Religion

[Antichrist_Online]

See, irrational as it sounds, I believe in dragons, but I also belive they were just acid spitting reptiles that evolved and were hunted to extinction because of suposed medicinal properties.
I on the otherhand see little evidence for humans and dinosaurs exsisting, even simply because one was a much more efficient predator than the other (think raptors vs humans using sticks) We're talking Neanderthal(sp?) and Cromagneon (Sp?) humans here.

[Nalaris]

I believe it's spelled Cromagnon, but I'm not actually sure.

I must admit, the concept of dinosaurs and Noah seems far fetched, but I haven't ever heard any evidence for or against it yet (I didn't take the time to read Pie's websites, but I assume they're the usual mixture of religious zealoutry and honest science).

As for dragons, I have no reason not to believe that, but I won't until some evidence is provided other than 'it's possible'. I'll take it into consideration if you can get enough evidence to bump it up to 'it's likely'.

[Nixit]

*sighs* Pie ignores me again.

[Jack Dudeman]

All those who believe that man and dinosaurs interacted, please read this. It's relatively brief, and to the point. References included:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html



If you're interested in taking a tour of the scientifically accepted hominid fossil record, this is worth checking out:

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/homofs.html

[west]

and pleas give me that massive information. I don't just take what you guys try and feed me. Give me that evidence. GIVE ME EVIDENCE, OR GIVE ME DEATH!!

And there is also a massive amount of evidence to the corospondant living of dinosourse and humans.

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Dinos.html
http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinoscoexist.html
the one above is a more questionable site, but i should post it anyway.

In perhaps unsurprising news, Pie has no idea what the word "evidence" means, at least not in a scientific context.

"Well, people keep saying that they've seen things that look like dinosaurs." is NOT evidence.

"The Bible says that humans and dragons coexisted (no it doesn't, by the way) and dragons = dinosaurs! omg!" isn't evidence either.

Posting three laughable links that say the same things isn't the same thing as evidence, Pie.

At least Jack posted something substantial.

[kinvoya]

Did you all learn nothing from the evolution thread?

WWFSMD?

[Antichrist_Online]

A small side not on me and dragons, I believe in dragons as I've not seen evidence either way, but know that they could have been physically possible. (Each part of a dragons anatomy exists in other creatures.)
http://www.draconian.com/body/body.htm
This features some interesting analysis of dragons and how they could work. Interesting to read.

And those articles were very intersting Jack. (and yes pie, I read yours too).[/b]

[formerly known as hf]

I would be interested in pie producing some non-Christian based source for the 'coexistence' theory.

Christian sources are obviously going to be biased, as they have vested interest on the matter, therefore, I am certainly not going to take anything on the sites pie has listed at face-value.

[west]

See my earlier remarks about "foregone conclusions."

And AOL? Dragons? Are you serious?

[Nalaris]

As I said before, there's no evidence for it or against it, so I don't believe in dragons but am not completely closed to the idea. If you provide evidence (i.e. physical evidence) that dragons exist, I might begin believing. If you do not, than I will continue to not believe. Never believe in something because it's possible, only if it's plausible.

I have a theory, but it's based in the Bible so everyone's probably going to put no water in it.

In the first few chapters of Genesis, after the Serpent tricks Eve into tricking Adam into eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, it said that God cursed the serpent to crawl on its belly. So apparently it wasn't doing so before.

Perhaps prieviously the serpent was a dinosaur, or a dragon. I don't know, but maybe.

[Dee]

It was Satan disguised in a snake form.

[west]

That's not a theory, not in the scientific sense, because you're not basing it on any sort of evidence.

As a literary interpretation, perhaps it holds more water. Certainly the author was hinting that the serpent used to have legs, and ceased having them because of its actions in the Garden. But that brings to mind an important question:

Why would a loving God condemn an entire species of animal for all eternity, just because an evil spirit impersonated one and tricked his pet humans?

That's like saying, "Since George was dressed as a bear when he robbed the bank, all bears are to be killed on sight," which of course is tremendously unfair. Bears were dangerous anyway, well before George dressed as one, and it's ridiculous that the liberal media refused to acknowledge it until someone dressed as a bear robbed a bank. When is America going to wake up and realize that bears don't rob banks? Bears kill people, people dressed as bears rob banks.

[Jack Dudeman]

I was browsing the internet tonight and came across this article:

http://space.com/news/060615_ap_hawking_news.html

Not a lot of information, but Dr. Hawking talks about a meeting he had with the Pope John Paul II (prior to his death, of course).

[Pie]

and pleas give me that massive information. I don't just take what you guys try and feed me. Give me that evidence. GIVE ME EVIDENCE, OR GIVE ME DEATH!!

And there is also a massive amount of evidence to the corospondant living of dinosourse and humans.

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Dinos.html
http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinoscoexist.html
the one above is a more questionable site, but i should post it anyway.

In perhaps unsurprising news, Pie has no idea what the word "evidence" means, at least not in a scientific context.

"Well, people keep saying that they've seen things that look like dinosaurs." is NOT evidence.

"The Bible says that humans and dragons coexisted (no it doesn't, by the way) and dragons = dinosaurs! omg!" isn't evidence either.

Posting three laughable links that say the same things isn't the same thing as evidence, Pie.

At least Jack posted something substantial.

will you just STOP YOUR FRIGAN MUD SLINGING!!! WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?? Man, if you have some sort of anger problem, JUST GET A VIDIO GAME!!!

And if you don't like the links that I made, JUST DO YOUR OUN SEARCH!!!


And H.F., i would like for you to provide cristian based evidence against cristianity. (Think about what your saying before you post it, H.F.)

West:(again) Thats not a thery? As you guys have said, a thery needs no evidance for it, it just needs to NOT have evidence against it.

And... man it suprises me about what people don't know about the beliefs of cristians and the bible. The serpant... sure he triked eve into eating of the fruit, but she didn't have to. I mean, you have all had temptation, somone or somthing telling you to do somthing that is bad. That isn't the problem, and you can't stop temptation. But you can stop yourself frome giving in to temtation. And that is what adam and eve didn't do. They sinned. And god cannot allow sin to live in a perfict place. and also, just think about it. Adam needed no trikery. he bit the apple out of spite, or just becaus.

And also, the fruit has a representation. The frut is the knolage of sin. Adam and eve, after eating the fruit, knew about sin. they knew that they could deny god. they had sin in there lives, wether they liked it or not.

I have one question about that site you gave us, jack dudman. If that stuff was hemoglobin in a further broken doun point, WHO CARES. If the thery that I have is correct, than it would have been 100 times (exaduration, but you know what i mean) More humid back then, when the dino's would have lived. And that would mean more bakteria. And it would also mean the breaking doun of organic material would increas. And it would also mean that radio carbon would(I'm making an asumtion apon the data that aclaims to say that radio carbon is in less quantati with stuff that has been under whater) be less in quantaty. So... It don't matter.

I also don't know why nobody has said why fossals even have radio carbon. Becous radio carbon can only be found in fossals that are 11 thousand years old. (Pleas hit me on the head with a hammer if this has alredy been said) And I will follow up this post with another one.... in a secont.

[Pie]

Now, God knows us all extremely well. If, based on what he knows of us, he figures out that person A will not pray, than he doesn't program into the Earth 'do X thing for person A'. If he figures that person A will pray, he does program into the Earth 'do X thing for person A'. And he's never been wrong.

If this is true Nalaris, then Pie is wrong? Because he said that we all have free will, but that does not seem much like free will.


Pie Wrote:

CARBON DATING is bunk. You guys don't know SQUAT about earths age, and no Carbon Dating "System" Is going to be able to find out. Thus, you have no basis to the earths age. Or anythings age, for that matter. And thus, we can rule out evolution, becous evolution needs time, and we just don't have that much time on the earth.

Regardless of whether Carbon Dating is 'bunk (I don't believe that but haven't done enough research on it to prove you wrong),' that does not rule out evolution. If carbon dating wasn't right, that doesn't mean that the age of the earth is automatically much shorter than what Carbon dating says. For all you know, it could be even older!


And you seem to use this bug thing in the stomach as a reason that scientists are brainwashed.
a) That's only one scenario and doesn't necessarily prove anything.
b) You seem to generalize scientists as one whole group and it sounds like you are saying that every scientist didn't believe this bug thing.
c) They believe it now, right? Perhaps there wasn't sufficient evidence when this concept was first opened to the world... and often times concepts that change many things (I don't know if this qualifies as one though) are often not accepted at FIRST, because it goes against many previous things, but that is not because they are brainwashed. It is simply because there have been things earlier that have been made scientifically solid that don't mix with this new idea... however, scientists usually realize later (usually with MORE evidence) that there, in fact, are bugs in the stomach.

All in all, I don't think you have much grounds to say that scientists are brainwashed (maybe some are, but some people in every profession are most likely), but I don't think that others have much grounds to say that people in religion are brainwashed (obviously some are though).

Em... this one I believe. It's a bit lengthy.

I beleav nixit had alredy talked about the first thing. God can controll the earth. He can do anything he wants. I really don't know, but i think he may just program nature to do everything that he does. and that dosen't change free will.

Lets make a story to show what god does. Bob buys bill a presant. he knows that bill is suisidal, and he knows that bill is going to kill himself soon. so, he buys a presant that is expensive, and he throus a big party to.

Bob buys his son a presant. He knows his son dosen't like anything that isn't red, so he buys a red presant.

Easy as that.

And also, I don't know if that is the only scinario. I mean all the scientists that controll the things like the nobell prise(einstine didn't really do anything, it was that one girl...) and some other scientist that have been brainwashed for many things. Like, all the scientists that make the textbooks. and such. Not all of them, but a great number of them, I'd say. and i don't know if there was enough evidence, but the two scientests should have had some evidence to convince themselfs in the face of the prejiduce that they were facing.

There you go, i talked about it.