evolution

If you're going to call me Freak, don't put it in quotes. Just say it.

1. "Exactly, so if dinosaurs weren't discovered until recently, then they probably didn't live millions of years ago"

WHAT!? What kind of logic is that!? Please, explain how you came to that conclusion. It really doesn't make any sense. Why can't you see that carbon dating works!? Because one tree was covered with ancient rock!?

I can't belive you don't see the flaw in your logic. It's so obvious. You can't disprove all of carbon dating because someone thought they were checking the age of a tree, when in actuality, it was the lava they were dating. Why can't you comprehend that? The lava comes from the center of the earth, one of the oldest parts of the planet. Lava never covered every bone in existence. For your logic to work, lava would have covered every single bone we've ever discovered.

Secondly, one dinosaur would never fit on the arc Noah created, let alone 2. I think you should check the dimensions of the ark again.

Has anyone seen the new National Geographic? It is pure genious.

Front cover: Was Darwin Wrong?

Turn to page...

Page: Was Darwin Wrong?

Turn to next Page: NO

yea, I've seen it, funny.

Originally posted by hunchy
Isaiah 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

The Bible said that just so you know. Exactly, so if dinosaurs weren't discovered until recently, then they probably didn't live millions of years ago...Umm, the flood could have killed them off...and then the two that Noah brought if he did that is...could have died off soon after too...who knows? No one. It does not take millions of years to create fossils (did you listen to what I said about the lava/tree) that too a day to create a fossil actually...

Yeah I did, but one freak incident doesn't dismiss every other fossil ever found by man. It does take millions of years, and the dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago. It doesn't disprove god, it only proves the bible isn't a completely factual text about the history of mankind. The bible was written by man, and man is flawed. It is a great piece of literature but to take most of it literally in today's modern world you have to deny alot of scientific facts.

The beautiful thing about science is, it was set up so if you don't believe anything it presents as a fact, you can test it yourself and find out via the scientific method.

1. "Exactly, so if dinosaurs weren't discovered until recently, then they probably didn't live millions of years ago"

As in, dinosaurs probably aren't as old as you might think. Dinosaurs are old obviously...but millions of years old? I don't think so. The lava thing only proved that if you find a fossil, you can't prove the date, because of something that could have happened to...not in all cases, but in some...And scientists don't know these things for fact...some things...but as for guessing dates of when they were alive...its simply that...guessing...Do you know how large the Ark was? It fit other big animals...Dude, first off, dinosaurs are more or else just animals...I'm sure there are different ones that didn't...but maybe some that did...I'm sure dinosaurs are old...Like I said, they could have lived all over the Earth...it doesn't mean the Bible has to mention them...I mean back then they didn't even have a name anyways, because we didn't name them til recently or even discover them for that matter. So back then, they were probably simply seen as animals...which again, they basically are. If you believe in the Bible Afro Cheese, it WAS written by a man, yes, but by what God was telling them. I'm sure some of it is not to be taken literal, but there many parts that are.

" WHAT!? What kind of logic is that!? Please, explain how you came to that conclusion. It really doesn't make any sense. Why can't you see that carbon dating works!? Because one tree was covered with ancient rock!?

I can't belive you don't see the flaw in your logic. It's so obvious. You can't disprove all of carbon dating because someone thought they were checking the age of a tree, when in actuality, it was the lava they were dating. Why can't you comprehend that? The lava comes from the center of the earth, one of the oldest parts of the planet. Lava never covered every bone in existence. For your logic to work, lava would have covered every single bone we've ever discovered.

Secondly, one dinosaur would never fit on the arc Noah created, let alone 2. I think you should check the dimensions of the ark again."

"Has anyone seen the new National Geographic? It is pure genious.

Front cover: Was Darwin Wrong?

Turn to page...

Page: Was Darwin Wrong?

Turn to next Page: NO"

WOW, that is so funny???

The bible itself was in no way meant to be taken literally. I am Christian, and I hate some of the radical things people will do. In my opinion, the whole church sytem is flawed, but that's a diffrent story. I agree fully with evolution and I agree fully with God, the abstract entity that watches over me and guides me and all of us through life. I believe this as true, but whether it is or not I cannot say.

Originally posted by hunchy
"Has anyone seen the new National Geographic? It is pure genious.

Front cover: Was Darwin Wrong?

Turn to page...

Page: Was Darwin Wrong?

Turn to next Page: NO"

WOW, that is so funny???

🤨

Hunchy, I don't believe in the bible. I think it's a good moral guide full of some interesting stories, but I don't interpret it as factual information. I don't know if there is a god or not, but I can say that believing the earth is only a couple thousand years old and people got here first to govern over the animals and everything science is trying to prove is wrong just because some book says so is a long shot for me. I try to look at things collectively and see what makes the most sense to me, and for me it's science because you can actually see it working and do it for yourself. You can't see God, you are just supposed to believe out of faith that he is there. He could be, but does that mean that all religious philosophies about God are automatically right? The bible is a very old piece of literature, and you have to be understanding that when it comes to an accurate time line they may be a little off. Yeah I suppose dinosaurs could've existed in other countries without them noticing, but the fact of the matter is prehistoric fossils are found all over the world, including the middle east.

But since it seems I'm not convincing you at all with that argument, I'll bring up my other one where I said that it takes millions of years to form fossil fuels. This is a true scientific fact. If there was any way to speed up the process they would be working on it by now seeing that fossil fuels are such a precious limited resource.

Originally posted by hunchy
1. "Exactly, so if dinosaurs weren't discovered until recently, then they probably didn't live millions of years ago"

As in, dinosaurs probably aren't as old as you might think. Dinosaurs are old obviously...but millions of years old? I don't think so. The lava thing only proved that if you find a fossil, you can't prove the date, because of something that could have happened to...not in all cases, but in some...And scientists don't know these things for fact...some things...but as for guessing dates of when they were alive...its simply that...guessing...Do you know how large the Ark was? It fit other big animals...Dude, first off, dinosaurs are more or else just animals...I'm sure there are different ones that didn't...but maybe some that did...I'm sure dinosaurs are old...Like I said, they could have lived all over the Earth...it doesn't mean the Bible has to mention them...I mean back then they didn't even have a name anyways, because we didn't name them til recently or even discover them for that matter. So back then, they were probably simply seen as animals...which again, they basically are. If you believe in the Bible Afro Cheese, it WAS written by a man, yes, but by what God was telling them. I'm sure some of it is not to be taken literal, but there many parts that are.

" WHAT!? What kind of logic is that!? Please, explain how you came to that conclusion. It really doesn't make any sense. Why can't you see that carbon dating works!? Because one tree was covered with ancient rock!?

I can't belive you don't see the flaw in your logic. It's so obvious. You can't disprove all of carbon dating because someone thought they were checking the age of a tree, when in actuality, it was the lava they were dating. Why can't you comprehend that? The lava comes from the center of the earth, one of the oldest parts of the planet. Lava never covered every bone in existence. For your logic to work, lava would have covered every single bone we've ever discovered.

Secondly, one dinosaur would never fit on the arc Noah created, let alone 2. I think you should check the dimensions of the ark again."

Err, no, scientists are not "guessing" how old dinosaurs were. They have found thousands and thousands of dinosaur fossils. Don't even TRY to tell me that every single one of those was screwed up, or that it's mere coincidence that they haven't found any dinosaurs younger than 65 millions years old... See, the way this works is, they date all the fossils they find, and based on the ages of all of those, they can get a good representative sampling of when dinosaurs died out. Calling it an "estimate" or a "guess," is, while true, very misleading. It is in theory a guess, but so good a guess that it may as well be accepted as fact.

And about the arc, we've gone over this many times before in this thread--there is no possible way that two of every animal could have fit in the arc as it was described. You wouldn't even have been able to fit all two of every insect on that thing. In fact, screw the dimensions they give in the Bible, we couldn't build a boat big enough to do that today! Not to mention the massive amount of food and fresh water it would take to feed that many living things, even for a single day. Plus, there's no way Noah and his sons could have managed to take care of all of them, again, even for a single day... Therefore, no piece of writing that talks about the arc can be taken seriously, because the arc is a physical impossibility...

Hunchy do you believe that they might have found the arc or know where it is or whatever like some people do? Because if you do, you do realize to find out how old that wood is to see if maybe it was from the arc, they would use the same methods they use to "guess" how old fossils are.

Originally posted by hunchy
Isaiah 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

The Bible said that just so you know.

oh and you have to get an education in methods to date fossils.

who did they had to share it with? the only talking they could do was after they got settled in Daneland perhaps but they had to do more battling then something else there

Secondly, one dinosaur would never fit on the arc Noah created, let alone 2. I think you should check the dimensions of the ark again."

yes, but I gave Daneland as the biggest example to where they settled of course. I could have mentioned some parts of i.e. Belgium but no one would get that 😉

yeah but we all know that THE REAL VIKINGS came from NORWAY 😄😄😄😄 we settled Iceland, Greenland so since iceland was under the Norwegian king at that time we can say that it was Norwegian vikings that reach America..yes indeed the real vikings the Norwegian ones................somebody that havent got it yet?.............

*raises hand*
how about the swedish ones that went south to the now-known city as Istanbul? 😛

the waregs (it is the name swedich vikinds have here) was first ruling dynasty in russia 😖mart: (no idea why this smily bag)

ehhh the Swedes went to Istanbul allright, but those who raided the place were again..........the real Vikings from Norway........ the swedes were just pilgrims that got lost 😄

Well you could, but most people didn't know it was a circle back then so, wouldn't that be a strange coincidence? As for your comments, Afro Cheese, I still respect you...because I THINK you respect me even if you disagree with me. And yes, they believe to have found the ark on the very same mountain that the Bible says it landed on. Mount Arafat. There are a team of expeditioners that are going to look at it more closely. Planes discovered a huge thing of wood frozen in the ice up there and they are going to do tests with it. Ok, ok...I back down on the fossil dating thing. I was probably wrong on a lot of things, but my point was that scientists don't always know. They usually guess and make theories. You see, I don't believe that all wood can be dated to an exact time, only roughly...

they also dated that Shroud of Turrin cloth which is very interesting if you haven't heard of it...I forget how old it said it was...but it dated back to arond the time of the Romans...close there anyways...but it is believed by some to be the cloth that baried Jesus...It has an image of someone burned into the cloth (the same type they would have used back then) and it has all the crucifixion marks and whip marks on him that he would have had...as well as a crown of thorns I believe...but not postive...but its crazy how the image could have been burned into it...Scientists are stunned...because they tried to test it, and find out if it was a fake and it was too impresive and dated back to a time when it was hard to fake such things...Now, in the video, they said even though the dates sound about right...they may be a little off...but now they discovered the image of the man is burned onto both sides of the cloth. Wanna hear more about it. Go here:

http://www.shroud.com/index.htm

"how do you know you shouldn't take THAT as a metaphor?"

yeah right hunchy, those 'scientists' are 'going to look at it more closely' for two years in a row now 🙄
they just found something of closer mass than snow (bad wording), doesn't mean it's the ark

and you just agreed with us hunchy... scientists don't always know but at least they make theories, refine them or toss them away. They do NOT keep the same theory for 2000 years without changing one letter like religion does

and about the shroud... it depends, some claim it's from roman times, others from the middle ages as it presumably is, there were quite some good forgers at that point in time
it having a face and some marks of crucifixion and such does NOT make it jesus already, it makes it an image of someone with such marks and that's the furthest you can go

oh and now all of a sudden you agree with the dating scientists use?