Richard Dawkins & Smash of Dinosaur / Human Footprints

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: luthier
This may come as a shock but they aren't christians. They are a cult that picks and chooses the best parts until that part is later proved wrong, then chop n change and repeat.

Can't argue with your point but the cult calls themselves Christians.

originally posted by: cooperton
Christ refers to Adam and Eve multiple times (i.e. Mark 10:6). There is even a full lineage from Adam to Jesus in Luke 3, and from Abraham to Jesus in Matthew 1.

Despite these written records, people still believe our ancestors are fish. Despite Beowulf having a description of a T-Rex (along with many Other Historical Descriptions and Ancient Dinosaur Art), people still believe dinosaurs are millions of years old.

And despite the fact that the genealogies that you cite differ quite a bit from one another, you still pretend that the bible is infallible and that those of us who don't subscribe to the theory that everything in it is literal and factual are just ignorant to the truth.

Written records don't mean anything when they don't really match up and are nearly 2000 years old that hold no proof other than the words that say to the reader, "Hey, believe me because I say to!"

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: luthier


I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.

Christ refers to Adam and Eve multiple times (i.e. Mark 10:6). There is even a full lineage from Adam to Jesus in Luke 3, and from Abraham to Jesus in Matthew 1.

Despite these written records, people still believe our ancestors are fish. Despite Beowulf having a description of a T-Rex (along with many Other Historical Descriptions and Ancient Dinosaur Art), people still believe dinosaurs are millions of years old.

Most of the Christians believe in allegory stories and parables not that the creation story is literal. Its been that way for nearly 1000 years. People just use the bible now to stop thinking logically. It's easier to be told what to think. There was a time when Christians were also pretty good philosophers and scientists.

originally posted by: PickledOnion
Interesting Hitler quote..

"Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state."

Is that the reason why creation/ID folks are trying so hard to control text books?!

Now, everything is much clearer, thanks!

Posted on this forum multiple times, worth watching to see what we deal here with....



I like how conservative Judge went extra step to make sure ID does not bother text books...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

The other side of the argument? What is that? Last I checked there are more than two sides to the evolution debate. There is evolution and then there is the creation accounts of EVERY OTHER religion in the world. And THEN there are any other accounts a human wants to dream up that you or I haven't thought about.

I certainly DO know the Christian account, and even the YEC account. I did use to be Catholic and I know how to read the bible literally to understand the YEC account. But those aren't the only other options and I don't feel like I should have to learn every possible alternative out there to evolution when none of them stack up in the evidence department to evolution.

Being open minded isn't about considering all possibilities absolutely equally. It means to consider all possibilities and discard the ones that are lacking in evidence. Your YEC account is just impossible from literally every scientific possibility. Like literally all of science would have to be wrong in order to believe that account. So until you can disprove all of science with valid evidence I'm not going to entertain that idea outside of fantasy.

I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.

Why would that come as a shock? I'm well aware of what the majority of Christians believe. I know that YEC belief is only a fraction of what the total population believes.

OK. It's just you often don't specify and just say Christians. I have some Christian family members who are engineers and scientists who don't have such crazy beliefs.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

The other side of the argument? What is that? Last I checked there are more than two sides to the evolution debate. There is evolution and then there is the creation accounts of EVERY OTHER religion in the world. And THEN there are any other accounts a human wants to dream up that you or I haven't thought about.

I certainly DO know the Christian account, and even the YEC account. I did use to be Catholic and I know how to read the bible literally to understand the YEC account. But those aren't the only other options and I don't feel like I should have to learn every possible alternative out there to evolution when none of them stack up in the evidence department to evolution.

Being open minded isn't about considering all possibilities absolutely equally. It means to consider all possibilities and discard the ones that are lacking in evidence. Your YEC account is just impossible from literally every scientific possibility. Like literally all of science would have to be wrong in order to believe that account. So until you can disprove all of science with valid evidence I'm not going to entertain that idea outside of fantasy.

I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.

Why would that come as a shock? I'm well aware of what the majority of Christians believe. I know that YEC belief is only a fraction of what the total population believes.

OK. It's just you often don't specify and just say Christians. I have some Christian family members who are engineers and scientists who don't have such crazy beliefs.

Actually I DO often specify. Every time I mention YEC, someone such as yourself rushes in to try to correct me by saying that not all Christians believe that. So, since everyone reads too deeply into what I'm saying, I've started specifically wording my posts to acknowledge that YEC Christianity isn't the full spectrum of Christianity.

This is the first sentence from the second paragraph of the post you quoted:
"I certainly DO know the Christian account, and even the YEC account."
Does that HONESTLY tell you that I'm stereotyping all Christians as YECers?

PS: I'm an ex-Catholic...

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: cooperton

Sorry but that reference is a Young Earth creationist site, how can we take it seriously?

British and norse *mythology* is full of dragons, usually worms or wyrms, and if you were to look up the descriptions from the stories you would see they have zero semblance to any known dinosaur.

You tried to equate Grendel as an Allosaurus, yet you know full well that in Beowulf Grendel dies after having his ARM torn from his shoulder. Not leg.

But I imagine you will use the dragon reference from now on, along with asserting that Beowulf, a story about the Danes, but written by anglo saxons after the cristianisation of england, as a true story,

your right.... and of course back then when these stories were being told, there was no lying, or embellishment to story telling......uh huh...sure...all factual truths

a reply to: olaru12

That is a good questions, there have been a few other patches of evidence that would at-least get us thinking about it.

800 year old temple carving: www.atlasobscura.com...

This one although not really 'concrete' evidence pardon the pun, you still have to ask the question how did they get so close to knowing the look of the dinosaur or at-least close to the muscle structure of it.

The t-rex blood and stretchy tissue discovery: considering every biology science book says living cells could not possible last 60 million years or even 1 million years in perfect lab like conditions. Somebody had the job of finding out why and the result was a very weak theory of iron preserving the cells.

The Chinese calendar: Dragons are integral part of Chinese history and culture and appear in virtually every aspect of both, including the Chinese zodiac. Eleven of the zodiac animals are still alive today. The 12th is a serpentine dragon. Why would one imaginary animals be included with 11 real ones? Did the Chinese elevate the dragon to such a symbol due to a collective delusion? My personal belief would be no but that's for you to decide.

Dragons are also in nearly every culture across the globe and all appear as large serpents.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think you are forgetting the recent discovery of the fittycentosaur--that dinosaur's hide was like a bullet-proof vest!

Closely related to the Kevlarosaurus.

a reply to: PickledOnion
Large serpents is correct. Not depicted as reptiles with wings, but more like large snakes. Experts attribute the sea serpents as large eels, when humans didn't destroy habitats so they could grow to large sizes.

Same as George and the dragon. He fought it in Africa where monitor type lizards exist, often referred to as an ancestor of the kommode dragon before it swam to today's islands.

Moral of the story there is clear, logical explanations for the dramatised accounts of these people.

Like unicorns in biblical times, simply misconstrued rhinos. Over time the true animal gets lost in translational and sensationalised stories.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Correct, and is the only known reptile to successfully do a 187 on yo muthafookin block!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


And despite the fact that the genealogies that you cite differ quite a bit from one another

Differ in what way? Luke discusses the Matriline beyond David, whereas Matthew continues to mention the Patriline beyond David. Matthew is consistent with who it mentions, whereas with Luke we see some inconsistencies in the various copies from 3:32-33. Not that bad for tracing the lineage of humankind.

More Info

originally posted by: SuperFrog

Please don't tell me that there was lots of incest, as that would not make God very happy.

Incest only amplifies genetic weakness that is dormant in a given lineage. There is nothing inherently wrong with it besides our contemporary taboo, which only promulgated because lineages with numerous genetic flaws were procreating within their respective family, giving rise to latent genetic abnormalities.

Because Adam and Eve had less genetic aberrations (see their lifespan), incest would not have been an issue in terms of propagating dormant weakness in the genome.

Also, how did we get people with so many different colors of skins, eyes... everything..

Adaptation. Notice how white the people are in the extreme north regions of the globe? Less sunlight requires less melanin, and thus results in lighter skin: Map of Skin Pigments. Japheth, One of Noah's sons, migrated north through the Caucus mountains, thus giving rise to the "Caucasian".

a reply to: cooperton
Well worded....yet it all falls apart when you admit the world is 6500 yrs old. Shame adaptation takes a little longer.

So basically somebody smashed the hoax human and dinosaur tracks and they're blaming Dawkins? LMAO! Hoaxes should be treated like hoaxes. Props to the guy that smashed em. Now if only somebody would remote detonate the creationist museum in the middle of the night when nobody's there.

originally posted by: cooperton
Incest only amplifies genetic weakness that is dormant in a given lineage. There is nothing inherently wrong with it besides our contemporary taboo, which only promulgated because lineages with numerous genetic flaws were procreating within their respective family, giving rise to latent genetic abnormalities.

Because Adam and Eve had less genetic aberrations (see their lifespan), incest would not have been an issue in terms of propagating dormant weakness in the genome.

Contemporary Taboo??

Nothing else wrong?

Well, new term to learn today is MVP - Minimum Viable Population.

There are some estimates, but safe number for humans is about 10k, which is number believed to survive Toba catastrophe that lead to extinction event about 75K years ago.

alfin2100.blogspot.com...

As for Adam and Eve, incest would be among their children, and grand children. But not to forget, that according to Bible, there was another event that lead to 1 survival family, and with kids split after that we get to the same problem of incest and degradation of offspring that would be easy to track.

originally posted by: cooperton
Adaptation. Notice how white the people are in the extreme north regions of the globe? Less sunlight requires less melanin, and thus results in lighter skin: Map of Skin Pigments. Japheth, One of Noah's sons, migrated north through the Caucus mountains, thus giving rise to the "Caucasian".

We have remains from around the world that tell different story... for example what about mummies of Tarim Basin?!
www.biomedcentral.com...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
cat.inist.fr...

Eye color is bit more complicated then your adaptation suggestion, and in the case of blue eye its actually mutation that happened around 15K years ago.

While you speaking of Noah, when he lived and where?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The point is that humans on different continents with different backgrounds, cultures, customs, diets, languages all came up with the same story, the same myth, the same imaginary creature as per your line of thinking.

I am sorry, they weren't only imagining things back then either. Think about it, do you really think they could just waste paper and ink as they pleased and make up stories about fake giant reptiles flying and eating humans. They wouldn't use precious paper and ink to record reality instead ? They mostly lived till age 30 maybe 40, they would spend it recording nonsense on hard to come by items? I will spend my short life time making stories about giant serpents and make sure everybody remembers them.

So many different cultures on different continents all had the same imaginary creature? Really? You can believe what you want I suppose, as long as you know it is a belief.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The point is that humans on different continents with different backgrounds, cultures, customs, diets, languages all came up with the same story, the same myth, the same imaginary creature as per your line of thinking.

I am sorry, they weren't only imagining things back then either. Think about it, do you really think they could just waste paper and ink as they pleased and make up stories about fake giant reptiles flying and eating humans. They wouldn't use precious paper and ink to record reality instead ? They mostly lived till age 30 maybe 40, they would spend it recording nonsense on hard to come by items? I will spend my short life time making stories about giant serpents and make sure everybody remembers them.

So many different cultures on different continents all had the same imaginary creature? Really? You can believe what you want I suppose, as long as you know it is a belief.

Erm, what creature is exactly the same?

For example, can you please point me to a dragon in one of oldest mythology - Egypt.

Are you trying to imply that humans did not have any contacts with each other before imperialism and/or industrial revolution? Migration and trades are well documented, we have some examples that are over 3,500 years old?! (and those are written examples)

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The point is that humans on different continents with different backgrounds, cultures, customs, diets, languages all came up with the same story, the same myth, the same imaginary creature as per your line of thinking.

Which cultures have the exact same myths?

I am sorry, they weren't only imagining things back then either. Think about it, do you really think they could just waste paper and ink as they pleased and make up stories about fake giant reptiles flying and eating humans. They wouldn't use precious paper and ink to record reality instead ? They mostly lived till age 30 maybe 40, they would spend it recording nonsense on hard to come by items? I will spend my short life time making stories about giant serpents and make sure everybody remembers them.

Wow, you have a warped perception of things back then. First off, the average life expectancy was only so low because the infant mortality rate was so high. Just because the average life expectancy was 30 years old doesn't mean that people didn't live past 30 or 40.

Second, stories started out being oral in nature. They were only committed to paper when writing techniques were invented. What's this wasting paper nonsense when the stories themselves existed before writing was invented?

So many different cultures on different continents all had the same imaginary creature? Really? You can believe what you want I suppose, as long as you know it is a belief.

Which "same imaginary creature" are you referring to? The dragon? The one I've already talked about how it was different depending on the culture? If you are going to accept that "dragon" is an exact enough description to argue for exact sameness, then you might as well just say giant reptile. Well reptile isn't a species. It's a Class. To think that early humans wouldn't be able to imagine giant reptiles is just silly.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: cooperton

Beowulf is NOT claimed as a true story, it is known to take parts from many sagas and Scandinavian historical figures.
Grendel is a troll, I have never once heard of Grendel or his Mother claimed to be reptiles.
The third battle Beowulf takes part in is with a dragon, which are fictional like trolls. Anyway wouldnt the dragon be better proof for your dinosaur than a troll?

Question: What does the description of Dragon resemble most closely?

if not a dinosaur of some type, probably a pterodactyl, (since they flew / glided)...what on Earth, past or present could possibly come close?

Nothing else is the answer.

A 'Dragon' is simply the name Medieval people gave to what we now call Dinosaurs.

Whether the Dragon stories arose due to fossilised Dinosaur bones being discovered and causing panic among people, who may have been fearful such creatures may still be living in the vicinity or not is probably something we won't know today, or as outrageous as it sounds, perhaps a 1000 years ago or so, there may have been a small group of these creatures still surviving in remote areas, wiped out in later times?

Either way, a Dragon is clearly the old name for a dinosaur.

originally posted by: MysterX
Question: What does the description of Dragon resemble most closely?

if not a dinosaur of some type, probably a pterodactyl, (since they flew / glided)...what on Earth, past or present could possibly come close?

Nothing else is the answer.

originally posted by: MysterX
Either way, a Dragon is clearly the old name for a dinosaur.

Just wondering, how did you manage in the same post to clearly contradict yourself.

Definition of Dragon in different cultures has different meanings. Probability for some of them being alive in recent earth history is very small, for simple reason - we just don't have any evidence.

If you take those stories as evidence, then unicorns must exist as well huge snake in whose belly is earth (mythology of some African tribes) and titans...