Another Simple Question

Well, various Bibles have footnotes that actually say that it could be referring to an Elephant, since "tail" could be translated as trunk, or a crocodile, since if you read on in the passage it talks about living in the marshes.

 

Adam and Eve never existed, I have based my answer largely on genetics and the fact that Adam and Eve according to whatever religion they are in only had two children (2 boys) one of which killed the other so if they imbred with each other (which seeeing as we are here, i would presumably say the 3 of them did) then we would all be fucked up to the max from the 100% imbreeding we are all doing for that would make us all related....to the extent that none of us would be diverse.....so for your question i'll have to say Dinosaurs FTW

 

The Dinosaurs.

 

Had two children? Try reading the Bible before talking about it...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GEN 5:3-5&version=9;
And how do you know inbreeding would "fuck us up to the max"? Do you even know why inbreeding is bad? ROFL
Adam and Eve simply could have had a small count of recessive genes, if any at all. Which is more than likely as I'm sure Adam and Eve would've had what would be considered as the perfect genes. And if you study the chronology of the Bible, you'll see that the lifespan of people got shorter and shorter... no doubt a result of inbreeding, I feel.
And some believe that the possibility of genetic mutations was introduced after The Fall, propagating the growth of recessive genes and mixed gene pools.

 

the dinosaurs were all like Rawr!!!

They were first, I bet!!!

 

there are a number of ways to interpret this question.

1st of all there is the full Christian approach; this is someone who believes in what the bible says word to word in a literal manor. In this case they would either believe that dinosaurs are fake or that they lived with Adam and eve in peace.

2nd interpretation; You look at the bible as being a part literal part spiritual text. This means that things said in the bible are metaphorical and they are there to free the mind. Thinking this may bring you to the conclusion Adam and Eve is merely a parable/myth which could have once been a true story but has been twisted so much down the years that it is fiction rather than fact.

3rd Interpretation; u look at everything in a scientific sense. The dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, proved by radiocarbon dating of the bones and other methods for uncovering history. Adam and Eve is set around 6000-7000 years ago, which full Christians believe was the start of the world. Therefore Adam and Eve must be a myth which some guy wrote long ago.

It is not anti-Christian to not believe in everything the bible says, because the bible was written by a collection of people and not everyone is right and people lie.

 

If you believe in dinosaurs you obviously believe in the evolution theory. Your saying that where not related? when in fact even if you don't believe in Adam and Eve it still resolves humans to being related. Say we DID evolve from apes, the apes too evolved from a simpler species and so on until there was once one single celled organism. The fact is that we are all related to each other, we are just spread out so much that it was a long time ago that we looked alike (ever wonder why monkeys look so similar) Think of the Fibonacci sequence, humans have branched out over time. You are just contradicting yourself.

I believe that there was no Adam and Eve because of the reasons mentioned in my above post, but i still am a Christian. i believe in the evolution theory.

 

I don't know if that looks like a dinosaur to you. Even if it was supposed to represent a dinosaur, it would still be illogical, because dinosaurs were all extincted 65+ million years ago. Except for turtles, crocodiles and aligators whom managed to survive. And, according to fallacious mythologies of the Bible, God created everything 6000 years ago.

If we were the result of inbreeding, we would all be abominated, retarded freaks. Our fertility would be reduced, we would all have genetic disorders, fluctuating facial asymmetry, weaker immune system, higher infant mortality, slower growth rate and lower birth rates.

Also nice to know that we're all a result of incest. >_>

 

If there were any actual Christians on the internet, you guys would so be burned at the stake right now


Note the fact that HE DIDNT ASK IF EITHER OF THEM ARE REAL!

What he is basically asking is this-Who came first, dinosaurs or humans (since Adam and Eve are believed to have been the first humans). The answer is this-Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, humans have been around for a MAXIMUM of 10 thousand. Therefor, Dinosaurs came before Adam.

 

cause its soooo totally following the word of JC to immolate people for disagreeing with you?

Rabid Follower - "We found a non-believer, can we burn them?"
JC (coolest dude ever) - "WTF?! I can't believe... NO! Just be nice to them and don't fuck with their shit"
Rabid Follower - "But they don't believe the Old Testament"
JC (still more insanely cool than you will ever be) - "So? 'Turn the other cheek', not 'roast them evenly'"

 

What is recognizable as humans has been around for some 2-3 million years.

Homo sapiens sapiens (yes, it's supposed to be typed twice >_>) has been around since around 250,000 years ago.

 

That's not how I view a behemoth, using the same limited descriptions. But no metter... I think dinosaurs were extinct around 6,000 years ago. But I'm not even going to bother attempting to explain a possible scientific reasoning as science is weak and you can always counter-argue an inferior methodology with itself. Not to mention you evidently disregarding me talking about inbreeding. I have no time to waste. I could better spend my time talking to a wall.

It's nice how you reply to something without reading it...
I just posed a possible explanation to the current states of our genes. And most of the things you listed did come to pass. But it's ignorant to say we'd be an abomination and retarded. You don't know what you're talking about.

It's your own soiled perception that makes it seem wrong. I believe that's commonly referred to as narrow-minded.

 

Do you honestly believe that men lived to be hundreds of years old? What its actually called is deification of elders. In Egyptian history, some Pharaohs were said to have lived 20,000 years (Ramses maybe?). This is because their followers tried to make them seem God-like. This is fairly common in a lot of ancient cultures. In this case, when the record keeping caught up and people noticed that no one was living that long, something had to be done. So, they say that God dis-allowed men to live longer than 120 years, (by the way, men have lived past 120 years, cough cough Bible errancy), and since 120 years was probably twice as long as anyone lived in their age due to shorter lifespans than in our age, they probably thought that anyone who lived that long must be God-like or something.

 

So that means you're dismissing Radiocarbon, isotope dating as well as the fact that dinosaur bones are found in soil layers which are 65+ million years old? But please, present your counter-argument, I'd love to hear it.

If you have a copy machine and some paper, and you keep making copies of copies, the quality will reduce slighly after each copy. The same thing happens during inbreeding, our genes will reduce each time. Now, over a time span of 6,000 years, anyone with basic mathematical skills should be capable of comprehending that there has been quite a lot of generations, which each generation will mean reduced genes. A perfect example of the effects of reduced genes is the list I made before. I know exactly what I'm talking about, unfortunately, you're too fed up with religious semantics to acknowledge facts as soon as said facts interfere with your beliefs. That's when you turn to ignorance and call ME ignorant as a cop-out; instead of providing any proper reasons as to why you believe today's scientists must be horribly wrong, and that Biblical mythology must be the bonafide truth.

So you think incest is perfectly fine? You don't think there's anything wrong with a brother and sister having a sexual relationship?

 

I feel, at this moment of despair, that i should post this video for all athiests to view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TevkzHQhh0

 

I think its fairly clear from the thread in video clips that this video proves the existence of a God about as much as a horse shitting in the shape of the Virgin Mary on the Pope's shoe. The guy is an idiot.

 

Yes. It doesn't seem illogical to me, but it of course seems strange.

No. If you read the Bible, you'd know that, directly following God's limitation, people were around 600-700 years old. But before that, the average age was around 900. And that decline continued surely down to Mosaic time. And no one after Moses exceeded the age of 120 (except one person who was like 130 I think).
Now look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

120 sure looks like the cut-off to me. But w/e...

lol, that last bit is a cop-out, seeing as the dating methods in question are used to define it.
I believe those dating methods rely on incorrect information. You can find scientific counter-argument after counter-argument for and against dating methods. That's the definition of an illogical opinion: A solid opinion that's on shaking grounds.

So you can disregard it and continue to babble unintelligibly? No thank you.

I agree to all of that, and never hinted otherwise.

HAHA.
I never called you ignorant in the general sense you hint at, as you are now calling me in the very same statement (unless you're specifically addressing the specific sense of which the term was used, in which case I would call you ignorant in the general sense and everything would be as you saw it before... except now it wouldn't be a cop-out). I said "it's ignorant to say we'd be an abomination and retarded", which is completely true. If you disagree with that, then I do indeed say you're ignorant in the general sense. I would say that because you don't know details concerning the genetic make-up of Adam and Eve. If they were the same as we are now, I'd completely agree with you.

I only disagree with it because it is outlaw divinely by God.
What's your reason? Because it's different from what you're accustomed to? As I said, narrow-minded.

 

I would say it seems very illogical since there haven't been any documented cases of people even living to 150, much less 900.

How long it supposedly took for people not to live hundreds of years old is irrelevant. People still looked back to their elders, such as the famed Moses, who probably didn't even exist, and saw them as God-like, and wrote that they lived hundreds of years. When the record keeping/counting myths as history ended, they slip in the flood story that God said men wouldn't live past 120 years. Think about it, thats an odd place for it to be don't you think? It seems like when God said in the future man wouldn't live past 120 years, he would've made things happen sooner since he was so pissed off at humanity. Maybe they just didn't have anywhere else to slide it in.

If you read down there is a fully documented case of a woman living to be 122.

 

We only have documentation of the last few hundred years.
Anything beyond that you apparently disregard as delusions.

Moses was only 120, some estimate even younger. People before him, of which have little importance, lived to be twice as old, if not more. So why would Moses, being one of the most important Biblical figures, be so young? And why would there be a steady decline after Noah? Did people get tired of writing stories/myths and decided to write about their own lives and, for fun, tie it into the mythology? Does the mythology end only when it makes sense to you?

Nope, not odd in the least.
Whether or not you think God would've made things occur quicker is completely irrelevant.
The lifespans of the generations following Noah immediately started to decrease. And it makes more sense when you release that there were only 8 people on the Ark, meaning inbreeding would be at an all-time high (but now with the absence of God).

Figured you'd say that... and add this onto the pile of other coincidences the Bible poses.
I'm sure there are a handful of people who lived to be slightly over 120. But you should also recognize how the calendar days have changed over thousands of years. Being at that age leaves quite a margin, which could be the different of a few years even.

 

Without proof, theres no reason to believe that men could even reach the age of 150.

I would hardly count 120 as being young, since their lifespans were probably half of that on average. One reason that it probably declined is because of the mysteriousness of the time period. As the time got closer and closer to their age, they probably knew more about it. It would a lot easier for us to say that people lived to be 900 or older around 10,000 years ago than it would be for us to say that they lived that long 100 years ago, now wouldn't it?

How did all myths arise? To explain the unexplainable. When the explanation doesn't fit, it gets fixed.

As I said earlier, the mysteriousness of the time period could account for that.

We know the actual length of the year to be 365.252 days, so why wouldn't an all-knowing God address everyone with the correct measurement of a year?