An enhancement of the theory that an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs has been presented. Phil Plait in his Bad Astronomy Blog on Slate has an article on the combination of events that may have killed the dinosaurs. What Really Killed the Dinosaurs?
The idea is that the asteroid impact shook up the Deccan Traps volcanic event and caused it to blow up in a big way. That then caused the final extinction.
Interesting idea, and I can see how it could happen that way. We will just have to wait and see how it plays out.
Back in the 70s when I was dabbling in geology the formation of the Deccan Traps was high on the suspect list. It's interesting to see it's making a comeback.
Another point of view. In this months (December 2015) Scientific American there is an article about the end of the dinosaurs. The author and his colleagues are still looking at the asteroid strike as being the main cause of the death of the dinosaurs. However, they are looking at why the asteroid really did cause it. They have studied the diversity of species leading up to the extinction. It seems that most of the meat eating dinosaurs had a relatively large diversity. But the diversity of the large plant eaters was much reduced. So when the asteroid struck it damaged the large plant eaters more than the meat eaters, and that caused the collapse. They had a conference where 11 scientists sat down to discuss the extinction and found that they all agreed on this scenario.
Of course the Deccan Traps could have helped the event along, but the reason for the extinction was that the lack of diversity in the large plant eaters caused a large bottleneck in the food chain.
Of course they don't really know what caused the loss of diversity in the plant eaters, but they think the extinction might not have happened if they had been more diverse.
the asteroid caused a nuclear winter type of blockage of the suns light. the lack of sunlight caused the plants to die off. the lack of plants caused the plant eaters to die off and the lack of plants caused a lack of oxygen because plants cause oxygen and the lack of oxygen caused the extinction.
large animals require large amounts of oxygen for breathing.
the bottom line is that even if there were a large diversity of plant eaters there would have still been a extinction from the way I see it.
because all of the dinosaurs required oxygen to breath and without plants there was very little oxygen and the earths air would have been mostly co2.
But it wouldn't have killed off all of the vegetation. If there had been a greater diversity of herbivores then more of them would would have survived, eating what was left. As far as lack of oxygen, I don't much think that would have been a major problem. At the present time the oxygen content of the air is just under 21%. Even if it dropped to 17% or so most animal life would have survived. The biggie would have been lack of food for the carnivores.
without a really large amount of plant life all the really large animals will die off.
go buy a plant and put it in your closet and turn the closets light off and close the door without the suns light or some artificial sun light source the plant will die.
this is not quantum mechanics , you cant just pop sunlight into the closet because it sounds nerdy to make the plant live.
A global winter wouldn't completely block all the sun light. There would still be some. So some plant life would still survive. If it was kinds that the smaller diversity of the large herbivores couldn't eat then they would die off. If there had been a great diversity of large herbivores then the chance that some of them would survive would be greater. That is because the diversity depends on their living in different ecological niches. Probably eating different plants. So if those different ones had survived then a chance for some of the carnivores to survive would have been greater.
And of course this has to be taken with the usual caveat that neither one us really knows for sure what we are talking about. This is just the way it seems to me, based on what the author of the story I linked to said.
lets be realistic about this , we are talking about an extinction event that did happen according to current knowledge.
smaller animals did survive but the larger ones did die off the only real reason that there could be would be the lack of plants and as a result the lack of oxygen.
smaller animals would survive because they would require less plants for food.
the earths air may have been much richer in oxygen before the asteroid or more ppm of oxygen in the air.
after the larger plants died off there would still be some smaller plants closer to the ground and close to the entrances of caves and depressions where the smaller animals lived.
the larger animals just couldn't survive in the low oxygen environment.
Im certain that in some areas there were hardy forest that did survive for a while after the asteroid and there were several large animals that survived in them especially those that were used to low oxygen in high elevation areas.
I don't think that a lack of diversity was the culprit it must have been the lack of oxygen.
also when the sun light faded the temperatures plummeted any animal that lived in areas with higher temperatures just froze to death unless they could migrate in time to warmer areas and the smaller animals could simply lay on the ground or enter caves to stay warm.
really large animals were left out in the cold or they huddled together in the depressions or pockets of air that were available.
Have you had your minds eye evaluated by a competent mental ophthalmologist? The scientists who were mentioned in the article didn't use just their minds eyes, they really looked at the data available.
As I said we neither of us really know what we are talking about, but your excursion seems a bit far out to me.
my minds eye operates on the knowledge that I have acquired over the years.
some people actually still use the knowledge of their mind to predict the outcome of events or to figure out the reasons that led up to events.
others simply go with the ever increasing horde of main stream fantasy science and if they come across something they cant comprehend then they invent a reason.
I would expect that everyones minds eye operates on the knowledge they have acquired and if they mostly acquired fantasy then their mind uses that fantasy to apply to problem solving vs actual things that would deliver an actual solution.
like the global warming conspiracy that is actually global cooling they even want to cut down all the trees because the trees produce too much co2 ... !!!!
he calculated that if we buried half of the wood that grows each year, in such a way that it didn't decay, enough CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere to offset all of our fossil-fuel emissions. It wouldn't be easy, but Zeng believes it could be done.
they cant comprehend the fact that without the co2 there wouldn't be much oxygen for them to breath because trees convert co2 into oxygen for hundreds of years but some idiot started the idea , their idiot peers maintained and promoted the idea , and its as backwards of an idea as the co2 warming bullshit.
I have to give the guy credit though his idea would reduce co2 in a way because half the oxygen currently produced each year by the trees would go away ... and the global ppm of oxygen in the air would greatly reduce in proportion as the trees were cut down and buried so any of the people and animals that require oxygen to breath would also be buried as a result but there would be no one left to burry them or to notice the lower co2 levels on earth and people would stop buying the book when everyone is dead , so its not a really good idea after all , but the co2 levels would decrease.
BTW , the global warming has got me turning on my heaters earlier this year... its obviously just my imagination of course because everyone knows through the constant brainwashing that the global warming dictates that it shouldn't be cooler so I must be using the air conditioner instead of the heaters in my home.
without the co2 there wouldn't be much oxygen for them to breath
The idea of burying trees is kind of a dumb idea, but your problem with it isn't quite as big as you seem to think. The problem there is that trees don't contribute all that much to the oxygen content of the atmosphere. I did a quick search and found a discussion on the Biology Stack Exchange discussing how much oxygen is produced by oceanic sources. Are trees the only source of large amounts of oxygen?
Originally Posted By: Biology Stack Exchange
71% of the earth's surface is taken up by water. Not surprisingly therefore, the seas are an important source of oxygen. National Geographic claims that photosynthesis by phytoplankton (mostly single-celled phototrophs, such as cyanobacteria, green algae and diatoms) account for half of the earth's oxygen production. The other half, they claim, is produced on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants.
The Ecology Global Network takes it a step further and claims that all marine plants (including phytoplankton) together produce 70 to 80 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere.
Based on these reports, hence, marine phototrophs account for 50 - 80% of the earth's oxygen production.
With regard to terrestrial oxygen production, NASA reports that 30% of the land is covered by trees, and as much as 45 percent of the carbon stored on land is tied up in forests. So on land, trees are definitely large contributors to oxygen production.
So cutting down half of the trees would reduce the amount of atmospheric oxygen. But not by as much as you seem to think. Particularly since they would be replaced by grasses that would make up a large part of the difference.
Originally Posted By: Paul
BTW , the global warming has got me turning on my heaters earlier this year... its obviously just my imagination of course because everyone knows through the constant brainwashing that the global warming dictates that it shouldn't be cooler so I must be using the air conditioner instead of the heaters in my home.
Is it really getting cool early in Florida? Here in Oklahoma, and all up through the middle of the country clear to the Dakotas we have been having an unusually warm fall. Here in Tulsa we just had our first freeze of the season. In fact we just set a new record for the number of consecutive days without a freeze. My bedding plants in front of the house are still blooming. Normally they die out in September or early October. When you start saying things like that you begin to sound like Jim Inhofe, the idiot child Oklahoma keeps sending to the Senate. Last winter he brought in a snow ball from outside the capitol and used that to debunk global warming. He really shouldn't have wasted that snow. They needed it in Alaska because they had to reroute the Idatarod sled race because they hadn't had enough snow.
So if you believe in science why don't you believe the over 90% of climate scientists who say that anthropogenic global warming is real? I mean these are people who have actually studied the numbers and agree it is happening.
the oceans phytoplankton obtains its co2 from the oceans not from the atmosphere.
so by cutting down trees you are adding more co2 into the ppm of the air that we breath because the trees cant convert the co2 into oxygen after its been cut down and buried.
Variations of Oxygen shaped the climates of the past. When oxygen declined, atmospheric density dropped and this in turn increased surface evaporation, and led to precipitation increases and warmer temperatures
sounds a lot like what's happening today doesn't it.
The paper that was quoted in the article says that the devastation associated with massive eruptions such as the Deccan Traps would not have been as severe as has been thought. The atmosphere would have cooled quite a bit, about 4.5 degrees C. But vegetation would have been affected in a spotty way. Some places it would have been destroyed and other places it wouldn't have been affected. It would only have taken about 50 years for the temperature to recover from the shock.
Thinking off the top of my head it seems likely that species that were highly adapted to a given climate would have a hard time making it through even a 50 year change. So the likelihood of becoming extinct in such an event would depend on how finely a species was tuned to the environment. Generalist species would have a better chance of making it through.
As sort of a general comment on this topic I ran into an interesting commentary a few weeks ago.
I really only have experience with mainstream religions before arriving in USA and was familiar with the usual views. Most just ignore dinosaurs but those who do deal with it vary from the patterns in the rocks humans just want to be dinosaurs, thru to they are the devils work designed to undermine one's faith.
You can easily look up the Vaticans official line of Dinosaurs
Vatican on Dinosaurs: This is a question for science, not theology. What we do know, however, is that “Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God's word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun."
What threw me the other week was one of the "new age" religion groups here in USA that had the dinosaurs all drowning in Noah's flood a few thousand years ago. Apparently Noah either didn't build a big enough Arc or God decided dinosaurs where wicked and evil and so they got there justice like all the other sinners. There seemed to be oscillation about which of these was the reason.
Paul doesn't like your idea Bill but I have to ask with his views of creation, did the dinosaurs drown?
the ocean gets its co2 or carbon from fish or marine life as they breath by exchanging carbon with oxygen found in the oceans water , from the carbon stored in dead marine life as it decomposes and from dissolved rock and the carbon cycle between the oceans and the atmosphere etc...
the ocean will absorb co2 from the atmosphere when the co2 pressure of the atmosphere is higher than the co2 pressure in the ocean.
therefore , the cutting down of 1/2 the trees would lower the oxygen ppm in the atmosphere and increase the co2 ppm in the atmosphere which would increase the co2 pressure of the atmosphere and trigger co2 absorbtion into the oceans... but the oceans have a limit as to the amount of co2 that they can absorb.
so this is yet another reason other than the lower oxygen ppm to not cut down the trees as a means of reducing co2 levels in the atmosphere.
Orac, strictly speaking this one should be switched to NQS. But since it is a follow on to a science subject I will respond to your comments. After all I have been responding to Paul's global warming denials when they should be in Climate Change.
There are a lot of problems with creationist responses to dinosaurs. One is as you said they were drowned because they weren't on the ark. The biggest problem with that one is that the Bible says that all the animals were represented on the ark. There isn't a foot note that says that some were left behind. I'm not sure how they can claim that the Bible is completely true and then say that some animals weren't on the Ark. That is just one of the things that they come up with when they try to explain things that don't match the Bible. There are a lot of illogical things they do in trying to explain. In fact there is a Creation Museum in Kentucky where they show people mingling with dinosaurs.
I got that inconsistencies which is what threw me originally, Bill. I actually had trouble searching the topic because obviously there is a lot of mocking and ridicule around it, and it obviously become "one of those questions" to the believers. All I really have been able to work out is it relatively new claim by some of the newer fundamentalist religions.
Watching Paul's arguments sort of reminded me of the original comment to me, and he is the right demographic. So it struck me maybe he believes the dinosaurs drowned and so arguing this with him would be pointless.
To be honest I was surprised he was commenting at all I was sort of expecting dinosaurs don't exist as an answer.
It is hard to deny the existence of the dinosaurs. There are just too many fossils around. And of course they are quite popular with people in general. So fundamentalists come up with all kinds of strange ideas to explain them. The only one that I can at all understand is that God put them there as a test of faith. No other argument that I have ever seen makes any kind of sense to me.
its almost as if you orac are poking fun at people who believe that dinosaurs could have existed at the time of noahs flood but they couldn't fit into the ark so God let them drown.
is that the case?
BTW ... the Bible that I read does not mention dinosaurs before noahs flood or after noahs flood and I'm not saying that dinosaurs existed at the time of noahs flood.
but ... if there were dinosaurs at the time of noahs flood I cannot see why they could not have been included as young dinosaurs.
how big would a fresh from the egg dinosaur be anyway?
about the size of its egg?
how big were dinosaur eggs?
from the above image it looks as if 40-50 fresh from the egg dinosaurs could have been stored in a few cubic feet of space onboard the ark.
you know maybe noah knew about quantum mechanics himself and he simply poped them into a parallel universe until the ark came to rest on the ground. then he popped them back !!!
in other words people who live a life of fantasy shouldn't question or poke fun at anything that others believe in.
But, would freshly hatched dinosaurs be able to walk aboard. The Bible says that the animals "came two by two". That implies they walked aboard by themselves. I expect baby dinosaurs would be something like fresh hatched birds. They can't do much of anything for themselves.
in other words people who live a life of fantasy shouldn't question or poke fun at anything that others believe in.
I wasn't poking fun at it, but some obviously do and hence the sensitivity around it and I get that. I simply asked the question because of the way you were addressing the issues.
If your faith demands you believe certain things, that is fine just don't beat around and pretend you are even free to consider the alternatives.
I had the same issue when Rev K wanted to treat GOD scientifically. Fine then either tell GOD to show up so I can test him, and if you can't do that I will assume GOD doesn't exist and test the landscape. Rev K doesn't have the power to do the first, and the later is forbidden, so his request was illogical. Science can't discuss something you aren't free to consider all the options so I can't scientifically look at GOD with Rev K.
The bible itself could never have used the word dinosaur or even a translation of it, as the word was created by Sir Richard Owen in 1842. It means terrible lizzard or reptile and is a modern created word and in theory created long after the bible was written.
If you want to try and start creating situations like your egg, Bill G has already given you the problem that opens up, that the bible is therefore not accurate or omits things. My strong suggestion is to not go there and close the discussion on this as you are never going to be happy with that discussion.
For my part I am very straight down the line in what I believe and why. I really don't care what you or indeed every layman on the planet make of it, you are layman. Science doesn't vote on popularity, it's entire aim is to be useful and predictive and that is all it cares about. You are welcome not believe in science or write your own. Science just ignores you because we don't have to prove we are right, we just need to be more useful and predictive than your version and civilization makes the choice for us.
That is the bit you never get, science is not a system that requires people to believe like religion
I wasn't poking fun at it, but some obviously do and hence the sensitivity around it and I get that. I simply asked the question because of the way you were addressing the issues.
I'm going to say that the below that you wrote was poking fun at the beliefs of others.
Quote:
What threw me the other week was one of the "new age" religion groups here in USA that had the dinosaurs all drowning in Noah's flood a few thousand years ago. Apparently Noah either didn't build a big enough Arc or God decided dinosaurs where wicked and evil and so they got there justice like all the other sinners. There seemed to be oscillation about which of these was the reason.
I've already showed how it was done orac , noah popped the dinosaurs into a parallel universe then popped them back after it was safe so that they wouldnt drown. what is it about that that you cant comprehend?
Quote:
If your faith demands you believe certain things, that is fine just don't beat around and pretend you are even free to consider the alternatives.
as far as I'm concerned my faith does not demand that I believe anything. as far as I understand "faith" can not demand "belief" else faith would simply be belief.
Quote:
I had the same issue when Rev K wanted to treat GOD scientifically. Fine then either tell GOD to show up so I can test him, and if you can't do that I will assume GOD doesn't exist and test the landscape. Rev K doesn't have the power to do the first, and the later is forbidden, so his request was illogical. Science can't discuss something you aren't free to consider all the options so I can't scientifically look at GOD with Rev K.
fine then the next time you pop some fantasy entity into another parallel universe or where ever you pop it tell it to show up so I can test it , and if you cant do that I will continue to believe that you are actually a bull [censored] layman that calls people layman to make himself feel important to his peers of bull [censored] laymen.
Quote:
The bible itself could never have used the word dinosaur or even a translation of it, as the word was created by Sir Richard Owen in 1842. It means terrible lizzard or reptile and is a modern created word and in theory created long after the bible was written.
how do you know that the word dinosaur wasnt used before 1842? , adam could have named their kind dinosaurs if they were there when he named all the animals. a really large number of species become extinct each day , so its obvious that the dinosaurs were already extinct when noah built the ark because moses didnt mention them when he wrote genesis and nor did he include all the names of all the animals that entered the ark.
Quote:
If you want to try and start creating situations like your egg, Bill G has already given you the problem that opens up, that the bible is therefore not accurate or omits things. My strong suggestion is to not go there and close the discussion on this as you are never going to be happy with that discussion.
but its not my happiness that is in danger here orac , I am happy to discuss things with you even when you fail to find a intelligent response to my post and start your consistent ranting about your goat god that you always mention because I get a big laugh when you do that , it really shows your professionalism being the non layman that you obviously are.
as for Bill G's response about the baby dinosaurs I've noticed that when a chick is hatched from its egg , it doesnt just sit there for more than a few minutes if any , its eyes are open and it has pecked its way out of its shell by itself , it then starts walking around in a few minutes finding and eating food ... by itself. you can buy them from ebay sellers that are a day old --- no parents needed so yes they could have walked onto the ark by themselves or the postman could have delivered them straight to the ark with next day shipping from ebay.
Quote:
For my part I am very straight down the line in what I believe and why. I really don't care what you or indeed every layman on the planet make of it, you are layman. Science doesn't vote on popularity, it's entire aim is to be useful and predictive and that is all it cares about. You are welcome not believe in science or write your own. Science just ignores you because we don't have to prove we are right, we just need to be more useful and predictive than your version and civilization makes the choice for us.
well thank you orac , because if you are not a layman then I must be a layman and that is the group of people that I would want to be associated with.
science doesnt ignore me , science listens to what I have to say. almost everything that I say has been found to be true , it usually takes a few years to make it to main stream and that of course depends on the popularity of what I say and who votes on it.
your the non layman that science either ignores or knows that what you say is simply something that you read on the internet that someone else said in the past and you are simply repeating other peoples thoughts and ideas , you are the bearer of lip service.
Quote:
That is the bit you never get, science is not a system that requires people to believe like religion
your right science is not a system it is a discipline. science is supposed to be about experimentation , data gathering , and to acquire and to increase knowledge but you and many others in the scientific community are certainly not scientist because all you do is brag about how smart you are and pat each other on the back while quoting the nonsense that your peers have dreamed up ... while you do nothing else except try to ridicule others who you and your like minded peers dont agree with.
The fact is that there is no list of the animals that were in the ark. The Bible just says that all the animals came. So we can't really make any definite statements about which ones were there and which weren't. Except that the Bible says they all came. That doesn't leave any animals to have been left behind. And the rest of the argument is about how likely the story of Noah and the Ark is.
We could get into another shouting match with one side saying the Bible is literally true, and the other side pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible story. This has been done over and over and there hasn't been any constructive outcome as far as I can tell.
I personally fall on the side that doesn't believe the Bible is literally true. It contains many stories that provide allegorical guidance in making our way through life. But to me that is its main use.
Trying to make the Bible fully describe the creation of the universe just doesn't work. It doesn't match the observations that many people have made over many years. Those observations have been checked and rechecked and even where there is some disagreement on details the overall story remains the same and is fully consistent with observations. And the observations have been made by many different people who have been observing many different things, in many different disciplines.
Most Creationists accept the Bible as containing the true story of the origin of the universe. This belief is based on no independent observations. While many Creationists claim to have scientific evidence that the Biblical story is true they have not so far come up with any unequivocal evidence. The fact is that the whole backing for the Creationist view of the universe is found in the Bible.
And in the mean time this topic has strayed far from the original subject which was the extinction of the dinosaurs.
I agree that the op was not about religion , but questions were asked so I provided my thoughts.
I cant in any way however agree with your comment below.
Quote:
The fact is that the whole backing for the Creationist view of the universe is found in the Bible.
in fact the thing that backed or enforced and continues to back and enforce my beliefs about creation is the lack of any evidence that supports evolution.
everything just suddenly appeared and that simply is not evolution and looks a lot more like what creation would be.
it does not matter how many scientist or people like orac believe in evolution , millions , billions , or gazillions of believers will not change the fact that a belief in evolution is a faith based belief.
Darwin himself had a problem with evolution and as I remember he noted in a book his words that point to creation as occurring before evolution occurred.
or something like that because he could only find fully formed animals in his explorations.
Quote:
Most Creationists accept the Bible as containing the true story of the origin of the universe. This belief is based on no independent observations.
I suppose you mean that there have been no scientist that went back in time and observed creation.
then I also suppose that there have been scientist that went back in time and observed evolution as it occurred.
otherwise your comment means nothing to me.
Quote:
While many Creationists claim to have scientific evidence that the Biblical story is true they have not so far come up with any unequivocal evidence.
the same exact thing can be said for evolution , there is no evidence for evolution.
but the lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for creation !!! isn't that the way that science moves?
and this is one of the places where science tries to become a religion which is based on faith and not evidence.
unless science has found those animals that Darwin could not find you might be better off sticking to the things that science is suppose to do and refrain from making claims that you cannot prove.
but we should move away from this and continue with the op
Paul I don't know why you get upset ... no-one cares that much.
There are probably twenty people who frequent the site and nothing on this forum is going to change anyone's views.
Chill out it isn't worth the aggravation.
Let try a joke from Big Bang Theory to lighten it up along you pop in an out lines
Originally Posted By: big bang theory
So, a QM physicist goes to an ice cream parlor, and orders an ice cream sundae for himself and orders one for the empty stool sitting next to him. The owner asks him is he expecting company?
The QM physicist says, "Well, I am a QM physicist and *Quantum Mechanics* teaches us that it is possible for the matter above this stool to spontaneously turn into a woman who might accept my offering and fall in love with me."
The owner says, "Well lots of single, beautiful woman come in here everyday. Why don't you buy an ice cream for one of them and they might fall in love with you?"
And the QM physicist says, "Yeah, well what are the odds of that happening!"
I'm not upset , its more like I'm disgusted with science.
particularly when people claiming to be scientist insist that creation did not happen yet when confronted with a logical question such as the Cambrian explosion they then either change the subject or try to claim that evolution started after all the fully formed animals were already here.
which is exactly what the evolutionist claim today because they cannot find what is not there.
so instead of handling the Cambrian explosion in a scientific manner they stop being scientific because they don't want to admit that creation was the only way that fully formed animals could have just suddenly appeared on the earth and being proud scientist they continue by making claims that creation did not happen and they do this with no evidence that science can possibly support.
what do you think that the odds are that a single fully formed animal complete with eyes , skeleton , legs , arms , respiratory system , digestive system , brain , etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... could just pop into existence?
and then add to your popping equation all the other known animal species from the Cambrian explosion that have been discovered that have absolutely no evolutionary connection to a animal that existed prior to the Cambrian explosion.
what would be the odds of creation being true?
to me creation isn't a faith based belief it is a logic based belief that is not associated with faith.
to evolutionist evolution is a faith based belief that cannot be associated with logic.
at the end of the day evolution causes science to become illogical and causes science to blend in with faith based offshoots such as evolution that some claim as being scientific but are not.
religion is religion and science is science , religion is faith based but science is not.
As I said. The same old claims, and I could reply with the same old explanations of why Paul is wrong. But it really wouldn't do any good. Explaining things in a logical order to people who have already made up their minds and refuse to look at the facts is a useless endeavor.
its obvious that you Bill already have your mind made up as well.
but the facts are that you based your belief in evolution on faith. faith requires no evidence and no evidence is what evolution supplies to its believers.
evolution simply says look animals have changed since they first appeared on the earth , and I caused them to appear.
and that proves that I am valid.
it is exactly like the momentum of a mass in motion saying look this mass has motion , and I caused that motion.
Your wrong because your a religious fruitloop who now wants claim he is the authority on science and no one can be bothered arguing with a religious fruitloop ... pretty basic.
I am sure with your claiming of science authority is going to win over millions to your religion and make science extinct, ok maybe not. However I believe in you Paul and hence forth you will be called the saviour of GOD and the resurrector of GOD's true science. The Roman Catholics were the last to try and claim science and it didn't end well either
If I claimed to be an authority on GOD just watch how fast you would be complaining to Rose as I butcher the hell out of the poor little fellow.
Now take your religion bigoted mind and your GOD and leave the dinosaurs to drown in peace. Dinosaurs have feeling too you know ... ashes to ashes ... dust to dust ... AMEN
Notice: To all the Greenies no Dinosaurs were harmed in the making of this post.
And the last 2 posts show just what is the problem with trying to have a discussion about evolution and creationism. Both sides tend to fall into fits and nothing is accomplished.
LOL , I really get a kick out of you guys tripping over yourselves about evolution , its like you want to have something other than bs to discuss evolution with but there just isn't anything except bs that you can use.
now if evolution didn't make it look as if evolution caused all the animals to appear and also didn't claim that it wasn't creation then I wouldn't really have any problems with evolution itself.
but that's not the case , the evolutionist want evolution to have been the creator of all the animals and evolution cant create anything , not even a single grain of dirt to use as the first building block to use while assembling all the species from dirt.
I guess when you livin in a fantasy you just got to keep the dream alive
Originally Posted By: Malala Yousafzai, I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban
“The boys learn the Quran by heart, rocking back and forth as they recite. They learn that there is no such thing as science or literature, that dinosaurs never existed and man never went to the moon.”
You aren't as far from Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS as you may think Paul ... GOD bless America
So what shall we do with the GOD's true science heathens and infidels?
Come on it's only a small step and we are unworthy !!!!
so are you saying that the boys are being taught things that are wrong exactly like science teaches?
as in the teachings of science where evolution vs creation is concerned when there is no evidence of evolution found on the earth and the evidence of evolution can only be found in the minds of its followers.
yet the evidence for creation has been found by those who have been unable to find any evidence for evolution.
so just how far away from the boys teachings would you say that you are?
from what I have read what you have been taught is right in line with what you are complaining about.
learning scripture by heart is a tradition that has lasted much longer than you may think and it is how events were recorded before the written languages were invented.
as for the "no such science" bit , well I can see that happening if science does not stop trying to become a faith based religion , people are going to see science for what science shows them , even the gullible and the young will eventually see that what science teaches is wrong.
and the "no such science" will be correct because science requires people.
and as far as the "no such literature" bit , likewise what has been found to be corrupted in science literature will only be good as fuel for a fire.
as it stands we know that there were dinosaurs.
but if science continues to use faith as its base for evidence then who knows , the future may replace what remains of true science with a faith based religion of science that may indeed claim that it was the great god of evolution that made the rock structures found in the ground that resemble ancient animals that once lived on the earth.
Quote:
So what shall we do with the GOD's true science heathens and infidels?
well when you say "true science" to me that means "faith based science" so in that case we should give them shovels and let them dig their grave.
and we did , and they have.
now you can lay down in the grave you have made for real science or you can attempt to fix it.
professor wakes up after his student ask questions.
learning scripture by heart is a tradition that has lasted much longer than you may think and it is how events were recorded before the written languages were invented.
I have no intention of getting into this "endless" debate, but chances for nit-picking cannot always be passed up.
Scripture = things written down. How could there be scriptures "before the written languages were invented"?
that's the point I was making , nothing was written down until the written languages were invented.
but I get your point as well , what I was saying is that before there was written language the people would learn the events by heart ( memorized them ) as they were passed down from generation to generation.
but you got my point as well.
so the scriptures were contained in the memory of those who were learning the scriptures by heart ( memory ) for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years until the written languages became available and then the scriptures were transferred to stone tablets and later to paper then to tape drives then to hard drives then to cd's and dvd's before being loaded into the ram memory in a computer and now they simply float around in the clouds waiting to be written down on a computer screen or printed on a piece of paper or etched in stone by a cnc machine.
I just thought of this , the cloud could be thought of as being the memory of the earth...
I kind of hate to get back into this, but while there were no literal 'scriptures' before writing was invented there were plenty of oral traditions. They can count as 'scriptures' in the generic sense that they were the source of the written words. Every culture had its own creation myths that were passed down as oral traditions until they learned writing. The Australian Aborigines had their creation myths (the Song Time), Native Americans had theirs, the Japanese had theirs. In that sense there are plenty of scriptures around.
Well, I see Paul got in just ahead of me. He replied while I was composing this one.
right , so back tracking the global movements / migrations of these many peoples should lead back to the original place of origin.
I think this has been done using dna or genetics.
that place should either be where the creation of man occurred. or the place where evolution first evolved dirt into being and then evolved that dirt into man.
Of course I did, Paul, but some things are too good to miss, like pointing out that "original place of origin" is tautologous. It gets away from me some times. Take no notice.
...while there were no literal 'scriptures' before writing was invented there were plenty of oral traditions. They can count as 'scriptures' in the generic sense that they were the source of the written words. Every culture had its own creation myths...
This must lead to questions like: "Does the Bible have any better claim be the word of God than do (e.g.)the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita or the teachings of the Buddha?
This must lead to questions like: "Does the Bible have any better claim be the word of God than do (e.g.)the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita or the teachings of the Buddha?
The Bible has a much better claim if you happen to be a born again Christian.
there have been a few ice ages in the last several hundred thousand years , and a trace back to the original human may not be possible using the passed down versions of history and creation.
because there may be cultures that were wiped out because of the climatic changes in the areas that they migrated to.
so the only remains of these wiped cultures would be any bits of pieces they left behind.
and much of those pieces would be under the seas today because the sea shore would be the warmest places to be and a better place to be for those who like eating fish.
so the best evidence we have is found in the written history and creation stories that we know about.
there's really no way to tell just how old man is by the evidence that we do know about.
but the evidence that we do know about points to creation and not to evolution.
there have been no major changes to species found in that one species is shown to have become another species ( kind ).
if I had to choose ( without any solid evidence ) I would say that apes devolved from man possibly due to climatic changes ( adaption ) during the ice ages what are today referred to as apes were men left out in the cold while what is now referred to as modern man went underground to survive.
there have been a few ice ages in the last several hundred thousand years , and a trace back to the original human may not be possible using the passed down versions of history and creation.
That is completely wrong. According to the Bible there has not been nearly that long for anything to happen. There have not been hundreds of thousands of years. The Bible clearly says that the world was created in 6 days, and then after that adding up the ages of the patriarchs gives only around 6 or 7,000 years. So forget about anything earlier than 7,000 years ago.
I know that some people talk about creation taking much longer than 6 days, but if they do then they are going against the word of God. God told the patriarchs that He created the world in 6 days, so that is what they put in the Bible. Any body who says they weren't really the same as our days is calling God a liar. I'm not one to do that.
the Bible also says that a day with God is as a thousand years.
now ... do you remember reading genesis?
when God instructed man about eating of the fruits of the trees in the garden , he clearly stated that if man were to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he would die...
they would have never died if they would not have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil else God would not have warned them that they would die if they did.
really why would God say that they would die?
and we don't really know how many days that passed away before adam and eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil after adam was created by God , but for each of those days that did pass then each day would have been as a thousand years as it is with God.
thus therefore and hitherto , a hundred days would be as a hundred thousand years.
a single year would have been as 365 thousand years.
it appears that you do take the Word of God literally when you imagine that it may come in handy in a discussion about the Bible so its obvious that this will clear up your concerns.
there were a lot of animals for adam to name in the garden and naming each one would have taken a really long time especially when adam had no previously used names to choose from and he had to invent each name that he used in the naming of all of the animals on earth.
and we don't really know how many days that passed away before adam and eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil after adam was created by God , but for each of those days that did pass then each day would have been as a thousand years as it is with God.
Originally Posted By: 2 Peter 3, KJV
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Then the Lord sees one day (our time) as a thousand years. But 1000 years (our time) is 1 day to the Lord. So which is it?
I agree that the Bible doesn't say anything about when they ate of the fruit, but I don't see how that can be counted for or against the age of the universe. Since by that time they were on Earth they should have been keeping Earth time, one day per day. It is only the Lord that has the odd time keeping. I really prefer to think that when Peter made his statement he was talking about a completely different subject, and his statement is being taken out of context. He was using the Lord's time keeping to explain why the second coming hadn't happened yet.
Of course the Lords time keeping sounds a lot like time in Special Relativity. It all depends on your frame of reference.
because there may be cultures that were wiped out because of the climatic changes in the areas that they migrated to.
so the only remains of these wiped cultures would be any bits of pieces they left behind.
and much of those pieces would be under the seas today because the sea shore would be the warmest places to be and a better place to be for those who like eating fish.
Have a care, there, Paul; there's a pro-evolution argument that starts something like that.
It surprises me that when we venture into the creation v evolution debate we turn only to the Bible. We have in our midst TT, who has obviously thought more broadly, yet neither he nor anyone else, cites things like the quote from the Chandogya Upanishad that seems to link creation with an evolutionary process.
“1 In the beginning, my dear, this was Being alone' one only without a second. Some people say 'in the beginning this Was non- being alone, one only; without a second. From that non-being, being was produced.' 2. But how, indeed, my dear, could it be thus? said he [i.e., the sage Uddalaka], how could being be produced from non-being? On the contrary, my dear, in the beginning this was being alone, one only, without a second. 3. It thought, May I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth fire. That fire thought, May I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth water. . . . 4. That water thought, May I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth food. . . .”
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
what is being said is
that one day (Gods time) is with the Lord as a thousand years (our time).
and a thousand years (our time) is as one day (Gods time).
I have considered that the below might be the case.
one day of Gods time is as a thousand years and each day of that thousand years is a thousand years of our time.
that would really be a long time. because there would be
1 day (Gods time) = 365 x 1000 x 1000 = 365 million years (our time)
6 days (Gods time) = 2.1 billion years (our time)
God created the fish and the birds on the 5th day which causes the above to fit in with the Cambrian explosion that occurred apx 542 million years ago and lasted until apx 485 million years ago. and the 5th day ended in the Paleozoic era between the mississippian and devonean period first amphibians and that fits right in with the Bibles 5th day creations.
of course on the 6th day God created all the land animals and then he created man and the 6th day began 365 million years ago if the above is correct and lasted until adam and eve were created and God rested on the 7th day and then they ate the forbidden fruit and the recording of the time of man began.
Sorry the problem with that is look at the ages of the humans in genesis and multiply them by 1000 years.
For example Cain murdered his brother at the age of 15, that means Cain was 15 000 years old. There are many human age in the book of genesis. Adam lived for 930 years so he is now a sprightly 930,000 years old.
So your only way out then is to say the 1000 year multiplier is only on the first part of genesis before the humans appear.
At that stage you are interpreting and admitting the book isn't accurate. You might as well interpret the story as being an allegory which is how most of the old mainstream religions take it.
To me a telling point is the Quran does not contain the start of genesis yet it does include almost every other detail, Adam and Eve, Cain and Able etc.
Since we are doing interpretation of the seven days of the creation story, here is my version. The bible puts creation 4000BC and I will agree with Paul's 1000 years = 1 day only it is literal from that start point. So we had 4 days up to the birth of Christ in 0 BC covering that 4000 years. This year being 2015 makes us 2 days into the last 3000 years and we all get judged and die in 3000 AD. There you go my own end of the world prediction based on the bible.
Paul, that is meant in good humour to show the issues with interpretation as I see it.
up until the time that adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit there was no time other than Gods time.
the bible states that God warned man that they would die if they did eat of the forbidden fruit.
meaning that they would no longer live in Gods time and that they would die , they did eat , and God drove them out of the garden.
obviously if they would not have eaten of the forbidden fruit then they would have never died ... or God would have never told them that they would die if they did.
it was only after they did eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they fell from grace by disobeying God , God then cursed them both , and cursed the serpent and drove them out of the garden and at that time adam and eve began to age , before they ate the forbidden fruit there was no time other than Gods time.
cain and able were born after adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit which was after they began to age.
so cains age would be 1 year (our time) old for each year (our time) of aging.
so my interpretation is more accurate than current interpretations of course and it does fit into the records and date ranges found in the ground as fossil evidence.
ie ... the creation records found in the Bible and the emergence of life records found in science do not conflict with each other using my interpretation.
I agree Bill G it makes no sense and any writer would be aware it just causes confusion.
Second HUGE problem, the Earth was the centre of the universe to these people and they would have no concept of a different time. People were sentenced to death for daring to suggest that earth wasn't the centre of the universe or that anywhere else existed.
People were stoned to death for very little, I mean good old Virgin Mary almost met that fate. The idea that the concept of a different sort of time appearing in a religious scripture I find highly dubious.
Paul, you are going to need to find some evidence to convince me that sounds more like modern wishful thinking.
Orac , if you cant comprehend this then how are we supposed to think that you CAN comprehend the fantasy that you are currently engulfed in with quantum mechanics or whatever fantasy science your currently admiring.
here , those don't even fit into it , try another one.
Not sure what science and QM has to do with the current discussion or even dinosaurs, just seems to be a deflection response.
If you don't want to discuss that is fine, we are just asking for the justification ... sometimes faith is an acceptable answer.
I will extend one other piece of information, the Jewish clergy who have our document in question and study the language. Hebrew Scriptures, Professor Ginsberg says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Louis_Ginsberg)
Quote:
“There is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis to justify the spiritualisation of the expression ‘day’. On the contrary, the definition given in verse 5 of the word in question imperatively demands that ‘yom’ should be understood in the same sense as we understand the word ‘day’ in common parlance, i.e. as a natural day.”
Not sure I can go against one of the foremost authorities on Historic Hebrew language.
On that issue, it sort of got me curious about modern creationist churches. Do you know if they employ special clergy like the Jewish do to study Hebrew and the original scripture text. Some religions do some amazing things, like the genealogy of the Mormon Church to try and connect the ancestry of every person on the planet and those outside the church are probably unaware of it.
On your side, I found a straight talking Young Earth preacher I like
Originally Posted By: Tim Chaffey
If the Bible plainly teaches that God made everything in six normal-length days approximately 6,000 years ago, then that is what He did, regardless of what the majority of modern scientists claim, particularly those doing historical (origins) science. God was there, and the scientists weren’t. He knows all things, and they don’t. He cannot lie or be mistaken, and they can (and often do or are). He has told us what He did in the beginning, while they must form hypotheses about the unobservable past based on incomplete information and a fatally flawed worldview.
I don't agree but with it but he makes sense and it comes down to a judgement call without trying to butcher science.
What killed the dinosaurs? What’s wrong with evolution? What’s right with creationism? The meaning of Yom in the context of the Torah? Whether the Bible has a precedent claim over other ancient scriptures to being the Word of God? Oops! No, that didn’t get off the ground.
Happy New Year to you, Bill S., and to all the folks who follow this forum. Hope you have health in your home and wealth in your pockets.
I don't make New Year's Resolutions any more. I find it too hard to keep and too stressful when at the end of the year I find out how poorly I've kept them. My New Year's Resolution is to make no more New Year's Resolutions. Hope you all have a good New Year's Eve, and get home safe and sound.
