Does anyone here believe the Earth is only 6000 years old?

[AggieTool]

Just curious.

An evangelical friend of mine said dinosaurs were walking around with Adam and Eve.:confused:

Thoughts?

[Whet]

I've seen a few old dinosaurs recently! such as the Fartasaurs Ed - a very old retiree that came back to work as a "contractor", and yes, he does have gas!

[AggieTool]

I've seen a few old dinosaurs recently! such as the Fartasaurs Ed - a very old retiree that came back to work as a "contractor", and yes, he does have gas!
:D :D

[Okla-homey]

Just curious.

An evangelical friend of mine said dinosaurs were walking around with Adam and Eve.:confused:

Thoughts?

The point is, who knows how long a "day" was when God formed heaven and Earth out of the void. Methinks its kinda disrespectful to put God in a box by defining His creation in terms of our measley human concept of time based on a solar day and a solar year. For all we know, a "day" to God might have been a bajillion years.

I also don't mind the fact the science indicates dinosaurs predated the creation of mankind. Even scripture is clear that man was created last, after all the animals. Now, if some species became extinct in the interval between their creation and the arrival of man, that isn't inconsistent with anything in the Bible.

The one thing I am absolutely sure of, is the fact God was involved in our creation as self-aware, rational, creatures. There is no way our species evolved that way by a random accident of evolution. It simply can't be explained any other way...unless you're a Scientologist.

[Petro-Sooner]

The point is, who knows how long a "day" was when God formed heaven and Earth out of the void. Methinks its kinda disrespectful to put God in a box by defining His creation in terms of our measley human concept of time based on a solar day and a solar year. For all we know, a "day" to God might have been a bajillion years.

I also don't mind the fact the science indicates dinosaurs predated the creation of mankind. Even scripture is clear that man was created last, after all the animals. Now, if some species became extinct in the interval between their creation and the arrival of man, that isn't inconsistent with anything in the Bible.

The one thing I am absolutely sure of, is the fact God was involved in our creation as self-aware, rational, creatures. There is no way our species evolved that way by a random accident of evolution. It simply can't be explained any other way...unless you're a Scientologist.

Right on.

Oh and geologists believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

[crawfish]

The point is, who knows how long a "day" was when God formed heaven and Earth out of the void. Methinks its kinda disrespectful to put God in a box by defining His creation in terms of our measley human concept of time based on a solar day and a solar year. For all we know, a "day" to God might have been a bajillion years.

I also don't mind the fact the science indicates dinosaurs predated the creation of mankind. Even scripture is clear that man was created last, after all the animals. Now, if some species became extinct in the interval between their creation and the arrival of man, that isn't inconsistent with anything in the Bible.

The one thing I am absolutely sure of, is the fact God was involved in our creation as self-aware, rational, creatures. There is no way our species evolved that way by a random accident of evolution. It simply can't be explained any other way...unless you're a Scientologist.


Agreed.

The whole "dinosaurs lived with humans" thing comes from a concept derived from Romans 5:12; that death entered the world because of sin. Thus, there was no death of anything before the fall of Adam. And, since we know there were dinosaurs, they must've still been alive during the early days of man. :)

To me, that's an awful interpretation of scripture. If Paul was pointing to literal death of everything, then according the Romans 5:17 why do we still die? It's also an interpretation that misses the entire point of the passage, which has nothing to do with creation and everything to do with the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers.

For the record, I don't believe you should extract ANY science from the creation story - even by indicating that a "day" might be billions of years. The word in the passage means, quite literally, one 24-hour day, and it would be incorrect to think that the original author would have meant anything any different. What we CAN do is take the story as an allegory, or parable, illustrating creation, God's role, and man's role. It is told using the "scientific" - and I use that term loosely - understanding of the time that it was written, based on the beliefs of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Canaanites.

I give this thread tomorrow morning before it's locked. :)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

http://www.goma.demon.co.uk/yah/ark.gif

When my son was in 1st grade, he brought a school library book home showing how dinosaurs lived in biblical times and showed pictures of baby dinosaurs among children as well as boarding Noah's ark.

I was livid. I wrote a letter to the librarian, delivered it in person, and asked that she move the book out of the science section of the library and into the fiction or fantasy section.

Although I wasn't asking for complete removal, that is what they decided to do. Someone had donated the book and it found its way onto the shelves.

[AggieTool]

Agreed.

The whole "dinosaurs lived with humans" thing comes from a concept derived from Romans 5:12; that death entered the world because of sin. Thus, there was no death of anything before the fall of Adam. And, since we know there were dinosaurs, they must've still been alive during the early days of man. :)

To me, that's an awful interpretation of scripture. If Paul was pointing to literal death of everything, then according the Romans 5:17 why do we still die? It's also an interpretation that misses the entire point of the passage, which has nothing to do with creation and everything to do with the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers.

For the record, I don't believe you should extract ANY science from the creation story - even by indicating that a "day" might be billions of years. The word in the passage means, quite literally, one 24-hour day, and it would be incorrect to think that the original author would have meant anything any different. What we CAN do is take the story as an allegory, or parable, illustrating creation, God's role, and man's role. It is told using the "scientific" - and I use that term loosely - understanding of the time that it was written, based on the beliefs of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Canaanites.

I give this thread tomorrow morning before it's locked. :)

Why would the mods lock the thread?

I'm sure the mods respect the forum participants enough to not treat them like children.:(

This is supposed to be "catch-all" forum. As long as folks are respectful to each other in honest debate, what's the problem?:)

[GottaHavePride]

Pfff. I'm not going to lock it just for a guy asking an honest question.

Now, I would lock it if a bunch of turds decide to start hurling insults in here. Which all too frequently happens around here. But it hasn't yet. so anyway.

And with that, I leave you with a little Bill Hicks (NSFW) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk)

[AggieTool]

Pfff. I'm not going to lock it just for a guy asking an honest question.

Now, I would lock it if a bunch of turds decide to start hurling insults in here. Which all too frequently happens around here. But it hasn't yet. so anyway.

And with that, I leave you with a little Bill Hicks (NSFW) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk)

Glad to hear it.;)

I believe this forum leans right (as do I), so we should all agree we don't need a "nanny-state".:O

[OKLA21FAN]

Henry Morris provided a good argument that 'a day is a 'day' in the bible.

but of course that really only applies if one takes the bible literally and 100% word for word.

[LittleWingSooner]

I would like someone to point to me where it says in the Bible that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I've read the Bible a lot and never seen it say the age of the earth.

[WILBURJIM]

Genesis explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_sfSDCV9Jo

[AggieTool]

I would like someone to point to me where it says in the Bible that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I've read the Bible a lot and never seen it say the age of the earth.

My bud couldn't point that out to me either.:(

Maybe it's just his particular church?:confused:

He also doesn't believe in evolution.:)

He's a good friend though, and I don't care what he believes.:O ('sides, his wife is hawt!):eek:

[OKLA21FAN]

I would like someone to point to me where it says in the Bible that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I've read the Bible a lot and never seen it say the age of the earth.
genealogy of jesus in Matthew and Luke gives a pretty good indication of 'time' since 'adam'

[JohnnyMack]

The point is, who knows how long a "day" was when God formed heaven and Earth out of the void. Methinks its kinda disrespectful to put God in a box by defining His creation in terms of our measley human concept of time based on a solar day and a solar year. For all we know, a "day" to God might have been a bajillion years.

I also don't mind the fact the science indicates dinosaurs predated the creation of mankind. Even scripture is clear that man was created last, after all the animals. Now, if some species became extinct in the interval between their creation and the arrival of man, that isn't inconsistent with anything in the Bible.

The one thing I am absolutely sure of, is the fact God was involved in our creation as self-aware, rational, creatures. There is no way our species evolved that way by a random accident of evolution. It simply can't be explained any other way...unless you're a Scientologist.

:rolleyes:

You're gonna make a great lawyer.

[Frozen Sooner]

*sigh*

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not posit that evolution happens by random chance. To imply that it does is a gross misstatement.

[crawfish]

Here's something I wrote for a newsletter a few months ago. I was very proud of the Looney Tunes illustration. :)



WHAT IF THERE WAS NO “BAM”?

The other day, my wife asked me to watch a clip of Beth Moore on the TV. Beth Moore, evangelist, author, speaker. I admit, I don’t listen to many of her lessons as they tend to be directed towards women, but have always respected her as an intelligent woman who speaks the Word of God powerfully. This lesson was no different – she spoke on the power of our words for good or evil, and how we can do better by using God’s words over our own; after all, God is words are omnipotent and ours our merely potent. I enjoyed her teaching, and heartily agreed with its message.

As an illustration of her point, she discussed how God created: “God said, let it be, and BAM! It was!” She expanded (and I paraphrase): “God said, ‘let there be light’, and BAM! There was light! Nothing can resist the powerful words of God – when there is nothing and He makes the command, it appears immediately. No mistakes, no need for second tries, no need to go back and fix it…it is simply done, and that is the end of the matter”.

The above statements made me realize how deeply those feelings are embedded in mainstream evangelical thought; when the Genesis account is read, the immediacy of God’s actions appears to be so clear. Doesn’t that immediacy express God’s power dramatically? That He could utter words and massive objects and unlimited space just “appear”? That he says “let the land produce vegetation”, and trees, flowers and other plants immediately rise from the dirt into fullness of life, forming forests, jungles, plains and fields? That he molds the form of a man from the dust of the ground, breathes into its nostrils, and immediately it comes to life? How could God possibly express His power and authority more strongly than through an instant response to His command?

However, this idea exists in complete contrast to the scenario presented by science. Tens of billions of years of slow, ponderous creation, leading to creation of a planet on which emerges a simple, microscopic, one-celled organism which, over a time period of around 4 billion years, evolves into man - who we believe to be God's ultimate goal. What purpose would God possibly have in taking this long to accomplish His intent? Why would God take such an indirect path if He were capable of doing it instantaneously? If God did achieve Creation in this way, what does it mean to us theologically?

What if there was no “BAM”?

I am reminded of a Looney Tunes cartoon, where Bugs Bunny finds himself in a conflict against a construction foreman. Near the end of the cartoon, Bugs is at the top of the work-in-progress high-rise building and sees the foreman (who he’s been getting the best of for the entire clip) abuse his tiny co-worker. In a fit of righteous anger, what does Bugs do? Well, this is a Looney Tunes cartoon; it’s likely he could grab an anvil that just happened to conveniently be sitting close to him, drop it from anyplace on the roof, and it would inevitably land on the foreman’s head. Instead, Bugs studies the building’s architectural diagram for a moment, grabs a smoking-hot rivet with some tongs, steps over a few paces and drops it down a pipe. Over the next twenty seconds you see it wind an improbable route down the building; it bounces down stairs, falls off the edge of girders to be caught and redirected by whirling or turning equipment; even the abused worker gets in the act as the rivet falls on a load of bricks he is carrying, only to be propelled along its way when the worker discards the load. Eventually, the rivet lands on a rope that is suspending a trailer directly over the hapless foreman; it burns through the rope, dropping the heavy trailer on the foreman’s head.

Why did the creator of the cartoon decide on the latter option rather than the simpler, more immediate former? Both would accomplish the purpose of smashing the foreman on the head. The latter was more efficient and certainly consistent with other Looney Tunes cartoons. It required fewer cels (and thus, less work). However, the option he chose was far funnier; while the former displays Bugs’ uncanny luck, the latter shows that he is so smart that he can glance at the schematics and devise an overall path that not only takes advantage of the building’s structure, but of random elements as well, that would lead to the inevitable result. It is funnier because it implies that the end result is NOT due to pure luck, but to a definite, predetermined and seemingly impossible plan.

Exactly.

When God created the universe, He created the laws by which it operates. He is so intimate, so familiar with those laws that He can kick off the process and know where it will inevitably lead. When you attribute the “scientific” view to God’s power, it is amazing in that it demonstrates not only God’s incredible power and knowledge, but also His subtlety and patience. Most any Christian will admit that God is unlimited by time and space; this is demonstrated in a great way by science’s revealing of the true nature of exactly what God accomplished and how He accomplished it.

[Frozen Sooner]

God created the universe the way He did because it was funnier that way?

I guess I can get behind that. :D

[crawfish]

God created the universe the way He did because it was funnier that way?

I guess I can get behind that. :D

I'd make a comment about your comprehension skills, but your answer did amuse me. :)

[Frozen Sooner]

Nah, I got the point of what she was saying. Personally, I think I'd rather think of God having a sense of humor as opposed to a God who needs to show off.

[AggieTool]

Here's something I wrote for a newsletter a few months ago. I was very proud of the Looney Tunes illustration. :)



WHAT IF THERE WAS NO “BAM”?

The other day, my wife asked me to watch a clip of Beth Moore on the TV. Beth Moore, evangelist, author, speaker. I admit, I don’t listen to many of her lessons as they tend to be directed towards women, but have always respected her as an intelligent woman who speaks the Word of God powerfully. This lesson was no different – she spoke on the power of our words for good or evil, and how we can do better by using God’s words over our own; after all, God is words are omnipotent and ours our merely potent. I enjoyed her teaching, and heartily agreed with its message.

As an illustration of her point, she discussed how God created: “God said, let it be, and BAM! It was!” She expanded (and I paraphrase): “God said, ‘let there be light’, and BAM! There was light! Nothing can resist the powerful words of God – when there is nothing and He makes the command, it appears immediately. No mistakes, no need for second tries, no need to go back and fix it…it is simply done, and that is the end of the matter”.

The above statements made me realize how deeply those feelings are embedded in mainstream evangelical thought; when the Genesis account is read, the immediacy of God’s actions appears to be so clear. Doesn’t that immediacy express God’s power dramatically? That He could utter words and massive objects and unlimited space just “appear”? That he says “let the land produce vegetation”, and trees, flowers and other plants immediately rise from the dirt into fullness of life, forming forests, jungles, plains and fields? That he molds the form of a man from the dust of the ground, breathes into its nostrils, and immediately it comes to life? How could God possibly express His power and authority more strongly than through an instant response to His command?

However, this idea exists in complete contrast to the scenario presented by science. Tens of billions of years of slow, ponderous creation, leading to creation of a planet on which emerges a simple, microscopic, one-celled organism which, over a time period of around 4 billion years, evolves into man - who we believe to be God's ultimate goal. What purpose would God possibly have in taking this long to accomplish His intent? Why would God take such an indirect path if He were capable of doing it instantaneously? If God did achieve Creation in this way, what does it mean to us theologically?

What if there was no “BAM”?

I am reminded of a Looney Tunes cartoon, where Bugs Bunny finds himself in a conflict against a construction foreman. Near the end of the cartoon, Bugs is at the top of the work-in-progress high-rise building and sees the foreman (who he’s been getting the best of for the entire clip) abuse his tiny co-worker. In a fit of righteous anger, what does Bugs do? Well, this is a Looney Tunes cartoon; it’s likely he could grab an anvil that just happened to conveniently be sitting close to him, drop it from anyplace on the roof, and it would inevitably land on the foreman’s head. Instead, Bugs studies the building’s architectural diagram for a moment, grabs a smoking-hot rivet with some tongs, steps over a few paces and drops it down a pipe. Over the next twenty seconds you see it wind an improbable route down the building; it bounces down stairs, falls off the edge of girders to be caught and redirected by whirling or turning equipment; even the abused worker gets in the act as the rivet falls on a load of bricks he is carrying, only to be propelled along its way when the worker discards the load. Eventually, the rivet lands on a rope that is suspending a trailer directly over the hapless foreman; it burns through the rope, dropping the heavy trailer on the foreman’s head.

Why did the creator of the cartoon decide on the latter option rather than the simpler, more immediate former? Both would accomplish the purpose of smashing the foreman on the head. The latter was more efficient and certainly consistent with other Looney Tunes cartoons. It required fewer cels (and thus, less work). However, the option he chose was far funnier; while the former displays Bugs’ uncanny luck, the latter shows that he is so smart that he can glance at the schematics and devise an overall path that not only takes advantage of the building’s structure, but of random elements as well, that would lead to the inevitable result. It is funnier because it implies that the end result is NOT due to pure luck, but to a definite, predetermined and seemingly impossible plan.

Exactly.

When God created the universe, He created the laws by which it operates. He is so intimate, so familiar with those laws that He can kick off the process and know where it will inevitably lead. When you attribute the “scientific” view to God’s power, it is amazing in that it demonstrates not only God’s incredible power and knowledge, but also His subtlety and patience. Most any Christian will admit that God is unlimited by time and space; this is demonstrated in a great way by science’s revealing of the true nature of exactly what God accomplished and how He accomplished it.


What you're describing is similar to the Deist perspective which is close to my beliefs.(and Thomas Jefferson's).:)

I often feel organized religion doesn't lend enough credit to God and his/her/its abilities.:(

The idea that God is concerned with what we wear, eat, or how we posture ourselves is frankly confusing to me. :confused:

[Okla-homey]

The idea that God is concerned with what we wear, eat, or how we posture ourselves is frankly confusing to me. :confused:

I believe He loves us and wants us to be happy. Moreover, He even loves enough to allow us free will to live our lives the way we see fit. That means many of us will inevitably screw up our lives and end up being very sad.

That's the "catch" on the free will dealio. That said, without the gift of free will, life wouldn't be much worth living.

[LittleWingSooner]

genealogy of jesus in Matthew and Luke gives a pretty good indication of 'time' since 'adam'


That just says that Humans have been around about 6k years or atleast known humans. I don't think it said the Earth is 6k years old.

[Frozen Sooner]

That just says that Humans have been around about 6k years or atleast known humans. I don't think it said the Earth is 6k years old.

So you add seven days to that and *presto*.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Glad to hear it.;)

I believe this forum leans right (as do I), so we should all agree we don't need a "nanny-state".:O
And yet the "right" are the ones with the tendency to censor what we can and can't say/write/photograph/film/etc.

How eeeeenteresting... ;)

[OKLA21FAN]

That just says that Humans have been around about 6k years or atleast known humans. I don't think it said the Earth is 6k years old.
bare with me here:

IF (and only if) the first 7 days in genesis were equal times periods. and that constant can be continued as a 'standard of time'.

according to Genesis
adam was made on the 'sixth day',this was followed by the '7th day of rest' following the 7th day, adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden of Eden. which sets a 'constant of time' of the 7' days of the creation'.

problem is that in the same Genesis, Adam only live to be 930 years old. so at most, a 'day' could not be more than 300 or so years. then like at the genealogy of jesus that traces back to Adam (and the genalogy gives ages in years many times at the time of death) . at best, not more than 6K years if you interpret 'literally'.

further, look at the Hebrew words for 'day' and 'days' and how they are used in the old testament. in the references to the 7 'days' of the creation, it is used in the singular form.

[AggieTool]

bare with me here:

IF (and only if) the first 7 days in genesis were equal times periods. and that constant can be continued as a 'standard of time'.

according to Genesis
adam was made on the 'sixth day',this was followed by the '7th day of rest' following the 7th day, adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden of Eden. which sets a 'constant of time' of the 7' days of the creation'.

problem is that in the same Genesis, Adam only live to be 930 years old. so at most, a 'day' could not be more than 300 or so years. then like at the genealogy of jesus that traces back to Adam (and the genalogy gives ages in years many times at the time of death) . at best, not more than 6K years if you interpret 'literally'.

further, look at the Hebrew words for 'day' and 'days' and how they are used in the old testament. in the references to the 7 'days' of the creation, it is used in the singular form.

Is there any chance that all that is just human literature passed on for generations and that god is really incomprehensible and thus impossible to interpret?

Kinda like how organisms in a petri dish would view us?

I mean with a whole universe to manage and all....

I'm just sayin...:rolleyes:

[OKLA21FAN]

Is there any chance that all that is just human literature passed on for generations and that god is really incomprehensible and thus impossible to interpret?

Kinda like how organisms in a petri dish would view us?

I mean with a whole universe to manage and all....

I'm just sayin...:rolleyes:

yep :pop:

[soonerhubs]

A teacher once explained it this way to me. If the Lord can turn water into the best wine quicker than the snap of fingers, I figure there are some physical laws that we don't grasp that he does.

[GottaHavePride]

Heh. Chapter 14 of the Tao Te Ching:

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.

From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it and there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the ancient Tao,
Move with the present.

Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

[crawfish]

What you're describing is similar to the Deist perspective which is close to my beliefs.(and Thomas Jefferson's).:)

I often feel organized religion doesn't lend enough credit to God and his/her/its abilities.:(

The idea that God is concerned with what we wear, eat, or how we posture ourselves is frankly confusing to me. :confused:

I'm not a deist. I'm an evangelical Christian and believe the same basic things as that group; but I'm not a creationist in any way, fashion or form.

[Ike]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604

Just for fun ya know...


TULSA, OK—In a major coup for the growing field of creation science, the perfectly preserved remains of a 5,000-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex were delivered Monday to Tulsa's Creationist Museum of Natural History.

"The Good Lord has, in His benevolence, led us to an important breakthrough for scientific inquiry," Creationist Museum of Natural History curator Dr. Elijah Gill said. "Our museum has many valuable and exciting exhibits that testify to Creation and shine light on the Lord's divine plan. But none have been as exciting—or anywhere near as old—as this new T. Rex specimen named 'Methuselah.' This skeleton, which dates back to roughly 3,000 B.C., offers the most compelling proof yet that the Earth was made by God roughly 10,000 years ago."

Added Gill: "It's awe-inspiring to gaze on something that actually lived here on Earth, so very many years ago."

Methuselah was discovered last summer in northern Turkey by a team of Oral Roberts University archaeologists, who were on a dig searching for the Tower of Babel. According to Gill, the skeleton, which stands nearly 20 feet tall, possesses terrifying, razor-sharp teeth and claws, confirming that it was an evil beast in league with Satan, the Great Deceiver.

Using advanced dating processes from the cutting edge of biblical paleontology, the Oral Roberts team determined that Methuselah lived during the late Antediluvian period, or "The Age of the Dinosaurs." They said the pristine condition of the find strongly suggests that it perished in the Great Flood, fossilizing quickly and thoroughly due to the tremendous water pressure during the event.

"It was a truly majestic beast," said Gill, gazing up at the massive skeleton. "One almost has to mourn that there was no room for it on the Ark."

Gill called the discovery "a powerfully compelling refutation" of secular scientists' long-held assertion that dinosaurs lived on Earth millions of years before humans.

"The fact that no human remains were found anywhere in the vicinity of the site of the skeleton serves as proof of the tyrannosaur's ferocity and huge appetite," Gill said.

"At most," he added, "tyrannosaurs existed a few days before the first humans, given that the birds and the beasts were created early in the week, and Adam and Eve were made on the sixth day."

Founded in 1874, the Creationist Museum of Natural History has amassed a collection of thousands of exhibits from around the world demonstrating that the Earth was made by the hand of a Divine Creator over the course of a week, roughly 10,000 years ago. Among its most prized exhibits are a trilobite believed to have lived during the Jewish Exodus and a stunning specimen of "Java Gibbon."

Methuselah has caused such a stir that even supporters of evolutionary science have found themselves caught up in "T. Rex Fever." Christopher Eldridge, director of New York's Museum of Natural History, raved that the acquisition was "absolutely inconceivable" and "not to be believed." Dr. Harmon Briggs, a Smithsonian Institution paleobiologist, gushed in a phone interview that the discovery of the 5,000-year-old beast was "mind-boggling" and "in defiance of all the human senses."

Said Gill: "I have even received an exciting letter from a paleontologist at UCLA asserting that Methuselah could be even older than 5,000 years. Who knows, it might even date back to the Sixth Day of Creation."

The T. Rex skeleton will be on public display at the museum beginning Feb. 3. Conversions will be performed every two hours at the museum's baptismal font, located in the Apologetics wing.

[LittleWingSooner]

I think days can be interpreted as stages. And if you look at those 7 "days" it's about the order of how things were created.

[SoonerAtKU]

"...the cutting edge of biblical paleontology..."

Love it. I love the Onion.

Also, GHP...

Behold the spek;
As you see it, it is nothing.
As you yearn for it, it escapes.
This is the essence of a green dot.

[KsSooner]

There is a passage in the Bible, forget where it is at, that states that a day is like a thousand years in God's eyes. Not a thousand years but like....Can't remember the context of the passage either but I believe it was about putting limits on God's abilities.

[Jerk]

Actually, God lives outside of time and he also occupies all space and time.

Kind of confusing :confused:

[OKLA21FAN]

I think days can be interpreted as stages. And if you look at those 7 "days" it's about the order of how things were created.

they very well maybe, i was just answering your question of 'where in the bible' and the 6000 years dealio.

again, the problem is in the age of Adam at the time of his death, and the length of a day on days 6 an 7 and and when he and Eve were cast out of Garden of Eden (after day 7) if a day is not a constant throughout the bible, there can be problems in the interpretations of scripture.

[usmc-sooner]

interpretations are like a@#holes, they vary

[reevie]

No one knows how old the earth is. But they all agree it will end on December 21, 2012.

[sanantoniosooner]

I think the important point that both sides of the issue are overlooking is that this would be 42,000 in dog years.

[sooneron]

I think the important point that both sides of the issue are overlooking is that this would be 42,000 in dog years.
God doG


:cool:

[GottaHavePride]

Good dooG

[Frozen Sooner]

"Only" 6000 years old?

When 6000 years old you are, look this good you will not.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And yet the "right" are the ones with the tendency to censor what we can and can't say/write/photograph/film/etc.

How eeeeenteresting... ;)How wrrrooooong!Nowadays, it's the left that has become the censors(political correctness, for example, and the dem potus folk refusing to have a debate on the Fox News Channel, would be a couple of examples)

[tbl]

The point is, who knows how long a "day" was when God formed heaven and Earth out of the void. Methinks its kinda disrespectful to put God in a box by defining His creation in terms of our measley human concept of time based on a solar day and a solar year. For all we know, a "day" to God might have been a bajillion years.

I also don't mind the fact the science indicates dinosaurs predated the creation of mankind. Even scripture is clear that man was created last, after all the animals. Now, if some species became extinct in the interval between their creation and the arrival of man, that isn't inconsistent with anything in the Bible.

The one thing I am absolutely sure of, is the fact God was involved in our creation as self-aware, rational, creatures. There is no way our species evolved that way by a random accident of evolution. It simply can't be explained any other way...unless you're a Scientologist.

I haven't made it past this post, but this is a great reply. I used to believe in a 6-10,000 year old universe, despite the evidence to support an old age universe. Just the fact of star light/distance/speed of light to reach the earth is enough... but I was told there was only one interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I did more research into it as I never felt completely comfortable, and I stumbled on to Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe team. Great resource for believers that believe in the complete innerancy of Scripture and also believe that there are fundamental facts in science that can't be disputed. They take a very solid approach to the Scripture, and also have PHD's in various fields (most notably cosmology). The Big Bang itself offers overWHELMING evidence for a Creator, and they tie it all together with a proper interpretation of the Genesis account (as well as other Scriptures that relate to the creation) by looking at the original Hebrew and Greek. Very good stuff for those of you that may be interested.

www.reasons.org

The two books I found were best to start off with were "The Genesis Question" and "Creation as Science". The RTB team are not theistic evolutionists, and again they use science and Scripture to provide a very thorough scientific model on creation.

[StoopTroup]

I think that every time I hear someone say the Earth is very young...

I think..."That person really needs to study some more".

I mean...I know many of you on this board are very well educated and even continue to educate your life even beyond what is necessary to be successful. Just the information NASA and the Scienctific Community has issued on the probes to Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are enough to convince me that we have quite a bit to learn about not only our own planet but our Galaxy and the Universe.

God has made lots of stuff for us to ponder.

[Kels]

OK, I'll confess. I'm a young earth theologian. I believe in a literal 6-day creation. I believer that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal, not allegory. I hold to the plenary-verbal inspiration of Scripture. I am a Biblical inerrantist. I am also a responsible adult who can safely operate heavy machinery.

I personally feel that the earth is around 25,000 years old or so. This is based on "Gap Theory" and the incomplete nature of the genealogical records in Scripture. From the scientific side, well, come by my office and we can go down to Cafe Plaid and get a few cups of coffee and talk. I doubt I have the time or wherewithal to explain it all here.

It's not a deal-breaker to me if you agree with me or not. In Evangelical circles, there's not as much diversity in this opinion as one would think. The day-age and theistic evolution crowd is a relatively small percentage. I don't sweat it, though. As a good Baptist, I'm all about seeing people come to faith in Christ and making disciples.

[landrun]

OK, I'll confess. I'm a young earth theologian. I believe in a literal 6-day creation. I believer that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal, not allegory. I hold to the plenary-verbal inspiration of Scripture. I am a Biblical inerrantist.
....

So am I. One reason is that I personally can't honestly interpret the word 'day' in Genesis 1-3 as 'time span'. There word used there refers to a literal 24 hour day, whether I like it or not.

Also I'd suggest that when God created Adam and Eve he created mature adults. Not infants he had to raise. They were created 'old'. I think the same is true of the animals and the rest of creation, including mother Earth. If a modern-day Geologists were to arrive on Earth the first day of creation, they would find the earth was already 'old', millions/billions of years old. Just as if they were to meet Adam they would have found an adult.

Also, I have no problem believing that an Almighty God (in the fullest sense of the word) could create the universe in 7 days. He could have done it in 1 day or 1 second had He desired.

Just my opinion and honest reading of Genesis.

[crawfish]

It's not a deal-breaker to me if you agree with me or not. In Evangelical circles, there's not as much diversity in this opinion as one would think. The day-age and theistic evolution crowd is a relatively small percentage. I don't sweat it, though. As a good Baptist, I'm all about seeing people come to faith in Christ and making disciples.

Amen to that. The origins question might be the most hotly debated Christian topic today, but it's hardly a salvation issue.

I'm most concerned about the line being drawn by some hard-line YEC's (such as Ken Hamm) between believers and unbelievers using creationist dogma. It firmly places a number of strong, faithful Christians - myself included - on the atheist side of the equation. This is highly offensive to me.

One of the final straws that pushed me completely out of the creationist/ID mindset was a simple exercise: assuming that we didn't have tangible proof otherwise, I looked to see where the bible led me in terms of geocentricism and a spherical earth. The answer was: both are supported fully by biblical text, and it would be impossible, based solely on scripture, to prove otherwise. It made me realize that using the bible to do science is a bad thing because the bible was not written for that purpose. You might as well try to use bible passages to figure out how to design an electrical circuit.

If we hold fast to false doctrine - telling people that observable science is wrong not because we know it's wrong but because it violates our interpretation of scripture - we hurt our cause. Why should someone believe us about the gospel when we're wrong on other, basic matters which they are better suited to judge than we are? Creationism doesn't really hurt science; it doesn't hurt atheism (in fact, it arms them). It hurts Christianity.

[Okla-homey]

Also, I have no problem believing that an Almighty God (in the fullest sense of the word) could create the universe in 7 days. He could have done it in 1 day or 1 second had He desired.

Just my opinion and honest reading of Genesis.

Yep. IMHO, the hard part would have been thinking all the stuff up He created. The splendid order and majesty of His creation is mind-boggling.

In contrast, the simple willing his ideas into being was the equivalent of a finger-snap to you or me.

[Sooner_Bob]

The point is, who knows how long a "day" was when God formed heaven and Earth out of the void. Methinks its kinda disrespectful to put God in a box by defining His creation in terms of our measley human concept of time based on a solar day and a solar year. For all we know, a "day" to God might have been a bajillion years.

I also don't mind the fact the science indicates dinosaurs predated the creation of mankind. Even scripture is clear that man was created last, after all the animals. Now, if some species became extinct in the interval between their creation and the arrival of man, that isn't inconsistent with anything in the Bible.

The one thing I am absolutely sure of, is the fact God was involved in our creation as self-aware, rational, creatures. There is no way our species evolved that way by a random accident of evolution. It simply can't be explained any other way...unless you're a Scientologist.


Nice jorb.

[AggieTool]

OK, I'll confess. I'm a young earth theologian. I believe in a literal 6-day creation. I believer that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal, not allegory. I hold to the plenary-verbal inspiration of Scripture. I am a Biblical inerrantist. I am also a responsible adult who can safely operate heavy machinery.

I personally feel that the earth is around 25,000 years old or so. This is based on "Gap Theory" and the incomplete nature of the genealogical records in Scripture. From the scientific side, well, come by my office and we can go down to Cafe Plaid and get a few cups of coffee and talk. I doubt I have the time or wherewithal to explain it all here.

It's not a deal-breaker to me if you agree with me or not. In Evangelical circles, there's not as much diversity in this opinion as one would think. The day-age and theistic evolution crowd is a relatively small percentage. I don't sweat it, though. As a good Baptist, I'm all about seeing people come to faith in Christ and making disciples.

Thanks for chiming in and being honest.

That's the great thing about faith, it's personal and a choice.

The only thing I would add, is let's keep faith personal and in our churches, and out of our schools. Other than a collective moment of silence, I think faith should kept to one's self.

We can also separate science and faith to our own betterment. Where the two clash, is always tough though.
I remember reading where talking about things like powered flight, vacuums, and gravity could get you thrown in the dungeon.

[Sooner_Bob]

The only thing I would add, is let's keep faith personal and in our churches, and out of our schools. Other than a collective moment of silence, I think faith should kept to one's self.



Do you think it would be wrong to present the idea of creation as an opposing (I guess opposing would be the right word of choice) viewpoint of evolution in a Jr. High Science class? Not necessarily teaching it, just including it in the discussion and leaving it at that.

Would that even be possible without getting into a religious discussion in the classroom?

I honestly don't remember if/how it was discussed when I was in Jr. High. My biology teacher was a deacon at the church I attended . . . of course he also got busted for selling weed. :D

[AggieTool]

Do you think it would be wrong to present the idea of creation as an opposing (I guess opposing would be the right word of choice) viewpoint of evolution in a Jr. High Science class? Not necessarily teaching it, just including it in the discussion and leaving it at that.

Would that even be possible without getting into a religious discussion in the classroom?

I honestly don't remember if/how it was discussed when I was in Jr. High. My biology teacher was a deacon at the church I attended . . . of course he also got busted for selling weed. :D

Always a question I suppose. :confused:

I figure if a kid raises his hand and says "my bible says this is how it happened", then the teacher could attempt to explain the difference between faith and science.

But to include the "other theories" as part of the curriculum is probably not advisable. You would have to include the native American, Hindu, and Nordic versions as well.

Best keep science in school, and religion in church I figger.

[Sooner_Bob]

Always a question I suppose. :confused:

I figure if a kid raises his hand and says "my bible says this is how it happened", then the teacher could attempt to explain the difference between faith and science.

But to include the "other theories" as part of the curriculum is probably not advisable. You would have to include the native American, Hindu, and Nordic versions as well.

Best keep science in school, and religion in church I figger.

True.

I think you could almost include mentioning these other ideas or concepts and get by with it. If a kid wants to discuss religion in class just tell them that their Biology class isn't the time for that and encourage them to ask their parents or discuss it with them outside of class.

Who knows though . . . this would probably become a huge can of worms.

[soonerhubs]

Best keep science in school, and religion in church and the Homes I figger.
Fixed it. ;)

[AggieTool]

Fixed it. ;)

Thanx!:O

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I will admit, I do not believe the Bible literally. It has been translated so many times, books reviewed and dropped becuase they didn't meet Catholic (or Early Christian) dogma and due to the fact that it may have been many decades between the word of mouth stories and being written down.

That being said, I see no problem between acknowledging evolution and geographical history and my religious faith. Hell, I don't have a problem with space based seeding of amino acids or a random acrrual on earth. God allowed the environment to be right and allowed life to burst forth. Evolution does not mean any less in my faith and certainly describes evidence in nature more so than not.

[soonerhubs]

Thanx!:O
No problem. I spent 5 years on the phone selling clean movies to devout Christians nation wide, and if they used half the time they spent trying to get creation taught in school, teaching it to their children on their own, they might actually have children becoming more sure in their faith.

[Sooner_Bob]

. . . if they used half the time they spent trying to get creation taught in school, teaching it to their children on their own, they might actually have children becoming more sure in their faith.


Very true.

We have actually started trying to do a nightly bible study with each of our girls. It takes a lot of extra effort on our part and there are nights when we don't get it done, but when we do its something that they seem to really enjoy and we talk about stuff.

[tbl]

So am I. One reason is that I personally can't honestly interpret the word 'day' in Genesis 1-3 as 'time span'. There word used there refers to a literal 24 hour day, whether I like it or not.

I do take a literal interpretation to the Genesis account, but of course it all depends on your interpretation of this word. I don't believe its allegory or figurative language.

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis is "yom", which is used in multiple ways.

A literal 24 hour day
An age or epoch
A set point in time

and many others. However, I do agree that I will not split hairs over this issue with other believers.

[JohnnyMack]

"when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

- Robert Pirsig

[OKLA21FAN]

I do take a literal interpretation to the Genesis account, but of course it all depends on your interpretation of this word. I don't believe its allegory or figurative language.

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis is "yom", which is used in multiple ways.

A literal 24 hour day
An age or epoch
A set point in time

and many others. However, I do agree that I will not split hairs over this issue with other believers.
if the interpretation was meant to be more than one day, then why wouldn't the plural word (yamim) be used as it was used hundreds of times in the O.T. when referring to multiple days? and why would the same Genesis passages refer to 'morning and evening' of a singular day?

[AggieTool]

I will admit, I do not believe the Bible literally. It has been translated so many times, books reviewed and dropped becuase they didn't meet Catholic (or Early Christian) dogma and due to the fact that it may have been many decades between the word of mouth stories and being written down.

That being said, I see no problem between acknowledging evolution and geographical history and my religious faith. Hell, I don't have a problem with space based seeding of amino acids or a random acrrual on earth. God allowed the environment to be right and allowed life to burst forth. Evolution does not mean any less in my faith and certainly describes evidence in nature more so than not.

I'm kinda in yer camp on that.:)

[The Maestro]

Since none of us were here for the start everyone is just guessing...even the smartest guys ever are just merely guessing.

I, for one, am not sure why it matters how old the Earth is.

[OCUDad]

I, for one, am not sure why it matters how old the Earth is.Well, for one thing, it makes it a heck of a lot easier to buy age-appropriate birthday presents.

[crawfish]

"when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called politics."

- Robert Pirsig

I like that one better. :D

[crawfish]

Since none of us were here for the start everyone is just guessing...even the smartest guys ever are just merely guessing.

I, for one, am not sure why it matters how old the Earth is.

There is "guessing" and there is "guessing". The age of the earth given by science can be considered pretty accurate - it's based on a ton of observable criteria. Too much of what has been theorized has been shown to be predictive - i.e., a scientist goes from the assumption that the theory is true and makes predictions of things we should see as a result, and those predictions are later found to be true. This has happened time and time and time again for both big bang and evolutionary theories. If they were not solid, they couldn't possibly pass that test.

It doesn't matter to the normal schmoe how old the earth is. Science does depend on information, though, and there is plenty to be learned by understanding where what we see now came from. It also seems to matter quite a bit to creationists, who seemingly base their faith on their interpretation of scripture.

[usmc-sooner]

I'm in the camp that does not care how old the earth is. I don't really think about stuff like that.

[StoopTroup]

I think Indiana Jones knows exactly how old the Earth is.

[IB4OU2]

I don't give a pile of coprolite how old the earth is... I'm just glad the Good Lord lets me enjoy it.

[stoopified]

The point is, who knows how long a "day" was when God formed heaven and Earth out of the void. Methinks its kinda disrespectful to put God in a box by defining His creation in terms of our measley human concept of time based on a solar day and a solar year. For all we know, a "day" to God might have been a bajillion years.

I also don't mind the fact the science indicates dinosaurs predated the creation of mankind. Even scripture is clear that man was created last, after all the animals. Now, if some species became extinct in the interval between their creation and the arrival of man, that isn't inconsistent with anything in the Bible.

The one thing I am absolutely sure of, is the fact God was involved in our creation as self-aware, rational, creatures. There is no way our species evolved that way by a random accident of evolution. It simply can't be explained any other way...unless you're a Scientologist.Amen brother.

[Sooner_Havok]

Heh, at the Sam Noble museum they post cards with people's comments on them and one of them said

"Do not believe in the Big Bang, explosions don't create anything, they only destroy stuff, like your chances of getting into heaven if you believe in it

Jeff age 8"


That was a little disturbing

[OKLA21FAN]

Heh, at the Sam Noble museum they post cards with people's comments on them and one of them said

"Do not believe in the Big Bang, explosions don't create anything, they only destroy stuff, like your chances of getting into heaven if you believe in it

Jeff age 8"


That was a little disturbing
this should make you feel better :pop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

[OklahomaTuba]

The Church has done a disgraceful job of educating people on how scripture, science & history interact with each other.

I blame a lot of this also on the schools fear to teach anything they deem to be "religous", out of fear they may offend someone or get sued by the ACLU.

The result of those two factors is a bunch of people growing up without the correct reasoned knowledge to balance their Faith & known history & science.

[OklahomaTuba]

And yet the "right" are the ones with the tendency to censor what we can and can't say/write/photograph/film/etc.

How eeeeenteresting... ;)

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106746

Oops.

[Sooner_Havok]

this should make you feel better :pop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

That doesn't make me feel better, not at all :( :( :(




:D

[AggieTool]

The Church has done a disgraceful job of educating people on how scripture, science & history interact with each other.

I blame a lot of this also on the schools fear to teach anything they deem to be "religous", out of fear they may offend someone or get sued by the ACLU.

The result of those two factors is a bunch of people growing up without the correct reasoned knowledge to balance their Faith & known history & science.

Fear aside, why would a school be compelled to teach anything deemed "religious" anyway?:confused:

[Sooner_Bob]

this should make you feel better :pop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

Wow. That's actually the first time I have seen a trailer for that flick. I appreciate their idea, but IMO they go way to far to the extreme to push it on the kids.

[OKLA21FAN]

Wow. That's actually the first time I have seen a trailer for that flick. I appreciate their idea, but IMO they go way to far to the extreme to push it on the kids.

it is a very interesting documentary to say the least.

[Vaevictis]

if the interpretation was meant to be more than one day, then why wouldn't the plural word (yamim) be used as it was used hundreds of times in the O.T. when referring to multiple days?

I don't know Hebrew worth a damn, so I'm just making a wild guess here, but if it was intended to be read as an "age" or "epoch", it wouldn't make much sense to use the plural word if you only meant a single age or epoch, right?



and why would the same Genesis passages refer to 'morning and evening' of a singular day?

Perhaps as a literary device? It might have been a common one back in the ancient world; the first thing that came to mind when I read your question was the Sphinx's Riddle, which used the same device.

[OKLA21FAN]

Perhaps as a literary device? It might have been a common one back in the ancient world; the first thing that came to mind when I read your question was the Sphinx's Riddle, which used the same device.


perhaps.

however if the OT is simply a metaphorical reference table, that opens another huge can of worms.

understand that the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, one would think that something as simple as the constant measurement of time would be just that, a constant. if not, just how long was the flood? how old really was Adam (or Noah) as Adam lived to be '930 years old', yet was created on the '6th day', lived through the '7 day', then after the '7th day' committed the original sin. if the 'days' of creation were 'eras' than Adam would have had to live longer than Genesis claims. for in infallible document, this leads to problems.


now of course the 'out' as that there could be problems with generation after generation of the oral word and a pluthura of translations. but even that admission opens another can of worms, for the ones that feel that the bible should be taken word for word.

[Vaevictis]

understand that the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, one would think that something as simple as the constant measurement of time would be just that, a constant. if not, just how long was the flood?

I would presume that measurement would be in literal days, due to the fact that humans had already fallen at this point. Of course, you're right -- once you accept that "day" may not mean 24 hours literally, there is uncertainty.


how old really was Adam (or Noah) as Adam lived to be '930 years old', yet was created on the '6th day', lived through the '7 day', then after the '7th day' committed the original sin. if the 'days' of creation were 'eras' than Adam would have had to live longer than Genesis claims. for in infallible document, this leads to problems.

If you're talking about ages or epochs, AFAIK, there's no rule that says that each one has to be the same length.

I would submit immortality as a possible cause for the difference -- as immortal beings, all of those present during the first seven days may not have bothered keeping track of things in time periods as short as a day; do you keep track of the milliseconds? Pre-mortality, it might have made sense to keep track by important events, such as those major occurrences related in the creation passages. (Just brainstorming here, I haven't thought this one out very much.)


now of course the 'out' as that there could be problems with generation after generation of the oral word and a pluthura of translations. but even that admission opens another can of worms, for the ones that feel that the bible should be taken word for word.

Heh, as humans, I would submit that everything is a big ol' can of worms for us. Even the stuff that should be simple. :) I would argue that if God didn't want to challenge us by doubt, he wouldn't have allowed it. So, open that can of worms, and do with it as you will.

[swardboy]

Another facet of this conversation is the Paluxy River finds in Texas: A number of dinosaur trails laced with human footprints. Much weight has been thrown against these footprints being "human", but the supporting data is heavier "for" than "against"....which if true, turns the age of the earth question on its head.

http://creationwiki.org/Human_footprints_have_been_found_with_dinosaur_tra cks_at_Paluxy

Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

(Redirected from Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy (http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Human_footprints_have_been_found_w ith_dinosaur_tracks_at_Paluxy&redirect=no))
Jump to: navigation (http://creationwiki.org/Human_footprints_have_been_found_with_dinosaur_tra cks_at_Paluxy#column-one), search (http://creationwiki.org/Human_footprints_have_been_found_with_dinosaur_tra cks_at_Paluxy#searchInput)
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/thumb/d/d2/Talkorigins.jpg/130px-Talkorigins.jpg (http://creationwiki.org/Image:Talkorigins.jpg)
Response ArticleThis article (Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive (http://creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins_Archive) under the title Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html).






Claim CC101 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html):
Human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in the Glen Rose formation at Paluxy River, Texas. Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism (http://creationwiki.org/Scientific_Creationism), Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122.
CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins (http://creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins_Archive) quotes in blue)
1. The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not.
Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs (Kuban (http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/color.htm) 1989; Hastings 1987).
Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting.
Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration (Godfrey 1985)


Talk.Origins makes these claims about the prints without showing a single picture of the prints. Not even their references show any pictures of actual prints. The test of any theory is how well it fits the evidence, so lets take a look at some of the evidence.
A picture of Taylor Trail track "-3b" (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-java.htm) shows a clear human print with toes, over the edge of a dinosaur print and not the heel as predicted in Kuban's model. The fact that both heels are visible in this picture show that this is not an incompletely registered dinosaur track, but most likely a human foot print in a dinosaur track.
This track is just one of 14 that make up the Taylor Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm). So it is not just a strange erosion feature. All but two of these tracks can be independently identified as right or left and they are all consistent with the right left pattern of the trail. Half of the tracks show clear evidence of toes. These tracks are consistent with a human 6’ 4" tall. These prints are good matches for a living human's feet of the right size and side.
Talk Origins (http://creationwiki.org/Talk_Origins)' third point mentions deliberate alteration of the evidence without a single picture or even a reference to specific prints so that one can check out their claim. There is evidence of deliberate alteration in two of the prints in the Taylor Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm) but not to make them look more human. There is evidence that tracks +1 and -3B have been deliberately destroyed (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm).
The McFall Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-upper-taylor-platform-mcfall-trail.htm) print -4e (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-mcfall-4-both-java.htm) is another example of a human print with toes, over the edge of a dinosaur print. Right next to it is an undisturbed dinosaur print providing conclusive evidence that these are separate prints.
The Ryals Track (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-track.htm) is on a dinosaur track but it is at an angle and off to the side. It also matches a modern human foot perfectly.
The Morris Track (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/morris-track.jpg) is a nearly perfect human track that is totally unassociated with a dinosaur print, other than being in the same rock.
2. The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it (Schadewald (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html) 1986).


The rebuttal of these tracks is being made without pictures of even a single track. All they provide is their theory of what is there without providing a single bit of actual evidence. Yet the main site supporting the human track theory has picture after picture of tracks, many of which are high resolution images.
Taylor Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm)
McFall Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-upper-taylor-platform-mcfall-trail.htm)
The Ryals Track (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-track.htm)
The Morris Track (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/morris-track.jpg)
So who's engaging in wishful thinking and an unwillingness to face the evidence? Certainly not those who support the human track theory. They place the evidence in full view for everyone to see, whereas those claiming that they are not human tracks only give their theories without presenting any evidence. If any one is unwilling to face the evidence, it is those who claim that these are not human tracks.
There is at least one location where similar tracks may exist.
Reference: Human and dinosaur footprints in Turkmenistan? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp)

[frankensooner]

I wonder if those are from Slate's rock quarry where Fred worked?

[AggieTool]

Another facet of this conversation is the Paluxy River finds in Texas: A number of dinosaur trails laced with human footprints. Much weight has been thrown against these footprints being "human", but the supporting data is heavier "for" than "against"....which if true, turns the age of the earth question on its head.

http://creationwiki.org/Human_footprints_have_been_found_with_dinosaur_tra cks_at_Paluxy

Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

(Redirected from Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy (http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Human_footprints_have_been_found_w ith_dinosaur_tracks_at_Paluxy&redirect=no))
Jump to: navigation (http://creationwiki.org/Human_footprints_have_been_found_with_dinosaur_tra cks_at_Paluxy#column-one), search (http://creationwiki.org/Human_footprints_have_been_found_with_dinosaur_tra cks_at_Paluxy#searchInput)
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/thumb/d/d2/Talkorigins.jpg/130px-Talkorigins.jpg (http://creationwiki.org/Image:Talkorigins.jpg)
Response ArticleThis article (Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive (http://creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins_Archive) under the title Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html).






Claim CC101 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html):
Human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in the Glen Rose formation at Paluxy River, Texas. Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism (http://creationwiki.org/Scientific_Creationism), Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122.
CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins (http://creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins_Archive) quotes in blue)
1. The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not.
Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs (Kuban (http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/color.htm) 1989; Hastings 1987).
Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting.
Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration (Godfrey 1985)


Talk.Origins makes these claims about the prints without showing a single picture of the prints. Not even their references show any pictures of actual prints. The test of any theory is how well it fits the evidence, so lets take a look at some of the evidence.
A picture of Taylor Trail track "-3b" (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-java.htm) shows a clear human print with toes, over the edge of a dinosaur print and not the heel as predicted in Kuban's model. The fact that both heels are visible in this picture show that this is not an incompletely registered dinosaur track, but most likely a human foot print in a dinosaur track.
This track is just one of 14 that make up the Taylor Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm). So it is not just a strange erosion feature. All but two of these tracks can be independently identified as right or left and they are all consistent with the right left pattern of the trail. Half of the tracks show clear evidence of toes. These tracks are consistent with a human 6’ 4" tall. These prints are good matches for a living human's feet of the right size and side.
Talk Origins (http://creationwiki.org/Talk_Origins)' third point mentions deliberate alteration of the evidence without a single picture or even a reference to specific prints so that one can check out their claim. There is evidence of deliberate alteration in two of the prints in the Taylor Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm) but not to make them look more human. There is evidence that tracks +1 and -3B have been deliberately destroyed (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm).
The McFall Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-upper-taylor-platform-mcfall-trail.htm) print -4e (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-mcfall-4-both-java.htm) is another example of a human print with toes, over the edge of a dinosaur print. Right next to it is an undisturbed dinosaur print providing conclusive evidence that these are separate prints.
The Ryals Track (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-track.htm) is on a dinosaur track but it is at an angle and off to the side. It also matches a modern human foot perfectly.
The Morris Track (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/morris-track.jpg) is a nearly perfect human track that is totally unassociated with a dinosaur print, other than being in the same rock.
2. The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it (Schadewald (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html) 1986).


The rebuttal of these tracks is being made without pictures of even a single track. All they provide is their theory of what is there without providing a single bit of actual evidence. Yet the main site supporting the human track theory has picture after picture of tracks, many of which are high resolution images.
Taylor Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm)
McFall Trail (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-upper-taylor-platform-mcfall-trail.htm)
The Ryals Track (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-track.htm)
The Morris Track (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/morris-track.jpg)
So who's engaging in wishful thinking and an unwillingness to face the evidence? Certainly not those who support the human track theory. They place the evidence in full view for everyone to see, whereas those claiming that they are not human tracks only give their theories without presenting any evidence. If any one is unwilling to face the evidence, it is those who claim that these are not human tracks.
There is at least one location where similar tracks may exist.
Reference: Human and dinosaur footprints in Turkmenistan? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp)


Now we're just left with that pesky carbon 14 decay that proves dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and humans only thousands.:mad:

[Vaevictis]

Now we're just left with that pesky carbon 14 decay that proves dinosaurs lived millions of years age, and humans only thousands.:mad:

Well, to be fair, just because we've only found human remains that are thousands of years old, that doesn't necessarily imply that humans didn't exist before then -- only that we've seen no evidence for it.

[JohnnyMack]

Well, to be fair, just because we've only found human remains that are thousands of years old, that doesn't necessarily imply that humans didn't exist before then -- only that we've seen no evidence for it.

Exactly. I mean, I watched Land of the Lost, I know the truth.

[swardboy]

Now we're just left with that pesky carbon 14 decay that proves dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and humans only thousands.:mad:
Ah So.....but only if one is totally invested into Uniformitarianism.
Yes, it does sound like a religion, doesn't it?

[crawfish]

understand that the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, one would think that something as simple as the constant measurement of time would be just that, a constant. if not, just how long was the flood? how old really was Adam (or Noah) as Adam lived to be '930 years old', yet was created on the '6th day', lived through the '7 day', then after the '7th day' committed the original sin. if the 'days' of creation were 'eras' than Adam would have had to live longer than Genesis claims. for in infallible document, this leads to problems.

You ever study ancient numerology? It's an interesting field - and sometimes the numbers don't mean what you think they might mean.

For instance - Joseph was reported to have lived 110 years (Genesis 50:26). Interestingly enough, the "obituaries" of quite a few ancient Egyptians also reported that they lived to this age. As it turns out, saying somebody lived to 110 years in that culture implied that the person was a model Egyptian. It had nothing to do with the actual age.

Likewise, Deut 4:7 states that Moses lived to be 120. This is also an interesting number. If you look at his life, you'll see there are three major cycles: 1) he is born, raised and flees to live in the wilderness; 2) he comes back, rescues the Israelites from the Egyptians and leads them to the borders of Canaan; and 3) the Israelites (and Moses) are forced to wander in the wilderness for 40 years - Moses, to pay for his sin, cannot enter the land, but is buried on a high mountain. 40, to the ancient Hebrews, was a number of purification, indicating "a long time". 3 is the number of divine perfection. Moses' life would be 40x3, indicating three divine periods of purification, an indication of Moses' standing with God.

I heard an archaeologist speak once about his father's experience in 1920's Iraq. At a dig, he noticed a local man's son who worked particularly hard. At dinner that evening he complimented the man on this, and asked how old the son was. The answer he got was (paraphrased): "Perhaps 30, perhaps 40, perhaps 50. I do not know. But I tell you this: he was born the year after the war." By this answer he could tell the boy was actually 12. The father's answer WAS literal: he gave his answer for a specific purpose. It was not for a literal year-age, however. We miss the point of much ancient text, including the bible, when we read it with the lens of 21st century understanding. That word might not mean what you think it means. :)

[OUDoc]

Inconceivable

[OKLA21FAN]

You ever study ancient numerology? :)
only the important ones: 4 8 15 16 23 42 :pop:

[soonerscuba]

I have a question, if dinosaurs and man coexisted, where is the artistic record of it existing? There are deer, buffalo, insects, fish, natural events (snow, rain, lighting, etc) represented in early art, given that the earliest art is 500,000 to 300,000 years old, it seems that 40 foot lizards that walk upright and eat lawyers would peak an interest and a record would be left behind.

Also, what a about the mathematically measurable events? Erosion or starlight that is older than 6,000 years?

[crawfish]

Ah So.....but only if one is totally invested into Uniformitarianism.
Yes, it does sound like a religion, doesn't it?

Debunked. The discoverers played the creationist game of denying paleontologists access to the samples unless they agreed beforehand to support their claims. I don't blame scientists for being leery about evidence that they aren't allowed to study. TalkOrigins has the following data elsewhere on the site:


It is fortunate that some Texas paleontologists have examined firsthand the Glen Rose tracks. Wann Langston, Jr., pointed out that some of the "man prints" have distinct claw marks emanating from what the creationists call their "heels." (The creationists apparently reversed the direction of travel for these critters.) Langston also noted that one of the most widely reproduced footprint photos of Paluxy man shows a portion of a poor print of a tridactyl dinosaur; this may be clear, however, only to someone who, having studied the anatomy of the dinosaur foot, knows what to look for. Milne [1981] makes the same point using photographs of in situ "man prints" taken directly from creationist literature. These "man prints" are nothing more than dinosaur toe impressions, selectively highlighted, with sand obscuring places where the rest of the dinosaur's foot might show. ... The existence of claw marks on some of the best series of "giant man prints" is now acknowledged by creationist John D. Morris, son of Henry Morris and author of Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs and the People Who Knew Them. This includes the McFall track, which is shown in Footprints in Stone.

[JohnnyMack]

Inconceivable

No more rhymes, I mean it.

[swardboy]

Or Adam being full-grown instead of starting out as an infant...oh, wait....He was created with the appearance of age.

[crawfish]

Incontheivable

Fixed. ;)

[Chuck Bao]

I admire anyone with personal conviction and faith and willing to apply their religious ideals to their daily personal life, whether they be Mormon or Christians believing in the vengeful god of the OT.

With that being said, I thought archeologists had concluded that the first books of the OT were written by a priest class of a rather insignificant and poor mountain tribe of shepherds in 1700-1400BC.

The dinosaur debate is pretty funny.

For your literal people, is there any historic proof of Moses? King David?

I mean why wouldn't they like pork or shellfish unless they were trying to promote locally produced mutton? It’s an economics book and a very successful one!

[AggieTool]

I have a question, if dinosaurs and man coexisted, where is the artistic record of it existing? There are deer, buffalo, insects, fish, natural events (snow, rain, lighting, etc) represented in early art, given that the earliest art is 500,000 to 300,000 years old, it seems that 40 foot lizards that walk upright and eat lawyers would peak an interest and a record would be left behind.

Also, what a about the mathematically measurable events? Erosion or starlight that is older than 6,000 years?


Exactly why religion and science are mutually exclusive on this one point.:rolleyes:

[AggieTool]

I mean why wouldn't they like pork or shellfish unless they were trying to promote locally produced mutton? It’s an economics book and a very successful one!


I thought it was because they hadn't invented Tabasco yet.:confused:

[JohnnyMack]

I thought it was because they hadn't invented Tabasco yet.:confused:

Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' mother****in' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?

[LittleWingSooner]

I don't know Hebrew worth a damn, so I'm just making a wild guess here, but if it was intended to be read as an "age" or "epoch", it wouldn't make much sense to use the plural word if you only meant a single age or epoch, right?




Perhaps as a literary device? It might have been a common one back in the ancient world; the first thing that came to mind when I read your question was the Sphinx's Riddle, which used the same device.

Sometimes Morning is used to mean the start of something new. Just like Days could mean ages. And these were put into terms that were understood by whoever interpreted it. For all we know the original translations of all these were in different forms

[swardboy]

Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' mother****in' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?
Heh...I don't care what you believe, that's funny.

Kind of like, I wonder what was going through the dude's mind that first thought of trying out cow's tongue?

[frankensooner]

Kind of like, I wonder what was going through the dude's mind that first thought of trying out cow's tongue?

My guess would be: "Dang, If I ain't hungry."

[crawfish]

My guess would be: "Dang, If I ain't hungry."

"Well, I think I'll let that last guy take the balls."

[Chuck Bao]

"Well, I think I'll let that last guy take the balls."

Particularly if it were the cow's balls.

[IB4OU2]

Particularly if it were the cow's balls.

cows don't have balls...

[Chuck Bao]

Ahem...transvestite cows may...

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I ve been around for 31 years...Thats all I know

[TheHumanAlphabet]

This is a great discussion...

We could solve it all by converting to scientology, purging our Thetans and believe in Xenu/Xemu and space aliens and the Galactic Empire.

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh...I don't care what you believe, that's funny.

Kind of like, I wonder what was going through the dude's mind that first thought of trying out cow's tongue?

Much of the world's fine cuisine results from someone else took all the stuff that everyone thought was good and made the servants eat what was left over.

Until this century, nobody ate ribs by choice.

[swardboy]

Kind of an "un-natural selection" thingy? :D

[Sooner_Bob]

For your literal people, is there any historic proof of Moses? King David?




Nothing really conclusive . . .


In 1993 a fragment of a monument was found at the site of the ancient Israelite city of Dan that mentioned David and his dynasty dating to about 100 years after David's death. As Biblical Archaeology Review reports: "Avraham Biran and his team of archaeologists found a remarkable inscription from the 9th century (B.C.) that refers both to the 'House of David' and to the 'King of Israel.' This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible. That the inscription refers not simply to a 'David' but to the House of David, the dynasty of the great Israelite king, is even more remarkable" (March-April, 1994, p. 26).

Link (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality)

Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.

Link (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality)

[Sooner_Bob]

Much of the world's fine cuisine results from someone else took all the stuff that everyone thought was good and made the servants eat what was left over.

Until this century, nobody ate ribs by choice.


Mmmmm ribs.

[tbl]

I don't see how anybody can argue the existence of David or Moses. Is the Biblical account not enough? Why on earth would they be "created"? The entire history of the nation of Israel is nothing more than a myth? Come on...

[Chuck Bao]

I don't see how anybody can argue the existence of David or Moses. Is the Biblical account not enough? Why on earth would they be "created"? The entire history of the nation of Israel is nothing more than a myth? Come on...

I'm not denying the entire history of the nation of Isreal. I'm just saying that there is no historic reference to Moses and no historic reference to a powerful and important Kingdom of David. Read this book. It seems to be scholarly and without bias.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Bible Unearthed - Archaeology's new vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of its sacred texts - by Isreal Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/B00009NDAK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200433733&sr=1-1

[Vaevictis]

I don't see how anybody can argue the existence of David or Moses. Is the Biblical account not enough? Why on earth would they be "created"? The entire history of the nation of Israel is nothing more than a myth? Come on...

I don't think it's any less reasonable to ask that question than it would be to ask whether Hercules, Theseus, Perseus, etc, existed.

[LosAngelesSooner]

buh-leeted

[The Maestro]

I'm not denying the entire history of the nation of Isreal. I'm just saying that there is no historic reference to Moses and no historic reference to a powerful and important Kingdom of David. Read this book. It seems to be scholarly and without bias.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Bible Unearthed - Archaeology's new vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of its sacred texts - by Isreal Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/B00009NDAK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200433733&sr=1-1

Uh....HELLO? Didn't you SEE "The Ten Commandments"?? Chuck Heston brought it, yo!

[LosAngelesSooner]

I find two things very interesting regarding this debate:

1) Very, very few Jews believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or subscribe to a "Literal Translation" of the origin story within the Old Testament which, to them, is contained within a book called the Pentuatech. And it was originally THEIR story. Of course the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired and without error is a Christian belief that was created by old dead Catholic Popes. And, also interesting, the vast majority of Jews believe in evolution and are not fighting to have the Creation Story taught in public schools.

2) Christians are fiercely defensive of the OT and it's exact translation, but any time you bring forward points about OT passages regarding slavery, multiple wives, killing bad children, the skin of a pig, etc...they say that Jesus made the OT irrelevent and rewrote all the old laws and that He is now the Light and the Way and that the NT is all that you need to study or be concerned with.

You can't have it both ways...and yet...they do.

:pop:

[usmc-sooner]

I find two things very interesting regarding this debate:

1) Very, very few Jews believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or subscribe to a "Literal Translation" of the origin story within the Old Testament which, to them, is contained within a book called the Pentuatech. And it was originally THEIR story. Of course the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired and without error is a Christian belief that was created by old dead Catholic Popes. And, also interesting, the vast majority of Jews believe in evolution and are not fighting to have the Creation Story taught in public schools.

2) Christians are fiercely defensive of the OT and it's exact translation, but any time you bring forward points about OT passages regarding slavery, multiple wives, killing bad children, the skin of a pig, etc...they say that Jesus made the OT irrelevent and rewrote all the old laws and that He is now the Light and the Way and that the NT is all that you need to study or be concerned with.

You can't have it both ways...and yet...they do.

:pop:


the muslims are right, bomb the Christians

[Mongo]

and the Christians also support the studios in the writer's strike

[usmc-sooner]

Christians would like to strengthen their point so they've created another identity, we'll call him Sam Spade, or Enrico

[Mongo]

Christians invented alternative media outlets just to stick it to those who write the material

[Harry Beanbag]

I find two things very interesting regarding this debate:

1) Very, very few Jews believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or subscribe to a "Literal Translation" of the origin story within the Old Testament which, to them, is contained within a book called the Pentuatech. And it was originally THEIR story. Of course the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired and without error is a Christian belief that was created by old dead Catholic Popes. And, also interesting, the vast majority of Jews believe in evolution and are not fighting to have the Creation Story taught in public schools.

2) Christians are fiercely defensive of the OT and it's exact translation, but any time you bring forward points about OT passages regarding slavery, multiple wives, killing bad children, the skin of a pig, etc...they say that Jesus made the OT irrelevent and rewrote all the old laws and that He is now the Light and the Way and that the NT is all that you need to study or be concerned with.

You can't have it both ways...and yet...they do.

:pop:


I'm interested to know what your staunch Republican party base thinks.

[Harry Beanbag]

Until this century, nobody ate ribs by choice.


Yet people have been eating balut for hundreds of years. People are weird. And sick.

[LosAngelesSooner]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106746

Oops.
Awesome

Smack from 1942.

You got about as relevant and recent as you could with that one, didn't you? :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

and the Christians also support the studios in the writer's strikeThey better if they wanna get into Heaven.

;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Harry...USMC...I still ignore all your posts. Just an FYI.

But I'll bet you didn't/couldn't refute any of my points or add anything intelligent or thought provoking to them so you probably just attacked me with sarcasm or childish insults.

Anyone wanna take a bet before I click "View post?"

:D

[Harry Beanbag]

Harry...USMC...I still ignore all your posts. Just an FYI.

But I'll bet you didn't/couldn't refute any of my points or add anything intelligent or thought provoking to them so you probably just attacked me with sarcasm or childish insults.

Anyone wanna take a bet before I click "View post?"

:D


So you just neg my posts now even though you can't read them. Right.

And you can bet whatever you want, but you reap what you sew. Why would anybody go through the trouble to seriously debate you. You aren't real. You are a fake internet personna that deserves nothing from anybody on this board.

Go back to the picket line.

[LosAngelesSooner]

*sigh*

I clicked "view post"

Such a disappointment.

Oh...and Harry...if you doubt that I'm a real person and that I'm only an "Internet Persona," you might want to ask Phil just how real I am. :rolleyes:

And even if I WAS fake...it still wouldn't change the fact that you can't add anything to this discussion or my post at the top of this page.

:pop:

[Harry Beanbag]

*sigh*

I clicked "view post"

Such a disappointment.


You have yourself on ignore?

[LosAngelesSooner]

This thread was a nice, civil and open discussion until the usual monkeys came in and started their standard blanket attacks. Let's try to get it back on track.

And I'll promise not to read any more of their junk.

[Harry Beanbag]

This thread was a nice, civil and open discussion until I posted in it.


Got that right.

[usmc-sooner]

Harry...USMC...I still ignore all your posts. Just an FYI.

But I'll bet you didn't/couldn't refute any of my points or add anything intelligent or thought provoking to them so you probably just attacked me with sarcasm or childish insults.

Anyone wanna take a bet before I click "View post?"

:D

I know why you ignore me

[Harry Beanbag]

Oh...and Harry...if you doubt that I'm a real person and that I'm only an "Internet Persona," you might want to ask Phil just how real I am. :rolleyes:

<shudder> You can edit too, I'm impressed. Of course you're a real person silly. It's your act that's fake.


And even if I WAS fake...it still wouldn't change the fact that you can't add anything to this discussion or my post at the top of this page.

:pop:


You're right about this. Religion isn't a big deal to me at all. I don't love it like some, and I don't despise it like others seem to do around here. For some people the only religion they believe in is the one devoted to hating religion. Kind of ironic. Certainly wouldn't fit into the Republican platform very well.

[Sooner_Havok]

That is why I joined the Republacrat party!