An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Timminz]

I would love to see bk barunt's response to the above post.


By "above post" I mean "post at the bottom of the last page".

[DoomYoshi]

[quote=BK BARUNT]
You must be a sleazy Catholic. Welcome to the Foe!
[/quote]

[betiko]

taking something allegorically or metaphorically in this context means more or less the same doom. I guess you meant literally vs metaphorically.

[DoomYoshi]

taking something allegorically or metaphorically in this context means more or less the same doom. I guess you meant literally vs metaphorically.

No, I didn't.

[betiko]

taking something allegorically or metaphorically in this context means more or less the same doom. I guess you meant literally vs metaphorically.

No, I didn't.

well i doesn't make sense to me. Taking the bible allegorically would mean that they used concrete concepts to illustrate abstract concepts, and taking the bible metaphorically would mean using comparable concepts (generally concrete, which would be the case in the genesis) to illustrate a concept (in this cas I believe abstract).

[AAFitz]

Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.

Well, it gives a framework of time which allows for our planet to be in the 4 billion old range, and thereby give an amount of time to certainly allow for many changes in living creatures, and evolution.

And if you believed the earth was only 6000 or 10000 years old, obviously you wouldn't believe in evolution, anymore than anyone else would since it would be near impossible in that tiny amount of time.

[DoomYoshi]

taking something allegorically or metaphorically in this context means more or less the same doom. I guess you meant literally vs metaphorically.

No, I didn't.

well i doesn't make sense to me. Taking the bible allegorically would mean that they used concrete concepts to illustrate abstract concepts, and taking the bible metaphorically would mean using comparable concepts (generally concrete, which would be the case in the genesis) to illustrate a concept (in this cas I believe abstract).

When I get back to school, and the library, I will get back to you on this. I remember thinking something similar. However, those were the two main schools of thought. Back then Grammar and Rhetoric were two of the "Liberal Arts" so they were studied a lot more, and much may have been lost in translation. The point is that nobody for nearly 2000 years ever dreamed of taking it literally.

[Lootifer]

Finally, the conversation has entered the only realm I know better than evolutionary Biology.

Between the years the Bible was written and around the 5th century AD, all arguments around the Bible centered around whether it was to be taken allegorically or metaphorically.Even then, only a few crackpots even toyed with the idea of biblical literalism. Then the reformation happened.

Now, the reformation was ridiculous. The canonization of the Bible had one reason and one reason only: to declare the Catholic Church as the only church. So, if you accept the Old Testament with the New, if you accept the books in the order often presented, you are affirming that the Catholic Church is the only church. However, the reformists ignored this inconvenient piece of history and started worshipping God instead of the Bible. Now, Christianity has deviated so far, that Joel Olsteen is the most recognizable religious face in America (he, of course, became famous by promising people riches if they donated to his church).

With these bullshit reformations came reading the Bible literally. I repeat, this is a completely modern invention, as removed from Jesus as internet porn over Wi-Fi.

So sure,

any who reads the bible....

Once again, legerdemain based on the fact that those who read the bible are getting a skewed viewed, which is missing the most important historical contexts.

On religious and historical (completely non-scientific) grounds, biblical creationism (or any other literalism) makes no sense.

Quoting an awesome post.

[AAFitz]

Finally, the conversation has entered the only realm I know better than evolutionary Biology.

Between the years the Bible was written and around the 5th century AD, all arguments around the Bible centered around whether it was to be taken allegorically or metaphorically.Even then, only a few crackpots even toyed with the idea of biblical literalism. Then the reformation happened.

Now, the reformation was ridiculous. The canonization of the Bible had one reason and one reason only: to declare the Catholic Church as the only church. So, if you accept the Old Testament with the New, if you accept the books in the order often presented, you are affirming that the Catholic Church is the only church. However, the reformists ignored this inconvenient piece of history and started worshipping God instead of the Bible. Now, Christianity has deviated so far, that Joel Olsteen is the most recognizable religious face in America (he, of course, became famous by promising people riches if they donated to his church).

With these bullshit reformations came reading the Bible literally. I repeat, this is a completely modern invention, as removed from Jesus as internet porn over Wi-Fi.

So sure,

any who reads the bible....

Once again, legerdemain based on the fact that those who read the bible are getting a skewed viewed, which is missing the most important historical contexts.

On religious and historical (completely non-scientific) grounds, biblical creationism (or any other literalism) makes no sense.

Quoting an awesome post.

Make another sentence using the words: Bullshit, Bible, Jesus, Porn, and Wi-Fi....I triple dog dare ya.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

[Viceroy63]

Feathered fossil proves that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs
By Steve Connor , Science Editor
The Independent News Paper
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 13382.html)

A foot-long lizard that glided through the trees of prehistory 220 million years ago has overturned an established theory of how birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs.

The lizard, which lived 75 million years before the first known bird, may have sported a set of feathers yet was not a dinosaur, a study published today has found.

Finding feathers on a lizard which belongs to the ancestral stock of dinosaurs suggests that these most bird-like of biological structures are far more ancient that anyone has until now realized.

The scientists who made the discovery, reported in the journal of Science,"I believe the existence of a 220 million-year-old fossil with feathers, blows a hole in the idea that birds are "living dinosaurs".

The research has focused on the fossils of Longisquama insignis, an archosaur - the group that gave rise to the dinosaurs, crocodiles and birds - that lived in the forests of what is now central Asia by probably jumping from tree to tree.

"These are some amazing fossils, and at the very least they prove that feathers did not evolve from dinosaurs," said John Ruben, professor of zoology at Oregon State University in Corvallis and a member of the research team. "The supposed link between dinosaurs and birds is pretty entrenched in palaeontology, but it's not as solid as the public has been led to believe."

Soviet scientists originally found the fossils in Kyrgyzstan in 1969 but they laid in a museum drawer in Moscow for many years after an initial examination concluded that two parallel rows of appendages on the back of the animal were scales, not feathers.

However, closer scrutiny of the "scales" by a team of Russian and American scientists found that they have several key features in common with feathers. The scientists found that the appendages had a long, thin tube or shaft running down their centre, with projections or "pinnae" extending from the sides of the base, just like modern feathers, but quite unlike reptilian scales.

Another feature is that Longisquama appears to have a feather growing in the same manner as modern feathers, where the pinnae unfurl inside a tube called a feather sheath.

The scientists believe that they have identified an unfurled pinna inside a sheath where the outer wall has flaked away. Larry Martin, another member of the team at the University of Kansas, said this was the factor that clinched it for him. "I'd been holding back until that point, thinking that these were unusual and feather-like scales, but scales none the less. The results were startling," he said.

Feathers are so distinctive that it is unlikely they they had evolved more than once, Professor Ruben said. "A point that too many people always ignored, however, is that the most bird-like of the dinosaurs, such as Bambiraptor and Velociraptor, lived 70 million years after the earliest bird, Archaeopteryx," he said.

"So according to these findings, you have birds flying before the "evolution" of the first bird-like dinosaurs. We now question very strongly whether there were any feathered dinosaurs at all ... they were probably like flightless birds."

Source:
The Independent News Paper
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 13382.html)

I post this because it is one of evolutionist's strongest point that the birds of today evolved from Dinosaur's. Museums everywhere depict this as truth and fact. Yet in the article is stated that Birds basically existed before the first dinosaur with feathers and that the feathers were only scales that appear in the fossilized rocks as feathers when in fact they are not upon closer inspection.

Masses of unsuspecting intelligent people all over the world are duped into believing that Evolution is real when it is really a theory, a possible explanation that just does not hold any water.

The Bible states that Birds did not come from Land but from the waters instead (Genesis 1:20).

[Baron Von PWN]

so the precise evolution of creatures remains largely unknown. thanks for the update viceroy!

[Metsfanmax]

Why does Viceroy feel the need to constantly try to convince us that evolution is wrong? I don't go to his church telling everyone that the Bible is wrong, so stay out of my science classroom.

[betiko]

[MeDeFe]

I post this because it is one of evolutionist's strongest point that the birds of today evolved from Dinosaur's. Museums everywhere depict this as truth and fact. Yet in the article is stated that Birds basically existed before the first dinosaur with feathers and that the feathers were only scales that appear in the fossilized rocks as feathers when in fact they are not upon closer inspection.

Masses of unsuspecting intelligent people all over the world are duped into believing that Evolution is real when it is really a theory, a possible explanation that just does not hold any water.

The Bible states that Birds did not come from Land but from the waters instead (Genesis 1:20).

Cool. So birds may be even older than we thought.
The article sheds some new light on natural history and says that we might well have been wrong about something we'd accepted as true. The article most definitely does not make for any kind of argument against the theory of evolution as a whole. If you read it carefully you might notice that it says something or other "evolved" several times and its author clearly accepts evolution as the best explanation for observed phenomena.