Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Bible mentions dragons a few times. Satan is compared to one in Revelations i think.
Most ancient people have myths and legends about dragons.
Is this some kind of dinosaur thing? Dinos werent known about during bible times that i'm aware of.
I never thought about it till i read something earlier today that mentioned it.
Just curious as to any thoughts or theories on the subject.

Originally posted by Bentley
They probably meant Charizard.
No evolution in the bible bro

Revelations is full of metaphors and symbolisms.

It's really hard to decipher the details of what's going on, but it's basically Jesus VS Satan in their final 1-on-1 match.

Jesus Christ is described with a face and body brighter than light, flaming eyes and a two-edged sword-like tongue.

I've always thought of dragons as an archetype, the universal monster, as they've appeared in virtually every culture throughout history (including those predating the Bible). I see them as symbols of chaos, of primordial forces, with Eastern dragons representing mostly benevolent, creative tendencies (order from chaos), and Western dragons representing malevolence and destruction (this no doubt largely influenced by Christian mythology).

While we tend to view dragons largely as serpentine-ish, early renditions were more chimeric, suggesting the image has been tweaked and refined over time (eg, google Tiamat), again with Christian influences and associations with the Devil being dominant shapers.

I doubt any ancient findings of dinosaur bones had much influence. First off, they'd have to be recognized as bones belonging to long-extinct animals, and, back then, anything could be misinterpreted, according to the zeitgeist of a time and place (eg, it used to be thought elephant skulls were those of cyclopses cuz the large nasal cavity looked like a socket for a single, giant eye).

Dragons touch something deep in all of us, perhaps even giving form to the basic instincts and functions of our own "reptilian brain."

Originally posted by krisblaze
No evolution in the bible bro

Jesus does transfigurate himself, they omit the fact he used a Mega Stone biscuits

Originally posted by Mindship
I've always thought of dragons as an archetype, the universal monster, as they've appeared in virtually every culture throughout history (including those predating the Bible). I see them as symbols of chaos, of primordial forces, with Eastern dragons representing mostly benevolent, creative tendencies (order from chaos), and Western dragons representing malevolence and destruction (this no doubt largely influenced by Christian mythology).

While we tend to view dragons largely as serpentine-ish, early renditions were more chimeric, suggesting the image has been tweaked and refined over time (eg, google Tiamat), again with Christian influences and associations with the Devil being dominant shapers.

I doubt any ancient findings of dinosaur bones had much influence. First off, they'd have to be recognized as bones belonging to long-extinct animals, and, back then, anything could be misinterpreted, according to the zeitgeist of a time and place (eg, it used to be thought elephant skulls were those of cyclopses cuz the large nasal cavity looked like a socket for a single, giant eye).

Dragons touch something deep in all of us, perhaps even giving form to the basic instincts and functions of our own "reptilian brain."
Good theory.

Originally posted by riv6672
Good theory. Good research, really, from when I was doing a story involving dragons.

Btw, I forgot the thread where I'd already asked you this, so pardon my repetitiveness: who's that in your sig? Heroic yet realistic.

Dragons are a good subject for fiction...so many ways to interpret the idea.

The sig? Well I'm a big bald black guy with glasses. Cage is an easy way to create a caricature...

Originally posted by Bentley
They probably meant Charizard.


Oh shit!



Originally posted by riv6672
The sig? Well I'm a big bald black guy with glasses. Cage is an easy way to create a caricature...

Nice.

Originally posted by Bentley
They probably meant Charizard.


Oh shit!



Originally posted by riv6672
The sig? Well I'm a big bald black guy with glasses. Cage is an easy way to create a caricature...

Nice.


Originally posted by Mindship
I've always thought of dragons as an archetype, the universal monster, as they've appeared in virtually every culture throughout history (including those predating the Bible). I see them as symbols of chaos, of primordial forces, with Eastern dragons representing mostly benevolent, creative tendencies (order from chaos), and Western dragons representing malevolence and destruction (this no doubt largely influenced by Christian mythology).

While we tend to view dragons largely as serpentine-ish, early renditions were more chimeric, suggesting the image has been tweaked and refined over time (eg, google Tiamat), again with Christian influences and associations with the Devil being dominant shapers.

I doubt any ancient findings of dinosaur bones had much influence. First off, they'd have to be recognized as bones belonging to long-extinct animals, and, back then, anything could be misinterpreted, according to the zeitgeist of a time and place (eg, it used to be thought elephant skulls were those of cyclopses cuz the large nasal cavity looked like a socket for a single, giant eye).

Dragons touch something deep in all of us, perhaps even giving form to the basic instincts and functions of our own "reptilian brain."

This captures everything I would have said on the topic BUT you put it in much better words.

Yeah, that was pretty good...

Originally posted by riv6672
The sig? Well I'm a big bald black guy with glasses. Cage is an easy way to create a caricature... Gotcha. In that vein, I look most like the Silver Surfer, except I'm not silver and have genitals.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This captures everything I would have said on the topic BUT you put it in much better words. Thanks. I was having a lucid moment.

Wait, Surfer has no nards?
Even werewolf has nards!

Originally posted by riv6672
The Bible mentions dragons a few times. Satan is compared to one in Revelations i think.
Most ancient people have myths and legends about dragons.
Is this some kind of dinosaur thing? Dinos werent known about during bible times that i'm aware of.
I never thought about it till i read something earlier today that mentioned it.
Just curious as to any thoughts or theories on the subject.

There were no dinosaurs during the time of humans, but there were fantasized dinosaur bones in the ground. People of the past must have found these bone weathering out of the Earth. I think some very smart people put these bone together and imagined dragon, giants and other creatures. Those storied got passed down from generation to generation, and eventually found their way into the bible.

I've thought the same.
Like elephant skulls interpreted as cyclopean, because of the nasal cavity in the center...

Originally posted by riv6672
I've thought the same.
Like elephant skulls interpreted as cyclopean, because of the nasal cavity in the center...
Yes. Just like that.

if there were dragons we would not know bcuz those glands would not be preserved

Originally posted by Shabazz916
if there were dragons we would not know bcuz those glands would not be preserved

What glands?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What glands? many animals have glands that shoot things from there mouths etc

Originally posted by Shabazz916
many animals have glands that shoot things from there mouths etc

But glands attach to bone, and as far as I know there are no bones the represent a dragon.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But glands attach to bone, and as far as I know there are no bones the represent a dragon. everything found in a fossil is only bone... unless is preserved in something

Originally posted by Shabazz916
everything found in a fossil is only bone... unless is preserved in something

Bones have attachments that soft tissue attach to.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bones have attachments that soft tissue attach to. after thousands or millions of years those are gone

Originally posted by Shabazz916
after thousands or millions of years those are gone

No. We find musical attachments on dinosaur fossils.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. We find musical attachments on dinosaur fossils.
Source?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. We find musical attachments on dinosaur fossils.


"musical"?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Source?

"Adding muscles is the next step in fleshing out a dinosaur skeleton. Fossil bones often contain muscle attachment scars that provide evidence about muscle location and size."

http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/reconstructing-animals.cfm

This is the first thing I found on Google. I learned what I know from college. It is common knowledge.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"musical"?
"muscle"
Are you an idiot? Now leave me alone!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Source?

He probably meant "muscle" not "musical." Could be an autocorrect issue.

Additionally, it is theorized that many different dinosaurs probably sang songs or made calls to do various things like attract mates. The attachments, "pipes", and resonance chambers are there to make sounds in some species.

And, yes, I do consider this to be common knowledge....but most people do not know about ossification at muscular attachment sites which are used to determine the loads the muscles put on the bones, how large the muscles were, and where they attached. So I guess it is not common knowledge?

I should note that I'm not a paleontologist, medical doctor, biomedical engineer, medical forensic specialist, or pathologist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"muscle"
Are you an idiot? Now leave me alone!

I'm taking time to respond to you, so I very well might be.




I do seriously wonder how someone who has your kind of trouble can be certain they've actually read and comprehended what the author of any given book actually had to say to their audience. A single word can vastly change the meaning of an entire passage, and you, by your own admission, have problems with a great many words in common usage.

For the record, though, I asked for clarification because I thought there was a chance you were merely badly relaying some section on voice production or noise transmission in animals. I'm not aware the human skeleton today, let alone one preserved as a fossil, would provide true evidence that we were speakers and singers, for instance, still less so what we use to determine that for animals.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm taking time to respond to you, so I very well might be.




I do seriously wonder how someone who has your kind of trouble can be certain they've actually read and comprehended what the author of any given book actually had to say to their audience. A single word can vastly change the meaning of an entire passage, and you, by your own admission, have problems with a great many words in common usage.

For the record, though, I asked for clarification because I thought there was a chance you were merely badly relaying some section on voice production or noise transmission in animals. I'm not aware the human skeleton today, let alone one preserved as a fossil, would provide true evidence that we were speakers and singers, for instance, still less so what we use to determine that for animals.

It's call an autocorrect. The word was muscle, just like the quote that you seem to have missed. Maybe you couldn't understand it or didn't notice it because all the words were spelled correctly.

Try reading the articular below (BTW that was a joke). But maybe I am asking to much, as that you may have never read anything scientific in your life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Adding muscles is the next step in fleshing out a dinosaur skeleton. Fossil bones often contain muscle attachment scars that provide evidence about muscle location and size."

http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/reconstructing-animals.cfm

This is the first thing I found on Google. I learned what I know from college. It is common knowledge.

I'm srory taht yuo cna't flolwo ctenxo, adn hvea ot tkea eevry wrod sdelep cerotcly to usndaertnd.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
after thousands or millions of years those are gone

Back on track.

Muscle attachments to bone can be fossilized. But I didn't think you believed in fossils sense they take millions of years to form.

How hold is the Earth?

Originally posted by dadudemon
He probably meant "muscle" not "musical." Could be an autocorrect issue.

Additionally, it is theorized that many different dinosaurs probably sang songs or made calls to do various things like attract mates. The attachments, "pipes", and resonance chambers are there to make sounds in some species.

And, yes, I do consider this to be common knowledge....but most people do not know about ossification at muscular attachment sites which are used to determine the loads the muscles put on the bones, how large the muscles were, and where they attached. So I guess it is not common knowledge?

I should note that I'm not a paleontologist, medical doctor, biomedical engineer, medical forensic specialist, or pathologist.
This is good info for this subject...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I should note that I'm not a paleontologist, medical doctor, biomedical engineer, medical forensic specialist, or pathologist...

Originally posted by dadudemon
...I'm just a living dinosaur

Bentley,

the things that carry snakes venom are not muscles...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm srory taht yuo cna't flolwo ctenxo, adn hvea ot tkea eevry wrod sdelep cerotcly to usndaertnd. Is there a program/translator that does this, or did you think out how to cripple each word?

Originally posted by Mindship
Is there a program/translator that does this, or did you think out how to cripple each word?

The technique is to rearrange the letters in the middle of the word without changing the first or last letter. I didn't do it perfectly.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
the things that carry snakes venom are not muscles...

Okay, some things might have been lost over time. But how much time are we talking about? The bible only spans the last 6 to 7 thousand years. We have mummies that are almost as old as that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay, some things might have been lost over time. But how much time are we talking about? The bible only spans the last 6 to 7 thousand years. We have mummies that are almost as old as that.

im not talking about lost im talkn bout if there were dragons who could spit fire we wouldnt know bcuz those gland would not last over time after the dragon died

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay, some things might have been lost over time. But how much time are we talking about? The bible only spans the last 6 to 7 thousand years. We have mummies that are almost as old as that.

And daddies.


More seriously, Cheddar Man.


It was the sole reason (when I was a kid) I rejected, completely, any notion of a Young Earth. Granted, I never believed in a Young Earth idea but Cheddar Man is responsible for me being thoroughly convinced of that.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
im not talking about lost im talkn bout if there were dragons who could spit fire we wouldnt know bcuz those gland would not last over time after the dragon died

Unless the dragon was naturally mummified. Absolute statements don't work in this case.

^^^true.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Revelations is full of metaphors and symbolisms.

It's really hard to decipher the details of what's going on, but it's basically Jesus VS Satan in their final 1-on-1 match.

Jesus Christ is described with a face and body brighter than light, flaming eyes and a two-edged sword-like tongue.

it's actually a mismatch... Christ is too powerful for satan... in the Bible, it was archangel Michael who fought satan, and satan still lost...

"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, The Lord rebuke you."
Jude 9

"Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
But they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven."
Revelation 12:7-8

poor satan...

There're no such things as dragons.

Religion is the misinterpretation of the fact that we're being moved in certain directions, and when we see the patterns we associate myths to them.

The patterns should not exist in a nature like this one. An anti-anthropocentric nature with no metaphysics.

However, everything in the universe can be represented with numbers, therefore the entire universe can be simulated by a powerful and sophisticated enough software program - and it is within this kind of program that we can be led and there is a non-chaotic pattern to the lives we're supposed to lead by our programmers. It is a synthetic path, we are truly ethereal beings in an ethereal world that in itself to us seems as real as the actual thing.

What are our programmers trying to make us do? Simple, act out the real human history. Obviously, things are different, and there are no longer limitations once you've formed your own placebos that are different from what they were meant to be. I'm telling you, I've wanted something to happen and it has happened immediately; because it was a placebo that I'm well-liked. That I'm fricken gorgeous. Snap of a finger. I was kissing a girl. I'm wicked smart, I can do this with minimal education because I'm intuitive enough to figure it out. Money falls my way. Easy.

The programmers are finding out that somehow some humans can tell the difference between a genuine existence and a synthesized reality constraint. Others buy into it and strengthen the delusion much how one would break it; and that's by using a placebo.

They were probably talking about dragon breath in the morning and folks who don't floss and drink coffee having the worst butt hole breath. After all, it's the millions of bacteria in the mouth that cause that. Doubtful there were ever millions of dragons on earth at any one time.

Originally posted by SayWhat
They were probably talking about dragon breath in the morning and folks who don't floss and drink coffee having the worst butt hole breath. After all, it's the millions of bacteria in the mouth that cause that. Doubtful there were ever millions of dragons on earth at any one time. I'm guilty for that one time because I was drinking alcohol and I passed out. Happens to a lot of people.

Originally posted by riv6672
The Bible mentions dragons a few times. Satan is compared to one in Revelations i think.
Most ancient people have myths and legends about dragons.
Is this some kind of dinosaur thing? Dinos weren't known about during bible times that i'm aware of.
I never thought about it till i read something earlier today that mentioned it.
Just curious as to any thoughts or theories on the subject.



I'm finding the so-called "Young Earth Creationist" views the most intriguing.

Also that one of these Creationists is Bentley.


Very interesting article making note of the fact that no less than Marco Polo claimed to have seen creatures that describe what we think of as dinosaurs today, long before people are thought to have looked at or reconstructed fossil bones into complete skeletons:


http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/03/marco-polo-describes-dinosaur_09.html

Originally posted by dyajeep
it's actually a mismatch... Christ is too powerful for satan... in the Bible, it was archangel Michael who fought satan, and satan still lost...

"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, The Lord rebuke you."
Jude 9

"Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
But they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven."
Revelation 12:7-8

poor satan...


Yeah, he and all the rest of the disloyal angels got their @$$es kicked good. That's for sure.

Originally posted by SayWhat
They were probably talking about dragon breath in the morning and folks who don't floss and drink coffee having the worst butt hole breath. After all, it's the millions of bacteria in the mouth that cause that. Doubtful there were ever millions of dragons on earth at any one time.

There are still dragons on the Earth.

http://bohemiantraveler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Komodo-Dragon-Indonesia-10.jpg

^^^its funny but kinda true!
I mean, modern birds are descended from dinosaurs...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm finding the so-called "Young Earth Creationist" views the most intriguing.

Also that one of these Creationists is Bentley.


Very interesting article making note of the fact that no less than Marco Polo claimed to have seen creatures that describe what we think of as dinosaurs today, long before people are thought to have looked at or reconstructed fossil bones into complete skeletons:


http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/03/marco-polo-describes-dinosaur_09.html
Thanks for that link...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm finding the so-called "Young Earth Creationist" views the most intriguing.

Also that one of these Creationists is Bentley.

Am I?

As a very orthodox Pokemon player I believe in Evolution

I found this to be interesting to say the least.

http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28

First of all we have no idea what happened long ago. We have no idea if the Garden of Eden existed. Scientists have tried to find evidence, but nature has a tendency of destroying crime scenes. We have no proof that early man did not become this way after the fall of Adam, and Eve. We have no proof that early man wasn't highly intelligent. Evolution is called into question here. Apes were apes from their inception, and are still apes today. They did not change one bit. We can adapt; I believe strongly in this. Our tolerance of the cold can become greater, but that is not the same as mutating over a period of time or after generations. The evolution of thought exists, but there is no clear or solid evidence that we once upon a time looked like Micheal Jackson's good buddy Bubbles. I could be wrong though. I have never seen 100% proof, of man and woman evolving from what appeared to be an ape, to what we are today. I have seen people develop rheumatoid arthritis over years of physical exposure to harsh elements, and/or physical trauma (concerning people walking around hunched over). That is no proof that we were not incredibly intelligent in those days, yet lacking in technological might. Trial and error are the only things that we can say without a doubt evolves.

There are a lot of things that we do not know, but what we do know is that time is a construct that we have created. Could Dragons have existed? I don't see why not. We do not truly know what the dinosaurs looked like when they walked the Earth, we have no idea if they were covered in scale, or fur when it comes to certain ones. We also have no idea how long Mankind has been on this planet. Could the reason that we have never seen Dragon bone be that they were aquatic creatures? Could they have been spiritual creatures? The Bible also tells of a race of Giants that walked the Earth. We may have wiped them out for many of the same reasons that we wiped out the Dodo bird, or flat nosed Bear? We may have even eliminated them due to racism? If we believe in what the bible says; Nephalim were directly linked to Dragons, or at least to the first of the fallen (Angels). In conclusion, there are many things that were not recorded, but that does not mean that they did not exist.

I used to be certain that the Garden of Eden when it existed was located in the Middle East somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers but then after reading some articles on the subject it was made clear to me that the Great Flood of Noah's time would have drastically altered the topography of the world. We can never be certain where it was located but one thing I am sure of is the fact that it did, in fact, exist despite what all the nonbelievers stubbornly think.

Originally posted by Stoic
Evolution is called into question here.

To be fair that argument would only sort of work on human evolution, bacteries are quick evolvers.

Originally posted by Bentley
To be fair that argument would only sort of work on human evolution, bacteries are quick evolvers.

Does bacteria evolve, or adapt? Why are apes still apes? They have been here for a very long time, and nothing has changed in them, nor should we expect that in 10,000 years from now that they would change based on what we see today.

Originally posted by Stoic
Does bacteria evolve, or adapt? Why are apes still apes? They have been here for a very long time, and nothing has changed in them, nor should we expect that in 10,000 years from now that they would change based on what we see today.

Humans didn't evolve from apes. Chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://bohemiantraveler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Komodo-Dragon-Indonesia-10.jpg Good triceps development. Must be the close-grip pushups.

Originally posted by Mindship
Good triceps development. Must be the close-grip pushups.

I wouldn't mess with it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Humans didn't evolve from apes. Chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor


Why haven't chimps changed? You don't seem to understand what I was saying. None of the primates changed over time. They have remained the same as they were then all the way up til this day. In another 10,000 yrs chimps will still be the same as they were 10,000 yrs ago.

Originally posted by Stoic
Why haven't chimps changed? You don't seem to understand what I was saying. None of the primates changed over time. They have remained the same as they were then all the way up til this day. In another 10,000 yrs chimps will still be the same as they were 10,000 yrs ago.

A chimpanzee is a modern animal. The animal they evolve from and into will not be a chimpanzee.
I understand what you are saying and you absolutely wrong. You can disbelieve the fact of evolution all you like. You can even disbelieve gravity for all I care, but when you are talking about evolution, please get it right. Otherwise it makes you look ignorant.

Originally posted by Stoic
Does bacteria evolve, or adapt?

They evolve and adapt. Different things.

Originally posted by Stoic
Why are apes still apes? They have been here for a very long time, and nothing has changed in them, nor should we expect that in 10,000 years from now that they would change based on what we see today.

Lots of things have changed in several races of apes, as some other posters said by now, chimps have ancestors themselves which weren't chimps. If you go by other animals, the Polar Bear came to be while the modern human already existed, species are still evolving to this day.

A never ending process...

Originally posted by riv6672
A never ending process...

Well, until the sun turns into a red-giant.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, until the sun turns into a red-giant.

Prove that the process would then stop forever biscuits

Originally posted by Bentley
Prove that the process would then stop forever biscuits

It depends. If life can escape Earth, then it will go on. But forever? Far into the future, all of the atoms that make up life will decay, and the universe will ether die a cold death, be ripped apart by by dark energy, or collapse back onto itself in a big crunch. But then there could be a quantum fluctuation somewhere and a new universe could be born.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It depends. If life can escape Earth, then it will go on. But forever? Far into the future, all of the atoms that make up life will decay, and the universe will ether die a cold death, be ripped apart by by dark energy, or collapse back onto itself in a big crunch. But then there could be a quantum fluctuation somewhere and a new universe could be born.

There is life in asteroids so life doesn't need to escape Earth. Also, you're talking about a point I didn't make -about evolution lasting forever-, I was just nitpicking your Sun going giant red phrase for the kicks.









biscuits

Originally posted by Bentley
There is life in asteroids so life doesn't need to escape Earth. Also, you're talking about a point I didn't make -about evolution lasting forever-, I was just nitpicking your Sun going giant red phrase for the kicks.









biscuits

WE have not found any life in asteroids yet.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
WE have not found any life in asteroids yet.

There you go:

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/03/22/5f/03225f2671ab4dfdf6d63c119d1b1000.jpg

Dayum, Shakya just got deBUKED

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, until the sun turns into a red-giant.

Thankfully this little fella got off planet to carry DNA (its own and the humans who worked on Sputnik) to the stars!

http://www.bbcamerica.com/the-hour/files/2012/11/Blog1-Sputnik21.jpg

Originally posted by Bentley
There you go:

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/03/22/5f/03225f2671ab4dfdf6d63c119d1b1000.jpg Technically, that could be a dwarf planet, like Ceres (and now, Pluto). Since the body is spherical, this means it's large enough (minimally 500-600 miles in diameter) to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, ie, its gravity is strong enough to compress it into a sphere. Asteroids don't do that: they're not that big. If they are that large (and round), they're considered dwarf planets (like Ceres).

As for the person atop it: that is obviously a 275-mile-high, alien construct meant to shake us up, as are the decorative, silicon-based plants and baking-soda volcanoes.

Or, if we apply Occam's razor, the body is only about five meters in diameter and it only has the appearance of being a sphere from one side.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Or, if we apply Occam's razor, the body is only about five meters in diameter and it only has the appearance of being a sphere from one side. Ah, like a cylinder. Sheer genius.

Originally posted by Bentley
They evolve and adapt. Different things.



Lots of things have changed in several races of apes, as some other posters said by now, chimps have ancestors themselves which weren't chimps. If you go by other animals, the Polar Bear came to be while the modern human already existed, species are still evolving to this day.




Maybe I've not gotten enough sleep, but it seems to be harder for me to understand you than normal this morning.

Are you familiar with the term "micro"evolution?
From what I've learned since 2008, Creationists don't reject what is often termed "micro"evolution.

The industrial revolution/pepper moth example would be called "micro"evolution, for instance. Creationists wouldn't consider that true evolution anymore than they would consider a dog breeder to be "evolving" dogs.

If you consider that a Polar bear micro evolutioned his way into existence by essentially breed selecting itself that's fine I guess.

Then human just microevolutioned his way into pre-human, hence evolution is debunked.

Originally posted by Bentley
If you consider that a Polar bear micro evolutioned his way into existence by essentially breed selecting itself that's fine I guess.

Then human just microevolutioned his way into pre-human, hence evolution is debunked.

What? Micro-evolution is just evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? Micro-evolution is just evolution.

Some people have a divide-to-understand mentality. Since evolution isn't allowed to exist, then something by other name must be it's referral. I've noticed this kind of reasoning several times, feel free to PM me to elaborate.

Originally posted by Bentley
Some people have a divide-to-understand mentality. Since evolution isn't allowed to exist, then something by other name must be it's referral. I've noticed this kind of reasoning several times, feel free to PM me to elaborate.

The world is also not flat.

Have we agreed that there are dragons though? I lost track...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The world is also not flat.

I've never seen division-to-understand that kind of statement, it would've been funny. Again, I'm not really looking for stuff to argue about in that regard.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The world is also not flat.



You reminded me of an extraordinary illustration Carl Sagan made years ago relating how an ancient Greek librarian proved that supposition, and long before Columbus made his journey.

The entire clip is relevant to that subject; people with attention deficit issues may want to start at the 4 min 9 second mark:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8cbIWMv0rI

Originally posted by riv6672
Have we agreed that there are dragons though? I lost track...

It depends on what a dragon is. There are Komodo Dragons, but the dragon from the Hobbit is not real.

Originally posted by Bentley
I've never seen division-to-understand that kind of statement, it would've been funny. Again, I'm not really looking for stuff to argue about in that regard.

It was meant to be funny.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was meant to be funny.


Oh, but it was biscuits



It very much was biscuits