Big Bang and creation of the universe

04/08/2005 03:15:46 PM · #151

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I don't get it...there are a few references to dragons/leviathon in the bible but you've dismissed those.

I haven't seen a dragon fossil yet. Camelot seems like a logical place to search, though. ;-) Leviathan is a general term used to describe any giant or monster. Prominent creatures like whales and lions are spelled out in name and description. Surely a brontosaurus or triceratops would warrant a more descriptive account?

We accept descriptions of dinosaurs from a large number of complete skeletons, coprolites, and even DNA analysis. We know there were mammoths from entire bodies found in tar pits and glacial ice. That's hardly a few pieces of thigh bone, though obviously pieces are found more commonly than complete skeletons. We know they were reptiles through DNA analysis, comparisons of hip structure with modern reptiles, muscle placement, etc. It's not merely guesswork, and the overwhelming majority of scientists are in complete agreement on the basics.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 16:01:35.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/08/2005 05:44:18 PM · #152

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I don't get it...there are a few references to dragons/leviathon in the bible but you've dismissed those.

I haven't seen a dragon fossil yet. Camelot seems like a logical place to search, though. ;-) Leviathan is a general term used to describe any giant or monster. Prominent creatures like whales and lions are spelled out in name and description. Surely a brontosaurus or triceratops would warrant a more descriptive account?

We accept descriptions of dinosaurs from a large number of complete skeletons, coprolites, and even DNA analysis. We know there were mammoths from entire bodies found in tar pits and glacial ice. That's hardly a few pieces of thigh bone, though obviously pieces are found more commonly than complete skeletons. We know they were reptiles through DNA analysis, comparisons of hip structure with modern reptiles, muscle placement, etc. It's not merely guesswork, and the overwhelming majority of scientists are in complete agreement on the basics.

But if dinos are reptiles, then why, when a T-rex bone specimen was found that contained "soft tissue" was it compared to an ostrich bone instead of, say, a crocodile bone? From TimesOnline: "They were staggered as they recovered what appear to be elastic soft tissues, blood vessels and even, possibly, cells � bearing a remarkable similarity to those of the modern ostrich."

04/08/2005 05:54:26 PM · #153

Originally posted by RonB:

But if dinos are reptiles, then why, when a T-rex bone specimen was found that contained "soft tissue" was it compared to an ostrich bone instead of, say, a crocodile bone?

Birds are believed to have descended from dinosaurs, and crocodile evolution pre-dates the dinosaurs. The Archosaurs split into two evolutionary lines during the Triassic period (BEFORE the Cretaceous). One line branches into crocodiles, the other into dinosaurs and birds. It's not surprising that the leg bone of an upgright-walking T-rex would be compared to an upright-walking ostrich. Based on current theory, that would be the most logical comparison to make.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 18:03:54.

04/08/2005 06:55:02 PM · #154

Originally posted by GeneralE:

They call it the "burden of proof," not the burden of disproof.

There seems to be quite a double-standard in this argument about who has to prove what by what means. Hundreds of years of repeatable, verifiable evidence on one side, scraps of documents written by desert nomands a few thousand years ago on the other, plus "faith." I'd just like the religious adherents to use the same standards of evidence they demand of scientists.

Well said.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 07:09:58 PM · #155

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'd just like the religious adherents to use the same standards of evidence they demand of scientists.

Personal experience trumps standards of evidence. :-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/08/2005 07:13:26 PM · #156

Originally posted by kpriest:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd just like the religious adherents to use the same standards of evidence they demand of scientists.

Personal experience trumps standards of evidence. :-)

Welcome to the Dark Ages : )

04/08/2005 07:43:00 PM · #157

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I actually find the following passage in Job fascinating...to me, it sounds like a description of a dinosaurish creature (of course, the word dinosaur is very new and wouldn't have been included in any popular english translations):

15Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

Accordingly to Stephen Mitchell, in his poetic translation of The Book of Job, those verses could read more accurately without the King James euphemisms in it. Here is his more accurate, though still poetic, take on those particular verses:

Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull.
Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly.
His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor.

04/08/2005 07:43:15 PM · #158

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by kpriest:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd just like the religious adherents to use the same standards of evidence they demand of scientists.

Personal experience trumps standards of evidence. :-)

Welcome to the Dark Ages : )

lol isnt it crazy how we are going backwards?

Also I found some more quotes by Thomas Szasz:

"In the United States today, there is a pervasive tendency to treat children as adults, and adults as children. The options of children are thus steadily expanded, while those of adults are progressively constricted. The result is unruly children and childish adults."

"Clear thinking requires courage rather than intelligence."

"He who does not accept and respect those who want to reject life does not truly accept and respect life itself."

"The system isn't stupid, but the people in it are."

04/08/2005 07:55:34 PM · #159

Also, since were on the subject and I haven�t seen it posted yet, here is Charles Darwin�s The Origin of Species

It is quite extensive.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 08:32:03 PM · #160

Originally posted by milo655321:

Here is his more accurate, though still poetic, take on those particular verses:

Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull.
Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly.
His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor.

Lest I get beat to the punch, I went back to in my research and found that the Hebrew version does, in fact, say "tail," but the use of the word tail within the context of the poem was indeed a euphemism for �penis� and not an uncommon use of the euphemism in ancient texts.

To back up my point, see 21st Century King James Version, where verse 17 says �He moveth his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.� Stones is not an uncommon euphemism for testicles. The verses are referring to the groin area of a large beast. Indeed, while most other verses translate verse 17 as variations of �His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit,� the use of the word �stones� in the above-linked version makes the connection all the more intriguing. Why would a translator bother to refer to a creature�s testicles unless the basis for that translation weren�t in the (nth generation) "original"?

Has anyone kept a running count of how many times I wrote the word "euphemism"? Secondly, is anyone concerned over my apparent obsession with the groin area of some unnamed beast?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/08/2005 08:41:22 PM · #161

Originally posted by milo655321:

... Secondly, is anyone concerned over my apparent obsession with the groin area of some unnamed beast?

Only if you start posting photos ...

04/08/2005 08:46:43 PM · #162

Originally posted by kpriest:

Personal experience trumps standards of evidence. :-)

Unless you were there, it isn't personal experience. The bible is an interpretation of a translation of a transcription of another person's claim of personal experience. Let's try that with a hypothetical scenario and made up dates...

If you tried to convince me that your current interpretation of a printed copy of an 1840 English scribe's version of an 1422 Italian monk's translation of a 1300 year-old collection of documents written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek describing an eyewitness account of a man flying by flapping his arms was true because it's "personal experience," would you expect me to believe it? The entire collective body of scientific evidence, my own simple observations and basic common sense says that's not possible, but I'm supposed to ignore all that and trust your interpretation on blind faith and the possibility that it's true? I'm asked to believe that the scientific evidence, etc. must be flawed or based on false assumptions because you have an eyewitness (or a crowd of eyewitnesses). Good luck with the convincing.

Regardless, your assertion simply isn't true. Visit a courtroom and you'll see that standards of evidence trump personal experience.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 20:49:53.

04/08/2005 08:50:18 PM · #163

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kpriest:
Personal experience trumps standards of evidence. :-)

Unless you were there, it isn't personal experience. The bible is an interpretation of a translation of a transription of another person's claim of personal experience. Follow along with a hypothetical scenario and made up dates...

If you tried to convince me that your current interpretation of a printed copy of an 1840 English scribe's version of an 1422 Italian monk's translation of a 1300 year-old collection of documents written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek describing an eyewitness account of a man flying by flapping his arms was true because it's "personal experience," would you expect me to believe it? The entire collective body of scientific evidence, my own simple observations and basic common sense says that's not possible, but I'm supposed to ignore all that and trust your interpretation on blind faith and the possibility that it's true? I'm asked to believe that the scientific evidence, etc. must be flawed or based on false assumptions because you have an eyewitness (or a crowd of eyewitnesses).

Regardless, your assertion simply isn't true. Visit a courtroom and you'll see that standards of evidence trump personal experience.

Trying hard not to get sucked back in...

I'll just say this - standards of evidence in a courtroom are not the ultimate authority and by personal experience, I was simply referring to the existence of God, not the origins of the universe. Sorry if that was misleading. :)

04/08/2005 08:51:30 PM · #164

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by milo655321:
... Secondly, is anyone concerned over my apparent obsession with the groin area of some unnamed beast?

Only if you start posting photos ...

LMAO

04/08/2005 08:55:25 PM · #165

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Only if you start posting photos ...

I have to admit, that made me laugh.

04/08/2005 08:58:51 PM · #166

follow up...

By personal experience, I meant my personal experience. I don't expect you to believe anything. God gave you that choice. I can't and won't judge or condemn you either way. Especially since I used to be you in a sense only a few short years ago.

Argue, debate, discuss, cite references, have at it. It's all interesting and I enjoy hearing it all, but
none of that matters in the end.

04/08/2005 08:58:55 PM · #167

Originally posted by kpriest:

...by personal experience, I was simply referring to the existence of God...

You can find people who have personally experienced a U.F.O., a sighting of bigfoot or a vision of Elvis. That's enough for proof of fact for those people to believe in them, but not me. I need a bit more than, "I saw it" to accept that an alien would expend the time and resources to travel billions of miles and draw crop circles on a rural corn field without so much as waving hello (but I digress). Fair enough?

Apparently so... you posted while I was writing. ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 21:04:30.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/08/2005 09:26:20 PM · #168

Romans 1

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Ought one to worship God, and ponder science or worship Science and ponder God?

As for me, I choose to ponder science and worship God. The wisest scientist, upon making a monumental discovery, like the "sticky" feet of the gecko, says "Ahhh. So THAT's how God made that. I'm so fortunate that he chose to reveal that to ME."

04/08/2005 09:33:40 PM · #169

Originally posted by RonB:

The wisest scientist, upon making a monumental discovery, like the "sticky" feet of the gecko, says "Ahhh. So THAT's how God made that. I'm so fortunate that he chose to reveal that to ME."

Haha I doubt it.

04/08/2005 09:34:46 PM · #170

Originally posted by RonB:

but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This must be what GeneralE was unknowingly referring to with his "Welcome to the Dark Ages" comment. ;-)

04/08/2005 10:55:19 PM · #171

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
-Sigmund Freud

04/08/2005 11:13:07 PM · #172

Originally posted by RonB:

Ought one to worship God, and ponder science or worship Science and ponder God?

I know of no one who worships science. It's not a religion; you can spell it with a lowercase "s".

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/08/2005 11:27:05 PM · #173

Should be time to remove the feeding tube from this thread, huh?

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

04/08/2005 11:48:49 PM · #174

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
-Sigmund Freud

Let me quote a scientist for you...

Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.
Blaise Pascal