Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[renniks]

What do you mean no one takes that literally? Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican Christians all take it very literally.

This is literally Jesus:

-CryptoLutheran

No, that's a wafer. You realize that in the same place where he said "this is my blood" he said they were drinking the fruit of the vine?
And said that the cup was a covenant?
Now if you want to say it contains his presence, ok. But not one person literally believes they are eating human flesh and drinking blood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said if you had actually read anything I said you would understand why " her" being male was a problem for the theory they came up with.

Nope, you have nothing.

Links or you are simply blowing smoke. From proper sources please. Any site that requires their workers to avoid the scientific method will be a loss on your side.

As usual you just have empty claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why does the [wheat] DNA stay the same?

Different sects different "miracles".

 

[renniks]

Nope, you have nothing.

Links or you are simply blowing smoke. From proper sources please. Any site that requires their workers to avoid the scientific method will be a loss on your side.

As usual you just have empty claims.

You are a waste of my time anyway. I don't think you ever read a full post. Your blind devotion to what you believe is amusing.
Don't let anyone question a jot or tittle or you bring out the childish insults.
Boringly predictable.
Keep marching In lockstep with the status quo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Different sects different "miracles".

Are you saying it's a miracle that the wheat's DNA didn't change?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are a waste of my time anyway. I don't think you ever read a full post. Your blind devotion to what you believe is amusing.
Don't let anyone question a jot or tittle or you bring out the childish insults.
Boringly predictable.
Keep marching In lockstep with the status quo.

I have read your posts, unfortunately there are full of nonsense. Whenever anyone asks you to support your claims you demand that others do your homework for you.

I won't do that. I will gladly accept your tacit admission that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying it's a miracle that the wheat's DNA didn't change?

Ask a Catholic. It is their miracle.
But really it is no different from the miracle of the Ark story. If you reject one you should reject both.

 

[renniks]

I have read your posts, unfortunately there are full of nonsense. Whenever anyone asks you to support your claims you demand that others do your homework for you.

I won't do that. I will gladly accept your tacit admission that you are wrong.

I'm not wrong.
Evolution theory is full of holes.
The more I look into the actual finds that are used to support it, the more absurd it becomes

But bones are kinda boring compared to sitting in the woods or by the sea and contemplating what kind of God created all this. That's more productive.

 

[durangodawood]

No, that's a wafer. You realize that in the same place where he said "this is my blood" he said they were drinking the fruit of the vine?
And said that the cup was a covenant?
Now if you want to say it contains his presence, ok. But not one person literally believes they are eating human flesh and drinking blood.

You just told me it means what it says.

I thought no way. But then you said "duh". And that sealed it. You can't go back now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Different sects different "miracles".

But really it is no different from the miracle of the Ark story. If you reject one you should reject both.

LOL

 

[renniks]

You just told me it means what it says.

I thought no way. But then you said "duh". And that sealed it. You can't go back now.

It does. The historical accounts are factual. Including the ones about Jesus. But Jesus talked in parables and metaphor more often than not. It's the same as say... Ezekiel. He was a real person, but his visions are metaphors. Or most any prophet. They use a lot of figurative language.

 

[durangodawood]

It does. The historical accounts are factual. Including the ones about Jesus. But Jesus talked in parables and metaphor more often than not. It's the same as say... Ezekiel. He was a real person, but his visions are metaphors. Or most any prophet. They use a lot of figurative language.

Parable, metaphor, and figurative language are all devices for meaning something other than what you say. Duh.

So is myth.

 

[renniks]

Parable, metaphor, and figurative language are all devices for meaning something other than what you say. Duh.

So is myth.

There is history in the Bible and there are parables and metaphors. It's really not that hard to tell which is which. It constantly amazes me how people seem confused about this.

 

[MIDutch]

No, that's a wafer. You realize that in the same place where he said "this is my blood" he said they were drinking the fruit of the vine?
And said that the cup was a covenant?
Now if you want to say it contains his presence, ok. But not one person literally believes they are eating human flesh and drinking blood.

Which may be why Catholics (in general) don't seem to need a "literal and inerrant" interpretation of the Bible to validate their religion, and why the majority of Catholics accept the science behind the Theory of Evolution.

Great observation on your part.

 

[MIDutch]

But bones are kinda boring compared to sitting in the woods or by the sea and contemplating what kind of God created all this. That's more productive.

Sitting in the woods or by the sea and contemplating is also inspirational for making art, but no one would call that science. Boring bones (more likely fossils) are evidence that merely sitting in the woods and contemplating will never be able to replace.

Saying "puppies iz cute and flowers iz pretty" is not a rebuttal of hard science and is UNproductive at producing anything other than warm fuzzy feelings..

 

[DamianWarS]

But Scripture tells a quite different account.

Where does scripture say this again? I missed that part.

 

[MIDutch]

There is history in the Bible and there are parables and metaphors. It's really not that hard to tell which is which. It constantly amazes me how people seem confused about this.

Even history requires evidence. Outside of a few Hebrew and Roman inscriptions and/or historical references purported to be about Jesus and his family and followers (and a whole bunch of fake stuff) there is very little of that in support of the NT and none in support of the OT.

 

[DamianWarS]

That's more productive.

That depends what it is you're trying to produce.

 

[durangodawood]

There is history in the Bible and there are parables and metaphors. It's really not that hard to tell which is which. It constantly amazes me how people seem confused about this.

It what way does a parable "mean what it says"? The whole point of a parable is to point at meanings deeper than just whats said.

Same with myth.

When writing just "means what it says", we have a textbook, and hundreds of denominations dont spring from its various interpretations.

 

[Frank Robert]

Where does scripture say this again? I missed that part.

That is an Answers In Genesis claim. Dinosaurs were created by God on day six of creation, approximately 6,000 years ago.