mallon writes:
Can you tell me what scientific evidence any YEC brought forward to indicate that T. rex was a scavenger? Any publication you can direct me to? Keep in mind that Jack Horner, the only palaeontologist who supports the scavenger idea, is not a creationist.
In fact, in recent years, there has come forward much new evidence to suggest that T. rex was indeed a predator. For example, see:
I went and looked at about ten or so sites and the evidence is very very equivocal. Th eonly substantial evidence presented is some teeth marks on the tail of a dino that match the radius of a T rex. Well those could have gotten there from a few other reasons other than T rex preying on it.
Th eevidence for him being just a big lovable scavenger is very persuasive- from the forelimbs being too small, to the legs being thqat of a plodder and not a hunter, to the fact the teetrh of T Rex were not very well cemented in due to secondary or replacemetn teeth growing under the tooth that shows. So this one is a mexican standoff.
And why should it mattere if a guy who says t rex is a scavenger is a creationist or evolutionist??
How do you know there is a "cat" kind? You don't. How do you know they aren't just the same kind of "carnivore"?
Same way I know of human kind and pongid kind and snake kind and fly kind, and dog kind and cattle kind and rabbit kind and mouse kind etc. etc. ad nauseum.
If you get slammed for poking at a strawman, you have only yourself to blame, since you are the one who fabricated it.
Well the problem lies in that there are so many shades of evolutionary thought concerning evidence while we YEC folk are usually pretty consistent.
Again, though, how do you know He was referring to physical death? Your saying so doesn't make it so (unless you think you are God).
PSST (its a secret) All men physically die
SHERNREN writes:
You have completely failed to reply to any of my Scriptural quotations about how God deems that animal death and carnivorism have their proper place within a perfect creation. You have not responded to it with anything but personal projection of sentimentalism upon God.
Well I showed why your use of Psalm 104 and calling the waters the early creation and not the flood wrong!! Genesis 1 shows clearly that animals were3 given vegetation for food and it says it was so!! So because there is nothing written that says the beginning order was carnivorism-- you assume it is true?? Well that is NOT the word of God but the word of Shernren.
And once again if you insist psalm 104 and the waters mentioned are the Genesis 1 and not the genesis 6 waters then you make God a liar for it says in the psalm:
5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
God covered the highmountains again inthe Noahic deluge so your God is a liar!! But the God of the bible says thatr after the flood He rebuked the waters-the mountains went up and the valleys went down for a place for the waters to go(the ocean depths) and He set a bound so the waters would not pass again.
As Assyrian has pointed out, plant food does indeed form the base of any food chain and is therefore given for food to all animals. Even carnivores who consume other animals are indirectly eating plant matter - for the energy and substance of prey ultimately derive from plants. Therefore there is a viable alternative interpretation that does not preclude animal death. What would be more impressive would be God forbidding animals to eat meat. God telling animals that "Thou shalt not kill each other"? Don't plan things for God.
Well it matters not to me what is impressive to you or not--but what Scripture says and scripture says that God gave the vegetable world for all animals to eat for food and then Gods word says it was so! All the rest is your adding supposition tot he word of God based on a uniformitarian view of the iniverse and requiring those things. And I don't plan things for God-- I justr send forth His word without all the ballroom dancing to interpret it according to an agenda. Here might be a good time to say that I "evolved" into a YEC based on the evidence!! I was a rabid evolutionist, then a theistic evolutionist for the first few years I was saved, then a progressive creationist then a full bible YEC kind of guy for the last 20 or so years!
I have given you 1 NT example of where kosmon makes perfect sense as all humanity without needing to refer to any hierarchy - John 3:16. 1 John 2:2 is another example - the "world" here must obviously be humanity because the rest of the universe has not sinned! A similar example is Romans 3:6, which is even more significant because it happens within the discussive arc we are interpreting. I don't have a Septuagint on hand since I'm at college but I could probably dig up some more when I get back.
Yep those places with kosmos , the cpontext clearly shows it to be mankind! And Romans 5 coupled with Genesis 1 and 2 and Romans 8 shows that the original ordewr was no death until sin entered the world and then God cursed it all as it says in Romans 8 and subjected it all to phthora(corruption, destruction and persihing) so before God subjected creation to phthora there was no corruption, destruction and perishing!!!!!
That is exegesis ( and BTW BArnes beleives death in tha animal kingdom happened after the fall)
Nope, this proves that the flood was local.
Only in your dreams! You have to accept the writings of men who weren't there and have no idea and reject the words of the one who was there and recorded itr all as God inspired him to do so!! There are so many biblical and gewological reasons and evidences to accept a global mabbul (hebrew) and kataklusmos (gr) as to make the local flood concept so completely laughable.
Who gave you the right to give God grammar lessons?
Because my God made it clear that He set forth His word to tell us His thoughts (they are called doctrine) on all matters He chose to address. If it is bad grammar for us and grammar comes from God then it would be bad grammar for HIm as well!! Besidesd who gave you the right to reinterpret His word and make the clear and simple teaching of Scripture an untruth for the untruths you call truth??
In fact, even God Himself calls Himself a carnivore as a sign of possessing the attributes of strength. - Revelations, OT Prophets.
Can you give me a verse that shows
God likes steak and ribs and chops??
Kosmon can be translated as all humanity in Romans 5. - John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, Romans 3:6.
Futility and corruption are moral terms in Romans 8 and therefore refer to the destructive impact of human actions on the environment.
It can be translated that way and yes there are many verses whgere kosmos does refer to mankind-- but given the other evidence it is more biblically logical to say that death entered the planet and that through entering the planet it passed to all men as well though they did not sin after Adams fall. Once again I do not know the fancy term for it but it would be a redundancy on Gods part to say the say thing twice in the same part of a sentence.
The kosmon of Romans 5:12 should be oikoumene if humanity is intended.
I di dnot say that!! I said that in Romans 5 oikumene would be a better term as it would compliment the noun anthropos.
You really should do a word study of the word world (earth) in the NT and you would be amazed at how kow when kosmos is used of mankind- it almost always refers to the masses of humanity or the systems of organization man has:
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
a) the whole circle of earthly goods,
or 1,5,6,7 and 5 is the least referenced one. Nope #1 is still the best and it would be referring to the planet as is counter evidenced by Romans 8 and the fact that God called His intial 6 solar day creation exceedingly Beneficial! with very being a superlative for (towb) which means pleasant , agreeable, excellent and esteemed. Now show how 650,000,000 non existent years of evolved life with untold trillions of dead stinking rotting corpses in all that nonexistent time with untold number of species extinctions and predation and carnivorism and animal cannibalism and mankoind evolving with murder mayhem and destruction on the ranks of all the supposed hominid transitions would be something God would consider of esteemed value in the beginning before the fall of man!! After the fall? Yes God allowed things that were not part of the original plan.
Mallon pens:
What do you mean by "society"? Example?
Go to any natural history musuem and you will see.
The word "transitional" is used as a colloquial term, again, to indicate that Archie is a bird with reptilian holdovers such as a bony tail, teeth, clawed wings, etc.
This is why we generally tend to avoid common language like this in the sciences, so as to avoid such confusion.
Well for it being such a "colloqiual" term it certainly is bandied about the professional evolutionary websites as well. so much for avoiding "terms like this" in the sciences.
If anything, I fail to understand why you believe in a "cat kind" to begin with. Lions can't mate with house cats, and so by your biblical definition of a "kind" (one which produces others of it's "kind"), these creatures cannot possibly belong to the same "kind".
And chihauhas dont mate with great danes but they are still both dog kind!! And in every "kind" there are many examples of noninfertility between varying species within the "kind".
Whether you are willing to admit to it or not, you suffer from a post-Enlightenment type bias that neither of the Old or New Testament comminities were ever exposed to.
I assume you mean communities and they didn't need to be "exposed" to it-- they just simply beleived the word as is!! It was the heretics by and large that kept seeking to reinterpret the word to suit there own bias.
But I do have my bias
Probably for the very same reason that He used the anti-Christian that was Paul to reveal His own glory. God has the power to work through anyone He choses, even atheists and agnostics.
But first God made Saul a beleiver and then He became Paul and was used mightily. Best we know is that right now Darwin is in the place of torments for dying rerjecting a saving relationship with the one that died for HIm( thoutgh I could be wrong- only God ultimately knows the answer to that) but somethings He does know for sure wherever He is is that God created and not evolved life- that speciation is speciation within fixed boundaries, and that the universe (in his thinking) is not millions but only thousand sof years old, and that when not using comparative terms like "like" and "as" God meant what He said!
LION of God writes:
This is referring to how it should have been except for the Fall. Isaiah is here phrophesying a restoration of that heaven (paradise).
Thank you so much for that Isaiah qoute, I forgot all about it!!!! I wish I knew how to give blessings and rep points for you do deserve some!!!!
and you don't think that is a metaphor, a poetical picture of the peacefulness of heaven?
are there really going to be vegetarian lions in heaven do you thinK? is this a proof text for my dog's soul going to heaven? or are these going to be the only animals there-lions and lambs and serpents?
No for this is how things are going to be when Jesus physically returns to earth, establishes the prophesied kingdom on earth and man and animals cohabitate it for the millenium it lasts!!!
gluadys pens:
This is not the restoration of Eden but the prophesied kingdom on earth. The child will die at a hundred years if a sinner (remember punctuation is added to the texts)
if I can find the site I will post a beautiful study by a full blown Messianic Hebrew scholar showing this passage is eschatological and refers to the earth not heaven and that the humanity populating the earth are those who survived the tribulation and were saved!
Assyrian says:
I am afraid you are begging the question here. You are assuming there were no weeds before the fall. Gen 3 says no such thing. But what is a weed only a plant growing somewhere we don't want it. Nettles are very unpleasant on a picnic but butterflies love them. Why do you think Adam was told to subdue the earth? Why did it need subduing? The qal infinitive simply tells us that taking care of the garden involved both tilling it and guarding it. It doesn't mean that guarding was the same as tilling. If it means guard in other contexts, why do you want to change the meaning here?
I am not changing meanings, I am using keep in its primary meaning which is to manage. Look at the curse again-- Adam di dnot contend with thorns and thistles (weeds) until after the fall!! Before the fall the ground was not cursed-- after the fall it was. It really is that simple-- but then again Paul had to say in 1 Cor. why the simple things of God are hard to understand to some.
can only respond with this verse.
You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Well see actually I do-- even your brothers on talkorigins know that eh scriptures speak of a young earth and special creation and no evolution!! Any kid reading the bible (remember we are to come to God with that child like innocence?) will tell you God created everything in six days and that they reproduce aftrer their own kind and God destroyed the whole world with a global flood!!
To paraphrase another verse: "out of the mouths of infants and babes thou hast perfecte praise"!!!!!
