You Don’t ‘fit’ Dinosaurs With The Bible!

[8ennett 0]

The popular spectacular television programs that had already aired in the UK and Australia, 'Walking With Dinosaurs,' were shown on the Discovery Channel in the United States on April 16, 2000.

 

These programs, a mix of fact and fiction with a very heavy dose of evolutionary indoctrination, have already been watched by millions (including in Britain), and many more millions of people will see them around the world.In May, Disney releases its new movie 'Dinosaurs'âagain expected to have the typical evolutionary indoctrination that permeates such Hollywood films.

 

It's sad but trueâdinosaurs are probably used more than anything else in an attempt to convince children and adults alike that evolution is fact. So much so, that for many, the words 'dinosaur' and 'evolution' are almost synonymous.

 

Over the years, I have been asked numerous times to explain how dinosaurs 'fit with the Bible'. However, you don't 'fit' dinosaurs with the Bible. You see, what most people do is take man's fallible interpretations of the bones that are found and somehow try to fit these into the Bible.

 

But the Bible is, among other things, a book of real history. God has revealed to us the major events of history from the beginning of time to enable us to build a way of thinking to understand the universe.

 

When one accepts the history time-line as outlined in Scripture, it is easy to explain dinosaurs. When one understands that land animals (including dinosaurs) were made on the sixth day of Creationâthat there was no death (of animals or man) or disease (there are dinosaur bones that show evidence of diseases like cancer) before sinâthat all the land animal kinds (including dinosaurs) were on the Arkâand that many animal groups (including dinosaurs) have died out since the Flood (because sin, the curse, and the Flood affected the world)âthen it's easy to explain the history of dinosaurs.

 

Also, there is a lot of evidence (such as carvings and paintings of dinosaur-like creatures)âand (unfossilized) dinosaur bone with red blood cellsâthat makes sense in the light of the Biblical account of history. Did you know that a dinosaur may be described in detail in the Bible? Check out Job 40:15-19. And if the notes in your Bible state that this animal was an elephant or hippo, read the passage again to see that this can't be so.

 

Did you know the word 'dinosaur' was first invented in 1841? Dinosaurs were probably called 'dragons' before that time. And the Hebrew word for 'dragon' is used a number of times in the Old Testament. There are also dragon legends prevalent in cultures around the world. It's possible these are accounts of encounters with beasts we today call dinosaurs.

 

The reason many Christians have been unable to give answers about dinosaurs is because they have tried to 'fit' them into the Bibleâinstead of using the Bible and its true account of history to explain them. This is done in detail in my book 'The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved.'

 

In fact, at Answers in Genesis, we call dinosaurs 'missionary lizards.' This is because we can show people that the Bible actually explains dinosaurs and makes sense of the evidence we find around the world. In thinking about dinosaurs, one also has to talk about death (after all, dinosaur fossils are dead!) â and thus, the origin of death because of sin. This leads into a discussion of the Gospel.

 

As the topic of Noah's Flood is discussed (a Flood that buried billions of creatures including dinosaursâand thus the main cause of most dinosaur fossils), the vital matter of salvation can also be covered. After all, Noah's Ark is a picture of salvation in Christ. Just as Noah had to go through a doorway to be saved, so each one of us must go through a doorwayâthe Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Jesus said in John 10:9: 'I am the door. If anyone enters in by Me, he shall be savedâŚ'

 

 

It's so important that children, young people, and adults be informed on the truth of dinosaurs. This will then give them powerful answers to witness to a skeptical world. As non-Christians hear the Christian faith explain dinosaurs, many have been and will be challenged to listen to the rest of what the Bible states. We rejoice that many have been won to the Lord with this approach.

 

And what a difference it makes in the life of a Christian, young or old, when they have answers to enable them to stand tall in the midst of an unbelieving world.

 

 

 

To help you to have answers, and to train your children and othersâand to assist you in witnessing to friends and relativesâwe have put together the best of our many dinosaur resources in very special discounted packs. We want so much to see the world saturated with this material that, unlike the world's movies and television programs, tells the truth concerning God's Word and thus God's world.

 

Why don't you take advantage of these special limited offers that are available until May 31? Why not buy bulk quantities of our dinosaur witnessing booklet, Dinosaurs and the Bible, and hand them out during 'Missionary Lizard' Months?

 

Don't forget to check back on Monday the 17th, and listen to the dinosaur interviews with creationist scientists, watch a dinosaur video, and read some dinosaur articles.

 

Let's shout the truth about dinosaurs from the rooftops! Use a 'missionary lizard' today!

Source: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Now when I first read through this, I don't mean to offend anyone else out there but I burst in to tears of laughter. The fact that the person that wrote this was so blinded by faith in a book that they did not realise what it is exactly they were saying. However, the more I read it now the angrier it makes me, and here's why.

 

The second paragraph opens with the following, "These programs, a mix of fact and fiction...". This is basically implying from the start that the christian account of life, the earth and everything is the one truth. Again at the end of this paragraph, "Disney releases its new movie 'Dinosaurs'âagain expected to have the typical evolutionary indoctrination that permeates such Hollywood films.". This is implying that all theories of evolution are purely based on fiction and that all movies are generic in their views of Dinosaurs and evolution and do not work off any hard evidence. This really is not the case, and most of the movies and television programs that involve evolution and dinosaurs are all based on hard fact.

 

In the next paragraph we have this, "dinosaurs are probably used more than anything else in an attempt to convince children and adults alike that evolution is fact.". Now if your read through this whole article again you will notice that the writer seems to use children a lot, as if attempting to scare skeptical christians in to believing what they are saying as children are a good way of doing this. It's almost as if they are attempting to say "Your children are not safe if they are exposed to this purely fictional world of evolution, hear me now before it's too late.".

 

The fourth paragraph ends with "You see, what most people do is take man's fallible interpretations of the bones that are found and somehow try to fit these into the Bible.". The definition of the word fallible is "Capable of making an error", this is implying that scientific (non-christian scientific that is) studies are more likely to be incorrect as apposed to (very) loosely interpreting a document translated from ancient hebrew that was written two-thousand years ago. The idea is laughable, it's true, but notice how the writer does not indicate that his own interpetation is also fallible?

 

Now the fifth paragraph, this is one of my favourites, "But the Bible is, among other things, a book of real history.". Now there has not been any CONCLUSIVE evidence to support this fact either way, so why say this? By this point the writer has lost all credibility with me, the reader because he is failing to take in to account the facts surrounding this and has jumped in to the deep end without learning all the strokes. He is now splashing about and is losing the race. Is there any way he can catch up, well let's continue reading. "God has revealed to us the major events of history from the beginning of time to enable us to build a way of thinking to understand the universe.". Nobody knows who wrote the book of Genesis, although it is debated wether it was moses, or moses compiled it from eye-witness accounts. Either way, God did not write any part of the Bible and as such has not in any way revealed to us the major events of history from the beginning of time.

 

Just to stop analysing this for a minute and reflect what has been covered so far. It is obvious that the writer of this article has not actually done any research themselves in to this topic (apart from the dates of when Walking With Dinosaurs was being aired) and has simply listened to what everyone else has to say, mashed it all together in their own head and trying to propogate this misinformation as hard fact (the very basis of religion if you ask me). I'm a very open-minded person when it comes to religion, but when presented an article such as this it does more to push me away than pull me in and I know it shouldn't as this person does not represent the entire Christian community, but never the less. Ok, let's get back to analysing this then shall we?

 

*I would also like to point out at this moment in time that the bible describes the time of Adam and Eve to be somewhere around 3500bc, bare this in mind when reading on*

 

"When one accepts the history time-line as outlined in Scripture, it is easy to explain dinosaurs.". And yet no evidence has been presented thus far to prove that the history time-line has been outline in scripture, in fact there are many valid points in archeology that disprove this fact. Neolithic civilisations were thought to be formed over 8000 years ago and carbon-dating has further proven this. But I don't want to play this card just yet as it would ruin this poor soles attempts to disprove evolution. Now I am not making a mockery of this concept, merely of this individuals interpretations. "that all the land animal kinds (including dinosaurs) were on the Arkâand that many animal groups (including dinosaurs) have died out since the Flood" yet Dinosaur bones could not have physically fossilised to the state they are now within as the bible very clearly states that the great flood took place on the 600th year of Noah's life, 2345bc. Now it is obvious that had the great flood occurred and Noah did indeed place two of every single animal upon the ark (which even with todays technology would take a very long time and most of which will die out after being removed from their natural environments) Dinosaurs would most definately not be among the animals taken on board as their existence on the earth ceased millions of years before.

 

Right next we have this little gem, "Also, there is a lot of evidence (such as carvings and paintings of dinosaur-like creatures)âand (unfossilized) dinosaur bone with red blood cells". Obviously there are still creatures that remain with Dinosaur like characteristics, lizards, crocodiles (which are actually survivors of the time of Dinosaurs), Komodo Dragons and so on. It's easy to associate these carvings and paintings with such creatures as obviously the paintings were not life-size. Also, this unfossilised Dinosaur bone with red blood cells, it was discovered by (surprise, surprise) Creationalists, or more specifically, a sculptor, maths teacher, shop owner, dentist and someone with an MS from ICR. Now it's not that I don't trust the paleontologistic expertise of these people, but the bone and cells were sent off for study and research over six years ago and no results have been published. In fact the entire thing seems to have mysteriously vanished. Using this as a basis for an argument is definately not advised.

 

Ok, moving on from this, "The reason many Christians have been unable to give answers about dinosaurs is because they have tried to 'fit' them into the Bibleâinstead of using the Bible and its true account of history to explain them. This is done in detail in my book 'The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved.'". Now we're finally getting to the bottom of this article. A book you say? Well it would appear based on the evidence given and the examples and quotations made that the whole thing leaves people still slightly skeptical and possibly more confused than to begin with. No matter though, buy this book and you can go more in detail in to this subject.

 

"It's so important that children, young people, and adults be informed on the truth of dinosaurs." Bringing young people in to it as well as children, a sore point as hormones are raging in teenagers and are often a talking point on the news surrounding how out of control and troubled they can be. Why not bring in minorities as well, inform the masses, dispatch the missionaries, let's not stop forcing this point of view on everyone as truth. Notice how no other possible explanation can be true and offers no window of chance that this account of evolution, dinosaurs and the bible could possibly be false.

 

"To help you to have answers, and to train your children and others" Children once again. Train your children and others. I can't believe that the author actually said this. 'Train'. It's incredible. They are basically saying that everyone needs to be brainwashed in to believing this because it is highly unbelievable to begin with. They are shooting themselves in the foot with that comment and simply further proving that this entire subject is a lie.

 

Then the article just carries on about how you can take advantage of their special offers in missionary lizard packs and so on.

 

Obviously this is some form of scheme to make more money, and they are preying on the vulnerable, but they also believe what it is they are preaching as well which in all honesty scares the hell out of me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, this is true. But stating that their own opinion is hard-fact and is stated many times, "The Truth" then this is obviously the working of deranged and desperate minds, attempting to cling on to any shred of hope possible that this is not all there is. It all comes around to the subject of mortality in the end, people are unwilling to accept their own mortality and so turn to any other possibility that they will not die and cease to be, however that is just my opinion and I will certainly not be forcing it upon others.

 

Would anyone else care to have a crack at analysing this piece, or comment on my analysis?

[grim reaper1666 0]

But the Bible is, among other things, a book of real history. God has revealed to us the major events of history from the beginning of time to enable us to build a way of thinking to understand the universe.
When one accepts the history time-line as outlined in Scripture, it is easy to explain dinosaurs. When one understands that land animals (including dinosaurs) were made on the sixth day of Creation—that there was no death (of animals or man) or disease (there are dinosaur bones that show evidence of diseases like cancer) before sin—that all the land animal kinds (including dinosaurs) were on the Ark—and that many animal groups (including dinosaurs) have died out since the Flood (because sin, the curse, and the Flood affected the world)—then it's easy to explain the history of dinosaurs.

i have a problem with this for starters the bible is not writen or revealed by god it is simply written by normal people, they talk about the 7 days of creation but did you know that at the time when this fancy toliet paper was written the word day had a meaning similar to age. and as we know an age is an incredibly long amount of time its billions of years sometimes so most of the book of genesis is not to be taken literally you know.

has any religious person stopped to think that the book of fakesis was just created to give people someones theory on what happened. you can't say that because its in the bible its true. thats like saying a dog is a cat. you've got to stop being biased heck i m not i see somethings in the bible are similar to the events of the big bang. it is just basically in places a opinion on what might of happened. i do history at college and that has taught me to never rely on one source. never put your money inone bank sort of case , you don't want them going bankrupt.
Edited April 14, 2010 by grim reaper1666 (see edit history)

[8ennett 0]

Just to add, sorry if I came across as a bit of an ahole on this piece, just reading through it again I do sound kind of condesending, but in reality the author of this article really did anger my and I wrote this analysis fuelled by that rage.

[grim reaper1666 0]

don't you hate one sided people who believe so fully in the bible that they refuse to listen to any other opinion they say that we don't have proof for our theories. but they don't have proof for their theories they are just hipocretes who think that the bible was written by god, well it is not even in the bible it states that it is not written by god. it is written by numerous people hence the names of the chapters in the new testement.each one of those is named after the person who wrote that chapter so no one say that god wrote the bible because even the bible states otherwise. also don't try and say the earth is only 6,000 years old. it was afterall some relgious guy who decided to add up the ages of the people who wrote the bible to get to that number so straight away that falls apart. evolution has alot of evidence the human like remains that have been found where they are close to being full human but also have ape like aspects so that shows how evolution has occurred. you can't even say that evolution can't happen because we still have apes. that is not true the apes of today evolution of a seperate branch of pre human monkeys. sure there is the gap in the fossil record that you could try and say disproves evolution but fossiliation is rare which means that it does not. the dinosaurs part in the bible read carefully and it says animals. if i remember correctly a dinosaur is a type of animal so they do fit in with the bible.

[8ennett 0]

I agree with you that people should not talk about something as fact when it is obvious to anyone that person does not posess all the facts. Maybe if you were to sit down and give them a non-biased presentation displaying the evidence from both sides I reckon it would undoubtedly convert more christians to either athiesm, another religion or at the very least make them become agnostic. It should be law that any christian who is a missionary on a journey to spread the good news that they present an alternative explanation as well as their own. They like to prey on the weak minded which is why (please nobody take offense to this) you see that most rednecks are God-fearing Christians. I also disagree that religion should play a role in politics. The majority of American politicians that are not only devout Christians but also employ their beliefs in to their work such as when making decisions, passing new laws etc. actually scares me. George W. Bush Jr. and Sr. both used God in many of their speeches and used the word of God to not only justify their actions but also to gain popularity in the elections. I'm not even going to comment on religion and politics in the middle-east because the role it plays is evident from the amount of bloodshed. I believe that no matter your religion you should make your decisions in the best interest of the people and NOT what God says in the best interest of the people. There comes a point when you start taking away more and more freedoms which people have the right to. I think it's best I stop there, you can tell this is a very, very, very, very sensitive subject for me lol

[yordan 10]

Some countries strongly assess a complete difference between the State and the Religion.Religion teaches people how to behave versus God.State laws tell people how they must behave toward each other.Sometimes both assessments lead to the same path (for instance the statemant "you shall not kill"). However the public is different, and the difference still has to be made.Some things do not have to be done because the law says "no".Some other things should not be done because God said "no".And, of course, laws tells us what not to do, and religion says what you should not think.If you act correctly and you think correctly, you will be in agreement with everybody.Science talks about facts, you can always have a look at a series of facts, without thinking differently from what your God asks you to think!Science says that some giant animals seem to have existed, let's (just for fun) name them "Dinausaurs". The bible never said that these animal did not exist, so there is no real discrepancy.Only some further interpretations can lead to some disagreement, let's simply give Science a chance to finish it's work, and let's see what religious people can explain.

[8ennett 0]

President 'revealed reasons for war in private meeting' </B></FONT>

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.

The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month. </FONT>

 

The revelation comes after Mr Bush launched an impassioned attack yesterday in Washington on Islamic militants, likening their ideology to that of Communism, and accusing them of seeking to "enslave whole nations" and set up a radical Islamic empire "that spans from Spain to Indonesia". In the programmeElusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

 

And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

 

Mr Abbas remembers how the US President told him he had a "moral and religious obligation" to act. The White House has refused to comment on what it terms a private conversation. But the BBC account is anything but implausible, given how throughout his presidency Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, has never hidden the importance of his faith.

 

From the outset he has couched the "global war on terror" in quasi-religious terms, as a struggle between good and evil. Al-Qa'ida terrorists are routinely described as evil-doers. For Mr Bush, the invasion of Iraq has always been part of the struggle against terrorism, and he appears to see himself as the executor of the divine will.

 

He told Bob Woodward - whose 2004 book, Plan of Attack, is the definitive account of the administration's road to war in Iraq - that after giving the order to invade in March 2003, he walked in the White House garden, praying "that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty". As he went into this critical period, he told Mr Woodward, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will.

 

"I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgiveness."

 

Another telling sign of Mr Bush's religion was his answer to Mr Woodward's question on whether he had asked his father - the former president who refused to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq after driving Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 - for advice on what to do.

 

The current President replied that his earthly father was "the wrong father to appeal to for advice ... there is a higher father that I appeal to".

 

The same sense of mission permeated his speech at the National Endowment of Democracy yesterday. Its main news was Mr Bush's claim that Western security services had thwarted 10 planned attacks by al-Qa'ida since 11 September 2001, three of them against mainland US.

 

More striking though was his unrelenting portrayal of radical Islam as a global menace, which only the forces of freedom - led by the US - could repel. It was delivered at a moment when Mr Bush's domestic approval ratings are at their lowest ebb, in large part because of the war in Iraq, in which 1,950 US troops have died, with no end in sight.

 

It came amid continuing violence on the ground, nine days before the critical referendum on the new constitution that offers perhaps the last chance of securing a unitary and democratic Iraq. "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region" and set up a radical empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia, he said.

 

The insurgents' aim was to "enslave whole nations and intimidate the world". He portrayed Islamic radicals as a single global movement, from the Middle East to Chechnya and Bali and the jungles of the Philippines.

 

He rejected claims that the US military presence in Iraq was fuelling terrorism: 11 September 2001 occurred long before American troops set foot in Iraq - and Russia's opposition to the invasion did not stop terrorists carrying out the Beslan atrocity in which 300 children died.

 

Mr Bush also accused Syria and Iran of supporting radical groups. They "have a long history of collaboration with terrorists and they deserve no patience". The US, he warned, "makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbour them because they're equally as guilty of murder".

 

"Wars are not won without sacrifice and this war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," Mr Bush declared. But progress was being made in Iraq, and, he proclaimed: "We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory."

 

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

 

This man is probably the main reason I have for saying religion does not belong in politics. I am afraid I will have to say this and sorry yet again for offending anyone, but a person that has that much blind faith in God is undoubtedly unintelligent. Even though religion is a comfort for those who are weak-minded (nobody can deny that) I do still believe that some good can come from it. But when you put idiots like Mr Bush in charge, well we've already seen the consequences for ourselves haven't we?

 

The question of both religion and politics is most definately not the same as th question of both church and state. The failure to make this distinction usually results in you becoming confused. The problem of church and state has to do with practices and institutions. None can trespass the boundaries that define their legit sphere of influence. Here, the concept of separation is valid. Some rather sore problems arise in two areas. The first involves trying to steer between avoiding an establishment of religious practices and permitting its freedoms to execute what is required of it. Prayer in public schools is a prime example of this. Also a second range of problems arises when religious belief and practice conflict with established laws. Mr Bush does not understand this concept and uses it to play heavily on decisions that he would have no idea of otherwise. It was blatently obvious that he did not know what he was doing, somebody please prove me wrong here, and he left your Country in a right old mess, but he still uses God as his comfort blanket. What's more, people actually believe this crap and have forgiven him for what he has done. Why?

 

Going further East (or West depending which way you prefer to travel I suppose) the way Islamic law plays in Egypt is another prime example. Egypt is made up of three seperate communities. The first obviously being Islamic, the second Jewish (although their being the minority) and the third Christian. The country is in fact ruled by Islamic law which does not only apply to the Islamic people but to everyone. A christian family is not legally allowed to adopt a child in Egypt because Islamic law says so. Even burial rights in Egypt are interrupted due to what Islamic law dictates, and it's because of this attitude of the Islamic government that they end up with rebels, extremists and protestors.

 

A country should not be governed by religion. A hard and cold fact. It only serves to benefit the religion that governs and for everyone else it is forcing that religion upon them.

 

The Qur'an is just another holy book, this is where my strongest objections come in. It should NOT be used as a basis for government yet it is the third most widely used system of law next to common law and civil law. It is still debated wether or not the Qur'an does actually contain passages of violence or if these are geographical and periodical statements, however they have been used as justification of mass slaughter and genocide by muslim extremists for centuries. Only extremists mind you, regular muslim people tend to live a life of happiness when living by the peaceful interprertations of this book. Still though, a book that possibly states violence is a righteous form of retribution and this book is used as a system of law? In fact it is similar to the passages in the bible, no clear instructions are given and you are left to interpret it yourself. There are so many possible variations of how it can be interpreted, so basically it's as though they are making their own laws on how ever they feel like interpreting a book, but because they are using this holy book then it justifies how they create this form of law and how the government can be run.

 

"Sura 2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. Sura 9:35 The number of months in the sight of Allah is twelve (in a year) so ordained by Him the day He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are sacred; that is the straight usage. So wrong not yourselves therein and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together. But know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves."

Edited April 20, 2010 by 8ennett (see edit history)

[mitchellmckain 0]

I just want to say that this nonsense is NOT a "Christian perspective", it is an ANTI-SCIENCE perspective. These WACKOS like the Flat Earthers just want their own self-righteous cult that excludes scientists. This makes me rather angry because I am a scientist who became a Christian, and I very much thing that this kind of narrow minded exclusivity that cuts Christianity down to a door which only they themselves can squeeze through is a rather nasty self-indulgent cultish behavior. It is no more possible for me to take this anti-evolution nonsense seriously than it is take this Flat Earth insanity seriously. Their behavior makes it abundantly clear that they simply don't want there to be a scientific theory for the orgins of life or the species. They want God to be the explanation for everything. That is is not faith but willfull wishful thinking.Now as a Christian I can understand a great deal of their point of view. I don't fault their priorities. Life and life everlasting is more important by far than all the activities of science. I don't expect everyone to share my interest in science any more than I expect them to share any of my other interests. Furthermore I DO see quite clearly that it is the rhetoric of aggressive atheists that is largely responsible for this anti-science cult. It is the continuous spouting of absolute nonsense that science disproves God that can ONLY have this effect of convincing Christians that science must therefore be wrong. It is complete foolishness on the part of these atheists to think that this rhetoric could really succeed in convincing people that their point of view is correct. In addition the use of evoution to justify the most horrid philosophy of social Darwinism, not only played a key role in motivating modern fundamentalism but is something that will take a rather long time to forget. God as an explanation for everything and the Bible as the source of ALL truths was fine for the middle ages perhaps, but I do not want to live in the appalling squalor of the middle ages. Frankly far from explaining everything, I don't see that God explains ANYTHING. I really don't see God offering explanations for things. I don't see God even in the business of explanations at all. I DON'T think that is what Christianity is about at all. But the activities of men are ones that are in a continual process of specialization, and the first fireside story tellers combined all the activities of science, history, philosophy, religion and entertainment. So trying to characterize anything from 2000 years ago as a failed attempt at one of these specialized activities of modern times is just absurd."Because the Bible says so" is the most absurd argument imaginable. Why should anyone take that anymore seriously than quoting Star Trek to say that faster than light travel is possible? Some people like myself come to the conclusion that the Bible is a work of God because we read in it things that change our lives for the better. But the Bible was written long ago in a setting of vastly different social conditions, and there will always be issues on which we must show a little discernment. The slaughter of people in a war by protagonists in the story does not condone such behavior to day. The practice of slavery and polygamy back then does not condone the same behavior today. Misogynistic attitudes in the Bible does not mean that we should not condemn these attitudes today. And I certainly do not think that any of the stories in the Bible should be taken as proof that the findings of science are wrong.

[yordan 10]

That is a nice logical example.Christians are told not to believe in Evolution.Most of scientists believe in Evolution.However, all people who do not believe in Evolution, are not Christians.

[tansqrx 0]

The Bible is a book of faith and quite simply you have to have faith to believe it. Otherwise is it just a collection of fairy tales.I’m personally a Christian and still believe the Bible and also in evolution. Unlike some, I believe that evolution is just the means that God used for creation. I don’t fully understand creation (no Christian does) but I have to have faith that what science says and what the Bible says is actually the same. There are many places in the Bible that have double meanings and some subjects are just left open to interpretation. Also many books of the Bible were poetry in the original Hebrew so English translations can never fully convey the intended message.The Catholic Church has made the statement that “faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution)More to the point are there dinosaurs in the Bible? Maybe. The term livyathan and behemoth both appear in the Bible (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml). There have been many speculations but no definitive answer.This is just my opinion and will continue if everyone is willing. Sometimes it is nice to take a break from strictly computer related topics.

[mitchellmckain 0]

The Catholic Church has made the statement that âfaith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins.â (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution)

This was interesting, not only because I am always interested in what the Catholic Church has to say (I bought a copy of the catechism for a reference), but because "monogenism" was a term that I had not heard before.

 

Perhaps you will find my position interesting. You see I believe that the human mind is a living organism in its own right, with its own inheritance (transmitted via human communication) apart from the biological inheritance of our body (transmitted via DNA). Because of this I can hold the two different positions simultaneously, monogenism with regards to the human mind and polygenism with regards to the human body.

 

With regards to the human mind, I believe not only that the human race is descended from the single human couple, the Adam and Eve in the story of Genesis, but that we are in fact descended from God Himself. But our body is just a primate, 97% the same a chimpanzees, and so biologically we are bretheren to all the other living creatures on the earth. In other words, although Adam and Eve had biological parents, it is God who raised Adam and Eve as His own children, and from God they learned what it is that makes us human. Another way to think of it is, that our first religion was our humanity itself, which was not limited to biological descent but only by human communication, and after the flood it spread over all of the earth.

 

Biblical evidence for this view, by the way, includes the fact that Cain was afraid of other people in Genesis 4:14, and Genesis 6:1-4 which can be understood as an answer to the age old question of who did Cain and Seth marry. The sons of god refers to Cain and Seth, while the daughers of men refer to females of their species, who joined the human family by marriage. And in 6:4 it explains that their children became the leaders of human civilization, "mighty men that were of old, men of renown".

[mitchellmckain 0]

Obviously my understanding of Genesis chapters 2&3 are far from a literal one. I would see Genesis 2:7 "formed man of dust from the ground" as representing the process of evolution and the breath of life as refering to God's parental instruction or "inspiration" (the divine breath). What I certainly DO NOT believe is that Adam and Eve were products of some kind necromancy that made them golems of dust and flesh.

[mahesh2k 0]

Problem is people want to bend their faith and belief as per science and hence they deny evolution and big bang. So if they want to keep faith on bible only way left is to say that evolution is false or god triggered evolution. earlier i was taunted by few christians "science can't create life" and this month we have heard different news. same is the case with LHC project. So at the end point is truth is something different and people are trying to bend truth as per their religion and sacred text. Very soon there will be point that people will realize that all they explore about universe is not at all in religious text. They can try hard but it's not there.

[yordan 10]

Another fact we must keep in mind, is that our way of understanding the world around us is constantly changing.That is also the case of advanced science. Scientists have facts, and they have theories.A theory is useful if it explains some facts. And this theory is valid until a new fact proves that this theory is false. Then comes the new theory explaining the old facts and also the new ones.A nice example is the Sun/Earth motion.At the beginning, the Earth was fixed, the sun was told moving around the Earth.Then, was discovered the fact that the earth was moving, describing circles.Then, the movement was discovered elliptical.And now, we know that the movement is not really elliptical, because it's disturbed by the movement of the Sun inside our Galaxy.So, the scientific method is constantly improving, and all the document are constantly changing.So, if we need a single document for everybody's use, this document must be very basic, understandable by everybody.That's why, in my own understanding, the Holy Bible describes the things in a very basic way.Each fact is probably exact. And, if we look more precisely, some facts can be slightly not exactly as they are stated, but could be stated differently according what we know today.But, the facts we know today are not a reason to change all the documents inside the Bible.So, we leave the Bible as it is, and we feel free to explain that, basically, the facts are true. And some details can be better explained when highlighted by the modern techniques, but the way to explain that must be unique. So, this way has to be decided by a single organization, namely the Catholic Church.If the way explaining things is not changing fast enough, we should not worry. After all, we are talking about eternity, and what is the length of human life compared to eternity?We must simply think that, someday, we will have all the answers. In our current life, or in a further life. But someday, surely.That's a matter of faith. This is part of my own faith.

[mahesh2k 0]

There is no mention of supernova in bible, same or big-bang, and many other things about universe. Besides there was no mention of another living species in universe mentioned in bible, so surely it is not word of god cause it is atleast it'll try to address most of the issues any intellect will seek. rather than this book keeps people in loop with information like satan and the behavior of people in faith. Why it fails to address the questions of universal seeker ? it fails very badly and we have to admit that. it is book of faith who wants to believe in creator who created universe without having to go into details of how universe formed with/without creator. for skippers this book and like of it is all we got.