We experienced a few versions of the religious explanations when examining different schools for our kids.
We are atheists, but have no fundamental objection to our kids being taught in religious schools. Some of the Christian schools locally have pretty good academic reputations, and we were “interviewing” them to determine if they were an improvement over our district. As part of this, I requested a set of first and second year textbooks from each school, so I could review them at home. (The really depressing part? In every case, the administrators said I was the first parent who’d made that request in their entire careers, but that’s for another thread, I guess)
Getting to the point, two of the schools used a science textbook which held that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by god to test the faithful, and that true believers would not be fooled (by scientist’s claims of evolution). They even had a cartoonish picture of the faithful in church, with the dino bones resting underground a short distance away. This was a first grade textbook.
In the context of that discussion (ie, pointing out that “dinosaurs represent many species”), the genus definition is the more appropriate one for “human”.
Yeah but ‘more appropriate IMO’ is different from correcting someone. Also even with that definition, we’re still comparing a genus to a clade (yes, I did have to look that up).
God. Where did the water come from? God. Where did the water go? God. How did polar bears get to the arctic? God. Why is there evil in the world? God. Why do human beings suffer and die? God.
Why should there be a need to explain dinosaurs? Why should deists/bible-believers get nervous about fossils?
They never bothered me and i never felt like it undermined the bible.
I asked my bible teacher when i was about 10 years old and he said that he didn’t know why they died out. He said that maybe God used them to make certain areas more fertile because of the tons of dung they would produce. But that was just his personal guess.
Other people think they were the dragons of legend. (living or fossil)
I really don’t know and i’ve never lost sleep over it. I loved Jurassic Park though.
Anyway since our galaxy, planet, flora, fauna and humankind were not all created in one go or week or there is no conflict between dinosaurs walking the planet and the bible.
Some religious folk just get nervous by any discovery outside of the box. (i mean book)
Nowhere does the Bible state or suggest that dinosaurs are not possible. What i do find significant is that they were out of the way for humanity to multiply and prosper.
Think about that instead of the how they perished…
PS The measurements of the Ark are noted in Genesis. The size is near that of the Titanic. But what fool would even wanna save a dinosaur? I don’t feel the need to have a T-Rex or Triceratops around town. Stray dogs and drunk drivers are enough fro me.
PPS Polar bears are still bears. The species or genus is bears. So there might not even have been the sub-species of the polar variety. just like certain dog races have not been around for ever. Polar bears have been known to mate with other types like Grizzly or Brown bear. (google it)
It’s a bear market any way you look at it.
a) God commanded Noah to save a pair of ALL of the creatures - he didn’t say “except them pesky dinosaurs”
[QUOTE=GOD @ Genesis 6:19 -20]
You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve known one person who thought the serpent in the Garden of Eden was a dinosaur. Serpents were cursed to slither on their bellies after the whole Eve/fruit thing, so that’s why there aren’t dinosaurs walking around anymore.
I didn’t ask any questions, so I have no idea how she resolved any of the issues with that idea.
Thank you, i had a feeling i used the wrong word.
ARK and creatures:
It’s estimated the thousands of animal species we know today can be reduced to a comparatively few families or “kinds”.
Some investigators say, had there been only 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 of birds, and 10 of reptiles on the ark, they could produce all species known today.
Species or families allow for variety and mutations. But you can’t put dogs and cats together and expect offspring now can you? So to say after a few thousand years that all the types of family/specie variants to have been around then and been on the Ark is…
How many types of horse were there a few thousand years ago? How many types of dog or wolf were there? All the kinds of dogs we know today? No.
Have you ever heard of Darwin and the differences in birds and their beaks on the islands? darwin made a wonderful discovery and you see the same thing everyday when you look at humans and their many varieties.
Think of Darwin and then think of the Noah.
The Ark fits.
Here again, you are simply wrong - lets take the dog for example -
[QUOTE=Domestication of the dog - Wikipedia]
The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) began with the domestication of the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago.[1][2][3] Genetic and archaeological evidence shows that humans domesticated wolves on more than one occasion, with the present lineage of C. l. familiaris arising unequivocally no later than 15,000 years ago as evidenced by the Bonn-Oberkassel site and possibly as early as 33,000 years ago as evidenced by the mtDNA testing on a paleolithic dog’s remains from the Razboinichya Cave (Altai Mountains).[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
[/QUOTE]
You JW cite is not credited - which scientists say these things? You’re going to have to do better than that.
I stated the many races of dogs we know today have not been around for long. This is fact. You paste something about the thousands of years ago man first domesticated a sub from the grey wolf.
What does that have to do with my factual statement? I have no time for useless answering to illogical remarks. Once again i do not understand you at all.
What ‘factual’ statement have you posted? You posted a link to a cite that makes an unsourced claim to “many investigators”.
Since you don’t understand it - one more time for clarity -
You claimed that all it would take would be a single pair of ‘generic’ dogs on the ark to get where we are today. I assume by that you actually mean ‘the grey wolf’ that began the project.
Since the domestication of dogs began atleast 15000 years ago with the wolf - that would simply not be possible.
Secondly, you would be wrong because your sect claims that man has only been around for 6000ish years - and the flood happened ~ 1500 years post Adam (I think you claim around 4500 bc).
So, the the lowly dog alone calls your claim for what it is.
Now, do you understand? or do I need to draw you a picture?
Another perfect example of “toss away the bible” (my words).
Because, if you believe science, it is said that there is a minimum population required to have a population take off and not become extinct. I don’t have a cite, but that number is somewhere above 100 if I remember correctly.
That’s cats, frogs, and people. So if you look at an endangered animal in the wild, you need more than 2 to keep the species from going extinct. The inbreeding issues, as well as not having animals live long enough to reproduce the critical number of individuals.
So the ark doesn’t work.
But wait… wasn’t Noah 900 years old?
When I was asked if I read the bible, this is the type of stuff that makes no sense, literally or figuratively. So, if you don’t know what to take literally and what not to take literally, why bother trying at all?
