DINOSAUR BONES FOUND IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR THE FIRST TIME

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Well, let's see. There was a huge "local" flood that formed the sandstone under Odessa, Ukraine, a huge "local" flood that buried North America, a "local" flood that put marine shells on Everest, and many other "local" floods throughout the world.

Are you just making this up as you go?

Black Sea deluge hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus Strait. The hypothesis made headlines when The New York Times published it in December 1996, shortly before it was published in an academic journal.[1] While it is agreed that the sequence of events described did occur, there is debate over the suddenness, dating and magnitude of the events. Two opposing hypotheses have arisen to explain the rise of the Black Sea: gradual, and oscillating.[2]:15 The oscillating hypothesis specifies that over the last 30,000 years, water has intermittently flowed back and forth between the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea in relatively small magnitudes, and does not necessarily presuppose that there occurred any sudden "refilling" events.

Contents [hide]

1 Flood hypothesis

1.1 Criticism

2 Evidence from archaeology

3 See also

4 References and sources

5 Further reading

Flood hypothesis[edit]

Black Sea today (light blue) and in 5600 BC (dark blue) according to Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis.

In 1997, William Ryan and Walter Pitman published evidence that a massive flooding of the Black Sea occurred about 5600 BC through the Bosporus, following this scenario.[3] Before that date, glacial meltwater had turned the Black and Caspian Seas into vast freshwater lakes draining into the Aegean Sea. As glaciers retreated, some of the rivers emptying into the Black Sea declined in volume and changed course to drain into the North Sea.[4] The levels of the lakes dropped through evaporation, while changes in worldwide hydrology caused overall sea level to rise. The rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus. The event flooded 155,000 km2 (60,000 sq mi) of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. According to the researchers, "40 km3 (10 cu mi) of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls... The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days."

Samplings of sediments in the Black Sea by a series of expeditions carried out between 1998 and 2005 in the frame of a European Project ASSEMBLAGE[5] and coordinated by a French oceanographer, Gilles Lericolais,[6] brought some new inputs to the Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis. These results were also completed by the Noah project led by the Bulgarian Institute of Oceanography (IO-BAS).[7] Furthermore, calculations made by Mark Siddall predicted an underwater canyon that was actually found.[8]

[bonnie]

Authority doesn't determine reality. Reality is the same, whether authority describes it one way or another. Authority is a convenient shortcut for claiming that reality is not what it seems, or beyond what it seems... but even you wouldn't believe things solely on "authority" of someone else.

[phkrause]

[fccool]

Quote:

I do not care on a personal level what you believe,just stop the "we" as if you have been granted special powers to speak for those that do believe in God

PK and Bonnie

People use inclusive pronouns like "we" in order to indicate adherence to a group or mentality. I didn't mean "all of you and me". I meant people who would agree with my view. I'm not sure what's so offensive about using "we" in this context. I'm not saying "you".

Quote:

The above is nonsense as I believe there One God. People make gods of many things,"human reasoning" comes close.

And other people believe that there are several. How do we decide who is correct? Which methods would we use? ... (or should I avoid using we from now on all-together?)

[Igakusei]

Gerry, I'm waiting for evidence of local flooding that "buried North America" or "put seashells on Everest." I'm familiar with most of the floods you have listed, and I even mentioned the Missoula one in my reply. These are local floods, with well defined and understood geographical margins, and dates that do not coincide with each other in any way shape or form.

Not only did you massively overstate your argument, but if you want to argue that these local floods are all misunderstood manifestations of a global flood that reshaped the planet, then you have to provide some additional evidence of that.

[scott.t]

Having seen two floods the past few years I do not need a bucket or a water hose. I suggest you get out into the real world and not base all of your beliefs on lab work. I have seen rock sitting on top of sand after a flood. I doubt you or anyone else alive today know the effects of a world wide flood. Don't try to make your post's sound like facts when they are based on opinion Just like people that believe in the bible version of Genesis.

Scott

[Gerr]

Gerry, I'm waiting for evidence of local flooding that "buried North America" or "put seashells on Everest." I'm familiar with most of the floods you have listed, and I even mentioned the Missoula one in my reply. These are local floods, with well defined and understood geographical margins, and dates that do not coincide with each other in any way shape or form.

Not only did you massively overstate your argument, but if you want to argue that these local floods are all misunderstood manifestations of a global flood that reshaped the planet, then you have to provide some additional evidence of that.

The Mathisen Corollary

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Crinoids on Mount Everest?

The crinoid is a marine animal whose name means "formed like (in the form of) a lily-flower." Fossilized crinoids are very common around the world, but there are also still many species of crinoid in the oceans today -- the image above shows a modern-day crinoid and is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). Some live at depths greater than 19,000 feet!

Crinoid fossils and other marine fossils have been found on top of almost every mountain range on earth. In fact, crinoid fossils have even been found at the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point on earth. This 1967 article from Geological Magazine entitled "The Highest Fossils in the World" explains that some of the first successful expeditions (by the Swiss in 1956 and Americans in 1963; the first confirmed successful attempt to reach the summit was of course that of Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay in 1953) to the summit of Everest brought back geological samples which contained fossilized crinoids.

The presence of such marine fossils on top of extremely high continental mountain peaks -- including the highest mountain peak on earth -- is very difficult to explain using conventional uniformitarian models of geology. When they are discussed at all, these fossils are usually given what we used to call in the Army "a hand wave" -- that is, a shallow or vague explanation of a subject that deserves much greater detail of explanation (the term "hand wave" is a negative term for something that should be treated in great detail, but which is passed over without much detail in the hopes that others will not question it; in a briefing prior to a military operation, one should not pass over important aspects of the operation with a mere "hand wave," but this is the way marine fossils on top of high continental mountains are usually treated).

Conventional geology tries to explain away the extremely vexing evidence of marine animal fossils on top of Mount Everest (and many other high continental mountains) by saying that today's Mount Everest was once the floor of an ancient sea, called the Tethys Sea (a proposed ocean, first invented as part of a proposed explanation for the breakup of the proposed landmass called Pangaea [aka Gondwana], and named after an ancient Greek ocean goddess, Tethys). It is suggested that later tectonic forces pushed the Himalayas (including Mount Everest) to their current heights (the summit of Everest is just over 29,000 feet above sea level).

However, the vague assertions about an ancient sea being slowly pushed upwards to create today's Himalayas typically do not go into the level of detail necessary to fully explain the fossils on top of Everest and other mountains around the globe. As Walt Brown, the originator of the hydroplate theory (a theory proposing that the events surrounding a catastrophic flood were responsible for the geological evidence we see on our earth today), writes in the online version of his book (which he makes available at no cost for all to read and examine for themselves):

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.

An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted hundreds of years. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent sea floors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were likewise never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, the evidence is usually ignored.

These are very powerful arguments. Conventional theorists who glibly propose that water once covered all the areas on earth that now have marine fossils must explain how there was enough water to cover the entire earth -- were there no ocean basins millions of years ago? If so, what uniformitarian mechanisms created a place for all that water to go? The basaltic material found beneath the ocean is very different from the granitic material that underlies the continents, so simply saying that the tops of the Himalayas (and other mountain ranges worldwide) were once sea-bottoms is not a satisfactory explanation. These are the kind of vague "hand waves" that are used by conventional geologists to try to explain away these fossils -- often accompanied by intimidating Latinate geological terms, such as in page 324 of this text, which tells us that:

The present outcrops of the late Palaeozoic tilloids of the Eastern himalaya and Nepal are all allocthonous. Their broad trend is parallel to the mountain axis, tentatively indicating subparallel disposition of the basin. This basin is usually believed to have been located to the north of and physically connected with the intracratonic glacigenic basal Gondwana basins (i.e. Talchir Bouler Bed, Ahmad, this volume C17) of Peninsular India. However Gondwana sediments are typically absent in the intervening Ganga basin; where, the continental Neogene-Quaternary Himalayan molasse sediments directly overlie the ancient rocks of the Indian shield. Even in the few concealed Gondwana basins, e.g. the Purnea basin, the basal glacigenic Talchir Formation is unrepresented (Metre, 1968).

The fluvioglacial Talchir Formation (Asselian-Sakmarian) of the Peninsular Indian shield unconformably overlies Precambrian crystalline rocks or the Proterozoic platform sequences. However, fluxoturbiditic or molassic Gondwana tilloids, containing sporadic volcanoclastic sediments and associated sediments of the Eastern Himalaya, were deposited in continuity with the Daling geosynclinal sedimentation and associated orogenic activity, with local reworking of older beds (Acharyya, 1973, a, .

Well, who can argue with that! This is an example of a very erudite hand-wave, with a lot of assertions but no real detail explaining how the difficulties pointed out by Dr. Brown were overcome: how did delicate fossils like crinoids survive the tens of millions of years of freezing and thawing as they were slowly (ever so slowly) pushed up from deep sea to heights of 29,000 feet above sea level? What tectonic plates were responsible for pushing these sea bottoms up to form the Himalayas? Even if there were some amazing confluence of uniformitarian forces which can explain these marine fossils on Mount Everest, why are marine fossils found on virtually every high mountain range in the world? Spewing long geolgical terms does not explain away these difficulties. Not only does the high erosion rates typical at extreme altitudes argue against the idea that these marine fossils have been up there for the millions of years necessary to push up the Himalayas by uniformitarian means, but it is also noteworthy that crinoids are still found in modern oceans in the same form that as these fossils of crinoids that supposedly lived millions of years ago (why they decided not to evolve into anything different in the ensuing millenia is not discussed).

On the other hand, the hydroplate theory explains the presence of these marine fossils on top of Everest and other high continental mountains quite satisfactorily (just as it explains many other difficult issues in geology that cannot be satisfactorily explained by conventional tectonic theory, such as the question of why ancient monuments such as the Giza pyramids, Stonehenge, Newgrange, Mnajdra and others are still aligned after several thousands of years of supposed continental drift, or how undersea canyons such as the Ganges Fan, the Indus Fan, and the Monterey Canyon were carved, or why the Grand Canyon plows right through a huge massif if it was really carved over tens of millions of years by a simple river the way we are supposed to believe it was, or why there are arc-and-cusp patterns in the deep ocean trenches that are impossible to explain by the action of subducting plates, or why -- if subducting plates really cause deep ocean trenches -- sophisticated modern gravity measurements find gravity vacuums under the trenches instead of gravity spikes the way one would expect if these trenches are really created by a diving oceanic plate).

The hydroplate theory explains why Everest itself is composed of sedimentary rock -- in itself a remarkable fact. It explains that the layered strata (with their rapidly buried fossils) were laid down during the global flood, that the events surrounding that flood caused the continents to drift away from the rupture that would become the Atlantic Ocean and towards the basin that would become the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and that the violent compression of these continents (and their sedimentary layers) pushed up the mountain ranges including the Himalayas. The theory argues that this flood event could have happened only thousands of years ago rather than tens or hundreds of millions of years ago -- solving the problems that uniformitarian explanations have (such as why the successive ages of annual freezing and thawing have not eroded all these ancient fossils away, and why there are still modern crinoids that look just like these supposedly extremely ancient crinoids).

This theory explains the preservation of fossils in the first place -- which do not generally form under normal conditions and which pose a real problem for uniformitarian theories (normal conditions plus lots of time do not create fossils). Its explanation for a rapid creation of the Himalayas is also crucial to the understanding of what caused earth's "Big Roll" (the evidence for which has been discussed in several other posts such as this one and this one, and which other analysts have tried to explain using theories such as the "earth-crust displacement" theory or theories which involve Venus bouncing off of the earth in an ancient time).

Crinoid and other marine fossils found atop Mount Everest thus join a long line of other pieces of evidence which appear to support the hydroplate explanation and which appear to damage the credibility of the conventional explanation for the geological evidence we see in the world around us.

[Gerr]

Gerry, I'm waiting for evidence of local flooding that "buried North America" or "put seashells on Everest." I'm familiar with most of the floods you have listed, and I even mentioned the Missoula one in my reply. These are local floods, with well defined and understood geographical margins, and dates that do not coincide with each other in any way shape or form.

Not only did you massively overstate your argument, but if you want to argue that these local floods are all misunderstood manifestations of a global flood that reshaped the planet, then you have to provide some additional evidence of that.

Marine Fossils from Andes May Throw Light on Jungle Oil

Museum-Columbia Expedition Brings Back 4,000 Pounds of Shells from Mountains, Once the Floor of a Shallow Sea

New York Times

October 13, 1947

“Marine fossils uncovered by an expedition 10,000 feet up in the Peruvian Andes have arrived in New York, it was announced yesterday by officials of Columbia University and the American Museum of Natural History.

The 4,000 pounds of fossilized shells, described as one of the most significant finds in recent years, are expected to throw light on one of the world’s last great untapped oil preserves in the jungles of the Upper Amazon basin.”

It’s funny how your world view impacts one’s view of the evidence, isn’t it? A person without the practiced eye that the paradigm uses to view these things might surmise that there was another way for those shells to have gotten on top of the mountain.

Genesis 7:20

The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

How many scientists whilst pondering this situation (sea shells at 10,000 to 16,000 feet) would have even considered that perhaps these mountains had ever been covered over with water? One supposes that they would rather champion the idea that they were dropped there by aliens.

On the other hand, the idea that the mountains had once been part of a shallow sea sounds reasonable enough, and perhaps they had been. The fact is, however whatever evidence that there was that got the shallow sea theory going likely might have also supported a great flood theory as well.

One might suppose that the 4,000 pounds of shells that were found might not be enough for ancient lands that were once a shallow sea. One might suppose then that every square inch of the mountain should contain remnants of that ancient sea bottom. Perhaps the distribution of shells as they were found might better fit the notion that they were carried there and deposited.

The article goes on nevertheless to say that “the discovery of the colorful marine fossils in the Andes adds proof to theories that the range once lay under a shallow sea”. Were there no other hypotheses?

We are told that there was evidence that the same shallow sea once covered Texas and Oklahoma. Well, it couldn’t have been the flood of Noah then, right? Did those waters allegedly cover Texas and Oklahoma?

According to the article, marine fossils which were unknown to science were found in the Andes and several 100 pound blocks containing fossils were brought back to the museum.

What really happened here?

[Gerr]

Gerry, I'm waiting for evidence of local flooding that "buried North America" or "put seashells on Everest." I'm familiar with most of the floods you have listed, and I even mentioned the Missoula one in my reply. These are local floods, with well defined and understood geographical margins, and dates that do not coincide with each other in any way shape or form.

Not only did you massively overstate your argument, but if you want to argue that these local floods are all misunderstood manifestations of a global flood that reshaped the planet, then you have to provide some additional evidence of that.

A Classic Polystrate Fossil

by John D. Morris, Ph.D. *

Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil, a fossilized tree that extended stratigraphically upward through several layers of rock in Tennessee. Its roots were in a coal seam, and the overlying deposits included bedded shale and thin carbon-rich layers. An advocate of any form of uniformitarianism would believe that it took many, many years to deposit this sequence of layers (much longer than it takes for a tree to grow and eventually die and decay), yet one vertical fossil extends through them all. This one fossilized tree offered a direct contradiction to the evolutionary mantra that "the present is the key to the past."

The specific strata surrounding the fossil provided a history. According to uniformitarianism, many years are required for a thick layer of peat to accumulate in a swampy environment. This type of location is quite different from the marine environment in which tiny shale-sized particles are deposited. Over "millions and millions of years" of heat and pressure generated by the subsequently deposited overlying marine sediments, the peat is thought to have metamorphosed into coal.

The tree was a mature tree, yet could not have grown in the location where the surrounding shale was deposited, since trees don't live long under the sea. Furthermore, the time required for shaley sediments to accumulate must be added to the tree's lifespan, as must the time to deeply bury the coal precursor and create the pressure to generate enough heat to alter the peat into coal. No scenario possible today could account for this sequence of events if evolution’s interpretation of earth history is true.

Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it. The name polystrate ("many layers") is used only by creationists. You will seldom find it in the standard literature, even though the related concepts are easily grasped. Unfortunately, National Geographic requires a not-insignificant fee for the use of its photographs, and only on occasion was this one used by creationists. The fossil looked rather fragile, and since many polystrates are known, we never tried to go to the site and relocate this particular one.

Recently, however, creationist Ian Juby decided to try and track it down. Much to his surprise, it was still there, looking even better than ever. But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position.

Just such an event happened at Mount St. Helens in 1980, when an eruption toppled a standing forest. The tree trunks were deposited in Spirit Lake. After a few years of waterlogging, the trunks sunk roots down, in life's position but not life's location. Today there are tens of thousands of upright trees standing on the bottom of the lake. They are being engulfed by fine particles of volcanic ash and clay, and if the underlying organic layer of bark were heated by a future eruption, it would likely metamorphose into coal and duplicate the scenario revealed in the photo.

The eruption at Mount St. Helens taught us much about the effects of dynamic processes. It provided a model for deciphering unseen past geologic cataclysms, and produced effects which before had puzzled us. Our understanding of possible events during the great Flood of Noah's day was substantially expanded, including that rapid deposition of sediments and burial of fossils could be expected during such a deluge. The more evidence that science uncovers, the more it supports the biblical account of earth's history.

[Gerr]

PS

To say that these high mountains were all under water before the tectonic plates pushed them up seems to me the same as saying there was a Flood. Doubters of the Genesis account just refuse to call it so.

[Igakusei]

PS

To say that these high mountains were all under water before the tectonic plates pushed them up seems to me the same as saying there was a Flood. Doubters of the Genesis account just refuse to call it so.

As a doctor, surely you've been exposed to the scientific process at some point, yes? Here's how it works in this case:

If you have two competing hypothesis that may explain an observation, you can do the "what else would we find if one or the other was true" game and go looking for that. Think about some of the other things a flood vs. an ancient inland sea environment as the source of Everest's rocks would imply, and then go look them up to see what geologists have found.

I'm just really amazed and somewhat stupefied that someone as otherwise educated as you can find such shallow and easily refutable arguments so convincing. I don't just take the word of the "experts" who are preaching what I want to hear at face value, and you shouldn't do the same for yours. Try reading some of the literature on things like polystrate fossils and hydroplate "theory" from someone who hasn't made an a priori theological committment to the idea that the Genesis flood is literal and recent history before they ever looked at the ground.

[Gerr]

Easily refutable? Same data, different conclusions. Happens all the time.

[phkrause]

Easily refutable? Same data, different conclusions. Happens all the time.

Exactly Gerry, this is what happens all the time. Great posts Gerry.

[Igakusei]

Easily refutable? Same data, different conclusions. Happens all the time.

You can make the "same data, different conclusions" argument about anything from homeopathy to palm reading to UFOs. But since we're scientists, and we actually care about figuring out which conclusion is most likely given the data that we have, it's important to look very closely at the data and ask lots of good follow-up questions.

Questions like: Why do we only have certain types of fossils on Everest, and why do all the rocks date to the same age? Why are the rocks bent in ways consistent with high pressures over long periods of time and not fractured in ways consistent with much higher pressures over a shorter period of time? Why are the organisms found in these rocks only found elsewhere in the world in rocks of similar ages? And so forth.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Don't try to make your post's sound like facts when they are based on opinion Just like people that believe in the bible version of Genesis.

Interesting how the fact that Jesus is a historical Person which is a fact and His choice of evidence for gaining anything permanent, is unacceptable to myriads of people and as a result those same people close the door on the only way to become permanently able to grow intellectually.

"“Anyone who listens to my teaching (doctrine) and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.”"

Matthew 7:24-27 NLT parenthesis mine LHC

God cares! Jesus saves!

[phkrause]

Amen! LHC

[Aliensanctuary]

The Darwinians, I believe, have stolen and broken the moral compass of the world. As Western Civilization makes the inevitable downward-spiral transformation into Babylon, many Muslims believe it is their divine mission to destroy us in order to purify the world of evil.

Dating and floods aside, if we can recite some of the Quran in Arabic, we may not be decapitated, if it comes to that point.

[fccool]

Why is it that's these types of discussions tend to follow a certain progression:

1) Here's evidence for the flood

- no it isn't and here's why...

2) Well, then where does everything came from? Everything can't come from nothing.

- Why do you think it has to come from nothing?

3) Well, without God morality is broken.

- no, it's not. You are presupposing something yet to be demonstrated true to explain everything else. Likewise, just because something is necessary in your view, doesn't make true or valid. In certain context tyranny was necessary to preserve societal order. It doesn't make tyranny good or valid. We have to always look for better alternatives or explanations.

Quote:

The Darwinians, I believe, have stolen and broken the moral compass of the world. As Western Civilization makes the inevitable downward-spiral transformation into Babylon, many Muslims believe it is their divine mission to destroy us in order to purify the world of evil.

Actually, Darwinism enhanced morality by detaching it from "My pastor/priests says that".

To put Biblical morality in context that you can understand it - is simply a form of Legalism.

I characterize Legalism as a form of unjustified morality. For example, in the past, having long hair was a "sin". Why? Because they said so... that's why? Any form of morality requires valid justification, and has to properly answer the question "why" without employing circularity or appealing to authority for validation.

If I say something is wrong, I have to demonstrate why it's wrong. If I say that something is so wrong, that it demands a death punishment... I have to justify that.

When you are saying that Darwinism broke the moral compass, how did it do that exactly? Evolution is not a philosophy on life. It has philosophical implications, but these are not inevitable, at least not as inevitable as creationism usually paints is.

The real question is not "In which context of truth does something appeals to you". The question is "What is true?" If someone's wife is cheating on them, they may find it preferable to see it as not true, and instead believe that it's not so by making up various justifications ... like the fact that accusations that their wife is sleeping around has "broken the compas of marriage". No! That's now what breaks the compass of marriage in this context.

The same thing's here.

Darwinism is pointing to the fact that the reality that people generally believed in is not true. Creationism is an attempt to say "No. My wife is not cheating on my .... la la la la la. She is perfect and pure, and the other evidence is just an attempt by evil people conspiring to lie and break our marriage apart". But, when given fact after fact about our reality conflicting with their ideas virtually on every level possible, they resort to very silly mind-games like "Well, yes here's a picture of my wife kissing other guy, but such view takes the magic of love out of the equation. Even though she is kissing him, the magic envelope of love separated her from him... and only made it look like she was."

The reason why I exited creationism, because I got extremely tired of excuses like that. You wouldn't trust any person or business who makes such excuses, but when it comes to religion, people seem to make a massive exception.

[phkrause]

Truth plain and simply put, is:

John 14:6 Yeshua said, "I AM the Way -- and the Truth and the Life;

[fccool]

Truth plain and simply put, is:

John 14:6 Yeshua said, "I AM the Way -- and the Truth and the Life;

And that's where these eventually end up... with presupposition theology.

I don't think it's personally wrong, but it's no longer very convincing. Especially since the new generation prefers claims to be supported by evidence.

[CoAspen]

The Darwinians, I believe, have stolen and broken the moral compass of the world. As Western Civilization makes the inevitable downward-spiral transformation into Babylon, many Muslims believe it is their divine mission to destroy us in order to purify the world of evil.

Dating and floods aside, if we can recite some of the Quran in Arabic, we may not be decapitated, if it comes to that point.

Can anyone tell me what any of this has to do with Dino Bones????????

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

many Muslims believe it is their divine mission to destroy us in order to purify the world of evil.

Dating and floods aside, if we can recite some of the Quran in Arabic, we may not be decapitated, if it comes to that point.

"For you will be expelled from the synagogues, and the time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing a holy service for God."John 16:2 NLT

"But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

"Luke 21:27 NASB

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."Matthew 10:28 NASB

"For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope."Jeremiah 29:10 NLT

Jesus saves! God saves!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Can anyone tell me what any of this has to do with Dino Bones????????

Since Bonnie is the one who started the thread and isn't complaining, do you see a need to protect her interests, or would there be a more personal in depth concern?

God cares! Jesus saves!

[Gerr]

I am as equally amazed how supposedly very intelligent people would never believe a computer & its OS, or a 747 could come into existence without a creator, and yet fervently believe that something even more complex like a "simple" cell, or a human brain could come about without a Creator.

[LifeHiscost]

I am as equally amazed how supposedly very intelligent people would never believe a computer & its OS, or a 747 could come into existence without a creator, and yet fervently believe that something even more complex like a "simple" cell, or a human brain could come about without a Creator.

And I would like to hazard the opinion that even the amazement is a gift of the Holy Spirit, derived from His leading into and teaching Truth, and that would be Truth accepted.

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”"John 8:32 NLT

God/Jesus saves!