Biggest find in the history of paleontology

Right back to square one--a supernatural event-which is kind of like division by zero--undefined in the dictionary of evolution.

A miracle is defined as the setting aside of a natural law to the glory of God.

All that has to happen is for God to speak and worlds come into existence.

We are basically illiterate when it comes to God and how He does things. In as much as we are created beings, this is quite understandable.

We still have a problem with Omni-potence,science and presence. We also want to be like gods.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 

Writing off poetry as irrelevant doesn't help. One of the best prooftexts for geocentrism (and the one Luther and many others relied on the most) is in the book of Joshua. It's part of a historical narrative.

No, neither your saying it nor my saying it makes it so. It is what it is.

Do you see the irony? You're using the latest and greatest of man's discoveries in order to prove your interpretation of the Bible. Exactly what you accuse others of doing. If you were consistent, you wouldn't need to point to isolated ideas of man to prop up your beliefs.

That's the wrong question. That's like asking you to provide biblical evidence that the earth orbits the sun.

The right question is whether the Bible rules out evolution. I provided a detailed explanation for why I think the answer is "no" on page 4 of this thread. For the most part, it was ignored.

What twisted logic. From your own summary, it seems like the beginning is when God created the heaven and the earth. Everything else describes what he did after that point. There's no reason from what you've presented to view everything described as happening after the beginning as also being part of the beginning.

This is why engineers often struggle to interpret the Bible. Language is far more fluid than math or programming languages. This kind of tortured absolutism is what leads some to claim that because the Bible is the Word and Jesus is the Word that Jesus equals the Bible. They don't allow for normal flexibility in language. The Bible's inspiration doesn't mean its contents can be reduced to Gate Logic without losing something. It even loses some nuance when we translate it to other human languages, much less machine languages!

Yes, you and others continue to state this, and then when one is posted, you ignore it. Again, see page 4.

In explaining my view, I didn't even mention the word evolution. I don't think it's an issue the text speaks to.

Let me rephrase your comments. If you were to remain logically and intellectually honest, you would have to conclude that if God could order genocide in the Old Testament in order to accomplish his will it would mean that if we use the same method -- genocide -- to advance God's will in the earth then we are also serving God.

See the error with that logic?

Since you are aware of my faith and who my God is, that comment is blasphemy.

 

Your BIO says "Mennonite Brethren"

http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/1995/1995-6.html

Your own denominational statement of faith excludes evolution. It says that man was formed "From the dust", not from monkeys. It says there was special creation, not evolution. It says humans were created good... not a result of sin and death. Yet you are here posting in favor of evolution.

Clearly, what you claim to believe and what you actually believe are in opposition. My statement stands as it is - my own observation.

 

Yes, I'm a Mennonite Brethren. Why did you present a Confession of Faith from Mennonite Church USA? Are you aware that there are different Mennonite denominations?

Below is the [article] of the Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith that deals with creation. I'm quite well aware of it since I manage the web site it's posted on (and, I affirmed an earlier version of it when I was baptized). The Confession is careful to not say more than Scripture and to not phrase things in a way that assumes a certain interpretation. It focuses on what the creation texts say about God and humanity rather than how it can be applied to science. While probably close to half of MBs are young-earth creationists, it is not as divisive an issue for us as it is in Baptist circles, although I'm not entirely sure why that is.

To read more about the God I believe in, and who you blasphemed in your last post, read [Article 1] of the same Confession.

[ April 07, 2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

"I agree. But if you were to remain logically and intellectually honest, you would have to conclude that if God used millions of years of death and struggle to create and then he called that creation Good it would mean that if we use those same tools - death and struggle - perhaps we should call it murder and oppression - to advance God's will in the earth then we are also being "good". If we use Nazi tactics to oppress the world and force everyone to accept christianity, would we be using the same "good" tools that god used to create us through millions of years of death and struggle? That sounds more like Islam than Christianity. "

So you think that you are in a position to judge that something that God created and called good, you are able to conclude is not actually good? Are ther any thunderstorms in your area, perchance? Judging God is not something I would be too anxious to do.

 

I wasn't aware of this, no.

Ah - so it ignores the bulk of the 'creation text' in the Bible then. That's too bad.

The God you believe in doesn't exist. You believe God uses death and struggle to create something good - that before there was sin there was death.

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

The Bible says DONT EVEN SAY that God is behind it when evil comes knocking at your door - flat out God doesn't use evil to promote his will in the earth. If you want to worship a God who does use evil to fulfill his purposes, then go ahead, but know that you won't be worshipping the God of the Bible.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

We see, then, that the devil is the one who deals in death - not God.

Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

The Bible is pretty clear that God is not the author, nor deliverer of death. It is separation from God that causes death - both physically and spiritually.

 

Before humans sinned there was plant death and animal death. Human death and separation from God came about due to human sinfulness. While human sinfulness has affected all of creation, death as a result of sin only spread to those who are in Adam (see Romans 5:12-21). Animals are not in Adam the way humans are in Adam. In no verse in the Bible is it stated that animal death started as a result of human sin. Romans 5 clearly talks about human death and not animal death. To distort this passage to refer to animal death makes a mockery of Jesus' crucifixion by applying it to beasts the same way it applies to humans.

Romans 5:18-19: Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

If you are right, Gup, and the one trespass led to death for animals, that would mean that Jesus' act of righteousness leads to justification and life for animals. Are animals justified? Can animals be called sinners or righteous? My interpretation is that when Paul writes about "all men" and "the many" he is not speaking about animals or plants. He is referring to human beings, both male and female. Adam's trespass led to death for humans by making them sinners, and Jesus' act of righteousness leads to justification and life for humans by making them righteous.

Many other verses make it clear that animal death is not inherently evil the way human death is, as we have discussed (and you have [ignored]) before.

The problem is that you have not yet shown that biblically animal death is evil. The Bible itself calls animal death including predation "good". God provides food for carnivorous animals and calls it one of the "good things" from his hand (Psalm 104:21-28); God points to the hawk and eagle whose young "suck up blood" as an example of the wonders of his creative power (Job 39:26-30); Paul makes clear to Timothy that foods that some are saying should not be eaten (such as meats, as parallel passages show) are to be received with gladness because they were created to be eaten (1 Timothy 4:1-6).

If your view is correct, then when God asks this rhetorical question of Job:

Job 38:41: Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?

...the answer is Satan!

Based on this, another verse comes to mind, from a passage talking about eating meat and drinking wine:

Romans 14:16: So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.

You are definitely calling evil what I regard as good. Far more serious, you are calling evil what God regards as good. You are attributing to Satan the creative work that God claims as his own doing.

Once again, you take a sentence fragment from a passage clearly talking about humans and applying it to animals as well. Are you willing to do the same thing with the rest of the passage or even the rest of the sentence?

Hebrews 2:14-16: Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.

Jesus' death destroyed the one who has the power of death and it delivered "all those" subject to the curse of death. Does this include animals? Angels? No, the next verse clarifies that these are "offspring of Abraham". Elsewhere, Jesus clarifies who the offspring of Abraham are (see John 8:31-47). We as Christians are adopted offspring of Abraham. Animals are not in any way offspring of Abraham.

Now, if the verse were to read as you claim, and the "power of death" refers to both animal and human death, then this passage only talks about a partial victory. Jesus only delivered the "offspring of Abraham", not all the animals too. But if you read the passage properly, it is obvious that the "power of death" refers to its power over human sinners, because it claims that Jesus was completely victorious over it by providing deliverance for "all those" subject to it.

What Scripture says about all the creatures God created:

Psalm 104:29-30: When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.

While this jibes with what you said about separation from God causing death, the psalmist does not distance God from animal death the way you have tried to do. It does not appear to be morally abhorrent to God the way it is to you. I encourage you to allow Scripture to alter your thinking on this issue.

 

Regarding denominational statements about creation:

Ah - so it ignores the bulk of the 'creation text' in the Bible then. That's too bad.</font>[/QUOTE]Gup, according to your profile Living Word Christian Center is your church affiliation. What do you think of their [Doctrine] summation?

That's about all their doctrinal statement says about creation and the fall. Note that it doesn't even say that physical death of humans (let alone animals) was the result of sin! It also doesn't affirm the historicity of Adam. So, it seems rather strange that you're casting stones at other statements of faith when your own church's doctrinal statement appears to be even more lacking by your own standards.

 

So far, I haven't seen any micrographs of that "tissue." If it is tissue, it will have organized cellular structures.

If not, it's something else.

We have already seen that organic molecules can last for a very long time, as we have a bit of Neandertal DNA preserved in another find.

Interesting, but certainly not as advertised.