d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Adam And Eve
Prev123419Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1962Replies: 187Track Topic
Member
Posts: 19,152
Joined: Dec 21 2008
Gold: 65.00
#11
May 23 2011 08:33am
Quote (DViolent @ May 24 2011 12:29am)
lol @ your time frame.

dinosaurs around when people where? idontthinkso


Don't argue with the N-man you'll be here all day...lol...

I'd like the argue the manor in which he portrayed the time frames using the swimming example but I learned from experience that it's just not worth the time t.t

Quote (njaguar @ May 24 2011 12:31am)
Would love to see your proof. It's great that you believe these things to be so, and you have every right to do so. I already outlined one potential flaw, which knowing your background in the PaRD, there is little chance you read (let alone understood) it.

Don't be mad because Christianity can explain these things. I know that really ruffles your feathers.


it has begun!!!!!11!!

This post was edited by Vengance on May 23 2011 08:34am
Member
Posts: 40,915
Joined: Jul 8 2009
Gold: 0.00
#12
May 23 2011 08:34am
Quote (njaguar @ May 23 2011 08:31am)
Would love to see your proof. It's great that you believe these things to be so, and you have every right to do so. I already outlined one potential flaw, which knowing your background in the PaRD, there is little chance you read (let alone understood) it.

Don't be mad because Christianity can explain these things. I know that really ruffles your feathers.


Archaeology has failed to place mankind and the dinosaurs together. It doesn't mean it's not possible, but at this point I would say it is very very unlikely.
Member
Posts: 6,685
Joined: Sep 13 2008
Gold: 24.00
#13
May 23 2011 08:36am
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible

Quote
The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24–31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.




http://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/
Quote
Humans have spread across the entire planet, colonizing every corner. But humans have really been on the planet for a fraction of the lifetime of the Earth. Archeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years.



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_have_dinosaurs_been_extinct
Quote

The non avian dinosaurs died out at the end of the Mesozoic. That was 65.5 million years ago. However, birds, a group of dinosaurs, continue to exist to the present day.



bolded are my points. the 1st link is to show how stupid it sounds.
Admin
Posts: 24,393
Joined: Sep 24 2002
Gold: 15,820.00
Trader: Trusted
#14
May 23 2011 08:38am
Quote (Vengance @ 23 May 2011 09:33)
Don't argue with the N-man you'll be here all day...lol...

I'd like the argue the manor in which he portrayed the time frames using the swimming example but I learned from experience that it's just not worth the time t.t


It's just a simple analogy. Prove me wrong, please, I enjoy learning, I do so every day.

Fact: We do not know the start date of things we are dating.
Fact: We do not know the start conditions for the time period, nor environment, nor thing we are dating.
Fact: We do not know the environmental conditions between the start and current time for the thing we are dating, which may or may not affect the dating process(s).
Fact: The age of the things dated are always assumed before they are dated, and used as a baseline to "prove" the estimate.
Fact: Numerous dating methods only work on very specific types of "things". For instance, carbon dating is not accurate on living things. Likewise, it is not accurate beyond a certain age. Other dating techniques are used for longer terms, but are not as useful for short terms. This presents a problem, because we cannot know for certain how old an object is, nor that "long term" dating techniques are even remotely accurate by our very small time frame of observance of element decay (used for certain dating techniques).
Fact: Dating techniques always return back an "estimate" time period, not an exact date. This by itself shows that the dating techniques are even self-prescribed to not be empirically accurate.
Admin
Posts: 24,393
Joined: Sep 24 2002
Gold: 15,820.00
Trader: Trusted
#15
May 23 2011 08:41am
Quote (DViolent @ 23 May 2011 09:36)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible

http://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_have_dinosaurs_been_extinct

bolded are my points. the 1st link is to show how stupid it sounds.


Not sure what you're saying with the first quote, but the second is also suspect, because estimates range from that range (and less) to as much as 6 million years old for humans. That's a pretty damn big range. That's like saying "yeah, you need 100lbs of sugar in your cake, give or take 99lbs."

And the last, perhaps you should learn how the dating techniques work, and more specifically, the process by which the dating takes place. Not to mention how the periods of time were defined (see: earth stratus). These "time periods" were defined before we had dating techniques, which were then base-lined to these pre-existing time estimates. Circular logic ftw!
Member
Posts: 5,105
Joined: Apr 10 2008
Gold: 1,680.00
#16
May 23 2011 08:42am
Quote (njaguar @ May 23 2011 10:38am)
It's just a simple analogy. Prove me wrong, please, I'm enjoy learning, I do so every day.

Fact: We do not know the start date of things we are dating.
Fact: We do not know the start conditions for the time period, nor environment, nor thing we are dating.
Fact: We do not know the environmental conditions between the start and current time for the thing we are dating, which may or may not affect the dating process(s).
Fact: The age of the things dated are always assumed before they are dated, and used as a baseline to "prove" the estimate.
Fact: Numerous dating methods only work on very specific types of "things". For instance, carbon dating is not accurate on living things. Likewise, it is not accurate beyond a certain age. Other dating techniques are used for longer terms, but are not as useful for short terms. This presents a problem, because we cannot know for certain how old an object is, nor that "long term" dating techniques are even remotely accurate by our very small time frame of observance of element decay (used for certain dating techniques).
Fact: Dating techniques always return back an "estimate" time period, not an exact date. This by itself shows that the dating techniques are even self-prescribed to not be empirically accurate.


So why weren't* dinosaurs depicted in any art work back then? And why mass extinction? If humans are the cause of this, why no records?

This post was edited by VxDoomxV on May 23 2011 08:42am
Member
Posts: 40,915
Joined: Jul 8 2009
Gold: 0.00
#17
May 23 2011 08:45am
Quote (VxDoomxV @ May 23 2011 08:42am)
So why weren't* dinosaurs depicted in any art work back then? And why mass extinction? If humans are the cause of this, why no records?


Artwork was not always used to record history. In many cases there was no written record at all.

As for the mass extinction, I have a tendency to lean on the disease theory as opposed to the more 'romantic' cataclysm theories.
Admin
Posts: 24,393
Joined: Sep 24 2002
Gold: 15,820.00
Trader: Trusted
#18
May 23 2011 08:46am
Quote (VxDoomxV @ 23 May 2011 09:42)
So why weren't* dinosaurs depicted in any art work back then? And why mass extinction? If humans are the cause of this, why no records?


There are depictions of dinosaur like creatures in many ancient pieces of art. This is often cited as one of the most compelling pieces of evidence.

I apologize that this is from a Christian website, but all of the art is real. Don't read the text if you don't want to, just look at the art, and cross reference the art to a time period for yourself. This is just the quickest link I found that had a lot of compiled information in one page. Simple google searches will get you more results as well.
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Regarding the extinction, this is just a theory (mass extinction), and doesn't explain why all mammals didn't die out as well. Why only dinosaurs? Why all, including the flying reptiles? Seems to me that hominids would have been as prone or more prone to such an extinction.
Member
Posts: 19,152
Joined: Dec 21 2008
Gold: 65.00
#19
May 23 2011 08:48am
Quote (njaguar @ May 24 2011 12:38am)
It's just a simple analogy. Prove me wrong, please, I'm enjoy learning, I do so every day.

Fact: We do not know the start date of things we are dating.
Fact: We do not know the start conditions for the time period, nor environment, nor thing we are dating.
Fact: We do not know the environmental conditions between the start and current time for the thing we are dating, which may or may not affect the dating process(s).
Fact: The age of the things dated are always assumed before they are dated, and used as a baseline to "prove" the estimate.
Fact: Numerous dating methods only work on very specific types of "things". For instance, carbon dating is not accurate on living things. Likewise, it is not accurate beyond a certain age. Other dating techniques are used for longer terms, but are not as useful for short terms. This presents a problem, because we cannot know for certain how old an object is, nor that "long term" dating techniques are even remotely accurate by our very small time frame of observance of element decay (used for certain dating techniques).
Fact: Dating techniques always return back an "estimate" time period, not an exact date. This by itself shows that the dating techniques are even self-prescribed to not be empirically accurate.


I'm enjoy learning too sir; it's not that I disagree with your analogy, it's just that you covered the same aspect of it twice, '...and how long each lap took, which pool he swam in...'
The time it takes you to swim in any pool at any length is proportional if taking into account the density of the water is around 997kg/m^3 as per normal. Therefore which pool he swam in is irrelevant as long as it was 'normal'
Member
Posts: 9,693
Joined: Apr 7 2006
Gold: 330.00
#20
May 23 2011 08:49am
@Njaguar: 2 =/= 3. Not even for large values of 2.

The only way to make this equation work is to basically say that maths is fundamentally flawed, and that you don't believe in it.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123419Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact