Question about the flood

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so if primates do not go back to Pangaea then what did they evolve from. What common ancestor was alive back at the time of Pangaea?

It would have been a much earlier mammal. It would be rather similar to a squirrel or shrew in appearance. The earliest of true mammals were just appearing at that time:

Are mammals 30 million years older than previously thought?

Why do you ask? I thought that you accepted the work of Collins.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why do you ask? I thought that you accepted the work of Collins.

I accept Collins as the leading expert on the subject. He does not claim to have all the answers and he wants open discussion, that is what science is all about. Collins is a director and it is his job to know enough to get out and lead. As they use to say: lead, follow or get out of the way. Collins is a leader and I follow his teachings but that does not mean I agree with everything he says.

One area I agree with him is that Science should not be used to determine who has the right to live. Right now 80% of downs syndrome people are aborted before they are born. Collins believe science should find a cure for disease and not just abort the babies that have the disorder. He believes we should seek to correct genetic disorders.

 

[Jimmy D]

Don't tell me what you think he said, give me the quote so we can see what he really said.

Sorry Joshua, I was on my phone last night so could respond fully. Here you are.....

One can look at Genesis 1-2, for instance, and see that there is not just one but two stories of the creation of humanity, and those stories do not quite agree with each other. That alone ought to be reason enough to argue that the literal interpretation of every verse, in isolation from the rest of the Bible, can’t really be correct. Otherwise, the Bible is contradicting itself

linky

 

[joshua 1 9]

One can look at Genesis 1-2, for instance, and see that there is not just one but two stories of the creation of humanity, and those stories do not quite agree with each other.

Genesis chapter one is the first week. Then God rested for a day. Genesis Chapter two is the 8th day or the first day of the second week. Right now we are at the end of the sixth day of the second week.

For me a day in Genesis is 1,000 years (dispensationalism). So we can see the beginning of this age or era was around 12,900 years ago. I use the nanodiamond comet as a maker for this (not a cause). Also I use the Neil DeGrasse's Apophis comet as a marker for the end of this age. (2036)

"Nanodiamond" Find Supports Comet Extinction Theory

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept Collins as the leading expert on the subject. He does not claim to have all the answers and he wants open discussion, that is what science is all about. Collins is a director and it is his job to know enough to get out and lead. As they use to say: lead, follow or get out of the way. Collins is a leader and I follow his teachings but that does not mean I agree with everything he says.

But the he isn't. He is merely a leader in the field of DNA. He is definitely not the leading expert on evolution. And you are correct, no scientist claims to have all of the answers, I don't know why you even brought up that claim.

By the way, you still have not supported your claim that he believes the Adam and Eve myth.

[quoie]

One area I agree with him is that Science should not be used to determine who has the right to live. Right now 80% of downs syndrome people are aborted before they are born. Collins believe science should find a cure for disease and not just abort the babies that have the disorder. He believes we should seek to correct genetic disorders.[/QUOTE]

Well that's good, because that is not science deciding whether those fetuses should be brought to term. That is the decision of the parents involved. It is a very difficult one. And until a "cure" is found, and it may never be found, Collins's beliefs do not really apply in this area. That was quite the red herring on your part. The Bible can be used to argue both sides of the abortion issue. I know of one verse that shows a fetus was not valued in the same way as a human is and another part f the Bible where Hebrew priests performed chemical abortions at times.

 

[Aman777]

This doesn't make any sense as an English sentence.

You have NOT answered my question. Which animals were on the Ark that were not already present on this earth? Specifically. Lions but not tigers? Kangaroos but not possums?

It's the difference between temporary and eternal creatures. Jesus made the temporary (His kinds) and God the Trinity created ETERNAL creatures, which means that they will be in Heaven. They are THEIR kinds.

Noah brought His kinds or the kinds which Jesus made since they might or might not have been on our planet. It depends on whether they were Eternal (Their kinds) or temporary (His kinds). Remember that Jesus made the creeping kinds like Mosquitoes, which could easily be deleted IF God the Trinity chooses to delete them. All The Trinity would have to do is to NOT create them, eternally. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Ask him how long Adam lived with Jesus. Go on, I dare you.

Since Adam was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 BEFORE the plants herbs and trees, which GREW on the 3rd Day Gen 1:12, Adam was alive with Jesus BEFORE the beginning of our Cosmos, which happened late on the 3rd Day, according to Astronomy, since it was LESS than a Billion years after the BB until the first Stars lit.

Adam lived until the present 6th Day since Eve was made from his rib on the 6th Day. Gen 2:22 This was some 12k years ago, in man's time, since the Ark arrived on this Earth 11k years ago. IOW, Adam lived for some 14 Billion years in a perfect body, surrounded with a Shekinah Glory, just like Christians will have in Heaven. Adam will also live Eternally since he and Eve were born again Spiritually in Christ AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2 God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Genesis chapter one is the first week. Then God rested for a day.

Jesus doesn't agree since He tells us the Father is STILL working.

Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

God rests from ALL of His work of creating on the 7th Day. Gen 2:2-3 Since today remains the 6th Day and it takes the agreement of the Trinity to "create" a New Creature in Christ, Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16 God will continue to work until Heaven is filled with ALL of it's host as Genesis 2:1 plainly states.

 

[Aman777]

One can look at Genesis 1-2, for instance, and see that there is not just one but two stories of the creation of humanity, and those stories do not quite agree with each other. That alone ought to be reason enough to argue that the literal interpretation of every verse, in isolation from the rest of the Bible, can’t really be correct. Otherwise, the Bible is contradicting itself

False. What it shows is that your interpretation of Genesis is wrong. What you falsely suppose is that God made an error and told 2 contradictory stories about the creation. God's Truth agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of mankind IF you have the proper interpretation. Amen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. What it shows is that your interpretation of Genesis is wrong. What you falsely suppose is that God made an error and told 2 contradictory stories about the creation. God's Truth agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of mankind IF you have the proper interpretation. Amen?

No, you struggle to make the Bible, a work of man, to match reality but fail utterly every time that you try to do so.

Instead of trying to reinterpret Genesis why not treat it for what it is? A collection of morality tales that can still instruct but have nothing to do with reality.

 

[Aman777]

No, you struggle to make the Bible, a work of man, to match reality but fail utterly every time that you try to do so.

Instead of trying to reinterpret Genesis why not treat it for what it is? A collection of morality tales that can still instruct but have nothing to do with reality.

Because I don't want to go to Hell. Some dorks don't care but I do. How bout you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I don't want to go to Hell. Some dorks don't care but I do. How bout you?

You can't go to a place that does not exist. But now we can see the basis of your attempts to reinterpret the Bible. There are countless Christians that have realized that one does not need to read Genesis literally to be a Christian.

 

[Aman777]

You can't go to a place that does not exist. But now we can see the basis of your attempts to reinterpret the Bible. There are countless Christians that have realized that one does not need to read Genesis literally to be a Christian.

Then HOW did they become a Christian apart from God's Word?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then HOW did they become a Christian apart from God's Word?

You need to ask them. But for starters they do not probably make the blasphemous error of calling the Bible, a work of man, "God's Word".

Of course you could take the more reasonable route.

 

[Wakalix]

False. What it shows is that your interpretation of Genesis is wrong. What you falsely suppose is that God made an error and told 2 contradictory stories about the creation. God's Truth agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of mankind IF you have the proper interpretation. Amen?

Just because a mapping exists between a part of the Bible and reality for any given part does not mean that the Bible actually represents reality. To illustrate - if I say that "monkey fish" means all of physics, and then I tell you "monkey fish," am I a physics genius?

 

[PsychoSarah]

But there were ones before that, as the article that I linked showed. Of course you may have been relying on an older article.

-_- I just didn't feel the need to mention all of the various supercontinents that this planet has had.

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- I just didn't feel the need to mention all of the various supercontinents that this planet has had.

1

 

[Aman777]

You need to ask them. But for starters they do not probably make the blasphemous error of calling the Bible, a work of man, "God's Word".

Of course you could take the more reasonable route.

God's Holy Word was authored by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Holy men penned the words breathed to them from inside them by the Holy Spirit. 2Pe 1:21 God, the Holy Spirit moved these men to write things which they could not possibly have understood at the time. I have listed some of these things found in Genesis and you have failed to refute a single one of them. Atheists agnostics and phonies are blaspheming/slandering the Holy Spirit and not mortal men as you falsely imply. Here is what happens to those unaware of their lying language according to Jesus Christ:

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

 

[Aman777]

Just because a mapping exists between a part of the Bible and reality for any given part does not mean that the Bible actually represents reality. To illustrate - if I say that "monkey fish" means all of physics, and then I tell you "monkey fish," am I a physics genius?

Here is reality: God told us more than 3k years ago that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from WATER. Science announced the discovery of the SAME thing last year. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things - The New York Times
Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

Now, it's your time to tell us HOW any ancient man who lived 3k years ago, knew and correctly wrote the recently discovered Scientific Truth. No one else can.

 

[Wakalix]

Here is reality: God told us more than 3k years ago that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from WATER. Science announced the discovery of the SAME thing last year. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things - The New York Times
Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

Now, it's your time to tell us HOW any ancient man who lived 3k years ago, knew and correctly wrote the recently discovered Scientific Truth. No one else can.

That's easy. A vague statement can be interpreted in many different ways - after the fact, it may seem to match well with our current understanding of reality, but if reality had been different the same vague statement would seem to fit just as well. Saying that life "came from the water" - well, where else would it have come from? Probably the water or the land, right? It could simply be a somewhat lucky guess.

The part that you are quoting is:

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, God says that the water should "bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life", and this happens. Importantly, the "water bringing forth" seems to apply to the fowl as well. If I was just looking at this part, it seems like (according to this book) all things were "brought forth" from the waters. However, the next part is:

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

In other words, God then tells the earth to "bring forth living creatures," and then the earth does so. It doesn't say that it already happened - the earth-bound creatures had not already been created. This means that they were not brought forth from the water. So closer inspection shows that this does not mesh with our current understanding of early life. The two descriptions of the beginnings of life look slightly vaguely similar, but that's all.