100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: what Is The Truth About Dinosaurs | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
But Eljay, I have here a photo of Amelia Earhart and her entire biography so I dont need to rely on faith and belief in something with no solid or credible evidence now do I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amelia_earhart.jpeg So you think we will never find the bones of Adam and Eve yet we were able to discover the remains of 500,000 year old Neanderthal? Hmmm. Scroll up a bit and the elephant ancestry was begun. I can keep going if you like. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay said: One of the issues you have is extrapolating the way life is now - back to what happened then. The text states that the average lifespan for the first half dozen men was 900 years old - give or take a few. It says Adam lived to be 930 years old. Let's set an arbitrary time at 30 years old that A&E were expelled from the garden, and say that about 18 years old would be common for marriage (though it was likely younger.) But 20 is a nice # to work with. By the time A&E were 50, their children would have started having children, and so forth - for the years to follow. The increase in children would have been exponential. (Though not necessarily formulamatic) From the time they were 50, and every 20 or so years thereafter, the number of children would double, quadruple - etc. At 130, A&E had Seth, declaring God has granted me another child in lace of Abel, since Cain killed him." At the time that A&E were 130, there could easily have been up to 1,000 people living on the earth. Some - if not most, far removed from the immediate family of A&E, though related. Generations removed, at least 5 generations, given the 20 year premise. This is not enough to have already established a city or two? At 200 years - there's literally a guarantee of one, since you don't have anyone passing away in their youth as is the case today. And this is not even taking into account that it is possible that some had twins - or even triplets. So I'm not following the difficulty with established cities outside of the one A&E occupied tribo reply: Fanciful extrapolation of how many children eve had when the book says nothing about it is just that. We only read of three - C&A, then Seth. it's already enough of a "story" don't make it worse by adding your own account of what took place. Unless your studying to be a non denominational troll. which brings me the trollish issue of 2 creations. but that would take trollish answers in return so it's moot -
Well - If you interpret the biblical account to reference that A&E "ONLY" had 3 children - as opposed to mention 3 "among" their children, then any conclusions drawn from this has no basis in logic. However, that is an unbelievable amount of time to be abstinent - which would indicate that they chose to be in direct conflict to the mandate "increase and multiply and fill the earth". To conclude that there were only 3 children - would be to assume that A&E were in "constant" rebellion. The text would be amiss for not stating this - as that is in direct conflict with the central theme of what is discussed afterword. If they were in constant rebellion in this matter of procreating - would they give thanks to God for Seth - or would they not be cursing him? I never said I was a literalist. you know I'm not a literalist either but when i read it as those who do take it literally i have to conclude that during the writing there is only 3 children mentioned, now this does not mean that they didn't have other children "after" C&A and Seth, but you cant say that they did because their is no mention of them directly. i don't see that as conflict that if they had children after Seth that they had not performed as god had told them to do. besides as i say my take on the others outside of eden is totally diff. than yours. Now here again if we put A&E in your position of doing as god said to be fruitful and multiply - then how long was it before C&E were born? were they later children or the first? since we can again only go by whats written it would be foolish to presume that they would be leaving out kids before C&A and then adding them in after 2 or 3 hundred years have passed. It would make no sense to do so and it does not state this at all. in literal context i have to take it that when C&E are brought up at first, that they are to recognized as A&E first kids. also we have lack of the text talking of other children helping A&E to do the work, till the ground, so in absence of such basic things as these i also don't ascribe to there being kids before C&E. be it they were 130 yrs old or 230 yrs old, god could have done just as you suggest with later kids and had them baring triplets or quadruplets etc.. to me it all hinges as i have stated in the past as to whether there are two creation stories i believe there was. if fact the lack of any mention of "FAMILY LIFE" makes my case a better option than one that has all the children before C&E having wandered away on their own, as important as "family" life was - i cannot conclude that the absence of such would ever be a sign that other children were present before C&E.At lest then we see cain and abel doing work in the family unit. don't have to guess there - its written. Interesting question as to whether Cain and Abel were the first of A&E's children. We can't say definitively. Just as we don't know how long A&E were in the garden before Eve was tempted to eat of the fruit. It is fair to say that we know what we know (they had a LEAST) 3 kids), and don't know what we aren't told. As to 2 creations - not a biblical conclusion though - as Gen 2:1 ends the debate of anything after it being another creation. Else - it falls into the "we don't know what they're not telling us" catagory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Eljay, I have here a photo of Amelia Earhart and her entire biography so I dont need to rely on faith and belief in something with no solid or credible evidence now do I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amelia_earhart.jpeg So you think we will never find the bones of Adam and Eve yet we were able to discover the remains of 500,000 year old Neanderthal? Hmmm. Scroll up a bit and the elephant ancestry was begun. I can keep going if you like. Kind of makes you wonder if they're 500,000 years old - doesn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who was Cain's wife? Do we know? Who was Mrs. Cain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Eljay, I have here a photo of Amelia Earhart and her entire biography so I dont need to rely on faith and belief in something with no solid or credible evidence now do I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amelia_earhart.jpeg So you think we will never find the bones of Adam and Eve yet we were able to discover the remains of 500,000 year old Neanderthal? Hmmm. Scroll up a bit and the elephant ancestry was begun. I can keep going if you like. Kind of makes you wonder if they're 500,000 years old - doesn't it? Well 6000 year old people should not be very hard to find right? They would have been Homo sapiens? Neanderthals' cranial capacity was larger than modern humans, indicating that their brains may have been larger. They were almost exclusively carnivorous and top predators. On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous homo sapiens. Neanderthal males stood about 165–168 cm tall (about 5'5")(found 1.9 m tall) and were heavily built with robust bone structure. They were much stronger, having particularly strong arms and hands. Females stood about 152–156 cm tall (about 5'1"). So they were close but not quite there. Now how would Adam and Eve have differed in their skeletal structure? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who was Cain's wife? Do we know? Who was Mrs. Cain? That's being discussed in Tribo's thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Eljay, I have here a photo of Amelia Earhart and her entire biography so I dont need to rely on faith and belief in something with no solid or credible evidence now do I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amelia_earhart.jpeg So you think we will never find the bones of Adam and Eve yet we were able to discover the remains of 500,000 year old Neanderthal? Hmmm. Scroll up a bit and the elephant ancestry was begun. I can keep going if you like. Kind of makes you wonder if they're 500,000 years old - doesn't it? Well 6000 year old people should not be very hard to find right? They would have been Homo sapiens? Neanderthals' cranial capacity was larger than modern humans, indicating that their brains may have been larger. They were almost exclusively carnivorous and top predators. On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous homo sapiens. Neanderthal males stood about 165–168 cm tall (about 5'5")(found 1.9 m tall) and were heavily built with robust bone structure. They were much stronger, having particularly strong arms and hands. Females stood about 152–156 cm tall (about 5'1"). So they were close but not quite there. Now how would Adam and Eve have differed in their skeletal structure? But how can we extrapolate A&E into the Darwinian account and expect logical comparisons? When discussing Neanderthals and Homosapiens - A&E must be discounted, and the flood dismissed. Otherwise, evolution falls. Evolutionary theory and Evolutionary theory do not intersect at any period of time - they are divergent theories. to accept one demands the other be rejected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 08/31/08 12:15 PM
|
|
But Eljay, I have here a photo of Amelia Earhart and her entire biography so I dont need to rely on faith and belief in something with no solid or credible evidence now do I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amelia_earhart.jpeg So you think we will never find the bones of Adam and Eve yet we were able to discover the remains of 500,000 year old Neanderthal? Hmmm. Scroll up a bit and the elephant ancestry was begun. I can keep going if you like. Kind of makes you wonder if they're 500,000 years old - doesn't it? Well 6000 year old people should not be very hard to find right? They would have been Homo sapiens? Neanderthals' cranial capacity was larger than modern humans, indicating that their brains may have been larger. They were almost exclusively carnivorous and top predators. On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous homo sapiens. Neanderthal males stood about 165–168 cm tall (about 5'5")(found 1.9 m tall) and were heavily built with robust bone structure. They were much stronger, having particularly strong arms and hands. Females stood about 152–156 cm tall (about 5'1"). So they were close but not quite there. Now how would Adam and Eve have differed in their skeletal structure? But how can we extrapolate A&E into the Darwinian account and expect logical comparisons? When discussing Neanderthals and Homosapiens - A&E must be discounted, and the flood dismissed. Otherwise, evolution falls. Evolutionary theory and Evolutionary theory do not intersect at any period of time - they are divergent theories. to accept one demands the other be rejected. Well I’m not entirely sold on that premise as a girlfriend of mine is a practicing Roman Catholic, attends Sunday mass, studied anthropology in college (that’s how we met) and she doesn’t believe in the great flood, or Noah's ark. What she does see is anthropogenesis being quite possible and simply the way god would have gone about it. You would hear no argument out of me on that premise. What Im asking you is were Adam and Eve like us today? Homo sapien. You dont have to validate this terminology. Im not asking that. Im simply wondering if you would have considered their bodies and skeletons as we are today? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.131 BILLION people believe in God and evoltion. The Roman Catholic Church believes in theistic evolution, which teaches basically that evolution is real but God created and designed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question: "What does the Bible say about dinosaurs? Are there dinosaurs in the Bible?"
Answer: The topic of dinosaurs in the Bible is part of a larger ongoing debate within the Christian community over the age of the earth, the proper interpretation of Genesis, and how to interpret the physical evidences we find all around us. Those who believe in an older age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does not mention dinosaurs, because according to their paradigm, dinosaurs died out millions of years before the first man ever walked the earth. The men who wrote the Bible down couldn’t have seen dinosaurs alive. Those who believe in a younger age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does mention dinosaurs though it never actually uses the word “dinosaur.” Instead, it uses the Hebrew word tanniyn (pronounced tan-neen; Strong’s #08577). Tanniyn is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles; sometimes it’s “sea monster,” sometimes it’s “serpent.” It is most commonly translated “dragon.” The tanniyn appear to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. In addition to mentioning these giant reptiles in general nearly thirty times throughout the Old Testament, the Bible describes a couple of creatures in such a way that some scholars believe the writers may have been describing dinosaurs. Behemoth is said to be the mightiest of all God’s creatures, a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15ff). Some scholars have tried to identify Behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus and the Diplodocus on the other had huge tails which one could easily compare to a cedar tree. Nearly every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs, artifacts and even little clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict men riding Diplodocus-like creatures and, amazingly, bear the familiar images of Triceratops-, Pterodactyl- and Tyrannosaurus Rex-like creatures. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery and Babylonian city walls all testify to man’s trans-cultural, geographically-unbounded fascination with these creatures. Sober accounts like those of Marco Polo’s Il Milione mingle with fantastic tales of treasure-hoarding beasts. Modern day reports of sightings persist though they are usually treated with overwhelming skepticism. In addition to the substantial amount of anthropic and historical evidences for the coexistence of dinosaur and man, there are other physical evidences, like the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs found together at places in North America and West-Central Asia. So, are there dinosaurs in the Bible? The matter is far from settled. It depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you. Here at GotQuestions.org we believe in a young earth interpretation and accept that dinosaurs and man coexisted. We believe that dinosaurs died out sometime after the Flood due to a combination of dramatic environmental shifts and the fact that they were relentlessly hunted to extinction by man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Sun 08/31/08 12:22 PM
|
|
Did dinosaurs ever really exist?
If they did, how can Christian creationists reconcile dinosaurs with a young earth? Quick-read this article: Some Christians think dinosaurs didn't exist because: 1. Evolutionists say dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. 2. These Christians believe the world was created only thousands of years ago. But they have confused the argument. Dinosaurs definitely did exist. They are not creatures of myth or fantasy. Dinosaurs did exist. Go to almost any large museum and you can see either real fossil bones of dinosaurs or reconstructions of dinosaurs from bones in other museums. Despite this, some Christians are reluctant to accept the evidence for dinosaurs because they think it conflicts with their belief that the earth is younger than evolutionists say. Their reasoning is this: Evolutionists say dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. I believe the Bible when it implies the earth is only thousands of years old. Therefore dinosaurs couldn't have existed. But their line of reasoning should be: There is overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs existed. They even went on Noah's Ark. I believe the Bible when it implies the earth is only thousands of years old. Therefore evolutionists are wrong about the age of the earth. They have simply expressed the argument the wrong way. Dinosaurs in the Bible? Some creationists believe that the Bible mentions dinosaurs. In Job 40:15, God describes a creature He calls “Behemoth”. God's description of Behemoth does not fit any known living animal. Some commentators have suggested it describes a hippopotamus, but Behemoth moved its “tail like a cedar” tree — a hippo's tail is like a piece of rope. What medication do these people take to make them think this is describing a hippopotamus's tail? It's impossible (or, as some Christians have said, it's an “impotamus” — an “impossible hippopotamus”.) God was describing a real creature here. If Behemoth was an invention — a mythical creature or an animal of fantasy — then it would have meant nothing to Job. So whatever the creature was, it was living during Job's time about 4000 years ago. Scientists have found dinosaur fossils and fossilized dinosaur eggs that show us there was an amazing variety of dinosaurs. Some were as small as rats (such as the Mussaurus). Others, like the Brachiosaurus, were so large that their heads would have towered over some of the tallest trees. Some of these big dinosaurs had tails as strong and thick as cedar trees. No dinosaur evolution? Interestingly, even though there was such a variety of dinosaurs, evolutionists have never found evidence that another creature turned into a dinosaur. Dinosaurs all just appear in the fossil record clearly identifiable as dinosaurs. Even the alleged “feathered dinosaurs” have clearly been described as dinosaurs — not as something turning into dinosaurs. If you want to reject evolution and believe the account in Genesis that God created all creatures as fully functioning — and much as we know them today — then the evidence is on your side. Did dinosaurs exist? They most certainly did. God made some incredible creatures! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 08/31/08 12:26 PM
|
|
If man hunted dinosaurs to the point of extinction or at least hurried their extinction level event in some manner, than why is there no evidence of cut marks or any tool slice imprints on the fossilized remains of these animals? Now we do see that on mammoths of course because man hunted mammoths. Explanation?
"There is overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs existed. They even went on Noah's Ark." Oh brother...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay said: One of the issues you have is extrapolating the way life is now - back to what happened then. The text states that the average lifespan for the first half dozen men was 900 years old - give or take a few. It says Adam lived to be 930 years old. Let's set an arbitrary time at 30 years old that A&E were expelled from the garden, and say that about 18 years old would be common for marriage (though it was likely younger.) But 20 is a nice # to work with. By the time A&E were 50, their children would have started having children, and so forth - for the years to follow. The increase in children would have been exponential. (Though not necessarily formulamatic) From the time they were 50, and every 20 or so years thereafter, the number of children would double, quadruple - etc. At 130, A&E had Seth, declaring God has granted me another child in lace of Abel, since Cain killed him." At the time that A&E were 130, there could easily have been up to 1,000 people living on the earth. Some - if not most, far removed from the immediate family of A&E, though related. Generations removed, at least 5 generations, given the 20 year premise. This is not enough to have already established a city or two? At 200 years - there's literally a guarantee of one, since you don't have anyone passing away in their youth as is the case today. And this is not even taking into account that it is possible that some had twins - or even triplets. So I'm not following the difficulty with established cities outside of the one A&E occupied tribo reply: Fanciful extrapolation of how many children eve had when the book says nothing about it is just that. We only read of three - C&A, then Seth. it's already enough of a "story" don't make it worse by adding your own account of what took place. Unless your studying to be a non denominational troll. which brings me the trollish issue of 2 creations. but that would take trollish answers in return so it's moot -
Well - If you interpret the biblical account to reference that A&E "ONLY" had 3 children - as opposed to mention 3 "among" their children, then any conclusions drawn from this has no basis in logic. However, that is an unbelievable amount of time to be abstinent - which would indicate that they chose to be in direct conflict to the mandate "increase and multiply and fill the earth". To conclude that there were only 3 children - would be to assume that A&E were in "constant" rebellion. The text would be amiss for not stating this - as that is in direct conflict with the central theme of what is discussed afterword. If they were in constant rebellion in this matter of procreating - would they give thanks to God for Seth - or would they not be cursing him? I never said I was a literalist. you know I'm not a literalist either but when i read it as those who do take it literally i have to conclude that during the writing there is only 3 children mentioned, now this does not mean that they didn't have other children "after" C&A and Seth, but you cant say that they did because their is no mention of them directly. i don't see that as conflict that if they had children after Seth that they had not performed as god had told them to do. besides as i say my take on the others outside of eden is totally diff. than yours. Now here again if we put A&E in your position of doing as god said to be fruitful and multiply - then how long was it before C&E were born? were they later children or the first? since we can again only go by whats written it would be foolish to presume that they would be leaving out kids before C&A and then adding them in after 2 or 3 hundred years have passed. It would make no sense to do so and it does not state this at all. in literal context i have to take it that when C&E are brought up at first, that they are to recognized as A&E first kids. also we have lack of the text talking of other children helping A&E to do the work, till the ground, so in absence of such basic things as these i also don't ascribe to there being kids before C&E. be it they were 130 yrs old or 230 yrs old, god could have done just as you suggest with later kids and had them baring triplets or quadruplets etc.. to me it all hinges as i have stated in the past as to whether there are two creation stories i believe there was. if fact the lack of any mention of "FAMILY LIFE" makes my case a better option than one that has all the children before C&E having wandered away on their own, as important as "family" life was - i cannot conclude that the absence of such would ever be a sign that other children were present before C&E.At lest then we see cain and abel doing work in the family unit. don't have to guess there - its written. Interesting question as to whether Cain and Abel were the first of A&E's children. We can't say definitively. Just as we don't know how long A&E were in the garden before Eve was tempted to eat of the fruit. It is fair to say that we know what we know (they had a LEAST) 3 kids), and don't know what we aren't told. As to 2 creations - not a biblical conclusion though - as Gen 2:1 ends the debate of anything after it being another creation. Else - it falls into the "we don't know what they're not telling us" catagory. one other thing as i have stated before is the lineage issue, if adam and eve's lineage goes to Cain as the beginning of the ancestorial lineage it confirms to me that they were the first children, the hebrews made and make a big deal of proper lineage throughout the old testament. it would be amiss of them to start the lineage of Cain as not being the true beginnigs of the lineage of A&E if there had been other males and females that came before them. in essence, it proves my theory as to C&E being the first children. We see after seth is born especially the birth of many to fulfill gods command to them to be fruitful and mutiply and RE-FILL the earth - replenish? hmmm? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 myths about dinosaurs. Interesting to read.
http://listverse.com/nature/top-10-myths-about-dinosaurs/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof that man lived with dinosaurs. What do you think it is a lie, myth, or a fact?
http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/local/local_story_210093256.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who was Cain's wife? Do we know? Who was Mrs. Cain? one of the other races created in Genesis chpt 1 in my opinion. i believe that all the other races of mankind were created in genesis one and that A&E were "made"/formed afterwards in genesis 2 , as to be his chosen ones to eventually bring forth the Christ, those in the lands of wandering "NOD" were those of gen.1 A&E had a specific task ahead of them when created and even before they were created. the others were not involved in this act, if god is all knowing he set his purposes with A&E not the rest of earlier mankind he "spoke" into existence in gen.1, in gen 2 we see A&E being made "formed" from already existing material from stage 1 of creation they were not spoken into existence as were the rest, but formed of clay and bone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Sun 08/31/08 12:59 PM
|
|
Whatever reason Christians or other religions believe if they existed or what year they roamed the Earth then just nod your ahead and say okay okay and take a actual trip with friends and family and visit a museum on dinosaurs to look at the bones of a tricertop or a Rex. Look at some fossils and fascinate yourself with the history. It is truly amazing to look at!
Here is a list of places you can go if you like. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/RecreationEducation/Topics/GeologyEducation/Pages/dinohunt.aspx or http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/fun/Museums.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 08/31/08 02:05 PM
|
|
Who was Cain's wife? Do we know? Who was Mrs. Cain? Well it’s not like a minor detail and she is not even named that I can locate. He "knew her" and we all know what that entails but it must have been his sister? Why doesn’t the bible feel it necessary to divulge such information? Is it simply that women were so insignificant they cant be bothered with Mrs. Cain's name? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who was Cain's wife? Do we know? Who was Mrs. Cain? Well it’s not like a minor detail and she is not even named that I can locate. He "knew her" and we all know what that means but it must have been his sister? Why doesn’t the bible feel it necessary to divulge such information? Is it simply that women were so insignificant they cant be bothered with Mrs. Cain's name? because once you get away from adam and eve being the first people you have problems with gen 1 and 2 being the same account, it's easier to accept the 2 gen theory than look at alternatives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh they are clearly conflicting stories. I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
