Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[renniks]

Humans are hominids not apes.

Then why have I been told multiple times on this thread that humans are apes?

 

[renniks]

That is your religious interpretations have you checked out other interpretations?

Of course.

 

[renniks]

Did he? I don't know of anyone who claimed he did.

You just did. You claimed being made in God's image means we have a soul. Logically, if we are just smart apes, as has been stated on this thread multiple times, at some point God had to give an ape a soul.

 

[Frank Robert]

That doesn't make it correct. There can be multiple possibilities that equally fit the evidence. And you want to claim that there is no bias among scientists, that are doing the choosing? That's impossible also. You can pretend everyone chooses only due to the best evidence, but humans don't work that way. We all choose what's best for us, especially if ruled by sinful impulses.

Doesn't make any difference if there are thousands of possibilities, the theory that best explains the evidence and makes the best predictions becomes the leading theory. You don't to be a scientist to know that it is naive to stick with a theory when there is better one.

 

[Frank Robert]

Of course.

What are they and what are your objections to them?

 

[ViaCrucis]

No verse in Isaiah says the earth is flat. I am not even sure which verse you are referring to. Isaiah 40:22?
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
It says nothing in there about the earth being flat simply that it is round. View attachment 298572
Looks circular to me.

The Hebrew word translated as "circle" refers to a flat round plane. Hebrew has a word that means "ball" or "sphere", but it's not the word Isaiah uses.

Perhaps the Prophet Isaiah did know the earth was round, but that's still not the word that gets used here. It's a safe bet that the ancient Israelites held to roughly the same view of the shape of the world as their neighbors. As there's no reason to believe that they had access to any information or knowledge that other ancient near-eastern societies had at the time.

Let's not engage in wild speculation here, which is what often happens in these sorts of conversations. By wild speculation I mean attempts to argue from pure imagination, such as arguing that the Israelites would have known the actual shape of the world because God told them.

In Christianity we do believe in specific revelation from God, but such revelation is declarative, it is declared somewhere. We could just as easily speculate that God gave the Israelites all manner of advanced knowledge, but that it became lost. We simply have no reason to believe this.

Rather, God was at work within ancient near-eastern bronze age peoples, and those people had their own language, culture, and also views about the world around them. Understanding their world, their language, their views is essential to the task of hermeneutics and biblical exegesis. The alternative is a total butchering of Scripture in order to ensure our pre-selected conclusions come out the way we want. In which case we might as well have the Bible say anything we want it to say.

If the Bible is truly a faithful record of God's engagement with the world in the history of a certain people, leading to a specific event in history--Jesus--then we are insisting on a God who engages with the real world, the real world of history. And not just an imaginary world, or an imaginary history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Frank Robert]

You just did. You claimed being made in God's image means we have a soul. Logically, if we are just smart apes, as has been stated on this thread multiple times, at some point God had to give an ape a soul.

I did not say we are smart apes, I said we have ~98% in common with chimps and bonobos. I think you been reading too much creationists apologentics which are I believe you confused.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't make any difference if there are thousands of possibilities, the theory that best explains the evidence and makes the best predictions becomes the leading theory. You don't to be a scientist to know that it is naive to stick with a theory when there is better one.

When Phlogiston Theory ruled, a better one came along and they called it Combustion Theory.

When Evolution ruled, Darwin came along with a better one and they called it ... Evolution.

Then a better one came along and they called it ... Evolution.

 

[renniks]

Doesn't make any difference if there are thousands of possibilities, the theory that best explains the evidence and makes the best predictions becomes the leading theory. You don't to be a scientist to know that it is naive to stick with a theory when there is better one.

Again there can be thousands of "best theories". The ones that win are going to be the ones that best match the current model of origins. If one piece of the puzzle is wrong, nothing really fits and the whole model is skewed.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

That's not what I asked, so nevermind. I didn't ask for a lecture on evolution. I asked if the teaching is honest about the finds being contested by other scientists. I highly doubt it.

Yes!

 

[renniks]

What are they and what are your objections to them?

That would take too much bandwidth. And be way off topic. I thought we weren't talking about religion?
The idea that animals have souls just isn't biblical.

 

[Frank Robert]

Of course.

Your particular religious beliefs may conflict with science but it does not change the scientific facts. I won't discuss religion with you but I will let you know what the current science tells us.

 

[renniks]

Yes!

So for Lucy for example, they told you that some scientists believe she was actually a he and that some believe the find is actually two species bones mixed together?

 

[renniks]

but it does not change the scientific facts

There you go again. Those don't exist, remember?

 

[Frank Robert]

That would take too much bandwidth. And be way off topic. I thought we weren't talking about religion?
The idea that animals have souls just isn't biblical.

No one claimed it is biblical.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

So for Lucy for example, they told you that some scientists believe she was actually a he and that some believe the find is actually two species bones mixed together?

I'm too old to remember specifics. But I still watch college lectures online regarding biology/evolution and other related fields and they almost always say, "the leading theory is," or "some scientists say x but a growing number are suggesting b," or "there have been studies that explored this but nobody has been able to replicate them yet." I mean, the caveats are constant! The only place I rarely got competing ideology was in church, and they were only brought up to talk about how they are of the devil.

Here's on of my favorites online lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

 

[Frank Robert]

There you go again. Those don't exist, remember?

Perhaps we are discussing different things. You were complaining about science being able to correct itself and I was explaining how that is a feature and not a bug.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

... The only place I rarely got competing ideology was in church ...

hahaha

thats pretty funny.

 

[Frank Robert]

Then why have I been told multiple times on this thread that humans are apes?

Both apes and humans are in the Hominidae order which does not make apes humans or humans apes. It is a taxonomic classification that explains how we have a evolved.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's on of my favorites online lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

Punched someone in the face at the water cooler? having an affair with a 16 year old girl?

C'mon!