The BIBLE reveals factual truth concerning Dinosaurs (1 Viewer)

[LittleNipper]

If you want to see a dinosaur, just look out of your window, there's a decent chance you'll see one.

Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, Living Fossils, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, yet museums do not display these fossils, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.

If birds and dinosaurs existed together, birds could not have descended from them. Such a premise would be for the birds ---- literally.

 

[LittleNipper]

What's the difference between "factual truth" and just plain old truth? For that matter, how does one differentiate between "historic events" and "honest historic events"?

It's just an emphasis on the reality that what is historic and true is not in a place of compromised.

 

[joluoto]

Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, Living Fossils, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, yet museums do not display these fossils, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.

If birds and dinosaurs existed together, birds could not have descended from them. Such a premise would be for the birds ---- literally.

Of course avian dinosaurs (birds) existed at the same time as non- avian dinosaurs. Just because avian dinosaurs evolved doesn't mean the non- avian dinosaurs went anywhere. Birds first show up in the Jurassic fossil record. That's long before non- avian dinosaurs went extinct.

 

[LittleNipper]

The bible is full of counter-factual "truth", as opposed to "factual truth"

NO, the Bible is full of absolute truth as opposed to theoretical assumptions.

 

[LittleNipper]

Of course avian dinosaurs (birds) existed at the same time as non- avian dinosaurs. Just because avian dinosaurs evolved doesn't mean the non- avian dinosaurs went anywhere. Birds first show up in the Jurassic fossil record. That's long before non- avian dinosaurs went extinct.

So why not just call them birds. It would be so much more honest.

 

[Gordy327]

NO, the Bible is full of absolute truth as opposed to theoretical assumptions.

Confirmation bias.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yet Everest rocks contain fossils, so must be more than 6,000 years. Your grasp of elementary science is somewhat lacking. Geological timescales are huge. 6000 years is a blink of an eye. Everest was probably around the same height back then, allowing for the odd earthquake and the 4cm average rise in height seen today as India continues to plough slowly into Asia's underbelly. Erosion is worse at higher elevations, so the same height is a conservative estimate. It could have been taller!

Probably is not an absolute. And anything formed during the FLOOD would in fact possess fossils.

 

[Gordy327]

Probably is not an absolute. And anything formed during the FLOOD would in fact possess fossils.

The fossil does not support a Flood.

 

[LittleNipper]

I can't argue against this garbage... sorry, it is depressing to see people just ignore Geology and science. Plate Tectonics is real and there is zero evidence that a flood could have covered the world... Holy Cow... water blasted into space form comets and that is where the water went?

It's even more depressing to see people ignore other points of view simply because they cannot believe there is a GOD.

 

[Gordy327]

It's even more depressing to see people ignore other points of view simply because they cannot believe there is a GOD.

There is no evidence for a God. So other points of view based on God lack any real validity.

 

[joluoto]

So why not just call them birds. It would be so much more honest.

Birds are avian dinosaurs. Birds are a type of dinosaur. Non- avian dinosaurs are not birds.

 

[Manc Skipper]

What's the difference between "factual truth" and just plain old truth? For that matter, how does one differentiate between "historic events" and "honest historic events"?

You need the eye of the believer, which we lack, being sceptics

 

[Manc Skipper]

If you want to see a dinosaur, just look out of your window, there's a decent chance you'll see one.

Hey, I live on the Jurassic coast of England. We're constantly tripping over bones sticking out of the ground. Every cliff fall we find a new species!

 

[Manc Skipper]

Probably is not an absolute. And anything formed during the FLOOD would in fact possess fossils.

Probably is the truthful answer.
The rest of your missive is cretinous conjecture There is no evidence anywhere for a Noachian flood, let alone one which arranges fossils by age and development in the geological column.

 

[NolanVoyd]

NO, the Bible is full of absolute truth as opposed to theoretical assumptions.

Lol.

It's fiction.

 

[Bodi]

It's even more depressing to see people ignore other points of view simply because they cannot believe there is a GOD.

God does not exist outside of science... there is zero proof that It exists. Zero.

 

[mrjurrs]

While the Bible is not a "science book" it does reveal factual truth regarding honest historic events. The Bible does contain accounts of lies, but demonstrates and proves them to be both harmful and lies. As such, does the Bible reveal that there were creatures that we TODAY scientifically label in general as dinosaurs? This must be answered to the affirmative. The following I believe is an honest appraisal regarding these interesting creatures. NO less dishonest that many of those explanations one would regard as purely "scientific". The danger is that people can believe that "scientific" opinion is entirely truthful and without compromise ---- and this I feel is where science fiction comes into play. Simply because a religious belief is true, doesn't mean that it's merely faith, nor that because a "theory" is regarded as "scientific" makes it true:

 

[roguenuke]

But if one concludes that the CREATOR made both the Universe, brought light, and established day & night along with the seasons, does it really seem unreasonable to conclude that this CREATOR knew how much time it took to create and revealed this in a way that HIS yet to be human creatures (on the 6th day) would comprehend --- in other words, an approximate 24 hour period for each day (GENESIS marks days from evening to morning as a natural extension of God turning darkness into light).

There is no science that supports that view though. Hence why the Bible is much more likely written by men who had no clue what they were talking about. That's why you can't start from the premise of "the bible is right, completely correct, infallible" when trying to claim that the bible is scientific. That in itself is horrible "science" as a starting point. Yet that guy in your video did it, you seem to do it in most every post.

 

[LittleNipper]

There is no science that supports that view though. Hence why the Bible is much more likely written by men who had no clue what they were talking about. That's why you can't start from the premise of "the bible is right, completely correct, infallible" when trying to claim that the bible is scientific. That in itself is horrible "science" as a starting point. Yet that guy in your video did it, you seem to do it in most every post.

I feel that the men of the Bible understood their environment. In fact, they likely understood it far better than some man who was raised in the suburbs went to a university, drives a car and loves to party...

 

[LittleNipper]

Please note: The video above does provide a secular view of evidence that exists. Do I find it interesting? Yes. Do I feel that it is a secular distortion? Absolutely, However, it does prove that secular scientists are finding evidence for the recorded epics of the Bible, and that the Bible is not something to ignore. Of course Satan worked originally to totally discredit the Word, but as the evidence once more begins to overcome total discreditation, evil now attempts to distort the facts to blend them into the materialistic world view of the evidence that dispels the notion that GOD is necessary for the occurrences and that the words of the Bible are not entirely true... "Did GOD actually say you will surely die?" The words of Satan to Eve... In any case, I feel the fact is clear that the Bible should be presented to students as more than myth and that facts are swiftly coming to light that once again are relevant and should be studied. They should not be left in the dark as some here wish, so that they may be manipulated unenlightened.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Please note: The video above does provide a secular view of evidence that exists. Do I find it interesting? Yes. Do I feel that it is a secular distortion? Absolutely, However, it does prove that secular scientists are finding evidence for the recorded epics of the Bible, and that the Bible is not something to ignore. Of course Satan worked originally to totally discredit the Word, but as the evidence once more begins to overcome total discreditation, evil now attempts to distort the facts to blend them into the materialistic world view of the evidence that dispels the notion that GOD is necessary for the occurrences and that the words of the Bible are not entirely true... "Did GOD actually say you will surely die?" The words of Satan to Eve... In any case, I feel the fact is clear that the Bible should be presented to students as more than myth and that facts are swiftly coming to light that once again are relevant and should be studied. They should not be left in the dark as some here wish, so that they may be manipulated unenlightened.

Secular? It does nothing of the kind. It uses half truths and downright misrepresentations to tell a false fairy story.

 

[MamboDervish]

Please note: The video above does provide a secular view of evidence that exists. Do I find it interesting? Yes. Do I feel that it is a secular distortion? Absolutely, However, it does prove that secular scientists are finding evidence for the recorded epics of the Bible, and that the Bible is not something to ignore.

Uh ... no. It doesn't prove that at all.

Of course Satan worked originally to totally discredit the Word, but as the evidence once more begins to overcome total discreditation, evil now attempts to distort the facts to blend them into the materialistic world view of the evidence that dispels the notion that GOD is necessary for the occurrences and that the words of the Bible are not entirely true... "Did GOD actually say you will surely die?" The words of Satan to Eve...

There is no satan. Satan is a man-made myth invented as an excuse for mankind being assholes, including cruel, greedy, slothful, etc. As in "Satan made me do it", and "I/he/she was tempted by the devil."

In any case, I feel the fact is clear that the Bible should be presented to students as more than myth and that facts are swiftly coming to light that once again are relevant and should be studied.

No again. It's quite the opposite. More and more facts are coming to light that completely obliterate biblical myths, from the creation cosmology, to Adam & Eve, to the great flood, to our genealogy, to .... you name it. The more we learn, the more we learn that biblical stories are just that .. stories. Nothing more - nothing less. Every year for the past half century, science has driven yet another nail into the coffin of the inerrant bible mythology - genetic genealogy just being the most recent.

They should not be left in the dark as some here wish, ....

... as you apparently do ...

... so that they may be manipulated unenlightened ...

.... as you have clearly been, and will probably so remain.

 

[Brack]

Behemoth mentioned within Job 40 is likely a Supernatural bull, and his "tail" mentioned in verse 17 is likely an euphemism to his male organ.

 

[LittleNipper]

Uh ... no. It doesn't prove that at all.

Why it certainly shows that you've demonstrated NOTHING and are quite UNREASONABLE in your expectations applied to other.

There is no satan. Satan is a man-made myth invented as an excuse for mankind being assholes, including cruel, greedy, slothful, etc. As in "Satan made me do it", and "I/he/she was tempted by the devil."

Again, that's what you suppose; however, you've not shown why there is evil in the world ----- unless you are of the opinion that everything is perfect...

No again. It's quite the opposite. More and more facts are coming to light that completely obliterate biblical myths, from the creation cosmology, to Adam & Eve, to the great flood, to our genealogy, to .... you name it. The more we learn, the more we learn that biblical stories are just that .. stories. Nothing more - nothing less. Every year for the past half century, science has driven yet another nail into the coffin of the inerrant bible mythology - genetic genealogy just being the most recent.

Wrong once more. You have not presented any reason why you exist at all. And if you are of the opinion that there is no reason for our existence, I certainly wish you'd be more forthcoming with some data to that affect.

... as you apparently do ...

.... as you have clearly been, and will probably so remain.

You're funny. No, reasons, no rationalization, no data. Public school provided you with absolutely no debate abilities, it would seem, as well as no imagination.... Oh that is right, debates are argumentative, and imagination might just cause someone to consider qualities of GOD. Can't do that!!!!

 

[LittleNipper]

Secular? It does nothing of the kind. It uses half truths and downright misrepresentations to tell a false fairy story.

Sorry, however; this the video isn't "Christian" the Universe Inside You is based on the work of Brian Clegg who is an English science writer. He is the author of popular science books on topics including light, infinity, quantum entanglement and surviving the impact of climate change, and biographies of Roger Bacon and Eadweard Muybridge. And from the general tone of the video above, I would call him a liberal, but at least considerate ---- which is more than I can say for your observations and total lack of data input to the contrary...