Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fossil finds shake up dinosaur theories
The Mercury News ^ | July 19, 2007 | Betsy Mason

Posted on 07/22/2007 8:19:41 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-265 last
To: DaveLoneRanger

You read the bible don’t you? It is right there in scripture.... evolutionary science spelled out by God!!!

Amazing.


261 posted on 07/29/2007 5:29:59 PM PDT by Porterville (I'm an American. If you hate Americans, I hope our enemies destroy you. I will pray for my soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Even Andy disagreed with you about the age of the Universe.[--Locke]

No Andy didn’t- Andy stated beleif that there was sufficient evidence to form an opinion- one which differs, but ceedes the point that the evidence isn’t conclusive and hterefore wasn’t sure- whihc by the way, is the correct answer in light of the lack of perfect knowledge on the issue.

I feel a duty to clarify my position.

If I had to take an even money bet (and there were some way to confirm the answer) I would bet on an old universe being the case. So it might be fair to say it is my opinion that the universe is old. However it is not a firm belief. And I would not be bothered about finding out I was wrong (unless I had put a lot of money on such a hypothetical bet).

Concerning the Biblical six day creation, I do not see why it need be interpreted as literally six days. Thus I see neither view as being in conflict with the Bible.

262 posted on 07/30/2007 12:27:34 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Let me throw the question back at you somewhat.

If the divisions of time are symbolic, then what are they symbolic of...and remember that we are not only talking about a division by "days," but a further division of "evening and morning."

What truth do they represent?

263 posted on 07/31/2007 1:50:24 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: csense
What truth do they represent?

I don't really know. Which does not alarm me, for there is a lot of other symbolism in the Bible I don't understand either. In some cases I'm not even sure if a particular passage is symbolic or not. Such would be this particular case except that I am applying evidence derived from the physical sciences to conclude that it was symbolic (with the acknowledged priori that it is a true story, whether I understand it or not).

Happily, some Biblical symbolism in Genesis does seem to have a meaning within my grasp. For instance, although the "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" used to befuddle me, the meaning has become clear recently. Ironically I now see this concept as being so clearly and succinctly presented, that I can't think of a better way to sum the concept up.

Theology is a tricky business, best taken from a careful deliberative and humble perspective. Seek and ye shall find...but in God's time not ours.

264 posted on 07/31/2007 1:03:23 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
I don't really know.

Which is why I continue to interpret Genesis literally. No one has ever been able to answer that question for me. Even Schroeder's argument doesn't answer that question. A literal interpretation does though....and very easily. So easily in fact, that even a child, or anyone, from any era, can understand it. That, to me, is the plain wisdom of Genesis...and why such wisdom would befuddle some.

I tend to think that if God wanted to convey long periods of time, or eons, he very easily could have.....and in particular relation to evolution, if he wanted to convey the notion that all creatures are related, he very easily could have done that too. It probably would have made much more sense to the people of the time. Which is why I reject outright, the argument that God spoke in a veiled way so as to appeal to the sensibilities of his audience.

We see neither of these principles though, in Genesis. In fact, it goes out of it's way to use language that conveys the exact opposite.

I don't no how to explain the fossil record, or anything else that science proposes which seems to conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I do know one thing. I would rather put my faith and trust in God....than men.

Thank you for a very insightful post

265 posted on 07/31/2007 5:35:10 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-265 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson