Yes - very similar to the judgements passed on the Nazi's after WW2. Is it your opinion that the trials of Nuremborg were a travesty to those poor Nazi's? What should they have done with them - sent them home with a slap on the wrist? Woud that have been "man at his finest"?

Okay - so the analogy is extreme. But the point is - that there is a back history here. Are you familiar with it?

So - how long was the migration from reptiles to birds? A few million years - give or take a few?
Where are the fossils demonstrating this "change"?
We're talking years in the millions here. Aren't we still waiting to find even one example of this cross-over in species? How is it we can locate that 200 million year old reptile, then the 100 million year old bird - but can't seem to find anything of of the changes that "gradually" occured between them?

The folks of "Creationism" think dinosaurs are exactly what those who are non-creationists. Large accumulations of skeletal remains with artist renditions of skin coverings. We don't doubt their existance - just their presumed age and era. Since Job walked with the dinosaurs - how do they predate men by millions of years. And since the men of the time of the writing of Job were not extensive archiologists, how did they know what they were describing. Or even imagine such a beast. After all - how far back was the first discovery of Dinosaur remains? 1800's if I'm not mistaken. Had the dinosaurs not walked with man - explain how the description in Job came about?

Please - answer these "contradictions" about dinosaurs.

the feather please.

explain the scientific impossibilites of that leap from reptilian origins.

or from any other origin.

This is the best credible example of where the evolutionists are completely stumped.

it kills their cpmplete argument and they bury the trail leading to the feather being the inexcuseable rebuke of the whole charade.

yup.

Hey they have catfish in Florida that come upon the land and squirm around. Any idea's how long it will be before they stand up and walk?

the knowing of bones of large creatures was known from the times of the Greeks and probably earlier eljay, they just did not know they were dinosaurs. they believed them to be bones of giants and gods and creatures such as the cyclops. when you study you find that they the Greeks found the skull of a mammoth and it has a large hole in the middle of the skull and this was taken as an eye socket thus the one eyed cyclops of legend was born.

history channel myths and science and archeology.

there are photographs of human footprints right alongside footprints, three toed ones (dinosaurs), in rock that was once mud and all of this is on the surface of the earth, not buried beneath tons of earth.

and yet the evolutionists excuse this miserably by simply ignoring it and supposing that it is not man, but some other hominid, until the forensic scientists came along and agreed that it was homo sapiens.

So, then dating it is the argument, and then again the debate rages as to whether or not it is a dinosaur or not walking along side man in that day.

But no explanation can be offered other than the excuses made for the inconvenient discovery itself.

So, it gets obscured by the perpetrators of evolution and left out of the textbooks because they can do that with impunity.



Right there, they discredit their very premise.


So, how do we get the textbooks cleaned up?


By showing the world and the government the faulty science.

It will inevitably be remedied, but in the meantime, the idiots cite the fact that they have their religoin in textbooks and are justified by their machinations, not by the imperical evidence that rebukes their lies and distortions.

There is no truth in the whole of the imaginary boogeyman that slew God.

The ancients would be hysterically amused by this stupidity in the contrasting light of technological advances of mankind that produce such conflicting examples of man's witty inventiveness.

They would be rolling in the aisles with tears of laughter in their eyes at the dichotomy of the trade off being displayed of our time.

or crying uncontrollably and in deep anguish and sorrow with their yet relatively uncorrupted compassion for their fellow man and what he has "evolved" into over the centuries, bankrupting himself to achieve such as surrounds us in this cuccoon of artifice and appliance.

as the great debaters come forth, brought thru fire of anguish and plight, the mysteries are revealed, and the secrets made known, as fables are told, and no more deceptions sold, and the and the truth as a gem, shines as pure gold...........

Eljay, I understand you aren't all that hip to the study of evolutionary science, at least in this capacity, however the fact still remains that scientists theorize that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This theory for the evolution of birds was brought about by the discovery of a fossil species possessing feathers. This fossil species called Archaeopteryx lithographica dates back to 150 million years ago and is thought to have evolved from dinosaurs called theropods. Archaeopteryx lithographica had two strong legs and walked as a bird does. Its skeleton was reptilian whilst it had the feathers of a bird. There have been two other feathered dinosaur species discovered in China. Scientists believe that this adds further proof to the theory of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Mind you this is not the only interpretation or theory as it relates to avian evolution however, I’m giving you this one as it is what I was exposed to and is more widely accepted.

I think you can credit that to the time travel machine. (Montauk project) Woe the poor guy who made that trip back into time. (They never did figure out how to bring them back.)

JB:..... ..... Its possible....

yup

we are about 100 years away from sending him there to do it.

hope he isn't a relatve, jeannie.

go to youtube and type in transitional fossils . . . BAM more then you ever thought possible I gauruntee

Why do I think that Lot offered his daughters? This quote taken directly from Genesis 19 (KJV)

"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

Presumably these men from Sodom had come to sexually assault the two male angels that Lot was hiding in his home. This is where I came to that conclusion.

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly."

So Lot is pleading with them here not to do that and to take his virgin daughters instead.

When I read the Bible I kept finding sex and violence in it in stories like that and I was a little shocked at the things I read in what people called "The Word of God."

But then a lot of it was boring and some of it confusing. I did not spend much time on it. I could see no reason for it.

People back then were not very self conscious of thought processes and the writers of the Bible did nothing but tell the story. They did not speak of what people were actually thinking or feeling. It was mostly "he said" "she said," or "this happened" and "that happened," leaving the reader to guess what was actually on people's minds.

This kind of story telling is similar to the native American Indians and how they tell tales of battles and other things.
No opinions, no feelings, no thoughts, just the story.

Mankind (in general) was not as consciously aware back then. Some may have been, but not the general collective.

And yet the more conscious collective of today still follow these old less conscious books. I find them stimulating, unchallenging, not thought provoking but rather dull in context.

JB

Eljay,
As I said I will never be a scientist with the ability to understand all that encompasses the theories of evolution. For example, I will never hold a degree in biology, microbiology, archeology, paleontology, physiology, biophysical genetic engineering or any of the other dozen, or so, fields that would grant me the knowledge that it takes to study, test, produce results, match and verify, research, study, and test some more. WILL YOU?

What I can do is look up words and terms such as:
Genetics, macroevolution, microevolution, natural selection, species, speciation, spontaneous mutation, the genetic basis of divergence.

I can get an understanding of homology and analogy, review the methodologies used as I look into the various theories, how they come about, what parts of those theories are fact and what parts remain under study. I can research the various types of dating techniques, I can review the archeological findings and how they were determined to fit into the evolutionary picture. I can look at the geographics tracing mitochondrial DNA.

I can look, I can read, I can research, and review and in the end I can say I am not a scientist, but what I have seen is enough for me to take, on faith, that those who are scientists are on target and evolution is a fact, one way or another evolution NOT creation is how all the living things on this planet have come to be what they are today.

OR - I can read one book, that tells me stories of gods and miracles in a time so distantly removed from the present that I can’t even fathom the life style or mentality of those people. And from that book I can create a fantasy of a god to suit my purpose and never have to look into what science means to us today, and what the scientists are researching on the frontiers of tomorrow. It would mean nothing to me, because it would have nothing to do with how I viewed life and death, oh no, in a view from such book I would be more likely to be concerned with pleasing the unknowable demands of an unreasonable god, so that I might be found worthy of an eternal existence after this life and all the tests I had to endure.

Believe what you will, study what you like, but do not consider yourself intellectually challenged, more learned, or any more aware or comprehending of this life, world or universe, simply because you’ve read one book full of stories of gods and demons, angels and devils, dreams and visions. In fact, depending on the version of the book you read, you may never even have to look up the definition of a single word, but you will have to make up the meanings of stories that are unclear, often contradictory and many times not written with a logical sense of time and space, person or place.

Learn from your own creative ability to interpret a story or learn the hard way. It’s up to you. I will not teach you by holding your hand and leading the way and pointing out this phrase and this sentance, oh no. I have learned the hard way and I’m still learning, you my friend are behind.

How would you know that? How do you know that they have not already accomplished time travel with the Montauk project.
(Its above top secret).

(Some say they have.) Of course they were more concerned with the future, but they may have sent some back to the past for a test run. It could be a possibility.

However, I am unfamiliar with the case you mention and I have not looked into it. It could even be a hoax for all I know. I think I heard about it at one time. Do you have any varifiable referances?

JB

Well except Nazi's were grown men who were in fact soldiers of the Third Reich under direct command of Adolph Hitler. That is a very far reaching comparison. None of these villagers found in Sodom or any of the neighboring towns were allowed a trial as the captured Nazi’s were in Nuremburg. They were not given a chance to talk with counsel nor invoke their constitutional rights. They never once were able to explain their side of events and what might have been occurring. I think that is what I take issue with here. The fact that Yahweh dropped sulfur on men, women, children and infants guilty or not is a little bit troubling to me. I find your analogy to be quite insufficient.

just watched evolution of feathers and the "micro-raptor, a look at the evolution of feathers - the micro raptor actually had two 2 sets of wings on arms and legs a forerunner of the bird - very interesting - science channel/or history channel i look in a while cant remember - but look up micro-raptor.

When I read the Bible I feel precisely the same way.

How can these men who wrote this bible expect me to believe that God would be like they claim. The bottom line is that the God they wrote about wasn't any smarter than the authors would have been.

Why would I believe that the creator of this unviverse is as ignorant as the people who lived in Medieval times?

It just doesn't strike me as the kinds of things an all-wise God would do. Sorry no offense intended, but I just personally don't believe that God is as stupid as the Bible demands that he must be.

Krimsa wrote:


Krimsa you are confusing god kind of morality with human morality. A good deal of the major industrialized countries in the world today, believe in the kind of human rights you are considering in your last post. God, however, is not human and I think a good deal of how god acts in the stories of the bible, might even bring one to the conclusion that god does not have emotions at all. It was man who assigned emotions to god, it just seemed right to them. After all if humans were to be in the image of god than god should have human emotions.

I just happened to think - what happened to spider, didnt' he start this thread?

I think, if I'm not mistaken, he's done this before. A really long, in depth thread and spider copps out. funny!