1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dinasaurs & such

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Pine_Island_Mrs, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    don't tell me you believe in space alliens too :rolleyes:
    </font>[/QUOTE]??? You don't know about our astronauts visiting the moon and our probes visiting the planets?
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's no relation. The phrase "prehistoric age" referrs to the point prior to the era of humans engaging in documentation. It does not necessarily have anything do do with dinosaurs, etc.
    Freeatlast, Kent Hovind (aka Dr Dino) is a charlatain and a fraud. He doesn't even have a valid doctorate, and his claimed doctorate isn't even in his profession. No YEC proponent should evern consider referencing this fraud. Even AIG warns against referencing him.
    There's no mention of dinosaurs in scripture. In your post, you mention the "behemoth" in the Book of Job. The Hebrew word behbowth literally means "water ox". The water ox is wha the hebrews used to call the animal we know as the hippopotamus.
    That's actually very far from the truth. The fact is that dinosaurs raned in size from the size of a giraffe (brachiosaurs and apatosaurs were the size of a giraffe) to the size of small birds. Most dinosaurs were not "large". Most were the same size, or smaller than, us. Also, we tend to think of all animals in this era as dinosaurs. Actually, dinosauria are a specific group of animals. Some animals, like pteranodon (or pteridactyl) were not dinosaurs at all, but flying reptiles.

    [ October 29, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. There are many dinosaur fossils with feathers. There's a type of velociraptor which had feathers covering most of its body. It didn't fly, but instead appeared to have used the feathers for body temperature regulation.
    While the comment is tongue in cheeck, it should be noted that there's no evidence whatsoever than humand and dinosaurs lived in the same era.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    You're incorrect here. The "circle of the earth" here is a flat disc. The verse is describing a flat surface, not a sphere.
     
  5. Rooster

    Rooster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just curious, where did you find that out? or did you make that up?

    The "Behemoth" as described in the Bible is said to have a tail like a cedar tree, a Hippo, does not have a tail like a cedar tree, nor does a water ox, nor does an elephant.

    Yes there is, it is in the oldest, most acurate science book of all time, it called the Holy Bible, pick it up and read it some time, you might find it to be intteresting (NOTE: that is intended to be humor, not an attack, or sarcasim either.)

    You can read what ever you want into it, but the earth is round, not flat, and it says so in the Bible Isaiah 40:22. Do you not believe anything the Bible says, or do you disagree with Biblical truths just for the sake of debate?
     
  6. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    If evolution is a true theory, one would expect that it could be observed in both the laboratory and in the field. And indeed it has, especially in the laboratory. In the field it was first observed and studied in vascular plants by Dr. Hale Wedberg.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    The fraudulent activities of Kent Hovind are by no means a secret. His fake degree, as well as his shady financial activities have been discussed on this board many times. AIG's website warns YEC supporters to refrain from referencing Hovind. Check their site out for yourself.

    Again, this has been discussed numerous times. An average cedar is long and skinny, with scraggly branches, and would have been a good analogy at the time. However, you're completely discounting the word itself in Hebrew: Water Ox. A water ox is a hippo. There's no question about that whatsoever. The confusion arises out of the fact that 16th and 17th century bible translators transliterated the Hebrew word instead of translating the word.

    The Bible is not physical evidence.

    Actually, it is YOU who is "reading into" scripture by claiming that Is 40:22 is referring to a spherical earth. The hebrew word translated "circle" is a flat disc. That's indisputable.
    Yes, I believe what the Bible says. The bible says "water ox, not dinosaur. The Bible also says flat disc, not sphere.
     
  8. Rooster

    Rooster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible also says the earth was created in 6 days, man, animals (dinosaurs included), plants, sky. day, night ect...The Bible says Bohemeth which is the best word they had back then to discribe the Dinosaur especialy since the word dinosaur wasn't invented back then. I dont know where you are from, but a cedar tree is a huge tree, not some stragly little bush. I doubt a water ox has a tail like a cedar tree, but a t-rex did. Oh well...you can go on doubting Gods word all you want, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
     
  9. Rooster

    Rooster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    The Bible says Behemoth which means Water Ox. It's not a "best word" issue. Water Ox is what they called the animal we call the hippopotamus. Period. End of story. No speculation required.

    Never said "scraggly bush". I said long skinny trunk with scraggly branches. Yes, the oldest cedars are huge. The typical cedar is not, since growing conditions deemed good for most vegitation preclude the cedar from reaching a large mass. The Cedrus Libani (native to the holy land region) consists of slender trunks with heavy drooping branches, ending with a horizontal top. Cedars grow rapidly, but its wood is spongy, apt to shrinkage and warpage, and is by no means durable. In parched mountainous regions, however, the cedar will tend to grow more slowly and durably, making it suitable for construction.

    Whether one disagrees with what kind of tail a water ox has, the fact that "behemoth" means "water ox" is not one of speculation.

    Also, it's amusing that you mention a T-Rex, an animal which was not very common. Most dinosaurs were small animals, not large animals.
    Since referring to behemoth as a water ox does not require specilation, but referring to the behemoth as a dinosaur does, it appears to be you, not me, wno is doubting God's word. I don't see why there's a need for you to do so, since referring to the behemoth as a hippo does not in any way compromise a YEC literalist view.
     
  11. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Only true in the micro sense. Micro-evolution explains how species adapt and live in different environments - like the black and white gypse moths thriving depending on the darkness/lightness of the surrounding area.

    Macro-evolution, which is taught in most acedemic settings as fact, has not been observed or verified - and never will be. It is a bunch of bull to explain creation away without acknowleding God. While it is interesting that a dog has great variation within the species, a dog is still a dog. Just as a monkey has never turned into something else and neither has a human being.

    Genetically speaking, macro-evolution is impossible. A one celled organism simply cannot turn into something more complex than it already is - which is what would have to happen if macro-evolution is true.
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    That it is impossible has not been proven, it is only a theory, a theory that should be left to the scientist to ponder so that the Christian layman can go about the business to which God has called him.

    In my earlier years I was an evolutionary biologist who, along with very many others, saw the problems that our science faced. But we also saw that religion and faith are no more a part of science than science is a part of religion and faith. Those who try to marry them in an unholy union do a great disservice to both. As a scientist, I have no choice but to admit the possibility that the genus Homo sapiens evolved from a lower primate. However, as a Christian I choose to believe that Adam was created by God directly from the dust of the earth. But in the final analysis I know that it does not really matter. What does really matter is that you and I have sinned and that Jesus died in our place for our sins and that by the grace of God, through faith, the death of Jesus on the cross became effectual for me and for you, and for whosoever shall hear and believe that message.

    We all have our calling, and what ever that calling may be, that is the business to which we need to apply ourselves. If we are called to be a scientist, we need to apply ourselves to science; if we are called to be an auto mechanic, we need to apply ourselves to repairing autos. But we are all called to love God and to honor Him with our lives.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sounds like the argument the Catholic Church uses to defend telling their members not to read the Bible for themselves. Leave it to our experts, it's to hard for you to understand - let out trained people do the thinking for you. Sorry, but I will not leave something so important to others.

    Which is why I refuse to add millions of years to the Bible. Evolution is a theory that runs counter to what the Bible clearly teaches, so I reject evolution as an explanation for the creation of man.

    It does matter because one option means that the Bible lies, and the other means that the Bible is true. If the Bible lies about creation, the rest of it is suspect and cannot be trusted. I will take God's word over mans irregardless of how much education/experience a man may claim to have.

    Agree.

    Only to a point. We are all called to test all things and hold to that which is true. I think we need to learn as much as we can about many different areas so that we have a foundation in which to evaluate the truthfullness of what we are told. If I think what you say is in opposition to what the Bible says, then I have no choice but to study that area so I can know for sure - there is no excuse for me to just chalk it up to your (or anyone elses) expertise.
     
  14. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fact of evolution (micro and macro) is not disputed. The theory of evolution, though, is debatable.
     
  15. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Then why is it taught as fact and not theory? My biology book (college level) says evolution happened (period - end of story), and not that it is a theory that is debatable based on how one interprets the facts.
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    It is not. It is taught as a theory.
    Your college book, if it like mine, presents it as a theory, and, while it uses language like "happenned", the contexts of that is within the scope of the generally accepted theory/theories. You'll notices that the same verbage is found when textbooks discuss other theories. You'll also notice that your textbook likely discusses several varying evolutionary theories that have verying degrees of debate and acceptance in the scientific community. This does not equate to them as being taught as fact. Of course, not every college student has a discerning ear, which is why I believe that profs need to expressly state that these are the prevailing theories currentrly accepted by the scientific community. I went through two colleges never once getting the impression that these matters were being taught as fact. However, I also understand how someing might get the impression.
     
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    In my university days as a biologist, I heard the word "fact" in reference to macroevolution only once—and it shocked me so much that I will never forget it. Any scientist who would say that macroevolution is a “fact” would be speaking in a very irresponsible manner. However, the theory of macroevolution is the ONLY scientific theory to be had by scientists today that explains the data presently available.

    Furthermore, ANYONE who believes that science and the Bible are at odds with one another probably doesn’t know very much about either science or the Bible. They most certainly don’t have a very good understanding about both of them.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    TC, that evolution happened is a fact. How it happened is a theory. Pond slime into humans is fact. Darwin's theory of why the pond slime turned into humans is a theory. Evolution is both fact and theory.
     
  19. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    NO, IT IS NOT!

    [​IMG]
     
  20. williemakeit

    williemakeit New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know. I can see the resemblence in some humans. [​IMG]
     
Loading...