Young earth creationism & 40000 year old frozen wolf

JAL · Jan 3, 2020

nolidad said:
That is just word games on your part. You bounce between tangible and material. Th ematerial universe is composed of atoms!

Unbelievable. Theology 101 won't be enough. You'd better add Philosphy 101 as well.

What is you proof that God fuses the material soul to the human body? What is you rproof that the human soul is shaped like your body?

I demonstrated it from an analysis of Romans 7 and 8 that I linked you to. As usual you ignored it.

What is you proof that God fuses the material soul to the human body?

(Sigh). You ignored Tertullian's proof that I referenced to you over and over and over again. Here's a summary (yet again). A intangible mind cannot interact with a tangible body - by definition - because such would be a contradiction in terms (like a square circle). So we know that both mind and body are tangible. Further, to ACTUALLY interact continually, they must be in physical contact with each other and thus in some sense joined ('fused') to each other.

You ignored the argument from Romans 7 and 8, and you ignored Tertullian's argument. How is this a debate? You just keep reasserting conclusions utterly refuted already.

If you gain 50 pounds does your soul expand as well?

It's God job to keep your soul in sync with your body and fused to it. So yes, similar to when you blow up a balloon causing the particles to disperse outwards ('stretching the balloon'), presumably any expansion in the body size would likely stretch the soul, with God's hand overseeing the process to keep the two in proper proportions/sync, and properly fused.

Please spare me philosophical mumbo jumbo and give Scripture or scientific evidence.

Get real. Immaterialists have NOTHING! They have nothing but mumbo-jumbo. Don't you get that? I have already given numerous biblical verses demonstrating materialism. There's no burden of proof on me.

You deny that man has a spirit yet I give you verses showing man has a spirit. Here is another one...

(sigh) We have been over this already - over and over and over again. These are English translations. The term 'spirit' fails of any serious grammatical contextual exegesis.

Scripture should be consistent. If 'pneuma' refers to material substance (breath/wind) in one verse, it should be the same in all verses.

"Jesus breathed on them, and said, "Receive the Holy Breath [pneuma]" (Jn 20:22).
"By the blast of your nostrils, the waters piled up...But you blew with your breath [pneuma], and the sea covered them" (Ex 15).

That pneuma is from the Greek OT. The Hebrew OT has "ruach". Here's another NT example:

"He will overthrew the lawless one by the breath [pneuma] of his mouth" (2 Th 2:8)

Simple question for you regarding that last verse. When you open your mouth, what generally comes out:
(1) Material wind/breath, OR
(2) Immaterial spirits ?

The bible says men have bodies, souls and spirits or are a trichotomous being. You deny it! You and your "system" are against the Word of God!

Except in this case probably 99.99% of professional theologians agree with me. Care to address their arguments? No. All you care to do is assert your conclusions. You offer no proof of anything.

When I post a scripture- you post a philosophical defense based on some word of some "professional theologian". Sorry, but God doesn't need an editor hundreds of years later to correct those He inspired to write Scripture!

LOL. You're really funny.

Yes I can! Jesus introduced this account with the phrase "there was a man" it is not modified by the gospel writer saying that it was another parable. Jesus did not use comparative terms like "like" such as" "is compared to"... He mentioned people by name which is not true of any parable he did speak.

Fair point, but when it's a sequence of parables consecutively, it wasn't necessary for Him to keep repeating "this is a parable."

So God is just a breath then?

(Sigh). Category mistake. We discussed this earlier. Personhood is neither material substance nor immaterial substance. Personhood is conscious experience and agency. God isn't "just" a breath. He is a Person whose substance is material, for example the Third Person is The Holy Wind/Breath as His title indicates.

John 4:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

And we must worship him in breath and truth? Wow you have drunk the kool aid bad!

(Sigh). Again, see post 248. As usual, you ignored the argument. Since you're 2,000 years divorced from the ancient writers - and a dead language - you need to be aware that ancient idioms may have logical underpinnings completely unfamiliar to you. Just like if I said to someone who doesn't know English well, "Things were pretty haywire today." He'd respond, "Huh? Wires? Hay? What the heck are you talking about?"

Any cites?

(Sigh) Already discussed this. Thomas Oden wrote an unusual systematic theology - it's a list of every major consensus, those held in consensus for the 1st 1,000 years of the church minimum, and typically up till 1500 AD. Thomas Oden is famous for that work.

Maybe you should look at all the English translations, they define it a spirit.

I looked at them 20 years ago. At that time I looked at the context and soon realized that "spirit" came from a Greek homosexual pagan philosopher named Plato. You can continue following Plato if you want to. Nothing I can do about it. As the Catholic Encyclopedia noted, the church fathers based much of their beliefs on Greek philosophy because they believed it be as authoritative as Scripture.

So you are implying there is some sort of conspiracy or mass deception going on!

(Sigh). Again, I'm saying that "spirit" came from Plato's influence.

You are exhuasting...

JAL · Jan 3, 2020

nolidad said:
What is you proof that God fuses the material soul to the human body? What is you proof that the human soul is shaped like your body? If you gain 50 pounds does your soul expand as well?

Andrew Murray is my primary mentor. He made a good point on this. Is a plant alive? Or dead? Most of us would say, Alive.

But if a plant is just ordinary matter, like a rock, it should NOT be alive. The same is true with animals. Are animals alive or dead? They are alive. Murray saw this simple argument as evidence that plants - like animals - actually have a soul (even though it's less sentient than insects). He then raised the question, where is this soul? EVERYWHERE! Meaning, it STRETCHES from the bottom of the plant or tree to the tip of its branches and leaves. And as the plant grows, the soul stretches along with it. Again, it is God's job to keep the plant's material soul and material body in sync.

That's a pretty reasonable argument.

JAL · Jan 3, 2020

Occasionally you'll try to use (misinformed) reasoning to discredit my view. You'll talk about atoms, for example, or you'll make a statement like this.

nolidad said:
Th material universe is composed of atoms!...If you gain 50 pounds does your soul expand as well? Please spare me philosophical mumbo jumbo and give Scripture or scientific evidence.

See what you just did? You did NOT give me a Scripture. You are trying to employ REASONING. But at the same time you insist - don't respond with reasoning! You are only allowed to give me Scripture!

Now here's the other differences.
(1) When you give YOUR philosophical reasoning, I address your arguments.
(2) You ignore all my reasoning. You just keep saying, "I'll only accept Scripture."
(3) And when I gave you Scripture - you ignore that too!

Look, the Bible generailly is not written in the format of a systematic theology. Every exegete has to employ reasoning ('philosophy') to deduce what is being said. The difference here is that, as I've shown again and again, any REASONABLE exegete would deduce materialistic dynamics from the text again and again and again, based on context. He would certainly NOT deduce immaterialism except insofar as biased by Plato, because the text doesn't support that nonsense.

JAL · Jan 3, 2020

nolidad said:
Yes I can! Jesus introduced this account with the phrase "there was a man" it is not modified by the gospel writer saying that it was another parable. Jesus did not use comparative terms like "like" such as" "is compared to"... He mentioned people by name which is not true of any parable he did speak.

So when the context doesn't say "parable" or "like", then we should take it literally? Good. Thanks for signing up to materialism (not sure why it took you so long) - welcome aboard:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body."

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

I happen to take all these verses literally. That's because the divine substance - also known as the divine Word - exists in a huge variety of solid, liquid, and gaseous forms including Smoke, Wind, Fire, Bread, Water, Flesh, and Blood. (Hence the wedding supper of the Lamb).

Pay particular attention to this verse:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Is that a metaphor, or literal text? Did He literally give his flesh for the life of the world? Or metaphorically?

You say I don't give you Scripture. I give you plenty. You just don't like what it says.

JAL · Jan 3, 2020

nolidad said:
MAybe you should spend more time in Scripture, fellowship and prayer and less time reading "professional theologians" and the works of philosophers. Jesus condemned the theologians of His day and I fear If He came again He would condemn the professional theologians since the church came out of hiding in the fourth century!

Nice. You've basically condemned all the theologians.

Your statements are so hypocritical it's not even funny. When I name theologians in favor of MY views, you immediately scoff at them. But when you want me to believe one of YOUR conclusions, you tell me swallow - hook, line, and sinker - the English translations created by them! As if they couldn't possibly be mistaken! You are arguably the most one-sided debater that I've ever had the displeasure of debating with.

JAL · Jan 4, 2020

ediint

JAL · Jan 4, 2020

nolidad said:
But you have yet to prove (other than through your philosophers and professional theologians) that the soul of man and the spirit of man is made up of atoms and quarks, and muons and prions etc.

By "material" I simply mean tangible, thus the material soul need not be arranged as atoms. I've made this point probably 3 times already.

When Lazarus went to paradise, he was a fully grown man and easily recognized. How can this be? did that soul inflate up or instantly gorw? I don't think that full grown Lazarus soul could live inside the physical body of Lazarus! You make extraordinary claims and I agree- you need to get extraordinary proof!

An atom is mostly empty space, for example electrons orbiting in empty space around a nucleus. There is plenty of room for a soul. Molecules are atoms joined - which again makes for lots of empty space. I don't see why I should have to explain something so basic as the idea of a material soul permeating a material body. How is any of this an extraordinary claim? Permeation is a fact of every day experience - for example pour water onto a cloth and watch it saturate and then seep through.

to the spirits of just men made perfect

Let me try to put you in the Hebrew mindset - the kind of mindset that evolves from Genesis 2:7. Air/wind/breath is invisible - and yet material. Thus the GENERAL TERM for invisible matter is "air/wind/breath". The soul falls into the this category because:
(1) It is material substance
(2) Is is (normally) invisible
(3) Therefore it is an instance of air/wind/breath.

In English we are used to saying "souls" or "spirits" (largely due to Plato's influence). But in the ancient Hebrew mindset, it was common to say "winds". May I ask, how many languages are you fluent in? If you are fluent in only one language, it is virtually impossible for you to comprehend the vastly different ways that other peoples conceptualize things. Take the word "language" itself. Growing up, I always used the term "language" - I NEVER used the word "tongue" (until I got saved and heard about the gift of tongues). Thus for me, growing up, the "tongue" was an organ inside my mouth. If you had said something to me about "the tongues of men", I would have been lost. In the same way, several thousands of years after Gen 2:7 was written, the phrase "breaths/winds of men" makes no sense to you. It's an ancient mindset, language, and so on.

In these debates, posters are often unfair. But recently, on another thread, a poster was fair to me on this issue. Basically he said, "Your point is valid. We are used to hearing 'spirit' for 2,000 years but if history were different, we might be accustomed to 'wind' or 'breath' instead."

nolidad · Jan 5, 2020

JAL said:
Nice. You've basically condemned all the theologians.

Your statements are so hypocritical it's not even funny. When I name theologians in favor of MY views, you immediately scoff at them. But when you want me to believe one of YOUR conclusions, you tell me swallow - hook, line, and sinker - the English translations created by them! As if they couldn't possibly be mistaken! You are arguably the most one-sided debater that I've ever had the displeasure of debating with.

Well you name one or two then make a claim you refuse to prove like "unanimous" or "consensus"

No I can name you many "professional theologians" who vociferously disagree with the interpretations you present.

And as for your theologians who agree, you just name a name and have yet AFAIK have not provided one direct quote from any of the names you have posted. You want me to just accept the fact you name a name as ex-cathedra infallibility.

Methodism has largely gone apostate. They hold orthodox doctrine on paper but many of the local churchesd do not adhere to those doctrines.

As for English translations- I know of no English translation that says God is merely wind or breath! What amazes me is that you think nearly all (as I posted unlike you) English translations translate pneuma as Spirit when it is not a direct reference to wind.

Example John 3:6 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
both spirits are pneuma.

Yes I am a one sided debater until I am convinced th eposition I hold is in error in whole or part! Most people are. As for the All Greek Scholars who have translated into English- you hold a deep conspiracy theory that you are smarter than them. I also know of no vulgate translation to English where it is called breath. YOu need to present cites from your professionals to show why your conspiracy thinking is accurate.

Ball is in your court!

Then John 3:8: 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

wind and spirit are both pneuma. But according to "your doctrine of God" you would have us say Breath or wind every time! REducing God to a puff of wind or breath!

nolidad · Jan 5, 2020

JAL said:
By "material" I simply mean tangible, thus the material soul need not be arranged as atoms. I've made this point probably 3 times already.

So you hypothesize the soul MAY be made of tangible substance that is not of the tangible substance of this universe when you call it material. At least now I know you use material and tangible interchangeably.

JAL said:
An atom is mostly empty space, for example electrons orbiting in empty space around a nucleus. There is plenty of room for a soul. Molecules are atoms joined - which again makes for lots of empty space. I don't see why I should have to explain something so basic as the idea of a material soul permeating a material body. How is any of this an extraordinary claim? Permeation is a fact of every day experience - for example pour water onto a cloth and watch it saturate and then seep through.

Yes there is plenty of room in between th e parts of the atom for a soul that is tangible but not amde up of material known in the universe. So show evidence to support your hypothesis in order to try to advance it to a theory! But you still haven't answered the fact the Bible absolutely says man has a body, soul and spirit as I showed you quotes form Scripture! Where is the spirit within man? Because you think it is just breath or wind, does that mean man brings in and then exhales out his spirit the bible says he has?

Why do you think you have to answer? Because this has not been a normal teaching within Christianity since Pentecost!

Just to let you know-- wind is immaterial! Not material. The air that is blown by wind has substance but teh wind doesn't. Immaterial wind simply blows material substance around!

JAL said:
In English we are used to saying "souls" or "spirits" (largely due to Plato's influence). But in the ancient Hebrew mindset, it was common to say "winds". May I ask, how many languages are you fluent in? If you are fluent in only one language, it is virtually impossible for you to comprehend the vastly different ways that other peoples conceptualize things. Take the word "language" itself. Growing up, I always used the term "language" - I NEVER used the word "tongue" (until I got saved and heard about the gift of tongues). Thus for me, growing up, the "tongue" was an organ inside my mouth. If you had said something to me about "the tongues of men", I would have been lost. In the same way, several thousands of years after Gen 2:7 was written, the phrase "breaths/winds of men" makes no sense to you. It's an ancient mindset, language, and so on.

Hate to break the news to you, but the ancient Hebrews knew ruach was breath, wind, spirit. They did not have a separate word like the greeks didn't. So they used a word similar and people knew by what the context was whether it was wind or spirit!

Well I will tell you how many languages I am fluent in when you tell me how many you are fluent in! But having studied teh Bible for over 45 years now I have become able to easily get to eh greek and Hebrew and vocabularies and linguistic guides etc. to help me study Gods Word intheir original languages.

And I am glad as you grew, you came to understand that tongues can mean the physical organ or the language spoken. When you grow further you will learn that ruach and pneuma both can mean wind/breath and spirit!

JAL · Jan 5, 2020

nolidad said:
So you hypothesize the soul MAY be made of tangible substance that is not of the tangible substance of this universe when you call it material. At least now I know you use material and tangible interchangeably.

Finally! You've actually managed to understand one tenet of my position. After what, maybe 100 posts? I don't know that I time to keep moving at this snail's pace.

Yes there is plenty of room in between th e parts of the atom for a soul that is tangible but not amde up of material known in the universe. So show evidence to support your hypothesis in order to try to advance it to a theory! But you still haven't answered the fact the Bible absolutely says man has a body, soul and spirit as I showed you quotes form Scripture!

(Sigh). Here we go again. I provided you four replies on this already.
(1) I linked you to an article that explains why 99.99% of professional theologians find no clear evidence of trichotomy in that verse (1Th 5:23). That verse lists three elements. Based on that listing, YOU think that trichotomy is implied. But various verses list 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 elements. Is man therefore five parts? Four? Three? Two? One? Or maybe we should count up and total all the elements named in ALL the verses. Maybe man has seven parts in all? Again, your conclusion is totally unwarranted, which is why 99.99% of professional theologians reject it.
(2) Trichotomy is incoherent. There is no clear logic to how it works. It seems to self-contradict on concepts such as the mind's role in the new birth, the sinful nature, and sanctification. I told you I myself wrote a 2-page article on this point. If you'll PROMISE to read it CAREFULLY, I'll post it here. I'm pretty sure you won't.
(3) Trichotomy traditionally presumes immaterial elements. As Tertullian pointed out in 200 AD, it is logically absurd to claim that an immaterial soul interacts with a tangible body.
(4) I explained why a kind of materialistic trichotomy (if one wants to go that route) is another way of satisfying 1Th 5:23, and I explained why such would still have no major impact on theology at all.

Where is the spirit within man? Because you think it is just breath or wind, does that mean man brings in and then exhales out his spirit the bible says he has?

I take it back. I thought you had finally understood one tenet of my position. Apparently I was wrong.

Hate to break the news to you, but the ancient Hebrews knew ruach was breath, wind, spirit. They did not have a separate word like the greeks didn't. So they used a word similar and people knew by what the context was whether it was wind or spirit!

(Sigh) I realize they would have used the same word. You're still missing the argument. (This is crazy). The argument is that:
(1) We have a hundred clear cases for wind/breath.
(2) We have no clear cases for immaterial spirit.
(3) In regard to persons, such as the Third Person, the context STILL indicates The Holy Wind/Breath because:
(A) air/wind/breath is SPECIFICALLY referenced in those passages
(B) The DYNAMICS of those passages CANNOT BE UNDRSTOOD apart from air/wind/breath. Example:
"You blew with your breath [ruach/pneuma] and the Red Sea covered them" (Ex 15).

I never denied that 'spirit' is a POSSIBLE translation of ruach/pneuma. What I said is that it is a TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED translation that is contradicted by the textual evidence (i.e. the context and physical dynamics) again and again and again.

And I am glad as you grew, you came to understand that tongues can mean the physical organ or the language spoken. When you grow further you will learn that ruach and pneuma both can mean wind/breath and spirit!

In regard to THIS particular conversation, it should be pretty clear which one of us in most need of growing.

JAL · Jan 5, 2020

nolidad said:
I know of no English translation that says God is merely wind or breath!

That is a blatant misrepresentation, as I've shown you over and over and over again. And if you continue in this intellectual dishonesty, I'll terminate this discussion outright. For one thing it's a category mistake as I've pointed out several times. Here AGAIN is my reading of John 3:8 for example:

"The divine Wind (pneuma) blows wherever it pleases. You hear it's sound but don't know whence it comes or where it is going. So it is of every one born of the divine Wind (pneuma) (John 3:8).

Read that verse CAREFULLY. Then reconsider what you said.

nolidad said:
I know of no English translation that says God is merely wind or breath!

It isn't MERELY (ordinary) wind/breath. It's a PERSON. How do I know that? Because ordinary wind doesn't blow wherever it pleases. It doesn't choose where to go but rather ends up wherever driven by the forces of nature. Only a PERSONAL Wind could possibly blow where it pleases to go.

REducing God to a puff of wind or breath!

Total intellectual dishonesty. Total misrepresentation of my position. Also at variance with John 3:8 as shown above. You resort to these cheap tactics because you have NOTHING to stand on.

JAL · Jan 5, 2020

nolidad said:
Just to let you know-- wind is immaterial! Not material. The air that is blown by wind has substance but teh wind doesn't. Immaterial wind simply blows material substance around!

From Wikipedia:

"Wind is the flow of gases on a large scale."
Wind - Wikipedia

Cut the nonsense, please?

Hate to break the news to you, but the ancient Hebrews knew ruach was breath, wind, spirit. They did not have a separate word like the greeks didn't. So they used a word similar and people knew by what the context was whether it was wind or spirit!

I don't think you're clear on the burden of proof. All of us know that matter exists. None of us can prove that immaterial substance exists - it's an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary corroboration. Knowing that we are faced with two possible translations of ruach/pneuma...

(1) The Holy Wind/Breath as material substance.
(2) The Holy Spirit/Ghost as immaterial substance

...Scripture should make EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT to dissociate Him from wind/breath (if God wants us to opt for #2). On the contrary, we see Scripture making extraordinary effort to ASSOCIATE and IDENTIFY Him with wind/breath.

"Jesus breathed on them, and said, 'Receive the Holy Breath'" (John 20:22).
"You blew with your Breath, and the sea covered them" (Ex 15)
"He will overthrow the lawless one, by the Breath of his mouth" (2 Th 2:8)
"The Wind blows wherever it pleases" (John 3:8).
"They heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind...And they were all filled with the Holy Wind" (Acts 2).

and several more passages already mentioned. Given these facts, Plato's philosophy is the ONLY possible explanation as to why the translators have been opting for 'Holy Spirit' or 'Holy Ghost' for all these centuries.

But the main point, again, is this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary corroboration. This means a HUGE burden of proof rests on your shoulders - a burden which you cannot possibly meet. Not even close.

JAL · Jan 5, 2020

nolidad said:
Ball is in your court!

LOL. In my court? Really? You still have a big zero! I have enumerated numerous passages clearly documenting physical dynamics whereas you still can't find a single verse substantively favoring immaterialism. I'm afraid the ball is in your court - that's the way it's been throughout all our exchanges, and so it will remain.

nolidad · Jan 6, 2020

JAL said:
From Wikipedia:

"Wind is the flow of gases on a large scale."
Wind - Wikipedia

Cut the nonsense, please?

You prove my point you are a careless reader. The wind is not the gases (oxygen is a gas) but the wind is the flow that moves the gases but not the gases themselves.

Oxygen, Nitrogen, Helium, CO2, etc have no inertia in and of themselves! Go deeper than wiki.

But I promised you the last word so have it. I will not respond further.

nolidad · Jan 6, 2020

JAL said:
I happen to take all these verses literally. That's because the divine substance - also known as the divine Word - exists in a huge variety of solid, liquid, and gaseous forms including Smoke, Wind, Fire, Bread, Water, Flesh, and Blood. (Hence the wedding supper of the Lamb).

So you are a pan-en-theist then. So when I go to my local grocer and see hundreds of loaves of bread- I am seeing hundreds of something of Jesus!

JAL said:
Finally! You've actually managed to understand one tenet of my position. After what, maybe 100 posts? I don't know that I time to keep moving at this snail's pace.

Well you can imagine that all you wish- but if you call that the truth, you are just being arrogant, for there is no way to test your hypothesis! You should spend more time on what is written in Scripture than trhying to imagine things that God did not tell us!

JAL said:
That is a blatant misrepresentation, as I've shown you over and over and over again. And if you continue in this intellectual dishonesty, I'll terminate this discussion outright. For one thing it's a category mistake as I've pointed out several times. Here AGAIN is my reading of John 3:8 for example:

Well I was gong to for you meander worse than a wandering river!

Pneuma is wind breath, but God who is pneuma is not wind breath! He is a spirit creature who is not a psirit creature for th e word spirit to you is a mistranslation.

Have you rlast word and I do not wish you success in your philosophical wanderings in creating your own "Doctrine of God". If you are looking to gainn adherents to your strange philosophy may the Lord HImself cause you to fail to get one.

JAL · Jan 6, 2020

nolidad said:
So you are a pan-en-theist then. So when I go to my local grocer and see hundreds of loaves of bread- I am seeing hundreds of something of Jesus!

I give up. You can't just seem to understand anything I write.

Have you rlast word and I do not wish you success in your philosophical wanderings in creating your own "Doctrine of God"

Except you still have no idea what I believe!

JAL · Jan 6, 2020

nolidad said:
You prove my point you are a careless reader. The wind is not the gases (oxygen is a gas) but the wind is the flow that moves the gases but not the gases themselves.

Oxygen, Nitrogen, Helium, CO2, etc have no inertia in and of themselves! Go deeper than wiki.

But I promised you the last word so have it. I will not respond further.

The bible is addressed to the common man. The Wikipedia captures the common understanding of wind - namely an unseen gas flowing in one direction or another, often tangible enough to be felt or even to have a strong impact on visible objects.
"They heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind...And they were all filled with the Holy Wind."

westide · Jan 6, 2020

If only we could ask the wolf.

Pat Ritchey · Jan 12, 2020

mcarans said:
"The severed head of a wolf that died about 40,000 years ago has been found in Siberia, and because of the freezing conditions, the remains are so well preserved that the fur, teeth, brain and facial tissue are largely intact.

Pavel Yefimov, a local resident, discovered the head last summer on the banks of the Tirekhtyakh river close to the Arctic Circle in the region of Yakutia, according to the Siberian Times.

The head was handed to the Science Academy of Yakutia. Researchers there sent samples and measurement data abroad and with help from colleagues in Japan and Sweden determined its age as approximately 40,000 years, the news outlet said.

Footage provided to Reuters TV by the academy shows the head of an animal, visibly bigger than that of a modern wolf, covered with fur and with teeth visible. Its eyes are missing."

Young earth creationism says the world is in the order of 10000 years old. How does it account for a 40000 year old wolf's head?

Frozen wolf's head found in Siberia is 40,000 years old

Pat Ritchey · Jan 12, 2020

In my opinion The Bible isn't a science e book. It is about the unseen realm
Maybe Google Mike Heiser Phd.. Associated with Celebration Church Jacksonville Florida. His Naked Bible podcast addresses the creation/science issue. Just a suggestion.

Young earth creationism & 40000 year old frozen wolf

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

New Member

Member

Member

Similar threads