Inquiring Minds Want to Know

[grmorton]

In Applied Protology PrometheusX303 posted this article:

From the Washington Post

In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground
Museum Dedicated to Biblical Interpretation Of the World Is Being Built Near Cincinnati

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page A03


PETERSBURG, Ky. -- The guide, a soft-spoken fellow with a scholarly aspect, walks through the halls of this handsome, half-finished museum and points to the sculpture of a young velociraptor.

"We're placing this one in the hall that explains the post-Flood world," explains the guide. "When dinosaurs lived with man."

A reporter has a question or two about this dinosaur-man business, but Mark Looy -- the guide and a vice president at the museum -- already has walked over to the lifelike head of a T. rex, with its three-inch teeth and carnivore's grin.

Why is it that they can explain the post flood world but they can't explain how burrows form in the rocks? Also, where is the evidence for the humans having lived with the dinosaurs(other than birds--their evolutionary descendants)? Inquiring minds want to know!

[kuboes1831]

In Applied Protology PrometheusX303 posted this article:

From the Washington Post

In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground
Museum Dedicated to Biblical Interpretation Of the World Is Being Built Near Cincinnati

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page A03


PETERSBURG, Ky. -- The guide, a soft-spoken fellow with a scholarly aspect, walks through the halls of this handsome, half-finished museum and points to the sculpture of a young velociraptor.

"We're placing this one in the hall that explains the post-Flood world," explains the guide. "When dinosaurs lived with man."

A reporter has a question or two about this dinosaur-man business, but Mark Looy -- the guide and a vice president at the museum -- already has walked over to the lifelike head of a T. rex, with its three-inch teeth and carnivore's grin.

Why is it that they can explain the post flood world but they can't explain how burrows form in the rocks? Also, where is the evidence for the humans having lived with the dinosaurs(other than birds--their evolutionary descendants)? Inquiring minds want to know!

How do they expalin hoe the Nephilim of Genesis 6 survived the Flood and gave Moses a hard time in Numbers 13. 33?

There be giants !

[MikeWC]

How do they expalin hoe the Nephilim of Genesis 6 survived the Flood and gave Moses a hard time in Numbers 13. 33?

There be giants !

This should go into a different thread.

[lfellows]

In Applied Protology PrometheusX303 posted this article:

From the Washington Post

In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground
Museum Dedicated to Biblical Interpretation Of the World Is Being Built Near Cincinnati

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page A03


PETERSBURG, Ky. -- The guide, a soft-spoken fellow with a scholarly aspect, walks through the halls of this handsome, half-finished museum and points to the sculpture of a young velociraptor.

"We're placing this one in the hall that explains the post-Flood world," explains the guide. "When dinosaurs lived with man."

A reporter has a question or two about this dinosaur-man business, but Mark Looy -- the guide and a vice president at the museum -- already has walked over to the lifelike head of a T. rex, with its three-inch teeth and carnivore's grin.

Why is it that they can explain the post flood world but they can't explain how burrows form in the rocks? Also, where is the evidence for the humans having lived with the dinosaurs(other than birds--their evolutionary descendants)? Inquiring minds want to know!

Maybe, Mr. Morton, they can explain the post flood world better then you because they do not start with the presumption that God is a lier and that Genesis is a fairy tale. With only about 6000 years of world history to work in, and fossil remains of dinosaurs, and God's clear statement that man existed "from the beginning", one is left with the self-evident fact that man and dinosaur must have co-existed.

Mr. Morton, you claim that birds are the evolutionary descendants of the dinosaurs. Please, enligthen this dumb YEC christian and produce actual proof of that contention, instead of wild hand waving. By the way, which is it: did birds evolve from dinosaurs running on the ground, or dinosaurs living in trees and jumping/gliding from tree to tree? I would really love to learn the "truth" of this matter as both camps claim evidence that completely refutes the other camp's arguments.

[oxmixmudd]

I would really love to learn the "truth" of this matter as both camps claim evidence that completely refutes the other camp's arguments.

Both camps eh. Care to expand on the refutation from the YEC point of view? Easy to claim - put some teeth in it my friend.



Jim

[grmorton]

Maybe, Mr. Morton, they can explain the post flood world better then you because they do not start with the presumption that God is a lier

I normally wouldn't do this since I have a bad arm that makes typing hard, but God being a lier isn't bad since it means he is getting his good rest on the 7th day. Being a liar would be bad.

But I didn't start with the assumption that God is a liar. I believe the Bible is historical, I just have a different interpretation than you do. You equate your interpretation with divine inspiration, when in fact it is only a man-made interpretation of God's word.

and that Genesis is a fairy tale.

No, I believe it is historical fact. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

You may not agree with my scenario, but it does treat the Bible as historical. Thus, you are wrong, and your acknowledgement of that fact would be appreciated and show that you are actually a person of honor.

With only about 6000 years of world history to work in, and fossil remains of dinosaurs, and God's clear statement that man existed "from the beginning", one is left with the self-evident fact that man and dinosaur must have co-existed.

No, it says from the beginning God created them male and female. The Bible actually says that Adam and Eve did NOT exist from the beginning. They were the last things created in the creation. Thus, once again, you are in error. Man was not created in Genesis 1:1 and why you would say that the Bible says this is beyond me. Your acknowledgement of this error would show that you are a person of honor.

Mr. Morton, you claim that birds are the evolutionary descendants of the dinosaurs. Please, enligthen this dumb YEC christian and produce actual proof of that contention, instead of wild hand waving. By the way, which is it: did birds evolve from dinosaurs running on the ground, or dinosaurs living in trees and jumping/gliding from tree to tree? I would really love to learn the "truth" of this matter as both camps claim evidence that completely refutes the other camp's arguments.

I can't prove it. Proof is for mathematics only, not for science. the predominance of the evidence indicates that birds came from dinosaurs. But anything, and I mean anything, I put in front of you would be claimed to be wild hand waving so I will not cast my pearls before swine. They don't appreciate pearls.

[lfellows]

I normally wouldn't do this since I have a bad arm that makes typing hard, but God being a lier isn't bad since it means he is getting his good rest on the 7th day. Being a liar would be bad.

My mistake. Thank you for correcting me.

But I didn't start with the assumption that God is a liar. I believe the Bible is historical, I just have a different interpretation than you do. You equate your interpretation with divine inspiration, when in fact it is only a man-made interpretation of God's word.

Mr. Morton, please explain how you can claim to believe the Bible is hostorical and deny that creation was begun and completed in 6 24 hour days? That Genesis 1 states clearly that creation was in 6 sequential 24 hour periods has been proven time and time again. This is not a matter of interpretation, but of plain reading.

No, I believe it is historical fact. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

You may not agree with my scenario, but it does treat the Bible as historical. Thus, you are wrong, and your acknowledgement of that fact would be appreciated and show that you are actually a person of honor.

No Mr. Morton, your scenario does not treat Genesis as historical, which it is. This is not a matter of my interpretation vs your interpretation, but a matter of clear reading. Mr. Morton, scripture must be in agreement with scripture. The gramatical construct of Genesis 1 only allows us to understand 6 24 hour days as we know 24 hour days to be. The ten commandments further prove precisely that the days of creation were normal 24 hour days (Ex. 20:8-11).

No, it says from the beginning God created them male and female. The Bible actually says that Adam and Eve did NOT exist from the beginning. They were the last things created in the creation. Thus, once again, you are in error. Man was not created in Genesis 1:1 and why you would say that the Bible says this is beyond me. Your acknowledgement of this error would show that you are a person of honor.

No, Adam and Eve where not created on day 1. Nor did I say that. But Jesus did say "at the beginning" referring to Adam and Eve's creation during creation week, not millions or billions of years later.

I can't prove it. Proof is for mathematics only, not for science. the predominance of the evidence indicates that birds came from dinosaurs. But anything, and I mean anything, I put in front of you would be claimed to be wild hand waving so I will not cast my pearls before swine. They don't appreciate pearls.

Forgive my using proof so loosely. Your claim that the evidence indicates birds came from dinosaurs is hardly justifiable. Everywhere we have searched in the fossil record has uncovered only fully formed dinosaurs and fully formed birds. Any claim of decent is based upon man's interpretation (reading into the evidence), not the evidence itself.

[grmorton]

My mistake. Thank you for correcting me.

You are one of the few yecs that actually admit any error. Congratulations. I am impressed.

Mr. Morton, please explain how you can claim to believe the Bible is hostorical and deny that creation was begun and completed in 6 24 hour days? That Genesis 1 states clearly that creation was in 6 sequential 24 hour periods has been proven time and time again. This is not a matter of interpretation, but of plain reading.

Because, I believe that Genesis 1 is the preplanning of the universe and that the day was the best way the writer could explain what was pre-temporal and unexplainable to other temporal beings.

And, yes, it is always one interpretation against another. If one assumes that Genesis 1 is merely poetry, then one won't interpret it historically at all.

. Morton, your scenario does not treat Genesis as historical, which it is. This is not a matter of my interpretation vs your interpretation, but a matter of clear reading. Mr. Morton, scripture must be in agreement with scripture. The gramatical construct of Genesis 1 only allows us to understand 6 24 hour days as we know 24 hour days to be. The ten commandments further prove precisely that the days of creation were normal 24 hour days (Ex. 20:8-11).

So, what you are saying is that if someone doesn't agree with your interpretation AND your hermeneutics, they can't possibly be right because they don't agree with your interpretation and your hermeneutics. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, Adam and Eve where not created on day 1. Nor did I say that. But Jesus did say "at the beginning" referring to Adam and Eve's creation during creation week, not millions or billions of years later.

No, Jesus did NOT say, (Matt 19:4) "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, only 4000 years ago and not millions or billions of years after the earth was created, made them male and female."

You are adding to the Bible. You are taking your interpretation of the verse and then turning around and inserting it into the words Jesus spoke and then acting as if Jesus actually said your interpretation. The passage was about divorce.

What He actually said, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female."

And that says nothing about millions billions or thousands of years ago. There is no specification upon when he made them. You are saying that he is saying that and that is false as grandpa's teeth. And this is why I think YEC is so unscriptural. They add the words of man to the Word of God.

Forgive my using proof so loosely. Your claim that the evidence indicates birds came from dinosaurs is hardly justifiable. Everywhere we have searched in the fossil record has uncovered only fully formed dinosaurs and fully formed birds. Any claim of decent is based upon man's interpretation (reading into the evidence), not the evidence itself.

No, actually the first bird has reptilian teeth. Tell me why that is? Since birds don't have teeth today, that is NOT a fully formed bird. Once again, you are in error.

[wattsr1]

My mistake. Thank you for correcting me.



Mr. Morton, please explain how you can claim to believe the Bible is hostorical and deny that creation was begun and completed in 6 24 hour days? That Genesis 1 states clearly that creation was in 6 sequential 24 hour periods has been proven time and time again. This is not a matter of interpretation, but of plain reading.





No Mr. Morton, your scenario does not treat Genesis as historical, which it is. This is not a matter of my interpretation vs your interpretation, but a matter of clear reading. Mr. Morton, scripture must be in agreement with scripture. The gramatical construct of Genesis 1 only allows us to understand 6 24 hour days as we know 24 hour days to be. The ten commandments further prove precisely that the days of creation were normal 24 hour days (Ex. 20:8-11).






No, Adam and Eve where not created on day 1. Nor did I say that. But Jesus did say "at the beginning" referring to Adam and Eve's creation during creation week, not millions or billions of years later.





Forgive my using proof so loosely. Your claim that the evidence indicates birds came from dinosaurs is hardly justifiable. Everywhere we have searched in the fossil record has uncovered only fully formed dinosaurs and fully formed birds. Any claim of decent is based upon man's interpretation (reading into the evidence), not the evidence itself.

Hi lfellows,

Forgive my using proof so loosely. Your claim that the evidence indicates birds came from dinosaurs is hardly justifiable. Everywhere we have searched in the fossil record has uncovered only fully formed dinosaurs and fully formed birds. Any claim of decent is based upon man's interpretation (reading into the evidence), not the evidence itself.

I would have thought that breaking rocks open and finding things that look like bones in those rocks and calling them “fully formed dinosaurs and fully formed birds” is also “man’s interpretation (reading into the evidence).”

Were you there to see the dinosaur die and have its bones gradually turned into rock?

Were you there to ensure that God did not make them a part of the rock at creation?

I mean, aren’t you doing just that which you castigate grmorton for?


Regards, Roland

[oxmixmudd]

Both camps eh. Care to expand on the refutation from the YEC point of view? Easy to claim - put some teeth in it my friend.



Jim

No, actually the first bird has reptilian teeth. Tell me why that is? Since birds don't have teeth today, that is NOT a fully formed bird. Once again, you are in error.

Man - all these posts later and nobody got my joke. I guess I'd better keep my day job.


Jim

[wattsr1]

Man - all these posts later and nobody got my joke. I guess I'd better keep my day job.


Jim

Gidday oxmixmudd,

Oh, the year is drawing to a close, it is getting close to Xmas, everyone is looking forward to a some holidays. Can't blame us for our lack of humour given all this.


Regards, Roland

[Meh_Gerbil]

grmorton:

The entire creationist movement melts before your sterling arguments and your impeccable logic. You are like....a god of some sort. You ROXXOR man!

[grmorton]

grmorton:

The entire creationist movement melts before your sterling arguments and your impeccable logic. You are like....a god of some sort. You ROXXOR man!

YEah right. But they clearly don't have the observational ammo to tackle the arguments. I post and rebutt because I do feel I have the ammo. If YEC were any good, they would be posting pictures and telling me why I was wrong.

To Oxmixmud...I didn't get the joke because I am utterly jet-lagged

[Jugulum]

No Mr. Morton, your scenario does not treat Genesis as historical, which it is.

Yes, it does. I think it's (on the whole) a strained interpretation, stretching the language of the account past where it can reasonably go, but it can only be classified as "historical". It's not poetical, it's not metaphorical, it doesn't say the account is a made-up story intended to teach basic truths like, "God created all the things that other people worship as gods."

It's a historical interpretation, whether or not you think it's fundamentally unreasonable or adding to God's word.

[Jugulum]

If YEC were any good, they would be posting pictures and telling me why I was wrong.

Oh, is that all you're looking for? Here you go:

You're wrong because I say so.

Glad we could get that cleared up.