|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 10, 2005 21:39:38 GMT -5
Actually if you knew anything about Behe or read any of his work, or the article I just posted about him written by one of his critics you would know that is completely NOT true. But then why should I be surprised, shin can't even grasp the concept that even an article out of a science magazine uses the Biblical term for the dinosaur. And most scholars indeed agree that the Behemoth was indeed a dinosaur, as well as Leviathon. Really this is proof for you? That the same word was used? That's pretty weak proof... I guess you missed that part about most scholars agree that the Behemoth and the leviathon were dinosaurs. Is everyone on crack tonight? |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 10, 2005 21:48:58 GMT -5
Oh I see, you've bought into the bullshit that it's science OR God. There's no reason you can't believe in both because they are two completely different things. The God squad has pulled a fast one...it's God Vs. Science, pick your team...you're either with us or you against us....that sounds familiar... Actually if you knew anything about Behe or read any of his work, or the article I just posted about him written by one of his critics you would know that is completely NOT true. But then why should I be surprised, shin can't even grasp the concept that even an article out of a science magazine uses the Biblical term for the dinosaur. And most scholars indeed agree that the Behemoth was indeed a dinosaur, as well as Leviathon. Ok let me try one more time, it would be agianst every pricipal of science to throw their hands up and say "We don't know the answer, must be God". I understand Behe's ideas and they are very interesting but he wants to draw a line in the sand and he wants "God" to be an exceptable answer for things we don't understand, it can't be because it's not science. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 10, 2005 21:49:27 GMT -5
Because there's all kinds of misleading shit taught in every classroom, and you'd like to add ID to the list... Teaching that human origins may have had a little help from an outside force is misleading? Please elaborate....enlighten me. But putting pictures of fake embyros in Biology books, using "staged" experiments to try and prove a point, and completely leaving out much information and twisting the real scientific evidence is perfectly ok  No no evolutionists don't have an agenda whatsoever.. Bullshit. All lies. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 10, 2005 21:52:33 GMT -5
Teaching that human origins may have had a little help from an outside force is misleading? Please elaborate....enlighten me. But putting pictures of fake embyros in Biology books, using "staged" experiments to try and prove a point, and completely leaving out much information and twisting the real scientific evidence is perfectly ok No no evolutionists don't have an agenda whatsoever.. Bullshit. All lies. Thats pretty funny kmc. Do you realize those fake embryo pictures were known about even back then when the guy drew them and he admitted to it?  And still it was used in textbooks. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 10, 2005 21:54:56 GMT -5
Really this is proof for you? That the same word was used? That's pretty weak proof... I guess you missed that part about most scholars agree that the Behemoth and the leviathon were dinosaurs. Is everyone on crack tonight? Actually no, most scholars agree they COULD be dinosaurs. Big difference btween "could" and "are". In fact both have become genral discriptions of anything big and powerful. The fact that a scientific essay uses behemoth to discribe a T. Rex is in no way an endorment for the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 10, 2005 22:00:57 GMT -5
I guess you missed that part about most scholars agree that the Behemoth and the Leviathan were dinosaurs. Is everyone on crack tonight? Actually no, most scholars agree they COULD be dinosaurs. Big difference btween "could" and "are". In fact both have become genral descriptions of anything big and powerful. The fact that a scientific essay uses behemoth to describe a T. Rex is in no way an endorment for the Bible. Who said they were endorsing anything? It isn't that big of a reach to understand that a Behemoth and Leviathan were more than likely (like 99.9%) a description of a dinosaur. We already know for a fact that the Bible is a historical document. And if you try to argue this, then I know you are either 1. very much on crack or 2. completely stupid And kmc, how on earth can you sit there and tell me that the stuff written in textbooks about horse evolution is not bullshit? My god, archeology has proved this to be complete shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 10, 2005 22:12:54 GMT -5
We already know for a fact that the Bible is a historical document. And if you try to argue this, then I know you are either 1. very much on crack or 2. completely stupid We have? Holy shit, do the Muslims know? How do the jews feel about it? Sorry, ok now that I've me little laugh. The Bible does have portions that can be proven to be historically accurate but to claim that it as a whole can be proven and varified is alittle more then ridiculous. For centuries people have been trying to prove and disprove shittons from the Bible...but you claim it so it is so? Did we finally find the tapes with the word of God on them...was there any good stuff with him jamming with Hendrix? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 10, 2005 22:13:18 GMT -5
We already know for a fact that the Bible is a historical document.
And this is why "Evolution is impossible" ...
Now I get it !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 10, 2005 22:35:38 GMT -5
Here is something to think about...
In 1901 a mammoth carcass was found so well-preserved that there were food fragments, as yet unswallowed, in its mouth. Moreover, there was more than twenty pounds of vegetation still in the stomach cavity - some ofwhich was not yet decayed. The animal had died and been frozen in virtually a matter of hours.
Another amazing revelation amidst these discoveries is the fact that the stomach content of some of these creatures indicated they had been grazing on vegetation that grows only in warm regions, yet they were quite near the north pole. Scientists were mystified.
get back to me with an explanation in the context of evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Nov 10, 2005 22:37:01 GMT -5
The irony of course, is that HMF is obviously going to die in some hilarious way (trying to stage dive at a Stryper concert, but instead trips on stage and impales herself on a flying V guitar) and inevitably be nominated for...a Darwin award.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 10, 2005 22:45:11 GMT -5
The irony of course, is that HMF is obviously going to die in some hilarious way (trying to stage dive at a Stryper concert, but instead trips on stage and impales herself on a flying V guitar) and inevitably be nominated for...a Darwin award. We actually have that book. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 10, 2005 22:49:13 GMT -5
I guess I just don't understand how someone would believe that by pointing out the flaws of evolution theories...which these evolutionists are prefectly aware of...proves creationism. I mean I DO understand it, obviously if you can't explain it, it must be divine creation...just that the idea that not proving anything proves something...
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Nov 10, 2005 23:10:56 GMT -5
get back to me with an explanation in the context of evolution. *sigh* Suit yourself. ... is answered by recent studies of modern elephants as discussed by van Hoven and Boomker (1985). They noted that in the studies of freshly killed elephants, it was found that the digestion of plant material occurs only after it passes from the stomach into the intestine system, principally the caecum and colon. Instead of digesting food, they noted that the stomach functions in elephants, and presumably in mammoths and mastodons, primarily to store food prior to digestion. If, as in elephants, significant digestion simply didn't occur in the stomach of a mammoth, the plant material in the stomach would remained unchanged after the death of the mammoth. As a result, "relatively undigested" vegetation present in the stomach of a mammoth would remain "relatively undigested" vegetation even if it took a significant amount of time for a Siberian mammoth to lose body heat after it died and freeze in the process of becoming a mummified mammoth.
It is possible for the plant material in the gut of a mammoth to be preserved without being frozen. For example, Lepper, et al. (1991) found plant remains comprising intact gut fills associated with a mastodon skeleton excavated from a bog within Ohio. Also, intact gut fillings consisting of plant remains have been found associated with mastodon skeletons excavated from bogs in New York, New Jersey, and other states as discussed by Dreimanis (1968). In these cases, the water-logged bog sediments preserved the plant material long after the soft tissues of the mammoth had decayed. These finds and what is known about the digestive systems of modern elephants demonstrated that fast frozen mammoths created by an imaginary climatic catastrophe is unneeded to explain the preservation of stomach contents within mammoths.
www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may04.htmlwww.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.htmlWhy is it that whenever you hear some creationist silliness, they have to follow it up with the cryptic "scientists were mystified!"? And "nice try" my ass. Those articles proved everything you were saying as WRONG, and completely justified the textbooks. Although, I don't think that anyone would argue that an outdated textbook needs to be updated. And I'm sure Behe does have a much bigger brain than mine. Which makes it all the more tragic that he's such a stubborn loon. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Nov 10, 2005 23:18:31 GMT -5
Aaaaaand luke gives her a little nudge onto that flying V.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 10, 2005 23:35:09 GMT -5
Luke, you need to stop visiting that site and actually pick up a book from the library once in awhile. Mammoths have been found with buttercups in their mouth in Siberia.
|
|
