PDA

View Full Version : Live Tyranosaurus Rex discovered in Congo


Zac Medley
02-04-08, 05:53
I just heard that a group from a the University of Edinburgh have discovered a baby T. Rex in the Congo basin. One of their group was killed during the event.

I heard this about an hour ago on Coast-2-Coast AM, and I have not been able to find any other news about it.

I'm wondering if it is an April fools prank.

Anyone heard anything?

Tyrannosaurus
02-04-08, 06:01
Right, we ALL know that T.rex lived in Africa. :rolleyes:

Cochrane
02-04-08, 06:01
I haven't heard about this from anywhere else, but I'm quite convinced that it is, indeed, an April Fools prank.

rowanlim
02-04-08, 06:09
I think it's a prank. Sounds dodgy to me ;)

Elysia
02-04-08, 06:16
Hmmm... right.

Firstly, there are two 'legendary' crypto-beasts from that region - one the rather well known sauropod-esque mokele mbembe, the other a theropod-esque (some decribe as being more crocodillian, but bipedal)... can't remember what thay one is called, but I've read quite a few cryptozoological books and articles (the one I remember is was written by Karl Shuker - I'll have to try to find it). Secondly, April Fool's yesterday...


As a palaeontologist (I have a degree in it ;)), I am immediately sceptical that a highly specialised carnivore can maintain a successful breeding population over 65 million years and still survive in a relatively small (although, yes, largely underpopulation and remote) geographical area. Oceanic large cryptids I don't have much of a problem with, but when it comes to land-dwelling beasties (and T.rex especially... I mean, come on! Why not Carnosaurus? Why not something like Deinonychus? How about Baryonyx? But no, it's always with the T.rex... We're obsessed with T.rex as a species!), it's a whole different kettle of Latimeria chalumnae...

Zac Medley
02-04-08, 06:20
I share your skeptisim, but as a Paleobotanist I reject the mainstream scientific belief that the earth is billions of years old. It is quite fesible that a population of these creatures could have survived about 4500 years since Noah let them out of the Ark.

And no, I'm not joking.

Right, we ALL know that T.rex lived in Africa. :rolleyes:

Well the dead ones were found in North America, but they were buried in the great flood. We're talking about the alive ones (if the report is not a hoax).

Shark_Blade
02-04-08, 06:40
Right...Baby T-Rex eh?

This thread reminds me of this somehow..:p

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=120238

Jedd Fletcher
02-04-08, 06:59
Well, Lara Croft probably ruined it all by shooting it dead before it can be confirmed.

Cochrane
02-04-08, 07:25
If there are really T-Rexes, we could finally settle the debate over evolution vs creationism once and for all. We could just ask them. The chances of T-Rex being able of human speak and recalling events at least, say, five thousand years back (to have some safety margin) are about as good as the chances of finding a live one in Africa, after all.

Zac Medley
02-04-08, 08:51
If there are really T-Rexes, we could finally settle the debate over evolution vs creationism once and for all. We could just ask them. The chances of T-Rex being able of human speak and recalling events at least, say, five thousand years back (to have some safety margin) are about as good as the chances of finding a live one in Africa, after all.

Wishful thinking. Even if there were live T-Rexes, and even if they could talk, it would not settle anything. It certainly would not guarantee that everybody would denounce evolution and believe creation. Believing in evolution is not, as people mistakenly believe, based on a rational thought process, but it stems from a fundamental desire to deny the existence of God, and by extension, the final judgement. And, trust me, this desire is far more powerful than any rational argument can overcome.

snoopyeab
02-04-08, 09:06
Probably yesterday's news

Lafa Cvoft
02-04-08, 09:31
i didn't know that and don't believe that :o

Punaxe
02-04-08, 09:44
Believing in evolution is not, as people mistakenly believe, based on a rational thought process, but it stems from a fundamental desire to deny the existence of God, and by extension, the final judgement. And, trust me, this desire is far more powerful than any rational argument can overcome.

Wait... What?

Mr.Burns
02-04-08, 10:03
Wishful thinking. Even if there were live T-Rexes, and even if they could talk, it would not settle anything. It certainly would not guarantee that everybody would denounce evolution and believe creation. Believing in evolution is not, as people mistakenly believe, based on a rational thought process, but it stems from a fundamental desire to deny the existence of God, and by extension, the final judgement. And, trust me, this desire is far more powerful than any rational argument can overcome.

O.o

...

So, believe in evolution and you are denying the existence of G-d. Uh huh. Now, I believe in G-d, not in the traditional sense but I believe none the less. However I don't buy into this notion that the earth is only about 6000 years old. So, how can you say I deny the existence of G-d?

Zac Medley
02-04-08, 10:17
Actually I can't speak to your own beliefs or why you believe them, because that is personal. But the original purpose for the theory of evolution was to make a scientific-sounding rationale to reject the testimony of scripture.

Draco
02-04-08, 10:40
zac, you must be off your meds or something.

trXD
02-04-08, 10:45
Wishful thinking. Even if there were live T-Rexes, and even if they could talk, it would not settle anything. It certainly would not guarantee that everybody would denounce evolution and believe creation. Believing in evolution is not, as people mistakenly believe, based on a rational thought process, but it stems from a fundamental desire to deny the existence of God, and by extension, the final judgement. And, trust me, this desire is far more powerful than any rational argument can overcome.
Actually I can't speak to your own beliefs or why you believe them, because that is personal. But the original purpose for the theory of evolution was to make a scientific-sounding rationale to reject the testimony of scripture.

evolution is totally unrelated to god:confused:
Its just one animal is born with a slightley bigger nose and then they give birth to a baby with an even bigger nose and then eventually after thousands of years of breeding it will end as some kind of big nose animal:)

Where does god come into that?

tbh i think god was made up by some random person thousands of years ago. Back when everyone was amazed by the world and would belive anything ;)

myrmaad
02-04-08, 10:48
Out of the mouths of babes.



Oh my. I'll stick to the economy, it's safer!

Zac Medley
02-04-08, 10:55
zac, you must be off your meds or something.

Or on the wrong ones?

@trXD - you are right in a sense.

The theory of evolution seems to me to be two things that have gotten rolled up into one. What you speak of is what used to be called "survival of the fittest," but, for reasons I'll explain in a moment, a better term is "descent with modification."

Obviously there are heritable traits that are passed on and change from generation to generation, that's obvious. The thing is, the generation of new species has never been observed, it is only hypothesized.

So, part of the equation is based on real observable truth. The problem is that this idea has been yoked up with the notion that the earth is billions of years old, and that this process allowed the development of humans from a watery mix of organic chemicals.

This is not science. In order for any hypothesis to qualify as science it must be possible to test the hypothesis, with predicibly repeatable results. I am unaware of any scientifically tested basis for any hypothesis of evolution, so it seems remarkable that it is elevated to the status of theory and widely considered to be the truth.

Where God comes into it is the fact that the Bible gives us a history of about 6,000 years since the creation, and God's own testimony to us is that he doesn't lie.

Back to the "survival of the fittest," phrase. This does not reflect the evidence, since the fossil remains that can be found in almost any location on earth show that EVERYTHING was killed by a world-wide catastrophe. Young, old, sick, healthy, the whole lot were all buried together.

Out of the mouths of babes.
Oh my. I'll stick to the economy, it's safer!

Come now, Myr, you can handle anything I throw out there and you know it :)

myrmaad
02-04-08, 10:59
So you're telling me that "God" wrote the bible. Not man, not some prophets, not someone having a rapturous vision that he believed was from God, but actually God.

Zac Medley
02-04-08, 11:04
Well, all I can say to that is that the Bible calls itself the "Word of God," and it also refers to Jesus Christ as "The Word of God," So God, through miraculous means, caused it to be. Jesus promised in Matthew Ch. 5 that it would be preserved, unchanged, for ever.

I know a lot of people have problems with that, and frankly, it's not my job to try and convince anybody of anything - you know me, I just speak my mind (on or off meds).

myrmaad
02-04-08, 11:12
How do you explain the changes made by the Council of Nicea? The changes were made, they are a matter of the Roman Catholic historic record, in spite of claims to the contrary.

Come now, Myr, you can handle anything I throw out there and you know it :)
Thanks for that :hug: Nvm. I'm happy that you have a strong belief system that feeds your soul. Let's just leave it at that!

Orionvalentine
02-04-08, 11:13
Oh dear, religion always sparks off something. Wasn't this about a T-Rex or something?

Woo! T-Rex!

Punaxe
02-04-08, 11:15
This is not science.

Although this read is getting awefully off-topic, sure evolution is science. Evolution is the only alternative model next to "God created it" that explains everything it applies to that we see on Earth these days. Science is definitely about such models, and it is also just as much about justifying hypotheses, as it is about falsifying. The day something comes along that evolution cannot explain, it will be rejected as a viable model.
Also, the hypothesis you speak of can certainly be repeatedly tested, but not in a human lifetime. This is a common obstruction to science's aims at experimental proof for phenomenons on such a grand scale as evolution.

I believe evolution did not come from the desire to deny God's existence, evolution started as merely an observer's attempt to learn about the workings of what God had created.

Zac Medley
02-04-08, 11:21
Like I said at the biginning of this thread, has anybody else heard about a live T-Rex being found in the Congo, or was it just a clever hoax by George Noory on Coast-2-Coast AM?

ps: that's enough thinking material for today...
..I think it's time for my medication

Orionvalentine
02-04-08, 11:25
Think of it this way, even if a real T-Rex was found we would all be doomed due to mankind's stupidity and curiosity.....hasn't anybody SEEN Jurassic Park!?

DREWY
02-04-08, 11:54
Live Tyranosaurus Rex discovered in Congo

Marc Bolan's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Bolan)been dead for years. Just a rumour, probably started by Telegram Sam or The Children of the Revolution, as they Got it On in their Jeepster.

And all the forum's younger members all exclaim "wtf, DREWY's gone mad" in unison

Shrantellatessa
02-04-08, 12:01
Today is the 2nd of April, too late now :p

Greenkey2
02-04-08, 13:02
This is not science. In order for any hypothesis to qualify as science it must be possible to test the hypothesis, with predicibly repeatable results. I am unaware of any scientifically tested basis for any hypothesis of evolution, so it seems remarkable that it is elevated to the status of theory and widely considered to be the truth.

Where God comes into it is the fact that the Bible gives us a history of about 6,000 years since the creation, and God's own testimony to us is that he doesn't lie.Thanks Zac, I needed cheering up :hug:

I suppose it's a sign of the times when a thread about an April Fool's prank can spiral into people bickering about the existence of God and evolution.

Zac, if you ever decide to open your mind perhaps you could go down to a fossil beach, or study genetics, or actually read about what the theory of evolution states, and how the process works - with cited examples that are happening around us right now (for instance, the peppered moth, Biston betularia carbonaria and B. typica and speciation between habitats).

Good science does not try to deny the existence of Divinity - and nor does it make grand theories that become dogma simply because 'they' say so. Just because we create models and theories for understanding the universe a bit better, it doesn't mean that it is any less amazing, or that we should somehow be able to control it.

IMO humans as a whole really have a long way to go before we learn to show the proper respect and humility before the universe - which has been around a lot longer than us, and will continue to be here long after we have strolled off evolution's stage. Blind belief in our own greatness won't help us to be better people, or accept our place in nature's cycle.

So, when it comes to where we place our belief in the Divine, there's a choice:

* a book(s) and dogma written/preached by humans (which have been edited, re-edited, transcribed and generally hashed about for only a fraction of our cultural history)

* the natural world and the evidence here all around us

Personally, I choose the latter ;)

Larapink
02-04-08, 13:05
I like I said before in another thread, haven't we learned anything from the jurassic park films :rolleyes:. We can't survive along side Dinosaurs. This is just a prank.

Tyrannosaurus
02-04-08, 14:19
And no, I'm not joking. That only makes your post funnier.

Well the dead ones were found in North America, but they were buried in the great flood. We're talking about the alive ones (if the report is not a hoax). During the Cretaceous, Tyrannosauridae was combined to the Laurasian half of the world (i.e. Europe, Asia, and North America). Gondwanaland (i.e. South America, Africa, India, Australia, Antarctica) was populated by Characarodonotosaurids and Abelisaurids for major predators, both of which are a world away from Tyrannosauridae, though they may be mistaken for them by ignorant.

Why do creationists never check their facts about these things? Oh that's right, I guess they've believe they don't have to.

Where God comes into it is the fact that the Bible gives us a history of about 6,000 years since the creation, and God's own testimony to us is that he doesn't lie. In other words, we should trust that the Bible is the word of God, because it says so in the Bible. I hope you realize this is circular reasoning.

Tyrannosaurus
02-04-08, 14:21
Think of it this way, even if a real T-Rex was found we would all be doomed due to mankind's stupidity and curiosity.....hasn't anybody SEEN Jurassic Park!?No. The animal would deserve our sympathy, not our fear. The greatest jungle of all is civilization. Hasn't anybody seen King Kong? Mankind destroys everything.

Not that I prefer it that way, of course. I prefer humans under my yoke.

Orionvalentine
02-04-08, 15:02
No. The animal would deserve our sympathy, not our fear. The greatest jungle of all is civilization. Hasn't anybody seen King Kong? Mankind destroys everything.

Not that I prefer it that way, of course. I prefer humans under my yoke.

That was sort of my idea, when I said mankind's stupidity and curiosity.

We screw everything up :cln:

kryptonite23
02-04-08, 15:32
Great Discovery! :tmb:

Cochrane
02-04-08, 17:04
Like I said at the biginning of this thread, has anybody else heard about a live T-Rex being found in the Congo, or was it just a clever hoax by George Noory on Coast-2-Coast AM?

ps: that's enough thinking material for today...
..I think it's time for my medication

It's on Wikipedia's list of pranks for this year's april fool day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1%2C_2008#On_the_radio), so I'm quite certain that it didn't actually happen. To be honest, there was never any doubt for me. After all, Dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years.

silver_wolf
02-04-08, 21:47
I'm sure it's an April Fools joke, and Tyrannosaurus I don't want to get into any sort of debate here about evolution and religion and blahblahblah, but I will say that a few years ago I read an interesting story. Apparently some guy, British or American, was hunting in Africa and he had a guide with him. They were on the plains, near the edge of a forest, and there was a rhino grazing. All of a sudden what they both describe as something that looked very much like a T-Rex burst out of the trees and attacked the rhino. The hunter and/or his guide passed out, I can't remember who, and later they hauled @ss out of there and told their story. No one believed them, of course, but I think the guide was very credible. Also, several years ago there were odd reports of creatures being seen in Colorado that the wittnesses described as looking like the "raptors" from Jurassic Park. Several pets went missing, and I think some of the wittnesses were in dangerous situations. There are ostrich farms out there, but these people very clearly saw these creatures so they didn't mistake them. Also, there are tribes in the Congo jungle that speak of a creature that sounds very much like a apotosaurus. They even said they killed and ate one, but it made them sick. The mok'ele-mbembe they call it. Now you have to think, these are people who have lived in the jungle all their life, and probably never seen pictures of dinosaurs. They probably know all the animals in the jungle, so I don' t think it likely that they could mistake, say, a hippo for something looking like an apotosaur. My point with all this is, the world is huge. Despite what some biologists think, we have not discovered every thing there is to be discovered and we do not know everything there is to know about the earth. I think it is possible that some, maybe even many dinosaurs have survived and have learned to hide from humans. The medieval dragon stories could have been inspired by dinosaurs. Even the Romans have stories, not myths, of going out and hunting dinosaur-like creatures. This is a real fresco/mosaic thing that was found.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/cjvelg/palestrina1.jpg

amiro1989
02-04-08, 21:54
Do you really think that we wouldn't have seen a 18-meters-long monster, before that?... I don't think so

April Fools Prank!

silver_wolf
02-04-08, 21:59
*sigh* see this is the problem, so many people think we're "too smart" to not notice animals in hiding. They think that because we are the most intelligent and dominant species we, man, must know everything there is to know about the lower lifeforms. Many animals are incredibly smart, and I'm not just talking monkeys here. Take a walk in the woods one day, I promise you you'll walk right by tons of animals and not even see them. Besides, if a t-rex doesn't want to be found and someone stumbles upon it, I don't think they'll make it back to civilization.

amiro1989
02-04-08, 22:07
Sure. A T-Rex which is a DINOSAUR, measuring at least 5 meters long, won't be noticed by humans. Oh darling, even if we didn't want to see him, he would have found us by now... I mean, he eats flesh, he would have certainly founded humans by now, and then, ate thousands of humans. Plus Congo is an inhabited country, it's not like he would be living in Antartica... You know what I mean?

Be careful, I never said we found every single species of animals, but come on a T-Rex? Give me a break.

silver_wolf
02-04-08, 22:15
I'm talking about the congo jungle. Huge place. You=ignorance.

amiro1989
02-04-08, 22:30
Well, it's big (I think 1 to 3 millions kilometers of forest), but that doesn't mean people never went in there... Just like the Amazon Rainforest, there are plenty of animals, insects and other things livin' in there, sure. BUT DO YOU REALLY THINK A 5 METERS LONG DINOSAUR WOULD LIVE IN THERE? I DON'T THINK SO.

Dinosaurs are extincted, since a very very long time now. I won't change my mind until we prove the contrary (plausible proofs, and not somekind of April Fools Joke...)

OT: You're a rude.

Ward Dragon
02-04-08, 22:55
It's Coast to Coast AM. Just the other night the host (I think it was Ian Punnett that night) was interviewing some man about how the aliens had come and given him a peace plan for the Middle East. The host asked him out of all of the people in the world, why did the aliens choose him? He answered, "I don't know. It's one of the things that makes me think I'm actually a schizophrenic." :vlol: They do have some very interesting things on there, but they also have a lot of stuff that is totally out there. I'm sure it's an April Fool's joke, but there is the possibility that it was actually someone who really believed it :p In either case I don't think there's really a T-rex alive anywhere (although it would be really cool if there was :D).

Oh my. I'll stick to the economy, it's safer!

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/engel/angel-smiley-008.gif :whi:

On a side note, I was actually going to bring up Nicaea (I remembered something :D) but I see you beat me to it already :p

Chiki Mina
02-04-08, 23:24
What was Barney doing in Congo?

amiro1989
02-04-08, 23:38
What was Barney doing in Congo?

haha! :vlol:

Ward Dragon
02-04-08, 23:44
What was Barney doing in Congo?

Hiding from the Teletubbies.

aquaflute
03-04-08, 04:18
Just thinking, even if that is true the team choose a very BAD time to make their discovery lol:)

Zac Medley
03-04-08, 10:02
Thanks Zac, I needed cheering up :hug:

Zac, if you ever decide to open your mind perhaps you could go down to a fossil beach, or study genetics, or actually read about what the theory of evolution states, and how the process works - with cited examples that are happening around us right now (for instance, the peppered moth, Biston betularia carbonaria and B. typica and speciation between habitats).



Thank you, but how do you know what I have or have not read.

You unwisely assume that I believe what I do because I am ignorant. Lucky for you this is TRF, in real life that could be a costly mistake. btw the peppered moth is an example of a dimorphism, not speciation.

That only makes your post funnier.

During the Cretaceous, Tyrannosauridae was combined to the Laurasian half of the world (i.e. Europe, Asia, and North America). Gondwanaland (i.e. South America, Africa, India, Australia, Antarctica) was populated by Characarodonotosaurids and Abelisaurids for major predators, both of which are a world away from Tyrannosauridae, though they may be mistaken for them by ignorant.

There you go again, someone else assuming that I am ignorant.

Oh well, I hate to have to do this but I guess a quick Google of my name might help clear this up: Wow, looks like I have forgotten more about biological diversity than some of you have ever learned yet.

Classes and exhibits set for fall at NC Botanical Garden (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/sep97/botg.html)
United States Geological Survey, Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources (http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/sandt/Sotheast.pdf) (contributing editor in chapter on Southeast)
Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia and Surrounding Areas (http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/WeakleysFlora.pdf) (contributor)
Devonian Fishes and Plants of Miguasha, Quebec, Canada (http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/ef1.html) (co-author of chapter on paleobotany (http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/07pala/e2_03d.html))


Why do creationists never check their facts about these things? Oh that's right, I guess they've believe they don't have to.

Why do evolutionists never check their facts about these things? Oh that's right, they aren't facts, they are untested hypotheses. :wve:


In other words, we should trust that the Bible is the word of God, because it says so in the Bible. I hope you realize this is circular reasoning.

That is what is called a leap of faith. Kind of like how you have to have a conceptual framework of an earth that is billions of years old, in order to design an experimental procedure to collect data that supports your concept that the earth is billions of years old.


Back to Tyrannosaurus's point about paleogeography.

Genesis 2:10. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it is parted, and became into four heads.
11. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12. And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14. And the name of the second river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

It is reasonable to conclude that if four rivers originating at Eden watered all the lands of Havilah (the Americas), Egypt (Africa) and Assyria (Asia), then the earth was one large continent at this time (sound familiar?)

Genesis 7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Major techtonic faulting probably occured at the time of the great flood. After Noah's ark came to rest the earth was repopulated by the animals in it, but it was still one continent. Therefore it was possible for offspring of the many species to make their way into all parts of the world.

Genesis 11: 1. And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Genesis 11 also records the events of the Tower of Babel, when God came down and confused the languages of the people of the earth, and they began to migrate away from Babel to populate all the different parts of the earth. There is also the list of the names of the generations that passed from Noah to Abram (Abraham). The fascinating part of this list to me is the name of Peleg, because in 1 Chronicles it states:

Chronicles 1:19. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

And so it would appear that the Bible records the breakup of the techtonic plates, mid-way in the period of time between the scattering of the people from Babel and the time of Abraham.

So what do you know? The Bible is perfectly aligned with the picture that has been pieced together by scientists, except for the fact that science has yoked it up with the idea that the Bible is wrong, God is a liar, and the earth is billions of years old. I would love to see the look on some of your faces when you finally realize that evolution is a faith-based religion.

Ilves
03-04-08, 10:32
That is what is called a leap of faith.


People who take religious scriptures to be the literal word of God (and therefore infallible) sooner or later have to admit to the above statement.
Yet in discussions they always show disdain for those who are 'blind to God's Truth'.
This makes a sensible discussion impossible.

Science has gaps, religion has gaps. Period.

EDIT: As for the topic: Not bloody likely.

Zac Medley
03-04-08, 10:44
People who take religious scriptures to be the literal word of God (and therefore infallible) sooner or later have to admit to the above statement.

Absolutely right. If they can't admit to having put their faith in God's Word, when they are proclaiming it, then they are a false prophet and absolutely untrustworthy.

What I would like to see is some evolutionists admit they they, also, have made a leap of faith.

Cochrane
03-04-08, 11:22
Science (i.e. evolution) can only be considered equal to creationism at all if you consider the bible to be an objective and verifiable source of observations. And frankly, it's not.

Zac, if I understood you correctly, you say that all continental drift happened in a time span of only a few thousand years. This does not align at all with movements as they are on record today, so what do you think would have made them slow down?

Zac Medley
03-04-08, 11:29
Zac, if I understood you correctly, you say that all continental drift happened in a time span of only a few thousand years. This does not align at all with movements as they are on record today, so what do you think would have made them slow down?

Yes, you understood me correctly.

In the current conceptual framework the measurements of drift show very slow movement. But remember that the theoretical underpinning of the collection of this data is based on the belief that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

If the theoretical basis for the experimental techniques is based on the fact that the earth is 6,000 years old, then naturally the data would fit the scenario.

It's just the same as programming the computer: garbage in, garbage out.

In fact, that reminds me of why I was kicked out of the Ph.D. program in Paleobotany at Carolina. I showed in my early work for my thesis that the concept you used to code your data was going to be what the computer gave you back as a conclusion. Then I found myself working as a painter.

Ilves
03-04-08, 11:41
If they can't admit to having put their faith in God's Word, when they are proclaiming it, then they are a false prophet and absolutely untrustworthy.

The definition of 'false prophet' is based on that very leap of faith we talk about, and therefore not a valid argument in a discussion.

Draco
03-04-08, 12:27
If the Earth is indeed 6000 years old, someone has some explaining to do.

Elysia
03-04-08, 12:45
If the Earth is indeed 6000 years old, someone has some explaining to do.
Yep - with 'how come there are civilisations that are, errr, over 6000 years old with their, umm, own religions and creation myths and everything?' being a good question to ask...

myrmaad
03-04-08, 13:21
I'm trying to figure out how I missed where the Bible said "6000" years or gave an actual date. http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c117/SeaBlossom/icons/hmm.gif Having formerly been pretty devout, and having read the bible for inspiration even afterward, I never noticed the conflict.


(Maybe because my belief never hinged on taking it literally? I see no need to be less of a Christian if the bible is not considered literal, it still can be a great source of truth and enlightenment. I do see a need to be less a Christian when your actions are in conflict with your beliefs. If you profess to follow the teachings of Christ, then either follow them or admit it's bogus. This is not a comment targeting anyone around here, in the forums, but those I have encountered in my real life.)

Ilves
03-04-08, 13:43
I'm trying to figure out how I missed where the Bible said "6000" years or gave an actual date.

I think they count the generations mentioned in the Old Testament to reach that figure.

(Maybe because my belief never hinged on taking it literally? I see no need to be less of a Christian if the bible is not considered literal, it still can be a great source of truth and enlightenment.

My view exactly. Now where'd that dino disappear to? :ton:

EDIT: Here's some heavy reading :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_%28theology%29

McGloomy
03-04-08, 14:00
Let's quote Wikipedia:
In 1654 Irish Archbishop, James Ussher calculated from the Bible (augmented by some astronomy and numerology) that creation began on October 23, 4004 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Judeo-Christian_Views

myrmaad
03-04-08, 14:06
OOOh Noooos!! I remember this from an astronomy class, omg. Please.

McGloomy
03-04-08, 14:08
Well, I don't believe in this 6.000 years thing. I just wanted to point out the "facts". ;)

krycekuva
03-04-08, 14:24
great now we have an earth of 6000 years old, and dinosaurs living on noahs arc,.. this is just great,.. whats next?...

and why catholic religion being the only one, and not jewish or muslim?... after all they all worship the same god?..:D

myrmaad
03-04-08, 15:08
^It's a "Great Mystery"! :cln:

Mr.Burns
03-04-08, 15:53
According to Judaism, we're in the year 5767. I had always assumed the date is based roughly on the year Judaism was formed.

myrmaad
03-04-08, 17:12
I didn't realize it was considered the "beginning of the world" for Judaism, though.. I never heard that before reading the link below.
Lots of calendars here:
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-jewish.html

I'm a very lame Jew. I'm like the Jewish red-headed step-child.

Tyrannosaurus
04-04-08, 00:27
Apparently some guy, British or American, was hunting in Africa and he had a guide with him. They were on the plains, near the edge of a forest, and there was a rhino grazing. All of a sudden what they both describe as something that looked very much like a T-Rex burst out of the trees and attacked the rhino. The hunter and/or his guide passed out, I can't remember who, and later they hauled @ss out of there and told their story. No one believed them, of course, but I think the guide was very credible. Also, several years ago there were odd reports of creatures being seen in Colorado that the wittnesses described as looking like the "raptors" from Jurassic Park. Several pets went missing, and I think some of the wittnesses were in dangerous situations. There are ostrich farms out there, but these people very clearly saw these creatures so they didn't mistake them. Also, there are tribes in the Congo jungle that speak of a creature that sounds very much like a apotosaurus. They even said they killed and ate one, but it made them sick. The mok'ele-mbembe they call it. Now you have to think, these are people who have lived in the jungle all their life, and probably never seen pictures of dinosaurs. They probably know all the animals in the jungle, so I don' t think it likely that they could mistake, say, a hippo for something looking like an apatosaur.

All this is fascinating, but be wary of someone using a movie as a frame of reference. It should be a big tip-off when someone's description of a dinosaur-like animal is based on an outdated reconstruction.

My point with all this is, the world is huge. Despite what some biologists think, we have not discovered every thing there is to be discovered and we do not know everything there is to know about the earth. I think it is possible that some, maybe even many dinosaurs have survived and have learned to hide from humans. The medieval dragon stories could have been inspired by dinosaurs. Even the Romans have stories, not myths, of going out and hunting dinosaur-like creatures. This is a real fresco/mosaic thing that was found.

I think it was either animal planet or the discovery channel that once made a doctumentary hosted by Patrick Stewart about how dragons might have plausibly existed, and I thought it was pretty awesome. We should remember, though, that the presence of a living non-avian dinosaur wouldn't actually prove or disprove anything about evolution, only that we know less about the biodiversity of this planet than we think we do. Ah, but you've the covered the same point.

Mister_Creazil
04-04-08, 00:36
Tyrannosaurus, I always find you in threads based upon dinosaurs. Then again, it's a bit self-explanatory. But, it's obvious that this is an April Fools prank. No one would find a live T-Rex from the, apparently, millions of years they've been extinct. If they have, then flippin' hell, God knows how many there were breeding the others to keep the animal alive.

Also, no man would retract DNA from fossils, if they found any, because that's just plain stupid and dangerous.

Chiki Mina
04-04-08, 00:49
I think there was a special documentary on the possibilities of bringing dinos back to life by using DNA from mosquitos on the Discovery channel :). Don't think it's possible, since the DNA is very fragile and deteriorates over time.

Tyrannosaurus
04-04-08, 01:33
Oh well, I hate to have to do this but I guess a quick Google of my name might help clear this up: Wow, looks like I have forgotten more about biological diversity than some of you have ever learned yet.

Classes and exhibits set for fall at NC Botanical Garden (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/sep97/botg.html)
United States Geological Survey, Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources (http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/sandt/Sotheast.pdf) (contributing editor in chapter on Southeast)
Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia and Surrounding Areas (http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/WeakleysFlora.pdf) (contributor)
Devonian Fishes and Plants of Miguasha, Quebec, Canada (http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/ef1.html) (co-author of chapter on paleobotany (http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/07pala/e2_03d.html))

Then I will have to raise my tiny, two-fingered arms into the air and trust that you probably know a lot more about prehistoric plants and ecosystems than I do. You've done this by demonstrating your credentials. But for you this is a two-edged sword.

Why should I now reject what the vast majority of scientists with credentials in even more relevant fields than yours are saying about the history of the Earth? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Of course, while I don't have credentials in this field at all, I often do like to embarass militant atheists by proving to them that I've forgotten more about paleontology than most of them will ever care to learn. I have a Darwin fish and a Jesus fish on my car, both displayed without a trace of irony, as my way of extending my middle finger toward anyone who thinks the presence of one necessitates the negation of the other. I wish I didn't live in an age where either one by itself would give the wrong impression about me.

Why do evolutionists never check their facts about these things? Oh that's right, they aren't facts, they are untested hypotheses. :wve:

Don't throw stones in a glass house, dude. How do the facts of "creation science" hold up in comparison? Not very well, and it isn't because all scientists are biased atheists.

That is what is called a leap of faith. Kind of like how you have to have a conceptual framework of an earth that is billions of years old, in order to design an experimental procedure to collect data that supports your concept that the earth is billions of years old.

But I don't do that, and I'm not a scientist, anyway. Besides, I was under the impression that scientists form their conceptual frameworks after they've collected their data. You're implying that they start with the conclusion first, then search for evidence to support it, which is exactly what you're doing.

The fabled christian apologist J. P. Holding (it's a pseudonym, but oh well) at least explains to us that the biblical concept of "faith" isn't about blind trust at all, but loyalty based on prior performance or service.

So in this sense, I can reasonably trust what scientist with proper credentials have to say about their fields of study.

Likewise, I have also come to reasonably trust the Bible, but not through a leap of blind faith, and not in the manner that you have. I trust that there can be an intellectually viable foundation for faith.

When I dabble in the realm of apologetics, my aim is not to prove that I am right and my opponent is wrong--only that my belief system can be consistent, defendable, justifiable, and generally beneficial. This is something that antitheists aren't even able to accept, since they hold all religious thought in such extreme intellectual contempt. They write silly books to their respective chiors, through which they wield flame throwers against armies of straw men, and are somehow called "brilliant" anyway.

And so it would appear that the Bible records the breakup of the techtonic plates, mid-way in the period of time between the scattering of the people from Babel and the time of Abraham. Almost everything in your post is still pure conjecture. For example, you opine that Havilah represents the Americas, while other sources assosciate it with Yemen or Medina, which makes more sense to me.

I am still unconvinced that Tyrannosaurs were roaming everywhere on the Earth, and that we've only conveniently found them on certain continents. I'm assuming your reference to a singular continent is Pangea. It find it odd how you might accept this part of paleogeography as coinciding with parts of Genesis, yet reject the notions of Laurasia and Gondwanaland. I should remind you that this continent began to seperate about 220 million years ago, which was long before the time T.rex would have lived. By the end of the Cretaceous, the continents were almost in the same places they are now, but the sea levels were much higher. There was still some unpredictable rising and lowering of sea levels, though, and it seems that creatures from South America and Africa interacted more than we thought, though not much interaction with anything in the northern hemisphere.

So what do you know? The Bible is perfectly aligned with the picture that has been pieced together by scientists, except for the fact that science has yoked it up with the idea that the Bible is wrong, God is a liar, and the earth is billions of years old. I would love to see the look on some of your faces when you finally realize that evolution is a faith-based religion.

But that's just it: Science can't say anything about the existence of God, or the truth value of any religious claim, except when that claim crosses the line from religion into pseudo-science. If the earth is indeed billions of years old, then would that mean that the Bible is wrong, or only Genesis? Or wrong if interpreted literally? If the Earth being billions of years old is a fact, then it is just that: a fact. It still says nothing God and man, and these are questions for theologians to answer, not scientists.

This is what irks me most about creationists. Whether they admit it or not, they all seem to be rejecting evolution because they percieve it to be some vast conspiracy made by anti-theists who want to rid the world of religion. Too often the cause for scientific literacy is entangled with the cause for atheism, as is the case with Richard Dawkins (I personally despise the man--I'm behind his science, but his anti-religious rhetoric is insipid and childish). But even untangling ideological agendas, this doesn't mean their science is wrong.

So you have to resort to undermining the credibility of science itself (not that I think science is immune to criticism, mind you) in order to establish your own credibility further. This doesn't help.

If the theoretical basis for the experimental techniques is based on the fact that the earth is 6,000 years old, then naturally the data would fit the scenario.

It's just the same as programming the computer: garbage in, garbage out.

In fact, that reminds me of why I was kicked out of the Ph.D. program in Paleobotany at Carolina. I showed in my early work for my thesis that the concept you used to code your data was going to be what the computer gave you back as a conclusion. Then I found myself working as a painter. Doesn't this also apply to your conviction that the world is 6,000 years old? But perhaps more importantly, did evidence first compell you to accept the Biblical account of creation, or did the Biblical account of creation compell you to disregard some things that the vast majority of credible of Geologists have regarded as fact for a long, long time?

Tyrannosaurus
04-04-08, 01:46
Also, no man would retract DNA from fossils, if they found any, because that's just plain stupid and dangerous.

We're too far away from being able to clone a T.rex for it to be "stupid" or "dangerous". Let me put it this way: We have the DNA of the Thylacine, which went extinct some 70 years ago, and can't clone it. We also have 10,000 year-old mammoth DNA, yet attempts at producing Mammoth/elephant hybrids have failed because even the DNA from these frozen caracasses is too old and damaged to be of any use.

We have access to a fraction of remarkably well-preserved 65 million year old Tyrannosaurus DNA, but as you would imagine, that's far more scrappy. Some DNA analysis suggests that T.rex isn't too far from a chicken, though.

thiagosmr
04-04-08, 01:53
It wasnt you by any chance Tyrannosaurus? Hehe....

Now seriously... yes, sure...

Tyrannosaurus
04-04-08, 01:54
'Fraid not. I've never been to Africa.

But be prepared for my second coming. Maybe they'll hatch me from a chicken. The Hen of Babylon, perhaps?

Punaxe
04-04-08, 05:46
a doctumentary hosted by Patrick Stewart about how dragons might have plausibly existed

I gotta see this! :D

Greenkey2
04-04-08, 09:52
*pats Zac on the back, pours him/her a coffee*

Ah well, back to the drawing board. I guess some blinkers are just too darned comfortable for people to ever bother taking them off - even those who by superficial appearances have been taking a good look around.


@ Elysia: yes... it IS odd that all these civilisations and the carbon-dating of artefacts (not to mention all the fossils and a few other inconvenient things like the whole darn universe) keep popping up to suggest that God might be hiding more than She/He is giving away *scratches head* It's a puzzler alright :rolleyes:

[/amused yet pitying sarcasm]

Zac Medley
04-04-08, 10:27
*pats Zac on the back, pours him/her a coffee*

Ah well, back to the drawing board. I guess some blinkers are just too darned comfortable for people to ever bother taking them off - even those who by superficial appearances have been taking a good look around.

[/amused yet pitying sarcasm]

Talking to yourself again, Greenkey2?

I'm going to call you "Mountain Dew," from now on, because your posts positively drip with condesention.

Wait, I mean condensation (duh I too stupid to know the difference I guess).

Why should I now reject what the vast majority of scientists with credentials.....

You don't have to reject anything. People ask me questions so I answer them.

Doesn't this also apply to your conviction that the world is 6,000 years old? But perhaps more importantly, did evidence first compell you to accept the Biblical account of creation, or did the Biblical account of creation compell you to disregard some things that the vast majority of credible of Geologists have regarded as fact for a long, long time?

Good question. (Actually you raise a number of good questions and make some thoughtful observations but this one in particular strikes at the core of the debate). There is a long story behind that. I decided to believe the Bible because it is God's Word. That is my starting point. If you think that reading the Bible will convince you of the truth then you may be disappointed. I decided to believe it, then try and understand it. This may sound crazy but it is exactly the same thing as all of you have done with evolution.

@ Elysia: yes... it IS odd that all these civilisations and the carbon-dating of artefacts (not to mention all the fossils and a few other inconvenient things like the whole darn universe) keep popping up to suggest that God might be hiding more than She/He is giving away [I]*scratches head* It's a puzzler alright :rolleyes:[/amused yet pitying sarcasm]

Appealing to the great god of radio-carbon dating is not a smart thing to do, either. The theoretical basis for this procedure hangs on several assumptions, the most noteworthy of which are:

1) that incoming solar radiation has been constant for at least 30,000 years (because Carbon 14 is formed in the upper atmosphere when sunlight collides with Nitrogen molecules); and
2) that the amount of Carbon Dioxide dissolved in the oceans has been constant for the last 30,000 years (because the level of atmospheric CO2 is dependent on the concentration of CO2 in the ocean, and the procedure depends on measuring the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 in your samples).

Since a denial of the history of creation recorded in the Bible is inherant in the formulation of the data, is it any wonder that it generates dates that do not fit the Biblical record? *slaps forehead*

You can treat me like the vilage idiot if it helps, but think about what that says about your own ability to think for yourselves and make informed decisions about what you see and hear.

Ilves
04-04-08, 13:03
I don't mean to steer away from the evolution vs. creation debate, but pray tell where the Bible claims to be the literal word of God? How on earth can you maintain that view? Sincere question. ;)

DREWY
04-04-08, 13:11
I don't mean to steer away from the evolution vs. creation debate, but pray tell where the Bible claims to be the literal word of God? How on earth can you maintain that view? Sincere question. ;)

My thoughts too.

Greenkey2
04-04-08, 15:01
Zac, you've just made my day :vlol: You are many, many things, but village idiot is most definitely not one of them.

*wanders off, happily talking to herself again (only way to guarantee a decent conversation)*

Punaxe
04-04-08, 21:15
I decided to believe it, then try and understand it.
Curious. How did you substantiate that decision?

tizerist
04-04-08, 22:23
The thing is, the generation of new species has never been observed, it is only hypothesized.

thats true. if it wasnt then we would have found a bipedal primate. we are supposed to come from primates, yet none of these walk on two legs naturally. there is a missing gap between humans and primates, and if indeed we did find this missing link, guess what? this creature would be bigfoot.

however, as much as there is a flaw with evolution, what can we replace this with? only one solution:

new species "pop" into existence.

it seems bizarre, but just ask yourself how DID the first living creatures "appear" then? there MUST have been a "first one".

however i've got to disagree with the "not beleiving in god" thing. theres a clear difference between "faith" and the art of observing species and trying to work out where they come from, and why.

yes granted, the two things do clash against each other, but one is based on science and research and the other is based on religion, and beleiving in that religion even when technology blows holes in the theory that what we hear in religious scriptures is true no matter what. if you solidly believe what you read in the bible / koran / whatever, then you will never be able to accept what technology tells you about species, life and mankind.

i personally only listen to science. i feel we all know, deep down, that science does not lie. religion can effectively make you put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALA"

Ilves
04-04-08, 22:34
we are supposed to come from primates, yet none of these walk on two legs naturally. there is a missing gap between humans and primates...


In all honesty you'd have to admit that the missing link being aliens from outer space messing with primate genetics is as likely as traditional creationism. :tea: :vlol:

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 00:36
Zac, you've just made my day :vlol: You are many, many things, but village idiot is most definitely not one of them.

*wanders off, happily talking to herself again (only way to guarantee a decent conversation)*

I could get to really like you :D I always thought that talking to oneself was absolute proof of total sanity.

Tyrannosaurus
05-04-08, 02:32
thats true. if it wasnt then we would have found a bipedal primate. we are supposed to come from primates, yet none of these walk on two legs naturally. there is a missing gap between humans and primates, and if indeed we did find this missing link, guess what? this creature would be bigfoot. Humans ARE bipedal primates, there can be no mistake about that. And they have ancestors and relatives we've discovered, all of which are extinct now except us. Australopithecus, anyone?

Gregori
05-04-08, 02:35
rarw, when I was in NY..... I seen the Dinosaurs :)

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 03:00
Humans ARE bipedal primates, there can be no mistake about that. And they have ancestors and relatives we've discovered, all of which are extinct now except us. Australopithecus, anyone?

I have to admit that I am loath to prolong this debate, since I feel quite at peace with myself and all of you, but I have to say that I have seen some Australopithecus walking up and down Franklin Street (along with some Cro-Magnons and others).

One of the things that I noticed when I was a grad-student in paleobotany was that paleobotanists (and palaeontologists) are inclined to ascribe species-status to the kind of phenotypic variation that is normal to see within a single individual, let alone a population.

Specifically I mean things like the lobes on leaves. In Archaeopteris, for example, the paleos were calling different leaf morhologies separate species, but the actual phenotypic variation was less than one could find on a single living oak tree, as you sampled from leaves in direct sun to leaves in shade.

@Greenkey2, pour me that cup of coffee and let's go watch soap operas or something - I've had enough.

ben croft
05-04-08, 03:37
I want a baby t-rex :D

cococomics_pres
05-04-08, 04:03
Hey Zac, since you seem to know a lot about your beliefs (as people should) I'm curious. Not in a sarcastic way though, I honestly have some questions I'd like to know your answer to so I can better understand your beliefs. I know above you said you loathe prolonging the debate but I'm not looking to debate, just understand other views.

Firstly, can't the theories of evolution and creation coexist in a religious context? I thought that humans were created last (i.e. Adam), and theologists do not know for certain how long one of God's "days" is, so couldn't animals be developing in different ways due to different circumstances during this time, and eventually Adam is finally created/exists as we think of him?

Also, do you believe in even microevolution? For example the theories of peoples of different lands adapting to their respective environments? (In Africa, skin darkened due to sun, for example).

Also was the Australopithecus comment serious? Because I have honestly never seen anyone with the facial/bone structure anywhere close to Australopithecus before, maybe I just don't look hard enough.

And as a last question, about when you said that you use the Bible as a starting point for your beliefs (as Tyrannesaurus said, that the earth is 6000 years old), I would like if you could PM me or post some specific verses because I am curious as to where this information comes from. I have read most of the Bible, but I believe that since it is considered God's word, that we most likely cannot interpret it from a factual standpoint, and point out exactly what each verse means. Some are straightforward such as the things actual people did, etc. but others are vague and I don't personally believe anyone knows what everything means for a fact.

Thanks for your time and patience, just wanting to understand some things!

On topic however, I'd love to see a live T-rex baby.

Tyrannosaurus
05-04-08, 04:57
Firstly, can't the theories of evolution and creation coexist in a religious context? They certainly can. Robert T. Bakker, anyone? He is one of the most influential of all 20th century paleontologists, and he's a Pentecostal preacher. Kenneth Miller? He's the author of Finding Darwin's God. And Peter Dodson, the leading authority on ceratopsid dinosaurs? He's evidentially a theistic evolutionist.

I could list many, many more people who are or were religious and have contributed a lot to our understanding of evolutionary biology.

Of course, the most conservatively religious christians I know of will tell me I'm compromising my faith by ignoring the parts of the Bible I don't like and accepting the ones that I do. Antitheists will tell me that this reflects how "compartmentalized" my brain is, and that if I were to remain truly intellectually honest and apply my college education to my religious beliefs and accept the ridiculous straw man arguments against the existence of God that they do, I would be a right-minded rational atheist like them.

Both have probably read the Bible more than I have, and have de-contextualized and/or taken everything literally in order to support their arguments. They say that reading the Bible is the first step toward becoming an atheist. I assume this is so only if you've come to believe it to be the infallible word of God, have no solid intellectual basis for your faith, and read it without the benefit of credible scholarship to aid you. We should remember that the Bible was not written yesterday, or for us personally. For this reason, I'm usually quite wary of any skeptic's or apologetic's guide to the Bible, because both contain obvious biases. And I don't claim to understand it by myself. What I would need would be a detailed analysis from a historical as well as a theological perspective, and that's not particularly easy to come by.

To both parties who call me a compromiser, I extend my middle finger with my choice of bumper adornment (Yes, this is an actual photograph of my car!):

http://a60.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/105/l_96cdedbecf5e8f4428e99a7e0b29b673.jpg

Also, do you believe in even microevolution? For example the theories of peoples of different lands adapting to their respective environments? (In Africa, skin darkened due to sun, for example). Evolutionists make no distinctions between "macro" and "micro" evolution. These are creationist concepts. Indeed, they aren't even very well defined.

Also was the Australopithecus comment serious? Because I have honestly never seen anyone with the facial/bone structure anywhere close to Australopithecus before, maybe I just don't look hard enough. Even people like us with no credentials worth mentioning would not mistake Australopithecene skulls for those of modern humans from a cursory glance. Perhaps as skulls of apes, but even comparing a chimpanzee skull with the skull of an Australopithecus in this manner should make it clear that Australopithecus is closer to us than the chimp.

There have been a few ridiculous creationist theories floating around that Neanderthal and Homo erectus skulls fall within the range of normal human variation, but were only diseased/deformed/aged individuals. This might be more credible if each species were only known from a single specimen. Alas, neither of them are.

It was once thought that "missing link" would have to be an apelike creature with human cranial capacity; an ape-man so to speak. Our findings have shown it to be the opposite: a man-ape that stood upright and grew human-like teeth, then got smart. That Piltdown man was based on this first faulty model and later exposed as a hoax is certainly no shining example of science in action, but at least it shows that scientists have changed their models of human evolution in light of the evidence unearthed.

On topic however, I'd love to see a live T-rex baby.Oh, wouldn't we all? They might have even had down feathers at birth, you know. Lil' cuties.

Ilves
05-04-08, 15:28
Le Bump?

There's too many relevant questions left unanswered in this for it to drift off the first page, IMO... :)

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 17:24
I know above you said you loathe prolonging the debate but I'm not looking to debate, just understand other views.

Well since you ask so nicely....

Firstly, can't the theories of evolution and creation coexist in a religious context?

I don't think I can definitively answer that question without sparking another round of angry rebuttals. However, maybe I can explain what I believe and why without sounding judgemental about it, and you will at least understand my point of view.

According to the Bible God created the heavens and the earth in six days and it was good. God warned Adam and Eve that they must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die." Genesis 3:17

After Adam and Eve ate the fruit they continued to live, and Adam is recorded as having lived to 930 years old and had many sons and daughters. So it would seem that when God said "for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die," it means that the process of death would begin, since obviously Adam and Eve did not keel over on the spot. The rest of the testimony of scripture, including the gospels and the teachings of Jesus, are consistent with this because they repeat the fundamental point that death is punishment for sin. Romans 3:23 states "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." And Romans 6:23 says "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

So what is the problem with evolution? Simply that the process requires that there were billions of years of death and dying before there was ever a human race. Ergo, death is not a punishment for sin, infact, the concept of sin has no relevance.

It seems to me that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed. This takes the entire debate out of the realm of arguing about the merits of different experimental techniques and analytical processes, and puts it squarely into the realm of spiritual understanding.

But more important than how deep our understanding of these things is, or how great a base of knowledge we amass, remember that God sees what is in our hearts.

Also, do you believe in even microevolution? For example the theories of peoples of different lands adapting to their respective environments? (In Africa, skin darkened due to sun, for example).

Like Tyrannosaurus said, those concepts are too loosely defined to really be able to help us understand the big picture. Scientists are still fighting turf wars over what the definitions of those words are.

Also was the Australopithecus comment serious? Because I have honestly never seen anyone with the facial/bone structure anywhere close to Australopithecus before, maybe I just don't look hard enough.

I think most people around here have figured out that they should not take me too seriously. I'm serious about my beliefs, but I am also an airhead/goofball and the line between idiot/genius seems to blur more every day.

And as a last question, about when you said that you use the Bible as a starting point for your beliefs (as Tyrannesaurus said, that the earth is 6000 years old)

myrmaad also asked about this, and I had been considering writing a brief summary of how I got my 6,000 years old number.

I'll be as brief as I can.

Starting in Genesis 5 there is a list of generations that has a formula like this:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his likeness, after his image; and he called his name Seth:
>>And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters:
>>And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.:"

By following the age that a man was when his first son was born and using simple addition, it is possible to work all through this chapter at come to Noah. We find that the great flood occurred in the 1656 year after the creation. The genealogy picks up again in Genesis 11 where there is a series that fits the formula described above, and this gets us to Abram (Abraham). Genesis 12 through the end of the book gives the account of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and there is enough information (the age of Abraham when Isaac was born etc.) to get to the time when Jacob and all of his family were reunited with Joseph in Egypt. The trail seems to go stone cold after that, but there is much more to come.

Now comes the hard part. The books of I and II Kings, and I and II Chronicles record the history of the Children of Israel starting at King David. The books record the succession of monarchs of, firstly Israel itself, then after Solomon the divided kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim (Northern Israel). It is in large part a political history that does not follow a standard formula. There is a lot of information though, a lot of it being highly intricate. It is not at all straight forward, but you can find a lot of clues by comparing the two sequences from Kings and Chronicles. A lot of it is of the form: "Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat (king of northern Israel) reigned Abijam over Judah (Jerusalem and its allies)" I Kings 15:1. By the time you get through all that it may feel like you just used your brain to bench press 200 KG and there will be bits of paper every where and notes scrawled on every available surface.

We get one really nice easter egg in I Kings 6:1: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord." So that nicely anchors the history of Israel to the genealogical data we compiled from Genesis.

This history follows the children of Israel through their exile to Babylon, up to when Cyrus King of Persia made his proclamation to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah fill out this part of the history. The dateable part of seems to me to end with the day that Ezra stood in the pouring rain in front of the Israelites in Jerusalem and read to them the book of the law. This was round about 450 B.C., and there is a pretty well documented history from other sources to get us to Jesus' birth, crucifixion and resurrection.

So that's how I did it. I have no idea how Bishop Usher came up with an exact date and time of day for the creation, Personally I believe that God had no intention of making it possible to be so exact.

Ilves
05-04-08, 17:34
So what is the problem with evolution? Simply that the process requires that there were billions of years of death and dying before there was ever a human race. Ergo, death is not a punishment for sin, infact, the concept of sin has no relevance.

Do you acknowledge the weakpoint of this reasoning? "Evolution theory does not compute with the Bible, therefor it must be false."

Yet earlier we established that both theories require a leap of faith. Why would you be more willing to make it towards religion rather than science?

And once again, I'm not trying to endorse any agenda here, I ask this out of sincere curiosity. :)

Zebra
05-04-08, 17:44
I'm sorry but if evolution would be wrong why (for example) do humans look different all over the world?
Why have Africans dark skin and Europeans bright? Why have East-Asians or Australians flat noses but West-Asians not?
That's because of evolution. The reasons why humans' skin-colour changed after they went to Europe is pretty obvious. If they would've had dark skin it would've been easy to see them in the snowy landscapes of prehistoric Europe. So over thousands and millions of years the skin got brighter and brighter and brighter. I could also take the other examples I said and explain those but I'm not too keen on writing that much :p.

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 18:15
Why would you be more willing to make it towards religion rather than science?

Because I want to go to heaven and live forever in the glory of God where there is no hunger, sickness, pain or suffering.

Ilves
05-04-08, 18:16
^ I don't think you got the crux of the question ;)

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 18:21
^^ Neither did you.

Ilves
05-04-08, 18:22
^ Excuse me?

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 18:23
I don't have to justify myself to you. I was asked to explain my beliefs, which I did.

Ilves
05-04-08, 18:34
I don't have to justify myself to you. I was asked to explain my beliefs, which I did.

Of course you don't have to, and in case you think so, I'm not being hostile over this. :)

But I'm trying to place your remark in the context of what we agreed upon earlier, which was, IMO, that both religion and science require leaps of faith.

So when I asked

Why would you be more willing to make it towards religion rather than science?

and you say

Because I want to go to heaven and live forever in the glory of God where there is no hunger, sickness, pain or suffering.

then it leaves me unsatisfied as to what makes you think that religion will accomplish that for you. Granted, it's not any of my business, but you made such sweeping statements earlier, that I just want to point out how it hampers a rational discussion.

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 18:43
that I just want to point out how it hampers a rational discussion.

There comes a point when you can't rationalize any more. That is when you have to put your faith in something.

What does science have to offer? The hope that you will rot in the ground as worm food.

What does the Bible say? That souls are eternal, and when the body dies they either go to hell or heaven, depending on whether or not that person called upon Jesus Christ as saviour.

Please don't make me explain to you all the reasons why spending eternity in hell is not part of my plan.

Ilves
05-04-08, 18:50
Please don't make me explain to you all the reasons why spending eternity in hell is not part of my plan.


Here you touched the core issue. Because as far as I can see, it is NOBODY's plan to rot in hell. Also in my view, religion and science are not diametrically opposed. However in the evolution vs creationism they seem to be. In your
personal view they seem to be. So my question remains, why would you choose creationism over evolution?

Simplifying the problem would make it look something like this:

Wich is Truth, A or B?

'Because I want to go to heaven' is not by any standard a valid argument, because it already assumes that A is true.

Punaxe
05-04-08, 18:50
Zac, you seem to have missed my question earlier...


I decided to believe it, then try and understand it.
Curious. How did you substantiate that decision?


I think this is the first time I've heard of anyone "deciding" to believe the Bible, so I'm rather interested in what led you to make that choice :)

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 18:51
'Because I want to go to heaven' is not by any standard a valid argument, because it already assumes that A is true.

Precisely.

I hope to see you there :D

Zac, you seem to have missed my question earlier...
I think this is the first time I've heard of anyone "deciding" to believe the Bible, so I'm rather interested in what led you to make that choice :)

Somebody shoot me please! At this rate I am going to end up giving my whole personal testimony.

I'm going to have to think about this some more, maybe I'll figure out how to tell the story of my life without boring you all to death.

Ilves
05-04-08, 19:13
Precisely.

Oh, Zac. :o

If you're not already tired of this, please >>> http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=2612836&postcount=74

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 19:18
Oh, Zac. :o

I'm sorry Ilves, I wish that I could show you absolute proof that would erase all you doubts, but the world simply is not like that. This matter requires deep inner reflection and soul searching. Prayer is another word for it.

I can say, though, that God promised that if anyone would diligently seek him with a pure heart, that he would make himself known unto them.

"Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
>>For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Matthew 7:7,8

I'll get you an answer to your other question in a few minutes.

I don't mean to steer away from the evolution vs. creation debate, but pray tell where the Bible claims to be the literal word of God? How on earth can you maintain that view? Sincere question. ;)

I think the best place to start for that is Matthew 5:17-18 where Jesus said,
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>>For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Psalm 119 is all about a man's love for and desire to uphold the Word of God, and a lot of references are made about the purity of it.

But by far the most stark proclamation of this is the warning that comes at the end of the book of The Revelation 22:18-21
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
>>And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
>>He which testifyeth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
>>The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Ilves
05-04-08, 19:49
Just wondering if we should continue this as a private conversation, as I'm about to go terribly off topic... :D

Zac Medley
05-04-08, 19:52
PM me if you want, if I do much more preaching around here somebody will get annoyed.

Ilves
05-04-08, 19:56
Be right with you.