| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
16th May 2008, 10:44 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
    
 | | Join Date: 20th June 2006
Posts: 3,347
Blessings: 1,072,786 My Mood 
Reps: 27,749,724,098,880,132 (power: 27,749,724,098,889) | | [quote=juvenissun;46970302] Originally Posted by OD3  Another confusing dilemma in the Bible (there sure are a lot of them, or maybe I'm just being dumb).
This is a very convenient, shallow and cheap view.
I dont have a big problem with the dinosaur bones "test" as such.
Today it is raining. Is God testing me to see if I will thank Him for the rain and praise Him for His victory over the flood if it starts to rain too much? I think so. Is He sifting us to see how we fit ordinary or extraordinay rain within His Word? Yes. And so the dinosaur.
Dinosaur bones needn't be seen as a "special" test. If our limited knowledge makes thems seem anomalous, that is really not all that pertinent to the fundamental question God asks us about how we see natural phenomena.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; |
16th May 2008, 11:02 AM
| | Sanctimonious Crackpot
71 
| | Join Date: 4th February 2006
Posts: 4,927
Blessings: 132,575
Reps: 285,513,216,512,518,400 (power: 285,513,216,512,529) | | Originally Posted by Assyrian I can understand the way people feel a need to 'defend the bible' and claim it only means the smallest seed cultivated in the region, but God's word does not need defending, instead we should let issues like this challenge the assumptions we bring to scripture, and learn how God actually speaks to us instead of how we think he should speak.
That approach is fine for mature Christians, like you and I, but for 'babes' that might find this parable troubling this simple explaination may allow them to move forward.
owg |
16th May 2008, 12:26 PM
| | Newbie
62  
| | Join Date: 7th May 2008
Posts: 206
Blessings: 85,104
Reps: 32,086 (power: 36) | | | This topic can be confusing if you let it. To me I have no problem with what we call tere-firma being billions of years old. I do have a problem with saying life has been here and existing on it for billions of years. That does not jive with the Bible. BTW, The Bible does speak of what would be considered as a dinosaur when it speaks of the beehamoth ( ms ) having a tail as big as a tree.
The fossil evidence is not conclusive for slow evolution of the biota. What it is definitely evidence for is rapid burial and sequential deposition of stratified layers of sediments as a result of hydrology.
God Bless
Jim Larmore |
16th May 2008, 12:51 PM
|  | Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
51  
| | Join Date: 31st March 2006 Location: Wales
Posts: 12,369
Blessings: 27,003,773 My Mood 
Reps: 1,984,022,293,840,305,920 (power: 1,984,022,293,840,324) | | | Oh Dear... No the bible does not say behemoth's tail is as big as a tree.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
|
16th May 2008, 02:46 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29  
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,548
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by Jim Larmore The fossil evidence is not conclusive for slow evolution of the biota.
As someone who works on fossils for a living, let me assure you that it is.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
16th May 2008, 02:54 PM
| | Newbie
62
| | Join Date: 7th May 2008
Posts: 206
Blessings: 85,104
Reps: 32,086 (power: 36) | | Originally Posted by Assyrian Oh Dear... No the bible does not say behemoth's tail is as big as a tree.
Here's the way the original language reads from the hebrew. I'll let the reader's decide:
" Behold please behemoth which I made with you grass as an ox he is eating, behold please vigor of him in waists of him and virility of him in navel/muscle of him belly of him he is inclining TAIL OF HIM LIKE A CEDAR sinews of him awesome part of him."
To say the least there is some things lost in translation wouldn't you agree?
God Bless
Jim Larmore |
16th May 2008, 03:05 PM
| | Newbie
62
| | Join Date: 7th May 2008
Posts: 206
Blessings: 85,104
Reps: 32,086 (power: 36) | | Originally Posted by Mallon As someone who works on fossils for a living, let me assure you that it is.
I'm sure you are convinced of that. However, your conclusions are based on a biased perspective. I used to see things that way too but there are other ways to see things and there are other ways to interpret the evidence than what the mainstream paradigm does.
God Bless
Jim Larmore |
16th May 2008, 03:27 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,548
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by Jim Larmore I'm sure you are convinced of that. However, your conclusions are based on a biased perspective. I used to see things that way too but there are other ways to see things and there are other ways to interpret the evidence than what the mainstream paradigm does.
The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
16th May 2008, 04:06 PM
| | Newbie
62
| | Join Date: 7th May 2008
Posts: 206
Blessings: 85,104
Reps: 32,086 (power: 36) | | Originally Posted by Mallon The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.
The GC is a great example of rapid erosion of the then fairly soft sediments laid down right after the flood. The GC was most likely formed very rapidly by a huge rush of water from a huge lake north of it's location. The fact that there are essentially no signs of erosional cuts in the sediments tells us this is true. Slow formation would show massive signs of erosion in the lateral layering but very little or no erosion is apparent. Ignoring this evidence is a prime example of the mainstream paradigms perspective.
God Bless
Jim Larmore |
16th May 2008, 04:11 PM
|  | Veteran
59  
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,547
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Mallon The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.
Why do you want to say something outside of your field with such a confidence? I am a little tired on debating this triviality. Most mammillary coatings (what material?) only take a very short period of time to form.
And this sort of argument is not really adequate in this thread at all. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
