Dinosaurs vs. Adam & Eve?

[Draka]

There wasn't any killing before Adam and Eve sinned - what are you referring to?

That is assuming they existed...and if so the approximate date at which they existed. Which as this thread brings up is very much in question. For if we look at scientific evidence of the dating of when dinosaurs existed far before man that would mean that they did not exist...or if they did not as we think and far after the beginning of Earth. Therefore the likelyhood of them being the first humans is slim and humans have killed each other and other beings for as long as they have existed.

If we take the biblical scholars at their word that the bible dates back 6000 or so years then people were here before that and that disproves that timing as well.

 

[cturne]

That is absolutely true. My contempt for answeringenesis.org was not what made it nonsense. Thanks.

Deut, you have your FAITH in the theory of evolution and no matter how much evidence you read about the theory of creation you will never accept it (unless of course the Holy Spirit changes your heart). So why do you feel the need to put down those who have their FAITH in the creation theory - and do not accept evolution?

 

[Pah]

Deut, you have your FAITH in the theory of evolution and no matter how much evidence you read about the theory of creation you will never accept it (unless of course the Holy Spirit changes your heart). So why do you feel the need to put down those who have their FAITH in the creation theory - and do not accept evolution?

When there is evidence, there is no need of faith.

I should have said "credible evidence"

 

[cturne]

When there is evidence, there is no need of faith.

I should have said "credible evidence"

Credible evidence is in the eye of the beholder - evidence is always subject to interpretation. Evolutionists look at evidence and interpret it one way, creationists interpret the same evidence in another way.

 

[Pah]

Credible evidence is in the eye of the beholder - evidence is always subject to interpretation. Evolutionists look at evidence and interpret it one way, creationists interpret the same evidence in another way.

No, credilble evidence is what passes judgement under the process of applying epsitemology - nothing relative about it when you have standards. Creationists, at least the YEC creationists, lack the science to look at evidence of the beginnings. The "looking" is not done in the same manner.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut, you have your FAITH in the theory of evolution ...

This is both insulting and absolutely false.

... no matter how much evidence you read about the theory of creation ...

There is no theory of creation, nor is there evidence of the Biblical creation narrative.

(unless of course the Holy Spirit changes your heart)

My heart is fine. Your fictive Holy Spirit, however, has shown itself to be remarkably impotent.

So why do you feel the need to put down those who have their FAITH in the creation theory - and do not accept evolution?

There is no right, God given or not, to willful ignorance. The same backwardness that bolsters Young Earth Creationism was not too long ago burning witches at the stake. It is pathetic, potentially dangerous, and wholly worthy of contempt. It is, in fact, viewed with disdain and embarrassment by a large number of theists.

 

[cturne]

There is no right, God given or not, to willful ignorance. The same backwardness that bolsters Young Earth Creationism was not too long ago burning witches at the stake. It is pathetic, potentially dangerous, and wholly worthy of contempt. It is, in fact, viewed with disdain and embarrassment by a large number of theists.

I have every right to believe what God says in the Bible. How dare you put down people for their faith. Am I calling you names for your belief? I'm done with this thread. But I'll still pray for you and all the other misguided 'knowledgable' people out there who are so superior to those of us who have succumbed to 'willful ignorance'.

 

[dorsk188]

Credible evidence is in the eye of the beholder - evidence is always subject to interpretation. Evolutionists look at evidence and interpret it one way, creationists interpret the same evidence in another way.

Assuming you aren't actually done with the thread, may I ask a specific example?

To be fair, depending on your definition of "evidence" there could be evidence for YEC. Some may see the large proportion of believers in YEC and count that as evidence.

"If evolution was true, then why do scientists spend so much time trying to defend it?"

^^^ This, in some views, is evidence against evolution. Conversely, there is a decided lack of credible evidence, unless you were to drastically redefine credible, as well.

 

[DeepShadow]

Do the existence of dinosaurs conflict with the existence of dinosaurs? Doesn't it mean that man was not the first creature in existence? Thanks.

Okay, I don't understand a lot of what's been said, so I went back to the original post...which I understand even less, so all I've got to go on is the thread title. Here goes!

Okay, I'm a huge fan of Adam--I betcha he was ripped and all that, being the original homegrown farmer--but I doubt he'd go 60 seconds against a T-Rex. Anyone want to lay odds on any of this? I'd lay you 8-5 that Adam gets gulped in a minute or less.

That is, of course, assuming the champion of the dinosaurs is a T-Rex. If someone wants to suggest another champ, all bets are off until we've had time for research.

 

[painted wolf]

dude, Adam wouldn't last against the three foot tall velociraptor, let alone a fifteen foot tall T.rex :biglaugh:

wa:do

 

[DeepShadow]

Aw, I wouldn't go that far! I'd expect Adam to have muscles like a horse, with all the work he had to do, and it's not like he didn't have to fight any wild animals already. I think he's do alright against the raptor, might even win, but a T-Rex is out of the question.

Anyone taking my odds?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

A literary device is hardly a hard and fast scientific statement. These verses are written as poetry. Whether is moves, sways, bends, or is made stiff makes no real difference as far as I can see.

How scientific does it need to get? The point is that the tail of the behomoth is like a cedar. God is making a comparison and neither the ox nor the hippo have a tail that can be compared to that.

I can say your eyes are like lipid pools and your lips like sweet like cherries, however that doesn't make the former full of water and the latter made of fruit. Poetic comparisons are not renowned for their literal accuracy.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Aw, I wouldn't go that far! I'd expect Adam to have muscles like a horse, with all the work he had to do, and it's not like he didn't have to fight any wild animals already. I think he's do alright against the raptor, might even win, but a T-Rex is out of the question.

Anyone taking my odds?

Are we talking Adam pre or post expulsion from the garden? Cos if we're talking Pre-expulsion, all he did was slouch around the garden eating stuff, like some sort of biblical Homer Simpson. He wouldn't stand a chance against a compy, let alone anything with size and a bit of body mass.

 

[t3gah]

Do the existence of dinosaurs conflict with the existence of dinosaurs? Doesn't it mean that man was not the first creature in existence? Thanks.

When the angels acquired the knowledge of bad one of them, Satan, went berserk and hurled an asteroid towards earth which is what scientists have discovered when they found that enourmous crater. The reason why Adam & Eve and the garden didn't get whacked is because God protected that area or so I've read out on the Internet. Some "new" theory since Satan's first rebellion psychiatrists state show it wasn't his first offense.

In the bible God is stated as saying man had dominion over the animals in the book of Genesis.

I'm still checking on the asteroid thing. It makes sense too because God would never do such a thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When the angels acquired the knowledge of bad one of them, Satan, went berserk and hurled an asteroid towards earth which is what scientists have discovered when they found that enourmous crater.

<yawn>more ridiculous nonsense</yawn>

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Do the existence of dinosaurs conflict with the existence of dinosaurs? Doesn't it mean that man was not the first creature in existence? Thanks.

Man could not have been the first creature in existence because he was created also depending on which if you are reading the scriptures or the holy Qur'an, Allah told all things in creation to bow before Adam. So Adam(peace be upon him) could not be the 1st in existence. The Creator of the heavens and earth was always there 1st and he will still be there when everything he created is gone.

Salam

Mujahid