Tolken

anthonyjmcgirr - So what's the point anymore? Not a single piece of evidence we have present here mattered. You just shrugged it off. Short of a dinosaur showing up on your front porch, you will take evolution to the grave. The point is that for example if Baugh had wanted the find to be at all credible he would have allowed the find to be tested. It is quite simple to suggest that "science" would simply dismiss any evidence to the contrary of the regnant theory, but that I believe is an empty assertion. One can dismiss science as a fraud, suggest that "dating methods" are inaccurate, etc., etc. but that does little to further one's evidence. As gray wolf noted there is a list of discarded arguments that at times still raise their dismissed heads. Further there are an ample number of scientists who are Christian that could conduct the testing and further "scrutiny".

gray wolf - Did humans even have the technology to make an almost pure iron hammerhead in the days before Noah? An implement of that age should have been made of bronze, right? Don't let reason and/or facts get in the way of an urgent bias. It would appear obvious that if Baugh believed this to be such a "monumental" discovery that he would pursue methods to assure proof. From past references I think Baugh's integrity is questionable. "It should be noted that although Baugh has strongly promoted the hammer as a dramatic "pre-Flood" artifact, as have a few individuals writing for the Bible-Science Association and the Creation Science Foundation, other creationists organizations, including ICR and CRSQ, have said little or nothing about it in their literature, perhaps realizing its dubious nature." As you noted originally there is absolutely no "indisputable" evidence, or even any convincing evidence at all that dinosaurs and humans existed together. It would certainly have me rethink my position on Genesis if there was.

Gray Wolf - Proof would be indisputable evidence, I should think. Perhaps the discovery of Dino bones and human remains in the same sediment. What do you think? Yes, I agree...at present no such evidence exists.

Nebula - Legal pot in Colorado hasn't stopped black market Great, a price war on grass! Maybe the legalization will end going up in smoke...so to speak.

LookingForAnswers - I go with group one and you accuse me of blind faith. Now that is funny I tend to be in agreement with you on this. Let the scientists fight it out, but I will note that BBT is hardly dead, in fact further confirmations appear to lend more support to BBT. Data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the positions of 200,000 quasars were correlated with the positions of some 13 million galaxies, this study sheds more “light” on the issue and offers a refutation of Arp’s position. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0504510 This info can be found under Problems and Objections – h) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html There is a considerable amount of info refuting Arp, Tifft, and others as well as further support for the BBT.

LookingForAnswers - Back to the topic at hand, this is a bad move and one that ironically Al Gore speaks of in his book that I am reading right now. He thinks it is a very bad idea and claims it was not always the plan. The idea that all ICANN does is approve names is terribly naive.o "In its 5 June 1998 "Statement of Policy, Management of Internet Names and Addresses," 63 Fed. Reg. 31741(1998) (commonly known as the White Paper), the United States Government declared its willingness to recognize a new, not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to administer policy for the Internet name and address system. The White Paper envisioned a transition process during which the not-for-profit corporation would enter various agreements to facilitate ending the United States Government's role in the Internet number and name address system in a manner that ensures the stability of the Internet." There is a list of supporting memoradums to the effect of such transition. http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements “The U.S. Government is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management. Most commenters shared this goal. While international organizations may provide specific expertise or act as advisors to the new corporation, the U.S. continues to believe, as do most commenters, that neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of governments should participate in management of Internet names and addresses. Of course, national governments now have, and will continue to have, authority to manage or establish policy for their own ccTLDs.” http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/white-paper "Recent revelations of large-scale surveillance have called into question the stewardship of the U.S. when it comes to Internet governance. So given the U.S.-centric model of Internet governance currently in place, it is necessary to broker a smooth transition to a more global model while at the same time protecting the underlying values of open multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet," said a European Commission statement.” http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/us-turn-over-control-internet-156334

Shiloh357 - You live in some kind of delusion that the mistakes made by the Republians some how makes Obama immune from criticism or scrutiny. I don't believe that I anywhere suggested that Obama is without fault, considerable fault at that. I am simply pointing out that there is seldom reasoned evaluation from the republican side, only criticism of the President. Show me please where I said Obama was immune, show me in the threads where the rank and file lay much, some, a modicum of blame on the republican party? If you have I apologize, could you link me to those posts where you have been critical of the republicans? Obama is a liar. His adminstration are a bunch of liars. I am not defending the GOP. But you are defending the liar-in-chief. Obama is your god, evidently and in your eyes he can do no wrong. That is the only explanation for your blind unwavering devotion to a liar. What I am defending is the narrow and myopic view held by most republicans...you say you don't defend so again show me where you justly criticize their do-nothing obstruction. Also, rather then go on some innocuous rant you could simply support your assertions...perhaps I would agree or we could discuss. (I hold to Ex. 20:3)

Shiloh357 - I am always amazed at the fact that no matter how big of a liar Obama is, there are some people who are so devoted to him and will defend him no matter what. The brainwashing of the Left is unbelievable. I'm always amazed that so many people are so blind to what is going on within the republican party. It also amazes me that the republican party has proved itself to place America down the list of priorities. It amazes me that so many rank and file repubs choose to be oblivious to the truth. If one has evidence that the "planning" meeting did not occur, that Gingrich did not confirm that it did, that mcconnell did not make such a statement, that Ryan and many other repubs didn't support the stimulus and bills under Obama that they did under Bush, that they have in general obstructed in many areas of government ... then please post your evidence. If you would like more information on this please let me know.................

Love is Alive - obama is not being unfairly demonized! Everything that he has done has been to undermine our country's economical stability, hurt the american people, and trample the constitution at every turn. Yes, he really is as anyone who peruses discussions boards will come to realize. What is President Obama a totalitarian, a Marxist, a Socialist, a Communist...can't be all of these disparate political philosophies, so which one? Undermine the country's economic stability, exactly how? You do realize that congress has a role in all of this don't you? Please, look up republican obstructionism on any search engine. So tell me how these two facts impact this country" 1. The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. -Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010 2. "During a lengthy discussion, the senior GOP members worked out a plan to repeatedly block Obama over the coming four years to try to ensure he would not be re-elected." "On the more immediate future, they discussed targets such as Charlie Rangel, chairman of the House ways and means committee, who Gingrich said was vulnerable over his personal taxes. They would also target Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, demonstrate united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies, and release negative ads against vulnerable Democratic members of Congress." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama This has been admitted to by Gingrich, proudly, and you are going to blame President Obama for a republican party that sought only to obstruct and thwart any efforts to bring us out of the worst recession since the 1930's, and the same for anything he proposes? This was in 2009......... Look at what one of the same republicans said prior to Obama” Paul Ryan – (2002) "What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed,” “What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work.” “In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place." So the Truth is that the republicans planned a strategy to totally block President Obama from virtually doing anything but what they had to give in to. You of course won't see this information on fox news, or limbaugh, or coming from hannity, or o'rielly, or any right wing blog but even Gingrich admits this planning took place. f you would like I will post more links on this subject from even former Reagan officials. So let us not forget the “do-nothing” republican led house...least amount of bills passed since 1947.

Enoch2021 - I'm done playing these childish games with you. From many instances over multiple threads your reply's on multiple topics have quite aptly shown IN TOTO: Complete Obtuseness to simple concepts and Willful Ignorance. I guess LookingForAnswers was correct...so if one disagrees, you simply attack the person. Obtuseness and willful ignorance, and that is your evidence...ad hominems are always quite persuasive. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Enoch2021 - There are only 4 possible "rational" conclusions that can be drawn based on the above "evidence" (I have Thousands more): Only 4...do you have a source for that or is it simply by your subjective prerogative? And thousands more of what? ...hopefully of some rational conclusions. So you could only come up with 3 rational conclusions (actually two)...yet I would assert my list is quite as “rational” as yours. At best the only “evidence” (oh, here we go into your overuse of equivocation) is quite debatable. 1. Humans Lived with Dinos. Rational though with scant support. 2. Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs) 3. ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design. Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones." Could you point me to your support/source stating that flesh anatomy, skin color, and design are completely understood by paleontologists? 4. All said Ancient Cultures "Guessed". Rational conclusions cease..... do you deny that exaggerated and fantastical creatures were portrayed in art/statues across many cultures, and often based on actual living creatures? Except the Evidence I just Provided. But of Course, the "Hard Physical Evidence" you mean Time Machine evidence, right? And, Obviously, when "Hard Evidence" is provided it withers away under the relentless Equivocation Parade that's waiting in the Bull Pen Except the evidence that you provided, as noted, is hardly conclusive and remains ambiguous and debatable. Yes, a time machine would help...and perhaps hard physical evidence from other than simply ambiguous human art. You were the one who talked about two or more related concepts to form coherence or something, so where are the other lines of evidence? Well on most sites, just posting a "Link" is considered Intellectually Dishonest and Lazy... As is your wont to have little regard for context consider that the link was informational as to radiometric dating not based on a specific point of argument but on dating methods in general. There is nothing intellectually dishonest or lazy about posting such a link. It would be, perhaps, if a more specific or narrowed point was raised, however that was not the case. I appreciate that you then continue on and on, but understand it is quite meaningless as to the discussion. I knew you couldn't post a reply without @ least 1 Logical Fallacy, in this case: The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy: When in doubt posit a fallacy...as I’ve noted to you on other threads your attempts fail. So, if you join a scientific organization that requires you to take an oath regarding a mandated bias / presupposition / entrenched view then how would you term the organization? Actually, the "No True Scotsman" applies to certain organizations not to my contention......... Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, Astrophysics Journal, Science, adsabs harvard.edu, Astronomy, Physics Bulletin, Molec. Biol. Evol, et al) So from this array of reading material please point me to the articles/source that assert that radiometric dating is false, that ancient art is proof of dinosaurs, that superposition and correlation are unreliable so that fossil/rock dating is purely circular? So you're saying "science" isn't concerned about "proving" or "disproving" anything, eh? If you read more carefully...but yes, in a YEC way. Creation science, somewhat of an oxymoron, seeks to prove only a young earth, and/or only seek to attempt to disprove any science that posits otherwise, sorry “secular” science. So what I was saying was that scientists follow a method that leads in a direction, as opposed to following a direction and making sure the answers fit that direction...see the difference? I may or may not continue this but if I do is it possible for you to limit your innocuous fluff? When you go off on your attempt to belittle it makes it very difficult to find any “meat” in your position.

Sevenseas - prob passed on the tie due to the 110 degrees I think I would need to pass on more than just the tie....not used to that up here in the north!

Sevenseas - Probably as accurate as the weather reports up here in VT! Is that a meteorolisaur?...and no tie!

Enoch2021 - This is just absolute conjecture here but maybe the Bible is not a "Dino-Human Interaction" choreography and GOD had more important TRUTH'S and Doctrines to Express?? Maybe? If what you state is what you believe then why do attempt to present some poor artwork as absolute proof? lBut yes, conjecture is fine...but if dinosaurs actually existed in “Biblical” times one would think such enormous creature, and quite dangerous, would be mentioned...at least more than once. (Why do I need to start there..one verse is hardly supportive...well maybe an elephant) It is worth considering “Chariots of gods” which offers art of extraterrestrials to promote the idea that life originated from such influence. (It also invokes thoughts of Hoyle’s panspermia theories.) So there is proof that life originated by extraterrestrials, do you accept that? As of yet there has been no hard “physical” evidence of human and dinosaur interaction. One would think that some fossil remains, you know a human flying on an archeopteryx - I believe that art was also found, would be found, but as of yet none. Please, what's your choice? (I can't wait) Just because I find your “style” amusing when you believe you’ve exhausted all possibilities... *It is possible that fossils were found and drawings rendered based on them. *It is possible that they were an exaggeration of known lizards and such. *It is known that some of the art, ICA stones for example, are considered hoaxes and even some creationists believe so. *One sees through biased eyes, as clearly some of the depictions are ambiguous at best. *They could be composites drawings and considering the level of talent... What's the Big Deal about your Link? Pull out what you wish to comment on and SUPPORT IT. Why, the link is self explanatory...do you have a degree in Physics or Geology? So otherwise you go to a creationist site and pull info and I go to a legitimate science site and pull info. As LookingForAnswers has suggested you can be directed to any number of sites where scientists and extremely well studied people would be glad to engage with you. In fact you may be able to contact Dr. Wiens, very personable and gracious, he is involved with science as opposed to simply trying to prove or disprove something.

Enoch2021 - Take this to a 3rd -5th Grade Sunday School Class @ the nearest Church, they will have little difficulty explaining it to you...if you still don't understand it; Actually, they have explained it quite clearly in various churches and theology courses...perhaps best for you to revisit grammar classes, check out sentence construction, prepositions, etc. I appreciate that any answers will not address the specific questions posed but simply more narrow focus, maybe it's a forest for the trees situation with you.

Enoch2021 - The equivocation parade. No, you are the one leading that parade. You’ve decided to extract only what supports, weakly, your misinterpretation. As was shown even in your own post, the missler slide, “Faith is the essense of a future reality”. Obviously if it is future it can not be in the present...logic! Though you haven’t addressed the point the predominant use of “hypostasis” is as that which is under, that which holds up, support, substructure, etc. and this is shown both biblically and philosophically. Most often used as “confidence” and not as you would have it as “physical”. Enoch2021 wrote - (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Again, again, and again you fail to read the verse as it is written...how is this: Now faith is the SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, ...”. You can try through misinterpretation to dismiss all but the word “substance” but grammatically you fail. So you're saying the substance hasn't come to fruition yet? Then how do you have Faith? .....is it "Blind"? So it seems you are the one who chooses to equivocate. How is faith blind when it is supported – “hypostasis”...that is what the word means. See above, and any number of other posts on this. Again, you are the one attempting to equivocate. Further, let us not venture into your misinterpretation of Romans 1:20 because the very same issues apply. But I will ask since you highlight “GOD says that those "Invisible Things" but the question is what invisible things? Can you explain why you dismiss and disregard the preposition “of”? So, if something is hoped for or a future reality how does that address the present? Hypostasis is used 5 times in the NT- 2 Cor. 9:4, 2 Cor. 11:17, Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 3:14, Hebrews 11:1 can you show be where it is presented as physical proof? (hermeneutics) From the Greek concordance: Hypostasis from a compound of ὑπό (G5259) and ἵστημι (G2476) does this better help in understanding the word usage?

LookingForAnswers - proof removes doubt, you cannot have proof and doubt, that would be an oxymoron. you again are your arguments own worst enemy. When one can not comprehend the entirety of a passage but can only focus on one word, and misinterpret it, then any attempt to bring proper meaning becomes a fruitless effort. "Substance" can only be evidence not proof, that is so clear because if it is "hoped for" it hasn't come to definitive fruition. The passage does not say Faith is “substance” but clearly states “..the substance of things hoped for,...” , and we know that of conjoins and connects. Substance does not stand alone it is hoped for and if hoped for then clearly not realized in the present, and if not realized then clearly not proved. It may be difficult for some to apply reason, even logic, to the passage but let us try. Jesus was walking on water so that one could conclude/prove that Jesus could in fact walk on water. The only “proof” presented to Peter was that Jesus could walk on water, no proof that he could. Unless there are other verses that note Peter or anyone else had walked on water, walking on water was not a universal ability but singularly confined to Jesus. There is absolutely no proof for Peter to rely on that he himself could walk on water, Jesus certainly but not Peter. Therefore for Peter to leave the boat required Faith. Further, if Jesus walking on water is proof then why isn’t everyone capable of walking on water? But we miss the point of this episode if we fail to see what is being stated. Jesus is the focus of our faith and when we allow our concentration on him to waver because of circumstance we falter. Then of course for us today we run into this problem, prove that Jesus walked on water? Prove that Peter tried, prove that this isn’t just a fairy tale contained in a book?

LookingForAanswers - Some people cannot let go of themselves and allow God to be in control, they have to work it all out for themselves in their heads. So true, and as Pascal noted “Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it.” Of course it is easy, many do it, just focus on half the verse instead of the entire sentence...why would one hope for something that they already have? It is not an oxymoron but in context it is a paradox,

LookingForAnswers - To have proof you need evidence. If you have enough evidence then you have proof. Here is the best definition defining evidence and proof – “Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement.” As for Peter: JerryR34 captures it right – “Peter seeing Jesus standing on the water was not proof he, Peter, could walk on water - it was proof Jesus could. It still required faith to step out of the boat.” Further, the passage offers us now absolutely no proof, then even after this incident Peter denies Jesus.

anthonyjmcgirr -Me and several others have presented tons of actual physical proof of man and dinosaurs co-existing. I'm afraid I haven't seen that, can you point me to that thread. Just because someone says "250 million years ago" I just don't accept it. They have no physical proof of that. It's just an unproven theory. Actually so is the earth/universe being 6,000 yrs. old unproven. Did you even bother to read this as posted on the other thread? http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today. I could be wrong but isn't "behemoth" only mentioned once in the Bible, Job 40:15? Explain why that couldn't have simply been referring to an elephant, giraffe, hippo, etc.? As for "giants" that is in reference to people not animals. One would think that if all of the biblical characters of the old testament interacted with dinosaurs on a frequent basis it would be mentioned quite a bit more than once.

anthonyjmcgirr - Now science confirms that the carbon levels were higher, throwing off their testing. I didn't quite see in the article any reference to dating the earth at around 6,000 years, did you? In fact the article seemed quite focused on climate change, not dating. From the article “Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.” There's evidence of dinos existing pretty much up until recent time. Even then you hear legends of things that still exist in lakes and in the rainforests. Evidence of dinosaurs existing recently, where is that evidence? Unless you can provide evidence I have never seen any information that suggests co-habitation of humans and dinosaurs ...except with the “Flintstones”.

anthonyjmcgirr - But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct. This was posted in another thread, and I also had this bookmarked. It has been a number of years but Dr. Wiens was kind enough to have a back and forth by email for a time. http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html *I should add that there is a question answer section at the bottom which may be helpful.

Sounds quite worthwhile...Apologetics is so important: As Machen wrote - "We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the while collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." *I forget who wrote "God is dead, Nietzche is dead, and I'm not feeling so well myself."

LookingForAnswers - So Enoch, let me ask you point blank...do you understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof"? Strong’s concordance defines “hypostasis” as - a setting or placing under, thing put under, substructure, foundation, that which has a foundation, is firm, has actual existence. As the Missler slide in post #81 notes “faith is the essence of a future reality”. Future reality equates quite clearly to “things hoped for”. If the reality is future the questions arises how can it be proof in the present? Hope can only be defined with future fulfillment as the goal. Evidence then is that which upholds, supports, is a substructure, is foundational to faith, the proof is future. Yet that same evidence then provides a reasoned support for faith as opposed to a belief/faith/trust without any justification. It might be noted that “hypostasis” is rendered in the Latin as “substantia”. It has the same meaning, and used in philosophy not as a physical object but as “that which stands under” – “that which upholds”. Descartes based both his argument for God (ontological) and Cogito ergo sum on this - mind is thinking, a thinking substance. Though thoughts/ideas/concepts are not physical but they are substantive. Further, we can make a clear distinction between now and then. We have no proof of any Biblical miracles whether Peter walking on water, water into wine, miraculous healings, parting of the red sea, or even the resurrection of Christ. By Faith we aver the truth of the Biblical record, the truth of God’s existence, the truth of the resurrection while knowing that the reality will only be affirmed/made reality in the future.

"Firstly, do you beleive the claims that Obama has trampled the Constituion to be false?" No, although trampled is an extreme word used with purposeful intent. My further answer you will not like but I will once again raise it. Why is Obama being singled out as if Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and all the way back to Lincoln not relevant...because it is history? Obama should be judged in the same way that other Presidents have been judged is all that I am suggesting. Should Obama be held accountable absolutely, however why haven’t other Presidents been held accountable? So it would seem to me that precedent enables no action other then correction. Is it a false accusation if you believe the accusation to be true? Yes, truth is not based on intent but fact. If I truly believe that a certain person is guilty of a crime and it proves to be untrue...it would still have been false accusation. On the other hand, time can also show that an accusation initially deemed false can come to light as true, it works both ways. The "socialist" claims are not about the raising of taxes. I don't have the time and energy to try to debate this point with you, though. But that is the point, what policies invoke the title “socialist”? (And yes, at a point it is draining and time consuming.) Not acknowledging the concerns people have will not provoke them to listen to you; rather, it will have the opposite effect. Leading by example is the only effective means of making a change. In another thread I was challenged on a particular point but rather then respond with the requisite arguments I suggested the person look into the articles of a number of people holding that view. The point being that I am not going to defend a position in which I am adamantly opposed, Atheistic in that case. On the other hand I will selectively defend a position in which I believe one side or another is unfairly castigated. And will also contend that if Obama is the worst President we’ve had than the republican led house of reps is the worst we’ve ever had. So I defended Bush and Iraq against my more left leaning friends/board patrons up until 2005 or 2006 when the facts determined that the war was entered on unsubstantiated and false information. As I mentioned bias is a very strong force and it took quite an enormous effort to change my thoughts on Bush/Iraq. I am not arrogant enough to think that I can change people’s minds...but I simply will inject my thoughts into the conversation. How does one lead by example in such circumstance other than to raise another perspective? I simply believe that in many areas and with many issues things aren’t strictly black and white.