What caused the dinosaurs to die?

Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:06 am by The Evil Thing

Indy, no 'historical' source is considered valueless. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't reference certain events we are pretty sure happened, but crucially historians do not source from it . Just because a document makes brief (and often rather vague) references to events we believed happened, this doesn't make it historical. It's more of a "oh by the way, I think the bible says something about this.. how nice" approach than a "hey look, the bible says this, we should write an essay and look for evidence to show it happened this way". The men who wrote the bible weren't stupid. They knew their target audience and knew they would have to produce a 'holy text' that they could in some way relate to. The obvious solution would be to take a great or well-known event and include it, perhaps add divine intervention to spice it up and advertise their deity.

Take Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea. Consider that this story must have existed for some time at the mercy of the storywriters responsible for authoring Exodus. Do we take the bible at it's word and accept that somehow, several thousand tonnes of water were held up by invisible forces, allowing a band of people to cross the lake bed before crashing down upon the pursuing Eqyptians or do we accept that it is likely that the Red Sea was corrupted from Reed Sea (i.e. a marshy 'sea' of wetlands filled with reeds) in which the people, lightly loaded, had little trouble walking through, compared to the Egyptian war chariots which would have got stuck and sank.

This is mostly an incoherent rant, but I've tried to maintain some semblence of clarity.

Do you best, folks

Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:51 pm by Indy11

@TeT

Rant or no, I suggest that your depiction of what the bible contains is not a fair representation of what it is. It is, in fact, a historical document, albeit one dripping with religious import. Let's not forget the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, for example, nor the corresponding nature between the texts that were found in those ancient (approx. 2300 years old) scrolls and the text as contained in the modern day Torah, for example. But there are more to the scrolls than what is contained in the bible, of course and that aspect is too far off topic to this immediagte discussion.

I do not believe that what the bible describes was recorded by sharp-eyed and unbiased witness-scribes. But I do accept that what is written in many parts of the bible are sourced from contemporaneous reports from witnesses or participants (with or without bias or revisionism) of the events that are recounted. Please note: I am not saying that everything in the bible is historically verifiable by independent means... far from it.

The story of the bondage in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea and the wandering of the tribe in the desert is one of those parts of the bible that non-sectarian historical researchers have struggled with for lack of persuasively corroborative evidence.

BUT, there are legitimate non-sectarian archeological surveys being conducted in Israel and the West Bank which in many occasions have uncovered correspondence between what is described in the Bible and what may be found in the archeological record that establish geography and size of occupying population, technological development, economic strengths or weaknesses, etc.

These are kinds of historical evidence that indicate more than just a passing or casual reference intended to give an air of authenticity to an otherwise fictional passage.

Is the bible 100% verifiable? No. Is the bible 100% fiction? No again.

Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:38 am by zazie

@ Indy11

That is an acceptable point of view about the bible telling the truth or not. And of course it is not 100% fictional. But all texts (with few, very few execptions) have the - let's call it here - "Mayflower-problem".
That means: texts written about events having happened centuries/milleniums ago. We all know a little bit about the Mayflower, people on that ship, where they came from and what happened to them. Some know even more. But imagine all that stories were based only on oral tradition (that is not the case for the Mayflower) and should be then considered to be -the Truth.

Of course one can believe IN.

But imo it is a tragical error to try to persuade others to believe IT (*quick look at the past: tragical error for the non-believers*).

Another, different point:
You wrote in a previous post:

Certainly, however, there are events in history which the Bible relates and which also are corroborated by other sources such as (...) the fact that there was someone named Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified in the jurisdiction of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate

Source ? Don't feel offended please. AFAIK in the written sources of the Romans (and there are many including a lot of bureaucratic stuff) and in other documents from that time there is no direct evidence of a person "Jesus of Nazareth" (or other names). The sources have to be interpreted/interpretated to give indirect evidence.

Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:39 am by Tawakalna

you boys are going to hate me but don't you think this has gone far enough? This is a wonderful, fascinating topic that i could talk about for hours but as you're now discussing the historical accuracy and veracity of the Bible, that's gone very tangential from *what killed the dinosaurs* has it not? And you know that an open discussion about such an inflammatory topic is not allowed under TLR rules, and I'm amazed that things haven't gotten hotter than they did, and that was quite hot enough thank you (i been catching up)

Yes I admit that I got stuck in a bit, these subjects do stimulate my interest as you well know and like you boys i won't stand for reading blatant rubbish either, but I really think we should call a halt here. I'm getting a bad feeling about the whole thing, the paleontology went out of this debate some time ago and Ot doesn't really have some special dispensation that the rest of the site lacks. I am NOT suppressing debate, you know I don't believe in that, but rules is rules is rules and there's more than enough slack been given. You'd never have gotten away with pushing it so far way back when. You have to remember that this is a public forum and the rules exist for good reason and you know what those reasons are.

I know I'm going to be pilloried but that goes with the territory. Anyway I'm only out of hospital for the weekend so you have to be nice to me!

Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:46 am by The Evil Thing

Indy, I explained I don't doubt the bible references actual events in history. It's credibility relies on it doing that. I'm not suggesting it's the greatest work of fiction mankind has ever produced either. I'm not suggesting we ignore it completely because it is irrevocably biased against the truth. That's silly. What I quibble over is it being referred to as an historical source (source being used in a typical, everyday context as opposed to the one I have been previously using).

While my description of the bible may have been decidedly unflattering in your opinion, don't forget that hold absolutely no value to it whatsoever; I see it with a purely logical standpoint and thus analyse and treat it abstractly. Do I think we can discard it out of hand as a cross-check and reference? No. Do I see it as an historical document? No. That's all I was trying to say.

BUT, there are legitimate non-sectarian archeological surveys being conducted in Israel and the West Bank which in many occasions have uncovered correspondence between what is described in the Bible and what may be found in the archeological record that establish geography and size of occupying population, technological development, economic strengths or weaknesses, etc.

Yes, for the reasons I gave above of course the bible references contemporary events . Of course some of these people existed. Roman records do show there existed a certain man whom we believe to be the son of God. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he healed people, performed mircales or even died on a cross. That is what I take issue with.

Note that I've given only one example but there are countless more.

you boys are going to hate me but don't you think this has gone far enough? This is a wonderful, fascinating topic that i could talk about for hours but as you're now discussing the historical accuracy and veracity of the Bible, that's gone very tangential from *what killed the dinosaurs* has it not?

I appreciate your position, Taw, but don't you find it interesting to see how this topic has evolved (excuse the pun)? I only see people here who are being very careful to avoid flame wars. I'm sure you'd agree that we're all mature enough to approach this position from a reasonable angle and not charge in, insults blazing. We've stayed away from the fundamental nonsense about going to Hell and what have you, especially Robbio to whom I must give some credit to as he must have seen his entire belief system coming under attack. Kudos to him for trying to come up with reasonably scientific sources (we evolutionists sent him on the wild goose chase of finding peer-reviewed or scientifically sound evidence for creationism/ID - the catch being there is none). I confess I may have been a little too aggressive at first.

The question remains, Taw, do you want to shut this discussion down now before it gets totally 'out of hand'? You probably guessed my position now, but rules is rules as they say.

That took me my entire lunch break to type. Yipee.

Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:55 am by Tawakalna

I don't lock threads unless there's a consensus to do so, the original poster asks me to, or there's a blatant breach of the rules. My position on the topic in question is quite clear I think, but that's irrelevant, it's the effect such topics have. If it can be kept at a mature and civilised level, well that's fine by me, but other moderators might not think so, and if I even sniff a flame war, i will lock it, because that's what I have to do. If i'd been around whe things were getting hot I would have done so, i assure you, but kudos to you all on both sides of the argument for pulling it back.

Oh i'm so soft it's unreal, no respect you lot haven't

Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:58 am by Accushot

@Taw, you're right, no respect for our elders. But thank you for seeing this as what it is, just a good-natured discussion that has wandered across several of TLR's 'hot' topics. We'll keep it down.

BUT, there are legitimate non-sectarian archeological surveys being conducted in Israel and the West Bank which in many occasions have uncovered correspondence between what is described in the Bible and what may be found in the archeological record that establish geography and size of occupying population, technological development, economic strengths or weaknesses, etc.

There are, agreed, but there are also a large number of inconsistencies. One amusing example involves the gospel of Mark, apparently the oldest surviving gospel. He describes (as an eyewitness) how Jesus crossed the sea of Galilee to Gerasa and "cast the demons from a man", which were transformed into 2,000 pigs which "ran violently down a steep place into the sea...and they were choked in the sea."

This miracle is said to have occured in Gerasa. Gerasa is located around 31 miles from the shore of Galilee and as such is quite a hike for a pack of pigs. Moreover, if one considers a "steep" slope to be at least 45 degrees, that would make the elevation of Gerasa at least six times higher than Mt. Everest!

An isolated example, of course, but there are many more where that came from. Some suggest that Jesus was not in fact a man but a concept, a rumour if you like. There will of course have been pretenders who claimed to be the son of God but there is little reliable evidence pointing to one man, supernaturally endowed or otherwise, who was followed and revered as His son.

Another example, taken from the same article, lists the following famous authors who were alive at the same time as Jesus:

Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

Between them these authors have written enough literature to fill a large library. Yet not one of these authors has ever mentioned Jesus Christ in their writings. Nor, the article says, have they ever mentioned the Disciples or the Apostles.

Disclaimer: Please note that this is not in any way intended as an attack on Christianity or religion in general, rather some observations regarding the historical accuracy of the bible. Barely a religious post at all.

Edited by - Accushot on 1/6/2006 7:31:12 AM

Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:37 am by zazie

To quote myself :rolleyes: (from p.5)

Besides you knew that TLR does not accept religious discussions. You insist on changing a topic about scientific questions in a topic about absolute truth found in the Bible

No objection to close this discussion.

But personally I thank everybody contributing because it is/was interesting and because we proofed we can have sharpened-knife-debates without ending in a flame-war.

For the reeaaaally big controversies and the clash of civilization and cultures we still have the wabbits-god

Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:48 am by Accushot

Well, we can stay away from that area if requested. It just seems to me (and others) that as long as this remains a good-natured conversation there is no reason to do so. We're just having a chat.

Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:23 am by Accushot

Oof. Okay, I stand most definitely corrected.

Josephus is at the top of my list for a reason though. I believe there has been some speculation about the validity of his passage about Jesus, the famous 'Testimonium Flavianum'. What with Josephus being "a most pious Jew" it seems unlikely that he would write words such as "He was the Messiah", indeed here is the full passage:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.
(Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64)

Some see this as proof that Josephus turned to Christianity; others believe the text was 'glossed over' by a Christian author. A proposed reconstruction of the text (as it is believed Josephus originally wrote it) is as follows:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

Although this quote would still admittedly be of huge importance, it makes no mention of a resurrection or other miraculous abilities; he is portrayed as leader of men but still a regular man himself.

Either way, I feel I could be wasting my breath arguing with someone so well-informed. (Note to self: Pick your battles more wisely). Your dedication to the subject is most impressive and my own knowledge of this area is hazy at best. Advantage Taw.

Edited by - Accushot on 1/6/2006 9:29:57 AM

Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:28 am by Indy11

Accede's to the Mullah's comment.

WELCOME BACK YOU OL' CURMUDGEON!!!!!

Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:36 pm by fleish guitar123

Here are some ideas:

Temperature caused manifastation of dinosaur babies. It is known that the eggs of today living reptils are sensitive to breeding temperature. Above a certain breeding temerature only male animals slip from the eggs, while below a breeding temperature only female reptils are born. Dramatical temperature changes at the end of the creaceous period therefore could be responsible for a loss of sexual partners.
Death by suffocation. This hypotheses (the pele hypotheses) assumes that the rise of continent triggered the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide, while the dinosaurs, used to live in oxygen rich environment, must have suffered from this change.
Wiping out by egg muck. It is assumed that small mammals looted the nests of the dinosaurs.
Super nova explosion.When a star is exploding the edmitted radiation increases within hours or days by a factor of about 100,000,000. Such a massive amount of radiation with a large amount of x-rays could have damaged large animals like the dinosaurs.

Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:08 pm by Tawakalna

the K-T boundary layer of iridium and the Yucatan seabed impact crater is still the strongest evidence, although some of those you list were in operation before, quite possibly.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 1/6/2006 2:34:23 PM

Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:21 pm by Doc

When I posted on the 2nd I asked if anyone agreed with me that there are two belief systems involved and was rewarded with an interesting variety of answers.
What I’d still like to see is whether anyone can produce the proper, step by step rationale or framework if you will in their approach to the study of origins. I referred to a ‘body of truth’ as a framework for any given approach. Perhaps a stable theory is a better way to phrase it. For the creation model its obviously the Bible. For the evolution model I’m going to need some help from others. Lets suppose its Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Do we leave it at that or do we include the works from one or several other evolutionists? I’d suggest some collaboration since Darwin has no theory on the origin of matter – he deals strictly with issues like natural selection, hybridism and variability. Perhaps the works of Sagan, Hawking and/or Asimov enters the framework at an early point in the theory’s development. Either way there must be a stable theory so that the model has structure and direction. Otherwise the result is endless speculation with lots of subjunctives like “would be like this. . .” , “could be such and such. . .”
Provided the model is stable then the next step is to provide some appropriate assumptions. Perhaps they’re best called deductions.
Caution: Until the rest of the model’s elements are finished we can’t come anywhere *close* to the use of the scientific method. So there’s no use pointing to rock formations, experiments, articles, etc.
The first of several deductions in the creation model is as follows:

I. In the beginning God created the heavens and the universe.
Deduction a. For the creation model to work God has to have the power to call matter into existence.
Deduction b. To create the heavens and the universe God must have the intelligence to organize matter into forms suitable for His purposes.
Deduction c. To create ‘heavens and a universe’ God has to be volitional.

I could go on through the stages of creation in the Genesis account but then this post would be way too long. The point is to demonstrate the necessity for a stable theory so that clear deductions can follow. When the deductions are laid out then you can establish the predictions necessary to guide your observations.
Bingo! That’s where the scientific method enters. Only when you’ve established predictions associated with the model’s deductions can you apply the first step of the scientific method. You can’t just point to something in a Petre dish or start comparing fossils and say either model is ‘proven’.
To summarize:
1. Establish a stable theory for your model.
2. Develop at least several introductory deductions.
3. Present the associated predictions.
4. Enter the observation stage (begin scientific method)
Again, because this post is getting long I’ll save the predictions and observations stages for a later one. My question is this: Does anyone agree with me that the evolution model needs a stable theory statement for the origin of matter along with at least a few deductions to guide the prediction/observation stages? Can anyone produce such a rationale?

You always find what you're looking for.

Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:03 pm by The Evil Thing

What I’d still like to see is whether anyone can produce the proper, step by step rationale or framework if you will in their approach to the study of origins.

Not sure what you mean. Would love to but might misinterpret and waste an hour trying to do something I don't need to. Please explain further.

Lets suppose its Darwin’s Origin of the Species.

The Scientific Method means we don't use Darwin's book in nearly the same way you use the bible. Quite the opposite, in fact. Science is self-correcting and the bible is always inerrant. Don't for a moment think that the evolution community considers "The Origin of the Species" infallible. Have a look at Kimura, who created a new theory which seemed to depart from traditional evolution and was seen by some as an attack. The difference between what happened to his ideas and what happens to every single creationist that pops his head up (and tells all the scientists that he's right because he says so) is Kimura knew what he was talking about .

since Darwin has no theory on the origin of matter

What, precisely, do you want? If you are referring to the 'beginning' of the universe and matter itself, why does there have to be a beginning? A common human perception fallacy is the need for something to have a beginning. IIRC, the accepted view is that there wasn't one. The universe just 'was'.

The first of several deductions in the creation model is as follows:

I. In the beginning God created the heavens and the universe.
Deduction a. For the creation model to work God has to have the power to call matter into existence.
Deduction b. To create the heavens and the universe God must have the intelligence to organize matter into forms suitable for His purposes.
Deduction c. To create ‘heavens and a universe’ God has to be volitional.

Don't forget the deduction (the biggest and least scientific of the lot) that a god actually exists in the first place. Deduction? Sorry, I meant unsupported assumption. A bit like a... 'theory' then.

When the deductions are laid out then you can establish the predictions necessary to guide your observations.
Bingo! That’s where the scientific method enters. Only when you’ve established predictions associated with the model’s deductions can you apply the first step of the scientific method. You can’t just point to something in a Petri dish or start comparing fossils and say either model is ‘proven’.

Bingo! That's where the Theory of Evolution enters. Simply reading the rather enormous Wikipedia article will show you what I mean.

Does anyone agree with me that the evolution model needs a stable theory statement for the origin of matter along with at least a few deductions to guide the prediction/observation stages

Strongly disagree. Evolution's job is not to explain the nature of the universe or how it came to being either at all or in its present form. The Theory's job is to explain how life has, well... evolved. Basides, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "guide the prediction/observation stages". Did I mention it already has a "stable theory statement"? It just happens to be a bit... long.

Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.

To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport