Creation and Dinosaurs - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 07:54 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ahhh see i see it more that they have similar over all messages with conflicting details.. and i sort of think the conflicting details are just people mucking things up. to me i think Jesus meant he could show us the way..as in follow in his foot steps, follow his example.. and a truth that is much larger then the truths some people seem to think he was leading them too. i don't think he meant to follow him as in deify. jesus never said he was the son of god.. and god as the father isn't really exclusive to him. i sort of think he is wherever we go when we die and he is extremely irritated that people took him so literally.

it seems to me like details are the things we get caught up in that take us much further from god. we hang onto one liners, specific tidbits that suit our interests, i think god is bigger than that, more then that, etc. i think he has shown a bit of the divine in everything in the universe but we get to caught up in the details to put together the big picture.

i think most religions have the same basic messages. take care of the young, the old, the sick, the dying, the poor, the hungry etc. love everyone b/c god loves everyone even if he doesnt love everything they do, take care of the earth etc. i also think most religions were at some point very pro woman until some guy with ego and influence decided he didn't like that. we are the ones who carry and birth and feed children... its probably the coolest thing one can do while living and women are entrusted with that particular job. thats no accident and it certainly wasnt a punishment of any kind.
1littlebit is offline  
#122 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:00 PM
 
Callimom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,000
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evie's Mama View Post
;
Especially with this passage included in the creation narrative, it points to a true, literal story.
Or it's proof that man wrote it after the rivers had been named.

Blessed partner to a great guy, and mama to 4 amazing kids. Unfortunate target of an irrationally angry IRL stalker.

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ~ Buddha

Callimom is offline  
#123 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:00 PM
 
Liquesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 4,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
i think most religions have the same basic messages. take care of the young, the old, the sick, the dying, the poor, the hungry etc.
Not every religion, however, would agree that things apart from the similarities are mere details. Relegating differences to error in some faiths will require saying "core, non-negotiable elements of my religion are wrong."
Liquesce is offline  
#124 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:22 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
see i see it more that they have similar over all messages with conflicting details
The central truths of the Bible are not small details.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Quote:
jesus never said he was the son of god
"Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am' said Jesus."

"The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.'"

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#125 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:26 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
most religions have the same basic messages
Message of Christianity:

1- God creates man perfect in his image
2- Man sins against God and perfection is lost
3- Man can no longer be in the presence of a holy and just God in his sinful state
4- Jesus is sent to die as a sacrifice for man's sin
5- Jesus is resurrected and conquers death so that man no longer must die, but upon accepting that sacrifice as atonement for his/her sin can spend eternity with Christ

I don't see this message in any other religion.

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#126 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:30 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
what would you consider central truths? (actual question not a snarky one)

and how do we know that jesus meant biological son of god and not religious as in i am a child of god type thing?
1littlebit is offline  
#127 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:32 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
crap can we start a new thread we have taken this one way off topic


and i actually believe all five of them are seen in other religions.. not jesus obviously.. but son of a diety, virgin birth, sacrifice and resurrection etc.
1littlebit is offline  
#128 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:34 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquesce View Post
Not every religion, however, would agree that things apart from the similarities are mere details. Relegating differences to error in some faiths will require saying "core, non-negotiable elements of my religion are wrong."
that is problematic. but i think some of the details that are conflicting could still both be true... i mean it may not make sense to us right now but maybe it makes sense to god he's smarter then me
1littlebit is offline  
#129 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:41 PM
 
Liquesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 4,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
crap can we start a new thread we have taken this one way off topic
I think this thread covered a lot of that, if you wanted to bump it up.
Liquesce is offline  
#130 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:48 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i'll spend the next 3 days reading it. i wanted to read it when i saw it a few days ago!

what do non christians thinks of the creationism thing? since there are other religions besides christianity i am sure they have different thoughts on this issue right?
1littlebit is offline  
#131 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 08:54 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Oh yeah, this was supposed to be about dinosaurs wasn't it??? :

Should I help us do a quick about face?

What about Job 40:15-41:11? Anyone else think that's referring to dinosaurs?

Here's a link if you don't have access to a Bible

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:11&version=31

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#132 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 09:02 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
thanks for the link. my bible is in the other room... its hot pink!

the footnotes seem to think it is a hippo or an elephant. i dont see why it couldn't be dinos though. its not like he was real specific.. and depending on who wrote it he may have been more likely to come across dino bones then elephants and hippos.

am i the only one who thinks it would have been cool to live with dinos (for a day or so)
1littlebit is offline  
#133 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 09:07 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I've heard the elephant and hippo thing too, but it just doesn't seem to totally line up with the description. yk? I don't know too many elephants with tails like a cedar though!

And just to put Job in context, it is considered to have taken place during the years that Genesis records. If you get a good Bible reading plan that has you read through the Bible chronologically, you read it while you are reading Genesis, or just after. So, if dinos roamed while humans were alive, it would make sense that an early human would be able to speak of it.

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#134 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 09:15 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
why wouldn't they just put the stories in in the correct order? were they trying to confuse people?

one of the things that i wonder about is how people were supposed to have written these things down before they had paper... which i am assuming they didn't at the beginning of time. or at least any paper that would last any specific time... the first people took awhile to develop written language so this must have been oral stories passed down right? like as part of a cultures traditions or something.
1littlebit is offline  
#135 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 09:40 PM
 
SaraBravo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelBee View Post
Where do they fit in? :

And the Ice Age?
Personally i see no reason why all that doesn't fit in with the bible and God. I don't see why God and science can't be one and the same. Can't it be God method that we are seeing and interpreting as science? As for the dinosaurs why can't they fit in. God said he created the creatures one day. then he created man another day. Gods time is not like our time. a day to him could a million years to us. and whos to say that God didn't let them live for a while and change his mind and let them die before he created man? God created all. who are we to question how or why? who are we to say they do not fit in with Gods plan?

Trying to with SO my dd3 my ds 2 dss 7 dss 8 and 2 chinese creasted's
SaraBravo is offline  
#136 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 09:43 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
why wouldn't they just put the stories in in the correct order? were they trying to confuse people?
LOL! No. It's chronologically incorrect because the books of the Hebrew Bible aren't arranged chronologically; they're arranged thematically. I think the order is Torah - Prophets - Writings? And in the Christian Bible the arrangement is different - Pentateuch, historical, poetic and prophetic books in that order. Job is considered poetic. But yes, it is confusing.
Quote:
one of the things that i wonder about is how people were supposed to have written these things down before they had paper... which i am assuming they didn't at the beginning of time. or at least any paper that would last any specific time... the first people took awhile to develop written language so this must have been oral stories passed down right? like as part of a cultures traditions or something.
I'm not sure when paper and parchment developed. Moses wrote the first five books, and given that he lived a long time after Adam and Eve he must have either collated the information from oral (and possibly literary?) sources or received it directly from God. There's no particular spiritual reason he couldn't have done his research like any other historian; Luke in the NT described interviewing people and corroborating facts for his gospel. Pre-literary cultures usually tend to have very strong histories of oral transmission.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#137 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 09:47 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i know before writing people had strong oral traditions so that would make the most sense to me. they were very careful about passing down stories b/c it was a part of their history and the only record they had.
1littlebit is offline  
#138 of 269 Old 06-09-2009, 11:10 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the Circle K
Posts: 6,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:
lalaland42 is offline  
#139 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 12:21 AM
 
Delicateflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
i know before writing people had strong oral traditions so that would make the most sense to me. they were very careful about passing down stories b/c it was a part of their history and the only record they had.
And those oral traditions and legends developed in the same world we live in. A world where sometimes you see the skeleton of a huge-ass animal with scary teeth sticking out of the side of a cliff. Of course ancient peoples had legends of dinosaurs/dragons/behemoth, they saw the same bones we do.
Delicateflower is offline  
#140 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 12:49 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
That's... not really how fossils work. How often do we see skeletons of dinosaurs just chillin' half out the side of a cliff face, intact enough to be recognisable? We don't. Even in a YEC model such bones wouldn't last very long. Most dinosaur fossils we discover are underground and VERY fragmented - a piece of rib here, a possibly-corresponding jaw fragment ten metres away. They don't just sit there in plain sight looking dragonoid.

Plus, I'm pretty sure dinosaur bones weren't known about in, say, the medieval period. Weren't they such a sensational discovery in the 1900s precisely because we hadn't found them before?

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#141 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 01:00 AM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
maybe way back before that though... i don't know i guess they had to be sticking out of the ground at some point since i doubt dinosaurs bury their dead (that would be sort of cool though).. maybe the people then didn't know what it was?
1littlebit is offline  
#142 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 08:07 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Well yes, at some point the freshly-dead dinosaurs would have been above ground; but in an old-earth model that was millions of years before humans were around to say "Ooh, dragons". In order to become fossilised and thus preserved, the bones would have to be covered up. In a young-earth, humans-coexisting-with-dinosaurs model they could certainly have seen the fresh corpses and named them dragons, dinosaurs or whatever they liked; but that wouldn't be myth, it'd be observation. The PP stated that the myths grew from seeing dinosaur skeletons sticking halfway out of cliffs.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#143 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 08:57 AM
 
Delicateflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
That's... not really how fossils work. How often do we see skeletons of dinosaurs just chillin' half out the side of a cliff face, intact enough to be recognisable? We don't. Even in a YEC model such bones wouldn't last very long. Most dinosaur fossils we discover are underground and VERY fragmented - a piece of rib here, a possibly-corresponding jaw fragment ten metres away. They don't just sit there in plain sight looking dragonoid.

Plus, I'm pretty sure dinosaur bones weren't known about in, say, the medieval period. Weren't they such a sensational discovery in the 1900s precisely because we hadn't found them before?
All the time. How do you think dinosaurs were discovered? For example, this 12 year old girl who found the first icthyosaurus walking on the beach after a storm in the early 1800's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anning

You can't help but see that this was like nothing you've ever seen when you find this on a beach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rh..._cramptoni.jpg

Quote:
One of Anning's first discoveries was made shortly after her father's death when she was just twelve. She found the first complete skeleton of an ichthyosaur ever discovered, though ichthyosaur fossil fragments had been found in Wales as early as 1699. Her brother had discovered the skull of what appeared to be a large crocodile a year earlier. The rest of the skeleton was not to be found at first, but Mary located it after a storm scoured away a portion of the cliff containing it.
There is also a written record of finding "dragon" bones in Sichuan in 300BC, recorded by Chang Qu.

And, of course primitive people didn't know about fossilisation or extinction, it was natural for them to assume they might meet the relatives of the skeleton at any time.

Uplift and erosion are constantly happening. They didn't suddenly start in the 19th century, or even in the last few thousand years.
Delicateflower is offline  
#144 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 09:23 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evie's Mama View Post
I didn't say that adaptation has it's root in atheism, but evolution - whereas everything started from an infinitesimal speck from which life sprang forth.
No, that's not the case, either hstorically, today, or theoretically.

Evolution in no way addresses the issues that point to a first principle, or god. It isn't meant to, and no scientist has ever claimed this. It simply attempts to explain certian kinds of changes that take place, over time. It doesn't explain why there is life in the first place, or how it came to be. It doesn't explain why there is a universe that seems to behave in a particular, predictable way, it doesn't explain things like mathematics....

Many of the early scientists who developed the theory of evolution were religious or believed in God. Lots of scientists still are. And lots of christians, and indeed whole churches, do not have a problem with evolution.

So it seems to me that it is quite misleading to say it has anything to do with atheism, per se.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#145 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 09:29 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
Because the bible says it is, and that is the Christian's holy book.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Yes, but that in no way says the whole point of creation is humankind. It gives them certain responsibilities and perhaps purposes. Additionally, you'll notice what you quoted did not address, for example, angels, or put them under the dominion of humankind. And it could be taken that only the creatures/elements of the Earth are there for humans - it's less clear about the role of the rest of the universe.

Certainly, the Church as a whole has not taken the view that the sole purpose of creation is humankind, and that all created things were only created in relation to humans.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#146 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 09:32 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
no evolution does not address the origins of the universe at all. that is metaphysics, cosmology, ontology etc. totally different field of study. in college cosmic origins is generally an upper level astronomy class and evolution is a biology class.
Yes, and I'd like to add, any physicist will tell you that although physics can say something about what happened to what was at the beginning of the universe, it can say nothing about what came "before" that, or how there came to be anything at all. They can't even tell you what it would have been like in the singularity that preceded the Big Bang, because under those conditions the laws of physics would have broken down.

So even those sciences do not address the origins of Being.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#147 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 09:48 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar View Post
Yes... and even the site you linked notes that some of the copies had clearly been corrupted even by the 4th century, and that even after that errors were bound to have occurred during the manual copying. The coat of many colors issue I mentioned earlier is an example of this.

And even if the bible had been perfectly translated and that translation perfectly copied, no translation is ever equal to the original. Every language is different, and there are things you can say in one that you can't easily (or even possibly) say in another. I believe that this is why it took so long for the Qu'ran to be translated, and why even now many refer to Qu'rans in any language besides Arabic as interpretations, rather than translations.
Generally, the view of the Church is that translations of the Bible, done in good faith, preserve God's message, through the action of the Holy Spirit. Now, that isn't to say that no small changes or translation errors ever occur - there are some very interesting examples, I like the camel through the eye of the needle, myself.

However, these kinds of errors do not change the fundemental message or what is presented. There are places where people get into discussions of translation in an attempt to get closer to what the test is saying, but the issues involved are often rather small, and technical.

The fad for spending a lot of time on that kind of detail is pretty recent, and probably related to those churches who insist on looking at the Bible alone, without reference to anything else. It also tends to assume that there is only one level of meaning in the text. The more traditional method was to also safeguard the message by referring to the tradition of teachings about what the text meant, commentaries and the like (rather like within Judaism.) And it was always assumed that there could be more than one level of meaning. And any interpretation was subject to the rest of the text, and to reason, which is also a tool we are given by God. Not that translation issues were ignored, but they didn't have the same emphasis as they acquire when there are no teachings beyond the text and reason is not a useful tool for interpretation.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#148 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 09:56 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
That's... not really how fossils work. How often do we see skeletons of dinosaurs just chillin' half out the side of a cliff face, intact enough to be recognisable? We don't. Even in a YEC model such bones wouldn't last very long. Most dinosaur fossils we discover are underground and VERY fragmented - a piece of rib here, a possibly-corresponding jaw fragment ten metres away. They don't just sit there in plain sight looking dragonoid.

Plus, I'm pretty sure dinosaur bones weren't known about in, say, the medieval period. Weren't they such a sensational discovery in the 1900s precisely because we hadn't found them before?
If I recall correctly, there are a variety of indications/examples of what you might call "pre-scientific" people having discovered dinosaure bones, or other fossils of extinct creatures.

It is unusual tofind a whole dinosaur skeleton on the surface, but not unheard of - and in a few places it's common. The ground wears away, and someone happens by at the right time. And there are lots of smaller, complete fossils that can be found on the surface. It's hard to know what people who found these thought about them - there is some evidence, i think, that in Europe some people felt that such things were creatures who perished in the Flood.

In parts of Canada, where there are many dinosaur fossils right on the surface, the Native Americans called them the ancestors of the buffalo.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#149 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 01:17 PM
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
Yes, but that in no way says the whole point of creation is humankind. It gives them certain responsibilities and perhaps purposes. Additionally, you'll notice what you quoted did not address, for example, angels, or put them under the dominion of humankind. And it could be taken that only the creatures/elements of the Earth are there for humans - it's less clear about the role of the rest of the universe.

Certainly, the Church as a whole has not taken the view that the sole purpose of creation is humankind, and that all created things were only created in relation to humans.
I originally made this statement:

Quote:
I think people think this because it is the Christian perspective. God created the heavens and earth for man, and he created the animals to be dominated by man. Many of the animals, such as dogs, are used as an example of mans natural dominion over them and their obedience to man. This is the perspective of many people because that is what the bible tells them, and they believe the bible. When we throw dinosaurs into the mix, or the fact that there are millions of galaxies and billions of other planets out there, you know, to be enjoyed by the hubble telescope, or, no one, I agree that it kind of throws a wrench in the human centric Christian perspective. But, that is not my perspective, I am simply questioning the Christian or biblical point of view. Personally, I don't think man was ever meant to be the center of the universe. I think dinosaurs rose and fell independent of man. And I thinks dogs were bred by man to achieve a trainable variety.
Sorry, I should not have used the word "heavens" because biblicaly that refers to the area of space where the angels reside, which the bible is clear is god's dominion. What I meant to say was that the earth and the *sky* was created for man, and the animals were given to man for him to dominate over. The earth was supposed to be "subdued" by man. It may not explicitly say that man was the center of the universe, but, it was thought by early Christians that this was the case. In fact, the first solar system models had everything revolving around the earth. I think the Christian and non-Christian had the idea that we were the center of the universe, but for Christians, they had the added understanding that man was given everything on earth for him to subdue and rule over. That is still the Christian perspective today in many Christian religions, especially fundamentalist ones. They are the same people who teach their kids that global warming is not man made and thus we have no responsibility to do anything about it. This is attitude is very much in line with "man is the center of the universe and everything was made for us to do what we please with" kind of thinking.
jennica is offline  
#150 of 269 Old 06-10-2009, 01:23 PM
 
holyhelianthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: the Southern California desert
Posts: 11,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
No, that's not the case, either hstorically, today, or theoretically.

Evolution in no way addresses the issues that point to a first principle, or god. It isn't meant to, and no scientist has ever claimed this. It simply attempts to explain certian kinds of changes that take place, over time. It doesn't explain why there is life in the first place, or how it came to be. It doesn't explain why there is a universe that seems to behave in a particular, predictable way, it doesn't explain things like mathematics....

Many of the early scientists who developed the theory of evolution were religious or believed in God. Lots of scientists still are. And lots of christians, and indeed whole churches, do not have a problem with evolution.

So it seems to me that it is quite misleading to say it has anything to do with atheism, per se.
Great post!

I have a question for the Bible literalists (sp?) though maybe I should take it elsewhere... It does pertain to the thread I think as it will help me to better understand where they are coming from in teaching from the Bible (as in teaching school which is what the OP was about). Do you believe the Bible is the only knowledge one needs?

Maggie, blissfully married mama of 5 little ladies on my own little path. homeschool.gif gd.gifRainbow.gif
holyhelianthus is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off