Originally posted by zachi
Why is the Bible "spin?" Maybe evolution is "spin."
Because the entire point of the bible is to proselytize the hybrid Nilotic / Indo-European religion adhered to by a single tribe of steppes-dwellers
roughly three thousand years ago. In it, you find things like traveling pillars of fire that only hurt people of certain nationalities, four rivers
that meet together with no drainage, a dude's wife turning to salt, a hairy Buddhist who feeds forty people by running his replicator, and the
ability of early church leaders to strike tax cheats dead with a look. Even without the bad science, it's pretty obviously a handbook for the tribal
priests to keep a rein on the larger part of the herd - thus the shepherd references.
"Maybe evolution is spin?" Well, I won't argue that it can't
be spun; the whole "missing link" hubbub that pops up every time a
paleontologist finds a new primate is a prime example. However, this is very shallow spin, especially since technically every
species is a
"missing link" between its own ancestors and its own descendants. However, unlike the Bible - or most other religions handbooks - evolution can be
tested. It can be shown through a number of scientific disciplines, and is backed up by a number of other
When's the last time religions agreed on so much?
If you really want to believe in evolution then consider that forces existing at the time of the dinosaurs would have been much different. For
example: "the day/night rotation was 63,000 seconds shorter than the present 86,400 seconds it is today. This would put the Earth's rotation at
about 6.5 hours per day/night cycle, when it was created, 4.5 billion years ago." This info is from novan.com... By the time
dinosaurs got here, it was still a shorter day.
Here's something you may not know. The first dinosaurs started hopping around in the mid-late Triassic, about two hundred million years ago. Know how
old the earth was then?
4.3 billion years old.
In other words, the days were
shorter... but not in any really meaningful way. We're looking at a measure of minutes. maybe
The earth had pretty much slowed to its current crawl by the time the first archosaurs came about.
Another problem is that the moon and earth had to have been much closer, since the earth and moon distance is gradually increasing over time.
That mean that land animals would not have much land as huge "tidal plains" engulfed much, if not all of the land area during a normal day a few
billion years ago. Even later, tidal pull would have had a much greater effect on animals that it does today.
A few billion years ago, there were no land animals. Your time scale is totally messed up. By the time dinosaurs - to use the common benchmark -
showed up, yeah, tides were more powerful than they are today. But again, on the geological scale such things are measured in, the difference between
dinosaurs and today would be insignificant.
Notice how your sources offer no numbers and all their sources are self-referential?
As for the Catholic church claiming infallibility, it's the KJB that mentions unicorns 9 times. Job is a pre-flood book. After the flood,
atmospheric conditions changed greatly. LIfe spans shortened and many animals became extinct. Dinosaurs had trouble surviving in the new
enviourment. Perhaps unicorns did too. Fundamental Baptists are more likely to support Biblical preservation in translation than other Christians
I'd enjoy seeing proof of your claims. Prove with evidence. Including the parts about the Baptists. Especially
As for fossils, how often are fossilized horns found? Most of the time identifying what animal produced the horn is difficult. Most of the
web sites I found talked about the difficulty of identification.
Depends on what you're calling a "horn"
Horn itself is just protein, keratin, same as your hair and fingernails. it rots. However, most horn-bearing animals have an underlying bone core on
the skull. Even the exceptions such as rhinoceroses have underlying bone structure that says "there was a horn here." Since these bones are almost
always part of a skull - and since most horns are actually very
distinctive between species - identification is rather easy.
If you mean the famous case of early paleontologists putting the iguanadon's thumb on top of its nose? That wasn't a misidentification, it was bad
anatomy. Horns just don't work that way.
Even so, "random chunk" fossils can be vexingly hard to properly identify. Putting them in the proper clade is usually easy enough (this gets tricky
with fish and early amphibians, and distinguishing birds and dinosaurs) and sometimes the order can be simple enough. Genus and species can be a real
pain. Thank goodness evolution would be just as provable without fossils, huh? Oh, molecular biology. What can't