The debate "Dinosaurs lived with man" was started by
April 1, 2015, 4:14 pm.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 42 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
debunkmyths posted 15 arguments to the agreers part.
sickboyblonde posted 3 arguments, I_Voyager posted 13 arguments to the disagreers part.
debunkmyths, Cormi98, ArsonLarson, Untamed and 5 visitors agree.
Bodaciouslady16, tr, PsychDave, Hollister_boy, Sosocratese, stormshy, dominic, magda32, sickboyblonde, I_Voyager, eric1943, MoCha, lulu, Hjkp98, Mastermind, daddyfantastic, transfanboy, Chabii, skyfrancois_97 and 23 visitors disagree.
I don't mind googling. It beat digging up those "history of the english language lectures" I listed to a year ago. I am a transhumanist, technology being used to modify and improve the the human condition is a moral prerogative and my goal is ultimately to wear a body of language in a computer that listens with me and organized knowledge with me, extending my cognition into it in real-time. A cognitive aide - because ignorance is both human nature, and evil.
Google copying now? Read a book yo. And The Vatican made the Muslim Religion. Just to let you know. Peace
After the fact. It's not like we say "English has been around for 2500 years, because proto-germanic existed 2500 years ago and eventually evolved (among other languages) into English." It may all be related, but the past doesn't verify the future claims. The past verifies the past. Aramaic is not the oldest known language. Aramaic emerged from Sumerian. All you can do is cite a book that justifies itself in endless circles. Truths don't spiral on and on like the guerrilla war tactic of philosophy, yet Christianity has endlessly. The first thing we did was ditch Jesus' magic wand. Then the council of Nicaea figured out a great way to chop up the stories that made the bible more believable so they could amass power. Some Christian philosophers then cited Plato and Aristotles' bad philosophies to justify their bad theology. A millennium of misery later when every other culture was thriving except Europe and we realized - maybe we should stop picking on scientists whose theories don't validate biblical lore.
Then the rise of scientific rationalism made irrational the ability to maintain a strong religious belief. The resurgence among the simple-minded back to a religious frame comes from the disillusionment with politics and the inability to believe the facts of science enough to realize that we are the only perceiving beings relevant to humankind. Religion lets us settle for our weakness and admit "Oh well, the best we can do is shittily." But science will let us re-write the human nature so that our flaws are diminished, our lives are expanded and we go on learning and expanding in the universe until entropy takes us down. This universe is not made for us. At best, 11% of the baryonic matter of the universe might have the bare minimum to sustain life. And that matter only composes 20% of the whole universe. And none of its nature is accurately predicted by the bible. Only by scientists. Why put my faith in a random book justifying itself on logic fallicies responsible for a black-age when my own philosophy does a better job at describing human morality?
With regards to the dinosaurs thing...
"Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.
After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.
"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."
Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.
Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years."
And just to add insult to injury, opposite radicals and ions are predicted by the quran,
"Glory be to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces..."
Yes ,Sumerian. Sumer. Ur. Mesopotamia. Babylon. What ever name you wanna call it. All which is now Modern day Iraq. Where the Aramaic Language came from.
*Cuneiform emerges 6000 years ago
The oldest known language to man is Sumerian. Sumerian is a language isolate. "A language isolate, in the absolute sense, is a natural language with no demonstrable genealogical (or "genetic") relationship with other languages". Cuneiform emerges 7000 years ago. Aramaic emerges 3100 years ago in writing. It was brought into Babylonian cities by immigrants. Which existed before the bible was written. So it'd be logical that it'd be in the bible, true or no. Kind of how like American cities are featured in Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" series, without actually justifying those cities. If a thousand years from now someone said "Kansas being in the Dark Tower series proves the series is true, because Kansas is true, and the historical fact somehow also verifies the literary nonesense of a dark tower and the center of the universe, and I know this because Stephen King is the nose of God, just look, it says so in the book and the book must be true" - it'd still be untrue.
That being. It is the oldest language known to man.
Aramaic is of the Semitic group.
The oldest form of writing is Cuniform. Correct. It is of the Semitic Group. Glad you know this and that we agree on something. So you have just proved me right.
The oldest known language is Sumerian. The oldest known written language is Cuneiform.
The oldest language known to man is Aramaic. The dead sea scrolls were discoverd in the 1940's I believe. And in those text there were some books written in that language.
It's interesting that those who are most likely to disbelieve are the scientists, who are the most likely to have seen the expansion of the universe - and so the quran even predicts that "Have they not, those who disbelieve, " would have "seen that the heavens and earths were together..."
I don't know man. I'm feeling this book pretty strong here.
** The Sahabi taught the Sahaba who taught the Hafiz, who all verified the purity of the quran to the modern day.
Those two statements are completely unlinked and uncomplimentary. The quran is more pure than the bible thanks to the system of rigorous oral tradition in which the prophet's Sahabi memorized parts of the quran and passed those knowledge to their Sahabi,and they spread out the message to many Hafiz, who stayed in touch over the centuries, comparing memorized versions and always repairing the memorized text, such that the original memorized text and written text are identical. There is even quranic evidence that the quran was written down right away, so it's not subject to decay like the bible. So that means it's more perfect - more likely to be true and divine.
That being said, truth of a divine act is not dependent on any human acknowledgment or verification. The quran is a divine book and a living miracle of Allah, the Exalted. How can you deny this if I said it? It must be true. It is He Who has sent down the Book; in it are verses basic and fundamental; they are the foundation of the Book; others are allegorical. (Al-e-Imran 3:7)
But if you want to prove the validity of the bible against the Quran, you should produce ten verses like it, as is verified in the Quran. "Do they say: He (Muhammad) forged it? Say: Bring then a chapter like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone besides Allah, if you speak the truth."
And as for scientific truth, consider that the Quran predicts an expanding universe:
"With power did We (Allah) construct the heavens. We are (continously) expanding it".
We cannot explain expansion except by background theory.
But we theorize the emergance of the universe from a singularity, which is also predicted:
"Have they not, those who disbelieve, seen that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one piece, then We (Allah) parted them."
And the orbits of the planets
"(Allah is the) One who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all the celestial bodies, floating along, each in its (own) orbit."
The non-believer knows his quran best. It's more convincing and still wrong. I've read a lot of the bible. I see no more validity in it than this, or the Iliad for that matter. Homer is at least as good an author, if not much better, than M,M,L&J combined.
The Quran was written 700 years after Christ. It has no scientific evidence.
So, the only facts are in ancient books?
Like, I can quote the Qur'an when it says "The Jews say the Christians have nothing to stand on." and then "The Christians say the Jews have nothing to stand on." and then, finally, "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you until you follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah is the (only) Guidance." Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge which has reached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against Allah." then I'd be citing facts? What makes your vague bible so much better then theirs? And if you cite the violence in the middle east, what makes their violence so much more invalidating than the ages of Christian violence?
Religion is what has to be done. God is what already happened. I don't believe in religion . I know God is real. How can You deny the bible if I just gave you facts about it. No lies. No myth. No Folk Tales. Nothing but facts.
I certainly sound like a person. But I'm sure I can identify the difference between a fact and a myth; I derive my epistemology and metaphysics from my own philosophy, which is based on a critique of ancient and modern philosophy, but tempered by science.
Religious knowledge in the west may have declined. Although I'm not sure that's at all true given how prominent illiteracy was in the past. Priests of high-churches were often spewing the authoritarianism of the church they represented and not necessarily just an honest and accurate telling of the bible, and people inherited their knowledge then second hand of religion. Arguably there are many christians still today who don't read their bible and inherit their belief second hand just as similarly, but I've met plenty of people in my short time on this earth who read the bible every day - and they appear to know nothing of value.
I'm not convinced belief in god was ever a road to salvation. Religion seems to have been a very successful tool of control and oppression. Science can be a powerful tool for war, but seldom for oppression. You need politics, religion or money for science to be a tool for evil.
That's when Darwin's Lie surfaced. Perfect timing huh. But in the 1800's The ancient ruins of Babylon were discoverd which finally gave proof to the accounts in the book of Genesis. Why is so hard to believe dinosaurs lived with man? That is complete ignorance.
The Bible is the only ancient, well-organized and authentic framework in which to fit all the facts of history.
The Bible does not record all history. In fact, there are huge gaps in the history contained in the Bible. Yet, without the Bible and what it reveals from prehistory, ancient history and prophecy?which is history written in advance?you cannot truly understand any history. No worldly source can help us as the Bible does!
But what do modern men say about the Bible? Most agree it is a book for the religious, but think its history cannot be trusted.
For centuries, until the so-called Age of Enlightenment?also known as the Age of Reason?the Western world accepted without question the historical accuracy of the account of the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the history of the patriarchs and the Exodus from Egypt.
However, in the 17th and 18th centuries, European intellectuals began to claim that only through human reason could true knowledge be obtained. Rather than the Bible, scientific reasoning became the source of authority?the ultimate judge of all truth. The Bible came under direct attack.
Then in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the theory of evolution?the fable of a creation without a Creator?and higher Bible criticism spawned by anti-Semite German rationalists, came on the scene and succeeded in completely removing God and the Bible from the picture. German Bible critics argued that the Bible was unhistorical and had no reliable basis in fact.
They stated that the Bible was merely Jewish fable and folklore fabricated in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C.?in other words, that most of the Old Testament books were not contemporary records, but rather had been written centuries after the events took place. Many scholars came to deny the existence of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Solomon.
Since the 17th and 18th centuries, men have produced an amazing fund of knowledge in the industrial and scientific areas. Yet pursuing knowledge about God has been left out. Our generation knows less about God and what God is doing than any prior generation.
Modern leaders in education, science and industry have created a science-centric world. They have pushed religion into the outer fringes of our civilization. Ours is not a religious age?though some may think it to be so.
Paul saw into our day and said that end-time religion has ?a form of godliness,? but that men deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5). Most of the world?s educated believe that mankind has outgrown the need for God. God has been made to seem powerless. This fact should alarm us. It is time we turn back to the all-powerful God.
Many believe that science will save us from our problems. Why can?t we recognize that science is about to destroy us? Soon the need for God will come crashing back upon us. Then all men will have to admit that only God can save us.
You seem like a person who doesn't know the difference between the believe and know and the difference between fact and myth.
Who'da thought the authors of the bible would be aware of their contemporary geographically local history... Actually I have studied anthropology, though not exhaustively, because I divide my self-education between: philosophy, history, physics, computer science, ancient literature, theological criticism, environmental science, modern culture, heavy metal, neuroscience andd biology. I also write fiction, work on constructing a non-fiction philosophy, dream about changing the modern regime for a better one and debate like this.
As for Alaskan kangaroos, I can find no evidence for the term. Nor can I find evidence for a giant flood. Nor can I find evidence for biblical lore in reality, unless you try really hard to ignore all the things which don't fit into the mythology.
You strike me as someone who can't tell the difference between reason and belief. You must hear people talking and read people writing stuff and think to yourself "I can/should do that too because I'm a passionate, emotional and faithful person! After all, it's just what scientists do all the time too, so what's the difference?"
The difference being that scientists gather evidence from reality, and then derive predictive theories from that evidence which predicatively find new evidence, which they use to refine their theories until finally, after a long painful search, the whole body can be described (if it can be described). While people whom behave like you make stuff up and brainwash other people into faulty ways of thinking, holding the human race back. Ignorance and lies are evil, buddy, and people aren't liars just because what they say doesn't coincide with what you believe to be true. When you make something up, and then you say "It's true because I feel it strongly inside me!" it's still a lie; and when you find other people who do the same thing, and take it on faith, you give into misinformation; and you sound like a liar and a fool at the end of the day.
I don't know what you think "debunking a myth" means, but it means more than just making statements.
Like, I could be like "the universe doesn't exist. You're a myth. Perception is a lie. Red is blue." But it's all just the same bull-shit if you can't actually use reason and logical criticism to present your argument. Further, I could say "God is a lie, he doesn't exist, he's a myth." And that's bullshit - but I could then unpack a whole lot of internally and externally consistent logic to prove the implausibility of the Christian god, which I've done in the "God doesn't exist" debate, and to which no good argument can be made to prove the validity of god.
I'd like to see your reasoning, but until I see it, your arguments make little more sense than "kangaroos are cats and taxology is wrong, because it's said so in a book. Look at this quote that says 'kangaroos are cats and taxology is wrong, so says the authority of the author of the book.'"
Can you prove carbon dating false? Alaska kangaroos? what are you talking about? I'm saying its impossible for kangaroos to migrate post great flood from Noah's location all the way to Australia. There is a massive body of water there. Also even if they did migrate and make it to Australia miraculously, there would be fossil evidence to prove it so scattered across Asia. listen, I don't believe in the bible, you cannot argue with me that man once lived up to 900 years. I suggest you approach this debate in a different route other than using your bible to state "facts".
How do you know "Alaska kangaroos"came from Alaska? I wanna hear this one. Do you study anthropology?? Where you there to witness whicn animals people took with them after migrating from after the flood.? The oldest civilization known to man on record is Ancient Babylon. Which is mentioned in Genesis Chapter 11.
Carbon dating is false. Fossils prove one thing. That something died. The boats being built today still use the same exact layout as noahs ark. The boat was made to float and not sink. Reptiles never stop growing. Imagine if an iguana lived to be 100 years old? Reptiles and insects and etc don't live as long as they used to. After the flood the environment was much different. Man no longer lived up to 900. Insects breathe through there skin. They don't have nostrils. The bigger they get, the harder it becomes for them to breathe. Dinosaurs had the same problem.
continue what? Your just stating things without any backup behind your claims. The conventional wisdom about fossilization is that all soft tissue from blood to brains decomposes. Only leaving solid parts of the animal meaning bone remain. I suggest you do your research on carbon 14 dating. Noah's arc has been proven impossible many, many times. In modern times, the best ship builders in the world attempted to build a ship called the Wyoming. it was built entirely of wood and was still not the size of the arc yet it would bend and twist in the ocean because it was a ship 400ft of wood and eventually sank. Noah apparently built a 500ft ship with his family and was able to carry and feed an unbelievable amount of animals. Also kangaroo migrations to Australia debunk Noah's arc. furthermore, if the flood happened we would need to discover 2 new kinds of animal species every day to match the variety of species we have today. I sincerely hopes this helps you.
The atmosphere has changed in general . Scientists are always finding blood on dinosaur tissue. Noah was smart enough to bring only small ones on the ark. They are mentioned in all cultures as dragons. They were obviously hunted after the flood. The ice age is a myth . The pressure of the fountains of the great deep is what caused freezing. Blood would not survived "millions" or "billions" of years. The Texas Foot prints of dinosaur and man. Want me to continue?
please, creationists speak up! let us all hear your stupidity. Enlighten us on how we once walked alongside the dinosaurs.