It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

page: 39
132
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Faulty logic, based upon a misapplication of legends, and even at that reading things into them that are not written there. The Bible does not aver that "there was no death" before the fall, nor that all creatures were vegetarians. As a matter of fact, the legend is that a snake caused the fall, meaning that it had to be pre-existent to that fall. Have you ever seen a vegetarian snake?
I agree. It's not my logic, it is the logic of some of the creationists in this thread.
I know that one of them has posted that all creatures were vegetarian.

It is also the christian belief that death did not exist before the fall. It is strange though, that if death did not exist before the fall, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life in the garden? God said that if they were to eat from the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve would live forever. That's why he kicked them out. So, if they were created immortal, why was there a Tree of Life in the garden whose purpose was to grant immortal life to those who ate from it? If they were not created immortal, death was already in the world and sin had nothing to do with it.
edit on 19-8-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

That quote wasn't originally mine, but I like your response, so I'll let it slide.


Personally, I'm a lazy sort, so rather than digging pit traps, I prefer to drive my dinosaurs over cliffs...
Sorry about that. Thanks for letting it slide....



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Not to get into theology too deeply here, as this isn't the place for it, what you say there concerning "death" sort of supports my contention that the spiritual and the corporeal are, and should be, kept separate. My notion is that corporeal death always has been, and the Bible doesn't contradict that, and that "original sin" speaks to a spiritual death, rather than a physical one. It mentions the same concept elsewhere as a "Second Death".

Honestly, I think a lot of Christians are reading it all wrong, or at the very least interpreting it all wrong. That's to be expected from a group who follow preachers, one of which actually told me one time that the King James Bible of 1611 was the only valid one, since that was the original straight from God's mouth. I found it amusing that he actually thought that God's native language is 16th century, Elizabethan, English.

That same sort of misconception in large part is what fuels this debate between Creationists and Evolutionists. The way I read the Bible, it seems to be saying something more along the lines of "look to your souls, don't get your knickers in a wad over rocks." When was the last time that a fossil had anything at all to do with something as ethereal as a spirit? Can't even hurt a spirit with a rock by throwing it at one. I've watched movies. that thrown fossil will pass right through a spirit, without even leaving a hole. it's all right there on the silver screen, which has static pictures of men riding dinosaurs beat all hollow for realism!








edit on 2011/8/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
get into theology too deeply here, as this isn't the place for it, what you say there concerning "death" sort of supports my contention that the spiritual and the corporeal are, and should be, kept separate. My notion is that corporeal death always has been, and the Bible doesn't contradict that, and that "original sin" speaks to a spiritual death, rather than a physical one. It mentions the same concept elsewhere as a "Second Death".
Yes, I have heard the explanation that the death mentioned was a spiritual death. Imo, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent all believed this to be a physical death that god was talking about. Was he not clear on what he was talking about?

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"

1 Corinthians 15: 20-21 "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man."

Is Paul talking about spiritual or physical death?

As far as spiritual death goes, I didn't know spirits could die. An even better question is, what is a spirit?

Are there any verses that actually talk about spiritual death?

I guess I just can't wrap my head around a spirit being dead. I thought people believed that spirits are what we become after we die. So, how can a spirit be dead? Does that mean that a person who is spiritually dead but physically alive, will not have an afterlife after he dies because his spirit is dead too? I just don't get it.
edit on 19-8-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

That's an interesting statement. Since you maintain that art works prove the coexistence of people and dinosaurs, and you freely admit here that Greek gods existed in artwork, doesn't it naturally follow that you also believe the Greek gods were actual, real gods?


You missed the fact that I pointed out the greek gods were a localized artwork, and many other cultures have their own art work of their gods or imaginations. The commonality of the artwork and stories across the globe proves that all the cultures saw the same thing, not just guessing. I used the greek god to point out that it's NOT like that.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalledOUT
You missed the fact that I pointed out the greek gods were a localized artwork, and many other cultures have their own art work of their gods or imaginations. The commonality of the artwork and stories across the globe proves that all the cultures saw the same thing, not just guessing. I used the greek god to point out that it's NOT like that.
How do you know that all these cultures didn't see the same gods, but gave them different names? It's kind of like christianity. Some call him Jesus, some call him Yeshua, some Yehoshua, some Isus, etc.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Before posting a theory, it is generally a good idea to have EVIDENCE. The OP would insist that the evidence for his theory is being suppressed which is why it doesn't exist. That is the most ludicrous, straw-dog defense in support of a theory I have ever heard. Every piece of partial evidence is ridiculous as well:

Because early Native Americans were aware of tunneling burrowing mammals, they were therefore aware of one of the first ancient mammals that burrowed. Ridiculous conclusion and not at all supported. This feels like a troll thread that is done in jest to paint creationists as morons. I personally don't think creationism makes sense, but this post is even dumber than anything a real creationist would claim.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Is Paul talking about spiritual or physical death?


I believe that he meant a spiritual death. It also says that "the dead know nothing", but fails to specify which sort of dead. Obviously, a disembodied spirit would, if "alive", know something, even if the body were dead, but a dead spirit would know nothing. That's my own synthesis of it, any how. I wonder if a body could be alive, but have a dead spirit?

The serpent's claim that "ye shall be as gods then" doesn't really specify a physical life or death. My take on that was that he was referring more to knowledge than life, but knowldege wouldn't be much good without some sort of life.

Then again, there's the notion I have that the entire story was allegorical, meant to convey a meaning rather than teach history. Again, I don't see the Bible as a physics text or a history book, I see it as primarily a spiritual guide. The stories it contains are meant to convey a message, rather than teach historical reality. The same difficulty is encountered at the other end of the book, in Revelations. If that book is taken literally, then a christian would have to admit that Jesus has snow white, woolly hair, and a rather large sword in place of his tongue, which I'm sure would make the deliver of a sermon on the mount somewhat problematic. Be that as it may, a lot of Christians will read Revelations literally, and fight to the death over their various interpretations of it - even amongst themselves, all the time insisting that their own interpretation is the real, true, literal meaning of it.

I don't see the bible as having anything at all to say in the matter of natural history, dinosaurs, fossils or what have you, and any attempts to read such into it seem to me to be an attempt to put words in the mouth of a deity, which would seem a bad business for adherents to engage in.



As far as spiritual death goes, I didn't know spirits could die.


I don't know, either. I haven't been there yet, at least not that I can recall. I presume anything that has a beginning is subject to an ending, bit I don't know that as fact. It's properly a theological question that folks can thrash around until the cows come home, but no one will actually KNOW until they get there.



An even better question is, what is a spirit?


Again, a theological question with perhaps as many subjective answers as there are people who consider the question, and no verifiable objective answer. I could tell you what I think, how I would define it, but that doesn't really advance anything, being subjective rather than objective. I don't think there IS any universally accepted definition.



Are there any verses that actually talk about spiritual death?


I would say "yes", but the answer is subject to my own take on it, which obviously isn't shared by everyone. They're too busy being literal and pointing out that God got worn out after only six days of work and had to take a rest, and that the effort was so taxing that he never even attempted it again.

I wonder if he can collect unemployment now?




edit on 2011/8/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalledOUT

Originally posted by nenothtu

That's an interesting statement. Since you maintain that art works prove the coexistence of people and dinosaurs, and you freely admit here that Greek gods existed in artwork, doesn't it naturally follow that you also believe the Greek gods were actual, real gods?

You missed the fact that I pointed out the greek gods were a localized artwork, and many other cultures have their own art work of their gods or imaginations. The commonality of the artwork and stories across the globe proves that all the cultures saw the same thing, not just guessing. I used the greek god to point out that it's NOT like that.


GREEK gods are a local phenomena, true enough, but depiction of gods is nearly universal. One wouldn't expect to find Greek gods in Japan, but oddly enough there are depictions of gods in Japan as well.


There is more global commonality in the various depictions of gods than there are in the dinosaur depictions. Nearly all depicted gods are anthropomorphic, whereas depicted "dinosaurs" are all over the map. from alleged pleisosaurs to alleged stegosaurs to alleged brontosaurs to alleged tyrannosaurs and on and on and on. Some of them even look suspiciously mammalian to me. I just can't accept them for proof of existence, any more than I can accept a picture of Kali for proof of the existence of a 8 armed, fanged human that directs warfare.

That doesn't mean that I believe relict dinosauroids to be an impossibility, it just means that a drawing or painting doesn't prove anything, other than the creator of it was imaginative.




edit on 2011/8/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by iforget
 


Your argument is totally good : it's not because we've found fossils of an animal that it makes it impossible to have survived untill nowadays.
A few days ago, it was reported that a very old type of anguilla had been found in Australia.
This anguilla supposedly extinct, had lived 200 MILLION years ago.
Nevertheless, it lives NOWADAYS.
Now, it's indeed hard to suppose that brontausaurs are living nowadays somewhere in the amazonian forest ...

BUT
Look at that !

Jurassic Library - The Ica Stones



The stones vary in size from pebbles to hefty boulders and have a dark patina into which the designs are incised. They bear an astonishing variety of images (including some showing bestiality which have been described as “pornographic”) and Cabrera has arranged his collection into groups, including star maps, maps of unidentified lands, scenes of complex surgery, men using telescopes to observe stars and comets, and what seem to be humans in flying machines. Here, too, are depictions that challenge the accepted view of the history of life on Earth. They show people interacting with extinct animals; hunting and domesticating a variety of dinosaurs, in particular the brontosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex, stegosaurs and flying pterodactyls. According to connoisseurs, the real gem of the dinosaur series is a scene in which men use hand-axes to kill a dinosaur. What impresses, they say, is that the hunters seem to display a knowledge of the animal’s anatomy in chopping at a critical nerve centre in the dinosaur’s spine that would inflict a quick and sudden death.


Open your mind, and google "Erich von Daniken" & "dinosaurs".

It's fascinating.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by orkson
 


What's an "anguilla"? I Googled it, but all I found was a Caribbean island, which is neither likely to be extinct in the traditional sense of the word, nor to be rediscovered in Australia.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


It's a genus of eel. Although I can't find anything regarding a recent discovery in Australia however. The latest discovery of a species from that area is 1925.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Hydroman
Is Paul talking about spiritual or physical death?

I believe that he meant a spiritual death.



Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Hydroman
As far as spiritual death goes, I didn't know spirits could die.

I don't know, either. I haven't been there yet, at least not that I can recall. I presume anything that has a beginning is subject to an ending, bit I don't know that as fact. It's properly a theological question that folks can thrash around until the cows come home, but no one will actually KNOW until they get there.



Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by hydroman
An even better question is, what is a spirit?

Again, a theological question with perhaps as many subjective answers as there are people who consider the question, and no verifiable objective answer.



Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by hydroman
Are there any verses that actually talk about spiritual death?

I would say "yes", but the answer is subject to my own take on it, which obviously isn't shared by everyone.


I can see that you don't really know what a spirit is, or what spiritual death is, but you think that god is talking about a "spiritual death" in the garden when Adam and Eve fall? Why think that if you don't really know what that means? You know that we all physically die and what that means, doesn't it make more sense to think it's talking about a physical death since we know that's real?
edit on 19-8-2011 by Hydroman because: trying to fix quotes, lol



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by orkson
 


Hi Thanks for the reply
I thought my post had gone ignored here. I have read about many of the clues that seem to indicate that dinosaurs had survived into the era of modern humans. I guess I have just found them to be mostly questionable in believability. It's a tough call. My point really that whatever you believe about that it still doesn't argue against evolution in my opinion.

have fun and thanks again



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
The Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. I'm so tired of people saying that. It sets no dates for the creation of the universe or earth. This is a popular misconception but its not supported by the biblical text. Take a look at the first 2 verses of Genesis. Now notice that the earth is present in verse two. The earth is there before the creation "week" even begins. There is no alleged day when the earth was made. The only logical conclusion is that it was created "in the beginning" which is rendered from the Hebrew re# which means an indeterminate period of time. It is completely bogus to add up genealogies in the Bible to date the earth. Many of the alleged generations in genesis 10 are entire nations. The Bible is silent on the age of the universe and earth. It's main concern is that it was indeed created by God, it went wrong by sin but he is paying attention and everything counts. Unless you live a perfect life, you need a savior.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


first off, you spelled archaeology wrong. second, paleontologists study dinosaurs, not archaeologists.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepainweaver
reply to post by nyk537
 


first off, you spelled archaeology wrong. second, paleontologists study dinosaurs, not archaeologists.


Now that is just a little petty- no? The word can be spelled "archeology" or "archaeology"- both are acceptable. Also, while paleontologists study pre-historic non-human life, and archaeologists generally deal with human made artifacts, their disciplines overlap a great deal. Many paleontologists have to employ archaeological methods and theory to extract and analyse the fossils.

Thanks!
edit on 19-8-2011 by TheAncientsKnew because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepainweaver
reply to post by nyk537
 


first off, you spelled archaeology wrong. second, paleontologists study dinosaurs, not archaeologists.


Oh, you mean palaeontologists?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


He didn't tell them if they ate of the tree they would live forever. God simply told them NOT to eat from it. The devil (as a serpent) told them that if they ate then they would be equals with God. It was a trick to ruin the immortality and perfect world that God had created.

Get your facts straight before you mock an entire religion.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by thepainweaver
 


And obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.




new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join