+ Reply to Thread
Page 40 of 42 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 LastLast
Results 586 to 600 of 616

Thread: ID not required

  1. #586
    Champ Dawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the rough Dawgbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, LA
    Posts
    4,289

    Re: ID not required

    Time to dig up some bones. Was she killed in the Pre-Adamic flood?



    ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Ethiopian scientists unveiled on Wednesday a 3.3 million-year-old fossil of a girl, which they believe is the most complete skeleton ever found.

    The fossil including an entire skull, torso, shoulder blade and various limbs was discovered at Dikaka, some 400 kms northeast of the capital Addis Ababa near the Awash river in the Rift Valley.
    "The finding is the most complete hominid skeleton ever found in the world," Zeresenay Alemseged, head of the Paleoanthropological Research Team, told a news conference.
    He said the fossil was older than the 3.2 million year old remains of "Lucy" discovered in 1974, and described by scientists as one of the world's greatest archaeological finds.
    "The new bones belong to a three year old girl who lived 3.3 million years ago -- 150,000 years before Lucy," Zeresenay said.
    "Evidence indicates that she probably died in a flood from the nearby Awash river," he added.
    The fossil has been named "Selam," which means peace in Ethiopia's official Amharic language.
    Zeresenay said she belonged to the Australopithecus afarnesis species, which includes Lucy, and is thought to be an ancestor to modern humans.
    "We now have for the first time the hard evidence for a clear picture of what early child human ancestors looked like," he added.
    Over the last 50 years, Ethiopia has been a hotbed for archaeological discoveries.
    The discovery of Lucy -- an almost complete hominid skeleton -- was a landmark in the search for the origins of humanity.
    While a hominid skull thought to be between 200,000-500,000 years old was found in January, in a discovery one scientist said could fill the gap in the search for the origins of the human race.
    On the shores of what was formerly a lake in 1967, two Homo sapiens skulls dating back 195,000 years were unearthed. The find pushed back the known date of mankind, suggesting that modern man and his older precursor existed side by side.

  2. #587
    Champ Dawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the rough Dawgbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, LA
    Posts
    4,289

    Re: ID not required

    side view of the skull.


  3. #588
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgbitten View Post
    The find pushed back the known date of mankind, suggesting that modern man and his older precursor existed side by side.
    Doesn't this strike anyone as strange? That a modern day version and the precursor to that modern day version could co-exist? How often, these days, do we find both the evolved animal and the animal it evolved from co-existing? Usually, when something has evolved, the "lesser form" has died out which is why we said that it evolved from it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this or provide evidence of finding past and present versions co-existing, this example aside?

    Daniel

  4. #589
    Champ Dirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond reputeDirtydawg has a reputation beyond repute Dirtydawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston
    Posts
    17,159

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by DRay563 View Post
    Doesn't this strike anyone as strange? That a modern day version and the precursor to that modern day version could co-exist? How often, these days, do we find both the evolved animal and the animal it evolved from co-existing? Usually, when something has evolved, the "lesser form" has died out which is why we said that it evolved from it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this or provide evidence of finding past and present versions co-existing, this example aside?

    Daniel
    Daniel, didn't you know that the evolutionists changed their applications of evolution when presented with this question. It is now possible for precursor creatures to exist even though an evolved form has come about. Evolution is no longer about survival of the fittest. It's just something changing into something else.

  5. #590
    Champ Dawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the rough Dawgbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, LA
    Posts
    4,289

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by DRay563 View Post
    Doesn't this strike anyone as strange? That a modern day version and the precursor to that modern day version could co-exist? How often, these days, do we find both the evolved animal and the animal it evolved from co-existing? Usually, when something has evolved, the "lesser form" has died out which is why we said that it evolved from it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this or provide evidence of finding past and present versions co-existing, this example aside?

    Daniel
    Creatures evolve to meet the needs of their environment?? Crocodile/alligator. Saber tooth tiger/tiger. Wooly mammoth/elephant. Different climates, different foods, etc. Some survive, some don't depending on their adaptations to that environment.

    However, it should be refreshing for you to know that 99% of the species that have lived on this planet are extinct. Sounds like the cards are stacked.

  6. #591
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgbitten View Post
    Creatures evolve to meet the needs of their environment?? Crocodile/alligator. Saber tooth tiger/tiger. Wooly mammoth/elephant. Different climates, different foods, etc. Some survive, some don't depending on their adaptations to that environment.

    However, it should be refreshing for you to know that 99% of the species that have lived on this planet are extinct. Sounds like the cards are stacked.
    Let me see if I can rephrase what I'm asking for a bit more clarity. Take for instance, the crocodile and the alligator could be descendants from a common ancestor; also, do we know that the tiger and saber tooth/wooly mammoth and elephant lived at the same time? I dunno. Anyway, let me make sure you're on the same page with me.

    Assume 1 is the earliest form of said creature-type, and 3 is the "most advanced" in terms of evolution.

    We observe, considering traditional evolution:
    1-2-3; where
    1 gives way to the rise of 2;
    2 dominates and 1 dies out or gives rise to 2(a) potentially due to migration;
    2 and 2(a) can co-exist (although they'd be common descendants, not one a precursor to another), but 1 being inferior given the same environment would not survive against 2 or 2(a);
    2 gives way to the rise of 3;
    3 dominates and 2 dies out or gives rise to 3(a) potentially due to migration;
    2(a) could give rise to 3(b) if needed, but this is moot at this point in time.

    However, assuming same living area (and therefore same food base, same climate, same everything), we would see 1-2-3.

    What I feel this article is proposing is this:
    1 gives way to the rise of 2;
    2 gives way to the rise of 3;
    1 still exists despite 2's dominance and despite 3's dominance;
    We observe the fossils of both 1 and 3 co-existing in the same living space at approximately the same time period;
    We are not observing 2(a) (which would not be the precursor to 3, but an evolved version of 1), nor are we observing 3(b) or 3(a), both of which still would not be a precursor to 3;
    We could potentially be observing 2 (but again, 3 is dominate over 2 and 2 would die out).

    This article is insinuating (due to its vagueness) not that we are observing the transitional stage where 1 and 2 (or 2 and 3) might have similarities before their distinct differences came to light, but that 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 had thriving populations during the same time period and same living space with their distinct differences already obvious.

    Does my question make more sense now?

    Daniel

  7. #592
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgbitten View Post
    Was she killed in the Pre-Adamic flood?
    You are obviously trying to pick a fight with me or at least make fun of my views on what the Bible says about a pre-Adamic flood. I can handle that. But, please understand that I don't really have an opinion about what the scientists have found concerning ancient creation. I'm really just starting to learn about it.

    Before I read this post and knew that you took a swipe at my views on the Bible, I have been reading the debate between the scientists and the creationist. Most of what I have read concerns the dating of fossils and also Carbon dating. I have not looked into evolutionary theory, just dating. I am reading it with as an open mind as I am capable. My early take on it is that the scientists on the dating issue are straight up. They are subject to peer review, and the really good ones really don't have an agenda. They are just telling us what was on the earth and when. Of course, they admit that they get better and better at dating things, but I believe they are legitimate and their data has to at least be considered good science.

    The Creationist, on the other hand, at least the ones attacking the scientist, most definitely have an agenda. This is especially true of the new earth creationist, but it also includes those who believe the earth is older than 6000 years. They have attacked the scientist unmercifully. I have read the arguments on both sides, and I know this may upset some of my fellow Christians on this board, but I think the scientist on the dating issue have the more righteous position.

    The Bible is not a science book, nor does it purport to be. I don't have the answers from a scientific standpoint and I am not going to get it from reading the Bible. The scientists do not claim to have all the answers either. But, at least they are out their busting their butts in the not so great places trying to find scientific answers. Let's let them do their work. They will present some hypothesis that will be incorrect, but their research will hopefully bare out the truth.

    In the meantime, I read the Bible to say what it says. I realize that even with a belief that there was an ELE before Adam that would make the world older, what the scientist have found does not line up very well with my Biblical beliefs. The last ELE appears to have been 34 million years ago. However, I am going to let the theologians continue to do their work in their area of expertise and let the scientist do their work in their area of expertise. It will be fun to see how this thing plays out.
    Last edited by Soonerdawg; 09-21-2006 at 10:49 AM.

  8. #593
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg View Post
    The Creationist, on the other hand, at least the ones attacking the scientist, most definitely have an agenda....The Bible is not a science book, nor does it purport to be.
    But this is exactly what the argument is about, and why the Creationists have a scientific agenda. All truth is God's truth, and truth cannot contradict itself. For the YEC, the Bible is inerrant and "proves" a 6000-7000 year old earth. That being the case, science saying that the earth is billions of years old comes in conflict with the Bible, to them. As such, they seek a way to reconcile them, thus their agenda is made. In their mind, they must find a way to bring science to heel, because they cannot bring the Bible to heel. Science has been known to be wrong in the past (the theories on the Aether, for example) and there's no guarantee we have everything right. In fact, I honestly believe (but have no proof) that we have some of the fundamentals wrong in terms of our understanding of gravity. Why? Because we've had to come up with theories on Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain the motion we see but can't explain. My physics professor last year admitted that when science has had to put in those kind of "fudge factors" to fix their equations and theories to what they observe, it usually means there is a flaw at the fundamental level. Mayhaps there is a flaw here we cannot observe or know of yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg View Post
    But, at least they are out their busting their butts in the not so great places trying to find scientific answers.
    So are the Creationists, agenda and all. Read The Revised & Expanded Answers Book by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland to see what I mean. While I don't necessarily agree with everything they say (and sometimes they use outdated sources that have been refuted or revised in the scientific community; I doubt on purpose though), they do propose alternative models with graphs and explanations to try and line up what we see with what they believe.

    Daniel

  9. #594
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by DRay563 View Post
    Because we've had to come up with theories on Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain the motion we see but can't explain. My physics professor last year admitted that when science has had to put in those kind of "fudge factors" to fix their equations and theories to what they observe, it usually means there is a flaw at the fundamental level. Mayhaps there is a flaw here we cannot observe or know of yet?



    Daniel
    No flaw. GOD designed and numbered the "fudge factors" when he created it for man to use. It was in HIS plan to allow men to find them and use in their 'discoveries". Then again, HE is GOD and can do what and however HE wants. Just a thought.

  10. #595
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS View Post
    No flaw. GOD designed and numbered the "fudge factors" when he created it for man to use. It was in HIS plan to allow men to find them and use in their 'discoveries". Then again, HE is GOD and can do what and however HE wants. Just a thought.
    Tyler,

    I was not saying that there was a flaw in the design of creation, but that there could be a flaw in our understanding of reality. We should never be so arrogant as to claim that we have all of reality figured out, especially in the realm of science. Prior to the discovery of relativity, we thought we had everything figured out. A few mysteries were yet to be solved, but they were trifling matters in the overarching completeness of science.

    Then comes the discoveries of other particles aside from protons, electrons, and neutrons, the general and special theories of relativity, and now quantum physics has taken a strong foothold in scientific thought. It is not wrong to claim that there could be a flaw rather than just making up some "dark matter" and "dark energy" to explain that which we see. To quote George Bernard Shaw, "All great truths begin as blasphemies." If we have gravity so nailed, why don't the cosmos behave like we predict they should? Our numbers are way off, so off that we must say that approximately 10% of the density of the Universe is actually visible matter, while 20% or so is dark matter and 70% or so is dark energy. Stuff we can't see, interact with, or have any manner to measure.... or a flaw in the system? I'm more inclined to believe the latter than believe in pure fantasy to solve an contradiction in science.

    I believe that God is a God of order and not chaos. It makes sense that the Universe can follow either patterns or probabilities and not randomness. These are, in fact, the two principles we see: patterns for macro and probabilities for micro (or rather, quantum). So, while God could do it randomly, I believe (and believe with sufficient evidence, IMO) that He didn't do it that way.

    Daniel

  11. #596
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: ID not required

    Thanks. I think we are on the same page.

  12. #597
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS View Post
    Thanks. I think we are on the same page.
    And, I think I am on the same page as you two are.

    That is why we have to let the scientists be scientists and do their scientist thing. We have to let the theologians do their theologian thing. I believe that if and when God wants us to see the whole picture he will.

    I'm not sweating the apparent differences. What I believe is that the bulk of the scientists, at least on the dating issue, are legit. What I know is that the Bible is inerrant. What I don't know is whether my interptetation and understanding is inerrant. I would never "be so arrogant to claim" that I have the Bible, God and creation figured out. That doesn't mean we quit trying. Neither should the scientist.

  13. #598
    Champ Dawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the rough Dawgbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, LA
    Posts
    4,289

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by DRay563 View Post
    Let me see if I can rephrase what I'm asking for a bit more clarity. Take for instance, the crocodile and the alligator could be descendants from a common ancestor; also, do we know that the tiger and saber tooth/wooly mammoth and elephant lived at the same time? I dunno. Anyway, let me make sure you're on the same page with me.

    Assume 1 is the earliest form of said creature-type, and 3 is the "most advanced" in terms of evolution.

    We observe, considering traditional evolution:
    1-2-3; where
    1 gives way to the rise of 2;
    2 dominates and 1 dies out or gives rise to 2(a) potentially due to migration;
    2 and 2(a) can co-exist (although they'd be common descendants, not one a precursor to another), but 1 being inferior given the same environment would not survive against 2 or 2(a);
    2 gives way to the rise of 3;
    3 dominates and 2 dies out or gives rise to 3(a) potentially due to migration;
    2(a) could give rise to 3(b) if needed, but this is moot at this point in time.

    However, assuming same living area (and therefore same food base, same climate, same everything), we would see 1-2-3.

    What I feel this article is proposing is this:
    1 gives way to the rise of 2;
    2 gives way to the rise of 3;
    1 still exists despite 2's dominance and despite 3's dominance;
    We observe the fossils of both 1 and 3 co-existing in the same living space at approximately the same time period;
    We are not observing 2(a) (which would not be the precursor to 3, but an evolved version of 1), nor are we observing 3(b) or 3(a), both of which still would not be a precursor to 3;
    We could potentially be observing 2 (but again, 3 is dominate over 2 and 2 would die out).

    This article is insinuating (due to its vagueness) not that we are observing the transitional stage where 1 and 2 (or 2 and 3) might have similarities before their distinct differences came to light, but that 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 had thriving populations during the same time period and same living space with their distinct differences already obvious.

    Does my question make more sense now?

    Daniel
    Maybe you lost me with the 1-2-3 "if then" equation. Are you wanting to know how two of these species came to be found in the same area, yet one may be the precursor species? Or maybe a more simpler question: Why do we still have monkeys if humans supposedly came from them?

    Let me offer my theory with the given evidence: The child died in a flood and she was one of a more advanced species of Lucy. Lucy was found in the same area, yet one was not as advanced as the other. It could very well be possible that each of these species inhabited two very different environments on either side of a river. One on the flood plain which possibly led to her death by drowning in a flood. While Lucy may have lived on the bluff side hilly landscape of the river (think Vicksburg, MS). I remember reading in a HS textbook of how two different squirrels were two different species now due to the Grand Canyon and how the two had evolved over time into two different squirrels.

    The African rift is one theory as to why climates changed and moved monkeys out of trees and into newly formed savannas. They had to learn to walk to be able to see predators above the high grasses. Yet monkeys stayed monkeys on the land where the jungles stayed jungles.
    Last edited by Dawgbitten; 09-22-2006 at 12:46 PM.

  14. #599
    Champ Dawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the rough Dawgbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, LA
    Posts
    4,289

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg View Post
    You are obviously trying to pick a fight with me or at least make fun of my views on what the Bible says about a pre-Adamic flood. I can handle that. But, please understand that I don't really have an opinion about what the scientists have found concerning ancient creation. I'm really just starting to learn about it.

    Before I read this post and knew that you took a swipe at my views on the Bible, I have been reading the debate between the scientists and the creationist. Most of what I have read concerns the dating of fossils and also Carbon dating. I have not looked into evolutionary theory, just dating. I am reading it with as an open mind as I am capable. My early take on it is that the scientists on the dating issue are straight up. They are subject to peer review, and the really good ones really don't have an agenda. They are just telling us what was on the earth and when. Of course, they admit that they get better and better at dating things, but I believe they are legitimate and their data has to at least be considered good science.

    The Creationist, on the other hand, at least the ones attacking the scientist, most definitely have an agenda. This is especially true of the new earth creationist, but it also includes those who believe the earth is older than 6000 years. They have attacked the scientist unmercifully. I have read the arguments on both sides, and I know this may upset some of my fellow Christians on this board, but I think the scientist on the dating issue have the more righteous position.

    The Bible is not a science book, nor does it purport to be. I don't have the answers from a scientific standpoint and I am not going to get it from reading the Bible. The scientists do not claim to have all the answers either. But, at least they are out their busting their butts in the not so great places trying to find scientific answers. Let's let them do their work. They will present some hypothesis that will be incorrect, but their research will hopefully bare out the truth.

    In the meantime, I read the Bible to say what it says. I realize that even with a belief that there was an ELE before Adam that would make the world older, what the scientist have found does not line up very well with my Biblical beliefs. The last ELE appears to have been 34 million years ago. However, I am going to let the theologians continue to do their work in their area of expertise and let the scientist do their work in their area of expertise. It will be fun to see how this thing plays out.
    Sooner, I was just using humor and since the title said something about not hijacking, I stayed away. My belief is that Lucifer was a Babylonian king who Isaiah was using Metaphors about exhalting himself above the stars, etc. to describe the man's arrogance. How he became Satan being cast upon the earth dragging angels down with him is beyond me. I guess you can interpret the Bible about half a billlion ways. I also believe using a couple of worldwide floods to understand the geologic record, extinct animals, or trying to match up the age of the earth to match up with the Bible says is not thinking logically. But that is just my opinion.

  15. #600
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: ID not required

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgbitten View Post
    I also believe using a couple of worldwide floods to understand the geologic record, extinct animals, or trying to match up the age of the earth to match up with the Bible says is not thinking logically. But that is just my opinion.
    Finally, we agree on something.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts