# Why won't these scientists stop finding things?



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/129629858.html

The article:
"
Fish fossil sheds light on 'Euramerica' phase

By Tom Avril

Inquirer Staff Writer

It was a lumbering, wide-headed creature with tiny, close-set eyes, and it likely had to wait on a stream bottom for its prey to swim within reach. But when that happened, watch out! One powerful chomp, with fangs up to one-and-a-half inches long. . .

Rest assured that this scenario comes from the distant past - 375 million years ago, more or less - but a team of scientists from Philadelphia, Harvard, and Chicago breathed new life into it late last week.

They announced the discovery of this six-foot-long prehistoric predator found in a harsh rockscape 700 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Dubbed Laccognathus embryi, it was among various kinds of fish that had developed bony, muscular "lobed" fins - the precursors of limbs.

The team included paleontologists Jason P. Downs and Ted Daeschler from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, along with Harvard's Farish A. Jenkins Jr. and the University of Chicago's Neil Shubin, who have been studying these kinds of creatures for years.

Daeschler, Jenkins, and Shubin are best known for their 2006 discovery of another ancient fish, Tiktaalik roseae, which had a very unfishlike neck and limb-like fins that may have allowed it to creep onto land for brief periods.

Laccognathus, the "new" fish, is a more primitive beast, though it lived at the same time. It is a distant cousin of humans, not a direct ancestor. Yet already it is helping to provide a richer picture of a time when Europe and North America were fused together.

Previously, close cousins of this fish had been found in Latvia and Russia, so the new find provides further confirmation that there was once a "Euramerican" landmass, said Richard Cloutier, a biology professor at the University of Quebec at Rimouski.

"Ted and his team have been doing a fantastic job," said Cloutier, who was not involved with the research.

Over the course of five field trips from 2000 to 2008, the authors of the new paper, published online in   the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, found parts of at least 22 Laccognathus specimens.

The fossils have a burnt reddish color, not unlike the red brick of the building where they are housed, the Academy of Natural Sciences on Logan Square. The best specimen is a nearly complete skull, found in 2004, which enabled the team to see how many of their previously discovered fragments fit together.

"It's kind of like finding a Rosetta stone," Daeschler said. "That becomes the proof that all these things belong to one species."

Though Laccognathus is not an ancestor of humans, it is more closely related to us than to modern "ray-finned" fish, said Daeschler and Downs, who is also a visiting professor of biology at Swarthmore College.

During a tour of his lab, Daeschler held up various fossilized fish bones to his body, showing how shoulder, jaw, and other body parts corresponded to their human equivalents.

Yet the Laccognathus jaw has one curious feature that humans lack - small "pits" or openings that apparently allowed the creature to sense water pressure or vibration. (Laccognathus means "pitted jaw," whereas the second part of the name, embryi, comes from the surname of a Canadian geologist.)

"It's like an ear, almost," Daeschler said of the jaw openings. "The pressure goes into the tube and stimulates some nerves back in there."

Downs, who was the first author of the paper, got an early start in paleontology.

A dinosaur buff as a child, he started volunteering at the academy as a high school sophomore in 1993, when he helped answer museumgoers' questions at an exhibit about the science of Jurassic Park.

He started working behind the scenes the next summer and met Daeschler, serving as an unpaid intern.

"I've sort of been hanging around the lab in one capacity or another ever since," Downs, 33, said.

Plenty of work remains to keep him and his colleagues busy. The site that yielded Laccognathus and Tiktaalik, for example - on Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut province - was home to as many as six other species that remain to be analyzed. All were apparently deposited in one spot by a flood, providing a valuable snapshot of a moment in prehistory.

"They may have just all gotten buried quickly in a load of muddy sediment," Daeschler said.

It is a bleak, unforgiving environment in which to conduct science, so remote that the only way in is by helicopter. The sun never sets, the wind is cold and biting, and the tracks of polar bears are a reminder to stay watchful.

Daeschler has yet to see a polar bear. Fish with powerful jaws, on the other hand. . ."


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 13, 2011)

I assume the point is to disprove the "new earth" idea?



Congrats.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> They announced the discovery of this six-foot-long prehistoric predator found in a harsh rockscape 700 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Dubbed Laccognathus embryi, it was among various kinds of fish that had developed bony, muscular "lobed" fins - the precursors of limbs.



"...had (supposedly lol) developed bony, muscular "lobed" fins - the precursors of limbs.

Hmmmm.....now where did I hear that before?   Seems like it was when I was a child.     Thinking.....    It will come to me eventually....

I wonder if this 'fish' kept evolving or decided it liked the way it was?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 13, 2011)

Here's the rub...

There will never be a continuous "generational" line developed from fossils that leads us from single celled organism in sludge to humans.  

Yet, when Christians insist that happen in order for evolution to humanity be proven we are mocked....by the very same crowd who insists "show me God and I'll believe it", "prove God exists and I'll believe".  The very same crowd who sees a highly broken line of fossils and believes without doubt in something they haven't seen evidence of and don't have conlclusive proof of.

When we ask for proof beyond dispute, we are requiring too much.  I think Alanis Morrisette said it best way back when....


Kinda ironic ain't it?


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 13, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> When we ask for proof beyond dispute, we are requiring too much.  I think Alanis Morrisette said it best way back when....
> 
> 
> Kinda ironic ain't it?



It's like raiaayayn....on your wedding day.

It's a free riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide.....when you've already paid.

It's the goood adviiiiiiiiiiiiice....that you just didn't take.

And who would've thought.........it figures.


----------



## Madman (Sep 13, 2011)

Sounds like a BIG OLE salamander to me.


http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dangerous-encounters/3906/Overview


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 13, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Here's the rub...
> 
> There will never be a continuous "generational" line developed from fossils that leads us from single celled organism in sludge to humans.
> 
> ...





rjcruiser said:


> It's like raiaayayn....on your wedding day.
> 
> It's a free riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide.....when you've already paid.
> 
> ...



Will you two stop with the Alanis Morissette 

HF you could possible get an infraction for just bringing it up and RJ, well........... I just don't want to see "banned" under your name for posting the actual lyrics!


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Will you two stop with the Alanis Morissette
> 
> HF you could possible get an infraction for just bringing it up and RJ, well........... I just don't want to see "banned" under your name for posting the actual lyrics!





Still remember riding to work with my brother and listening to that song on the radio.

Was working at Six Flags at the time...had to be around '98 or so....just googled.  '96.  Boy...it's said to listen to Star on the weekend and they say it's a big '90s weekend.  I remember listening back when it was the big '80s weekend.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> It's like raiaayayn....on your wedding day.
> 
> It's a free riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide.....when you've already paid.
> 
> ...





rjcruiser said:


> Still remember riding to work with my brother and listening to that song on the radio.
> 
> Was working at Six Flags at the time...had to be around '98 or so....just googled.  '96.  Boy...it's said to listen to Star on the weekend and they say it's a big '90s weekend.  I remember listening back when it was the big '80s weekend.



None of the things that she is singing about are ironic; by the definition of irony.  Except for where she says: "and as the plane crashed down, he thought 'Well, isn't this nice'"  That would be an ironic statement.

...and isn't it moronic?  Don'tcha think?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Here's the rub...
> 
> There will never be a continuous "generational" line developed from fossils that leads us from single celled organism in sludge to humans.
> 
> ...



No one mocks you.  You are looked upon with suspicion and disbelief because you maintain that a giant man in the sky blew snot into the dust and up sprouted people.

Should we dismiss the fossil record?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2011)

*Creationist Science Class.*

What would High School science class be like if they used the Bible as a textbook?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 13, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> None the things that she is singing about are ironic; by the definition of irony.  Except for where she says: "and as the plane crashed down, he thought 'Well, isn't this nice'"  That would be an ironic statement.
> 
> ...and isn't it moronic?  Don'tcha think?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 13, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What would High School science class be like if they used the Bible as a textbook?



Well, the Bible is not a textbook for science, if it was, we could cure cancer (any type).

What do you suggest? Keep teaching kids unproven theories as if they are fact?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 13, 2011)

> No one mocks you.



Don't make me go back into the records....it won't be pretty.  Your boys do not have the same civil record that you have for the most part.




> Should we dismiss the fossil record?



Absolutely not.  Didn't say we should.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2011)

heyyyyy, guyyyyys.....relax! I'm just posting these findings as they hit the headlines. I find it interesting that there is something new found almost daily. It gets us all thinking if nothing else. People want evidence, well at least there is something tangible to look at for evidence. Take out of it what you wish...or don't.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Well, the Bible is not a textbook for science, if it was, we could cure cancer (any type).



Why do people rely on it to answer questions better left to science then?



stringmusic said:


> What do you suggest? Keep teaching kids unproven theories as if they are fact?



Keep teaching them the best, most sensible ideas based on the best data and technology that we've got going so far.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 13, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> No one mocks you.  You are looked upon with suspicion and disbelief because you maintain that a giant man in the sky blew snot into the dust and up sprouted people.
> 
> Should we dismiss the fossil record?



Dude, you just mocked him.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "...had (supposedly lol) developed bony, muscular "lobed" fins - the precursors of limbs.
> 
> Hmmmm.....now where did I hear that before?   Seems like it was when I was a child.     Thinking.....    It will come to me eventually....
> 
> I wonder if this 'fish' kept evolving or decided it liked the way it was?



Is evolution about becoming more complex or is it more about adapting to ones environment?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Well, the Bible is not a textbook for science, if it was, we could cure cancer (any type).
> 
> What do you suggest? Keep teaching kids unproven theories as if they are fact?



No... Let's take them to Sunday school every week!!!!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 13, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Don't make me go back into the records....it won't be pretty.  Your boys do not have the same civil record that you have for the most part.




Neither do yours and yourself... We all mock or at LEAST are seen to be mocking from time to time.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Dude, you just mocked him.




Mocked who? Him or God? Or is that the same thing?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 13, 2011)

It's definitely both. You mock my daughter, you get punched in the face, same thing.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 14, 2011)

> Neither do yours and yourself...




Riiiiiiiiiiight...


keep on keepin' on brotha.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 14, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Why do people rely on it to answer questions better left to science then?


This is a strawman, but I'll will still give it a shot.

I don't see where science disproves the Bible or vice versa, so therefore, I do not see the problem.




> Keep teaching them the best, most sensible ideas based on the best data and technology that we've got going so far.


I agree, lets just make sure those "best" "most sensible" ideas are true first, or at least, be sufficient enough to put our faith in.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 14, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> No... Let's take them to Sunday school every week!!!!



That would be a good start.

I would also add that we indoctrinate them at home as well....... everyday of the week.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 14, 2011)

...you mean "indoctrinate" them string.  Remember where you are.  You're a brainwasher.  Disciple is just a euphamism for indoctrination.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 14, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...you mean "indoctrinate" them string.  Remember where you are.  You're a brainwasher.  Disciple is just a euphamism for indoctrination.



You're absolutely right, as a matter of fact, I'll will go back and change it!


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 14, 2011)

atta boy.  now you're playing by the rules.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 14, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> atta boy.  now you're playing by the rules.



I might even go a far as teaching my son to pull "coexist" stickers of of vehicles.

I don't think an officer will arrest a kid for that.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> This is a strawman, but I'll will still give it a shot.
> 
> I don't see where science disproves the Bible or vice versa, so therefore, I do not see the problem.
> 
> ...



The bible states the sun revolves around the earth. The sun stopped in the sky. Rabbits chew cud.  Bats are birds. It states that there are some insects that have 4 legs. The bible says the earth has four corners and edges. The earth rests on pillars. It claims that there are 4 legged animals which can fly. It claims speech didn't evolve but was created at the Tower of Babel. The bible claims that people who believe in Christ shall be able to survive the bites of poisonous snakes. Donkeys have talked. Water turned into Wine. Man has walked on water. Jesus entire body ascended into Heaven. 2(or 7 or 8 or...) of every animal fit on an Ark.

I think science may have a problem with a few of these.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The bible states the sun revolves around the earth. The sun stopped in the sky. Rabbits chew cud.  Bats are birds. It states that there are some insects that have 4 legs. The bible says the earth has four corners and edges. The earth rests on pillars. It claims that there are 4 legged animals which can fly. It claims speech didn't evolve but was created at the Tower of Babel. The bible claims that people who believe in Christ shall be able to survive the bites of poisonous snakes. Donkeys have talked. Water turned into Wine. Man has walked on water. Jesus entire body ascended into Heaven. 2(or 7 or 8 or...) of every animal fit on an Ark.
> 
> I think science may have a problem with a few of these.



Science does not account for any supernatural events that I know of. A naturalistic worldview does not sit flush with a monotheistic worldview such a Christianity, that does not mean that it disproves it in any way.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 14, 2011)

If a scientist finds a fossil of a four legged insect....how much ibuprofen is it going to take to get rid of your headache?


----------



## Madman (Sep 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The bible states the sun revolves around the earth. The sun stopped in the sky. Rabbits chew cud.  Bats are birds. It states that there are some insects that have 4 legs. The bible says the earth has four corners and edges. The earth rests on pillars. It claims that there are 4 legged animals which can fly. It claims speech didn't evolve but was created at the Tower of Babel. The bible claims that people who believe in Christ shall be able to survive the bites of poisonous snakes. Donkeys have talked. Water turned into Wine. Man has walked on water. Jesus entire body ascended into Heaven. 2(or 7 or 8 or...) of every animal fit on an Ark.
> 
> I think science may have a problem with a few of these.



Science says EVERYTHING came from NOTHING.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 14, 2011)

To be fair....we believe the same about God don't we?


I'm with ya.  It's a fatal flaw in a field that insists that the supernatural is not a possibility.  I think that's the difference.  But that's what they'll come back with.  Just forewarning.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> If a scientist finds a fossil of a four legged insect....how much ibuprofen is it going to take to get rid of your headache?



None. I won't have a headache. The claim was made that  science does not disprove the Bible or vice versa. I just gave some examples of how it does.

Now when the sun starts revolving around the earth.....I'm counting on you to send me a few X-Tra strength Ibuprofens!!!


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2011)

Madman said:


> Science says EVERYTHING came from NOTHING.



Does it? Where?

Are you saying something (life)cannot have always been, but then are saying something(God) has always been?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> To be fair....we believe the same about God don't we?
> 
> 
> I'm with ya.  It's a fatal flaw in a field that insists that the supernatural is not a possibility.  I think that's the difference.  But that's what they'll come back with.  Just forewarning.



Oh Ya Beat me to it HF!


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 14, 2011)

> Now when the sun starts revolving around the earth.....I'm counting on you to send me a few X-Tra strength Ibuprofens!!!



Deal....We'll both need 'em.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 14, 2011)

> Oh Ya Beat me to it HF!



I think I hang out in here too much!  Ha!


The difference, though, is that we allow for the supernatural.  God can always have been because he is super natural.  Science is constrained by the laws of nature, physics, etc.

Something cannot come from nothing unless there was a supernatural event.  At least I can't think of any way that's possible and haven't heard of anything.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Science does not account for any supernatural events that I know of. A naturalistic worldview does not sit flush with a monotheistic worldview such a Christianity, that does not mean that it disproves it in any way.



Where is the supernatural in thinking the sun revolves around the earth? Rabbits (Hares) chew cud? All the worlds different languages started at Babel?  Claiming the earth rests on pillars? Or that if you believe in Christ you will survive poisonous snake bites?

I'll be the first to admit science is not 100% right. There are LOTS of theories, hypothesis and just plain guesses, but neither is the Bible. It's writers were limited to the knowledge of their time. Today it does not hold up. it is one of the many things that lead me to believe that it is solely a man made work.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh Ya Beat me to it HF!





Huntinfool said:


> To be fair....we believe the same about God don't we?
> 
> 
> I'm with ya.  It's a fatal flaw in a field that insists that the supernatural is not a possibility.  I think that's the difference.  But that's what they'll come back with.  Just forewarning.



I'm confused??
HF were you asking me that question in your post? If so, your answer is yes, am I still on your ignore list from that mint chocolate icecream comment in the SP? Is that why you had to ask that question?

.... as for the second part of your post, I figured that would be a problem with the scientific religion.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Where is the supernatural in thinking the sun revolves around the earth? Rabbits (Hares) chew cud? All the worlds different languages started at Babel?  Claiming the earth rests on pillars? Or that if you believe in Christ you will survive poisonous snake bites?


Do you want to go through these one by one? If so, could you post the scriptures that you are referencing. I can't say that I will have a suffecient answer to each one, but I will try.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do you want to go through these one by one? If so, could you post the scriptures that you are referencing. I can't say that I will have a suffecient answer to each one, but I will try.



No need to go through all that bother.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 14, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> To be fair....we believe the same about God don't we?
> 
> 
> I'm with ya.  It's a fatal flaw in a field that insists that the supernatural is not a possibility.  I think that's the difference.  But that's what they'll come back with.  Just forewarning.




What do you mean by fatal flaw?  Am I going to die because I don't believe that a man can live in a fish for three days?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 14, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What do you mean by fatal flaw?  Am I going to die because I don't believe that a man can live in a fish for three days?



IMO no, not literally.


----------



## hummdaddy (Sep 14, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What do you mean by fatal flaw?  Am I going to die because I don't believe that a man can live in a fish for three days?



maybe that was a uso ?


----------



## Madman (Sep 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Does it? Where?
> 
> Are you saying something (life)cannot have always been, but then are saying something(God) has always been?



There is nothing illogical about that.  only the created has a beginning and God was not created.

Eternal ---- That is one of the attributes of God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2011)

Madman said:


> There is nothing illogical about that.  only the created has a beginning and God was not created.
> 
> Eternal ---- That is one of the attributes of God.



Whatever helps you sleep at night!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Mocked who? Him or God? Or is that the same thing?



You're a mocker.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What do you mean by fatal flaw?  Am I going to die because I don't believe that a man can live in a fish for three days?



I believe Jonah was dead in the fish.         That's another discussion, though!  

Carry on...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 15, 2011)

Madman said:


> There is nothing illogical about that.  only the created has a beginning and God was not created.
> 
> Eternal ---- That is one of the attributes of God.



Then why can't it be an attribute of life on earth? Of course it can.


----------



## Madman (Sep 15, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Then why can't it be an attribute of life on earth? Of course it can.



Science would disagree.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 15, 2011)

It would. Science has half of everything wrong anyway, right?


----------



## JFS (Sep 15, 2011)

Madman said:


> Science would disagree.



Only as to its present form.  It don't think there is any reason you couldn't have cycles of creation and destruction that are infinite.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I'm confused??
> HF were you asking me that question in your post? If so, your answer is yes, am I still on your ignore list from that mint chocolate icecream comment in the SP? Is that why you had to ask that question?
> 
> .... as for the second part of your post, I figured that would be a problem with the scientific religion.




No....Madman said that science believes that something came from nothing.  I was saying...we believe that as well.  The only difference is that we allow for the supernatural.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 15, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> No....Madman said that science believes that something came from nothing.  I was saying...we believe that as well.  The only difference is that we allow for the supernatural.



10-4, you gotta start using that quote button a little more.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 15, 2011)

> What do you mean by fatal flaw? Am I going to die because I don't believe that a man can live in a fish for three days?




It's a fatal flaw in the argument that science can explain everything I suppose.  Not YOUR fatal flaw.  

Science must accept that, at some point, something came from nothing as far as I can tell.  It cannot have always existed, otherwise, the concept of time goes out the window.

Christians say that God came from nothing.  I was pointing out that we have the same "problem" from your perspective.  The difference is that we allow for the supernatural.  Things which cannot necessarily be explained.  You likely see that as a weakness or a nice bow to tie up our unreasonable position.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 15, 2011)

> 10-4, you gotta start using that quote button a little more.



It doesn't work for me at work anymore.  I just have to copy quotes and wrap quote tags around it.....really frustrating.


----------



## Asath (Sep 25, 2011)

“Science does not account for any supernatural events that I know of.”

Nothing much to add, except that there haven’t been any verifiable supernatural events that anyone at all knows of.

So that is sort of a logical sequence ender, huh?

Logic sort of runs like this: Q. ‘What the heck was that?’  A. ‘I dunno, must have been God.’  Conclusion: ‘Huh?  What the heck is a God?’  

Or, more intelligently, it runs like this:  Q. ‘What the heck was that?’ A. ‘I dunno, how about we try to find out?’  Conclusion:  ‘Ok.’

If we stuck with the first explanation, and had been satisfied with that, as many still seem to be, then all of progress would have stopped right there.  There is no need for further inquiry if you accept that God is the reason that your family just died from smallpox.  Trying to find a way to cure that would be a fool’s game, since it is viewed as the will of the invisible, inscrutable, and undefinable.

The idea of the supernatural is, by its very imposition, a warning against questioning the authority of the elders.  Unfortunately, the track record of these authority figures who resort to superstition rather than facts to enforce their positions is something less than stellar.  In looking at the scorecard, a reasonable student of history is forced to conclude that there hasn’t ever been a ‘religious’ explanation for anything at all that has ever been right.  Not once.

Science, and rational, persistent human inquiry, on the other hand, have figured out that it wasn’t God that clogged your arteries – you did.  And that same rational inquiry (finding out why) allows those darned Godless scientists to save your life with a by-pass surgery.  Among tens of thousands of other examples.  

But the major feature of ‘belief-based’ systems is a total immunity to facts, so you’ll actually hear a by-pass patient, fresh out of the ICU, thank their God for saving them.  Of course, if the surgery was not successful, their equally religious family is not so charitable as to blame their God, and they run to the lawyer’s office just like everyone else . . . 

Overall though, rational thought is winning.  With each successive poll, and each successive generation, the number of self-described believers is falling rapidly.  Churches of all denominations worldwide are finding fewer and fewer pigeons to fleece, and the violence of religions that we see a recent resurgence of is in direct proportion to their desperation to survive as financial and political behemoths.  With current trends, and a bit more education, we will hopefully see the end of organized religion within our lifetimes.  

That will leave us only the last of the zealots who are immune to facts, the ‘environmentalists’ to marginalize and eventually remove from positions of power.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 26, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What would High School science class be like if they used the Bible as a textbook?



Teen girls wouldn't get pregnant?


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 26, 2011)

Madman said:


> Science would disagree.



Who and what says science and God don't work together. Why does it have to be one way or the other?

Ever heard of compromise? I tend to believe both.

It says in the OT that there is nothing new under the sun....ie discoveries, inventions, revelations about things that have always been here...ie gravity. Who says the surgeons hands are not guided by God? Who says that the polio vaccine was not a revelation by God? Could God be the ultimate scientist?  I do know that something smarter than me created all this. I know I can take the same seeds and plant them and produce the same plants. I know that if my cat has babies she will have kittens there's nothing evolved by that. Cats begat cats.


Did the sons of God marry the daughters of men and begat children? The OT says that is so.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 26, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What do you mean by fatal flaw?  Am I going to die because I don't believe that a man can live in a fish for three days?



Nope!

A requirement of salvation is believing only one thing.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 26, 2011)

> With current trends, and a bit more education, we will hopefully see the end of organized religion within our lifetimes.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

Asath said:


> With current trends, and a bit more education, we will hopefully see the end of organized religion within our lifetimes.




I've read predictions like this before:  


_"One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker." — Voltaire (1694-1778)_


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I've read predictions like this before:
> 
> 
> _"One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker." — Voltaire (1694-1778)_



Lots of unfilled predictions:
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Lots of unfilled predictions:
> Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.



Voltaire was obviously wrong.  How do you know Jesus was?  Was He talking about the current generation or a future one?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Voltaire was obviously wrong.  How do you know Jesus was?  Was He talking about the current generation or a future one?



 "This" means present.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

Maybe in Matthew 26:64 Jesus was talking about a "future" high priest too.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Maybe in Matthew 26:64 Jesus was talking about a "future" high priest too.



No, he was talking to the men standing in front of Him.

_"But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” _

And they will.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> "This" means present.



But He's clearly talking about the final judgement as well.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No, he was talking to the men standing in front of Him.
> 
> _"But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” _
> 
> And they will.



I guess it is just another verse lost in translation or different versions of the Bible.
I am reading a lot of "him" and "you" in that verse and it doesn't sound like he is addressing anybody but the high Priest.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

KJV
59Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; 60But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, 61And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. 62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I guess it is just another verse lost in translation or different versions of the Bible.
> I am reading a lot of "him" and "you" in that verse and it doesn't sound like he is addressing anybody but the high Priest.



I'm just reading the NIV on Bible Gateway.  It's the first version that pops up.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

Matthew 26:64

New King James Version (NKJV)

64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> KJV
> 59Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; 60But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, 61And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. 62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.



OK, so what's the problem?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm just reading the NIV on Bible Gateway.  It's the first version that pops up.



Yeah, different books, different stories. One word can change an entire meaning.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Matthew 26:64
> 
> New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”



OK, so what's the problem?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

Here's the NIV.  What's the big difference?

57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome. 
 59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. 

   Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” 

 62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. 

   The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[e] the Son of God.” 

   64 “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, so what's the problem?



64Jesus saith untohim , Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Here's the NIV.  What's the big difference?
> 
> 57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.
> 59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
> ...



In V64 the difference between "you" and "all of you"


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> In V64 the difference between "you" and "all of you"



That may just be an "NIV thing".  I just checked the NASB and ESV, and they agreed with the KJV (not surprising since they are more literal than the NIV.)


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That may just be an "NIV thing".  I just checked the NASB and ESV, and they agreed with the KJV (not surprising since they are more literal than the NIV.)



Right, so they are either all correct or none of them are correct, or some of them are correct. The Bible( and many versions of it) is full of unfulfilled prophesy and predictions.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Right, so they are either all correct or none of them are correct, or some of them are correct.



I don't see a problem with either reading.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't see a problem with either reading.



 Except that the High Priest did not see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

If so, when?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Except that the High Priest did not see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
> 
> If so, when?



He will see Him at the final judgement, as will we all.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> He will see Him at the final judgement, as will we all.



I'll grab a snickers.......it's gonna be a while.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I'll grab a snickers.......it's gonna be a while.



I just had one!


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I just had one!


----------

