 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| larryjf wrote: |
I didn't ask for a link to a list. I asked for you to list the "proof"... |
I can see that you like archaeopteryxes. Are you saying they're real? That's nonsense. All of their fossils are fake and not nearly as old as scientists claim, but also you seem fixated on archaeopteryx. I take it you have no issue with Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba as examples of dinosaur to bird transition, or do you?
_________________
"The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job." - Sam Harris |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
ekspiulo,
I am hardly fixated on archaeopteryx.
I asked for evidence, to which i was pointed to a link with a ton of information. I talked about the DNA reference and about the archaeopteryx reference. Nobody told me which evidences they wanted to talk about, so i just picked a couple.
Now that you have provided a list it will be easier for us to talk about the matter - because now we have a starting point.
I am not an expert at all in this field, so i may have more questions than answers, but it is an interesting subject.
As to the list of intermediate animals that you provided, let's focus on the first one - Eoraptor.
Can you tell me if this is the same as Archaeoraptor?
As to answering your question, I cannot support or deny the animals that you have listed until i investigate a little bit. Again, i am no expert. I will not claim something to be wrong just because it is in conflict with what i believe. Rather, my beliefs will conform to what is proven to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, I see. Well now that you have some info that you'd like to start with, lets start!
| larryjf wrote: | As to the list of intermediate animals that you provided, let's focus on the first one - Eoraptor.
Can you tell me if this is the same as Archaeoraptor?
|
Yes, I think Archaeoraptor is the original/other name for Eoraptor, and it isn't so much an example of a transitional species as it is the beginning of the transition example, believed to be close to the common ancestor of all Dinosaurs. (of course it too is descended from something else but I assume there is less info about its ancestors and the example is of just dinosaur to bird transition anyway)
_________________
"The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job." - Sam Harris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It was my understanding that even though Archaeoraptor was in the 1999 National Geographic, it was later found to be a fraud. I read that fragments of bird and dinosaur fossils were glued together to create it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unschoolmom
Kitten
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 141
Location: Nova Scotia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Archaeoraptor
A good little article on the non-issue that was Archaeoraptor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| larryjf wrote: | | It was my understanding that even though Archaeoraptor was in the 1999 National Geographic, it was later found to be a fraud. I read that fragments of bird and dinosaur fossils were glued together to create it. |
Oops, looks like you're right. Sorry, I made a mistake. Eoraptor, binomially Eoraptor lunensis, and Archaeoraptor aren't the same at all. The first Eoraptor fossils were discovered in 1991, or 8 years before when you ay Archaeoraptor was featured in National Geographic. It was named Eoraptor lunensis in 1993.
Eoraptor
A good little article on the start of our transition example that is Eoraptor.
And two bonus:
CHECK LINK
CHECK LINK
Again, about the confusion, well, you know how it is. Sorry to send us back to square one with this transition example. If you have questions concerning Eoraptor lunensis, the above links should do fine; otherwise, lets move on to the next dino in the transition you'd care to discuss.
_________________
"The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job." - Sam Harris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Notyad
Goldfish
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 58
Location: Louisville
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what will they all succed in proving that evolution is accurate? Why wouldnt you want to believe that their will be a place we will all go when we die? A much better place than what we go through on this plain.
_________________
"I am the alpha and the omega the beginning and the end the first and the last" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6284
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because the truth may hurt, but it will always be better than fairy tales. Belief in a thing does not make it so. What good is believing in an afterlife, when it is naught but time and energy wasted?
Not only that, but how do you know which afterlife is real? There's plenty, almost every religion has one. People are scared of death. They don't like the idea that things end.
Again, this does not make it so that things don't end, it's just people fooling themselves and others into wasting time and energy that would be better used helping others.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Notyad wrote: | | what will they all succed in proving that evolution is accurate? Why wouldnt you want to believe that their will be a place we will all go when we die? A much better place than what we go through on this plain. |
Huh? What do you mean? Are you saying that if Science is right, there is no God? That would be strange, as there is nothing in Science that indicates this. The reality of Evolution doesn't affect what God is.
But you make it sound like we have to go with wishful thinking just becayuse that is what we want, regardlsss of evidence.
The risk you run then, of course, is that of outright bearing false witness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6364
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | Because the truth may hurt, but it will always be better than fairy tales. Belief in a thing does not make it so. What good is believing in an afterlife, when it is naught but time and energy wasted?
Not only that, but how do you know which afterlife is real? There's plenty, almost every religion has one. People are scared of death. They don't like the idea that things end.
Again, this does not make it so that things don't end, it's just people fooling themselves and others into wasting time and energy that would be better used helping others. |
FFT,
Do you believe in Love? yes no
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6284
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does whether or not I believe in Love have any bearing on the topic at hand? Why?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6364
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes,
because:
Because the truth may hurt, but it will always be better than fairy tales. Belief in a thing does not make it so. What good is believing in an afterlife, when it is naught but time and energy wasted?
it's just people fooling themselves and others into wasting time and energy that would be better used helping others.
What if the next destination is a place of Love?
so I asked if you believe in love. Maybe that is the key that opens the gates of heaven.
Do you believe love is a waste of time and energy? yes no |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6284
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
No matter how pleasant it is, it's still just stories. No matter how nice a package the fairy tales are presented in, they remain fairy tales.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Does whether or not I believe in Love have any bearing on the topic at hand? Why? |
come on fft. answer the question. do you believe in love or not? we won't tell anybody. honest.
Last edited by theseldomscene on Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | 
|
Number of scientists named Steve that support evolution that have signed thus far: 640.
clergy that understand that evolution should be taught that have signed thus far: 8,582.
Many of the scientists that signed the Discovery Institute's letter later stated that they regretted doing so, as they feel they have been misrepresented. In addition, few, if any of the scientists were evolutionary biologists.
Some of the posters on this board actually understand what it is and how it works, and we'd be happy to teach you.[/quote]
evolution...you understand it and have it all worked out....good...
the bible teaches and plainly supports plant and animal evolution.
both sides seem to be want to find strength in numbers. "all these people believe in this." who cares?
plant and animal evolution is a scientific and biblical law.
i have wondered for years what bible ministers were reading when they'd
speak out against all forms of evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
