Are human remains ever found with dinosaurs?

[dad]

My beliefs are not Godless.

Great so let us see God in them? The big bang and life evolving for example?

And you fail to believe the evidence God Himself left us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

Don't get sore that you are not allowed to impose your belief system on them anymore. Them's the breaks.

 

[bhsmte]

My beliefs are not Godless. And you fail to believe the evidence God Himself left us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. Your call of course, but by disregarding all evidence, you have no reason to believe anything at all.

Calling your beliefs Godless??

I guess another level of desperation has set in.

 

[Jimmy D]

Great so let us see God in them? The big bang and life evolving for example?

Well that's easy - God created the Universe with the big bang and allowed life to develop via evolution. I appreciate that doesn't sit well with your bible idolatry (and it isn't my personal belief) but at least no one would need to deny reality to accept it.

 

[dad]

Well that's easy - God created the Universe with the big bang and allowed life to develop via evolution.

Not the God of the bible. That God created earth before the sun and stars, and man before he was alive.

Now whatever little god you think 'created' the universe by sort of keeping half an eye on a self 'exploding' little hot soup that appeared from no where, and for no reason, I must say it is a pathetically weak one.

I appreciate that doesn't sit well with your bible idolatry (and it isn't my personal belief) but at least no one would need to deny reality to accept it.

Scripture and what it said, including Moses sat very very very well with the creator of the actual universe, Christ. Nothing else matters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not the God of the bible. That God created earth before the sun and stars, and man before he was alive.

Now whatever little god you think 'created' the universe by sort of keeping half an eye on a self 'exploding' little hot soup that appeared from no where, and for no reason, I must say it is a pathetically weak one.

Scripture and what it said, including Moses sat very very very well with the creator of the actual universe, Christ. Nothing else matters.

What do you mean by "the God of the Bible"? That seems only to be your personal interpretation of the God of the Bible. Other Christians clearly have a different interpretation. What you do not seem to realize is that if your God is real, then what we observe was made by him, and he would have to go out of his way to lie for your version of reality to be correct. I don't know about you, but I don't think that it makes any sense to believe in a lying God.

 

[dad]

What do you mean by "the God of the Bible"? .

Jesus.

 

[Loudmouth]

Great so let us see God in them? The big bang and life evolving for example?
Don't get sore that you are not allowed to impose your belief system on them anymore. Them's the breaks.

If that is your position, then all one needs to do is point to processes like cloud formation and gravity. Can you show us God in those processes?

If all we have to do to disprove God is show that nature operates through natural processes, then your God is easily disproven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus.

Just "Jesus"? Again, other Christians have different interpretations than you do. Their interpretations at least have the benefit of not disagreeing with reality. They don't have to invent a fantasy world to explain the obviously mythical parts of the Bible.

And I see that you still have not dealt with the fact that all of the evidence tells us that there was no flood. The evidence is clear. It comes from multiple independent sources. The only explanation for your theology would be a lying God. To me that disqualifies you version of Christianity because I agree with other Christians that God could not lie.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Natural mechanism is such a small small term. Present nature on earth is nothing compared to the great realities of eternity and the future nature. You could not understand it using just present nature. That is like trying to understand far stars using a candle.

Weirdly enough, one of the commentaries in a science book I once had used the example of a candle in displaying how you can't use perceived distance from a light source to reliably determine actual distance, as how bright and large a light source is cannot easily be discerned by the human eye if the source of light is very far away.

But again, you assume that the nature of physics and biology were different in the past, rather than, say, god micromanaging more as he was working on his creation and using miracles. Why does it make more sense to you that trees grow full sized within weeks because their biology allowed for it, than for god to force a mighty oak to grow faster as needed for the extreme instance of the flood? What would be the point of trees having the capacity to grow that fast prior to the flood, or after it, especially trees like oaks? Do you not realize that there is a detriment to having a fast growth cycle? or are you just going to emptily claim "prior state" again for that too? You have no idea what you are talking about, sir, and I implore you, read up on these topics, before you really make a fool of yourself through ignorance.

No need since science is too small to know. It becomes a matter of belief only and what better place than the bible for that?

How about admitting that you don't know, rather than settling on an ancient text that relies on faith rather than evidence?

Changes in man and on earth are not messed up flukes. They were deliberate tweaks from the actual creator.

I contend that the more Newtonian idea of god building the universe to be self-sufficient without much tweaking is what an intelligent designer would do. Not change up everything at once god that you seem to believe in. That makes the deity sound like it majorly messed up and had to do an extreme quick fix.

Science can think till the cows come home, it won't help them. Their thinking is overrated.

And you think your lack of thinking is somehow better. Sigh. understand that what satisfies your need for evidence is not what satisfies everyone.

No we shall eat of the tree of life. Lions will eat grass. So waste disposal is an issue. God is all over it though we can relax.

Pretty sure the tree of life is off limits forever. That's in Eden, not Heaven.

Heavens no, of course we eat if we want to. Jesus ate after rising from the dead! The angels visiting Abraham ate!
It does. Jesus went there and will be back again soon.

All that eating wasn't in heaven, but on earth. Furthermore, all those beings had physical bodies when they ate.

Heavens no. Miracles involve more than our nature and laws!

Sure, which is why I don't get why you think alternate past physics is the only way a literal biblical interpretation could be accurate.

You are thinking. Yes you did seem to be getting warm.

I thought you thought thinking was bad, but now you seem to be applauding me for it, in a sense. I'm getting some mixed messages here.

Right again, since that would involve the spiritual which is out of the paygrade of science.

I will give you credit for recognizing that much. You have no idea how many people on here try to mix science with the unmeasurable, such as morality.

Yet they use drift in dating or collaborating dates for evolutionary theory.

You are mistaken if you think evolution would be invalid, even with alternate state physics and biology. What's to say it wasn't just faster in the past? You don't get to throw out the theories you don't like by changing stuff up in how physics or biology works. The changes would have to be very specific, and you don't understand physics or biology well enough to know what they are, and defend the changes. You're a horse with a broken leg trying to win a race filled with healthy horses. Unlike an actual horse, you have a chance to get better, if you put in the effort to do so.

You don't get it. Once we KO science as a real informed player the field is wide open.

Who is this WE you speak of? I have been exposed to very few people that argue for an alternate state past, and even fewer that try to make it go anywhere. You're about in between in that regard; not informed enough to take it anywhere, but you do try to.

Bingo! So you have no dino DNA talk accordingly!

If I did, would it really matter to you, or would you just claim "alternate past DNA"?

Man changed as the nature did. Naturally we would be related to early man.

That's evolution sir!

Hey, you might as well sell your bio books in a garage sale they are soon to be all outdated.

Meh, resale of college books tends to be bad; I would rather keep them.

They don't acknowledge God why would I care if the godless blabbermouths acknowledge me?

isn't that why you debate on here to begin with?

No data backs up a same state past. God's data supports a different past and future. Slam dunk.

not really, it depends on how you interpret the text.

Bingo.
Ah, no no no! Not in the former state and the way adapting evolving happened! Why do we assume ancestors are involved in evolution? Because....they are in this present state so we assume it was the same..!!!!!!!! The creature may have adapted/evolved while alive for all we now know!

creatures do change as they live; sometimes quite drastically. but growing beaks and feathers where there were none in previous generations is unlikely. But how very Lamarkian of you.

Flaw in basic logic. If there was no modern DNA one cannot look at that and extrapolate into real life in the far past!
Here again you assume ancestors were needed!

The chicken or the egg question comes to mind. Besides the creatures directly created by god in Genesis, how could spontaneous generation without a lineage make sense to you? Well, I suppose there are some other instances of god creating life throughout the bible, but none suggest that this is a common thing.

You are also placing limits on what science can and can't do, without giving a reason for it. Why do you think that we can't scientifically determine ancestry without DNA?

 

[dad]

If that is your position, then all one needs to do is point to processes like cloud formation and gravity. Can you show us God in those processes?

Of course. God set the forces up just right! Imagine no gravity. Imagine no rain. Well, the wicked in the very end will lose most of the benefits of creation, like clean water, stars etc.

If all we have to do to disprove God is show that nature operates through natural processes, then your God is easily disproven.

No, He created nature. That proves creation, not disproves it. But the point in the exchange you quoted was that some claim God is in the big bang and evolution producing life on earth. You think they are right!?

 

[dad]

Just "Jesus"? Again, other Christians have different interpretations than you do.

Jesus is not an interpretation but a Person.

 

[dad]

Weirdly enough, one of the commentaries in a science book I once had used the example of a candle in displaying how you can't use perceived distance from a light source to reliably determine actual distance, as how bright and large a light source is cannot easily be discerned by the human eye if the source of light is very far away.

But again, you assume that the nature of physics and biology were different in the past, rather than, say, god micromanaging more as he was working on his creation and using miracles. Why does it make more sense to you that trees grow full sized within weeks because their biology allowed for it, than for god to force a mighty oak to grow faster as needed for the extreme instance of the flood? What would be the point of trees having the capacity to grow that fast prior to the flood, or after it, especially trees like oaks? Do you not realize that there is a detriment to having a fast growth cycle? or are you just going to emptily claim "prior state" again for that too? You have no idea what you are talking about, sir, and I implore you, read up on these topics, before you really make a fool of yourself through ignorance.


How about admitting that you don't know, rather than settling on an ancient text that relies on faith rather than evidence?


I contend that the more Newtonian idea of god building the universe to be self-sufficient without much tweaking is what an intelligent designer would do. Not change up everything at once god that you seem to believe in. That makes the deity sound like it majorly messed up and had to do an extreme quick fix.

And you think your lack of thinking is somehow better. Sigh. understand that what satisfies your need for evidence is not what satisfies everyone.


Pretty sure the tree of life is off limits forever. That's in Eden, not Heaven.


All that eating wasn't in heaven, but on earth. Furthermore, all those beings had physical bodies when they ate.


Sure, which is why I don't get why you think alternate past physics is the only way a literal biblical interpretation could be accurate.


I thought you thought thinking was bad, but now you seem to be applauding me for it, in a sense. I'm getting some mixed messages here.


I will give you credit for recognizing that much. You have no idea how many people on here try to mix science with the unmeasurable, such as morality.


You are mistaken if you think evolution would be invalid, even with alternate state physics and biology. What's to say it wasn't just faster in the past? You don't get to throw out the theories you don't like by changing stuff up in how physics or biology works. The changes would have to be very specific, and you don't understand physics or biology well enough to know what they are, and defend the changes. You're a horse with a broken leg trying to win a race filled with healthy horses. Unlike an actual horse, you have a chance to get better, if you put in the effort to do so.


Who is this WE you speak of? I have been exposed to very few people that argue for an alternate state past, and even fewer that try to make it go anywhere. You're about in between in that regard; not informed enough to take it anywhere, but you do try to.


If I did, would it really matter to you, or would you just claim "alternate past DNA"?


That's evolution sir!


Meh, resale of college books tends to be bad; I would rather keep them.


isn't that why you debate on here to begin with?


not really, it depends on how you interpret the text.


creatures do change as they live; sometimes quite drastically. but growing beaks and feathers where there were none in previous generations is unlikely. But how very Lamarkian of you.


The chicken or the egg question comes to mind. Besides the creatures directly created by god in Genesis, how could spontaneous generation without a lineage make sense to you? Well, I suppose there are some other instances of god creating life throughout the bible, but none suggest that this is a common thing.

You are also placing limits on what science can and can't do, without giving a reason for it. Why do you think that we can't scientifically determine ancestry without DNA?

Wow, that's a long post. I'll start with the last point, maybe finish later. So yes, Tell us how ancestors of man can be determined without any .DNA?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wow, that's a long post. I'll start with the last point, maybe finish later. So yes, Tell us how ancestors of man can be determined without any .DNA?

Sorry, we have been gradually expanding our posts throughout this. And I said without ancestral DNA, not current DNA. But, we can intuitively tell that we have ancestors, because we were born, obviously. and before you try to claim "different state DNA", if you even suggest that, you are ignorant of how DNA works to the point that you should never dare bring it up in a debate. Different state DNA = no life sir, it straight up means that chemistry and physics are so alien that no life as we could recognize it as such could reasonably exist. Your "different state past" has limits before it becomes so reliant upon miracle as to be pointless.

 

[dad]

Weirdly enough, one of the commentaries in a science book I once had used the example of a candle in displaying how you can't use perceived distance from a light source to reliably determine actual distance, as how bright and large a light source is cannot easily be discerned by the human eye if the source of light is very far away.

Right, so for stars we need to look at the basis for the distance claims.

But again, you assume that the nature of physics and biology were different in the past, rather than, say, god micromanaging more as he was working on his creation and using miracles

That can't work. Why would it need a miracle for every tree to grow fast..that seems crazy. Why require some miracle to make each person live nearly 1000 years?

. Why does it make more sense to you that trees grow full sized within weeks because their biology allowed for it, than for god to force a mighty oak to grow faster as needed for the extreme instance of the flood?

Because there is no indication that the trees growing fast was not normal at that time. When the dove came back with a fresh leaf, it didn't say that was from some magic tree. All the animals needed to eat after getting off the ark, one magic oak wouldn't cut it.

What would be the point of trees having the capacity to grow that fast prior to the flood, or after it, especially trees like oaks?

The point would be that was nature then. A secondary point might be to denote a difference in nature from this present time.

Do you not realize that there is a detriment to having a fast growth cycle? or are you just going to emptily claim "prior state" again for that too? You have no idea what you are talking about, sir, and I implore you, read up on these topics, before you really make a fool of yourself through ignorance.

The only problem is that you try to imagine a tree now with our nature growing fast, that is a problem. Now when the laws were different it is not a problem.

How about admitting that you don't know, rather than settling on an ancient text that relies on faith rather than evidence?

We DO know because of God's ancient word!

I contend that the more Newtonian idea of god building the universe to be self-sufficient without much tweaking is what an intelligent designer would do.

You forget the reason for the changes was sinful man!

Pretty sure the tree of life is off limits forever. That's in Eden, not Heaven.

No it is in heaven also!

Re 2:7 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Re 22:2 - In the midst of the street of it, and on either side ofthe river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Re 22:14 -Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

All that eating wasn't in heaven, but on earth. Furthermore, all those beings had physical bodies when they ate.

No..

Re 22:2 -In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which baretwelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month:

Jesus ate after being risen from the dead also.

You are mistaken if you think evolution would be invalid, even with alternate state physics and biology. What's to say it wasn't just faster in the past? You don't get to throw out the theories you don't like by changing stuff up in how physics or biology works. The changes would have to be very specific, and you don't understand physics or biology well enough to know what they are, and defend the changes. You're a horse with a broken leg trying to win a race filled with healthy horses. Unlike an actual horse, you have a chance to get better, if you put in the effort to do so.

Right, it would have had to be fast! There was only about 1600 years or whatever from creation to the flood, and a lot of changes had to take place.

creatures do change as they live; sometimes quite drastically. but growing beaks and feathers where there were none in previous generations is unlikely. But how very Lamarkian of you.

We cannot say what was unlikely in the unknown nature of the past.


The chicken or the egg question comes to mind. Besides the creatures directly created by god in Genesis, how could spontaneous generation without a lineage make sense to you? Well, I suppose there are some other instances of god creating life throughout the bible, but none suggest that this is a common thing.

You are also placing limits on what science can and can't do, without giving a reason for it. Why do you think that we can't scientifically determine ancestry without DNA?[/QUOTE]

 

[dad]

Sorry, we have been gradually expanding our posts throughout this. And I said without ancestral DNA, not current DNA. But, we can intuitively tell that we have ancestors, because we were born, obviously. and before you try to claim "different state DNA", if you even suggest that, you are ignorant of how DNA works to the point that you should never dare bring it up in a debate. Different state DNA = no life sir, it straight up means that chemistry and physics are so alien that no life as we could recognize it as such could reasonably exist. Your "different state past" has limits before it becomes so reliant upon miracle as to be pointless.

You miss the point..if DNA was different, who cares how it works now?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You miss the point..if DNA was different, who cares how it works now?

We can safely ignore such departures from reality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You miss the point..if DNA was different, who cares how it works now?

You did not read. Different. State. DNA. Is. An. Illogical. Suggestion.

 

[dad]

We can safely ignore such departures from reality.

You cannot ignore the fact that you do not know what the past nature was, or how it affected life processes.

 

[dad]

You did not read. Different. State. DNA. Is. An. Illogical. Suggestion.

No. Different forces and laws mean that the way a double helix forms or works and the way replication and etc etc etc happens would be directly affected.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right, so for stars we need to look at the basis for the distance claims.

I am not a physics major, and the optional astronomy class I took was over 5 years ago, so I personally do not remember how that is calculated.

That can't work. Why would it need a miracle for every tree to grow fast..that seems crazy. Why require some miracle to make each person live nearly 1000 years?

To an omnipotent being, there is no such thing really as "inconvenient" or "harder", so why should that possibility seem crazy? Also, why couldn't 1 miracle temporarily make all vegetation just appear or grow faster?

Because there is no indication that the trees growing fast was not normal at that time. When the dove came back with a fresh leaf, it didn't say that was from some magic tree. All the animals needed to eat after getting off the ark, one magic oak wouldn't cut it.

Right, it was an olive tree, not an oak

Anyways, I am not saying the tree was magic, but that god could have willed new vegetation into existence without them having to grow, so what would be the point of some prior state?

The point would be that was nature then. A secondary point might be to denote a difference in nature from this present time.

To denote a difference that leaves behind essentially no physical evidence? What for? Your secondary point makes no sense, and your first point of "that's how it was" doesn't inspire any confidence.

The only problem is that you try to imagine a tree now with our nature growing fast, that is a problem. Now when the laws were different it is not a problem.

I have a very active imagination. I just view it as more ridiculous that an omnipotent being supposedly as intelligent as the biblical god would ever need to change how nature fundamentally worked to the extent you suggest, when said being can just as easily perform miracles for the special cases in which nature needs to be defied to get the job done.

We DO know because of God's ancient word!

You and I both know that the bible not only doesn't state that physics were different, but that it implies such things never change.

You forget the reason for the changes was sinful man!

Pretty sure that the bible never states that how space and time worked changed because of that. In fact, the changes are listed off, and the changes you mention are not included. And that is during the fall; you think this stuff changed after the flood, a change that is never implied or mentioned at all, so even if you wanted to force the issue, it doesn't fit with the timing you want.

No it is in heaven also!

Re 2:7 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

That could be referencing Eden as the paradise of god; it isn't clear. But I will take it as eating in the afterlife, although in context it might mean something else.

Re 22:2

- In the midst of the street of it, and on either side ofthe river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Relevance?
Re 22:14 -Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't mean that the tree is in heaven.

Jesus ate after being risen from the dead also.

He still arguably had a physical body then.

Right, it would have had to be fast! There was only about 1600 years or whatever from creation to the flood, and a lot of changes had to take place.
We cannot say what was unlikely in the unknown nature of the past.

We can, you just claim we can't arbitrarily. You have to demonstrate that we should think we can't before any of us will care about your personal doubts.