[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
Refer to this thread for a understanding of what is taking place here [URL]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32788[/URL]
I am going to start this in a new thread as it will make the reading much easier with a new set of pages to thumb through.
This time I am going to get straight down to business.
This should be a more interesting thread than the other one.
I have to admit I did start off a little rough in the last one but as I said here straight to business.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
One of the most basic, and most fundamental, issues that can be considered by the human mind is the question, “Does God exist?” In the field of logic, there are principles—or as they are called more often, laws—that govern human thought processes and that are accepted as analytically true. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. When applied to objects, this law states that an object cannot both possess and not possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in the same fashion. When applied to propositions, this law states that all precisely stated propositions are either true or false; they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same fashion.
The statement, “God exists,” is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One cannot affirm logically both the existence and nonexistence of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or not?
The only way to answer this question, of course, is to seek out and examine the evidence. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that if there is a God, He would make available to us evidence adequate to the task of proving His existence. But does such evidence exist? And if it does, what is the nature of that evidence?
The theist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that God does exist, and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of God. However, when we employ the word “prove,” we do not mean that God’s existence can be demonstrated scientifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a [I]prima facie[/I] case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jackson, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the theist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable [I]prima facie[/I] case for the existence of God—a case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the [I]prima facie[/I] case for the existence of God, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based.
[B]CAUSE AND EFFECT—THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT[/B]
Throughout human history, one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God has been the cosmological argument, which addresses the fact that the Universe (Cosmos) is here and therefore must be explained in some fashion. In his book, [I]Not A Chance[/I], R.C. Sproul observed:[INDENT]Traditional philosophy argued for the existence of God on the foundation of the law of causality. The cosmological argument went from the presence of a cosmos back to a creator of the cosmos. It sought a rational answer to the question, “[B]Why[/B] is there something rather than nothing?” It sought a sufficient reason for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.).[/INDENT]The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, “What [B]caused[/B] the Universe?”
It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:[INDENT]The statement “Every effect has an antecedent cause” is [B]analytically true[/B]. To say that it is analytically or formally true is to say that it is true by definition or analysis. There is nothing in the predicate that is not already contained by resistless logic in the subject. It is like the statement, “A bachelor is an unmarried man” or “A triangle has three sides” or “Two plus two are four....” Cause and effect, though distinct ideas, are inseparably bound together in rational discourse. It is meaningless to say that something is a [B]cause[/B] if it yields no [B]effect[/B]. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an [B]effect[/B] if it has no [B]cause[/B]. A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause. An effect, by definition, must have a cause, or it is not an effect (1994, pp. 172,171 emp. in orig.).[/INDENT]Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause. In addition, the effect is never qualitatively superior to, or quantitatively greater than, the cause. This knowledge is responsible for our formulation of the law of causality in these words: Every material effect must have an [B]adequate[/B] antecedent cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall from the table because the fly lighted on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we observe, we must postulate adequate antecedent causes—which brings us back to the original question: What caused the Universe?
There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.
[B]Is the Universe Eternal?[/B]
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any “first cause” such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding. These scientists suggested that at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence [B]from nothing[/B]. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to “go” somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter, that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed, etc.
However, the Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of science—the first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. Astronomer Robert Jastrow observed:[INDENT]But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).[/INDENT]The Steady State Theory eventually was relegated to the relic heaps of history. Yet problems for those who advocated an eternal Universe continued to multiply because such a concept violated the second law of thermodynamics as well. Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transformed from a usable to a nonusable form. The Universe is “running down” because energy is becoming less available for use. As Jastrow has remarked:[INDENT]And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up. Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished astronomer of his day, wrote: “If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe.” When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49).[/INDENT]A year before making that admission, Dr. Jastrow made another important concession when he wrote:[INDENT]Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever;... The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same; [B]modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe[/B], either in the past or in the future (1977, pp. 19,30, emp. added).[/INDENT]The scientific evidence states clearly that the Universe had a beginning—something eternal things do not have. Nor do eternal things “run down,” yet clearly the Universe is doing just that, as Dr. Jastrow has noted. As Henry Morris has commented, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (1974, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe is now known not to be eternal.
[B]Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?[/B]
In the past, it would have been practically impossible to find any reputable scientist who would be willing to advocate a self-created Universe. George Davis, a prominent physicist of the past generation, explained why when he wrote: “No material thing can create itself.” Further, Dr. Davis affirmed that this statement “cannot be logically attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us” (1958, p. 71). The Universe is the created, not the creator.
However, as surprising as it may seem, some in the scientific and philosophical communities have stepped forward to defend the option that the Universe simply created itself out of nothing. Edward P. Tryon, professor of physics at the City University of New York, wrote for example: “In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing, as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both” (1984, p. 14). But the real push for the acceptance of a self-created Universe came as a result of an article published in the May 1984 issue of [I]Scientific American[/I]. Under the title of “The Inflationary Universe,” evolutionists Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt wrote:[INDENT]From a historical point of view, probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing.... The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that [B]the entire Universe evolved from literally nothing[/B] (1984, p. 128, emp. added).[/INDENT]Such ideas as those set forth by Tryon, Guth, Steinhardt, and others have set off a wave of controversy within the scientific community, as is evident from heated discussions at annual scientific meetings, articles published in refereed scientific journals, books written on a scholarly level, and even items appearing in popular science magazines. For example, in the summer 1994 edition of the [I]Skeptical Inquirer[/I], Ralph Estling of Great Britain wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Estling suggested:[INDENT]The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of—out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever.... They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can’t help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing (1994, 18[4]:430).[/INDENT]Estling’s article provoked numerous letters to the editor of the [I]Skeptical Inquirer[/I], which were printed, with Estling’s response, in the January/February 1995 issue. Estling wrote, in part: “All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness” (1995, 19[1]:69-70).
Estling is correct, of course. There is no evidence that would allow matter or energy simply to “pop into existence” of its own accord. This suggestion is in clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, to suggest that the Universe created itself is to posit a self-contradictory position. Sproul addressed this when he wrote that what an atheist or agnostic[INDENT]...deems possible for the world to do—come into being without a cause—is something no judicious philosopher would grant that even God could do. It is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come into being without a cause as it is for the world to do so.... For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be, plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by the other necessity we’ve labored so painstakingly to establish: It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power (1994, pp. 179,180).[/INDENT]Science is based on observation and reproducibility. But when pressed for the reproducible, empirical data that document their claim of a self-created Universe, scientists and philosophers are at a loss to produce those data. Perhaps this is why Alan Guth lamented: “In the end, I must admit that questions of plausibility are not logically determinable and depend somewhat on intuition” (1988, 11[2]:76)—which is little more than a fancy way of saying, “I certainly [B]wish[/B] this were true, but I could not [B]prove[/B] it to you if my life depended on it.”
The eminent British astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, put the matter in perspective when he wrote: “[B]The new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory[/B], although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (1988, p. 132, emp. added). The Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd, philosophically and scientifically.
[B]Was the Universe Created?[/B]
Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. But all available evidence indicates that the Universe did have a beginning. If the Universe had a beginning, it either had a cause or it did not. One thing we know assuredly, however: it is correct—logically and scientifically—to acknowledge that the Universe had a cause, because the Universe is an effect, and requires an adequate antecedent cause. Nothing causeless happens. Since it is apparent that the Universe it not eternal, and since likewise it is apparent that the Universe could not have created itself, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe [B]was created[/B] by something, or Someone, that: (a) existed before it, i.e., some eternal, uncaused First Cause; (b) is superior to it—since the created cannot be superior to the creator; and (c) is of a different nature, since the finite, contingent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself (see Jackson and Carroll, n.d., 2:98-154).
In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when [B]nothing[/B] existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, [B]since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever[/B]. As Sproul has remarked:[INDENT]Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then [B]something[/B] must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.).[/INDENT]Everything that exists can be classified as either [B]matter[/B] (which includes energy), or [B]mind[/B]. There is no third alternative. The theist’s argument, then, is this: [LIST=1] []Everything that exists is either matter or mind. []Something exists now, so something eternal must exist. []Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.[/LIST][LIST=1] []Either matter or mind is eternal. []Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above. []Thus, it is mind that is eternal.[/LIST]
In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint is no longer intellectually credible, as a result of the scientific experiments of British neurologist, Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere [B]intention[/B] to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology in [I]The Self and Its Brain[/I], co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977). In a discussion centering on Dr. Eccles’ work, Norman Geisler discussed the concept of an eternal, all-knowing Mind.[INDENT]Further, this infinite cause of all that is must be all-knowing. It must be knowing because knowing beings exist. I am a knowing being, and I know it.... But a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. If the effect actually possesses some characteristic, then this characteristic is properly attributed to its cause. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind or ability to know is received, then there must be Mind or Knower who gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the nonintellectual; something cannot arise from nothing (1976, p. 247).[/INDENT]From evidence such as that presented here, Robert Jastrow (an agnostic, by his own admission) was forced to conclude: “That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (1982, p. 10 ). The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.
[B][B]CONCLUSION[/B][/B]
The law of cause and effect, and the cosmological argument based upon that law, have serious implications in every field of human endeavor. The Universe is here, and must have an adequate antecedent cause. In addressing this problem, R.L. Wysong commented:[INDENT]Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable.... The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy (1976, p. 412, first ellipsis in orig.).[/INDENT]Dr. Wysong then presented an interesting historical case to illustrate his point. Some years ago, scientists were called to Great Britain to study orderly patterns of concentric rocks and holes—a find designated as Stonehenge. As studies progressed, it became apparent that these patterns had been designed specifically to allow certain astronomical predictions. Many questions (e.g., how ancient peoples were able to construct an astronomical observatory, how the data derived from their studies were used, etc.) remain unsolved. But one thing is known—the [B]cause[/B] of Stonehenge was intelligent design.
Now, suggested Dr. Wysong, compare Stonehenge to the situation paralleling the origin of the Universe, and of life itself. We study life, observe its functions, contemplate its complexity (which defies duplication even by intelligent men with the most advanced methodology and technology), and what are we to conclude? Stonehenge [B]might[/B] have been produced by the erosion of a mountain, or by catastrophic natural forces working in conjunction with meteorites to produce rock formations and concentric holes. But what scientist or philosopher ever would suggest such an idea?
No one ever could be convinced that Stonehenge “just happened” by accident, yet atheists and agnostics expect us to believe that this highly ordered, well-designed Universe, and the complicated life it contains, “just happened.” To accept such an idea is, to use Dr. Wysong’s words, “to break stride from what is natural to believe” because the conclusion is unreasonable, unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts at hand. The cause simply is not adequate to produce the effect. The central message of the Cosmological Argument, and the law of cause and effect upon which it is based, is this: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The Universe is here; intelligent life is here; morality is here; love is here. What is their adequate antecedent cause? Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence that Itself is both moral and loving. When the Bible records, “In the beginning, God...,” it makes known to us just such a First Cause.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
Sink you teeth into that for a bit. It is nearly time for me to retire for the day.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
yawn
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[IMG]http://secondnegative.com/images/midvale.gif[/IMG]
Re: Straight to the business at hand
:ShootMe:
Re: Straight to the business at hand
god exists because we don't yet understand where the universe came from? thats what i got out of it.
on a kinda related note: “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe and its evolution,” Dr. Smoot said in a news conference on the results in 1992. About a map showing the splotchy seeds of galaxy formation, he famously said, “If you are religious, it is like looking at God.” [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/science/04nobel.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin[/url]
Re: Straight to the business at hand
that's a lot of words
Re: Straight to the business at hand
yup that entire post came down to
there exist some things that science has yet to be able to touch and research, therefore the currently unknown is GOD> they thought that way before darwin too. they also used to think weather was god's anger. flooding was revenge. drought was a test.
dude, stop posting theories without evidence, and biblical quotes.
we can verify evolution, we can verify the birth of this galaxy, and others. its only time until these ideas are disproven and its in motion.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
coming next week guys, Mercury Religion Forum
Re: Straight to the business at hand
^ | population: 1
Re: Straight to the business at hand
Just looking for a descent intelligent conversation. For some reason that seems to elude this forum.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
nah. you just need to pick a topic that matters to the majority.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[LEFT][B][FONT=Times New Roman]NECESSITY OF DESIGN:[/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Times New Roman]An Open Letter Supporting Creation from[/FONT][/B][/LEFT]
[B][FONT=Times New Roman]NASA [/FONT][/B] [LEFT][B][FONT=Times New Roman]Rocket Scientist Wernher Von Braun[/FONT][/B][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]to the law and order of the Universe without concluding[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the[/FONT] [LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]world around us,wecan behold theobvious manifestations[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]of an ordered, structured plan or design.We can see the will[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]by the powerful forces atwork on a galactic scale, and the[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]seedwiththe ability todevelopintoabeautiful flower.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]The better we understand the intricacies of the Universe[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]at the inherent designuponwhichit is based.[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]While the admission of a design for the Universe ultimately[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]the realm of science), the scientific method does not allow[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]us to exclude datawhichlead to the conclusion that theUniverse,[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]life, and man are based on design. To be forced to[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]believe only one conclusion?that everything in the Universe[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]happenedbychance?would violate thevery objectivity[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]of science itself. Certainly there are thosewhoargue[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]that the Universe evolved via a random process, but what[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]random process could produce the brain of a man or the[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]humaneye?[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]Some people suggest that science has been unable to[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand,[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]and they do not deny that the Universe, as modern[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]the creation that medieval man could perceive. But they still[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]maintain that since science has provided us with so many[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]nature without invoking divine intent.They challenge science[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]to prove the existence of God. [B]But must we really[/B][/FONT] [B][FONT=Times New Roman]lightacandle to see theSun?[/FONT][/B][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]Manymenwhoare intelligent and of good faith say they[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]cannot visualize a Designer.Well, can a physicist visualize[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable,[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]the night skies and take the most accurate measurements.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]of Him? I amafraid that, although they really do not[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]model of it borrowed from rather limited experience[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]in other fields, yet theywould not knowhowto begin building a model of God.[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]I have discussed the aspect of a Grand Designer atsome[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]length because it might be that the primary resistance to[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]acknowledging the ?case for design? as a viable scientific[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]alternative to the current ?case for ?chance? lies in the inconceivability,[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]in some scientists?minds, of a Designer. The[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observeddata[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]and is useful for prediction.[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]We atNASA often are asked what the real reason was[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]for the amazing string of successes we have had with our[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]wecould givewas thatwetried to never overlook anything.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]Universe, life, and man in the science classroom. Itwould[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]be an error to overlook the possibility that the Universe was[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]planned rather than happening by chance.[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Times New Roman]With kindest regards.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]Sincerely yours,[/FONT] FONT=Times New Roman Wernher von Braun, Ph.D.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]National Aeronautics and Space Administration[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][B][FONT=Times New Roman]ARTICLE REPRINT[/FONT][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman]Distributed by[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]Apologetics Press, Inc.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]230 Landmark Drive[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]Montgomery, AL 36117-2752[/FONT] FONT=Times New Roman 272-8558[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]Originally Published In[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]Special Creation vs. Evolution, Edward F. Blick[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman](Oklahoma City, OK: Southwest Radio Church),[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]1988, pp. 29-31.[/FONT][/LEFT]
[LEFT][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#ffffff]APOLOGETICS PRESS[/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/LEFT]
[/LEFT]
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[quote=tiddles;384560]god exists because we don't yet understand where the universe came from?[/quote]
[B]THE END[/B]
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[quote=Jibgolly;384570]nah. you just need to pick a topic that matters to the majority.[/quote]
It does matter to the majority but most people do not admit it.
The existence of humanity and the topic of creation/evolution has been in the minds of men for as long as there have been men on the earth.
I openly admit it is hard to hold a conversation on a topic you know little about. Lets all be honest here the vast majority of people (including the ones here) have not spent the time studying the topic to add anything overwhelming.
This is a chance to educate yourself on one side of the topic. If you want to explore the others then feel free.
Certainly the mental state of the world today has not diminished that much. Or has it?
Re: Straight to the business at hand
i know nothing about this topic.
and honestly why would i waste my precious time on a subject that will not lengthen or improve my life in the least.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[quote=Jibgolly;384587]i know nothing about this topic.
and honestly why would i waste my precious time on a subject that will not lengthen or improve my life in the least.[/quote]
that is for you to answer
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[quote=Jibgolly;384587]i know nothing about this topic.
and honestly why would i waste my precious time on a subject that will not lengthen or improve my life in the least.[/quote]
so why are you posting that???? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Re: Straight to the business at hand
shutup huggie, the adults are speaking.
cowardly, you are correct.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
Walking Amidst the Dinosaurs [IMG]http://www.apologeticspress.org/themes/AP2/images/pixel.gif[/IMG]by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
The numbers were staggering! Some time ago at a camp for Christian young people, a short, three-question quiz was given to the teenagers in attendance?most of whom were from homes with Christian parents (and many of whom already had made the decision to become a Christian themselves). The first question asked simply, ?How long ago did the dinosaurs live?,? and provided four possible answers. Over 70% of those present answered that dinosaurs had walked this Earth millions of years ago. People enamored with the type of material normally found within the pages of [I]Time[/I] magazine, or [I]National Geographic[/I], or those who watch CNN and the [I]Discovery [/I]channel, probably would not find that answer alarming. But try to harmonize the idea that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago?long before man is supposed to have arrived?with the Genesis account of creation. It simply cannot be done. These youngsters were not atheists or agnostics from some ?intellectually elite? university; they were our children?children who have been reared and nurtured in the church, and who believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God Who lived and died for them. And yet, by the time many had reached their teens, they already had discounted the words of the Bible in favor of an evolutionary timeline that, from their vantage point at least, is dominated by the most amazing creatures ever to have lived?the dinosaurs. Ask an average 10-year-old boy or girl when the dinosaurs existed, and see what response you get. Follow up that question with one about whether or not men lived with the dinosaurs, and watch how quickly that same 10-year-old?s brow wrinkles in quizzical shock at the very idea of such. Chances are, that excited little face?which belongs to a child who could share a veritable plethora of dinosaur trivia with you?will change into a puzzled look that is accompanied by a troubling frown. For, you see, we live in a world where our children are taught that dinosaurs evolved, and became extinct, millions and millions of years ago?long before man arrived on the scene. And so, those precious little souls march off to school, where they will learn about the ?terribly great lizards??completely unaware of the fact that what they are learning is thoroughly at odds with the biblical account of creation. One thing on which both creationists and evolutionists agree is that dinosaurs make marvelous teaching tools. Rare is the adult?and even more rare is the child?who does not have a keen interest in dinosaurs. These magnificent beasts with the polysyllabic names capture our attention as we fixate on their massive size, their lizard-like skin, or the terror they apparently were able to create as they roamed the planet. From kindergarten through graduate school, dinosaurs frequently are used as a tool to indoctrinate students regarding the ?fact? of organic evolution. In most public school, college, and university settings, whenever dinosaurs are discussed, it is in the context of their evolutionary origin, development, and extinction. Additionally, students are told about how the dinosaurs evolved into what we now know as birds. What effect does this kind of teaching have on young minds? If the correspondence we receive at Apologetics Press on a regular basis via telephone calls, e-mail, and regular mail is any indication, the evolution-based teaching regarding dinosaurs may be pulling more of our children away from the church than any other single concept. Because practically all youngsters have a fascination with dinosaurs, and because teachers are among the most trusted of all adults, children often accept without question evolutionary dogma and its accompanying concept of an ancient Earth. With what results? If testimony from many of the evolutionists themselves is taken at face value, the study of dinosaurs was the deciding factor in their conclusion to abandon their belief in God and to accept in its place organic evolution. Evolutionists like the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, the famed dinosaur hunter, Robert Bakker, and others are on record as stating that it was the study of dinosaurs, at a very young age, which set them on their lifelong path as evolutionists. Dr. Bakker even commented on this fact in the preface to his immensely popular book on dinosaurs (1986, p. 9). Edward O. Wilson, the father of the discipline known as sociobiology, once commented that when he was fifteen years old, he had ?great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion; I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory? (1982, p. 40). Henry M. Morris, former professor and department head at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, observed that he ?spent over twenty-eight years teaching in secular universities and saw this sad tale repeated in many lives? (1984, p. 113). Because dinosaurs are fascinating to children, because they are such an effective teaching aid, and because they generally are used to teach evolution, these creatures represent a formidable tool to be used in robbing students of all ages of their faith in God and His Word. This makes the controversy over dinosaurs most important. [CENTER][B]DID DINOSAURS REALLY EXIST?[/B][/CENTER]
One of the worst mistakes we can make as parents, grandparents, and teachers is to suggest that dinosaurs never existed. While such a response may appear, at first glance, to be a simple and quick solution to ?the dinosaur dilemma,? in reality, it is a response that becomes impossible to defend when our children visit a museum and come face to face with a two-story-tall [I]Tyrannosaurus rex[/I] skeleton. Children cannot be expected to deny such tangible, forceful evidence, and at the same time believe a well-meaning but very wrong parent. Did dinosaurs really exist? Most certainly! We have discovered their fossilized remains on all seven continents?from North America to the Antarctic. As a matter of fact, great dinosaur graveyards have been discovered in places like Tanzania, Africa, and at the Dinosaur National Monument on the Colorado/Utah border in the United States. Literally tons of fossilized dinosaur bones have been recovered from all over the globe. In 1993, Mike Hammer even unearthed a fossilized dinosaur (from the Hell Creek formation in northwestern South Dakota) that was said to still possess the ancient creature?s heart. Plus, of course, paleontologists have unearthed numerous caches of fossilized dinosaur eggs. The first discovery of the dinosaurs, as far as ?recent? times is concerned, occurred in the spring of 1822. Gideon Mantell, a country doctor in England with a lifelong passion for fossil hunting, set off in horse and buggy to visit a patient. His wife, Mary Ann, accompanied him on the trip. While Dr. Mantell tended to his ill patient, Mrs. Mantell took a stroll. As she walked, she came across a pile of stones that had been placed alongside the road to be used in filling ruts caused by the spring rains. Amidst those stones, she discovered what appeared to be very large fossil teeth. She took the fossils back to her husband (a well-known, amateur paleontologist in his own right), who was amazed, never having seen such huge teeth before. He went to the nearby rock quarry from which the stones were cut, and found more teeth like those that his wife had discovered. He presented the teeth to several scientists, but none agreed with him that they were from some type of heretofore-unknown creature. He, however, was stubbornly sure that they were. In 1825, he named the long-dead owner of the teeth, [I]Iguanodon[/I] (?iguana-tooth?), since the teeth were similar to those of an iguana, but much larger. Several years later, more teeth like these were discovered in a different quarry. Now, no one doubted that [I]Iguanodon[/I] had once existed. Meanwhile, huge bones of another creature (which came to be known as [I]Megalosaurus[/I]) had been dug up farther away in Oxfordshire. By 1842, enough of these kinds of fossils had been uncovered to convince the leading British anatomist, Sir Richard Owen of the British Museum of Natural History, that an entire tribe of huge, lizard-like reptiles had lived in the distant past. Based on his studies, he named them ?dinosaurs? (from the Greek words [I]deinos[/I] and [I]sauros[/I], translated by him as ?fearfully great lizards?)?known to us today as ?terribly great lizards.? Soon, American fossil hunters joined in the search. The climax came in March of 1877, when two schoolmasters?Arthur Lakes and O.W. Lucas?separately stumbled onto colossal fossil bones projecting from the rocks in different parts of the state of Colorado. Lakes showed his find to the well-known paleontologist, Othniel Marsh. Lucas showed his find to Marsh?s bitter rival, Edward Cope. Marsh and Cope became the most famous of all the ?dinosaur hunters.? All told, Cope named nine new genera of dinosaurs, while Marsh named nineteen. Now, no one who bothered to keep up with the times doubted the existence of the dinosaurs. [CENTER][B]WHEN DID DINOSAURS EXIST?[/B][/CENTER]
The question no longer was, ?did the dinosaurs exist?,? but ?[B]when[/B] did the dinosaurs exist?? Today, an important controversy exists between evolutionists and creationists regarding the matter of exactly when the dinosaurs lived. In fact, a chasm exists between these two groups that never will be bridged?so long as each side maintains its present view. Evolutionists advocate that dinosaurs evolved from some ancient reptile 200 million years ago, and that they became extinct roughly 65-70 million years ago. Man (in one form or another) allegedly evolved approximately 2-3 million years ago, and thus was separated from the dinosaurs by some 65 million years of geologic time. Creationists who accept Genesis 1-2 as an accurate, historical record of God?s creative activity, oppose such claims, and maintain instead that the dinosaurs were created by God within the six literal days described in the biblical record. Genesis informs us that [B]all [/B]creatures were created during the Creation week (cf. also Exodus 20:11 and 31:17). Genesis also instructs us regarding the fact that dinosaurs, as land-dwelling animals, were formed on day six?the same day on which man was created. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that dinosaurs and man would have lived together on the Earth as contemporaries.
Truth be told, dinosaurs and men [B]did[/B] coexist as contemporaries. There is no other conclusion that respects the clear, compelling statements of the inspired Word of God. For some people, however, such a conclusion simply is not acceptable, and they have gone to incredible lengths in order to avoid the import and implications of the Bible?s teaching on this subject. Consider, to choose just one example, the following statements from John N. Clayton of South Bend, Indiana:INDENT If dinosaurs existed 200 million years before Adam and Eve it does not present any problem to a literal understanding of the Genesis record (1968b, p. 16). [/INDENT]INDENT I have no way of telling where man?s beginning should be on the chart [of geological time?BH/BT]. Clearly man has become the dominant form of life on the Earth only in modern times, but where Adam and Eve fitted into this picture is unclear (1968b, p. 35).[/INDENT]INDENT Birds, mammals and man are mentioned; and all of these are recent additions to the Earth geologically (1977, p. 151). [/INDENT]INDENT Man is a very recent newcomer to this planet (1960 ). [/INDENT]INDENT Genesis 1:1 simply says, ?In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.? The verse is undated, untimed, and without details as to how this was done. Tradition has said that the first verse is an instantaneous event and that verses 2-31 detail how it was done. It does not seem to this writer that this interpretation is consistent with the flow of the language and the message.... Could not dinosaurs and many other forms have been involved in the production of an Earth ready for man? I further submit for your consideration that some time may be involved in this verse and that natural processes may have been used as well as miraculous ones to prepare the Earth for man (1982, pp. 5-6). [/INDENT]Contrast such statements (?Man is a very recent newcomer to this planet?) with statements from Jesus Christ Himself: ?But[B] from the beginning of the creation[/B], male and female made he them? (Mark 10:6; cf. Matthew 19:4, emp. added). Further contrast such statements (?all of these are recent additions to the earth geologically?) to statements of the inspired apostle Paul:[INDENT]For the invisible things of him [B]since the creation of the world[/B] are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (Romans 1:20, emp. added).[/INDENT]The term ?perceived? is from the Greek [I]noeo[/I], a word used for rational [B]human[/B] intelligence. Paul, speaking by inspiration, stated that someone human was ?perceiving.? What, exactly, were they perceiving? The things God had made. How long had they perceived those things? [B]Since the creation of the world![/B] Who, from a human vantage point, was doing the ?perceiving?? Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45; Romans 5:14) and Eve (1 Timothy 2:13). The apostle?s point was that Adam and Eve had been present since the creation of the world (i.e., as a part of the six-day creative activity of God), perceiving the things that were made. And that includes the dinosaurs! [CENTER][B]EVIDENCE THAT HUMANS AND DINOSAURS COEXISTED[/B][/CENTER]
An article in the January 1993 [I]National Geographic[/I] boldly proclaimed: ?No human being has ever seen a live dinosaur? (?Age of the Dinosaurs,? 1993, 183[1]:142). The evidence, however, reveals an entirely different story. Consider the following: [B][I]The Doheny Expedition[/I][/B]
In the late 1800s, Samuel Hubbard, honorary curator of archaeology at the Oakland, California, Museum of Natural History, was excavating ancient Indian dwellings in the Hava Supai Canyon in Arizona. On the walls of the canyon where the Indians? ancestors once lived, Dr. Hubbard found elegant drawings of an elephant, an ibex, a dinosaur, and other animals. He stated concerning the dinosaur drawing: ?Taken all in all, the proportions are good.? He further suggested that the huge reptile is ?depicted in the attitude in which man would be most likely to see it?reared on its hind legs, balancing with the long tail, either feeding or in fighting position, possibly defending itself against a party of men? (as quoted in Verrill, 1954, pp. 155ff.). Dr. Hubbard also noted:[INDENT]The [B]fact[/B] that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a [B]dinosaur[/B] on the walls of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man.... The fact that the animal is upright and balanced on its tail would seem to indicate that the prehistoric artist must have seen it alive (1925, pp. 5,7, emp. in orig.). [/INDENT][URL]http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2003/r&r0302b.jpg[/URL][B]Left:[/B] [I]Edmontosaurus[/I] (courtesy of Paul S. Taylor, Eden Communications). [B]Right:[/B] Petroglyph discovered by Dr. Samuel Hubbard in Havai Supai Canyon (courtesy of [URL="http://www.bible.ca)"]www.bible.ca)[/URL].
Nearby, Dr. Hubbard and his team of archaeologists discovered dinosaur tracks preserved in strata identified as Triassic?alleged by evolutionists to be more than 165 million years old. Question: How could Indians have known how to draw such a perfect picture of an animal (the dinosaur) that they never had seen (or had described to them by someone who had seen it)?
According to the belief commonly held by evolutionists, no advanced mammals were present during the ?age of the dinosaurs.? Artists? reconstructions generally show the huge reptiles living in swamps, surrounded only by other species of dinosaurs. The late evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson suggested that the only mammals that had evolved up to that point in time (even at the very end of the Cretaceous period) were supposedly ?small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare? (Simpson, et al., 1957, p. 797). In his book, [I]Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History[/I], Stephen J. Gould addressed the same issue when he wrote:[INDENT]Mammals evolved at the end of the Triassic, at the same time as dinosaurs, or just a tad later. Mammals spent their first hundred million years?two-thirds of their total history?as small creatures living in the nooks and crannies of a dinosaur?s world. Their sixty million years of success following the demise of the dinosaurs has been something of an afterthought (1989, p. 310 ).[/INDENT]It thus is completely unthinkable, in evolutionary terms, that dinosaurs and advanced mammals (like elephants or giraffes) could have co-existed. Again, however, Dr. Hubbard?s discoveries have ?thrown a monkey wrench? into the evolutionary timescale. However, a discovery reported in the January 13, 2005, issue of [I]Nature[/I] challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press reported: ?Villagers digging in China?s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn?t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur? (Verrengia, 2005). Not only do we now have additional proof of mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but we also have scientific evidence of a [B]large mammal eating a dinosaur[/B]! The authors discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One was 50% larger than previous mammal fossils that were considered to be living with the dinosaurs, and was named [I]Repenomamus giganticus. [/I]The other, [I]Repenomamus robustus[/I] was fully intact?[B]and had a dinosaur in its stomach[/B]. Yaoming Hu and his colleagues noted:[INDENT]During preparation of the specimen a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teeth?BH], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes or ?fingers??] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of [I]Psittacosaurus[/I], an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the patched skeleton are typical of juvenile [I]Psittacosaurus[/I]. The skull and most of the skeleton of the juvenile [I]Psittacosaurus[/I] are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation of the [I]R. robustus[/I] skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although fragmentary, the bones of the [I]Psittacosaurus[/I] are packed in a restricted area. These conditions indicate that the juvenile skeleton of[I] Psittacosaurus[/I] is the remaining stomach contents of the mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).[/INDENT]To complicate matters, researchers reported in the April 18, 2002 issue of [I]Nature[/I], one of the premier science journals in the world, that they now have determined that the ?last common ancestor of extant primates? existed (as dated by evolutionary dating methods) 85 million years ago (Tavar?, et al., 2002). Since dinosaurs are supposed to have died out 65 million years ago, that means the primate would have lived with the dinosaurs for at least 20 million years. One of the co-authors of the [I]Nature[/I] paper, Christophe Soligo of London?s Natural History Museum, stated in regard to the find: ?What we demonstrate is that modern orders of mammals appeared well before dinosaurs disappeared...? (see ?Primate Ancestor Lived with Dinos,? 2002). So much for the belief that mammals evolved ?just a tad later? than the dinosaurs. [B][I]Ica Burial Stones[/I][/B] Javier Cabrera Darquea came into possession of his first burial stone (from the Ica section of the country of Peru) when he was given one as a paperweight for his birthday. Ironically, he could recall his own father also possessing similar oddly carved stones that his family found in their fields in the 1930s. Dr. Darquea sought out the origin of his unique gift, in an effort to amass a collection of these unique stones, and eventually assembled over 11,000 of them. The rocks turned out to be ancient burial stones that the Inca Indians placed with their dead. Almost one-third of the stones depicted specific types of dinosaurs (such as [I]Triceratops[/I] and [I]Stegosaurus[/I]) and various pterosaurs. The type of art form represented by these stones, and their location, dated them to the time of the Inca Culture, c. A.D. 500-1500. How could these ancient Indians have known the anatomy of these creatures if they never had witnessed them firsthand?
[URL]http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2003/r&r0302c.jpg[/URL][CENTER][I]Image courtesy of [URL="http://www.bible.ca"]www.bible.ca[/URL][/I][/CENTER]
Validation of these stones comes from a full understanding of their history. In the 1570s, the Indian historian and chronicler of the Incas, Juan de Santa Cruz Llamgui, wrote about the engraved stones. He noted that Conquistadors had taken some of the stones back to Spain, and wrote that at the time of the Inca Pachachuti, many carved stones had been found in the kingdom of Chinca, in Chinchayunga. On October 3, 1993, the [I]OJO, Lima Domingo[/I], a major newspaper based in Lima, Peru, reported a Spanish priest traveling in the area of Ica in 1525, inquiring about the unusual stones that had strange animals carved on them. These reports verify that the stones were in existence long before those discovered by Dr. Darquea. Since that time, other investigators have had the opportunity to observe stones in Nasca tombs, as well as to inspect the entire Darquea collection.
Interestingly, several [I]Diplodocus[/I]-like dinosaurs on the stones have what appear to be dermal frills?something never previously reported by scientists. In 1992, however, dermal frills were found during an examination of fossilized remains of sauropods. In an article titled ?New Look for Sauropod Dinosaurs,? paleontologist Stephen Czerkas noted:[INDENT]Recent discovery of fossilized sauropod (diplodocid) skin impressions reveals a significantly different appearance for these dinosaurs. The fossilized skin demonstrates that a median row of [dermal] spines was present.... Some are quite narrow, and others are broader and more conical (1992, 20:1060 ).[/INDENT]Also, the skin of many of the carved dinosaurs resembled bumpy rosettes. For many years, scientists pointed to this as proof that these stones were not scientifically accurate. However, more recent discoveries of fossilized dinosaur skin and embryos have silenced the critics. In more than one report, these bumpy rosettes have been identified and discussed. In fact, one of the discoveries comes from the same continent as the Ica burial stones. Luis Chiappe and colleagues discussed sauropod dinosaur embryos, noting:[INDENT]The general skin pattern consists of round, non-overlapping, tubercle-like scales.... A rosette pattern of scales is present in PVPH-130 [designation for one of the specimens?BH/BT] (Chiappe, et al., 1998, 396:259). [/INDENT]Again, we must ask: How could the Incas have drawn such accurate pictures of dinosaurs if they never had seen the animals (or had them described by someone who had seen them)? [For a discussion of Dr. Darquea?s research, see Swift, 1997]. [B][I]Natural Bridges National Monument Petroglyph[/I][/B]
Natural Bridges National Monument is located in a desolate area in southeastern Utah. Visitors to this site will see where the White River has carved meandering paths through the sandstone rock. Three natural bridges have formed where these wandering streams have undercut the above rock formations: Sipapu Bridge (the second largest natural bridge in the world); Kachina Bridge; and Owachomo Bridge. It is at Kachina Bridge where an Indian petroglyph depicting a dinosaur was discovered. In fact, visitors to the site can see three or four drawings that appear to be dinosaur-like creatures. Francis Barnes, an evolutionist and widely recognized authority on rock art of the American Southwest, had this to say about this find just outside of Blanding, Utah:[INDENT]There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a [I]Brontosaurus[/I], with long tail and neck, small head and all. In the San Rafael Swell, there is a pictograph that looks very much like a pterosaur, a Cretaceous flying reptile. The artists who created this ?pterosaur,? and the ?dinosaur,? could of course, have been trying to portray some other real or imagined creatures. But what about other animals seen on rock art panels, such as ?impalas,? ?ostriches,? ?mammoths? and others that either are long extinct in the western hemisphere or were never here at all? Such anomalous rock art figures can be explained away, but they still tend to cast doubt upon the admittedly flimsy relative-time age-dating schemes used by archaeologists (Barnes and Pendleton, 1979, pp. 201-202). [/INDENT]If [I]National Geographic[/I] is correct in stating that ?no human being has ever seen a live dinosaur,? then whence came the models for these petroglyphs? [B][I]The Acambaro Figurines[/I][/B] On a bright and sunny morning in July 1944, Waldemar Julsrud, a German merchant in Acambaro, Mexico, found himself riding on horseback on the lower slope of El Toro (The Bull) Mountain. From his elevated vantage point, Mr. Julsrud spotted some partially exposed, hewn stones and a ceramic object half buried in the dirt. After climbing off his horse, he dug the stones (and a few ceramic pieces) out of the ground. Being somewhat archaeologically astute, Julsrud immediately realized that these artifacts were unlike anything that he had ever seen. The objects he held in his hand seemed distinctively different than those from other known Indian cultures. He eventually worked out a deal with a local farmer to excavate these precious pieces.
Eventually, over 33,500 figurines and artifacts of ceramic and stone (including some in jade) were uncovered. A key feature of this discovery was the fact that many of the artifacts were highly detailed [B]dinosaur[/B] figurines. Charles Hapgood, a professor of history and anthropology at Keene State College (of the University of New Hampshire), became interested in the figurines and decided to investigate firsthand. Initially, Hapgood was a self-confessed (but open-minded) skeptic. However, after witnessing the excavations (even going so far as to dictate specific locations for the workers doing the digging), and after examining the figurines personally, he became a believer. He made his first visit to Acambaro in 1955, returned on numerous occasions, and eventually authored a book about his eighteen years of research into the figurines (see Hapgood, 2000). Consider the following measures, enacted to establish the authenticity of the Acambaro collection:[INDENT]When Teledynes Isotopes laboratories performed dating tests on the carbon deposited during firing on ceramic samples submitted by Hapgood, dates of up to 4530 B.C. obtained. Arthur M. Young, the inventor of the Bell Helicopter, who had sponsored Hapgood?s investigation along with [Erle Stanley] Gardner [author of the Perry Mason mysteries?BH/BT], submitted Julsrud artifact samples [i.e., the Acambaro figurines?BH/BT] to the University of Pennsylvania for dating. Radiocarbon dating performed by Dr. Froelich Rainey in the laboratories of the University indicated that this culture may have been developed between 6,400 and 3,500 years ago. Additional tests using thermoluminescence method of dating pottery were performed. They produced dates of up to 4,500 B.P. (Before Present), or 2500 B.C., which upset the professional archaeologists and set off within the scientific and museum world a controversy over the accuracy of thermoluminescence dating. Retesting was done, and it was announced that because of anomalous factors in the clays it was impossible to determine an accurate date (Hapgood, p. 17). [/INDENT]According to David Childress, who penned the foreword to Hapgood?s book, the most recent thermoluminescence testing done on Acambaro pottery fragments (taken by Bill Cote and John H. Tierney during the filming of the video, [I]Jurassic Art[/I], in the early 1990s) obtained results of 3,975?55 B.P. (Hapgood, p. 10 ). Consider also the fact that teeth from an extinct ice-age horse, the skeleton of a woolly mammoth, and a number of human skulls also were found at the same site as the ceramic artifacts. Hapgood noted: ?I later took these teeth to Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, America?s leading paleontologist, at the Museum of Natural History. He identified them as the teeth of [I]Equus conversidans owen[/I], an extinct horse of the ice age? (p. 82). Thus, the collection had evidence of extinct animals, human skulls, and dinosaur carvings from the same culture of people. But how could this be?
In 1999, Dennis Swift (who also was personally acquainted with Javier Darquea of Peru) made a trip to view the figurines. After receiving permission from the local authorities, he began to unwrap the ceramic figures. Dr. Swift noted:[INDENT]There was an absolutely astonishing moment of breathless magnitude as one object was unwrapped and there before us was an [I]Iguanodon[/I] dinosaur figurine. [For documentation on the [I]Iguanodon[/I] discovery to which Swift alluded, see [I]The Dinosaur Encyclopedia[/I] (Michael Benton, 1992, New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 80).] [/INDENT][URL]http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2003/r&r0302d.jpg[/URL][CENTER][I]Image courtesy of [URL="http://www.bible.ca"]www.bible.ca[/URL][/I][/CENTER]
Childress went on to note in an article titled ?In Search of Sea Monsters?:[INDENT]Adding to the mind-boggling aspects of this controversy is the fact that the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia through the late Director of Prehispanic Monuments, Dr. Eduardo Noguera, admitted ?the apparent scientific legality with which these objects were found.? Despite evidence of their own eyes, however, officials declared that because of the objects? ?fantastic? nature, they had to have been a hoax! (no date). [/INDENT]This archaeological ?hoax? presents insoluble problems for evolutionists. As Childress put it, ?Most ?respectable? archaeologists will walk around the Acambaro mystery as if it were a land mine. The very existence of the figurines threatens the ivory tower of the current paradigm of history? (as quoted in Hapgood, 2000, p. 20).
[B][I]Dinosaur Bones Only Thousands of Years Old?[/I][/B] [URL="http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2003/r&r0302e-lg.jpg"][URL]http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2003/r&r0302e-sm.jpg[/URL][/URL][CENTER][COLOR=#0000ff][URL="http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2003/r&r0302e-lg.jpg"]Click here for larger image[/URL][/COLOR][/CENTER]
In 1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizona?s department of geosciences? laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an [I]Allosaurus[/I] and an [I]Acrocanthosaurus[/I] were among those sent to the university?s testing facilities to undergo a ?blind? dating procedure (which means that the technicians performing the tests did not know that the bones had come from dinosaurs). Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented ?evolutionary bias,? and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method). We have in our possession?on the official stationery of the University of Arizona?a copy of the test results for the [I]Allosaurus[/I] bones (see reproduction at right, sample B). Amazingly, the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the [I]Acrocanthosaurus[/I] fossils; see Dahmer, et al., 1990). Both dates are a far cry from the millions of years that evolutionists suggest should be assigned to dinosaur fossils. [B][I]The Monster of Troy[/I][/B] The February 26, 2000 issue of [I]Science News[/I] contained an article that diligently attempted to defuse a potential bomb within the evolutionary camp (Hesman, 2000). Sitting inside the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is an ancient Greek vase. This vase is covered by a series of somewhat unusual paintings, including one that is bewildering to both archaeologists and evolutionists. The vase portrays a monster that possesses the head of a [B]dinosaur[/B]. And, to make matters worse, the images on the vase depict men and dinosaurs as coexisting. Known as the Hesione vase, this elegant potteryware was created around 550 B.C., and depicts the Greek hero Heracles rescuing Hesione from the monster of Troy. The tale of the monster was first told by Homer in the eighth century B.C. In this legend, a terrifying monster suddenly appeared on the Trojan coast after a flood, and began preying on the farmers in the neighborhood of Sigeum. The king?s daughter, Hesione, was sent to be offered as a sacrifice to the monster, but according to the legend, Heracles arrived in time to kill it. The painting on the vase shows Hesione and Heracles battling the monster, with Hesione tossing rocks at it, and Heracles shooting arrows. You can understand the obvious plight of evolutionists when confronted with such imagery. Thus, in an effort to ?explain? this artwork in light of evolutionary timescales, the editors of [I]Science News[/I] concluded that the paintings on this unusual vase simply prove that ancient people dug fossils, too. They believe that this painting was the end result of fossils?possibly of an extinct giraffe?that were dug up thousands of years ago. What?s that old saying? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it?s probably a?[B]giraffe[/B]? [B][I]Human Footprints with Dinosaur Tracks?[/I][/B]
Consider also that in 1983, researchers reported in the science and engineering news section of [I]The Moscow News[/I] that they had discovered what appeared to be a human footprint in 150-million-year-old Jurassic rock, next to a giant, three-toed dinosaur footprint. The article stated:[INDENT]This spring, an expedition from the Institute of Geology of the Turkmen SSR Academy of Sciences found over 1,500 tracks left by dinosaurs in the mountains in the southeast of the Republic [Turkmen Republic?BH/BT]. Impressions resembling in shape a human footprint were discovered next to the tracks of prehistoric animals (see ?Tracking Dinosaurs,? 1983, 24:10).[/INDENT]Naturally, this report has received precious little attention, given the mindset of evolutionists. [B][I]Historical Records of Flying Reptiles[/I][/B]
Additional evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs is derived from various ancient writings. For instance, the largest creature ever known to have soared in the skies above the Earth was a pterosaur identified as [I]Quetzalcoatlus[/I] (KWET-zal-COAT-lus). The fossil bones of one of these flying reptiles were unearthed in 1972 at Big Bend National Park in Texas. This [I]Quetzalcoatlus[/I] had a wingspan of 48 feet (which is longer than some small airplanes!). While these giant birds are not classified scientifically as dinosaurs (since they are not strictly land-dwelling creatures, as dinosaurs were, by definition), they often are lumped into a group of animals known as ?dinosaur-like? creatures. Notice the following quotation taken from Herodotus, a Greek historian from the fifth century B.C., who wrote:[INDENT]There is a place in Arabia...to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of a water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat (1850, pp. 75-76, emp. added). [/INDENT][URL]http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2003/r&r0302f.jpg[/URL][CENTER][I]Pteranodon[/I][/CENTER]
Herodotus knew of flying reptiles, and recognized that these creatures were neither birds, mammals, nor insects?but reptiles with wings. Notice also what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote 2,000 years ago about Moses and his army having a difficult time passing through a particular region because of the presence of flying serpents.[INDENT]When the ground was difficult to be passed over, because of the multitude of serpents (which it produces in vast numbers...some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and [B]also fly in the air[/B], and do come upon men at unawares, and do them a mischief).... [/INDENT][INDENT][Moses] made baskets like unto arks, of sedge, and filled them with ibes [i.e., birds], and carried them along with them; which animal is the greatest enemy to serpents imaginable, for they fly from them when they come near them; and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them (n.d., 2:10:2, emp. added). [/INDENT]Although these two historians do not mention the extremely large flying reptiles, they do record that snake-like winged creatures, which could fly, did live in the distant past. These reports are consistent with findings that A.H. Verrill reported in 1954 in his book, [I]Strange Prehistoric Animals and Their Stories[/I].[INDENT]Primitive man, finding a fossil pterodactyl, might assume that the skeleton was that of some strange winged monster which still existed. Being totally ignorant of fossils and geology, an Indian or any other savage or semi-savage human being would never suspect that the bones had been reserved in rock for millions of years. Neither would it be possible for such primitive men to reconstruct mentally the creature as they appeared in life.... It is of course, inconceivable that the Cocle potter had first-hand knowledge of a living pterodactyl, ancient as the pottery is; yet had he been as familiar with the flying monsters as he was with pelicans and jaguars, he could not have depicted them more strikingly and accurately. Not only do the drawings show beak-like jaws armed with sharp teeth, but in addition the wings with two curved claws are depicted. Included also are the short, pointed tail, the reptilian head crest or appendages, and the strong hind feet with five-clawed toes on each (1954, pp. 55,57-50 ). [/INDENT]Obviously, the scientific evidence for the coexistence of dinosaurs and man speaks loudly, and yet it continues to fall on deaf ears within the evolutionary community. That silence, however, does little to change the documented facts, as we now know them. [CENTER][B]CONCLUSION[/B][/CENTER]
Contrary to popular opinion, dinosaurs do not present a problem for creationists. In fact, quite the opposite is true. It is evolutionists who have a problem. While they continue to maintain, as the late paleontologist Roland T. Bird of the American Museum of Natural History once put it, that ?no man had ever existed in the age of the reptiles? (1939, 43[5]:257), the evidence documents exactly the opposite. The Mosaic record of the Creation is inexhaustively sublime. In it, we learn of the creation of the heavens and the Earth by an Almighty God. By divine fiat, light was formed and atmosphere was wrapped around this planet. Great seas were gathered together, and separated from dry land. The world of botany miraculously bloomed, and lights burst forth in the heavens. The waters swarmed with living creatures, and birds soared through the pristine air. Varieties of domestic animals and beasts were created and finally, man, the zenith of God?s creation, stood proudly upon the Earth?s bosom. The dinosaur?one of the most majestic of God?s creatures?stood with man. No doubt they pondered each other?s existence. Today, we still stand amazed at these awesome giants. And as we do, their presence in the past should remind us of the magnificence of the God Who was able to speak them into existence by ?the word of His power? (Hebrews 1:3). Awesome creatures?from the hand of an awesome Creator.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
BTW I did say that I had a great deal of informatin and some of it wsa quite lenghty.
Maybe give some of you something to do while at work.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[IMG]http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/3378/thisthreadmakesmybrainhurtanirw8.gif[/IMG]
Re: Straight to the business at hand
CDJ, you ain't going to change the world's beliefs in a forum. there's no reason to start an entire new thread about this.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
he's bringing light into our dark, confused minds. its not arrogant at all, but a benevolent education brought on by someone who has done alot of 'research' into this, and is clearly far more capable at explaining this sort of thing than dullards like us.
i'll just go back to throwing my own feces around and grooming lice off my coworkers.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
lmao.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[IMG]http://users.chariot.net.au/~misterx/steve/images/cry_me_a_river.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[QUOTE=day_for_night;384631] i'll just go back to throwing my own feces around and grooming lice off my coworkers.[/QUOTE]
:lol:
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[URL="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/mouse-ear.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/80907&h=177&w=211&sz=7&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=-pjGAlbv0NC5pM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmouse%2Bwith%2Bear%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG"][/URL]why do you continue this?
Dear god, Hope you got the letter, And I pray you can make it better down here. I dont mean a big reduction in the price of beer, But all the people that you made in your image, See them starving on their feet, cause they dont get enough to eat
From god, I cant believe in you.
Dear god, Sorry to disturb you, But I feel that I should be heard loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears, And all the people that you made in your image, See them fighting in the street, cause they cant make opinions meet, About god, I cant believe in you.
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
Dear god, Dont know if you noticed, But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book. Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look, And all the people that you made in your image, Still believing that junk is true. Well I know it aint and so do you, Dear god, I cant believe in, I dont believe in,
I wont believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, No devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. Youre always letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you drown. Those lost at sea and never found, And its the same the whole world round. The hurt I see helps to compound, That the father, son and holy ghost, Is just somebodys unholy hoax, And if youre up there youll perceive, That my hearts here upon my sleeve. If theres one thing I dont believe in...
Its you, Dear god.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[quote=day_for_night;384631]i'll just go back to throwing my own feces around and grooming lice off my coworkers.[/quote]
+1000. quote of the month (so far ;)) imo... now please excuse me why i take my velociraptor for a walk.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[B] Look for it, and it can't be seen. Listen for it, and it can't be heard. Grasp for it, and it can't be caught. These three cannot be further described, so we treat them as The One.
It's highest is not bright.
It's depths are not dark.
Unending, unnameable, it returns to nothingness.
Formless forms, and image less images,
subtle, beyond all understanding.
Approach it and you will not see a beginning;
follow it and there will be no end.
When we grasp the Tao of the ancient ones,
we can use it to direct our life today.
To know the ancient origin of Tao:
this is the beginning of wisdom. [/B]
i'm more of a fan of the eastern way of looking at religion, though i don't even pretend i know what the fuck it means. it sounds nicer to me
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[URL]http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm[/URL]
300 proofs that god exists. and they get funnier everytime i watch beetleguice.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
Thanks for the rehash of intelligent design :roll:
Creationism by another name doesn't make it a more viable or satisfactory explanation, merely a new and improved political ploy.
sorry, I've looked into this before and it just isn't much real proof. Half of it's argument is based on ridiculing the possibility of a big bang that came from nothing. Kinda like the belief in god..just cause you can't understand it, doesn't make it untrue.
and all of that still doesn't prove that god exists...at the end of the day all its saying is that you can't explain where the universe came from. :roll:
Re: Straight to the business at hand
CDJ, you asked me why I "insulted" you. I guess you're providing the answer yourself: starting up a multitude of threads in which you copy paste shitloads of text (which I value the same like ruby does) ticks me off. And I'm sure I'm not the only one getting blue balls from this...
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[QUOTE=geoffgulley;384716]+1000. quote of the month (so far ;)) imo... now please excuse me why i take my velociraptor for a walk.[/QUOTE]
evidently these threads have a way of inspiring people, because I literally laughed out loud at that, too. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Re: Straight to the business at hand
Seems like you have forgetten that it was some of you that said show me what you have and so I am showing you Pretty simple thing going on here You guys are making it into something it is not. If you don't want to read it then dont. Somehow you guys have the impression I am trying to change the world. I guarantee you did not get that from me as I have never said anythyning like that. You are bringing preconceived ideas about what I am trying to do. Let me say it again. I am simply looking for good intelligent conversation and this is the subject at hand. If I were trying to change you and convert you then I would be posting things like
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1][COLOR=#008080]Acts 2:37[/COLOR] Now when they heard [I][COLOR=#808080]this,[/COLOR][/I] they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1][COLOR=#008080]Acts 2:38[/COLOR] And Peter [I][COLOR=#808080]said[/COLOR][/I] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1]That is trying to convert people. I have not done anything of the sort.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/FONT]
Re: Straight to the business at hand
cdj, we give you shit because we love you.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
we've gone over this subject a hundred times... the intelligent conversation exists in every thread. what is it? intelligent "proof" from each side disproving the other. just give it up already, because nobody is going to just throw away their beliefs based off of some quack on a messageboard. e.g., you won't throw away your beliefs because I post some "proof" that god doesn't exist. you'll always know you're right. the same as I won't throw away your beliefs because you "prove" that he does. because I'll always know that he doesnt, because it's what I believe.
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[COLOR=Silver]CDJ, you claim to be looking for intelligent discussion yet avoid every single question or point sent your way. When you dodge everyone else's point and continue to rattle on with yours claiming a lack of "intelligent discussion" (even though yours involves no original thought) it is actually you who is insulting other posters.
But you will play the victim claiming you are being attacked for your beliefs. My friend, it is not your beliefs which you're being given a hard time about, but rather your condescending attitude and reluctance to respond to the very discourse you claim to be seeking.[/COLOR]
Re: Straight to the business at hand
[quote=Kobe;384898][COLOR=silver]CDJ, you claim to be looking for intelligent discussion yet avoid every single question or point sent your way. When you dodge everyone else's point and continue to rattle on with yours claiming a lack of "intelligent discussion" (even though yours involves no original thought) it is actually you who is insulting other posters.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=silver]But you will play the victim claiming you are being attacked for your beliefs. My friend, it is not your beliefs which you're being given a hard time about, but rather your condescending attitude and reluctance to respond to the very discourse you claim to be seeking.[/COLOR][/quote]
[quote=Kobe;384898][COLOR=silver]CDJ, you claim to be looking for intelligent discussion yet avoid every single question or point sent your way.[/COLOR][/quote]
That is not an entirely accurate statement. I am only one person and just because I do not get to answer all the questions right away does not mean I am avoiding them. I get numerous statements and questions sent my way and I just have not had the time to answer them all.
However I do feel the need to defend myself at times from all the negativity that is sent my way. If that is the problem here then I apologize for feeling like I should defend myself and I will try to do something different.
Saying I have a condescending attitude without providing your reason for thinking that is a generalization. Please provide my posts that give you that impression and I will try to clarify them.