Neanderthals, Dinosaurs?

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

Brightmoon said:
People continually get surprised by animal intelligence because we’ve mostly been told since childhood that animals are “ dumb” and for Christians we’re also told that we’re somehow in charge of them because they’re lesser beings. It continually suprises people that animals do think if they were raised to believe that animals can’t think.

Yet if you ascribe to believing the Scripture. The Scripture tells us that we are to rule over the animal kingdom. The Scripture does not say that we rule over them because they are stupid. The Scripture says we are to rule over them because we are created in God's image.

Now obviously human beings have done some really cruel things to animals. That's because of sin.

Do you believe the Scripture or don't you. That's what all of this actually boils down to.

Brightmoon said:
with archaeopteryx we actually do know that the bird was either drowned or the body was buried in anoxic water soon after death . The animal’s gastralia ( belly ribs) were pushed out by the guts decaying and exploding after death .Even laymen can see this in pictures of the fossils. This caused the body to sink into the anoxic water that delayed decaying further . By the way birds don’t have gastralia , dinosaurs do . You’d be better off thinking of Archie as a Dino-bird because it has the traits of a birds as well as the ancestral traits of a dinosaur (teeth and gastralia )

Which, they drown in water and were buried. Where do you get lots of water and earth to bury something from? Again, cataclysmic event. (Noah / flood)

We have all sorts of examples of animals that display characteristics that don't fit into scientists neat little categories. We have birds that don't fly and mammals that do. Penguins are birds but they swim like fish. We have mammals that lay eggs. We have squirrels that can glide. Bats being mammals I would assume have digestive systems similar to mammals as opposed to a bird digestive system. Yet very clearly bats have wings and they can fly.

None of these animals though are "transitional life forms". They are fully formed animals that are species in their own rights. Are creating these creatures a display of God's "sense of humor" because rebellious men think they are so smart?

Psalm 59:
5 Thou therefore, O Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah.

6 They return at evening: they make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city.

7 Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear?

8 But thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

9 Because of his strength will I wait upon thee: for God is my defense.

(Pretty ominous psalm!)

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

Brightmoon said:
. How? I gave you specific examples that a layman could see.

When that happens it’s because we weren’t as observant as we should have been and made an assumption that the Clade or organism was extinct when it wasn’t. It’s actually not a big deal just a hint that we need to be more observant.
That’s spelled voila( with an accent mark over the a ) by the way . it’s french

So now you're upset because I pointed out that humanity doesn't have all the answers and "science" can't explain all the things that you think it should?

Wow!

Brightmoon · Aug 21, 2019

Upset about what ? You made a claim I pointed it out they you were wrong and .....

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Eventually, there can be reproductive isolation and speciation. But you don't see that in dogs.

That is exactly what you get in bread dogs; reproductive isolation. It's just artificially created by humans.

The Barbarian said:
A transitional form has apomorphic characters of two distinct taxa. For example Archaeopteryx has mostly dinosaur characteristics. But it also has a number of features found only in birds. It's not quite a bird, but it's very close to the line that gave rise to birds.

We have all sorts of examples of animals that display characteristics that don't fit into scientists neat little categories. We have birds that don't fly and mammals that do. Penguins are birds but they swim like fish. We have mammals that lay eggs. We have squirrels that can glide. Bats being mammals I would assume have digestive systems similar to mammals as opposed to a bird digestive system. Yet very clearly bats have wings and they can fly.

None of these animals though are "transitional life forms". They are fully formed animals that are species in their own rights. Are creating these creatures a display of God's "sense of humor" because rebellious men think they are so smart?

Psalm 59:
5 Thou therefore, O Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah.

6 They return at evening: they make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city.

7 Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear?

8 But thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

9 Because of his strength will I wait upon thee: for God is my defense.

(Pretty ominous psalm!)

The Barbarian said:
What are non-spontaneous mutations?

Ones inherited from parents. Not all mutations are inherited from the parents.

The Barbarian said:
You have dozens of mutations in your genome that weren't present in either parent. But they all were present in either the egg or the sperm of your parents. That's how it works. Somatic mutations, such as tumors, aren't in your genome,and aren't passed on. Is that what you mean?

This can be both true and not true. Sometimes the environmental insult affects the reproductive system of the parent(s) Like the Agent Orange example. Sometimes something may go "ka-flooy" in the child's development that is not genetically linked to the parents. Like Down's Syndrome is a malfunction that happens as part of the fertilization process. A potential mother can not go to a geneticist and find out if she's a "carrier" for certain forms of Down's Syndrome. That is a "spontaneous genetic malfunction".

The Barbarian said:
Do those kids have apomorphic characters of primates and pinnipeds? No, they just have a malformation caused by a teratogen; they don't have genes for very short limbs.

Yet if you were looking at them in the fossil record (having not the ability to map the DNA) would you conclude that based on appearance? (That's what 19th century archeologists did.)

The Barbarian said:
It comes down to evidence. You look for homologous organs, not analogous ones. Hence, birds and bats may look very similar, but when you examine them closely, bats show mammalian homologues, and birds show archosaurian ones. Would you like to talk about those?

And again, if you were looking at fossils of bats and birds; what would you conclude about them based on the fossils?

The Barbarian said:
The Paleoenvironments of Tugrikin-Shireh (Gobi Desert, Mongolia) and Aspects of the Taphonomy and Paleoecology of Protoceratops (Dinosauria: Ornithishichia)

This article (book) speaks of an area in a particular desert where they found a lot of fossils. It doesn't explain how the fossils got there; nor does it validate your explanation of how they got there.

The Barbarian said:
Yes, it does rain in the desert, and there are places in deserts where there is water. This is why the tracks of those animals are so rare; they lived in arid conditions.

The Barbarian said:
Or just dry out and slowly get covered by wind-blown deposits.

LOL - Go to the beach with a large casserole dish. Fill it with wet sand. Tell your kid, or your dog, or your neighbor's cat to stand in the wet sand. Now take that dish and leave it out in the sun on your picnic table. What happens to the foot prints? Now over the course of the next week, go cover this dish over with more sand. Is that EVER going to give you fossils?

The Barbarian said:
Almost all organisms buried anywhere, decay. Only rarely do they get preserved as fossils. But once covered in dry sand, bones of organisms persist for a very long time, occasionally becoming fossils.

Take that deceased sparrow you found at the beach; quick get on a plane and fly to Saudi Arabia. Bury your deceased sparrow in the sand in the Saudi Desert. What are you going to get? (You will get a mummified sparrow.)

What do you need to get a fossil?

You need water, dirt and a cataclysmic event to pack it on top of the animal(s) quickly!

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

Brightmoon said:
Upset about what ? You made a claim I pointed it out they you were wrong and .....

No, you didn't point out that I was wrong. I pointed out that there is an alternate explanation to what you claim this is.

The Barbarian · Aug 21, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
That is exactly what you get in bread dogs; reproductive isolation. It's just artificially created by humans.

That's not what it means. Sorry.

We have all sorts of examples of animals that display characteristics that don't fit into scientists neat little categories. We have birds that don't fly and mammals that do. Penguins are birds but they swim like fish.

You've confused your categories with science. What makes you think science is has a problem with any of that?

We have mammals that lay eggs.

And we have reptiles that give birth. What makes you think that's a problem for science?

None of these animals though are "transitional life forms".

Because they have analogous features with other groups, but homologies with their own class. Bats and birds have wings, but if you look at the bat wings, they have more in common with the arm of a monkey or the leg of a horse. If you look at the bird wings, they have more in common with the legs of dinosaurs or crocodiles.

Are creating these creatures a display of God's "sense of humor" because rebellious men think they are so smart?

Kinda like he's pouring a bucked of cold water on creationists, to wake them up, isn't it? Remember that analogous (kinda works similar) is not an indication of common descent, but homologous (derived from the same structures as things that might not look or work similar) does indicate common descent. And we can check it by genetic data.

What are "non-spontaneous mutations?"

Ones inherited from parents.

No. Those are called germ line mutations:
Somatic mutation, genetic alteration acquired by a cell that can be passed to the progeny of the mutated cell in the course of cell division. Somatic mutations differ from germ line mutations, which are inherited genetic alterations that occur in the germ cells (i.e., sperm and eggs).
Somatic mutation | genetics

You have dozens of mutations in your genome that weren't present in either parent. But they all were present in either the egg or the sperm of your parents. That's how it works. Somatic mutations, such as tumors, aren't in your genome,and aren't passed on. Is that what you mean?

This can be both true and not true.

No, the above is always true.

Like Down's Syndrome is a malfunction that happens as part of the fertilization process.

No, it happens in one of the germ cells. Chromosome 21 is duplicated, so that the final genome has three copies of that chromosome. Hence "trisomy 21" being the scientific term for the condition.

A potential mother can not go to a geneticist and find out if she's a "carrier" for certain forms of Down's Syndrome.

Most mutations are like that. You have dozens of them that neither of your parents had. They occurred in one of your parents' eggs or sperm.

Regarding thalidomide children:
Do those kids have apomorphic characters of primates and pinnipeds? No, they just have a malformation caused by a teratogen; they don't have genes for very short limbs.

Yet if you were looking at them in the fossil record (having not the ability to map the DNA) would you conclude that based on appearance?

Form-function and biomechanical analyses would do that. I don't know if there's even one case found in the fossil record. It would be pretty much like going overseas, finding a shoe while digging a hole on a beach, and discovering that it belonged to an ancestor who lived 4,000 years ago. Fossilization is a very rare thing, and a major physical mutation that causes life-threatening disability living beyond infancy is even more rare.

(That's what 19th century archeologists did.)

No, they didn't. They didn't even look for fossils. They were interested in human artifacts.

And again, if you were looking at fossils of bats and birds; what would you conclude about them based on the fossils?

Since birds have homologies with dinosaurs and crocodiles, I would conclude that they were archosaurs. If I also had the transitional forms have today, I'd know they were descended from dinosarus. Likewise bats. The mammalian homologies,like single lower jawbone, three ossicles, no cervical ribs, and so on, would be a tip-off.

This article (book) speaks of an area in a particular desert where they found a lot of fossils. It doesn't explain how the fossils got there;

They lived there. They were, as you learned, adapted to arid environments.

LOL - Go to the beach with a large casserole dish. Fill it with wet sand.

Has to be muddy sand like the Grand Canyon case.

Tell your kid, or your dog, or your neighbor's cat to stand in the wet sand. Now take that dish and leave it out in the sun on your picnic table. What happens to the foot prints?

Hardens into cast of the footprint.

Now over the course of the next week, go cover this dish over with more sand. Is that EVER going to give you fossils?

The formation of sandstone involves two principal stages. First, a layer or layers of sand accumulates as the result of sedimentation, either from water (as in a river, lake, or sea) or from air (as in a desert). Typically, sedimentation occurs by the sand settling out from suspension, i.e., ceasing to be rolled or bounced along the bottom of a body of water (e.g., seas or rivers) or ground surface (e.g., in a desert or sand dune region). Finally, once it has accumulated, the sand becomes sandstone when it is compacted by pressure of overlying deposits and cemented by the precipitation of minerals within the pore spaces between sand grains. The most common cementing materials are silica and calcium carbonate, which are often derived either from dissolution or from alteration of the sand after it was buried.
Info Sandstone - How is it Formed?

You need water, dirt and a cataclysmic event to pack it on top of the animal(s) quickly!

Now, you know otherwise. Remember; slow accumulation of sediment makes fossils.

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

The Barbarian said:
You've confused your categories with science. What makes you think science is has a problem with any of that?

The issue isn't in the material evidence; it's in the interpretation of it.

The Barbarian said:
Kinda like he's pouring a bucked of cold water on creationists, to wake them up, isn't it? Remember that analogous (kinda works similar) is not an indication of common descent, but homologous (derived from the same structures as things that might not look or work similar) does indicate common descent. And we can check it by genetic data.

The notion of common descent is a theory of belief; not a proven fact. You could just as easily say a particular family of organisms (related "species") were designed that way (with structures that resemble traits found in more than one phyla).

And since there is so much DNA genome overlap / commonly shared in all life. The "common DNA" argument is moot.

Evidence today is that we can only cross certain families of species. (Which does actually bring up the question of how should we really define "species" / "kind" but that's a different issue.) We can cross lions and tigers, horses and donkeys etc. and get live offspring. Some of these offspring are reproductively viable and some aren't.

Yet, there are genetic boundaries that are not crossable. And this is where you have "God made everything after its own kind". You can not cross humans and apes. There is a genetic boundary there. And if that genetic boundary exists today; why would one assume it would not exist in the "beginning"?

Again, boils down to what does one choose to believe; not the material evidence that we have.

You apparently do not believe the Genesis account. Do you believe Jesus Christ is your Redeemer? If you answer "yes" to the Jesus question and "no" to the Genesis question; you eventually come to the issue of what do you do with a Scripture that you believe has errors. You either trust what the entire book says, or you don't trust what any of the book says.

That's your basic dilemma here!

All the rest of these arguments are pretty much fluff that clouds that basic question.

The Barbarian · Aug 21, 2019

You've confused your categories with science. What makes you think science is has a problem with any of that? Kinda like he's pouring a bucked of cold water on creationists, to wake them up, isn't it? Remember that analogous (kinda works similar) is not an indication of common descent, but homologous (derived from the same structures as things that might not look or work similar) does indicate common descent. And we can check it by genetic data.

The Righterzpen said:
The notion of common descent is a theory of belief; not a proven fact.

No, it's an inference from evidence. Linnaeus' family tree, genetic evidence, and the very large number of transitional forms, which even honest creationists admit is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

You could just as easily say a particular family of organisms (related "species") were designed that way (with structures that resemble traits found in more than one phyla).

No, that wouldn't work. Homologies and suboptimal structures would rule out a "designer." But it's perfectly consistent with a Creator capable of making a universe in which such things emerge as He wills them to.

And since there is so much DNA genome overlap / commonly shared in all life. The "common DNA" argument is moot.

Nope. That's another huge problem for creationists. If God created living things like tales of other supposed gods, then you woudn't see DNA similarities sorting out like a family tree. So humans and chimps are genetically closer than either is to other apes. And humans, chimps and other apes are genetically closer to each other than any of them is to any other mammal. And mammals are genetically closer to each other than any is to any other vertebrate. And vertebrates are genetically closer to reach other than any of them is to any other phylum. And... well, you get the picture. This is a complete and insolvable mystery to creationists, but a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Evidence today is that we can only cross certain families of species. (Which does actually bring up the question of how should we really define "species" / "kind" but that's a different issue.)

Which is yet another insolvable problem for creationists. If evolution is not true, we should see nice, neat, definable boundaries between taxa. But we don't as Darwin pointed, out it's always fuzzy. This is perfectly understandable if evolution and common descent were true, but there's no way to explain it in terms of creationism.

Yet, there are genetic boundaries that are not crossable.

Usually, but not always at the species level. Sometimes higher. This is what you would expect, if new species evolved from older ones; increasing divergence over time. Again, creationism has no way to explain it.

Again, boils down to what does one choose to believe

See above. Creationism depends on rejecting the evidence, as honest creationists admit:

You apparently do not believe the Genesis account.

I accept it as it is, without the modern revisions of creationists.

I would hope you believe in Jesus as your Redeemer; I thought all of us did. I thought you are supposed to be a believer to post on this forum. I do recognize that creationists are not necessarily less Christian than those of us who accept Genesis as it is; however, if you don't accept the Nicene Creed, your claim to be a Christian is somewhat problematic.

I also recognize that Genesis is not clear on how much of it is figurative and how much is literal history. That's because it wasn't what God was interested in telling us. So both ideas are perfectly consistent with Christian belief as defined by the Nicene Creed.

So do you believe Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the third day? That He will come again to judge us all?

If so, you're one of us. If not, you're something else.

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

The Barbarian said:
No, it's an inference from evidence.

An inference is based on conjecture of interpretation of evidence. Neither conjecture or interpretation is fact.

The Barbarian said:
Homologies and suboptimal structures would rule out a "designer."

Genesis 2:2
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

There is nothing in this universe that God didn't create and had completed by the 7th day. That is inconstant with evolutionary theory as well as your statement about ruling out a designer.

The Barbarian said:
I also recognize that Genesis is not clear on how much of it is figurative and how much is literal history.

You are not clear on how much of Genesis is figurative or literal history. Genesis is pretty clear that its content is literal creation narrative.

The Barbarian said:
That's because it wasn't what God was interested in telling us.

Why would a creation narrative be in the Scripture if it wasn't important?

The Barbarian said:
So do you believe Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the third day? That He will come again to judge us all?

I believe Jesus died for the sins of the elect. All that the Father gave him from the foundations of the world, who become believers because of the operation of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit awakens those who are to be redeemed, because Christ paid for their sin.

Those who's sin is paid for have already been judged in Christ; who (Christ) will return and recreate this universe incorruptible at some point in our future.

Brightmoon · Aug 21, 2019

Nature itself refutes genesis being a literal history . So I have no reason to accept it as such . Noah’s Flood is impossible for example and would have left the earth’s surface molten and that happens no matter which creationist version you use . It’s not possible for 2 people to be the only ancestors of the current world population . The fossil record shows that fish showed up millions of years before birds etc etc etc . The only supposition occurring is thinking of genesis as a literal history . Creationist “interpretations” of valid evidence usually is the result of them ignoring a lot of facts that don’t support their conjectures .

The Barbarian · Aug 21, 2019

Barbarian observes:
No, it's an inference from evidence.

The Righterzpen said:
An inference is based on conjecture of interpretation of evidence.

Nope. Inference is what it is. Perhaps you don't know what "conjecture" means.

There is nothing in this universe that God didn't create and had completed by the 7th day.

If you revise Genesis to make it a literal history. But if you take it as it is, then that's wrong. If it was unambigously clear which it is, then almost all Christians would agree on it. But since very learned and God-loving Christian theologians are found on both sides of the issue, it's supremely arrogant to argue that it's clearly one or the other. So we have to go to evidence for that question; it's not what God gave us Genesis to learn.

You're not clear on how much of Genesis is figurative or literal history. Although most Christian theologians point to the language of the creation story, which supports the idea that it's a figurative account, there are many who believe the opposite. Since many of them are sincere and intelligent, we have to conclude that it's not clear on that point. But then, God doesn't care how long you think creation went on.

I believe Jesus died for the sins of the elect.

If you believe scripture is God's word, then you believe this:

2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Perhaps you don't know what "conjecture" means.

Conjecture involves something that can not be proven. It essentially means to guess.

Definition of CONJECTURE

The Barbarian said:
If you revise Genesis to make it a literal history. But if you take it as it is, then that's wrong. If it was unambigously clear which it is, then almost all Christians would agree on it. But since very learned and God-loving Christian theologians are found on both sides of the issue, it's supremely arrogant to argue that it's clearly one or the other.

So, according to you it's wrong to take Genesis literal huh. Yet unambiguous consensus doesn't mean correct though; does it? 200 years ago; all Christians believed in the literal account of Genesis. There were no other origin theories; (except from non-Christian religious sources).

So with this shift in your alleged supposition of how many Christians believe in evolution; does this mean for the past 1800 years all "those other people" were wrong? Mind you the theory of evolution is nothing new, as far as the category of non christian sources of theories of origins go.

So.... "supremely arrogant to argue that it's clearly one or the other". Is this statement now an admission that you don't really know what the truth is?

The Barbarian said:
If you believe scripture is God's word, then you believe this:

Now, as to the word "all" in the Bible. Does it need to be qualified?

The word "all" 2 Corinthians 5:15 means "the whole of". Yet the whole of what?

"A decree went out from Augustus Caesar that all (the whole of - same Greek word) be taxed." Luke 2:1

Did Caesar tax the Native Americans or the Chinese? When does "all" not really mean all?

"..He died for the whole of, that they which live should not live for themselves..."

The whole of what? Whole of the elect or every human being that ever lived?

Well, we got a couple theological problems with the notion of Jesus dying for every single human being that ever lived:

1. If Jesus paid for all of the sin of all of humanity; than under what premise does God condemn anyone?

2. I Jesus paid for my sin and I end up in hell to pay for my sin; that's two people paying for the sin of one; and that is not justice.

3. If Jesus paid for my sin and I end up in hell to pay for my sin; than a portion of Christ's work was in vain.

4. If Jesus paid for my sin and I pay for my sin than Jesus is liar because he said "All that the Father gives me will come to me and I should lose nothing but should raise it up on the last day." Now if the Father gave Jesus all of humanity to atone for; not all of humanity comes to him; thus he would be a liar.

So now 2 Peter 3:9. Let's put that into context. Note who it's addressing. "God is long-suffering to us-ward...." (Who's the "us". Who's the epistle addressed to?) It's addressed to those who profess to believe.

So to those who are honestly and earnestly seeking redemption; He is long-suffering toward.

But to the wicked. What happens to them? They perish.

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

Brightmoon said:
Nature itself refutes genesis being a literal history . So I have no reason to accept it as such . Noah’s Flood is impossible for example and would have left the earth’s surface molten and that happens no matter which creationist version you use . It’s not possible for 2 people to be the only ancestors of the current world population . The fossil record shows that fish showed up millions of years before birds etc etc etc . The only supposition occurring is thinking of genesis as a literal history . Creationist “interpretations” of valid evidence usually is the result of them ignoring a lot of facts that don’t support their conjectures .

You're entitled to your opinion.

The Barbarian · Aug 21, 2019

Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps you don't know what "conjecture" means.

The Righterzpen said:
Conjecture involves something that can not be proven.

That's not what your link says.

It essentially means to guess.

Did you even read what the link said?
Definition of CONJECTURE

If you revise Genesis to make it a literal history. But if you take it as it is, then that's wrong. If it was unambigously clear which it is, then almost all Christians would agree on it. But since very learned and God-loving Christian theologians are found on both sides of the issue, it's supremely arrogant to argue that it's clearly one or the other.

So, according to you it's wrong to take Genesis literal huh.

The language in Genesis indicates it's not literal; no way to have mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. Other than that, it's not clearly one or the other, which is why there's no agreement among Christians about it. It's clear that isn't what God was telling us about.

Yet unambiguous consensus doesn't mean correct though; does it?

I'm pointing out that there is no unambiguous consensus. If Genesis was clear, there would be a consensus.

200 years ago; all Christians believed in the literal account of Genesis.

No. Even 1500 years ago, the most influential Christian theologian said it wasn't a literal six days. And in the 1800s, Spurgeon, the Baptist evangelist was speaking of millions of years of Earth's history. Even at the Scopes Trial in the 1920s, the sort of creationism presented, was old Earth creastionism. Young Earth creationism is a very new revision to scripture.

So with this shift in your alleged supposition of how many Christians believe in evolution;

See above. You've been misled about this. Would you like some details?

Mind you the theory of evolution is nothing new, as far as the category of non christian sources of theories of origins go.

The advocates of Darwin's theory were almost entirely Christians. Even Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. Would you like to see that?

So.... "supremely arrogant to argue that it's clearly one or the other".

Yep, in Genesis is not clearly indicated. However, there is evidence in nature itself that shows us the fact of evolution.

Is this statement now an admission that you don't really know what the truth is?

I'm pointing out that you don't have an unambiguous statement in Genesis. If you did, then almost all Christians would be in agreement on it. And they aren't.

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.

Did Caesar tax the Native Americans or the Chinese? When does "all" not really mean all?

The word in Greek meant something quite different. The koine Greek was oikoumenē,
meaning "the known world", that is the Roman Empire.

Well, we got a couple theological problems with the notion of Jesus dying for every single human being that ever lived:

We don't. Calvinists do.

1. If Jesus paid for all of the sin of all of humanity; than under what premise does God condemn anyone?

Refusal to accept Him. Jesus died for every person, and as God says, He's unwilling that any person be lost, desiring that all of us come to him.

2. I Jesus paid for my sin and I end up in hell to pay for my sin;

If you refuse to accept His sacrifice, yes. He gives you the freedom to reject Him if you're determined to do that, but as He says, it's not what He wants. He wants no one lost.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If you don't repent of your sins and accept Him, then you threw away the gift He gave you.

I see your problem. But it's your problem, not ours.

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps you don't know what "conjecture" means.

That's not what your link says.

Did you even read what the link said?
Definition of CONJECTURE

If you revise Genesis to make it a literal history. But if you take it as it is, then that's wrong. If it was unambigously clear which it is, then almost all Christians would agree on it. But since very learned and God-loving Christian theologians are found on both sides of the issue, it's supremely arrogant to argue that it's clearly one or the other.

The language in Genesis indicates it's not literal; no way to have mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. Other than that, it's not clearly one or the other, which is why there's no agreement among Christians about it. It's clear that isn't what God was telling us about.

I'm pointing out that there is no unambiguous consensus. If Genesis was clear, there would be a consensus.

No. Even 1500 years ago, the most influential Christian theologian said it wasn't a literal six days. And in the 1800s, Spurgeon, the Baptist evangelist was speaking of millions of years of Earth's history. Even at the Scopes Trial in the 1920s, the sort of creationism presented, was old Earth creastionism. Young Earth creationism is a very new revision to scripture.

See above. You've been misled about this. Would you like some details?

The advocates of Darwin's theory were almost entirely Christians. Even Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. Would you like to see that?

Yep, in Genesis is not clearly indicated. However, there is evidence in nature itself that shows us the fact of evolution.

I'm pointing out that you don't have an unambiguous statement in Genesis. If you did, then almost all Christians would be in agreement on it. And they aren't.

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.

The word in Greek meant something quite different. The koine Greek was oikoumenē,
meaning "the known world", that is the Roman Empire.

We don't. Calvinists do.

Refusal to accept Him. Jesus died for every person, and as God says, He's unwilling that any person be lost, desiring that all of us come to him.

If you refuse to accept His sacrifice, yes. He gives you the freedom to reject Him if you're determined to do that, but as He says, it's not what He wants. He wants no one lost.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If you don't repent of your sins and accept Him, then you threw away the gift He gave you.

I see your problem. But it's your problem, not ours.

Hey, just like any of the rest of this - you're entitled to your conjecture.

P.S. the only unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Ghost; not unbelief. So if you don't believe - you still get a pass under Arminian universal atonement.

Brightmoon · Aug 21, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
You're entitled to your opinion.

genesis is told in a formulaic manner that follows folktales and uses numerology. 1,2,3,6,7 were considered to be important numbers because most are primes and 6 is the product of 2 primes. No I don’t consider genesis to be a literal history .

The Righterzpen · Aug 21, 2019

Brightmoon said:
genesis is told in a formulaic manner that follows folktales and uses numerology. 1,2,3,6,7 were considered to be important numbers because most are primes and 6 is the product of 2 primes. No I don’t consider genesis to be a literal history .

Like I said; you're entitled to your opinion.

CharismaticLady · Aug 21, 2019

ilovejcsog said:
Lets try this again. Please, no page long answers or riddles my brain can't handle them.
Was there anything prior to Genesis?
Were there Dinosaurs and where do they fit in?
Were there Neanderthals and where do they fit in?
No more polls, I just mess them up.
Thanks for giving your opinion.

Dinosaurs were created 6000 years ago, and there were no such thing as Neanderthals.

JackRT · Aug 21, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Dinosaurs were created 6000 years ago, and there were no such thing as Neanderthals.

The evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

Brightmoon · Aug 21, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Dinosaurs were created 6000 years ago, and there were no such thing as Neanderthals.

. Most Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago . Neanderthals weren’t us .

The shape of the pelvis is different and Neanderthal rib cages flare out like a Xmas tree . Neanderthal skulls and brains were a different shape . I only pointed out stuff that a layman could see. Their growth patterns were different they became fully adult at around 15 as opposed to around 21 for us. We know this because we have a lot of fossil skeletons from Neanderthals

Neanderthals, Dinosaurs?

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Crabby Old White Guy

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Crabby Old White Guy

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Crabby Old White Guy

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Crabby Old White Guy

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Similar threads