question help: god question? - Help.com

well everyone likes to play with dinosaurs, maybe God did too, then grew up and got bored so made us instead

Well, if God made everything, then I would assume that he also created dinosaurs.

Nikki vs The World wrote:
well everyone likes to play with dinosaurs, maybe God did too, then grew up and got bored so made us instead

LOL - Now that’s a GREAT perspective and funny, to boot!

Nikki vs The World wrote:
well everyone likes to play with dinosaurs, maybe God did too, then grew up and got bored so made us instead

so what happens when he gets bored of playing with action men and barbies :o

black rose (male) wrote:

Nikki vs The World wrote:
well everyone likes to play with dinosaurs, maybe God did too, then grew up and got bored so made us instead

so what happens when he gets bored of playing with action men and barbies :o

maybe he’ll get onto the train sets, or the apes, giant teddy bears maybe….

house_elf wrote:
yh but it dosent make sense got made adam and eve and then thay whent on to be like the cave man and so on and so on but no where in films books storys ect dose it explane where thay came from

Are you now asking where Adam & Eve came from, or are you saying that you can’t find references to where dinosaurs came from?

The subject of Paleontology covers Dinosaurs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleonto…

Then, after that, there’s the theory of Dinosaur to Bird Evolution:
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Origins-o…

I had a friend who was a Jehova’s Witness. Naturally as they take everything in the bible uber-literally it meant he didn’t believe the dinosaurs ever existed.

Personally I don’t believe he did.

I’m not too convinced he exists either.

What I do know is that I really wat a pet dinosaur now.

Cell wrote:
They were created by God at the same time as everything else. They couldn’t survive as well after the flood because of climate change. They went extinct due to climate change. There are several reference to large beasts(dinosaurs) in he Bible. I believe carbon dating to be seriously flawed/inaccurate was of mesuring he age of a substance.

This is incorrect.

So dinosaurs and human beings coexisted in the time before the flood? Is this the flood of Noah’s time? In which case he saw fit to not take a gender of each of the species of animal on the Ark with him; despite being told to take a pair of each by God himself? Further to this, your statement seems to imply that everything came into being in its current state at the same time. So dinosaurs were around as galaxies and stars and planets were forming; as well humans themselves of course.

Your statement about carbon radio-dating is a belief of yours, and your belief is wrong.

Well
If you are serious here is a serious answer if you are not that will be the last one
Genese 1,20
describes to us that the life begun in the water like the science says so
Genese 1,21
describes to us that the next step were the dinosaurs [taninim hagedolim ,in phonetic hebrew,means the big reptiles] like the science says so
So what’s the problem?
The talmud [written in 5th century ] in Shabat 88.b teach us that He made and destroy worlds during 974 generations before the genese. And Maymonide says about that that we cannot mesure the years before rhe genese like we’re doing now.
So the science can say that the universe is Billiard years old and it doesn’t make any contradiction with the Bible.
Christians have another aspect from this, that helped them to leave the humanity under dark obscurantism more than 19 centuries.
People are a lot less analphabetic nowadays, that’s why the christians gonna get the same end that the dinosaurs got.

There is another theory too. In Genesis 1:1 it says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And the very next line is “And the earth was without form, and void.” If you continue learning about God, you realize that God doesn’t make anything that is “without form” or “void.” That leads some people to believe that there is a large gap of time between those two verses; time in which things like the the dinosuars existed.

I know there are some Christians out there that believe some pretty strange theories about how everything came to be. But that’s just people in general. There are some scientists out there that think life on earth was “seeded” by an alien race that used to live on Mars. There are some that think the universe has always existed even though we have VERY strong evidence that it had a beginning, because of cosmic background radiation.

Honestly though, why would dinosaurs have any impact on whether or not God exists? The Word of God was given as a love letter to mankind, not as a history textbook. If you wrote a letter to your children, giving them what they need to know to live long, prosperous lives, would you really waste time talking about Dinosaurs?

Cell wrote:
They were created by God at the same time as everything else. They couldn’t survive as well after the flood because of climate change. They went extinct due to climate change. There are several reference to large beasts(dinosaurs) in he Bible. I believe carbon dating to be seriously flawed/inaccurate was of mesuring he age of a substance.

That’s correct! lol. God created dinosaurs at the same time He created horses and cows and all the other animals. There is much evidence to show that man walked with dinosaurs. The most compelling evidence is that of a T-Rex that was found with soft tissue in it. Scientists stated that they believed that soft tissue could not last more than a few thousands years at most. Yet, scientists believe that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, way before man ever came on the scene. Even bone would turn completely to dust in just 30,000 years, yet we also find dinosaur bones that have not been fossilized - they are said to be like “old cow bones”.

Add to that the fact that there are thousands of ancient cave drawings all over the world of dinosaurs, the same dinosaurs that we see in our museums today. The Bible talks about huge beasts that depict animals just like dinosaurs and ancient explorers recorded sightings of huge and fierce dinosaur like beasts.

As far as the taking of dinosaurs on the Ark, Noah could have taken young baby dinosaurs - not the fully grown ones. But when you find dinosaurs with SOFT tissue and unfossilized bones, that alone is clear evidence that can’t be denied that dinosaurs existed with man, and not that long ago (the flood was only 4,500 years ago).

Evolution is just one long wrong song.
.

ReeDeeDee! wrote:
Evolution is just one long wrong song.

My grandma says the exact same thing about stuff. “It’s a long, wrong, song.”

Not to go off on a different topic here, but have you ever read about Darwin’s life? It was very sad, and tragic. And it sheds a lot of light on where such a theory could have come from. Darwin was a Christian, and went to college to become a clergyman. After his 10 year old daughter died, he went through one of those “mad at God” phases, where he basically thought “God wouldn’t let this happen to my daughter, so there is no God!” And that’s the entire foundation of his work comes from.

Kind of ironic that millions of atheists put their faith in a theory that came about as a result of a grieving father who was angry at God…

house_elf wrote:
if god is really and did make the earth and everythink where do the dinosaurs fit in to it all ?

They don’t. This is one of many reasons to not believe in the bible. If you want to find out about more inaccuracies, just do a google search and have a field day.

SnowBot wrote:

house_elf wrote:
if god is really and did make the earth and everythink where do the dinosaurs fit in to it all ?

They don’t. This is one of many reasons to not believe in the bible. If you want to find out about more inaccuracies, just do a google search and have a field day.

The only problem with that logic, is that you assume that anything NOT mentioned is a contradiction. Dinosaurs aren’t a part of the history of the Roman Empire, but it doesn’t mean that the Roman Empire didn’t exist. If you go to medical school, you won’t learn about Dinosaurs, and Dinosaurs have nothing to do with learning how to be a doctor. But that doesn’t mean that the study of medicine is a lie.

The truth is, we don’t know very much at all about life before mankind. Most of what we “know” isn’t really knowledge, but simply theories and guesses made based on what we see in the world today. And ALL of the scientific theories about dinosaurs have to be taken on Faith, because all of them rest upon an unproven, and unprovable belief in a philosophical concept called Uniformitarianism. If you don’t accept Uniformitarianism, then you cannot accept the theories that scientists use in order to “know” about the ancient world.

Blest wrote:
There is another theory too. In Genesis 1:1 it says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And the very next line is “And the earth was without form, and void.” If you continue learning about God, you realize that God doesn’t make anything that is “without form” or “void.” That leads some people to believe that there is a large gap of time between those two verses; time in which things like the the dinosuars existed.

has to be in your mind, this theory like you say may be from the old Inca or someelse paganist.Like a good christian you seem to be you think that God is an entity, something you can take under a definition. The words [and especially the bad christian translation]don’t mean what you can understand of them today. It says also that God landed on Sodome >> all paganist people think that there was an airport in Sodome, the same for He hears or sees and so on. Like all these misunderstandings you misunderstood [Tohou vavohou in phonetic Hebrew ] it does not mean without form and void, although there is no problem to create something without a form like darkness for example which is not the lack of light but a specific creation.

Blest wrote:
The only problem with that logic, is that you assume that anything NOT mentioned is a contradiction. Dinosaurs aren’t a part of the history of the Roman Empire, but it doesn’t mean that the Roman Empire didn’t exist. If you go to medical school, you won’t learn about Dinosaurs, and Dinosaurs have nothing to do with learning how to be a doctor. But that doesn’t mean that the study of medicine is a lie.

The truth is, we don’t know very much at all about life before mankind. Most of what we “know” isn’t really knowledge, but simply theories and guesses made based on what we see in the world today. And ALL of the scientific theories about dinosaurs have to be taken on Faith, because all of them rest upon an unproven, and unprovable belief in a philosophical concept called Uniformitarianism. If you don’t accept Uniformitarianism, then you cannot accept the theories that scientists use in order to “know” about the ancient world.

Medicine is also a science. It is based upon knowledge of previous events. Medicine you state medicine isn’t a lie, and ergo imply Uniformitarianism is correct. We deduce that the Roman Empire existed from evidence previous generations discovered. The rest of your statements show in inherent misunderstanding of science; and your use of the word ‘faith’ is misleading in this context.

***

ReeDeeDee! wrote:
Evolution is just one long wrong song.

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. Nothing in modern science disproves the existence of God. Anybody who denies Evolution theory as an accurate description of how life formed on Earth has either no understanding of Evolution or is delusional.

isyperfec wrote:
has to be in your mind, this theory like you say may be from the old Inca or someelse paganist.Like a good christian you seem to be you think that God is an entity, something you can take under a definition. The words [and especially the bad christian translation]don’t mean what you can understand of them today. It says also that God landed on Sodome >> all paganist people think that there was an airport in Sodome, the same for He hears or sees and so on. Like all these misunderstandings you misunderstood [Tohou vavohou in phonetic Hebrew ] it does not mean without form and void, although there is no problem to create something without a form like darkness for example which is not the lack of light but a specific creation.

I’m having a little trouble understanding you. I assume that English isn’t your language, so I am thinking that things are getting lost in translation.

I don’t know what you mean by “God is an entity”. The word “God” is an adjective to describe an abstract concept; much like the word “Infinity” is a term to describe an abstract concept in mathematics. Infinity is not a number, but rather the endless sum of all numbers that contains all numbers within it. The concept of “God” is not that God is a thing or an entity, but rather an intelligence that exists as the sum of all things.

I don’t believe that particular theory, as you apparently do not either. I simply offered it to expound upon things already offered. I am well aware that the current English phrase “without form and void” is not how the original text describes it. If I were to translate it myself, I would say “breathtakingly empty”. I believe that my Stone Edition of the Chumash uses the words “Astonishingly empty”.

I don’t discount the theory either though, because I don’t assume that I am wise enough to judge such things. I simply thought it was worth mentioning.

Blest wrote:
The only problem with that logic, is that you assume that anything NOT mentioned is a contradiction. Dinosaurs aren’t a part of the history of the Roman Empire, but it doesn’t mean that the Roman Empire didn’t exist. If you go to medical school, you won’t learn about Dinosaurs, and Dinosaurs have nothing to do with learning how to be a doctor. But that doesn’t mean that the study of medicine is a lie.

You should know that people who believe in the bible as a religious text (Christians/Mormons/Catholics) dispute amongst themselves about what the bible says about dinosaurs and whether they were directly mentioned in the bible or not. Many followers of the bible say that they didn’t exist and the reason why the bible doesn’t speak of them is because of that fact. Others say that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible and that it also says men walked among them (there’s even a museum called the ‘Creation Museum’ in America that has exhibits showing children playing with dinosaurs near Eden’s rivers. Look it up). These are the inaccuracies I speak of, I didn’t mention contradictions. It’s enough to convince you that people who wrote the bible clearly weren’t aware that the earth has a long history before man. If they didn’t know that, why take anything in the bible seriously, in my point. (Besides I don’t need to go on about all the other inaccuracies about history in the bible, just talking about dinosaurs here).

The truth is, we don’t know very much at all about life before mankind. Most of what we “know” isn’t really knowledge, but simply theories and guesses made based on what we see in the world today. And ALL of the scientific theories about dinosaurs have to be taken on Faith, because all of them rest upon an unproven, and unprovable belief in a philosophical concept called Uniformitarianism. If you don’t accept Uniformitarianism, then you cannot accept the theories that scientists use in order to “know” about the ancient world.

Theories and assumptions based upon facts, not stories made up by scientists to explain everything away. The reason that religious people have a problem with dinosaurs is that it completely destroys the creation myth (that the world is thousands or years old). Because of a little thing called ‘carbon dating’ we have been able to conclude that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. This isn’t a theory or a hunch, it’s a fact. The fact that we already know that dinosaurs did indeed exist millions of years ago begs the question - if the creation myth isn’t accurate, why believe it at all? What is the sense in that? Faith shmaith, faith is free from reason and logic. To bring it up in a debate is pretty weak.

@fractal.scatter

Yes, Medicine is considered a science NOW. But for the thousands of years that medicine has been around, until very recent times, it was NOT a science. In fact, medicine used to belong to the realm of religion and mysticism. If Uniformitarianism were true, then Medicine would always have been a science.

Many theoretical physicists even agree that Uniformitarian philosophy is flawed, because it can be proven mathematically that the laws of physics, under certain conditions, begin to change, or fail to work at all. Geologists have significant evidence that the earth’s Electromagnetic Field didn’t always work the same way it does now. If something as big as the earth’s EM field could change, and work differently, why would you assume other things would be the same too?

Not only that, but because human perception is imperfect, we don’t really know what all is happening in the world we see today. How can we assume that the world has always existed in this way, if we don’t even completely understand the way it works now? People thought for decades that they knew all there was to know about lightning, and how it worked. And then we sent people into space, and they started seeing phenomenon like Sprites, and Elves, and Blue Jets. So even if lightning has always worked the same way since the earth was formed, our UNDERSTANDING of lightning isn’t complete enough for us to really know how it has affected the world in the past.

I’m not saying that the philosophy itself is bad, or that it never works. Using present understanding of the world, in order to recognize the DIFFERENCES between the present world, and the past, is perfectly fine. But assuming that things have always worked the same way, simply because it seems that way, could just be the result of a flawed perception of the evidence.

Many of Science’s greatest minds in the past even say that Faith is one of the fundamental aspects of the scientific process. For if you do not first put your faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe, then no science can be done. If you don’t believe, by faith, that the universe’s mysteries can be understood, then no science can exist. And the universe, in all it’s peculiarity and complexity, certainly doesn’t seem at first glance that it can be understood rationally. In fact, you must first perform science in order to gain enough understanding about the universe to use that understanding as evidence as to WHY the universe can be rationally understood. That’s why superstitions were the law of the land for so long; because nobody believed that things could be understood rationally. It wasn’t until people started putting faith in the idea that they could understand how things work, that they actually gained some scientific knowledge.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
-Albert Einstein

Blest: You’re entire post above is a strawman above is a strawman. The question at hand here is, “if dinosaurs existed (which they did) then why doesn’t god mention them” (I’m talking the judeo-christian bible, well we all are I assume). I began by saying that dinosaurs aren’t mentioned in the bible, so one can assume correctly that god didn’t create them, or it isn’t part of the religious beliefs stemming from the bible itself (in essence anybody who believes in the bible as the word of god, cannot also accept that dinosaurs existed since claiming that they do would suggest that the creation myth propogated in the bible is a lie, thus basically shattering the belief system altogether unless taking it non-literally). You went on to say that it could be possible that there is mention of a time period in the book of genesis, a ‘void’ wherein dinosaurs could have existed. If this were true or not it wouldn’t matter since the fact of the matter is the bible does not mention dinosaurs, or anything about earth’s non-human history, and it also states that the world is thousands of years old and not millions (and we know now that the earth is older than a few thousand years).

You go on to say that just because something isn’t mentioned in the bible doesn’t make it a lie. The problem with this is the bible is not a textbook, and it doesn’t set out to try and teach anything about reality and the known universe. It only has to do with mankind’s creation, their purpose, and the story of god and how this relates to humans. You are right in that the bible is really just a love letter and not a scientific paper. BUT, when the bible itself contradicts what we know about the world (it’s age roughly, it’s history) you pull a strawman and say “well um anything is possible and just because things are the way they are now doesn’t mean that things couldn’t have been different in the past…. uniformitarianism is proven to be flawed because the laws of physics is shown to have bended under certain conditions… medicine wasn’t always a science so bla bla bla”. What you are essentially doing is detracting from the original point by creating an entirely new argument which is harder to prove as true or false, thus making it seem like our entire argument is flawed (that because the bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs, either dinosaurs didn’t exist or the bible isn’t to be taken seriously as a distorical account). This kind of argument you are using is facetious. I could literally say ANTYHING right now about the history of the world and the universe, and according to your logic I could be right just because you couldn’t prove me wrong because we have no percievable way of gathering facts about our world and the past because uniformitarianism could well be flawed (though it really isn’t, and is not a philosophy in and of itself perse but more of a principle of modern geology). To say that the laws od physics can change and may have changed in the past thus allowing for events to support a belief of a faith that ‘this thing happened at this time which could explain this’ (in which case I’m referring to the religious belief of creation), is completely uneless and not an argument at all. It’s a strawman.

We have one of the two options. Either we believe that god created man, that the account of this creation in the bible is accurate, and that dinosaurs did not exist.

Or,

god did not create man, the account in the bible is not accurate and dinosaurs did exist, thus rendering the bible useless unless not taken literally and taken as just a piece of fiction and nothing more. One can assume that god didn’t mention dinosaurs because it wasn’t necessary. Or that it is possible the bible does mention of a time period wherein dinosaurs could have existed but this isn’t developed upon for the same reasons. It doesn’t matter the individuals assumptions, because either way when talking about dinosaurs you simply cannot use a god of the bible as an explanation for their existence or non-existence since there is no literal mention of it in religious texts. For the same reason that I can’t say dinosars were created by Zeus, or Odin, or aliens. Sure any of these variables could be the truth. But to act on the assumption that it is actually true, is false.

And your Einstein quote is also taken out of context, if we are applying it to the dogmatic religions, since Einstein himself makes it clear what he regards as being religious:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

Having said all this, if you reply pointing out flaws in my post without adding anything to the original topic of dinosaurs vs the god of the bible, then you are pulling a strawman again. Just so you know.

Harbinger wrote:
since the fact of the matter is the bible does not mention dinosaurs,

under a name, in any classifiction, not but for their existence may be yes may be not, you can’t denie and noone can confirm.

Harbinger wrote:
or anything about earth’s non-human history,

False

Harbinger wrote:
and it also states that the world is thousands of years old and not millions (and we know now that the earth is older than a few thousand years).

And where did you find that the calendar begins with Adam ?

nuke of acell wrote:
And where did you find that the calendar begins with Adam ?

Exactly. Science and the Bible both agree very much on the “age” of humanity as a civilization; being somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

There is nothing in the Bible that says the earth or universe itself is a certain age. It just says that it had a beginning, and that it was created. Which, science has JUST figured that out in the last 50-60 years, when they discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation.

Blest wrote:
Exactly. Science and the Bible both agree very much on the “age” of humanity as a civilization; being somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

There is nothing in the Bible that says the earth or universe itself is a certain age. It just says that it had a beginning, and that it was created. Which, science has JUST figured that out in the last 50-60 years, when they discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation.

Question

How long have humans existed on Earth?

Human have existed for roughly half a million years, but this answer depends on the exact definition of “human”. Fossil evidence shows that several human-like lineages developed during the past million years or so. >From fossils, the appearance of Homo sapiens is dated at about half a million years, and of anatomically modern Homo sapiens at about a hundred thousand years, values that are also supported by genomic evidence. Another data point, although not something you asked directly, is that the recent complete sequencing of the genome of the chimpanzee, which is the closest living relative of humans, suggests that chimps and humans diverged from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago. Of the many intermediate related species that have existed since then, only chimps and modern humans survive today. David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
June 12, 2006

So tell me again how humans ‘as a civilization’ have been around for only 6,000-10,000 years?

Is this how christians are bending the facts around their religion now? How very petty.

Dr. Raptor McPope wrote:
So tell me again how humans ‘as a civilization’ have been around for only 6,000-10,000 years?

Is this how christians are bending the facts around their religion now? How very petty.

So, you’ve found some 500,000 year old cities where these “human-like lineages” lived half a million years ago?

The oldest known human civilization WITH PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE is called Sumer. It is believed to have existed roughly 7,000 - 8,000 years ago. Nobody has any proof that human civilization existed before that point in time. Some thought that a sunken city off the coast of India might be close to 10,000 years old, but that has since been proven incorrect.

Fossil evidence tends to be very sketchy, and inconclusive at best. Fossil evidence “proved” that the coelacanth died off 65 million years ago, and that they were a “missing link” because their fins looked like they were evolving into legs. And yet, they are still alive and “kicking” today; only they don’t kick, because they don’t have fin-legs. They’re just fins.

But I’m sure with enough faith, you can overlook things like that.

You don’t get it do you. You make the leap, a gigantic leap, that the bible in the book of genesis doesn’t speak of the actual creation of the human species 6,000 years ago. You make the leap that the book of genesis talks of the creation of human civilization, not humans themselves. The story of god creating Adam, and Eve from a rib, of them being the mother and father of all humans in history to the present day. That the 6,000 figure mark is only in reference to human civilizations, not how long they have actually been on the surface of the planet. Who out of the two of us is taking a leap of faith and overlooking evidence here?

“Fossil evidence tends to be very sketchy, and inconclusive at best”.

Can I say cop-out? Is it alright if I say you’re grasping at straws to make the bible seem implicitly possible despite the GLARING inaccuracies? But you still somehow feel like bending all the evidence to the limit in order to prove it’s validity?

Blest wrote:
@fractal.scatter
Many theoretical physicists even agree that Uniformitarian philosophy is flawed, because it can be proven mathematically that the laws of physics, under certain conditions, begin to change, or fail to work at all. Geologists have significant evidence that the earth’s Electromagnetic Field didn’t always work the same way it does now. If something as big as the earth’s EM field could change, and work differently, why would you assume other things would be the same too?

But we know what the conditions are when the laws of physics we have begin to change. Of course, we do not yet know what form the physics of certain conditions of extreme temperature/energy/density (eg, at the Big Bang and very shortly after) takes. The very physics used today indicates that the Universe should be the way we observe it to be on cosmological time scales; right back to the furthest we have observed. Cosmology is a very good validation of Uniformitarianism. Further to this; the two testable consequences of the Cosmological Principle of isotropy and homogeneity have been measured using the CMB.

The magnetic history of Earth is reasonably well documented by geologists. Indeed, then were rather surprised to discover what they did. Just because the structure of Earth’s magnetosphere was different in the past, it doesn’t mean that it *worked* by a different set of physical laws. For a start, any evidence to the contrary would easily disprove electromagnetic theory.

Dr. Raptor McPope wrote:
You don’t get it do you. You make the leap, a gigantic leap, that the bible in the book of genesis doesn’t speak of the actual creation of the human species 6,000 years ago. You make the leap that the book of genesis talks of the creation of human civilization, not humans themselves. The story of god creating Adam, and Eve from a rib, of them being the mother and father of all humans in history to the present day. That the 6,000 figure mark is only in reference to human civilizations, not how long they have actually been on the surface of the planet. Who out of the two of us is taking a leap of faith and overlooking evidence here?

“Fossil evidence tends to be very sketchy, and inconclusive at best”.

Can I say cop-out? Is it alright if I say you’re grasping at straws to make the bible seem implicitly possible despite the GLARING inaccuracies? But you still somehow feel like bending all the evidence to the limit in order to prove it’s validity?

There are no more “glaring inaccuracies” in what I believe than in what you believe. In fact, your ideas probably have far more, because you have to find BILLIONS of fossils of missing links in order to confirm your theories. I just have to have faith to confirm mine.

Yes, I believe that humanity has only existed as long as civilization has existed. Because civilization is a defining aspect of humanity. So I believe that if you cannot find proof of civilization before 7,000 years ago, then humanity didn’t exist before then either. If you cannot find evidence of beehives existing before then, then I don’t believe bees existed before then either. Because bees don’t just wander around on their own. They live in hives.

So I don’t see any difference at all between “humanity” and “human civilization.” If all you found was a skeleton with no head, would you assume that all humans around that period of time just lived without heads? Or would you assume that the body was somehow separated from the head? Well, finding a fossil of a skeleton without finding a civilization that it belonged to, is like finding a skeleton without a head. You cannot assume they didn’t go together.

Incidentally; from the website of mentalists:

Seems we’re all wrong, haha.

Blest wrote:
There are no more “glaring inaccuracies” in what I believe than in what you believe. In fact, your ideas probably have far more, because you have to find BILLIONS of fossils of missing links in order to confirm your theories. I just have to have faith to confirm mine.

There you go again. Completely dismissive of what the bible says compared to what we know to be true about our earth’s history and the history of humanity, and you pull up the faith card to compley excuse any and all conclusions you make even though you completely disregard the evidence against your belief in the bible as an accurate detailing of our history. Well done Blest, you’re making progress. *rolls eyes*

And no, once again you are wrong. We don’t need to find ‘billions’ of missing links. For a very simple reason, something that is pretty obvious.

For millions of years, our distant ancestors led a precarious existence as scavengers, hunters, and gatherers, and there were fewer than 10 million human beings on Earth at any one time. But over the last two centuries, the world’s population has skyrocketed. By October of 1999, some crowded cities had more than 10 million inhabitants each, and six billion people shared space on the planet. Trace the dramatic growth and spread of human populations on our global map, and see where on Earth as many as three billion more people may live by 2050.

Blest wrote:
Yes, I believe that humanity has only existed as long as civilization has existed. Because civilization is a defining aspect of humanity.

So you really do not think it at all possible, that before humanity’s population was on the increase, that it could not be possible at all for humans to exist in small tribes and villages, not belonging to any civilisation in paticular. That really is just so out there and impossible that the only conclusion is to believe that humanity started at the same time greate civilizations did. Hm.

Blest wrote:
So I believe that if you cannot find proof of civilization before 7,000 years ago, then humanity didn’t exist before then either. If you cannot find evidence of beehives existing before then, then I don’t believe bees existed before then either. Because bees don’t just wander around on their own. They live in hives.

You bring up bees to prove a point yet know very little about bees. Not all bees live in hives. Honey bees do. Different kinds of bees live in underground tunnels, desert holes, live in holes in wood, and digger bees can live solitarily or socially in excavated nests. Humans are perfectly capable of living in very small groups. Why you automatically assume that it isn’t possible for humans to live in small tribes and groups outwith a civilization is beyond me.

Blest wrote:
So I don’t see any difference at all between “humanity” and “human civilization.”

Good for you. Willful ignorance in support of an irrational belief - what a beautiful thing.

Okay, “honeybees” then.

And yes, I can believe that humans existed in small tribes and villages, but that would also imply that there was some kind of civilization. And there would be evidence of such civilizations. But there aren’t. We don’t find evidence of small tribes or villages that existed 10,000 years ago. We don’t find ANY evidence of human civilization at all.

The only evidence that humans even existed that long ago, are petrified bones. And it has been proven by science that certain things (like hot springs, and certain types of mineral waters) can DRASTICALLY increase the speed that organic material will petrify. In just 10-40 years, the natural conditions in the water can cause the bones to petrify, appearing to be millions of years old to radiometric dating.

That’s why the fossil record isn’t a reliable measurement of time. It is very easy for a duaghter element to be introduced to an environment, and radiometric dating requires that it be an isolated system, with no chance of any daughter element being introduced at any point in time.

Anyway, you obviously don’t care about anything I’m saying, so I’m just going to leave. I know that there are inconsistencies in my beliefs, and I have accepted that, and it doesn’t matter to me. But you seem totally oblivious to the fact that your beliefs are just as inconsistent. You should read up on the flaws surrounding carbon dating, and I’ll definitely read up on why humans have been around for 500,000 years.

I’m willing to explore other possibilities if you are.

Blest wrote:
I’m willing to explore other possibilities if you are.

That shouldn’t be a necessary condition.

fractal.scatter wrote:

Blest wrote:
I’m willing to explore other possibilities if you are.

That shouldn’t be a necessary condition.

Ha ha!
It’s not a condition.
It’s a challenge.

;)

Blest wrote:
Okay, “honeybees” then.

And yes, I can believe that humans existed in small tribes and villages, but that would also imply that there was some kind of civilization. And there would be evidence of such civilizations. But there aren’t. We don’t find evidence of small tribes or villages that existed 10,000 years ago. We don’t find ANY evidence of human civilization at all.

*facepalm* There is evidence of humans existing over 10,000 years ago. Do a google search.

I know enough about carbon dating to know that there will always be variables in results but despite these variables carbon dating itself (which I can’t be bothered posting here since it will wash over your head anyway and you’ll jump to another irrelevant argument) carbon dating still has allowed us to determine that homosapiens have existed on this planet for a long time. Homonids before them. Though this entire discussion is ultimately rendered pointless since we’ve established you don’t care either way what we discover because you rely on faith and faith alone for your beliefs. Got to wonder why you bother learning up about all this when in the end it doesn’t mean anything to you anyway. Strange.

Dr. Raptor McPope wrote:
Who out of the two of us is taking a leap of faith and overlooking evidence here?

If you referred to me by saying 2 of us such i’d be the second,i’m asking to you not to bind me with this preacher. Thanks
You can answer me directly if you have some arguments or remarks on what i wrote.

Like i said those who wield the new testament spread a dark sheet on the humanity preventing the Man to be wise and philosoph’ by burning and slaughtering.

The bible can support any discovery that the Man can reveal to us if you’re thinking open mind.

The Mishnah [last century BC first century AC]refers to [adam hasadeh [phonetic hebrew] ] that means outdoor man who is not classified as man but neither as a monkey
Maymonides 1200 AC claimed that we shouldn’t have any problem if someone could bring clues that the universe has no beginning and no end [ Aristo’s theory]although this is the real contrary of the bible’s beginning.
Rabbi Kook early 20th century rabbi of the land of Israel, wrote that the Darwin’s theory is amazing, and we should not be against it.
As a scientist you have to be universal. If you are so sure that the Bible and science can’t leave together, you may be very similar as this preacher