|
Creation vs Evolution (pg. 19)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
more like secure with my own convictions, I would'nt make a challenge if I did not think that there was no errors. I'll be waiting for your pm with your so called proof, or anyone's for that matter. |
Well where've you been? There's been a wealth of discrepencies that most Christians for that matter even acknowledge here and there. We've outlined a ton of them throughout this thread and in a multitude of other threads in the past. Where were you?
| quote: | | My problem is that evolutionists think that Christians should have to prove the Bible's accuracy when the record speaks for itself |
Well, yeah, it does kinda speak for itself. That's the problem that many folks have with it in its attempts to explain historical and/or geneological detail, for example. And please, it's not really the evolutionists that are "attacking" the Christian Bible - we really leave that up to the atheists and agnostics. All evolutionists want is a verification with supporting evidence to the alternative theory of historical events in question. When that evidence has been presented, however, this is where the problems arise for the fundamentalist Bible believers. Whether you wish to acknowledge this or not is irrelevant, but it is quite true in the scientific circles.
| quote: | | and no one has proven an error, as I said before feel free to try. |
Well as I've said before, where've you been? There's been a multitude of conversations and points in this and other threads that have done just that. Simply comin' here and pretending that nothing's been mentioned is either being slightly ignorant or misinformed. At this point I cannot tell where you sit.
Meh, too much work to be done, too little time. Best of luck to everyone on this conversation. I'll be on vacation until Wednesday, so have a ball..... |
|
|
| igottaknow |
Are you aware of the definition of the word Assumption?
| quote: | | 2. The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; supposition; unwarrantable claim. |
|
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I was clarifing what some else said in regards to dinosaurs and asked you how it jived with your beliefs of historical events and the bible, I wasn't asking what contemporary creationist believe.
Even after reading your post its still not clear to me. Would yes/no questions be more helpful to pin you down?
1. Dinosaurs existed? true/false
2. Dinosaurs coexisted with mandkind? true/false
3. Dinosaurs aren't mention in the bible because _________ ? (fill in the blank) |
1. True
2. True
3. They are. Quoting Ken Ham (eep!):Interestingly, the word 'dragon' is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.
Any more questions? |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Are you aware of the definition of the word Assumption? |
Thanks for the irrelevant fact.
I can use a different word if you'd like. Thesaurus |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
1. True
2. True
3. They are. Quoting Ken Ham (eep!):Interestingly, the word 'dragon' is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.
Any more questions? |
yes,
4. If dinosaurs coexisted with mankind why are their bones not found with humans bones? I mean you must admit humans would make an easy lunch for vilosorapters or t-rexs. You would expect more would be written about creatures that humans would have a next to impossible time surviving with.
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Thanks for the irrelevant fact. I can use a different word if you'd like. Thesaurus |
You decided to use the word not me. Its not irrelavant, its not an ambiguous word, and if you didn't understand its meaning you shouldn't use it. Oh a thesaurus wouldn't help because you would be substituting another word with the same or similar meaning. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| Sorry I just had a hard time believing that sane people actually believing this stuff. Wow there are actual websites dedicated to this stuff wierd. Ok, that's fine i give up. It was fun while it lasted. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Sorry I just had a hard time believing that sane people actually believing this stuff. Wow there are actual websites dedicated to this stuff wierd. Ok, that's fine i give up. It was fun while it lasted. |
Although it's my unfortunate natural instict to feel contempt for your extreme ignorance - I will refrain and say that I hope you find inner salvation. At least you're curious about the subject, which is more than you can say with many people.
May God turn your heart where I could not. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
little did i know the flintstones were based on reality, they even had them as pets! Haba daba doooo! |
|
|
| Ondrayce |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
3. They are. Quoting Ken Ham (eep!):Interestingly, the word 'dragon' is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used. |
This seems more like an answer of convenience. Since, along with Dragons, the Bible speeks of Satyrs and Unicorns, which definately did not exist, its doubtful that fire breathing Dragons (yes, the Bible said they breathe fire) are an exception from these other FANTASY creatures. Unless there have been archeological findings of half man/half goat remains that I'm unaware of. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ondrayce
This seems more like an answer of convenience. Since, along with Dragons, the Bible speeks of Satyrs and Unicorns, which definately did not exist, its doubtful that fire breathing Dragons (yes, the Bible said they breathe fire) are an exception from these other FANTASY creatures. Unless there have been archeological findings of half man/half goat remains that I'm unaware of. |
The English word unicorn, which is derived from the Latin words meaning one horn, was used by the King James translators (and others) for the original Hebrew word of the Scriptures, pronounced reh-ame, which means a wild bull. The best-known "unicorn" of the animal world, at least in the modern era, is the rhinoceros - a very strong, single-horned animal that seems to fit the literal description of the Biblical unicorn (see below) as a powerful wild animal that was not easily domesticated (although it's quite likely that it was some other animal that existed at that time - the rhinoceros is used merely as an example to illustrate that powerful one-horned animals did, and do, exist). "Unicorn" is also used symbolically, the one "horn" of Joseph consisting of the two single, or independent, "horns" of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.
From http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040109.htm
And regarding Satyrs:
Satyr (in Greek pronounced satyros and in Latin satyrus) was the name given to a half-man and half-goat idol of the ancient Greeks (see Ancient Empires - Greece) and Romans (see Ancient Empires - Rome). The word is also sometimes used to translate the Hebrew word of the Scriptures pronounced saw-eer meaning a shaggy goat, which referred to an idol, in the form of a goat, that the Israelites foolishly involved themselves with. The original Hebrew word is variously translated in English-language Bibles as satyr, goat and devil.
From http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030526.htm
I believe, from the sources I mentioned above, your comments are way out of context. Do you agree? |
|
|
|
|
