dinosaurs
Jonathan Phua
I'm a christian but I'm puzzled ove the dinosaurs issue. Since GOD created
adam and eve first, why were there Dinosaurs
Jonathan Phua
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://members.iglou.com/bible for details about this group. )))
Johnn...@webtv.net
Hello Jonathan... Many speculate that the dinosaurs existed on Earth
between: " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." And
the second line... "And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep." The argument being that God
wouldn't create an "unfinished..without form" earth.
Interestingly, the general consensus amongst scientists was that the
Earth was hit by an object from space some 65 million years ago. They
believe our world was plunged into total darkness as a result and hence
all the dinosaurs died within a short period of time. ...No dinosaur
fossils can be found in the rocks after this date, so whatever it was,
it was a major occurrence.. ...Jon
Jacob Rizor
>Subject: dinosaurs
>From: "Jonathan Phua" jpz...@singnet.com.sg
>Date: 10/6/2002 6:11 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3da01a54$1...@news.iglou.com>
>
>
>
>I'm a christian but I'm puzzled ove the dinosaurs issue. Since GOD created
>adam and eve first, why were there Dinosaurs
>
>
>Jonathan Phua
>
God did NOT create Adam and Eve "first". Genesis chapter one verse 11 says he
created GRASS and other vegetation ("herbs" yielding seed, fruit...) . Genesis
chapter one verse 20 says He created "every creature that has life, and the
fowls..." and in verse 21 it mentions whales. In verse 24 He adds cattle,
creeping things, and BEASTS. Then FINALLY, in verses 26 and 27 He created
man.... ie, Adam and Eve.
rmey...@charter.net
On 6 Oct 2002 07:11:16 -0400, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study
"Jonathan Phua" <jpz...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>I'm a christian but I'm puzzled ove the dinosaurs issue. Since GOD =
created
>adam and eve first, why were there Dinosaurs
>
>
>Jonathan Phua
It sounds as though you, like Vance, and most others on this
"christian" bible-study group, are steeped in the evolution
background. Please refer to the exchanges between Vance and me that
have been going on for some time now, on this very subject.
=46irst of all, Adam and Eve were not created first; they were created
last. Read Genesis one, for starters, regarding what Genesis one
actually says.
Second, although this is another contradiction of the "evolution"
malarkey which they vehemently deny, as they do all other facts, it
isn't that there "were Dinosaurs," THERE ARE DINOSAURS. They DID NOT
BECOME EXTINCT "some 70 million years before man ever came on the
scene," as one idiot evolutionary "authority" wrote some time ago.
Recently a Japanese fishing boat accidently latched onto, and hauled
up out of the ocean, the carcase of a Pleisosaur, not long dead.
Man's history, recorded by ancient authors and artists, shows many
dinosaurs contemporary with man --- rare, but they are still plentiful
enough to be conclusive. They are recorded in Indian drawings, in the
same country where their footprints are found, such as the Hava Supai
area of the Grand Canyon. The natives tell of them in yet unexplored
regions of Africa. Loch Ness. =20
I forget the name of a very good children's book, put out by the CRS,
which you ought to get: it's titled, "The Great Dinosaur Mystery," or
something like that.
If you simply decide to Believe God (believe the Bible), as Christians
do, you will find that you will have "no trouble with unbelief." Let
your skepticism rest with man's wisdom, the world's atheistic
"scientific" system, rather than with God's Word. =20
HEAR IT (eg, read what Genesis 1 says, before being "puzzled by it").
Those who HEAR IT are those who are saved (Luke 16:31).
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
JesusCult.org
"Jonathan Phua" <jpz...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in message news:<3da01a54$1...@news.iglou.com>...
> I'm a christian but I'm puzzled ove the dinosaurs issue. Since GOD created
> adam and eve first, why were there Dinosaurs
>
>
> Jonathan Phua
>
>
>
Jonathan,
Genesis 1:28 says, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
In order for Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth, there had to be a
creation before Adam and Eve. Scripture seems to indicate that there
was some pre-Adamic creation (possibly dinosaurs) that for some reason
(Scripture is not clear on why) was destroyed.
Ben
"Jonathan Phua" <jpz...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in message news:<3da01a54$1...@news.iglou.com>...
> I'm a christian but I'm puzzled ove the dinosaurs issue. Since GOD created
> adam and eve first, why were there Dinosaurs
>
>
> Jonathan Phua
>
>
>
If you would have read the posts before, you would have seen that this
guy I pasted below sums it up well. Go back to his posting to see.
Once you have read his posting, you should be able to see that
dinosaurs can easily be fitted in with the creation of the world.
>Search Result 34
>From: Ian S Nelson (bono...@CMU.EDU)
>Subject: Re: Dinosaurs
>View: Complete Thread (37 articles)
>Original Format
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study
>Date: 1994-11-13 10:47:41 PST
Bob Felts
<rmey...@charter.net> wrote:
[...]
>
> Recently a Japanese fishing boat accidently latched onto, and hauled
> up out of the ocean, the carcase of a Pleisosaur, not long dead.
For another view on this, see
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm
Denver Fletcher
<rmey...@charter.net> wrote in message news:3da0d062$1...@news.iglou.com...
> On 6 Oct 2002 07:11:16 -0400, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study
> "Jonathan Phua" <jpz...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>
> >I'm a christian but I'm puzzled ove the dinosaurs issue. Since GOD =
> created
> >adam and eve first, why were there Dinosaurs
....
> Second, although this is another contradiction of the "evolution"
> malarkey which they vehemently deny, as they do all other facts, it
> isn't that there "were Dinosaurs," THERE ARE DINOSAURS. They DID NOT
> BECOME EXTINCT "some 70 million years before man ever came on the
> scene," as one idiot evolutionary "authority" wrote some time ago.
It can also be instructive to consider some basic items of biological
reality.
For example, DNA breaks down over time. Even encased in amber, the DNA in
living cells will not maintain its integrity beyond some 10,000 years. So
when we find viable DNA in the cells of dinosaurs and other life forms that
have supposedly been extinct for 65 million years, we have some reason to
question the standard evolutionary dogma.
Personally, I think that the bible says it best (isn't that always the
way?):
2 Peter 3:3-5 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers
fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
water: (KJV)
"for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from
the beginning"
This is, of course, the earliest known summary of the uniformitarian
assumptions on which evolutionary theory was built. Not that any atheist
would ever give the bible credit for it. And "scoffers" brings on a strong
case of deja vu everytime I read it; perhaps you too have experienced it?
Then there's this:
2 Peter 1:16 16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we
made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were
eyewitnesses of his majesty. (KJV)
Evolution, as an explanation of anything, is certainly a "cunningly devised
fable", but it is still a fable.
My advice to any actual or would-be Christian is to have no truck with it.
There is plenty of evidence to be found that the straightforward biblical
account can be trusted.
BHZellner
> THERE ARE DINOSAURS. They DID NOT BECOME
> EXTINCT "some 70 million years before man ever
> came on the scene," as one idiot evolutionary
> "authority" wrote some time ago.
No, it almost exactly 65.0 million years ago.
> Recently a Japanese fishing boat accidently latched
> onto, and hauled up out of the ocean, the carcase
> of a Pleisosaur, not long dead. Man's history,
> recorded by ancient authors and artists, shows
> many dinosaurs contemporary with man --- rare,
> but they are still plentiful enough to be conclusive.
Sorry, people, but this is not alt-fantasy, this is
soc.christian.bible-study, and it is not God-honoring
to propagate lies on the internet. If you don't know
the facts, don't pretend that you do.
Now, let's be generous. It is not impossible that some
plesiosaurs could have survived until contempory
times. But did it really happen? That's quite another
question.
Ben
rmey...@charter.net
On 7 Oct 2002 10:17:19 -0400, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study
bhze...@aol.com (BHZellner) wrote:
>
>Sorry, people, but this is not alt-fantasy, this is=20
>soc.christian.bible-study, and it is not God-honoring
>to propagate lies on the internet. If you don't know
>the facts, don't pretend that you do.=20
>
Amazing. Immediately after you just made the statement:
>
>No, it almost exactly 65.0 million years ago.
>
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Vance McAlister
"Jonathan Phua" <jpz...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:3da01a54$1...@news.iglou.com...
>
>
> I'm a christian but I'm puzzled ove the dinosaurs issue. Since GOD created
> adam and eve first, why were there Dinosaurs
As another mentioned, this is an ongoing debate among Christians between the
"Old-Earth Creationists" and the "Young-Earth Creationists". For the OEC,
dinosaurs existed very likely where scientists (however secular they may be)
believe they existed. YEC believe that there is only one way to interpret
Genesis one, and that requires a six 24-hour day creation about 6,000 years
ago. While at first most YEC thought dinosaurs were a hoax, or a
misinterpretation of bones, most now acknowledge they existed, just that
they existed *within* the last 6,000 years (ie. dragons were dinosaurs,
etc). I am an Old Earth Creationist.
See the threads "thoughts on Genesis one" and the new one "Does the Bible
require a six-day creation". By the way, in answer to that very question,
my answer is that yes, the Bible does require a six day ("yom") creation,
but that these six "days" played out over millions or even billions of
years.
rmey...@charter.net
On 7 Oct 2002 10:17:18 -0400, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study
"Denver Fletcher" <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>Evolution, as an explanation of anything, is certainly a "cunningly =
devised
>fable", but it is still a fable.
Thank you, Denver: very valuable post.
Speaking of "cunningly devised fables," that jumps out at me when
re-reading the URL Bob Felts just posted.
Have you studied it? What about the comparison of the skeleton with
that of sharks? As I remember, sharks lack a normal skeleton; that is
one of the distinguishing characteristics of sharks. Maybe I
overlooked the article's discussion on this point; I'll have to look
further when I have the time.
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Johnn...@webtv.net
Hello... Those pictures of the "supposed" Plesiosaur are ridiculous. All
I see is a mangled up basking shark that has been lifted in such a
manner that it resembles a dinosaur. ...Common sense applied.. Nothing
would retain it's shape and be in such a state of rot ..At least not in
the ocean that has such an efficient system of clean-up. Ie: Fish,
sharks, crabs etc. ....And what about the Loch ness monster. I seem to
recall it was determined the food supply within the loch would be
insufficient to support a family of "nessys". Further, the only
"authentic" picture ever taken of nessy (the one that looks like a
swan), has recently been proven a fake. I think it more likely than not
that the only ones that actually see Nessy are either those that have a
vested interest in one of the many tourist traps there, or else those
that spend a little too much time in the pubs.
"Jesuscult.org." in his post touched on an important word, in my
opinion: "Replenish". As I understand it, the Earth was originally
created as an abode for the angels under the leadership of the archangel
lucifer. Following the angelic rebellion, God caused the destruction
of Earth. ...I find it highly unlikely that he would have created Man in
the midst of a world filled with efficient flesh eating (killing
machine) reptiles ..... (talk about hell on earth.) So what would be the
most appropriate way for God to destroy these humongous reptiles to make
room for his new creation, yet keep the rest of the world intact? A
wave of the hand?...A snap of the finger? .... Not likely...God designed
the universe based on mundane matter, so is there any reason his command
would have to be of a super natural nature? ...Would not a simple
meteor from space do the job nicely?
Listen, when He originally said : "Let there be light", the light
wouldn't appear out of nowhere as a glow in the dark. No, he worked
within the parameters of his own creation...Hence he created light by
the fusion of hydrogen into helium, facilitated by gravity.
Did the dinosaurs exist? ...Of course they did; the fosils of them are
obviously not a natural rock occurence. Did they become extinct 65
million years ago? Well, I guess each of us can draw our own conclusions
But hey... We can also momentarily shut our eyes and claim that God
has shut off the sun. ...Jon
Denver Fletcher
"JesusCult.org" <in...@jesuscult.org> wrote in message
news:3da193ca$1...@news.iglou.com...
> In order for Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth, there had to be a
> creation before Adam and Eve.
This is simply NOT SO!
If you were to look up a standard concordance (the Strongs, for example,
which is very widely used and easily obtainable) you would find that the
word used in Hebrew simply meant "to fill".
It does not imply any prior state that is to be renewed or restored. That
is a purely modern understanding, not present in the text itself at all.
(Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourselves.)
> Scripture seems to indicate that there
> was some pre-Adamic creation (possibly dinosaurs) that for some reason
> (Scripture is not clear on why) was destroyed.
First, scripture does no such thing, but rather indicates on many occasions
that the creation in which we now live was the first and only such in this
locale.
Secondly, the scriptures are not "not clear" on any supposed details of
this alleged "pre-Adamic creation" but are completely SILENT on the matter.
The very notion is the mongrel brain-child of the theistic-evolutionist
crowd, and is little more than an attempt at a compromise with atheism and
its evolutionary assumptions.
IMO, of course.
Denver Fletcher
<rmey...@charter.net> wrote in message news:3da20523$1...@news.iglou.com...
> On 7 Oct 2002 10:17:18 -0400, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study
....
> Speaking of "cunningly devised fables," that jumps out at me when
> re-reading the URL Bob Felts just posted.
>
> Have you studied it?
Well, I read it once over, lightly.
> What about the comparison of the skeleton with
> that of sharks? As I remember, sharks lack a normal skeleton; that is
> one of the distinguishing characteristics of sharks. Maybe I
> overlooked the article's discussion on this point; I'll have to look
> further when I have the time.
The article DOES (some way down the page) say that basking sharks have
particularly hard heads, known to harden as they age, and they assume that
the impressive size of the speciment indicates an equally unusual age. Thus
the hardness of the skeleton is not necessarily conclusive in this respect.
As usual in such cases, your conclusion is more determined by your
predispositions than by the evidence itself, and as you imply, this
reference is a very good example of that principle in action. There is
simply no amount of evidence that is able to convince some people to
abandon a position once it has been taken and publicly held. As is always
the case, there is a large element of pride in sin.
I have no problem with people having atheistic predispositions, but I will
never assent to those predispositions being the only possible/logical ones
to have, or that the facts can only be sensibly interpreted in favour of
one set of predispositions. That is simply arrogance and presumption, and
is certainly not science. Dogmatic assertions of the "true" nature of
reality have so often been shown to be incorrect, by science itself, that
you'd think that professing scientists would have learnt not to make them.
But in this aspect many professing scientists(1) strongly resemble those
who make predictions of the date of the 2nd Coming of Christ; they seem to
never learn from their errors.
The article itself seems fair enough, and appears to stick to solid ground
in its argumentation. I'm not particularly concerned with the ultimate
truth of this one case.
It is enough for the believer to know that (in science) ONE SINGLE
counter-factual is sufficient to disprove a theory as having general
application, and on this point the pronouncements of the evolutionary
priesthood(2) have been shown to be more akin to wishful thinking than to
science on any number of ocasions. The discovery and subsequent live
catchment of trilobytes off the coast of Africa, for example, when they
were supposed to be 60 millions years (or more) extinct.
(1) by "professing scientists" in this context I mean those who claim to
have science on their side in religious debates on the nature of reality,
the origins of matter and life, and their destiny. I do not mean to slander
all those whose calling is to investigate the observable nature of our
continuum.
(2) for this IS what they are. Materialism and its atheistic assumptions
are matters of faith, not science. Assertions of the non-existence of the
divine, no matter how dogmatically expressed, are not evidence of anything
other than the predispositions of those making them. Science does not
assert the non-existence of anything, for science can only disprove a
positive assertion, it cannto establish a negative. At most an honest
scientist can say only that they have not observed sufficient data to have
confidence in the theory.)
All the above IMO, of course.
Vance McAlister
"Denver Fletcher" <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3da2f840$1...@news.iglou.com...
[snip a bit]
> Secondly, the scriptures are not "not clear" on any supposed details of
> this alleged "pre-Adamic creation" but are completely SILENT on the
matter.
I think this is the most important point about most of this debate. The
Bible, in these Scriptures, is simply not intending to give us all the
answers or explain the entire process. Of course, the scripture does state
that part of the process of creation took place before Adam, but I don't
think you meant to say otherwise, referring instead to the absence of any
telling in the Scripture of the use of what God created before Adam for
angels or anything else.
As for the theory itself, I am just not sure about it. We know that there
was a period of time when the angels flourished with God and then Lucifer
fell. Obviously, this took a significant period of time, but is there any
Scripture which points to the fact that this all occured prior to Adam being
created? Of course, if you believe in an "old Earth" for other reasons,
then the idea that it might have occurred during the creation process before
Adam is not impossible. We just don't know, and obviously don't need to
know definitively.
rmey...@charter.net
On 7 Oct 2002 18:09:01 -0400, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote:
>Hello... Those pictures of the "supposed" Plesiosaur are ridiculous.=20
Certainly, since they appear to support Biblical "mythology." Are you
claiming that the pictures are not actual photographs?
>All I see is a mangled up basking shark that has been lifted in such a
>manner that it resembles a dinosaur. ...
Personally, I have seen pictures of basking sharks, and I have seen
pictures of pleisosaurs, as artists' imaginations have depicted them.
To anyone who, like me, has seen pictures of each, all I *see* is a
pleisosaur, of the two. It looks to me like a pleisosaur; it does not
look to me like a shark.
>Common sense applied.. Nothing
>would retain it's shape and be in such a state of rot ..At least not in
>the ocean that has such an efficient system of clean-up. Ie: Fish,
>sharks, crabs etc. ..
I don't understand:
If nothing would retain its (grammar correction) shape and be in such
a state of rot, at least not in the ocean that has such an efficient
system of clean-up . . .,
how is it that this creature retained its shape, and was in such a
state of rot, and was found in in the ocean that had such an
efficient system of cleanup?
But thank you for your lesson on common sense. I had heard of it, but
didn't fully realize that it existed in America. Bart's comment that
*none* of his calculus students can add fractions further confirms it.
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Joel Graebe
Jonathan Phua wrote:
> I'm a christian but I'm puzzled ove the dinosaurs issue. Since GOD created
> adam and eve first, why were there Dinosaurs
Adam & Eve were created after dinosaurs.
Mankind and the dinosaurs coexisted.
For further information check out the Institute of Creation Research at:
www.icr.org
Study to show yourself approved.
BHZellner
> Mankind and the dinosaurs coexisted.
> For further information check out the Institute of
> Creation Research at: www.icr.org
Sorry, sir, but one of the Ten Commandments says
"Thou shall not bear false witness."
Ben
Bart Goddard
bhze...@aol.com (BHZellner) wrote in news:3dac303a$1...@news.iglou.com:
>
>
> > Mankind and the dinosaurs coexisted.
> > For further information check out the Institute of
> > Creation Research at: www.icr.org
>
> Sorry, sir, but one of the Ten Commandments says
> "Thou shall not bear false witness."
But we have that annoying rock with that dinosaur footprint
with the man's footprint embedded in it. The offered
explanation is that it's a "fluke". Very scientific.
Bart, a working scientist.
Johnn...@webtv.net
Hello Bart... Are you referring to the Paluxy river Dino. prints in
Texas? Comon... The prints considered human are a ridiculous 19
inches long. (not to mention at least about 41/2 times wider than an
average human foot.) The rational explanation is: what is thought of
as a human individual wearing an extremely (LOL) over-sized sandal, is
just the dino. print filled in on it's edges from local settling and
erosion-- in fact, further up the river the "human prints" turn into a
more defined dinosaur print.
I think the only vestige of the great dinosaur era in existence today
are crocodiles, alligators, sharks, and birds. I am sure if there were
any T-rexes or heards of Brontosaurs still roaming the Earth, they would
have been found long before now.
...I don't understand how some can so easily skoff at scienific
discovery, yet quickly pounce on some obscure, unsubstantiated "National
Enquirer" story and hold it as being the gospel truth. Doesn't make
sense. ...Jon
Vance McAlister
"Bart Goddard" <godd...@concordia.edu> wrote in message
news:3dac6e4b$1...@news.iglou.com...
>
>
> bhze...@aol.com (BHZellner) wrote in news:3dac303a$1...@news.iglou.com:
>
> >
> >
> > > Mankind and the dinosaurs coexisted.
> > > For further information check out the Institute of
> > > Creation Research at: www.icr.org
> >
> > Sorry, sir, but one of the Ten Commandments says
> > "Thou shall not bear false witness."
>
> But we have that annoying rock with that dinosaur footprint
> with the man's footprint embedded in it. The offered
> explanation is that it's a "fluke". Very scientific.
No, the explanation is that is not a human footprint.
Bart Goddard
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote in news:3dad8...@news.iglou.com:
> ...I don't understand how some can so easily skoff at scienific
> discovery, yet quickly pounce on some obscure, unsubstantiated
> "National Enquirer" story and hold it as being the gospel truth.
> Doesn't make sense. ...Jon
The picture I saw was in an anthropology textbook, not the
National Enquirer, so does that qualify it as "scientific"?
Jon, buddy, I am a working scientist, so I know better than
most when to skoff and when not to. Hard science is based
on repeatable experiments. So physics and chemistry are fields
wherein arguments can be pretty much settled. But in
softer sciences like prehistory, there is so much intuition
and fad going on, that I'm surprised that you even use the
word "scientific" with it.
I suppose one proposes models and tests them against the data,
but that's about as close as one gets to "science" when it
comes to dinosaurs.
But the trouble is that entire animals are based on the existance
of one bone fragment, and that's a whopping lot of extrapolation.
The impression that there are tons of dinosaur bones found is
false. There are hardly any, and the paleontologists have
connected the widely spaced dots in what they feel is a consistant
fashion.
But there are many consistant fashions, as anyone can see, because
they change the consistant fashion every 5 years. The winner
depends largely on who is Dean of Arts and Sciences at the
university with the most NSF grants last decade.
Or maybe it depends on which TA is cuter and gets her advisor's
name added to her interpolation and published.
Oh, yes, that is most definitely how it works.
How old was the scientific world 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
These soft "scientists" can puff themselves up all they like
because there is no way to test their theories. They're
no different from political "scientists" or economists for
that matter. A physicist or chemist or biologist
has to be able to back his theories up with reproducable
experiments (witness the recent fraud cases in the paper lately.)
But there is no way to commit similar fraud in the field of
paleontology, _because there are no experiments, because it
isn't really science_, so you can't fabricate false data_.
Bart
Johnn...@webtv.net
Hello Bart... Nevertheless, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck.... Granted, their might not be fossilized dino. bones found in
everyone's back yard, but complete skeletons have been found -- and
world-wide too. Further, it doesn't take much of a scientific
imagination to draw a conclusion that if one finds a human tooth, most
likely the rest of the missing skeleton would look decidedly human.
I do agree with you, though, on how the system tends to work. You or I
could hit the nail on the head with regards to a cosmological
conclusion, but regardless of our educational abilities, unless we have
the credentials of say Stephen Hawkings, our ideas would be quite
simply, laughed at. Yet, like you imply, people will throw common sense
to the wind if someone notable in his particular field comes up with a
theory-- in spite of how ridiculous it may sound, or irrespective of the
lack of verifiable data he has to back it up .
Unfortunately, religious people operate in much the same way. What may
be deemed religiously correct today, could well have had someone burned
at the sake for even thinking it 500 years ago. Since science has
recently pulled the curtain back on what we currently know of our
universe (...And I Include all sciences), we now find that all of a
sudden religions are turning to the ancient Greek translations in order
to make the Bible conform to discovery or personal belief. Even
when I was younger, I never heard of such a tactic. ...But everyone
does it now. So what happens 10, 20 years from now: "...Well.... looks
like we'll have to re-write the book again. ..Too bad for all those
people back in 2002 for believing blah, blah, blah; but since we found
out____, then ____ can't be true."
So my point is... I took a look at the picture of the human foot print
that you mentioned was found near the dino. print. My personal
conclusion was: You gotta be kidding--- that imprint doesn't even look
like a human foot.
I have to tell you Bart, if you believe that it does, based on the
pictures, well.. perhaps I can interest you in some prime agricultural
land in the Antarctic. ;-)
..Do I believe the world has only been in existence for 5,000 plus
years? Absolutely not. ...I see the pictures...I read the words from
both points of view.... I draw my own conclusions (as I did with the
foot print) based on common sense. ...Jon
Science is simply a latin word for knowledge...Knowledge is our destiny.
Carl Sagun
BHZellner
> like you imply, people will throw common sense
> to the wind if someone notable in his particular
> field comes up with a theory-- in spite of how
> ridiculous it may sound, or irrespective of the
> lack of verifiable data he has to back it up .
Two comments. First, the scientific community will
accept nothing just on authority. If a notable
scientist comes out with an off-the-wall theory
without data to back it up, he will at least be called
aside for some searching private conversations by
his colleagues!
Second, on the matter of "common sense." Quantum
mechanics and general relativity, the two foundations
of physics, each contain some very counterintuitive
elements. What matters is not whether they accord
with common sense, but whether or not they give
answers in agreement with observation and experiment.
Ben
Bart Goddard
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote in news:3daedb6a$1...@news.iglou.com:
>
>
> Hello Bart... Nevertheless, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a
> duck.... Granted, their might not be fossilized dino. bones found
> in everyone's back yard, but complete skeletons have been found -- and
> world-wide too. Further, it doesn't take much of a scientific
> imagination to draw a conclusion that if one finds a human tooth, most
> likely the rest of the missing skeleton would look decidedly human.
Complete skeletons of some animals. But I said that some animals
were conjectures from mere fragments. You haven't gainsaid me.
Further, if you find a human tooth, of course you conjecture a
human. The point is, what if you find something that's not
a human tooth. You can extrapolate it in a number of different
directions, and ALL of those different directions fit the the
data lying in your hand. This "modeling" they call "science".
> Unfortunately, religious people operate in much the same way. What may
> be deemed religiously correct today, could well have had someone
> burned at the sake for even thinking it 500 years ago. Since science
> has recently pulled the curtain back on what we currently know of our
> universe (...And I Include all sciences),
Science actually knew the world was a sphere 500 years before
Jesus was born, and we even knew the circumference (with 4% accuracy.)
It took the pragmatic world 2000 years to catch up and try sailing
around it... (This is just an aside.)
we now find that all of a
> sudden religions are turning to the ancient Greek translations in
> order to make the Bible conform to discovery or personal belief.
> Even when I was younger, I never heard of such a tactic. ...But
> everyone does it now. So what happens 10, 20 years from now:
> "...Well.... looks like we'll have to re-write the book again. ..Too
> bad for all those people back in 2002 for believing blah, blah, blah;
> but since we found out____, then ____ can't be true."
That's the problem with confusing such wild extrapolation
with "scientific fact".
> So my point is... I took a look at the picture of the human foot print
> that you mentioned was found near the dino. print. My personal
> conclusion was: You gotta be kidding--- that imprint doesn't even
> look like a human foot.
You don't know that we're looking at the same picture. The
picture I saw was in an Anthropology textbook, which fully
espoused evolutionary theory and the popular age of the universe
and the whole atheistic viewpoint. They presented the picture
and the footprint was clearly human and the accompanying text
identified it as human and discussed the print as a "difficulty".
The "difficulty" was dealt with in that this minor bit of data
was overwhelmed by the huge amount of other data that the fossil
record supposedly gives us. My point here is that this "other
data" is really not so huge. E.g., the fact that entire skeletons
are built out of plastic and plaster, based upon one fragment,
and are standing in your local natural history museum.
If there had been a simpler explanation, like yours, I'm sure
they'd have much rather have gone with it.
> Science is simply a latin word for knowledge...Knowledge is our
> destiny. Carl Sagun
No, "science" is an English word, it happens to have a Latin
etymology. In English it means much more than "knowledge."
In incorporates the scientific method, and the idea of positing
hypotheses and then _testing_ them.
(And when you mention Sagan among real astronomers, they
all laugh. He was good for raising money, and that was about
it. "Billions and billions of dollars...")
Bart
Johnn...@webtv.net
So what are you trying to say, Bart? ...The Earth was visited by an
earthly alien some100 million years ago? ...And he had humongous feet?
.Jon
Bart Goddard
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote in news:3daf424d$1...@news.iglou.com:
> So what are you trying to say, Bart? ...The Earth was visited by an
> earthly alien some100 million years ago? ...And he had humongous feet?
> .Jon
For someone who's trying to tout the "scientific" viewpoint,
you're not being very scientific. You assume without justification
that we're looking at the same picture (even though the evidence
is to the contrary). You further assume even if we were looking
at the same picture, that the mud the prints were made in
didn't slide down the bank of the river and stretch the prints, say,
or that some other explanation might account for it.
If there were such a simple thing like "gee it's a humongous print",
then the atheists who wrote the anthropology text would have used
it. But they didn't. Try baiting someone else.
Bart
rmey...@charter.net
On 18 Oct 2002 08:56:23 -0400, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study
Bart Goddard <godd...@concordia.edu> wrote:
>For someone who's trying to tout the "scientific" viewpoint,
>you're not being very scientific. You assume without justification
>that we're looking at the same picture (even though the evidence
>is to the contrary). You further assume even if we were looking
>at the same picture, that the mud the prints were made in
>didn't slide down the bank of the river and stretch the prints, say,
>or that some other explanation might account for it. =20
>
>If there were such a simple thing like "gee it's a humongous print",
>then the atheists who wrote the anthropology text would have used
>it. But they didn't. Try baiting someone else.
>
>Bart
And:
(The "humongous" aspect simply jives with what the Bible says, in many
places, beginning with Genesis 6. [an eleven+ foot "human" skeleton
has been found in Italy. And Og, the King of Bashan's coffin,
obviously in point of reference to his tremendous size, was something
like 8 ft by 13 ft.] It still amazes me that John should be so aghast
at it. But I still insist that an evolutionist is very rarely, if
ever, a Bible Believer [I still insist that Luke 16:31 says that he is
not], any more than he is a scientist, on that issue [there is no
"science" of evolution; obviously, since there are no observations or
repeatable experiments involved for it] --- all of these things
contrary to their insistent and repeated claims.)
The Paluxy prints case is FAR from closed, contrary to the majority
opionion, which all through history typically proves itself wrong.
It is also not true that "ICR has now agreed that the human prints are
fake." FAR from it. [some of the prints, definitely; but NOT those
particular prints that the Dr. Baugh, etc, are claiming to be genuine.
And many non "creation scientists," after observing the whole
operation and examining them have stated flatly that they are genuine
human, as have many non "science" observers who have some brains and
some interest in Truth.]. Dr. John Morris was a bit cool about them;
and it seems to me that in general, he is a step down from his dad in
matters of belief. And the last I heard, John hasn't made a final
conclusion. But the point is, that ICR is an organization of many
highly credentialed scientists, who think for themselves: ICR is not
the Borg, as evolutionists constantly and stupidly claim. They are
not one unison voice on Paluxy.
The Creation scientists involved at Paluxy, and many other scientists
who have seen the work and agreed with their conclusions, are
discussed in a book I wish I could get everyone to see: it is
thorough, up to date (in all relevant matters), and fair (unlike
everything else presented). "Dinosaur: Scientific Evidence that
Dinosaurs and Men walked Together" [of course they did: the Bible
plainly indicates again and again that they did, as does history, and
there is not a shred of evidence that they didn't --- the only proof
that they didn't is the fact that if they didn't, evolution is, again,
wrong, along with its whole atheistic and stupid "geologic time
scale") --- the book, by Dr. Carl Baugh and Dr. Cliffford Wilson. The
book discusses a number of other Paluxies, as well, such as in Russia,
Australia and other places.
You people who keep espousing this whole evolution crap are NOT Bible
Believers, you're NOT Christian, and if you really understand the
implications, you're NOT honest, and you're NOT saved. It is the
anti-God system of rebellion of the world, today; and that's all it
is.
And, you're NOT scientists, I repeat, by definition.
You're NOT merely arguing against what Genesis one really teaches: you
are arguing against EVERYTHING Genesis teaches (eg the existence of
the man Adam, the Flood, etc, etc); you are arguing against the whole
Torah; you are arguing against Redemption through the Blood of Christ;
you are arguing against the Deity of Christ; you are arguing against
the Blessed Hope; . . . You are arguing against the very fact of
Creation itself, since Creation carries the inescapable inherent fact
with it that it is "scientifically" undatable; as I have shown many
times before; it can be dated ONLY by Revelation from the Creator.. =20
Every one of these Scripture Doctrines is an absurdity in the "light"
of Evolution; and that is why 2 Peter 3 predicted its existence, in
the last days, out of the mouths of the scoffers. And it also
predicted the major scientific fallacies of the stupid system: the
Canopy of Genesis 1:6-10, and the Flood of Genesis 6-9.
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Johnn...@webtv.net
Hey Bart... Remember...You were the one who originally mentioned:
"...but we have that annoying rock with the dinosaur footprint with the
man's footprint embedded in it." ...Personal conclusion -- based on
scientific reasoning??
Perhaps we're not looking at the same picture... But remember that
supposed plesiosaur photo. Heck...Give me a chunk of wet canvas, a
camera.... And most importantly, some individuals with vivid
imaginations, and I too could create a monster. Sure the print that you
saw (assuming it wasn't doctored) may have looked human, but stick a
human foot within the picture to show scale (as in the photo I saw) and
bang-- the perceived image is gone. ...It's like the famous lochness
picture. ...Big fearsome animal. Yeah..Right in some one's mind. But
what was it? A wooden model 2 feet long-- or something like that?
It's just like a lot of religious people...Take a quote from the Bible
and spiel it out of context. ..You can assume what you like, but I bet
the "biased" article you read didn't mention the fact that further up
the river, the prints became more definable as being "only" those of the
dinosaur itself. Why not? ...Well it would have been a waste of time
then even printing the article. The whole story is just a case of
someone exploiting a natural occurence for the sake of selling an
article, then someone else embellishing the story (and only using
specific photographs) to support a personal and slanted view of the
dawn of man. ...Jon
BHZellner
> And when you mention Sagan among real
> astronomers, they all laugh. He was good for
> raising money, and that was about it.
No, we don't laugh. After Carl's death, one perceptive
astronomer gave him a B for his personal scientific
accomplishments, but an A++ for his popularization of
science.
Ben
Bart Goddard
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote in news:3db40713$1...@news.iglou.com:
>
> Hey Bart... Remember...You were the one who originally mentioned:
> "...but we have that annoying rock with the dinosaur footprint with
> the man's footprint embedded in it." ...Personal conclusion -- based
> on scientific reasoning??
I drew no conclusions, I only offered data that contradicts
the models.
> Perhaps we're not looking at the same picture...
So you admit, but then...
> Why not? ...Well it would have been a waste of
> time then even printing the article. The whole story is just a case
> of someone exploiting a natural occurence for the sake of selling an
> article,
No one was selling an article. This was in a textbook. If it
hadn't been 20 years ago, I'd have given the reference by now.
The best I can do is say that be book was brown, and I think the
title was "The Emergence of Man", but I have no idea who the
authors were.
The point here is that if modern medicine, which is a real
science, can't even make up its mind about whether butter
is good for you, how can we put such rock solid faith in
the even shakier model of paleontology? The evidence
upon which the model is based is thin. There is contradictory
evidence (as the paleontologists freely admit.) And they
constantly revise the model (so as to account for some
of the contradictory evidence. Heck, that's the fun of
being a paleontologist.)
Bart
Bart Goddard
bhze...@aol.com (BHZellner) wrote in news:3db40888$1...@news.iglou.com:
>
>
> > And when you mention Sagan among real
> > astronomers, they all laugh. He was good for
> > raising money, and that was about it.
>
> No, we don't laugh. After Carl's death, one perceptive
> astronomer gave him a B for his personal scientific
> accomplishments, but an A++ for his popularization of
> science.
>
> Ben
No, I've seen them laugh. When I was at MIT, I attended
a lecture by a man introduced as, among other things,
"someone who had actually met Carl Sagan". Uproarious
derisive laughter followed.
The point was, of course, quoting Carl Sagan as if he were
some pioneer of the future is a huge gaff. He _was_
a popularizer, not a visionary.
Bart
BHZellner
> You people who keep espousing this whole evolution
> crap are NOT Bible Believers, you're NOT Christian,
> and if you really understand the implications, you're
> NOT honest, and you're NOT saved.
No, you are the one who is insisting that the Bible
must be interpreted in a way that is contrary to
demonstrable fact, such as the age of the earth.
That is hardly a compliment to the Bible, and is
not God-honoring.
Ben
michael
On 22 Oct 2002 16:44:47 -0400, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study
bhze...@aol.com (BHZellner) wrote:
>No, you are the one who is insisting that the Bible
>must be interpreted in a way that is contrary to
>demonstrable fact,=20
What demonstratable fact? How can Evolution be demonstratable? Have
you been out of town, during all of this?
Other atheists in this argument have conceded that Exodus 20:11 is
speaking of literal days. So, am I now supposed to back down and
"interpret" it otherwise? Like all Christians, I Believe Scripture,
not "interpret" it whenever it doesn't satisfy atheist's imaginations.
The latter has been tried through the ages: it doesn't work. It will
prove to be far worse than 'doesn't work' when it stands before the
Great White Throne.
>such as the age of the earth.
Again; as I said (prove me wrong), any Creation is inherently
undatable. Any Believer can see this, and one HAS to see it for any
sensible communication on the controversy to exist:
PROVE, SCIENTIFICALLY, TO ME, THAT THE EARTH IS MORE THAN A MONTH OLD.
I can, and have done so, give a number of SCIENTIFIC proofs that it is
very unlikely to be more than 7,000 years old. These have been
denied, ridiculed, ad hominemed, contradicted --- but they have not
been refuted. For example the insufficient C14 content of the
atmosphere, the insufficient He4 content of the atmosphere, the
insufficient erosion of the world's rivers, the population of humanity
agreeing extremely well with the Biblical ages, but utter nonsense in
evolution (mankind couldn't have begun 2 million years ago; he would
have become extinct, if he did, before 1,999,000 years ago), . . .
And the plain fact that it is all but impossible for some rock to
survive intact "a million years," let alone 300 million years. The
theory is stupid atheistic crap; and in its origin, that was its
purpose.
The Evolutionists' "demonstrations" of great age are so self
contradictory, impossible, illogical that. . . But most of all, they
fly right in the face of the Creator and call Him a liar or ignorant,
which is the same thing.
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Denver Fletcher
"BHZellner" <bhze...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3db5b8bf$1...@news.iglou.com...
> > You people who keep espousing this whole evolution
> > crap are NOT Bible Believers, you're NOT Christian,
> > and if you really understand the implications, you're
> > NOT honest, and you're NOT saved.
>
> No, you are the one who is insisting that the Bible
> must be interpreted in a way that is contrary to
> demonstrable fact, such as the age of the earth.
> That is hardly a compliment to the Bible, and is
> not God-honoring.
"demonstrable fact" eh?
Demonstrate away, please.
BHZellner
> "demonstrable fact" eh?
> Demonstrate away, please.
I would be happy to. Come and take my course, and I
will tell you all about it.
Ben
JesusCult.org
"Denver Fletcher" <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<3da2f840$1...@news.iglou.com>...
> "JesusCult.org" <in...@jesuscult.org> wrote in message
> news:3da193ca$1...@news.iglou.com...
>
> > In order for Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth, there had to be a
> > creation before Adam and Eve.
>
>
> This is simply NOT SO!
>
> If you were to look up a standard concordance (the Strongs, for example,
> which is very widely used and easily obtainable) you would find that the
> word used in Hebrew simply meant "to fill".
>
<SNIP>
Yes, the Hebrew definition means "to fill" but this word can be
applied to mean "replenish" as well as other usages (fulfill,
conserate, accomplish...). In this particular Scripture, the use of
the word is translated as replenish. This is the same translation
given for the commandment that God gave Noah.
"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth." (Genesis 9:1)
Do you disagree with "replenish" indicating a prior existing life here
as well?
George Patton
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote in message news:<3dad8...@news.iglou.com>...
> Hello Bart... Are you referring to the Paluxy river Dino. prints in
> Texas? Comon... The prints considered human are a ridiculous 19
> inches long. (not to mention at least about 41/2 times wider than an
> average human foot.) The rational explanation is: what is thought of
> as a human individual wearing an extremely (LOL) over-sized sandal, is
> just the dino. print filled in on it's edges from local settling and
> erosion-- in fact, further up the river the "human prints" turn into a
> more defined dinosaur print.
> any T-rexes or heards of Brontosaurs still roaming the Earth, they would
> have been found long before now.
Ah, Johnny, I get the impression that you don't see the face of Jesus
in a cloud nor do you see the Virgin Mary on the side of a soy bean
oil storage tank. Every year I hear of people seeing Jesus or his
mother somewhere in New Jersey, south Louisiana or some place like
that. And you don't think that was a human foot print next to those
dinosaur tracks? I bet you don't see the rabbit on the moon either!
You have to train yourself. I used to not be able to see those things
either. But, I have worked on it and now I can see three impossible
things before breakfast. Try harder.
Bart Goddard
"Denver Fletcher" <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
news:3da2f840$1...@news.iglou.com:
>
>
> "JesusCult.org" <in...@jesuscult.org> wrote in message
> news:3da193ca$1...@news.iglou.com...
>
>> In order for Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth, there had to be a
>> creation before Adam and Eve.
>
>
> This is simply NOT SO!
>
> If you were to look up a standard concordance (the Strongs, for
> example, which is very widely used and easily obtainable) you would
> find that the word used in Hebrew simply meant "to fill".
>
> It does not imply any prior state that is to be renewed or restored.
> That is a purely modern understanding, not present in the text itself
> at all.
Indeed, it's both the difficulty and the glory of English that
she borrows from so many languages and sources that sometimes
particles overlap. The word "replenish" doesn't mean
"plenish again" (or it didn't, until the back-formationists
got ahold of it), but rather means "to fill". The particle
"re-" here doesn't necessarily mean "again".
The word "replenish" is related closely to "replete", if that
helps.
Backformations are one of our bugbears. Take "burglar". It
doesn't end in "er", but we kind of pronounce it as if it did.
If it did, then it seems like there must be a verb "burgle".
Well, there's not. Well, there wasn't, but so many people
ignorant people used it that eventually it became a verb in its
own right. What a great language.
Another one is "connotate". Since we have "connotations", the
noun, there must be a verb to go with it, eh? And that verb
must be "connotate", right? Nope. The ignorant have not yet been
successful in backforming a new word, mostly because "connotate"
is not as cute as "burgle", and also because there already IS a
correct verb: "connote".
Anyway, just because the prefix "re" is there, we needn't backform
the meaning "again" onto the word.
And I apologize again for knowing everything.
Bart