Evolution question????

Originally posted by RJHinds
The discovery of DNA proves intelligent design due to the information code
contained in there. It proves that biological systems do not occur by
random chance, but by a computer like program that tells them how to
come together. The intelligence behind this is obviously the creator God
of the Holy Bible unless you can come up with another source for t ...[text shortened]... ld is evolution and you are too stupid to realize.
Sorry to have to bust your bubble like that.

You seriously think you've burst his bubble?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You seriously think you've burst his bubble?

Probably not, but he needs to awake and escape from his bubble world
and experience the real world that God made.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Probably not, but he needs to awake and escape from his bubble world
and experience the real world that God made.

Do you think anyone takes notice of what you have to say on this forum?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you think anyone takes notice of what you have to say on this forum?

Very few really understand. But if I repeat it in different ways maybe it
will help someone here to understand.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You should know by now that I do not believe in the "theory of Evolution",
so a definition based on that theory is in error.

Well, you say that you don't 'believe' in the 'theory of evolution', but since you seem unable to grasp the meaning of the simple terms and principles involved and show no hesitation in redefining various words to suit your own posts and position it's rather difficult to divine what you actually mean by that.

Perhaps you would care to explain under what definition of the term 'dinosaur' you feel justified including the gila monster?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well, you say that you don't 'believe' in the 'theory of evolution', but since you seem unable to grasp the meaning of the simple terms and principles involved and show no hesitation in redefining various words to suit your own posts and position it's rather difficult to divine what you actually mean by that.

Perhaps you would care to explain under what definition of the term 'dinosaur' you feel justified including the gila monster?

I have already posted the following to you:

The word dinosaur comes from the Greek, deinos, “fearful”, plus
sauros, “lizard”. I believe that word easily applies to a gila monster
since it has a fearsome reputation due to its venomous nature.

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Gilamonster.cfm

The Gila Monster is a Fearful Lizard (Dinosaur) for one should be fearful of
being bitten by this reptile because his venom could kill.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The man who thinks 8 humans lived aboard a big wooden boat with Tyrannosaurus Rex's, vegetarian ones at that, is calling me deluded.

My views are backed up by centuries of scientific endeavor, yours have been plucked out of thin air. That's the way it is. The fact remains that if your version of history was backed by science you wouldn't be complaining.

I'm not complaining. I know prefectly well what I believe is not mainstream
and when I talk about it, it flys in the face of mainstream views about the
beginning. I point out to you that simply having the majority of people believe
a thing does not mean its true, but it could get you convicted of something
you didn't do.

With respect the beginning is very important since there has to be a starting
point! You do not have one, you have a middle I guess and a now, nothing
thatyou say even comes close to a reason for why thing are the way they are,
that sets creation apart from science in that regard since science does not have
a reason for all things.

I am saying your deluded if what you are attempting to say is that your right
because you think you know what occured billions of years ago, or even a
second past the big bang if there was one. If you think those things are facts
then yes you are deluded and are not opened minded about this, you've made
up your mind and everything you view is colored by that stance.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not complaining. I know prefectly well what I believe is not mainstream
and when I talk about it, it flys in the face of mainstream views about the
beginning. I point out to you that simply having the majority of people believe
a thing does not mean its true, but it could get you convicted of something
you didn't do.

With respect the beginning is ...[text shortened]... out this, you've made
up your mind and everything you view is colored by that stance.
Kelly

I point out to you that simply having the majority of people believe a thing does not mean its true.

This is true, but i also have the evidence on my side. That gives it some extra 'oomph'. You have no evidence, apart from your interpretation of a story written a few thousand years ago.

that sets creation apart from science in that regard since science does not have
a reason for all things.

But that doesn't make your creation story true. I can insert any creation myth as an explanation for the 'beginning'.

I just find it extraordinary that here you are sat in your house (i'm guessing) having instantaneous conversations with people around the globe. We have the LHC, a huge contraption built to zoom single particles and smas them into each other. Look at the amazing advances in medical and space technology and you still don't think we've got a handle on whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old. Quite remarkable,

Enjoy your Christmas. I'm off now for a tad.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already posted the following to you:

The word dinosaur comes from the Greek, deinos, “fearful”, plus
sauros, “lizard”. I believe that word easily applies to a gila monster
since it has a fearsome reputation due to its venomous nature.

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Gilamonster.cfm

The Gila Monster i ...[text shortened]... nosaur) for one should be fearful of
being bitten by this reptile because his venom could kill.

Actually deinos translates to 'terrible' not 'fearful' (the two words have quite different meanings) but that's hardly the point.

The term 'dinosaur' was coined because of the differences between those animals and modern lizards. To take that term and redefine it in such an arbitrary manner based purely on your apparent fear of one particular modern lizard is, well, I suppose quite in keeping with your posting history. That doesn't make it right though.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Actually deinos translates to 'terrible' not 'fearful' (the two words have quite different meanings) but that's hardly the point.

The term 'dinosaur' was coined because of the differences between those animals and modern lizards. To take that term and redefine it in such an arbitrary manner based purely on your apparent fear of one particu ...[text shortened]... I suppose quite in keeping with your posting history. That doesn't make it right though.

"Terrible" was a mistranslation of deinos. "Fearful" is the correct meaning.
Look it up in the Greek.

Originally posted by RJHinds
"Terrible" was a mistranslation of deinos. "Fearful" is the correct meaning.
Look it up in the Greek.

Well I did look it up in the Greek and, unsurprisingly, you're wrong - although I can see why since it appears the word has been mistranslated as 'fearful' in the NAS bible.

But anyway, the etymology of the word is, as I said previously, beside the point. The fact remains that the word was coined because of the differences between dinosaurs and modern lizards.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well I did look it up in the Greek and, unsurprisingly, you're wrong - although I can see why since it appears the word has been mistranslated as 'fearful' in the NAS bible.

But anyway, the etymology of the word is, as I said previously, beside the point. The fact remains that [b]the word was coined because of the differences between dinosaurs and modern lizards.[/b]

I will not fight over translations then. The gila monster could also be
described as a terrible lizard compared to other smaller non-venomous
lizards. That makes the gila monster different from other lizards and
not only because of size. The name "gila monster" given to it is enough
testimony to this fact, for what other lizard is referred to as a "monster"?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I will not fight over translations then. The gila monster could also be
described as a terrible lizard compared to other smaller non-venomous
lizards. That makes the gila monster different from other lizards and
not only because of size. The name "gila monster" given to it is enough
testimony to this fact, for what other lizard is referred to as a "monster"?

What about the Komodo Dragon?! Where does that fit into your scheme of things?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What about the Komodo Dragon?! Where does that fit into your scheme of things?

Yes, they are dinosaurs just like the gila monster.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, they are dinosaurs just like the gila monster.

They're not dinosaurs. They're both lizards. They might even be considered terrible lizards (although personally I find them both pretty cool and they both seem pretty good at being lizards too) but they're still not dinosaurs.