Nope that is in another room. The stones are also by statue of the Blessed Virgin that cries vegetable oil.
This post was edited on 4/27 2:25 PM
This post was edited on 4/27 2:25 PM
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Boss,
There are mainly two groups of those who think that man co-existed with dinosaurs: those that just aren't aware of the geologic time-line (which is pretty common - basically scientific ignorance), and those that choose to follow a literal biblical interpretation, which can be based on the earth being 6,000 yrs old, or the hazy reference in Job to a leviathan/behemoth/whatever.
Many reasons are created by those who want to be biblical literalists: flaws in carbon dating, god can do anything, footprints of dinosaurs directly adjacent to footprints of humans. The fundamentalists/literalists employ an interesting psychology to assuage their cognitive dissonance. You've seen it here by god's ambassador - they are right, everyone else is wrong.
That's my view, caustic and abrasive as it may be. But as you see, I don't suffer fools gladly
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
So, NPR...Your lack of knowledge on Carbon 14 doesn't disqualify you from attacking this website? Everyone on here is discrediting the website - but no one wants to get specific as the where it err's regarding the assertions...
I don't get it.
& it's Ica stones. Get scooter in here. He can explain to all of us why the Peruvian's would draw a Pterodactyl on a rock when 'Science' hadn't told them that one ever existed.....
Originally posted by chafedHawk:
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Boss,
There are mainly two groups of those who think that man co-existed with dinosaurs: those that just aren't aware of the geologic time-line (which is pretty common - basically scientific ignorance), and those that choose to follow a literal biblical interpretation, which can be based on the earth being 6,000 yrs old, or the hazy reference in Job to a leviathan/behemoth/whatever.
Many reasons are created by those who want to be biblical literalists: flaws in carbon dating, god can do anything, footprints of dinosaurs directly adjacent to footprints of humans. The fundamentalists/literalists employ an interesting psychology to assuage their cognitive dissonance. You've seen it here by god's ambassador - they are right, everyone else is wrong.
That's my view, caustic and abrasive as it may be. But as you see, I don't suffer fools gladly
Speaking of ignorance, you are apparently unaware of a very large group of Christian theologians who believe the apparent disconnect with science and Genesis lies in the mistranslation of one Hebrew word in Genesis 1:2.
Genesis Chapter 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was (or became- Hebrew 'hayah') without form (Hebrew 'tohuw), and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance: Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary:
'1961. 'hayah' ... to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass.'
'8414. tohuw ... to lie waste; a desolation (of surface).'
The reasonable interpretation of Genesis 1:2 with the properly translated 'became' in place of the incorrect 'was' indicates that the earth (Gen1:2 is specific to the 'earth'; it does not make mention of the 'heavens' here) existed previous to this event, and that something caused it to become chaotic and without form and its surface had been made desolate. Chaos is, of course, not a part of God's nature, the event or force that caused this would have had to be something outside of God's control (agruably Satan, maybe an asteroid impact?). This neatly reconciles another theological quagmire where scholars have been trying to justify God's creation of chaos in only one Biblical instance, this one. He didn't create the chaos that was earth, he formed it. So Genesis 1:2 likely does not describe the first event that took place on planet earth, but God's recreation of it from an uninhabitable, desolate state.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became ('hayah') a living soul.
Here we see the Hebrew 'hayah' used again in reference to God creating something. Again, 'hayah' is used to describe the 'becoming...coming to pass' of something, not the existence of something, and is furthur evidence that the above translation of Genesis 1:2 is correct. Now we've got consistency.
(Side note: This particular passage and its chosen language are astounding to me, given the time of its author. It's not likely men of ancient times were aware that the chemical compounds necessary for mammalian life are all present in ordinary soil.)
One more time, for good measure:
Isaiah 45:18 'For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (Hebrew'tohuw')(he did not create a chaos, or 'tohuw'), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.'
It is clear now that God did not create a chaos, he reformed and reshaped an existing one into something that was not chaos.
It's also quite clear that the original translators under King James made an error here by using 'was' instead of 'became' in Gen1:2 because translating the term properly created a completely different concept of Biblical Creation than what the church taught at that time. That, of course, would have been considered heresy.
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
So, NPR...Your lack of knowledge on Carbon 14 doesn't disqualify you from attacking this website? Everyone on here is discrediting the website - but no one wants to get specific as the where it err's regarding the assertions...
I don't get it.
& it's Ica stones. Get scooter in here. He can explain to all of us why the Peruvian's would draw a Pterodactyl on a rock when 'Science' hadn't told them that one ever existed.....
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
NPR:
Again, (not that it matters)...What animal is described in the book of Job?
Originally posted by sandimashigh:
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
NPR:
Again, (not that it matters)...What animal is described in the book of Job?
Behemoth, from Job 40:15-24, was a dinosaur. Job 40:17 says, "His tail sways like a cedar." Such tails only existed on dinosaurs.
Explanation (not mine): The "tail like a cedar" which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur isn't even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James Version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar." [Mitchell 1987] The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.
Dinosaur? Bull wang? What's the difference?
Originally posted by sandimashigh:
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
NPR:
Again, (not that it matters)...What animal is described in the book of Job?
Behemoth, from Job 40:15-24, was a dinosaur. Job 40:17 says, "His tail sways like a cedar." Such tails only existed on dinosaurs.
Explanation (not mine): The "tail like a cedar" which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur isn't even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James Version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar." [Mitchell 1987] The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.
Dinosaur? Bull wang? What's the difference?
Originally posted by chafedHawk:
Nprlover:
'Chafed, same wine, new bottle.'
Baloney. You obviously don't comprehend the implication of the proper translation. It fits seamlessly with old-Earth theory and widely accepted scientific fact.
The theologians may be satisfied with that explanation; scientists less so.
This theology is not at odds with the timeline of life. You are completely missing the boat here.
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Thumper:
Regarding Carbon 14 dating. Do you deny that - to say Carbon 14 dating is accurate - that it depends on the following 3 assumptions?
1) There has always been as much carbon 14 in the atmosphere as there is today.
2) Carbon 14 has always decayed at the same speed.
3) All living things absorb the same amount of carbon as the atmosphere has in it
Do you deny that any of these 3 assumptions are open to scrutiny or variance of opinion?
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Fundamentalist christians read the same book and what do they get out of it? It has dinosaur references. That's about it.
That's all you care to hear about that book. I've never heard a discussion in Church, in Catholic School, hell, anywhere but HERE about Job that focused on a possible dinosaur. Instead, I've heard a great deal on the complexity of God testing a supposedly righteous man, what does it mean to us and what should we learn from both God's actions and Job's reactions.
Originally posted by NewsBreaker:
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Fundamentalist christians read the same book and what do they get out of it? It has dinosaur references. That's about it.
That's all you care to hear about that book. I've never heard a discussion in Church, in Catholic School, hell, anywhere but HERE about Job that focused on a possible dinosaur. Instead, I've heard a great deal on the complexity of God testing a supposedly righteous man, what does it mean to us and what should we learn from both God's actions and Job's reactions.
Newsy, you overlooked the "fundamentalist" aspect of my post. I stated that the dino aspect is what the "fundamentalist" takes away from a reading of Job.
Is your church fundamentalist? (I thought it was RCC?).
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Why would you not post the ENTIRE link, NPR? Another tidbit from the link - selectively left out by NPR...
'Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old. Textiles and pottery from the same area also depict man with dinosaurs.'
It would seem that examining the oxidized coating would be a 'scientific' way of trying to determine the stones authenticity - but you left this part out...
Why did you leave it out? Seems strange to me that you would selectively exclude the science part & then ask, 'Where's the science?'
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Why would you not post the ENTIRE link, NPR? Another tidbit from the link - selectively left out by NPR...
'Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old. Textiles and pottery from the same area also depict man with dinosaurs.'
It would seem that examining the oxidized coating would be a 'scientific' way of trying to determine the stones authenticity - but you left this part out...
Why did you leave it out? Seems strange to me that you would selectively exclude the science part & then ask, 'Where's the science?'
Sarge, I didn't leave it out.
Go up and reread my post. It is there.
You should put more effort into your reading (and thinking, imo).
See it now?
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
'Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old.' This seems like science...
This post was edited on 4/27 4:14 PM
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Iza...You cannot carbon date rocks. (If that's what you were implying).
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
It would be fishy if creationists made the discovery...But they didn't.
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
It would be fishy if creationists made the discovery...But they didn't.
Originally posted by Iza*:
My Spidey senses are telling me that after all this time my notion that this was a documentary were all wrong. (sigh)