Didn't the Cathlic church try and ban Copernicus's "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" and accuse him of heresy for his theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. Nothing better than having the church lead us into the new scientific frontier.

R_Flagg

Well...having been to Anglican, Uniting, Churches of Christ, Catholic, Assemblies of God and other Churches...in Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea and the US...I have personally never met a Christian who doesn't believe that dinosaurs existed.  Quite the opposite.

So I guess the comedian's act only works due to the utter ignorance of his audience...

...because...

Dinosaurs WERE mentioned in the Bible.  

The Bible refers to 'behemoth' or 'tannin', both terms referring to giant creatures, with tannin referring more to dragon-like creatures.

From the Book of Job, Chapter 40:

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God…"(Job 40:15-19)

Interestingly over the past thousands of years, there have been plenty of references to dragons from various civilisations, and there are several in the Bible.

So while most Christians understand that dinosaurs did exist, there is still plenty of doubt about carbon dating methods, and the claim that the Earth is tens of millions of years old.  Of course these time frames are required to lend any plausibility to evolution theory...so they are promoted as inerrant fact.

I found this intersting so I looked in my bible (New International Version) and a notation for Job chapter 40 has "behamoth" -Possibly the hippopotamus or elephant and "His tail" - Possibly the trunk. I'd say this is up for intreptation and hardly fact of dinosaurs, but I agree most Christians I know understand that that dinosaurs did exist...but before man walked the Earth.

R_Flagg

Exactly, most of the bible is open to any number of personal interpretations and NOT fact of any scientific theories! The NIV guesses elephant, you guess dinosaur. You'll notice scientists never rely on one book or source to prove or disprove a theory but work with the evidence at hand outside of their religious beliefs. To perform a scientific experiment with religious beliefs or the bible as a reference would indeed create a biased outcome to any result.

R_Flagg

The passage from the book of Job says that the behemoth feeds on grass.

When the dinosaurs were around, there was no grass. The grass family (Gramineae) only evolved a very long time after the dinosaurs became extinct. Thus, the behemoth (if it existed at all) cannot have been a dinosaur. Furthermore, if I understand the passage correctly, there are human witnesses who saw the behemoth and the dinosaurs, of course, became extinct much earlier than the emergence of the human race, about 4 million years ago.

The behemoth mentioned in Job is clearly some other kind of creature, eg, the Komodo dragon lizard?

Re: My post about Christians who don't believe in dinosaurs... I had known them for several months. They did not suddenly start telling me all about their beliefs/opinions/theories the first time I met them. They were very nice people, generous, helpful, everything that Christians aspire to be. Perhaps I painted too much of a negative picture of them. They did not consider themselves to be on the fringe of Christian belief -- but then how do you distinguish the fringe from the mainstream? They considered themselves to be just normal Christians. They read the Bible a lot and went to church every Sunday.

Other Christians have said to me that they "don't like" or are "not interested in" the Big Bang theory, and so perhaps they just chose to ignore it, or to look at life in a different way.

As for "carbon dating", I think Cybacat said that this evidence was doubtful. I have never heard this before. What exactly is wrong with carbon dating? I am not aware of any reputable geologist who has questioned that 4.5 billion years is the age of the Earth. But now of course, we have to be very careful! Because the people at the Centre for Intelligent Design in Seattle are trying to pass themselves off as respectable scientists!

As Christopher Moltisanti remarked after the funeral of Livia Soprano, every one says no two people are alike -- no two snowflakes are alike and no two sets of fingerprints are alike -- but how do they know? Has anyone ever tried comparing every single one of them to see if there's a match?  No.  I rest my case.

Of course, Christopher was high on smack that day.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

fred

The passage from the book of Job says that the behemoth feeds on grass.

When the dinosaurs were around, there was no grass. The grass family (Gramineae) only evolved a very long time after the dinosaurs became extinct.

You're trying to use evolution theory...to disprove something in the Bible?  I find it's incredibly rare these days to find someone able to start with the hypothetical that evolution isn't fact.  Only then can other theories be considered.  If one has already accepted that evolution is fact, then there's a closed mind at play.

Further, the assumption that humans and dinosaurs didn't coexist is another that I don't buy into.

Other Christians have said to me that they "don't like" or are "not interested in" the Big Bang theory, and so perhaps they just chose to ignore it, or to look at life in a different way.

Are people still trying to prove the Big Bang theory?  I actually thought the last shreds of it's credbility had been torn away long ago.  I thought the idea that a giant explosion magically created a universe of planets, stars and living organisms was more fanciful that intelligent design theory...even if one doesn't believe in God.  I haven't personally ever seen an explosion create an ordered creation before...

As for "carbon dating", I think Cybacat said that this evidence was doubtful. I have never heard this before. What exactly is wrong with carbon dating? I am not aware of any reputable geologist who has questioned that 4.5 billion years is the age of the Earth.

I've heard mixed opinions on carbon dating, enough for me to question it's limitations and whether it's being used appropriately.

Dear Cybacat,

I disagree with you on the following points:

1. Humans and dinosaurs did not coexist. Humans began 4 million years ago, but dinosaurs went extinct 135 million years ago, due to a meteorite hitting what is now the Yucatan Peninsula.

2. The Big Bang is widely accepted by the world's leading astronomers/cosmologists. Think of it as an "expansion of the fabric of space". The name "Big Bang" is somewhat misleading, but we seem to be stuck with it. There is not enough room to justify it here. Please refer to a reliable popular account, eg, the one by Simon Singh. (I feel we are getting slightly off the point here. The main debate was about evolution.)

3. Carbon-dating is also a well-established scientific method. Can you be more precise in your criticism of it? Who exactly has said there is something wrong with it, and what was the reason? If you can give me a source, I will start to take the idea seriously.

Fred

fred

I disagree with you on the following points:

1. Humans and dinosaurs did not coexist. Humans began 4 million years ago, but dinosaurs went extinct 135 million years ago, due to a meteorite hitting what is now the Yucatan Peninsula.

Oh it's a meteorite now.  Because I'm sure scientists have "known" what cause the extinction of dinosaurs at least a dozen times over so far.  It was a loss of vegetation...the world became too hot...the world became too cold...disease swept through them...etc.  If a meteorite hitting Earth is the latest theory, then it's just that - the latest theory.

2. The Big Bang is widely accepted by the world's leading astronomers/cosmologists. Think of it as an "expansion of the fabric of space". The name "Big Bang" is somewhat misleading, but we seem to be stuck with it. There is not enough room to justify it here. Please refer to a reliable popular account, eg, the one by Simon Singh. (I feel we are getting slightly off the point here. The main debate was about evolution.)

My favourite radio station has a 1-hour atronomy show each week.  I get a chuckle every time they start with the phrase "scientists now know...".  They then go on to explain either a new theory, or a correction (often in a line of corrections) for past things that they thought they knew.

Here are some scientific opponents of the theory.  I agree with their view that in Big Bang theory, much like evolution, observations are interpreted/bent to fit the theory, rather than used as a genuine test of it.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

3. Carbon-dating is also a well-established scientific method. Can you be more precise in your criticism of it? Who exactly has said there is something wrong with it, and what was the reason? If you can give me a source, I will start to take the idea seriously.

I haven't read too deeply into it fred, but I have seen a few pieces over the years that question it's use/misuse.  But if people want to believe that carbon dating shows the world to be umpteen million years old...they're perfectly entitled to believe that.

1. The point is: the dinosaurs were wiped out at a definite point in time: the end of the Cretaceous era, 65 million years ago. (I just checked this. My previous post said "135 million years ago", which was wrong. Sorry about this inaccuracy.) The dinosaurs fossils appear on the fossil record up to that point and then they suddenly disappear. So, there was some kind of catastrophic event that wiped them out all at once. This is known as the "terminal Cretaceous event". Sure, there are different theories as to what it actually was, but the main point is: it happened. Early humans/apes did not appear until 4 million years ago. Thus, humans and dinosaurs did not coexist.

2. First of all, thanks for the link. It's always good to hear about other ideas and theories. I has a quick skim-read of it, and hope to read it again more carefully later. One interesting thing is that Pope Pius XII thought that science (including the Big Bang) and Christianity were totally compatible.

The Big Bang theory is accepted by 99% of mainstream astronomers/cosmologists, but there are some who don't agree with it. I went to a lecture a few months ago by a San Francisco-based astronomer who disagrees with the Big Bang, and has his own version of the Steady State theory, which goes back to Fred Hoyle and perhaps earlier. Personally, I find the Big Bang convincing for these reasons:

(a) At present, the galaxies are all flying apart. (In fact, they are accelerating apart.) So if you extrapolate backwards, you realise there must have been a point in time when they were all "on top of each other", so to speak. The current estimate for this is approx 13.7 billion years ago.

(b) The level of the cosmic microwave background in empty space is 2.7 kelvin, exactly as predicted by the Big Bang theory. This is the "echo" of radiation left behind by the Big Bang. (If the universe has always existed in a Steady State, where would this radiation have come from?)

3. Carbon dating. Well, I am sure you are right that some scientists have their doubts about it. In science, everything seems to be open to debate and scepticism. But as before, it is probably a case of 99% of geologists being convinced by carbon dating and 1% of them doubting it..

Thanks for the info fred.  I guess like many things it's a case of "time will tell"...

As we mere mortals slowly increase our miniscule knowledge of the universe, we'll get ever closer towards discovering the truth behind it.

Yes, I totally agree.

Our understanding of the world around us is gradually improving, and the best world-view we have keeps changing, as we discover more things. We will probably never see things exactly as they are, but we can make a "best approximation".

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

freshly squeezed

You may be right - he's by far the most polite evolutionist I've ever met!!  Most just throw a few sarcy, often irrelevant comments and then retreat into their caves...

I guess the main difference is our view of evolution.  fred sees it as the current "best guess" available, a guess that's consistent with science, and a guess that's being further proved as time progresses.  I see it as the latest in a long line of guesses as to how we got here, one where science is abused to prove a theory, and one that will ultimately be debunked.  At least we both remain open-minded enough to respect each others' opinions...

Respect and politeness don't require an open-mind, it's a question of motivation. I'm not sure what Fred's motivation has been, I suspect it is a self-imposed exercise to test and refine his ability to verbally argue his point of view. Other than that, I couldn't say what the virtue of Fred's patience is. Certainly he's been more effective in gaining your friendship than in persuading you of his arguments.

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Cybacat, I am glad that we can agree to differ and still respect each other's opinions. As you suggest, sarcasm, abuse and rudeness are not the way to have a sensible discussion and will certainly not presuade people of anything.

Feshly Squeezed, you wonder eactly what my motivation is. My only motivation is to try and persuade Cybacat and everyone else that evolution really is true: it really did happen and it still is happening now. Just look at the evidence. I am sure that if any sensible, reasonable person read the books that I have mentioned earlier in this conversation, they would be convinced of the truth of evolution.

I think it is important that people understand science and the world around them, and do not continue to agree with ideas that have been refuted years ago. How are we going to solve problems like global warming if we don't even agree about something as far-reaching as evolution of species?

But perhaps people are busy. They have families and jobs, and do not have time to read. Ultimately, each individual person will make up his/her mind, and some of them will decide it is not true. I have failed to convince Cybacat. Yes, that's true. But we could go on arguing about this for months and months, and still reamined entrenched in our opinions. I have presented virtually all the evidence I am aware of. I have recommended books that present the evidence in more detail, written by experts in biology.

I looked at the website that Cybacat recommended, and it's all interesting stuff! It is always healthy to hear other opinions.

The peanut butter argument

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

If you combine this latest video with the first one, you get one tasty snack.

"Hey, you got microorganisms in my peanut butter!"
"Hey, you got faulty reasoning in my established scientific fact!"

Logic Hat Online- logichat.org

I think what disappoints me most about these videos is the fact that it makes Christians look like kooks. "OMG NO NEW LIFE IN TEH PEANUT BUTTER!!!!1111" WTF? Most of the people around me are deeply vested in their religion of choice and I would never hear anything this silly coming out of their mouths. In fact, none of them have ever felt the need to prove their god's existence to me in any manner. They just tell me they know he exists and they believe in the teachings of their religion and that is what is important to them. And they've certainly never felt the need to discount my own beliefs as far as science is concerned, especially not with a jar of Jif.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

Got up early, found something's missing/ My only name/ No one else sees but I got stuck/ And soon forever came