Dinosaurs and People

[simplyg123]

Wow! I haven't seen this kind of talk since Yahoo Answers! Very interesting take on Creationists. Actually it goes more like this. We (generalizing creationist) believe that the Bible is written by God and take it literally. Because Jesus came and died for us and all accounts about Jesus are true, because, you and I both know the proof is in His creations and in His word as well as in our hearts. We do not believe parts of the Bible and disregard the rest, the stuff that science"proves" to be wrong. The only thing science proves is God is mysterious and work in mysterious ways, which is where faith comes in. Personally I have faith in what God has shown me to be true. Not what man has shown me. So there is the difference. We here what you are saying, we know what you believe. But that is your opinion. Just because you think it's correct, does not mean it is. God bless.

sounds bout right to me

 

[artybloke]

why is it human artifacts are found in the same earth as dino bones?

Evidence, please?

as for evolution, why didnt the apes we have today evolve?

Why do you still have cousins if you are directly related to your grandparents? (Clue: before posting PRATT's like this, find out what the Theory of Evolution actually says, rather than what some lying creationist pretends it says.)

I would think it a miracle to prove that but perhaps unwise to disprove the Bible.

In the case of Genesis 1-7, there's nothing to disprove. It's not history, it's poetry and myth and fable. I would no more expect it to be factual than I would expect Jesus' parables to be factual.

 

[simplyg123]

Quote:
as for evolution, why didnt the apes we have today evolve?
Why do you still have cousins if you are directly related to your grandparents? (Clue: before posting PRATT's like this, find out what the Theory of Evolution actually says, rather than what some lying creationist pretends it says.)

my cousins are indeed human, and look very much like me, matter of fact my cousin sarah looks identical to my great great grandmother phyllis when she was the same age.

second of all, i asked a question, i didnt post a statement. If it is so obvious to you, why not just answer the question, instead of being rude, and calling names

 

[artybloke]

second of all, i asked a question, i didnt post a statement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

If you genuinely want to know what the theory of evolution actually says, rather than the strawman version that creationist liars spout, I suggest you read up on it.

 

[simplyg123]

i read it, and, i dont argue. that evolution is false, i argue, that we did not evolve from monkeys, or chimps, or any other type of ape

 

[artybloke]

that evolution is false, i argue, that we did not evolve from monkeys, or chimps, or any other type of ape

Quite right. We evolve from a common ancestor of apes and human.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Wow! again I will comment on the things in this thread! Lying creationist? Really. What difference does it make to you how we believe we were created. Certainly you are not completely sure of the answer. God only knows. I know from studying evolution that there are holes. Could it be possible that the "theory" is just that, a theory? Above all you are to love God and love your neighbor. I don't see that in the last few threads. God bless.

 

[artybloke]

I know from studying evolution that there are holes. Could it be possible that the "theory" is just that, a theory

1) Could you give us some examples of these "holes"?
2) The theory of gravity is also "just a theory." A theory has to explain all the available evidence in order to be elevated from a hypothesis to a theory. The ToE does so.

Lying creationist? Really.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt then. They don't know what they're talking about/ they don't understand either the evidence or the theory.

So: either they know what they're talking of and are deliberately misrepresenting it, or they're ignorant.

It's one or the other.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

1) Could you give us some examples of these "holes"?
2) The theory of gravity is also "just a theory." A theory has to explain all the available evidence in order to be elevated from a hypothesis to a theory. The ToE does so.



Let's give them the benefit of the doubt then. They don't know what they're talking about/ they don't understand either the evidence or the theory.

So: either they know what they're talking of and are deliberately misrepresenting it, or they're ignorant.

It's one or the other.

Yes, I do. But the holes are too big for it to be conclusive. Please, the missing link, a quick google search will give you plenty more. I choose to trust God, not necessarily the world and definetly not man alone. But with all due respect, I respect that you believe that. I don't agree but who agrees with one another 100%? Should we not celebrate our diversity instead of all this arguing? God Bless.

 

[simplyg123]

i listened to a kent hovind audio today, and i know many people thank he is so wrong, but thats just because he makes great points.

Evolutionists seem to believe a god created the world also, they call this god "time"

everywhere creationist use "God" in their explaination, evolutionis, use "time" or "over the period of time"

withouth this "period of time" evolutionsist have nothing solid.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

i listened to a kent hovind audio today, and i know many people thank he is so wrong, but thats just because he makes great points.

Evolutionists seem to believe a god created the world also, they call this god "time"

everywhere creationist use "God" in their explaination, evolutionis, use "time" or "over the period of time"

withouth this "period of time" evolutionsist have nothing solid.

That is interesting... So is that why they argue the literal sense of time as 7 days are actually millions and millions of years in "God time"? interesting.... yet not conclusive. Apparently there is only one right answer. I stand by the word of God, until God himself shows me otherwise. God bless.

 

[artybloke]

i listened to a kent hovind audio today

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

If you think a man who lies about his degree and doesn't pay his taxes is to be trusted, you really are lost.

I choose to trust God, not necessarily the world and definetly not man alone.

So do I. I just don't think that the account of creation was ever meant to be "scientific": it's a poem, a myth, call it what you will. And yes, that still means it's true. Just not "factual." More like the parables, though not themselves parables, than Principia Mathematica.

But the holes are too big for it to be conclusive.

1) No theory is 100% conclusive.
2) If you want to explore the evidence, www.talkorigins.org is one of the best summaries there is.

 

[artybloke]

I stand by the word of God, until God himself shows me otherwise. God bless.

Actually, no you don't. You stand by a 19th century literalistic/materialistic interpretation of the word of God, not the interpretation of the original authors.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Actually, no you don't. You stand by a 19th century literalistic/materialistic interpretation of the word of God, not the interpretation of the original authors.

Maybe true, but my own observations and the Word have concluded evolution to be false. We don't have to agree with creation to be brother and sister in Christ. God bless and have a lovely day.

 

[jds1977]

not the interpretation of the original authors.

Please tell me the interpretation of the original authors, and how you derive this.
My main concern for theistic evolutionists is this: John 5:47: But if ye believe not his writings (Moses), how shall ye believe my words?
I would expect Jesus to "correct" Moses on his creation account if it were so false, and not endorse it.

 

[simplyg123]

Please tell me the interpretation of the original authors, and how you derive this.
My main concern for theistic evolutionists is this: John 5:47: But if ye believe not his writings (Moses), how shall ye believe my words?
I would expect Jesus to "correct" Moses on his creation account if it were so false, and not endorse it.

amen

Psa 12:6 The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[artybloke]

Please tell me the interpretation of the original authors, and how you derive this.

This is a complicated answer, but a few thoughts.

Well, firstly you have to remember that the ancient authors were not in any sense of the word, scientifically minded. They lived in a world full of myth, legend, fable and poetry; and that is how they investigated truth: through story.

They were, in any case, incapable of doing much in the way of investigative science, as they didn't have any way of accurately measuring the world. They didn't even have a zero, or a seperate number system, or any real concept of really large numbers (billions, trillions, that sort of thing.) They did, however, have very sophisticated ways of explaining the world called stories.

The problem is that so many fundamentalists make the mistaken equation of truth = fact. But a fact is something that can be observed using empirical observation, and as that observation gets better, facts change. It used to be "factual" that light in the universe travelled through a substance called "phlogiston". Since then, it's been discovered that such a substance doesn't exist. Facts change as new information is discovered; truth does not change.

Except where facts impact on truth (such as the Incarnation, which needs a real historical Jesus to have existed), the Bible writers are more concerned with finding the real, universal truths of God's relationship to us, than in getting everything down as scientifically accurate as possible.

Genesis 1 has all the stylistic marks of a poem or a chant, not a history. Genesis 2 is fable-like in structure.

And then again, of course, there's the evidence. The overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of evolution means that there are only two alternatives.

A) If you say that the Bible has to be "literal" and scientifically and historically accurate in a very 19th century modernistic manner, then you may as well throw it away, because it just doesn't hold water.

B) If, however, you allow for the possibility that God reveals himself through story, poetry, symbolic language of all kinds, parable, myth, legend - and history as well - then not only can you say the Bible is true, but that it's true in all its fullness.

Personally, if I were to compare the writers of the Bible to anyone in the modern era, I would compare them to Milton rather than Newton, to the TS Eliot of the Four Quartets rather than Stephen Hawking.

And I think the Bible is all the better for that: it becomes deeper, richer and probably stranger as a result. Please note: I am not saying there are no facts in the Bible, and that sometimes these facts don't at times matter (see above.) But the Bible is concerned above with Truth.

 

[jds1977]

I believe your response was "your" interpretation and not the original authors'. Moses was very clear that God made everything in six literal days, Gen. 1, Ex.20:11, etc...There is no poetry here...bara (created)means to bring into existence from nothing. So, I guess you're faced w/ the question, is Moses a liar? or did God actually do what he said? There is absolutely no evidence for evolution taught in the bible so why would we try to explain bible w/ man's fallible theories? Do we get to pick and choose what we want to believe in the bible? Man's theories have been proven wrong throughout the years (flat earth, spontaneous generation, etc...)
By the way, if a fact was proven wrong...then obviously it wasn't a fact. Or am I totally wrong about that?

 

[mumluvsherboys]

This is a complicated answer, but a few thoughts.

Well, firstly you have to remember that the ancient authors were not in any sense of the word, scientifically minded. They lived in a world full of myth, legend, fable and poetry; and that is how they investigated truth: through story.

They were, in any case, incapable of doing much in the way of investigative science, as they didn't have any way of accurately measuring the world. They didn't even have a zero, or a seperate number system, or any real concept of really large numbers (billions, trillions, that sort of thing.) They did, however, have very sophisticated ways of explaining the world called stories.

The problem is that so many fundamentalists make the mistaken equation of truth = fact. But a fact is something that can be observed using empirical observation, and as that observation gets better, facts change. It used to be "factual" that light in the universe travelled through a substance called "phlogiston". Since then, it's been discovered that such a substance doesn't exist. Facts change as new information is discovered; truth does not change.

Except where facts impact on truth (such as the Incarnation, which needs a real historical Jesus to have existed), the Bible writers are more concerned with finding the real, universal truths of God's relationship to us, than in getting everything down as scientifically accurate as possible.

Genesis 1 has all the stylistic marks of a poem or a chant, not a history. Genesis 2 is fable-like in structure.

And then again, of course, there's the evidence. The overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of evolution means that there are only two alternatives.

A) If you say that the Bible has to be "literal" and scientifically and historically accurate in a very 19th century modernistic manner, then you may as well throw it away, because it just doesn't hold water.

B) If, however, you allow for the possibility that God reveals himself through story, poetry, symbolic language of all kinds, parable, myth, legend - and history as well - then not only can you say the Bible is true, but that it's true in all its fullness.

Personally, if I were to compare the writers of the Bible to anyone in the modern era, I would compare them to Milton rather than Newton, to the TS Eliot of the Four Quartets rather than Stephen Hawking.

And I think the Bible is all the better for that: it becomes deeper, richer and probably stranger as a result. Please note: I am not saying there are no facts in the Bible, and that sometimes these facts don't at times matter (see above.) But the Bible is concerned above with Truth.

Although interesting, I nonetheless conclude that this is your interpretation of how things are or should be to you. There is no one that has survived since Creation except God himself to tell you whether or not this is true. I continue to believe God's word is the Truth as it is imprinted on my heart and is revealed to me everyday. It is not a thing of logic or a thing of science nor does it come from this world. It comes from God it is matters of the heart. Consider this, God is incomprehensible and perhaps evolution is a means to try to comprehend what God has accomplished or perhaps it is a means to turn away from God. (Obviously not for you). But I also believe this evolution theory was a theory to explain away God, not to embrace him. God workd in very mysterious way, I don't think science is every going to be conclusive of what God can accomplish. Our very existance is boggling. Can we not have faith? Do we really know for sure, other than what is written? No. Not even you. Not even I. But going against the word of God is also not wise. Perhaps there are others that agree, and there are yet others that don't. I don't agree personally with your view. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I also do not think, knowing one way or the other exactly how we came to be (although it makes for interesting conversation), changes how we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Many blessings to all of you. Have a very lovely day!

 

[MyHeart07]

Although interesting, I nonetheless conclude that this is your interpretation of how things are or should be to you. There is no one that has survived since Creation except God himself to tell you whether or not this is true. I continue to believe God's word is the Truth as it is imprinted on my heart and is revealed to me everyday. It is not a thing of logic or a thing of science nor does it come from this world. It comes from God it is matters of the heart. Consider this, God is incomprehensible and perhaps evolution is a means to try to comprehend what God has accomplished or perhaps it is a means to turn away from God. (Obviously not for you). But I also believe this evolution theory was a theory to explain away God, not to embrace him. God workd in very mysterious way, I don't think science is every going to be conclusive of what God can accomplish. Our very existance is boggling. Can we not have faith? Do we really know for sure, other than what is written? No. Not even you. Not even I. But going against the word of God is also not wise. Perhaps there are others that agree, and there are yet others that don't. I don't agree personally with your view. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I also do not think, knowing one way or the other exactly how we came to be (although it makes for interesting conversation), changes how we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Many blessings to all of you. Have a very lovely day!

Amen to that...