Subduction Zone
Regular Member
We already discussed the Isaiah verse. That does describe the Earth as being flat like or not. There is no justification in your statement that the Earth looks like a circle from the text.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We already discussed the Isaiah verse. That does describe the Earth as being flat like or not. There is no justification in your statement that the Earth looks like a circle from the text.Show me the verses that teach that the earth is flat. Book, chapter and verse.
I am a Biblical literalist. Why do you think I believe in 6 days of creation and a global flood? I would believe in a flat earth if the Bible taught that.
The bones we call Lucy exist. There may be some minor things to work through, but those bones are there for examination. And I don't think nit-picking in anyway removes Lucy from the basic science around this 3.2 million year ago creature. But she sure doesn't help the 6000 year ago creation story.You seem to have some gaps in your education. There's even disagreement about Lucy being female. Look up Schmid and Hausler and the claim that the Hadar find material is a jumble of species.
Or are you only taught the theories that are convenient for Darwinism? These conclusions are not nearly as agreed upon as we are commonly told.
Nothing helps the 6000 year ago creation story, but that doesn't prevent some people from believing it.The bones we call Lucy exist. There may be some minor things to work through, but those bones are there for examination. And I don't think nit-picking in anyway removes Lucy from the basic science around this 3.2 million year ago creature. But she sure doesn't help the 6000 year ago creation story.
And do you think that is catching God by surprise?Oddly, the majority of them reside here in the United States, but luckily, that number is dwindling fast.
To accept Evolution is NOT departing from Jesus. It's in Jesus, for a Christian, where faith resides.And do you think that is catching God by surprise?
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
If the bones are just a mix of humans and other species, what does it tell us? It tells us first of all, that modern humans existed at a time they weren't "supposed" to. This is also supported by the modern human footprints. The age of the bone is another issue. And it's not just a creature. They created a theory about a whole species that is highly debatable. The scientists in question went there with the express intention of finding a missing link, so they made sure to interpret whatever they found as being that link. Other scientists disagree about what they really found.The bones we call Lucy exist. There may be some minor things to work through, but those bones are there for examination. And I don't think nit-picking in anyway removes Lucy from the basic science around this 3.2 million year ago creature. But she sure doesn't help the 6000 year ago creation story.
What you won't get from creationist apologetics is how well Lucy fits in and extends evidence of human evolution.If the bones are just a mix of humans and other species, what does it tell us? It tells us first of all, that modern humans existed at a time they weren't "supposed" to. This is also supported by the modern human footprints. The age of the bone is another issue. And it's not just a creature. They created a theory about a whole species that is highly debatable. The scientists in question went there with the express intention of finding a missing link, so they made sure to interpret whatever they found as being that link. Other scientists disagree about what they really found.
LOL! You really have no clue. Why would the sex of Lucy make any difference at all? Please, when your knowledge is lacking don't try to claim others do not know. Why would it make any difference at all if they got the sex of Lucy wrong? And again, you found only one source that disagreed. That does not make it controversial. If you look into the literature their claim is not well accepted. You failed on several levels there.Not human evolution. It's plain you really know little about Lucy.
But they are not "just a mix of humans and other species". You are relying on lying sources. There was one, count 'em one bone that was not Australopithecus afrarensis. It was a baboon bone. That did not make any difference. Nor did they "created a species". You are only making yourself look foolish with these claims. Lucy was not the first Australopithecus ever found. As you seem to think She was not the last She was merely the most complete, at that time.If the bones are just a mix of humans and other species, what does it tell us? It tells us first of all, that modern humans existed at a time they weren't "supposed" to. This is also supported by the modern human footprints. The age of the bone is another issue. And it's not just a creature. They created a theory about a whole species that is highly debatable. The scientists in question went there with the express intention of finding a missing link, so they made sure to interpret whatever they found as being that link. Other scientists disagree about what they really found.
Its not about right / wrong. Its about myth / history.Again, why would I assume they got creation right or any of the other historical accounts in the Bible, including those about Jesus and assume they got the ark wrong?
From Answers in Genisis
How dinosaurs lived with man, how they were preserved on Noah’s ark—likely as juveniles—and what happened to dinosaurs after the floodThe Dinosaur "Hurdle"
But the biggest hurdle people have when they see any of our displays of the ark (or visit the Ark Encounter) is seeing dinosaurs depicted on the ark (or in stalls in the Ark Encounter). Due to evolutionary indoctrination, many people can't picture man living alongside dinosaurs, or if they do, they think of the Jurassic Park/World movies and view all dinosaurs as wanting to trample or eat people. Even if they overcome or set aside this stumbling block, we still get questions of how dinosaurs could even fit on the ark, particularly when considering the massive dinosaurs, especially the sauropods. Other oft-cited "problems" with dinosaurs on the ark are feeding the herbivores the massive amounts of vegetation that the adults eat, feeding the carnivorous ones (and avoiding being eaten by them), and cleaning up after them.
It makes more sense to think that God would have sent to Noah juveniles (or sub-adults) or smaller varieties within the same kind.
Crunching the Numbers
Noah also did not have to bring marine animals, bacteria, fungi, or plants (except as possible food sources) and many (if any) insects onto the ark.
But How Could Noah Care for the Dinosaurs on the Ark?
We need to keep in mind that Noah was a very intelligent man and was obeying God’s commands by faith (Hebrews 11:7). And it was God’s desire that the animals on the ark were well cared for and able to disembark healthy and repopulate the new world.
Dinosaurs Were on the Ark and Dinosaurs Came off the Ark
The evolutionary story is that dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago, long before humans evolved. But Scripture tells a quite different account.
Legend has it that myths can be wrong.Its not about right / wrong. Its about myth / history.
Myth isnt ever wrong because its not trying to be right. Myth is trying to be meaningful.
It depends on who is interpreting the bible.Scripture also tells us thru the genealogy records that the earth is only a little over 6000 years old.
Depends on who is interpreting the bibleScripture also tells us thru the genealogy records that the earth is only a little over 6000 years old.
Oh that's not the only issue. But it's all connected. And you aren't listening. They constantly found human bones in the same strata as australopith bones. They obviously didn't pre exist man, they existed at the same time. Johanson claimed his afarenisis species was extremely sexually dimorphic which he basically just made up to make his ideas work.LOL! You really have no clue. Why would the sex of Lucy make any difference at all? Please, when your knowledge is lacking don't try to claim others do not know. Why would it make any difference at all if they got the sex of Lucy wrong? And again, you found only one source that disagreed. That does not make it controversial. If you look into the literature their claim is not well accepted. You failed on several levels there.
I'm giving you the real story, not the one we are fed by the media.Like it or not she is evidence for human evolution. If you want to claim that she is not the burden of proof is now upon you. You are about as far from being an expert on this topic as possible so I do not know how you are going to do it.
Lol, you are left to just decide for your self what is myth and what is real history then. That's highly problematic and you can basically make it mean what you want.Its not about right / wrong. Its about myth / history.
Myth isnt ever wrong because its not trying to be right. Myth is trying to be meaningful.
Preferable to letting other people decide for me.Lol, you are left to just decide for your self what is myth and what is real history then. That's highly problematic and you can basically make it mean what you want.
It depends on who is interpreting the bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?