You Don’t ‘fit’ Dinosaurs With The Bible!

[tansqrx 0]

A few more tid-bits:1. The Book of Genesis is not the oldest book of the Bible, that goes to Job. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job). As usual there is some debate.2. Genesis was most likely written by Moses while in the wilderness. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis). Even more debate.3. Several time periods in the Bible cannot be taken literally such as â40 days and 40 nights.â The 40 days and nights appear many times throughout the Old and New Testament and many believe this is not actually 40 days and nights (https://www.franciscanmedia.org/). This could mean that the âdaysâ during creation were not literal days.4. Most Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. More accurately this means that the original document between God and the author had no errors or mistakes. As the document was copied and handed down over 1000âs of years, mistakes were introduced (which is the attribute of man). What we have now is as close as we can get to the original. Most manuscripts that the modern Bible is based on are from the 2nd and 3rd century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible).

[8ennett 0]

I have to say, I didn't expect such a lively and healthy debate on the subject. I'm quite impressed with peoples reactions to this and has really helped give me clarity to the general consensus (within this community at least) to peoples views not only regarding the dinosaur theory as outlined in the original post, but toward organised christianity as it stands. Some very good points have been raised and seems to be the most in-depth debate regarding the subject I have found online.It's not that i'm trying to disprove creationalism, but as was said earlier it's possible that today the passages outlining the creation of life in the bible may have been taken too literally or completely misinterpreted. Again, like was said earlier, the bible is written in ancient hebrew, was originally a series of poems and the oldest copy is only a few hundred years old.I think people need to take a step back and look at the larger picture surrounding the whole evolution vs. creationalism area. There is no definite answer to either, but that's no excuse to go in blindly, just keep an open mind.

[mahesh2k 0]

There is definite answer atleast in favor of evolution. Recently many evolving species are found in amphibian and other animal tree list. Pinochio and other frog species are evolved over a time which is clearly a recorded evolution studies. If it has to be creation why it was not there before. And with creationism there is no need for evolving species as creator is assumed to be at top and can replace things which are not adopting. Evolution gives many answers which are easy to validate but creationism is more deluded and it is usually a weapon of those who have faith in universal creator. Thing with evolution is that you can't belive it blindly and you're free to question anytime. But in case of creationism, you've to think of condition that creator exist then rest of the creationism makes sense else it just proves as counter theory for evolution. My point is that what bible or creationism says about artificial intelligence and information manipulation and storage if we're from creator. The point is book of god never guided humanity to evolve in terms of intellect. It asked us to follow certain things to stay in sanity and to avoid war and hatred. That's all but if it's book from our creators there is no guidance written for where to move and how to tackle things which are beyond control of human beings. What's there in universe and why creator created universe and set of diverse species to begin with. Such questions are not at all answered instead it's very limited with it's understanding about universe and earth and species arround. So how can they expect this book to have all the answers ?

[tansqrx 0]

I have to admit that looking at creation from a rational scientific view would be worthless. My professional training is of an engineer so I have lots of respect for science and math. When you apply science to God or creation you come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist and creation is false. So why would someone who makes their living with logic believe in God? The answer is faith which cannot be measured (at least not scientifically).I actually find the creation and evolution go together fairly well with the exception of the fourth day when the sun, moon, and stars were made. Plants were made on the third day but no sun till the fourth (but there was light and darkness from the first day) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NLT). Some make the argument that this account is from the prospective of someone on the ground. Perhaps there was a heavy atmosphere that prevented directly seeing the sun till the fourth day (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm)?What I find even more remarkable is that if this story is a creation of man, they had a really good understanding of science 2000 years before the Common Era. Even a few hundred years ago we were burning people alive at the stake for witchcraft, but a few people over 4000 years ago had the idea that light > earth/sky > earth/water, plants > sun, moon, stars > fish, birds > mammals/man. Even though it doesn’t exactly fit evolution, it’s still close enough to make one think. If one thing is a constant, it’s that science is always changing and getting better. Perhaps one day science will look more like creation?

[8ennett 0]

Another interesting perspective is of the church of christian scientists. When I was a kid there was a christian science church around the corner from my house (they have been banished from the island since for radical actions) and we used to laugh at the leaflet stand outside, it told of how we should all rejoice because soon the mothership would be returning to take us home. It even had pictures of everyone on a hill holding hands while a flying saucer descended upon them. Now though I have a lot of respect for scientologists because it is just yet another interpretation of keeping an open mind on how the bible is translated. Personally, I don't believe the mothership will be returning to take us to paradise, but still they are leaning more toward 'examining the scientific evidence' as apposed to 'justifying it' like the group who are responsible for the original article.

[yordan 10]

This simply means that a single book cannot really explain each detail of everything.I feel the Bible as a mean for the need of explaining most of important things to as much people as possible, with a text remaining as stable as possible on a very wide period of time. Initially, the public for this text did not even guess that Dinosaurs existed, so no need to explain them. Now we know that they existed, however there is no way for changing the initial text nor adding info to it, so some infos are necessarily missing. This fact does not remove anything to the interest of the rest of the text, simply on some specific parts it could be improved.

[mahesh2k 0]

That motherships story sounds like scientology and other RAELian like religion. I have to disagree with creationism going together with evolution. Creationism assumed there is creator and purpose to almost every creation. But evolution doesn't make such assumption but it explains how life is evolving which has nothing to do with universe creation and purpose. Creationism is trying to be religion like answer-to-everything and attatching a faith to it. Faith can't be measured and faith don't give rational answers. Science may sound like nihilism world but that much emptyness is there when we come to know the truth. We're no longer attributing zeus for lightening like people used to do earlier. If we start to measure things this way, faith definitely misguides rational and skeptical view of humans. But then again why people prefer faith is different story. It gives us easy way to answer, and helps us avoid depth and complexity towards our answer. That's faith and creationism for you. Creationism and religion requires pre-programming of mind to believe in supernatural universal creator but evolution doesn't expect any such criteria like that. It's there whether you accept it or not. One thing is for sure from my observation with people and so far with this social discussion is that people prefer easy way out to everything. Religion, faith and creationism provides them easy way out of things. "Pinochio frog is evoloved" or "god sent modified frog" which title looks catchy in church newspaper or even in the minds of any catholic ?

[yordan 10]

It's also a matter of efficiency, sometimes. Some paradigms help us have a better life.At office, I know that my boss appreciates me quite a lot, and knows that my work is essential for our company, and my personal contribution to our company success is a fact deeply written in each mind.If I could happen to learn that my work is worth nothing, that nobody knows what I am doing, and my job will probably disappear very soon, I would probably be far less enthusiastic in my daily work.So, probably, most of people were given a standard explanation, allowing them to feel that they are happy in the surrounding world, with nothing unknown, nothing unmastered.

[8ennett 0]

The reason I am atheist/agnostic (still very skeptical on this point) is because I see the more of the weak minded clinging to religion more than anyone else. From what I can see they are desperately trying to justify their existence because they don't want to believe that this is all there is. I believe that this is what spawned the idea of religion in the first place. Many people fear death, so what better way to stop fearing than believing in an afterlife? This is just my view on the weak minded who follow completely blind without any question.What I also find interesting is the christian bible depicts the there not only being a jewish faith back in those times but also a christian faith, however the entire christian faith revolves around the bible. The bible hadn't been written in the tales it is telling, and before the birth of christ there is no mention of where the idea of God came from. It's possible it was passed down from Adam and Eve, but due to carbon dating techniques we are able to show that the oldest civilisation that we know of existed around 12,000bc (at least that is when the Natufian culture became sedentary) but I doubt that the christian faith was passed down from word of mouth for 12,000 years, and with no other documentation or reference found until around 500bc then it appears this religion must have sprouted out of nowhere.Again, it could be a derivitive of the jewish faith, branching out in to new realms and dropping the old traditions, but even so the jewish faith can't be dated as far back as 12,000bc, if I remember rightly the jewish faith dates back to about 3,000bc before which no other reference can be found in archeology. The jewish people obviously being slaves of the Egyptians, maybe it was another means to justify their existence adn survive the horror they had been put through.Ok, I'll stop for now lol I've got other things to do, but I will pick this up again soon.

[yordan 10]

I see the more of the weak minded clinging to religion more than anyone else.

You have seen one side of this, you you will probably change your mind when you will have met the other side. I have seen very smart people, very clever people, including teachers and nuclear physicists, who were believing in God, simply the more things they were learning were confirming their faith.Once you have met God, you see him in any event, in despite of some words sounding inaccurate. Faith is something very different from knowledge or from observation. It's a way of feeling your own experiences and all your environment.

[truefusion 3]

It seems this topic is somewhat recent and is still active. At first i thought that this topic wasn't worth my time, in that it is not an article that i wrote that is being spoken against, and i normally do not feel like attempting to support any others' article or argument and would rather have them defend it themselves. That would be so if the topic had not more to say that wasn't relevant to the article itself. Likewise, outside of the first post, more is said that should be addressed, even if indirectly.

 

Before i start, i should mention that responding to this post of mine may or may not gain a response from me, as i do not frequent the Xisto forums but the Xisto (previously known as Xisto) forums. It seems that my visit here today may not be in vain. That being said, i shall begin with the first post.

 

8ennett's response to the opening of the second paragraph, stating that it implies that the author of the article that he quotes believes the Biblical account is the only truth. While it may be the case that the author of the article may believe that the Biblical account for existence is correct or the only truth, the words "These programs, a mix of fact and fiction..." does not in any way imply such a thing. For anyone can say those words and still be stating the truth. Tell me, 8ennett, in what way that everything the Discovery channel portraying any "life of the dinosaurs" is purely factual? Were they there at the time? Is it true that everything portrayed really did happen? How then can the statement "a mix of fact and fiction" be false? Will everyone find the show entertaining if a little fiction, at least something based on intuition or theory, were not introduced?

 

Again, in what way does pointing out any expectations of evolutional indoctrination that is apparently observable through related "Hollywood films" imply that all theories of evolution are fiction? In fact, your very statement following it only supports the statement you quote. The part you quote states that these films contain "evolutionary indoctrination" (which can be otherwise translated as anything that promotes the theory of evolution), and you go on to state that most films on the subject very much indeed include such a thing. But do to the word "most," you leave open the possibility that some movies that promote the theory of evolution contain a lot of fiction, perhaps even more than facts.

 

I can skip your third paragraph since it doesn't state anything as if it were fact. But i should mention that anyone, including the author of the article you quote and yourself, who states something as if it were fact without providing some form of evidence speaks merely in vain. It is easy to claim, "evolution is true," or "evolution is false," but within a debate, it doesn't matter how many people believe either to be so, you have to start from the beginning and attempt to prove your position, if any. And do note that redirecting anyone to an article that simply states pretty much what you or anyone has already stated is simply futile, for anything repeated does not make it true.

 

I could also skip your fourth paragraph, but i would like to ask you (which relates to a similar statement of yours in that paragraph), if the theory of evolution is supported by nothing except mere facts, why do people, even yourself, keep calling it a theory? Note, to say that anything in science can be eventually refuted by new evidence, is to say that science cannot be given full credibility, nor is it capable of stating anything as a fact, simply do to such a thing. If such is the case, why then claim something as if it were a fact? Perhaps rather than saying "fact," one should say "scientific fact," bearing what has been said in mind.

 

Now, what you mention in your fifth paragraph touches on what i mentioned in my fifth paragraph (how interesting ). You speak about conclusive evidence, yet how can you forget about the very scripture which the author just finished mentioning at that point? The scripture itself dates to a time far, far back where no archeologist today can ever dream of existing in. If you do not even consider the very scripture as some form of historical evidence of the time it represents, then i would have to question what you do consider as evidence. And i would also have to ask you, have you ever questioned anything you ever learned in history class (assuming you had such a class)? Have you been given any historical evidence for such things? Or did you just assume it all true? Concerning the part you quote that starts off "God has revealed to us," while it may be true that God did not write any book of the Bible, it does not follow that God did not reveal anything for us to write down.

 

In your sixth paragraph, i would need you to explain to me what "this topic" is when you say the author has not done any research on "this topic." Doing so may help me understand what you say his sources are (i.e. what you say is "everyone else," which by the sound of it sounds like you are contradicting yourself here). And since you say the article pushes you away, i would like to ask what were you hoping for? What you mention there implies that you were looking for something that would, so to speak, "open your mind," as to come to accept some form of Christianity, like as if you were on some kind of journey to become Christian or something. Now, if that were not the case, then i would state that it would be more than obvious that the article would most certainly "push you away" by just looking at the title of the article.

 

*I would like to mention that the Bible does not state that the time of Adam and Eve was around 3500 B.C., and that you are merely assuming some form unscholarly calculation of the genealogy of Genesis.*

 

While i have no knowledge on the so-mentioned Neolithic civilization, i have no idea what mentioning them could possibly do to refute anything Biblical on historical ground when one does indeed know about Scripture. Of course, your mentioning of the Neolithic civilization is intended to contradict your so-mentioned, unhistorical statement about Adam and Eve being present no earlier than 3500 B.C.. Even the book of Genesis itself is said to predate 3500 B.C., and this is supposed to be during the time of Moses. Now, i'm not necessarily one that supports dinosaurs living among us during ancient times, though you very much have to wonder about those ancient sculptures and drawings of dinosaurs. And no, i am not talking about lizards, crocodiles, komodo dragons or anything along those lines. I'm talking about the ones like this one (disregard the opening text). There are about two possibilties for this: either dinosaurs did in fact live with humans at some point (though there may not have been a significant amount of dinosaurs), or they too found fossils and decided to try and draw them as if they were alive. In either case, it is obvious that knowledge of dinosaurs was very much present back then; people weren't ignorant of them.

 

In your twelfth paragraph, again, i'ma need you to explain what "this" and "it" is when you say "believing this because it is highly unbelievable."

 

Concerning the part where you mention that "these people" are not capable of accepting their so-called mortality, mind telling me how you managed to conclude that or how that is at all relevant to the article? By the looks of it, i see no where from the article where you could have possibly derived such a conclusion from. In fact, it can be easily shown to you that there is more to worry about than simply "ceasing to exist." And for a person who claims to be quite open-minded concerning these sort of things, you are very quick to mention things that cannot in any way be derived from the very thing you are speaking against, that is, things that come from closed-minded persons.

 

That is all i have to say for now, as i don't feel like going through the 3-pages worth of posts and addressing anything they have to say, right now.

[yordan 10]

Before i start, i should mention that responding to this post of mine may or may not gain a response from me, as i do not frequent the Xisto forums

I could also skip your fourth paragraph, but i would like to ask you (which relates to a similar statement of yours in that paragraph), if the theory of evolution is supported by nothing except mere facts,

Would you please explain us your position. Why do you ask such precise questions if you deliberately will not read the answers? Asking questions without wanting to read the answer looks very similar to spam. So, why do you want to spam such a nice topic?

[8ennett 0]

Now I can understand not reading every response should there be 20 pages of them however there are only three in this case.

At first i thought that this topic wasn't worth my time, in that it is not an article that i wrote that is being spoken against, and i normally do not feel like attempting to support any others' article or argument and would rather have them defend it themselves.

You obviously have a complete misunderstanding of the objective laid out by Opaque with these forums and the Xisto forums. They are a brilliant and bold attempt at motivating the quest for knowledge and a well-rounded view of everyones opinions on many different topics that are of importance in todays society. From what I have been able to ascertain, Opaque's dream was to have everyone engage each other in everything and anything to help improve and grow the knowledge and wisdom of the forums users so that information can live forever online and be able to anyone who searches for it. You only seem interested however in telling people the way you think it is and have no interest in anything that is not your own opinion. Besides being a very conceded point of view, it makes it seem as though you may have another agenda.

Also, my complements on the clever method used to stretch your sentences and lengthen your post, when most attempt this they end up either confusing their sentences or contradicting themselves without realising.

Lastly, I recommend reading all of the responses to this article including most importantly my own as they seem to answer pretty much all your questions and points raised. As was pointed out in my original post, I wrote the article in anger and stuttered on many points, however these are all clarified later on in the debate.

You have seen one side of this, you you will probably change your mind when you will have met the other side. I have seen very smart people, very clever people, including teachers and nuclear physicists, who were believing in God, simply the more things they were learning were confirming their faith.

I definately agree with you on this, I myself used to be a Methodist Christian and apologise for how I stated it. I really shouldn't write when I'm in a hurry and trying to rush an opinion lol
Edited May 31, 2010 by 8ennett (see edit history)

[yordan 10]

I really shouldn't write when I'm in a hurry and trying to rush an opinion lol

I learned from my Father how to handle this kind of problem.You write down your text (in our case you use a text editor on your own PC). You print it, and you let it sleep on your table during a couple of hours.
Then, you read your paper, asking yourself if your paper tells exactly what you were thinking. If not, you change your text, you print it.
Wait again a couple of hours.
Then read your paper again, asking yourself if the guy who will read your paper will understand exactly what was in your mind when you wrote your text.
If this second step is OK, you can send your text and make it visible.
Each time I did the job that way, i had no regret.

[8ennett 0]

Sounds like a good idea, I usually write out my text then go over it a couple of times and make some adjustments (although obviously not when i'm in a rush) but never thought to leave a while first. Thanks for the advice.