I think the point was to create a plausible theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs that would fit in with Young Earth beliefs. It didn't have to make sense; it just had to fit what was already believed.

Offence is the best defence :)

I was thinking more of an early on form of divorce.

Cavewoman: Honey! I don't have enough meat for dinner tonight. Would you be a dear and pick up a T. Rex on the way home from the quarry?

Caveman: Nnnggh!(What is she crazy?)

Cavewoman: Oh don't be such a grump. It'll only take a few minutes(I hope).

I notice that Leviticus 11, which goes into great detail regarding which creatures are fit or unfit to eat, fails to mention dinosaurs...

http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/11.html

And illustrates exactly why creationism is pseudoscience that has no place in a classroom. It attempts to make evidence fit a hypothesis, rather than coming up with a hypothesis from available evidence.

I believe the explanation offered is that the word dinosaur was not used to describe these animals but other terms were

The words Dragon, Behemoth, and Leviathan all occur at least once in the KJ version of the bible and I am sure in the other language translations of the bible.

As for Leviticus 11, there are multiple loopholes that would allow the eating of Dragons, behemoth, and leviathans depending on how they are defined.

But it may be placed in a maths lesson.
Set students the problem of fitting the creatures into the ark.
It gets even more interesting with the young earthers who need to fit in T-Rex too.
The Answers in Genesis website has some great examples of extreme mathematical gymnasics where they try to make it all add up into the figures that they "know" must be the answer.

That is all true. The problem then becomes the question that started this thread in the first place: If such animals existed within the framework of recorded history, what happened to them? When did they die out? The words are used to describe something, and there is no direct evidence of what that something was. There are other Hebrew manuscripts which mention them. Are there others from outside the region? Well, the Greek and Norse heroes fought monsters. Do we consider those stories to be true?

I did not write that the explanation was right or even logical. I was pointing out that using Lev 11 to counter the nutter's argument was sophistry.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/585...ontroversy.jpg

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/1...njncqaatzx.jpg

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2...thypocrite.jpg

You mean, Science has actually published a Dictionary with definitions that are different than a standard Dictionary? Why would they have to do that? What I mean is; why would they have to change the standard definition of "Theory" or "Hypothesis"?

Once you have studied at university you will know that most if not practically all branches you can study at university have their own specific manuals defining terms and labels.

And yes, any academic book specifically dealing with explaining scientific terms and names and concepts, are superior to a common ordinary general dictionary. If you think you can assess the meaning of the evolving of scientific paradigms for example by reading two or three lines in a dictionary, then you will die as a practical illiterate one day even if you have read ten different dictionaries.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6...9118945155.jpg

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/542...ncesethmcf.jpg

Are you really so ill-educated as to believe that words cannot have different meanings in different contexts? Are you really so ill-educated to believe that old words cannot have new meanings attached to them? Or are you just relying on bluster and semantic quibbles to divert attention from a simple fact: that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for creationism is non-existent...

Really? It's not a new definition but a narrowing of the possible meanings.

In this dictionary, definitions one, three, and five apply to scientific theory where the others don't fit right.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Sure definitions two and six are used during the discovery process of publishing a scientific theory, but are not presented as the theory.

I wish to clarify something about my original post starting this thread...

I did not post to mock anyone's religious beliefs; that is something I would never do, to anyone's faith. I posted because I found it to be somewhat interesting in the frame of scientific debate. I do believe the creationist's attempts to explain their position, outside of simple religious belief ("it is true, because God said it is so...") are to be considered as equally valid as any non-religious explanation as anyone. That being said, the creationist theories are also subject to the same critical thought and scientific rigors as the explanations of the "mainstream" scientific community. It is philosophically and morally cowardly to hide behind the cover of "you are attacking my religious beliefs" when pressed to validate the non-religious aspects of the theories the creationists put out to the general public. If there is any validity or proof to any theory, it must stand the same tests or it is not a serious theory...

For the sake of full disclosure, I am not, my self, a religious person. I was raised as a Catholic, attended Catholic school, and went through the usual school processes; I was confirmed; at one point; I was an altar boy; sang in the choir; and mulled the idea of possibly becoming a priest (an idea that mysteriously left me when my female classmates came back to school one fall in about my 13th year somehow changed, in the most delightful ways...). The education I received was in a Jesuit-run school. The Jesuits are known for their advocacy of education and science and my school was very "old-school" in its curriculum and methods (the period I attended was between 1956-1966). We wre taught to respect all other religions and, in daily "Religion" class, we were told about the beliefs of other faiths in a manner, looking back from a veiwpoint of a few decades and with the benefit of experience over that time, that was surprisingly even-handed. There was no bashing of the other faiths, although the Protestants did seem to suffer a bit in the translation, but more as being "misguided than "wrong". The bible was taught as more of a allegory than a chronicle of absolute, word for word, "facts" and the teachings of Christ were noted as being the parables they were. We were encourage to think for ourselves and to make decisions based on as full an understanding of all sides of an issue as possible...

I did leave my more Catholic life behind once I left Catholic school and have, in the intervening years, gone to a more personal, ethics based take on life. I do not subscribe to any one belief, I do not pretend to have any absolute proof or knowledge of those things many find as "facts", and I do not gratuitously mock or "bash" those who do; I am pretty much open to any idea, but that idea must be based in more "because I or <insert diety or belief here> say it is so"...

I have been checking in on this thread from time to time. I was rather startletd when the first few posts were mainly invective based on what appeared to be a "kneejerk" reaction to a simple post. There was no actual mention of any religion nor any real bashing of a faith. The "flinstones"reference was to the similarity of the idea put forth by the creationist and its similarity to a pop culture idea (although, in retrospect, I probably shou;d have used a "1,000,000 Years B.C. reference or some other 'caveman' movie). The nature of the thread seem to have settled down a bit to more a view of the science than the religion...

...although, the sidetrip into the belief in Santa was interesting. There is the old joke abouth the dyslexic who mistakenly sold his soul to Santa. (And, bofore anyone accuses me of dyslexic bashing, I am mildly dyslexic and claim the right to joke about my own disability)...

If I offended anyone's belief, it was not my intent and I am sorry you took it the wrong way, but I am not sorry for the post...

<O>

Let me fill the void then.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8775/religionj.jpg

The church of the flying Spaghetti Monster claims the same. Ramen! :yeah: Let'S discuss the faith of that there is the flying spaghetti monster beside relativity, gravity, and the effectiveness of penicillin.

Creationism is no theory, it never found any material qualifying it for that status. It is superstition. The Kindergarden-boy believes in the Easter bunny. The elementary school boy may believe in Santa Claus. The adult believes in creationism.

You see, the problem is that time and time again it is demanded to debate creationism and test it and make it object of academic analysis - while ignoring totally that this has already been done a thousand times, always with the same overkilling result. But still the demand is coming in that this dead horse must still be beaten. It mjust be beaten not to test the validity of a claim, but to produce the result of the claim being seen as a valid one - ignorring the lacking validity.

When you defend this, you do not want any scientific result on assessing creationism. What you want is creationism being given same status of reputation and credibility like a scientific theory that has proven its value to man since long. You want the reward. But you don't want to deliver first.

You know what. Creationism has been disproven so often, it is no longer science's "duty" to repeat that once again. It is the duty of those believing this fantastic stuff to prove their claims. As long as people cannot do that and cannot show that evidence and proof, they have no claim to make that their pet hobby should be taken serious as an academic object.

You bring something new, you bring some new proof - we talk again. Til then: bye, and please, creationists out there in the intellectual wilderness: try to be less noisy. Nessie else one day may find and eat you.

The thread hasn't been closed as no one has gone berserk yet. :wah: :arrgh!:

EDIT: I probably spoke too soon......

It was only a matter of time.

Why do you feel the need to be insulting so as to call me "ill educated"? I know very well about the use of words in and out of context. Now, you seem to be upset that I don't believe in what you believe. That's not taken out of context, that's what the entirety of your post is indicating.
I don't believe in Evolution so, according to you, you assume and call me names. Those are schoolyard tactics. Sorry, I don't believe what you believe, but I never called you any names. I've been spending most of my time in this thread replying to posts that are trying to convince me of something instead. All because I suggested a film that I thought might raise some eyebrows about what the scientific community does to scientists, professors and journalists who claim to have found some evidence of "Intelligent design". Some members of this thread have offered intelligent and insightful comments, and a few have brought nothing more to the table than an instigative comment or two. You yourself, offer nothing more than an insult while basically saying, "yeah, what they just said".

Now, I've seen the documentaries, I've read the books (some of them, very long ago). I know what Evolution teaches, I know that it claims to have volumes of evidence, and all this was told to me by other people who said, "This is it! This is the way it happened. This is how it happened and why it happened that way".
Sorry, I'm still unconvinced. I don't have to resort to name calling or belittling tactics because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I never told anyone they need to believe what I believe. My OP simply suggested that, maybe there's more to the story.

I think the post before yours may qualify...

BTW, I am not a creationist. I have a rather firm belief in the theory of evolution. I simply believe anyone may put forth an idea or theory, but must defend that idea, when asked, by logic, critical thinking, empiricism, or any other rigor to which any other idea or theory is subject. History is rife with ideas and theories initially derided by the "science" of their times only to be proved as valid. Flat earth, anyone? History is also rife with theories and ideas subjugated by the "beliefs" of their time. Galileo, anyone?...

EDIT:

My god, but your posting speed (and acuity) are impressive...
<O>