WhAt Do YoU ThInK AbOuT dInOsOuRs?

No real evidence eh? I suppose the link behind me may be a bit too wordy, so perhaps you'd like an up to date set of pictures from the wild world of paleoanthropology. We're finding new fossils all the time, which are all evidences of further human evolution. Personally I'd prefer this kind of discussion to remain in your newer evolution thread though, so I'll stop there.

As to your Pitdown claim, that was one occurrence in the past 100 years and it was scientists that proved the fossils were forgeries because, guess what, they know what real fossils look like. The fun thing about science is, when one thing is proven false, they just refine the original theory to make it more succint and accurate so as not to make the same mistake twice. Whereas when you're dealing with the "true word" written in a book, the only way to resolve the conflict is interpretation rather than literal analysation.

Wellll, I suppose it really begins on whether you believe in the uniformitarianism view, or the catastrophism view. Most scientist start at those 2 hypothesis. Each view or belief has their own set of data to support it. It really comes down to personal belief, and which YOU think has the most concrete evidence.

Catastrophism is the view that most of the earth's geological features are the result of latge-scale catastrophies such as floods, volcanic eruptions, etc.

So this allows for a young world. However, it can also allow for a world which is billions of years old. but....

Uniformitarianism is the view that most of the earth's geological features are the result of slow gradual processes that have been at work for millions or even billions of years.

Thus, uniformitarianism only allows for an "old" world.

As I was saying, scientists start with either one. Then they work, to find more evidence on whichever side they belief is right. Of course, they will find a lot that supports both sides, and a lot which 'disclaims' both sides. So,.... it really is up to you which point you start looking.... :nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

So this allows for a young world. However, it can also allow for a world which is billions of years old. but....

---

I fail to see how Catastrophism allows for a young world. Yes many events are caused by catastrophy such as the creation of the moon more then 4 billion years ago, the wiping out of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and most natural disasters. I suppose you're talking about the worldwide flood being something you find as evidence of a young earth catastrophy.

For one, the utter absurdity of an ark, as well as the inherent scientific complications of constantly correct data of the age of the earth when looking for a flood, leaves the idea of a "global flood" as something that hasn't been discovered to have been true. There are many flood stories from around the world, yes, but no scientific evidence that such a flood occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

Thus, uniformitarianism only allows for an "old" world.

As I was saying, scientists start with either one. Then they work, to find more evidence on whichever side they belief is right. Of course, they will find a lot that supports both sides, and a lot which 'disclaims' both sides. So,.... it really is up to you which point you start looking.... :nod:

---

Actually, most scientists start only with uniformitarianism because of plate tectonics being discovered as being accurate. Plates move slowly over time and aren't just shuffled around without seriously affecting the layers of rock underground that we have recorded and would've discovered by now.

"In recent decades, the theory of uniformitarianism has been modified to reflect the discovery that catastrophic events occur today and have occurred in the Earth's past. The present is still the key to the past, meteorite impacts, giant earthquakes, tsunamis, and explosive volcanism occur today as they have in the past and these events provide punctuations in an over-all gradual process."Quoted from here.

I once again fail to see how exactly catastrophism is even a choice here, considering it just details that catastrophies occur and affect history. Yeah, of course they do, but they still occur over time and are recorded as such, through a uniform technique of measurement.

Once again, if you have some evidence that a catastrophic view is anything more than a micro event in the macro uniformitarianism of scientific history, please don't hesitate to share.

What I meant when I said Catastrophism allows for a young world was that you CAN possibly have a young earth with this view, as floods and volcanic eruptions may have a role to play in the earth's current geological features. I hope you understand me. :-)

Also regarding the flood stories, let's just take a look at the Grand Canyon, for example. We all know there is little rain in Arizona and a few lakes. How in the world then, did the sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon get laid down by water? The great Flood would have been one reason. Also, look at the Petrified Forest in Arizona. It is filled with Petrified wood. Arizona is almost like a desert now, and there MUST have been a great deal of water there at one time, for petrifaction to occur.

Petrifaction is the conversion of organic material into stone. How this happens is that a creature's or plant's remains are exposed to mineral rich water. Slowly the organic minerals decompose, and are replaced by the minerals deposited into the remains. Incidentally, this also "coincides" with the Biblical account of the Flood waters receding SLOWLY. Only when the water around the creature or plant remains for long enough to allow the completion of the petrifaction process, then you will have an entire replica of the parts of the creature or plant that is preserved. These are only some examples which I have been able to point out. There are alot more.

P.S. On looking back it seems that from what I wrote, one might argue that there might have been a flood in Arizona. But there is a Petrified remain of a Woolly Mammoth. I really hope I am intelligible enough for you to understand. :-)

Catastrophism is the theory that the geologic features on the earth, as we see it today, were formed all at once roughly 8000 bp (before present) and the forces affecting earth's surface (see below) have been active ever since.

Uniformitarianism is the theory that whatever forces are affecting the surface of the earth today, have been operating along the same lines for billions of years, I.E. erosion, plate tectonics, mountain building, rainfall, ice formation, atmosphere....etc,etc. leading to the geological formations seen on todays earth.

Catastrophism is a faith based belief, built entirely upon a formula created from time-span equations worked out from biblical accounts of the lengths of people's lives. It is this basis upon which the rest of the Catastrpohism theory is aimed to satisfy.
While many scientists can be found that will postulate, propagate, and perpetuate this theory, mainstream science ignores this theory when it can, rolls its eyes when it can't, and generally discards a theory based on faith........as it should.

And while sheer numbers of believers is not proof, the few scientists for Castrophism are truly outweighed by those scientists opting for a more scientific apporach to the realities of the earth's, and indeed the universe's, age.

Me...well.......I have rocks in my DRIVEWAY older than a milliion years.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

Also regarding the flood stories, let's just take a look at the Grand Canyon, for example. We all know there is little rain in Arizona and a few lakes. How in the world then, did the sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon get laid down by water? The great Flood would have been one reason. Also, look at the Petrified Forest in Arizona. It is filled with Petrified wood. Arizona is almost like a desert now, and there MUST have been a great deal of water there at one time, for petrifaction to occur.

---

Yes. There was a lot of water and it took millions of years to carve out that rock. As far as accuracy in determining the age of sedimentary rocks, most are found through their thickness in the sedimentary record to be around 1.6 billion years old (according to tests as far back as 1910), which is much more accurate than the age of 3 million years old (which was done in 1860).

Sedimentation rates average about 0.3 m/1000 years. In the Grand Canyon, the highest point is about 3,962.4 meters above sea level, which if my math is correct, makes the age of the highest point around 13,208,000 years old. And that's using conservative estimates.

Flood or no flood, there is no possible way for those rocks to be anything but millions of years old. Obviously water flowed higher in the canyon once upon a time, seeing as the seas used to be much closer to them before the continental plates moved the way they are now, but it took a long time to carve the rock out and layers of different types of rocks clearly visible show that much is pretty factual. Plate tectonics and paleogeology alone prove enough of what you've stated is false, but I suppose if you really believe there was some huge flood, I'm not one to change your mind.

Actually, if Our memory doesn't fail us, there was some kind of little flood near the Mesopotamia about some thousand years B.C.
The water level rose quite a deal there so that quite many lands were flooded. Nothing so serious though as to say that the whole world was flooded or anything like that. Do not remember the explanation about it at the moment.

Yes, there were floods in many parts of the world and of course some were worse than others, so many wrote about them like they were life and death giving. The floods were essential to most nations out near deserts because of their creation of silt and such in the soil to keep the crops going year after year. So of course they were seen as an important event, but when they flooded too far and killed people they told of it like it was legendary in size to warn others of the hazards of this kind of agricultural living.

As far as actual storylines, if you were looking for the age involved, I gave a link earlier on about different flood myths. Although scientists have obviously spotted floods in the levels under the earth in the regions, it wasn't anything of a universal type, but I suppose when a group of people think they're already the center of the universe, one flood can seem much more important than it might actually be.

Floods are not neccessarily the answer to sedimentary rock formations in many places. At times, during the last 4.2 billion years of earth's existence, there were many inland seas in existence where dry land is today. Here in Canada the central portion of this entire country, and central U.S. were at some time covered in water....for millions of years........and so it goes.....

Okay, let's just say, dinosaurs did NOT (scientifically at least, I don't know if there are any dinos in the Bible, haven't read it :D) exist alongside humans. I mean, come on, how could they? Humans would be slaughtered in ten seconds!!!

Quote:

---

...But I suppose when a group of people think they're already the center of the universe, one flood can seem much more important than it might actually be.

---

Ha, too true...puts Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot in mind. That we think ourselves so important. Just a taste...

Quote:

---

... Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

---

The dot, by the way, is a picture of the Earth taken by Voyager from some millions of km away...I would paste it in here, but well...I can't really be bothered. :)

So, I wonder, why would a God go and make so much fuss about one speck of dust? It's not like we're all that important. It may seem so, but that's just the illusion of our egos. Yes! Our egos. However small they are, they still make us think we exist (which is not certain) and --

But I guess you've all had enough of my rambling on stuff like that. I could go on for ever and ever and ever, but really, I don't think that's my purpose on this Earth. ;)

Miss Darcy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Darcy

...So, I wonder, why would a God go and make so much fuss about one speck of dust? It's not like we're all that important. It may seem so, but that's just the illusion of our egos. Yes! Our egos. However small they are, they still make us think we exist (which is not certain) and --
...Miss Darcy

---

In Genesis, it is stated that man is made in God's image, and that man is placed above the other animals. He is to rule over them.

I am not certain about what you mean, that we don't exist???

I think, therefore I am???

I think there is ample proof to the existance of Humans, and the Bibal offers an explanation as to why God would make such a fuss about one speck of dust.

Also for an interesting aside, check out C.S. Lewis's cosmic trilogy, or at least the first two parts. :nod:

Miss Darcy,

You are important to God. He loves you, and He created you to worship HIm, and to have fellowship with Him. However, that fellowship was severed by man's sin. But God in His love for you sent Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus took the punishment of our sin on Himself, and paid it. (The punishment was death, by the way. In the garden of Eden, there was no death, only after Adam and Eve sinned.) He conquered death, and rose from the death on the third day. He is now in Heaven sitting on the right hand of God, interceeding for us. God loves you very much. Even if you were the only person on earth, God would still come to save you. The only thing that remains is for you to accept the gift that God gave to all mankind, to you and me. It is a free gift. You only have to reach out and take it by confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, and by believing in your heart that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Can anything be simpler than that? (To receive such a free gift, that is.)

I urge you, and everyone else reading this, to do it. You do not know what will happen to you today, or tommorrow. If you do not receive this gift, there is the punishment that still remains- eternal separation from God, in Hell. It is the place of fire and brimestone, where worms will eat you up. The heat of the fire is alot worse than being burnt at the stove. You will really be burnt perpetually. You will feel the pain of it all. I do not wish to frighten you or anyone, but it is true. Oh, call on Jesus while you can, while there is time. Quick! Before it is too late! Only Jesus can save you.

My Grand uncle just died suddenly of an asthma attack- just like that! He was quite young. I don't know whether he was prepared to meet his Creator. But will YOU be ready to meet the Creator, the Saviour of the world, if you were to die NOW? Life is but a vapour and a breath, which passes away quickly. You might meet with a road accident, if so, there will be no time. Accept Jesus NOW! I beg you!

Adelheid

Dear Adelheid,

Sorry if I get at all carried away in this message, I'll try my very best not to, but if I do, know that I don't mean it in any offence. I also apologise for not capitalizing "he" in reference to God; it annoys me, so I choose to withhold this.

Firstly, if I haven't stated this already, I am an atheist, and think I have the right to be so. This does not mean I deny the soul, or the existence of something metaphysical and not material; this does not mean I am a skeptic or a materialist (quite the contrary, in fact, I'm very open to mysticism and philosophy); this does not mean that I think there is no meaning in life; this does not mean that I am wholly bad, indeed, who is; this merely means I do not believe in the existence of a "God".

Secondly, if God is kind, as every theological book, every reverend, every very Christian will tell you (I'm not wrong?) - then why is there suffering on this Earth. Why are there billions out there, starving, dying terrible deaths, and living miserable lives. If he is kind, how can he look at this? (Assuming he has eyes) How can he stand the sight of the torment of those he created and - loves? If he loved them at all like any human can love another human, he would not be able to stand it, suffering would be abolished. Or can he not abolish it? Then he is not almighty. Or does he have some special purpose unkown to us petty beings...If God is a man (what a very contradiction of terms...but...) then he must surely feel like a man, and cannot be so utterly evil/totally helpless as to leave all this suffering on Earth?

On a similar note, if God is good, and has such power and all, why did he not make all humans believers? Why can he suffer them to go to Hell? "Man is a product of his environment," which I can prove if necessary - why then put men in environments which will make them evil and afterwards make them to Hell? Why is there war, murder, robbery, prostitution, drug-use, and all other forms of wickedness? Those who are "bad", cannot help themselves; it is (or is it not) God who puts them in their environments, who lets them become unkind humans. Similarly, though in ourselves have nothing in common with murderers, corrupt politicians, and black people like that, we are also made by our environment, and are atheists because we have either been brought up to it, or simply decided there is not enough ground for belief in God.

Quote:

---

It is the place of fire and brimestone, where worms will eat you up. The heat of the fire is alot worse than being burnt at the stove. You will really be burnt perpetually. You will feel the pain of it all.

---

Well, pain is merely in the brain, so I can't really see how one can feel it after death but...seriously...again, I can't see how God could permit this, if he is indeed the way they picture him, good, loving, man-like, etc.

Quote:

---

Oh, call on Jesus while you can, while there is time. Quick! Before it is too late! Only Jesus can save you.

---

If you mean to say, convert to Christian - no offence - but I'd rather be hanged. To quote from Lawrence of Arabia, on pain, "the trick is not to mind that it hurts." If I burn eternally, I think in a moderately short time, some few centuries or so, I will get used to it and learn to bear pain very happily. :)

And if Jesus paid for all our sins, then how come we're still sinning? Will there be another Jesus to pay for the next lot?

There I go again, making light of it, I'm sorry. I just want you to think about it, think for yourself, not just blindly believe the accepted doctrines without really having your own opinion.

I'd like you to consider a few questions, just for a start: How do you define God? Where does he live? What does he do? Where is Heaven? What is Heaven? What does Heaven consist of? Is it material, or metaphysical? How do souls get there? Not why, but how? How do they make their passage? And what do they look like - how can they "meet their heavenly father"?

Did God create the whole Universe, or simply our planet? If so, are there other gods? If not, why on this particular planet? Why so much attention? And is he omnipotent? Can he be everywhere at once? Then he, surely, attaches more importance to highly-advanced alien civilisations than to us. Or maybe more to us because we need it more....

More later. Please consider, and think about it.

Miss Darcy.

P.S. I'm sorry about your great uncle. Hope he has less suffering in his next life. If he has been a good man, then chances are he will indeed have less.

[QUOTE=Miss Darcy]Secondly, if God is kind, as every theological book, every reverend, every very Christian will tell you (I'm not wrong?) - then why is there suffering on this Earth. Why are there billions out there, starving, dying terrible deaths, and living miserable lives. If he is kind, how can he look at this? (Assuming he has eyes) How can he stand the sight of the torment of those he created and - loves? If he loved them at all like any human can love another human, he would not be able to stand it, suffering would be abolished. Or can he not abolish it? Then he is not almighty. Or does he have some special purpose unkown to us petty beings...If God is a man (what a very contradiction of terms...but...) then he must surely feel like a man, and cannot be so utterly evil/totally helpless as to leave all this suffering on Earth?
QUOTE]

Well, all the suffering on earth is the result of sin. Ever since mankind sinned, the curse of death came into the world. God warned Adam and Eve about the consequences, but Satan tricked them, and they disobeyed God. The Bible says that sin and wickedness will be abolished when this earth has passed away. In heaven, there will be no more tears, no more pain, no more sadness, no more wickedness. That is why all the unbelieving, all the sexually immoral, all those who practice witchcraft, all the disobedient to parents, all the sorcerers will be cast into the laske of Fire. God is holy. There cannot be any sin before Him.

If you've heard the news about the terrorist bombing in Iraq recently, you might be thinking that the terrorist deserves hell. Don't you think? He is a murderer, and the Bible says that murderers go to hell. However, it also says that if you have hated your neighbour, you are a murderer in God's sight. Therefore, you deserve Hell. Sins are sins. There is no such thing as a lesser sin or a bigger sin. Since God is also a just God, (besides being a loving and merciful God) He will have to punish them. But because He is a loving God, He sent a way that we can be reconciled with GOd, and avoid eternal death. That way is Jesus.

God is not a man. He is God. God is trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God the Father sent Jesus into the world. Jesus knows all our feelings. He can sympathize with us. Even if you don't understand all this, it's all right. Most Christians don't in the first place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

Well, all the suffering on earth is the result of sin. Ever since mankind sinned, the curse of death came into the world.

---

*Shudders* That is so...wrong. Like, unjust. Totally unjust! I mean, come on, just because these two people some hundred thousand years ago make one mistake, you don't go around torturing all the future generations, 'specially if they weren't the only ones on Earth. Whoop!

Quote:

---

God is holy. There cannot be any sin before Him.

---

Sorry, you're contradicting yourself, though I am sure that it's involuntary. If there can be no sin before God, then why is there sin before God? Why?

Quote:

---

In heaven, there will be no more tears, no more pain, no more sadness, no more wickedness.

---

Pretty sad place, then. You don't know what happiness really is without a balance of sadness and pain; you can't see what goodness really is without an equal amount of wickedness. Sure, all these people in heaven would have found out what it is during their stay here on Earth; and perhaps be able to even look down on Earth through a heavenly window; but without actually experiencing evils at least every hundred years or so, I'm pretty sure you'd soon forget what they really are. You would not be able to value happiness and goodness. All would be a sad circle of the same. Wouldn't you get bored of infinite bliss?

Quote:

---

That is why all the unbelieving, all the sexually immoral, all those who practice witchcraft, all the disobedient to parents, all the sorcerers will be cast into the laske of Fire.

---

All the unbelieving; well I'll have good company in Hell, with the likes of Mark Twain, Thomas Hardy, Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Edison, Abraham Lincoln, Sigmund Freud, George Bernard Shaw, Joseph Conrad, Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, Voltaire, Marcel Proust, Albert Einstein, E.M. Forster, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence, Arthur Rubenstein, Charlie Chaplin, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Ernest Hemingway, Walt Disney (apparently), George Orwell, Jean Paul Sartre, Katherine Hepburn, Isaac Asimov, Richard Burton, Carl Sagan, John Lennon, Anaxagoras, Diagoras, Protagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Cicero, Lucretius, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, among countless others whom I will not add here.

So I certainly won't be bored, I'll have some of my friends as well, and a fair part of my family...nope, won't get bored. Also, as I said, if I burn eternally I'll soon get used to it so will be able to have long philosophical discussions with the philosophers, scientific discussions with the scientists, play charades with the entertainers....*sighs* If only there really were such a place.

And surely you don't believe in witches and sorcerers...*giggles*

As to all that are disobedient to their parents: it's not their fault, the child is determined by its environment. Either its parents have given it a bad upbringing, or it has been influenced by those who have at school, but certainly, there's no question. Each child is born innocent; each adult is a result of their environment. Also, "like father, like son." Besides, what if the parents are asking something wrong or impossible of their children?

Quote:

---

However, it also says that if you have hated your neighbour, you are a murderer in God's sight.

---

Well hating your neighbour certainly will never do anybody any good, and you should try to keep from it. But I don't think the neighbour minds that much, I'm sure it's nothing to being murdered.

And didn't God send everyone into the world?

Miss Darcy :)