The Bible is literally true.

[The Czech Republic 0]

For example, the Catholic church is by far the largest sect of Christianity, and is demonstratably false, and a mish mash of pagan customs to boot.

 

Demonstrate some of these.

 

I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are.

Well for pagan customs, the Catholics assimilated the springtime feast/celebration of fertility and called it Easter.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I think Catholocism does a better job of interpreting the Bible than any other denomination. In fact, the main reason why I state that I'm a Catholic is because I feel I can do a better job defending my Faith with it as a basis as opposed to a very fundamentalist form of Christianity which I feel is way too simplistic.

[Guest JebusNassedar]

Okay. I normally dont post here, but since religion is my thing, I just thought I'd share my views.

 

I think that a lot of the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, is just "Okay. Here's the short version." I dont think that Adam and Eve were real, I dont think that all the animals just poofed into existance. In cultural anthropology, this is referred to as a 'creation myth'. Whether it was Big Bang, or it was really seven days, I think this is just what could have happened. A refresher course, as it were.

 

A lot of the New Testament can be seen as exaggerated, but be honest. Who here hasnt spiced up a story to make it funnier or more interesting?

 

As far as doubting God, I think the reason why so many people assume that he's not real because of all the bad in the world is as follows; when you've been around for eternity, you'd get tired of doing miracles to prove your existance. I would think that doing miracles every single day would become a chore, so he leaves it to the person to decide.

 

For different faiths, the way that I see it is that God goes under many names, but at the end of the day, there's just one. I know, a little common, but this is what I've determined. Because the cavemen didnt know God, and I dont think someone who loved his children would let them burn for being Grok in the first days of the Homosapiens.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Biblically, He (God) identifies Himself personally. As a person. Both in the Old Testament, and when He becomes incarnate as Christ. All biblical evidence points to God being a unique personality.

The Bible is not a source of factual information or a reliable or justifiable piece to judge or base any form of judgement or argument on. Biblical 'evidence' was that crafted by authors who, like every other author to ever live or will ever live, subconciously or conciously manipulate, alter and influence the presentation and documentation of the final text through their own hermeneutical perspective.

 

An example of this, for those of you who do not grasp what I am discussing, can be found within the Gospel of Mark through his depiction of Pilate. I will happily go into detail on this should anyone desire me to. However, I have just spent a good block of time writing about this personally to SP and don't necessarily feel like doing it all again if no one in particular is interested.

 

So does 'biblical evidence' come down to a matter of faith for you, SP (or any other devoted Christian in attendance)?

[Use Your Illusion 0]

For example, the Catholic church is by far the largest sect of Christianity, and is demonstratably false, and a mish mash of pagan customs to boot.

 

Demonstrate some of these.

 

I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are.

Well for pagan customs, the Catholics assimilated the springtime feast/celebration of fertility and called it Easter.

They stole Christmas as well. They just adopted the 25th of December as the birthday of Christ, despite there being no recorded evidence ever found, in the Bible or anywhere else, that suggests this as being factual. Christmas, I believe, was originally a Roman celebration in regards to the 'renewal of the Sun'. However, I'd have to look into to it for anymore details on its' history.

 

UYI

[Guest Vitamin X]

Biblically, He (God) identifies Himself personally.  As a person.  Both in the Old Testament, and when He becomes incarnate as Christ.  All biblical evidence points to God being a unique personality.

The Bible is not a source of factual information or a reliable or justifiable piece to judge or base any form of judgement or argument on. Biblical 'evidence' was that crafted by authors who, like every other author to ever live or will ever live, subconciously or conciously manipulate, alter and influence the presentation and documentation of the final text through their own hermeneutical perspective.

 

An example of this, for those of you who do not grasp what I am discussing, can be found within the Gospel of Mark through his depiction of Pilate. I will happily go into detail on this should anyone desire me to. However, I have just spent a good block of time writing about this personally to SP and don't necessarily feel like doing it all again if no one in particular is interested.

 

So does 'biblical evidence' come down to a matter of faith for you, SP (or any other devoted Christian in attendance)?

I'd be interested in it. Shoot.

 

I'm also taking this whole creationism vs. evolution thing as something that's largely a matter of personal opinion instead of truth. While it seems that yes, evolution exists, but SP proposed a good opinion that the universe is working on a created universe with created functions. So this becomes by and large a matter of opinion, because creation is such an absurd theory to believe in at times.. especially when you look at everything objectively, I don't mean to offend here.. just that it's difficult to place faith in.

 

It's as if you're having people who believe state that people who don't can't realize why they're wrong because they lack faith, and those who don't believe can't believe those who do because the faith they lack. And in this endless circle, the cycle goes....

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

For example, the Catholic church is by far the largest sect of Christianity, and is demonstratably false, and a mish mash of pagan customs to boot.

 

Demonstrate some of these.

 

I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are.

Well for pagan customs, the Catholics assimilated the springtime feast/celebration of fertility and called it Easter.

They stole Christmas as well. They just adopted the 25th of December as the birthday of Christ, despite there being no recorded evidence ever found, in the Bible or anywhere else, that suggests this as being factual. Christmas, I believe, was originally a Roman celebration in regards to the 'renewal of the Sun'. However, I'd have to look into to it for anymore details on its' history.

 

UYI

Question: Do you think Catholic clergy denies that?

 

Because I can tell you for a fact that they don't. The MEANING of each holiday was not stolen. The DATE of each celebration was chosen specifically to attract members of the Pagan tradition.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Biblically, He (God) identifies Himself personally.  As a person.  Both in the Old Testament, and when He becomes incarnate as Christ.  All biblical evidence points to God being a unique personality.

The Bible is not a source of factual information or a reliable or justifiable piece to judge or base any form of judgement or argument on. Biblical 'evidence' was that crafted by authors who, like every other author to ever live or will ever live, subconciously or conciously manipulate, alter and influence the presentation and documentation of the final text through their own hermeneutical perspective.

 

An example of this, for those of you who do not grasp what I am discussing, can be found within the Gospel of Mark through his depiction of Pilate. I will happily go into detail on this should anyone desire me to. However, I have just spent a good block of time writing about this personally to SP and don't necessarily feel like doing it all again if no one in particular is interested.

 

So does 'biblical evidence' come down to a matter of faith for you, SP (or any other devoted Christian in attendance)?

I'd be interested in it. Shoot.

Sure.

 

There has been a great deal of debate over *when* Mark wrote his version of the Gospel. However, looking at what is written and *how* it is presented gives the indication that it was written within the time when the Roman Empire was at power. Now obviously, at the point in time at which 'Mark' (who very well could be several scholars) documented the Gospel, Rome was a place riddled with a plethora of cults, sects, 'outsider' religions etc. However, the vast majority of these were tolerated, not encouraged, by the Romans.

 

Therefore, if we accept here that Mark was writing during this time, he would of had to document and record his Gospel in a manner that wouldn't get him killed or his writings destroyed. In order to do this, Mark would have had to *change* the historical facts within his writings to represent the Romans in a light that was positive and expressed a great deal of HONOUR.

 

Now, I could write you seven essays on the importance of 'honour' within ancient times right here and now, but I'll be as concise as possible. Honour (or honor, if you're an American) is something that was valued above anything and everything within ancient times, superceding wealth and even LIFE itself. Honour was attained through acts of bravery or courage, and gained one the instant recognition of those above and below him. Being recognised and acknowledged by the upper class was a VERY important and sought after thing within ancient times, as they (the upper class) were, at least in that society, the epitome of humankind.

 

So back on track here for you X, Mark would have needed to craft the Gospels so it stroked the proverbial ego of the Romans. To do this, he *changed* how Pilate was represented. Historically, Pilate was a bloodthirsty sadist who was actually dismissed from his position for being TOO cruel. Yet in Mark's Gospel, Pilate is someone who releases (and therefore seemingly forgives) criminals - specifically Barabbas, a MURDERER. Of course, in every great story, a villan must exist for the protagonist to triumph over, therefore the Jewish High Priests were used. Instead of being convicted to a bloody, miserable death by Pilate (a gentile), Mark has the Jewish High Priests represented as individuals who brainwashed and rallied a large crowd of people into intimidating Pilate so that they could get their way. Looking at this from the outside (and it is even documented in the Bible anyway), the High Priests were undoubtably threatened by the influence and 'power' of Jesus Christ - as he was a man who claimed to be the Son of God and could seemingly BACK IT UP. That's a very scary thing for a Jewish High Priest within those times.

 

So you see how Mark has changed and altered what may have actually historically occurred just so he could coincide with the society he was living in (which is understandable)?

 

Hope that was easy to follow, X.

 

UYI

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

For example, the Catholic church is by far the largest sect of Christianity, and is demonstratably false, and a mish mash of pagan customs to boot.

 

Demonstrate some of these.

 

I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are.

Well for pagan customs, the Catholics assimilated the springtime feast/celebration of fertility and called it Easter.

They stole Christmas as well. They just adopted the 25th of December as the birthday of Christ, despite there being no recorded evidence ever found, in the Bible or anywhere else, that suggests this as being factual. Christmas, I believe, was originally a Roman celebration in regards to the 'renewal of the Sun'. However, I'd have to look into to it for anymore details on its' history.

 

UYI

Question: Do you think Catholic clergy denies that?

 

Because I can tell you for a fact that they don't. The MEANING of each holiday was not stolen. The DATE of each celebration was chosen specifically to attract members of the Pagan tradition.

Yeap.

 

From a young age, as far as religious education goes, I've gone to a Catholic school and there is never anything being denied or hidden *insert pedophile priest joke here*. It is a well known fact that Jesus was probably born sometime in the summer months. The fact that there was a holiday before Christmas became December 25th isn't some huge revelation showing that Christianity is a sham.

 

I too would like to hear what IDRM has to say that denounces Catholocism so greatly.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

For example, the Catholic church is by far the largest sect of Christianity, and is demonstratably false, and a mish mash of pagan customs to boot.

 

Demonstrate some of these.

 

I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are.

Well for pagan customs, the Catholics assimilated the springtime feast/celebration of fertility and called it Easter.

They stole Christmas as well. They just adopted the 25th of December as the birthday of Christ, despite there being no recorded evidence ever found, in the Bible or anywhere else, that suggests this as being factual. Christmas, I believe, was originally a Roman celebration in regards to the 'renewal of the Sun'. However, I'd have to look into to it for anymore details on its' history.

 

UYI

Question: Do you think Catholic clergy denies that?

 

Because I can tell you for a fact that they don't. The MEANING of each holiday was not stolen. The DATE of each celebration was chosen specifically to attract members of the Pagan tradition.

Absolutely, I agree with you completely.

 

I was merely making a point that was not originally a Christian custom, as no doubt believed by a vast majority of people.

[Guest croweater]

For example, the Catholic church is by far the largest sect of Christianity, and is demonstratably false, and a mish mash of pagan customs to boot.

 

Demonstrate some of these.

 

I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are.

Well for pagan customs, the Catholics assimilated the springtime feast/celebration of fertility and called it Easter.

They stole Christmas as well. They just adopted the 25th of December as the birthday of Christ, despite there being no recorded evidence ever found, in the Bible or anywhere else, that suggests this as being factual. Christmas, I believe, was originally a Roman celebration in regards to the 'renewal of the Sun'. However, I'd have to look into to it for anymore details on its' history.

 

UYI

I'm not the most loyal of christians, but to argue this as a point against Catholosism (is that even a word) is ridiculus. Who here hasn't celebrated their birthday on a weekend when it was actually on a weekday. Does that make it any less a celebration of your birthday?

 

you disagree with evolution, yet fail to provide any examples of why or how the theory of evolution is flawed.

I didn't get into it because it can be a lengthy discussion which has been done before, and I have to go to work. One before I go is that Darwin had no concept of DNA, the discovery of which has the capability of disproving it on it's own. The initial amoeba would have had to contain the genetic code for every form of life that would ever exist, yet you can find no example of new genetic information being created anywhere, only change within kind.

 

Also, regarding your other statement, if you accept that there is a God, the question of what God is can be answered by divine revelation. We have several things which claim to be just that. The issue is to look at them critically and determine if any of them indeed qualify as such. I propse that only one does, the Bible. Therefore, by carefully establishing the Bible as divinely inspired, we can determine from it the nature of God.

 

DNA discoveries and technology has continually "proved" the thoery of evolution.

 

I put "proved" in quotation marks because, while I do believe it is the case, no one can actually prove to me that the world has been in existence for more than a couple of years.

 

EDIT: Yeah yeah, you already said about the first thing. I'm just too slow typing.

[Nighthawk 0]

Man, I can't respond to all that shit at once. Anyway, I guess I'll say some stuff about Catholics first...

 

Jesus was probably born in the spring, and probably around 6 BC, for the record.

Catholic paganisms: the transubstantiation was pagan. This is not to be confused with the last supper, or communion, which was symbolic and not an uncommon practice at the time. Physically becoming the body and blood was something practiced by several pagan contempraries, it was probably first used by the Egyptians.

The confessional was taken from the Babylonians, who used it as a political tool.

The entire concept of the Virgin Mary as anything other than Jesus' mother is all tied up in pagan religions. All kinds of gods throughout the world have some sort of holy mother counterpart acting a mediator or some such. I don't have any examples in front of me, but I could track them down if I must.

Go to a Catholic church sometime and see them bring flowers and kiss the feet of a statue of Mary. This is idol worship. Not only because Mary is unworthy of praise, but any reverence to a, to use Biblical terms, graven image, is idolatry, regardless of the symbolism. For example you might remember the Israelites worshipping the golden calf in the book of Exodus. That, to them, represented the true God, but of course, God was displeased.

To use a broad standard, all of the ritual and ceremony is just unbiblical foolishness. Christ himself only imposed two rites upon his followers, the communion, which Catholics have perverted, and by the way turned into another idol, by claiming that the Eucharist is to be worshipped as Christ himself, and baptism, which the Catholic chruch has also perverted by performing it on infants, a practice you won't find in the Bible, or in fact anywhere until approximately 300 AD.

 

Also, sure I'd say some Catholics are true Christians, because the basic tenets of Christianity are very simple. Not only Catholics, but many, I might even say most, Protestant denominations heap layer upon layer of added elements to the doctrine of salvation. Catholics just make some of the most grievous changes, which is why I singled them out.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

You're under-rated.

[Nighthawk 0]

Okay. I normally dont post here, but since religion is my thing, I just thought I'd share my views.

 

I think that a lot of the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, is just "Okay. Here's the short version." I dont think that Adam and Eve were real, I dont think that all the animals just poofed into existance. In cultural anthropology, this is referred to as a 'creation myth'. Whether it was Big Bang, or it was really seven days, I think this is just what could have happened. A refresher course, as it were.

 

A lot of the New Testament can be seen as exaggerated, but be honest. Who here hasnt spiced up a story to make it funnier or more interesting?

 

As far as doubting God, I think the reason why so many people assume that he's not real because of all the bad in the world is as follows; when you've been around for eternity, you'd get tired of doing miracles to prove your existance. I would think that doing miracles every single day would become a chore, so he leaves it to the person to decide.

 

For different faiths, the way that I see it is that God goes under many names, but at the end of the day, there's just one. I know, a little common, but this is what I've determined. Because the cavemen didnt know God, and I dont think someone who loved his children would let them burn for being Grok in the first days of the Homosapiens.

See, this is why creationism is important. Because you choose not to interpret Genesis literally, you have undermined the nature of God. If Adam and Eve were real, there was no Grok.

There's no problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis unless you feel you just have to concede to the theory of evolution, which many people do. A big part of evolution is calling everyone who doesn't believe it stupid. I suppose I'll have to discuss that more in due time. But scientifically it's absolutely not necesary.

God obviously cannot get tired of doing miracles, he's God.

Also, miracles did not bring about mass conversions. Look especially at the life of Christ. If you study Old Testament Messianic prophecy, the layers and nuances of it are beyond measure, yet Jesus fulfilled it all perfectly, making him somewhat of a living miracle, on top of the more practical ones he performed regularly.

Yet the Pharisees, who knew the Old Testament to a staggering degree, so well in fact, that by the letter of the law, they were without sin, attributed his power to the Devil. This is just one example.

[Nighthawk 0]

The initial amoeba would have had to contain the genetic code for every form of life that would ever exist, yet you can find no example of new genetic information being created anywhere, only change within kind.

 

Not true. Look at mutation. Especially over a long period of time, those "changes within kind" become so distant..that they're not really kind anymore. We can note vast genetic similarities between chimpanzees and man, yet the two are different species.

Yes, I did hesitate to use the 'kind' distinction, because it's a buzzword of the intelligent design set, many (but not all) of whom are fools. Intelligent design, by the way, has been accused of trying to hide the religion in creationism to make it more acceptable, which is true to a degree, but with a purpose.

As I've said, evolution has placed a stranglehold on the scientific community, similar to what the feminist movement did in the 70s, where any challenge is scoffed at. You can have the finest argument in the world, but as soon as you mention God you'll be laughed out of the building. This becomes obviously essential if you see how weak the theory is. Intelligent design, therefore, is just trying to get a foot in the door, to get people to look at evolution critically instead of as a presupposition, because that's all you need. Just a little examination and the structure will collapse of it's own weight.

 

Anyway... we see the loss of genetic information all the time. According to the Bible, but the idea is not exclusive to the Bible, we are in a state of devolution, which can be practically supported rather easily. You can't show me a mutation which resulted in the mutant being better. Also keep in mind that I wouldn't say evolution doesn't exist, only that's it's not a valid argument for the origin of the universe. This of course brings up the age of the Earth discussion, which I guess I might have to talk about too. But not now.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Do you have your own personal theory on creation, IDRM?

[Guest Nanks]

Going on the literal belief of Genesis, and therefore the immediate existence of Adam & Eve and therefore not of Grok (Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, etc) then how is the existence of fossilised remains explained, and further on that point, what is the stance on prehistoric life, dinosaurs, sabre-tooths, mammoths, etc?? Which links back into the idea of genetic mutation and evolution.

[Nighthawk 0]

Do you have your own personal theory on creation, IDRM?

Nah, not really. I suppose being rational and educated and still finding it possible to believe in a literal Genesis interpretation is rather rare, as these things go.

 

Going on the literal belief of Genesis, and therefore the immediate existence of Adam & Eve and therefore not of Grok (Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, etc) then how is the existence of fossilised remains explained, and further on that point, what is the stance on prehistoric life, dinosaurs, sabre-tooths, mammoths, etc?? Which links back into the idea of genetic mutation and evolution.

 

Ah yes, now we come to the third of the skeptic's favorite Genesis accounts, the flood. The Bible says that prehistoric life coexisted with man. They did not become extinct during the flood, but sometime afterwards, not unexpected given the change in climatary conditions which would result from such a catastrophic event. Fossils are almost all attributed to the flood as well, which does end up making more sense than the evolutionary alternative when you take into account how fossils are formed versus the number of fossils we have. You either need a catastrophic event or a lot of time. Putting aside general age of the Earth discussion for the moment, let's look at the geologic column. This is what I mean.

On the surface, you might say that's supports the time theory, as that is the way you would expect to find fossilised reamains if they were deposited over vast ammounts of time. However, nowhere in nature does the column exist in that form. Layers are often dated by the age of the fossils in them, which as you can see is circular reasoning. In reality, you find layers of fossils and rock in what would appear to be random order, much more supportive of the flood theory.

[Nighthawk 0]

Sure.

 

There has been a great deal of debate over *when* Mark wrote his version of the Gospel. However... etc

That's why we have four gospels. The same story can be told four different ways and they all remain true. I think I can get away without using an example here. The life and death of Christ being the focal point of the Bible, it's only natural that we would have four perspectives to glean our information from.

[Guest croweater]

To answer Nanks

 

God is God.

 

He could have created the world with the fossils already there. Which is why I said before that I can not really prove the world existed for mor than a couple of years, and that's just assuming my memories exist.

 

Now, to IDRM

How much do you know about evolution?

Mutation has been proven to be better a lot of the time (although still a great minority to it being worse). Genetically enginered (ie. genetically mutated) plants and animals are generally superior to their unmutated counterparts.

 

Viruses, especially cancer causing ones, are evidence how mutation can benefit the organism (I use organism broadly here because I'm one of the ones who don't consider viruses life at all). Their mutation has caused cancer in normal cells when they infect us. Ok, so not so good for us, but for the virus, every time a cell devides it is able to replicate itself many many times. Cancer is a state of uncontrolled cell replication, so the mutation (by addition) of an "src" gene into viruses has given it a massive evolutionary advantage over other viruses.

 

I don't understand where you're coming from with your anti evolution argument, proof is all around you that mutations can be good. *note: opposable thumbs*

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Sure.

 

There has been a great deal of debate over *when* Mark wrote his version of the Gospel. However... etc

That's why we have four gospels. The same story can be told four different ways and they all remain true. I think I can get away without using an example here. The life and death of Christ being the focal point of the Bible, it's only natural that we would have four perspectives to glean our information from.

I'm afraid I'm missing your point here? If you're saying that scholars can derive information relevant to when Mark's Gospel was written by taking into account how/what is in other Gospels, then I follow you. If this is the case, it is possible to attain this knowledge without going outside of Mark's Gospel though, as I demonstrated earlier.

 

Maybe I need clarifying here.

[Nighthawk 0]

(at croweater)

You've just used genetic engineering as an argument for evolution. I hope the irony is not lost on you.

You're on the right track not considering viruses life at all, because in order to consider a viral mutation good you have to hold all life in equal regard, which is an evolutionary concept. Biblically man is superior to all other forms of life. I can hear your counterpoint now. I don't think it matters either way. I said you can't show me a genetic mutation for the better, which you haven't really, but that wasn't the issue. Of course evolution exists, the issue is whether you can demonstrate that it was responsible for the existance of the universe. A viral mutation doesn't even approach the subject.

[Nighthawk 0]

I'm afraid I'm missing your point here? If you're saying that scholars can derive information relevant to when Mark's Gospel was written by taking into account how/what is in other Gospels, then I follow you. If this is the case, it is possible to attain this knowledge without going outside of Mark's Gospel though, as I demonstrated earlier.

 

Maybe I need clarifying here.

If the point of the four Gospels is the life of Christ, you can find different and relevant information in each one. If Mark did have to tread lightly regarding the Romans, we have the other three accounts to more fully understand the situation. The point is that obviously each Gospel emphasizes different things, based on who wrote them, why, and to who (which I think is just as capable of explaining the presentation of Pilate as what you said). Taking them all together gives you the most accurate picture. I see no fault in this. This is in response to your assertation that the perspective of Mark is an example of the factual errancy of the Bible.

[Guest croweater]

oh, okay, getting you now.

 

I tend to think of evolution as specifically organism based and not just the successive chain of events which I think you're talking about hence my confusion and tangent taking.

 

I will say that I don't think there is proof either way about the fossils being found in layers. I have never really been into that stuff. However, it would be far more obvious if a flood had occured that the rock and fossils would not be in random order as things layer by density when in water.

 

Could you please explain to me how theoretically it is possible for evolution to be responsible for the universe, as although you don't believe "it" I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

EDIT: I'm about 3 points behind the rest of the discussion I know, ignore me if you want

[Guest Nanks]

Croweater, I won't be part of a discussion that presupposes itself upon belief without reason. Arguing that God is God and can therefore dictate over all is a discussion of faith, and therefore bereft of knowledge or evidence.

 

The Bible says that prehistoric life coexisted with man.

 

Where?? I've never heard of such a reference.

 

And if this co-existance is to be believed then why are there no human remains at the same geological level as that of prehistoric life??

[Nighthawk 0]

Where?? I've never heard of such a reference.

 

And if this co-existance is to be believed then why are there no human remains at the same geological level as that of prehistoric life??

In a nutshell, it says that man they were created within a day of each other and there was no death before the sin of man, however I know you won't like that answer, so Job chapter 40 discusses two creatures which can only reasonably be described as dinosaurs. Some will tell you they're elephants and crocodiles or some such, but a simple reading of the chapter will show you that's not the case.

 

As for your second question, as I said, geological levels are dated by what's in them. If someone finds two levels right next to each other, one with dinosaurs, and one with man, he'll say "This layer is such and such billion years old, and this one here is only a couple million." Don't infer that I know of an instance of this happening, I'm not up on the geological findings of the world, just that this is in general what happens. Another example of interpreting the evidence to fit the theory, which is to them really not a theory at all.

[Guest croweater]

I wasn't arguing that at all. I was just throwing it out there as a possibility. Personally, I think they are both contradictory if only for the lack of evidence from what I've read in the bible, though I haven't read the whole thing, you'd think that if goats and sheep are continually mentioned, big fuckoff dinasaurs would be too.

 

Although, you're arguing about how you can put both Adam and Eve and fossils in the same story. I don't know if you'll be able to discuss anything other than faith bassed assumptions and guesses at best.

 

If the flood killed and fossilised the dinosaurs, and they existed at the same time as humans, how come we don't see any today? How come water bassed dinosaurs didn't survive the flood?

 

EDIT

IDRM, don't they carbon date bones to see how old they are as opposed to just do it via the soil layers now?

[Nighthawk 0]

Could you please explain to me how theoretically it is possible for evolution to be responsible for the universe, as although you don't believe "it" I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

It can't be responsible for the universe itself, it's responsible for taking a clump of cells and making them the world as we know it. There are really only two explanations for the universe, God or chance. As to how it got started, evolution takes far more faith, because it requires the existance of a cosmic egg, primordial ooze, whatever, from a place which no one knows. Creationism requires God, however if you follow that route, God is supposed to still be there and readily determinable as God.

Anyway, once it reaches this starting point, it has to end up with what we see today somehow. Creation is easy, God created it that way. Chance on the other hand, you have to say that it evolved, through neo-Darwinism, that is, mutation weeded out by natural selection. There's no evidence for this, it only exists as a theory because if you reject God, there's no other explanation. Bringing it from the scientific to the spiritual, it's easy to see how it could become so universally accepted when you see how much people want to reject God.

[Guest croweater]

Job 40 sounds more like a kangaroo to me. It could be a number of different things including a hippopotomus or an elephant. It could also be a dragon or a giant donkey. It relates equally to hundreds of animals

[Guest Nanks]

Where??  I've never heard of such a reference.

 

And if this co-existance is to be believed then why are there no human remains at the same geological level as that of prehistoric life??

In a nutshell, it says that man they were created within a day of each other and there was no death before the sin of man, however I know you won't like that answer, so Job chapter 40 discusses two creatures which can only reasonably be described as dinosaurs. Some will tell you they're elephants and crocodiles or some such, but a simple reading of the chapter will show you that's not the case.

 

As for your second question, as I said, geological levels are dated by what's in them. If someone finds two levels right next to each other, one with dinosaurs, and one with man, he'll say "This layer is such and such billion years old, and this one here is only a couple million." Don't infer that I know of an instance of this happening, I'm not up on the geological findings of the world, just that this is in general what happens. Another example of interpreting the evidence to fit the theory, which is to them really not a theory at all.

None of that post contained any fact or evidence whatsoever.

 

Your "reference" to dinosaurs in Job is based entirely on your own interpretation. If it's clear that the reference is to dinosaurs, then what kind of dinosaurs? Crocodiles/Alligators are still considered living dinosaurs by many, so that doesn't really help either.

 

As for dispelling the fact that dinosaur fossils aren't found at same level as those of humans by claiming that when/if it does happen it is so flippantly explained away by scientists is garbage. Carbon dating technology throws that argument right out the window. I was finding most of your other posts on this topic most informative and interesting, but this was just evasive and baseless.