Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 63:
Line 63: − ::So what are you saying? That Tyrannosaurus Rex ''EVOLVED'' after they left the garden? Isn't that what you guys are spending so much time and effort on to disprove? There seems to be some serious holes in this theory, and I would like somebody to explain it. ''"Screw carbon dating, the bible is the only answer!"''+ − :::Note the long, dagger-like teeth that would be ideal for the ripping and tearing of meat. − ::::Theory? You mean proven fact, right? Line 76:
Line 74: − ::::::::So exactly what is the difference between adaptation and evolution? You seem to be avoiding answering that point.+ Line 85:
Line 83: + − − ::Us evolutionist aren't saying that dinosaurs didn't eat plants. We're saying that some of them (The dinosaurs) could not have been sustained on a diet of merely plants or plant-like material. As for your example of sheep eating meat, of course some of them would eat meat on some occasions. It's just highly unlikely that a pack of sheep ganged up, chased a deer, brought it down and killed it, then ate it's insides. Sheep just aren't made for that kind of stuff. When you see herbivores eating meat as the main article in their diet, bad stuff starts to happen. Such as when cows eat meat, you end up with Mad Cow Disease: http://www.mad-cow.org/. _Hailfire Line 371:
Line 368: − − ::This makes me sick. Are you people really so blind as to believe in trash like this? And your using it as "Evidence" for your scientific theory? Yes, we are saying that they should be totally ignored. They are hoaxes and publicity stunts that were created for FAT people (Foolish American Tourists) by the dredges of general society. You and anybody who believes in this stuff should be ashamed of yourselves. I have no problem with you searching or believing in it. But to use it for "scientific evidence" for the creationist theory just shows the world that you are fishing for rumors and half-truths to keep yourself afloat. I would like to see some cold, hard scientific facts that directly prove god, and that the earth was created in 6 days. Why hasn't he/it contacted us? Why us and not turtles? Why did he let his son get nailed to a tree? To save our souls? HE'S GOD!!!!!!! HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless, of course he is governed by a set of rules, which completely disproves that idea that he is all-powerful. Why is he letting us kill the earth? Wait, I forgot. I'm on the history/fact denying website :) . You idiots don't believe in global warming, or the Big Bang or a bunch of other stuff. Unless, he just doesn't care. That brings up a couple possible theories. 1. He's dead. Kind of self-explanatory 2. He's got other things to worry about. This could explain why humanity is without reason or direction, he's got other planets that are getting on much better than we are. 3. He twisted. He enjoys watching death and destruction, and your woeful attempts to convert people. If anybody else has ideas, please list them below. In the meantime, I better get my evolutionist and atheist arguments ready for the inevitable tide of creationist propaganda.
Reverted edits by Hailfire (talk) to last revision by JohnPaulJonesRevWar
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as plants and bacteria being alive is concerned, see [[classification system]] and realise that it depends on your definition. The modern scientific definition is that they are alive, but the biblical definition is that they are not. The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.
: As far as plants and bacteria being alive is concerned, see [[classification system]] and realise that it depends on your definition. The modern scientific definition is that they are alive, but the biblical definition is that they are not. The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::...which is part of why I'm skeptical of Biblical inerrantism, Philip. I find it difficult to imagine anyone using that as their definition, and I find it extremely difficult to imagine that it's the definition God intended us to employ. There are, after all, a great many creatures other than plants and bacteria which do ''not'' breathe air through their nostrils.
::...which is part of why I'm skeptical of Biblical inerrantism, Philip. I find it difficult to imagine anyone using that as their definition, and I find it extremely difficult to imagine that it's the definition God intended us to employ. There are, after all, a great many creatures other than plants and bacteria which do ''not'' breathe air through their nostrils.
::Biblical exegesis is well and good, but I think too many people place too much faith in the ability of modern man to accurately and faithfully analyze linguistic nuance. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Biblical exegesis is well and good, but I think too many people place too much faith in the ability of modern man to accurately and faithfully analyze linguistic nuance. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
: I will concede, however, that the arguments other than reported sightings are only briefly mentioned, compared to the sightings which are covered at some length.
: I will concede, however, that the arguments other than reported sightings are only briefly mentioned, compared to the sightings which are covered at some length.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)
----
----