Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OK, but my point is that this doesn't mean that Leviathan was a mythological creature. No links this time!
If Job was saying that the animal would eat the sun, I don't believe he meant that literally. Why don't you just read the article I linked to? It might answer your questions.How could any dinosaur (if you believe it is a dinosaur) make this happen, if its not a mythology, here?
Exactly. Thats the point of mythology. It communicates a message, but not literally.I don't believe that Job meant that literally
No, he was talking about a literal animal, but not referring to something it could literally do.Exactly. Thats the point of mythology. It communicates a message, but not literally.
No, he was talking about a literal animal, but not referring to something it could literally do.
It was nice talking to you, but my computer battery is almost dead. Blessings!Mythology can contain existing creatures, if you must believe that its a dinosaurThey could use it with "big eagle" or whatever.
I just saw this. You do very well with your English!Yes, I am... you can see that in my constant need to edit my posts and correct the grammar, lol
No, I do not see any problem, because the Bible is not the only source about God. There is also church, logic, theology, other Christian writings, science, reason etc. I do not accept the extreme view of the Sola Scriptura, if you do...
God did not give us the Bible to speculate about scientific history. But to know about the message of salvation. He does not care if you believe that Adam was riding a dinosaur.
Yes, God did give us things beyond His word, but things like theology, logic, science, reason, etc... all have one thing in common - people, it all revolves around fallible, fallen, people... who weren't there in the beginning.No, I do not see any problem, because the Bible is not the only source about God. There is also church, logic, theology, other Christian writings, science, reason etc. I do not accept the extreme view of the Sola Scriptura, if you do...
God did not give us the Bible to speculate about scientific history. But to know about the message of salvation. He does not care if you believe that Adam was riding a dinosaur.
As someone said in this thread, with this view, you would not be able to say anything about any thing in the present, you would not be able to say that this post of yours had a cause, it might just appear to exist. You would not be able to say about a tree that it grew from a smaller tree and from a seed.We cannot study what's observable here in the present and project an accurate picture of the beginning
I think this falls into what is called reductio ad absurdum and is an appeal to extremes such as to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion... addressed to whomever it was that made that statement elsewhere in this thread.As someone said in this thread, with this view, you would not be able to say anything about any thing in the present, you would not be able to say that this post of yours had a cause, it might just appear to exist. You would not be able to say about a tree that it grew from a smaller tree and from a seed.
You would need to live just in the moment without any comments and thoughts about what was before.
Ideas can evolve, processes can evolve, the way people interact and engage within a culture or across cultures can evolve, etc... but biological evolution of something changing into something else (say a small land mammal about the size of cat changing into a water mammal that can grow as large as ~200 tons) has never been observed. Ideas like these are nothing more than unsupported hypotheses.Everything in this universe is evolving, everything is changing from something to something else.
Logically. Because it takes millions of years. How do you want to observe it directly? But you can observe it in fossils.Ideas can evolve, processes can evolve, the way people interact and engage within a culture or across cultures can evolve, etc... but biological evolution of something changing into something else (say a small land mammal about the size of cat changing into a water mammal that can grow as large as ~200 tons) has never been observed.
Its supported by fossils, by genetics, by geology etc. And what is most important, the evolution theory works. You can predict things with the evolution model. Various kinds of medical procedures or treatmens are based on it and work.Ideas like these are nothing more than unsupported hypotheses.
This is a logical fallacy, a false assumption presented to support an idea - you and I don't know millions of years have passed... such an idea has zero support without making various unfalsifiable assumptions (not to mention ignoring God's word). In contrast, God's word provides a lineage of people from Adam to Christ and tells us Adam was a man (not an ape-like creature), made directly by God from the dust of the ground (not from another animal).Logically. Because it takes millions of years. How do you want to observe it directly? But you can observe it in fossils.
A false dichotomy - what is actually observable about fossils, genetics, and geology is not mutually exclusive to the evolutionary paradigm. Also to clarify, there is no medical procedure in the world that is based upon the idea of a the kind of view of evolution where a land-based cat-sized mammal is transformed into a 200 ton water-based mammal... instead, there are only medical treatments that capitalize on what is actually observed - variations and mutations within what was already created during the 6 days of creation. The E.Coli long-term evolution experiment is a good example... after literally 10's of thousands of generations, E.Coli was able to adapt to citrate... but still remained E.Coli - it hasn't become a mouse, a marsupial, a human, didn't grow wings, etc... this is reality after stripping away all of the imagination.Its supported by fossils, by genetics, by geology etc. And what is most important, the evolution theory works. You can predict things with the evolution model. Various kinds of medical procedures or treatmens are based on it and work.
Another example of reductio ad absurdum - the truth of God's word as found in the Bible supersedes scientific predictions (whether right or wrong). YEC scientists follow the scientific method like any other scientist and are graduates from some of the same universities as those that adhere to the evolutionary paradigm. For what observable science cannot answer, they turn to God's word to help in piecing together the evidence seen today. What YEC scientists have done is helped shed light on the numerous unsupported assumptions being made in mainstream science. YEC scientists cannot take all the credit though because many ID proponents and even some atheists within the scientific community also do not support the evolutionary paradigm so it is empirically a false presentation that this is solely just some kind of biblical literalism apologetics.The YEC does not allow any predictions, its totally useless. It serves only for some kind of biblical literalism apologetics, but thats all. It does not work in real world needs. It does not work in astronomy, it does not work in biology, it does not explain fossils etc.
Geographically, it is reasonable to expect to see life with features that have characteristics suitable for both land and water. Again, it is a false dichotomy to assume this is only possible within the evolutionary paradigm. I believe tiktaalik roseae is found among other similar aquatic and shallow water life (that is, it is not found among fossils of mammals that tend to live more further inland), correct? The only reason there are ever fossils found is because there was an event (or events) that resulted in their rapid burial so it is of no surprise to find similar life forms buried together that co-exist geographically. To the "predictive" evolutionary paradigm, great job to the scientists who predicted finding these fossils near similar life found on land and in the water...@NobleMouse
You had stated "A false dichotomy - what is actually observable about fossils, genetics, and geology is not mutually exclusive to the evolutionary paradigm.".
The below statement is one of mine for another active topic right now.
"Tiktaalik is good evidence for common descent in that it was predicted to exist in shallow marine mid devonian rock, dated older than fish dominated rocks such as in the early devonian but younger than reptile dominated rocks such as in the Carboniferous. It's prescense in rock of shallow marine origins also lends credence to the idea that fish would evolve to walk on land in areas in which water is shallow and where this water meets land. Indeed the neighboring terrestrial mid devonian rocks did not contain tiktaalik like species, nor did the deep marine rock to the east. Only the shallow marine of what the geology shows was a continental margin.
And of course anyone can look at images of tiktaalik to see it has scales, gills and fins like a fish, while it also has a flat head and unfused neck much like an amophibious salamander. It also has robust pectoral girdles much like a salamander, and wrist bones like a salamander as well. And yet...clearly it's a fish with fins and scales. So it has features of both fish and amphibian tetrapodomorph, and it's been found in rock where it was predicted to be, specially up in the Canadian arctic, as well as vertically, lithologically and superpositionally in shallow marine rock.
And there have been other shallow marine tetrapodomorph tracks also found in the early devonian as well in Poland. Between the two, along with a whole collection of Hybrid fossils, this lends credence to the suggestion that the Cambrian, ordovician and silurian were dominated by marine fauna, and sometime in the early to mid devonian they evolved to walk on land. Then by the late devonian we have domination of strata by tetrapods and salamander like fauna. Then by the Carboniferous you have reptile like amphibians and amphibian like reptiles, lizard salamander hybrids etc.
If the first tetrapods were found in the Cambrian or ordovician, or even the Carboniferous, Permian, mesozoic (Triassic, jurassic, cretaceous) or cenozoic (tertiary, pleistocene, pliocene, miocene, oligocene etc.), it would disprove evolution. But here tiktaalik lay, between earlier fish and later amphibious salamander in the devonian."
I would like you to explain how it is that titaalik was predicted to be present in Canadian arctic shallow marine mid-devonian rock, and later discovered to be there, if not a product of a fossil succession left as remains of fish evolving into tetrapods.
Oh you're always so quick to employ ad hominem tactics ("It seems dishonest of you...") - always such a jokester." The E.Coli long-term evolution experiment is a good example... after literally 10's of thousands of generations, E.Coli was able to adapt to citrate... but still remained E.Coli - it hasn't become a mouse, a marsupial, a human, didn't grow wings, etc."-noble mouse
And this is just silly because nothing about evolution suggests that bacteria should sprout limbs in a few decades. What the experiments did show however, is that bacteria over successive generations increased in fitness and continually out-competed their ancestors as a product of the fixation of novel beneficial mutations. New genetic information formed as a product of mutations and fixated as the evolved bacteria became more fit. And of course the organisms never stopped mutating nor did they stop increasing in fitness.
But never in the experiment did anyone suggest that the bacteria should sprout legs and run out of their respective beakers.
It seems dishonest of you to suggest that if evolution were true, that the e.coli should have become marsupials. Though you have been caught being dishonest before and bearing false witness, so I don't suppose I am surprised.
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?