lpetrich

However, snakes are very widespread, and we may have some relic of an instinctive fear of snakes that creates fascination with snakelike monsters. Alternately, snakes may seem especially fearsome because they crawl on the ground and let themselves be hidden, while having a nasty bite.

And as I think more about that, I notice that the Aztec monster has an upper fang -- which is typical of poisonous snakes.

By comparison, mammalian predators have upper and lower fangs; look in the mouths of dogs and cats, and you will see them.

And, for the most part, dinosaurs had no fangs -- just a lot of lookalike teeth, much like a Monitor Lizard or a crocodilian.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

MrDarwin

Ron, I believe you may have misunderstood statements that were made in the other discussion. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests that "all living things may not have come from a common ancestor;" in fact, all evidence points in the opposite direction. You are confusing theory with evidence, that is, the theory of evolution does not demand that all life on earth had a common ancestor, but the evidence demands it. It would be far more correct to say "based on all available evidence that we have so far, all living things have come from a common ancestor."

Asha'man

To extend this point: The fossil evidence clearly links most life forms to common ancestors. For example, all animals with backbones can clearly be seen as coming from a single ancestor with a backbone. Ron is right, however, in saying fossil evidence does not necessarily link plants and animals. This is simply because this common ancestor hasn’t left clear traces of itself.

However, genetic and biological evidence takes over to complete the chain for those earliest links. Plants and animals all use an identical genetic code and identical biological mechanisms. For example, all life on earth forms protein using only 22 of the 293 naturally occurring amino acids. If separate chains of life had developed independently, we might expect a different set of amino acids to be used in each instance. The ten-step glycolysis cycle is the same across plants and animals, following the same steps in the same order, despite thousands of equivalent alternatives (including a simple reordering of those same ten steps). All DNA is composed of the same four nucleosides, despite the fact that there appear to be dozens of alternatives. This is the evidence that is used to complete the common descent tree, linking all life to its earliest ancestor.

For a better presentation of this evidence, and references to support it, check out <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred1" target="_blank"> Prediction 1: The fundamental unity of life</a>

Bait

Kosh,
Well, to a certain extent your right. You're catching on my friend. But on the other hand, on this list, Oolon, you and the others have evidences that do not necessarily agree or disagree with the Bible, in some instances, actually support it, other times debunk it...depending on HOW you look at things.

You, yourself, are fond of saying that we cannot use this person or that person's statements / evidences/ arguments because they "have an agenda". But admit it, there are many on this forum (and elsewhere) who also has the agenda...that of "disproving Christians" in particular, or any other religious beliefs no matter what...not really looking at anything with an open mind, and seeing if perhaps there really is an overall agreement after all, or if the religious belief could by any stretch be correct.

I think that your ONE translator (as an example), out of thousands of translators who has interpreted the Bible, was the ONLY one to translate "tail" as "penis" from Job verse. Talk about a freudian slip!!! and an agenda!!! Yet you believe him over everyone else? Yes, he may have credentials, "Piled higher and deepers" (PHD's),etc., but then so does many, many other translators, even those trying to discredit the Bible, and who disagree with him as to the translation of that verse. I ask you, if the Bible has no problem with describing someone "pissing against a wall", and describing a females beauty as "her breasts are like two young roes..." what makes you think the translators would have any problem with describing a "penis"?(which btw, they do many times referring to them as loins). Even if that IS what the verse says...a penis the size of cedar trees could ONLY have come from a behemouth, a dinosaur (ah now, but which one??) Even an elephant (largest land animal) does not have one big enough to describe in that manner.

One other example is when I gave you an argument, based on biblical text (as I recall, you asked for two verses, one from new, and one from old testament...which I did give), on the "thousand years" theory. Instead of proving me wrong Biblically, you instead said (in essence) that we cannot count the I Peter verse (even though it is biblical), because he (Peter) "had an agenda", and the other verse I gave (Psalms)did not mean what it said (though your friends...anti-Christians, one very vehemently so, said the same thing I did). Have you admitted I COULD have a point here? Why not? Because I'm a "Christian", therefore my point could not possibly be valid? We're all illogical after all you know.

And just like the "dragon argument"...if even one of you admitted that it is even POSSIBLE that SOME dinosaurs MAY have been around when humans came on the scene...that would blow many of your arguments against Christians, YEC's in particular. So even when there IS evidence (such as cave paintings, ancient written accounts, etc.), you won't see anyone here saying..."gee, ok, then maybe it might be possible, lets explore that possibility from a scientific viewpoint". Ya'll forget that it is generally accepted "by science" that crocidiles are recognised, left over (modern day)dinosaurs all by themselves. And you guys call us "Christians" closed minded?

Instead, it will be pointed out that Pteranodons only had ONE finger sticking out of the wings, instead of seeing if there may be similarities. (Although Pterodactyls, as I recall, had multiple "fingers..digits" sticking out of the wings, not just one, and the head of a velociraptor looks similar to the heads of dragons in many civilizations). I was pointing out similarities...I don't know for sure anything, it was just a "what if".

Kosh, I'll let you in on something here. I really don't need to reconcile the Bible with the sciences, nor does the sciences need to reconcile themselves with the Bible. The Bible is a religious document, intended to uplift mankind, and give us hope. It (I believe)is inerrant in it's MESSAGE...and it's message is that of salvation and hope for mankind. It also contains lessons of how men should live, and the consequences of what eventually happens if men do not live as they should. It tells you how to come to God, if you WANT to believe in, and come to God. The various "historical accounts" then become examples of those lessons, and a roadmap of why people do, or should, believe. People, including scientists and Christians alike, tend to forget those very important points.

Yes, it (the Bible)has historical, and perhaps SOME scientific information in it, and probably because the writer(s) were eyewitness to many of the events, who wrote what they saw, from their perspective, in the words of their times. Yes, the writers of the Bible had an agenda. From a historical nature, the old testament document in particular (the Torah), but the new testament too, is without question historical, every bit as much as the various tablets of Egypt, China, Aztec's, the dead sea scrolls, etc... So whether David killed Goliath twice is irrevelant to the message that's being relayed, or if a kangeroo is related to a tree.

I personally believe what is written in the Bible is true, from a historical standpoint, and for the most part literally, and my point has always been that you cannot "prove" it (the Bible)wrong. Everytime someone says science does not "prove" anything...I agree, and my point is made. You may have overwelming evidence men came from apes, but that evidence MAY currently be being interpreted incorrectly. As scientists, you cannot even agree on the definition of species. Scientific errors in interpretation of evidences has often happened in the past, and happens all the time even today. Remember Java man, Piltdown man, Rhodesian man, Taung African man, Nebraska man, Peking man?

The Bible cannot be proven wrong because it is not a scientific document, and was never intended to be such, and also because science does not (cannot)prove or disprove anything, IT (science)was never intended that way. To try to prove the Bible wrong with science, is not science...it cannot be by it's very definition. When you go out of your way to make science disprove the Bible, then science itself becomes a religion,(because then you have to believe in science over something else) which it was never intended to be (it then ceases to be science by it's own definition). Therefore NEITHER the Bible or true science is really in contention with the other, because they are not really related in any way.

I admit, depending on how you look at each, science and religion can also either compliment, or contradict each other (if you wanted to look at them that way). I personally choose to believe they compliment overall, I just do not know exacly how every time.

Just like you and I and Oolon and the rest on this forum. We can be friends and have a fun with debates, or get angry, insulting, etc. I would rather have ya'll as friends than enemies. Banter is good, then we can learn from each other. Disrespecting only hurts, and no one wins. If I don't know something, or am proven wrong...or right...so what? I'll admit it. World still revolves, the Bible will still be believed, as will science. Nothing has changed really, except perhaps we become more tolerate towards another instead of immediate enemies.

Bests,
Ron
__________________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kosh:
[QB]

{Just a general observation I've made about you
Ron. I know that you want to logically reconcile
the Biblical accounts with modern science. By
staying in the realm of "we just don't know for
sure" (which I've noted is your prefered stance),
it's much easier to chalk conflicts up to
mis-interpretation. The problem is, as Oolon and
others have been trying to point out in explicit
detail, and which you refuse to admit, is that
man of those things you think "We just don't know
for sure", we do in fact, know for sure.}

Bait

MrDarwin,
You are correct....Oolon...what he said. Except to correct his statement, "based on all available evidence that we have so far, all living things SEEM TO have come from a common ancestor
Ron


[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bait ]</p>

lpetrich

(Bait's objection to the view that Behemoth's "tail" was really its penis...)

I note that that beast's bones were described as being made out of iron and brass, neither of which is typical bone material. So some of the description of that beast was clearly metaphorical.

And if dinosaurs were common enough for someone to describe them, then where are their bones? If dinosaurs had been spotted in the Middle East, why wasn't there some mummified Egyptian dinosaur among the mummified cats and crocodiles that have been found?

Bait, be reasonable and stop whining. The dragon = dinosaur hypothesis is rejected because it simply does not fit. Having an open mind does not mean believing everything one comes across. Do you expect people to be open-minded to the possibility that the Earth is flat? Seriously. And, Bait, are you open-minded to the possibility that Jesus Christ had been a myth?

Where are these multifinger-wing pterodactyls? And I notice that lizards, snakes, and crocodilians have heads that are somewhat similiar to dinosaur heads. And they are known to be alive and capable of inspiring dragon imaginers.

Then why get all worked up when someone suggests that it has historical and scientific errors?

Bait, are you willing to apply that kind of skepticism to the Bible?

That's peanuts compared to religion -- Xianity is divided up into numerous sects, which have sometimes been willing to fight nasty fights, and that's only Xianity.

Definition shmefinition. I can always "demonstrate" the truth of my beliefs by "defining" them to be true.

Bait

lpetrich:

__quote___________________________________________ __________________________________
] [QUOTE] Bait's objection to the view that Behemoth's "tail" was really its penis...)
I note that that beast's bones were described as being made out of iron and brass, neither of which is typical bone material. So some of the description of that beast was clearly metaphorical.
And if dinosaurs were common enough for someone to describe them, then where are their bones? If dinosaurs had been spotted in the Middle East, why wasn't there some mummified Egyptian dinosaur among the mummified cats and crocodiles that have been found
________________________________________________
response:
Of course much of the description is metaphorical, and the tail (or penis – ok?) is described as like (size?) of cedar trees. It would only take ONE man, seeing ONE dinosaur to describe it…not necessarily that they (dinosaurs) were common in that area, or any other area. And I cannot, nor am I saying for a fact the behemouth WAS a dinosaur….only that it COULD be ONE explanation. I know of no other land animal today that has a tail, OR penis that can be described as the size of a cedar tree…including elephants. So the word penis does not bother me a bit, other than I think that particular translation is incorrect, and unsupported. Cats and crocodiles had religious significance to the ancient Egyptians, which is an (one) explanation of why they were mummified, and perhaps why dinosaurs were not. And then again, maybe dinosaurs were not present in Egypt, or were not that common in Egypt, or could not be caught. I don’t know. You keep saying absolutes…like there is definitely, no way there could have been dinosaurs when men were around…the “dinosaurs and men” scenario is totally rejected by you because you do not “think” you have enough evidence. All I’m saying is that there are SOME evidences that could lead one to believe that dinosaurs could have been present when men were, such as cave paintings.


quote

Bait, be reasonable and stop whining. The dragon = dinosaur hypothesis is rejected because it simply does not fit. Having an open mind does not mean believing everything one comes across. Do you expect people to be open-minded to the possibility that the Earth is flat? Seriously. And, Bait, are you open-minded to the possibility that Jesus Christ had been a myth?

________________________________________________
response:
Me be reasonable??? Me stop whining??? So why exactly does it not fit? Because there were men present, and you do not BELIEVE men and dinosaurs existed at the same time? There is not enough scientific evidence available to even dispute the possibility! What about the cave paintings of Kuku Yanlanji people, which has the shape/size of a plesiosaur surrounded by a group of hunters (I posted the url…did you look at it)?? If dinosaurs were not around when men were, why would they, or how could they paint such a painting…and how could they be so accurate in it’s shape? What about the cave paintings of the ancient native american tribes? Explain any of those if you can. So if it is possible that THEY saw a dinosaur (and yes, it may have been a very rare occasion), is it not reasonable to explore the possibility of that being ONE explanation of dragons? I already admitted that the fact that dragons occurring all over the world could possibly be a cross contamination of cultures…and dragons could very well have been snakes, croc’s, etc., as you say.

As far as the existance of Jesus, there is more historical evidence of his existance than almost anybody else from his time. In addition, Archaelogy has found evidence of Pilate (who himself wrote of christians), of King Harod, the high priest Caiphias, etc., not counting the writings of some of the historians of his time. That is not counting "eyewitness" accounts of him (and yes, Kosh, they had an agenda). I will admit, and agree though, that his resurrection, him being the Son of God, the messiah, salvation through him, etc...is based strictly on FAITH, not any scientific/archaeological evidence. In the very least, he was a man along the lines of Ghandi, based on the impact he has made to this world.

________________________________________________
quote:

Where are these multifinger-wing pterodactyls? And I notice that lizards, snakes, and crocodilians have heads that are somewhat similiar to dinosaur heads. And they are known to be alive and capable of inspiring dragon imaginers.

_________________________________________________
response:
See:
<a href="http://www.shef.ac.uk/aps/level1modules/aps111/spicer/pterodactyls.html" target="_blank">http://www.shef.ac.uk/aps/level1modules/aps111/spicer/pterodactyls.html</a>

Also:
Description from the “Columbia Encyclopedia”
“The flying apparatus of pterosaurs comprised a membranous wing stretched between the fourth finger of the hand and the side of the body. The fifth finger was degenerate, and the first three were free of the wing. “

BTW, I do not (did not)disagree with you here. Lizards, snakes, crocodiles, etc. could very well have been the inspiration for the dragons. (Thought I already said that).

quote:
__________________________________________________

Bait:
"The Bible is a religious document, intended to uplift mankind, and give us hope. It (I believe)is inerrant in it's MESSAGE...

quote:
_________________________________________________
Then why get all worked up when someone suggests that it has historical and scientific errors?

________________________________________________
response:
-----
I don’t, but apparently you do, judging from the sound of your reply here. What I get worked up about is when someone says the whole Bible is trash, and all Christianity is trash, and all Christians are stupid because a translation says a rabbit is chewing a cud. I get worked up when someone says the message is worthless because of what THEY perceive or interpret as evidence doesn’t appear to agree with what a particular biblical translation(s) says, or how someone else perceives or interprets the same evidence. And all the while they totally ignore what scientific evidence that there is, historical or otherwise, that may support the MESSAGE of the Bible, or any other religion for that matter. At the same time they say, “I don’t believe in anything”. The truth is that THEY do…they believe in what THEY perceive is science…the religion mind you, not true science where one looks at ALL of the evidence, not just what suits them, or what gives them ammunition to disrespect someone else’s religion.

quote:
________________________________________________

Bait:
You may have overwhelming evidence men came from apes, but that evidence MAY currently be being interpreted incorrectly. ...
_________________________________________________
quote:
Bait, are you willing to apply that kind of skepticism to the Bible?
_________________________________________________
response:

YES! At least concerning the various translations of the Bible, and often do as a matter of fact. What I try to do is find out the message in a particular story, or find what a verse is trying to say. That is one of the reasons I’m not a YEC…nor an I a “creation scientist” as the term is often defined. That is why I have stated that I do not disagree that the earth may have taken millions…or more years to form. That is why I say I don’t really disagree with the natural selection theory. If you look close at the Bible, it does NOT disagree with any of these as a whole. One major reason it does not disagree, is because these areas are really not relevant to the message it is trying to relate. Look, I’m not out to convert you to Christianity, really I’m not. Rather I’m just trying to show you that someone else may have an opinion different than yours…and that opinion is not necessarily any less valid than yours just because it disagrees with you. Nor is your reasons any less valid than mine BTW. You do not have all of the answers…science does not PROVE anything, nor is it supposed to. Neither is the Bible trying to PROVE anything…it’s purpose is to give hope, salvation, etc…THAT’S ALL!!! It’s an instruction manual for faith.
_________________________________________________
Bait quote:
As scientists, you cannot even agree on the definition of species. Scientific errors in interpretation of evidences has often happened in the past, and happens all the time even today. Remember Java man, Piltdown man, Rhodesian man, Taung African man, Nebraska man, Peking man?
__________________________________________________

quote:
That's peanuts compared to religion -- Xianity is divided up into numerous sects, which have sometimes been willing to fight nasty fights, and that's only Xianity.
_________________________________________________
response:

Then you admit science has made some fairly major error’s? Yes, men will be men…and men will war, no matter the faith they purport to have. Yes, Christianity is divided into many sects, as is Islam, science (geology, archaeology, etc.)…so? Yes, men have gone to war, killed, and performed all kinds of atrocities in the name of Christianity, in the name of Buddha, in the name of science, in the name of atheism, and many other religions too. Unfortunately, that is the nature of some men. Men have also done atrocities in the name of science…does that make science in itself wrong? Remember the “experiments” of the ancient Chinese, Japanese, etc? That’s how they knew so much about human anatomy well before the rest of the world…they simply took people and cut them open. Remember the horrid experiments done by Hitler’s “scientists”? What about the atomic bomb our scientists developed and used? The nasty fights you mentioned is not true Christianity, and really does not represent Christianity. What it is, is men using a religion for their own purposes. The experiments that the Nazi’s used is not true science, it is men trying to dehumanize other men. By the way, why is it that you as atheists, or scientists, or whatever you call yourself, are afraid to type in the word “christ”..using “x” instead? Afraid there is something “magical” in that particular word? Does YOUR religion prevent you from doing so? Or are you just trying to disrespect Christians in general? You don’t describe Islam as Xlam…or Buddhism as xhism. Why is that I wonder, if you have such an open scientific mind?
________________________________________________
Bait : quote:
The Bible cannot be proven wrong because it is not a scientific document, and was never intended to be such, and also because science does not (cannot)prove or disprove anything, IT (science)was never intended that way. To try to prove the Bible wrong with science, is not science...it cannot be by it's very definition. ...
_________________________________________________
quote:
Definition shmefinition. I can always "demonstrate" the truth of my beliefs by "defining" them to be true.
_________________________________________________
response:

Thought you did not “believe” in anything. So you admit your science is your religion then? If that is what you believe…fine, I have no problem with you believing anything you wish to believe in. That’s your right, and I respect that right. By the same token, don’t go around disrespecting mine, or others faiths. Fair enough? It’s my right to believe that way, as it is yours. And, yes, you can “define” your beliefs to be true, whether they are or not. Then again, so can anyone else (which is my point). You really cannot demonstrate anything…you can only supply evidences that support your hypothesis. Depends on how you look at it really (which is also my point). I admit, some evidences are more convincing than others...

Bests,
Ron


[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bait ]

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bait ]</p>

daemon

Dinosaurs didn't have penises. Behemoth cannot be a dinosaur.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

Dr Rick

Are there any historical examples you can provide that demonstrate evil of this type has been committed for the sake of atheism?

daemon

Most dragon heads are thought to be inspired by modern animals. Western dragons are usually characterized by horselike heads; I note the eastern forms are sometimes similar, sometimes not. Quetzlcoatl, on the other hand, is a feathered serpent, a bird-winged snake.

As for Bait's other evidence of the dinosaurs-and-man connection... a picture by M.C. Escher?! Escher was alive within the past century! He obviously modelled his picture on no real creature! A detail from a painting by Raphael? That's only about 500 years old!

Also, the painting of the pleiosaur with the little men... that's from drdino.com. Kent Hovind's either a fraud or a moron; either way, I wouldn't be surprised to see anything on his site turn out to be an hoax.

I suggest you actually find some evidence, Bait, instead of presenting us with every random connection ever made.