Did Noah have a pet dinosaur?

by Resistance is Futile 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • ziddina

    O-kay, I just got to page #2...

    Let me address a few of "Still Thinking's" comments on this page...

    "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 ..."

    Really? What types of cells does your "science" study refer to? Modern "cells" - let's use basic bacteria, for example - have actually CHANGED over the eons. Primitive forms of bacteria found on those deep-ocean "smokers", for example, point cellular evolutionists backwards towards the primitive origins of cellular - single-cell - life.

    As with human technology, which is based upon the very science which you are attempting to naysay, life itself tends to become more complex as one moves upwards through the fossil records.

    By the way, I actually HAVE a piece of fossilized stromatolite - do you even know what a stromatolite is??? And you can find beautiful fossilized examples of early stromatolites in Montana's Glacier Park, to name one place to see such fossils... I've seen them in situ, and it was a glorious sight - well, for a rockhound, that is...

    Moving right along...

    "... and the fact that they cannot even recreate this scenario in a controlled laboritory setting. ..."

    Actually, scientists - and I believe the actual discipline would be paleo-microbiology - HAVE been able to re-create ammino acids in conditions which replicate the conditions present on early earth - and ammino acids ARE basic building blocks of single-celled life.

    "... Secondly, there is no proof that any species has changed into anything else. ..."

    Aaaargh!!! the IGNORAN- er, "Oh, the humanity!!" - in that statement...

    If you want to see an easily-traced line of change from one 'species' into an evolved-to-fit-new-conditions version - a "New" species - look up the chain of fossils making up WHALE evolution... The transition from a wolf-like creature to a four-footed fresh-water animal with webbed feet, to primitive animals recognizable as early 'whales' - but still retaining vestigial, useless hind-legs, to the whales of today - that is a CLEAR example of evolutionary change prompted by changing conditions.

    Then there's Eohippus, the 'dawn' horses, and that chain of evolution which brought about the ancestors of modern horses - and I say ancestors, because most wild forms of horse - except for zebras and MAYbe a remnant of wild Chinese or Mongolian horse - have disappeared due to human activity. That's another easily-traced line of evolutionary change, if you'd care to look that up...

    Then there's the afore-mentioned alligators and crocodiles... Sharks... Bears... Lions and other big cats... Birds... Look up the fossil records of the sequence of events leading to modern versions of these animals - there's a clear line of descent in each case.

    Heh... There's some evidence that T-Rex might have been a fore-runner of today's chickens - now that's what I'd call ironic!!

    "... Most of the dinosaurs that they have pieced together have not been full skeletons. ..."

    Here's a rough description of how paleontology works...

    Pieces of fossil are found at a dig site or quarry. They are examined, sketched [in the early days of paleontology] and nowadays photographed and possibly scanned into a 3-D computer program.

    The information is sent out or made available to paleontologists working all over the world, thanks to the world-wide web. [Yet more proof that the internet is from the debbil!!]

    Paleontologists world-wide examine and compare the bones' characteristics with partial skeletons that they have in their inventory. [Think "CSI" of the Jurassic; many of the techniques used by crime-scene forensics specialists have derived from paleontology, by the way...]

    When matching - similar in many points - skeletal remains are found, the paleontologists share their findings. They already know the approximate geological period when the dinosaur died; so they can start out by comparing "apples to apples" right there. Some museums or research facilities may have a skull and a few vertebrae; others may have vertebrae and ribs, others may have ribs and leg bones, and so on.

    Therefore, by gradual and painstaking piecework, a "complete" skeleton is worked up of an animal - a dinosaur, or maybe a Pleistocene mammal - that no-one's seen in complete condition before.

    However, at the BEGINNING of the science of paleontology, they had to rely on finding RELATIVELY COMPLETE SKELETONS, in many cases. That was the only way they COULD I.D. dinosaurs at the outset, because there were no stockpiles of information gathered around the world and readily available, in the 1800's, as paleontology emerged as a full-blown science. In the beginnings - in the 1800's - mistakes WERE made, because the science was just developing then...

    And THAT is EXACTLY what is wrong with your subsequent chart of "creationist" scientists, by the way... Not ONE of those characters listed are from MODERN times, when the sciences mentioned have matured and achieved a greater degree of scientific accuracy!!!!

    After all, would you go to see a DOCTOR who still practiced medicine the way they did in the 1700's??? Would you want some doctor to LEECH you, instead of taking a blood sample and having it tested???? Or how about DENTISTRY - would you want an 1800's frontier dentist to drill your teeth with one of those foot-pedaled drills??? Hmmm...?????

    I think that you realize the benefits of using the LATEST scientific information when it comes to taking care of your own health... The same benefits apply when referring to ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE...!!! [Well, DUH!!!]

    That's enough for this post... More to follow...


  • ziddina
    "Where is your absolute conclusive evidence of this? They have not found skin samples of ALL the dinosaurs. ..."

    Oh, honey... You poor thing...

    Scales usually FOSSILIZE... Unlike shark skeletons... The nature of most scales is such that the fossilization process that preserves the bones also will usually preserve scales - that's one way paleontologists track the evolution of primitive alligators and crocodiles - by the fossilized SCALES as well as the bones... And since alligators and crocodiles are FAR older than dinosaurs, when the scales of those ancient alligators are preserved, then IF there were scales on the much younger dinosaur carcasses, then they'd tend to be fossilized, too...

    Now, we're not discussing Ankylosaurus here, just to be clear. Ankylosaurus was one dinosaur that did have protective armor, but it was more like an armadillo than an alligator, just to pop your argument before you launch into the fray again...

  • ziddina

    And moving forward again... [Shakes head in dismay at the IGNORANCE - well, I'm TRYING to be nice here, but...]

    "...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. ..."

    Ah, just out of curiosity, since they've found fossils of insects with their delicate wings preserved in the rock, [in Florissant, Colorado, among other places - and I live in Colorado, btw, so I've seen these fossils for myself...] WHAT on earth makes you think that ONLY bones fossiliize????

    They've recently found a dinosaur "mummy" - in other words, not only did the skin fossilize, but the INTERNAL ORGANS fossilized too, and are visible via CAT scan!!!!! Which gave the paleontologists a lot more information about how dinosaur physiology functioned... They could even tell how many 'chambers' that dinosaur's heart had!!!

    "... Since the 70's philosopy has taught that we need to assume that evolution is the starting point. ..."

    Philosophy?????? You've gotta be sh*ttin' me!!!

    Honey, Philosophy and RELIGION go hand in hand, not SCIENCE!!!

    Yeeesh!!! Are you located in a large city??? Go visit EACH AND EVERY ONE of the gem and mineral museums in your area; go on rockhounding tours; go fossil-hunting; look for fault lines in your area, find sedimentary rock in your area and learn what ages that rock is comprised of, and THEN come back to the discussion....

    See what I've seen; learn what I've learned, and THEN we'll discuss this...

    Zid the rockhound

  • still thinking
    still thinking
    As with human technology, which is based upon the very science which you are attempting to naysay, life itself tends to become more complex as one moves upwards through the fossil records.

    Human technology has a creator....a mind that creates

    stromatolites do not prove that life originated from no life. They simply are what they are.

    Heres a quote of a scientific website for you....

    One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:

    Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.

    Dont you just love the use of the words perhaps, maybe, possibly?

    Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

    hmmmm close but not close enough.....and.........still produced by a scientist in lab....this still proves intelligent design....and again..tantalizingly close....might have happened???

    Image: Tissues of a Tyrannosaurus rex.

    70 million year old blood vessels....who are you trying to kid?

    By the way....how did those scientists recreate conditions exactly as they were on earth when they did their laboratory experiment.....were they there? Or is this just another case of maybe this is how it was....but actually we don't really know so we are just making it up to fit in with our theory.

    I think that buying into this belief is more of an act of faith than believing in God

  • JustHuman14

    The most strange thing, according to the WT is that they accept the year of the bulding of Pyramids around 2500 B.C, so that is 100 years BEFORE THE GREAT FLOOD...So how can a world wide flood destroyed the globe and kept the Pyramids in perfect condition? Also if there was a world wide flood all the wood and papyrus would have been destroyed in Egypt, since papyrus is found and preserved there due to the dry and hot climate!!! And how come according to WT and the Old Testament Noah and 3 sons survived and in just of little time they Egypt became a huge nation? Not to mention the other nations around?

    Do you wanna some more? If you read in Genesis Cain went to found his wife and moved to another city!! So how many children did have Adam and Eve had, in order to build a city? That means they were so sexually active that she must born every year at least 10 kids and again that is not enough to create the Sumerian and Egyptian civilazation!!!

    The Genesis account cannot taken literaly in many ways, most of all due to the time table that supposed "humans"are created, plus the fossil record shows that Earth is billions of years old, with the appearance of homo sapiens the last 35-50,000 years...

  • cyberjesus

    still thinking..... are you really?

    Seems based on your comments that you need to research more about science, evolution, theory, facts..etc and then continue thinking.

    I know its hard if you really believe in a creator. But at least you will be using the words by their correct definition in english.

  • still thinking
    still thinking
    Honey, Philosophy and RELIGION go hand in hand, not SCIENCE!!!

    Science produces data. People interpret that data.

    Philosophy is used to piece tha data together and paint a picture. It is used to try and prove Evolution. If it wasn't they would simply have a big pile of Data.

    Because the theory of evoluton is so open to interpretation. Unlike other scientific theories that have to prove what they claim. You end up with one of the greatest stories on earth.

    Even dating methods have proven to be unreliable. All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Justhuman14 thanks for sharing that....unfortunately I am no longer interested in anything that the watchtower believes or teaches

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    cyberjesus...thanks for your advice, although I don't recall asking for any. Yes I am still thinking and yes I am researching.....thanks for caring.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Could the world have repopulated from 3 or 4 women as is implied in the most literal way of reading the Noah's ark story?

    It may seem strange to assume that a woman can have, on average, 3 or 3,5 daughters in a lifetime – thus 6 or 7 children. But in the times before birth control it was not rare for woman to have much larger families than that

    The numbers below only represent the girls and women of the new generation. You could assume that there are still older woman too, and about as many men and boys as woman and girls.

    SCENARIO 1: Each woman has, on average, 3 daughters who reach adulthood, and get her girls on average at age 25

    From the ark comes 3 woman of child-bearing age =3

    25 years later: 3×3 young woman/ girls of next generation.

    50 years later: 3x3x3

    100 years later: 3 to the power of 5

    200 years later: 3 to the power of 9 =19 683

    350 years later: 3 to the power of 15 =14 348 907

    500 years later: 3 to the power of 21= 10 460 353 203 (More young woman and girls than there are people in the world now.)

Share this