Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Floodnut said:The Bible was written by fallible men, but under divine inspiration. Moreover some of these men had indeed seen dinosaurs, since dinosaurs and men did indeed co-exist, both before and after the flood. They describe dinosaurs and talk about them as being as commonplace as whales and camels.
In A Perfect World said:For the last time, Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys.
And...?Floodnut said:Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin. Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones. Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends. They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals. They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles
Floodnut said:Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin. Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones. Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends. They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals. They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles
mikeynov said:Yes, you are a (old world) monkey, a primate, a mammal, a (synapsid) reptile, an amphibian and a (stegocephalian) fish, simultaneously.
Disconcerting, perhaps, but you might want to get over it
Nobody has to assume anything in science. That is the modus operandi of the YEC. Dinosaurs and humans co-existing is not sustained by anything more than conjecture and forged evidence. It is nothing more than utter foolishness and is more of an argument against the YEC than it is for it.Floodnut said:This statement was made with respect to a prior statement: "You are assuming that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist."
Firstly, as your gross ignorance of everything you speak of abounds, Ill have to correct you on what agnostic means.Floodnut said:Now the Agnostic, who is unsure of the existence of God, this agnostic is sure that the scholars of Berkeley are correct in there assesment that dinos and humans did not co-exist.
Secondly, Ill take the assertions of highly educated professionals over unsubstantiated faith all day any day.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language said:ag·nos·tic ( g-n s t k) n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
As if to say all science and scientists are amoral. This is idiocy at its finest. Next time you get sick think about why you are seeking consultation from your amoral medical scientist instead of getting healed by your faith.Floodnut said:There are other authorities that have a moral foundation, who assert that in fact they did co-exist.
Please share your so called legitimate evidences. Im sure everyone here has refuted them a thousand times, but we havent had a good PRATT in awhile. Pony up.Floodnut said:The information posted on this Christian Forum which rejects the dino pottery is like proving that Star Trek is falsehood, or that alley oop is fiction. It still does not deal with the very many legitimate evidences of dino/human co-existence.
Aside from the bible being proof of nothing, what else do you have thats not some obviously fictitious tired old PRATT?Floodnut said:There are clear forgeries. But there are actual ones as well. But on top of the disputable evidences in the natural world, for the Christian who might be visiting this "CHRISTIAN" forum, the Bible states clearly that dinos and humans co-existed. Other "evidences" must be evaluated in the light of that authoritative truth.
In other words youre just like every YEC Ive ever seen stroll through here leaving behind their woefully ignorant brain droppings. Youll hold fast to your baseless assertions and dismiss scientific findings out of sheer ignorance. Your only refuge is falling back on the circular reasoning of your precious fairytale.Floodnut said:He can't find the refutation. I am a YEC, and I have seen the refute. So what? I have read the Bibe and it clearly teaches the co-existence of dinos and humans, with or without archaeological evidence.
This is it? This is all the substantiation you can muster for your argument? Where are the fossil evidence? Where is Abrahams skeleton all mangled up inside a t-rex skeleton? Youre going to dismiss the Theory of evolution with all its scientific backing and believe in some whacko idea based on a few child-like scribbles? Even while some have been admitted to as forgery? What is it about a YEC that has allowed them to denigrate to this level of ineptness? If you want to actually contribute something worthwhile to this forum why dont you go to the quiet thread and take a stab at the many posts directed at the YEC specifically? Whats preventing you from actually taking on serious evidence in lieu of this meaningless excrement you pass off as participation. Show me YEC isnt some mindless, baseless, unsubstantiated, fairytale. Go grab any of the geological threads ripping your global flood apart and dazzle us with your insight.Floodnut said:But the Ica depictions are not the only ones. They are also found in Europe, Britain, Asia, Scandinavia, Central America, North America, Africa, the Andes of Peru, not just among the Ica, but the Incas also.
Wrong, they have a common primate origin, it probably wasn't a monkey.Floodnut said:Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin.
There are no monkeys in our direct ancestral lines and, furthermore, we're still primates. However, modern monkeys and us do share a common ancestor.Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones.
Maybe if you understood the semantics of evolutionary theory they wouldn't seem like gymnastics.Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends.
Evolution!=abiogenesis. I guess that when God made adam out of dust the dust was living.They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals.
Both modern mammals (us included) and reptiles evolved from amphibians.They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles
Basically correct good job, seriously you wouldn't believe how many people would already have said that evolution says humans sprung fully evolved from rocks or something.Floodnut said:Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin. Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones.
Last part aside they just love semantic debates because they are filthy pedants.Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends.
While many do believe this, this the domain of the theory of abiogenesis. Once there is one cell (however it may have gotten there), then evolution kicks in. Make sure not to confuse these two, it is a common mistake and demonstrating understanding of this will increase people's respect in what you have to say.They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals
Basically yeah, methinks there were a few steps in between though.They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles
I was under the imrpession that apes and monkeys were the two classes of primates and that others weren't known of. Do you have some info on primates that existed prior to the monkey-ape split?RoboMastodon said:Wrong, they have a common primate origin, it probably wasn't a monkey.
There are no monkeys in our direct ancestral lines and, furthermore, we're still primates. However, modern monkeys and us do share a common ancestor.
Praxiteles said:Science at school, religion at home.
That's the way it is, and the way it should remain.
I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure lemurs are also considered primates. So the monkey-ape common ancestor mike look something like a lemur. Doing some research now.revolutio said:I was under the imrpession that apes and monkeys were the two classes of primates and that others weren't known of. Do you have some info on primates that existed prior to the monkey-ape split?
http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htmsome website said:The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced, evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch. They were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance. The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (mostly from North Africa) suggests that they were adapted to an arboreal way of life in warm, moist climates. They probably were equipped with relatively good eyesight as well as hands and feet with pads and claws for climbing. These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data becomes available.
...
Monkeys evolved from prosimians during the Oligocene or slightly earlier. They were the first species of our suborder--the Anthropoidea click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced. Several genera of these early monkeys have been identified--Apidium click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced and Aegyptopithecus click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced are the most well known. The former was about the size of a fat squirrel (2-3 pounds), while the latter was the size of a large domestic cat (13-20 pounds). Both were probably fruit and seed eating forest tree-dwellers. Compared to the prosimians, these early monkeys had fewer teeth, less fox-like snouts, larger brains, and increasingly more forward-looking eyes.
Floodnut said:God denying atheists and promotors of evolution have no prohibition against lying so they can make up falsehoods like this with no moral compunctionl.
Of course for you this means Evolution at School. But evolution is a matter of Faith. It is a religion, so leave it at home, stay with observational and experiemental science at School. I would love to see some experiments with fruitflies, to try to change them into gnats with radiation induced mutations. Oops, I guess thats already been attemtped and it didn't work.
Of course for you this means Evolution at School.
But evolution is a matter of Faith. It is a religion, so leave it at home, stay with observational and experiemental science at School.
I would love to see some experiments with fruitflies, to try to change them into gnats with radiation induced mutations. Oops, I guess thats already been attemtped and it didn't work.
Floodnut said:Of course for you this means Evolution at School. But evolution is a matter of Faith.
It is a religion, so leave it at home,
stay with observational and experiemental science at School. I would love to see some experiments with fruitflies, to try to change them into gnats with radiation induced mutations. Oops, I guess thats already been attemtped and it didn't work.
wisdomseeker said:Thank you for all your responses. However, I am still curious about dinosaurs being in exsistence billions of years ago. How is it we still find thier remains? Wouldn't they have disenegrated by now? Also I have read many articles saying life could not exsist at that time because of the postion of the sun and moon. I just don't know what to believe.
L'Anatra said:Nobody has suggested dinosaurs existed billions of years ago. The animals commonly known as dinosaurs existed in what is known as the Mesozoic Era (a period of time between 250 million years ago and 65 million years ago). Their remains have been fossilized, a process whereby bone is essentially transformed into stone. Fossilization is a very rare process, but we find fossils all the time. Additionally, the positions of the sun and the moon haven't changed much in the last 4 billion years or so.
Don't worry about knowing "what to believe" so much as going out and researching it for yourself. This isn't something that is easily undertaken, either. Don't take anyone's word for it but rather look at the evidence. Read the peer-reviewed scientific papers. There are people here that are more than willing to help.
AiG has a statement of faith that says that any evidence that contradicts scripture must, by definition, be false. This is not science, this is dogma. Creationists aren't scientists especially considering that creationism violates basic tenets of not only biology, but geology, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, archeology, history, and linguistics. Lastly, the entire body of scientific knowledge (which includes all of the evidence and falsifications of YEC) is supported by a wealth of scientists from all different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds--Christian and non-Christian. How come there aren't any non-Christian creationists (the few muslims and jews notwithstanding)? I'll go ahead and answer it for you: it's because creationists distort the evidence because they have a religious agenda.Floodnut said:Seeker, even evolutionists don't believe they existed BILLIONS of years ago, but rather, MILLIONS, and that they became extinct about 65 million years ago.
There is a group of scientists and Christians who are called YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS (YECs). Of course Evolutionists MOCK the idea that any legitimate scientist could be a creationist, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many degreed creationists.
The remains of dinosaurs are largely bones that have been mineralized and some mineralized eggs as well. This is what fossils are. There have also been many dinosaur footprints found as well as skin impressions. But YECs do not believe that dinosaurs lived so long in the past, but rather they believe that dinosaurs and humans were both created on the sixth day of the creation week and that they lived at the same time.
There are a number of websites that show from the Bible the evidences that they co-existed, and these websites point to observational science that supports this view. Creationists also have at their web sites arguments that point to the idea that historical records --written, oral, and pictorial-- that show that dinos were alive at the same time as humans.
In this forum and others, people will only trade jabs back and forth and make brief comments in an effort to make others look bad, and themselves look good. You have heard and heard and heard in all of your schooling the idea that the earth is very old, in the billions of years. This idea is echoed in movies, in literature, in science programs on TV, in advertizing, and in popular magazines. For once you might consider going to a Creationist source, like Answers in Genesis, and honestly looking over their presentation of the YEC position.
Floodnut said:It is good to read "peer-reviewed" scientific papers, but there is a bit of a problem if all the peers believe the same thing and pat each other on the back.
If you are coming to a Christian Forum seeking Christian Wisdom you should be aware that many of the people who post here are NOT Christians, and they will be the first to make that claim of themselves.
While peer review is of value, if you seek Christian Wisdom, then try to find people who are Christians, who believe that the Bible is true, who listen to the Spirit of Truth. READ Bible Believing Material. There are many godly men and women here who are more than willing to help.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?