Creepier Belief system (2 Viewers)

[the rover]

No! This can't be dead!I've been working all day and saving this as my reward. If larry boy has given up, can vivian or ratpfink pretend to be a 10-year old creationist? :(

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

Dinosaur or Horned toad?

 

[FatMax]

Dinosaur or Horned toad?

Pay attention. They're the same friggin thing remember?

 

[shining path]

Dinosaur or Horned toad?

Pay attention. They're the same friggin thing remember?

Cleats. :derisivesnort:In terms of biological knowledge, this thread is a lion and he's a housecat.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Dinosaur or Horned toad?

Pay attention. They're the same friggin thing remember?

Cleats. :derisivesnort:In terms of biological knowledge, this thread is a lion and he's a housecat.

Strange but tantalizing bedfellows.

 

[dickey moe]

No, they aren't.  Are you a zoologist?

are you?

Larry, I suspect this is a waste of time because you've shown in this thread not only a real ignorance of biology and science in general, but a refusal to really read any of the posts that attempt to unscramble your muddled questions and give you straightforward answers, but anyway -Dinosaurs looked very dissimilar to modern reptiles. Dinosaurs shared some diagnostic features of the bones in the skull that tells us that they were almost certainly reptiles (at least, no other modern or fossil group shares them except for other reptiles). Outside of that, though, dinosaurs were their own deal. The shape of their pelvic girdle tells us that they were all descended from a bipedal ancestor, and many of them retained this posture throughout their evolutionary history. However, anatomist would ever, ever, ever confuse a dinosaur skeleton with the skeleton of other types of reptiles, such as lepidosaurs (modern and fossil lizards and snakes), anapsids (modern and fossil turtles), or other archasaurs (which include dinosaurs, modern and fossil birds, and modern and fossil crocodilians). The skeletal features are completely different, although there are enough common features (as well as egg-laying) that lead us to put all these things in the same larger grouping of "reptiles". In other words, a dinosaur doesn't have a lot in common with a turtle or a lizard, but it has more in common with them than it does with a mammal or amphibian. Birds - Birds appeared on the scene long before dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. We have fossil birds dating back 90 million years. There are several transitional forms that show a melange of dinosaur and bird features, which, along with several key similarities in morphology, make scientists fairly confident that the two groups are closely related and that birds descended from a group of small bipedal dinosaurs called theropods (although not always small! T Rex awas a theropod). While this confidence dates back to the late 19th century, two discoveries really drove home the lesson. The first was the discovery of Archeopteryx. Archeopteryx was a bird, since it had feathers and at the time of discovery anything with feathers was automatically called a bird. But Archeopteryx shared a number of features with dinosaurs that no modern bird possesses, included a dinosaur-like hip bone and a long bony tail. It also had teeth. The rock strata that Archeopteryx was found in dates back more than 80 million years, and if you don't like the dates, then at the very least they were a lot older than the most recent dinosaur-bearing rocks.More recently (in the last 20 years) paleontologists have found a host of fossils linking dinosaurs to birds that pretty much removes all doubt. First, several small dinosaurs have been discovered that actually had feathers! The shape in the rocks was charachteristic of a primitive unbranched feather, and in one case enough of the original feather material was left intact to chemically test it - and sure enough, it was a type of keratin (a class of protein also found in scales, hair, fingernails, claws, and other structures built by skin cells) that is unique to feathers. These dinosaurs were small, lightly built, and were skeletally similar enough that many paleontologists today refer to birds as "non-dinosaur theropods".The question of why dinosaurs went extinct but not birds and mammals is a good one. The likely answer is that a lot of birds and mammals did go extinct along with the dinosaurs, and that the birds and mammals you see around you today are the result of the subsequent proliferation of the relatively few survivors. It might have been some built in characteristic like a high metabolism and small size that helped get a few mammals and birds over the hump but left the dinos behind. Or it might have been plain dumb luck, as is often the case in natural history. We really don't know, but these are good questions to ask. The funny thing is, you could have answered all those questions yourself by reading a high school or freshman college biology textbook. Or by googling "dinosaur" and "bird". It's not secret information.

Thank God (or the evolutionary forces of nature, depending on your preference) that you took on this responsibility!!! Now I don't have to sort through my old vertebrate evolution textbook to come up with a good explanation...

 

[scoobygang]

But why are there still monkeys? WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS!!!!!!

 

[tommyboy]

Not in tommyboy's neighbourhood.

what's with the extra vowels?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Nobody dies for what they know is a lie.

Many millions of people have died for what we NOW KNOW to be a lie.

That's not the point. The early disciples lived with Jesus. Several of them were there when He was crucified. Several helped to bury the body. If the resurrection was a scam, they would only have been willing to go so far with it. If they knew it was a scam they wouldn't have died a martyrs death.I might die for something if I didn't realize it was a lie, but not if I knew it was a lie.

The disciples scattered when Jesus was arrested.. The only one noted to be at the actual crucifixion is John.. at least that is what it says in his gospel. He was there with Jesus' mother. Matthew reports that only Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus.. no mention of any disciples of Jesus helping with the burial.

Mark reports the same Joseph burying Jesus. One thing interesting about Mark is that he says Joseph rolled the stone over the entrance to the tomb when he was done.

I thought the stone was too heavy for someone to roll it away? If he could roll it, is it not possible for someone else, say a disciple or two to roll it away in the night?

Luke reports that Joseph buried Jesus. The two Mary's watched him.

John reports that Joseph buried Jesus with the help of Nicodemus.. also according to John, this tomb was new and no one had ever been placed there..

The only odd thing about this is that it is claimed that Jesus is the suffering servant in Isaiah 53.. but in Isaiah 53:9 it says:

"They buried him with the wicked,

threw him in a grave with a rich man,

Even though he'd never hurt a soul

or said one word that wasn't true. - The Message

"He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

nor was any deceit in his mouth. " - NIV

If Jesus was the guy in Isaiah 53 (which is paramount to christianity), then he was supposed to be buried with wicked men. The gospels say he was buried alone in a new tomb.

Did the NT writers overlook this small detail?

First let me state that I am not a biblical scholar, but after reading your post I was very intrigued and spent some time this afternoon trying to answer your questions.1. Isaiah 53 - I think you may have placed the wrong emphasis on this passage. When I read that same passage, I read it as meaning that all who had died were not in glory (therefor wicked) and the rich were not impervious to wickedness or damnation despite their prominent position in this life. I think you are reading it that he was supposed to be buried in some communal grave with other sinners. If that were the case, then how could he also be buried with the rich? I don't have a copy of the message but I did read the NIV account. To me, the grave of the wicked is the same as descent into hell....I could be wrong as again I am not a biblical scholar.

2. The four Gospel accounts apparent contradictions.

I read each of the chapters concerning Jesus' death, burial and ressurection. All four had Joseph burying Jesus in a tomb. Matthew in Josephs own tomb, John in "new" tomb, Mark and Luke in "a" tomb. All 4 accounts had Mary's either there or with knowledge of where the tomb was. John had Nicodemus accompanying Jesus, but Nicodemus' presence is not precluded in the other three accounts. Matthew reported Roman guards being placed at the tomb when Jewish authorities requested they be put there due to their fear that followers of Christ would steal the body and claim ressurection. Luke had no mention of the stone being rolled, all other accounts refer to a stone being rolled - but more than one person moving the stone is not precluded. I am glad I did the research(actually just reading and drawing a brief outline). It is interesting how the accounts are not identical but all seem to reach the same conclusions.

I am going to do more research on Isaiah. I spend more time reading the New Testament. Maybe I should give the Book of Isaiah a good once over.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Mostly I was talking about giving up sodomy.

well if it's with the wife, I don't know that it's taboo..

It is if you're Catholic, what with its being non-reproductive and all. Although I suppose if your faith is strong enough, maybe it could be reproductive if you believe in miracles. Why not?This is a good question for the Pope. What's his email?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You guys are missing the pont about dinosaurs...No living creature has evolved from brontosaurs, anklyosaurs, triceratops, etc...It was an evolutionary dead-end (well, it was a line that was terminated by an external event - probably a meteorite strike). So nothing is related to them. From a taxonomic point of view, the common ancestor is much earlier...[forgive me if I'm a little rusty - I haven't done much evoluitonary paleantology since aboot 1995... ]

the question is why do a number of modern lizards look EXACTLY like miniature versions of dinosaurs then? Wouldn't that support the thought that dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago???

He doesn't really believe this. He's just stirring the pot.

will I get an answer to teh question?*doubts it*

The answer is because it's an efficient body shape for accomplishing certain tasks if you're a reptile. It therefore gets preferentially selected over time.

but they're not just similar... they are EXACT, just smaller...

This is not true if you've read Ecclesiastes 4:16-27 or Geronimo 15:5. According to the latter, the LORD gave modern lizards beadier eyes and sexier hips than than their dinosaur counterparts. In fact, if you believe in the Bible (see especially Cesium 2:14), you know that modern lizards are in fact furry little suckers and are probably not even cold-blooded.I mean, as long as we're just totally making stuff up . . .

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No, they aren't.  Are you a zoologist?

are you?

Larry, I suspect this is a waste of time because you've shown in this thread not only a real ignorance of biology and science in general, but a refusal to really read any of the posts that attempt to unscramble your muddled questions and give you straightforward answers, but anyway -Dinosaurs looked very dissimilar to modern reptiles. Dinosaurs shared some diagnostic features of the bones in the skull that tells us that they were almost certainly reptiles (at least, no other modern or fossil group shares them except for other reptiles). Outside of that, though, dinosaurs were their own deal. The shape of their pelvic girdle tells us that they were all descended from a bipedal ancestor, and many of them retained this posture throughout their evolutionary history. However, anatomist would ever, ever, ever confuse a dinosaur skeleton with the skeleton of other types of reptiles, such as lepidosaurs (modern and fossil lizards and snakes), anapsids (modern and fossil turtles), or other archasaurs (which include dinosaurs, modern and fossil birds, and modern and fossil crocodilians). The skeletal features are completely different, although there are enough common features (as well as egg-laying) that lead us to put all these things in the same larger grouping of "reptiles". In other words, a dinosaur doesn't have a lot in common with a turtle or a lizard, but it has more in common with them than it does with a mammal or amphibian. Birds - Birds appeared on the scene long before dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. We have fossil birds dating back 90 million years. There are several transitional forms that show a melange of dinosaur and bird features, which, along with several key similarities in morphology, make scientists fairly confident that the two groups are closely related and that birds descended from a group of small bipedal dinosaurs called theropods (although not always small! T Rex awas a theropod). While this confidence dates back to the late 19th century, two discoveries really drove home the lesson. The first was the discovery of Archeopteryx. Archeopteryx was a bird, since it had feathers and at the time of discovery anything with feathers was automatically called a bird. But Archeopteryx shared a number of features with dinosaurs that no modern bird possesses, included a dinosaur-like hip bone and a long bony tail. It also had teeth. The rock strata that Archeopteryx was found in dates back more than 80 million years, and if you don't like the dates, then at the very least they were a lot older than the most recent dinosaur-bearing rocks.More recently (in the last 20 years) paleontologists have found a host of fossils linking dinosaurs to birds that pretty much removes all doubt. First, several small dinosaurs have been discovered that actually had feathers! The shape in the rocks was charachteristic of a primitive unbranched feather, and in one case enough of the original feather material was left intact to chemically test it - and sure enough, it was a type of keratin (a class of protein also found in scales, hair, fingernails, claws, and other structures built by skin cells) that is unique to feathers. These dinosaurs were small, lightly built, and were skeletally similar enough that many paleontologists today refer to birds as "non-dinosaur theropods".The question of why dinosaurs went extinct but not birds and mammals is a good one. The likely answer is that a lot of birds and mammals did go extinct along with the dinosaurs, and that the birds and mammals you see around you today are the result of the subsequent proliferation of the relatively few survivors. It might have been some built in characteristic like a high metabolism and small size that helped get a few mammals and birds over the hump but left the dinos behind. Or it might have been plain dumb luck, as is often the case in natural history. We really don't know, but these are good questions to ask. The funny thing is, you could have answered all those questions yourself by reading a high school or freshman college biology textbook. Or by googling "dinosaur" and "bird". It's not secret information.

This is a great freaking post.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

No, they aren't.  Are you a zoologist?

are you?

Larry, I suspect this is a waste of time because you've shown in this thread not only a real ignorance of biology and science in general, but a refusal to really read any of the posts that attempt to unscramble your muddled questions and give you straightforward answers, but anyway -Dinosaurs looked very dissimilar to modern reptiles. Dinosaurs shared some diagnostic features of the bones in the skull that tells us that they were almost certainly reptiles (at least, no other modern or fossil group shares them except for other reptiles). Outside of that, though, dinosaurs were their own deal. The shape of their pelvic girdle tells us that they were all descended from a bipedal ancestor, and many of them retained this posture throughout their evolutionary history. However, anatomist would ever, ever, ever confuse a dinosaur skeleton with the skeleton of other types of reptiles, such as lepidosaurs (modern and fossil lizards and snakes), anapsids (modern and fossil turtles), or other archasaurs (which include dinosaurs, modern and fossil birds, and modern and fossil crocodilians). The skeletal features are completely different, although there are enough common features (as well as egg-laying) that lead us to put all these things in the same larger grouping of "reptiles". In other words, a dinosaur doesn't have a lot in common with a turtle or a lizard, but it has more in common with them than it does with a mammal or amphibian. Birds - Birds appeared on the scene long before dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. We have fossil birds dating back 90 million years. There are several transitional forms that show a melange of dinosaur and bird features, which, along with several key similarities in morphology, make scientists fairly confident that the two groups are closely related and that birds descended from a group of small bipedal dinosaurs called theropods (although not always small! T Rex awas a theropod). While this confidence dates back to the late 19th century, two discoveries really drove home the lesson. The first was the discovery of Archeopteryx. Archeopteryx was a bird, since it had feathers and at the time of discovery anything with feathers was automatically called a bird. But Archeopteryx shared a number of features with dinosaurs that no modern bird possesses, included a dinosaur-like hip bone and a long bony tail. It also had teeth. The rock strata that Archeopteryx was found in dates back more than 80 million years, and if you don't like the dates, then at the very least they were a lot older than the most recent dinosaur-bearing rocks.More recently (in the last 20 years) paleontologists have found a host of fossils linking dinosaurs to birds that pretty much removes all doubt. First, several small dinosaurs have been discovered that actually had feathers! The shape in the rocks was charachteristic of a primitive unbranched feather, and in one case enough of the original feather material was left intact to chemically test it - and sure enough, it was a type of keratin (a class of protein also found in scales, hair, fingernails, claws, and other structures built by skin cells) that is unique to feathers. These dinosaurs were small, lightly built, and were skeletally similar enough that many paleontologists today refer to birds as "non-dinosaur theropods".The question of why dinosaurs went extinct but not birds and mammals is a good one. The likely answer is that a lot of birds and mammals did go extinct along with the dinosaurs, and that the birds and mammals you see around you today are the result of the subsequent proliferation of the relatively few survivors. It might have been some built in characteristic like a high metabolism and small size that helped get a few mammals and birds over the hump but left the dinos behind. Or it might have been plain dumb luck, as is often the case in natural history. We really don't know, but these are good questions to ask. The funny thing is, you could have answered all those questions yourself by reading a high school or freshman college biology textbook. Or by googling "dinosaur" and "bird". It's not secret information.

This is a great freaking post.

Maurile just got a chub.

 

[snorlax]

Not in tommyboy's neighbourhood.

what's with the extra vowels?

 

[Jericho]

(see especially Cesium 2:14)

I would have gone with Uranium 2:35, but then I like glowy things.

 

[Jericho]

This is a great freaking post.

It wasn't as good as my post about bearded dragons accessorizing.See, mine was shorter.

 

[Jayrok]

First let me state that I am not a biblical scholar, but after reading your post I was very intrigued and spent some time this afternoon trying to answer your questions.

1. Isaiah 53 - I think you may have placed the wrong emphasis on this passage. When I read that same passage, I read it as meaning that all who had died were not in glory (therefor wicked) and the rich were not impervious to wickedness or damnation despite their prominent position in this life. I think you are reading it that he was supposed to be buried in some communal grave with other sinners. If that were the case, then how could he also be buried with the rich? I don't have a copy of the message but I did read the NIV account. To me, the grave of the wicked is the same as descent into hell....I could be wrong as again I am not a biblical scholar.

2. The four Gospel accounts apparent contradictions.

I read each of the chapters concerning Jesus' death, burial and ressurection. All four had Joseph burying Jesus in a tomb. Matthew in Josephs own tomb, John in "new" tomb, Mark and Luke in "a" tomb. All 4 accounts had Mary's either there or with knowledge of where the tomb was. John had Nicodemus accompanying Jesus, but Nicodemus' presence is not precluded in the other three accounts. Matthew reported Roman guards being placed at the tomb when Jewish authorities requested they be put there due to their fear that followers of Christ would steal the body and claim ressurection. Luke had no mention of the stone being rolled, all other accounts refer to a stone being rolled - but more than one person moving the stone is not precluded. I am glad I did the research(actually just reading and drawing a brief outline). It is interesting how the accounts are not identical but all seem to reach the same conclusions.

I am going to do more research on Isaiah. I spend more time reading the New Testament. Maybe I should give the Book of Isaiah a good once over.

Rich people can't be wicked?The grave is not to be confused with "hell". In the old testament and Hebrew bible the grave is known as Sheol.. simply put, 6 feet under. In fact, in the OT (old test) there is no concept of a "burning Hell" or a "final judgment" of mankind. These types of concepts were introduced into Judaism and later christianity during the babylonian exile. Isaiah, daniel and others were among those exiled. Pre-exile satan was not the mortal enemy of God.. he was simply a servant, like any other angel. Post-exile things begin to change. Moses had no concept of an afterlife or hell. He simply thought men returned to dust in the grave.

I don't think Isaiah meant Jesus was assigned a grave in hell, because the grave and hell are not the same thing.

To be clear, I'm not reading it to think he is supposed to be buried with some wicked men. Isaiah says this, but he isn't talking about Jesus. Isaiah had no idea who jesus was or was going to be. He was talking about his homeland of Israel and speaking metaphorically. My point is that christianity holds the opinion that this chapter of isaiah is speaking of the future christ.. it does say he was buried with the wicked. I only mention it because the empty tomb was brought up, and if they are saying that this chapter talks of Jesus, then all of the chapter is about him.. therefore, his tomb maybe shouldn't have been empty, since he was to be buried with the wicked..

as for the gospels.. I didn't post that to show any contradiction on the burial. It was a response to a post that said many of the disciples helped bury Jesus, which isn't true according to the gospels..

If you liked reading those accounts, read the whole passion stories.. there are some differences among other similarities in the gospels. There are some discrepancies but not a big deal IMO. For instance, John is the only gospel that has one of the theives on the cross beside Jesus asking him to remember him.. Jesus says he will be with him in paradise.. the other gospels have both thieves mock Jesus with everyone else. Why John records it different is somewhat of a mystery.. but.. now, if you want a contradiction... read the birth accounts of matthew as opposed to Luke.. all the way through til Jesus is 12... or in matthew's case, til they settle into nazareth..

oh, and the book of Isaiah is a great read.. lots of telling passages there..

 

[Jayrok]

Mostly I was talking about giving up sodomy.

well if it's with the wife, I don't know that it's taboo..

It is if you're Catholic, what with its being non-reproductive and all. Although I suppose if your faith is strong enough, maybe it could be reproductive if you believe in miracles. Why not?This is a good question for the Pope. What's his email?

I don't know, maybe it's ok only if you are a priest?falseprophet@vatican.org?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry, I suspect this is a waste of time

I read this much...

I got a buck that says you made it at least three words farther than larry.

no, I read the whole thing... I think it was the first actual reply on here...}=O)*gonna reply to him in a sec*

 

[larry_boy_44]

No, they aren't.  Are you a zoologist?

are you?

Larry, I suspect this is a waste of time because you've shown in this thread not only a real ignorance of biology and science in general, but a refusal to really read any of the posts that attempt to unscramble your muddled questions and give you straightforward answers, but anyway -Dinosaurs looked very dissimilar to modern reptiles. Dinosaurs shared some diagnostic features of the bones in the skull that tells us that they were almost certainly reptiles (at least, no other modern or fossil group shares them except for other reptiles). Outside of that, though, dinosaurs were their own deal. The shape of their pelvic girdle tells us that they were all descended from a bipedal ancestor, and many of them retained this posture throughout their evolutionary history. However, anatomist would ever, ever, ever confuse a dinosaur skeleton with the skeleton of other types of reptiles, such as lepidosaurs (modern and fossil lizards and snakes), anapsids (modern and fossil turtles), or other archasaurs (which include dinosaurs, modern and fossil birds, and modern and fossil crocodilians). The skeletal features are completely different, although there are enough common features (as well as egg-laying) that lead us to put all these things in the same larger grouping of "reptiles". In other words, a dinosaur doesn't have a lot in common with a turtle or a lizard, but it has more in common with them than it does with a mammal or amphibian. Birds - Birds appeared on the scene long before dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. We have fossil birds dating back 90 million years. There are several transitional forms that show a melange of dinosaur and bird features, which, along with several key similarities in morphology, make scientists fairly confident that the two groups are closely related and that birds descended from a group of small bipedal dinosaurs called theropods (although not always small! T Rex awas a theropod). While this confidence dates back to the late 19th century, two discoveries really drove home the lesson. The first was the discovery of Archeopteryx. Archeopteryx was a bird, since it had feathers and at the time of discovery anything with feathers was automatically called a bird. But Archeopteryx shared a number of features with dinosaurs that no modern bird possesses, included a dinosaur-like hip bone and a long bony tail. It also had teeth. The rock strata that Archeopteryx was found in dates back more than 80 million years, and if you don't like the dates, then at the very least they were a lot older than the most recent dinosaur-bearing rocks.More recently (in the last 20 years) paleontologists have found a host of fossils linking dinosaurs to birds that pretty much removes all doubt. First, several small dinosaurs have been discovered that actually had feathers! The shape in the rocks was charachteristic of a primitive unbranched feather, and in one case enough of the original feather material was left intact to chemically test it - and sure enough, it was a type of keratin (a class of protein also found in scales, hair, fingernails, claws, and other structures built by skin cells) that is unique to feathers. These dinosaurs were small, lightly built, and were skeletally similar enough that many paleontologists today refer to birds as "non-dinosaur theropods".The question of why dinosaurs went extinct but not birds and mammals is a good one. The likely answer is that a lot of birds and mammals did go extinct along with the dinosaurs, and that the birds and mammals you see around you today are the result of the subsequent proliferation of the relatively few survivors. It might have been some built in characteristic like a high metabolism and small size that helped get a few mammals and birds over the hump but left the dinos behind. Or it might have been plain dumb luck, as is often the case in natural history. We really don't know, but these are good questions to ask. The funny thing is, you could have answered all those questions yourself by reading a high school or freshman college biology textbook. Or by googling "dinosaur" and "bird". It's not secret information.

22 pages and I get a real answer? Thanks...Now, I never said I was a science major or anything, I just find it funny that it took 22 pages for a remotely serious answer...I mean I asked about the lizard/dinosaur thing on page 2 and no one even noticed it until the third or fourth time i brought it up... they were too busy giving sarcastic replys that help nothing and no one, but just show that they are arrogant and don't really care what is true or not, they just believe waht they believe...I don't know how the world got here, whether God created everything or we got here through evolution...I believe God created the world, how he did it, I have no idea...But, I don't know... and I generally don't argue, at the beginning I was just stating facts and thought it was funny that no one gave a serious reply... and then I actually kind of wanted a serious reply, because I was starting to go "maybe they actually don't have one..."but.. thanks for actually posting something that made a little sense... }=O) And wasn't stupid...and I read the whole thing...

 

[Jericho]

Larry, nobody replied because this is all stuff that's covered in high school biology. If you haven't even taken high school biology then you're beyond any of our help.

 

[Village Idiot]

But you said they look exactly like modern reptiles!!!! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

No no, they were bigger. Because dinosaurs lived for 8000 years. Like, I mean, a single dinosaur. And reptiles never stop growing. Then the flood came, so now nobody lives as long. So all the lizards on earth are actually dinosaurs they just don't get a chance to grow. And lions can mate with housecats.How am I doing, Larry? I want to get the hypothesis right so that we can properly put together experiments to test it.

I could have saved over an hour of my time by just reading this post.This is what happens when you lose your Larry Boy to English rosetta stone.

 

[scoobygang]

You know, there are times when I think it just isn't worth it to care about what creationists do to get into schools. I probably won't have kids and if the American public wants bad science, well what are you gonna do.And then someone like larry_boy comes around and I realize this kid could be ******* up my fry order someday.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry, nobody replied because this is all stuff that's covered in high school biology. If you haven't even taken high school biology then you're beyond any of our help.

there's lots of things in high school that are said that are bs.... that is no reason to be an ###...besides, I didn't take high school biology due to issues with transfering schools & block scheduling... ur point?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

First let me state that I am not a biblical scholar, but after reading your post I was very intrigued and spent some time this afternoon trying to answer your questions.

1. Isaiah 53 - I think you may have placed the wrong emphasis on this passage. When I read that same passage, I read it as meaning that all who had died were not in glory (therefor wicked) and the rich were not impervious to wickedness or damnation despite their prominent position in this life. I think you are reading it that he was supposed to be buried in some communal grave with other sinners. If that were the case, then how could he also be buried with the rich? I don't have a copy of the message but I did read the NIV account. To me, the grave of the wicked is the same as descent into hell....I could be wrong as again I am not a biblical scholar.

2. The four Gospel accounts apparent contradictions.

I read each of the chapters concerning Jesus' death, burial and ressurection. All four had Joseph burying Jesus in a tomb. Matthew in Josephs own tomb, John in "new" tomb, Mark and Luke in "a" tomb. All 4 accounts had Mary's either there or with knowledge of where the tomb was. John had Nicodemus accompanying Jesus, but Nicodemus' presence is not precluded in the other three accounts. Matthew reported Roman guards being placed at the tomb when Jewish authorities requested they be put there due to their fear that followers of Christ would steal the body and claim ressurection. Luke had no mention of the stone being rolled, all other accounts refer to a stone being rolled - but more than one person moving the stone is not precluded. I am glad I did the research(actually just reading and drawing a brief outline). It is interesting how the accounts are not identical but all seem to reach the same conclusions.

I am going to do more research on Isaiah. I spend more time reading the New Testament. Maybe I should give the Book of Isaiah a good once over.

Rich people can't be wicked?The grave is not to be confused with "hell". In the old testament and Hebrew bible the grave is known as Sheol.. simply put, 6 feet under. In fact, in the OT (old test) there is no concept of a "burning Hell" or a "final judgment" of mankind. These types of concepts were introduced into Judaism and later christianity during the babylonian exile. Isaiah, daniel and others were among those exiled. Pre-exile satan was not the mortal enemy of God.. he was simply a servant, like any other angel. Post-exile things begin to change. Moses had no concept of an afterlife or hell. He simply thought men returned to dust in the grave.

I don't think Isaiah meant Jesus was assigned a grave in hell, because the grave and hell are not the same thing.

To be clear, I'm not reading it to think he is supposed to be buried with some wicked men. Isaiah says this, but he isn't talking about Jesus. Isaiah had no idea who jesus was or was going to be. He was talking about his homeland of Israel and speaking metaphorically. My point is that christianity holds the opinion that this chapter of isaiah is speaking of the future christ.. it does say he was buried with the wicked. I only mention it because the empty tomb was brought up, and if they are saying that this chapter talks of Jesus, then all of the chapter is about him.. therefore, his tomb maybe shouldn't have been empty, since he was to be buried with the wicked..

as for the gospels.. I didn't post that to show any contradiction on the burial. It was a response to a post that said many of the disciples helped bury Jesus, which isn't true according to the gospels..

If you liked reading those accounts, read the whole passion stories.. there are some differences among other similarities in the gospels. There are some discrepancies but not a big deal IMO. For instance, John is the only gospel that has one of the theives on the cross beside Jesus asking him to remember him.. Jesus says he will be with him in paradise.. the other gospels have both thieves mock Jesus with everyone else. Why John records it different is somewhat of a mystery.. but.. now, if you want a contradiction... read the birth accounts of matthew as opposed to Luke.. all the way through til Jesus is 12... or in matthew's case, til they settle into nazareth..

oh, and the book of Isaiah is a great read.. lots of telling passages there..

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pretty interesting as they each have many similarities as well as dissimilarities which sometimes make my head spin. Not that there are outright contradictions, but trying to remember what account is attributed to which writer gets pretty confusing. Of all the gospels, I think John is the easiest to read and understand (therefor the one I prefer to read). Luke was supposedly a doctor, so his style was very different from the others who were more "common".As for the rich being wicked, I agree that they are not precluded from being wicked. That Isaiah passage to me could be an inference to the rich man's tomb. Maybe being buried in a cemetery could account for the "among the wicked". I simply don't know. Not being a literalists, sometimes its hard for me to figure out what is allegorical and what is not. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is literal.

 

[Halvo]

Correct

wow. i actually went on that website. I'm now dumber for doing it.

I love interactive websites.

Kirk Cameron just told me I was going to hell. I feel pretty good about it too after watching him on that site. Whever Krik ends up, I don't want to be there. If where he's going is a place of people just like him, please include me out.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[Noodlefish]

For once, I am actually glad I'm British...I cannot imagine what it's like to be brought up in a country where you can't teach evolution in schools...

 

[shining path]

For once, I am actually glad I'm British...I cannot imagine what it's like to be brought up in a country where you can't teach evolution in schools...

I don't think it will ever get to a point where you can't teach evolution, but it might get to a point where you have to teach some other stuff as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent Design is the current creationist manifestation challenging for a spot next to evolution in public schools. Its main idea is that certain biological structures are too complex to have evolved in the step-by-step manner that evolution requires. The central analogy is that of a mousetrap. A mousetrap is made up of several parts that are all necessary for proper functioning. Take away the base, the spring or the bar, and you don't have a mousetrap. Same thing with complex cellular structures with several essential elements. If one of the elements is missing, the structure doesn't work. So how can a process that acts by adding one part at a time explain their existence, if removal of any of the parts means that the structure (and presumably the organism) is non-functional? Complex structures must have been designed by an intelligent outside agency (and one just wonders at what kind of intelligent outside agency the ID folks have in mind).The ID argument is an absolute mess on many levels, but it's probably sufficiently technical-sounding (they have a real-life molecular biologist on board to help them with their terminology) to squeak through a court, especially if the judges lean socially conservative - which is just another reason to get Bush out of office, since he'll be appointing exactly those kinds of people. Also, Phillip Johnson, one of the movement's founders, is a pretty talented lawyer. I've read his stuff and he's an expert at really playing on non-scientists distrust and biases against science, and doing it in a way that sounds philosophically sophisticated. I think he's an ###hole, though.

 

[Noodlefish]

For once, I am actually glad I'm British...I cannot imagine what it's like to be brought up in a country where you can't teach evolution in schools...

I don't think it will ever get to a point where you can't teach evolution, but it might get to a point where you have to teach some other stuff as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent Design is the current creationist manifestation challenging for a spot next to evolution in public schools. Its main idea is that certain biological structures are too complex to have evolved in the step-by-step manner that evolution requires. The central analogy is that of a mousetrap. A mousetrap is made up of several parts that are all necessary for proper functioning. Take away the base, the spring or the bar, and you don't have a mousetrap. Same thing with complex cellular structures with several essential elements. If one of the elements is missing, the structure doesn't work. So how can a process that acts by adding one part at a time explain their existence, if removal of any of the parts means that the structure (and presumably the organism) is non-functional? Complex structures must have been designed by an intelligent outside agency (and one just wonders at what kind of intelligent outside agency the ID folks have in mind).The ID argument is an absolute mess on many levels, but it's probably sufficiently technical-sounding (they have a real-life molecular biologist on board to help them with their terminology) to squeak through a court, especially if the judges lean socially conservative - which is just another reason to get Bush out of office, since he'll be appointing exactly those kinds of people. Also, Phillip Johnson, one of the movement's founders, is a pretty talented lawyer. I've read his stuff and he's an expert at really playing on non-scientists distrust and biases against science, and doing it in a way that sounds philosophically sophisticated. I think he's an ###hole, though.

Thanks SP...I'm aware of the concept (Richard Dawkins was a lecturer at Oxford when I was reading Zoology - except he likes to use the eye as an example not a mousetrap)...

 

[Jericho]

Thanks SP...

I'm aware of the concept (Richard Dawkins was a lecturer at Oxford when I was reading Zoology - except he likes to use the eye as an example not a mousetrap)...

Except the eye does work with just some of its parts. Light-receptive cells are useful on their own without any help. All the other stuff just makes them more useful and can be added gradually (and would all definitely be selected for from an evolutionary standpoint).

 

[Bubba]

Richard Dawkins likes to use the eye as an example

Richard Dawkins = larry_boy

 

[Jericho]

there's lots of things in high school that are said that are bs.... that is no reason to be an ###...

No, there really aren't. No high school curriculum is set up with the intention to deceive. All the stuff taught is what the scientific world believes to be true. Please note that your pastor is not part of the scientific world and if he disagrees, he quite possibly has his own agenda.

besides, I didn't take high school biology due to issues with transfering schools & block scheduling... ur point?

My point is simply that nobody giving the answer is no way a concession of there not being an answer. Nobody giving an answer is simply nobody having the patience to re-hash basic biology that they learned over 10 years ago and that can be found with a simple web search. Your answers aren't secret, privileged information, they're out there all over the place, you just obviously haven't put any effort into finding them.

 

[bueno]

Thanks SP...

I'm aware of the concept (Richard Dawkins was a lecturer at Oxford when I was reading Zoology - except he likes to use the eye as an example not a mousetrap)...

Except the eye does work with just some of its parts. Light-receptive cells are useful on their own without any help. All the other stuff just makes them more useful and can be added gradually (and would all definitely be selected for from an evolutionary standpoint).

And there is a gradation in form from simple light-sensitive cells to the more evolved eye. Great post BTW Path.I'm not too worried about the SC ever ruling that Creationism has to be taught in public school. There are just so many obstacles to it that could be used for precedence. Simply put, a system based on a particular religous belief is not science.

Scientology is simply L. Ron Hubbards last joke on the human race. Creationism is the attempt of little minds to mold reality to a preconceived superstition.

God: Adam. I'm going to take some DNA from you to make a woman.

Adam: What's DNA?

God: Just give me a rib.

 

[rodm]

To say that no intelligent people believe in creation is just rather disingenuous. There are plenty of learned people out there that find it very hard to believe in evolution and feel that intelligent design is the more likely scenario. I think a lot of these people are written off just because they won’t fall in line with the evolutionists. Kind of reminds me of the way Pastuer was treated. What is to fear about questioning this form of science esp. when it appears to have grave questions with the beginning? Evolution has to rely on abiogenesis where creation has a creator. In the beginning BANG!! Or in the beginning God… A matter of where you want to put your faith.

 

[ratpfink]

To say that no intelligent people believe in creation is just rather disingenuous. There are plenty of learned people out there that find it very hard to believe in evolution and feel that intelligent design is the more likely scenario.

I agree. Plenty of smart people disagree with evolutionary theory. The problem in my view is that the vast majority are not biologists. The other problem, in my view, is that the vast majority have religious or philosophical beliefs that conflict with specific predictions that evolutionary theory makes or with naturalistic science as a whole. This is not to say that religious people can't make contributions to science, far from it, but only to say that when a religious person says "This widely held view, with loads of evidence to back it up, is wrong!" then my detector goes off.

What is to fear about questioning this form of science esp. when it appears to have grave questions with the beginning?

I would guess one fear is that when such a well supported field of study can be questioned, then perhaps next year we'll have to deal with groups pushing for equal time for a geocentric model of the cosmos. Here, when I say questioned, I don't mean the welcomed open inquiry that goes on in the process of normal science but I mean the attempt to dictate "theory" via public policy and/or the media.

Evolution has to rely on abiogenesis where creation has a creator.

Since evolution deals with the diversity of life that we see today(technically the change in gene frequency in populations over time), I don't see that it has to rely on anything in particular, only that somehow life began. Evolutionary theory would retain its veracity just as much if life began with naturalistic processes as it would if life began by extraterrestial intelligence or by being -poofed- into existence via some supernatural means.

 

[Jericho]

To say that no intelligent people believe in creation is just rather disingenuous. There are plenty of learned people out there that find it very hard to believe in evolution and feel that intelligent design is the more likely scenario. I think a lot of these people are written off just because they won’t fall in line with the evolutionists. Kind of reminds me of the way Pastuer was treated. What is to fear about questioning this form of science esp. when it appears to have grave questions with the beginning? Evolution has to rely on abiogenesis where creation has a creator. In the beginning BANG!! Or in the beginning God… A matter of where you want to put your faith.

First, saying that a creator is more satisfying than a 'Big Bang' or other non-intelligent-design hypothesis isn't true. Because you still have to ask where the creator come from. And if 'he just is and always has been' is an acceptable answer, then that answer is equally applicable to a non-creator universe.Second, and this is my biggest peeve, what's wrong with grave questions? There always have been and always will be 'grave questions'. Why is so hard to accept that mankind does not know everything there is to know at this moment? Why do we have to be fully enlightened right now? We never have been before, we likely never will be. Yes, there are hard questions. And yes, there are almost certainly questions that we will never know the answer to. That's okay, we'll just try to learn as much as we can. Force-fitting homemade solutions with no evidentiary basis just to make ourselves feel better, however, is not okay.

 

[Jericho]

Since evolution deals with the diversity of life that we see today(technically the change in gene frequency in populations over time), I don't see that it has to rely on anything in particular, only that somehow life began. Evolutionary theory would retain its veracity just as much if life began with naturalistic processes as it would if life began by extraterrestial intelligence or by being -poofed- into existence via some supernatural means.

While that's a peeve of mine, too, you have to remember than when creationists use the word 'evolution', they're talking about Big Bang theory and abiogenesis in addition to actual avolution (natural selection and gene mutation) all in one fell swoop. They seem incapable of talking about the Darwinian processes independently. It's a little frustrating.

 

[bentley2]

Since evolution deals with the diversity of life that we see today(technically the change in gene frequency in populations over time), I don't see that it has to rely on anything in particular, only that somehow life began. Evolutionary theory would retain its veracity just as much if life began with naturalistic processes as it would if life began by extraterrestial intelligence or by being -poofed- into existence via some supernatural means.

While that's a peeve of mine, too, you have to remember than when creationists use the word 'evolution', they're talking about Big Bang theory and abiogenesis in addition to actual avolution (natural selection and gene mutation) all in one fell swoop. They seem incapable of talking about the Darwinian processes independently. It's a little frustrating.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm a creatonist that agrees with the above assertion that many creatonists are close minded pinheads re: evolution.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Since evolution deals with the diversity of life that we see today(technically the change in gene frequency in populations over time), I don't see that it has to rely on anything in particular, only that somehow life began. Evolutionary theory would retain its veracity just as much if life began with naturalistic processes as it would if life began by extraterrestial intelligence or by being -poofed- into existence via some supernatural means.

While that's a peeve of mine, too, you have to remember than when creationists use the word 'evolution', they're talking about Big Bang theory and abiogenesis in addition to actual avolution (natural selection and gene mutation) all in one fell swoop. They seem incapable of talking about the Darwinian processes independently. It's a little frustrating.

no... evolutionists are talking about all of that in one fell swoop...The only part of evolution that creationists argue is HOW WE GOT HERE, that's it...We know creatures change over time, the question isn't whether they do, its how much they did change and at what point they didn't change any more because they were created...that is why I talked about lions/tigers/house cats, wolves/chihuahuas/beagles/labs, horses/mules/donkeys/zebras, etc... because more than likely all of these animals were at some point in the recet past the same animal...in fact, most creationists believe these were all one animal on the ark... Like, one kind of dog was on the ark, one kind of horse-like thing, one type of cat, etc...cuts the number of animals down a lot, don't it?

 

[Jericho]

Since evolution deals with the diversity of life that we see today(technically the change in gene frequency in populations over time), I don't see that it has to rely on anything in particular, only that somehow life began.  Evolutionary theory would retain its veracity just as much if life began with naturalistic processes as it would if life began by extraterrestial intelligence or by being -poofed- into existence via some supernatural means.

While that's a peeve of mine, too, you have to remember than when creationists use the word 'evolution', they're talking about Big Bang theory and abiogenesis in addition to actual avolution (natural selection and gene mutation) all in one fell swoop. They seem incapable of talking about the Darwinian processes independently. It's a little frustrating.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm a creatonist that agrees with the above assertion that many creatonists are close minded pinheads re: evolution.

Okay, but let me throw this out there. The disclaimer is that I don't know if this applies to you or not, but since you've claimed to be an evolutionary creationist, I'll direct it at you anyway.I find many evolution-believing creationists to be even more frustrating than the regular larry types. The reason for this is that they will sit and agree with you about everything evolution shows... various common ancestries, speciation, convergence and divergence, blah blah blah, except for one thing. They will still insist that humans and chimps are not related. Nope, humans don't count. Despite that the same deductive and scientific processes were used to determine this relationship as with every other case of common ancestry (which the creationist will agree with). Nope, special exception. Seriously, WTF? That's one of my biggest head-shaking moments.

 

[Jericho]

no... evolutionists are talking about all of that in one fell swoop...

I can guarantee with over 99% certainty that when any scientist talks about evolution, they are NOT referring to the Big Bang and they are NOT referring to abiogenesis. They are only talking about gene mutation and selection. They know they difference, and they will be specific. This statement of yours is 100% patently absurd.

 

[Jericho]

cuts the number of animals down a lot, don't it?

Only if you completely ignore the amount of time that it takes evolutionary processes to work.

 

[ratpfink]

Since evolution deals with the diversity of life that we see today(technically the change in gene frequency in populations over time), I don't see that it has to rely on anything in particular, only that somehow life began. Evolutionary theory would retain its veracity just as much if life began with naturalistic processes as it would if life began by extraterrestial intelligence or by being -poofed- into existence via some supernatural means.

While that's a peeve of mine, too, you have to remember than when creationists use the word 'evolution', they're talking about Big Bang theory and abiogenesis in addition to actual avolution (natural selection and gene mutation) all in one fell swoop. They seem incapable of talking about the Darwinian processes independently. It's a little frustrating.

no... evolutionists are talking about all of that in one fell swoop...The only part of evolution that creationists argue is HOW WE GOT HERE, that's it...We know creatures change over time, the question isn't whether they do, its how much they did change and at what point they didn't change any more because they were created...that is why I talked about lions/tigers/house cats, wolves/chihuahuas/beagles/labs, horses/mules/donkeys/zebras, etc... because more than likely all of these animals were at some point in the recet past the same animal...in fact, most creationists believe these were all one animal on the ark... Like, one kind of dog was on the ark, one kind of horse-like thing, one type of cat, etc...cuts the number of animals down a lot, don't it?

See, Larry, the reason you don't get serious answers very often is because you ignore them.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

I had to look up abiogenesis.

 

[bentley2]

Since evolution deals with the diversity of life that we see today(technically the change in gene frequency in populations over time), I don't see that it has to rely on anything in particular, only that somehow life began. Evolutionary theory would retain its veracity just as much if life began with naturalistic processes as it would if life began by extraterrestial intelligence or by being -poofed- into existence via some supernatural means.

While that's a peeve of mine, too, you have to remember than when creationists use the word 'evolution', they're talking about Big Bang theory and abiogenesis in addition to actual avolution (natural selection and gene mutation) all in one fell swoop. They seem incapable of talking about the Darwinian processes independently. It's a little frustrating.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm a creatonist that agrees with the above assertion that many creatonists are close minded pinheads re: evolution.

Okay, but let me throw this out there. The disclaimer is that I don't know if this applies to you or not, but since you've claimed to be an evolutionary creationist, I'll direct it at you anyway.I find many evolution-believing creationists to be even more frustrating than the regular larry types. The reason for this is that they will sit and agree with you about everything evolution shows... various common ancestries, speciation, convergence and divergence, blah blah blah, except for one thing. They will still insist that humans and chimps are not related. Nope, humans don't count. Despite that the same deductive and scientific processes were used to determine this relationship as with every other case of common ancestry (which the creationist will agree with). Nope, special exception. Seriously, WTF? That's one of my biggest head-shaking moments.

Now sober, I'm willing to consider a common ancestor but must admit I don't know enough to have an educated opinion. My main problem with the concept is that we same to be fairly unique. Why aren't there birds that can use tools, build cookie cutter homes in the suburbs and pay $5 for a cup of coffee? Please respond completely, because I'm really not interested enough to ask a follow-up.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Since evolution deals with the diversity of life that we see today(technically the change in gene frequency in populations over time), I don't see that it has to rely on anything in particular, only that somehow life began.  Evolutionary theory would retain its veracity just as much if life began with naturalistic processes as it would if life began by extraterrestial intelligence or by being -poofed- into existence via some supernatural means.

While that's a peeve of mine, too, you have to remember than when creationists use the word 'evolution', they're talking about Big Bang theory and abiogenesis in addition to actual avolution (natural selection and gene mutation) all in one fell swoop. They seem incapable of talking about the Darwinian processes independently. It's a little frustrating.

no... evolutionists are talking about all of that in one fell swoop...The only part of evolution that creationists argue is HOW WE GOT HERE, that's it...We know creatures change over time, the question isn't whether they do, its how much they did change and at what point they didn't change any more because they were created...that is why I talked about lions/tigers/house cats, wolves/chihuahuas/beagles/labs, horses/mules/donkeys/zebras, etc... because more than likely all of these animals were at some point in the recet past the same animal...in fact, most creationists believe these were all one animal on the ark... Like, one kind of dog was on the ark, one kind of horse-like thing, one type of cat, etc...cuts the number of animals down a lot, don't it?

See, Larry, the reason you don't get serious answers very often is because you ignore them.

I didn't ignore them, I was merely pointing out the FACT that creationists agree that animals change...then I explained what we believe happened, whether you agree or not, is not the point...My point was what was said by Jericho was completely incorrect and pretty much 100% ignorant... because I've said that animals change, I never said they didn't... I've said that all the different "Breeds" of dogs are the same species with the same ancestor at some point...but I don't believe things change? huh?but I ignore the intelligent posts... yeah... sure... that's it...more like most of you can't make intelligent posts...

 

[Jericho]

Now sober, I'm willing to consider a common ancestor but must admit I don't know enough to have an educated opinion. My main problem with the concept is that we same to be fairly unique. Why aren't there birds that can use tools, build cookie cutter homes in the suburbs and pay $5 for a cup of coffee? Please respond completely, because I'm really not interested enough to ask a follow-up.

Because birds don't have opposable thumbs and well-developed cerebral cortexes.

 

[Jericho]

My point was what was said by Jericho was completely incorrect and pretty much 100% ignorant... because I've said that animals change, I never said they didn't... I've said that all the different "Breeds" of dogs are the same species with the same ancestor at some point...

Please quote the exact statement I made which was completely incorrect and 100% ignorant. Which one, specifically? Quote it, verbatim, please.Oh, and different dog breeds are the same species isn't news. But dogs and hippos have a common ancestor, too. I'm willing to bet you won't concede that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Please quote the exact statement I made which was completely incorrect and 100% ignorant.

He's referring to the time you said Salma Hayek isn't hot.

 

[shining path]

Please quote the exact statement I made which was completely incorrect and 100% ignorant.

He's referring to the time you said Salma Hayek isn't hot.

He seems to think that Selma Hayek was hot ... until last Tuesday. Then *poof* all of a sudden she wasn't hot and you can't prove otherwise.What an ignoramous.