Posted on 02/02/2005 6:19:41 PM PST by curiosity
See post 117. The NIV, according to our resident Hebrew expert, is not accurately translating the original text.
http://microlnx.com/dinosaurs/Bipedality.html
you're right, sorry, I thought I pasted something I wrote earlier into that, sorry
I am too tired, Ill respond tomorrow
I appreciate your cordial tone. I apologize for being so snippy. Good night, fellow Christian.
Or did they they ate herbivors of a different order/phylum? (earlier)
Pretty much.
As the article indicates the immediate pre-dinosaurs which gave rise to the "ruling reptiles" were small agile bipeds.
However once some dinos started to rely on vegwtation, the advantage is less to agility (as your food can'y run) and more to size both from a food requirement/body mass ratio, and more imnportantly, it held a browasing animal to be at least as tall as it's food. But once sixe increases, bipedalism becomes less tenable./
The quick solution is the quadraped Jurassic brontasaurs. the longer term Creataceous solution is modification of the hips to allow bipedalism in larger sizes.
And to complicate things the small agile terrestrial Triassic bipeds also were ancestral to the crocidilians - aquatic environment requires swimming which encourages return to the quadripedal semi-sprawling danve as a by-product.
Evolution is opportunistic rather than planned.
New tag line!
In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:
Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).
Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV ) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.
It seems to me that Gen 1 is clearly a chronology. And althought it has both animals and man listed on the sixth day, Gen 1 does mention animals first.
Gen 2:19, the emphasis is on the fact that God formed each out of the ground. The passage doesn't seem to be concerned with timing in a way that one should assume that the timing conflicts with Gen 1. Instead one should read Gen 2:19 in light of Gen 1.
And while Gen 2:19 is in the context of making a helpmate for man. It's not reasonable to assume that God was making all of these animals for that purpose and they were all failures. Rather, God presents them to Adam for naming and to demonstrate that they are not suitable helpmates prior to making Eve.
Well, the animals clearly aren't immortal like man was. When man sinned, God cursed the earth. Thorns and thistles apparently weren't part of the original design. The animals aren't at the same level as man. God told Noah the animals were for food. Jesus, Himself, served other's fish and requested meat.
The animals aren't fallen, they were never created to be at a state where they could sin or fall from. They're food.
This is known as the "creationist clutching at straws" argument. It relies on ignorance of the true nature of the evidence and false assumptions about the nature of evolution. There are many, many ways in which man and our close ape cousins could have lost vitamin C synthesis functionality; the relevant point is that we and our close cousins have lost it in the same way through an identical shared mutation.. Other unrelated creatures that have lost this functionality have lost it for different reasons. It is absolutely inconceivable that separate ancestors (that just happen to be our closest DNA and morphological cousins) could have both experienced and then propagated the identical deletrious mutation so we are left with the conclusion that either we have a shared common ancestor or God faked the evidence to make it look as if we have a shared common ancestor in order to fool scientists into going to hell.
The problem with "God moves in mysterious ways" which often gets wheeled out when crushing evidence of common descent and/or an ancient universe is demonstrated is that if we cannot understand God's motivations in such issues then why should we trust the bible or God's promises of eternal bliss etc? Worshipping an unpredictable God with unfathomable motivations is very strange behavior. Much more sensible to just accept that an account of the creation that God supplied to bronze-age people and which made sense to them may not apply to us, with our greater empirical knowledge of the universe.
I don't know how you can come out with this stuff. Have you ever shared your life with a dog? Or been in the water with a dolphin? Or built up a bond with a horse? I have done all of those things, and I can tell you that these creatures have recognisable personalities at least the equivalent of a small child (should that be "animalities"?). Dogs and horses are well capable of showing remorse for bad behavior and fear of the unknown. Look into the eyes of a chimp and tell me that it is "just food".
Get your head up out your Holy Book and look at the real world around you!
Evolutionists themselves disagree on just what the fossils mean and just how old they are. Consider the following:
What is interesting about this is that it is a prediction of ToE that transitional fossils will be hard to classify and therefore evolutionists are likely to debate this issue; whereas it is a tenet of creationism that there are no "transitional forms" or "ancestor forms" so creationists should find it easy to say whether fossil hominids are men or not men. However, here is how the creationist scholars disagree on the classification of fossil hominids. So, if there are no transitional forms, why can't the creationists agree on fossil classification?
Well, it's rude and unnecessary. Besides, most of the evolutionists who post here are already familiar with this literature. Some possibly more so than you. When I was more actively following the creationism movement I collected an antievolution library of over sixty volumes, not including small paperbacks, periodicals and other documents.
Abandon thread!
You need education to do science, though. I know some people that have a good understanding of the Bible, through the Holy Spirit, but creationists are not them.
Your question about omnipotence is a good one. The Genesis text must be taken as symbolic in many cases. Often, it is told from a primitive understanding of people at the time.
Do you think that explaining molecular biology would have worked very well 3 or 4 thousand years ago? I don't think so.
Right, so why would God create them with a design deficiency?
This is evidence that evolution is correct and creationism isn't.
Well said!! Here Here!!
I take it you don't like fried chimp. ;-)
Where are all the large number of intermediary forms that should be around if evolution is true? Neither casual observation nor the fossil records support evolution.
I don't blame you.
However, the theology of the creationists is worse than the science. That is because there is no science in their nonsense. The theology is negative.
They turn people away from Christ by insisting they believe the unbelievable.
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.