Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] What A Wonderful World
- Thread starter John
- Start date
freeway
Member
referring to the picture of that fine looking bird..... yes bird.. I know you won't agree, but let me see
1: it has feathers..
2: it has talon like feet
3: it has a breast like a bird
and as for it being a link between bird and reptile.... I don't think so,, Do you not think just maybe this is a bird that has and is, gone extinct. This bird has not been seen laying eggs so as to see what pops out, but I bet you its a bird. Now of course the evolutionist want us to believe... lookie lookie we found a missing link.... no.. you've found a dead bird, let me see feathers+bones=birds.. simple math. I don't take a used tire and say look its becoming a Ford..
The Barbarian said:
wait a minute, earlier you said God is spirit and you must worship him in spirit, and now you say that Jesus did not mean God the Spirit was moving on the water... thats allot a assuming on your part... personally I believe Jesus meant just what he said.... but I'm just that way I try not to change or add to what the scriptures says...
What? is there to test....That Jesus came and died on a cross to pay for our sins, and on the third day He rose again. That we creationist believe God is capable of creation in 6 days. That God made man and woman in his image. That Jesus is the author of all Creation. That in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.. That God/Jesus made all living creatures after their own kind, and can not breed a new species into being. That there was a Great Flood that destroyed man except for Noah and his family.. I could go on and on but you get the picture...
freeway.... A born again bible believing creationist...
D
Deep Thought
Guest
freeway01 - seeing as John hasn't given an answer yet, perhaps you can explain which parts of the Bible you choose to interpret literally and which parts you don't (or perhaps you interpret the entire Bible literally?)
Barbarian
Member
Many creationists don't agree. Some think it's a reptile with faked feathers added:
Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery, Spetner, Hoyle, et al, The British Journal of Photography 135:14-17, 1988
And the first one found, (feathers weren't preserved) was classified as a reptile:
Ostrom's mind was whirling. He had just discovered the fifth specimen of Archaeopteryx lying in a museum drawer. It had been there, misidentified as a flying reptile, a pterosaur, for 115 years. In fact, he realized it must have been the very first Archaeopteryx found. It was discovered in 1855, six years before the naming of the "first" fossil feather or random specimen.
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/proj ... tons2.html
So did many small dinosaurs:
The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Today there are more than a dozen genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, all of which are theropods. Most are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have even tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
So did all dromosauran dinosaurs.
No. Notice that birds have a large "keel" type breastbone. (the big dark thing on the bottom of the bird skeleton on the right) Archie has a tiny reptilian sternum.
The hands are unfused like those of a small theropod dinosaur. The hips are like those of a saurischian dinosaur, not like the bird's.
The tail, unlike the fused pygostyle of birds, is long, like the theropod Compsognathus (which is what many creationists thought Archaeopteryx was)
The backbone is flexible and the ribs are round dinosauran ones, not the flattened and fused bird ribs and backbone.
The skull is that of a dinosaur, and it has teeth. Dinosauran teeth.
As you see, this organism has more characteristics of dinosaurs than of birds. But it has reduced hands, fused tibia/fibula, and a larger cranium. And feathers.
It is precisely between birds and dinosaurs. A transitional between the two. But slightly more like a dinosaur than a bird.
Barbarian observes:
Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
I don't think "literally" means much in this context. What do you mean by that?
No. I didn't write that.
It would be better if you did, but you seem unwilling to accept what He said.
Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's test your new doctrine. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can find a transitional. Do you have enough faith to test your belief?
(freeway declines)
Barbarian, noting that no one will pick up his challenge:
No one willing to test their creationist assumptions? Guess not. For obvious reasons.
Your creationist assumptions. You've obviously figured out that there are many, many transitionals, but you aren't ready to admit it.
Christians would agree with you. But most of us accept that evolution is part of God's creation.
What God is capable of, is not necessarily what He did. God is not some little middle eastern nature deity, prancing around making a frog here and a tree there. He made nature so as to bring forth all the variety of life we see. God is much greater and more capable than creationists are willing to admit.
You're willing to believe that God poofed new animals into existence, but deny Him the power to breed a new species? :o We've directly observed it to happen.
Bible-believing, with some "adjustments."
freeway
Member
Deep Thought said:
deep thought... I know you are wanting me to say I take this part or that part literally or this part is just thrown in to make a good story, But sorry it does work that way,,,
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
after all isn't that, what we are to use the bible for. To seek out answer that trouble us. To seek out how Jesus would have us live our lives to the fullest. To rebuke someone that says there is no God or Jesus is a fraud. Now of course one can say that when Jesus said he is the door and if anyone knocks I will open, does not mean that He is a door of wood, non believing people and some believers to further their own agenda will take that simple word and try and twist it to cover a larger meaning. And if you try to use that as a leverage to prove the bible is wrong well then you will be the one out in the cold... but He is saying this for our benefit in way we can understand.Its something we know and can understand. like talking to a child.. as for parables Jesus says it best..
Matthew 13:10 Then the disciples came to him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?†13:11 He replied, “You have been given the opportunity to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but they have not
Here Jesus is answering his disciples question as to why he talks to the crowds in parables.. and that is a complete different subject...
So I would say I take all the bible literally with special attention given to certain words not to make them into something that does not fit the subject at hand, or to create my own worldly view. as so many do... does that mean I think I am right on everything... no far from it. Each and every day I learn more and more about my Lord and what he has in store for... I guess, No I know I will be learning until the day I die...and as for posting here on this and other forums, I find it, well, 1 its fun. 2 talking to someone of a different perspective is very educational it makes me stop being lazy and dig up stuff. 3 and for anyone that happen by and reads these debates it lets them know there's two side to every argument.. I am by no mean an expert in evolution, science, or the bible for that matter, I have studied, I just take what little knowledge God has given me and express my thought and beliefs.. now if you want to take this answer and dissect it and draw out every misspelled word or what you feel is wrong.. go ahead, I will still say my prayers tonight to the Creator of the universe and Jesus my Lord and Savior.. :-D
God Bless................freeway01
freeway
Member
jmm9683 said:
OK.. well at lease The Barbarian makes me work for answers....
1..." by all scientist"... you spoken personally to them...or maybe you just say that because you can't prove it..
2..."fantasy world".. no I do that when I watch battlestar galactica :-D
3..." just admit" .. do you think I have some secret website.. no, I'm a creationist I don't think I've miss lead anyone about that....
4.. "warped view of the world"... do you think we live utopia.. where everyone can join hands and sing around the campfire.... yes the world is warped... ask anyone..
freeway
Member
Barbarian, for the love of God can you make your post "longer" :-D
What Ostrom did was jump to a unprovable conclusion. he found no missing link between reptile and bird. What he was looking at was.... a dead extinct bird, probably a beautiful one at that... nothing more..
another link to rebuke your link....
http://www.icr.org/article/321/
how many links do you think we can go before we get tired
The latest in a long line of claims of dinosaur-to-bird links has been named Bambiraptor feinbergi. This unusually complete (95%) fossil, less than a meter long, was discovered in 1994 by 14-year-old Wes Linster in Glacier National Park in northern Montana, and is ‘dated’ at 75 million years old. It is claimed to be ‘the most convincing evolutionary link yet between dinosaurs and birds’ (ABC News science page).
However, this is a tacit admission that previous alleged links haven’t been terribly convincing. And creationists have good reasons to be suspicious because of the Archaeoraptor fiascoâ€â€see Archaeoraptor Hoax Updateâ€â€National Geographic Recants!
Also, according to the article, ‘Feathers, however, have not yet been found’ yet this didn’t stop them illustrating the article with a feathered creature!
An obvious objection to this missing link claim is that it is about 75 million years younger than the true bird Archaeopteryx, its supposed descendant.
A proper assessment would need to wait for the original papers, rather than popular media reports. We would also be interested in assessments by evolutionists who reject the dino-to-bird theory, including Drs Alan Feduccia, Larry Martin and Storrs Olsen.
Meanwhile, the general principles outlined in Archaeoraptorâ€â€Phony ‘feathered’ fossil apply also to this new claim. In particular, the articles hyperlinked in that article show why unique bird features including feathers and their special lungs are a huge obstacle against any evolutionary ideas, not just the fashionable dino-to-bird one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 7-2000.asp
on to some of the points about what God can and would not do...
Again your trying to put your thought into my words.... sorry.. but yes God can and did if you want to say poofed.. I prefer "created" animals into existence.. after all he created the whole universe a small cow would be nothing agree.... again as far as transitional fossil... non at the museum near my house.... yours maybe.... don't think so.....
one last thing... you keep asking me to pick an animal any animal to test my faith... and I've said you pick.. that your area you like to put your faith in..why, because there is non.....
What Ostrom did was jump to a unprovable conclusion. he found no missing link between reptile and bird. What he was looking at was.... a dead extinct bird, probably a beautiful one at that... nothing more..
another link to rebuke your link....
http://www.icr.org/article/321/
how many links do you think we can go before we get tired
No. its not just because you wish it to be or they wish it to be. they have no proof... just a dead bird... just like the Bambiraptor...
The latest in a long line of claims of dinosaur-to-bird links has been named Bambiraptor feinbergi. This unusually complete (95%) fossil, less than a meter long, was discovered in 1994 by 14-year-old Wes Linster in Glacier National Park in northern Montana, and is ‘dated’ at 75 million years old. It is claimed to be ‘the most convincing evolutionary link yet between dinosaurs and birds’ (ABC News science page).
However, this is a tacit admission that previous alleged links haven’t been terribly convincing. And creationists have good reasons to be suspicious because of the Archaeoraptor fiascoâ€â€see Archaeoraptor Hoax Updateâ€â€National Geographic Recants!
Also, according to the article, ‘Feathers, however, have not yet been found’ yet this didn’t stop them illustrating the article with a feathered creature!
An obvious objection to this missing link claim is that it is about 75 million years younger than the true bird Archaeopteryx, its supposed descendant.
A proper assessment would need to wait for the original papers, rather than popular media reports. We would also be interested in assessments by evolutionists who reject the dino-to-bird theory, including Drs Alan Feduccia, Larry Martin and Storrs Olsen.
Meanwhile, the general principles outlined in Archaeoraptorâ€â€Phony ‘feathered’ fossil apply also to this new claim. In particular, the articles hyperlinked in that article show why unique bird features including feathers and their special lungs are a huge obstacle against any evolutionary ideas, not just the fashionable dino-to-bird one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 7-2000.asp
on to some of the points about what God can and would not do...
Again your trying to put your thought into my words.... sorry.. but yes God can and did if you want to say poofed.. I prefer "created" animals into existence.. after all he created the whole universe a small cow would be nothing agree.... again as far as transitional fossil... non at the museum near my house.... yours maybe.... don't think so.....
one last thing... you keep asking me to pick an animal any animal to test my faith... and I've said you pick.. that your area you like to put your faith in..why, because there is non.....
D
Deep Thought
Guest
freeway01 said:
I'm genuinely interested in this topic. It is the source of endless arguments between Christians, because they can't agree on interpretations of certain words, passages and chapters.
Let's ignore the NT for the moment. Do you regard all of the OT as being literal, or are some parts also parables?
Barbarian
Member
Ostrom's mind was whirling. He had just discovered the fifth specimen of Archaeopteryx lying in a museum drawer. It had been there, misidentified as a flying reptile, a pterosaur, for 115 years. In fact, he realized it must have been the very first Archaeopteryx found. It was discovered in 1855, six years before the naming of the "first" fossil feather or random specimen.
The point was that, without preserved feathers, it was sufficiently reptile-like to be so classified.
So did many small dinosaurs
The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Today there are more than a dozen genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, all of which are theropods. Most are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have even tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
(link to creationists who say "those scientists are just lying")
Sorry, no evidence, just accusations. Try again.
(Archaeopteryx) It is precisely between birds and dinosaurs. A transitional between the two. But slightly more like a dinosaur than a bird.
C'mon, be honest with yourself, at least. It has more dinosaur characteristics than bird characteristics.
Archaeopteryx isn't a supposed descendant. It's just a transitional, close to the line that gave rise to modern birds. When that species first appeared is unknown.
You probably shouldn't be citing them. Al Feduccua and co. think that birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor, although most scientists think birds evolved from dinosaurs. They agree on a reptilian ancestry for birds, just differ in the detail as to when birds appeared.
And since I discovered that Answers in Genesis edited the statements of scientists to make it appear that they believed the opposite of what they actually wrote, you do yourself no favors by citing them.
Barbarian asks:
You're willing to believe that God poofed new animals into existence, but deny Him the power to breed a new species? :o We've directly observed it to happen.
I just wanted to see if you had enough faith in your beliefs to test them. And you told us that you don't. But if you ever do get enough faith, just pick two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and we'll see.
The point was that, without preserved feathers, it was sufficiently reptile-like to be so classified.
So did many small dinosaurs
The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Today there are more than a dozen genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, all of which are theropods. Most are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have even tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
(link to creationists who say "those scientists are just lying")
Sorry, no evidence, just accusations. Try again.
(Archaeopteryx) It is precisely between birds and dinosaurs. A transitional between the two. But slightly more like a dinosaur than a bird.
C'mon, be honest with yourself, at least. It has more dinosaur characteristics than bird characteristics.
Archaeopteryx isn't a supposed descendant. It's just a transitional, close to the line that gave rise to modern birds. When that species first appeared is unknown.
You probably shouldn't be citing them. Al Feduccua and co. think that birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor, although most scientists think birds evolved from dinosaurs. They agree on a reptilian ancestry for birds, just differ in the detail as to when birds appeared.
And since I discovered that Answers in Genesis edited the statements of scientists to make it appear that they believed the opposite of what they actually wrote, you do yourself no favors by citing them.
Barbarian asks:
You're willing to believe that God poofed new animals into existence, but deny Him the power to breed a new species? :o We've directly observed it to happen.
I just wanted to see if you had enough faith in your beliefs to test them. And you told us that you don't. But if you ever do get enough faith, just pick two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and we'll see.
freeway
Member
Freeway :o what? :o
:
Ok one last time.... there is the whole animal kingdom..... pick....
what am I doing here then... reading the post that you put up, and every other anti creationist.... please... you post and try to give your evidence on your religion that you see as hopeful, and enlightening ... I've read it, checked it out............................. and you know what.. I'm still a creationist...
:Ok one last time.... there is the whole animal kingdom..... pick....
freeway
Member
I have a question for you Barbarian..or any other Christian evolutionist. you say your a Christian and I can not argue with that, but you are also an evolutionist.. the question is well actually questions
1. when did mankind receive a soul that lives eternally with God in heaven.. where did God draw the line so to speak, and say ok now man has evolved enough now its time to hold him accountable for his sin,, after one more brain cell evolved to turn on, oh I don't know his/her conscience light turned on and what about all the others. You know like Java man and all the other xxxxmans that evolution wants us to believe..Did they not make the grade so to speak??
2: if God just let everything evolve as you say, then when did they become Adam and Eve the beginning of the human race. Did God wait millions or billions of years before he interacted with them and then placed them in the garden, Why would He do it that way, or did happen at all.
You see all this is very confusing to me and I'm sure other Christians that do not believe in the theory of evolution.. God is not a God of confusion... and this is would make it confusing...
1 Corinthians 14:33
for God is not characterized by disorder but by peace
Genesis1:27
God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.
now that sound pretty clear cut to me!
1. when did mankind receive a soul that lives eternally with God in heaven.. where did God draw the line so to speak, and say ok now man has evolved enough now its time to hold him accountable for his sin,, after one more brain cell evolved to turn on, oh I don't know his/her conscience light turned on and what about all the others. You know like Java man and all the other xxxxmans that evolution wants us to believe..Did they not make the grade so to speak??
2: if God just let everything evolve as you say, then when did they become Adam and Eve the beginning of the human race. Did God wait millions or billions of years before he interacted with them and then placed them in the garden, Why would He do it that way, or did happen at all.
You see all this is very confusing to me and I'm sure other Christians that do not believe in the theory of evolution.. God is not a God of confusion... and this is would make it confusing...
1 Corinthians 14:33
for God is not characterized by disorder but by peace
Genesis1:27
God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.
now that sound pretty clear cut to me!
D
Deep Thought
Guest
Question 1 is a very good question and one I've asked of Christians before and never received an answer.
However, don't dodge all the valid points and questions that Barbarian has made.
However, don't dodge all the valid points and questions that Barbarian has made.
Barbarian
Member
I don't know when that happened. If Adam and Eve were H. erectus, would it matter to God. The gap between early H. erectus and modern H. sapiens is nothing compred to the gap between us and him. And the gap between the two species is filled in with innumerable intermediates.
Didn't say that. Nature is just God in action. It looks like He lets it run, because He is entirely consistent unless He does a miracle to teach us something.
I don't know why God does what He does. I can only accept that it's the right thing.
That is why most of us accept that evolution is consistent with His creation.
Once you accept Him as He is, there is no confusion.
As you know, if you have been reading here, Jesus says that God is a spirit and that spirits have no body. The "image" is not in physical appearance, but in our minds and our immortal souls.
"You are not a body. You are a spirit. You have a body."
G.K. Chesterton
Meantime, if you ever get enough confidence in your beliefs to take my challenge, I'll be here to see if you're right. Let me know.