Did Noah have a pet dinosaur?

by Resistance is Futile 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

Caedes

still thinking
Good example of Science and their incorrect theories. That quote just shows how scientists really have no idea.
Ah, the irony! Good grief
spanco

I think the point here u should think abt is the great flood not abt the pets and animals (actually why it came?) and also u should think how to be saved on the coming jugdement day,save ur neighbour's and urself by teaching them the truth.
glenster

Re:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110513112527.htm
"Good example of Science and their incorrect theories. That quote just shows
how scientists really have no idea." "...about presenting your ideas as fact
until you are proved wrong. Then coming up with a new theory that you can tell
people they are stupid about if they don't agree. Evolution theorists do this
constantly."
I'm still not clear. Do you think the Science Daily web site is a pseudo-
science site that forces points about evolution that are incorrect compared to
the ones you think are true or--?
(Some recent articles):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=evolution
It doesn't seem so to me. Which site would you recommend?

charlie brown jr.

I posted this on the wrong Noah pet Dinosaur thread.....

Some publications show (Pics) Dinosaurs as the Wicked are being Destroyed at the Great Flood!

I recall as late as 1999.... that really bugged me and I asked WTF? An Elder told me we didn't know maybe they were destroyed at the Flood!

I can't recall the Publication I think it was a Book.

Didn't The My Book Of Bible Stories show brontosaurus in the back ground of the Flood?

I know several books from the WTS showed them

still thinking

glenster it wasn't a comment specifically aimed at that website or their article...it was aimed at the scientists who push the theory of evoulution as a fact.
Even though science is continuing to prove that evolution from a single cell in primordial soup cannot have happened simply because of the complexity of the cell and the very remote chance that this could occur, and the fact that they cannot even recreate this scenario in a controlled laboritory setting. Scientists of this mind set will look at this new information which actually conflicts with what they have been teaching, to say it supports it.
This link is not a website I would promote but it does show the probability of this occuring.
http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=62
Secondly, there is no proof that any species has changed into anything else. It is assumed, because they cant explain it. In fact, evolution would suggest that things deteriorate and mutate. They do not become more complex.
Most of the dinosaurs that they have pieced together have not been full skeletons. So they have had to guess what the original would have looked like. What type of skin it had (did it have fur?). Were they warm blooded or cold blooded? There was fairly recent find that actually had some tissue still attached to the bones. It the fossils were as old as the claim, this is an impossibility.
Since the 70's philosopy has taught that we need to assume that evolution is the starting point. And that if anyone holds any other belief or theory then they need to prove it. Well I say the opposite.
Evolutionists try to say that creation science has no place in real science. That is just their opinion. And a very narrow minded one at that.
glenster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
I found a quote related to the topic heading at the 3rd link:
In 1961, the first major modern creationist book was published: Henry M.
Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr.'s The Genesis Flood. Morris and Whitcomb
argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived concurrently
with dinosaurs, and that God created each 'kind' of life individually.[37] On
the strength of this, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolution-
ary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences. Morris'
Creation Science Research Center (CSRC) rushed publication of biology text books
that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as Kelly
Segrave's sensational Sons of God Return that dealt with UFOlogy, flood geology,
and demonology against Morris' objections. Ultimately, the CSRC broke up over a
divide between sensationalism and a more intellectual approach, and Morris
founded the Institute for Creation Research, which was promised to be controlled
and operated by scientists. During this time, Morris and others who supported
flood geology adopted the terms scientific creationism and creation science.
The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for
their hyperliteralist views".

Many if not most scientists that developed many of the major theories we now accept as factual.....were creationists. If they had been evolutionists They probably would have been very limited by that understanding and would not have come to the conclusions that they came to based on such an unproven theory.

They believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him," learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for God's glory and man's good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do.

And somehow this attitude did not hinder them in their commitment to the "scientific method." In fact one of them, Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method! They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science.

TABLE I SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
DISCIPLINE	SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY	JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY	LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS	ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS	JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY	ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY	GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE	CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS	LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS	ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS	JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS	JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS	MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS	LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS	HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY	MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS	GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY	WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS	ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS	GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY	LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY	JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS	LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY	MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS	BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY	LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY	WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS	LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY	JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY	BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY	MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY	DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY	JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY	RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY	JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS	JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS	JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY	NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY	CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS	LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS	HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY	GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

Nor should anyone suppose that their commitment to theism and creationism was only because they were not yet acquainted with modern philosophies. Many were strong opponents of Darwinism (Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming, etc.). Even those who lived before Darwin were strong opponents of earlier evolutionary systems, not to mention pantheism, atheism, and other such anti-supernaturalist philosophies, which were every bit as prevalent then as now.

To illustrate the caliber and significance of these great scientists of the past, Tables I and II have been prepared. These tabulations are not complete lists, of course, but at least are representative and they do point up the absurdity of modern assertions that no true scientist can be a creationist and Bible-believing Christian.

click here for the lists....since they didn't copy http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/

ziddina

"...Dinosaurs were reptiles..."
Oh, my frikkin'.... Blondie, thanks for posting this!! It's a hoot!!
Really demonstrates the 'effectiveness' of that concept of reading the "Awake" magazines to obtain that "equivalent" of a decent college education!!!
Dinosaurs WEREN'T REPTILES...!!!! There are several significant differences between reptiles and dinosaurs - reptiles have scales, and almost ALL dinosaurs had PEBBLY-textured skin; dinosaurs were probably WARM-blooded and reptiles are NOT, to name two significant differences...
LMAO!!!
I'm not an expert on "Dinosaurs" . . . so are alligators and crocodiles remnants of the dinosaur age?
Sizemik! I'm not a paleontologist, but I've been reading about dinosaurs - and fossil-hunting - since I was 5 years old, so let me cast a little light [not "NOO" lite!!] on that question for you...
Alligators and crocodiles are REPTILES - see my comment above - and primitive versions of both alligators and crocodiles actually existed BEFORE dinosaurs evolved.
Basically, single-celled plants [blue-green algae; stromatolites; anybody remember them?] evolved first, then there was the "Cambrian" explosion of life - wiped out at the end of the Ordovician period around 439 million years ago, then came the age of amphibians, THEN the age of reptiles - and the emergence of primitive, ancestral alligators and crocodiles, among other types of reptiles like Dipthereon [spelling?], THEN the age of dinosaurs...
Hope that helped...
Zid
still thinking

Hi ZId,
and almost ALL dinosaurs had PEBBLY-textured skin
Where is your absolute conclusive evidence of this? They have not found skin samples of ALL the dinosaurs. At best, they are just the fossilzed impressions of the skin in rock for very few of them. THat is quite a sweeping statement.
Also, where is the link to connect all these things together to prove that they evolved. There isn't one.
We can all study biased based information that tries to prove one theory for years and years. And in the end, the only thing we can conclude is that we have a really good understanding of their particular teaching.
Terra Incognita

They never made it through the flood.

Did Noah have a pet dinosaur?

Share this