, or what it is easy to surmise from exposure to the sort of characters you cited experience with. |
|
29 May 07 - 03:20 PM (#2063386) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bee But then, I have found people educated as theologists usually are able to expound on their personal beliefs in such a manner as to make them appear (given God in the first place) at least reasonable, if obscure. The vast majority of religious fundamentalists are not so trained and educated, and somehow, reasonableness is not filtering down from the lofty heights to the pews. I sometimes debate with a fundamentalist theologian on another board: we have very reasonable and amiable conversations, and he has gone a long way towards explaining his position to me. We seldom agree, but I've learned a lot and really admire the man's patience and skill. |
|
29 May 07 - 03:46 PM (#2063406) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth From the University of Virginia Religious Movements web site: Fundamentalism #1. From the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: Fundamentalism #2. From the National Humanities Center: Fundamentalism #3. From the "WiseGeek" web site: Funtamentalism #4. There is a large number of articles on the internet about Fundamentalism, many of which are, as one would expect, very biased either one way or the other. Some, however, such as those found in the links above, appear to me to be fairly neutral. Don Firth |
|
29 May 07 - 04:31 PM (#2063438) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly those are not "neutral". And the only one that gets it even close to right is the last ("wisegeek"), as that is the only one that doesn't interject the word "literal" into its definition so as to prejudice it. |
|
29 May 07 - 04:45 PM (#2063450) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bill D #2 & 3# do not use the word 'literal'. #1 uses it once. Those sites are MUCH closer to being neutral than someone who has memories & emotional baggage connected with religious language. 'Neutral' does not have to imply that there are no other ways to approach the subject. |
|
29 May 07 - 04:57 PM (#2063464) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly You're right. I mis-read them. |
|
29 May 07 - 04:57 PM (#2063467) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly ....right about the use of "literal". I disagree about the "neutral". |
|
29 May 07 - 05:54 PM (#2063525) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Folkiedave The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc. -- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength Are you aware that a great many non-Christian, non-Judaic cultures also have folk tales about a great flood in ancient times? The North American Indians, for example, have such tales. Yes - I was aware that it probably derived from the identical myth was in Babylonian culture and several others. As a folkie I am used to folktales. But if it is symbolic - what is it symbolic of? Actually good old Jerry Falwell wants a return to a male-orientated society. I am sure you can find your own quotes but try this one: "It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening". On the other hand, it could be another symbolic tale, a parable, told in order to prove a point of some kind. There were many such tales in ancient times, and people took them quite seriously as a form of moral guidance. Incest and rape as a form of moral guidance? What interesting interpretations you christians do have. Abraham went around introducing his wife as his sister on a couple of occasions and then almost set fire to his son Isaac on God's command. Symbolic maybe, allegory possibly - clearly straightforward child abuse. The problem is that whatever you tell us there are plenty of people in the USA (not so many in Europe thank goodness) who have political power over people and who will tell you the Bible is the literal truth. People will constantly ask atheists from whence their morality derives. The christian derives theirs from the Bible we are told. Clearly they read a different Bible to me. |
|
29 May 07 - 06:16 PM (#2063538) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Folkiedave, my guess is...and I emphasize that it's only a guess... My guess is that there was some kind of worldwide inundation in a very ancient time....meaning that there were tremendous and sustained rains of an unusual nature over a very large part of the globe...perhaps over most of the globe. This could have occurred if there had been a planetwide change in the nature of the atmosphere, for instance, or a great climatic shift. Such things seem to have happened from time to time, according to the geological record...that is, there have been some radical climate shifts due to global warming and cooling. If such a phenomenon had occurred, a lot of people would have been flooded out and drowned, but many people would also have survived by getting to high ground, floating it out on boats and rafts, and so on. Their ancestors would have remembered their exploits in a herioc fashion, and would have passed on stories about it. With time the stories would have gotten better and better. I figure the Babylonian story is one of those, and the Noah story is a further variation on it. I would prefer not to be lumped in with "you Christians", thanks. I'm not a Christian. I'm a human being, period. That's the only designation I want. Human being. I don't see "incest and rape as a form of moral guidance"! Nor would virtually anyone. I was simply pointing out that a story that doesn't make sense now might have made sense to a completely different culture of people several thousands years ago. For instance, Aztecs thought it was perfectly okay to rip the hearts out of large numbers of people as a way of appeasing their gods. That was normal to them. Accordingly, a story that made sense to them might make no sense at all to you or me, right? Things change as the millennia roll by, and the fact that they do is one reason why so much of the Old Testament is unpalatable in modern terms. I understand that Jerry Falwell thinks the Bible is " the inerrant... word of the living God", but how do I know Jerry Falwell is infallible? ;-) I seriously doubt that he is. He's welcome to his opinion, as are the rest of you human beings out there. I don't mind a bit that there are other people who believe a variety of things I don't. It makes life more interesting. It would be one heck of a limited world if we all believed the same things...not even a place worth living in, as far as I'm concerned. I do not see it as my sacred duty to persuade everyone else that they are wrong in their beliefs and I'm right in mine, and I would be very pleased if the rest of you would extend a similar courtesy toward all people who are different from yourselves...but I know better than to imagine that's going to happen! ;-) Ha! I know that many of you would much rather fight than get along. So, if you really want to fight about it, here's my suggestion: We make an appointment to meet behind the barn at 3:00 tomorrow, and slug it out. And if I'm not there............................. Start without me! |
|
29 May 07 - 06:23 PM (#2063543) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie I don't know in which version you find that Abraham was to set his son afire, Folkiedave- the version I'm familiar with had Abraham about to cut his throat. (Incidentally, an illustrated book of 'Bible Stories' that my mother frequently read to her children showed that scene very graphically. For years- until well after I was grown I couldn't bear to tip back my head, leaving my throat vulnerable...) |
|
29 May 07 - 06:38 PM (#2063554) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly "Incest and rape as a form of moral guidance? What interesting interpretations you christians do have." ...and even more curious that you would reject Christianity on the basis that the Bible condemns incest and rape. Do you really mean to imply that you condone them? "Abraham went around introducing his wife as his sister on a couple of occasions and then almost set fire to his son Isaac on God's command. Symbolic maybe, allegory possibly - clearly straightforward child abuse." Is it lost on you that Abraham was condemned for his cowaradice in so introducing his wife as his sister? ...or that God also commanded Abraham not to follow through with the sacrifice of Isaac? The fire woulda come after Isaac was already offed, so I won't point out your slip there. "The problem is that whatever you tell us there are plenty of people in the USA (not so many in Europe thank goodness) who have political power over people and who will tell you the Bible is the literal truth. " oh please. such paranoia. Of course, if they happen (through their immense power doncha know) to put the kabash on your rapin' and incestin' then I can see why you might get a bit a-skeered. "Clearly they read a different Bible to me. ...or they actually read it, and therefore don't make such "slips" as the death by fire abuse of Isaac. But, yes, clearly they read a different Bible than you. |
|
29 May 07 - 08:42 PM (#2063639) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: beardedbruce LH, There are theories that the "flood" is a story from the break-through of the Atlantic ocean into the vally that became the Mediterranean. There have been human settlements ( in Turkey, I think) that were located several hundred feet below the present surface. No idea what the general opinion on those theories are. |
|
29 May 07 - 08:59 PM (#2063652) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Wow! That's an interesting one, BB. I hadn't heard of it before. What I find fascinating is that the American Indians have legends of a great flood too, and I don't mean just a local one, but one that affected probably the whole continent. They also have stories about survivors who built boats and rode out the flood until it receded. |
|
29 May 07 - 09:14 PM (#2063665) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bill D I have seen a couple of TV programs about the Dardanelles, the Bosphorus and the Great Flood. There is quite a bit of evidence that the Biblical flood legend came from those events: see these... http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_63243.htm http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-85557-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Flood-Scientific-Discoveries-Changed/dp/product-description/0684859203 |
|
29 May 07 - 09:23 PM (#2063670) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: frogprince "curious that you would reject Christianity on the basis that the Bible condemns incest and rape" John, that would certainly be real, real "curious"; you'll have to show us who said that. Regretablly, some garbled versions of Biblical incidents have cropped up here, as well as the implication that whatever is mentioned in the Bible is condoned by the Bible. That only serves to muddy the water. It remains that any number of things that God allegedly did, and that his followers allegedly did with His approval, would be considered abhorrant by any sane person today. Apart from fundamentalist assumptions about the bible, that doesn't prove a thing about God's actual actions or desires. It reflects on the bible, not on God. |
|
29 May 07 - 09:29 PM (#2063674) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth [Beat me to it, Bill, but I'll post it anyway.] It's not surprising that there are legends of massive floods among various cultures around the world, considering a few historical facts. In eastern Washington State, there is an extensive area of unusual geological formations, as if the whole area had been scrubbed clean. Geologists have determined the cause of this. The Channeled Scablands were created in the Columbia Plateau by cataclysmic Ice Age Floods between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago. The floods occurred about every 50 years and lasted a few days to a few weeks, leaving a deeply scarred plateau.During the last Ice Age, huge lakes or inland seas existed in a number of places around the world. For example, the Bonneville Salt Flats is the bottom of what was once an inland sea. And many of these lakes and seas were kept in place by massive ice dams. At the end of the Ice Age, the ice forming these dams melted and often release cataclysmic floods. Geologists have determined that a wave some 700 feet high swept across what is now the Scablands as many as eighteen times as the ice dam thawed, refroze, and thawed again over a period of a couple of thousand years at the end of the last Ice Age. Northwest Indians have some pretty hairy flood legends. You might say the floods in these legends are of "Biblical proportions." I recently saw a science program in which, around 1997, scientists discovered the remnants of several villages about 200 feet below the surface of the Black Sea. The claim is made that both the Black and Caspian Seas were vast freshwater lakes at one time, but that about 5600 BCE, an ice dam thawed and broke, allowing the Mediterranean to pour in through the Bosporus and inundate villages that had been built at the lakeshores. "This has led some to associate this catastrophe with prehistoric flood myths." At the end of the last Ice Age, the melting of ice dams released a lot of water and caused a lot of floods of epic proportions. It should be no surprise that there are lots of flood myths and legends. And as we know, there is a tendency for the fish—even the big ones—to get bigger every time the story gets told. Don Firth |
|
29 May 07 - 09:30 PM (#2063675) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Yeah. ;-) And many things that we do today would be considered abhorrent by people in a great variety of ancient cultures. (sometimes with considerable justification) We're all nuts. It just depends what you're used to. |
|
31 May 07 - 12:49 PM (#2065021) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,weedwacker44 There is actually evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible. Leviathan in the Bible is used as a reference for sea dinosaurs. Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Psalm 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness. Psalm 104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein. Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. Some dinosaurs would also be present on Noah's Ark. Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. So some dinosaurs would have been present on the Ark. It is likely that they were hunted after they came off the Ark, and may have died out because of this. |
|
31 May 07 - 01:54 PM (#2065070) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bill D ummmm...that's quite a stretch, weedwacker. "Leviathans" could simply refer to whales, and the story of the Ark has many, many problems.... and why would anyone hunt dinosaurs, with all the nice deer & elk? You're inventing reasons to keep believing a legend. |
|
31 May 07 - 02:03 PM (#2065084) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bee Oh dear, weedwacker44, you may believe that, it is your right, but there isn't a shred of evidence to back you up. Leviathan could have been a whale, or a giant squid, or a fairy tale monster, and there are controversies over that word translated as 'dragon'. There's also not a shred of evidence for a global flood; Noah's ark, as described, could not float, nor could it carry the required number of animals, nor the food for them, nor did it reputedly even carry enough humans to clean up the mountains of manure, nor enough humans to account for the genetic heritage of humanity. It's a fine fable, a great story, with all kinds of interesting moral points (some of them frankly rather appalling), but it is not a historical account, and dinosaurs did not walk with us, except possibly as modern birds. |
|
31 May 07 - 02:21 PM (#2065093) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,meself You mean, you mean ... it ain't necessarily so? Next I suppose you'll tell me there's no such thing as the tooth fairy! (What about the serpent in the Garden of Eden? Obviously he a brontosaurous. What about Santa's flying 'reindeer' - does the word 'pterodactyl' come to mind?) |
|
31 May 07 - 02:56 PM (#2065116) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk As a matter of fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of a tooth fairy ever having existed, "meself". None. Zippo. I know you probably don't want to hear that, but it's true. If there was such a thing as the tooth fairy, it would have been written about in the Bible, right? And it wasn't. End of story. ;-) If you feel that you can't live now, I understand. Here's another thing there's no evidence of: my 7th grade crush on Pam Ford. Gosh! Maybe it never happened... Yeah, I'm probably just having some kind of delusions about that. False memory. I should get some $800/hour psychiatrist to deprogram me. |
|
31 May 07 - 04:17 PM (#2065174) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth . . . and William Shatner? Don Firth |
|
31 May 07 - 04:38 PM (#2065192) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Oh, there's a simply tremendous amount of evidence for William Shatner... ;-D "He's everywhere! He's everywhere!" But he isn't spoken of in the Bible. Not once. Not even in prophecy. Odd. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? |
|
31 May 07 - 04:58 PM (#2065218) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: KB in Iowa Perhaps he is not spoken of by name... |
|
31 May 07 - 05:12 PM (#2065222) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Aha!!! That's obviously it. |
|
31 May 07 - 05:26 PM (#2065231) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,meself You mean, you mean ... the tooth fairy's not even mentioned in the Bible!? But, but, Santa Claus is in there ... isn't he? |
|
31 May 07 - 05:43 PM (#2065243) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Santa Claus? Nope. Sorry. He came later, some time after the Christians managed to convert the Germans from their ancient Norse mythology. I think he was a Druidic figure or something. Anyway, he got remade into Saint Nicholas, and there you are. Bob's yer uncle. Getting back to Shatner, I suspect that a great many of the passages in Holy Writ which begin, "And the Lord said................" refer to a certain person now walking among us... Well, you know where I'm going with this, don't you? |
|
31 May 07 - 05:52 PM (#2065249) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Well, having seen Shatner as Denny Crane in "Boston Legal," I'd say that casting him as the snake in the Garden of Eden sequence would have been a pretty good choice. Don Firth |
|
31 May 07 - 05:57 PM (#2065254) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Or did he play the lead role: God? Don Firth |
|
31 May 07 - 06:00 PM (#2065258) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Folkiedave Couldn't do the lead role - that takes three....... |
|
31 May 07 - 06:04 PM (#2065263) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bee Now, I've seen evidence of Santa! When I was eight, living at my grandpa's house, there was a bit of snow on the ground Christmas morning - and there were sleigh tracks and reindeer prints in the snow!! (Of course, years later, I noticed the old deerfoot novelty ashtray in Grandpa's garage and there were several sets of full size sleigh runners in the barn.) |
|
31 May 07 - 06:39 PM (#2065291) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: JohnInKansas Perhaps he is not spoken of by name... Maybe "Leviathan" is really Shatner? John |
|
31 May 07 - 07:24 PM (#2065314) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,meself "years later, I noticed the old deerfoot novelty ashtray in Grandpa's garage and there were several sets of full size sleigh runners in the barn" - Reminds me of the incident the lady from Saskatchewan told me about ... She grew up on a farm, and one Christmas Eve, Santa Claus actually CAME RIGHT IN THROUGH THE KITCHEN DOOR, and gave presents to the kids. Directly. Into their hands. But then, she said, she always kind of wondered why Santa had that cowshit on his boots ... |
|
31 May 07 - 07:28 PM (#2065316) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Shatner as Leviathan? Could be. Judging from what I've seen lately, he hasn't missed very many meals. Don Firth |
|
31 May 07 - 07:37 PM (#2065324) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk I was wondering who would say it first... |
|
31 May 07 - 07:50 PM (#2065337) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Never underestimate the power of the obvious! Don Firth |
|
31 May 07 - 10:53 PM (#2065436) Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth By the way. . . . 300 Don Firth |
