[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

[lordkalvan]

Dude, you gotta be kidding me. It's talking about his penis huh? So I guess that means that my dog has a penis that he wags when I come home? He can make it straight and stiff too, when he's on alert for game. No offense man but that's gotta be the strangest thing I ever heard.

Personal incredulity does not make a refutation. I notice that you have been unable to address substantively any of the points made in either of the posts I have made in response to your own.

 

[Edward]

Personal incredulity does not make a refutation. I notice that you have been unable to address substantively any of the points made in either of the posts I have made in response to your own.

Yes sir, because it's too thin and far fetched what you write. I understand that you're not Christian, but your posts are very thin no matter how you look at them.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes sir, because it's too thin and far fetched what you write. I understand that you're not Christian, but your posts are very thin no matter how you look at them.

Well, so you pronounce, but quite singularly fail to demonstrate.

 

[Edward]

Well, so you pronounce, but quite singularly fail to demonstrate.

Yeah well come on man, I don't mind taking a look at information and considering alternate views...I am able to set aside preconceptions and take an honest look. But, no offense, your posts don't even rise up to the level of scholastic reasonableness that Doulos posts. I don't agree with him, but his posts can make me think because he puts forth effort and they are substantive. I want to but I haven't really been able to do that with your posts.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yeah well come on man, I don't mind taking a look at information and considering alternate views...I am able to set aside preconceptions and take an honest look. But, no offense, your posts don't even rise up to the level of scholastic reasonableness that Doulos posts. I don't agree with him, but his posts can make me think because he puts forth effort and they are substantive. I want to but I haven't really been able to do that with your posts.

I have given you reasons and references to support the points I made, reasons and references you have entirely failed to address. Well, let's take one single point from your post that initiated my first response.You quoted Job 40, including this line -

'16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.'

- and based on the lines you quoted concluded that -

'This sounds like more of a Brontosaurus than a hippo...'

Now I have already pointed out that only placental mammals have navels, while dinosaurs hatch from eggs, a point you have chosen to wholly ignore. Thus you are left with a number of alternatives:

1. The verse is not describing a dinosaur, but a mammal of some sort, for example a hippopotamus.

2. The verse is not describing an actual animal at all, but is figurative/allegorical/metaphorical (an interpretation I have seen offered by some biblical scholars).

3. The verse is, indeed, describing a dinosaur, but despite claims on its behalf to be a divinely-inspired text without error, the Bible in this instance makes the mistake of supposing that dinosaurs have umbilical cords and are born live from their mothers.

 

[Drew]

Personal incredulity does not make a refutation....

I agree and it's an "argument" frequently used by those who deny evolution.

There is a compelling argument that runs like this: We should actually expect any naturalistic theory of how complex life arise to challenge credulity. If it were easy to imagine a means by which complex life arose, it would seem that the universe should be teeming with such life. But it is not - we have received no signs that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe even though there are, seemingly, quite a large number of planets out there (beyond our own solar system too, of course). In other words, since complex life is apparently relatively rare, a "straightforward" mechanism for its origin would seem unlikely.

I am not sure I have this argument right, but there it is as I understand it at the moment.

But forget about that and consider quantum theory and general relativity theory. Both, especially the former, are wildly counter-intuitive yet both are massively supported by the data.

In short, our universe is telling us quite clearly that it works according to "rules" that violently challenge our sense of what's plausible. So the fact that evolutionary theory seems hard to believe is not much of an argument agin it.

 

[Edward]

Personal incredulity does not make a refutation. I notice that you have been unable to address substantively any of the points made in either of the posts I have made in response to your own.

What it amounts to is that, the passage is obviously not talking about a penis. It's talking about a beast, an animal. I know that the bible uses euphemisms here and there, but this is not a euphemism. It's not that I find it incredible to believe but more along the lines of...how do I say this without being offensive? It's dumb and childish, not even really worthy of an academic response. It's so far out there, I was like, whoa, did you even read the passage? You must have read a different passage or something. It isn't even a matter of faith to know that that passage wasn't speaking about sex or sexual organs. It seemed more like sarcasm or something, but I have a good feeling that you're for real with that stuff. Boy I don't know where you latched onto that sort of thinking, but that really reaching.

Geez, I don't mind considering alternate views, but could you come up with something at least plausible? That's why I didn't even really address it in an academic way. It has no foundation in any plausible reality. Where do people think this stuff up?

I deny evolution, and after having heard the story and considered some halfway plausible so called evidence, and I wouldn't mind looking at more. Even if were to challenge credulity, there would still, in some way, be a way to wrap ones mind around it and see some sort of possible plausibility or credulity. Sorry man, but what you wrote does not. I'm reasonably intelligent but not gullible.

 

[lordkalvan]

What it amounts to is that, the passage is obviously not talking about a penis. It's talking about a beast, an animal. I know that the bible uses euphemisms here and there, but this is not a euphemism. It's not that I find it incredible to believe but more along the lines of...how do I say this without being offensive? It's dumb and childish, not even really worthy of an academic response. It's so far out there, I was like, whoa, did you even read the passage? You must have read a different passage or something. It isn't even a matter of faith to know that that passage wasn't speaking about sex or sexual organs. It seemed more like sarcasm or something, but I have a good feeling that you're for real with that stuff. Boy I don't know where you latched onto that sort of thinking, but that really reaching.

Geez, I don't mind considering alternate views, but could you come up with something at least plausible? That's why I didn't even really address it in an academic way. It has no foundation in any plausible reality. Where do people think this stuff up?

I deny evolution, and after having heard the story and considered some halfway plausible so called evidence, and I wouldn't mind looking at more. Even if were to challenge credulity, there would still, in some way, be a way to wrap ones mind around it and see some sort of possible plausibility or credulity. Sorry man, but what you wrote does not. I'm reasonably intelligent but not gullible.

And still you present no substantive refutation of any of the points I made, other than to assert that it is 'obvious' that the passage could not possibly include sexual imagery. In other words, all you have still seems to be personal incredulity. You may find this brief discussion of Job 40 helpful, including the reference to sexual imagery:

http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/old_testament_studies/VOL09AOT/VOL09AOT_40.html

Some of the commentaries cited here also discuss the possible sexual imagery in Job 40:

http://biblehub.com/job/40-17.htm

None of this has anything to do with the validity of evolutionary theory, by the way.

 

[lordkalvan]

I agree and it's an "argument" frequently used by those who deny evolution.

There is a compelling argument that runs like this: We should actually expect any naturalistic theory of how complex life arise to challenge credulity. If it were easy to imagine a means by which complex life arose, it would seem that the universe should be teeming with such life. But it is not - we have received no signs that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe even though there are, seemingly, quite a large number of planets out there (beyond our own solar system too, of course). In other words, since complex life is apparently relatively rare, a "straightforward" mechanism for its origin would seem unlikely.

I am not sure I have this argument right, but there it is as I understand it at the moment.

I follow this argument, but the idea that the Universe should be teeming with life depends on a number of variables, not the least of which are the prevalence of the conditions under which life might form and, after that, how it might develop. It might well be the case that life is common in the Universe, its apparent absence a consequence of the limitations of our ability to detect it. On an exciting note, the Rosetta/Philae mission currently ongoing may provide us with new insights into the origin and likely frequency of life.

But forget about that and consider quantum theory and general relativity theory. Both, especially the former, are wildly counter-intuitive yet both are massively supported by the data.

In short, our universe is telling us quite clearly that it works according to "rules" that violently challenge our sense of what's plausible. So the fact that evolutionary theory seems hard to believe is not much of an argument agin it.

I would have to disagree that evolutionary theory is hard to believe (most Christians accept it, after all), rather that its consequences challenge a theologically-derived worldview that has little to support it beyond the preferences of a few fallible, but vocal, human beings whose claim to the unique validity of their biblical interpretation is quite remarkable.

 

[Drew]

....life is common in the Universe, its apparent absence a consequence of the limitations of our ability to detect it.

I am only talking about complex life and while I have not thought this through, I would suggest that any complex life form would eventually develop technology to encode information unambiguously declaring its presence into radio signals and transmit them. So I would think that we should indeed be able to detect such life forms.

I would have to disagree that evolutionary theory is hard to believe (most Christians accept it, after all),....

Yes, but most Christians believe it on the authority of scientists; very few have really studied the theory well enough to know its details. Richard Dawkins argues that evolutionary theory is indeed "hard to believe" in the very special sense that it strikes humans as really implausible that such complex things as the human eye could arise strictly by "natural" processes. Now obviously Dawkins believes that this is the case; he just agrees that it seems really hard to believe at a first, non critical glance. Dawkins would agree with the creationist that the human eye really looks too complex for it to have arisen by anything other than "design" but, of course, he believes that Darwinian evolution provides a purely naturalistic explanation despite such appearances.

 

[lordkalvan]

I am only talking about complex life and while I have not thought this through, I would suggest that any complex life form would eventually develop technology to encode information unambiguously declaring its presence into radio signals and transmit them. So I would think that we should indeed be able to detect such life forms.

Sorry not to pick up on this distinction. Generally, I would agree with you, but assuming this technology was developed, if its transmission was limited by Einsteinian functions, then it could well take tens of thousands of years to reach us, depending on the distance to the transmitting civilisation. For instance, although humanity has been around for perhaps 200,000 years, we have only been electronically active for barely 1/2000th of that time and we have no assurance that our longevity will extend this period significantky. If alien cuitures are as flawed as ours appears it might be, perhaps they do not last long enough to transmit for a few hundreds or thousands of years and perhaps those 'windows' do not overlap our own.

Yes, but most Christians believe it on the authority of scientists; very few have really studied the theory well enough to know its details. Richard Dawkins argues that evolutionary theory is indeed "hard to believe" in the very special sense that it strikes humans as really implausible that such complex things as the human eye could arise strictly by "natural" processes. Now obviously Dawkins believes that this is the case; he just agrees that it seems really hard to believe at a first, non critical glance. Dawkins would agree with the creationist that the human eye really looks too complex for it to have arisen by anything other than "design" but, of course, he believes that Darwinian evolution provides a purely naturalistic explanation despite such appearances.

Okay, I take your point, but I think the 'hardness to believe' stems solely from the idea that evolution requires that the human eye be fully formed and fully functional as it is today. Once the fallacy behind this kind of thinking is realised, I still continue to believe that evolution is a simple concept that can be easily grasped.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Sorry not to pick up on this distinction. Generally, I would agree with you, but assuming this technology was developed, if its transmission was limited by Einsteinian functions, then it could well take tens of thousands of years to reach us, depending on the distance to the transmitting civilisation. For instance, although humanity has been around for perhaps 200,000 years, we have only been electronically active for barely 1/2000th of that time and we have no assurance that our longevity will extend this period significantky. If alien cuitures are as flawed as ours appears it might be, perhaps they do not last long enough to transmit for a few hundreds or thousands of years and perhaps those 'windows' do not overlap our own.

Okay, I take your point, but I think the 'hardness to believe' stems solely from the idea that evolution requires that the human eye be fully formed and fully functional as it is today. Once the fallacy behind this kind of thinking is realised, I still continue to believe that evolution is a simple concept that can be easily grasped.

I agree, there are some complex aspects of Evolution, but it is quite simple to grasp the basic mechanism of Natural Selection behind evolution. Especially given the amount of evidence we have today compared to Darwin's time, when he had so many mysteries yet to unravel.

 

[Rick W]

What or why someone believes as they do is not the topic and doesn't belong on the forum anyway.

 

[Drew]

...perhaps they do not last long enough to transmit for a few hundreds or thousands of years and perhaps those 'windows' do not overlap our own.

Agree.

.Okay, I take your point, but I think the 'hardness to believe' stems solely from the idea that evolution requires that the human eye be fully formed and fully functional as it is today. Once the fallacy behind this kind of thinking is realised, I still continue to believe that evolution is a simple concept that can be easily grasped.

I agree if you mean that it takes a lot of thought to imagine "intermediary" forms of the eye that confer survival value. As I understand it, conventional Darwinian theory entails an accumulation of very small changes over very long periods of time. But it does take some effort to "see" (no pun intended) what a simpler version of the eye might be and how such thing would confer survival benefit.

Anyway, I agree that, at a high level of description, the theory of evolution can be easily grasped. But it is by no means easy to work out the details; after all it was only about the middle of the 19th century that this model was discovered.

 

[Rick W]

 

[Drew]

did Dinosaurs live with and alongside modern day plants and animals and humans ? - any comments - twinc

To return to the topic, and while I have not read the entire thread, I am confident that the vast, vast majority of properly credentialed experts would agree that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.

 

[Edward]

I follow this argument, but the idea that the Universe should be teeming with life depends on a number of variables, not the least of which are the prevalence of the conditions under which life might form and, after that, how it might develop. It might well be the case that life is common in the Universe, its apparent absence a consequence of the limitations of our ability to detect it. On an exciting note, the Rosetta/Philae mission currently ongoing may provide us with new insights into the origin and likely frequency of life.

This almost deserves a thread of it's own. Unfortunately (LOL), I've done some reading on this also, and there's ways to sort of calculate a reasonable number for this even though there's admittadly a lot of guesswork involved in the gathering on data. So presumptions were made to just get an idea...and...I wont tell the result yet, dunno if there is really that much interest or if the mods would even allow that in this thread.

 

[Rick W]

Another thread would be appropriate, yes.

 

[twinc]

To return to the topic, and while I have not read the entire thread, I am confident that the vast, vast majority of properly credentialed experts would agree that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.

no doubt, it seems because of illusion and suppression - via google see [The illusion of Academic Freedom] by Apologetics Press and [Quick.....lets discriminate] and [Slaughter of the Dissidents] - twinc

 

[lordkalvan]

no doubt, it seems because of illusion and suppression - via google see [The illusion of Academic Freedom] by Apologetics Press and [Quick.....lets discriminate] and [Slaughter of the Dissidents] - twinc

Why do you think others need to do the work to support your POV?