Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[AV1611VET]

Given the way "seed" is used in such contexts, it is the seed of one animal deposited in the womb of another to use the antiquated language. (Test-tube babies excepted.)

Adam came out of the earth fully-formed; not out of someone's womb.

He never had a childhood.

 

[VirOptimus]

Adam came out of the earth fully-formed; not out of someone's womb.

He never had a childhood.

That is a claim with no supporting data.

Its also a very modern and unsofisticated way of understanding an ancient text.

 

[coffee4u]

And I'm more than okay with Isaiah using poetic language.
Are you okay with the author(s) of Genesis using poetic language?

-CryptoLutheran

The overall literary structure of Genesis is not poetical, it's narrative and written by Moses. He used very little poetic language and where he did it is plain to see as it is separated from the rest of the text.

Numbers 12:6-8

6 he said, “Listen to my words:

“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

 

[Frank Robert]

Now you are just being insulting. Get real.

What do creationist mean when they claim "accepting evolution means you can’t believe in god?"

 

[Frank Robert]

No, it's absolutely ridiculous. To say someone can't be a scientist because of thier religious views? That's discrimination.

I did not say "someone can't be a scientist because of thier religious views" in reality I gave the names of two decent scientists, Todd Woods and Michael Behe who hold creationist views and one exemplary scientist, Kenneth Miller who holds that the laws of nature were intelligently designed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The overall literary structure of Genesis is not poetical, it's narrative and written by Moses. He used very little poetic language and where he did it is plain to see as it is separated from the rest of the text.

Numbers 12:6-8

6 he said, “Listen to my words:

“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

Moses probably did not exist. Have you ever looked into the works of actual Bible scholars?

 

[AV1611VET]

Its also a very modern and unsofisticated way of understanding an ancient text.

I somehow don't think the dust of the ground reminded them of a woman's womb.

And for the record, Moses redacted the book of Genesis, using the word "womb" for the first time in Genesis 25.

Why did he use it in Genesis 25, but not in Genesis 2?

 

[AV1611VET]

Moses probably did not exist.

Ya ... his fingerprints were wiped clean by Mother Nature, weren't they?

 

[renniks]

What do creationist mean when they claim "accepting evolution means you can’t believe in god?"

That' looks like a biased opinion piece. And it's not from any known creationist.

 

[VirOptimus]

I somehow don't think the dust of the ground reminded them of a woman's womb.

And for the record, Moses redacted the book of Genesis, using the word "womb" for the first time in Genesis 25.

Why did he use it in Genesis 25, but not in Genesis 2?

Thanks for the QED.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The overall literary structure of Genesis is not poetical, it's narrative and written by Moses. He used very little poetic language and where he did it is plain to see as it is separated from the rest of the text.

Numbers 12:6-8

6 he said, “Listen to my words:

“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

"It was evening, it was morning, the nth day" is a poetical refrain.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I sure hope and pray you are.

But while we're crossing swords here, tell me, Crucis:

Is there ONE THING you can think of that science has gotten wrong here because the Bible says otherwise?

Can you name JUST ONE, and back it up with Scripture?

Or is science so right, they don't get anything wrong?

The thing is here, I'm not afraid to take questions put to us that people ask KNOWING the answer is not specifically covered in the Scriptures; and speculating an answer.

And if I take a passage like Romans 1:22 and give it a dual interpretation (i.e., one pertaining to the time it was written, and one pertaining to today), I won't hesitate to do so.

You say I make a mockery of Christianity?

Well you can display that sacred chalice in your avatar, with the cross of Christ over it; but when science comes around barking its bologna and turns that chalice upside down, I don't hear a peep from you.

At least I'll try to defend my faith in the face of science.

And if I have to look stupid doing it, so much the better.

I've exposed a lot of people here who couldn't care less about their precious scientific method when it comes to the Bible.

They can preach their science well, but when someone shows up with Scripture, they won't even try to investigate before they communicate.

No light bulbs, no investigation, absolutely no anything but silly counter-questions, Arab phones, and feature creep.

What are you doing to defend your doctrine against science? besides nothing?

I don't view science as some nemesis that I have to overcome. Science is a method of understanding the natural world, and it does that job extremely well.

So why would I need to defend my doctrines against science? What am I defending Christian doctrine against?

I believe in living my Christianity here in the real world. I confess faith here in the real world, not against it.

What, exactly, in science is there need to defend from?

It's a bit like suggesting that I should defend my faith against poetry, or pottery, or pizza.

So let's take an example. I believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is the true and actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Using the scientific method any and all testing will result in demonstrating that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is nothing more than mere bread and wine. Is that an attack on my faith? No. Because I'd expect no less than that. In the same way, I would expect no less than a full scientific analysis of Christ's flesh or blood--if samples were somehow able to be taken--to show nothing other than an ordinary first century Jewish man.

It is not with sight or reason that I confess Christ to be true God, and His Supper to be His true body and blood--but with faith. Faith that when He said, "This is My body" He means it. How is it His body? How can bread be flesh? How can wine be blood? How exactly is Jesus materially, spiritually, and indeed fully present in the species of the Eucharist? I have no idea. And I'm okay with that.

What if a non-Christian makes fun of that? Well then I guess they make fun of that.

Sometimes people mock, sometimes people inquire. I have no control how people react to what I believe. But I do have control over how I respond.

I would rather inform, when someone is just mocking, I generally don't see much reason to engage. What would the point be? Getting into some virtual genital size comparison contest? I have no trouble correct misunderstandings, or providing contextual information. I do that all the time.

But in my experience I have frequently had to defend articles of the Christian faith not from hostile non-Christians, but from hostile fellow Christians who either subscribe to outright heterodox or heretical views, or who simply have very different theological positions than I do.

I have never shied away from confessing what I believe:

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through Him all things were made. For us human beings He came down from heaven, incarnate by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, truly human. Who for our sake was crucified under Pontius Pilate; suffered death and was buried. On the third day He rose from the dead in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; from whence He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver-of-life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the Age to Come.
Amen."

Christos anesti, alithos anesti.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't view science as some nemesis that I have to overcome. Science is a method of understanding the natural world, and it does that job extremely well.

So why would I need to defend my doctrines against science? What am I defending Christian doctrine against?

Nice.

You even got a thumbs-up from an atheist.

Now I'll repeat my question:

Is there ONE THING you can think of that science has gotten wrong here because the Bible says otherwise?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nice.

You even got a thumbs-up from an atheist.

And? Since when were atheists my enemy? St. Paul explicitly states that our contest is not with flesh and blood. When Paul wrote that he was a prisoner in Rome, Nero's Rome. He is also the same who, to the Romans prior to his arrest and being sent to Rome for trial and imprisonment, wrote, "if your enemy is hungry, give him food". When he says "enemy" he does not mean those whom we are against, but those who are against us. The same as Christ means in His Holy Commandment to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, and to pray for those who persecute us.

I don't view atheists as an enemy-other that I must engage in mortal combat with. They are human beings toward whom I am called to a life of ministry--of service in love.

When the Apostle was arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, prior to being delivered to Felix and ultimately sent on to Rome, the Pharisees gave their "thumbs up" to Paul when he spoke of the resurrection of the dead.

Now I'll repeat my question:

Is there ONE THING you can think of that science has gotten wrong here because the Bible says otherwise?

Nothing that I can think of. There are aspects of my faith, and things of science that I don't know how to reconcile in some coherent way--but I also don't find myself needing to do so. Chiefly I mean how do I reconcile the introduction of death as a malady upon creation with the reality of the record of death going back billions of years? I don't have a great answer, but neither do I need one. The reality is that death is real, that's real enough, awful enough, all on its own. And so I confess Christ risen from the dead, the first-fruits of the resurrection, and that at His coming death shall be swallowed up in victory when the dead are raised and God makes all things new.

Which is to say, what exactly changes in my confession of Christ and His Gospel if we push back death from sometime in human history to earlier back to before men existed? The answer is nothing. Nothing's changed.

"If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen--nothing else matters." - Jaroslav Pelikan

Should I be so weak in faith that a 14 billion year old universe, the slow move of biological evolution, or anything else in the natural observable world should cause me to deny the resurrection of Jesus?

If Christ rose from the dead, then my faith is vindicated.
If Christ did not rise from the dead, then I am a fool who has believed in a silly fiction.

I say Christ rose from the dead. Am I vindicated or am I a fool? I suspect I shall either find out, or I won't. And even here, if I am a fool, allow me to be a fool for Christ.

But here, now, in this life which I have been given: I confess Christ risen from the dead, and proclaim His victory over death, bearing in myself the hope of death's defeat and the ultimate triumph of life and love on the Last Day. And that is either foolishness or wisdom, foolishness to those who do not believe, wisdom for those that do; and until, or unless, all shall be made known--we won't know which is which.

My faith is not comfortable, free of doubt, free of questions; I wrestle with faith. Faith is dangerous. It is a daring, radical, bold trust in a promise, and that promise is either true or false.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[VirOptimus]

And? Since when were atheists my enemy? St. Paul explicitly states that our contest is not with flesh and blood. When Paul wrote that he was a prisoner in Rome, Nero's Rome. He is also the same who, to the Romans prior to his arrest and being sent to Rome for trial and imprisonment, wrote, "if your enemy is hungry, give him food". When he says "enemy" he does not mean those whom we are against, but those who are against us. The same as Christ means in His Holy Commandment to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, and to pray for those who persecute us.

I don't view atheists as an enemy-other that I must engage in mortal combat with. They are human beings toward whom I am called to a life of ministry--of service in love.

When the Apostle was arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, prior to being delivered to Felix and ultimately sent on to Rome, the Pharisees gave their "thumbs up" to Paul when he spoke of the resurrection of the dead.



Nothing that I can think of. There are aspects of my faith, and things of science that I don't know how to reconcile in some coherent way--but I also don't find myself needing to do so. Chiefly I mean how do I reconcile the introduction of death as a malady upon creation with the reality of the record of death going back billions of years? I don't have a great answer, but neither do I need one. The reality is that death is real, that's real enough, awful enough, all on its own. And so I confess Christ risen from the dead, the first-fruits of the resurrection, and that at His coming death shall be swallowed up in victory when the dead are raised and God makes all things new.

Which is to say, what exactly changes in my confession of Christ and His Gospel if we push back death from sometime in human history to earlier back to before men existed? The answer is nothing. Nothing's changed.

"If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen--nothing else matters." - Jaroslav Pelikan

Should I be so weak in faith that a 14 billion year old universe, the slow move of biological evolution, or anything else in the natural observable world should cause me to deny the resurrection of Jesus?

If Christ rose from the dead, then my faith is vindicated.
If Christ did not rise from the dead, then I am a fool who has believed in a silly fiction.

I say Christ rose from the dead. Am I vindicated or am I a fool? I suspect I shall either find out, or I won't. And even here, if I am a fool, allow me to be a fool for Christ.

But here, now, in this life which I have been given: I confess Christ risen from the dead, and proclaim His victory over death, bearing in myself the hope of death's defeat and the ultimate triumph of life and love on the Last Day. And that is either foolishness or wisdom, foolishness to those who do not believe, wisdom for those that do; and until, or unless, all shall be made known--we won't know which is which.

My faith is not comfortable, free of doubt, free of questions; I wrestle with faith. Faith is dangerous. It is a daring, radical, bold trust in a promise, and that promise is either true or false.

-CryptoLutheran

And I certainly dont see persons of faith as my enemies, nor do I fear any religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ya ... his fingerprints were wiped clean by Mother Nature, weren't they?

They would not have been if the event happened. The lack of evidence of an event that would leave clear evidence tells us that it did not happen. If God cannot lie then there was no flood. This should not be that hard to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there ONE THING you can think of that science has gotten wrong here because the Bible says otherwise?

As others have said I cannot think of any either. You may have a strawman argument that has been refuted countless times. But that is on you, not on the sciences.

 

[dlamberth]

The overall literary structure of Genesis is not poetical, it's narrative and written by Moses. He used very little poetic language and where he did it is plain to see as it is separated from the rest of the text.

Numbers 12:6-8

6 he said, “Listen to my words:

“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

Sounds like the words of a Mystic in Union with God.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, it's absolutely ridiculous. To say someone can't be a scientist because of thier religious views? That's discrimination.

Yes, proper scientific research necessarily discriminates against pseudoscience.

 

[Frank Robert]

That' looks like a biased opinion piece. And it's not from any known creationist.

Of course it is because is in your mind everything you don't agree with or don't like is biased. What does AIG mean when they ask?
Who Are You Going to Believe—God or Men?