Dinosaurs/Dragons

DynamicDrummer said:

Paladin, did you learn of evolution before learning about the creation account?

Click to expand...

FWIW, I've been to church all of my life. I learned the creation story before I could read. When I was old enough to learn about dinosaurs (we didn't have Barney back in my day), I asked how that fit in, since they were really old, and my parents gave me some version of Gap Theory. (that is, a gap existed between the first two verses of Genesis). That held me for a while, till I realized that the order of rvents as listed in Genesis 1 make no sense, At that time, I came to the realization that this is an allegory, meant to teach us that God is responsible for everything, but not literally detailing how He did it.

Ron

notto said:

Sounds more like a teepee to me.

Circle != sphere.

Describing a circle covered by a curtain in the form of a tent doesn't paint a visual image of a sphere to me.

Click to expand...

Er, except "teepee" was never mentioned in the Bible.

DynamicDrummer said:

Alright, time for ME to do some asking, etc. Mr. Theistic Evolutionist (that name sounds like an oxymoron...),

Click to expand...

Wow, you're really being a jerk here. Is this intended to be a Christian witness?

could you please tell me with what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Click to expand...

There are still things today which can reproduce both sexually and asexually, so presumably, that was the intermediate step.

And how can mutations make new, improved variaties?

Click to expand...

This question is too vague to have any meaning.

What is an example of a BENEFICIAL mutation?

Click to expand...

Beneficial to whom? The mutations that yield resistance to penicillin are clearly advantageous to the life forms replicating them.

DynamicDrummer said:

I read this article...and I don't see how you could get those verses he gives to equal out that the earth is flat. IN fact, in Isaiah 40:22, it says that "It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth...". Now I'm not saying that a circle is a sphere, but it definitely doesn't mean that the earth is a square.

Click to expand...

No, it's the "corners of the earth" reference that would make it square.

But a circle is indubitably flat, not spherical.

Of course... It's entirely possible that Isaiah was speaking in metaphor or allegory. A great deal of the Bible is metaphor and allegory, after all.

DynamicDrummer said:

INDEED! My point exactly. It seems like these people who believe/believed in a flat earth interpreted this scriptures to say that the earth is flat in a twisted manner.

Click to expand...

Ok, you didn't like the flat earth, although there are also some quotes that imply the earth is sitting on pillars, which is also wrong.

How about this one:

I Kings 7:23. And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of
thirty cubits did compass it round about. KJV

You can try this at home. make a round pond, exactly 10 units across. Then take a rope 30 units long, and try to "compass it all around".

Ron

seebs said:

Wow, you're really being a jerk here. Is this intended to be a Christian witness?

Click to expand...

Wow, calling somebody a jerk. Is this intended to be a Christian witness?

Interesting double standard there..Seebs.

o/r

owen_rocks said:

Wow, calling somebody a jerk. Is this intended to be a Christian witness?

Click to expand...

In this case, yes.

Interesting double standard there..Seebs.

Click to expand...

Aren't we supposed to confront sin?

Ron21647 said:

How about this one:

I Kings 7:23. And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of
thirty cubits did compass it round about. KJV

You can try this at home. make a round pond, exactly 10 units across. Then take a rope 30 units long, and try to "compass it all around".

Click to expand...

This is a painfully bad example. "Ten" is not 1.0*10^1, it's 1*10^1.

1*10^1 * pi is, indeed, 3*10^1.

Significant figures matter rather a lot in this context.

agreed that if the diameter was only 9 1/2, which could be rounded up to 10, then the circumference is close enough to 30.

but a cubit is big enough that if they meant it to be 10, it ought to be a lot closer to 10 than 9 1/2. The person I directed it to seems to be enough of a literalist that 10 should mean 10.

The culture of the day knew pi to more significant figures than your example, although I do agree with your math.

Ron

DynamicDrummer said:

Okay, apparantly we are talking about two different gods here when the theistic evolutionists say that their god created the universe and it took millions and millions of years, because that god is a retarded god who can't get it right in the first place.

Click to expand...

How do you figure? Isn't this the first place? Looks like He got it right.

This argument seems to be based on the presumption that we are qualified to look at a creation and say "no, this isn't good at all". A questionable one.

Also, this means you have death before sin.

Click to expand...

The confusion between physical and spiritual death was there long ago; consider that God told Adam he would die in the day that he ate of the fruit, but in fact, he lived quite some time and had kids. Obviously, "death" isn't always "death".

The God that I worship is the God of the infalliable Bible,

Click to expand...

Indeed. We call this "bibliolatry", where the Bible itself becomes, in effect, God to you.

there is no contradictions in the bible, although most of you think there are things wrong in the bible.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll be along presently with resolutions for all of the famous ones. But when you love your faith more than truth, you are already walking away from God.

There is no error in God's Word.

Click to expand...

But there is a grave error indeed, that of blasphemy, in calling the Bible God's "Word". The Word is Jesus, and none other. To call the Bible the "Word" is to say that it is God Himself, and this is error.

(1 John. You may never have actually read it.)

The Lord who made the heavens and earth in 6 literal days is the God of the Universe and forever will be.

Click to expand...

So, there are two pool tables, each set up, all fifteen balls neatly racked. A man walks up to one table, and walks around it, plucking balls from the rack and plopping them in pockets. Another man walks up to the second table, takes the rack off, lines up a shot, and shoots once; all the balls bounce off the rails and off each other and end up in the pockets.

And you tell me the first one is the better pool player?

I assure you that you cannot get the interpretation that it took millions of years for God to get us here unless you have heard of evolution beforehand.

Click to expand...

And your assurance is based on what, exactly?

I can hand the bible out to a bunch of little kids, who haven't heard the theory of evolution yet, ask them to read the first chapter of Genesis and they will NOT say that it took millions of years for God to create the earth.

Click to expand...

So? Children often misunderstand things. If you hand the Bible to a bunch of kids, and ask them whether the Eucharist is symbolic or literal, will you accept their interpretation of that, too? How about their feelings on the boundaries between legitimate self defense and the prohibition Jesus gave us on resisting evil men?

If you are reasonable, then you'd have to say, "Yes, those kids won't think that it took millions of years for God to get us here."

Click to expand...

Indeed, they probably won't. Kids believe all sorts of silly things about the Bible, and about their faith, which is why we have the concept of an "age of accountability" in many branches of the faith; because we understand that children cannot be expected to understand the subtleties of God's communicaations.

However, you have done nothing at all to show me that I should trust the interpretation of a bunch of kids, who don't know anything about poetry, myth, allegory, or metaphor, when I have access to reliable theologians and the witness of my own senses.

DynamicDrummer said:

I read this article...and I don't see how you could get those verses he gives to equal out that the earth is flat. IN fact, in Isaiah 40:22, it says that "It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth...". Now I'm not saying that a circle is a sphere, but it definitely doesn't mean that the earth is a square.

Click to expand...

To give a good analogy: When J. R. R. Tolkien made up the geography and cosmology of Arda for the Third Age of the Sun, Middle-earth was circular, but flat, which is what his maps showed.

DynamicDrummer said:

Alright, you took my sentence out of contex. I was being sarcastic because it seems I'm the person who's "wrong" here about the origins of the universe. My appologies, seebs. Let me share my heart. Before I got saved on January 9,2003, I used to believe in evolution. I really did. I thought that dinosaurs lived before man, etc. I stilll believed in God, but I also believed in evolution at the same time. Then when I got born again, I realized something didn't add up with the whole thing of Theistic Evolution. My friend starting telling me how I was wrong about evolution and I had to keep an open mind about the whole issue of the lies in our high school textbooks, etc. He got me onto Dr. Kent Hovind, who wants nothing more than for people to be saved, and then I realized how wrong I was believing evolution. So that's where I stand. I've seen both sides and there is NO way that I am going back to believing in the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

I am very sorry. Kent Hovind is a con man and a fraud. He's been up for burglary and tax evasion. He bought his degree from a diploma mill. And all he's done for the last decade or so is rip people off, by finding people who are vulnerable, who want some kind of assurance that the world is full of simple answers, and sell them DVDs and videos. Where does the money go? No one knows. He doesn't pay taxes on it, certainly! But if you take his sales figures seriously, he's making a couple million bucks a year ripping people off.

Kent Hovind is a liar. He is a cheat. He has deceived you, because it allowed him to make money selling videos. He doesn't care. His walk is not one we would normally associate with a "Christian".

You can, if you wish, be a creationist. Go right ahead. It harms no one.

But do it with your eyes open. Look at the number of arguments Hovind uses that other sources, such as Answers in Genesis, will acknowledge have been refuted for decades. Read what Answers in Genesis, also YEC folks, have to say about Hovind. Other Creationists don't like Hovind, because his lies taint the whole field.

You may, on further study, continue to conclude that your interpretation of the Bible is the most reasonable one... But please, do everyone a favor, and base your position on better material than some guy who mail-ordered a diploma so he could take advantage of gullible newbie Christians.

DynamicDrummer said:

Okay, apparantly we are talking about two different gods here when the theistic evolutionists say that their god created the universe and it took millions and millions of years, because that god is a retarded god who can't get it right in the first place. Also, this means you have death before sin. The God that I worship is the God of the infalliable Bible, there is no contradictions in the bible, although most of you think there are things wrong in the bible. There is no error in God's Word. The Lord who made the heavens and earth in 6 literal days is the God of the Universe and forever will be. I assure you that you cannot get the interpretation that it took millions of years for God to get us here unless you have heard of evolution beforehand. I can hand the bible out to a bunch of little kids, who haven't heard the theory of evolution yet, ask them to read the first chapter of Genesis and they will NOT say that it took millions of years for God to create the earth. If you are reasonable, then you'd have to say, "Yes, those kids won't think that it took millions of years for God to get us here."

Click to expand...

which is more elegant, a God who could cause a rapid expansion of matter and energy 14 billion years ago, along with causing the physical and chemical laws into existence, and without intervention have us end up as we are now,

or a God who has to speak each item into existence separately?

Picture a billiards player who can sink all the balls on the break, calling in advance what order they will sink and into which pockets. Is that better than one who can speak the balls into the pockets?

The physical evidence points to an old earth in which life evolved. The order of what happened on each day of creation does not match what is logical, or what is observed. Therefore, unless God lied to us in Genesis, or unless He lied to us in how He made the creation look, the story in Genesis must be an allegory which tells us God is all powerful, responsible for everything, but does not give the actual details of creation.

Ron

Ron21647 said:

agreed that if the diameter was only 9 1/2, which could be rounded up to 10, then the circumference is close enough to 30.

Click to expand...

My point is that "31.415" is close enough to 30 to just be called "30".

The culture of the day knew pi to more significant figures than your example, although I do agree with your math.

Click to expand...

Pi isn't at issue. The circumference and diameter are. We have no reason to believe that either was given to more than one significant figure.

DynamicDrummer said:

Okay, apparantly we are talking about two different gods here when the theistic evolutionists say that their god created the universe and it took millions and millions of years, because that god is a retarded god who can't get it right in the first place.

Click to expand...

YHVH isn't "retarded." In addition, as a person who knew actual retarded folks as a kid and was educated along with them for a number of years, I find your lack of respect for the disabled horrifying.

In addition, for the last time: The Early Church said that the Holy Scriptures contain everything necessary for salvation and are authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith. They knew that the ancient Hebrew cosmology was wrong and so, they didn't take passages that referred to that cosmology literally. For example, when the Devil brought Jesus to view all the world, they knew that this was impossible, but its meaning stayed the same whether it was literally true or not.

Also, this means you have death before sin. The God that I worship is the God of the infalliable Bible, there is no contradictions in the bible, although most of you think there are things wrong in the bible.

Click to expand...

1. Even if you believe in a literal 6-day Creation, there are certain species that have such short lifespands that they would have perished before Adam and Eve sinned. Therefore, there must be a better alternative.
2. The better alternative is "spiritual death," which would work better anyhow since the Bible implies that Adam and Eve weren't immortal anyhow; they could only have become immortal if they ate from the Tree of Life. They never did, so even by a literal reading of Genesis, Adam and Eve would have died anyway. But they would not have spiritually died if they didn't sin. When they disobeyed God, their souls "broke;" they were no longer perfect. They couldn't be good on their own; they lost their innocence. As such, original sin is our broken soul. Baptism rejuvinates our souls; it "regenerates" our souls and heals it, although not immediately. As Christians grow in their faith and service, the soul slowly heals and is repaired. Even in death, the souls of those Christians will continue to heal as they await the Second Coming, the Resurrection, and the Judgment. Upon Judgment, the souls of those Judged worthy of eternal life in heaven will have been seen as righteous before God. As such, their souls would have been fully healed thanks to the Grace of God upon the Judgment.

There is no error in God's Word. The Lord who made the heavens and earth in 6 literal days is the God of the Universe and forever will be.

Click to expand...

Literalism is only ~100 years old based on a twisted form of "sola scriptura." The Early Church says otherwise and established, through the Ecumenical Councils, orthodoxy. I'll go along with the historic, traditional, and orthodox Early Church, which was guided by the Holy Spirit and given authority, over a new doctrine. Literalism wasn't what the Holy Spirit guided into the Early Church, otherwise the Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils would have said that "the Bible is completely authoritative in every aspect." Instead, they said it is authoritative in matters of doctrine, faith, and salvation only. The Bible is theological and that is what the Holy Spirit told the Early Church. Did the Holy Spirit now change His mind?

I assure you that you cannot get the interpretation that it took millions of years for God to get us here unless you have heard of evolution beforehand.

Click to expand...

I and a billion+ other Christians do it quite handidly and easily.

I can hand the bible out to a bunch of little kids, who haven't heard the theory of evolution yet, ask them to read the first chapter of Genesis and they will NOT say that it took millions of years for God to create the earth. If you are reasonable, then you'd have to say, "Yes, those kids won't think that it took millions of years for God to get us here."

Click to expand...

That is because:

1. They hadn't been educated about the history of the Church.
2. They don't have the ability to comprehend abstracts and thus must rely on others in such matters. They would thus read it literally, but if given a different Creation story, they would read that literally as well and be completely confused. As an educator, I know something of the psychology of kids.
3. They haven't learned about the theory of evolution yet. As such, in your example, they only have one view, so of course if they are only given one view, it'll probably be the one they'll accept. If they had two views, they'd actually have a choice. Since you didn't provide a choice, your example makes no logical sense.