No Big Bang? New physics model shows universe might have existed forever

[RUPERTKBD]

Dinosaurs are real and are in my bible.

I'm gonna agree with Brick on this one. Dinosaurs happened, man.

I was going to mention that as well. I could have sworn I saw something to that effect on the documentary, "Questioning Darwin". The gist was, they don't question the existence of dinosaurs, they question the age.

So, creationists believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, correct?

[thejazz97]

I was going to mention that as well. I could have sworn I saw something to that effect on the documentary, "Questioning Darwin". The gist was, they don't question the existence of dinosaurs, they question the age.

So, creationists believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, correct?

Yes.

[RUPERTKBD]

Yes.

I'm curious about continental drift.

There is evidence (through fossil discovery and rock comparison) that the continents were once in different positions, relative to where they are currently.

Does creationism deny this, or do they believe that such tectonic activity took place over a period of less than 6000 years?

[Dral]

Well, if you want to say that the book of Job was written 65 million years ago, okay...

this is my favorite part about creationists... you guys get to pick and choose what science you "believe" in

[thejazz97]

I'm curious about continental drift.

There is evidence (through fossil discovery and rock comparison) that the continents were once in different positions, relative to where they are currently.

Does creationism deny this, or do they believe that such tectonic activity took place over a period of less than 6000 years?

To be perfectly honest, there's some debate. Some people think God created the earth like it is today, others think Pangaea was before the flood and then the earth was rearranged, and there are others still who have different theories (see gap creationism).

this is my favorite part about creationists... you guys get to pick and choose what science you "believe" in

I'm sorry? How did that relate to what I said?

[babych]

I'm curious about continental drift.

There is evidence (through fossil discovery and rock comparison) that the continents were once in different positions, relative to where they are currently.

Does creationism deny this, or do they believe that such tectonic activity took place over a period of less than 6000 years?

That's the thing about Creationism - if you start with assumption of an all-powerful being then you can easily explain all of this. For example, the Earth is only 6000 years old but God made an "old Earth", complete with fossils, evidence of tectonic shifts, etc in order to test our faith. (note - I'm an atheist)

It's also the reason why these arguments are ultimately futile. You either include God in your paradigm or you don't. It is also logically impossible to prove/disprove one paradigm using reasoning based in the other.

Edit - thanks Jazz for proving my point...

[Dral]

I'm sorry? How did that relate to what I said?

Why is it that anyone who actually goes to post secondary school and gets a degree in geology, paleontology, biology, archeology, or, really, any subject in science, thinks the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived together 10,000 years ago is ridiculous and it's only the creationists who have no formal education on the subject who insist that its true?

[thejazz97]

Why is it that anyone who actually goes to post secondary school and gets a degree in geology, paleontology, biology, archeology, or, really, any subject in science, thinks the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived together 10,000 years ago is ridiculous and it's only the creationists who have no formal education on the subject who insist that its true?

Question: do you think humans had an idea of what dinosaurs were 4500-5000 years ago?

[Dral]

Question: do you think humans had an idea of what dinosaurs were 4500-5000 years ago?

Of course not.

So, are you going to answer my question now, or would you rather ask me some more first?

[thejazz97]

Of course not.

So, are you going to answer my question now, or would you rather ask me some more first?

Answer to your question: Because we've met with God and seen what he's done. After this, I'm inclined to believe what the Bible says.

Question #2: So why is a dinosaur referenced in the book of Job (by God no less), which, according to practices of the time, was before 1800 BC?

[Ronalds.Kenins41]

Accurate depiction of life in the year 30CE.

LMFAO LOL

[Dral]

Answer to your question: Because we've met with God and seen what he's done. After this, I'm inclined to believe what the Bible says.

Question #2: So why is a dinosaur referenced in the book of Job (by God no less), which, according to practices of the time, was before 1800 BC?

So.... to get back to your ORIGINAL question, you basically think that science is a bag full of lies when it comes to certain things (such as dinosaurs), yet you're perfectly happy expressing these opinions on a computer.

To answer you #2 question.... They weren't referenced. No where in the bible is the word "Dinosaur" used.

[thejazz97]

So.... to get back to your ORIGINAL question, you basically think that science is a bag full of lies when it comes to certain things (such as dinosaurs), yet you're perfectly happy expressing these opinions on a computer?

No, I think historical science is just a bit... off. It's a tool, nothing more, and tools aren't always accurate. That's all.

[Lockout Casualty]

So.... to get back to your ORIGINAL question, you basically think that science is a bag full of lies when it comes to certain things (such as dinosaurs), yet you're perfectly happy expressing these opinions on a computer.

To answer you #2 question.... They weren't referenced. No where in the bible is the word "Dinosaur" used.

I think what creationists think can be succinctly described as a big, steaming pile of sht.

"But banana fit hand so good!"

[Dral]

No, I think historical science is just a bit... off. It's a tool, nothing more, and tools aren't always accurate. That's all.

the fact you used that term seriously makes me sad

[RUPERTKBD]

Answer to your question: Because we've met with God and seen what he's done. After this, I'm inclined to believe what the Bible says.

Question #2: So why is a dinosaur referenced in the book of Job (by God no less), which, according to practices of the time, was before 1800 BC?

But it doesn't say "dinosaur", it says "behemoth".

It looks to me that people who are desperate to "prove" the veracity of the bible's teachings are attempting to bend a narrative to suit their position.

[Lockout Casualty]

No, I think historical science is just a bit... off. It's a tool, nothing more, and tools aren't always accurate. That's all.

It's not a tool, it's a process.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, what's your excuse?

[Dral]

I think what creationists think can be succinctly described as a big, steaming pile of sht.

"But banana fit hand so good!"

Honestly, I'm jealous of their ability at self delusion - I swear I'd be a happier camper if I wasn't so smart

[Lockout Casualty]

But it doesn't say "dinosaur", it says "behemoth".

It looks to me that people who are desperate to "prove" the veracity of the bible's teachings are attempting to bend a narrative to suit their position.

Clearly it's talking about dragons. Dragons are in the bible.

[thejazz97]

Clearly it's talking about dragons. Dragons are in the bible.

Nah, that's Leviathan.