Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dragons still exist today, on the island of Komodo.
Of course they do. I'm referring primarily large dragons, which people today think are mythical but which actually correspond to the remains of dinosaurs - allegedly extinct for 65 million years (and yet, they've found tissue and protein fragments belonging to such animals as the T. Rex: https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/dinosaur-tissue/)
From the link I posted:
In 330 BC, after Alexander the Great invaded India, he brought back reports of seeing a great hissing dragon living in a cave, which people were worshiping as a god. One of Alexander the Great's lieutenants (Onesicritus) stated that the Indian king Abisarus kept serpents that were 120 and 210 feet long
[...]
Marco Polo wrote: “ Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth (meaning 50 ft. long and 100 inch circumference). At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long.
Of course they do. I'm referring primarily large dragons, which people today think are mythical but which actually correspond to the remains of dinosaurs - allegedly extinct for 65 million years (and yet, they've found tissue and protein fragments belonging to such animals as the T. Rex: https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/dinosaur-tissue/)
From the link I posted:
In 330 BC, after Alexander the Great invaded India, he brought back reports of seeing a great hissing dragon living in a cave, which people were worshiping as a god. One of Alexander the Great's lieutenants (Onesicritus) stated that the Indian king Abisarus kept serpents that were 120 and 210 feet long
[...]
Marco Polo wrote: “ Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth (meaning 50 ft. long and 100 inch circumference). At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long.
People used to like telling a lot of stories. And they were usually greatly exaggerated. They didn’t have Fios back then.
Did I tell you about the fish I caught the other day?
What's wrong with having Christian values? How can anyone argue that the Ten Commandments aren't a good code to live by? Some of our laws are based on them. One doesn't have to be a church goer or a religious nut to see the value in living by them.
The first 4 of the 10 commandments have nothing to do with being a good person, and everything to do with submission and worship of a specific religion.
The other 6 don't need a religious framework, they're just common sense "does it hurt others? Then let's discourage it" principles.
Many Christians believe in the concept of Separation of church and state; many Christians have no issues with gays or gay marriage..
I agree: Christians should let people be, for the most part, many of them do.
Do us a favor that stop pretending that you all know so much about Christians and Christianity. If you have an issue with the "christian" in your life (mostly, perhaps your parents), then try resolving that issue with that person in your life. More productive this way, and you will be a much happier individual.
Religious or spiritual awareness are all private journey. Don't lump us altogether as if we all look, dress, behave, think exactly the same.
Theories are theories for a reason. It's because they have not been proven. I'm not arguing against evolution. I'm arguing against a false statement.
I'm not interested in debating religious doctrine in a politics forum, so I've been ignoring this side trip. However, I can't let this one slide by. In daily life, it's true that we use the word theory to mean something like an educated guess. That isn't how a scientist uses the word, at all. Physicists have a 'theory of gravity', even though they're not guessing about it. The underlying theory is how you organize the facts that you have.
Most modern biologists agree with phrase that "nothing makes sense in biology without evolution". They're not saying that evolution has been proven. They're saying that all the billions of facts we now know about life on earth can best be assembled into an entire picture by using evolution.
I'm not interested in debating religious doctrine in a politics forum, so I've been ignoring this side trip. However, I can't let this one slide by. In daily life, it's true that we use the word theory to mean something like an educated guess. That isn't how a scientist uses the word, at all. Physicists have a 'theory of gravity', even though they're not guessing about it. The underlying theory is how you organize the facts that you have.
Most modern biologists agree with phrase that "nothing makes sense in biology without evolution". They're not saying that evolution has been proven. They're saying that all the billions of facts we now know about life on earth can best be assembled into an entire picture by using evolution.
I never said it was an "educated guess".
So you call me out and then agree with me. I can't tell you the number of times this has happened.
So you call me out and then agree with me. I can't tell you the number of times this has happened.
He’s not agreeing with you. You still seem to think the words “proven” and “fact” are synonymous. In scientific terms, these are not interchangeable.
As I said, in science, something becomes “scientific fact” when it is generally believed that it will not be DISproven by new evidence. That is different than proving something. Again, science is not about proving. It is about disproving.
He’s not agreeing with you. You still seem to think the words “proven” and “fact” are synonymous. In scientific terms, these are not interchangeable.
As I said, in science, something becomes “scientific fact” when it is generally believed that it will not be DISproven by new evidence. That is different than proving something beyond doubt. Again, science is not about proving. It is about disproving.
Science is indeed about proving. It's why you search for facts. I'm sorry for offending your faith.
To note, you called me out when you agreed with my statement also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pew Research Poll: Over 30% of Americans Say Being a Chrstian Is Important to be "Truly an American."
