...and Job discusses dinosaurs? how is this possible?
Job 40:15-24 says this: 15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17He moveth his tail like a cedartree: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
The basic thing is where Job says this animal moves his tail like a cedar tree. And as we all know, cedar trees are very large. What land creatures do we know of today that have tails the size of a cedar tree? And like I've said, a lot of Biblical commentaries will say it is describing an elephant or a hippo... but of course we know …
hah.. don't worry you aren't hurting anyone's beliefs.. I just thought it was rather funny that you said it was not biased.. it's from a creationist website! allaboutcreation.org - I'm quite sure their information is biased.
But I will admit that I have seen stuff on the web about this theory of man and dinosaurs coexisting.. I have seriously never heard of this theory be4, so I am researching it a bit.. But like I said be4, I have yet to come across a scientific explanation for the coexistence of men and dinosaurs.
Oh, creationism. I see.
Yeah, I'm just saying. There are scientists out there that do agree with the theory of a "Young Earth." I will also be researching it more. But I just think there comes a time when science will not always be able to answer every question that one has. We just have to come to our own conclusions. And for me, I have something to go to... and I won't have to do that.
Most of the stuff that was talked about in that article aren't exactly true.. for example, the earth's magnetic field is very inconstant.. it has even changed polarity several times in the past... Which may account for these inaccurate calculations.
How were they not true? - Have you researched everything I said?
No one here is trying to take anything away from what happened.. We are simply trying to logically work out solutions.. and banning all guns is NOT a logical solution.. The 2nd amendment is very important.. If the government can just nullify an amendment or ignore it.. then whos to say the whole bill of rights wont fly out the window? It's the fundamental idea that is important here.. The idea that we are American citizens, and we have rights.. These rights protect us from the government. What has happened at VA Tech is a tragic accident. But the last thing we need is people overreacting.. Obviously, the gun control laws in the U.S. aren't working.. so what can we do to fix them? This should be the main focus here.. Innocent people have died, but there is nothing we can do about it. If we don't work on fixing the problem now, then even more people could die tomorrow.
Okay, then what is your magical solution? I'm not overreacting. People don't realize how serious this really is. =/ I'm sorry, but this is not a "tragic accident.." the shooting could have very well been prevented with the right kind of control in this country. Accidentscannot be prevented.
There is actually no proof of a world wide flood.. And besides, wasn't Noah supposed to get a male and female from every species.. The dinosaurs would have survived if he did so.
No, although everyone thinks that is the truth, it's not. He was to get certain species that God appointed him to receive into the ark. I have to go to class now, but I'll be back later to describe this.
That site talked about the theories about an "Old Earth" and "Young Earth." It described both sides very well. I just chose to pick the part that I agreed with.
With discoveries such as the following Natural Chronometers, we are at the forefront of a Young Earth revolution:
Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.
Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.
Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it …
Yes, I am still researching it. And I actually found a site that wasn't biased about it.
"In the 19th century, it was proposed that the Earth may be as much as 70 million years old. Then, certain evidence was brought to light indicating that evolution was not possible in so short a time. So, the age of the Earth was pushed back. During the 20th century, it was thought that the age of the Earth was as much as 1 billion years old. Now, with the development of radiometric dating and the application of that technique on the meteorite "Allende", it is thought that the world is up to 4.6 billion years old. However, this is not conclusive. The assumptions that are fundamental to radiometric dating are extremely controversial, and are not held to be reasonable by many leading scholars."
By the 21st century, "How Old is the Earth?" has become an increasingly difficult question for Old Earth advocates. Every year, more and more Natural Chronometers indicating a Young Earth are being identified. While the majority of scientists still presuppose an Old Earth, 80% of the observable data indicates a Young Earth. With the weight of evidence indicating a Young Earth, the ranks of Young Earth advocate groups has swelled.
Haven't seen it. I've seen other productions by Moore and he's full of crap. Some of the parts from Bowling puts most comedians to shame.
Huh? It's not a comedy.
I was in a car accident about 3.5 months ago. T-boned on my driver door. I now am actually rather afraid when I'm driving. Using your logic, we should ban cars. Lives are at stake, and people are afraid. And I'm a lot more scared of traffic than I am of random gun incidents.
Yeah, I'm not ignorant about car wrecks. My boyfriend was in a deadly car wreck because of a woman that didn't see him coming. His car and hers were both totalled... But hello?! - Was that on purpose? Of course not! But killing someone with a gun is! I wish people would stop comparing car accidents and mass shootings. That's why it says "accident." The shooting at VT was not a "random gun incident."
No, but an implication of allowing gun ownership is to allow people another methody by which to defend their right to life when someone does flip out.
No, I don't think so. Even though I have a bit of rep, IMHO, I don't think its the rep that matters. Its what you know you have done for the forum as well as what the members of Daniweb think about you that matters in the very end....
Lol easy for you to say! You've got the most rep of anyone. ;)
Haha, I actually LOLed when I read that sentence! :)
What?!?!? I can't believe you believe that! I thought you believed in an honest God, not a deceptive God! It's a proven fact that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. And man showed up only 200,000 years ago. And if you honestly believe they coexisted, then the proof must be a lie. And the only one who could have fabricated the proof would be God. Science is not that inaccurate to make a mistake of over 64.8 million years...
Yeah, actually I do believe that. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
If they existed, there would be a Hebrew word for dinosaurs. There's no word because they were unknown to the people that wrote the texts. IMO it's a nonsensical argument that the language does not have a word for something even though the people lived lived with them.
Actually, no. At around the 1840's, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, …
Actually they were legal! suprising as it was they said on the news, and a cop said summit like "He was not breaking the law when he brought a conceled firearm onto the university grounds". summit like that ~ totaly daft if u ask me
Yours is the more negative attitude. You want to ban things you don't like, restrict the rights of people and control their lifes, put them at the mercy of whomever wants to harm them.
Because that's what banning posession of the means with which citizens can protect themselves inevitably leads to.
One of the first things a tyrany does is take away peoples' rights to their own lifes and property. That's what the 2nd is meant to make impossible, the government taking away the means of the People to protect themselves from the government should that become necessary.
I have a negative attitude about it because this thread is about the "Shooting at Virginia Tech," hasn't anyone read the title? It's about the biggest massacre to ever take place in U.S. history. Haven't you watched "Bowling For Columbine?" - that would definitely make everyone here look ignorant.
If "banning things I don't like" means banning the ownership of guns because people's lives are at stake, then yes. I feel that way, and that's my opinion about it. If "controlling their lives" means controlling the amount of murders in this country, then yes. I also feel that way. And "put them at the mercy of whomever wants to harm them," that statement isn't even relevant. There wouldn't be as much fear if there was gun control or rather, no guns at all.
All I've heard in this thread is how it's people's rights and yadda yadda, 2nd amendment, …
But seriously... This thread had much more meaning in it until he had to throw in his negative attitude. It's just sad. I mean, sure, he's got some good points... but not everything in life is a debate.
