How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

If it wasn't for weed a lot of you religious folks would be wearing makeup to cover up some bruises n stuff.

Take a look at T-Rex, frightening isn't it?

[Haykakan]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

If it wasn't for weed a lot of you religious folks would be wearing makeup to cover up some bruises n stuff.

[Mos]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

My suggestion is the person in the picture is a by product of parents who smoked a bit too much weed in their day.

That's how most kids are conceived in the West

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Couldn't even be bothered to read a description? Clearly the mark of a mind that embraces learning, already seeking excuses to dismiss the book... You're hopeless...

Couldn't be bothered to answer a yes or no question?

Ok, another yes or no question:

Do you believe this is a dinosaur foot print?




How about these ones?



They might as well look for animal shapes in clouds

My suggestion is the person in the picture is a by product of parents who smoked a bit too much weed in their day.

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Is there any math in it?

Couldn't even be bothered to read a description? Clearly the mark of a mind that embraces learning, already seeking excuses to dismiss the book... You're hopeless...

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Actually, there have been lots of fossils found by random folks who didn't know what they were. In fact, the first ones were. Many were destroyed before people realized what they were as well. Perhaps you should review your science history?

Bill Bryson's book is well-researched and highly entertaining. I recommend it. He covered these first and landmark discoveries in many fields, including paleontology.

Is there any math in it?

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Actually you are claiming its a conspiracy. You're suggesting that independent groups of paleontologists and archaeologists are fabricating evidence in order to push a certain theory to the forefront. You also seem to imply by definition that museums, independent scientists who analyze the remains, as well as scientists in other disciplines are either part of the con-job or are being fooled by the fabrication.

If you know how a pyramid scheme works and how only the people at the top need to plant the seeds and the people below will believe in their own b.s. because they profit from convincing others, you'll see how easy it is to keep the truth. You may call it fabricating evidence... I call it creating art work. Recreating old fossils with plaster to resemble a giant lizard is still a lot of work. Whether or not it's true to science or not is irrelevant as long as those in position of authority don't oppose it.

[Haykakan]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

I have tried but i do not understand people like Kanadahye. I remember when he said a girrafe is a good example of how evolution has nothing to do with its creation since it had no close relatives but then Siggie posted a picture of an ocapi and Kanadahye was very frustrated. It really does not matter how much or what kind of evidence you present to people like this - they just dont change. The truth is irrelavant it seems and it is always overshadowed by a religious agenda. Its kind of like talking to a tree except the tree does not try to change the subject. Other people consider humans to be so special and wonderful that they will deny that evolution had anything to do with their creation. It is very much like when scientists discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe and were killed because the religious morons cannot comprehend not being the center of attention. Religion is a form of self worship - a form of narcissism which seems to be taking over humanity thus it is no wonder that religion still persists in modern society. There are billions of us on this planet thus some of us want to feel that we are different or "special" from the rest and this may be understandible but to do it in a manner that fights and distorts reality is just stupid. There are better ways to be special and they do not envolve denial of facts or persecution of those who discover these facts. I sit here in late november in Michigan where for thanksgiving we are to expect 60 degree temps and i wonder if again old man winter will pass us by wo even saying hello like he did last year. I hear people like mr Kanadahye first argue that there is no global warming going on - then when global warming can no longer be denied they argue that it has nothing to do with what people do on this planet.. and so on and so on.. This type of irrational denial has already gotten the human race into many troubles and these troubles are growing both in scope and severity. I wonder if these people live long enough to see the destruction of humanity that is undeniably brought on by their irrationality if they will then feel special enough or is this vanity a uncurable terminal disease?

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

That's a valid point. It would be good to know WHERE your gas comes from. Everything from clothes to food is labeled, why isn't gasoline labeled? That's for another discussion.



When you were a kid, you probably read about dinosaurs in children's books and saw them portrayed in movies and television. At that point, dinosaurs are about as real as the tooth fairy. However, one way or another, it's been ingrained in your head. Why is it that with ALL the mining in the world, nobody has ever unearthed one of these skeletons. Instead, these giant skeletons are found in inhabited and remote parts of the world which are "discovered" by paleontologists and scientists. Perhaps they know the secrets of where dinosaurs died. Civilizations have been digging up the earth for centuries and it wasn't until the 1800's when these bones were discovered. Not claiming it's a conspiracy but there is a huge business around a pile of bones that could be as real as fire breathing dragons or the lochness monster.

Actually, there have been lots of fossils found by random folks who didn't know what they were. In fact, the first ones were. Many were destroyed before people realized what they were as well. Perhaps you should review your science history?

Bill Bryson's book is well-researched and highly entertaining. I recommend it. He covered these first and landmark discoveries in many fields, including paleontology.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Why is it that with ALL the mining in the world, nobody has ever unearthed one of these skeletons.

How do you know that?

You have to remember that dinosaur bones are generally hundreds of feet underneath the earth, deeper than most human digging projects throughout history. Humans also do not inhabit all the same regions that dinosaurs once did. This is why a lot of discoveries are made inside obscure caves and very deep valleys which expose layers of the earth going back millions of years (Great Rift Valley in Ethiopia). Don't look at the modern world where archaeologists have vast geological & climatic data to where they can make educated guesses as to the location of dinosaur populations, and where they actually go looking for these remains and dig for years just to find one or two remains if they're lucky - People before the modern age simply didn't have any data and didn't go looking for this stuff.

Its also reasonable to suspect that many people have accidentally unearthed partial remains of dinosaurs throughout history. There could be many reasons why the fossils weren't recognized as belonging to an extinct species of reptiles at the time they were found. Partial remains of dinosaurs could easily be confused with any number of body parts from any number of known species in any given geographical region. Native American hunter-gatherers could have thought the mysterious leg bones belonged to a really huge bison, ancient South African herders might have thought the hip bone belonged to a gorilla... its very easy to imagine primitive people not being able to figure these things out.

Then you have several hundred years (thousands in fact) where theocratic totalitarian regimes controlled pretty much the entire civilized world. So anybody who was educated enough to be competent in natural philosophy (rare) and also happened to have access to dinosaur remains (very rare indeed) could not even postulate a theory that these remains belonged to extinct species which lived millions of years ago because they would be guilty of blasphemy. At the very least they would be subject to some ridiculous censorship because it would have challenged the beliefs which monarchs and dictators used to legitimize their rule. Anyone brilliant enough to come up with a hypothesis back then was also smart enough to realize that its better to keep some ideas to yourself. Of course this is making the assumption that someone who was competent in natural philosophy centuries ago also had access to dinosaur remains, which is highly unlikely in the first place.

So you have the fact that dinosaurs didn't inhabit many sites of later advanced human civilization. You have the depth at which dinosaur fossils are usually found, which is many times deeper than most human digging projects throughout history. You have the ignorance of the people who actually found some remains. Then because of primitive religious/ideological indoctrination it lessened the chance that a hypothesis contrary to the prevailing viewpoint could have been uttered or advanced, never mind an actual scientific conversation over the course of generations. Its no coincidence that dinosaurs became known as a separate species after the Enlightenment, which was a new height of information exchange as well as the beginning of the retreat of religious bullying from the realm of natural philosophy and science.

Not claiming it's a conspiracy but there is a huge business around a pile of bones that could be as real as fire breathing dragons or the lochness monster.

Actually you are claiming its a conspiracy. You're suggesting that independent groups of paleontologists and archaeologists are fabricating evidence in order to push a certain theory to the forefront. You also seem to imply by definition that museums, independent scientists who analyze the remains, as well as scientists in other disciplines are either part of the con-job or are being fooled by the fabrication.