Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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)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
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.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!
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.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?
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 sayingiaminterface 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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stmDr 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.
I love that site!NetDoc said:THIS was too funny! Sad, but TOO FUNNY!
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: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.
Ok rather then rely on his "suspicion" alone how bout you consider even some of the other quotes from that same secular source?painted wolf said:some quotes on the find:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stmDr 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.
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.
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,"
"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?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."