Posted on 12/11/2013 8:10:28 AM PST by fishtank
“if you want to discredit the guy....
I am waiting.”
Why would I want to discredit a dude who believes humans came from another planet 400 million years ago? I will leave that to you.
You must believe that 65 million years separate dinosaurs and humans. Ha what a Load!!! you believe that without proof , yet when you have it in your hands and can see for yourself, you reject it.
What dude??? the author of the article??? I can’t find your CLAIM
Help me out!
“What dude??? the author of the article??? “
No. The Dr. with the fake stones.
“There is no argument from this author that there are some fake Ica Stones out there, but on the other hand, just because some fakes and frauds have been made, doesn’t mean the real ones are discredited.”
Interesting that ONLY the fake ones have dinosaurs carved on them ...
ONLY the fake ones have dinosaurs carved on them ,.....
where is that pointed out?
read post 61
this author handled the originals and put it to scientific discourse.
reads if you dare
No. The Dr. with the fake stones....”
Where did you read this??? link, quote???
the author in post 61, knew the dude.
I never said they didn't. I just challenge the assumption that they could not have drawn a picture of one unless they walked among them. We draw pictures of them without walking among them, so that doesn't seem to be a very sound assumption.
“Where did you read this??? link, quote???”
I thought you were the expert?
Okay, point taken, but we have complete skeletons, and scientist and artists (conceptualizing). today.
These stones are said to be at least 400 years and more old!
How could they draw these so anatomically correct hundreds of years before paleontology?
read the articles about the illustrations, There are details they could have known only if they saw them.
ancient stylization is understood, but these etchings are impressive.
whether you accept them or not, they would be a serious blow to current evolutionary thought.
now your bias is showing....
:)
Fossils have been discovered exposed naturally by erosion. I don't see any reason to assume that if someone had seen that 400 years ago they couldn't "conceptualize" what the creature that skeleton came from might look like just as well as someone today might.
You seem terribly impressed with the detail of their knowlege of the subject, which I find puzzling since we've never seen one. That means we really don't know how accurate that depiction really is.
“You seem terribly impressed with the detail of their knowlege of the subject, which I find puzzling since we’ve never seen one. That means we really don’t know how accurate that depiction really is.”
Seems they are pretty accurate depictions of dinosaurs from comic books.
Selectively quoting someone to make it look like they support your position is childish. So is telling someone to shut up. You can’t seem to engage in legitimate argument. Good luck pal
Show me a post on Hugh Ross website which argues for anything other than the hand of a designer.
whatever
you obviously have not read nr researched the point.
Show me a post ....”
as with the Libs, they will not admit anything, you have to read their work, I have.
Dr. Davidheiser sent a copy of the draft of this booklet to Dr. Hugh Ross for comments. Dr. Davidheiser said that “I think that the honorable thing to do is to send it first to Dr. Ross to ask if he finds any errors of fact on my part. I sent him a copy of the first edition and he had found no fault. He seems to think people criticize him because they do not know what a fine person he is and would not criticize him if they know him personally....”
Christians have to be informed about the exact position which Dr. Ross takes. This is the only reason why you should read Dr. Davidheiser’s paper on “A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE MINISTRY OF DR. HUGH ROSS.”
Theistic evolutionists accept evolution with its great lengths of time but believe it came about through acts of God instead of through natural processes.
Progressive creationists claim to be creationists. They believe God created certain basic types of animals and plants which then varied naturally as much as possible and when they could vary no further, God created more and higher types. Two important questions are: How much can living things vary in nature and how much time is acceptable?
Progressive creationists accept the time of the evolutionists. Belief in the extent of possible variation among plants and animals varies with progressive creationists. It seems most commonly to be accepted within the taxonomic category called the “order.” For example, a weasel and a walrus belong to the same order. A giraffe and a hippopotamus belong to the same order. This implies that a weasel and a walrus could have been produced, in time, from the same ancestry, and this would be defended as creation. Similarly for a giraffe and a hippopotamus.
The American Scientific Affiliation was founded by a group of Christian men of science to defend the Bible against the writings of materialistic scientists, but it soon strayed. For example, a regular columnist for its journal accepted the “phylum” as the range within which natural variation can act. The phylum is the most inclusive taxonomic category under “kingdom.” The phylum Chordata includes all creatures that have bones, including man, and some that do not. According to that columnist, fish eventually could have produced men and apparently he would not have called that evolution. But, according to him, an ancestor of each of the invertebrate phyla would have been created. He said there is a problem because one would have to accept some creation! That is, one would have to accept at least as many acts of creation as there are phyla instead of accepting outright evolution!
In a public broadcast Dr. Ross appeared with an erudite evolutionist, a physical anthropologist. The tape of this broadcast is in contrast to taped sessions with naive and enthusiastic followers. Regarding a popular definition of evolution as “descent with modification,” he said, “As long as the modification is understood in very broad terms, I’d be comfortable with that.” In other words, if “descent with modification” (evolution) is understood to be broad enough to include processes which are not strictly natural but may include acts of God (theistic evolution) it is OK.
In this tape he says, “I would differ from, say, a theistic evolutionist [then he abruptly changes the subject and does not say how he would differ from a theistic evolutionist] and I don’t put all the miracles of God at the beginning of the Big Bang. I see what takes place following the Big Bang as natural processes [evolution], of course controlled by God [theistic evolution], since He’s responsible for the laws of physics. But that’s what science is all about, studying these processes.” In spite of his denial, this is an expression of theistic evolution.
Here the evolutionist interjects an approving, “Right!”
The dialogue continues.
Dr. Ross. “Just because the ICR [Institute for Creation Research] says certain things about the Bible as literal doesn’t mean it [what the ICR says] has the approval of Hebrew scholars.”
Evolutionist. “Exactly, and similarly, I think that the very strict young-earth creationism, which is to my mind scientifically so unreasonable, has given conservative Christians a bad name.”
Dr. Ross. “Yes, because I would take the position that it is impossible to take the Bible literally and come to the conclusion that the days are only twenty-four hours.”
Evolutionist. “Yes. “
Dr. Ross. “They must be long periods of time.”
Evolutionist. “Yes. “
Thus Dr. Ross accommodates himself both to enthusiastic fundamentalists and to gracious evolutionists.
more at : http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm
(not an unfair treatment)
I've done enough resarch to know where the pictures of dinosaurs come from, and that people who have never seen a dinosaur can draw them. Can you tell me my if we can do that now, someone couldn't do it 400 years ago? It's not like there a lot of andvanced technology required to make a drawing.
And certainly it is possible for a Christian to do that. At no point in Dr. Ross' writings that I am aware of does he endorse anything like Darwinian ("chance") evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.