|
|
Post by paleofreak on Oct 23, 2011 12:03:53 GMT
It cited other instances in the bible where a "day" was used to describe periods in time which were actually much longer than a day But in other instances, "day" was used in the Bible to describe a 24 hour period. Right? So, it says "day" and some believers, nowadays, forced by science, have decided that the Genesis days were allegorical or mean long periods. Creationists are of course anti-evolution (thus, anti-science). They make anti-evolution websites, books, pamphlets, documentaries, even museums. They fight fight evolution research and education. They are not always old-earthers, there are other kinds of creationists. Muslim creationists are not old-earthers, for example. That's because you are a believer but not a creationist. What is an "evolutionist"? An evolution defender? An evolutionary biologist? Anyway, they can be believers. But they tend to be very advanced, flexible, undogmatic, believers. They usually don't pay much attention to what the Bible says about our origins. |
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Oct 23, 2011 20:17:51 GMT
Paleo, "day" does refer to 24 hours in many instances of the bible. But as I stated, there are some instances when the word "day" is used to describe a time period that is clearly much longer than 24 hours. But, due to reasons I have already mentioned (the bibles mixed age and origins) I don't like to put too much weight on a single word, since it could have easily been added on mistake or by purpose by some scribe 2000 years ago.
I suppose if that is the actual definition of a creationist. I know many people consider that to be the definition. I used to consider myself a creationist, and people like the ones you describe I thought of as an embarrassment to the word creationist and an embarrassment to my religion in general. They struck me as being an unfortunately loud minority (the craziest member of any group tends to be the loudest). I have heard from other self-professed "creationists" who feel the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Oct 24, 2011 22:37:17 GMT
Paleo, "day" does refer to 24 hours in many instances of the bible. But as I stated, there are some instances when the word "day" is used to describe a time period that is clearly much longer than 24 hours. But, due to reasons I have already mentioned (the bibles mixed age and origins) I don't like to put too much weight on a single word, since it could have easily been added on mistake or by purpose by some scribe 2000 years ago. I suppose if that is the actual definition of a creationist. I know many people consider that to be the definition. I used to consider myself a creationist, and people like the ones you describe I thought of as an embarrassment to the word creationist and an embarrassment to my religion in general. They struck me as being an unfortunately loud minority (the craziest member of any group tends to be the loudest). I have heard from other self-professed "creationists" who feel the same way. I see people go back and forth over this "day" thing all the time. I just have a simple question that never gets answered that really should be the linchpin in such discussions: In the English language "day" can be a 24 hour period or an 'era'. It has multiple meanings in this language. "What day is it?" "In my day, we didn't have..." Same word, different meanings. But the bible was not written in english. Are "day" in Genesis and "day" in normal use in the Bible the same *Hebrew* word? And if so, does that word have the same multiple meanings as the English word? |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 24, 2011 23:04:31 GMT
As much as I´d like to know the same....doesn´t most hardcore creationists come from a protestant creed, anyway? and protestantism is basically an anglo centric (or "germanic" centric) revision of the original texts, based on a lot of subjective or personal interpretations. They probably wouldn´t (and actually, shouldn´t, if they want to be coherent) care about what some guy literally wrote like 2000 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Oct 25, 2011 6:20:36 GMT
But the bible was not written in english. Are "day" in Genesis and "day" in normal use in the Bible the same *Hebrew* word? And if so, does that word have the same multiple meanings as the English word? I'm not an expert, but when you read the Genesis you see the word "day" going with other relevant words that put it on context: "And the evening and the morning were the third day" "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" Years? If a day is a loooooong period, perhaps million years, what is a "year"? And what is an evening? It seems quite clear what these ancient writers were meaning: "normal" days, with their mornings, evening, night with stars, etc. But believe what you want, of course! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on Oct 25, 2011 9:33:04 GMT
Not exactly very recent, but still annoying: "Spinosaurus and T.Rex as bitter rivals in dioramas, paintings, etc" Unfourtunately this is a desperate try to start another topic here to cease all this creationism - evolution - discussion - bullnuts. Pandora´s box is open now  And I always thought this forum was fun I personally find it annoying that we let religion enter a Dino Toy Forum. Sorry. For I can´t lead a discussion about this without emotions this is definitely my last post in this section. |
|
|
|
Post by postsaurischian on Oct 25, 2011 9:50:41 GMT
I agree with Libra. We should leave religious themes out of this forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Oct 25, 2011 14:41:15 GMT
I agree with Libra. We should leave religious themes out of this forum!I second that motion. |
|
|
|
Post by mmfrankford on Oct 25, 2011 16:12:37 GMT
Sorry guys, when I originally created this thread it was meant to be a more humorous (shakes head) take on people's misunderstandings on the prehistoric. I should have seen the ugly face of religious discussion over the horizon. I am for totally killing of this thread if it helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 25, 2011 16:57:53 GMT
Sorry guys, when I originally created this thread it was meant to be a more humorous (shakes head) take on people's misunderstandings on the prehistoric. I should have seen the ugly face of religious discussion over the horizon. I am for totally killing of this thread if it helps. We'll just kill inappropriate conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Oct 25, 2011 20:37:07 GMT
It was kind of inevitable in a topic about prehistoric misunderstandings  |
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 3, 2011 19:40:58 GMT
I read a good article recently that question whether a "day" in genesis actually means a 24 hour period. It cited other instances in the bible where a "day" was used to describe periods in time which were actually much longer than a day. Such as, the lifespan of your average blade of grass, or the ruling period of a king. We must also remember that the bible has been rewritten or copied many times since the original texts were conceived. It is my understanding that our modern day bible is, at its roots, actually a chimera of various texts of different languages and ages (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). The genesis we have today might be very different from the original genesis. Maybe the original didn't mention days at all! I don't know. The bible is hundreds of years old, I'm sure some of it has changed in all that time. But I agree with bowhead that one of the most annoying misunderstandings I have experienced as a christian is the belief that there are these two incompatible sects, the "creationists" and the "evolutionists", and that the "creationists' are all a bunch of anti-evolution, anti-science, and anti-old-earth kooks. I can't speak for everyone, but I have no problem with science or evolution. None of it conflicts with my interpretation of the bible or my subsequent religious beliefs Likewise, why can't an "evolutionist" believe in an afterlife or the possibility that some sort of divine ("alien" if you wish) being or race had a hand in the creation of the universe? There is no evidence of course, but I like to hope or IMAGINE that there might be things out there that are simply beyond what human science is able to detect. I don't like the term "creationist" OR "evolutionist", and loath to be called either because of how society in general interprets those two terms. I would prefer to be called a crevolutionist, if I could choose. Please no one butcher me for any of that. *hugs a dinosaur* SEE? I LIKE DINOSAURS! AMEN!  And just to say a word about afte life, there is no "evidence", but many "witness stories". And despite I didn't live any experience like that myself doesn't mean I don't believe them. I, myself, lived experiences that totally contradicted what "scientists" told me. Never forget that "scientists" once seriously stated stupidities like "animals do not think and have no psychology", "black people are less intelligent that white people", "continents do not move" or "laser is physically impossible".  I'm not saying they are wrong on everything: I'm just saying we cannot absolutely abandon our self-thinking to them. Now, let's get back to funny/annoying misunderstandings. Here are a few ones I heard by people on the street or else: 1- Animals all were larger than the ones today, which are now smaller. Oh! Boy! Those people never knew about the evolution of horses, elephants... and they don't know about the baleen whales of today! 2- The mammoth is the ancester of the elephants. Don't laugh, I've heard that. Many don't know today's elephants actually cohabitated with mammoths. 3- Dinosaurs lived all at the same time. Yes, many people seriously think stegosauruses cohabitated with parasaurolophuses and vice versa. Oh! Boy! 4- With Homo sapiens sapiens, mankind became intelligent. In other words, intelligence appeared in a sudden BOOM and only man is able of thinking. In other words, apes have no intelligence at all, neither do dolphins, dogs nor parrots. There are no intelligence levels between creatures; there was darkness and suddently, WHAM, we became incredibly smart. Ouch! 5- Mammals appeared after the disappearance of dinosaurs. No comment... 6- What are dinosaurs? Well, all the extinct reptiles: dimetrodons, plesiosaurs, pterodactlys and mammoths. EEEK! 7- The frill of the triceratops was a great defense weapon: just like was the protoceratops' frill and the torosaurus' frill. Even with those big fenestrations. 8- Pterodactyl was a big bird, a huge predator the size of an airplane. Find the errors... 9- There were TEN species of dinosaurs in the world: T-Rex, Triceratops, Diplodocus, Brontosaurus, Iguanodon, Parasaurolophus, Stegosaurus, Dimetrodon, Pterodactyl and Trilobite. And there was the entire fauna of prehistory that roamed for millions of years without a change. 10- Pterosaurs are the ancestors of birds. The proof: they all have wings and a beak. Yes, and all of this despite the huge differences between pterosaur wings and bird wings... |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Nov 3, 2011 23:16:25 GMT
I heard one today, that all the continents were joined together as Pangaea throughout the entire reign of the dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on Nov 3, 2011 23:25:41 GMT
I read a good article recently that question whether a "day" in genesis actually means a 24 hour period. It cited other instances in the bible where a "day" was used to describe periods in time which were actually much longer than a day. Such as, the lifespan of your average blade of grass, or the ruling period of a king. We must also remember that the bible has been rewritten or copied many times since the original texts were conceived. It is my understanding that our modern day bible is, at its roots, actually a chimera of various texts of different languages and ages (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). The genesis we have today might be very different from the original genesis. Maybe the original didn't mention days at all! I don't know. The bible is hundreds of years old, I'm sure some of it has changed in all that time. But I agree with bowhead that one of the most annoying misunderstandings I have experienced as a christian is the belief that there are these two incompatible sects, the "creationists" and the "evolutionists", and that the "creationists' are all a bunch of anti-evolution, anti-science, and anti-old-earth kooks. I can't speak for everyone, but I have no problem with science or evolution. None of it conflicts with my interpretation of the bible or my subsequent religious beliefs Likewise, why can't an "evolutionist" believe in an afterlife or the possibility that some sort of divine ("alien" if you wish) being or race had a hand in the creation of the universe? There is no evidence of course, but I like to hope or IMAGINE that there might be things out there that are simply beyond what human science is able to detect. I don't like the term "creationist" OR "evolutionist", and loath to be called either because of how society in general interprets those two terms. I would prefer to be called a crevolutionist, if I could choose. Please no one butcher me for any of that. *hugs a dinosaur* SEE? I LIKE DINOSAURS! AMEN! And just to say a word about afte life, there is no "evidence", but many "witness stories". And despite I didn't live any experience like that myself doesn't mean I don't believe them. I, myself, lived experiences that totally contradicted what "scientists" told me. Never forget that "scientists" once seriously stated stupidities like "animals do not think and have no psychology", "black people are less intelligent that white people", "continents do not move" or "laser is physically impossible". I'm not saying they are wrong on everything: I'm just saying we cannot absolutely abandon our self-thinking to them. Now, let's get back to funny/annoying misunderstandings. Here are a few ones I heard by people on the street or else: 1- Animals all were larger than the ones today, which are now smaller. Oh! Boy! Those people never knew about the evolution of horses, elephants... and they don't know about the baleen whales of today! 2- The mammoth is the ancester of the elephants. Don't laugh, I've heard that. Many don't know today's elephants actually cohabitated with mammoths. 3- Dinosaurs lived all at the same time. Yes, many people seriously think stegosauruses cohabitated with parasaurolophuses and vice versa. Oh! Boy! 4- With Homo sapiens sapiens, mankind became intelligent. In other words, intelligence appeared in a sudden BOOM and only man is able of thinking. In other words, apes have no intelligence at all, neither do dolphins, dogs nor parrots. There are no intelligence levels between creatures; there was darkness and suddently, WHAM, we became incredibly smart. Ouch! 5- Mammals appeared after the disappearance of dinosaurs. No comment... 6- What are dinosaurs? Well, all the extinct reptiles: dimetrodons, plesiosaurs, pterodactlys and mammoths. EEEK! 7- The frill of the triceratops was a great defense weapon: just like was the protoceratops' frill and the torosaurus' frill. Even with those big fenestrations. 8- Pterodactyl was a big bird, a huge predator the size of an airplane. Find the errors... 9- There were TEN species of dinosaurs in the world: T-Rex, Triceratops, Diplodocus, Brontosaurus, Iguanodon, Parasaurolophus, Stegosaurus, Dimetrodon, Pterodactyl and Trilobite. And there was the entire fauna of prehistory that roamed for millions of years without a change. 10- Pterosaurs are the ancestors of birds. The proof: they all have wings and a beak. Yes, and all of this despite the huge differences between pterosaur wings and bird wings... At last we´re back on topic. |
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Nov 4, 2011 0:33:01 GMT
I've got new ones: 1. All dinosaurs lived on Pangea and when the meteor hit it broke up Pangea and killed the dinosaurs. 2. When people call pterosaurs pterodactyls. So what, give no credit to the rhamphorynchoids? They were the first pterosaurs afterall! ;D Although, to be fair, the people were saying 'pterodactyls' not pterodactyloids. And on a non-prehistoric note: I'm avian-dinosaur watching on the coast when a lady comes up and asks: "Excuse me, are those seals or sea otters making that barking sound?" "Those are California Sealions, they're out on that buoy" I respond. Walking away, she turns to her friends and says "See! I told you I know my fish!"  |
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 4, 2011 18:22:43 GMT
I've got new ones: 1. All dinosaurs lived on Pangea and when the meteor hit it broke up Pangea and killed the dinosaurs. 2. When people call pterosaurs pterodactyls. So what, give no credit to the rhamphorynchoids? They were the first pterosaurs afterall! ;D Although, to be fair, the people were saying 'pterodactyls' not pterodactyloids. And on a non-prehistoric note: I'm avian-dinosaur watching on the coast when a lady comes up and asks: "Excuse me, are those seals or sea otters making that barking sound?" "Those are California Sealions, they're out on that buoy" I respond. Walking away, she turns to her friends and says "See! I told you I know my fish!"  ;D  ;D And what about that comment from my brother a few years ago: " Are you sure those new dinosaurs like Nigersaurus, Amargasaurus or Beckelspinax are not just inventions from those so-called paleonthologists? It seems like they are inventing whole new species just from a single bone and call them new species with invented features!" And my brother is a 35 year-old mathematics and science teacher in high school... |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Nov 4, 2011 20:28:20 GMT
I heard another one today. "I wish I was a velociraptor so that I could spit venom"...ya, I didn't mistype that.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 9, 2011 19:32:30 GMT
I heard another one today. "I wish I was a velociraptor so that I could spit venom"...ya, I didn't mistype that. Or that five-year-old boy who I heard say: " Tyronnovauruf wav fo big, it wav bigger than whalev! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Nov 12, 2011 0:46:37 GMT
10- Pterosaurs are the ancestors of birds. The proof: they all have wings and a beak. Yes, and all of this despite the huge differences between pterosaur wings and bird wings... Most pterosaurs didn't even have beaks, they had teeth! Same goes for most early birds though...  |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Nov 12, 2011 19:48:03 GMT
Bugs have wings that must mean they evolved into birds too!
|
|
And I always thought this forum was fun 
I'm not saying they are wrong on everything: I'm just saying we cannot absolutely abandon our self-thinking to them.
;D 
