Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Hoghead1]

Here we go again, AV1611. You say you won't bother to study evolution. Result: You just ended up with egg all over fact abut Nebraska man. I'm surprised you didn't go for the biggy here, the supposed jugular vein of all juggler veins for creation-science and other people like you thrust their holy and righteous sword into: Tada, now presenting Piltdowm man. Since you appear lazy and not wanting to do your homework, I guess I should quickly fill you in. Back in merry old England, in the early part of the last century, a skull was found that , to many, seemed to be the Missing Link. Made quite a stir. Impressed some real baggiest, as I remember: Sir SC Doyle, etc. Sure looked like what one would expect for the missing link: sort of a human-looking head, definitely ape jaw. Ended up as one of the great treasures in the British Museum, or at least in the POV of the curator who snapped this specimen up before it could be scientifically examined in any real detail. The museum continually denied requests from scientists to study it. Museums do that, you know. Dubbs off the exhibits, you know, all that sort of thing. In the early sixties, someone finally got permission to take it out and examine it. Why examine? There always was suspicion in the scientific community that this find was a it too cute, if you know what I mean,. Result: It's probably a fake. Well, maybe not. Before it could be studied further, along came a group of righteous Christian who broke and smashes it to pieces. These Christians only further stirred up the controversy. If it is really a fake, why destroy it? More importantly, in their righteous zeal to destroy, they merely fanned the flames. By destroying it, we have no hard evidence at all, absolutely zero hard evidence that such a hoax actually happened. You can't fault evolutionary people, unless you can put on the table the hard evidence, the "fake" itself. No body, no crime. An interesting sideline here is that very few books on evolution ever mentioned the Piltdown man.

If you don't mind my asking, what's with the 1611 in you nym? Are you a King James Onlyist? I mean, you are referring to the famous 1611 edition of the KJV, aren't you? If so, I sure hope you have homework and are prepared to hear what I am about to say. In no way, shape, or form do you a copy of the 1611 edition to read from. In fact, if one was given to you, you might find it well impossible for you to read at all. The word usage is very different. As I recall, 'then" meant our "than, " etc., spelling was way different. "Be" was written "Beee." etc. So why walk around with 1611 pasted all over the place, on you car, hat, etc..,as KJV Onlyists do? Why profess some sort of allegiance to a book you can't even read? Why can't you be honest and cite the year of the edition you are reading? Also, if it is your position, as many KJV Onlyists profess, that the 1611 edition is the only true bible, the preceding ones being just a rough draft, then how do you explain the fact that the translators never made a claim this particular Bible, this particular translation is inerrant? After all, the traditional POV is that inerrancy only covers the originals, not the copies, and certainly not the translations. You know, you might find it an interesting read sometime to study how and why the Pilgrims would have nothing at all to do with the KJV.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

1. Henry Fairfield Osborn was a scientist.

2. What do you mean 'he wanted to call'? Was it called that or not?

3. From Wikipedia:

4. If it was never in the science literature as an early man,* where did it get its binomial?

* I notice you didn't say, 'It was never in the science literature'. You said, 'It was never in the science literature as an early man.'

And you creationists lie lie lie that this was a "fraud" of early man. As soon as professional excavation was done, the proper identification was published in the scientific and popular press. We will never see that from the Televangelists, or AiG frauds.

 

[BrriKerr]

Just exactly how and who's lives are being ruined?

By being raised to believe that the impossible is not only possible but when a God is involved it's beyond question.
Children will believe anything their parents tell them in fact they hang on their every word, telling children to believe things when they have absolutely no evidence to back up what they are being told is cruelty, every religion on earth is guilty of doing this.

 

[Goonie]

Here we go again, AV1611. You say you won't bother to study evolution. Result: You just ended up with egg all over fact abut Nebraska man. I'm surprised you didn't go for the biggy here, the supposed jugular vein of all juggler veins for creation-science and other people like you thrust their holy and righteous sword into: Tada, now presenting Piltdowm man. Since you appear lazy and not wanting to do your homework, I guess I should quickly fill you in. Back in merry old England, in the early part of the last century, a skull was found that , to many, seemed to be the Missing Link. Made quite a stir. Impressed some real baggiest, as I remember: Sir SC Doyle, etc. Sure looked like what one would expect for the missing link: sort of a human-looking head, definitely ape jaw. Ended up as one of the great treasures in the British Museum, or at least in the POV of the curator who snapped this specimen up before it could be scientifically examined in any real detail. The museum continually denied requests from scientists to study it. Museums do that, you know. Dubbs off the exhibits, you know, all that sort of thing. In the early sixties, someone finally got permission to take it out and examine it. Why examine? There always was suspicion in the scientific community that this find was a it too cute, if you know what I mean,. Result: It's probably a fake. Well, maybe not. Before it could be studied further, along came a group of righteous Christian who broke and smashes it to pieces. These Christians only further stirred up the controversy. If it is really a fake, why destroy it? More importantly, in their righteous zeal to destroy, they merely fanned the flames. By destroying it, we have no hard evidence at all, absolutely zero hard evidence that such a hoax actually happened. You can't fault evolutionary people, unless you can put on the table the hard evidence, the "fake" itself. No body, no crime. An interesting sideline here is that very few books on evolution ever mentioned the Piltdown man.

If you don't mind my asking, what's with the 1611 in you nym? Are you a King James Onlyist? I mean, you are referring to the famous 1611 edition of the KJV, aren't you? If so, I sure hope you have homework and are prepared to hear what I am about to say. In no way, shape, or form do you a copy of the 1611 edition to read from. In fact, if one was given to you, you might find it well impossible for you to read at all. The word usage is very different. As I recall, 'then" meant our "than, " etc., spelling was way different. "Be" was written "Beee." etc. So why walk around with 1611 pasted all over the place, on you car, hat, etc..,as KJV Onlyists do? Why profess some sort of allegiance to a book you can't even read? Why can't you be honest and cite the year of the edition you are reading? Also, if it is your position, as many KJV Onlyists profess, that the 1611 edition is the only true bible, the preceding ones being just a rough draft, then how do you explain the fact that the translators never made a claim this particular Bible, this particular translation is inerrant? After all, the traditional POV is that inerrancy only covers the originals, not the copies, and certainly not the translations. You know, you might find it an interesting read sometime to study how and why the Pilgrims would have nothing at all to do with the KJV.

AV, Is not only King James only, but appears to believe pre flood, humanity spoke Jacobean English

I hope Im not misrepresenting you AV

 

[BrriKerr]

AV, Is not only King James only, but appears to believe pre flood, humanity spoke Jacobean English

I hope Im not misrepresenting you AV

If the Bible is not exactly how people want it to be then why not tweak it a little so it is? it's all imaginary anyway so what harm can it do? how many denominations are out there with everyone of them reading the same words differently?
If religions didn't do so much damage I would recommend them to everyone as a way to pass the time until we die.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, Is not only King James only, but appears to believe pre flood, humanity spoke Jacobean English

I hope Im not misrepresenting you AV

No, sir, you're not.

Thank you for bringing that up.

I'll address his ... um ... wonderment at a later time.

 

[AV1611VET]

You just ended up with egg all over fact abut Nebraska man.

Maybe in your eyes, I did; but until I get an answer as to why this fake was given a binomial, I'd say the egg is on the face of scientists.

But they're used to it, I suppose.

What with Thalidomide, Pluto, and L'Aquila -- throw in the Deepwater Horizon, and they make a dynamite omelette.

I'm surprised you didn't go for the biggy here, the supposed jugular vein of all juggler veins for creation-science and other people like you thrust their holy and righteous sword into: Tada, now presenting Piltdowm man.

Nuts to Piltdown Man.

I want to know why, if Nebraska Man was so obviously a hoax, he got a binomial; and who gave it to him: a scientist, or some lay person.

Since you appear lazy and not wanting to do your homework,

If scientists would have done their homework in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

If you don't mind my asking, what's with the 1611 in you nym?

I don't mind at all.

The 1611 in my nym means I'm a KJVO.

The VET means I'm a Vietnam Era Veteran.

Are you a King James Onlyist?

Yes.

I mean, you are referring to the famous 1611 edition of the KJV, aren't you?

Yes.

If so, I sure hope you have homework and are prepared to hear what I am about to say.

Shoot.

In no way, shape, or form do you a copy of the 1611 edition to read from.

Really?

Then what's that digitally-remastered originall on my shelf?

In fact, if one was given to you, you might find it well impossible for you to read at all.

Either that, or you're quite wrong.

My digitally-remastered 1590 Geneva makes me take a second look at times; but my digitally-remastered 1611 King James is a piece of cake.

And while I can't write it, I can certainly read it.

The word usage is very different. As I recall, 'then" meant our "than, " etc., spelling was way different. "Be" was written "Beee." etc. So why walk around with 1611 pasted all over the place, on you car, hat, etc..,as KJV Onlyists do?

Because we're King James Only?

Why profess some sort of allegiance to a book you can't even read?

Let me guess:

You can't read it, so you assume I can't either?

I often show It to others and ask them to read me Pfalmes 19.

The looks on their faces are priceless.

And although I'm being entertained at their expense, we're both mature enough to handle it.

You don't do that with just everyone -- just your friends and family.

Why can't you be honest and cite the year of the edition you are reading?

Can I be dishonest and cite the year too?

I think it's 1711 or 1734 or 17[somethingorother].

I use the 1611 King James, fifth edition.

Close enough?

Also, if it is your position, as many KJV Onlyists profess, that the 1611 edition is the only true bible, the preceding ones being just a rough draft, then how do you explain the fact that the translators never made a claim this particular Bible, this particular translation is inerrant?

Because they didn't know it at the time?

Was God suppose to visit them and say, "Okay, fellas, listen up. It's time for My last version to come out."

Did David know his Psalmes would be divinely preserved?

Did Job, when he wrote:

Job 19:23 Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!

After all, the traditional POV is that inerrancy only covers the originals, not the copies, and certainly not the translations.

IF there are any mistakes, I'll lay them at God's feet; not at Mr. James.

How's that?

You know, you might find it an interesting read sometime to study how and why the Pilgrims would have nothing at all to do with the KJV.

I'm under the assumption that God wanted them to use the Geneva, and have said so here several times.

Anything else I can correct you on?

 

[Larniavc]

A kind is a person, plant or animal whose DNA can create viable offspring in its own image & likeness.

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So a tiger and a lion are separate kind?

 

[AV1611VET]

So a tiger and a lion are separate kind?

Yes, IMO.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes, IMO.

So being able to breed, on it's own is not an inclusion criteria for kind?

 

[AV1611VET]

So being able to breed, on it's own is not an inclusion criteria for kind?

Sorry.

I don't understand your question.

Do you see tigers and lions breeding on their own?

Or are they usually pushed together by scientists in a lab and made to go against what God intended for the sake of giving evolution a thumbs up?

Then, after having done that, wanting us Christians to sort out what a "kind" is -- after scientists messed it up?

 

[Larniavc]

Sorry.

I don't understand your question.

Do you see tigers and lions breeding on their own?

Or are they usually pushed together by scientists in a lab and made to go against what God intended for the sake of giving evolution a thumbs up?

Then, after having done that, wanting us Christians to sort out what a "kind" is -- after scientists messed it up?

Makes 'kind' a very ambiguous term.

 

[ecco]

If you could find species that was the great grand kid of the dinosaur and the great grand father of the bird, it would be transitional. How's that?

But then you would want to see a fossil between the great grand father of the bird and the grand father of the bird.
And then you would want to see a fossil between the grand father of the bird and the father of the bird.

And then you still would not be convinced.


Oh, wait, you already said that.

For transition to be evident, since it would take billions of years, you would need thousands of fossils to prove it. Just like the frames of a motion picture would prove what really happened to the guy on the bridge. Not one picture or even 10 would prove it.

In other words, you believe GodDidIt and nothing can change your mind. So why are you even discussing the subject? Why not just say "I don't believe in evolution because I take a literal reading of Genesis and therefore I will disregard anything and everything science has to say on the subject"?

 

[ecco]

Goonie said: ↑
AV, Is not only King James only, but appears to believe pre flood, humanity spoke Jacobean English

I hope Im not misrepresenting you AV

No, sir, you're not.

Someone believes "believe pre flood, humanity spoke Jacobean English"?

I realize this is not the thread to discuss this, but REALLY?
I must be reading this incorrectly.

 

[USincognito]

Then you are admitting that there is very few fossils compared to the number of animals that once lived?

I am admitting noting. What I am doing is trying to explain to you facts known by everyone who knows anything about fossilization. It is a very rare process for terrestrial beings and even rarer in particular environments. Jungles, for example, are particularly unsuited to fossilization because of the paucity of sediment and acidic soils.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry.

I don't understand your question.

Do you see tigers and lions breeding on their own?

Or are they usually pushed together by scientists in a lab and made to go against what God intended for the sake of giving evolution a thumbs up?

Then, after having done that, wanting us Christians to sort out what a "kind" is -- after scientists messed it up?

Lions and tigers mate in zoos if kept in close quarters. While some hybrids are on purpose (which I consider animal abuse for those, their hybrids are not particularly healthy), I don't think the first few were.

 

[USincognito]

{responding to Nebraska "man" PRATT}

One of my Facebook friends modified an existing Al Gore/Global Warming meme so that it addresses YECs bringing up Nebraska (and/or Piltdown).

 

[PsychoSarah]

What would you expect a perfect tree to look like? It's the same thing, you cannot look at two pieces of bone from different holes and say "gosh, the animal this bone is from looks similar to that bone, that means that this animal turned into that animal over time, lots and lots of time"
You cannot prove the whole of a concept when you only have punctuated examples of the animals. Transition is not observable, testable or repeatable. Therefore it will remain an assumption.

That is simply incorrect, we demonstrate it with bacteria all the time. And before you state "but they stay bacteria", no duh, for them to transition out of a Kingdom class would take as much as a billion years even if we could produce the proper conditions to ensure it would happen. However, their genetic variation and change over time in lab can be observed to exceed the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees, and even beyond that. It is proof of concept; the bacteria do not have to become non-bacteria, they just have to demonstrate the capacity for genetic change.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If people objected to the nonsense right from the word go and told believers what people thought perhaps some people would not be so inclined to believe such foolishness, why should someone being completely irrational get a pass? if they said they believed Superman was a real person they would be locked up or at least given medication, but no, when enough people believe the lie it gets a free pass and everyone suffers.I'm sorry to hear that but being nice about their foolishness obviously does not work, look at the damage religion has done to the education system in the US, the money wasted on religious collages alone run into the billions of dollars not to mention the false information they feed young minds, the US has a TV station dedicated to feeding false information to millions of already not very bright people, how can that be allowed? we know why it's allowed because stupid people will be docile and say very little while informed people continually ask questions of the people in power.

And look at how far being rude has gotten you. How much progress do you actually think you are making? Religion is not some kind of disease that needs to be cured; misunderstanding and hatred are the source of the social problems here. The majority of Christians are reasonably educated people (in developed countries), and their contributions to society are not lesser for the fact that they are religious. Again, all I want you to do, is speak your mind while also making some amount of effort to be friendly.

I have a proposition for you: follow my advice for 2 days, and see if your quality of interactions with theists improves or not. If I am right, and people listen to you more, my advice is at least worth considering for the future, yes? And if it doesn't work, then you at least have some precedent to base your brashness on beyond your personal assumptions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Makes 'kind' a very ambiguous term.

Yup -- you can't get more "very ambiguous" than this:

A kind is a person, plant or animal whose DNA can create viable offspring in its own image & likeness.

Can you?