Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Ministry uses dinosaurs to dispute evolution

76 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stellar

Yes, I know... hence it is not in the bible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
Honestly, the beginning of the Bible contradicts itself.  Two different creation stories, one where aniamls are created first, the other where man is created before animals.  People have overlooked counter-productive evidence for the sake of religion before...they'll keep doing it.

639505[/snapback]

Really? Where does it say this?

640999[/snapback]

I seen you ask this on a different thread so here it is

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)

(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut

Ahhh Zandore thumbsup.gif

I knew I could count on you to find them. I see there is a thread about this in the "Spirituallity" section. I answered these there.

EDIT// Removed redundant quote.

Edited by Amalgamut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
Enoch is not in the bible nor is recognised as a biblical book by the majority of christians.

641257[/snapback]

The only reason why it was taken out is because it mainly talks about the "Nephilim."

The Bible is not used to teach about these beings. Its main focus is the word and the stories that arise and decend from it.

The Book of Enoch isn't relevant to Jesus. However, if memory serves me correctly, it is included in the Jewish bible.

True, it is not in the bible. However, it is considered a biblical text by many christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashley-Star*Child

Actually, no it IS relevant to Jesus, one specific book 'The Lost Books' or something which is quite nicely illustrated points out the connection there. Jesus is in there as the judge of humanity at the end, Ancient of Days or Elect One. The angels themselves, whilst taking the Oath to fall also found out the name of the future Messiah which THEY were rejoicing over. Don't think they were rejoicing too much afterwwards though...

I realize it's not accepted but yes, the Nephillim is one of the main reasons, it's astrology, the fall of angels (Jewish people at one point would not accept the notion of fallen angels), etc all contribute to it. There are many reasons why poeple didn't want to accept it, based on opinion of things they did not understand, like the astronomy, which is accurate to TODAYS discovery of planets (like Neptune, Uranus and Pluto) which they didn't know existed then, but it was still considered a sacred book by the Hebrews, and that is why it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and many other places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Potholer
Not everyone who believes the Bible believes that dating sytem.  The Bible doesn't  say anywhere anything about how old the Earth really is---or how long the six 'days' of creation actually were.  Some people just try to trace the age through lineages, but lots of Christians disagree with that method.

639501[/snapback]

However the original version used the word "yohm" for day which has a number of translations. 1. A literal 24 hour day; 2. A period of time. True, it is difficult (/impossible) to work out which was meant but almost every use of "yohm" in genesis is used in the 24 hour sense with only one or two exceptions. Is it not more logical to assume this use is in the large majority group rather than the small minority?

Then they are not good Christians are they? According to the pastor at my friend's church, if you do not believe the first few chapters of genesis, you might as well scrap the whole bible as it (and one's faith that Jesus is the saviour) is the basis of Christianity. I'm not Christian by the way.

Why do you think Dinasuars lived with man, got any evidence for that?  or is it completely blind faith / belief that they did?

Why do you think the world is only 6000 years old?  What evidence suggests that apart from the bible ?

Our brains are too small?  wacko.gif 

Do some research on this and you will find that our brains are  at an optimal size. meaning if they got a bit bigger our brains would be slower.

Science knows more than the bible

640986[/snapback]

Blind faith/belief? I could swear I marked the page but it seems I didn't so I can't quote it but in the Black Holes chapter of A Brief History of Time Hawking says that he believed in Black Holes in the beginning when their existence was debated. He believed.

I think he means that are brains aren't quite powerful enough to comprehend. Not literal size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__

I don't care what anybody says, dino vs man! Who would you honestly believe would win at our state back then? My point rigth there!

Edited by __Kratos__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashley-Star*Child

Well, that's precisely my point. While I don't agree with the Creationist's view that humans saddled up and rode Triceratops or frolickied happily on th hills with T-Rex's, I do say they co-existed. Dinosarus, as Nephilim/animal hyrbids reaching 45ft creating a bloodbath on the Earth. Essentially, they were the reason for the flood because there was running and screaming and bloodshed Jurassic Park style. They weren't a originally created being, they were the hybridization of 200 of every species of originally created species on this Earth.

I find Evolution and the idea that man and life itself 'evolved' from some rock in space, that turned into a fish, that then turned into some ape-man laughable. You can pick on the logic of Creationists all you want, it preceedes the ape-man theory. Evolutionists can't even decide where man actually originated from.

You know, I was watching a biology show the other night about fetal devlopment and 4D ultrasound. They said we share genes not only with apes (or chimps tongue.gif) but also with dogs, dolphins, chickens, and this one really gets me, DAPPHODILS. Yes, you hard right, we have a 15% similarity to a flower!!!!. LMAO!!! Now, what was it, a flower or an ape we came from again?!

Just who has the bigge imagination here?! blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

@ashley:

i respect that you know a lot about the book of <forget the name>, but you should really study evo with as much zest before you make such statements.

the reason all life has commonalities is because it all began with the common ancestors of the prokaryotes!

get it? ONE origin! and it is of the most simplest of nature, not of some mystical higher force, but a basic force upon which all life springs! which makes more sense? a common beginning upon which things are built, or a common beginning that said "presto, i maketh you"? wacko.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
Ahhh Zandore thumbsup.gif

I knew I could count on you to find them. I see there is a thread about this in the "Spirituallity" section. I answered these there.

EDIT// Removed redundant quote.

642735[/snapback]

I have not read your response to that post but it did nothing for the one here. thumbsup.gif

Enoch is not in the bible nor is recognised as a biblical book by the majority of christians.
The only reason why it was taken out is because it mainly talks about the "Nephilim."
If this was the case then why are the books of Genesis and Numbers still in the Bible?

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182
find Evolution and the idea that man and life itself 'evolved' from some rock in space, that turned into a fish, that then turned into some ape-man laughable. You can pick on the logic of Creationists all you want, it preceedes the ape-man theory. Evolutionists can't even decide where man actually originated from.

Haha ! laugh.gif

If you want to criticize evolution why don't you get your facts from evolution sites or go and study it and not listen to people like Dr. Kent Hovind that states that evolution says we come from a rock. laugh.gif

If any person has doubts on evolution or doesn't understand it. You can watch A video documentary of it for free here :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educator...ds/svideos.html

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore

Whoa, Hyper I think that those links will not help them at all. It takes a mind that is capable of learning to appreciate knowledge. Knowledge that does not come out of a book of old fables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut

I just got deja-vu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
I just got deja-vu.

645455[/snapback]

Reincarnation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut

I have not read your response to that post but it did nothing for the one here. thumbsup.gif

643529[/snapback]

There is a whole thread dedicated to it.....

Here

If this was the case then why are the books of Genesis and Numbers still in the Bible?

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

643529[/snapback]

In Genesis it tells us this for the reason for the Flood.

In Numbers it tells us this because Moses and his armies were going up against these beings in a war.

The book of Enoch just goes into greated detail about the Nephilim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
In Genesis it tells us this for the reason for the Flood.

In Numbers it tells us this because Moses and his armies were going up against these beings in a war.

The book of Enoch just goes into greated detail about the Nephilim.

So what is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
I just got deja-vu.

645455[/snapback]

Reincarnation?

645457[/snapback]

The last three posts from a different thread are almost identical to this one..

Deja-vu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
In Genesis it tells us this for the reason for the Flood.

In Numbers it tells us this because Moses and his armies were going up against these beings in a war.

The book of Enoch just goes into greated detail about the Nephilim.

So what is your point?

645469[/snapback]

My point is the "book of Enoch" isn't really a needed part of the Bible. Because it is a story of the Nephilim. The Bible is meant to be a book about God. It touches breifly on certain subjects, but it does not go into great detail about them. Take for instance, "Satan." He is mentioned several times in the Bible, however the bible doesn't tell us much about his origin, or tell us the full story as to why he fell from heaven. Nor does it tell us much about the Nephilim. Nor does it talk much about Satan's other minions.

However, I still consider Enoch a book from the original biblical texts.

Also, many people disagree that the "sons of God" are half angelic. Therefore, Enoch would make no sense to them. But its quite clear in telling who these beings were.

If people wish to learn more about the Nephilim, then the book of Enoch is the place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182
I just got deja-vu.

645455[/snapback]

Reincarnation?

645457[/snapback]

The last three posts from a different thread are almost identical to this one..

Deja-vu

645471[/snapback]

because people can't stick keep things in 1 topic. It's confusing and a lot of things get missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
My point is the "book of Enoch" isn't really a needed part of the Bible. Because it is a story of the Nephilim. The Bible is meant to be a book about God.

You know about these

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Did you know about this one?

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

Researchers Trace Evolution To Relatively Simple Genetic Changes

In a stunning example of evolution at work, scientists have now found that changes in a single gene can produce major changes in the skeletal armor of fish living in the wild.

surprising results, announced in the March 25, 2005, issue of journal Science, bring new data to long-standing debates about how evolution occurs in natural habitats.

"Our motivation is to try to understand how new animal types evolve in nature," said molecular geneticist David M. Kingsley, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the Stanford University School of Medicine. "People have been interested in whether a few genes are involved, or whether changes in many different genes are required to produce major changes in wild populations."

The answer, based on new research, is that evolution can occur quickly, with just a few genes changing slightly, allowing newcomers to adapt and populate new and different environments.

In collaboration with zoologist Dolph Schluter, at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and Rick Myers and colleagues at Stanford, Kingsley and graduate student Pamela F. Colosimo focused on a well-studied little fish called the stickleback. The fish -- with three bony spines poking up from their backs -- live both in the seas and in coastal fresh water habitats all around the northern hemisphere.

Sticklebacks are enormously varied, so much so that in the 19th century naturalists had counted about 50 different species. But since then, biologists have realized most populations are recent descendants of marine sticklebacks. Marine fish colonized new freshwater lakes and streams when the last ice age ended 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Then they evolved along separate paths, each adapting to the unique environments created by large scale climate change.

"There are really dramatic morphological and physiological adaptations" to the new environments, Kingsley said.

For example, "sticklebacks vary in size and color, reproductive behavior, in skeletal morphology, in jaws and teeth, in the ability to tolerate salt and different temperatures at different latitudes," he said.

Kingsley, Schluter and their co-workers picked one trait -- the fish's armor plating -- on which to focus intense research, using the armor as a marker to see how evolution occurred. Sticklebacks that still live in the oceans are virtually covered, from head to tail, with bony plates that offer protection. In contrast, some freshwater sticklebacks have evolved to have almost no body armor.

"It's rather like a military decision, to be either heavily armored and slow, or to be lightly armored and fast," Kingsley said. "Now, in countless lakes and streams around the world these low-armored types have evolved over and over again. It's one of the oldest and most characteristic differences between stickleback forms. It's a dramatic change: a row of 35 armor plates turning into a small handful of plates - or even no plates at all."

Using genetic crosses between armored and unarmored fish from wild populations, the research team found that one gene is what makes the difference.

"Now, for the first time, we've been able to identify the actual gene that is controlling this trait," the armor-plating on the stickleback, Kingsley said

MORE AT:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50528141615.htm

The theory of evolution is advancing all the time thumbsup.gif

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
My point is the "book of Enoch" isn't really a needed part of the Bible. Because it is a story of the Nephilim. The Bible is meant to be a book about God.

You know about these

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Did you know about this one?

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

648577[/snapback]

Yessir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

whoa:

another interesting recent discovery was that (so far confirmed in one plant) plants can adapt/change in one generation, but carry a backup copy of the original genetics so that if the adaptation does not work, they can revert back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
My point is the "book of Enoch" isn't really a needed part of the Bible. Because it is a story of the Nephilim. The Bible is meant to be a book about God.

You know about these

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Did you know about this one?

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

648577[/snapback]

Yessir

650046[/snapback]

My point is the "book of Enoch" isn't really a needed part of the Bible. Because it is a story of the Nephilim. The Bible is meant to be a book about God.
Then if that was the case Genesis and Job would not be in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.