41Likes
4
Post By marnixR
4
Post By exchemist
2
Post By Strange
1
Post By Estheria Quintessimo
3
Post By exchemist
2
Post By marnixR
1
Post By Daecon
2
Post By Daecon
1
Post By Paleoichneum
1
Post By adelady
1
Post By marnixR
2
Post By exchemist
3
Post By scoobydoo1
1
Post By Strange
1
Post By scoobydoo1
1
Post By exchemist
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
3
Post By KALSTER
1
Post By Pong
1
Post By Pong
2
Post By adelady
2
Post By John Galt
September 25th, 2013, 10:58 PM
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm
Here are two links, of human fossils that have been claimed to be found.
The pictures looks a little like human's legs, but i'm not really sure that it can be confirmed to be of a human's... after all i don't have a qualification to conclude anything from the pictures haha... what do you guys think?
Originally Posted by jocular
I think that any website called "bible" can't be trusted to talk about anything to do with science.
honestly RamenNoodles, isn't it time that you use less partisan search tools such as Google or Wikipedia ?
i know they don't always turn up reputable sources, but they're more likely to give you a more even-handed picture of what's going on
e.g. Malachite (or Moab) man
so what this is is an indian burial site which happens to represent an intrusive burial in cretaceous strata
an important issue about arcehological or paleontological digs is to make sure that what you find is in situ and not,as appears to be the case here, the result of someone digging a hole and placing human remains there
the clue is the carbon dating : maybe not very accurate at between 210 and 1450 years old, but still miles away from cretaceous strata which are in the order of a 100 million years old
as for identification of bones and tracks, creationists have already proven so many times that they confuse worn dinosaur tracks with human tracks, and can't tell fish bones from dinosaur bones - so why should you ever take their word for it when they assert that "the bones tell us ... " ?
Ramen, I don't have the specific references, but many leading creationists have distanced themselves from the human footprint claims, noting that these are at best misinterpretations and at worst fakes. I give credit to them for that move, even though some may suspect they did it to avoid looking foolish. (It doesn't really help, though.)
Raman, what do YOU think of these and did you do any research other then the biblical sites?
RamenNoodles, I don't know what stage of your journey you have reached, but doesn't MarnixR's explanation make clear the deception involved in creationism? It has been shown that the Moab Man bones are not even fossilised and are due to a recent burial, quite unlike the fossils found in this geological stratum, yet you are STILL finding tosh on creationist website about them showing men and dinosaurs coexisting. This is fraudulent and deeply immoral.
Everywhere one turns in the creationist movement, one finds a similar pattern of deceit, exploiting ignorance.
How can people who go in for such misrepresentation consider themselves good Christians?
It's time to dump the ideas of these people, before they do your head in.
This really bugs me. The hypocrisy of people claiming to be Christians but spreading lies and disinformation. Also, preferring to rely on a clearly unreliable text rather than the facts in the world about them created by their God. Some have even gone so far to say that when reality disagrees with their interpretation of an imperfect translation of a error-filled transcription of another translation then reality must be wrong. That is moronic and, presumably, blasphemous.
Indeed. RamenNoodles is by all accounts trapped in a ghastly situation, surrounded by people who have bought into this stuff. It would drive me mad.This really bugs me. The hypocrisy of people claiming to be Christians but spreading lies and disinformation. Also, preferring to rely on a clearly unreliable text rather than the facts in the world about them created by their God. Some have even gone so far to say that when reality disagrees with their interpretation of an imperfect translation of a error-filled transcription of another translation then reality must be wrong. That is moronic and, presumably, blasphemous.
I always love these things.
Here is the Ancient Alien way of thinking docu (44min):
Dinosaurs and Humans Co-existing? You Decide. - YouTube
Here is the biblical perspective by the Hovind family(2hour 37 minutes):
Creation Seminar 3 - Kent Hovind - Dinosaurs (FULL) - YouTube
I propose just watching the Hovind vid,... If you believe that... I do not want you as my neighbour. But if you are my neighbour,.... I am going to piss in your garden daily.
That is a promis.
okay, up to now, the most important parts i get about this creationists claims, are actually just fossils that were probably only hundreds of years old, the result of burials of Native Americans.
another question, has any human fossils been found in any other dinosaur fossil digging sites, among dinosaur strata, other than that link i posted there?
Originally Posted by jocular
RamenNoodles, NOBODY CARES!!!
It would have zero scientific significance, because it would be due to something like the processes we've been talking about - that is, artifacts of some kind. Which are not at all interesting, scientifically.
The only people who wander around searching for oddities like this are CREATIONISTS, because they think (or pretend to think) it proves something to them.
Scientists just don't waste their time futzing around with the obsessions of these cranks. The scientific debate about all this was settled 150 years ago. Settled. And never credibly challenged since.
to my knowledge there has not been a single instance of human remains being found in the same strata as dinosaurs where both are in situ
honestly, do you really think that scientists wouldn't find any such validated occurrence exhilarating and immediately worthy of immense attention ?
creationists really must hold scientist in very low esteem indeed if they think such an instance would be swept under the carpet rather than being the subject of intense scrutiny
imo clearly a case where a thief attempts to excuse his transgressions by pretending that everyone else is stealing too
Science WANTS to be proven wrong about things, that's how we learn about the world.
in this case, what should i do when researching?
searching for "human fossils found among dinosaur fossils", and if search engines doesn't come up with results to answer my question,
situation 1: i assume that human fossils may have been found in dinosaur strata yet, although the search engine has not come out with results.
situation 2: i conclude that no human fossils have been found in dinosaur strata yet.
if your answer is 2, how should i answer if someone asks me "not all documented evidence are available on the internet."
Originally Posted by jocular
The first person to publish provable, verifiable evidence that (for example) "humans lived with dinosaurs" would become an instant world-famous Nobel prize winner. Move over Darwin, you're old news - Scientist X is the hot new name all the history-of-science books are going to be writing about from now on.
Seriously, you'd not need to search for anything, it would become common knowledge almost immediately because EVERYBODY would be talking about it.
Wikipedia- will have the general information that is being looked for. if it doesnt, and the claim is extraordinary (eg dinosaurs and humans coexisting) then treat that claim with great skepticism.
Do NOT look at creationist websites as a source to validate claims from, they are notorious for providing blatantly false information and outright lies.
It's interesting how the average person that believes in such superstitions will simply say that they believe or maybe even an "I don't know." Many don't take the old testament literally enough to lie about it.
But the creators and writers on such sites seem to be the very worst of the crowd, deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting information.
My creationist friend told me wikipedia contained lots of outright lies.
and also, i watched a creationist video about archaeopteryx.
the team actually repositioned archaeopteryx, and a slightly different positioning of the bones would make it a modern day bird. so they concluded that scientists made a mistake by wrongly positioning the bones, to make it look like a dinosaur, and it, as evidence to support the theory of evolution.
he will say wikipedia contained a lot of bunked lies and: creationists actually debunked the 'mystery', but scientists didn't want to listen, basically because the repositioning of the bones shows that it actually is a bird, and only one of this "archaeopteryx" was found.
this creationist website concludes Archaeopteryx feathered dinothat it may actually just have been a Hoatzin
Originally Posted by jocular
Then do not listen to us or them- Go to the source. The beauty of it is in Independent Verification. You also can study the bones, not just watch a video- but really educate yourself on it.
A "sucker" is anyone that does not know any better. Don't be a sucker.
The thing about wikipedia is everything IS referenced, most often with links to the actual reference, making it very simple to verify the information. Wikipedia also has a very strict policy of writing neutrally with weight given to a point of view based on the evidence and references. Thus the page on "Earth" tells how the earth is round, and make no more then a passing reference to older ideas such as a flat earth.
The creationist video is lying. There are 11 currently known specimens of Archaeopteryx. All of them, from the very partial specimens to the complete specimens, are preserved in lithographic limestone. There is no way to "move the bones" and they all display the same morphology which indicates them to be either an advanced theropod or early bird. Also moving bones would do nothing to change the fact that Archaeopteryx possesses a full tail and fully formed teeth, along with claws on the wings, none of which are seen in modern birds.
The site is bunk! It doesn't even try to actually deal with the modern detailed knowledge of the many different taxa that link dinosaurs and birds, or the many many fossils of them that are known.
Please stop taking them at there word and assuming its "scientists" (with scare quotes and obvious evil intentions) that are lying.
And what evidence does your friend provide to back this up? Wiki is often mistaken, but that's usually taken care of by later editing or additional information. Unless someone follows every citation on a wiki article and finds that every single one of them is wrong - or that their contents have been misread or misrepresented in the article - they're in a pretty weak position.My creationist friend told me wikipedia contained lots of outright lies.
It's one thing to disagree with a wiki page. It's another thing entirely to attribute that disagreement to dishonesty on the part of all the people who contributed to that item.
As for debunking. It's not enough to claim that something has been debunked because of something done by other people. Debunking is a two step process. First you have to demonstrate that a claim is wrong, not because of a single counterclaim, but because of the preponderance of evidence. And analysis. And consilience with other evidence and analysis.
Secondly, you are then obliged to demonstrate that your alternative hypothesis is a better explanation of/ for the evidence than the current scientific or historical or whatever explanation. So you have a pretty big job. Merely suggesting an alternative is trying to do science by guesswork. Guesswork has its place in generating hypotheses for investigation or testing, but absolutely no place in demonstrating or analysing anything.
Even if your friend's statement passed the first test - and it fails badly* - it doesn't even begin to attempt to satisfy the second test.
* It fails because it's merely a counterclaim. And that counterclaim is predicated on dishonesty. Not just dishonesty of a person, but a conspiracy of dishonesty by a whole branch of science compounded by involvement of all the people who contribute to wiki pages on that topic. It's a very large claim and there's no evidence for any of it.
ah yes, the famous Fred Hoyle claim, and another one where he was again gloriously wrong
guess what the first response of the Natural History museum in London was ? they went to the actual specimen and performed such a detailed re-examination of the specimen that when they came up with a denial of the claims they did so from a position of strength and not ignorance
here's a summary of claims and counter-evidence in EvoWiki : Archaeopteryx is a fake
that's the problem with creationists : they have only one search image, and that is to find fault or disagreement in the scientific literature, and when they've done so the shutters come down and no more counter-evidence is allowed in
hence you always hear about some disagreement of decennia ago but not of the subsequent resolution - science moves with the times, and it's one of the hallmarks of a pseudoscientist that they keep referring to outdated science as if it was the latest news
oh, and btw, have a look at the first line of the responses : "Creationist think-tank Answers in Genesis agrees that this claim is false, and is on their list of arguments that should not be used."
Last edited by marnixR; October 1st, 2013 at 02:44 AM. Reason: added last paragraph
or....or....It was a time travelling team from the future that met there demise by a hungry mummy dinosaur!..... Just sayin.....more likely than humans co-existing lol
[QUOTE=RamenNoodles;466669]Let me guess, he says Conservapedia.com is a neutral and unbiased, trustworthy wiki site, right?
Ask your friend to state what the the three biggest, or worst lies are. Tell him you will investigate those and give him your opinion on them. Post the alleged lies here and we'll provide you with ammunition to show your friend they are true, or - in the unlikley event they are false - that they are are misunderstandings, or irrelevancies.
I think you are expecting too much from science. It is impossible for any one person to know for sure about everything that may or may not have been found, somewhere, by someone. Trying to get to a position where you can definitively say that NO other examples exist of human remains mixed up with dinosaur fossils is always dangerous, because the creationist may be just waiting for this before springing another obscure and dubious example on you, to catch you out.
Do not fall into the creationist trap of demanding "proof" of scientific theories. Science does not deal in proof or total certainty. It deals in explanations that work, in other words explanations that are based on objective evidence, are consistent with each other, and that successfully predict what you can expect to find in future.
The real point is that the current scientific explanations of such disparate things as:
- the age of the Earth,
- the explanation of continental drift and reversals of magnetisation on the sea floor,
- geological unconformities,
- relationships between species in different parts of the world,
- the fossil record,
- DNA similarities,
- similarities in embryonic development,
- evidence for variations in climate and atmospheric composition,
etc etc,
fit together to corroborate each other and can and do predict what further discoveries should be expected. That is the measure of success in scientific terms.
Whereas creationist explanations are always ad-hoc notions, cobbled together to explain each in turn, that do not hang together and are unable to make any predictions about what we can expect to turn up next. That makes them irredeemably unscientific.
All sensible Christians accept the well-established theories of science and have a theology that accommodates this. To do otherwise is an act of denial of what your own intelligence tells you. That way lies self-delusion and the deceit of others - as we see graphically illustrated by the examples you have drawn to our attention.
Instead of letting them bounce you into defending one piece of science after another, I suggest you challenge your creationist friends as to why they are content accept obvious lies such as the Moab Man case.
Ahhhhhh i feel mad. My parents recently shown me a creation video about how evolution is majorly flawed.i knew many of the lies that creationists exploited. Like the claim"NO Fossils AT ALL are found in multiple excavation sites are transitional". I also showed them the wiki's (still incomplete) extremely long list of transitional fossils. My mother(wirh hardly any science knowledge) said that they all are frauds. I waas like....wtf isthis logic.... Then i told her that there were no humans fossils among dinosaur strata. And she said that it isnt found yet, but one day will be found, and that humans lived away from dinosaurs, and then i asked her:" didnt the flood happen to mix them up?" Then she said:"oh,god is almighty. He created the world in6days, How would you know that the fossils wasnt already there(without human skeletons)in the strata that he created?" Then i talked about the judas' death's contradiction. She said he hanged himself, then his orgAns burst AFTTERRRRWWAARDS!!! Its really annoying, i may be wrong or she may be wrong also.Then What she said was:"look, son, if you test the bible with the assumption the bible is false, every thing will seems contradictory and full of lies to you. But if you test the bible without any assumption, you will find out that the bible is true, and science(god's creation) and the bible are one and everything makes sense just like how creation is true."I talked her a little off with the arguement: other religions teach that true also bout their religion. She said its just about faith. She seemed a little tored of areguing at this point, and i told her:"rational arguements wont work on religious people, otherwise they wouldnt be religious people" after this point, she kept talking about faith is everything, faith is the key, the wise men are foolish faith in gods eyes (some verse in the bible), faith,FAIth,FAITH,FAAITH. Wow.... I thought it seemed like a really good arguement. Then my mom asked me:"you cant prove god doesnt exist."My mind was blank. Wut the f$ck! She took about 8commentatory books and put it in my room and told me to read through them when you want to argue with me anymore. She said the bible is faultlesssssssssss and all contradictions people spotted are actually explained and do not contradict.She said the internet is the devil's tools, and are out to deny people's salvation to heaven. She told me not to believe anything on the internet regarding anti-bible stuff, and said:"why do u choose to believe evolution, and ignore the bible the true word of god? EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT CREATION DID HAPEN" and she said she wanted to get more creation dvd for me. She say shes worried about my salvation.Shes really upset at me right now. Im not sure what to believe in... Why must i conform to christianty if its because she does? What if shes a muslim? Hindu? Others? ( at this point i see my mother's eyes are red. She doesnt look angry but she looks vvery disappointed and about to tear like she's failed as a christian mothrr. I really feel bad, but what can i do anyway...)She keeps thinking creationist* scientists* did the correct research.Also, a mindful question, why should i(on the other hand) assume evolutionist scientists did the right research?Everything my mom says is: faith faith faith for the last few hours.....Seems like the bible is REEEAAAALLLY INFALLIABLE: "faith faith faith." Chant wiith me thanksWhat the heck.. Then she says:"if the bible is false, we both die into dust with no risk of hell. If its true, i go to heaveen, and if u are an unbeliever,you go to hell. You better make your choice, son." Here i am with many bible commentatiey books and talking with u guys.Take note of what my mom said in the last paragraph about the risk thing.
Originally Posted by jocular
This is, I believe, known as Pascal's Wager. The trouble is it assumes a choice between "her" god and nothing. Whereas, the choice is really between a near infinite number of different gods/religions (including none). Your chances of getting it right by chance are so low that you might as well not bother. After all, any truly forgiving god would, of course, forgive you.
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What should i do? I dont want. To ruin my relationship with my mom. I find it hard to accept that the bible is true. It appears to me that my mom is trying to stop me from learning science totally(unless creationist science DVDS i suppose). I still find the bible to be a mixture of literature, history,fantasy,truth,lies,and possibly, turd. If i dont read up the stuff she will be angry at me. If i do....... Well i dont see a point actually. I dont think my mom has ever been so upset. I dont want her to hate me forever. I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO); help..........
Originally Posted by jocular
RamenNoodles, you are in a difficult position. The thing is, this is their faith and so reasoning with them is going to be a really long haul and very painful. You are probably going to have to try to find a way that you can compartmentalise this issue so it doesn't poison the whole relationship.
In case it helps at all, I would stress - as I've done before - that the alternative to creationism is not necessarily atheism. Most mainstream Christians find it perfectly possibly to reconcile the bible with science and have done so for over 150 years. Just because you cannot take it all literally does not make it "untrue". It is not a science book, after all.
Have you read any of the information on what I call "sensible" Christian websites? For example Biologos is quite thoughtful on all this. Maybe this sort of approach can help find a way through that allows you and them to coexist with respect for each other's positions. But I'm guessing of course as I don't know the actual situation.
@ exchemist.. My church recently ( fewonths) have a series of work shops teaching about why thestic creationists DONT work, about how "science" and christianity dont mix, and i dont think evolution and bible mix at all, speciffically about some adam-eve evolutioned stuff. I dont exactly trust the bible, but i find it extremely uneasy and uncomfortable not to. I just freaking scared about the risk my mom pointed out, what if the bible is true? Sh!t );
Originally Posted by jocular
This.
There are even evolutionary biologists who happen to believe in God.
(There will now be a short diversion while a number of regular members explain how this means that they cannot be real scientists and their work on evolutionary biology must necessarily be tainted, etc. Wake me up when it's over.)
You are in a difficult position. I would just avoid discussing the subject completely. But that may not be easy, either.
Know what my parents just said?Here's it: "christianity is the largest religion in the world, because god is true, merciful, and its evidence that the bible is gods word. You dont have infinity religions with infinity gods working in these many people's hearts."
Originally Posted by jocular
The problems lies in the fact that your parents are assuming that the default position of christianity in general means christian creationism; but that isn't the case. I would recommend reading through the articles on the following site with members of the clergy that supports the teaching of evolution. If I remember correctly, there is a link that brings you to signed endorsements by them listed alphabetically by name and the church they are from.
The Clergy Letter Project
Although it isn't really a single religion. The differences in belief between different Christian groups can be as large as the difference between some Christians and non-Christians. It sounds like your parents, being biblical literalists, are in one of the minority groups within Christianity.
The largest Christian groups (which must be right by your parents logic) do not have a problem with evolution.
My religon has a strict: no. With anything to do with evolution. As far as i know we are calvin reformed
Originally Posted by jocular
Consider switching to a different denomination that isn't as... silly (can't really think of a more appropriate word to describe it). If your current denomination is one of the fringe factions with similarly fringe teachings, you can always simply attend a different church if your religion of preference is still christianity. If the website I've given a link to is any indication, a sizable amount of christians and the clergy do not reject evolution and science.
What is the meaning of "clergy" in this contexts?
Originally Posted by jocular
Sigh... The "official" leaders in your religion's organization. They are your pastors, ministers, priests, bishops, and the like. You really ought to have known these stuff.
Clergy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In any case, although this is your thread, let's not turn it into a non-Palaeontology discussion in a Palaeontology subforum.
Relax! The Adam and Eve stuff is to do with the Fall and Original Sin. The way I've always looked at this is that the Original Sin of Adam and Eve is a recognition that Man is (a) uniquely able to tell the difference between good and evil (having - allegorically -eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of this) AND (b) nevertheless has a built-in tendency to do evil. Creationists get all worked up because they think the Fall , which necessitated Christ's mission on Earth, had to be a literal event involving 2 specific people. But why? Surely the underlying truth is that as Man developed from the apes, he acquired moral knowledge, which gives him a unique moral responsibility among all the creatures in the animal kingdom.... and he repeatedly fails to live up to this. Christ came to teach us and set us an example, to help us fulfil our moral obligations better. That's the essence of what the bible tells us.
No sensible Christian believes we have to deny our own intelligence by rejecting science. The mainstream churches have worked al this out over the centuries , as science has advanced. And in any case, plenty of theologians have realised you cannot take Genesis literally, starting with Augustine of Hippo in about 400AD! Yes, 400AD. Believe me: there are many ways to interpret the bible and still be a good Christian. Different interpretations ADD to the overall meaning, just as you can read Shakespeare in different ways and each way will tell you something about what it is to be human, in a particular situation. You will not go to Hell because you believe science - how could a beneficent God give us the intelligence to understand our world and then condemn us for doing so? It's ridiculous.
You come to this forum for reassurance about science, and that's good. But I think maybe there are other places you might also go to, which will reassure you that Christian belief does not have to involve taking everything in the Old Testament literally. (Some in this forum are atheist, and that's fair enough, it's a respectable position, each to his own, but you do not have to be in order to accept science.)
Surely the underlying truth is that as Man developed from the apes, he acquired moral knowledge, which gives him a unique moral responsibility among all the creatures in the animal kingdom.... and he repeatedly fails to live up to this.
A lot of presumptions there, such as the early Hebrews knowing anything about humans developing from earlier primates--there isn't even any indication in those stories that they were even aware of other primates. And many primates have moral knowledge as well...it's hardly unique to humans. The statement seems more like desperate apologist interpretation rather than simply facing the logical conclusion that it's entirely a myth by early Hebrews to confer their idea of creation and struggle to find boundaries to live by.
Do you believe in God? Do you believe this being is extremely wise? Do you believe this being is extremely fair? Do you believe this being knows all your inner working better than you'll ever know them?
If you answer "yes" to these, then you can't have anything to worry about.
If you really read through the Bible, then you start to notice that the moral compass wavers all over the place, as does the nature of the god depicted. In fact, it wavers in ways exactly as if the moral compass changes and adapts with the society that tries to live by them. That should give you a clue as to who really wrote the Bible.
You'll also notice that there is no shortage of different interpretations of what portions of the Bible means. Also, the bible directly contradicts a great many known facts about our world that are about as beyond contestation as things can get in science. That should give you another clue. For instance, we know that humans like you and me have been around for something like 200 000 years, yet, the Bible covers a mere fraction of that history.
So what you can take away from this is that while the Bible contains some true pearls of wisdom, it also contains some atrocious bits that would be way beyond reasonable for an average person. It is a bunch of books, stitched together by a panel clerics, choosing which books to put where and which to leave out altogether.
So, if the Bible is true, then it does not describe a God that has the attributes I first mentioned. That is something I would and am betting my life on.
So you have to decide if you believe in everything in the Bible as literal and the word of God, or if you believe in a truly wise God. They simply don't go together I'm afraid.
Even if the happenings in the Bible are all true and God has some obscure reason for doing all of that (reasons maybe to be revealed after death), then a truly wise and compassionate God can't punish you for questioning that which is so powerfully questionable. Doesn't it make more sense that God simply wants us to live good lives, while caring for those around us, instead of wanting us to believe seriously questionable stuff and that believing that without question is somehow a virtue worthy of everlasting life? Does it make sense that god wants us to be mindless whenever the Bible and science clashes? I don't think it does one bit.
You have no reason to ever fear a truly wise, all-knowing, all-powerful God. Not ever. Think about that. You'll have a whole new world opened up to you.
my mom told me(i recall several times other people told me this before) that salvation is based on 1) acknowledge you are sinful 2) believe jesus resurrected 3) he did it to save you from your sins. the different denominations hold on to the same faith.
christians say evolution, and many other stuff like that are unessential to salvation.
at #45, no,doesnotapply,doesnotapply,doesnotapply
Originally Posted by jocular
Salvation= fearmongering.
Absolutely. Acknowledging you're human and you're going to do the wrong thing from time to time, even inadvertently, does not require salvation. It just requires realistic acceptance of your own and others' human inclinations and occasional frailties.Salvation= fearmongering.
The only reason to want or need salvation is
a) belief in an afterlife
b) belief that afterlife will be wonderfully blissful or unutterably intolerable because
c) one or more capricious/ vengeful/ jealous beings decide so.
Remember there's more than Christianity at play here - Muslims and Hindus have parallel beliefs about what happens after human death. And they're just as problematic as the Christian ones. You might think being Christian is difficult and full of fear. Just imagine being a high caste Hindu who daren't let their clothes, let alone any part of their body, so much as brush against the "wrong" person's clothes lest they be relegated to a lower level in their next life - or have several extra rounds of earthly life added to their lot before they can approach what we would call heaven.
Learn science and go to church with her. Tell her it's God's will, and that he works in mysterious ways.
Wise. While that position taken on dinosaurs is merely ridiculous, an equally contorted position on matters of family for example could be bad. RamenNoodles' mother cannot know how fringy she's become, until she gets refreshed by mainstream Christianity.
***
On original topic, it's kinda odd we don't find more human fossils associated with dinosaurs'. Surely humans have always been attracted to the, er, dragon bones, in the same way we've been attracted to amazing cave formations or meteorites in the desert. Surely the first cliff-face dinosaur skeleton was not discovered by a 19th century British girl in Dorset.
Anecdote: My grandmother grew up on an Alberta ranch whose property line ended where what is now called Dinosaur Provincial Park begins. All the kids, she says, used to climb down into the canyon to collect seashells, teeth, turtleshell, etc. anything interesting. I take from this that all the good exposed fossils have already been dispersed by thousands of years of uneducated collectors. So if primitive humans thought cave bear skulls were cool, how about a triceratops?
hmmm - a bit hard to hang on the wall though ...
If that is true, then what reason do you have for being scared? I am saying that either way, you have nothing to be scared of.
Not all of them.
Some may do. Others say that our purpose on Earth is to understand God's work - which includes understanding the way evolution works. I think that is the position of the largest single Christian group on Earth (which, by your parents logic must make it true). This would make you parent's view wrong and possibly blasphemous. MAybe even sinful. They may be guaranteeing themselves a place in hell by clinging to their primitive, minority beliefs.christians say evolution, and many other stuff like that are unessential to salvation.
Don't worry though, because many Christians don't believe in Hell anyway! (It is a relatively modern invention of Europeans.)
I suppose the more outspoken Christians misrepresent majority Christian belief? Atheists have the same problem. But ditto any group.
RamenNoodles, you can easily satisfy your 3 points of Christian belief on the basis of what I said in my earlier post about how you might interpret Genesis in a non-literal, but nonethless true, way. And that is what most educated Christians do, in one fashion or another.
my mom told me(i recall several times other people told me this before) that salvation is based on 1) acknowledge you are sinful 2) believe jesus resurrected 3) he did it to save you from your sins. the different denominations hold on to the same faith.
christians say evolution, and many other stuff like that are unessential to salvation.
at #45, no,doesnotapply,doesnotapply,doesnotapply
From your other posts it looks as if you have not explored much about Christian belief outside the sect in which you have been raised. That's not surprising - none of us do until something comes along to challenge what we've been taught. But in your case that moment has clearly arrived. (Part of growing up, eh?) As others have said, this discussion is morphing from one about Palaeontology to one about varieties of Christian belief and biblical interpretation. So we can't take it further here, but I'm becoming convinced that this is the area where you ought to spend a little time studying alternative viewpoints. I don't think you'll get much further battling the deceitful techniques creationists use to attack science. It's an unwinnable battle because their minds are made up in advance. Your problem - really - is how to remain a Christian while being able to accept science. As I say this is not hard - you just have not been taught it. Several of us have given you pointers to places where you can find out more about this.
Your other problem is how you do (or don't) approach this with your family, particularly your mother. You might have to give up the notion that your mother will ever accept even the slightest deviation by you from what she has decided is "the truth". Which then means that you may have to modify your dealings with her.Your problem - really - is how to remain a Christian while being able to accept science.
There's no good reason why you have to bare the inside of your brain and your soul to her on every topic. Remember the one and only certainty in all this is that you will get older, you will get more distance from your family. You'll still be dependent on them financially for some time yet - maybe more years than you would like. Rather than constantly fighting about the details of belief and science and biblical in/errancy or prophesy or whatever your family's religion entails, you might have to move to more of a "Yes, mum" non-committal style with her at least.
It may mean you find yourself with few or no friends or relatives you can discuss your newer ideas with for a short while. But you will develop new friendships, you will develop a bit more balanced relationship with your family.
Nobody can promise that it will be easy for you or for them. But things must change as you grow older and mature into an independent adult - if you can maintain loving and respectful relationships with your family as that happens, you'll all be better off.
Amen to that brother, says I while thinking of Dawkins.
I did not read beyond this point,... the text of all the other posters....
Okay a small lie,... I noticed no body pointed you to your serious error, during the few posts after.
You have no concept of scientific method.
I already realize you come from a religious background, you were never thaught these things.
Here is you error, were you go faulty to such a degree,... nobody with any concept of science method will ever take you serious.
You said this:It is because there is no evidence for this. The only websites you WILL come across that would be willing to answer your internet-search... would be religious motivated websites.searching for "human fossils found among dinosaur fossils", and if search engines doesn't come up with results to answer my question
Why? ... Because nothing in science proofs this. ONLY religious website claim Dinosaurs lived together with humans... so when you start specifically searching for:
'human fossils found among dinosaur fossils',
you will end up on creationist websites, whos ONLY goal ... is to take away your free will of thinking and indoctrinate you into their religion with lies.
If you want to KNOW how science works,... you should REALLY first learn what the scientific method REALLY means.
Look up the WIKI for scientific method. READ... READ AND LEARN... READ what is important for the human mind.
The Scientific Methods will NOT provide you with all your answers on the meanin of life,... but it WILL give you an honoust second opinion.
So link to the next ... READ and LEARN,.. what has been denied from your human brain!
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And be free to folow the provided links and even leanrr MORE.
| « Pyramids | Oldest Petroglyphs in North America! » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
