Dinos in the Ark?

[Phred]

The old ageer factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that their religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives.
The bully boy evo tactics must be confronted. Speaking of trolls, that is the behaviour Phred, you exhibit here, in not engaging in actual debate of any kind.

Dad, I'm sure you're a nice guy but you seriously have a screw loose. Your opinions aren't even coherent much less reasonable. Any discussion with you leads to ad hom attacks, ignorant strawmen and much gloating on your part over absolutely nothing. I've yet to see you make a valid point about anything dad. Not one. So I simply started responding to your posts as is indicated. Until you start to even pretend to have a reasonable discussion why in the world should I validate your nonsense by dissecting it? I can either spend hours finding sources and telling you why you're wrong and showing you or I can just post an actresses name or an old movie title. The result is the same... you're just mad 'cause you can't gloat about it.

 

[Opethian]

The old age factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that their religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives.
The bully boy evo tactics must be confronted. Speaking of trolls, that is the behaviour Phred, you exhibit here, in not engaging in actual debate of any kind.

Dad, I think we need to invent a new term for people like you. Definition of a forum dad: "Someone who keeps rambling on without ever making a point or stating a decent argument or providing any evidence."

 

[duordi]

Have you ever seen a highway that was rerouted, and grew over in several years? Imagine then, with the growth rates. A garden grows over if not tended, and abandoned.

The garden was not a highway.

The woods behind my house have been the same as long as I can remember.

It does bring up and interesting question. Can the tree of life die?

The first male Eve had, perhaps. But there may have been thousands of people around, via Eves unmentioned daughters, and their male children, who grew up! Looking at the wording there, it would fit, just think of someone who never had a boy before, like her daughters. 'Wow, finally, thank God, ' I have gotten a man from the LORD'

You can't have children if Cain was the first male unless Adam had mated with his own daughters.

Well, we don't know how long it was they were in the garden, that falls in the realm of guesswork.

How about this

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;

If Adam and Eve had children before the fall then you would at least have to say sin entered by more then one individual if they sinned.

If these offspring didn't sin then it would conflict with the second half of the verse which states all have sinned.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So you can't have children before Adam and Eve sinned unless you are willing to say the Bible is incorrect.

An overview of a genealogy from the first man, and his sons, and their sons, on down the line. This does not mean a whole lot of hanky panky was not going on all around, and many many people obeyed the command to be fruitful, and have lots of babies.

You seem to assume a past that was the same as now, where genes were damaged a lot. They were good pretty well as long as the merged world was here! Remember, Noah was in the same boat!!

Hanky panky may have been, but no children before the first sin as proved by Romans

But so was Simon Peter talking to Jesus one time, when Jesus said something like 'Satan, get behind me'! In other words spirits enter into physical beings, and can talk through them. The Serpent was some kind of creature there.

I think you are getting what the text says mixed up with an artists rendition you saw in Sunday school.

The text specifically indicates the serpent was not an animal (part of the recent creation).

I did not say Satan was not physical, or at least appeared to be physical just that he was created at a previous time.

If the serpent was inside an animal the animal would not have been judged as it has no moral awareness.

The serpent was judged.

Well, maybe the conflict first took the form of the now on it's belly, hyper evoluted serpent, along with the rest of the now wild Eden animals chasing them out of the garden? A seperation after the fall, between the relationship man had with animals happened. They now dreaded us.

You have your stories mixed up.

The fear of man was put in the animals after the ark when Noah was given permission to eat them.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

Also when it says the serpent will eat the dust of the earth, that's us, we are the dust of the Earth.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

It doesn't say how, but we know that animals did come out, because we had sheep, etc. Also, Eden is long gone, but we have animals all over. Elementary, Watson, they must have left Eden, and spread out as well.

No, 2 + 2 = 4 Animals were out of Eden, they must have come out.

Yes but not all of the animals must come out.

But we know he had children before this, so it's a moot point! Cain and Able were before this Seth, for example. We have a brain for a reason.

And a Bible to prevent us from reasoning incorrectly.

More room to run, and fight, and cultivate, and besides, God may have inspired the animals to drive us out of the garden. Once out, they would go about their business.

It does not say how God did it, just that he did.

The guards were posted, this couldn't happen.

Exactly my point. No one went back in to kill things or harvest the wood.

Not that many here who actually believe the stuff.

Sometimes it only takes one.

Ask Noah.

Duane

 

[dad]

Dad, I'm sure you're a nice guy but you seriously have a screw loose.

No, I don't. You and your opinion of reality, and the past are just that, your opinion.

Your opinions aren't even coherent much less reasonable. Any discussion with you leads to ad hom attacks, ignorant strawmen and much gloating on your part over absolutely nothing.

Ah, so you can't take it. Too bad, better stop tring to dish it out.

I've yet to see you make a valid point about anything dad.

I've yet to see you have the wherwithal to detect a valid point.

Not one. So I simply started responding to your posts as is indicated.

Yes, ignorance, cause thats all you got.

Until you start to even pretend to have a reasonable discussion why in the world should I validate your nonsense by dissecting it?

If you can't debate ideas, at least don't be a troll.

I can either spend hours finding sources and telling you why you're wrong

No, you can't. Nothing on earth can back up your fantasy past. Doesn't matter if you spent decades trying.

and showing you or I can just post an actresses name or an old movie title.

AS can I in your threads, or report your trollishness.

The result is the same... you're just mad 'cause you can't gloat about it.

If you present no arguements to trounce, no, I can't gloat, true. If you have nothing to say, don't speak.

 

[dad]

Dad, I think we need to invent a new term for people like you.

Guess so, there are lots of words for your dime a dozen type.

Definition of a forum dad:...

Jeuvenile, much?

 

[Dannager]

Jeuvenile, much?

Not really. He happens to be correct.

Oh, and it's spelled "juvenile". I figure as long as you're tossing it about as an insult, you might as well spell it properly.

 

[dad]

The garden was not a highway.

The woods behind my house have been the same as long as I can remember.

The garden had an entrance that sounds narrow! If there were more entrances, more guards would need to be posted! If this narrow passage was closed with a rockslide, jungle growth, volcanic activity, flooding, or etc. that would do the trick!

It does bring up and interesting question. Can the tree of life die?

We see plenty of that tree in heaven, so we know it still exists. As for the particular tree in the garden, we don't know. Was it transported to the spiritual realm, or buried, and died, or..? We do know man was not to have access to it anymore on earth.

You can't have children if Cain was the first male unless Adam had mated with his own daughters.

This is a possibility. But if one of the daughters had a boy, it would be of a sexual age in say, 17, -20 mere years. We can't say Adam was the only male on earth till he had Cain!



How about this

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;

If Adam and Eve had children before the fall then you would at least have to say sin entered by more then one individual if they sinned. If They had children this would make sense " Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. " It almost sounds like she had some seed! (kids). Add to this the following "16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; " Now, again it sounds like she would have problems from now on-unlike before, with having babies!!!!!!!
Now, for the icing on the cake here, Look what Adam called Eve!!!! "20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. " !!!! Why call her that if she was barren to date?

If these offspring didn't sin then it would conflict with the second half of the verse which states all have sinned.

Well, are we not all children of Adam? How would children then be more exempt than us?

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So you can't have children before Adam and Eve sinned unless you are willing to say the Bible is incorrect.

Unless it passed to all men then as well as later? By one man sin entered into the world, which affected all life on earth, why not the kids in Eden as well?

I think you are getting what the text says mixed up with an artists rendition you saw in Sunday school.

The text specifically indicates the serpent was not an animal (part of the recent creation).

Not, perhaps a cow, or something like that, or a beast of the field. What about a dino? Bird? Or a reptile? Or...etc? I can't see how the serpent was not a created creature.

I did not say Satan was not physical, or at least appeared to be physical just that he was created at a previous time.

If the serpent was inside an animal the animal would not have been judged as it has no moral awareness.

Opinion, that. If someone gets possesed they have some of the blame for allowing it, I would think, and yielding to the bad spirits over time, till their house was overrun.

The serpent was judged.

So were we.

You have your stories mixed up.
The fear of man was put in the animals after the ark when Noah was given permission to eat them..

True, got me there. However, we see that there was emnity at least with the serpent. They really bite, you know. It is also reasonable to assume that men's relationship was now different with animals in general. Foe example, we don't hear them normally talking to us after this!!!!

Yes but not all of the animals must come out.

Perhaps not, but eventually, they would multiply and seek new territory.

Exactly my point. No one went back in to kill things or harvest the wood.

Right, they check out, but they don't check in.

Sometimes it only takes one.

Ask Noah.

Duane

Or the Philistines who crossed Samson.

 

[dad]

Not really. He happens to be correct.

Oh, and it's spelled "juvenile". I figure as long as you're tossing it about as an insult, you might as well spell it properly.

He's not the only kid on the block, no.

 

[duordi]

The garden had an entrance that sounds narrow! If there were more entrances, more guards would need to be posted! If this narrow passage was closed with a rockslide, jungle growth, volcanic activity, flooding, or etc. that would do the trick!

GEN 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Sounds like you could enter from any direction.
Where did you get the idea that there was only one entrance?

We see plenty of that tree in heaven, so we know it still exists. As for the particular tree in the garden, we don't know. Was it transported to the spiritual realm, or buried, and died, or..? We do know man was not to have access to it anymore on earth.

That is the interesting part.
The tree of life has to be buried somewhere.
Suppose we found the tree and our science had progressed enough to modify the dna of another fruit to comply.
I suppose at that point the flaming sward would reappear.

Well, are we not all children of Adam? How would children then be more exempt than us?
Unless it passed to all men then as well as later? By one man sin entered into the world, which affected all life on earth, why not the kids in Eden as well?

Pre sin offspring would not be removed from the garden if they had no sin and so would be protected from the rest of humanity and then be killed in the flood, still sinless.
The Romans text makes this impossible of course unless you can point out a flaw in the logic or text.
It was an interesting idea though.

Not, perhaps a cow, or something like that, or a beast of the field. What about a dino? Bird? Or a reptile? Or...etc? I can't see how the serpent was not a created creature.

The serpent was not a created animal because the text is clear that it isn't.

If the serpent is more subtle then any beast of the field, then it can not be a beast of the field because it can not be more subtle then itself.

GEN 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Notice how I changed the wording in the following statement to make the serpent a beast of the field.

If the serpent was a beast of the field the text would be "serpent was more subtle then any other beast of the field".

Small variations in the text can change the meaning.
The point is do you want to change it, or know what it really says?

Opinion, that. If someone gets possesed they have some of the blame for allowing it, I would think, and yielding to the bad spirits over time, till their house was overrun.

My point was that if satan was (using/or/inside) a serpent and the serpent was an animal then the serpent-animal would have no soul or motive and therefore can not commit an act of immorality.
What is the point in punishing an animal for Satans actions.
On the other hand there is a demand to punish Satan which is a moral being having moral resposibilities for its actions.

True, got me there. However, we see that there was emnity at least with the serpent. They really bite, you know. It is also reasonable to assume that men's relationship was now different with animals in general. Foe example, we don't hear them normally talking to us after this!!!!

Your right, animals don't talk.
Talking goes with moral awarness and the ability to reason.
All the more reason to accept the idea that the serpent was Satan from a previous creation and not an animal.
Now you have no problem with the animals, only with Satan.
This also fits with the beginning of the fear of man in animals after the flood.

Perhaps not, but eventually, they would multiply and seek new territory.

Agreed.
We only need a few of each "kind" to enter the ark from the garden.

Right, they check out, but they don't check in.

Yes, I wonder how many men tried to get into the garden?

Or the Philistines who crossed Samson.

I think I like your example better.

By the way.

I was reading about the blood, oops, I think they call it pliable red stuff, in the T-rex bone.

It looks like the T-rex is not only from the bird family and close to an ostrich, but it was an ostrich.

A large one.

The little arms fit as the wings on its back and of course the neck and the legs are a bit thinner then the T-rex artists conceptions but it all fits.

If this is true then the T-rex survived after all and the normal size was an easy passenger on the ark.

It could also mean that early man used selective breading to enlarge the size of some animals.

An interesting thing about the tree of life is that Adam and Eve could have eaten from it and lived forever before they sinned.
So Adam and Eve had a choice which was within their abilities to make.
Once they ate from the tree of life the tree of knowledge may have been OK to eat from.
To bad they chose the way they did.

Duane

 

[dad]

GEN 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Of course the sword turned round every way, but it was at the only entrance to Eden, the east side. Where was it placed? - at the entrance on the east, apparently the only entrance ot it woulf have said something like 'He placed at all four entrances swords of light that turned and turned' or whatever. As it is we see it was just placed in the one spot, why? Logically, this was the way in or out.

That is the interesting part.
The tree of life has to be buried somewhere.
Suppose we found the tree and our science had progressed enough to modify the dna of another fruit to comply.
I suppose at that point the flaming sword would reappear.

God doesn't play dice with the fate of men. This commentary takes a stab at it.

"...before what may be conceived its gate or entrance; Cherubims, ....
These angelic beings were for a time employed in guarding the entrance to Paradise, and keeping the way of or road to the tree of life. This, I say, for a time; for it is very probable that God soon removed the tree of life, and abolished the garden, so that its situation could never after be positively ascertained. "
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3&verse=24#Ge3_24

Pre sin offspring would not be removed from the garden if they had no sin and so would be protected from the rest of humanity and then be killed in the flood, still sinless.

Well, that is quite a stretch. Adam had already opened Pandora's box of sin. As I said before, if he did have children, and grandchildren, they would be in the same boat as us, cause we are his children and grandchildren. Why are we more guilty than they? Sounds like sin was now in the world, and all were affected. But this really is not an important point that I can see, so we'll have to leave it a mystery. There was ample opportunity to multiply after leaving the farden as well, and thousands of potential wives for Cain to have had without having kids in Eden. Why would nude, sexy, perfect, fertile people with nothing better to do than have babies as they were ordered to -not have one pretty quick? I guess you assume they were not in there very long.

The Romans text makes this impossible of course unless you can point out a flaw in the logic or text.
It was an interesting idea though.

No, sin did enter in through one man, Adam. His children born or unborn would be in the same boat, in a world with sin in it! No? AS I pointed out, it sounds like Eve had kids. God told her that she would have sorrow in childbirth from now on. The insinuation is that she did not up to this point! Your take says she was barren still.

The serpent was not a created animal because the text is clear that it isn't.

Not as clear as you think.
"That it was a real serpent is evident from the plain and artless style of the history and from the many allusions made to it in the New Testament. But the material serpent was the instrument or tool of a higher agent, Satan or the devil, .." http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3&verse=1#Ge3_1

If the serpent is more subtle then any beast of the field, then it can not be a beast of the field because it can not be more subtle then itself.

Whether it was a beast of the field we don't know, or a forest beast, etc etc. It was real, and the smartest beast on the block.

GEN 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Notice how I changed the wording in the following statement to make the serpent a beast of the field.

What if it were a beast of the field, then it would simply mean it was smarter than the rest? Either way, field, air, sea, or forest, it was a real creature.

My point was that if satan was (using/or/inside) a serpent and the serpent was an animal then the serpent-animal would have no soul or motive and therefore can not commit an act of immorality.
What is the point in punishing an animal for Satans actions.
On the other hand there is a demand to punish Satan which is a moral being having moral resposibilities for its actions.

This is all just opinion. I already explained how we are responsible for the spirits we entertain in us.

Your right, animals don't talk.
Talking goes with moral awarness and the ability to reason.

Opinion. I think we talked to all the animals then, as we will in heaven, even the birds! I have heard lots of people speak who didn't have much reason or moral awareness, as you say!

All the more reason to accept the idea that the serpent was Satan from a previous creation and not an animal.

Ah, I thought you were twisting for a reason here! No, gotta stop you right there. Wrong.

Now you have no problem with the animals, only with Satan.
This also fits with the beginning of the fear of man in animals after the flood.

No, that fits with your silly pet doctrine, thats about it. I suggest you drop that whole bit of luggage right quick.

Yes, I wonder how many men tried to get into the garden?

I suspect if someone, like Cain, did get close enough once to look at the guards the Almighty had posted, they would hightail it toward the nearest T rex, if they had to, in a hurry!

I was reading about the blood, oops, I think they call it pliable red stuff, in the T-rex bone.

It looks like the T-rex is not only from the bird family and close to an ostrich, but it was an ostrich.

A large one.

T Trex a large ostrich? Guess it was quite a scene when it buried it's big head in the sand?

The little arms fit as the wings on its back and of course the neck and the legs are a bit thinner then the T-rex artists conceptions but it all fits.

So, what, we feed the ostrich wheaties, and watch out!? Then we simply rip off the T Trex arms, and glue them as useless little wings on the back of the dino, and we are in business? I would use a grain of salt there.

If this is true then the T-rex survived after all and the normal size was an easy passenger on the ark.

It could also mean that early man used selective breading to enlarge the size of some animals.

Too busy surviving, having babies, hunting, farming, warring, etc, more likely. The adapting mostly came by hyper evolution as needed.

An interesting thing about the tree of life is that Adam and Eve could have eaten from it and lived forever before they sinned.
So Adam and Eve had a choice which was within their abilities to make.
Once they ate from the tree of life the tree of knowledge may have been OK to eat from.
To bad they chose the way they did.

Yes, and for all I know, they did. But the eating of the other tree cancelled the effects, and they never got the chance to eat the tree of life again, till they got to heaven, where they enjoy it as we speak! Originally, things, even the world, and universe, I believe, were designed to last forever! WE messed up, He promised a saviour, He delivered, we are on the road home again, and have the right in believing in Jesus to that tree of life, that waits for us, somewhere over the rainbow.

 

[Opethian]

The bible is a fiction book written by regular humans, containing some not very accurate descriptions of some historical events in that time. It's not the word of god, it has literary value but nothing else. Stop discussing so vigorously how you interpret it, since it has no meaning in the real world whatsoever, and certainly no scientifical value either! I don't care if you do this in the christian-only part of the forum, but stop spouting the nonsense on this part of the forum, it has no use in debate and it certainly no use in a scientifical debate...

 

[duordi]

The bible is a fiction book written by regular humans, containing some not very accurate descriptions of some historical events in that time. It's not the word of god, it has literary value but nothing else. Stop discussing so vigorously how you interpret it, since it has no meaning in the real world whatsoever, and certainly no scientifical value either! I don't care if you do this in the christian-only part of the forum, but stop spouting the nonsense on this part of the forum, it has no use in debate and it certainly no use in a scientifical debate...

I anticipated some here would feel as you do which is why I am posting on the end of a thread that you would have to search for.
The discussion was intended for Dad primarily but you are of course welcome to join in if you wish.

I take it by your response that you are one of the "anti Bible" types who can not accept scientific evidence which opposed your view.

Am I right?

Duane

 

[Opethian]

I anticipated some here would feel as you do which is why I am posting on the end of a thread that you would have to search for.
The discussion was intended for Dad primarily but you are of course welcome to join in if you wish.

I take it by your response that you are one of the "anti Bible" types who can not accept scientific evidence which opposed your view.

Am I right?

Duane

I'll accept any scientific evidence, even if it would oppose my views. Only, I have yet to see any scientifical evidence opposing my views that is not scientifically refuted 5 seconds after it is posted. If you think you have any please show me.

 

[Caphi]

dad: Look! Look! I found a text which states that 2+2 is 3!
other people: No it isn't. 2+2 is 4.
dad: Maybe back then addition worked differently.
others: No, we're pretty sure 2+2 has always been 4. 1+1 is 2, and (1+1)+(1+1) is 4, so...
dad: Well, maybe back then it was, um, (1+(1)+1). Yeah, that'll do. See, that one is in two parentheses, so it counts twice, and that makes it 3!!!!!!!!
others: It doesn't work that way, dood.
dad: You're all just too closed minded to see that I'm right. Parentheses count twice! You're all stubborn fools!
Irony meters: *BOOM*

This has been a Caphi Analogy Theater (CAT). Thank you for watching.

 

[Phred]

I take it by your response that you are one of the "anti Bible" types who can not accept scientific evidence which opposed your view.

I take it you're one of those religionists who takes the Bible as scientific evidence. Am I right?

 

[dad]

The bible is a fiction book written by regular humans,

Why make allegations you can't prove? Like to hear yourself cuss?

containing some not very accurate descriptions of some historical events in that time.

They are bang on, your belief based ideas have simply limited your understanding potential. Don't blame the rest of the world for your handicap.

It's not the word of god, it has literary value but nothing else.

Your say so is of limited value.

Stop discussing so vigorously how you interpret it, since it has no meaning in the real world whatsoever, and certainly no scientifical value either!

It has great science value, and fills in the blancs you don't even yet know exist!

I don't care if you do this in the christian-only part of the forum, but stop spouting the nonsense on this part of the forum, it has no use in debate and it certainly no use in a scientifical debate...

Any more commands, Napoleon? Stop spouting your PO past beliefs on a science forum! There is no place for it here. Not if you try to carry them into the future or past. We've already seen that cannot be evidenced, proved, or supported.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

dad... i know you're either a fake or insane, but still...


you're making a claim- namely that sometime in the past the laws of physics all changed dramatically

can you show any evidence of this? one would think such a dramatic change in the very fabric of the universe would show some signs

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

and furthermore, we know that the bible was written by humans... biblical literalists don't dispute this... they say moses wrote the pentetuach, that men wrote the gospels...


they also claim that these men were inspired by god. the authorship of men is not in dispute. it is the inspiration of god that needs authentification

 

[dad]

dad: Look! Look! I found a text which states that 2+2 is 3!
other people: No it isn't. 2+2 is 4.

I'll clear up the mystery here, 2 + 2 = 4. Nothing in the bible, or my humble opinions say otherwise. It is you who take the 2 of the present, add it to the 1 of the past, and try to sell us that it is 4! Then, you add other, large numbers to the 3, and come up with the wrong answers consistantly as a result. Get back to the beginning, and try to figure out where you went wrong, I have, it's fun....

This has been a Caphi Analogy Theater (CAT). ...

Woof

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

what about pi=3? did numbers change in the merged past? oh wait- the temple bowls were too far after the flood...