Sue the T-Rex

AV1611VET said:

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I assume Jesus Christ looked like a man with two arms and two legs.

Thus nothing appears to have changed since Adam was created.

Click to expand...

Um, What is the relivancy of the scripture?

I would also assume this because the body was created to appear as human to be acceptable to the human beings in the configuration they were in at that time.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

Um, What is the relivancy of the scripture?

Click to expand...

Are we really having this conversation?

Okay ... let's try this approach:

Here's the list of people from Jesus back to Adam:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

If Adam wasn't configured like we are today, can you point to a specific name on that list where the configuration changed?

AV1611VET said:

Are we really having this conversation?

Okay ... let's try this approach:

Here's the list of people from Jesus back to Adam:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

If Adam wasn't configured like we are today, can you point to a specific name on that list where the configuration changed?

Click to expand...

you are showing me what happened after the fact and asking me where something changed when I was talking about the posible evolutionary track before man had reached the level where Adam found himself.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

you are showing me what happened after the fact and asking me where something changed when I was talking about the posible evolutionary track before man had reached the level where Adam found himself.

Click to expand...

If you say so.

AV1611VET said:

If you say so.

Click to expand...

We don't actually know this and that is my point in bringing it up. We do have this thing about projecting favorable images onto things we want to favor ourselves. I'm basing this on the scripture where God blasts Job. There are things that we are not required to have knowledge of and the event of creation was made vague for a reason.

I'm just saying that evolution might be part of Gods process that he felt was immaterial to our knowledge of ourselves. You got to admit we as humans evolve from a cell into a creature made up of cells that build upon themselves unto the day we cease. There was no mention of that in the Bible either, posibly because it was just as irrelivant at the time. We have grown in our grasp of knowledge and still only know that there is more to know. Looking for posible ways of bring science and religion together is something of a hobby of mine. I love them both and understand how relivant they are to the world.

UCDavis said:

Chicago museum has a real T-Rex fossil(Sue the T-Rex). Wanna guess how many real missing link fossils that museum has? Zero Nada

Click to expand...

It's a good thing the validity of that meme is not determined solely by the collection of the Field Museum of Natural History then.
(Actually, according to their website, they do have an original Neanderthal tooth so they have one, not zero).

UCDavis said:

Actually that huge t-rex fossil and tiny tooth is an accurate sample representing the population, proportionately.

Click to expand...

Can you back that up?

UCDavis said:

Smithsonian institute acknowledges that no transitional fossil between apes and humans have been found.
" The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived between 8 and 6 million yrs ago. We do not yet have its remains." http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics


View attachment 164812

Click to expand...

"last common ancestor" and "transitional fossil" are very different things.

Here are a number of transitional fossils, as defined by scientists, between humans and other apes:


If these are not what you mean by transitional fossil, perhaps you could define your personal version of the term?

Subduction Zone said:

tales of Genesis

Click to expand...

Science again and again and again has proven Genesis to be true beyond any doubts. Only there are many interpretations of Genesis that fall far short. Peoples understanding of Genesis falls far short. This is the difference between stumbling blocks and stepping stones. There are some who stumble and fall in their understanding of the Bible. There are others who find Eternal Life in and through the Bible.

The Narrow Gate mat7
13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

joshua 1 9 said:

This is the difference between stumbling blocks and stepping stones.

Click to expand...

Romans 11:20a Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.

AV1611VET said:

Romans 11:20a Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.

Click to expand...

They have faith in what they believe. I am sure over the years you have seen a lot of people turn away from atheism and accept Jesus.

UCDavis said:

Smithsonian institute acknowledges that no transitional fossil between apes and humans have been found.

Click to expand...

"

• All organisms, including humans, retain evidence of their evolutionary history.

• The fossil record contains transitional forms.

• Anatomical similarities of living things reflect common ancestry.

• Scientists pose, test, and revise multiple hypotheses to explain what they observe.

• Scientific ideas are developed through reasoning.

• Scientists use the similarity of DNA nucleotide sequences to infer the relatedness of taxa.

• Scientists use fossils (including sequences of fossils showing gradual change over time) to learn about past life."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/educatio...head-investigation-human-ancestry-grades-9-12

joshua 1 9 said:

They have faith in what they believe. I am sure over the years you have seen a lot of people turn away from atheism and accept Jesus.

Click to expand...

I guess so.

I'm a little hesitant to say atheists walk by faith, as the Bible compares walking by faith to walking by sight.

And although atheists are actually spiritually blind, they use science as their "seeing eye dog," so to speak; allowing them to claim they can see.

Which, of course, backfires on them.

John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

joshua 1 9 said:

Science again and again and again has proven Genesis to be true beyond any doubts. Only there are many interpretations of Genesis that fall far short. Peoples understanding of Genesis falls far short. This is the difference between stumbling blocks and stepping stones. There are some who stumble and fall in their understanding of the Bible. There are others who find Eternal Life in and through the Bible.

The Narrow Gate mat7
13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Click to expand...

Can you cite some peer reviewed scientific papers which proves Genesis to be true beyond any doubt?

bhsmte said:

Can you cite some peer reviewed scientific papers which proves Genesis to be true beyond any doubt?

Click to expand...

Science has had 3500 years to prove Moses wrong and they have failed to accomplish that objective. A lot of people do not understand the Bible, so they tend to befuddle their own mistaken conceptualization of what they are guessing the ancient Hebrew text might be saying. Usually people that have no training at all in how to understand ancient writings. That is why science shows us how to have a better understanding of the Bible. For example when you look at the domestication of the various plant and animal species the Phds in Botnay at various Jerusalem Universities can show you the wild plants and the domesticated plants. All of this verifies what we read in the Bible. Every now and then I will get a hold of one of their books at a reasonable price. Or there are various articals published in the Scientific Journals that has to do with things like the domestication of plants and animals in the middle East. Or how agriculture spread from the Tigris Euphrates River valley to Europe and the rest of the world. All the research you can do will always verify that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

joshua 1 9 said:

Science has had 3500 years to prove Moses wrong and they have failed to accomplish that objective. A lot of people do not understand the Bible, so they tend to befuddle their own mistaken conceptualization of what they are guessing the ancient Hebrew text might be saying. Usually people that have no training at all in how to understand ancient writings. That is why science shows us how to have a better understanding of the Bible. For example when you look at the domestication of the various plant and animal species the Phds in Botnay at various Jerusalem Universities can show you the wild plants and the domesticated plants. All of this verifies what we read in the Bible. Every now and then I will get a hold of one of their books at a reasonable price. Or there are various articals published in the Scientific Journals that has to do with things like the domestication of plants and animals in the middle East. Or how agriculture spread from the Tigris Euphrates River valley to Europe and the rest of the world. All the research you can do will always verify that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

Click to expand...

Two things:

Science can not prove a negative and asking it to, is intellectually dishonest.

Nothing in your post, demonstrates that science proves Genesis to be true, nothing.

AV1611VET said:

I'm a little hesitant to say atheists walk by faith, as the Bible compares walking by faith to walking by sight.

Click to expand...

Human faith is also called positive thinking, the power of suggestion and so on. There is no question that human faith is powerful, motivational people in sports and business promotes it. The faith your talking about is God's faith that goes beyond what man can do apart from God. His faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit working in our life and there is also a gift of faith when you study the Charisma's or the Spiritual gifts. I see Christians try to use their human faith sometimes when they do not understand how the faith of God works in our lives.

bhsmte said:

Two things:

Science can not prove a negative and asking it to, is intellectually dishonest.

Nothing in your post, demonstrates that science proves Genesis to be true, nothing.

Click to expand...

If that is the case then NOTHING you say proves any of the Bible to be false. The Bible is very, very testable. When they went to look for the walls of Jericho they found them exactly where the Bible said they will be. Of course when they went to find Troy they found it also exactly where Homer said it would be. I have studied ancient history for around 50 years now and I am just getting started as there is so much to learn about the History we read about in the Bible. This is what we call written recorded History as compared to history we have from the artifacts that we find. For example they can find ancient grains and grinding stones going back as far as 20,000 years, but they are wild grains. The domesticated grains that we read about in the Bible go back to exactly where we expect to find them from our study of the Bible. So there are lots and lots and lots of ways to show that the Bible is accurate and true. Generation after generation has tried and they always come up with the same conclusion, the Bible is 100% accurate and true in every way we are currently able to verify it.

We know that Abraham came from the city of Ur. They have excavated that city and they have studied it's remains. Even they found a 10 foot deep layer of muck from a flood. They continue to study the ancient city in Jerusalem and all the artifacts they find lines up with the Bible. Once when they were repairing the drainage on the temple mount they found an arrow head. They ran the carbon test to find the age and it was all verified. Those people with those arrowheads attacked Jerusalem at a point in time that science and the Bible agree upon with no conflict. Even over a simply little arrow head. Every little tiny artifact they find can all be verified to be true and they all prove the Bible to be accurate and true. I can go on and on and on all day long and write many many books of artifacts they have found that will all verify that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

What can you find on your side of the scale as evidence against the Bible? Nothing, your the one that has absolutely nothing to bring to the table in the way of rock solid evidence and I have overwelming evidence to show what I say is true. I just do not get started because we would go on and on forever looking at all the evidence there is to look at.

One of my favorites is when Solomon built the temple using the cedar from Lebanon. There are still patches of those beautiful cedar trees in the mountains of Lebanon today if you were ever to go to the sky resorts there. The Bible says they are even more beautiful then the trees were in Eden. I did a study on that when I was taking one of the classes at the Bible School. We have lots and lots and lots of evidence that shows the Bible is 100% accurate and true. A lot more accurate and true then any book that you can produce from any university library. They are all outdated and in need of revision almost from the beginning. Yet the Bible has remained unchanged for over 3500 years now.

Do you know who invented the first wheel? Do you know who invented the first chariot? It was not Egypt, it was the Assyrians that defeated the Egyptians in battle. You can read it in your Bible and you can read it in the hieroglyphics that you find in Egypt. After that the Egyptians began to develop chariots for battle and they became a powerful nation. We read that: "Joseph prepared his chariot and went up to Goshen to meet his father Israel" If this young man had a chariot he had clout just as we would expect from reading the Bible. This was a small nation but they had a lot of prosperity at the time. Also there are lots and lots and lots of clay tablets that can be used to verify what we read in the Bible. Esp from Babylon, the country that defeated Jerusalem and that is where Daniel ended up working for the King because he was very well educated. The remains of Babylon are still there today. God said it would never be rebuilt and it never was even though Saddam Hussein tried to rebuild it but the project failed.

Now if Joseph has jumped on his magic carpet to go visit his girlfriend, then maybe you would be able to back up your claim. As it is everything we read in the Bible can be found to be accurate and true.