Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

Youngs literal translation is probably one of the least used versions of the bible, do any churches use it?

Blindly assimilating to the doctrine of the church is what gave Christianity such a bad name to begin with. But, use NIV, MEV, etc... they say "thighs" too. I found when interpreting metaphysical verses, it is best to keep it literal so the translator's extrapolations don't get between you and the intended writing.


Regardless... Can we all give a thumbs up to Job for accurately depicting a brachiosaurus?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Prezbo369

Youngs literal translation is probably one of the least used versions of the bible, do any churches use it?

Blindly assimilating to the doctrine of the church is what gave Christianity such a bad name to begin with. But, use NIV, MEV, etc... they say "thighs" too. I found when interpreting metaphysical verses, it is best to keep it literal so the translator's extrapolations don't get between you and the intended writing.


Regardless... Can we all give a thumbs up to Job for accurately depicting a brachiosaurus?

Talk about delusional.......you cant even agree on the correct interpretation/translation with your fellow christians, but you expect those without any faith to agree with you on yours?

originally posted by: cooperton
"Lo, I pray thee, Behemoth, that I made with thee: Grass as an ox he eateth.
Lo, I pray thee, his power [is] in his loins, And his strength in the muscles of his belly.
He doth bend his tail as a cedar tree, The sinews of his thighs are wrapped together,
His bones [are] tubes of brass, His bones [are] as a bar of iron."

Oh wow, yeah that description is DEAD ON! They really nailed it to a T with such detailed analysis.



You gotta be kidding me with that. You do realize that there are hundreds of other FALSE things that they have described that DO NOT exist, right? Cherry picking to the extreme and it's not only vague but wrong (see below).

This description of a brachiosaurus-like creature is not extrapolating an image from observing a fossil. "Sinew" indicates living tissue and can be used as a verb, also confirming that the animal the author is describing is alive. In other examples regarding sinew etymology, many of them extrapolate and confirm that "sinew" is referring to live flesh. "eateth" and "bend" are also present tense verbs, indicating movement.

How do you know it wasn't made up or part of a story? I remember making clay sculptures in art class of things that didn't exist, but I thought would look cool. And yeah, something tells me a 20-30 ton animal with a straight neck is not eating grass like an ox.

Brachiosaurus is thought to have been a high browser, feeding on foliage well above the ground. Even if it did not hold its neck near vertical, and instead had a straighter neck, its head height may still have been over 9 metres (30 ft) above the ground.[2][8] It probably fed mostly on foliage above 5 metres (16 ft).

Regardless... Can we all give a thumbs up to Job for accurately depicting a brachiosaurus?

No.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I have never claimed that it couldn't be both creation and evolution. I've said many times over the years that evolution vs creation is a false dilemma. It could be both. I just try to correct misunderstandings about the science when I see them. If you were just joking about the shark comments and stuff about the food chain, then I guess you got me there. Jokes on me, you got me to post facts about shark evolution and the food chain. Hopefully somebody will find it interesting.

originally posted by: Barcs

Brachiosaurus is thought to have been a high browser, feeding on foliage well above the ground. Even if it did not hold its neck near vertical, and instead had a straighter neck, its head height may still have been over 9 metres (30 ft) above the ground.[2][8] It probably fed mostly on foliage above 5 metres (16 ft).

Sorry, this is why nobody takes this kind of thing seriously.

I'd trust a first hand account over a post-mortem speculation any day. Look at any to-scale model of a brachiosaurus, it's head can easily reach the ground... You aren't defending logic anymore, you are defending your obsolete world views. Thrash around all you want, defending mainstream theory, but you're going to drown if you waste all that energy

Brachiosaurus is thought to have been a high browser, feeding on foliage well above the ground. Even if it did not hold its neck near vertical, and instead had a straighter neck, its head height may still have been over 9 metres (30 ft) above the ground.[2][8] It probably fed mostly on foliage above 5 metres (16 ft).

I'd trust a first hand account over a post-mortem speculation any day. Look at any to-scale model of a brachiosaurus, it's head can easily reach the ground... You aren't defending logic anymore, you are defending your obsolete world views. Thrash around all you want, defending mainstream theory, but you're going to drown if you waste all that energy

I don't mind at all. It's all positive energy because I got a good laugh out of it. Keep it coming, I'll keep debunking it and watch you backtrack into oblivion. So you know for a fact that it is a first hand description despite it being inaccurate based on the fossils we have of brachiosaurus. You know, like real tangible skeleton fossils and such. Ancient stories hold more weight to you then then physical tangible remains that have been found in the ground and studied for decades. That is hilarious.



Job totally nailed it LOL.

originally posted by: Barcs


I don't mind at all. It's all positive energy because I got a good laugh out of it. Keep it coming, I'll keep debunking it and watch you backtrack into oblivion. So you know for a fact that it is a first hand description despite it being inaccurate based on the fossils we have of brachiosaurus. You know, like real tangible skeleton fossils and such. Ancient stories hold more weight to you then then physical tangible remains that have been found in the ground and studied for decades. That is hilarious.

Job totally nailed it LOL.

I think you missed the point. You see the tail of the brachiosaurus in your picture? would you liken it to a tree? Because so did Job... Also, note the neck is obviously long enough to forage from the grass....

This should be a joyous occasion for you... There is a God and the world is not hopeless

Just stop acting like it is.

a reply to: cooperton

He didn't eat grass. For an animal that large it would be terribly inefficient. He wasn't like an ox. If Job mentioned the tail why not the long neck?

Do giraffes eat grass? Their necks are long enough, they just aren't built for it, much like Brachiosaurus. They only feed on lower scrubs and bushes out of desperation.

www.livescience.com...

Here, read this and actually learn something instead of constantly fighting knowledge and understanding based on myths! You are so close to coming to the light side. The desperation in your attempts to reconcile your faith, show that it is starting to dwindle. Keep posting false claims, please.

a reply to: Barcs



Nope that tail does not look like a tree.

originally posted by: cooperton
my reading found a plethora of evidence indicating that early humans observed dinosaurs. This was the nail in the coffin for me. Regarding a "constant state", I don''t think we are currently in one, we are in a state where growth is necessary to awaken the mind to true reality.

Two problem with this... If dinos walked the earth 6000 -10,000 years ago we would have huge amounts of evidence, and we don't. If humans walked the earth 150 million years ago we are in a constant state.

If humans walked the earth 150 million years ago we are in a constant state.

I don't think this is the case... most of the dinosaur-human contact evidence comes from the past 3 or 4 millenia.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Two problem with this... If dinos walked the earth 6000 -10,000 years ago we would have huge amounts of evidence

This is why I think most dragon "myths" are literal accounts of man encountering dinosaurs. Many have argued that the beast "grendel" in the beowulf saga is a T-rex... but because we think dinosaurs lived so long ago... this is blindly considered impossible.

Yet, we have fossils of dinosaurs that still have traces of soft tissue!!! Mary Schweitzer, who recently discovered soft tissue in T-rex remains, said:

"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible,"

furthermore,

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this."

There is nothing wrong with current fossilization theory, but rather, there is something wrong with the proposed age of the earth. I can keep posting other examples, but I insist you all do your own research.

Here is a picture to get anyone going: vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...

originally posted by: cooperton

If humans walked the earth 150 million years ago we are in a constant state.

I don't think this is the case... most of the dinosaur-human contact evidence comes from the past 3 or 4 millenia.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Two problem with this... If dinos walked the earth 6000 -10,000 years ago we would have huge amounts of evidence

This is why I think most dragon "myths" are literal accounts of man encountering dinosaurs. Many have argued that the beast "grendel" in the beowulf saga is a T-rex... but because we think dinosaurs lived so long ago... this is blindly considered impossible.

Yet, we have fossils of dinosaurs that still have traces of soft tissue!!! Mary Schweitzer, who recently discovered soft tissue in T-rex remains, said:

"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible,"

furthermore,

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this."

There is nothing wrong with current fossilization theory, but rather, there is something wrong with the proposed age of the earth. I can keep posting other examples, but I insist you all do your own research.

Here is a picture to get anyone going: vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...

1) There is no empirical evidence for dinosaur/human coexistence at all.

2) Relying on mythical creatures as evidence for 1) is beyond stupid.

3) The "soft tissue" is 75 million years old:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

www.smithsonianmag.com...

wow, 41 pages of absolute drivel from both sides..

im still none the wiser on either a magic wizard in heaven or everything slowing molding into what they are today....

so neither have conclusive documentation to a point of absolue?

so it is then. accept it. man cant answer what is beyond him. why create dots just so we can connect them....

a reply to: odzeandennz

Evolution has a mountain of evidence: lmgtfy.com...

originally posted by: cooperton


I don't think this is the case... most of the dinosaur-human contact evidence comes from the past 3 or 4 millenia.

Please link some of that evidence as I have never seen any myself.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: cooperton


I don't think this is the case... most of the dinosaur-human contact evidence comes from the past 3 or 4 millenia.

Please link some of that evidence as I have never seen any myself.

By "contact evidence" he actually means art and mythology, which also proves numerous things like cat/human hybrids, snakes with 2 heads, fire breathing dragons, Thor, sun and moon gods, and wizards.

originally posted by: Barcs


By "contact evidence" he actually means art and mythology, which also proves numerous things like cat/human hybrids, snakes with 2 heads, fire breathing dragons, Thor, sun and moon gods, and wizards.

lol so once again: no evidence...... it's all I seem to be saying here tonight: no evidence of Jesus ever existed (on another thread), no evidence of dinosaurs cohabiting with humans only 4 millennia ago.... luckily my coccyx and appendix are here to prove evolution!

originally posted by: Agartha

Please link some of that evidence as I have never seen any myself.

Written accounts of dinosaurs
Artistic accounts of dinosaurs

Recent Picture #1
Recent Picture #2

Other examples

There are also books written on the topic.

a reply to: cooperton

First picture is photoshop, the second is a decaying shark carcass (iirc).

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Most probably a Basking Shark.
en.wikipedia.org...


a reply to: cooperton

There are also books written on the topic.

There are also books about a giant lumberjack with a giant blue ox.
en.wikipedia.org...