Catholic stance on Dinosaurs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harmony1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kinja said:
All legends came from somewhere. Drawing the dragons depicted in movies as grounds for your argument makes no sense because the truth is that radio isotope dating is not accurate over a certain time limit. After that dating fossils is pure guess work. There is evidence in many cultures worldwide of both a great flood and dragon/dinosaur-like creatures existing alongside man.

This along with the fact that the only people who believe the earth is millions of years old are people who were taught this idea by darwinians. The theory of evolution is a religion in and of itself and , i might add, requires more faith than the belief in an intelligent creator who made all living things after their kind - i.e. a horse can give brith to nothing but a horse. Non of the “evidence” for evolution provided by science is conclusive. Rather science has operated in reverse in this instance: Starting out assuming the theory of evolution to be true and working backwards from there to prove it. That is not science…
Click to expand...
How do you do that? I mean just ignore science when its convenient to your personal theology? I suppose you neither drive a car, fly in planes, ride trains, use electricity, oh I guess you do use a computer…yet you condemn literally millions of scientists over 150 years as being dolts. You don’t accept talk origins…and you are the first person in over 2000 posts who has said that. Will you accept anything scientific? try my blog down the right column…Does the Smithsonian, NAS, Museum of Natural History, the AGI, the GSA also carry bias? You appear to accept only those pseudo-scientific sites done by creationists. You are the silly one…

from Catholic News Agency: Pope calls for protection of environment, says creation-evolution debate is ‘absurdity’

The debate between creationism and evolution is an “absurdity” since evolution can coexist with faith, said Pope Benedict XVI this week while vacationing in the mountains of northern Italy.

While there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory cannot exclude a role by God, he said according to MSNBC News.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

However, evolution does not answer all of the great philosophical questions, he said, including: Where does everything come from?

I’m trying to track this down exactly…But I’m increasingly tired of folks who KNOW better insisting on this nonsense because they are intent on hauling the Church back into the 12 century.
 
“Hopefully this settles this debate.”
Sorry Spirit Meadow, I really share your hopes but creationists are know of being trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

They rather trust some site written by a fund. Baptist that hates the CC.
 
inthecloud said:
“Hopefully this settles this debate.”
Sorry Spirit Meadow, I really share your hopes but creationists are know of being trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

They rather trust some site written by a fund. Baptist that hates the CC.
Click to expand...
Yep…there are 3 kinds of Catholic Creationists:
  1. One who is incapable of mentally grasping the evidence. No one here can be accused of that since they can obviously read, write, and operate a computer.
  2. One who obstinately refuses to investigate the evidence, preferring the safety of some less complicated theory.
  3. One who knows they are wrong, but obstinately refuses to accede to the Church’s teachings in a deliberate attempt to mislead others in the hopes of forcing the Church to their personal theological position.
So no, I don’t honestly expect any movement. I hope to have convinced the lurker who stopped by not entirely clear on what to believe.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
msnbc.msn.com/?q=Pope+Benedict+evolution&search=search+site&submit=Search&id=11881780&FORM=MSNBC&os=0&gs=1&p=1

This link will send you to MSNBC and their listing of remarks by Benedict and the Chief Astronomer for the Vatican,

The direct link to the story from CNA is:

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9968

Hopefully this settles this debate.
Click to expand...
If you saw any definitive comments in that article that “settles this debate”, then you might consider coming back to civilization.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_33_7.gif
 
chewchoo said:
are you aware of dragon stories from ancient mythology? every ancient culture has dragon myths. what do those dragons look like? they look remarkably like the dinasour images that have been generated to cover the bones that have been found.

the word dinosaur was coined just over one hundred years ago, but the word dragon has been around forever…

there are many documented accounts of people encountering dragons. a roman historian relates story of how a dragon attacked an army in africa (in the truth about dragons by rhoda blumberg)

in ethiopa, dragons were called elephant killers.

time-life has a book called the enchanted world of dragons with many other examples of humans directly interacting with dragons, aka, dinosaurs.

the beowulf monster is consider to be a dragon by some.
Click to expand...
Give it up-you’ll never convince the Muggles. Why the “boy who lived” even flew a Dragon out of Gringott’sand the muggles still didnt believe it.
 
chewchoo said:
are you aware of dragon stories from ancient mythology? every ancient culture has dragon myths. what do those dragons look like? they look remarkably like the dinasour images that have been generated to cover the bones that have been found.

the word dinosaur was coined just over one hundred years ago, but the word dragon has been around forever…

there are many documented accounts of people encountering dragons. a roman historian relates story of how a dragon attacked an army in africa (in the truth about dragons by rhoda blumberg)

in ethiopa, dragons were called elephant killers.

time-life has a book called the enchanted world of dragons with many other examples of humans directly interacting with dragons, aka, dinosaurs.

the beowulf monster is consider to be a dragon by some.
Click to expand...
Say folks the Book of Daniel chap 14 I believe::
Daniel slays a dragon. There are a couple of other dinos in the Bible the whole idea that man never walked with dinasours is hogwash.
 
Michael_G said:
Say folks the Book of Daniel chap 14 I believe::
Daniel slays a dragon. There are a couple of other dinos in the Bible the whole idea that man never walked with dinasours is hogwash.
Click to expand...
They left that Chapter out of my Bible…

However is Cahpter 16 he fights space aliens
 
Michael_G said:
Say folks the Book of Daniel chap 14 I believe::
Daniel slays a dragon. There are a couple of other dinos in the Bible the whole idea that man never walked with dinasours is hogwash.
Click to expand...
Point me to one scientific journal paper in any reputable scientifc journal that says that and boy you will be in Stockholm picking up your nobel next year,. or perhaps you are entered in the fiction cathegory?
 
kinja said:
No argument is necessary since there is no foolproof way of proving the date of fossils STILL. That is true not false. I read the articles you prescribed and many others and still to use these methods there are presumptions made such as how many radioactive atoms the fossil had in the first place.
Click to expand...
You did not read the articles. Your statement proves that.
The dating of fossils is not even done using these methods but rather using the strata layers to date them. So no matter what methods you say there are, if the institutions dating this material is using the strata layers to date fossils then it cannot be accurate as environment + time forms strata layers and the earths surface can change very quickly *** we see in the case of landslides and floods and earthquakes even today.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see. One of the “presumptions” that you might object to is this: Say you find a fossil in a sandstone layer. Immediately above that sandstone is a layer of volcanic ash. That ash is dated, using multiple dating methods, at 10 million (plus or minus 0.1 million) years old. Now, just below the sandstone is a layer of basalt. Basalt is a type of lava. That layer is dated, using multiple dating methods, at 10.5 million (plus or minus 0.1 million) years old. What would be the problem with saying that the sandstone layer is 10-10.5 million years old?

Ok, now, let’s take this a step further. Let’s say that that type of fossil is only found in that sandstone layer. It’s not present above the ash layer nor below the basalt. At a site 10 miles from where you found the fossil, you find a shale layer. There is no ash layer above it nor a basalt layer below it. It does, however, have the same fossil in it. It isn’t present above or below the shale. Is it appropriate to say that because that fossil is present in the shale, the shale must be 10-10.5 million years old?

Peace

Tim
 
kinja said:
I think the trouble is that most people hold scientists in high esteem and believe that scientists know alot more than they do.
Click to expand...
No, the problem is that most people don’t or can’t understand the science.
Scientists actually just make guesses about more things than non-scientists actually do so they are perceived as knowledgeable.
Click to expand...
Please, do enlighten us. How are experiments reproduced if scientists just make things up? Is there a secret code that is attached to published data to let all other scientists know where to make stuff up?
I studied chemistry, physics and biology in high school and studied physics in university as well. What I can say about science is that theories change radically in a short time and what was previously a fact can become science fiction in short time.
Click to expand...
So? That has never been denied by any scientist that I know of.
In the lab it is possible to speed up radioactive decay so that an object that is a few days old can read hundreds of years old.
Click to expand...
That is one heck of a statement. Citation please.
Furthermore there is no evidence for evolution to date.
Click to expand...
Why change the subject? We were talking about radiometric dating. Did you run out of stories about that? Regardless, you seem to know about as much about evolution as you do radiometric dating.
The “evidence” of evolution requires more faith than a belief in a supreme God. The dawn horse has been proven to be a fraud since the fossils of the metatarsils of the creatures were not dated sequentially as was believed to be the case.
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah blah blah. Citation please.
By the way talkorigins.com is a very biased source and is usually frequented by evolutionists and atheists not true scientists 🙂
Click to expand...
You mean scientists like you?

Hey kinja. I’m a scientist (geologist). Am I one of those who makes things up? Am I an athiest?

Peace

Tim
 
Research has shown depictions of dinosaurs contemporary with modern humans.

And just WHO is responsible for this research, and just WHERE are these depictions, Ed?
 
The charity level on this thread is unacceptable. Thank you to all who participated – this thread is now closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top