Man and dinosaur coexisting

[BrriKerr]

There's a cause behind an effect is science.
It just popped up is hokery pokery lol.

That's what I said, for your God just to pop into existence is hokery pokery, where did he pop from and where did he pop to?
and it's all supposed to have happened in the supernatural which is outside of space and time were no one can see,
and I'm the crazy one for living in and letting myself be bound by the walls of reality.

 

[BrriKerr]

Then we are all still fish. Neh?

We have never been anything other than what we are, what our ancestors once were or what our off spring might one day become is something else but it has never and will never have anything to do with any mythical gods or demons.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong again goober. The birds cleaved off the other dinos millions of years before the 65 million year old smash.

Don't apply for a job at Berkely then.

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur.

SOURCE

That was obvious for a long while.

Perhaps they didn't get the memo?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's what I said, for your God just to pop into existence is hokery pokery, where did he pop from and where did he pop to?

God is self-existent.

and I'm the crazy one for living in and letting myself be bound by the walls of reality.

I prefer the term "myopic."

 

[JacksBratt]

But I have (with my wife). We pulled together all the molecules we had ingested and built a sperm and an egg cell.

At what point did you create life?

All you did as a living organism is utilize molecules to support you already alive and functioning cells. Then a living cell of yours, the sperm, alive and swimming, met up with a living ovum from your wife. These two living cells joined to continue their life as a new organism that is living due to the life in the sperm and ovum.

No life created.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's what I said, for your God just to pop into existence is hokery pokery, where did he pop from and where did he pop to?
and it's all supposed to have happened in the supernatural which is outside of space and time were no one can see,
and I'm the crazy one for living in and letting myself be bound by the walls of reality.

So, If God is hokery pokery and Evolution is hokery pokery, we have agreed the no body has any evidence as to how life came to exist.

Thus, both should be taught, in schools, as the "theories" man has to explain how we got here.

Or, neither.

 

[BrriKerr]

God is self-existent.

Then so is Santa Claus, same horse different jockey.

I prefer the term "myopic."

You can call yourself whatever you like.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then so is Santa Claus,

Um ... no.

Self-existence - The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/Self-existence
n. 1. Inherent existence; existence possessed by virtue of a being's own nature, and independent of any other being or cause; - an attribute peculiar to God.

 

[Larniavc]

At what point did you create life?

All you did as a living organism is utilize molecules to support you already alive and functioning cells. Then a living cell of yours, the sperm, alive and swimming, met up with a living ovum from your wife. These two living cells joined to continue their life as a new organism that is living due to the life in the sperm and ovum.

No life created.

Before mine and my wife's biology built up the sperm and ovum out of ingested molecules they were not alive.

Once mine and my wife's biological machinery built these cells they became alive.

This is creating life.

 

[Larniavc]

So, If God is hokery pokery and Evolution is hokery pokery, we have agreed the no body has any evidence as to how life came to exist.

Thus, both should be taught, in schools, as the "theories" man has to explain how we got here.

Or, neither.

Goddidit is not a theory. At best it is an unfalsifiable (and therefore useless) hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Goddidit is not a theory.

I agree.

At best it is an unfalsifiable (and therefore useless) hypothesis.

Useless to science.

As it should be.

 

[JacksBratt]

No I'm asking you to support the idea you have that a 'something' leaves the body when we die.

If you can't, that's fine.

Well, something must leave. Something is different. I call it a life force. A force that cannot be controlled. Once it's gone, even if the body is a healthy young adult who has just drown, we, as the technological advanced medical experts we are, cannot bring this life force back. Sometimes we are fortunate and restart a heart and the person is revived. However, once it goes beyond a certain point, we are powerless. Then, a perfectly healthy vessel for life is devoid of life and man cannot give it life. We only use processes to maintain an existing life that the organism had from conception.

That is my idea, that is my support.

What do you call the force that determines if an organism is living or dead. Something is there that is not quantifiable but needs to be there for life to exist.

 

[JacksBratt]

Before mine and my wife's biology built up the sperm and ovum out of ingested molecules they were not alive.

Once mine and my wife's biological machinery built these cells they became alive.

This is creating life.

This is not creating life. If I have a fire and take a little twig and put it in the fire and it ignites, I did not create fire. I passed existing fire on to another object.

This is what you are doing.

Rubbing two sticks together on a winter day and eventually having a flame where there was no previous flame. That's creating fire.
You have never created life.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thus, both should be taught, in schools, as the "theories" man has to explain how we got here.

So what is this Creationist 'theory' we should teach? From what I've seen it should take about five minutes so it would leave plenty of time to learn about evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what is this Creationist 'theory' we should teach? From what I've seen it should take about five minutes so it would leave plenty of time to learn about evolution.

From an earlier post, here's a syllabus I made up:

Creationist Test:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ in the lab.
4. The triune Godhead is a violation of what scientific law?
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.

 

[AV1611VET]

From what I've seen it should take about five minutes so it would leave plenty of time to learn about evolution.

Sorry, Jimmy.

Your five minutes are up.

Would you like more time?

 

[Jimmy D]

Most of those can be answered according to one's own opinion based on one's own interpretation of the scant info in Genesis, do any creationists agree on the sequence of events, timescales, mechanisms etc.

It's pointless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of those can be answered according to one's own opinion

And when I teach "my opinion," you'd better learn it or I'll fail you.

 

[JacksBratt]

So what is this Creationist 'theory' we should teach? From what I've seen it should take about five minutes so it would leave plenty of time to learn about evolution.

The same way I was taught. Simply put.... there are two views on how life originated and became what we have today. One is a spontainious arrival of life from a soup in a puddle with all organisms existing from this organism evolving over vast amounts of time. The other is the view that God created the universe and the life that is on it.

When I was in school the teachers had no trouble teaching both views and taught that they were two un proven theories.

Back then a theory was a theory until it could be proven wrong or proven to be fact.

If you want you could even add a third with the whole scientology belief of Aliens seeding a volcanoe..... we must give everyone a shot.

 

[AV1611VET]

When I was in school the teachers had no trouble teaching both views and taught that they were two un proven theories.

In your opinion, should combustion theory be taught alongside phlogiston theory?

Should the Bohr model of the atom be taught alongside its other Heinz 57 varieties?

Should the Impact Theory be taught alongside its many other moon "formation" theories?