In the beginning . . . Adam walked with dinosaurs [Creationist Park]

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 02 January 2005 | James Langton

[Havoc]

Or "time flies when you're having fun". That doesn't mean a day takes a thousand years to ocurr for God. It means that God doesn't see time the same way we do. Tell me, was Christ in the Grave for 3 days or 3 million years.. Words mean things. You might stop trying to force your redefinition of words onto the language and understand the language for what it says rather than what you'd have it say.

[wyattearp]

"Specifically the "evil" that was to be destroyed was indeed destroyed, Christ was to come from the lineage of the Adam and Noah and his family were the only ones not polluted."

If Noah and his family were the only ones not polluted, and it was they who repopulated the world, then how did evil get back into the world?

[superskunk]

You're going to Hell. (Ken can explain)

That's what my cousin says. I refuse to quit smoking those sinful cigarettes.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Because in Ezekiel 28 we are told he was created, not when.

Lucifer was created beautiful and perfect...

Uhhh, "Lucifer" wasn't created at any point before man, because the name Lucifer [heylel] (which occurs only at Isaiah 14:12), literally "light-bringer" or morning star, was intended to represent Babylon. It has nothing to do with Satan (it was an interpretive error by medieval scholars that led to this mistake... in much the same way the the invented name Jehovah was mistaken for the correct "Yahweh").

Second, the verse you quote was address to the king/prince of Tyre, how do you relate it to Satan? In fact, Ezekiel 25 was address to the Ammonites, 26-28 to the city of Tyre, and 29 to Egypt, all fortelling their destruction because of their crimes against God and God's people. The "Eden" reference refers to the blessings and beauty of the land in Tyre, and the rest of the passage refers to the power and exhalted nature of the king, and how God can take him down just as fast as he was raised up (perhaps you should look up the term "metaphor," as much of the Bible uses them extensively).

Are you just randomly selecting verses with words you recognize, or are you actually reading the whole passages in context?

[PatrickHenry]

Here's a thread from a few months ago about yet another creationist theme park, this one run by Kent Hovind:
Stupid Dino Tricks.

[Guyin4Os]

I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God

I wasn't claiming to be able to prove the existence of God to an atheist's satisfaction. My post related to the grammatical construction of Genesis 1:1,2.

[Ichneumon]

No wonder nobody takes intelligent design seriously when we praddle this crap. Golly. Kem Ham needs to be strung up.

Ken Ham is a distant second to Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind when it comes to delivering goofiness by the truckload.

[Just mythoughts]

"Are you just randomly selecting verses with words you recognize, or are you actually reading the whole passages in context?"


Right back at you!

[PFC]

Judging by what Genesis says, here is what the world looks like

[superskunk]

I wasn't claiming to be able to prove the existence of God to an atheist's satisfaction. My post related to the grammatical construction of Genesis 1:1,2.


Yes, I understand that. I'm just saying that I realize this can be a divisive issue for many people. The details aren't overly important to my faith; however, it is interesting stuff. I would gladly read any information you have on the issue.

Thanks.

superskunk

[superskunk]

Is that what it looks like through the Hubble telescope?

[Youngblood]

Might be worth a trip for comic value!

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

I take it from your response that you cannot refute my post...

[Guyin4Os]

The Bible is full of things meant to trip up people like you - apparently

Hebrew grammar doesn't trip me up.

The Bible does tell us how old the Earth is specifically - and does so in the lineages presented which trace all the way back to Adam

Not really. Biblical lineages only list HEADs of clans, not every descendant. And they certainly cannot be used to determine lengths of time, other than the lifespan of the individuals listed.

The Hebrew Grammer does not allow for your "gap" theory

If you will reread my post, I specifically stated that I do not subscribe to the so-called "gap theory." So I would agree with you that the Bible does not support it.

Your philosophical predelections have allowed you some alternate universe you're trying to project onto the scriptures

No, I don't subscribe to the "alternate universe" theory either

If anyone else is interested, I'll explain why the grammatical construction in the Hebrew allows for an old universe, while restricting the life on earth to a relatively short period of time.

Stop trying to project evolution onto God's word

I don't. I do not accept Darwinism or any other modern theory of evolutionary ascent. I believe the Bible, that God created life on the earth in the six literal days as described in Genesis chapter 1.

[Lucky Dog]

Words mean things.

Indeed, sir. However, unless you are fluent in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek and have access to the original texts, you are relying on other people’s copying, interpretation and, most likely, translation of those words which you assert have “meaning.” Additionally, regardless of translations, the meanings of words in any language are subject to contextual ambiguity as well as idiomatic misinterpretation even to a fluent native speaker of the language correctly employing all relevant rules of grammar and syntax.

Consequently, it possible to misinterpret the meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” (meaning day) to mean only a 24 hour rotation of the earth rather than perhaps an “era” since such is certainly possible in our own tongue, English. I invite you to consider the phrases: “every dog has his day,” “days of yesteryear,” “Day of the Jackal,” etc., none of which refer to a day of 24 hours in length. In relation to the flood of Noah’s time being over the whole “world” consider the following phrases: “Alexander conquered the world,” “The Roman world,” “the world of physics,” etc.

Far more important than the quarrel over specific meanings of individual words, there is the more important issue of the message of the Scripture. In the case of the Genesis story, the important message is that God created everything, and that man, one of His creations, should be, in the absence of sin, properly subservient to the Creator. This subservient position is a correct and beneficial relationship for mankind. This message further expounds that it is only through man’s willful choice to sin that mankind loses this relationship and its attendant benefits.

The ultimate quarrel between creationists and Darwinists is less over the meaning of words and “six days” or “young earth” versus millions of years or “old earth” than is it is over the existence of God. Darwinists try to exclude God from the act of creation and creationists insist that such is impossible. If we allow the Darwinist to succeed, the implications of excluding the Creator are morally, philosophically and legally profound.

If there is no Creator, then man is his own ultimate judge. There are no “unalienable rights” because there is no Creator to endow mankind with them… every “right” descends from the state and “all” are revocable, i.e., the tyranny of socialism is ultimately justifiable. There are no moral absolutes and as a result, “anything goes, if you don’t get caught… if it feels good, do it… everything is relative, etc.”

Consequently, you and I, as creationists, would be best served in this argument of creationism versus Darwinism to quarrel less with other creationists and more effectively with the Darwinists.

[Modernman]

These are all things you would expect to find if humans and dinosaurs had existed contemporaneously.

If humans and dinosaurs had co-existed, humans would have been eaten to extinction.

[Modernman]

Can I prove that the flood did not encompass the whole earth, rather just the earth afflicted with the pollution, no. You can't disproved it either,

You are the one proposing that the flood happened. The burden is on you to prove it.

[WildHorseCrash]

The ultimate quarrel between creationists and Darwinists is less over the meaning of words and “six days” or “young earth” versus millions of years or “old earth” than is it is over the existence of God. Darwinists try to exclude God from the act of creation and creationists insist that such is impossible.

There is nothing in evolutionary science which mandates or requires the non-existence of God. Science takes no position on the question of whether God exists, because that question is outside the realm of science. It is a question of theology, and properly one for theologists to ponder.

Your post does a disservice to all of those scientists and laypeople who have a profound faith in God, but who also recognize the fundamental truth of evolutionary science.

[Lucky Dog]

Your post does a disservice to all of those scientists and laypeople who have a profound faith in God, but who also recognize the fundamental truth of evolutionary science

Please note that in my post I did not specify "evolutionists" but "Darwinists." Let me refer you to the first link in Post Number 1 of this thread. After you have read the information in this link, I will be willing to debate with you the validity of whether or not my post does the disservice you claim.

Please re-post after you have reviewed the specified link.

[WildHorseCrash]

Please note that in my post I did not specify "evolutionists" but "Darwinists." Let me refer you to the first link in Post Number 1 of this thread. After you have read the information in this link, I will be willing to debate with you the validity of whether or not my post does the disservice you claim.

Under common usage, "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" are synonyms. No scientist seriously believes in Lamarkian evolution, for example. We're talking about evolution and speciation through natural selection; decent with modification; the synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics. There is nothing in all of this science which precludes the existence of God. Perhaps you define "Darwinists" differently. If so, then you need to define your terms.

My point stands. If, by "Darwinists" you mean those who believe in evolutionary biology, then you are false in claiming, "Darwinists try to exclude God from the act of creation."