Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[Subduction Zone]

LOL

You are the one that tries to claim he follows logic.

 

[renniks]

Jesus says to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He took bread and a cup of wine and said those were His flesh and blood, to take and eat, to take and drink, for the anamnesis--remembrance--of Him. That in the same way that the one who eats of the Passover lamb partakes in the sacrifice of the altar, so does the one that receives these elements of Christ's Table partake in His sacrifice. So that by this broken bread we receive Christ's true body; and that by this cup we receive Christ's true blood.

Only you know it's not blood. Because you know what blood tastes like. And you ignore that Jesus said he was drinking the fruit of the Vine with them. So, it's either symbolic, or it's a miracle that can't be explained physically. Which means it's not literally blood and human tissue. It may have his energy in it, or presence, but don't pretend you are drinking human blood because you know you aren't.

And there's nothing in Genesis to indicate that the history there is supposed to be figurative. It has names and places and details. Parables aren't that specific and the text tells us they are parables.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except for scads of archaeology discoverys...

Sorry, you cannot count the hits if you ignore the misses.

 

[renniks]

The Middle East has been intensly studied, researched, explored for literally decades (going on centuries). There has never been any evidence found for the Garden of Eden, Noah's ark, the Tower of Babel, Moses, the parting of the Red Sea, the Jews lost in the wilderness for 40 years, etc..

Why is that, exactly?

King David, Peter's house... there's plenty to choose from. Of course they haven't found everything. It's not realistic to expect them to.

 

[renniks]

You lack the education to properly understand the evidence and refuse to learn even the basics of science. That makes your personal opinion worthless.

Can't make a single post without an insult, can you?

 

[MIDutch]

Get what? I get that people believe what they believe. What's to get?

It's not about "believe".

It's about accepting the evidence is real (empirical, physical, objective, observable, valid, measurable, etc.) and the scientific conclusions drawn from an examination of that evidence.

One side of the creationsim vs science "debate" has that. The other side does not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Only you know it's not blood. Because you know what blood tastes like. And you ignore that Jesus said he was drinking the fruit of the Vine with them. So, it's either symbolic, or it's a miracle that can't be explained physically. Which means it's not literally blood and human tissue. It may have his energy in it, or presence, but don't pretend you are drinking human blood because you know you aren't.

And there's nothing in Genesis to indicate that the history there is supposed to be figurative. It has names and places and details. Parables aren't that specific and the text tells us they are parables.

Your arguments against the Real Presence, and your attempt to imply that I'm not being honest with you about my beliefs concerning the Eucharist seem to be around the same level as your arguments against evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MIDutch]

Of course they haven't found everything. It's not realistic to expect them to.

Why not?

Real science can find all sorts of amazing things, from the microscopic to the cosmic, from the extremely ancient to the most present day, from the almost invisible to that hiding in plain sight.

Are you admitting that creationism is an abject failure at finding things to support it's contentions?

 

[Frank Robert]

Mission link?

Click on Wikipedia

 

[Larniavc]

Evolution theory is full of holes.

Can you name them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

King David, Peter's house... there's plenty to choose from. Of course they haven't found everything. It's not realistic to expect them to.

But they really did not find anything of King David's. At least not that they can be sure of. They found objects that might have been his. And no one has said that not finding those objects refute King David's existence. We would not expect everything to survive to today. But that is not the case with the Flood. That was an event that would have left evidence. We can find evidence of older floods, and these were orders of magnitude smaller. You would think that a flood that is thousands to not millions of times worse than any other event on the Earth would leave a mark. That is a case of the lack of evidence being evidence of lack. That does not apply to the lack of being sure of anything that was King David's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't make a single post without an insult, can you?

Facts are not insults I have offered to go over the basics with you so that you would not repeat errors. You did not accept that offer. You have no excuse for your lack of education in this matter. You are being insulted by reality.

Just out of curiosity, what part of that post did you think was insulting? And why?

If I tried to make claims about the abilities of specific firearms I would likely, and rightfully, be laughed at if I argued with people that did understand those firearms. That would not be an insult. It would be merely stating the obvious, that I do not know enough to oppose their claims. Why are you so sensitive when it comes to an area of science that you do not understand?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you really want to debate the Christian and Biblical doctrine of the Real Presence, that should happen on one of the theology boards. I'm not going to get into that here. I only raised this subject for the purpose of making a point. Actual meat and potato discussion on Sacramental Theology should be had in the appropriate places of CF.

Well, whether it is asked here, or in another part of this forum, the question is still a good one:

Why doesn't the DNA change?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you name them?

They're collectively known as "missing links."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, whether it is asked here, or in another part of this forum, the question is still a good one:

Why doesn't the DNA change?

Wait a second. How do you know that it does not change?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're collectively known as "missing links."

Missing links are not holes in the theory.

Why do you think that they are? I can explain why they are not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Only you know it's not blood. Because you know what blood tastes like. And you ignore that Jesus said he was drinking the fruit of the Vine with them. So, it's either symbolic, or it's a miracle that can't be explained physically. Which means it's not literally blood and human tissue. It may have his energy in it, or presence, but don't pretend you are drinking human blood because you know you aren't.

And there's nothing in Genesis to indicate that the history there is supposed to be figurative. It has names and places and details. Parables aren't that specific and the text tells us they are parables.

Essentially your argument is: It's not physically possible for mere bread and wine to actually be Jesus' flesh and blood, so therefore it can't be literal, and thus conclude it must be symbolic.

You predicate your argument here on the basis of incredulity.

And yet, that same incredulity when applied to the physical impossibility of the ark and great deluge is scorned as simply "not believing the Bible".

Of course there's plenty in Genesis to indicate non-literal readings. The creation stories, if read strictly literally, flat out contradict each other, for example.

In the first creation story God causes plants to sprout up on dry land on the third day, animals are created on days five and six, with man being created last on the sixth day. In the second creation story, God forms man from the dust of the earth, and then creates plants, places man in a garden, and then creates animals.

The first story's chronology: Man > Plants > Animals
The second story's chronology: Plants > Animals > Man

In order to force the two stories to not conflict requires drastically changing the plain reading of the text.

Now, if I were a biblicist who believed in taking those stories in Genesis literally, that would be a problem for me. But I'm not, and so those details aren't problematic. Because the point of the creation stories aren't to give us a literal "play-by-play", but rather to provide meaningful context for the story of God's redemption of the world. The first creation story presents us with God as the Creator who has ordained everything to be and to dwell in its ordered spaces. Creation isn't, as it is in many of the mythologies of the surrounding nations to Israel, the result of cosmic chaos; but is the product of Divine Order. A division between light and dark, between sky and sea, between water and dry land, giving room for sun, moon, and stars to rule day and night, birds and fish to rule sky and sea, and beasts to rule dry land--with man as the priestly steward over the earth bearing the Divine Image. The second creation story presenting us with the story of man's relationships with God and the rest of creation, relationships which become fundamentally and forever broken by the introduction of death, sin, and suffering, the realities of this present world which we find ourselves--in which rather than simply enjoying God's good world we must toil at the soil, hunt to kill for food and clothing, in which violence, war, and every other evil is present in our midst.

And so when I get to the story of Noah and the ark, it's really not that difficult to understand that the point of the story isn't "God got really mad and decided to kill everyone and everything on the planet." But rather the point of the story presents to us an important lesson to learn: Salvation does not come through destruction. The flood did not save the world. The world cannot be healed by erasing everything and just starting over. The flood came, the waters receded, and sin, death, and suffering didn't go away. As quickly as Noah gets off the boat, builds an altar to thank God, he gets drunk off his rear end, strips naked, gets caught naked by one of his sons, and then places a curse on his own grandson. And almost as soon as the whole story of Noah ends, we're already reading about men gathering together to build a tower to ascend to heaven--our hubris has not subsided. We were just as bad after the flood as we were before. Nothing got fixed.

That sets us up with something really important, the way God actually will redeem and heal the world.

"Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. 32 The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'" - Genesis 11:31-2 - 12:1-3

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ." - Galatians 3:16

In Christianity the point of the Bible is Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, whether it is asked here, or in another part of this forum, the question is still a good one:

Why doesn't the DNA change?

Why would it?

I've never said the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine.

And even if I were a Transubstantiationist (I'm not), Transubstantiation doesn't say anything about the change of the accidents, but only of the substance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait a second. How do you know that it does not change?

DNA analysis of consecrated sacramental bread refutes Catholic transubstantiation claim

 

[AV1611VET]

Missing links are not holes in the theory.

Then they should be, because they most certainly are not in any museum anywhere.