really... where in Job?
and how come, no homo sapiens bones dated back to dinosaurs?
Ch. 38 talks about behemoth and leviathan. I think the standard view is hippo and croc, which dont makes sense to me.
Dating dino bones is based upon false assumptions about the strata. Radiocarbon dating is assumed to be inapplicable.
longer than that...he was throwing darts at TEs as far back as 2006How easily he forgets!
(all emphases added)
All that happened around March 2007. Then again, harsh words like thrown daggers make far deeper impressions in the hearts of those who hear them than the heart of he who says them, so your forgetfulness is hardly a surprise.
Newsflash mark, I don't think anybody here really thinks you have the slightest intention or hope of making peace. And I don't think anybody really cares that much any more. But the pretense of kind intention, now that wears thin.
Several times. Not in this thread, but in others, going as far as flat out stating I'm not a Christian.When did he say "Melethiel" doesnt care about Christianity or orthodoxy?
Behemoth is a Hippopotamus, and a Leviathan is a Whale, so no dinosaurs.
So we are back to square one. Homo Sapiens were not on the earth at the same time as any dinosaur, so?
That look nothing like dinosaurs, except in modern fantasy.It is possible by that time there were no more. But man seems to have a very good memory of dragons.
I don't know of too many whales that spit fire from their several heads (nor dinosaurs, for that matter).Sorry... a behemoth is definitely a hippopotamus, and a Leviathan is definitely a whale.
I don't know of too many whales that spit fire from their several heads (nor dinosaurs, for that matter).
It is possible by that time there were no more. But man seems to have a very good memory of dragons.
Several times. Not in this thread, but in others, going as far as flat out stating I'm not a Christian.
Actually, several TEs here have said something akin to the latter. Ask shernren what he thinks the Leviathan is.It's dramatic imagery I think but if you can't convince TEs that it's a dinosaur imagine their reaction if you tried to argue that it's the Devil. You can't win you know.
How would you defend evolutionary creationism biblically, mark?That is my only real concern btw and I assure you if I were a TE, and I very nearly was, I know for a fact I could do a much better job defending it biblically.
How would you defend evolutionary creationism biblically, mark?
Amen, just as the Scriptures teach.
I think evolution has some merit with regards to some transitions, I just refuse to make an assumption that we are all related by lineage. Human evolution has long been my sole concern and as far as that goes the human brain is close to three times the size of apes. The genetic mechanism for this change remains a mystery to science but the assumption that it in fact happened is ubiquitous to modern science. I think there is plenty of room for skepticism here.
Of course I agree on both theological grounds as well as scientific research that is directly relevant.
Appreciate you input.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Thanks for the reply, mark. In the end, I guess I just don't agree with your assessment of Adam as an insurmountable problem for evolutionary creationism. It's a problem, to be sure, but I don't think it's the show-stopper you think it is. Many of the conversations we've had here over the years attest to that.I'll give you the brief form and then if you want to pursue it I wouldn't mind if I did. Genesis 1 is in absolutes which can be literal but the focus is on theology. God does not elaborate on creation beyond that. The only real problem is Adam, he had to be specially created and the New Testament is explicit with that. You could easily affirm a progressive evolution from the primordial sea and never stray from sound doctrine, Genesis one is just not an obstacle.
The only thing you would have to compromise is one moment in natural history as it is interjected with special creation. You do that and the conflict fades away tomorrow. As far as elaborate debate and discussion of the hominid record you could even dodge that if you were serious enough.
This is what you do Mallon, establish and defend the New Testament and vital events in the Old Testament (Exodus, Sinai...etc). The trick is to put the fulcrum emphasis is on the reliability of the Bible based on central events. Then you start to look at some pretty puzzling problems like the fact that Old Testament writers really didn't expect God in human flesh. When the Law came it was perpetual but in the New Testament grace both nailed the written code to the cross and fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law. Just as evolution is progressive so is revelation.
At any rate, your only real obstacle is Adam all the rest is negotiable. Even if you don't take Adam as being literal in Genesis or Romans 5 you just simply concede that both views are valid but incomplete, both from the scientific and theological end. It's kind of like solving an equation, identify what you do know and isolate what you don't. Then when you get to Adam isolated you simply choose to defer to future discoveries and revelation since our knowledge of both is incomplete.
The point is that you don't deconstruct Creationism, you build your theological reasoning from the New Testament. It's kind of like dealing with speaking in tongues, you deal with the handful of verses briefly and instead of turning into a quarrel emphasis central doctrine.
That's the gist of it, just remember the Fundamentalist isn't emphasizing historicity and evangelical thinking is focused on the Gospel. All you really would have to do is de-emphasis certain things as unknown, incomplete and subject to further discovery and fuller revelation.
I know I could pull it off without disturbing a single central doctrine, that is if I believed it.
Thanks and Grace/peace to you.
I don't see evolution having merits on transitions.
In fact i would say there is no evidence of a single transition that I know of.
I do see sea mammals , like whales etc as originally land creatures who adapted post flood. Yet no evolution but quick triggered adaptatoion.
What is a transition you recognize as such.?
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?