The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Morbert

Any scientific Journal on Evolutionary biology will give you an "unbiased" view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

Fast-forward to 1:00

Fanny Cradock

Creationist is a slippery term. It can refer to young earth creationists, old earth creationists (Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. could be included in here), advocates of Intelligent Design in all its flavours (interestingly some of whom are atheists) or evolutionists (again, there are different types).

I would think that all Christians, and probably many theists, would be creationist insofar as they believe that God (whatever they understand God to be) created the universe. The question of how we actually understand books like Genesis is what divides us.

For my part, I think that the most interesting critique of young and old earth creationism has actually come from within Christianity.

dvae

token56 wrote: »

Had you said, given that the bible is the word of god, I have to take Genesis as fact, that could be taken as consistent. But if you accept the bible was inspired by the word of god, then presumably you can see that not everything should be taken as fact, given that it is men's interpretation of gods words and they are not literally gods words?

the bible contains words of man but, blessed or approved by god. Jesus himself often used the words "it is written" when referring to scripture.
i am also reminded of Jeremiah 1:9 where it says "Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth".
there are parts of the bible that obviously should not be taken literally such as when Jesus says"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away".
the bible is gods holy word. God dictated, and man wrote it down, similar to a boss dictating to a sectary, but in holy and inspired way.

Cossax

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Creationist is a slippery term. It can refer to young earth creationists, old earth creationists (Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. could be included in here), advocates of Intelligent Design in all its flavours (interestingly some of whom are atheists) or evolutionists (again, there are different types).

I would think that all Christians, and probably many theists, would be creationist insofar as they believe that God (whatever they understand God to be) created the universe. The question of how we actually understand books like Genesis is what divides us.

For my part, I think that the most interesting critique of young and old earth creationism has actually come from within Christianity.

I'd be curious as to how someone who doesn't believe in a deity can believe in intelligent design?

Benny_Cake

dvae wrote: »

the bible contains words of man but, blessed or approved by god. Jesus himself often used the words "it is written" when referring to scripture.
i am also reminded of Jeremiah 1:9 where it says "Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth".
there are parts of the bible that obviously should not be taken literally such as when Jesus says"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away".
the bible is gods holy word. God dictated, and man wrote it down, similar to a boss dictating to a sectary, but in holy and inspired way.

There is a big difference between saying that "the bible contains the words of men blessed or approved by God" and saying that God dictated the bible like a boss would to his secretary. You seem to be arguing in favour of both descriptions of the inspiration of the bible? Also, in both of your examples above, it is apparent that the example from Jeremiah should not be taken literally either, unless you are saying that God "literally" reached out his hand and put words in his mouth, which I would imagine few Christians believe.

uck51js9zml2yt

since this is the Christianity forum and I assume people here believe in god,why would people not think it possible for Him to creAte everything in 6 days and rest on the 7th.
if He can't do.that then how can he do anything else?

Peregrinus

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

since this is the Christianity forum and I assume people here believe in god,why would people not think it possible for Him to creAte everything in 6 days and rest on the 7th.
if He can't do.that then how can he do anything else?

He can do that. The thing is, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that he didn't.

tommy2bad

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

since this is the Christianity forum and I assume people here believe in god,why would people not think it possible for Him to creAte everything in 6 days and rest on the 7th.
if He can't do.that then how can he do anything else?

Christians don't think He couldn't do that, we don't think He did because the evidence is that the universe was created in a big bang and the laws of physics did the rest. Just as awe inspiring as a finger click creation and more wonderful as it allows for so many variables. God is not as rigid as was once presumed and far more creative.

Gumbi

Hi, JC. Where have all the dinosaurs gone in the past several thousand years?

Gurgle

Gumbi wrote: »

Where have all the dinosaurs gone in the past several thousand years?

buuuurrrp!
dunno

himnextdoor

dvae wrote: »

the bible contains words of man but, blessed or approved by god. Jesus himself often used the words "it is written" when referring to scripture.
i am also reminded of Jeremiah 1:9 where it says "Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth".

It is a curious God that can cunjur up the entire Universe from nothing but is able to touch only certain mouths to put words into.

Why won't God touch all our mouths?

It also seems odd that I have to have faith but the likes of Moses, Noah, Abraham, Mary mother of Jesus, etc., are treated to absolute proof which removed the ability for them to have non-evidence based faith.

God seems to have double standards.

himnextdoor

dvae wrote: »

Given that the bible is the inspired word of god , i guess i have to take the Genesis account as fact. there was a time when i would of questioned Genesis and creation but, whats the point, if you put your faith in god all questions will be eventually answered.
personally i don't believe that the world and all its wonders were made in 6 24 hour days. i believe that maybe god made the world in perhaps 6 different stages, with each stage been maybe thousands or millions of years apart. sort of like when building a house. the first day i cleared the site, this took several days. then on the second day i layed a foundation, this took 3 day to dig and lay. on the third day i started the block work, this took several weeks and, so forth.
another point that is often over looked, the first sin was created by Adam in Genesis. if Genesis was to be taken figuratively and not literally then there would of been no need for Jesus to come down to the earth to die as a ransom for Adams sin.

But Jesus didn't die and indeed, some say He still lives.

How can someone who is not dead claim to have given His life in sacrifice?

Also, if God and Jesus (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) are one and the same then the question is: How can God be killed by men?

tommy2bad

himnextdoor wrote: »

But Jesus didn't die and indeed, some say He still lives.

How can someone who is not dead claim to have given His life in sacrifice?

Also, if God and Jesus (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) are one and the same then the question is: How can God be killed by men?

And you accuse Christians of being literalistic :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

How can God be killed by men?

By an act off wilful self-sacrifice.

[...]
The other gods were strong; but Thou wast weak;
They rode, but Thou didst stumble to a throne;
But to our wounds only God's wounds can speak,
And not a god has wounds, but Thou alone.

Edward Shillito

Andrewf20

J C wrote: »

[IMG]Here is a description of a Brontosaurus-like creature called 'behemoth' in Job 40:15-22[/img]

15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him.

Sorry for jumping back to your initial post but im not sure how Jobs description translates in the picture in the post. There no mention of tangible scale (how big it is) or mention of a long neck, perhaps its most obvious feature.

Gumbi

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Sorry for jumping back to your initial post but im not sure how Jobs description translates in the picture in the post. There no mention of tangible scale (how big it is) or mention of a long neck, perhaps its most obvious feature.

Agreed. Quite a jump to go from "behemoth" (the only term in there that would tie it to a brontosaurus-like creature) to dinosaur. Is there a description of a Tyrannosaurus in the Bible, perchance?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

By an act off wilful self-sacrifice.

So, God is dead?

himnextdoor

tommy2bad wrote: »

And you accuse Christians of being literalistic :rolleyes:

Where did I do that?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

So, God is dead?

Stop trolling please.

Monty Burnz

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Sorry for jumping back to your initial post but im not sure how Jobs description translates in the picture in the post. There no mention of tangible scale (how big it is) or mention of a long neck, perhaps its most obvious feature.

Yes, the description could be applied to anything. A rhino, an elephant?

Also, those dinosaurs ate leaves, not grass.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, the description could be applied to anything. A rhino, an elephant?

Also, those dinosaurs ate leaves, not grass.

He moves his tail like a cedar Hardly an elephant or rhino tail.

*******************************************************************
Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

He moves his tail like a cedar Hardly an elephant or rhino tail.

Why? How does a cedar move its tail? Or, more accurately, how does a cedar move? The way branches wave? Or the way the leaves tremble?

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why? How does a cedar move its tail? Or, more accurately, how does a cedar move? The way branches wave? Or the way the leaves tremble?

Like a cedar refers to the great size and power of the tail. Not a shrub, not a mediocre tree - but a mighty cedar.

****************************************************************
Amos 2:9 “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them,
Whose height was like the height of the cedars,
And he was as strong as the oaks;
Yet I destroyed his fruit above
And his roots beneath.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

Like a cedar refers to the great size and power of the tail. Not a shrub, not a mediocre tree - but a mighty cedar.
]

That's your guess? Because it seems wide open interpretation...(as usual). That still doesn't explain why 'behemoth' eats grass and the large dinosaurs were leaf eaters. And I don't imagine they would have fared very well in 'mountain' climates where the behemoth is supposed to have eaten - you will note that there are no large modern 4-legged herbivores living in the mountains (hippos, rhinos, elephants). Mountain slopes don't seem to suit 4 tonne elephants, never mind 60 tonne Argentinosaurs.

I'd also query how a 100 foot long dinosaur would be shaded by a small tree like the lotus.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That's your guess? Because it seems wide open interpretation...(as usual). That still doesn't explain why 'behemoth' eats grass and the large dinosaurs were leaf eaters. And I don't imagine they would have fared very well in 'mountain' climates where the behemoth is supposed to have eaten - you will note that there are no large modern 4-legged herbivores living in the mountains (hippos, rhinos, elephants). Mountain slopes don't seem to suit 4 tonne elephants, never mind 60 tonne Argentinosaurs.

I'd also query how a 100 foot long dinosaur would be shaded by a small tree like the lotus.

Lying in a marsh would make height a relative matter. And the distance between mountains and marshes - especially for large dinosaurs - is not a problem. It is not a matter of distant climatic regions, but ranging from rivers to local mountains. Hey, I can lie in the river/sea at Bloody Bridge and walk up Donard on a sunny day, following the same river.

As to grass or leaves, are you sure it could not eat both? Some rhinos eat leaves and plants, others mainly grasses. I suggest their ancestor had a wider range of dietary ability. So too for the behemoth.

********************************************************************
Amos 2:9 “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them,
Whose height was like the height of the cedars,
And he was as strong as the oaks;
Yet I destroyed his fruit above
And his roots beneath.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

Lying in a marsh would make height a relative matter. And the distance between mountains and marshes - especially for large dinosaurs - is not a problem. It is not a matter of distant climatic regions, but ranging from rivers to local mountains. Hey, I can lie in the river/sea at Bloody Bridge and walk up Donard on a sunny day, following the same river.

So you reckon these giant dinosaurs climbed the mountains to eat grass, then came down again to lie in a low-lying marsh to lie under a small tree that doesn't grow in marshes? Sounds a bit far fetched? Not very energy efficient either, even if we forget about the lotus tree mistake. Are there any very large herbivores that both live in swamps and climb mountains today?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to grass or leaves, are you sure it could not eat both? Some rhinos eat leaves and plants, others mainly grasses. I suggest their ancestor had a wider range of dietary ability. So too for the behemoth.

Why does the description specify grass then? Why not 'foliage' or 'plants'? It says it "eats grass like an ox". That bit is specific.

PDN

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why does the description specify grass then? Why not 'foliage' or 'plants'? It says it "eats grass like an ox". That bit is specific.

I think the Hebrew is not quite so specific. http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H2682/chatsiyr.htm

Monty Burnz

PDN wrote: »

I think the Hebrew is not quite so specific. http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H2682/chatsiyr.htm

perhaps originally the same as 2681, from the greenness of a courtyard; grass; also a leek (collectively):--grass, hay, herb, leek.

Good point, and I'd say that it would be a good get-out in this case if it didn't specifically say 'like an ox'.

And we still have the issues of eating in the mountains, and fitting under the relatively tiny lotus tree, a tree which doesn't grow in marshes anyway, and of course commuting between the mountains and the marshes - a journey apparently unparalleled in nature.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Lying in a marsh would make height a relative matter. And the distance between mountains and marshes - especially for large dinosaurs - is not a problem. It is not a matter of distant climatic regions, but ranging from rivers to local mountains. Hey, I can lie in the river/sea at Bloody Bridge and walk up Donard on a sunny day, following the same river.
So you reckon these giant dinosaurs climbed the mountains to eat grass, then came down again to lie in a low-lying marsh to lie under a small tree that doesn't grow in marshes? Sounds a bit far fetched? Not very energy efficient either, even if we forget about the lotus tree mistake. Are there any very large herbivores that both live in swamps and climb mountains today?

As I pointed out, even I can range from river to mountain. A very large herbivore could do the same - we are not talking about climbing steep slopes or scaling Everest. Do all beasts today keep to the one environment?

As to small tree, the identity of the plant is unclear:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6628&t=KJV

Could be referring to any shady tree, or to lying under surface plants, as far as I can see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to grass or leaves, are you sure it could not eat both? Some rhinos eat leaves and plants, others mainly grasses. I suggest their ancestor had a wider range of dietary ability. So too for the behemoth.
Why does the description specify grass then? Why not 'foliage' or 'plants'? It says it "eats grass like an ox". That bit is specific.

Does an ox not eat the plants it finds? As PDN points out, the term 'grass' covers several.

********************************************************************
Amos 2:9 “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them,
Whose height was like the height of the cedars,
And he was as strong as the oaks;
Yet I destroyed his fruit above
And his roots beneath.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

Monty Burnz said:

As I pointed out, even I can range from river to mountain. A very large herbivore could do the same - we are not talking about climbing steep slopes or scaling Everest. Do all beasts today keep to the one environment?

Grazing animals - yes, as far as I know. Large grazing animals like elephants? Definitely. And I imagine the problems with scaling rough terrain get increasingly nightmarish the bigger the animal gets. Look at the size of those dinosaurs - if they fell, they could never get up again. Game over. The notion of them roaming the mountains eating grass is ridiculous - these aren't nimble mountain goats. They lived on plains - that is beyond scientific dispute.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to small tree, the identity of the plant is unclear:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6628&t=KJV

Could be referring to any shady tree, or to lying under surface plants, as far as I can see.

How big a tree to you think the argentinosaurus would need to fit under? The translation from the hebrew mentions 'shrubs'. That's a heck of a shrub.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Does an ox not eat the plants it finds? As PDN points out, the term 'grass' covers several.

Oxen don't eat the leaves of trees like these dinosaurs did. It seems unlikely that you would say that they eat '[greenery] like an ox', and for their diet to be comprise mostly/entirely of stuff oxen don't eat. That would be like saying humans 'eat [greenery] like an ox', and justifying by saying that we eat some grains and cereals.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I pointed out, even I can range from river to mountain. A very large herbivore could do the same - we are not talking about climbing steep slopes or scaling Everest. Do all beasts today keep to the one environment?
Grazing animals - yes, as far as I know. Large grazing animals like elephants? Definitely.

Apparently not:
The movement and habitat utilization patterns of an elephant population were studied in southern India during 1981–83 within a 1,130 km2 (440 sq mi) study area. The area encompasses a diversity of vegetation types — from dry thorn forest at 250 to 400 m (820 to 1,300 ft) of altitude through deciduous forest (400 to 1,400 m (1,300 to 4,600 ft)) to stunted evergreen shola forest and grassland (1,400 to 1,800 m (4,600 to 5,900 ft)). Five different elephant clans, each consisting of between 50 and 200 individuals had home ranges of between 105 km2 (41 sq mi) and 320 km2 (120 sq mi), which overlapped. Seasonal habitat preferences were related to the availability of water and the palatability of food plants. During the dry months of January to April, elephants congregated at high densities of up to five individuals per km2 in river valleys where browse plants had a much higher protein content than the coarse tall grasses on hill slopes. With the onset of rains in May, they dispersed over a wider area at lower densities, largely into the tall grass forests, to feed on the fresh grasses, which then had a high protein value. During the second wet season from September to December, when the tall grasses became fibrous, they moved into lower elevation short grass open forests. The normal movement pattern could be upset during years of adverse environmental conditions. However, the movement pattern of elephants in this region has not basically changed for over a century, as inferred from descriptions recorded during the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Elephant

And I imagine the problems with scaling rough terrain get increasingly nightmarish the bigger the animal gets. Look at the size of those dinosaurs - if they fell, they could never get up again. Game over. The notion of them roaming the mountains eating grass is ridiculous - these aren't nimble mountain goats. They lived on plains - that is beyond scientific dispute.

Not so:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/26/large-dinosaurs-migrated-huge-distances

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to small tree, the identity of the plant is unclear:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=H6628&t=KJV

Could be referring to any shady tree, or to lying under surface plants, as far as I can see.
How big a tree to you think the argentinosaurus would need to fit under? The translation from the hebrew mentions 'shrubs'. That's a heck of a shrub.

The translation has little to go on. Shade is the only certainty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Does an ox not eat the plants it finds? As PDN points out, the term 'grass' covers several.
Oxen don't eat the leaves of trees like these dinosaurs did.
It seems unlikely that you would say that they eat '[greenery] like an ox', and for their diet to be comprise mostly/entirely of stuff oxen don't eat. That would be like saying humans 'eat [greenery] like an ox', and justifying by saying that we eat some grains and cereals.

You don't know what sort of dinosaur the behemoth was. Nor do you know that many dinosaurs only ate leaves. The literature I ref'ed suggests otherwise.

****************************************************************
Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

tommy2bad

You don't know what sort of dinosaur the behemoth was.

I know what it wasn't and thats a dinosaur of any kind as we use the term.
Contemporaneous with man rules it out.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

I know what it wasn't and thats a dinosaur of any kind as we use the term.
Contemporaneous with man rules it out.

The Bible says otherwise.

****************************************************************
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

Monty Burnz said:

Apparently not:
The movement and habitat utilization patterns of an elephant population were studied in southern India during 1981–83 within a 1,130 km2 (440 sq mi) study area. The area encompasses a diversity of vegetation types — from dry thorn forest at 250 to 400 m (820 to 1,300 ft) of altitude through deciduous forest (400 to 1,400 m (1,300 to 4,600 ft)) to stunted evergreen shola forest and grassland (1,400 to 1,800 m (4,600 to 5,900 ft)). Five different elephant clans, each consisting of between 50 and 200 individuals had home ranges of between 105 km2 (41 sq mi) and 320 km2 (120 sq mi), which overlapped. Seasonal habitat preferences were related to the availability of water and the palatability of food plants. During the dry months of January to April, elephants congregated at high densities of up to five individuals per km2 in river valleys where browse plants had a much higher protein content than the coarse tall grasses on hill slopes. With the onset of rains in May, they dispersed over a wider area at lower densities, largely into the tall grass forests, to feed on the fresh grasses, which then had a high protein value. During the second wet season from September to December, when the tall grasses became fibrous, they moved into lower elevation short grass open forests. The normal movement pattern could be upset during years of adverse environmental conditions. However, the movement pattern of elephants in this region has not basically changed for over a century, as inferred from descriptions recorded during the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Elephant

Hang on a second - this is talking about migration over months! You are claiming that giant dinosaurs would travel up mountains daily to graze!

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not so:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/26/large-dinosaurs-migrated-huge-distances

Of course they ranged over huge distances - like bisons etc. do. Huge distances over flat lands! Not up and down mountains daily! This is ludicrous.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The translation has little to go on. Shade is the only certainty.

Vague, isn't it? So what kind of tree can a 30 foot high dinosaur walk under? And what kind of tree can a 30 metre long dinosaur fit under for shade? And why did the dinosaur need shade when he could have stayed up in the mountain he just came down from if he was too warm?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You don't know what sort of dinosaur the behemoth was. Nor do you know that many dinosaurs only ate leaves. The literature I ref'ed suggests otherwise.

****************************************************************
Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Behemoth doesn't sound like a dinosaur at all. It sounds like a generic large beast like a rhino or elephant. You admit that it is vague when you think it suits your case, but think that stuff like 'moves its tail like a cedar' is very specifically referring to one possible interpretation when it could refer to several, and claim that things like having strong bones mean it's definitely a dinosaur...a little bit inconsistent in my opinion.

It's almost like you are desperate to interpret this passage as referring to dinosaurs...like you started with your mind made up...:pac:

Monty Burnz

15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him.

Hey look - I've found just as good a fit for the passage.

tetrapak

Laurence Tisdall has a few interesting discussions on dinosaurs, creationism, darwinism etc on youtube for those interested in the subject. I personally never believed in Darwinism or evolution, and my russian wife tells me in her schools/universities Darwinism was given almost no coverage in their education as it was considered a nonsense theory that was very unscientific, which I found interesting considering they were/are an athiest society by-and-large.

Monty Burnz

tetrapak wrote: »

Laurence Tisdall has a few interesting discussions on dinosaurs, creationism, darwinism etc on youtube for those interested in the subject. I personally never believed in Darwinism or evolution, and my russian wife tells me in her schools/universities Darwinism was given almost no coverage in their education as it was considered a nonsense theory that was very unscientific, which I found interesting considering they were/are an athiest society by-and-large.

But you do believe in gravity, and electro-magnetism, and quantum theory?

Laurence Tisdall holds a Bachelor's degree in General Agriculture from Macdonald College of McGill University and a Master of Science degree in micropropagation from the same university. He has published several scientific articles in peer reviewed journals, such as HortScience. Mr. Tisdall is presently a computer consultant.

So he has a degree in farming, and a masters in 'micropropogation' =

Micropropagation is the practice of rapidly multiplying stock plant material to produce a large number of progeny plants, using modern plant tissue culture methods.

Not a biologist then...a student of farming methods. We can safely ignore all the experts in the field so.

tommy2bad

tetrapak wrote: »

Laurence Tisdall has a few interesting discussions on dinosaurs, creationism, darwinism etc on youtube for those interested in the subject. I personally never believed in Darwinism or evolution, and my russian wife tells me in her schools/universities Darwinism was given almost no coverage in their education as it was considered a nonsense theory that was very unscientific, which I found interesting considering they were/are an athiest society by-and-large.

Just cos you don't believe it don't make it wrong.
How old is your wife as the opposition to Darwinism in Russia was back in the 1800's?
Maybe shes so young that the Russian Orthodox opposition held sway in the school and uni she attended.
Laurence Tisdall is a liar or a fool. Nice Van Dike though.

tommy2bad

I just watched two youtube videos of Laurence Tisdall in action.
I take back what I said, he's not a fool, he's a liar.

Monty Burnz

tommy2bad wrote: »

I just watched two youtube videos of Laurence Tisdall in action.
I take back what I said, he's not a fool, he's a liar.

Careful now - they don't give out degrees in farming to just anybody!

Monty Burnz

tetrapak wrote: »

I personally never believed in Darwinism or evolution, and my russian wife tells me in her schools/universities Darwinism was given almost no coverage in their education as it was considered a nonsense theory that was very unscientific, which I found interesting considering they were/are an athiest society by-and-large.

This is odd, I've scoured the internet for any discussion or proof of your claim that evolution wasn't taught in Russia and the only references to it come from creationist sources, and even they aren't stating that it wasn't taught there - just a reference to a 'legal controversy'.

This reminds me of Rick Santorum telling his Republican fans that in the Netherlands they euthanize all of their old people, knowing that the people he is talking to will never find out any different.

Can you back up your claim at all, Tetrapak? I could of course send an email to my Russian college friend to see what she says about it, but I'd like to see what you come up with first.

Zombrex

Soviet Russia taught Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution as it was a closer match to Stalins ideas of how genetics worked, that through hard work in this life you can improve the genetic properties of your off spring. Applying Lamarckian genetics (which had already been discredited by this time in the rest of the world) lead to massive crop failures throughout Russia.

This was all in the first half of the century through, so not sure how it would relate to tetrapak's wife. Perhaps she grew up in areas where Lamarckian evolution was still taught in some sort of USSR nostalgia.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Soviet Russia taught Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution as it was a closer match to Stalins ideas of how genetics worked, that through hard work in this life you can improve the genetic properties of your off spring. Applying Lamarckian genetics (which had already been discredited by this time in the rest of the world) lead to massive crop failures throughout Russia.

This was all in the first half of the century through, so not sure how it would relate to tetrapak's wife. Perhaps she grew up in areas where Lamarckian evolution was still taught in some sort of USSR nostalgia.

It was in the 1930s, thanks to a scientific quack called Lysenko. So, if tetrapak's wife was in University at the time then that would make her at least 92 years old.

Monty Burnz

Zombrex wrote: »

Soviet Russia taught Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution as it was a closer match to Stalins ideas of how genetics worked, that through hard work in this life you can improve the genetic properties of your off spring. Applying Lamarckian genetics (which had already been discredited by this time in the rest of the world) lead to massive crop failures throughout Russia.

This was all in the first half of the century through, so not sure how it would relate to tetrapak's wife. Perhaps she grew up in areas where Lamarckian evolution was still taught in some sort of USSR nostalgia.

Good lord. It just goes to show how ideology can pervert and destroy science and scientific progress. Thanks for the info.

Monty Burnz

PDN wrote: »

It was in the 1930s, thanks to a scientific quack called Lysenko.

I've read a few articles about Lysenko previously - really interesting stuff, and a thoroughly unpleasant character.

Lysenko's genetic theories were grounded in Lamarckism. His work was primarily devoted to developing new techniques and practices in agriculture. But he also contributed a new theoretical framework which would become the foundation of all Soviet agriculture: a discipline called agrobiology that is a fusion of plant physiology, cytology, genetics and evolutionary theory. Central to Lysenko's tenets was the concept of the inheritability of acquired characteristics. In 1932 Lysenko was given his own journal, The Bulletin of Vernalization, and it became the main outlet for touting emerging developments of Lysenkoist research.[6]


One of the most celebrated of the earliest agricultural applications developed by Lysenko was a process of increasing the success of wheat crops by soaking the grain and storing the wet seed in snow to refrigerate over the winter ("vernalization"). Though his work was scientifically unsound on a number of levels, Lysenko's claims delighted Soviet journalists and agricultural officials, who were impressed by its promise to minimize the resources spent in theoretical scientific laboratory work. The Soviet political leadership had come to view orthodox science as offering empty promises, as unproductive in meeting the challenges and needs of the Communist state. Lysenko was viewed as someone who could deliver practical methods more rapidly, and with superior results.[5]

Lysenko himself spent much time denouncing academic scientists and geneticists, claiming that their isolated laboratory work was not helping the Soviet people. By 1929 Lysenko's skeptics were politically censured, accused of offering only criticisms, and for failing to prescribe any new solutions themselves. In December 1929, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin gave a famous speech praising "practice" above "theory", elevating the political bosses above the scientists and technical specialists. Though for a period the Soviet government under Stalin continued its support of agricultural scientists, after 1935 the balance of power abruptly swung towards Lysenko and his followers. Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation. In 1941 Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize.

cowzerp

J C wrote: »

It was universal ... and that is proven by the worldwide distribution of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks.
... and it was only about 8,000 years ago ... and that is why modern recorded Human history begins about 8,000 years ago!!!

So can you explain why not even 1 human has ever been found buried with the Dinosaurs that are believed to be millions of years dead?

The flood is your reason for all the buried dinosaurs etc yet in the depths that are believed to be millions of years ago you won't find humans or any animal that was not evolved at the time.

I look forward to reading your explanation for this.

Monty Burnz

cowzerp wrote: »

So can you explain why not even 1 human has ever been found buried with the Dinosaurs that are believed to be millions of years dead?

The flood is your reason for all the buried dinosaurs etc yet in the depths that are believed to be millions of years ago you won't find humans or any animal that was not evolved at the time.

I look forward to reading your explanation for this.

Well obviously there isn't a satisfactory answer to this, but you can expect to hear some attempts to rationalise it along the lines seen here. For example:

Most people are puzzled why antediluvian buildings have not been found. After all the construction of cities is clearly referred to in the Bible.
"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." - Genesis 4:17
The construction of dwelling space is driven almost exclusively by our need to shelter ourselves from the weather. Prior to the flood, the atmosphere is thought to have been much more stable than it is today, providing an almost globally uniform temperature. It is believed that there were no dramatic seasonal temperature fluctuations, or even significant differences in temperature between the polar and equatorial regions. This is evident by the discovery of fossilized ferns and amphibians on Antarctica. It is also believed that it had not rained prior to the flood, but the earth was instead watered by free-flowing springs and mist. Given that this type of perfect environment likely existed before the flood, it might be better to ask why people would build houses if they needed no shelter from the elements? One answer would be: to protect ourselves from wild animals and other humans. The earth was a violent place before the flood.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." - Genesis 6:5
Nevertheless, any constructions during this period were likely made of wood or dried mud. These materials are simply not expected to stand up well under catastrophic flood conditions. Even baked clay will dissolve if saturated for prolonged periods. This type of material has historically only been used to extremely arid regions for this reason. If they did not need to build shelters from the weather, and had never built a monument before the tower of Babel, what would we expect to find? Perhaps some protective fencing or walls might still remain if they could have survived a raging onslaught greater than the dam breech that hollowed-out the Grand Canyon. There may also be some clothing made of animal skins or stone tools, but no reason to expect anything more significant. Given the presuppositions of evolutionists and the certainty of their belief, any trace evidence of a antediluvian civilizations would likely be dismissed outright and we would never hear about it.

There are a couple of problems with this: we are expected to believe that nobody bothered to build anything out of stone because the weather was so nice (everywhere in the world). The linked source also dates the flood to 2438 BC. The Great Pyramid at Giza (which is not the oldest surviving Egyptian building either) was completed at around 2560 BC - 200 years before the flood (when there were no stone buildings...).

There are vastly older examples of the remains of buildings in the Indus valley and Turkey (to name just two).

So to believe the stuff about humans and dinosaurs being contemporaneous, you don't just have to reject the sciences of biology and geology, you have ignore archaeology and history too.

But surely any price is worth paying to hold on to your beliefs?

Cossax

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well obviously there isn't a satisfactory answer to this, but you can expect to hear some attempts to rationalise it along the lines seen here. For example:

There are a couple of problems with this: we are expected to believe that nobody bothered to build anything out of stone because the weather was so nice (everywhere in the world). The linked source also dates the flood to 2438 BC. The Great Pyramid at Giza (which is not the oldest surviving Egyptian building either) was completed at around 2560 BC - 200 years before the flood (when there were no stone buildings...).

There are vastly older examples of the remains of buildings in the Indus valley and Turkey (to name just two).

So to believe the stuff about humans and dinosaurs being contemporaneous, you don't just have to reject the sciences of biology and geology, you have ignore archaeology and history too.

But surely any price is worth paying to hold on to your beliefs?

You don't need to go too far to find stone buildings pre-dating the pyramids - Newgrange was a couple of hundred years old when Giza was being worked on.

Monty Burnz

Cossax wrote: »

You don't need to go too far to find stone buildings pre-dating the pyramids - Newgrange was a couple of hundred years old when Giza was being worked on.

Indeed. It was a standing joke with my friends in college that we compared what the Egyptians and the 'Irish' were able to build around the same time periods

What I find interesting about this is just how much human knowledge you need to throw out to be able to accept the Creationist perspective, and I find it quite scary that there are so many people so keen to do just that rather than look at the root of the problem: their choice of beliefs.

I find no conflict between Christianity and science is necessary at all if you leave science do the science and Christianity do the religion.

tommy2bad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed. It was a standing joke with my friends in college that we compared what the Egyptians and the 'Irish' were able to build around the same time periods

What I find interesting about this is just how much human knowledge you need to throw out to be able to accept the Creationist perspective, and I find it quite scary that there are so many people so keen to do just that rather than look at the root of the problem: their choice of beliefs.

I find no conflict between Christianity and science is necessary at all if you leave science do the science and Christianity do the religion.

It is interesting and a relatively modern phenomena. I have talked about this with some people who insist on biblical 7 day creation and as far as I can make out, they don't care if its factual or not. What matters is that it supports a world view that they can comprehend and be comfortable with.
Evolution and geology are complicated and require special knowledge to fully understand whereas creationism is simple and expresses a truth they truly believe. The irony is thats why the story was written and accepting it as such is fine. Insisting on it being a valid fact based theory is not what the writers intended. Doing so misses the point of the story.
As to the people who propagate this view? their agenda is money, power and influence.