7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
The Bible is always right, and whoever opposes it is always wrong. If they don't like that, they can take a long walk off a short pier review.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
The Bible is always right, and whoever opposes it is always wrong. If they don't like that, they can take a long walk off a short pier review.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Always a good starting point
As real scientists will tell you, scientific concepts are not proven by popularity contests
We can recognize that they are being deceived by Satan and use logic and reason to persuade them to stop parroting his lies
Prayer is a good idea too
The Bible has never been contradicted by science.
The Bible has though, in the hands of fundamentalists, Creationists and followers, been rendered nonsensical, superstitious dogma and contradicts reason, logic and common sense.
The Bible is concerned with the spiritual landscape of humanity, it is not a definitive history book, yet it contains some general historical references, or an account of literal Creation, though it makes clear that God is the Creator, but the nature of Creation is beyond human understanding. Generally speaking, most people who think openly have been inoculated from ever considering organised religion as a path to knowledge or enlightenment because of those who are incapable of understanding the difference between symbolic, allegoric, poetic language used in the Bible and their own literal translations that render the Bible nonsensical.
E=mc2 was not invented by a scientist. It is a mathematical reality that was discovered. It is one of the small foundations of the perfection of Creation. All the wonders revealed by science are only discoveries of realities that exist as part of the fabric of Creation. Science enables us to glimpse fragments of the majesty of Creation, its mathematical precision upon which we have built this scientific world. Science and religion can not be in conflict, if they are then one of them is suffering a misunderstanding and generally this misunderstanding lies with rusted on religious beliefs passed down from the end of the Bronze Age.
As for Dinosaurs, evolution, etc. This planet went through various stages to terraform an environment made habitable for humans to advance in both science and religious understanding. Science so we could experience the wonders Created by God. Religion so that our spirits might be guided into a richer state of being. The various ages over billions of years produced our soils, hydrocarbons, limestone, etc and the age of dinosaurs was simply a necessary part of this building of planetary capacity for when humans evolved the capacity to augment nature for their own ends.
To deny dinosaurs existed just because you have some warped concept of religion has nothing to do with the Bible or God, He Created as He will. It is more about how some beliefs are impervious to evidence, logic and common sense.
There is no tougher nut to crack than the absolute certainty that comes via ignorance.
The Bible has though, in the hands of fundamentalists, Creationists and followers, been rendered nonsensical, superstitious dogma and contradicts reason, logic and common sense.
The Bible is concerned with the spiritual landscape of humanity, it is not a definitive history book, yet it contains some general historical references, or an account of literal Creation, though it makes clear that God is the Creator, but the nature of Creation is beyond human understanding. Generally speaking, most people who think openly have been inoculated from ever considering organised religion as a path to knowledge or enlightenment because of those who are incapable of understanding the difference between symbolic, allegoric, poetic language used in the Bible and their own literal translations that render the Bible nonsensical.
E=mc2 was not invented by a scientist. It is a mathematical reality that was discovered. It is one of the small foundations of the perfection of Creation. All the wonders revealed by science are only discoveries of realities that exist as part of the fabric of Creation. Science enables us to glimpse fragments of the majesty of Creation, its mathematical precision upon which we have built this scientific world. Science and religion can not be in conflict, if they are then one of them is suffering a misunderstanding and generally this misunderstanding lies with rusted on religious beliefs passed down from the end of the Bronze Age.
As for Dinosaurs, evolution, etc. This planet went through various stages to terraform an environment made habitable for humans to advance in both science and religious understanding. Science so we could experience the wonders Created by God. Religion so that our spirits might be guided into a richer state of being. The various ages over billions of years produced our soils, hydrocarbons, limestone, etc and the age of dinosaurs was simply a necessary part of this building of planetary capacity for when humans evolved the capacity to augment nature for their own ends.
To deny dinosaurs existed just because you have some warped concept of religion has nothing to do with the Bible or God, He Created as He will. It is more about how some beliefs are impervious to evidence, logic and common sense.
There is no tougher nut to crack than the absolute certainty that comes via ignorance.
Notice the hard bent away from taking God at His word and toward taking Einstein (or any other scientist) at his.
No one with any honesty at all denies that dinosaurs existed and I know of no fundamentalist who doesn't recognize the existence of symbolic, allegoric and poetic language throughout the bible either. In short, blueboy here is arguing against two extremes that don't really exist in any significant numbers except in his own mind which permits him to perch himself on the fence between the Christian and secular worldviews. The result, as always, will be for blueboy to allegorize any passage he doesn't like.
Instead, what he ought to do is make every effort to except God's word as literally as the text of scripture itself and sound reason will permit. Mistakes will be made but the same text and the same sound reason is what will permit the eventual detection and correction of those mistakes. Removing either is an error that cannot be corrected.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
True.
I wonder if you'll actually make a reasonable argument for this.
God describes much about the way and the order in which He Created. The order that God describes in the Bible is fully and completely incompatible with an evolutionary order. I believe that He did this on purpose.
Indeed, some very small minorities are like that. Not most though.
An yet many things called "science" are not. God's Word is true regardless.
God made the earth habitable for humans from the beginning. No "evolution" was required.
That sentence does not even make any sense.
Billions of years is fantasy and not science.
The Bible certainly does not deny that dinosaurs existed.
There is no tougher nut to crack than the absolute certainty that comes via the ignorance that science proves billions of years.
Last edited:
According to the Bible people must repent of their sins and seek Jesus for forgiveness. Also according to the Bible God created the heavens and the earth and all distinct life forms on earth in one week. Refusing to believe God is not only stupid but unscientific as well.
Agreed!
False.
More accurately, it tells men how to have a relationship with God.
It IS a definitive history book concerning the nation of Israel, God's chosen nation.
It also contains some pretty specific ones, too.
More accurately, a literal account of God creating the universe, the earth, the seas, and everything in them.
Indeed.
What's so hard to understand?
God made the heavens and the earth on day one, He made the crust of the earth on day two and three, and on day three He made plants. On day four, He made the sun, moon, and stars, He made birds and sea creatures on day five, He made land animals and finally, man, on day six, and then on day seven, He rested.
Most people who think "openly" think so openly that their brains ooze out of their heads, which is WHY they have been inoculated.
Understanding the Bible doesn't require the ability to think openly. It requires the ability to think logically.
Rather, those people have been inoculated because of people who insist that something that is literal in the Bible is instead using symbolic language, and vice versa, and they, perhaps unintentionally, try to mash the Bible into something that it isn't, instead of rightly dividing what it says.
The Bible is a literal book that contains normal uses of figurative language. When one overemphasizes the literal-ness or the figurative language of a passage, it causes confusion.
The basic rule of thumb is to just read the book as if you were reading an account of history.
@Stripe I believe you might have something to say about this...
Creation isn't perfect anymore, but I do agree that E=mc2 is a close approximation of one of the fundamental laws of nature.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Wrong. Remember, God wrote the Bible. He wasn't wrong with what He wrote.
Rather, if there is a conflict, it's men who are in error. "Let God be true and every man a liar."
No, it didn't go through "various stages," at least not like what you're implying.
God created it initially with a rocky core and watery surface. Then on day two He made the crust of the earth in the midst of the waters, dividing the waters above from the waters below, creating a shell that surrounded the earth, and by the end of the third day the crust had settled to form seas and a supercontinent that surrounded the globe (no oceans), and that's it. It was the flood of Noah's day that resulted in the earth we see today with salty oceans and divided continents.
Agreed.
Religion is largely a man-made construct, aside from the various rituals given to Israel by God.
God wants a relationship more than He wants people to participate in a religion dedicated to Him.
Billions of years and evolution never happened. The earth is only about 7500±100 years old.
Agreed.
Dinosaurs did, in fact, exist, and were created on days 5 and 6.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Rather, the tougher nut to crack is the absolute certainty that comes from willful ignorance.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Eh. I still hold two competing theories in my mind, waiting for either one of them to be demonstrated (proven).
One is they certainly did exist, and were created along with all the other lifeforms, and they all (except for some crocodilians) died in the Flood.
The other is that they never existed, that the majority report of geology is in one sense correct, that all the sedimentary rock in which dinosaur fossils are found (not granite!) appear to be as old as the majority report of geology says that it does, but that this physical evidence is analogous to the rings in the trees which God created in the Garden of Eden and everywhere else.
Idea is that God created trees fully grown just as He created man and the animals fully grown, and fully grown trees have rings in them, and we know that trees which grow up from seed develop rings annually. On the day that God made trees, none of these trees had any time to develop rings, so God made them with rings already.
Now this kind of depends upon the other majority report of geology, evolution, being in some sense correct, and this idea----unlike that trees develop rings annually----has not been proven or demonstrated either.
But at any rate, it's a different way to explain the existence of fossils and radiometric dating, while maintaining fidelity to the literal words of Scripture.
Fantasy! You should buy an island!
- There is no reason to believe that the first trees had growth rings. There weren't grown, they were created.
- Nor is there any real evidence that the Earth is anywhere near as old as main stream geology would like for you to believe. (List of Not So Old Things)
- Fossils definitely exist. I have dug some out of the ground with my own hands. (Not big ones)
- A lot more than "some crocodilians" survived the flood!
- Radiometric dating does not work because it's based on circular reasoning. (i.e. the results are based on assumptions that are themselves based on radiometric dating.) Which came first, the results or the assumptions? Well, that depends on what results you got! If you got results that you didn't expect then you just change the assumptions and run the test again.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Would that I could.
Trees have rings. It's part of their structure. What would a fully formed tree look like without rings?
There is evidence, what you're talking about is proof. Radioactive decay is measurable.
I never questioned the existence of fossils.
A lot more dinosaurs? Because that's what I actually said.
Maybe, could be, idk. Radioactive decay is measurable.
Right Divider
Body part
How do you know that the very first trees created had rings as "part of their structure"?
You don't.
Only in the PRESENT. There is no way to measure their full lifetime.
But you did propose that God created them at the beginning already in the ground. That was crazy.
Why do you believe that all dinosaurs died during the flood? Why could they not have been aboard the ark?
Only in the present. We know for a fact that decay rates can be radically altered by various physical phenomenon.
This book explains a lot of that: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html#wp7826136
And this video:
The so called, "hard bent away" is not from God's word, the bend is away from the human interpretation of God's word. And I'm not taking any scientists word for anything, but demonstrable evidence is proof and only a fool ignores established proofs, be they scientific or religious. There is no distinction between the truth of science and the truth of religion. Everything in physical existence is as a result of Creation. Science is the study of all realms of physical existence, therefore science is the study of Creation. Science defines and reveals the laws and realities of nature. Religion explores the realities of human spirituality. Both are extensions of the same truth, because truth is one, not two.
So in fact it is I who is making every effort to discover the true meaning of God's word and not relying on the 2000 years of Chinese Whispers that has formed the basis of the tens-of-thousands of Christian sects that have proliferated in this age.
As for illogical fundamentalists and their beliefs not existing in significant numbers, you need to get out a bit more. From soul destroying US TV evangelists to the many Prosperity doctrines that now infect Christianity, it has entered its darkest age.
I'm hardly sitting on the fence. I've left the neighbourhood.
Thanks for your post. I appreciate your opinion.
blueboy
Right Divider
Body part
Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back.
Most of those folks believe the nonsense of "evolution" and "billions of years". They are wrong.
The rings of a tree are NOT part of the tree's structure. They are a result of faster growth in summer than in winter. A tree without rings would look like wood looks like today without the stripes. There are trees alive today that have virtually no rings, by the way. Trees that grow in regions where there's very little difference between winter and summer have no or almost no rings.
I meant what I said. There is no evidence and yes radio active decay is measurable but the initial conditions have to be assumed as does the non-existence of various forms of potential contamination (i.e. like exposure to sunlight or water or any number of other things that can effect the amount of radioactive material in the sample) of the sample throughout its existence.
Good!
Why would you lump crocodiles with dinosaurs any more than a million other species? Dinosaurs weren't the only things killed in the flood any more than crocodiles were the only things that survived it. There's all kinds of things that exist today that even main stream paleontologists will tell you lived along side the dinosaurs. Everything from exotic things like the Duck Billed Platypus to mundane things like bees and sharks.
There's no maybe. I promise you that I'm not making it up. It's the reason why universities and other scientific organizations with the equipment will refuse to date anything other than what their own scientists bring them to date. And, even then, they will want to know where they got the sample, what else was found in the layer of dirt the sample came from, etc. All of which things would be irrelevant if all they were doing was measuring the ratio between a radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products.
Not only that but falsifying information is routinely ignored. For example, there's Carbon 14 in all sorts of stuff its not supposed to be in, like both dinosaurs and diamonds, not to mention the Earth itself. If the whole planet started as one gigantic ball of Carbon 14, in far less than a million years, the Earth would be a giant ball of Nitrogen 14.
Clete
Last edited:
No it isn't. You said it yourself. Your post is still there for the whole world to read.
It is precisely the lack of interpretation that you reject. It is when Christian take the word of God to mean what it says that you cringe.
You're confusing evidence for proof and yes, you are taking their word for it. I doubt you've done any of the science yourself and I know for a fact (because of the things you are saying here) that you've done exactly zero looking into the presuppositions and assumptions that are made when most of what passes for science is "tested". There isn't ANY evidence that evolution has happened whatsoever and the holes in such scientific theories as the Big Bang as so large you can drive a fleet of trucks through them.
Truth is truth. On that we agree but most of what passes for science today is religion.
You sort of argue against yourself here.
The problem is that the vast majority of what passes for science today was/is predicated on an atheistic worldview. What you've said here would be true if science was done from a creationistic paradigm but it isn't and so it's not.
Laughably ridiculous. Again, you argue against your own position!
It is precisely the act of NOT taking the bible to mean what it says "that has formed the basis of the tens-of-thousands of Christian sects that have proliferated in this age."
Moving the goal post won't win you a debate against me. People who believe in a young earth and a literal six day creation period do not believe those things for any reason that is similar to the charlatine con artists that bilk old women out of their life savings in exchange for a non-existent miracle.
Again, I remind you that you own words are still posted here for the whole world to read.
Thank you for a substantive response. It's boring when people do nothing but repeat their position when they're challenged and your desire for a rational worldview means that we have more in common than not. It seems your error has more to do with false associations than most anything else.
Last edited:
Says the human, interpreting God's word...
There is no "demonstrable evidence" for evolution.
There IS, however, for supernatural creation by God.
Would you agree that whatever is true, is true?
Correct.
Correct.
Defines, no. Reveals, yes.
Truth is truth, no?
So far, you're not doing a very good job...
What specifically, are you referring to here?
If you're referring to the Bible, I recommend you consider the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are far older than even some of the older Hebrew texts in existence, that despite being older, are almost identical (with minor spelling and grammar differences between) to modern Hebrew texts. Meaning that what was written in scripture has been preserved, with very few errors, for far longer than 2000 years.
If you're referring to doctrines, then what I said just above here is still relevant, and one does not have to rely on what men have taught over the past 2000 years to learn what the Bible teaches.
Most of them (and I do mean most) are based on their founders' errors in their understanding of what the scripture says, either intentional or not.
Ad hominems won't fly here, sir.
Neither will making broad accusations without evidence.
Popularity of an idea does not determine whether it is true.
We're well aware, thanks.
Even despite their best efforts, people still get saved through their ministries. I'm not condoning such ministries, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
People who teach those are evil, either because they're wolves in sheep's clothing, or they're so lost in their own doctrines that they don't recognize that they're hurting others.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
More like you've gone off the deep end...
Right Divider
Body part
That would be natural science or material science. Science is NOT limited to that "realm". There are many science's that are NOT material (or natural), like mathematics, logic, etc. etc.
The later being the foundation of the former, by the way, which I say just to reiterate my point earlier about most of what passes for science today is done from an atheistic paradigm. Atheistic science cannot keep from failing because logic itself doesn't work if God does not exist.
That's illogical.