Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamuscubed
I read your whole post, I always try to read these posts carefully... sometimes hurriedly.
Anywho, the Yao Ming part caught my attention, so I looked him up om google. Very interesting story from TIME Asia. Long story, but very interesting.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazi...126765,00.html
Just to make a point, not muddy the waters any, even some "inside the species" crossbreeds do not function so well. For example, breeding a donkey to a mare will produce a mule. They are strong, tough animals. The problem is they are born sterile, unable to reproduce themselves. Crossing a male lion with a female tiger creates a liger, a truly enormous cat. The same problem occurs. Since scientists thought the now extict Quagga a cross between an Onger and a Zebra, the crossbreed was attempted. Nice little Quagga-like result, but also sterile. But with active DNA from the hide of the last stuffed Quagga, they could possibly recreate the animal, using an Onger or Zebra as surrogate parent. Why does this sterlity occur? Maybe because these animals do not naturally crossbreed, I truly do not know.http://www.smileyville.net/hamster/horse.gif
well animals kill each other all the time and they don't have remorse. you can tell? i mean when one wolf kills another he/she will take over the pack and the other animals just follow along. they don't have love, fondness maybe, but now love. there is just NO way that humans are animals. there is no proof what so ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I'm beginning to feel that no matter what evidence might be introduced to you, you are unwilling to accept it. But that's different than the nonexistence of compelling evidence. You just refuse to feel compelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noais_Dantes
And yet, somehow, I feel compelled to continue appealing to your sense of reason.
You've observed animals kill one another without remorse, or at least have secondary evidence to that effect. It is by this logic that you argue human beings to be divinely imbued with a sense of love/remorse/morality, as evinced by the fact that no human beings—ever—kill one another without remorse, especially to gain power within their social group. And it is upon this reasoning that you base your argument against the empirical evidence gathered over the past two centuries to support the various theories of Evolution. Do you stand behind this argument? Because, if you change your mind, it will save me the minimal time and effort of tearing it to shreds. Although, if you will indulge me this bit of presumptuousness, at this point I fully expect that in such an event you would continue to regard said shreds as a whole.
Emily, as a person who does believe in a devine being, alow me to save you the trouble. If people think that people cannot kill others without remorse they have not studied the annuals of crime in any detail at all. May I suggest that they do so at once. They will discover that man can be the most unemotional, uncaring, unremorsful killer the world has ever seen. A single case will be sufficient. Nathan Lepold and Richard Loeb back in 1924. Both young men very wealthy, both highly intelligent, considered genius-level. They killed one of Loeb's cousins, Bobby Franks, on a lark, to see if they could commit the perfect crime. Neither showed remorse, only anger at their life sentence, which would have been death except for Clarence Darrow, their lawyer. :( :( :(
Don't take my word for it. Go read the article.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...b/index_1.html
Nobody is really disproving Darwins 150 year old theory of evolution, but rather redefining what it means. We've obviously made great leaps in science and better understand how species develop and how genetics works. And does disproving Evolution prove Creationism? No. But I can end this argument without proving Evolution.....How do you explain dinosaurs? If the Judeo-Christian God supposedly created the universe, then divinely inspired men to write the Bible so that we may better understand his purpose and plan, why did he leave out the dinosaurs? Did God not think that we would discover the remnants of these creatures and start to ask questions? Some say that fossils are Gods way of testing our faith, I think that evangelicals are Gods way of testing my patience. Now I know someone is going to pull some ambiguous Bilbe verse out of their pocket and use it as "evidence" that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. I'm sure they are, any book with stories about being swallowed by whales, conversations with flaming shrubbery and apocolyptic flooding, is bound to have a story about a dinosaur in it. Theres probably one in there about a transvestite midget named Maybelline who rescues the Hebrews from famine by turning "tricks" into "matzoh". I believe it's written in one of those secret Dead Sea Scrolls kept locked away in the Vatican, probablly under the Popes mattress.
The word dinosaur, was made up until 1841, and the term dinosaur wasn't coined until 1842.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckBukowski
So no, their were no "dinosaurs" mentioned in the Bible.
The archaic word is dragon.
The word dragon is mentioned 37 times in the Bible. In Job 40 and 41 you will find descriptions of dinasours. Not under the pope's mattress.
Dragons are mentioned with other living creatures.
Job 30:29.
"I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls."
Their are no transitional phases of dinasours,
Dinosaurs are like everything else: distinct species.
All that extinct fossils—such as dinosaurs—prove is that animals can die out. Extinction is not evolution, and provides no evidence of evolution.
Dinosaurs are Extinction... for the most part.
In April 1977, a Japanese fishing vessel caught a 4,000 pound [1814 kg] dead creature in its nets off the east coast of New Zealand. It was photographed, sketched, carefully measured, and flipper samples were kept for tissue analysis. It has every appearance of being a Plesiosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaur—which prior to 1977 had only been found in fossil form! Japanese scientists are convinced it was indeed a Plesiosaur. Japan even printed a postage stamp of the creature, in honor of the find. (A photograph and sketch of one is shown on page 107 of Ian Taylor’s excellent book, In the Minds of Men.)
Man lived with dinosaurs, dragons...
Glen Rose tracks: Children’s and adult footprints, up to 15 and 21½ inches [38-54.6 cm] in length, have been regularly found in Early Cretaceous rock throughout most of this century on the former riverbed of the Pulaxy River in Texas. Children’s tracks always accompany those of adults, tracks go across very large dinosaur tracks and have been found above them, and all tracks are running. These tracks are in Early Cretaceous formations, which date to 120 million years ago.
How old is man?
The time of the split between humans and living apes [Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes], the Hominoidea, used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago.---http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
Yet, man walked around on 120 million year old Early Cretaceous rocks?
Evolutionists recognize that dinosaurs were destroyed suddenly.
Far more delicate creatures survived volcanoes, climate changes, and egg snatchers.
"One of the important contemporary scientific debates is about the causes of the mass extinctions at the close of the Cretaceous epoch, about 65 million years ago . . Scientists refer to this crucial, enigmatic transition in the history of life as the K/T boundary. The Cretaceous epoch is abbreviated as K to distinguish it from the earlier Carboniferous (coal-forming) epoch, abbreviated as C. Sedimentary rock layers above the Cretaceous, which include the fossil record of the Age of Mammals, are traditionally called Tertiary or T."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
Some terrible catastrophe occurred that suddenly overwhelmed the earth! Fossil seashells have been found in the highest mountains of the planet, including the highest range of them all, the Himalayas, which reaches in an arc across central Asia.
Rapidly buried plant and animal life at some earlier time in earth’s history produced both petroleum and coal. But neither of them is being formed today. This is a great mystery to the scientists.
Coal forms less than one percent of the sedimentary rock strata, yet it is of special significance to those seeking to understand the geologic record.
The rock strata known as Carboniferous contains the most coal, but it is also found in other strata. Coal results when plant remains are compressed and heated by the weight of overlying sediments. Around the edges of coal seams is frequently seen the identifiable plants it came from. Enormous forests must have been rapidly buried in order to produce coal.
Mon ami, listen to me. I believe in a Creator. OK? I read my Bible and study it very much. Understand? But you are digging your own grave here. As it happens, odd phenomena is a bit of a hobby with me because I have the courage to question everything. This photograph you mention I have seen many times. It is in an advanced stated of decomposition, which is why only a photo exits to my knowledge, I know nothing of them keeping "flippers". When I read about this, the text stated "the whole carcass was thrown back into the sea." It was determined by photoanaylsis to be the carcass of a basking shark, which having few bones, does decay into something resembling a plesiosaur. You must know some viable facts to bring forward instead of something so easy to disprove. Take the time to learn. Trust me, if you really believe in God, nothing will ever destroy that. But can you not see that speaking of what you know nothing makes you look foolish? I'm not trying to discourge your belief but to encourge you to learn that you must know something before you put it forth as a fact. Even with science, just because someone said it doesn't make it right. Have a good day, buddy. God bless. :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenburke Dinosaurs are Extinction... for the most part.
In April 1977, a Japanese fishing vessel caught a 4,000 pound [1814 kg
I'm sorry if you think I was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Upon further research looking the decomposing carcass of basking shark is quite similar to this "sea-monstser."
Still, the Japanase scientist who observed the specimen first hand said "the neck is too long for a shark." And the group was baffled as a whole. Other supposed large "sea-monsters" were found on Claifornia's and New Zealand's shoreline, but those were just large (25-35ft.) basking sharks. So i do see where you are coming from.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/p50_bask.gif (-left, A Basking Shark)
This (decomposing) gives them a 'plesiosaur-like' appearance that has misled several creationists, as well as evolutionary cryptozoologists.
(Jerlström P., Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence, CEN Tech. J. 12(3)339-346, 1998; Letting rotting sharks lie: further evidence for shark identity of the Zuiyo-maru carcass, CEN Tech. J. 13(2):83-87, 1999.)
I disagree with your assumptions quoted at the top.
I do research, and checked at least four various sources on this "1970's plesiosoraus."
I started with an article, which sited various first hand sources.
This article was told by the on-hand fishermen and scientists' perspective.
The only way I could have known more, would have to be there myself, or watched the whole ordeal on video.
I don't judge you for questioning everything and I do respect that. I disagree with your opninions (on my research methods, my views on stereotypes and those types of posts). Not your faith, convictions, Bible quotes, or facts.
As a believer in God, I don't want to be lumped in with people who believe we are going to become gods, or people who believe aliens are inseperable from their brand of Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I think it's an accurate description and not a stereotype. The world can be fairly divided into religious believers and non-believers.
If I were you, I wouldn't pre-emptively call myself a jerk. atiguhya padma never used that word and it doesn't help you explain your position on this topic.
"Thank you. Even being in the "religious believers" camp does not blind me to the fairness of your statement. That's what we have long needed. Athiguthya and I have discussed things often and if we've disagreed, which we have, I don't ever recall it breaking out into name calling, which I have pointed out before futhers neither cause. This time I used humor to dispel any sign of hard feelings and we go on. Athiguthya has (her?) opinion on evolution and I have my own because I could use that extra hand! Thanks for peace keeping duties, Star. It's often a thankless job, but it does help when forum members try to remind each other that we are here for a discussion not a brawl. Cheers!" ---Pendragon
Especially when i saw this disimiliar statement,
But "The Church" doesn't represent even all of Christianity, much less all of religion. Please don't tar everyone with the same brush. ---Pendragon
Believing in God, doesn't mean I share the same views of the billions of other people who believe in higher life forms.
And I do hope most of us do realize that we are discussing, fighting, name-calling... or whatever over ideas, not the people themselves.
I disagree with you in this as well,
"You'll never meet someone like me, probably, someone who would still call you friend and mean it, and never give up on you even as you shove me away and call everything I believe foolishness,"---(Pendragon)
There are many Christians, Muslims, Atheists who get along with people with different opinions (there are many Christians, Muslims, Atheists who don't!) I also have friends with different beliefs. In fact, I became friends with one straight foward, cigar afficiando of a gentlemen through the following conversation.
"I believe in God," me.
He, "I'm one of those guys who is an atheist," and I admit he is probably much smater than me, and is attending UCLA right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emily655321
I hate to dissapoint you, but you can no matter what disprove creationism as being truth. You have said that evolution has been proved for over the past 2 centuries, but Creationism has been proved from the begging of time. Also it has been around MUCH longer then evolution. If you will look into Chinese, Jewish, Hawiian, Azted, and other historic civilizations and you will see that they have one thing in common with the Bible. They all believe in a great flood and a huge boat with animals in it. How can so many different histories around the world have a common begging like that except for the fact that there had to be world wide flood.
Also evolution says that humans never coexcited with dinosaurs, but if fact they live STILL today! No not the large ones that we think of, but much smaller ones. Lizzards and reptiles are basically dinosaurs. Also in many different cave paintings there have been many drawings of dinosaus. Some pictures are on blankets, pottery, swords, jewelry, and much more. I have even seen a picture of a pot that had a dinosaur on it and the dinosaur had cicles all over it's body. You want to know why they put circles all over the dinosaur? Because a dinosaur has scalely skin that's why and they where able to SEE them to know. Also did you know that there is one sample of fossilized dinosaur skin that has been found? It had the circular patterns that you would see on a picture of a dinosaur on those cartifacts that I tould you about earlier. I could go on and on about dinosaurs, but I will let this go for now.
Actually that wasn't a basking shark. That was a sea monser. It had fins that basking sharks do NOT have and like you said a neck that a basking shart does NOT have.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenburke
here's a couple pics of the creature in question
http://www.gennet.org/art/yano2.jpg
http://www.gennet.org/art/yano4.jpg
Well, greenburke, let us agree that we probably agree more than we disagree. I see you have done your research into basking shark decomposition, (the apparent long neck is an illusion, actually it's the spine and skull, sharks are mostly cartilage). And yes, that is the same pictures that went with the articles that I've read. Science and religion have one thing in common: If one says something is right, another will just as vehemently argue that it is wrong! I've seen it in churchs for years, one minister trying to tear down another. I have a quote in a book here where a famous scientist states "If one scientist says it can't be done, never mind that his name is Einstein, somebody is prepared to swear they can prove him wrong!" And begging the other gentleman's pardon, but since when do sharks NOT have fins? Anyway, I just am trying to help you see a wider picture. As I said, if you truly believe, nothing you take the time to study will ever shake that. But it may make you stronger. God bless! :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenburke
agreed. (got to make this post at least ten-characters!)
I remember once when I was an atheist. I was bugged about something and shouted out to God that I didn't believe in Him. Then I heard a quiet voice say to my heart "then why are you talking to Me?" Freaked me out. So I started grudgingly searching. There is a scripture that says : the fool says in his heart there is no God. That used to bug me. Now after searching and thinking and walking my walk I truly believe in creation. But how He did it I could care less. I can't even figure out certain receipes, how a bunch of flour with water and some wierd stuff called yeast are thrown together with some slippery stuff called oil and voila bread comes forth, yummy bread. But there it is. I take it on faith that bread will come forth, I don't need to know how. I just had to find out whether there was God. The rest is His business.