Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just Joined - Christian with Paleontolgy Background
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 16 of 43 (580135)
09-07-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jeff Davis
09-06-2010 5:49 PM


Speaking of being thick skinned, my wife's uncle once called me a Satan worshipper in front of a crowded church. He got a little angry with me. He claimed I did not believe in the "plain truth" of a literal interpretation of Genesis. I replied, "Which particular literal interpretation are you referring to?" He said, "The most literal". I then said, "The biblical verse, 'go forth and multiply and replenish the earth' was actually first commanded to Adam (and not Noah). To not accept that God told Adam to "refill" the earth (thus, Adam was not the first) means to not accept the most literal interpretation."
Not a bad riposte, but surely the perfect comeback would have been to ritually disembowel him and offer his still-beating heart to Beelzebub.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-06-2010 5:49 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 17 of 43 (580146)
09-07-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jeff Davis
09-06-2010 5:49 PM


Re: Literal
Hi Jeff and welcome to EvC.
Jeff Davis writes:
To not accept that God told Adam to "refill" the earth (thus, Adam was not the first) means to not accept the most literal interpretation."
I am a fundie and completely agree with you on this point.
The modern man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 was told to multiply and refill the earth so he was not the first man on earth.
The man created from the dust of the ground that God breathed the breath of life into and he became a living being was the first man on earth.
This man was on earth before any other life form according to the Literal Bible text.
Maybe you can help my understanding of these things. Everybody else just tells me I am out of my tree or mind depending on how easy on me they want to be at the time.
God Bless, I like Buz will put you on my prayer list.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-06-2010 5:49 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Omnivorous, posted 09-07-2010 11:44 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 18 of 43 (580159)
09-07-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
09-07-2010 10:24 PM


Re: Literal
Hey, Jeff. I like your perspective already. I grew up in the Bible Belt a vocal atheist by 12, and I've seen the wrathful Xian up close.
So I won't pray for you like Buz and ICANT, but I'll drink to your arrival:
May dogs eat your enemies, and the devil eat the dogs.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2010 10:24 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 10:04 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 19 of 43 (580166)
09-08-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jeff Davis
09-07-2010 9:39 PM


Hi Jeff,
Considering primates are made up of 60% water consisting of the exact chemical proportions as the oceans
Are you talking about the chemical proportion of our blood versus the oceans ?
If so, you should take a look at this
Element Blood Seawater
Sodium 3220 10800
Chlorine 3650 19400
Potassium 200 392
Calcium 50 411
Magnesium 27 1290
Phosphorus 36 0.09
Iron 1 0.004
Copper 1 0.001
Zinc 1.1 0.005
Chromium 1.1 0.002
Bromine 4 67
Fluorine 1.1 1.3
Boron 1 5
Selenium 0.9 0.0001
(In mg/litre) Sorry I wasn't able to put more spaces between the numbers.
This isn't similar at all.
Oh and also in case you aren't familiar with forums and how to make neat little quote boxes like I did:
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-07-2010 9:39 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by bluescat48, posted 09-08-2010 12:53 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 37 by Blue Jay, posted 09-08-2010 7:08 PM slevesque has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 20 of 43 (580172)
09-08-2010 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
09-08-2010 12:20 AM


Could you please give the reference that you used to obtain the figures?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 12:20 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2010 1:22 AM bluescat48 has not replied
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 10:13 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 43 (580176)
09-08-2010 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by bluescat48
09-08-2010 12:53 AM


Could you please give the reference that you used to obtain the figures?
It appears to be from AnswersInGenesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. I'm suspicious of this blood/seawater thing myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bluescat48, posted 09-08-2010 12:53 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 3153 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 22 of 43 (580195)
09-08-2010 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jeff Davis
09-06-2010 5:49 PM


Hello Jeff,
Welcome to the fray. Though you have said you do not fully embrace the view that "replenish" means to "refill", I have found an article that might provide some background on this at What does 'replenish the earth' mean? - creation.com
Also, calling one form of interpretation "restrictive" would not be really helpful in a debate about which interpretation is the correct one. You either correctly interpret the authors original intended meaning, or incorrectly. Calling an interpretation "restrictive" suggests that you prefer a more liberal approach to interpretation. This approach suggests that your concern is more for finding a politically correct/fit with modern times type interpretation, rather than finding the original intended meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-06-2010 5:49 PM Jeff Davis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2010 7:23 AM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 30 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-08-2010 12:05 PM Minority Report has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 43 (580202)
09-08-2010 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Minority Report
09-08-2010 5:21 AM


This approach suggests that your concern is more for finding a politically correct/fit with modern times type interpretation, rather than finding the original intended meaning.
It might also suggest that he realizes that it is useless and impossible to find the original intended meaning of texts written by people who died over two and a half millenia ago.

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Minority Report, posted 09-08-2010 5:21 AM Minority Report has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 10:07 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Jeff Davis
Junior Member (Idle past 4918 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 09-05-2010


Message 24 of 43 (580237)
09-08-2010 9:21 AM


I am going to love it hear with all of these replies. I am in the middle of publishing a Jack the Ripper article, a book, and getting six kids off to school. My responses will be a little slow, but I think I've found a home.
best,

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 43 (580240)
09-08-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Omnivorous
09-07-2010 11:44 PM


Re: Literal
Omnivorous writes:
So I won't pray for you like Buz and ICANT, but I'll drink to your arrival:
As per Jesus and the apostles, Jesus, producer of the finest wine from water at the wedding and Paul, advocate for a little wine, I can do both. Cheers!

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Omnivorous, posted 09-07-2010 11:44 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 26 of 43 (580241)
09-08-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Chiroptera
09-08-2010 7:23 AM


Wow, let's stop studying Hieroglyphs as well then, I guess. If it's impossible for us to understand their intended meaning even if we can read them ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2010 7:23 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2010 6:26 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 27 of 43 (580244)
09-08-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by bluescat48
09-08-2010 12:53 AM


Red-blooded evidence - creation.com
They themselves reference to:
Burtis, C.A., Ashwood, E.R., Clinical Chemistry, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1994 edition.
Baselt, R.C., and Cravey, R.H., Disposition of toxic drugs and chemicals in Man, Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc, Chicago, 1989 edition.
For blood chemistry, and:
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15:925, 15th Ed., 1992.
for seawater chemistry.
Anyways, as they say in the article, this argument should make little sense even for a proponent of evolution. Amphibians came out of the water like 350M years ago. Does anyone expect that seawater back then will have the same chemistry as right now ? Surely not, so whoever thought of comparing our blood with current water proportions had a flawed reasoning from the outset.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bluescat48, posted 09-08-2010 12:53 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-08-2010 11:51 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 09-08-2010 2:03 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Jeff Davis
Junior Member (Idle past 4918 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 09-05-2010


Message 28 of 43 (580265)
09-08-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by slevesque
09-08-2010 10:13 AM


Hi Slevesque,
I was hoping someone would take the bate about this particular argument. Just as you stated, the composition of the oceans 365 million years ago was most likely different than today. Additionally, all tetrapods find their origins with lobe-finned riverine fish, so the composition should have less salt just as your statistics show.
best,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 10:13 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 11:55 AM Jeff Davis has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 29 of 43 (580268)
09-08-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jeff Davis
09-08-2010 11:51 AM


Hi Jeff,
You'll have to explain more explicitly this statement:
Additionally, all tetrapods find their origins with lobe-finned riverine fish, so the composition should have less salt just as your statistics show.
Because the relationship between the two isn't evident for me at least.
I would suggest, however, that if you want us to discuss this particular subject you should make a new thread in the 'Proposed new topic' section. As this is not the thread to start a full-scale discussion.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-08-2010 11:51 AM Jeff Davis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-08-2010 12:10 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Jeff Davis
Junior Member (Idle past 4918 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 09-05-2010


Message 30 of 43 (580269)
09-08-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Minority Report
09-08-2010 5:21 AM


Hi Minority Report,
Genesis 1:22 conflicts with the YEC argument:
And God blessed them, saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Notice how the same phrase is used for sea creatures as it was with Adam and Noah with the exception of the word fill, rather than replenish. The original Hebrew word, male, was used in Genesis 1:22, but the King James translators consciously used the word fill instead of replenish. If the translators intended replenish to mean fill, then they would have used fill just as they did in Genesis 1:22.
In the case of "restrictive", there are now over 30 thousand Christian denominations, with a new one popping up each week. Each one believes their "interpretation" of God's Word has been guided by the Holy Spirit. Even from a Christian perspective, most have misinterpreted something yet do not believe they have. The true meaning behind the verses are not so clear cut. In the case of Genesis, there are dozens of "literal" interpretations. When I talk about restrictive, it is when a literal interpretation dogmatically held on by YECs hijacks the thinking process. I have more.
best,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Minority Report, posted 09-08-2010 5:21 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024