Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins Forum

Welcome to our forum. Feel free to post a message.  If you would like to debate me please contact first. Any messages that are not appropriate will be deleted within 24 hours. Thank you!

Forum: Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins Forum
Start a New Topic 
   Board|Threaded
Author
Comment
Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Hello! I am a life long student of everything and hope I can learn as much about my planet as brain capacity and time permits. I am a Jew raised by Christians and Catholics and have studied most religions in text. I believe a complete and well-rounded education is first and foremost a sign that G_D's true purpose is manifest, and that Truth only hides behind the shadow of inopportunity. I would like your help, in a friendly atmosphere of discussion, to seek balance between my reliance on Science and it's purity of absolutes (1+1=2, a carbon plus two oxygen molecules becomes carbon dioxide, how to measure ground temperatures from space using a satellite and computer technology, etc), and what I would like to help my friends understand are the concepts behind Intelligent Design. I stumbled across your website by accident but hope that my coincidence could be rewarding to us all.

So, my question is this, how do we marry Science, very important, and the concepts of Evolution and Creation? If science has helped us understand everything we know today that we did not 2,000 years ago, everything that needs a building block of truth for understanding, how can we put that together with everything we have yet to learn, to have us stop taking sides and reason things out together?

How you found this site: "living dinosaurs" google search

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Horton Lorax said;
“…to have us stop taking sides and reason things out together?”
Boy wouldn’t that be nice, unfortunately since science seems to be proving certain long held Biblical beliefs false, then science becomes a threat to “true Christians”. So pseudo-science like Intelligent Design crop up to defend their faith. As long as there are fundamentalists there will never be “reason”.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

the Bible is correct 100% of the time and I challenge anyone to disprove the Bible's accuracy.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Well we can start with the earth is not 6000 years old, and Noah and the flood never happened, then maybe go on to things like - a bat is not a bird and other false things like that. Do you want me to go on or is that ok for starters?

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Like most evolutionists and Bible doubters i've met (shygetz and a few others excepted) you don't give any evidence to back up your statements (you don't even refer to the specific verse in the Bible that calls a bat a bird,which I'm sure it does) but anyway you can start on any topic about the Bible you wish (Bible contradictions,flood,creation,"false" things in the Bible,ect.) just make sure you back up your statements with facts.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Jack.
It’s no problem to provide evidence, but if you have met “Shygetz and others” and they have provided evidence for an old earth, there will be nothing different I could provide. There are thousands of sources if you really would like to know, but I don’t think you do, at least you won’t look with an open mind. I believe the vast majority of scientific evidence supports an old earth - there is a reason 95% of all geologists believe the earth is old. Therefore, I believe the bible (or the current interpretation of) is wrong. If you would like to provide proof that the bible is correct in dating the age of the earth, I invite you to provide some proof. The same goes for Noah and the flood, which I believe is impossible and did not happen.

As far as providing you with the bible verses goes, I thought by your bold statement that “the bible is correct 100% of the time” you must be able to figure out the verse(s). But I have no problem with doing so. I also believe that the bible is quite vague and full of metaphors and folklore so verses can be read in different ways to suit the facts. So you may read something quite different into these as I do, but I’m taking a literal approach.
Deuteronomy 14:11, 18
"Of all clean birds ye shall eat" "And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat"
Ok? A bat is not a bird.

Genesis 30:37-39
“And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in
them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."
Now I’m no expert but this is not the way it works.

There are more, but let’s see how we do with these two.

Re: Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Chocomel,

The word "bird" in Old Testament Hebrew means, "A fast moving bird, fowl, or sparrow." The word Fowl means, "covered with feathers, or rather posse's wings." Just because our modern lauguage has changed, doesn't mean the Bible is wrong.

Jacob put something in the sheep's water that affected their genes, that isn't impossible.

Website: www.livingdinos.com

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Phillip,
Thanks for enlightening me on the bird/fowl thing. So I’ll blame Tyndale and crew for that one. However your next answer:

”Jacob put something in the sheep's water that affected their genes, that isn't impossible.”

Hilarious, Jacob the magician, what verse(s) did you get that answer from? You are relying on a big assumption there. It’s much like the typical “God did it” answers. It’s funny how the Bible is full of all this magic yet most Bible thumping fundamentalists consider the Harry Potter stuff evil, because of magic.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

chocomel(1 "I believe the vast majority of scientific evidence supports an old earth - there is a reason 95% of all geologists believe the earth is old."

jack(1 first off give me some evidence then if your so sure and secondly many scientists disagree with evolution and think the creation account is better than the evolutionary one.also where do you get 95%? show me some documentation to back it up!

chocomel(2 "Deuteronomy 14:11, 18
"Of all clean birds ye shall eat" "And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat"
Ok? A bat is not a bird.

jack(2 ok just because man has decided that a bat is not a bird doesn't mean God is wrong.it could mean God has a different classification system than we do (i.e. anything that flies is a bird,anything that lives in the water is a fish,ect.)

chocomel(3 "Genesis 30:37-39
“And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in
them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."
Now I’m no expert but this is not the way it works.

jack (3 don't know what your trying to say by this verse maybe you could explain what you mean

Website: www.Biblebaptistpublications.com

How you found this site: www.cryptozoology.org

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Jack said; “first off give me some evidence then if your so sure…” “…where do you get 95%? show me some documentation to back it up!”

Certainly, here’s four;
1) From Wikipedia;
As of 1997, an estimated 95% of US citizens with degrees in science reject the idea of a young earth. Among those scientists who work in fields related to geology, the percentage of those rejecting the idea of a young earth is even higher.
2) From AnswersinCreation;
There are 65 scientists listed on ICR’s list of young earth scientists (granted, this is not a complete listing of all scientists who are young-earthers). Limiting our numbers to geologists, ICR lists 12 people that are in Geology or related fields. By comparison the Geological Society of America has over 17,000 members (keep in mind that not all geologists are members, just like not all young earth geologists are listed by ICR). That equates to 12 young earth geologists and 16,988 old earth geologists, or .0007 percent. This is by no means a scientific determination, but can be used to give a rough estimate.
Another estimate of so-called "creation scientists" claims there are 480,000 scientists in the United States, but in the relevant fields of earth and life science, there are only 700 who believe in creationism, or less than 0.15 percent of scientists It could also be argued that ALL scientists accept an old earth. I use the word ‘all’ because young earth scientists are not scientists. By definition, a scientist makes observations, then formulates theories about those observations. By contrast, a YEC “scientist” has made the theory first (that the earth is young) and then he looks for observations to confirm it. They are performing science backwards, thus deserve the term “theorist” rather than “scientist.” This is not to say that they are not smart, intelligent persons. Many have made important scientific contributions, but in the area of the age of the earth, their preconceived ideas about the age of the earth invalidate any scientific work they do in this field of research.
3) From talk origins; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
4) Also mentioned here; http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth1.htm

Jack said;
“secondly many scientists disagree with evolution and think the creation account is better than the evolutionary one…”

Why did you bring this up? Anyway, your right, there are scientists who believe in the creation account over evolution (and they are not all YEC’s) but the ratio is still heavily in favor of evolution believing scientists. But anyway…here is a list of 700+ scientists from all areas who DON”T believe evolution, it’s the largest list I could find to support your claim. I don’t know who sponsored this but evidently they were quite proud of how many scientists they got.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
And now;
Here is a list of 787 scientists from all areas who DO support evolution;
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18
Then click “the list”
And they are all named Steve! See the ratio already?

Jack asked;
“I don't know what your trying to say by this verse maybe you could explain what you mean”

Ok you said that “the Bible is correct 100% of the time”, I disagreed, pointing to the age of the earth and the Noah/flood being impossible. I used Genesis 30:37-39 which, to me, represents fiction (folklore) so if you want to call this as 100% correct tell me how it’s correct, when it’s clearly not how it works. If you explain it as “God did it” or another magical event - that won’t fly.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Phillip said: "Jacob put something in the sheep's water that affected their genes, that isn't impossible."

But that is from the Book of Phillip O'Donnell, which is not in the Bible. The Bible mentions no high-tech gene splicing agent placed in the water. It mentions Jacob placing patterned rods where the sheep could see them as they mate. So, if there was a super-gene-splicing technology that Jacob used, why is it not mentioned even in passing? Why are the patterned rods mentioned in great detail if they do nothing? Is the Bible trying to be deceptive?

jack said: "jack(2 ok just because man has decided that a bat is not a bird doesn't mean God is wrong.it could mean God has a different classification system than we do (i.e. anything that flies is a bird,anything that lives in the water is a fish,ect.)"

But the Bible was written for Man, not for God. Phillip's defense is better here (i.e. translation error).

One typical Christian response to observed instances of Biblical errancy is to claim it is a translation error. Which is why it is nice when someone claims a specific translation is inerrant. If I remember correctly, both Phillip and jack claim the KJV is a divinely inspired and inerrant text (please correct me if I am wrong).

So why does the KJV call bats birds? Better yet, why does the KJV insist that unicorns exist (Num. 23:22, 24:8; Job 39:9-10; Ps. 29:6, 92:10)?

Are you going to start www.livingunicorns.com?

jack said: "and secondly many scientists disagree with evolution and think the creation account is better than the evolutionary one."

Not many scientists who actually study biology though, right? Have you looked at the list? It's dominated by people like engineers, NOT by people who study biology. Why don't you go ahead and ask art history majors what they think of quantum mechanics, while you're at it?

Besides which, as was pointed out, Project Steve laid that canard to rest; I can find more scientists named Steve that accept the fact of evolution that you can find total scientists that refuse to accept it.

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

About the cattle reproducing different color patterned calf,
Environment does have effects on a species phenotypic traits. For example, the Firebelly Toad. The toads with a bright green appearance are the result of the eggs that they came from being laid in the hotter seasons. The toads with brown coloration were the result of the eggs being laid when the climate in the area was cooler.

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

That's nice Tom, but you seem to be reading something into those Genesis passages that isn't there. No matter how you choose to twist it around, what the passages describe is not how it works. Ask a farmer.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Oh yeah, and we're talking about sticks here and not temperature.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

I'm not "twisting" anything, I'm just saying there are species out there whos offspring are genetically affected by outside influences.

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

”I'm not "twisting" anything, I'm just saying there are species out there whos offspring are genetically affected by outside influences.”

What exactly are you trying to say then, in comparing toads with the sheep in Genesis 30:37-39?
Do you think that’s how it works when sheep are bred?
Read this again;
“And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."

It (Genesis 30:37-39) was used to show how the Bible is not 100% correct as claimed. You tell me how this is correct. You tell me how this works without the use of “God did it” or some magical happening…or an assumption on your part.
It seems you are in fact twisting it with your comparison in an effort to make those passages seem correct. Besides that, comparing amphibians with mammals is not a very good idea to begin with.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Well I don't believe they gave birth right after they drank. However, I do agree with Phil that, ”Jacob put something in the sheep's water that affected their genes, that isn't impossible.”(I don't believe it affected the parent's genes, but the developing babie's). We see this kind of thing happen today, where the parent animal or person intaking a certain thing will cause the developing baby to have a genetic mutation. Genetic mutations could be something as slight as different color patterns or extra hair growth, to something as extreme as having extra limbs, or no limbs at all. Ask a farmer, nurse, scientist etc. It happens.

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Tom,
As I have said earlier, the Bible is so vague you can pretty much make passages say what you wish them to say. You certainly have done so with this one, nothing but a huge assumption on your part (well Phil’s assumption that you agree with) about some potion. The passages make no mention of putting something in the sheep’s water - that is completely made up by you and Phil.

The flocks came there to drink and mate but it was because of the rods that they came out ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted, not some unknown substance put in the water. We are talking about what the Bible says is 100% correct, not what it doesn't say.

Branches from different types of trees do not cause variations in sheep’s offspring.
Ask a farmer, nurse, scientist etc. It does not happen that way.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

"the Bible is so vague you can pretty much make passages say what you wish them to say."
People back then didnt have as many words in their vocab as we do today.

" The passages make no mention of putting something in the sheep’s water - that is completely made up by you and Phil."
Um:"And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters IN THE WATERING TROUGHS when the flocks came to drink..."
Completely made up?

"Branches from different types of trees do not cause variations in sheep’s offspring."
You dont know what the combination of those branch juices couldve done. What are some (if not, most) poisons, medications, and drugs made from? Plants. And, obviously, some medications and drugs cause abnormal babies if the pregnant mother takes them. Now obviously tree branch extracts wouldnt have as an extreme effect as drugs, but it goes to show it can cause something to the developing baby.

"You tell me how this works without the use of “God did it” or some magical happening…"
I quoted this from our previous debate in "how the dinos go wiped out":"Sorry, if you take the Bible as literal and “God” created man in his image then that is where the description came from. If on the other hand you don’t take the Bible as literal then “God” could be something like a ball of energy. The “Bang”?...just a thought."

So let me get this straight, you believe God exists, but you think it's ridiculous to think He can do anything like miracles?

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

"the Bible is so vague you can pretty much make passages say what you wish them to say."
”People back then didnt have as many words in their vocab as we do today.”

But if it’s “Gods word” then “he” would have been a little more obvious, and not left room for any questioning. Shoot, “he” could even have had “his word” change automatically over time in accordance with man’s evolution, if “he” is so jealous and wants us to worship and obey “him”.

”Completely made up?”

Yes, looking at the branches do not cause different types of offspring, you guys added the part about Jacob adding something to the water, those branches alone in the water do not cause those effects.

”You dont know what the combination of those branch juices couldve done. What are some (if not, most) poisons, medications, and drugs made from? Plants. And, obviously, some medications and drugs cause abnormal babies if the pregnant mother takes them. Now obviously tree branch extracts wouldnt have as an extreme effect as drugs, but it goes to show it can cause something to the developing baby.”

Oh please, the Bible mentions what the trees in question were, do those juices make a potion needed to develop different types of sheep? No, they do not, the point of all this is that those passages are wrong, those passages are folklore. Folklore is not 100% accurate, therefore the Bible is not 100% correct as claimed by Jack.

”So let me get this straight, you believe God exists, but you think it's ridiculous to think He can do anything like miracles?”

Tom, that was used to illustrate a different way of looking at what “God” is, in a sense that the Biblical “God” is thought to be a male, as you just did using “He”. I may or may not believe in “God” or “a Source”, I never said, but I do believe that the Bible is not “God’s word”.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Whatever. I just pointed out that outside influences can genetically affect a developing baby. I'll leave the rest of this debate up to the other "Bible thumping fundamentalists" here, since they seem so eager to help me defend our faith...

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Teratogens are what alter fetal genes during pregnancy. There are no known teratogens in toxic concentrations in poplar, hazel, and chestnut tree wood. Even if there were, the offspring would be much more likely to be horribly mutated and non-viable than just different colors. And pilling the wood to make patterns of different colors would have no effect. As I said before, why did God talk about the different patterned rods, and not about the super-high-tech gene splicing agent that really did all the work? Was He trying to be deceptive?

How badly do you have to mangle a plain reading of the Bible to bring it in line with your preconceived notions? (Rhetorical question with an obvious answer...)

The frog example you described was not changes to genetics; it was purely environmental changes to phenotype. You were wrong, Tom.

Tom said "I'll leave the rest of this debate up to the other "Bible thumping fundamentalists" here, since they seem so eager to help me defend our faith..."

So you concede the point? Because no one has developed anything like a reasonable defense?

And if you concede the point, you concede that the KJV of the Bible is not an inerrant translation. So what's it gonna be?

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

"As I said before, why did God talk about the different patterned rods, and not about the super-high-tech gene splicing agent that really did all the work? Was He trying to be deceptive?"
Humans werent as intelligent as they are today. You seem to be forgetting that. It would be like teaching a toddler biochemistry: you just dont do it cause they wouldnt understand at the time. And obviously it wouldnt be super-high-tech, unless got performed a miracle.


"The frog example you described was not changes to genetics; it was purely environmental changes to phenotype. You were wrong, Tom."
Even if I am wrong, it still changed their appearance, which is the main topic at hand.



"So you concede the point? Because no one has developed anything like a reasonable defense?"
I'm just agitated that people like jack make a bold claim, i try to help them defend their case, and they just sit back and not help.

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Tom said: "Humans werent as intelligent as they are today. You seem to be forgetting that. It would be like teaching a toddler biochemistry: you just dont do it cause they wouldnt understand at the time. And obviously it wouldnt be super-high-tech, unless got performed a miracle."

If it were a miracle, why not say that God changed the animals. It doesn't.

If it were some other high-tech reagent added to the water, why mention the rods at all? Why not say that the Holy juice was added which changed the colors?

No, it says patterned variations of wood were added to the watering trough, and the animals changed their colors. We know by science that there is nothing in that wood that would cause the changes in patterns. So, was God being intentionally misleading to his readers?

Or was the author an ignorant mortal who was telling a story as he had heard it, and God had nothing to do with it?

Either God is a deceiver, or he didn't inspire that particular passage.

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Humans werent as intelligent as they are today. You seem to be forgetting that. “

There are Creationists who argue the opposite of that, (I’m not sure but I think Hovind is one of them) in that they believe that not only were humans smarter then, but they were also 16 feet tall! But in any case, your point is they were not as intelligent, so by using that logic, they would never understand evolution, geology, the origins of the universe, and just about anything else science is doing these days so why argue against it based on what the Bible says if it was written for dummies?

"The frog example you described was not changes to genetics; it was purely environmental changes to phenotype. You were wrong, Tom."
”Even if I am wrong, it still changed their appearance, which is the main topic at hand.”

Actually the main topic at hand is “the Bible is correct 100% of the time and I challenge anyone to disprove the Bible's accuracy”, which if I remember correctly, you at one point on another exchange we had said something to the effect of – ok so the earth might be old. Which if you still have some doubts the Earth is young would mean the Bible is not 100% correct.

"So you concede the point? Because no one has developed anything like a reasonable defense?"
”I'm just agitated that people like jack make a bold claim, i try to help them defend their case, and they just sit back and not help.”

I understand your frustration, I gave Jack what HE asked for and then he disappeared. Anyway your defense using an unmentioned magic potion is as much of a cop-out as the old “God did it”.
Also the flood impossibilities and the age of the Earth points are still left unaddressed. So unless Jack can prove the Bible is correct about Noah and the flood and that the earth is roughly 6,000 years old (and maybe another explanation of those Genesis passages) then I still believe the Bible is not 100% correct.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

"There are Creationists who argue the opposite of that, (I’m not sure but I think Hovind is one of them) in that they believe that not only were humans smarter then, but they were also 16 feet tall! But in any case, your point is they were not as intelligent, so by using that logic, they would never understand evolution, geology, the origins of the universe, and just about anything else science is doing these days so why argue against it based on what the Bible says if it was written for dummies?"
If they were smarter than they are now, and man's intelligence along with technology grew, then by now we should have more high-tech things than we have today, right? So I disagree on that.
And I'm not saying it was made for "dummies". "Dummies" and people from ancient times are two different things. Stupidity is having the potential of learning concepts and such (at their time), but just not getting it. We cant call them dumb just because they dont have the same intelligence as someone living today.

Email  
Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

“If they were smarter than they are now, and man's intelligence along with technology grew, then by now we should have more high-tech things than we have today, right? So I disagree on that.”

Yeah, me too…and just about everything else Kent Hovind advocates.

”We cant call them dumb just because they dont have the same intelligence as someone living today. “

I think they had the same intelligence that we have today, (they were ignorant, not less intelligent) we just have had an extra 2000 years or so to develop our knowledge. You are saying those people back then could believe those sticks created the differences in the sheep but not a potion, and that is why God didn’t have potion written in those passages? I say mule fritters, that is just folklore that ignorant people believed, like many other things in the Bible.

Re: Debate? Maybe a friendly discussion...

Exactly. The Bible says lots of stuff about the material world, but the Bible told the ancients nothing they didn't already believe about the world. The only assertions it made that were outside of common belief of the day were ones that couldn't be examined (i.e. "spiritual").

Now, is this more likely from a book from mortal sources, or a book from an omnipotent, omniscient God trying to talk to His people? You make the call.

Email  
Get your own FREE Forum today! 
Report Content ·  · Web Calendars   Counters & Site Stats   Email Forms   Free Web Hosting 
Powered by Bravenet