One of the things that has happened probably in the last 100 years or so, is that some Christians have stopped believing the Biblical acount of Creation by God, and turned more and more to the (unproven) theory of evolution. Even though it is only a theory, without enough evidence to prove it otherwise (even after all this time), evolution is still being taught as though it were established fact. The interesting information in this video talks about the possibility that dinosaurs did not exist millions of years ago, but in the last few thousand years, and maybe as recently as a few hundred years ago. Although the information is shown from an archeological and scientific viewpoint; I decided that since it does talk about Creation, and the existance of God, it would better fit here in the religious subforum. Regardless of the verifiable evidence of dinosaurs living more recently; non-believers are not likely to give much credibility to any position that includes there being a God and Creation, or even take the time tto watch the video and consider it. This is an @Ina I. Wonder alert ! You asked me about the dinosaurs, start with this.......
The so called Darwin Theory of Evolution is on longer considered a theory, but is a proven fact as has been acknowledged by many religious leaders & scholars. There is however a group of EVOLUTION DENIERS similar to the group of HOLOCAUST DENIERS.
There certainly is enough evidence to prove Dinosaurs did exist in the past. I haven't seen any walking around lately but I have been to museums that put together the bones of different ones and I found that fasinating. I still have my grandsons' toy dinosaurs at our home and now my youngest granddaughtter likes to play with these when she comes to Gran Gran and Papaw's house. I think evolution will be taught as long as this earth exists but just because it is taught doesn't mean it is the Truth. As a Christian I believe that God created everything just as He told us in Genesis, the first Book of the Old Testament. Throughout time there has been evolvement of the things God created. For example I believe the first people God created had a lot more hair on their bodies than we do now and that was probably because the climate back then was different than what it is now too and more hair was needed as covering for that kind of climate. There will always be those who try to take God out of Creation and everything else too. But I believe with every fiber of my being that one day the God that many of us believe in....will prove to everyone that He the one and only Creator of heaven and earth and everything contained therein....including us. Dinosaurs are just one of the fasinating creatures God created and even though it's hard for me to see what purpose they served even when they did roam the earth....I know God's plan for them was as perfect as the plan He has for each of us.
It is indeed a wonderful thing to meet a new person who pursues the truth the old fashioned way......by studying!! By the way, welcome to the SeniorsOnly club and I do hope to have many very intelligent conversations with you. I'd like to ask you Ren, what part of Darwins Theory of Evolution are you most interested in? Almost everyone I know who agree with Darwin lean toward his thoughts on Natural Selection but pretty much shrug their shoulders at the rest due to the problem of nil evidence regarding an intermediate evolutionary process. The necessary fossils or images which would substantially give rise to empirical data regarding the intermediate processes are virtually non-existant which is the reasoning behind the "punctuated equilibrium" train of thought. But, I am sure you already know that there are some holes in that, because punctuated equilibrium calls for a complete halt to one species allowing another to rise. Some scientists still play with that but very few have maintained that it is a totally viable situation in that ALL species would have to carry the same circumstance at least every thousand generations or so. One would think, that a bonafide paleontologist or anthropologist would be able to come up with at least a small paradigm leading to the causation of the end of a total species other than some big radioactive boom that wipes out one species but leaving another unharmed. This is fun, isn't it? Now, do forgive me for I am a student of many things and many topics. It comes with the territory. What are your chief experiences with the topic of evolution and can we come close to some empirical data for I know myself nor the think tanks I belong to know enough to proclaim anything absolute fact as of yet concerning a vertical evolution although the horizontal is definitely a sustainable theory with very little arbitration or doubt regarding authenticity. I do so look forward to some more of your most obvious hard line thinking. Thank you most whole heartedly for a most delightful conversation.
You have a right to your beliefs, but this forum is not the place to be calling names. Not everyone here shares your beliefs, regardless of your zeal, and comparing Christians to those who deny the holocaust will not be permitted here. You are free to discuss the issues, and I encourage you to, but only if you can do so without insulting those who do not share your beliefs. You have started a thread where you shared your faith, and no one has attacked you for it.
WHAT???? I insulted no one and did no name calling.There are Holocaust Deniers and there are Evolution Deniers. One or the other may or may not be Christian. You are the one that made the connection not me Ken.
I am a fan of Richard Dawkins, and his book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence For Evolution" It puts forth my thoughts on the subject.
I am not interested in playing semantics. Are you trying to tell me that "Holocaust Deniers" and "Evolution Deniers" are not names? They are and, beyond that, they are names that are given to them by those who disagree with them, as insults, intended to discourage anyone from agreeing with them. This is a place for discussion, not name calling.
OK Ken you win and I humbly apologise if I offended you or any one else, it was not my intention & I will be cautious with my use of words in the future. One final thought however. Would calling some one a Christian Fundamentalist be name calling?
Dawkins? Yes, I can see that you might like his observations especially because of your religious stances but at the same time you wish to use someone who has a biologists tenor but not the experience of the quantum studies that are specific to the topic of horizontal or vertical evolution. Granted, he IS a very smart fellow but it seems that he wishes to convey his personal thoughts which are round housed for easy reading but not fully specific for a student of higher learning, but after all, that is his specialty is it not? The problem I find is that most of his writing is old time thinking instead of contemporary study which does leave a lot to be desired. Richard is a biologist, so I would not expect him to be up to speed with quantum bio-mechanics but I certainly do enjoy it more when someone can relate to me on my level rather than that of someone with much less hunger for absolute facts. Classic evolution such as is deemed by anti-creationists as fact is a vertical move that cannot be proved nor justified by any type of mechanics known. A simple study in DNA entanglement shows that a vertical evolution is impossible but still does acknowledge a horizontal evolution in development of any species to be classified or documented.
Ah yes.....no reply. Okay, I will go this in another direction anyway. There is a certain thing called "propositional truth.". It's just two words that mean everything to all people because the proposition aligns with SOME proof that something is so and so and is actual to the person proposing that truth. In this case, the propositional truth has to do with evolution and it's validity. The yea people say yea, and the nay people say nay and BOTH are correct but are only half correct which makes the whole truth being considered invalid. Propositional truth cannot exist in the same room as empirical data for it either aligns itself with the empirical data or it is made null and void and either way it is either absorbed or negated entirely. The empirical data, at this point in time, states that NO evidence of an intermediate vertical evolution has ever been found therefore making the proposed scenario, that Ren was so adamant about, totally invalid for his statement only round housed the activity of evolution and did now acknowledge the two facets of the activity. Now, it HAS been evidenced that a continual horizontal evolution has, is, and will be in action not only on a multi-millennial basis but on a day to day basis. More importantly, in the scientific world, when an observation of genealogical change takes place then it is no longer a proposition but fact until something alters that fact. Ergo, when only half truths are on the table, then the statement needs to be altered to meet the necessary criteria for proper consideration. Many, many people with only half of the information provide propositional truths but upon scrutiny do not hold up in the light of empirical facts hence people like Richard Dawkins who make their living providing only a proposition rather than a total outlook on a theory.
Ah yes my dear Chrissy, I see a point to your reply but unfortunately it has little to do with the topic at hand. I did not mention your friend but I did mention Richard Dawkins the author, at the end of the post. But, you have indeed verified my post by showing a prime example of propositional truth and for that I thank you immensely.
I find it difficult to understand your post on propositional truth, Bobby. Perhaps, if you explained it in simple words and shorter sentences?