Dinosaur Poster

The Bible doesn't mention flamingoes and spaceships either. Guess we've been deluded all these years.

don't forget that C-14 isn't used on most fossils as it isn't accuate over 50,000 odd thousand years. For older fossils they use Potassium/Argon dating and other methods.

I can't find anything about the 'goliath' specimin and PBS, can anyone give me a clue where to look. I serched Google and the PBS web site.

Ironically asking how we know how old fossils are isn't that off topic IMHO. It still relates to the 'dinosaurs are put in the ground by satan' issue.

wa:do

NetDoc said:

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. NIV

Click to expand...

Circle is not the same sphere.... That's like saying a square and a cube are the same thing. Later it implies the earth is a flat round pancake. (many times)

That's great DC85... I showed you mine. Wanna show me the scriptures that support "flat" as a pancake"? But let's discuss that HERE!!!

Herein lies the danger and the pit that many anti-evolutionists (note that I didn't say "creationists") and anti-theists fall into. Instead of providing scriptural PROOF for their contentions, they merely keep contending that the Bible says such and such because they BELIEVE the Bible SHOULD say something like that. The former do it in an attempt to re-create God in their image, while the latter do it because it's more convenient to pigeon hole the beliefs of others in an attempt to justify their own. This is obviously a gross over-simplification and I am sure that there are as many reasons as there are people who are either.

Please, don't continue to spread falsehoods about the scriptures. If the scriptures don't say something, try NOT to put words in God's mouth. This is what is SO WRONG about the poster in question. No where in his scriptures does God indicate that Satan is using the fossil evidence to deceive the people of the earth. I would contend that quite the opposite is true. Satan has convinced a few that HE created the concept of evolution (Evolution is of the Debil-ists) and so it must be confronted, condemned and undermined at all costs. So instead of people discussing the REAL ISSUES (Galations 5) that confront mankind, he has sent these semi-believers on a non-productive witch hunt. In the end he has not deceived those that DON'T BELIEVE, but has completely flummoxed those that DO!

I found out about 'Goliath' from a national geographic special. It was called "the search for the ultimate survivor." It's supposed to be rather new stuff, the way they made it sound. They also mentioned that there may have been another branch of primates that evolved similarly to the human branch starting from...homo habilus, maybe, I don't remember.

NetDoc said:

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. NIV

One translation uses "sphere" but I can't remember which... you can aplogize for the condescending comments now.

Here is the real issue... many right wing believers don't even try to look at what the Bible really says. They rely on their ASSUMPTIONS and vague IMPLICATIONS instead of reading what the scriptures actually say. The book of 1st Opinions is probably as long as the entire Bible. The book of False Assumptions is even longer.

In that light, I stand by my initial comment that the scriptures were NEVER meant to be a science text. It spoke to the various generations in ways that those generations could understand. If the account of creation were to be written today, there might be far more details about the specific mechanisms that God used to create us and the rest of his creation. As it is, the Bible does not condemn belief in dinosaurs, evolution or the fossil record. I think that's the safe road to travel!

Click to expand...

The rendering of "sphere" here is obviously influenced by modern science. The circle is part of the ancient Hebrew cosmology, wheras the teaching of the earth as a sphere is not.

From the Anchor Bible Dictionary:
“On the whole, Israel shared the world view of the ancient Near East. The earth was perceived as a flat expanse, seen either in the image of a disk or circle upon the primeval waters (Isa 40.22; Job 26.10; Prov 8.27; cf. ‘circle of the heavens’. Job 22.14) or of an outstretched garment spanning the void (Job 26.7; 38.13)."

My source is:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm

And the source has extended references to other Bible dictionaries that align with almost any OT commentary that you will find in the library. That the ancient Hebrews had a flat earth cosmology is well established in OT survey.

**MOD POST**

This thread is getting off topic. Please return to the topic of the dinosaur poster.

Here's a couple of questons in relation to the dinosaur poster.
Is it really that much easier to ignore and try to cover up information that is uncomfortable for a religion, than to accept it and move on?
Does the existance of dinosaurs pose that much of a threat to this church that they have to blame them on Satan?

*on a side note*
thanks for the name of the show... I did some looking into the 'goliaths' and found this.
The reconstruction puts 'Goliath' at 6ft.4inches tall.... not exactly a monster.
'Goliath' H.heidelbergenis was on average as tall as modern humans... generally between 5ft and 6ft tall. One or two extra large specimins does not a race of giants make
Tallest Homo Sapien was 8ft 11 inches. We still get marks for tallest.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/middle/body_mass_2005.html?advanced_search=1
http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/survivor.html
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/tv

No race of giants... just another example of media makeing mountains out of molehills. Shame I ususally have more respect for Nat.Geo. on issues like this.

wa:do

Painted Wolf said:

Here's a couple of questons in relation to the dinosaur poster.
Is it really that much easier to ignore and try to cover up information that is uncomfortable for a religion, than to accept it and move on?
Does the existance of dinosaurs pose that much of a threat to this church that they have to blame them on Satan?

Click to expand...

What prevents these people from accepting reality (as demonstrated by science)? Is it that they don't understand science? Or is it a case of willful ignorance? Whatever it is, it renders them stupid.

IMHO and I could be wrong (I know, I know. wacky.. but possible )... but I think it is fear.
Infalibility of the bible must be maintained at all costs or they risk doubt. Doubting can lead to questioning and questioning can lead to loss of faith with leads to hell/damnation. Therefore to keep your own soul (and the souls of everyone elce in your church) safe you must deny anthing that eaven remotly suggests falibility.

To some if the bible is wrong on one thing... eaven a tiny thing... well that suggests that it may be wrong about others. The effect snowballs from there.

wa:do

*nods* That's what worries me...this is Earth. Nothing is /perfect/. Even the best things have tiny flaws (any jeweler could tell you that :}~).

iaminterface said:

I just recently found out that a church in my region has posters stating the following in the children's sunday school rooms:

1. Dinosaurs arent real.

2. The fossils were put there by satan to tempt us.

I've also seen certain websites saying dinosaurs are still alive. I suppose to reinforce their 6000 year theory. Im not sure.

But what do you guys think about this. I personally think its horrible to put these ideas in young childrens minds before they know any better.

Click to expand...

Well im one of those people who belives that Dinosaurs existed in the last 6000 years and indeed may still in some parts. I am shocked that that particular church is saying
1. Dinosaurs arent real.
2. The fossils were put there by satan to tempt us.

I can understand peoples reactions to this sort of thing.

However like i mentioned before i do belive that they existed in the last 6000 years and this idea shocks many too.

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. Job 40:15-18"
Is a reference to a dinosaur many belive. What kind of animal has a tail like a cedar tree that we see in our local zoo? Dinosaurs dont clash with the bible, besides even if the bible didnt mention them why would that be a problem? It dosnt specifically mention sharks, ferrets and every other animal aswell.

And contrary to popular belife there is alot of scientific evidence that Dinosaurs arnt as old as we have been lead to believe.
The following photos are of a recent T-rex find. To propose that this tissue is 70 million years old flies in the face of science. Arguments from ignorance need to be put forth if the 70 million year old date is to be continued with, eg "there must be some way this has been preserved that we dont know about" instead of chaging the theory to match the evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp


There is alot of historical evidence that Dinosaurs have lived with people in the last few thousand years. And recently there have been many sighting of creatures that fit the profile.
The sheer amount of stories about dragons from so many cultures around the world could even be considered as "evidence" esspecially when we take into account that the word "Dinosaur" wasnt created until 1800's, while i dont claim that each dragon story was once based on reality , i think many were.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp#humans has alot of interesting articles that relate to this topic.

first off the T.rex tissue pictures are of specimins that have been heavily treated with solvents to remove the rock matrix they were in. You are not looking at thier origional condition. :banghead3

some quotes on the find:

Dr Matthew Collins said:

"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC.

Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm

One thing Behemoth does that dinosaurs didn't... eat grass. Dinosaurs were browsers, preserved stomach contents and coprolites show no evidence of grass in the diet. (hadn't evoloved yet )

Also very few discriptions of any 'dragons' really sound like any known species of dinosaurs. Most discriptions have been doctored by later writers to sound more 'dinosaur' like.
What Behemoth does sound like is Amut, a chimerical creature of Egyption mythology... part hippo, part crocodile, part lion. Amut was ment to inspire fear and was a mix of the three most dangerous animals in the area.

I find it amusing that all the supposed dinosaurs look like the out-dated 60's and earlier virsions found in old books. Not a one with feathers, not a one acting like anything but the old swamp dwelling sterotype. The herbevore sterotype no less... no swift two legged theropods, no small chicken sized dinosaurs either.

thus far any evidence of dinosaurs living in the recent past is unconvincing at best.

Anyway, this isn't the subject of this thread and I'll being off topic on this.

wa:do

hahah i've seen that site before. Wow, . . wow . . how funny.

Spiritual Safety Tip

What should you do if you find an Atheist?



mrgruffsays.gif

Atheists such as crotchety old Mr. Gruff think they've got it all figured out...​

...but then why are they always so sad?


If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood,
TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

You may be moved to try and witness to
these poor lost souls yourself, however
AVOID TALKING TO THEM!

Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.

Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them.




THIS was too funny! Sad, but TOO FUNNY!

NetDoc said:

THIS was too funny! Sad, but TOO FUNNY!

Click to expand...

I love that site!
Did you see the atheis Goat picture they`ve got ?

Everytime I see it I'm thinking... so THAT'S what Deut looks like!!! Bwahahaha!!!

painted wolf said:

first off the T.rex tissue pictures are of specimins that have been heavily treated with solvents to remove the rock matrix they were in. You are not looking at thier origional condition.

Click to expand...

So whats your point? the idea that tissue can exist in that state even if patially fosilized for 70 million years is absurd. Do you think these solvents turned stone back to soft tissue and gave it back its color etc? If this was a horse bone for example the scientists wouldnt even entertain the idea that the bone is 70 million years old but because its a t-rex bone they let their theory of 70 million years dictate the age rather than the plain evidence. They belive that the layer is 70 million years old and yet here is evidence that it is not! Why not act scientifically and change the theory to match the evidence? instead they change what the evidence is saying to match the theory.

painted wolf said:

some quotes on the find:

Dr Matthew Collins said:

"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC.

Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm

Click to expand...

Ok rather then rely on his "suspicion" alone how bout you consider even some of the other quotes from that same secular source?
My suspicion is that he needed to come up with a his suspicion because they need somthing to explain away the plain to see evidence.

Normally when an animal dies, worms and bugs will quickly eat up anything that is soft.
Then, as the remaining bone material gets buried deeper and deeper in the mud, it gets heated, crushed and replaced by minerals - it is turned to stone.

Click to expand...

Dr Mary Schweitzer said:

This is fossilised bone in the sense that it's from an extinct animal but it doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil,"

Click to expand...

Dr Mary Schweitzer said:

It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything."

Click to expand...

"its bone more then anything" after 70 million years??? Why cant they bring themselves to consider that maybe its not 70 million years old? Maybe its because that would throw a spanner in the works of some of their grand theories?

If you've ever worked with fossils, you'd know that sometimes you can be working on a single bone that is hard as rock in one area, and soft as sand, or even not completely fossilized, in the next. Fossilization is /not/ an even process; it depends on so many factors that it's a wonder bones get fossilized at all.

My advice is, take a class that involves prehistoric animals or paleobiology or taphonomy and you'll understand fossilization better.


~Dino, a bit tired of seeing snarky comments instead of this asserted 'plain evidence'.