Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

iCambrian

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    2,374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About iCambrian

  • Rank
    The Scientist

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Christian Humanist

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,820 profile views
  1. I worked at a natural history museum for awhile and there were days where if just get schooled by first graders, it was wild. Never underestimate the little ones.
  2. thats interesting I still have questions about...the cladistical origins of theropods vs sauropods. because the early theropods kind of look like sauropods, but then the sauropods have bird hips, even though its the theropods that became birds. Its always kind of confused me.
  3. Well dinosaurs are a sub group of reptiles. Kind of like a chicken is a sub group of birds. But there are just other reptiles that are not dinosaurs, just as there are other birds that aren't chickens. Dinosaurs are terrestrial. Their legs are below their body, as opposed to being off to the side like alligators and crocodiles. Dinosaurs also have specific features about their skulls and hips. And for LCM, even if a dinosaur were warm blooded, it would still be a reptile. It would just be a derived reptile that has warm blood. Which, in a weird sense is kind of what mammals are. But a dinosaur wouldn't be a mammal just because it's of a reptile clade.
  4. Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs. Sorry to burst that bubble. Dinosaurs are by definition, terrestrial. Things like pterosaurs and pleisiosaurs are just flying and swimming reptiles that just happened to live in the mesozoic, but are more distantly related.
  5. You don't have to deny your traditions to accept my word regarding my own beliefs. The rest of the above is irrelevant.
  6. Me: "it isn't meant to be taken as a literal straight forward story" Response "you are the first person to say it is literal" How about, instead of assuming what I believe, why not just take my word for it? Regarding what other Christian's believe, you will find a wide array of beliefs across the world and through time. Like I said before, there are Christian's who believe the planet is 6000 years old. Which is why I am stating that literal interpretations are flawed.
  7. You should read the discussion (post number 4) so that you can see what I think about talking animals.
  8. Come on guys. This is just sad. I can't believe people are trying to justify the idea that ants speak. As if ants we're aware of Who Solomon was or what soldiers were or any of the nouns in the sentence below. ""O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not"
  9. And your justification can't include anything related to the authors of the upper text, unless you could demonstrate that the upper text and lower text were written, essentially by the same people. Thus far, the only justification you have given is "at multiple points they corrected it", but in fact at many points, it was not changed at all. So this isn't an adequate response unless you have more to add to the statement.
  10. If you can't understand the above, then there isn't much I can do for you. Someone could write a name on a piece of paper and could spell it a certain way. Let's say the name is Julian. So this person writes, Julian on a piece of paper but they misspell it. They write JulliAn. So then someone else comes along and says hey, it's actually spelled Julian. And they correct it. This is, essentially your lower text. Then later in time, someone else could come along and could say, hey that's not right. They erase it and write Julien. This is the upper text. The two people working with the lower text ultimately did not change the name Julian to Julien. They left it as Julian. Which implies that didn't view this name as incorrect despite the fact that perhaps they corrected the names spelling. And the fact that a person came later in time, erased it and wrote "Julian" only implies that this person alone might have viewed Julien as a mispelling. So what is your justification that the lower text editors thought Julian was wrong, even though they didn't actually change it while correcting other details?
  11. Let's try this again. Ok, so the lower text was washed away and replaced by the upper text. Good. So you believe that the writers of the upper text believed that the lower text was wrong. Ok. Before the upper text was written, the lower text was written with many variations from the later upper text. Many variations that were not changed or corrected. So you can't say justify the idea that "it was then corrected by a neat person" when in fact, many variances were not changed until it was ultimately replaced by the upper text.
  12. Let me try clarifying for you, You cant assume that the people who wrote the upper text, had any association with the people who wrote the lower text because you dont know by who, when or why the upper text corrections were initiated. So you cant say that the upper text people were the same who were working out corrections of the lower text. But when you say "in numerous points they had corrected it, then they washed it and re-wrote it", this implies that "they" is a single entity that saw an error in the lower text, changed it, then said, ok instead of trying to fix all of this, we can just erase the whole thing and start over. This is just imaginary^. And beyond that, because you cant assume that "they" is a single entity, you cant assume that "they" who wrote the upper text, were also "they" who perceived error in the lower text, in regards to items that we not changed/corrected. The truth is, regarding items that were not altered in the lower text or were not "corrected" as you perceive it, you don't know that the authors of the lower text perceived these variances as errors. You're assuming that they did, and for some random reason you just think they decided not to actually correct things that they viewed as errors. Which is nonsense. Because if they were correcting things that they viewed as errors, they would have corrected items that varied with the upper text. "The reason being is that in numerous points they had corrected it." This isnt a real argument because there are many things that were not "corrected" as you perceive them. So you cant use this as justification. " Then they washed it. Then they re-wrote it." And you cant pair your case with this^ because of what I have already noted above. Feel free to justify your position. I don't want to assume that you are incorrect. You will have to justify yourself, rather than just repeating rhetoric. Otherwise, i cant accept your claim if you don't have more to offer.
  13. You're just making this story up. All I have to do is ask you to provide proof of when the upper text was written. Would you like to answer this question? Of course we don't know. And so we have no understanding of what initiated those upper text corrections. No understanding of motives. Regarding the lower text. You can't suggest that the people with the document automatically assumed it to be incorrect. You don't know who was working with this document. You don't know who they were, their motives, their beliefs about the text etc. You don't know what they thought about text that was written as it was, different than that of the upper text. It's not like someone wrote "my name is George, it is the year 600 and I am correcting this text but intentionally ignoring X, Y and Z. I am doing this because..." on the cover page. And you have this poor case in which someone was "correcting" the document but just decided not to actually correct it. What is your reasoning ? "Well I guess they just missed a bunch of things or just didn't feel like correcting it all".
  14. I don't accept this response. It assumes that people "correcting" the lower text for one reason or another, didn't actually correct the text. Even though they were allegedly "correcting" the document, they decided not to do just this. It assumes that "uncorrected" variances were not accepted as correct to begin with. There are too many unsubstantiated assumptions bundled into this statement and it just sounds unreasonable. And again, we don't know authors or "correctors", we don't know motives, we don't know temporal details.
  15. Anyone can suggest anything, but if you don't know basic information about these writings, then you don't have a basis for the suggestion
×
×
  • Create New...