Skip to main content

Moving keyboard? You have one of those, too?


Cagey, this issue is settled. Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. You could say they are dinosaurs.

http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfis...current_theories.htm

That's just one reference. There are thousands more. Just look them up.

As surely as the Earth orbits the Sun, evolution is a fact, and avian evolution from dinosaurs is part of that fact.

You've seen a chicken's foot. It's covered with scales. The feathers are mutated scales, and the development of feathers is well documented. The scales are one of the physiological similarities between the dinosaurs and modern birds.

It's an interesting speculation that dinosaurs had feathers. Imagine if T Rex had peac0ck plumage!

Cagey, if you doubt evolution, you're fighting for a lost cause.

nsns
Hi NSNS and other proponents of the dinosaur/bird theory:
As an (very) armature paleontologist, I respectfully declare that all of the writing here saying that without a doubt:
1. Dinosaurs are direct descendants of birds
2. An asteroid in the Gulf of Mexico finished off the dinosaurs
Are premature. While I wholeheartedly agree with these conclusions, the amount of proof, while sufficient for a layman, is in no way settled or complete.

I prefer to still call these ideas theories. To do otherwise puts a person into the camp of the blind follower and hinders the ability to find new and better discoveries.

That being said:
Another great example furthering the theory that birds are the distant descendants of at least one species of dinosaur (the theropods) is a couple years back, a tyrannosaurs thigh bone was broken (dropped from a helicopter during transit I believe). However, instead of being a catastrophe, upon examining the fragments scientists discovered, after 65 million years (plus or minus) actual SPRINGY TISSUE still within the bone. Well, at least it was tissue which became springy after some careful chemical manipulation. So what did they do? Run DNA of course! And guess what? The DAN was much closer to that of an Ostrich than it was to a reptile!!!

How cool is that!
Al
quote:
Sez Al:
Hi NSNS and other proponents of the dinosaur/bird theory:
As an (very) armature paleontologist, I respectfully declare that all of the writing here saying that without a doubt:
1. Dinosaurs are direct descendants of birds
2. An asteroid in the Gulf of Mexico finished off the dinosaurs
Are premature. While I wholeheartedly agree with these conclusions, the amount of proof, while sufficient for a layman, is in no way settled or complete.

I prefer to still call these ideas theories. To do otherwise puts a person into the camp of the blind follower and hinders the ability to find new and better discoveries.

That being said:
Another great example furthering the theory that birds are the distant descendants of at least one species of dinosaur (the theropods) is a couple years back, a tyrannosaurs thigh bone was broken (dropped from a helicopter during transit I believe). However, instead of being a catastrophe, upon examining the fragments scientists discovered, after 65 million years (plus or minus) actual SPRINGY TISSUE still within the bone. Well, at least it was tissue which became springy after some careful chemical manipulation. So what did they do? Run DNA of course! And guess what? The DAN was much closer to that of an Ostrich than it was to a reptile!!!

How cool is that!
Al


65...MILLION year old "springy tissue"???
Maybe a ..."Twinky" I could believe!
Al,

There's been a lot of misunderstandings about Dr. Schweitzer's work. The preserved soft tissue was mineralized... completely fossilized. Dr. S had to demineralize the specimen and only then was soft tissue, after some fashion, left over.

See: http://animals.howstuffworks.c...fossil.htm/printable

It's not like they broke open a fossil and soft tissue was present right then and there.

Fossilized soft tissue, like skin and feathers, is extraordinarily rare, but there are examples.

Dr. Schweitzer recognizes the accepted age of the Earth and the age of dinosaurs. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/t...php?storyId=89942780

By the way, she's a Christian.

nsns
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Cool
Hi NSNS:

True enough the tissue was heavily mineralized, but not completely fossilized. If it had been fossilized it could have not been made "springy".

At least that is how I see it.

Either way, the DNA extracted from the tissue resembled that of an Ostrich, not a croc, and that was my point.

Al
The article I read said they "rehydrated" it but didn't go into details on how they did it.
Basically, the scientist used some acids and some other organic solvents to "re-hydrate" the tissue. Like you, I am not sure of the exact mixture.
But is it not amazing that after over 65 million years, tissue could be salvaged from one of these magnificant creatures?

It is quite heartening to note that the scientist is a Christian. Just goes to show you that you can love Jesus and still understand evolution!
Wink
Al
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Cool
Hi NSNS:

True enough the tissue was heavily mineralized, but not completely fossilized. If it had been fossilized it could have not been made "springy".

At least that is how I see it.

Either way, the DNA extracted from the tissue resembled that of an Ostrich, not a croc, and that was my point.

Al


Al,

Please show me where anyone found dinosaur DNA from Dr. Schweitzer's fossils. You have the internet at your disposal.


nsns
It's always interesting to see discussions where those who take opposite sites interact with each other thankfully in a reasonable and considerate way. It's certainly no secret that I believe in "God Created" and that I don't believe Evolution was the process that He used in doing so even though if that's the way He wished to do it that he could have done so.

I also understand how taking the position I do appears ludicrous and insane to a person that had no belief in a deity or God and therefore I believe that in order to argue against Evolution, as the process or vehicle by which all life got here, the stronger argument is not one which is to promote my own opinion or belief which also cannot be substantiated or proven beyond anyone's doubts. It is for that reason that I have attempted to rather show, in past post, some non-religious reasons that I have problems with Evolutionary theory.

Another of those, non-religious, problems, I have with Evolution, comes from the probability of chance alone. If, as Evolution teaches, life came from one primordial soup, the most basic one cell being and then divided and "evolved" or developed over time then how is it that man, and man alone, developed such intelligence as to invent, create, develop common languages and multi-lingual abilities and no other species has? How is it that the vast diversity of life can be explained and yet such a vast chasm of diversity of species exist? Diversity such as plant life, insects, mammals, reptiles and bacterial life. All this time and yet man seems to be the only one that can and does alter his/her environment and develop such high levels of reasoning, education, and manipulation of that which he/she touches and encounters.

It seems that science accepted Darwin's evolution of the species as the sole, indisputable, truth and the only possible method or vehicle for our existence. I feel that Scientist do a great injustice, to Science and themselves, to ceremonially dismiss the possibility of a realm outside the physical and thereby limiting Science, in general, to requiring to find some physical explanation for that which I believe is intellectually unattainable, at least at this point in time. Maybe by nature Science necessitates a physical or definable quantity be observed before it can be recognized to exist. Still, without verifiable proof Science projects itself and it's views regarding many other things such as our Universe and the "Big Bang" or Black Holes. Why would it be so difficult to project the same with regard to a Spiritual Realm or some other than physical Realm existing simultaneously with our own. A parallel Universe is hypothetically existing just through a Black Hole so why not the overlapping of a Spiritual existence with a physical one? The merging of the two being, not through some black hole but, the birth of a new soul/baby and the passing of a human soul from a physical body into a Spiritual realm. A better example would be the Human Being our self. The acceptance or recognition of a soul/spirit alive, existing, living, within a physical body yet independent of the physical body in that after death of the physical the soul/spirit continues to live on. Is it too far fetched to Scientifically consider such exist without tying it to God or a Deity? It seemingly seems that Science cannot conceive of such out of fear of recognition of God or a Deity or Religion.

If this discovery does necessitate the rewriting of evolutionary theories then when will the next revision come and what would prompt it? Aside for a moment to say Creation by a Deity or God is it, for a atheist, too hard to conceive that some intelligent source has to be behind or is reasonable to assume to be behind the creation of Man and other life? Would it be inconceivable to assume that if an Intelligent being or life created life that they would use similar sources for various species or in a word "of it's own kind". In other words some common points of reference between say apes and man without, by necessity, having to have one come from the other though this process we call evolution and yes common ties between say birds and Dinosaurs?

The other question, I'd also pose is ... Is it too difficult to accept that quite possibly the actual answers and process, by which we got here, is totally beyond the ability of man/woman to understand or conceive even with our own limited abilities and understandings? Even Creationist cannot explain or conceive of the process that God used in Creation, that is for those that believe in God and creation.

What I'm trying to say is it seems that we, as intelligent, thinking, life creatures, are too fast to limit and restrict our understanding to such a simple physical explanation for life in order to avoid confrontation of other, what I believe are more, probable possibilities? I will repeat, once again, that I believe that Evolution, apart from Religion or religious sources, presents us with far more questions than it answers and leaves far too many discrepancies.

Does the disregarding, or disbelief, of Evolution as a life creation process necessitate the belief in God? It is this assumption that I feel too often traps Scientist into blindly accepting Evolution as incontrovertible. My argument then is not for Creation, which I do believe in as far as myself is concerned, but rather against evolution based solely on that which evolution cannot answer and duplicate


Happy New Year to all ... at least you know, by this post, that one of my successful resolutions wasn't to write shorter forum post.
Last edited by gbrk
gb,

You may disregard evolution on the grounds of incredulity, but that is an insufficient and uncompelling argument.

The DNA record is a compelling argument for evolution. We have DNA similarities not only to animals, but plants. Some DNA does the same thing for both animals and plants, e.g. metabolizing glucosates, if I remember rightly.

Evolution is not a random process. Far from it. If you will take the time to understand it, you'll find it makes perfect sense, and fits the observed data perfectly.

If you're fighting evolution, you're waging a battle for a lost cause. Evolution is a fact. It's as solid knowledge as the heliocentric theory of the solar system.

Tilt against this windmill all you want, the windmill will win every time.


nsns
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
how is it that man, and man alone, developed such intelligence as to invent, create, develop common languages and multi-lingual abilities and no other species has? How is it that the vast diversity of life can be explained and yet such a vast chasm of diversity of species exist?



gbrk, there ISN'T a "vast chasm." our DNA is 98% identical to our closest relative, the chimpanzee. we share 90% commonality with the common house cat. 80% with cows. 75% with mice. in fact, we can fairly accurately predict how long ago were split off from common ancestors according to the differences in our DNA. your assumption that we humans are so far advanced than "the animals" is built purely in ignorance and prejudice. it is not based on scientific fact.

we ARE animals, gbrk. we are currently the most successful animal (not counting insects) but that may or may not be temporary. mankind needs to get off his loft pedestal, realize and understand his place in this universe. insisting that the opinions and myths of bronze aged sheepherders hold more merit that a modern scientist is just so grossly offensive to modern intellect!

quote:

It seems that science accepted Darwin's evolution of the species as the sole, indisputable, truth and the only possible method or vehicle for our existence.


wrong. true, darwin's theory was mostly accepted by the scientific community when origin of species was first published but there were still a few detractors. since that time 150 years ago, it has been overwhelmingly supported by countless converging lines of evidence. you simply do not (and likely cannot) understand the evidence until you remove the blinders your primitive religion has placed upon you.

quote:
The other question, I'd also pose is ... Is it too difficult to accept that quite possibly the actual answers and process, by which we got here, is totally beyond the ability of man/woman to understand or conceive even with our own limited abilities and understandings?


gbrk, we have a VAST understanding of how life came to be! no, we do not know exactly how it first appeared on earth (and won't know until time travel is invented and we travel back to witness the event(s)) but we do understand the numerous processes by which it could have happened. no, we cannot yet duplicate the processes but we understand it so well that scientists are on the very verge of creating "life from non-life" in the laboratory as we speak.

by your logic, when science creates "life from non-life" we will become gods.
HI NSNS:

I STAND CORRECTED !

It turns out that what was found was Ancient collagen—the main protein component of bone, NOT DNA!

Thanks Al

But I just KNOW I read it was DNA... However, I guess it was not. Thanks for pointing that out to me!

Here is an except from National Geo online:

Ancient collagen—the main protein component of bone—has been extracted from the remains of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, according to two new reports.

The new studies provide strong support for the hotly debated claims that organic material previously extracted from the T. rex's leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue that somehow escaped fossilization. Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.

"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

Until now the dino-bird connection has been entirely based on physical similarities in fossils' body structures (related: "Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows" [December 1, 2005]).

In a related study, a team led by Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University conducted tests that also revealed the presence of collagen in the T. rex remains.

In one experiment, antibodies that normally react in the presence of chicken collagen reacted strongly to the dinosaur protein, suggesting a similar molecular identity.
Hi gbrk:

Thanks for starting this amazing thread.

I agree with your argument against evolution as far as this is concerned: I do not believe that evolution continues back to ever simpler and simpler origins. Well, let me rephrase that… I believe that on this world life evolved from those simple forms promoted by the many materialists who post here… I just also believe that there is a plan and a purpose to evolution in the universe.

I see the universe as being a creation of eventual experiential perfection, not a random and chance juxtaposition of moving galaxies. And as such, I see it as imperfect, yet perfecting, the whole universe, not just this one planet. When a person looks at the deep field (not the deep fat field) view taken by the Hubble telescope, the idea that we are alone seems almost absurd. I mean there are millions of galaxies out there, each with million of suns, and each of those suns has the possiblilty of being orbited by worlds which could sustain life.

To me, knowing this, it is the supreme of hubris to think that we are somehow alone in the universe. To believe that we are somehow so all important that the God of the Universe would be so interested that anything we could do could actually anger him. God is God of a million worlds, a billion worlds. A few individuals who are planning to opt out of the eternal adventure could hardly be of such a great consequence to him. I am sure it happens all the time, on every evolutionary sphere.

In the end, I think, we will all get what we want. God gives to each of us all we will receive. If we are trapped in the mindset that all we can conceive of God is that he is somehow like us, vengeful, wrathful, a stern judge of men, well, that is OK… for now. It is all that these individuals can conceive. God is ever ready to respond to even the faintest flicker of faith. And even these individuals will someday truly find God, and find him to their complete satisfaction.

And if some would rather reject the eternal adventure, then this too, is their right. If this short life is all they wish, then they too will be granted their desire, again to their complete satisfaction. The goodness and love which they experienced, those things of lasting value, they will be returned to the over-control of experiential potential as a drop of water returns to the sea. Man can not stop the continuing experiential perfecting of the universe, but each of us has complete control in whether of not we are personal participants in that evolving perfection.

So, really, it is all good.

Take care
Al
i realize this doens't have a lot of bearing on the topic.. not really...

but the other day i was discussing creation and evoloution etc etc with a friend of mine. (i know.. i have friends.. shock, right?)

and at one point he said "evolve up from monkies hell... some people i know are still monkies."

it amused me, and i thought i'd share in case someone else who needed a chuckle got one from it.
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Hi gbrk:

Thanks for starting this amazing thread.

I agree with your argument against evolution as far as this is concerned: I do not believe that evolution continues back to ever simpler and simpler origins. Well, let me rephrase that… I believe that on this world life evolved from those simple forms promoted by the many materialists who post here… I just also believe that there is a plan and a purpose to evolution in the universe.

I see the universe as being a creation of eventual experiential perfection, not a random and chance juxtaposition of moving galaxies. And as such, I see it as imperfect, yet perfecting, the whole universe, not just this one planet. When a person looks at the deep field (not the deep fat field) view taken by the Hubble telescope, the idea that we are alone seems almost absurd. I mean there are millions of galaxies out there, each with million of suns, and each of those suns has the possiblilty of being orbited by worlds which could sustain life.

To me, knowing this, it is the supreme of hubris to think that we are somehow alone in the universe. To believe that we are somehow so all important that the God of the Universe would be so interested that anything we could do could actually anger him. God is God of a million worlds, a billion worlds. A few individuals who are planning to opt out of the eternal adventure could hardly be of such a great consequence to him. I am sure it happens all the time, on every evolutionary sphere.

In the end, I think, we will all get what we want. God gives to each of us all we will receive. If we are trapped in the mindset that all we can conceive of God is that he is somehow like us, vengeful, wrathful, a stern judge of men, well, that is OK… for now. It is all that these individuals can conceive. God is ever ready to respond to even the faintest flicker of faith. And even these individuals will someday truly find God, and find him to their complete satisfaction.

And if some would rather reject the eternal adventure, then this too, is their right. If this short life is all they wish, then they too will be granted their desire, again to their complete satisfaction. The goodness and love which they experienced, those things of lasting value, they will be returned to the over-control of experiential potential as a drop of water returns to the sea. Man can not stop the continuing experiential perfecting of the universe, but each of us has complete control in whether of not we are personal participants in that evolving perfection.

So, really, it is all good.

Take care
Al


I enjoyed your comment. I tend to think of God as the ultimate scientist. His methods of creation are definitely more complex than anything we could ever understand. Our scientists may try to comprehend it all, but we're definitely limited in our human intellect. I know this world is flawed and has it's problems, but things are just too well organized and too skillfully crafted for there not to have been some sort of grand director managing it all. Things just work too perfectly. From the way a tree grows, makes seeds, soaks in water and nutrients, makes leaves, and has just enough sunlight to survive, to the gestation and birth of a new born baby. Things are just too well planned out and thought through for it all just to be one big long evolutionary path from one celled organisms to complicated ecosystems. I just can't believe things just happened to turn out just right.

God created a magnificent world, and I'm smart enough to recognize that the version of the story we have in Genesis is the really, really simplified version of it all.
quote:
enjoyed your comment. I tend to think of God as the ultimate scientist. His methods of creation are definitely more complex than anything we could ever understand.



WE DO "UNDERSTAND" THE METHODS!

this is the crux of this entire evolution/creation debate. you guys simply have not taken the time to education yourself on a topic that seems to be so important to you. no, we don't understand all the processes 100% but we have some pretty darn good ideas of how life could have (and still does) evolve.

you creationists are like elementary school kids passing yourselves off as supreme court judges. your ignorance can be fixed simply by opening a book. until you do that, you are commuting intellectual fraud by pretending to know something you don't.

.... and i didn't mean to disparage elementary school kids in my remark. after all, even they have grasped the simple concept of small changes over vast periods of time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMn4KsRXgGA
Sorry if something in my comments made you feel the need to get all defensive. I understand the theories of evolution probably just as well as you. Your assumption that I've not taken the time to understand them is just that... an assumption. I don't think you got the jist of what I was saying. I don't rule out the need of evolution, physics, and natural biological processes... I just happen to believe these are God's way of creating. To me creationism and science can co-exist, not make the other irrelevant. God uses scientific means to get things done... probably one day we'll find out that many miracles and amazing things talked about in the Bible can all be explained in a scientific way from the molecular level, and yet were all orchestrated by God.
Hi UNO:

Thanks for your insightful post. I fully sympathize with your viewpoint that mankind is making tremendous strides in conquering the material universe around him. I trust you can agree with me that we still have a long way to go.

If you choose to lump me into that nebulous mass of humanity which you have decided to call “creationists”, that’s fine. Sticks and stones and all that. Just please remember that I do agree with most everything you have said as far as hard science is concerned. Where we seem to differ is that I see a spiritual ying alongside the material yang.

But I think we can agree enough to be friends, don’t you?

And again, I must agree with Triforce that your assumptions are just that, assumptions, correct? After all, every good scientist knows that our understanding of the universe is base upon an ever enlarging and slowly proofing out of a series of assumption, right?

Al
quote:
To me creationism and science can co-exist, not make the other irrelevant. God uses scientific means to get things done


Then why not just straight forward "instructions"? Why all the "thou shalts" and all that stuff? Why not just plain english such as, "don't kill people", don't do this don't do that. In plain english. The reason is, the bible was written by people who spoke like that. No god told them anything. A god would have known we would "evolve" and would have used plain words to speak to us. The ones writing the bible couldn't imagine the way we live now, and there was no god to tell them. All they did was decide how they thought mankind should live, and wrote "scary stories" telling people what would happen if they didn't live that way. The bible is an old instruction manual for them. I imagine they wrote parts of it to "explain" the things around them they didn't understand. Ask a child to explain something and we laugh when they do. But until that child grows up and learns how that something works all they have is their imagination to explain it.
Last edited by Jennifer
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
Then why not just straight forward "instructions"? Why all the "thou shalts" and all that stuff? Why not just plain english such as, "don't kill people", don't do this don't do that. In plain english. The reason is, the bible was written by people who spoke like that. No god told them anything. A god would have known we would "evolve" and would have used plain words to speak to us. The ones writing the bible couldn't imagine the way we live now, and there was no god to tell them. All they did was decide how they thought mankind should live, and wrote "scary stories" telling people what would happen if they didn't live that way. The bible is an old instruction manual for them. I imagine they wrote parts of it to "explain" the things around them they didn't understand. Ask a child to explain something and we laugh when they do. But until that child grows up and learns how that something works all they have is their imagination to explain it.


Excellent! I agree 100%.
Here we go with the "fact" of evolution again. Evolution as to what? That all things on Earth "evolved" from a single life form that just invented itself? That we are all related?

Oh, but we're talking "evolution", not "origin of life"? Sorry, even though evolutionists like to try keep these separate they are interwoven.

DNA. The blueprint of all living things. Common ancestor...or a common design?

Take the scientific fact chimpanzees DNA is a 98% match to human DNA. If you “educate” yourself, as has been suggested, you will find this to be a far more complex statement. To those that simply take it as face value, by simply looking at a monkey, then a human, it would appear to pan out. Many of the assumptions, for and against, are based on this simple thinking. However, once someone begins to “educate” themselves on the subject you will find that, when other factors are taken, this percentage begins to drop.
Still, you will say, if it drops to 95% that is still a “fact” of common ancestry! Nope, not so fast. Within the 2 to 5% that does not match, there are literally THOUSANDS of factors that would argue against any “match” or common ancestor. Some that with a simple change, or “mutation” in as little as 1% would kill the monkey. Look it up.

DNA sequencing and common proteins. Proteins essential for common function no matter what the species. Chimps and humans can pretty well digest the same thing, so you would expect to find similar DNA for this function. Common ancestor? Common design? Google it.

Chimps...98% human, yet we use many less educated, more “distant relatives” for service to humans. Seen many “seeing-eye monkeys” lately?

You really should think about the next banana you eat. You are eating a “relative” that has 50% DNA commonality with you.


Then we are wowed with chromosomes. Chimps have 24 pair (48) humans have 23 (46). We are told, by science, that probably, maybe, to the best of theories, that somewhere in the evolution, 2 of the human chromes linked up. Somewhere. Weren’t needed. But you won’t hear much of the rest of the chromosome story. Why, because science will tell you that it’s not related to phylogenetic progression. The reason? Because the data would simply rebuff what evolution calls “facts”. We evolved from the simplest form. Right? Simple to complex. By chromosome “count” we humans progressed as first penicillin (2), then a fruit fly (8) lettuce (18) marijuana / carrot (20) Kidney bean / opossum (22) cat (38) soybean (40) bat (44) then arrived where we are today , human, at (46). Our closest “relatives” would be the chimp (48) and the tobacco plant (48). Should we continue to evolve, we can look forward to someday being cotton (52) a sweet potato (90) and eventually reach the top, to become a fern! (480) Google it.



Again, this all points to the “fact” of evolution, because it seems reasonable. We have to be reasonable, within what we know to be natural. There is no ‘fact” of evolution. Again, we are talking “all life sprang from a single, “naturally” invented life.

Evolution likes to point to anatomical similarities to show “common ancestry”. Then, when the gaps can’t be factually filled, we have theories. “We believe it happened this way...given what we know so far”? Scientific “faith“...having a firm belief in something not “proved”. The same thing evolution frowns upon when faced with “creationism”...ID...etc.

As to the “we are close to creating life from non-life”? That is about as an illogical a statement as can be made. It has never been seen to be naturally done. With all of sciences great accomplishments. All of the knowledge learned. All of the advance equipment. There has not been ONE living thing produced from non. Not even a human hair, but the complex “human” is just a series of progressions? By natural selection?
But we are asked to believe the “fact” that it happened naturally...and everything else just fell into place...

Don’t take my research for “fact”, though, do a search for yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
To me creationism and science can co-exist, not make the other irrelevant. God uses scientific means to get things done


Then why not just straight forward "instructions"? Why all the "thou shalts" and all that stuff? Why not just plain english such as, "don't kill people", don't do this don't do that. In plain english. The reason is, the bible was written by people who spoke like that. No god told them anything. A god would have known we would "evolve" and would have used plain words to speak to us. The ones writing the bible couldn't imagine the way we live now, and there was no god to tell them. All they did was decide how they thought mankind should live, and wrote "scary stories" telling people what would happen if they didn't live that way. The bible is an old instruction manual for them. I imagine they wrote parts of it to "explain" the things around them they didn't understand. Ask a child to explain something and we laugh when they do. But until that child grows up and learns how that something works all they have is their imagination to explain it.


Actually Jennifer the actual instructions, from God, are more to that very form. The scriptures were brought forth, unto man, mainly in Greek and Hebrew text and form because that is the language of those who, we believe, God gave the information to and they then transcribed it using their own language.

The thou's and thou shalt's comes from a directive of King James to translate the original writings into "modern understandable language". Well the language of King James and of that day was with the thou shalt not and so forth. Today we have additional translations that have done exactly the same thing that the translators, for King James, did. We have those that have taken the original manuscripts and words and brought them into "today's" language and understanding using words in vogue today.

The New American Standard translation is most likely the closest and best translation to what the original wording of the text of the old manuscripts said. Versions like the New International Version (NIV) also translate the old manuscripts but concentrate more on translating the thoughts of the old text rather than a word by word translation. In other words to be accurate to the overall thought that was being expressed rather than getting every single word exact.

Originally, in Christ day, they had neither. The actual manuscripts or scrolls that were copied from the originals were kept up and opened infrequently and read from only at certain times. The translation came from those that did the reading, during those times. People would gather around, the priest would read from the scrolls and that is how people got the "Word of God". There wasn't Bibles as we have today. Word of mouth and second hand is how people were taught.

Today more people have access to God's Word than at any time before.
quote:
Originally posted by Triforce of Courage:
I understand the theories of evolution probably just as well as you.


i am skeptical of that claim.

quote:
Your assumption that I've not taken the time to understand them is just that... an assumption.


no, it is a conclusion based on evidence. the main body of evidence being this quote from you, "I know this world is flawed and has it's problems, but things are just too well organized and too skillfully crafted for there not to have been some sort of grand director managing it all."

that is the basis "watchmaker argument." or "argument from design" which is a commitance of the logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" which is what the entire creationist movement is based upon.

just because you cannot fathom how something should not cause a logical mind to conclude that "god did it." If one of the foundations of your faith is based upon that fallacy, it is in grave danger as science discovers more and more of what makes this world tick and how it was ACTUALLY created.


quote:
To me creationism and science can co-exist, not make the other irrelevant.


then, in your world, astrology and astronomy, alchemy and chemistry, a psychiatry and phrenology can coexist. in the rational world, all of those are utterly diametrically opposed. the difference between all of those "disciplines" is a basic understanding of a few core principals. you have not taken the time to educate yourself if you believe they all can coexist. i can recommend a few good books the aid in your enlightenment if you wish.
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
If you choose to lump me into that nebulous mass of humanity which you have decided to call “creationists”, that’s fine.


i do not, al. it seems to me that your understanding of science is more along the lines of (evolutionist) stephen j. gould's "nonoverlapping magisteria" concept as opposed to the fundamentalist's outright denial and self-imposed ignorance of scientific achievement.

you are simply inserting your concept of god in the areas that science has yet to illuminate. he may, in fact, be there but, historically, that is a very scary place for god to hide as science continues to point the light of reason at those shadows.
Hi Al,

You are with anyone who is anti-God, anti-Christian. So, what is new?

Some times you preach New Age; sometimes it is Cult Universalism -- and now atheism. Seems you have tried to cover all bases -- except true Christianity.

Al, my Friend, you really should try Jesus Christ, the real LIGHT.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×