We Believe In Dinosaurs

Phil W · Mar 6, 2020

Speedwell said:
Not who, but what. Morality is defined by human nature, whether God or man codifies it.

So the morality of Nazi Germany was indeed "moral"?
The human's nature died with Jesus on the cross, for all who join with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom 6:3-6)

Ophiolite · Mar 6, 2020

Phil W said:
This all seems kinda odd coming from an atheist.
Without God, who is it that defines "moral"?

Morality is a consequence of our evolutionary heritage as a social animal. Morality is that which is good for the individual and the group. The growth of culture and civilisation enabled the concept of group to expand to beyond the family and the tribe, to incorporate nations, religions, football teams, and - for some (most? many?) of us - all of humanity. Religion doesn't have that market cornered, regardless of any thoughts you may have on the matter.

Edit: I see Speedwell has said much the same thing.

Hank77 · Mar 6, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
There's this.
Isaiah 11:7
"And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. You asked a question about dinosaurs and teeth and I pointed out that they weren't the only animals created with teeth for eating meat. Many of the dinosaurs ate meat.
Because God didn't allow men to eat meat until Noah's time doesn't mean the animals weren't?

summerville · Mar 6, 2020

Hank77 said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. You asked a question about dinosaurs and teeth and I pointed out that they weren't the only animals created with teeth for eating meat. Many of the dinosaurs ate meat.
Because God didn't allow men to eat meat until Noah's time doesn't mean the animals weren't?

Good grief. What scripture says God didn't allow Noah to eat meat?

Hank77 · Mar 6, 2020

summerville said:
Good grief. What scripture says God didn't allow Noah to eat meat?

MEN were given permission to eat meat only after the flood. See Genesis 9:1-5.

summerville · Mar 6, 2020

Hank77 said:
MEN were given permission to eat meat only after the flood. See Genesis 9:1-5.

9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

3Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4"But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

Hank77 · Mar 6, 2020

summerville said:
9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

3Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4"But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

Just as I gave you green plants, I now give you everything.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 6, 2020

Hank77 said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. You asked a question about dinosaurs and teeth and I pointed out that they weren't the only animals created with teeth for eating meat. Many of the dinosaurs ate meat.
Because God didn't allow men to eat meat until Noah's time doesn't mean the animals weren't?

Sorry for being so cryptic.

If the earth is only 6000 years old dinosaurs would have existed along with man, but would have been constrained to eating vegetation, so why were they created with such teeth? That "the lion will eat straw like the ox" suggests that today's carnivores also ate vegetation prior to the flood ( Genesis 1:30).

summerville · Mar 6, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
Sorry for being so cryptic.

If the earth is only 6000 years old dinosaurs would have existed along with man, but would have been constrained to eating vegetation, so why were they created with such teeth? That "the lion will eat straw like the ox" suggests that today's carnivores also ate vegetation prior to the flood ( Genesis 1:30).

Herbivorous dinosaurs—which included sauropods, ankylosaurs, stegosaurus, hadrosaurs, pachycephalosaurus, ornithopods, ceratopsians, and titanosaurs—vastly outnumbered meat-eaters in prehistoric times.

summerville · Mar 6, 2020

Herbivore Dinosaurs | 10 Famous List of Plant-Eating Dinosaurs
Bio Explorerherbivore-dinosaurs.html

1. Triceratops (†Triceratops horridus) †Ornithischia. †Ceratopsidae. †Triceratops. †Triceratops …
2. Dracorex (†Dracorex hogwartsia) †Ornithischia. †Pachycephalosauridae. †Dracorex. †Dracorex …
3. Moschops (†Moschops capensis) Therapsida. †Tapinocephalidae. †Moschops. †Moschops …
4. Argentinosaurus (†Argentinosaurus huinculensis) Saurischia. †Antarctosauridae. …
See full list on bioexplorer.net

OldWiseGuy · Mar 6, 2020

summerville said:
Herbivorous dinosaurs—which included sauropods, ankylosaurs, stegosaurus, hadrosaurs, pachycephalosaurus, ornithopods, ceratopsians, and titanosaurs—vastly outnumbered meat-eaters in prehistoric times.

Sorry, I was referring only to the meat eaters.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 6, 2020

Ophiolite said:
Morality is a consequence of our evolutionary heritage as a social animal. Morality is that which is good for the individual and the group. The growth of culture and civilisation enabled the concept of group to expand to beyond the family and the tribe, to incorporate nations, religions, football teams, and - for some (most? many?) of us - all of humanity. Religion doesn't have that market cornered, regardless of any thoughts you may have on the matter.

So what's all this fuss about inequality, unfairness, lack of opportunity, crime, divorce, racism, etc?

Speedwell · Mar 6, 2020

Phil W said:
So the morality of Nazi Germany was indeed "moral"?

No. The German people were led to act contrary to their nature by a persuasive demagogue.

Ophiolite · Mar 6, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
So what's all this fuss about inequality, unfairness, lack of opportunity, crime, divorce, racism, etc?

I don't understand your question. Where inequality, unfairness, lack of opportunity, crime, divorce and racism exist it would be a "good thing", would it not, to address these issues? That would apply to Christians, Hindus, Moslems, Atheists, Agnostics and the rest. There are numerous ways these issues could be addressed:

By seeking to minimise their impact in ones personal and family life.
By choosing a career that specifically addresses one or more of these problems
By becoming politically active at the local, regional or national level.
By campaigning for legislation tackling these problems
By promoting education that addresses the root cause of these issues.
Etc.

Now which of these, or one of the ones I've missed, constitutes a "fuss". ("A fuss", is typically used pejoratively to suggest over-much concern is being expressed over something. Which item on your list do you are we being excessively, or unnecessarily concerned over?

OldWiseGuy · Mar 6, 2020

Ophiolite said:
I don't understand your question. Where inequality, unfairness, lack of opportunity, crime, divorce and racism exist it would be a "good thing", would it not, to address these issues? That would apply to Christians, Hindus, Moslems, Atheists, Agnostics and the rest. There are numerous ways these issues could be addressed:

By seeking to minimise their impact in ones personal and family life.

By choosing a career that specifically addresses one or more of these problems

By becoming politically active at the local, regional or national level.

By campaigning for legislation tackling these problems

By promoting education that addresses the root cause of these issues.

Etc.

Now which of these, or one of the ones I've missed, constitutes a "fuss". ("A fuss", is typically used pejoratively to suggest over-much concern is being expressed over something. Which item on your list do you are we being excessively, or unnecessarily concerned over?

If mankind has a highly developed sense of morality, why all these problems? Regarding religious morality, I didn't become a good person until I 'got religion'.

Speedwell · Mar 6, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
If mankind has a highly developed sense of morality, why all these problems? Regarding religious morality, I didn't become a good person until I 'got religion'.

Did you not know before you "got religion" that you were doing wrong?

OldWiseGuy · Mar 6, 2020

Speedwell said:
Did you not know before you "got religion" that you were doing wrong?

Not when it came to the ladies.

The driving force behind secular morality is law and fear.
The driving force behind spiritual morality is conscience and love.

Speedwell · Mar 6, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
Not when it came to the ladies.

Of course. There is no doubt that secular moral philosophy will not provide the kind of detailed restrictions on harmless personal pleasurable behavior, especially sexual behavior, that Christians deem to be the most important.

Ophiolite · Mar 6, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
If mankind has a highly developed sense of morality, why all these problems? Regarding religious morality, I didn't become a good person until I 'got religion'.

You do like to read into posts what you think ought to be there. It certainly comes across that way.
1. I did not describe mankind as having a "highly developed sense of morality". I described mankind as having a naturally evolved morality.

2. "These problems" seem to have been just as commonplace, if not more so, in the past in Christian countries and under the auspices of the Church.

3. The problems exist for a variety of reasons, among which:

Sociopaths and psychopaths are mentally predisposed to ignore or circumvent natural morality and the religious, legal and cultural expressions of morality that flow from that.
What is right for the group is not always right for the individual; individuals may react to that.
A strong drive to support kin and kind can lead to racism and religious intolerance
People and groups may make errors of judgement
Some forms of extra-legal actions may be seen as moral by the community they are designed to protect, yet would be illegal in the larger society they are part of.

A Doctoral thesis would be necessary to fully explore the reasons, their causes, their relative importance, etc.

4. I know people who were good without ever being exposed in any significant way to religion. I know people who were better before they got religion. I know people who always had religion and were always good. I know people who were good before and after they got religion.
I don't know if I'm good, but I certainly didn't get any worse after I walked away from religion. And I feel infinitely more comfortable doing the right thing, because it is the right thing, not because I am directed to do so by Scripture.

BobRyan · Mar 6, 2020

Jimmy D said:
Not really a fair competition is it really?

One relies on critically examining the evidence of God's creation.... the other is entirely based on one's own subjective interpretation of a translation of an unknown ancient author's short, vague poem (and ignoring the evidence of God's creation).

Most atheists say it this way ... "critically examining the evidence in nature.... the other is entirely based on one's own subjective interpretation of a translation of an unknown ancient author's short, vague poem (and ignoring the evidence in nature)"

the result is pretty much the same.

We Believe In Dinosaurs

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Junior Member

Similar threads