1. We are sorrowed to report that one of the Founding Members has passed on. Dee (Righthand) is well remembered as contributing much to the operation of SurvivalMonkey, and is already greatly missed. Little lady, big person.

Let there be light!

Discussion in 'Faith and Religion' started by chelloveck, Feb 9, 2014.


  1. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    @DarkLight Dinosaur is a MODERN word. In 1841, Sir Richard Owen coined the word "dinosaur" to identify the fossils of extinct reptiles. It traces its origins to the Greek words deinos, meaning "terrible" or "fearfully great," and sauros, meaning "lizard." THe Bible does not use the word Dinosaur. But they are mentioned.

    The Bible mentions two dinosaurs by name and describes them in great detail. "Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34) From the description found in Job, scientists have attempted to identify these animals. They believe "Behemoth" is a Hippo and "Leviathan" is a Crocodile. But these scientists limited their choices to non-extinct species and did not consider the possibility of dinosaurs because man and dinosaur never coexisted. Oh really? Even in my own personal Bible a footnote suggests these two animals were a hippo and a crock! But there are some obvious reasons why this conclusion is wrong.

    First, "Behemoth" cannot be a Hippo because of Job 40:17 "He bends his tail like a cedar". A hippo has a short tail like a pig. Behemoth, had a large tail shaped like a cedar tree (large and tapered). I believe a better choice is that Behemoth is a Brachiosaurus type of large land dwelling dinosaur. It fits the description perfect.

    Second, "Leviathan" cannot be a Crocodile but is probably a Elasmosaurus type of large water-dwelling dinosaur. Here is what Job 41 says with my comments in brackets, "v9 you be laid low even at the sight of him? (This was a large animal) v10 No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him; v25 When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; (crocs don't raise up at all but are always low) Because of the crashing they are bewildered. v26 (This animal was large! This animal made seismic thunder as it walked. You know...that slow, low, terrifying thud that Jurassic park portrayed so well.) v26 The sword that reaches him cannot avail; (crocs are quite easy to kill with a good spear) Nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. (Croc wrestling is a sport, the croc usually looses) v31 He makes the depths boil like a pot; He makes the sea like a jar of ointment. v32 Behind him he makes a wake to shine; (crocs make little wake if any) v34 He looks on everything that is high" (again it was a tall animal with a long neck).

    What is significant about this is that if "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are dinosaurs, then is it crystal clear that Job had either seen them personally, or there was a recent memory of them. This of course flies in the face of current evolutionary theory.

    The Paluxy River in Texas is the home of Dinosaur National Park with hundreds of fossil dinosaur tracks. Right beside the dinosaur tracks are three sets of human fossil footprints and a large cat track. The most famous track is the Taylor Trail which consists of a series of 14 footprints in a left-right pattern. The stride and foot length is consistent throughout. The evidence is so convincing that several university students recently presented with all the data accepted that the human footprints were real, but doubted the dinosaur footprints were real. All the fossil footprints in the Park are genuine. No informed person would ever suggest that the human footprints were carved as was irresponsibly rumored 50 years ago. It is clear that man and dinosaur live together and co-existed at the same time. With this both science and the Bible agree!
     
    Sapper John likes this.
  2. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus Site Supporter

    That are DIVERSIFIED. That was why I said ethnicist instead of racist and why I put race in quotation marks.

    You want to argue, fine, argue and split hairs. I, on the other hand, am...combining hairs I guess.

    I don't believe the world is 6000 years old. I don't believe that God created everything in 144 hours. I don't believe that Adam had to watch out for T-Rex once Cherubim and his flaming sword were placed as guard to the Tree of Life. I don't believe in talking snakes.

    I also don't believe in a God that would have punished and doomed ALL OF CREATION because of the fall of Adam and Eve. The ultimate destruction (via death) of creatures that had no input in the decision and were "innocent victims" of the first two people. I get the whole "master over them" but you don't doom a dog just because his master committed a crime, do you?

    I do believe in allegory because that was the way things were taught when those books were originally written. I do believe in a period of time as far as creation goes. I do believe that there was more than "intelligent design" involved. I do believe in, not just a God but an omnipotent one but I believe part of that omnipotence is that thorough understanding of ALL THINGS.

    As far as your previous post, you seem to ignore Job 41:21-22, which sounds more like a...dragon and not any type of dinosaur we've seen. Additionally, God describes the behemoth, not Job and I always read that as though he were giving Job a vision (at least of the behemoth).

    Now, I'll admit I know nothing other than what you've shared with me about Dinosaur National Park. First I've heard of it (but I don't claim to be an expert on anything I'm typing about right now, this entire thing has been based solely on opinion...which I'm pretty sure I stated right at the beginning of my first post).
     
    chelloveck and tulianr like this.
  3. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Dragon is another word used to describe "dinosaurs".
     
    Sapper John likes this.
  4. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus Site Supporter

    In some circles. Again, to the best of my knowledge they've never uncovered anything fossil-wise that looked like it could breathe fire.

    Right now I'm just being argumentative though. :)
     
  5. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    It always amazes me, or I guess dumbfounds would be a better choice of words, that atheists can hold up science as the end all be all "proof" of their argument. They contend that if you look at it in a "reasoned" way, with a "critical" eye, with a scientific mind, you will see the truth of their argument. And anyone who dares use the F word (faith) automatically disqualifies themselves from the debate. Faith is not scientific, only proven, tested, and accepted scientific facts matter, not blind faith in things unseen and unproven.
    Really! I just can't wrap my head around this circular, contradictory "reasoning". So to blindly accept a theory, one that is non-demonstrable, lacks any method of true scientific experimentation or observation, is rejected by many in academia, has to have what little "evidence" there is for it, contorted and wildly speculative to fit in the models, to blindly accept that on,( what, what is it that it requires, the dreaded F word?) nothing but blind faith and call that a "reasoned" argument. But to accept the mountainous evidence (accepted and promoted by many secular academics) of an intelligent design theory is somehow not a valid argument, not a reasoned one. Mind blowing the hypocrisy there.

    Consider this;

    Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised
    By Randy Alcorn, Jim Darnall
    I wrote the following article many years ago, and it has now been through two revisions. Thanks to Phil Gaskill for working on the latest revision and providing additional updated information.


    1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
    A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present. Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution. The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell. The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created.

    2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
    According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source. DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating. However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA. Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth.

    3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution.
    Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

    4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative.
    The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong.

    5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
    If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

    6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
    The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human. The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones. The “missing links” are still missing.

    7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results.
    Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy. In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption. In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline. What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock! In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline. This is a classic case of circular thinking! Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock. This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same. Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old. If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age?

    8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution.
    Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance. It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation. No such examples exist.

    9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
    When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

    Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.

    10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
    There are two types of science. Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena. Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable. Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, themselves, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.

    Evolution scientists know about these flaws, but they have successfully covered them up with the help of a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the fact that Darwinism is not scientific but just an atheist doctrine.
     
    Sapper John, kellory and Falcon15 like this.
  6. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    I would only point out, that there has YET to be, ONE Documented New Specie, that Evolved spontaneously, in Recorded History.........
     
    Sapper John, kellory and Falcon15 like this.
  7. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

    Darwin was wrong because:


    · “Ape to human evolution” is impossible - recent DNA tests reveal that ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes.



    · “One species into another species evolution” cannot occur in bisexual animals becaue the laws of genetics and embryology preserve each species and prevent any bisexual species from evolving into another.


    If you are wondering why you have not read about any of this, it is because a very powerful Darwin Conspiracy, led by atheists, has suppressed the truth about evolution theory and fed us lie after lie after lie for over 100 years.



    The Darwin Conspiracy has both faked evidence, suppressed evidence and it currently constantly lies to promote Darwinism.



    The Piltdown Man is an example of the power of the Darwin Conspiracy and how insidious the conspiracy has been.



    In 1912, Darwin's “ape to human evolution theory” was at its most critical crossroads – Darwnians had to either come up with the “missing link” or evolution theory would become extinct. For decades, critics of “ape to human evolution theory” had pounded it by insisting that unless it comes forward with evidence of the “missing link,” then “ape to human evolution theory” should be put to death.



    In the fall of 1912, the Darwin Conspiracy was formed and



    On December 18, 1912, the Geological Society, with the assistance of co-conspirator British Museum of Natural History, unvieled a faked skull that they claimed was the “missing link.” Their forgery led to headlines all over the world proclaiming “Missing Link Found – Darwin's Theory Proved.”



    The faked Piltdown Man saved Darwin's Theory of evolution from being quickly extinct, and for the next forty years, atheists incessantly cited the fake Piltdown Man skull as irrefutable evidence for “ape to human evolution theory.”



    Faking evidence is bad enough but the British Museum and other Darwin Conpirators went much further. They not only faked evidence but the British Museum insisted on being “keeper of the Piltdown Man skull” and refused to permit anyone to examine the Piltdown Man skull. In effect, the British Museum said “We have the evidence but we will not allow anyone to examine or verify our evidence and you just have to take our word for it.”



    The British Museum claimed they were afraid the Piltdown Skull would be somehow contaminated or harmed if any one examined it. But the real reason no one was allowed to even look at it from a distance is that it was so obvious a fake.



    For over three decades, the British Museum arrogantly denied any requests to examine the fake Piltdown Man skull. Most of the scientific community did not object because they were atheists and part of the Darwin Consipiracy



    But then, Darwinians ran into a problem that forced the British Museum to change its stance.



    By 1949, most Darwinists supported the “Man Came Out of Africa Theory” of human evolution which said that humans evolved from apes in Africa. But this theory was directly contradicted by the Piltdown Man skull because that faked skull would support the theory that humans came from England, or Europe instead of Africa.



    In fact, in 1949, the fake Piltdown Man skull stood in the way of “Man Came Out of Africa Theory” and several prominent Darwinists, including Louis Leakey (who discovered “Lucy”) convinced the British Museum to allow them to examine the Piltdown Man skull.



    A History Channel documentary revealed that Louis Leakey said that the Piltdown Man skull was so obvious a forgery that he could tell the skull was a fake from over fifteen feet away because the coloring of the jaw and skull were different. This fact proves the British Museum and all of its hierarchy knew it was a fake and also that it was easy for any expert to know the skull was a forgery and that is why the museum refused to allow anyone to examine it.



    This is an example of how a very powerful Darwin Conspiracy, led by atheists, fakes evidence, suppresses the truth and spreads lies in order to promote Darwinian evolution theory.

    Since 2001, many scientists conducting research in genetics and embryology have discovered more than just a few Darwin Busters.



    Here are four Darwin Busters:



    Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.



    Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.



    Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.



    Darwin Buster Four: Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.


    Links to sources

    DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution
    Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
    Exposing the flaws in the Theory of Evolution


    And yet there are those who doggedly and zealously defend their faith against all empirical evidence to the contrary. Yes, let there be light so that those who are blind may see.
     
  8. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    But then, "recorded history" is only about three thousand years, by the most generous measure. Aristotle, about twenty-three hundred years ago, was one of the first writers to make any sort of attempt to record species. Until about seven hundred years ago, any recorder of history was limited to a very small area of the globe indeed.

    So this small area of time, whether you accept 3,000 years, 2,300 years, or 700 years, is a very small slice of time compared to the 200 million years that evolutionists would say that animal species have been evolving. Even with our access to most areas of the globe today, we are still finding and cataloging new species. So, who is to say whether a new species has evolved within the last five thousand years, or even in the last five years? Our ability to observe such is quite limited.

    Just for the sake of argument. ;)
     
  9. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Actuaalllly, many scientists believe it my well have been possible for some dinosaurs to emit a flaming substance from their nostrils or mouths.

    "The Bible talks about a fire breathing dragon called Leviathan in Job chapter 41.

    “By his neesings (blowing air out of his nose) a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.” (Job 41:19-21)

    There are four reasons why I believe there were fire breathing dragons. Number one, the Bible says that there was an animal called Leviathan that could breathe out fire. Job chapter 41 is obviously talking about a fire breathing dragon.

    Number 2, there are hundreds of legends about fire breathing dragons. Why do so many countries have legends about fire breathing dragons? Well maybe it’s because they really had fire breathing dragons. If these people were just making this stuff up, why don’t we ever hear a story about a fire breathing hamster or some other kind of animal? It is always a dragon.

    Number 3, it is chemically possible for this to happen. There are animals today that have this capability. That is what the bombardier beetle does. This beetle has a canon near his rear end where he can blast his enemies with chemicals that are 212 degrees Fahrenheit: the temperature of boiling water. Now where does this beetle get something to shoot that is 212 degrees?

    How could a beetle evolve something that is so complex? What this beetle has is two compartments where he stores two chemicals. If these two chemicals combine they explode. Now the beetle obviously doesn’t want these chemicals to explode inside of his body. So he has a third chemical that is mixed in there called an inhibiter. This keeps the chemical reaction from taking place.

    When he is ready to fire, he has a fourth chemical that he sprays in at the last possible second. This fourth chemical neutralizes the third chemical and allows the first two chemicals to explode.

    A pretty complicated process for a simple little beetle. ..............

    My fourth reason for believing in fire breathing dragons is that some of the dinosaurs had these strange compartments in their heads. Nobody knows for sure what these compartments are for.

    Some of the dinosaurs had these big humps on their heads that were enlargements of their sinus passages. They are hollow and connected to the nasal passages of the dinosaur. Some call them the hollow-headed dinosaurs.

    Tyrannosaurs Rex had a head the size of a car. His brain was the size of a baseball. The rest of his head was full of these compartments connected to his sinuses. If he had these special chemicals stored in these hollow compartments, he could have been a fire breathing dragon.

    So, were there fire breathing dragons? Yes. It is chemically possible, it is anatomically possible, historically something certainly happened for us to have all of these legends about fire breathing dragons, and the Bible clearly says there was an animal called Leviathan that breathed out fire. ..............."


    ..................................................
    "Dragons are generally portrayed as large, winged quadrupeds with the capacity for emitting flames from their nostrils. Compared with extant animals, they are morphologically most like reptiles. As far as I am aware, no living reptile has acquired the ability to fly or to incinerate passers-by using nasal expulsion. But from palaeontological evidence, quite a few reptilian forebears were capable of the former.

    Pterosaurs, such as Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus, began soaring the skies in the Late Triassic, around 200 million years ago, and stuck at it for well over 130 million years. And then a different group of reptiles, the theropods, evolved the ability to fly. Some staggeringly exquisite fossils have been recently dug up in China, shedding new light on the evolution of flight, of birds, and of dinosaurs. One of the interesting discoveries is that the presence of feathers does not mean that animal was either a bird or capable of flight. It is now accepted that many theropods (e.g. Microraptor and its more famous cousin, Velociraptor) had a fluffy or feathery coat, but could not have flown.

    But I digress. For millions of years, different types of reptile were flapping, fluttering and gliding their way around the world. Thus, the idea of a dragon as a flying reptile is perfectly reasonable, ignoring the pathetically small wings they normally have depicted. Even a skeleton of balsa wood wouldn't have seen a decent-sized dragon get off the ground. So what about the fire-breathing?

    Modern herbivorous mammals such as cows and sheep emit enormous quantities of flammable gas, particularly methane, into the atmosphere. Just imagine the amount of methane generated by some of the colossal herbivorous dinosaurs. Few scientists bother investigating dinosaur flatulence, but it has been suggested that the leviathans indirectly killed themselves by farting so much greenhouse gas that the Earth's climate changed (see e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/855813.stm). Either way, it's clear that reptiles making combustible emissions is another reasonable scenario. And if, like the mythical exploding pigeons, some dinosaurs couldn't fart, perhaps they'd have to belch out their methane instead. One small spark and, hey presto!, a fire-breathing reptile. Give it some wings and we'll call it a dragon. Another mystery solved!"

    Were there really fire breathing dragons?

    http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A152317/conversation/view/F20004/T608870
     
    Sapper John likes this.
  10. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine The Plumber Founding Member

    I struggle understanding the atheist point of view, more than the religious point of view. Now maybe part of this could be associated with my ignorance with both points off view.

    However, I do not understand how one can look up at all the bright lights in the sky and all the life on this planet and say it all magically happened or was created from nothing.

    Obviously, it's gonna take somebody with more scientific intelligence than myself to figure it out.

    Chelly you rocking the boat again.
     
    chelloveck and oldawg like this.
  11. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Colt, I responded to Chell so if anything perhaps I was rocking the boat. After all, I could have just ignored the post, and moved on.

    In all I think this is an excellent discussion for anyone to engage in. The old saw "there are two things you do not talk about in polite company: politics and religion" is absolutely bull hockey. Those two things form more of the society around you than any other subjects in the world. If you do not talk about them, then nothing changes.

    Just my 2 virtual cents. YMMV.
     
    Minuteman, Tracy, chelloveck and 2 others like this.
  12. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?

    Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!

    Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.

    Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.

    [​IMG]
    Figure 22. Change? Yes—but which kind of change? What is the more logical inference, or the more reasonable extrapolation, from our observations: unlimited change from one kind to others (evolution), or limited variation within kinds (creation)? Given the new knowledge of genetics and ecology, even Darwin, I believe, would be willing to “think about it.”

    Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then the fly example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about (Fig. 22).

    If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others). (Fig. 22.)

    Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!

    Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.

    We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus (Fig. 9), for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life.

    Perhaps God used a design in living things similar to the one He used in the non-living world. Only about a hundred different elements or atoms are combined in different ways to make a tremendous variety of non-living molecules or compounds. Maybe creationists will one day identify a relatively few genes and gene sets that, in unique combinations, were used to make all the different types of life we see. It would take a tremendous amount of research to validate this “mosaic or modular” concept of a created unit, but the results would be a truly objective taxonomy that would be welcomed by all scientists, both creationists and evolutionists. We might even be able to write a “genetic formula” for each created kind, as we can write a chemical formula (a unique combination of non-unique atoms) for each kind of compound.

    But why should we be able to classify plants and animals into created kinds or species at all? Stephen Gould,25 eloquent evolutionist and acrimonious anti-creationist, writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. Furthermore, our modern, scientific classifications often agree in minute detail with the “folk classifications” of so-called primitive peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says Gould, each type has a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries at all times and all places: “A Quahog is a Quahog,” as the title of his editorial reads.

    “But,” says Gould, “how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species. But, as Gould points out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied. And, says Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today.

    In one of the most brilliantly and perceptively developed themes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton26 shows how leaders in the science of classification, after a century of trying vainly to accommodate evolution, are returning to, and fleshing out, the creationist typological concepts of the pre-Darwinian era. Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linne’ (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit Biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind.

    “Actually,” concludes Gould,27 “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era.” (Emphasis added.) I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations.

    But what about Darwin? He tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and the inheritance of traits acquired by use and disuse (pangenes), but Pangenesis failed. The neo-Darwinists tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and mutation, and mutations failed. The post-neo-Darwinists are turning to “hopeful monsters,” instead of simple mutations, and to “survival of the luckiest,” instead of selection. These new ideas have little basis in observation or scientific principle at all, and it remains to be seen whether the evolutionist’s faith in future discoveries will also fail.

    One thing is for certain: if evolutionists had to prove their case in court, evolution would be thrown out for lack of evidence. That’s the conclusion of two insightful lawyers, Norman MacBeth (Darwin Retried28) and Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial29). Neither man is arguing for the Bible; both are simply writing in their field as experts in the rules of evidence and the rules of logic. I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California (Berkeley), challenge college students to weigh the so-called evidence for evolution and to consider alternatively the concept that life (and, hence, each of their lives) is instead the gift of Intelligent, Purposeful Design.

    The evidence is forcing evolutionists to admit the severe inadequacy of mutation and selection, but these same processes are being picked up and used by creationists. What would Darwin say about that? Would he object to his ideas and observations being used in Biblical perspective? Darwin did muse occasionally about the role of a Creator. But, of course, we’ll never know whether he would be willing to consider the Biblical framework as the more-logical inference from our present knowledge of genetics and ecology. We can be sure of this, however: a man as thoughtful and devoted to detail and observation as Darwin was, would be willing to “think about it.”

    References
    1. Return to text.
    2. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, chapters 5–9, 1985. Return to text.
    3. Return to text.
    4. Return to text.
    5. Return to text.
    Full article attribution: “Species” and “Kind” - Answers in Genesis
     
    Sapper John likes this.
  13. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine The Plumber Founding Member

    Agreed on the above post. I was just poking at Chelly. I do not have a sharp enough pencil to challenge him intellectually.
     
    chelloveck and Falcon15 like this.
  14. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    New Fossil Find One of History's Greatest
    Posted Feb 12, 2014 11:36 AM CST
    Researchers in Canada have made an "extraordinary" find: a vast collection of fossils that offer an in-depth look at prehistoric life. The site in Kootenay National Park is being compared to what experts call one of history's greatest fossil finds, a 1909 discovery about 26 miles away in Yoho National Park. Both sites are in a rock formation called the Burgess Shale, LiveScience reports.

    "The rate at which we are finding animals—many of which are new—is astonishing, and there is a high possibility that we'll eventually find more species here than at the original Yoho National Park site," says the study's lead author. Over a two-week period, researchers gathered 3,000 fossils from the new site belonging to some 55 species, 15 of which were previously unknown. Many are arthropods, the forebears of spiders and insects.

    Part of what makes the Burgess Shale so remarkable is that it managed to preserve animals' soft parts particularly well. New finds include neural tissue, retinas, and maybe even a heart and liver, providing a closer look at animals during the Cambrian Period, which began some 542 million years ago.

    "This is the first time we're seeing these details," says a researcher. The team "stumbled across" the find in the summer of 2012, the Leader-Post reports. The discovery, the researcher says, suggests similar sites are out there.

    New Fossil Find One of History's Greatest - 3K fossils, 55 species found in Canada's Kootenay National Park
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2015
    chelloveck likes this.
  15. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Carbon dating and other radiometric dating is wrong, and based on inaccurate science and methodology.


     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2015
  16. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    I appreciate that you are just giving me a friendly, jest-full prod: so, no offence taken. The origins of life and existence, at least at this site, is such that no matter how benignly the subject is broached, the shield walls of ideology are quick to be raised, and the throwing of memes and cherry picked quotations at one another is almost inevitable. The best that one can hope for, is that some kind of dignified truce can be achieved, once the hacking, and thrusting and bludgeoning has died down, so that the really important stuff of bimbos, boobs and buns can be explored in earnest.(guns and bows mandatory, but utterly irrelevant)

    I don't mind being figuratively poked at, whether the pencil doing the poking be blunt or sharp...it's those who wield the eraser at the other end of the pencil that I have the greater issue with. A blunt pencil may be sharpened if some of the excess wood can be shaved off...

    I am now back at school, so, my posts in this thread may be somewhat slow in coming, but I'll try and respond to the Gish Gallop of replies to the OP, as and when I can.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2014
    ColtCarbine and kellory like this.
  17. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    I observe that few opportunities for anti- and counter religious proselytizing are passed up ---
     
    ColtCarbine and chelloveck like this.
  18. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    The word you mentioned meaning a day or season or period is "YOM". Geologists/etc. clearly see that there was a massive infusion of animal life at the beginning of the Tertillian period. From a spiritual viewpoint--God exists outside of time so what is it to Him. Am not a literal six day creation believer but do believe God spoke it into existence. Victor Stenger (?) said that quantum physics/mechanics allow particles to appear. Am not an egg head but do believe that God is fully capable of doing such. We live on a very small planet in a relatively small solar system in again a relatively small galaxy. The Hubble telescope was trained on some seemingly empty spots of the heavens and zoomed out. There appeared many more galaxies in those "empty" spaces. Some over 500 million light years away. Something created all this and it is still expanding. I laugh at the "big bang" theory as ludicrous. Just way too much too far too organized for the bang to have created. If one does not want to believe in creationism and yet swallow evolution then there is another problem somewhere. Even if creationism is not true the other theories are not made real. Again, personally I support intelligent design.
     
    ColtCarbine, Sapper John and BTPost like this.
  19. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I highly recommend the book "Supernature 2" by Lyall Watson. I haven't read the first Supernature but the second one is fascinating. Here is a thoroughly qualified scientist, a secular scientist, with no religious leanings who presents an astounding case for intelligent design. Who used the "scientific", "reasoned" and the "intellectually honest" approach so touted by atheists. Of course all of that reason and intellectual honesty only applies if you reach the same conclusion as them. If you come to a different conclusion then history is rife with examples of the zealots of the church of academia burning their fellow intellectuals at the, figurative, stake. Many an intellectually honest scientist has had their career ruined, their reputation tarnished, their livelihood stripped away for daring to challenge the established doctrine. Freethinkers need not apply. Those with an open and questioning mind are relegated to the fringe.

    Dr. Watson is no exception.
    His belief in a collective unconscious shaping the natural world led him ever forward on what seemed to him a simple mission. “All I do,” he once wrote, “is look, listen and try to make sense of what I find, in biological terms.”

    Perhaps the only species he dismissed were the army of skeptics who found ready fodder in his preoccupations and all-too-willing suspension of disbelief. “Self-appointed committees for the suppression of curiosity,” he called them.

    His credentials are impeccable;
    Watson attended boarding school at Rondebosch Boys' High School in Cape Town, completing his studies in 1955. He enrolled at Witwatersrand University in 1956, where he earned degrees in botany and zoology, before securing an apprenticeship in palaentology under Raymond Dart, leading on to anthropological studies in Germany and the Netherlands. Later he earned degrees in geology, chemistry, marine biology, ecology and anthropology. He completed a doctorate in ethology at the University of London, under Desmond Morris. He also worked at the BBC writing and producing nature documentaries.


    I don't have the book with me but some of the things I remember are;

    Camels knees. This is a major fly in the ointment of evolutionary koolaid. Camels are well adapted to life in the hot desert sands. Their knees have an especailly thick calcium deposit on the side that lies on the hot abrasive sand. It protects them and could not have been better designed for the harsh environment that they live in. Fossils of ancient camels are found to have the same wonderful calcium deposits and shielding from the abrasive sands. So the problem? These fossils date to a time when the region was not a desert, when it was a lush tropical rainforest with a thick, padded, forest floor for the camel to lie down on. So there was no need for a thick protective padding on their knees at that time. So a feature that would be needed and useful in a few thousand years is incorporated into the camels structure millennia before it is needed.

    Trees. If we apply true Darwinian principles to our world, and are "intellectually honest" then you would have to admit that there should not be any trees left in the world. The life of a tree is measured in hundreds of years while the life of the insects that feed off of them is measured in days. So according to evolutionary doctrine the insects should adapt and evolve mechanisms to overcome the trees natural defenses against them while the slow reproduction of the trees would guarantee that they could not evolve new mechanisms to counter them. So there should not be any trees left. Survival of the fittest and the insects are by far the fittest in that contest.

    The South American Anteater. The anteater of the south american jungles is a slow moving creature. Prowling the dead wood of the forst floor looking for it's namesake meal. Thier offspring cling to their backs until they are old enough to venture out on their own, much like an american opposum. The problem is that they do not climb trees and they are very slow moving so their offspring are particularly vulnerable to becoming a snack for any passing predator. The only reason any of them still survive today is due to a very unique feature that protects their young. The anteater is lightly colored but has a very dark, almost black, stripe running the length of it's body. This stripe or slash starts wide at the shoulder and narrows to a point at the tail. The baby anteater when it is born has the same marking, albeit on a much smaller scale. When they are born they cling to the side of the mother starting at the tail. The black slash on the youngster blends in perfectly with the slash on the mother making them nearly invisible. As they grow, and their slash gets bigger, they move up the body of the mother, keeping their slash and hers in perfect alignment. Until they are old enough and strong enough to venture out on their own. So is this a feature of evolution that has evolved to assure the continuity of the anteater species? The problem with that scenario is that this is a visible feature that can only be observed from a distance! It is not some natural genetic trait that makes the anteater hardier, more resistant to disease etc that Darwinists claim leads to the survival of the fittest species. No this is an external camouflage, a trick of the eye that can only be observed by someone, something, at a distance from the animal.

    One "example" of "proof" of evolution, still to be found in many textbooks, is the monarch moths of England. The moths are prevalent in the industrial areas of the country. They tend to land and rest on the very light colored ash trees. But as the industrial revolution progressed the great amounts of coal burning to fuel it caused these light colored ash trees to darken from the soot. Scientists, looking for evidence to fit their molds, noted that the moths were evolving from a lighter shade to a much darker one that blended well on the soot covered trees making them much harder to see by birds that liked to snack on them, thus insuring their survival. This fit their preconceived ideas and they touted it as definitive proof of evolution. Only one problem, there have always been two shades of this moth, the darker ones were more rare prior to the industrial revolution as they stood out more on the light colored trees and were more readily spotted, and consumed. But as the darkening of the trees progressed they blended in much better. This allowed the darker variety to thrive and their population to swell while the population of the lighter colored variant shrank as they became crumpets for the birds tea time. Both these variants of the species existed at the same time and one did not evolve from the other. They have both always been there. Ooops

    That's just a few examples off the top of my head. It's been some time since I read the book. I need to see if it is available on amazon.
     
  20. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Even the sharpest pencil is next to useless in a room with no light. Let there be light!

    “A fool is someone whose pencil wears out before its eraser does.” – Marilyn vos Savant

    Everyone makes mistakes. That’s why there is an eraser on the end of every pencil. – Japanese Proverb

    “To hold a pen is to be at war.” – Voltaire

    “The pen is the tongue of the mind.” – Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (Spanish Writer & Author of Don Quixote)

    “There are a thousand thoughts lying within a man that he does not know till he takes up a pen to write.” – William Makepeace Thackeray

    “The pen is mightier than the sword, and is considerably easier to write with.” – Marty Feldman
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7