DINOSAURS! Noah's Flood & other awesome questions.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

You think that is evidence of hyper evolution? Its evidence of different fathers.

Click to expand...

Usually in the case where twins have different color skin the parents are themselves of mixed heritage, at least where I've seen. Which makes it even less an issue of "hyper evolution". It's just genetics, a genetic lottery as it were, but still it's just genetics.



-CryptoLutheran

daleksteve said:

Adam and Eve were the first people on earth they then they had and cain and abel which makes there just only 4 people on the earth.

Cain then grows up and gets himself a wife. this is where the creation story falls apart once again. Logically she had to be an unmentioned daughter of Adam and Eve. Trouble with this is that's its incest which will lead to serious genetic problems with future off spring.

Conclusion Adam and Eve were not the only people on the earth.

Click to expand...

We did not come from Cain! We are the lineage of Seth! Want to talk about incest, Adam married his own rib. There was no problems within the DNA at the time, it was not until after Noah's flood when this started to occur.

RickG said:

Then what is under your feet? Why do you say it does not exist?

Click to expand...

RickG- brother you must decide whether you are standing with the word of God and what he states, or with the religion of what scientist call evolution. They are irreconcilable. One states that God...the other says that there is no God! It is called iniquity(and we know what Jesus says about iniquity in Revelation). I want to give you some quotes from scientist in different fields from around the world:

Charles Darwin:"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances...could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree". Book title: The origin of Species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.



Botanist and evolutionist Heribert Nilsson, says "my attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than forty years have completely failed... The fossil material is now so complete...and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." From: Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds by Carl E. Baugh. Bible Belt Publishing 1999, p. 89.



On the Taylor Trail there are human and dinosaur foot prints superimposed over each other: dinosaur foot prints in human foot prints, and human foot prints in dinosaur foot prints. "Geologist-Don Patton: He presented evidence that all the data relating to the Taylor Trial was best explained by a combination of human and dinosaur tracks." From: Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds by Carl E. Baugh. Bible Belt Publishing 1999, p. 102.

If dinosaurs and man walked together would that not crush/destroy/falsify the theory of evolution? What we know as dinosaurs are described in the Bible(Behemoth).

"Melvin Cook(Nobel Prize medalist) says that their analysis indicates the moon rocks are perhapes at the oldest, ten thousand years of age." From: Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds by Carl E. Baugh. Bible Belt Publishing 1999, p. 117.
In my book "The Saviour of All Men"(see avatar) I use the writings from the Bible and the Apocrypha(other Jewish and first century Christian writings that are not in the canonized Bible) to show that the earth is approximately 8,000(+/- 58) years old.

Charles Darwin: "When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind to some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." Book title: The origin of Species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

"Knowledge is power; it leads to understanding, and to acceptance and loving of others with views different from our own." Barry Dennis

Have a blessed day, brother.

Commander said:

RickG- brother you must decide whether you are standing with the word of God and what he states, or with the religion of what scientist call evolution. They are irreconcilable. One states that God...the other says that there is no God! It is called iniquity(and we know what Jesus says about iniquity in Revelation). I want to give you some quotes from scientist in different fields from around the world:

Click to expand...

Nice Gish Gallop, not one single bit of it addressed what you quoted from me. My beef is not with the word of God which you claim is, my beef is with the creation science literature.

RickG said:

Nice Gish Gallop, not one single bit of it addressed what you quoted from me. My beef is not with the word of God which you claim is, my beef is with the creation science literature.

Click to expand...

Which are you saying is wrong? Evolution is the religion of secular scientist.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

You think that is evidence of hyper evolution? Its evidence of different fathers.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that, but here's some further information on this fascinating subject: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/black-white-twins-meet-sisters-5256945

Colter said:

Jesus didn't endorse all of the scripture as inerrant just because he extrapolated truths from it. Jesus quoting from a prophet doesn't make ridiculous claims true.

Click to expand...

Can you give an example of this from the Bible please?

Not_By_Chance said:

Can you give an example of this from the Bible please?

Click to expand...

You may choose any instance of Jesus using the OT in His preaching. None of them constitute an endorsement of any particular hermenuetic.

Commander said:

Evolution is the religion of secular scientist.

Click to expand...

False. Evolution is an observed theory that accounts for adaptive change in populations through mechanisms such as natural selection. And yes, I said observed, both in living populations and in the fossil record. Further, scientists--regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof--subscribe to evolution; Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans, it doesn't matter. Because it isn't a religious issue, it's a scientific issue. Saying "Evolution is the religion of secular scientists" makes no more sense than saying "Germ Theory is the religion of secular scientists" or "Internal Combustion Theory is the religion of secular scientists" it's a nonsense claim that is made based solely on ignorance of science and how science works.

Creationist and anti-science propaganda may have indoctrinated people into its rejection and by carefully crafted ignorance; but that doesn't change reality or the facts.

Anyone legitimately interested in knowing the facts can acquire them with great ease, it requires either disinterest or intentional ignorance to continue to reject basic science and then to insist that only non-Christians or the non-religious embrace such basic science.

-CryptoLutheran

Colter said:

Yes, they had mixed race parents. You wont find a case where 2 Jews have a Chinese kid!!!!

Click to expand...

But it still demonstrates the astonishing potential in our genes for producing very different-looking offspring in a very short space of time and since Adam and Eve would have had all the potential for the variety of humans we see today and much more (since no loss of information from their genes would have occurred as Jesus, creator of all things, had just made them and they were the very first generation), it's no surprise that as time passed, variety that had been originally programmed by God began to manifest itself into what we have today - one race, the human race, but with many different physical attributes.

Commander said:

Which are you saying is wrong? Evolution is the religion of secular scientist.

Click to expand...

I made a comment on stratigraphy and the geologic column. You went off on a bunch of fatuousnes about evolution. If you are going to quote something I said address it.

Speedwell said:

You may choose any instance of Jesus using the OT in His preaching. None of them constitute an endorsement of any particular hermenuetic.

Click to expand...

Really? How about this:-
Mar 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Mar 10:7 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
That sounds very much like Jesus is endorsing the Genesis creation account to me.

Or this:-
Mat 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
Mat 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
That sounds like Jesus is endorsing an actual historical event (the global flood) to me.

RickG said:

Says who?

Click to expand...

See Speedwell's post #360. That's my understanding of it too and I believe that is the mainstream view of Christianity.

Not_By_Chance said:

Can you give an example of this from the Bible please?

Click to expand...

An example the things Jesus didn't quote????? Yes, it's the stuff Jesus didn't quote and frankly didn't practice. Jesus never took part in stoning people to death for the man made laws of Leviticus. He was divinely diplomatic and quite clever in avoiding a direct clash with the errors of Judaism. In fact Jesus didn't come here to reform Judaism, he established a spiritual fellowship.

Speedwell said:

You may choose any instance of Jesus using the OT in His preaching.

Click to expand...

Not_By_Chance said:

Really? How about this:-
Mar 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Mar 10:7 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
That sounds very much like Jesus is endorsing the Genesis creation account to me.

Click to expand...

Endorsing it as what? The trouble with your argument is that it boils down to this:

P1 Jesus wouldn't use the Genesis stories in His preaching unless He agreed with my interpretation of them.
P2 Jesus used the Genesis stories in His preaching.
C Jesus agreed with my interpretation of them.

See how lame that is? It would work with anybody's interpretation so it proves nothing.

Or this:-
Mat 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
Mat 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
That sounds like Jesus is endorsing an actual historical event (the global flood) to me.

Click to expand...

Now you're getting confused. Are you claiming that Jesus endorses the flood as an historical event or endorses your claims about the text of the flood story?

Not_By_Chance said:

But it still demonstrates the astonishing potential in our genes for producing very different-looking offspring in a very short space of time and since Adam and Eve would have had all the potential for the variety of humans we see today and much more (since no loss of information from their genes would have occurred as Jesus, creator of all things, had just made them and they were the very first generation), it's no surprise that as time passed, variety that had been originally programmed by God began to manifest itself into what we have today - one race, the human race, but with many different physical attributes.

Click to expand...

The Noah flood claim had the original races all drowned except of coarse an ancestor of the Jews, wink. And then Noah's kids each ironically carried the genes for new races. Ironically, all the races of Noah's kids returned to the same regions where those same races existed for ten's of thousands of years before the flood.

I never really believed in Santa Clause either.

Not_By_Chance said:

Really? How about this:-
Mar 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Mar 10:7 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
That sounds very much like Jesus is endorsing the Genesis creation account to me.

Or this:-
Mat 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
Mat 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
That sounds like Jesus is endorsing an actual historical event (the global flood) to me.

Click to expand...

It sounds like Jesus referencing well known stories and events/figures from those stories to an audience that would have been intimately familiar with them in order to make his points to me. Whether or not the stories are historical/literal or not is, for Jesus' purposes here, fundamentally irrelevant.

If a philosopher referred to Hesiod's Theogeny or Homer's Illiad and figures, events therein would this be sufficient evidence that these were historically true accounts? Or more accurate, that the philosopher/teacher believed they were historically true accounts? The answer, of course, would be no. I would point out, also, N.T. Wright's helpful observation that for the Greeks Homer was "the Old Testament" or the closest analogue; Greek thinkers could refer back to those ancient myths and poetry and make points--whether they thought those things were history or not would be irrelevant (and, as a point of fact, many Greek thinkers regarded the stories to be non-factual back then). While our Lord was not a Greek philosopher or teacher, but a Jewish teacher steeped in the Judaism of His time and the rabbinical tradition--and more importantly, the very Son of God and the promised Messiah--the comparison is still a worthy one to make. The rabbis were quite capable of using reference and allusion to making points, and Jesus was no less capable of doing the same.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

False. Evolution is an observed theory that accounts for adaptive change in populations through mechanisms such as natural selection. And yes, I said observed, both in living populations and in the fossil record. Further, scientists--regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof--subscribe to evolution; Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans, it doesn't matter. Because it isn't a religious issue, it's a scientific issue. Saying "Evolution is the religion of secular scientists" makes no more sense than saying "Germ Theory is the religion of secular scientists" or "Internal Combustion Theory is the religion of secular scientists" it's a nonsense claim that is made based solely on ignorance of science and how science works.

Creationist and anti-science propaganda may have indoctrinated people into its rejection and by carefully crafted ignorance; but that doesn't change reality or the facts.

Anyone legitimately interested in knowing the facts can acquire them with great ease, it requires either disinterest or intentional ignorance to continue to reject basic science and then to insist that only non-Christians or the non-religious embrace such basic science.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Apparently you should learn where the theory of evolution stems from. "Babylon is fallen, is fallen...THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

RickG said:

Jesus spoke in parables and made many references to the Torah.

Click to expand...

True, Jesus did speak in parables, but it was usually pretty obvious when He was speaking that way as opposed to quoting historical events from the Old Testament. For example, when talking about Noah, He could have said something like this in parable form, "There once was a man who was considered righteous by God. Everyone else had become evil and consumed by their own lusts, so God instructed the man to build an ark large enough to carry his immediate family and lots of animals. When the man had finished building the ark, God sent a great flood and everyone died except for the righteous man and his family. So will it be when the Son of Man comes." Now compare the words that Jesus actually used and the fact that He was referring to events previously recorded in the Torah - it's a different style altogether:
Mat 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
Mat 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Not_By_Chance said:

See Speedwell's post #360. That's my understanding of it too and I believe that is the mainstream view of Christianity.

Click to expand...

My point is that it is what is inspired by God is "scripture", not the bible, which was not put together some 300 years or so after the death of Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16