Life in the time of the Dinosaurs was different to modern life

AV1611VET · May 31, 2022

ottawak said:
And if you are talking about Bible scholarship rather than Bible "study" it has no place at all.

Bible scholarship is a joke and a half.

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 31, 2022

AV1611VET said:
What do you think "quick" means?

As it would have been used in the 1600s, it meant alive or living.

Not that you care at all in the slightest.

ruthiesea · May 31, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Not according to the Bible.

The Bible is not a scientific book. According to how you understand the Bible there is nothing that says that man is not a highly evolved ape.

ruthiesea · May 31, 2022

Semper-Fi said:
So the theory of evolution is not even a theory, but a hypothesis. ok

No, it has all of the attributes of a valid scientific theory.

AV1611VET · May 31, 2022

ruthiesea said:
The Bible is not a scientific book. According to how you understand the Bible there is nothing that says that man is not a highly evolved ape.

It doesn't say man is a highly-evolved ostrich either.

What's your point?

Hans Blaster · May 31, 2022

AV1611VET said:
But you're interested enough to call It an "old translation," aren't you?

In other words, all you see is "1611," and your academic discipline shuts everything else off, doesn't it?

Some people just like to look at the pictures, don't they?

I know enough to deal with you. When I joined this board the number in your moniker was unfamiliar to me. It looked like a date, but I had no idea why it would be important to anyone.

I know all kinds of things that don't interest me. For example: hobbits are from middle earth.

Gene2memE · Jun 1, 2022

Semper-Fi said:
It has been detected in Humans, they have not discovered animals having Consciousness.

Sure it has.

Other animals have "neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness."

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

The other great apes (Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans) and at least some old world monkeys all have consciousness. They pass most non-verbal tests of human consciousness. Some dolphin and whale species also pass certain tests of consciousness, as do octopuses, elephants and some parrot and corvid species. They could be said to have 'near human consciousness'.

The question now isn't "can animals display consciousness?", but "which animals are consciousness?" and "what is animal consciousness like?".

Quoting from a 2020 piece in the Trends in Cognitive Science:

In recent years, debates about animal consciousness have moved on from the question of whether any non-human animals are conscious to the questions of which animals are conscious and what form their conscious experiences take. There is an emerging consensus that current evidence supports attributing some form of consciousness to other mammals, birds, and at least some cephalopod molluscs (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish)."

Mr Laurier · Jun 1, 2022

Semper-Fi said:
When there are humans at the local zoo in enclosures, alongside
apes and gorillas, I would still not believe we are related.

What about when shown the DNA/genetic evidence?

Man classifies himself as little more than a brute beast
aimlessly walking this Earth.

And other man knows better. As does next other man, and next other man.
Not everybody holds such self loathing as your man

Evolutionists claim that if
one creature is physically similar to another, it is
evidence of a common ancestor.

Then Evolutionists are wildly ignorant of the most basic facts about evolution. Maybe they should read a few books about it.

Mr Laurier · Jun 1, 2022

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, but you are clearly upset over the fact that humans are apes.

Please go easy.
They have a hard enough time accepting that other humans are people.

Mr Laurier · Jun 1, 2022

Semper-Fi said:
I am not offended by your belief that humans evolved from slime.

Nobody holds such a well refuted belief

Mr Laurier · Jun 1, 2022

Semper-Fi said:
So how did life begin, the "spark" of the big bang.

By not doing so.
There was no life at the time you are asking about.

What was the first life form, that finale evolved into humans?

Primitive, pre-cellular organisms.

You say humans evolved from apes, apes evolved from something,
and that evolved from something, all the way back to first life form.

Nobody does.
Humans ARE apes. We are apes, the way Toyota Tercels are automobiles.

There has to be something that started it, if not God of Abraham, then what?

Since you are reaching back to the initial expansion of the universe (the Big Bang)...
Try thinking in terms of forces, not life forms.
Gravity.
Centrifugal force.
Momentum.
Pressure.
The original singularity, bound by gravity, spinning rapidly,
At some point, the mass of the singularity becomes unstable... and overcomes gravity.
The resulting release of energy, is the newborn universe.
Energy cools to become plasma.
Plasma cools to become matter.
Matter cools to become electrons and protons...
... which cool to become atoms.
This begins the atomic phase of the universe.
Still no life.
For at least another billion years, the universe will not have the heavy atoms needed to form complex carbons.

Mr Laurier · Jun 1, 2022

Semper-Fi said:
So the theory of evolutions first step, how the first life form started, is an hypothesis.

No. Nor it it the first step.
There are no steps.
You are mashing two unrelated things together.
Evolution, and abiogenesis.
They are NOT the same thing.

Mr Laurier · Jun 1, 2022

AV1611VET said:
What do you think "quick" means?

Fast moving

ottawak · Jun 1, 2022

ottawak · Jun 1, 2022

Mr Laurier said:
Humans ARE apes. We are apes, the way Toyota Tercels are automobiles.

But if Toyota Tercels are automobiles, then they can't possibly run any differently than Model T Fords. You must have to hand crank them to start the motor.

Shemjaza · Jun 1, 2022

Semper-Fi said:
So the theory of evolutions first step, how the first life form started, is an hypothesis.

No evolution just requires life.

If life was created evolution would still be true.

The evidence indicates that life comes from a common ancestor, but we don't know exactly what it was or how it came about.

If we never understand how the first life formed all that will mean is that we don't know, not that something even more mysterious is true.

AV1611VET · Jun 1, 2022

Mr Laurier said:
Fast moving.

I'd say that's about their speed.

Thanks for the QED.

ruthiesea · Jun 1, 2022

AV1611VET said:
It doesn't say man is a highly-evolved ostrich either.

What's your point?

That was nonsensical.

Bungle_Bear · Jun 1, 2022

AV1611VET said:
I'd say that's about their speed.

Thanks for the QED.

Put your money where your mouth is - what do you think quick means in your bible?

AV1611VET · Jun 1, 2022

Bungle_Bear said:
Put your money where your mouth is - what do you think quick means in your bible?

Ask Hans -- he knows:

Hans Blaster said:
Would we then read that verselet as "The word of god is alive." Could be. Seems to make sense (within Christian theology at least).

Life in the time of the Dinosaurs was different to modern life

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Raised by bees

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency