|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2005 : 06:51:57 [Permalink]
|
The answer is, neither. The theropod dinosaur came first. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 08:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I don't know how familiar you are with the Theory of Evolution but...
Familiar, yes, but not "studied". It's a pretty simple concept. We already know that on present day Earth that inbreeding can lead to deformity, relative to the parents. An initial life form with a malleable DNA structure would produce just what Evolution requires, an explosion of diverse life. That's not so hard to grasp. (Did I do good?)
I think your little friend you linked me to is still a river dweller. You have to get him out of the water BEFORE the birds to win the race to shore.
I didn't know about that critter though. That's absolutely fascinating. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 08:53:05 [Permalink]
|
Thank ALL of you for the Welcome. It was received with a sincere note of kindness.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
...I'd like to ask how much you know about the scientific theory of how Earth was born?
I ask, because I can see a number of discrepancies in your interpretation of Genesis...
My understaning of the theory is pretty much like my view on Evolution. Dust, gas, gravity, planet. It's straightforward. I don't have a problem with it.
I'm puzzled by the fact that you found discrepancies. Where?
Don't they fit the scientific model?
Or do your beliefs not fit the scientific model?
I can only assume that you disagree with a "day" being a "stage". Regardless. A day is not 24 hours. A day is one rotation of the Earth. If it takes a billion years to turn around once, then one day is a billion years long. |
| Edited by - David Mc on 02/15/2005 09:14:43 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 08:58:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I don't know how familiar you are with the Theory of Evolution but...
Familiar, yes, but not "studied". It's a pretty simple concept. We already know that on present day Earth that inbreeding can lead to deformity, relative to the parents. An initial life form with a malleable DNA structure would produce just what Evolution requires, an explosion of diverse life. That's not so hard to grasp. (Did I do good?)
I think your little friend you linked me to is still a river dweller. You have to get him out of the water BEFORE the birds to win the race to shore.
I didn't know about that critter though. That's absolutely fascinating.
Ya done good!
But, Icthyostega was primarly a land dweller much as our modern salamanders, albeit a much larger predator. The river dweller you seek is Acanthrostega. I had a good Jenny Clack (Dr. Clack is an athority on these animals) link to it, but seem to have lost it. I'll look again a little later. Acanthrostega was almost fully aquatic and had gills as well as lungs. Fascinating indeed!
Had I a time machine, I'd go to the Devonian and see for myself the vertibrate transisiton from water to land.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 09:23:33 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, this is from your link
"Icthyostega had still not become efficient at terrestrial locomotion and
p r o b a b l y
spent most of its time in the water (as would be expected from a fish-amphibian transition), using its limbs to push itself around on the river bottom."
Probably? I'm straining to agree with you... but... this is still a catfish. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 09:53:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Hi DavidMc, pleased to meet you.
So you are saying all of the gross inaccuracies, (ie not consistent with the scientific evidence we have collected to date), in the Bible are the result of poor communication between God and Man?
Oh my. That gets a "WAY no". This is limited to Genesis One, as you proposed. I'll be a rotten one to deal with on inaccuracies since I believe that if I find something that doesn't fit in the Bible, there's something wrong with my thinking. The Bible gives an account of man's interaction with God. If don't understand the interaction, the fault is mine.
I believe you started this thread to challenge a certain line of beliefs. I chose one to defend, "Moses and the stars". I think we'll appreciate each other much more if I stick to that.
Oddly enough, the person that suggested this board is "BeskeptiCAL" at BABB. Small Internet, huh?
My point with Moses isn't a matter of communication, but of perspective. If Moses is perceiving these events from above the Solar System, then you're right he's out of order. But if you put Moses somewhere INSIDE the earth cloud, his description of the creation is accurate. The stars don't appear in his account because he can't see them through the clouds.
So just how did a guy sitting on a rock, in a desert, 3000 years ago come up with this? |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 10:37:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Genesis is a remarkable books... (space saving edit)
Filthy, not only are you going to get the Athiests breathing down my neck, but the fundamentalist will want to hang me... in a loving way, of course.
I know, I'll hide from that thought.
First, you can't blow off Moses' account until you can explain how he knew what he knew. You don't get that kind of accuracy out of "folk tales".
"The God described in Genesis was a very ill-tempered beast."
Well, what do you do when you're writing something and the entire concept goes to crap in your own thinking? Right, you chuck it. We WERE made in His image, after all. Still, you do hold onto a few of the good ideas you had (Noah)
I have to go with you on the YEC view. 144 hours of creation and... well... why is He moving so slow all of the sudden? YO GOD! WAKE UP!! Apparently this Seventh Day is going to be a LONG one.
I don't know about the "flood" sources you're referring to. The fossils of sea creatures on mountain tops are still not resolved. Hypothesised, but not resolved.
Adam from the "dust" of the Earth. (So long, Literallists, I'm leaving you) What is the dust of the Earth? Dirt? An atom? A particle? A Photon? Energy? And then that facinating rib. Oh, come on Filthy. Even WE can do cloning and chromosome manipulation. That's too easy.
"The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it!" -- Unknown.
"If the data conflicts with my interpretation of Scripture, then those data are flawed." -- Henry Morris of ICR."
Wow. I had an emotional response to reading that. A sad one. Those are terrible thoughts.
The bible says it, and I want to know what it means.
If data conflicts with my interpretation of Scripture, I'm believing a lie and need to find the truth in the Scripture.
Thanks, Filthy |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 10:39:51 [Permalink]
|
| Highly creative imaginations? Knowledge of previous myths? Who knows? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 10:52:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
David Mc:
v20-The fish and birds have arrived. Aquatic life first and then mammals. Of course, they start screwing like crazy and making babies. God is very pro-sex at this point.
v24-Mammals make their way to the land. Now all the animals are born.
quote:
David Mc:
I'm puzzled by the fact that you found discrepancies. Where?
First off, welcome to SFN David. Now, a couple of discrepancies that jump out at me are these. Fish came a very long time before birds. Since you didn't actually say they arrived at the same time, I will not dwell on that. However, mammals did not make there way to land. Exactly the reverse is true. Some mammals went back to the sea. But again, that happened way after the evolution of mammals. The correct order would go more like this:
1. Fish. And that is after a whole shit load of other aquatic beings evolved, including the chordates that gave rise to the fish, and us for that matter. We, and all the animals we are discussing are in phylum: Chordata.
2. Amphibians. After some brave fish got tired of being wet all the time, they became tetrapods by developing limbs which made it possible for amphibians to evolve. (Of course, there were other reasons for the development of limbs and many fishy tetrapods are still exclusively water dwellers.)
3. Reptiles. Gave rise to dinosaurs, marsupials and mammals.
4. Bird evolution can be, at this time, easily traced back to the theropod dinosaurs. And mammals probably evolved before the birds did.
Anyhow, I'm sure other discrepancies will be pointed out. I just happen to enjoy discussing chordate evolution in particular. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 11:00:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Chicken or egg? This is an incomplete question. Chicken Eggs are chicken, If refering to all eggs clearly eggs came first, however chicken eggs could be argued to be chickens. I suggest rewriting it.
What came first the chicken egg or the fully formed chicken? This would really claify the situation.
I almost missed the most imporant topic. It's a trick question. The Cluckasaurus came first. It laid an egg that spawned a Fundamentalist that was afraid of truth and became a chicken.
Was that mean? I don't want to be mean. Just a smartass, pious, free-range Christian. That's all I really want to be. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 11:08:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Highly creative imaginations? Knowledge of previous myths? Who knows?
You're saying that somebody GUESSED? Why would a pre-Moses civilization bother with a concept of Dust and Gasses? The emergence of sunlight?
I can't force that acception into my brain. Sorry. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 11:19:14 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
Thank you, too. (Dang you guys are nice.)
If it comes down to lizard first, bird first we really can't debate that until we've dug up the last fossil.
My statement that birds would be found to be next in the evolution was a joust of faithful pride. I'm truly amazed that Moses was able to put this order down in writing so far ahead of our knowledge. I'm just cocky to believe he'll hit it right on every step.
That's not good ground for a logical debate, but it makes for a great "bar bet". Since I won't be around when they find the last fossil, I'm in for a beer. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 12:00:58 [Permalink]
|
There were flying creatures at the time of Icthyostega, but they were all invertibrates. No birds. Micoraptor gui was a gliding theropod dino, one of the many dromaeosaurids, but it is not known if it's ancestors actually became birds. It was many millions of years younger than Icthyostega.
Icthyostega is thought to have spent much time in the water due to a rather weak pelvic setup, but it was incapable of living there as it had no gills. Just like most of today's salamanders.
As for Moses, it is first necessary to establish the existance of the gentleman as well as his verasity. When we speak of magic, and a lot of the Bible is pretty much based on it, we are dealing with extraordinary claims.
"Extrodinary claims demand extraordinary evidences." As I recall, it was Carl Sagan who said that.
Edited to add a link for Acanthrostega.
quote:
Acanthostega gunnari (Jarvik 1952, 1980) is one of a small but increasing number of genera of stem-tetrapods known from the Upper Devonian, which are providing an expanding view of the appearance of tetrapods and the origin of limbs with digits (Coates and Clack 1990, Clack and Coates 1995, Gould 1991, Pough et al. 1996, Thomson 1993, Zimmer 1995). Acanthostega is represented by exceptionally well-preserved material. Notable features are the well-ossified gill arches combined with post-branchial lamina of the shoulder girdle, together suggesting retention of functional internal gills; paddle-like limbs with eight digits on each limb and a deep tail supported by finrays and accessory internal supports (Coates 1996). It comes from the Remigolepis Group of the Famennian of East Greenland, which date from about 360 mya.
It is interesting to note that the little guy had eight digits on it's limbs instead of the usual five, suggesting the reminants of fins such as those found on lobe-finned fishes.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/15/2005 12:13:12 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 13:21:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Hi DavidMc, pleased to meet you.
So you are saying all of the gross inaccuracies, (ie not consistent with the scientific evidence we have collected to date), in the Bible are the result of poor communication between God and Man?
Oh my. That gets a "WAY no". This is limited to Genesis One, as you proposed. I'll be a rotten one to deal with on inaccuracies since I believe that if I find something that doesn't fit in the Bible, there's something wrong with my thinking. The Bible gives an account of man's interaction with God. If don't understand the interaction, the fault is mine.
I believe you started this thread to challenge a certain line of beliefs. I chose one to defend, "Moses and the stars". I think we'll appreciate each other much more if I stick to that.
Oddly enough, the person that suggested this board is "BeskeptiCAL" at BABB. Small Internet, huh?
My point with Moses isn't a matter of communication, but of perspective. If Moses is perceiving these events from above the Solar System, then you're right he's out of order. But if you put Moses somewhere INSIDE the earth cloud, his description of the creation is accurate. The stars don't appear in his account because he can't see them through the clouds.
So just how did a guy sitting on a rock, in a desert, 3000 years ago come up with this?
Sorry, I forget I have different names. I started as beskeptical a long time back. Most people assumed 'she' was a 'he'. Someone suggested beskepti'gal' so I used that when I signed up here. I have since changed to skeptigirl and use that everywhere I have registered since. It's too much trouble to bother changing names on boards.
I believe I will 'appreciate' you and your discussion on any of these subjects. Any challenges on my part are strictly toward the facts and not toward you.
Just taking the Moses/God communication topic, I need more details on your position here. Are you saying Moses wrote Genesis, and the story of creation including all the other history was written, (or memorized if you think it was an oral history), during these communications?
And why would Moses only have clouds and not clear skies above and which verses do these descriptions come from? |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2005 : 13:32:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Highly creative imaginations? Knowledge of previous myths? Who knows?
I'd go with knowledge of previous myths. Hero with an African Face is a good book to start with to read about virgin births and worldwide floods that preceded the Bible and Moses assuming he is not a myth, by thousands of years.
Human migration out of Africa occurred at least 80 thousand years ago. The Bible doesn't address any of human history before a few thousand years ago nor does it address any of the other populations that had spread across the planet by that time.
The History of Eve did a good job of summarizing some of the current research. Genetic studies have traced migration routes from Africa and shown several waves occurred with one going around the Indian Ocean to Australia, one going to Asia and then west to Europe, and so on.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/15/2005 13:38:59 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
