Another fossil discovery confirms Biblical account. (priest, Muslims, religion, religions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you are saying the Old Testament is wrong? Or just "out of date???"
(The quote above is your response to my admonition to stone me because I am literally violating your god's word. It's because that since you take the Bible literally, you must therefore follow HIS command and kill me.)
If you can't take the Old Testament moral commandments literally anymore, Campbell, then why do you take Genesis literally? Or are you playing mental gymnastics that say you can't take "moral commandments" literally, yet we must take the OT as "literal history?"
You must be the most slippery and intellectually confused member on C-D (maybe just a tad behind YSM though).
Its called cherry picking. Only parts of the Christian Bible are literally true, the others are not because they don't pertain to Christians.....
I don't understand why you people even pay attention to this guy anymore. He's obviously incapable of living in the real world. Better that when he posts, nobody answers so that his delusional ideas wither on the vine rather than generate hundreds of responses that do absolutely nothing to change his mind.
...but....but....what would we have to laugh at and brighten our days then???
Your high-end snark Raf! Always worked for me!
I don't find those guys amusing...MOF they get me kind of tweaked. I admire their dedication and allegiance to their beliefs...but beyond that, or "brighten my day/laughable"...NOPE.
YOU, OTOH...have cracked me up so much (on MANY occasions) that I laughed so hard my eyes were tearing...and then busted up for days afterward thinking back on it. They NEVER have that effect on me.
I can't figure out how TAC handles the frustration of going back and forth with the Fundie Literalists. I don't engage in debates on the straight-up hocus-pocus offerings...it's a bogus trip, it messes up my constitution, and it's an overall negative vibe. I'd end up getting myself banned from the forum if I tried to debate the Twilight-Zone stuff...the darker side of my "inner wiseguy" would see to that!
I don't understand why you people even pay attention to this guy anymore. He's obviously incapable of living in the real world. Better that when he posts, nobody answers so that his delusional ideas wither on the vine rather than generate hundreds of responses that do absolutely nothing to change his mind.
Stop feeding the troll, people. Geeze.
Well, I know you must experience great frustration when speaking to people such as myself. And that is because you believe I am totally off the wall. You would suggest that I am not living in the real world. Yet the real world often is not as real as one might think. And when the Bible tells us that snakes did not always crawl on their belly. And we now discover advanced snakes from the past actually had rear legs. Such a find only helps to confirm the Biblical account. And when you discover there are many such discoveries that confirm the Biblical account. Who is ignoring the evidence? And who is not living in the real world? From the time of my youth I have had encounters with the real God and those who would oppose Him. My first lesson about the Bible came to me when I was about three or four years old. I believe it was in a vision or a dream. And that was before I had a God concept, or even knew what the Bible was. Yet I have discovered over the years that sometimes the most real things, are the things we can't see at all.
Last edited by Campbell34; 11-27-2010 at 08:02 AM..
No it only shows that science did not have enough information to fully understand the origin of snakes.
Besides, you believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old, and this fossil was found in 95,000,000 year old sediment.
So which is it; 95 million old proof on a 6,000 year old planet. How do you rationalize that glaring discrepancy?
Your correct. Science did not have enought information because they ignored the Biblical account that continues to be proven true. And no. I actually believe the world to be around 13,000 years old. And that fossil was found in sediment (ASSUMED) to be 95 million years old. And that is why when dinosaur bones are by accident, or by design tested by C-14 and found to be thousands of years old. Science rejects those test dates, because they assume dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. And that is why science rejects ancient art of dinosaurs, because they assume them to be millions of years old. And that is why science told us that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaur bones, because they assumed them to be millions of years old, and not thousands. Science is often only supported by incorrect popular assumptions. The reality is, science assumes way to much, and they ignore way to much.
Last edited by Campbell34; 11-27-2010 at 08:24 AM..
Your correct. Science did not have enought information because they ignored the Biblical account that continues to be proven true. And no. I actually believe the world to be around 13,000 years old. And that fossil was found in sediment (ASSUMED) to be 95 million years old. And that is why when dinosaur bones are by accident, or by design tested by C-14 and found to be thousands of years old. Science rejects those test dates, because they assume dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. And that is why science rejects ancient art of dinosaurs, because they assume them to be millions of years old. And that is why science told us that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaur bones, because they assumed them to be millions of years old, and not thousands. Science is often only supported by incorrect popular assumptions. The reality is, science assumes way to much, and they ignore way to much.
What c14 test has even dated a dinosaur bone to thousands of years ago?
What! snakes had legs. Wow! Look, I learned that in school 50 years ago in biology, just look at the modern snake's makeup. Not sure what century the poster of this thread is living in. Perhaps a junior HS science class is in order.
Point is really that the Bible is taken on faith. If you are caught up in disuptes about it, you lack faith and you miss the point of science for the last 500 years - to explain the natural world without reference to the Allmighty.
Its called cherry picking. Only parts of the Christian Bible are literally true, the others are not because they don't pertain to Christians.....
hmmmmmmmm
In the Scriptures some of the laws were only given to the Children of Israel, where other laws were given to mankind. A study of the Scripture would reveal this to you. However, we are speaking about the fossil discovery that is helping to confirm the Biblical account.
Well, I know you must experience great frustration when speaking to people such as myself. And that is because you believe I am totally off the wall. You would suggest that I am not living in the real world. Yet the real world often is not as real as one might think. And when the Bible tells us that snakes did not always crawl on their belly. And we now discover advanced snakes from the past actually had rear legs. Such a find only helps to confirm the Biblical account. And when you discover there are many such discoveries that confirm the Biblical account. Who is ignoring the evidence? And who is not living in the real world? From the time of my youth I have had encounters with the real God and those who would oppose Him. My first lesson about the Bible came to me when I was about three or four years old. I believe it was in a vision or a dream. And that was before I had a God concept, or even knew what the Bible was. Yet I have discovered over the years that sometimes the most real things, are the things we can't see at all.
Your statements earlier were that snakes walked upright based on a fossil find. While the fossilized snake indicates it probably had two legs, it would've been incapable for that particular creature to walk around on those hind legs. Video of the fossil in the link below shows the location of the leg and toes. There's no evidence prehistoric snakes ever had the ability to walk around upright on two legs. I'm afraid this doesn't "confirm" the biblical account, let alone a talking snake. BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Ancient serpent shows its leg
It's well known that snakes, even today, have vestigial limbs. Once in a while, one shows up with a limb, such as the one killed in Chiina. Evidently this one not only had a leg, but toes and claws. It's said an autopsy was to be done on the snake at the Life Sciences Department at China's West Normal University in Nanchang. I haven't heard anything about the outcome. I'd guess it's probably just a freak, but it's also possible it could be a clever hoax. Snake with foot found in China - Telegraph
Some snakes today, such as boas and pythons, still retain vestigial limb buds which can be seen, usually as a lump, and sometimes as a tiny claw.
Darwin | American Museum of Natural History (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/vestigial.php - broken link)
By the way, where does it say in the bible that the serpent was a snake?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
