Stop what you're doing and laugh at the U.S.

[Horve]

3) Fossils with soft tissue slime present that cast doubt on the actual age of fossils. on my ability to comprehend reality.

Christians can and do have a personal relationship with God: something that's absent in every other religion.

Christianity isn't something I've read or memorized; it's something I've EXPERIENCED IMAGINED.  As someone outside of the religion, you can't possibly understand what that's like because I am a very special boy and you are nothing, but let me assure you, it's something that's very real, it has to be. Oh God please, I beg you, exist, please!

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Oh boy there's more.  iDante, I'm just going to respond with a couple of points, rather than doing the "quote and respond" thing.

1) As I said to DarkCrusade, the main defining factor of the behemoth is its tail, which isn't really reminiscent of any old "big animal."

2) There was a reason I said to search for the "dinosaur" cryptids instead of the page as a whole.  Mokele-mbembe in particular has a long history associated with it beyond "some woman saw a hairy dude in the woods."

3) Mythology is very often based on fact.  Perhaps there's a reason that so many independent mythologies have dragons, sort of like how so many have a flood story.

4) Fair enough.  I linked to an actual news site instead of a YEC website in hopes of avoiding their stigma, but if something is wrong, it's wrong.

5) It differs based on the theory in question.
http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php


Not even going to bother to respond to Horve.

[croat1gamer]

Im rather curious for point #3, where was it mentioned?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

It was a response to

2) Ancient depictions of dinosaurs that were made well before fossils were dug up or reconstructed to base the depictions on.

Giant horrific beasts have always been a major part of mythology, that doesn't mean they were real at the time. This as an argument could be extended to: Chinese art features dragons, therefore dragons were real in China. Job describes a dragon, OMG DRAGONS ARE REAL.

If you want my source for the flood myths part, there's a decent sized list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

[iDante]

1) As I said to DarkCrusade, the main defining factor of the behemoth is its tail, which isn't really reminiscent of any old "big animal."

On that subject. If dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, in biblical times, would there not be more mentioning the great reptiles in the bible than a few lines in Job? In Genesis, for example, wouldn't god have given humans dominion over "the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, oh and over the giant dinosaurs." A weak argument, I know, but seriously, a single beast in one book of the bible with a tail like a tree doesn't warrant absolute denial of scientific facts.

2) There was a reason I said to search for the "dinosaur" cryptids instead of the page as a whole.  Mokele-mbembe in particular has a long history associated with it beyond "some woman saw a hairy dude in the woods."

Maaaan just READ what you post!

It could be considered loosely analogous to the Loch Ness Monster in Western culture.
Several expeditions have been mounted in the hope of finding evidence of the Mokèlé-mbèmbé, though without success.

The "dinosaur" cryptids have as little going for them as do the rest of them.

3) Mythology is very often based on fact.  Perhaps there's a reason that so many independent mythologies have dragons, sort of like how so many have a flood story.

So... unicorns and fairy tales now? I've got it! Frost giants must have inhabited Earth, since mythology is very often based on fact. A snake (ooh that's biblical isn't it!) circles the entire world of men! Oh wait you mean just the mythologies that agree with your christian ideas.

5) It differs based on the theory in question.
http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

I did say rigorous. Those aren't rigorous by modern standards, or they aren't actual scientific theories.

[DarkCrusade]

Oh boy.. here we go again..

Just so I'm clear on where we stand, what exactly would you consider "direct evidence of any influence by God"? That's important.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (<BOLD+ITALIC)

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.  Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.  He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.  His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.  He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Obviously it doesn't use the term "dinosaur" because the word didn't exist at the time of translation.  However, those verses provide a pretty decent description of a sauropod; what other animal eats grass and has a tail that moves "like a cedar"?

Sorry for actually using the term "God" here, but it is such a common expression: Oh my God!

That's like catching for straws! I guess you're refering to this ugly guy here. You take the Bible for real and that's the real problem. The Bible is no historical book. They made up a stroooong creature so people would fear it. It's like when your mom told you to go to bed or the big bad monster would come and eat you when you were a child. The term that's popping up again is "belief". This is based on belief, and this is no scientific evidence for the existence of big bad creatures that we see in splatter-movies.[/quote]

Are you saying you didn't actual visit the site? The reason I linked to that page in particular (rather than some of the other, more dubious ones) was because of the abundance of actual photographs of pottery, carvings, drawings, etc. on it, all depicting dinosaurs.  IIRC, there are examples of stegosauruses from Asia, Africa, and the Americas, created hundreds of years apart by independent cultures, yet showing the same striking resemblance to each other AND modern reconstructions of stegosauruses.  There are more cases than just that one, obviously, but it was the one that stood out most to me.

Thanks for ONLY READING THE FIRST SENTENCE REFERRING TO GENESIS PARK. Plain IGNORE THE REST AND IT'S FINE, HUH? How can you actually quote my post and ignore the important part? What I was stating was, that the value of the website of Genesis Park is very limited for this discussion. It's fine if you show it to your fellow creationists, but it's nothing to take into a debate or discussion. They just give their facts to us readers and expect us to take whatever they sell us, but there are no quotes and no qualified statements can be found either.

3) I don't know why you've posted that one. Someone made a theory that the soft tissue wouldn't be preserved that long and they got proved wrong. What's the matter?

Well, "the matter" is that's the wrong way of looking at it.  I limited my example to the dinosaur fossils, since that was the most relevant, but there are plenty of instances of human tools and remains being found in rock layers that are supposedly millions of years old.  The point I'm trying to make is that dating methods are suspect, and that it's actually feasible for dinosaurs to have been around a lot more recently than scientific consensus allows for.

Scientific methods to determine an objects age are very precise. I don't know where you got this from. It's getting late and I don't feel like explaining to you why you can't know how long soft tissue won't decompose when modern science is young.

Thanks to this most recent post, I see now why I avoided joining the debate before. We're actually debating with someone who completly ignores or absolutly doubts scientific researches, because he believes that humans said hello to Mr. T-Rex before going to work in a café.   

[Horve]

Mokèlé-mbèmbé, meaning "one who stops the flow of rivers" in the Lingala language, is the name given to a large water-dwelling cryptid found in legends and folklore of the Congo River basin. It is sometimes described as a living creature and sometimes as a spirit. It could be considered loosely analogous to the Loch Ness Monster in Western culture.

Several expeditions have been mounted in the hope of finding evidence of the Mokèlé-mbèmbé, though without success.

myth
noun
1. A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events/
      Supernatural (of a manifestation or event): not existing in nature or subject to explanation
         according to natural       laws; not physical or material.
2. Such stories collectively
   the heroes of Greek myth
3. A widely held but false belief or idea
4. A misrepresentation of the truth
5. A fictitious or imaginary person or thing
6. An exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing

[Veritas]

People have an unfortunate tendency to treat science as a monolithic entity that claims X, Y, and Z to be true. This leads others to believe that any sort of inconsistency in those claims causes the entire house of cards to come tumbling down; see: young Earth creationists, climate change denialists, evolution denialists, &c. The truth is these gaps, the inconsistencies, the instances of discoveries being straight-up wrong are a feature of science, rather than an argument against it. The scientific method requires repeatability, the ability for an independent researcher to repeat an experiment and get the same result. Any sort of discrepancy is a good thing! By exposing flaws, we are able to tweak a hypothesis until we are confident in our understanding of the phenomenon. This is absolutely the case in the age of the Earth, which has such a mountain of evidence behind it that you may as well be complaining its missing a pebble.

Of course, this goes both ways: people (you may have met some!!!) love to treat superficial gaps in religion as felling blows while completely ignoring any sort of theological work. So it goes.

[croat1gamer]

Good thing that myths are beliefs in which (most) people stopped believing and it was proven that they are false. The current religions are widely believed (and 'researching' them is something of a taboo theme), but when their followers stop believing in them, they will also become myths.

And its not like the ancient nations couldve found also some fossils and make assumptions of what beasts have roamed earth before. You know that anything people couldnt explain was explained with the superstitious "DIVINE POWER!" phrase.

[demoniac93]

@Mangled: Let's not forget that at some point Galileo backed down from his claims about his findings and started spreading them in secret. I see no sacrifice there.

He was persecuted by the Catholic church for telling the truth. He could have easily been killed for what he was doing.

Oh I see, ignore all the negative aspects and so long as he wasn't killed then he didn't sacrifice anything. Maybe if he was killed then his theories would have been covered up by the Catholic church. I'm pretty sure the Catholic church would still like to cover up the fact that they persecuted Galileo. They seem pretty set on covering up anything that's controversial like molestation, so it's not a huge surprise.

Oh no, I'm being unfair... All of the priests who rape children aren't really Catholic at all... they just happen to be rapists who are Catholic priests. Coincidence. Quick! Cover it up and then blame secularism for the Nazi's!

This caught my attention the most, so...
The Catholic church does NOT cover up for it's past, if anything, it's the only "organization" that I've ever known that is the very first to admit it's mistakes even before correcting them.

The Catholic church doesn't work under any covers, all studies/decisions/actions performed by the Catholic church are done in the light of day, in the open. And perhaps that's why for the last 2 or so centuries people have been attacking it so ferociously.
Also, any priest belonging to the Catholic church is immediately excommunicated from the church once found guilty of something such as molestation.
I repeat: Check your info.

That's why the church doesn't announce anyone's sainthood while they are still alive; Because man can give in to sin and evil at any time. As I said, there are no givens in the Catholic point of view.

[DarkCrusade]

@demoniac: This is so wrong on so many levels that I just don't need to reply to you.

I repeat: Check your info.

[Mangled*]

This caught my attention the most, so...
The Catholic church does NOT cover up for it's past, if anything, it's the only "organization" that I've ever known that is the very first to admit it's mistakes even before correcting them.

The Catholic church doesn't work under any covers, all studies/decisions/actions performed by the Catholic church are done in the light of day, in the open. And perhaps that's why for the last 2 or so centuries people have been attacking it so ferociously.
Also, any priest belonging to the Catholic church is immediately excommunicated from the church once found guilty of something such as molestation.
I repeat: Check your info.

That's why the church doesn't announce anyone's sainthood while they are still alive; Because man can give in to sin and evil at any time. As I said, there are no givens in the Catholic point of view.

Where exactly do you get all your 'information'? Is there some kind of Catholic online encyclopedia that has Catholic-friendly 'answers' to every burning issue?

Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's a very popular non-biased encyclopedia. You should try it.

Also.

Also did you know that Vatican city statistically has the highest crime rate in the world? So that's nice.

[demoniac93]

This caught my attention the most, so...
The Catholic church does NOT cover up for it's past, if anything, it's the only "organization" that I've ever known that is the very first to admit it's mistakes even before correcting them.

The Catholic church doesn't work under any covers, all studies/decisions/actions performed by the Catholic church are done in the light of day, in the open. And perhaps that's why for the last 2 or so centuries people have been attacking it so ferociously.
Also, any priest belonging to the Catholic church is immediately excommunicated from the church once found guilty of something such as molestation.
I repeat: Check your info.

That's why the church doesn't announce anyone's sainthood while they are still alive; Because man can give in to sin and evil at any time. As I said, there are no givens in the Catholic point of view.

Where exactly do you get all your 'information'? Is there some kind of Catholic online encyclopedia that has Catholic-friendly 'answers' to every burning issue?

Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's a very popular non-biased encyclopedia. You should try it.

Also.

Also did you know that Vatican city statistically has the highest crime rate in the world? So that's nice.

Riiight, because after the church's persecutions, and after the church finally stopped being part of the government, it's supposed to be governing the state again?
And the info that I get comes from an encyclopedia better than any: The church itself.

[dnmr]

And the info that I get comes from an encyclopedia better than any: The church itself.

sorry, but...


AAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

[homerofgods]

Actually, I think they have made most documents open to the public now, despite the rumors and their reputation.
The Da Vinci Code has for example put the church in a bad light, but it is but fiction.
I don't know everything about the catholic church, but I would deffenetly do some research before claiming this, because there are many lies about the catholic church aswell.

And the info that I get comes from an encyclopedia better than any: The church itself.

sorry, but...


AAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

I think if you go to the church you can see the documents first hand, like a library.

[Mittsu]

I think if you go to the church you can see the documents first hand, like a library.

what documents

[DarkCrusade]

@Demoniac: Are you saying you visited Vatican city and read all the documents relevant for the subject of this topic?

Trololol

[demoniac93]

@Demoniac: Are you saying you visited Vatican city and read all the documents relevant for the subject of this topic?

Trololol

Right, basic "I don't give a shit about it all" atheist strategy: Resort to jokes when all else fails.
I didn't visit the Vatican library yet, but I plan to some day. Though the priest of my local parish has been to the Vatican, and seen some original documents there during his many visits. He wasn't allowed to take photos though, it was before the documents were made public.

[DarkCrusade]

You stated you get your information from the church. Now you say you didn't get them yet, but you make points here which you base on an event in the future. It's either me or you who's being confused. Clear me up please

[croat1gamer]

You know, because the church would clearly release all of their material to the publics uncensored.

Also, something i learned during history of art lessons in school, and it is relating to the figure of Jesus as god. Until the first council of Nicaea, Jesus was depicted more as a prophet (good shepherd and similar) than a part of the trinity. Its kinda interesting because it shows that people in christianity's beginnings were thinking of Jesus more as a spiritual leader, not god.
Unrelated to that, im pretty sure that i havent seen Jesus calling himself god; and he calls everyone god's children so that the "father" doesnt have to mean that he also is god.