[_ Old Earth _] The Flood & Dinosaurs

[Charlie Hatchett]

Tell me this: Why do we have morals?

jwu: Social constructs.

So a society that believes extermination of a particular race, for example, should be left alone by other societies, just because it's "just their social construct"?

I'll remember that before I join the armed forces again, to protect those that are oppressed by dictatorial leaders that have no value for human life.

Your reasoning is: "The more people that die, that aren't me, the better"?
:

I know that's not you jwu!!!

 

[Slevin]

Not true, Macro evolution is the proccess of becoming more complex. Think of it as a spectrum, and according to evolutionists we are headed toward the more complex end of the spectrum. Micro evolution doesn't mean become more complex and it is 'reversable'.

No it isn't. Macro evolution is the process of evolution over a larger period of time. Complexity has NOTHING to do with evolution. Becoming more complex is a possible result of evolution.

That's not the same thing at all. I'm asking, if species have been becoming more complex over time, why do we still have one celled critters? why haven't they evolved? And monkeys, why have we evolved and they haven't?

They have, and so have monkeys.

Tell me this: Why do we have morals? Why do we think of abstract ideas? Why can we do math? How come we think at such a higher level than any other thing on our planet? Why do we have a soul? Do we have a soul? Are we just animals? If we are just animals how can we have everything in life and still feel completely empty in an undiscribable void of ourselves?

Because we have higher capacity cognitive development, we don't have souls, we are just animals, non sequiter.

I refuse to accept that when i die i mearly go six feet under, and turn into dirt. What's the point of existance if that's our fate? Chase the things of the world, even if you have it all, you'll still be empty. It's still meaningless.

Your emotional refusal is just that, emotional. Why do we need a point, it's not an empty existence and it's not meaningless.

Why don't you misrepresent evolution more?

 

[Slevin]

So a society that believes extermination of a particular race, for example, should be left alone by other societies, just because it's "just their social construct"?

Non sequiter.

 

[jwu]

So a society that believes extermination of a particular race, for example, should be left alone by other societies, just because it's "just their social construct"?

No, why should other socities whose morals condemn this leave them alone? If they did so, then they'd act immoral by their own standards.

And by the way...there is plenty of genocide in the Bible too:

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:

"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Joshua 6:21 (about Jericho):

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 10:
28 That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.
Southern Cities Conquered
29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. 30 The LORD also gave that city and its king into Israel's hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.

31 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. 32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his armyâ€â€until no survivors were left.

34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.

36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.

38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

43 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.

1 Samuel 27:8-9:

"And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites ... And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel. And David saved neither man nor woman alive"

Numbers 31:1-18:

"...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

There are about 2.7 million people killed in the tellings of the Bible, and that's only based on those passages which give actual figures for the number of casualties...the above incidents not even included.

A better example might be cannibalism. In our culture it's considered detestable, in others it was considered completely acceptable and a good way to honour a dead person.

 

[Proximity]

Tell me this, from what did we originate?

 

[Slevin]

Tell me this, from what did we originate?

What do you mean by "we"? Humans? We originated from a common ancestor between Chimps and Humans.

 

[cyberjosh]

What do you mean by "we"? Humans? We originated from a common ancestor between Chimps and Humans.

Don't you mean australopithecus?

And its amazing how we project millions of years of history from just a few not-too-well-understood observations.

Read under the "Lessons from Laetoli?" heading at the bottom of this page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... prints.asp

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

-------Original Message-------

From: Charlie Hatchett
Date: 10/12/06 19:19:13
To: Dr. Al Goodyear; Dr. Bruce Bradley; Dr. D. Clark Wernecke; Dr. Darrell Creel; Dr. Dennis Stanford; Dr. Jim Adovasio; Dr. John Edward Clark-BYU; Dr. Mario Pino; Dr. Mike Collins; Dr. Mike Waters; Dr. Steve Kissin- Lakehead University-Ontario; Dr. Tom Dillehay
Subject: Texas A&M's Hueyatlaco Dating Reported


News Flash!!
A&M has informally announced the results of it's dating for the artifacts found in situ at Hueyatlaco, Unit I:

Older than 1,000,000 B.P.

I wonder how long it will take for them to announce these dates publicly? The bifacial tools, found ca. 1 meter above the unifacial tools and assigned to Cro-Magnon, and the associated strata in which they were found, are hotly contested. It's basically a shoot out between Texas A&M and the USGS. USGS claims the strata are greater than 250,000 B.P.

Charlie Hatchett
PreClovis, Clovis and Archaic Artifacts
1-877-252-2351/ 1-512-453-6178 ( Austin)
charlie@preclovis.com / http://www.preclovis.com

Sound familiar?

The USGS had dated this same stratum at 280,000 B.P. (Uranium Series) in the 1970's. A&M has just recently "come to the rescue", releasing their Ar/Ar and thermoluminescence dates for the unifacial tools in Bed I at Hueyatlaco: Older than 1,000,000 B.P. Problem this time, though, is it's going to be a bit harder to write these artifacts off:

http://cayman.globat.com/%7Ebandstexas. ... atlaco.tif

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/technology.tif

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... photos.pdf

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... awings.pdf

Onward through the fog. 8-)

 

[caseypayne1980]

Why?

Why should you believe the Flood? Because God doesn't want us to pick and choose what we should believe in the bible. You either believe it entirely or not at all. For me I'll believe it entirely, and let God fill me in on what "may" be wrong in it. I won't answer for follows the King James Version. But I will answer badly for disaggreeing with it.

 

[caseypayne1980]

What do you mean by "we"? Humans? We originated from a common ancestor between Chimps and Humans.

They have yet to even prove that. It's a theory, or idea. He came from Adam and Eve. Science has to many missing links, and all they do is look at a pile of bones near each other and say they were probably connected. Scientist are always back pedaling every day as people prove them wrong as well.

We do not evolve. We adapt at times to cold or hot weather, but never evolve. Mankind hasn't evolved since the recordings of man and never will. Nor as any animal. If humans could evolve, families with bloodlines of swimmers would grow gils, parchute junkies would grow wings from fear over generations. Youre arm would grow longere to reach the top shelf at the supermarket. Its just not going to happen.

I dont' know if this has been stating so I'll say it anyway. The word Dinosaure is not in the bible as we all know. The word was created in 1800's. King James bible was completed around 1620's. So that solves that, but dinosaurs did live in the bible. Dragons are mentioned, and Behemoth. I stand by my King James Version, and not any updated version.

 

[jwu]

They have yet to even prove that. It's a theory, or idea.

Nothing in science is ever proven. "Theory" is as good as it gets. A theory is a well supported hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested by predictions and evidence.

Science has to many missing links, and all they do is look at a pile of bones near each other and say they were probably connected.

How about genetic evidence? And there is much more than that...

Scientist are always back pedaling every day as people prove them wrong as well.

Examples please.

We do not evolve. We adapt at times to cold or hot weather, but never evolve. Mankind hasn't evolved since the recordings of man and never will.

Actually several recent evolutionary changes of humans have been identified.

If humans could evolve, families with bloodlines of swimmers would grow gils, parchute junkies would grow wings from fear over generations. Youre arm would grow longere to reach the top shelf at the supermarket. Its just not going to happen.

LOL!
You have no idea what evolution is about, do you? What you described resembles lamarckism, not evolution. Lamarckism is long since disproved. Evolution is an entirely different cup of tea.

Would you accept the observed emergence of two-chambered hearts from single-chambered hearts as evidence for evolution?

Dragons are mentioned, and Behemoth.

Dragons are based on people finding a skeleton of an ancient giraffe species...the skull was up for display in a temple and people venerated it as a dragon skull.

And Behemoth is described to have a navel. Dinosaurs hatched from eggs and hence did not have navels. Therefore behemoth was clearly not a dinosaur.

 

[Guest]

A theory is a well supported hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested by predictions and evidence.

Unlike the fairy tale of Evolution. :

 

[Jon-Marc]

Evolution is man's feeble effort to explain how we got here without accepting the existence of God. Some even try to say that God started everything and then left it to evolve on its own.

 

[caseypayne1980]

Nothing in science is ever proven. "Theory" is as good as it gets. A theory is a well supported hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested by predictions and evidence.

You keep believing that, and its small minded following belief system. Evolutionist stress theory being correct because they can't prove fact. Theory is a weak arrogant attempt to say your right.

Examples please.

Items are being found on dinosaurs that could never has lasted millions of years. Recently they have found T-rex tissue. Four chambered hearts preserved in dinosaurs in Alaska. Now you tell me skin or tissue is going to last millions of years. Just step back for a second and thank about it. One evolution scientist, said that because certain stomach tissue was found was because now it had iron in it which preserved it. Evolutionist are always taking back there theory on the destruction of Dinosaurs. At least they got one part right. It had to happen all at once, and happen around the world. They CHOOOSE not to believe in The Flood. If though all the earth shows evidence of it. The climate was said to be dense before the flood and less if no mountains. Mountains today have sea shells at the top. Hmm. The bible said during the Flood that land rose.

Actually several recent evolutionary changes of humans have been identified.

Humans have zero signs of evolution. People even believe that mankind grew taller over time which is a lie as well. Ever heard of the tall races in the bible? In Europe they found a femur that belong to a human stretching four feet long. Maybe it Was six I can't remember. Hair, stomach size, color. None of this is Evolution, Being smarter then the 1800's isn't evolution either. Its called caring someone elses work and expanding from there. Evolution is an atheist view point and nothing more.

Dragons are based on people finding a skeleton of an ancient giraffe species...the skull was up for display in a temple and people venerated it as a dragon skull.

And Behemoth is described to have a navel. Dinosaurs hatched from eggs and hence did not have navels. Therefore behemoth was clearly not a dinosaur.

I searched the web best I could and found very little on this topic, and if I did find anything it was from an evolutionist view point, which I already disagree with.


http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2179
(incase u don't click I'll paste)

Q.

Some writers have suggested that “behemoth,†mentioned in Job 40:15ff., could have been a type of dinosaur. However, since the Bible mentions behemoth’s “navel†(40:16), would not this exclude dinosaurs, since they were egg-layers and would not have possessed navels?

A.

The word rendered “navel†in the King James Version of the Bible derives from the Hebrew term sharir. Scholars have suggested that the term originally meant “firm, hard,†hence, denoted “the firm parts of the belly†(Gesenius, 1979, p. 850). In Job 40:16, it thus means “sinew, muscle†(see Brown, et al., 1906, p. 1057; Harris, et al., 1980, 2:957).

In Job 40:16, the term is the plural form. Would anyone suggest that the behemoth had more than one navel? The comments of Albert Barnes are appropriate:

The word here rendered navel means properly firm, hard, tough, and in the plural form, which occurs here, means the firm, or tough parts of the belly. It is not used to denote the navel in any place in the Bible, and should not have been rendered so here (1949, 2:248).
While many commentators have identified behemoth with the elephant or the hippopotamus, elsewhere I have argued that the descriptions given in the book of Job do not fit either of these animals (see Jackson, 1983, pp. 86-87) and that there is no valid reason for rejecting the idea that behemoth could have been some species of dinosaur.

Those who reject this possibility do so solely on the assumption that dinosaurs and man were never contemporaryâ€â€a view that not only is contrary to principles of sound biblical interpretation, but is, in fact, saturated with evolutionary presuppositions. Were it not for modern-day influences of evolutionary pseudoscience, certain Bible believers would have no problem at all with such passages as this.


And another link on another passage about that same Behemoth.
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs.html
Job 40:15-24
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

This verse alone should be enough to put the whole issue to rest as to whether or not God is describing a dinosaur to Job in this verse. Keep in mind, God is talking to Job about a living animal, that Job is familiar with. What land creatures do we know of today that have tails the size of a cedar tree? Before that question can be answered, it must first be determined how big a cedar tree is. We obtained information on this from two different sources.

First, we looked at what the Bible had to say about cedar trees to see if it would give us any clues as to how big the authors of the Bible thought they were. Second, we contacted the university of Arizona and asked them. The results of both inquires appear below.


How big does the Bible say cedar trees are?

Psalms 92:12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon (would this verse make much sense if it were referring to a small or medium sized tree?)

Isaiah 2:13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, [that are] high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

Isaiah 37:24 By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon; and I will cut down the tall cedars…

Ezekiel 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set [it]; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant [it] upon an high mountain and eminent:

Ezekiel 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

Amos 2:9 Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height [was] like the height of the cedars, and he [was] strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.

There is no question that the authors of the Bible considered cedar trees to be quite large. Some Christians who've tried to compromise with evolutionists have claimed that the verses describing Behemoth are describing a crocodile, hippopotamus or elephant. But those creatures don't have tails the size of a cedar tree. The only creatures known to us today that had tails as big as a cedar tree were the largest of the known dinosaurs.


What one tree expert at the University of Arizona had to say

The following e-mail was sent and responded to in June, 1997:

Hello. I've searched everywhere I can think of on the internet and can't find the information I'm looking for. I'm trying to find out how big a cedar tree might have been around the 1,000 - 2,000 BC time frame (when the book of "Job" was written in the Bible). The reason is because there is a Bible verse that describes an animal that moves its tail like a cedar tree (Job 40:15-19). It seems that only a dinosaur fits this description. For more info on this, see: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c004.html

Thanks.

=======
The reply
=======

From: "Henri Grissino-Mayer"
Organization: Tree-ring Lab, Uni. of Arizona
To: Gary Martin
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:42:55 -0700
Subject: Re: How large are cedar trees?
Priority: normal

Hi Gary ,

Well this certainly is one of the more original questions I've ever answered. In the Middle East, there are several species of trees that would qualify for "cedar" status. Basically, any juniper-like tree can be called a cedar. However, the tree most likely referred to is the famous well-known species called "Cedrus libani", or "cedar-of-Lebanon," a beautiful and stately tree that grows in the Middle East. These trees can be quite large! I worked on cross-sections from one tree that were about 1.5 meters in diameter. The tree can attain heights greater than 40 meters with a diameter greater than 3 meters! The tree is a favorite nursery tree and is now planted all over the world, even many here in Tucson, Arizona. Hope this helps.

Henri

Henri D. Grissino-Mayer
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA


Conclusion

Again, we see evidence that a cedar tree is huge. It should be clear from the above verses in Job that the creature God is describing is most likely a dinosaur. For more information about what kind of dinosaur it might be, see this link.

Keep in mind that the term "dinosaur" didn't exist until the 19th century. Prior to that, they were mostly referred to as 'dragons'. Also, when you read various commentaries on the Bible, or different versions of the Bible, consider whether they were written between these time frames:

the time when knowledge of living "dragons" had been lost and

the time before the fossil discoveries of dinosaurs in the 1800's.

During this time frame, many commentators and Bible translators may not have had access to information that accurately described what a dinosaur was. Therefore, they would naturally have tried to make their best guess as to what some of these Bible verses may have been based on animals they did know about at the time. The Bible verses concerning Behemoth are a good example. This might explain why some commentaries wrongly attribute these Bible verses to creatures like elephants, alligators and hippopotamus's.

Additionally, because evolutionism has poisoned the modern church to a very great extent, many modern commentators and Bible translators may be guessing at creatures other than dinosaurs because of their well-meaning but erroneous compromises with evolutionism.

When trying to decide for yourself whether or not these verses are referring to dinosaurs, please take into consideration the world-wide body of evidence that exists that supports our assertion that humans and dinosaurs did co-exist.

 

[jwu]

You keep believing that, and its small minded following belief system. Evolutionist stress theory being correct because they can't prove fact. Theory is a weak arrogant attempt to say your right.

So then show me something that is proven in science. Theory is as good as it gets for explanations of things, that's just how it works there.

Items are being found on dinosaurs that could never has lasted millions of years. Recently they have found T-rex tissue.

This already has been addressed on these forums.

Four chambered hearts preserved in dinosaurs in Alaska. Now you tell me skin or tissue is going to last millions of years. Just step back for a second and thank about it. One evolution scientist, said that because certain stomach tissue was found was because now it had iron in it which preserved it.

Only concretions of these things have been found.
And you got it backwards. Iron compounds have been identified as present and as being the reason why there was a preservation. Not of the original tissue by the way, but just a concretion. These compounds were not hypothesized to be there but they have actually been identified.

It had to happen all at once, and happen around the world. They CHOOOSE not to believe in The Flood. If though all the earth shows evidence of it. The climate was said to be dense before the flood and less if no mountains. Mountains today have sea shells at the top. Hmm. The bible said during the Flood that land rose.

The Bible also says that the flood covered "all the high mountains".

But regarding the flood...which particular rock strata were laid down by it? Let's discuss it.

Humans have zero signs of evolution. People even believe that mankind grew taller over time which is a lie as well. Ever heard of the tall races in the bible? In Europe they found a femur that belong to a human stretching four feet long. Maybe it Was six I can't remember. Hair, stomach size, color. None of this is Evolution, Being smarter then the 1800's isn't evolution either. Its called caring someone elses work and expanding from there. Evolution is an atheist view point and nothing more.

Immunity against arthritis, better resistance against heart diseases, better oxygen transport in the blood - all recent mutations which are instances of evolution in humans.

I searched the web best I could and found very little on this topic, and if I did find anything it was from an evolutionist view point, which I already disagree with.

Then why don't you address it instead of just ignoring it? Disagreeing with it doesn't make it wrong.

. I stand by my King James Version, and not any updated version.

The word rendered “navel†in the King James Version of the Bible derives from the Hebrew term sharir. Scholars have suggested that the term originally meant “firm, hard,†hence, denoted “the firm parts of the belly†(Gesenius, 1979, p. 850). In Job 40:16, it thus means “sinew, muscle†(see Brown, et al., 1906, p. 1057; Harris, et al., 1980, 2:957).

So suddenly you resort to hebrew versions when the King James becomes inaccurate? So much for standing up for the KJV...but ok.

In Job 40:16, the term is the plural form. Would anyone suggest that the behemoth had more than one navel? The comments of Albert Barnes are appropriate:

IS there any Bible version in which it is used in the plural form in 40:16? I haven't found one.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

This verse alone should be enough to put the whole issue to rest as to whether or not God is describing a dinosaur to Job in this verse. Keep in mind, God is talking to Job about a living animal, that Job is familiar with. What land creatures do we know of today that have tails the size of a cedar tree? Before that question can be answered, it must first be determined how big a cedar tree is. We obtained information on this from two different sources.

First, we looked at what the Bible had to say about cedar trees to see if it would give us any clues as to how big the authors of the Bible thought they were. Second, we contacted the university of Arizona and asked them. The results of both inquires appear below.

Nice try. It's an analogy for the movement, not for the size.
Moreover, it doesn't even refer to the tail...but the "other" tail. The genitals.
The "tail" being the penis, the "stones" being the testicles. Or what do you suggest do the "stones" refer to?

Dinosaurs didn't have a penis and testicles...

 

[caseypayne1980]

Quote:

So then show me something that is proven in science. Theory is as good as it gets for explanations of things, that's just how it works there.

Only concretions of these things have been found.
And you got it backwards. Iron compounds have been identified as present and as being the reason why there was a preservation. Not of the original tissue by the way, but just a concretion. These compounds were not hypothesized to be there but they have actually been identified.

But regarding the flood...which particular rock strata were laid down by it? Let's discuss it.

So suddenly you resort to hebrew versions when the King James becomes inaccurate? So much for standing up for the KJV...but ok.


Nice try. It's an analogy for the movement, not for the size.
Moreover, it doesn't even refer to the tail...but the "other" tail. The genitals.
The "tail" being the penis, the "stones" being the testicles. Or what do you suggest do the "stones" refer to?

Dinosaurs didn't have a penis and testicles...

You let science dilute your mind dont you. Palentogoly is a form of social science meaning not accurate and full of guss work. Finance is a social science too because investors can only predict 30% percent of the market. Of course if you want exact science get a degree like I"m finishing up on. Accounting.

Concretion awe another word Evolutionist or Palentogoly use to back pedal, this is exactly what I'm talking about. They get proved wrong and then they thumb up some wild excuse.

In regards to the Flood, the bible sheds light on mountains RISING during or as its leaving. So in a sense yes it did cover all the land but there was no huge mountains like you see today. Mountains would take many many many years to form. Unless God shifted the earths plates himself, causing them to rise during the flood perhaps exposing lava to help take away the water into the atmosphere.

Yes, I stand beside KJV. And researching Hebrew is alright with me. KJV while being the first came from Hebrew to Latin to English.

Let me ask you about the Behemoth. Where you there? Did you check its genitalia? If something swings like a cider tree it most likely swings in a large fashion. Did it say it swung like a corn stalk or tree branch? No, like a CIDER TREE. And the bible makes no reference to "other tail."

JWU, I'm not trying to attack you and both of us carry our side. I'm hoping that you see where I'm coming from. And the miss leading ideas your getting. Now If I was wrong on this I would humble say I'm sorry and that you're right. But in this case you're not. Don't let your Ego or pride carry you the wrong direction, if something you assume turns out to be false look into it with an open mind.

Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

JWU this is specially for you.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

meaning before you go trusting someone, see if the man thats words go against the bible is from a Christian man. See if he has a good heart or if he is up to something. Honestly, the only real trust is in Jesus, and the Father because they can not lie. Alot of scientist, the majority are not Christians and they going to make up ideas against it if they hate it. And you know what? People will believe it because HEY their scientist right they can't be wrong. Wrong, they just happen to be in a position to mislead with authority.

 

[Lewis]

Evolution is man's feeble effort to explain how we got here without accepting the existence of God. Some even try to say that God started everything and then left it to evolve on its own.

You are right.

 

[jwu]

Of course if you want exact science get a degree like I"m finishing up on. Accounting.

Accounting is not science though.

Concretion awe another word Evolutionist or Palentogoly use to back pedal, this is exactly what I'm talking about. They get proved wrong and then they thumb up some wild excuse.

What exactly makes it a wild excuse? The concretion actually can be seen, it is there whether you like it or not.
If such a thing is supposed to overturn centuries of research, then it better should hold up to scrutiny. This one didn't.

In regards to the Flood, the bible sheds light on mountains RISING during or as its leaving. So in a sense yes it did cover all the land but there was no huge mountains like you see today.

Do you have biblical references for that? And what about things like "covered all the high mountains"? How deep was the flood? Let's get into the details...which particular strata were laid down by the flood?

There should be plenty of evidence of a recent global flood.

Let me ask you about the Behemoth. Where you there? Did you check its genitalia? If something swings like a cider tree it most likely swings in a large fashion. Did it say it swung like a corn stalk or tree branch? No, like a CIDER TREE. And the bible makes no reference to "other tail."

I wasn't there. But you weren't either.
It's typical metaphoric language to speak of the genitals as the "tail". Exaggerations are common style elements as well.
And what else than testicles do you suggest are the "stones"?

 

[beehive2]

Evolution is man's feeble effort to explain how we got here without accepting the existence of God. Some even try to say that God started everything and then left it to evolve on its own.

 

[beehive2]

Evolution is man's feeble effort to explain how we got here without accepting the existence of God. Some even try to say that God started everything and then left it to evolve on its own.

I agree. ;-)