New fossil suggests dinosaurs not so fierce after all

Oct 06, 2010
Artist's reconstruction of Sarahsaurus. Illustration: John Maisano

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new species of dinosaur discovered in Arizona suggests dinosaurs did not spread throughout the world by overpowering other species, but by taking advantage of a natural catastrophe that wiped out their competitors.

Tim Rowe, professor of paleontology at The University of Texas at Austin's Jackson School of Geosciences, led the effort to describe the new dinosaur along with co-authors Hans-Dieter Sues, curator of at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC and Robert R. Reisz, professor and chair of biology at the University of Toronto. The description appears in the online edition of the journal on Oct. 6.

Sarahsaurus, which lived about 190 million years ago during the Early , was 14 feet long and weighed about 250 pounds. Sarahsaurus was a sauropodomorph, a small but closely related ancestor to sauropods, the largest land animals in history.

Conventional wisdom says that soon after originated in what is now South America, they rapidly spread out to conquer every corner of the world, so smart and powerful they overwhelmed all the animals in their path. Sarahsaurus challenges that view.

One of the five great mass extinction events in Earth's history happened at the end of the 200 million years ago, wiping out many of the potential competitors to dinosaurs. Evidence from Sarahsaurus and two other early sauropodomorphs suggests that each migrated into North America in separate waves long after the extinction and that no such dinosaurs migrated there before the extinction.

"We used to think of dinosaurs as fierce creatures that outcompeted everyone else," said Rowe. "Now we're starting to see that's not really the case. They were humbler, more opportunistic creatures. They didn't invade the neighborhood. They waited for the residents to leave and when no one was watching, they moved in."

Sarahsaurus had physical traits usually associated with gigantic animals. For example, its thigh bones were long and straight like pillars, yet were not much larger than a human's thigh bones. Sarahsaurus shows that sauropodmorphs started out small and later evolved to a very large size.

"And so it's starting to look like some of our ideas about how size and evolution work are probably in need of revision," said Rowe, "and that some of the features we thought were tied to gigantism and the physics and mechanics of the bones may not be right."

Rowe is also intrigued by the new dinosaur's hands.

"We've never found anything like this in western North America," he said. "Its hand is smaller than my hand, but if you line the base of the thumbs up, this small hand is much more powerfully built than my hand and it has these big claws. It's a very strange animal. It's doing something with its hands that involved great strength and power, but we don't know what."

Sarahsaurus is named in honor of Sarah (Mrs. Ernest) Butler, an Austin philanthropist and long time supporter of the arts and sciences. Butler chaired a fundraising committee for the Dino Pit, an interactive exhibit Rowe helped create at the Austin Nature and Science Center that encourages children to dig up their own fossil replicas. The Dino Pit had been talked about for 20 years, but fundraising efforts stalled until Butler became chair.

"I told her if she really raised a million dollars to build the Dino Pit, I'd name a dinosaur after her," he said.

A team of researchers and students led by Rowe discovered Sarahsaurus on a field trip in Arizona in 1997. To reach publication, the team had to obtain excavation permits, excavate the site over three years, remove each fossil fragment from surrounding rock, measure and analyze each piece, and CT scan pieces to study internal structures.

"It took me 13 years, but I'm delighted by the great success of the Dino Pit, which hundreds of thousands of kids have now visited. And also that we had the luck to make a find of suitable importance to carry Sarah's name."

Explore further: Shrinking dinosaurs evolved into flying birds (w/ Video)

Related Stories

Scientists find fossil bones of smallest dinosaur

Oct 21, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new dinosaur species, Fruitadens haagarorum, is the smallest dinosaur ever discovered from North America. The tiny Fruitadens weighed less than a kilogram (two pounds) and was just 70 c ...

Dinosaurs might be older than previously thought

Mar 03, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Until now, paleontologists have generally believed that the closest relatives of dinosaurs possibly looked a little smaller in size, walked on two legs and were carnivorous. However, a research ...

Early carnivorous dinosaurs crossed continents

Dec 10, 2009

Did the first dinosaurs wander across continents or stay put where they first evolved? The first dinosaurs evolved 230 million years ago when the continents were assembled into one landmass called Pangea. ...

Fossils shake dinosaur family tree

Dec 10, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Paleontologists have unearthed a previously unknown meat-eating dinosaur in New Mexico, settling a debate about early dinosaur evolution, revealing a period of explosive diversification and ...

Dinosaurs declined before mass extinction

Apr 30, 2009

Dinosaurs were dying out much earlier than the mass extinction event 65 million years ago, Natural History Museum scientists report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society journal today.

Beaked, bird-like dinosaur tells story of finger evolution

Jun 17, 2009

James Clark, the Ronald B. Weintraub Professor of Biology in The George Washington University's Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, and Xu Xing, of the Chinese Academy of Science's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology ...

Recommended for you

How dinosaurs shrank, survived and evolved into birds

13 hours ago

That starling at your birdfeeder? It is a dinosaur. The chicken on your dinner plate? Also a dinosaur. That mangy seagull scavenging for chips on the beach? Apart from being disgusting, yet again it is a ...

Shrinking dinosaurs evolved into flying birds (w/ Video)

Jul 31, 2014

A new study involving scientists from the University of Southampton has revealed how massive, meat-eating, ground-dwelling dinosaurs evolved into agile flying birds: they just kept shrinking and shrinking, ...

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2010
This article is devoid of the most important part:
Evidence from Sarahsaurus and two other early sauropodomorphs suggests that each migrated into North America in separate waves long after the extinction and that no such dinosaurs migrated there before the extinction.

What exactly is the evidence that supports this claim? It never gets mentioned in so many words.
Further:
Sarahsaurus shows that sauropodmorphs started out small and later evolved to a very large size
No proof of such evolution is presented, it's simply stated as a guesti-fact, i.e. something that one takes a guess at and that somehow later translates into fact without any supporting evidence.
And then never gets questioned again because to do so is sacrilegious.
Blicker
3.5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
Yes, very tenuous pseudo-science, especially the claim "We used to think of dinosaurs as fierce creatures ...[but] they were humbler, more opportunistic creatures." - well no we didn't and no they weren't. They seem to be a wide range of types and we don't know enough to make any such assumptions.
panorama
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
@Blicker I agree, this article is horribly written.
StillWind
4 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2010
Typical fluff piece, which is unfortunately becoming more common from Phys.org. When it comes to real information, there is nothing to see here.
complexChemicals
4 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
If one of the best science-news sites starts failing in either providing or at least linking to evidence to support such sweeping claims, then we are all DOOMED!
Pyle
5 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2010
The PhysOrg.com staff mission statement is to provide the most complete and comprehensive daily coverage of the full sweep of science, technology, and medicine news.

News. Not technical data. NEWS.
Go to the source if you want to know the details of the evidence. Until then you are all whiners and trolls.

Kevin, read the research. If you still have the same opinion I congratulate you on a point well made. Until then, your proselytizing is unwelcome.
trekgeek1
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2010
something that one takes a guess at and that somehow later translates into fact without any supporting evidence.
And then never gets questioned again because to do so is sacrilegious.


And YOU are against this practice? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2010
And YOU are against this practice? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.


If his remark is intended to be against God and the story of creation, then I ask you a simple question, "What would you consider as evidence for God and creation?"

In reality, the evidence of God is all around use in everything that exists, it's just that unbelievers refuse to see the truth, because to admit that God exists would then be to admit that they have a moral superior, and indeed a moral obligation and accountability to God.

This the humanist hates, because like the serpent along with Adam and Eve in the Garden, mankind wants to re-define for himself what good and evil are, declaring himself as a "god".

But the serpent lied, and man turned his back on God. God is good. And so not knowing God, man doesn't know good either. The "good" that man thinks he knows now is but a pathetic attempt to justify himself to one another for those who are atheists, or to their false gods, or whatever.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2010
But the point is, the facts are all around us. The problem with the atheist is he simply does not want the love of God, but rather wants only what he percieves to be instant gratification and self pleasure.

it is not a matter of lacking evidence for God, but rather a matter of lacking the morality to submit to God.

Having debated a different topic with one atheist in the past regarding a specific sin, I asked, "if God showed up in person and told you that such and such lifestyle was a sin, what would you do?"

The Atheist's replay, "If God told me that such and such lifestyle was a sin, I'd tell him to go F*** himself."

I had heard it said before that such was the case with the atheist, but this particular debate settled it in my memory. The atheist really doesn't want the truth, no matter how much he claims to want it. If God himself would show up and announce himself, the atheist would still deny him and curse God to his face, because he is spirtually dead and immoral.
frajo
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2010
it is not a matter of lacking evidence for God, but rather a matter of lacking the morality to submit to God.
God, IF it is, is the enemy of mankind. Nobody could do so much but does so little to prevent the suffering of innocent human beings.
Having debated a different topic with one atheist in the past regarding a specific sin, I asked, "if God showed up in person and told you that such and such lifestyle was a sin, what would you do?"
The Atheist's replay, "If God told me that such and such lifestyle was a sin, I'd tell him to go F*** himself."
He's not an atheist if he considers god a possibility.
I had heard it said before that such was the case with the atheist, but this particular debate settled it in my memory. The atheist really doesn't want the truth, no matter how much he claims to want it.
You are sinning IF generalizing from that one atheist to all atheists (and possibly to all agnostics). For: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2010
frajo:

I've gotten the same or similar response from almost every atheist I've ever debated, and in general, it proves to be only a matter of tmie before the truth about their evil heart comes out.

I have not bourne false witness.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2010
The problem with the atheist is he simply does not want the love of God, but rather wants only what he percieves to be instant gratification and self pleasure.
That's a generalization, and a rather incorrect one at that. Atheists and theists are similar in their wants and gratifications. The only difference is that we don't pay heed to a theist God as we're unconvinced of a theist God's existence.
it is not a matter of lacking evidence for God, but rather a matter of lacking the morality to submit to God.
I don't find submitting to slavery to be particularly moral.
The Atheist's replay, "If God told me that such and such lifestyle was a sin, I'd tell him to go F*** himself."
What right would a theist God have to claim authority over me? Especially when they typically do not follow their own morality.
The atheist really doesn't want the truth, no matter how much he claims to want it.
The Universe is as it is, our want is of no concern.
Javinator
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2010
"if God showed up in person and told you that such and such lifestyle was a sin, what would you do?"


I'd probably ask why.

That's kind of a silly thing to ask though when you think about it. If God showed up in person then there wouldn't be atheists any more because... well... God showed up. I mean that would be a pretty big gamechanger when it comes to beliefs. I'm sure if God ACTUALLY showed up then the atheist you debated would have a significantly different response to God's statement.

It's similar to me asking you if you'd shed your beliefs if I presented you with unrefutable evidence that God does not exist. Right now you'd say something about not shedding your beliefs and that unrefutable evidence couldn't exist and that you'd continue to live as you do. It's easy to say something like that when I haven't ACTUALLY presented you with such evidence.

Such hypotheticals are pretty silly when you actually think about it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2010
Such hypotheticals are pretty silly when you actually think about it.
Well for me it is a fountain of endless humor.

I'm an atheist and for laughs let's say God did show up. I'd have a ton of questions but the first one in my mind would be "why are you so preoccupied with peoples' sex lives but have zero interest in curing cancer?"

I have not bourne false witness.
Yes you have actually, by all definitions of the term.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2010
What right would a theist God have to claim authority over me? Especially when they typically do not follow their own morality.


How about the fact that he made you and the universe and everything in it.

you belong to God in the same way a cow in a farmer's pen belongs to the farmer, and in reality, an even stronger sense than that. In realit, God "lends" the earth and things in it to humans, but it all belongs to God ultimately.

God has every right to claim ownership and authority over you.

And LOL @ you, as you have just proven my argument fo which you accused me of false witness.

Here, you have opposed God not on the basis of his existence, but rather on the IMMORAL rejection of God's Moral right to do with his creation as he pleases. You validated my argument.

Oh yeah, one reason God isnt' so quick to cure cancer is because humans aren't so quick to serve God, which is our duty.

Death entered because of sin, as you well know.
Javinator
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2010
How about the fact that he made you and the universe and everything in it.


That's not a fact. Facts can be proven and are falsifiable. You believe these things which is fine, but you need to realize that belief in something does not make it a fact.

Oh yeah, one reason God isnt' so quick to cure cancer is because humans aren't so quick to serve God, which is our duty.


Again... you really can't know that. Not even the Pope would make a statement suggesting he was aware of God's motives. Arrogance such as this is actually quite sinful.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2010
SH:

Also, a shocking number of cancers and many other illnesses, including obviously STD, are caused by things we are told not to do in the Bible.

Don't want STD? stop adultery/fornication, and it goes away in 1 generation.

Don't want cancer? Stop smoking and Alcohol and you will instantely stop around 40% of cancers.

It's that simple, really. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.
danman5000
5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2010
Oh yeah, one reason God isnt' so quick to cure cancer is because humans aren't so quick to serve God, which is our duty.

Then why is it that devout Christians are just as apt as the rest of us to get cancer or die in other horrible circumstances? Surely they serve God?
Don't want cancer? Stop smoking and Alcohol and you will instantely stop around 40% of cancers.

That still leaves, according to your figures, the large majority of cancers being caused by non-sinning activities.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2010
Javinator:

actually, yes I can be sure of that, as can anyone who has read the Bible. The pope is a hertic.

Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read Deuteronomy 28?

Not everything bad that happens is specifically a person's own fault or even their parents, but according to Deuteronomy 28, we can be quite sure that evil things happen to evil people for a reason.

As for proof of God, I have eye witnessed irrefutable miracle healings through prayer in the name of Jesus, so I don't need your ignorant "falsifiability" claims.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2010
Don't want STD? stop adultery/fornication, and it goes away in 1 generation.


Good luck getting to the next generation without fornication.

Don't want cancer? Stop smoking and Alcohol and you will instantely stop around 40% of cancers.

It's that simple, really. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.


Good people who minimize sin in their lives get cancer all the time. It's unfortunate but true. Hate to break it to you, but people who don't smoke and don't drink are still susceptible to the same cancers, just at a lower risk. Stopping alcohol and tobacco consumption won't make these cancers just go away.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2010
Then why is it that devout Christians are just as apt as the rest of us to get cancer or die in other horrible circumstances? Surely they serve God?


1) Most people professing to be Christians still regularly do things they know they aren't supposed to be doing, including the "biggies" like fornication, drugs, alcohol, smoking, and also obesity, which is a sin too, which coincidentally are the bigget causes of disease and death.

2) Then you gotta figure second hand smoke and other similar things, caused by all the other lunatics who do wrong anyway even if you are doing right.

3) I admitted above, as we also see in the gospels, that not everything bad that happens is a person's own fault. It coudl be someone else's fault, or it could be "time and chance", or it could be Satan, as in the book of Job.

the fact that 3 above occurs does not exclude or excuse 1 and 2 above, which most people don't even fix the things they CAN control.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2010
Good luck getting to the next generation without fornication.


From dictionarydotcom:

"Strictly, "voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman;" extended in the Bible to adultery."

Nothing in the Bible says sex is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Therefore there is no problem getting to the "next generation" without fornication.

God has no problem with Sex. He has a big problem with people having sex with someone other than their lawfully wedded spouse of the opposite gender (because biblically homosexuality is a sin no matter what).

Hebrews 13: 4Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

21.1 Corinthians 7:5
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Javinator
5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2010
Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read Deuteronomy 28?


I spent 12 years going to Catholic school as a kid. I'm aware of the teachings. I've read the Bible.

There are a lot of good lessons and teachings in the Bible that can lead to a better life. The Golden Rule is probably the best thing in the whole book. You need to realize, however, that just because something is written in a book does not mean it's true. There are lots of books out there. You just chose to believe in this one.

As for proof of God, I have eye witnessed irrefutable miracle healings through prayer in the name of Jesus, so I don't need your ignorant "falsifiability" claims.


I believe that you believe that.
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2010
Most people professing to be Christians still regularly do things they know they aren't supposed to be doing, including the "biggies" like fornication, drugs, alcohol, smoking, and also obesity, which is a sin too, which coincidentally are the bigget causes of disease and death.


Of course they do. Everyone sins. It's in the Bible too since you take that quite literally. None of us are immune to sin. You need to stop speaking like you're above it. Even Jesus committed the Deadly Sin of Anger when people were disrespecting the Church.

Speaking of Deadly Sins I hear Pride is an awful nasty one...
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2010
I guess the real question is: why should I (or anyone for that matter) logically take the Bible literally?

(PS, "Because it says so in the Bible" is not an acceptable answer)
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2010
Of course they do. Everyone sins. It's in the Bible too since you take that quite literally. None of us are immune to sin. You need to stop speaking like you're above it. Even Jesus committed the Deadly Sin of Anger when people were disrespecting the Church.

Speaking of Deadly Sins I hear Pride is an awful nasty one...


1) I never said I was above sin, as I well know I am not. I've done some pretty dispicable things in my life, which is only evidence that I need a savior.

Now you are simply playing the typical "pharisee/pride" card.

2) Jesus never sinned, try again.
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

1 Peter 2:22
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

3) Anger, in and of itself, is not a sin.

Ephesians 4:26
Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2010
I guess the real question is: why should I (or anyone for that matter) logically take the Bible literally?

(PS, "Because it says so in the Bible" is not an acceptable answer)


1) Well, we CAN certainly look at the historical events recorded in the New Testament and we find that all parties involved: Jesus' disciples, the pharisees, the priests, etc, read the Old Testament as a literal, historical account of events.

2) Throughout both old and new testament, whenever a parable or a dream is given in symbolic form it is always labelled as such, and in almost every case is immediately followed by the interpretation and the literal meaning. Whereas is soem few cases we see parables and similes given as an analogy to help explain something.

3) The resurrection of Jesus is most certainly a literal event eye-witnessed by more than 500 people during the 40 days after the initial event.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2010
Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read Deuteronomy 28?
Christians don't believe in the old covenant.
Not everything bad that happens is specifically a person's own fault or even their parents, but according to Deuteronomy 28, we can be quite sure that evil things happen to evil people for a reason.
Again, according to all christian sources that I am aware of, the old covenant was completed when the messiah was born.
As for proof of God, I have eye witnessed irrefutable miracle healings through prayer in the name of Jesus, so I don't need your ignorant "falsifiability" claims.

Laughing so hard it hurts right now, I really am.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2010
1) Well, we CAN certainly look at the historical events recorded in the New Testament and we find that all parties involved: Jesus' disciples, the pharisees, the priests, etc, read the Old Testament as a literal, historical account of events.
Ha, no, no it wasn't. You need a history lesson.

First, the Census of Quirinius was in what year, and when did Pilate actually preside as a judge.

Compare the actual dates to the bible dates and tell me what you get.
Whereas is soem few cases we see parables and similes given as an analogy to help explain something.
Like how the parable of the Good Samaritan says to not take religion too seriously because it's dangerous.
The resurrection of Jesus is most certainly a literal event eye-witnessed by more than 500 people during the 40 days after the initial event.
No, but let's pretend it did happen. Ressurection wouldn't equate to divinity. On that day, all the graves of jerusalem flung open and people met with their long de
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2010
Christians don't believe in the old covenant.


Very untrue, but a decent explanation of why would take longer than this post would allow.

Most of the New Testament teachings are actually commentary or explanations on the Old Testament, and if you read Paul and Peter's letters, you will find they invariably taught from the Old Testament, and including the Torah.

Again, according to all christian sources that I am aware of, the old covenant was completed when the messiah was born.


Technically, it was completely when Jesus ascended into heaven after the resurrection, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Laughing so hard it hurts right now, I really am.


Right, if nobody claims to have evidence, you claim it means God doesn't exist. But if anyone claims to have evidence you laugh it off.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2010
Jesus wasn't just angry according to the story.

John 2 15: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables.

That's wrath.

From above:
1) So because people in the New Testament Read the Old Testament and took it literally I should too? Um... no.

2)I already said I had no problem with the overall message of the Bible (which is actually best conveyed with parables and similies). Again. The lessons are good. Literal interpretation of events is not.

3)Eye-witness accounts from 2000 years ago is not a good reason.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2010
Like how the parable of the Good Samaritan says to not take religion too seriously because it's dangerous.


The parable of the Good Samaritan says no such thing. I can quote it to you in it's entirety if you need, but nowhere do you see Jesus condemn ANYTHING regarding the Bible or the commandments,etc, associated with the "religious" aspect of serving God or Christianity.

In the parable, Jesus was simply showing that the person who did good, which in this case was a samaritan, was superior to the person who did not, regardless of class or tribe.

If you go back to the previous section, you see he gave the parable because he was asked by a Lawyer about eternal life. Jesus told him in Luke 10:26, "What does the LAW say?"

Because the guy was self righteous and only cared about people in his own group, Jesus told the parable of the good samaritan.

However, this parable is in no way an excuse for anyone to live a sinful lifestyle, as Jesus himself referenced the LAW.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2010
Jesus wasn't just angry according to the story.

John 2 15: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables.


No, that is God exercising his authority, as they well knew from the Torah and other OT books that what they were doing was wrong.

====

anyway, back to the "religion" fallacy.

Grace did not destroy the law, but rather the law still exists to this day as the "school master" to prove to you that you need a savior.

Grace does not, and has never, "destroyed" the law.

If you want to understand the New Covenant vs the Old, you should read Romans and Hebrews.

The point is, "Grace" does not make any excuse for people to live in sin, and moreover, the apostles taught prmarily from the Old Covenant scriptures throughout church history.

See also Matthew 5:9 and elsewhere.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2010
Moreover, you find additional lists of "what not to do" throughout 1 Corinthians, Romans, Acts, Galatians, Jesus' own sermons, and elsewhere, and these invariably agree with the Old Testament and the Law specifically, and are often either direct quotes or paraphrases, even though written after the resurrection.

Examples:

1 Cor. 6:9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Continued below:
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2010
Galatians 5:19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
===

And so "religion" and "rules" were not the problem Jesus was addressing, not at all, but rather self righteousness.

But here, Paul has addressed another problem, which is the false doctrine that is rampant in the modern church, which is the "license to sin" doctrine, whereby people believe they can call themself a Christian, but live any sinful lifestyle imaginable, and somehow convince themselves and one another they are going to go to heaven anyway.

Two different times this apostle says "no way," and Jesus also said, "no way," several times.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2010
Now for example, in Hebrews when it is stated that the old Covenant is ready to vanish away, that does not mean that what the Old Testament books teach is useless.

It simply means that it has been fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the believer is then under grace through faith.

After all, the New Covenant is, in a sense, part of the Old Covenant, since the New Covenant was actually promised in Old Covenant prophecy books, as was explained in the book of Hebrews.

It's kind of like the Old Covenant is the constitution, then the New Covenant is an ammendment because mankind couldn't live up to their side of the bargain, so then God, as man in the form of Jesus Christ, came and lived man's side of the covenant for us, and died in our place and rose from the dead. That's the key difference in that under the new covenant salvation is based on the historical fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus, through faith, where before it was by "promise".
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2010
QC, if you don't want to be laughed at, get beliefs that are far less silly and logically inconsistent.

Above and beyond that, educate yourself. I've shown your book to be false so many times on this site alone that I think I'm deserving of a pulitzer considering the novelization of your failure to enbrace your own faith.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2010
Ha Ha Ha! Snake in the garden. So God puts an evil snake in his creation (that seems weird) and then blames Adam and Eve for being deceived and eating the forbidden fruit from the tree that probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. That's pretty good, but I still like the one about the three pigs better, it's more believable. Who is more moral? The theist who commits moral acts for reward and the avoidance of punishment, or the atheist who does so because he cares enough about his fellow man? Evidence for creation? Radiometric data for a 6000 year old earth, flood evidence, all life on earth being wiped out by the flood, not being able to see stars further than 10,000 Light years away.....etc.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2010


It simply means that it has been fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the believer is then under grace through faith.

It's kind of like the Old Covenant is the constitution, then the New Covenant is an ammendment because mankind couldn't live up to their side of the bargain, so then God, as man in the form of Jesus Christ, came and lived man's side of the covenant for us, and died in our place and rose from the dead. That's the key difference in that under the new covenant salvation is based on the historical fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus, through faith, where before it was by "promise".


Seriously, how can you believe it? How do you not believe the stories of Zeus or the seven dwarfs? It's so asinine I can't comprehend how you can say it with a straight face. It may be the most puzzling thing I've ever had to grasp, right behind quantum mechanics.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2010
No, that is God exercising his authority, as they well knew from the Torah and other OT books that what they were doing was wrong.

Ok, let's ask my good friend Dusty Smith.
http://www.youtub...sCF1qE6g
Parsec
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2010
People who believe in evolution are not god hating atheists. They are simply people who see the evidence before them and evaluate it dispassionately without personal or religious bias.

Most people who believe that evolution is real also believe in God. The two things are not incompatible in any way. Indeed, the very idea of limiting the ways and means that God realizes his plan on earth is abhorrent to me, and should be equally rejected by anyone who truly believes in God. Those of tiny minds that seem to believe that God would place physical evidence in the earth to cause mankind to question God's reality are making really stupid arguments to justify their own lack of imagination. Fortunately, God has a sense of humor and is infinity forgiving.
otto1932
4.4 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2010
In reality, the evidence of God is all around use in everything that exists
No it isn't. You only think it is because you don't think very well, something you've proven in these threads time and again.

You unwittingly do your cause far more harm than good by participating here. You show how poorly the typical religionist reasons, how childishly they argue, and how embarrassingly easy it is to discredit the evidence they present.

And everyone here can see this but you (except for other godders). Take heart- you are not alone. You are typical. And your participation here does the rational world a service.
otto1932
4.2 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2010
Grace did not destroy the law, but rather the law still exists to this day as the "school master" to prove to you that you need a savior.
-which is not Jesus. Ask any Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Moslem et al. You xians are woefully outnumbered, preempted, superseded, discredited... by others just as deluded as you all are.
otto1932
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2010
Seriously, which of the major religions make the LEAST sense? The ones who claim that god speaks through prophets or the one which claims that god exists in 3 weird parts, one of which was the messiah godman who came to bring heaven to earth as prophesied, but got himself killed first for not quite rational reasons?

Even the gods of polytheists make more sense than the trinity. What does make sense is that the Xian mishmash was a sociopolitical expedient designed to placate existing religionists of the time, by including the heraclean godman, the marian earthmother, the Egyptian Horus family trinity, etc. This made the appropriation of existing holidays and rituals more palatable to pagans by dedicating them to similar gods.

You see QC, the alternative explanations can ALWAYS make more sense than the ones you give. This alone is compelling evidence that your god is fabrication.
otto1932
4 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2010
Parsec, I gave you a 5 star before I read your entire post and realized you're only another kind of godder. My mistake.

There is no god. There doesn't have to be. Would god make himself superfluous? I think not.
DickWilhelm
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2010
God is simply sympathetic magic. Humans desperately want control this world which they cannot so they create a system to trick themselves into a feeling of power. Enter religion. Believers who continually push their beliefs on others ask one of two things. "Can you disprove God?" or "This particular theory may/may not be correct and therefore the whole system is flawed and Jesus rode dinosaurs."

I have no obligation to disprove gods, as there is no evidence of any deity and there has been no testable theory to prove any gods existence. Believe if you wish, but I hope you don't waste too much of your life on primitive stories and instead focus on ways to tangibly improve the lives of people around the globe instead of offering them magic and hope.
TMH
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2010
Opposable dinosaur thumbs?