Just Joined - Christian with Paleontolgy Background

It's all about genetics and the discovery of the Nogo-66 receptor (NgR) and homologous genes, so we'll discuss this later.best,

I was just wondering where you found the info, I knew the answer to the question which you answered without the question actually being asked, the composition of sea water today is most likely different than it was in the Devonian or Carboniferous.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

The word "fundamental," according to the Online Dictionary, is Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary:. A Biblical fundamentalist holds to the most elementary literal fundamentals of the text.Something to think about before the topic is discussed: You have a problem with one word, replenish, whereas your hypothesis will be shown to counter many of the textual fundamentals of Genesis 1.In the meantime I suggest you check out the Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts from which Genesis was translated. They don't use the term, replenish or anything implicating such, according to my Hebrew/Aramaic Interlinear of the Old Testament.Your fundy inlaws and wifie should like this. Talk to you later.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

For the YECs,I am excited that you are on this forum. I once debated YEC Tim Wallace through his email (of course he never showed it on his website). He got so angry after about 10 emails that he refused to dialog with me again. My goal is to honestly discover the truth and quitting doesn't help.best,

If I had said that no one should read the Bible, then I would understand your point. Since that I didn't say that at all I'm at a lost at what your point is.

---

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

Well you said even if we do read it, we can't know what the author intended to say. This is saying that trying to understand the text is useless. Your basis for this was that the author died two millenia ago.I used an analog situation where the author also died two millenia ago, implying that your logic would also mean we couldn't know what the author intended. And what is the point of studying it if we can't understand it ?

Hi, Slev.There is a code for explicit formatting: use "[code]".It will put a space for each time you hit the space bar.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

"[Buzsaw] The word "fundamental," according to the Online Dictionary, is Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary:. A Biblical fundamentalist holds to the most elementary literal fundamentals of the text.Something to think about before the topic is discussed: You have a problem with one word, replenish, whereas your hypothesis will be shown to counter many of the textual fundamentals of Genesis 1.In the meantime I suggest you check out the Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts from which Genesis was translated. They don't use the term, replenish or anything implicating such, according to my Hebrew/Aramaic Interlinear of the Old Testament.Your fundy inlaws and wifie should like this.Talk to you later."Well Buzsaw, the most literal interpretation of the Bible comes from the geocentrists and the flat earthers. There are dozens of verses hinting at the Sun orbiting around the earth (I can list a dozen if you want), and at best two verses merely hinting the contrary. Why do you not embrace the most literal interpretation?Also, the Hebrew term for replenish is "male", so it is used.My fundi friends would merely find emptiness in these arguments.best,Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.

Buzsaw,The following is the English translation of the Hebrew Bible in accordance with the Jewish Network. The keepers of the Hebrew Bible certainly translate the Hebrew word "male" to "replenish". To be perfectly honest Christian fundi's are the only ones arguing against this."28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food;
30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food.' And it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

Hi Jeff, I studied Hebrew too many years to argue against using replenish for מלא.But it is not necessary to prove the man created in the image/likeness of God is not the first man on earth.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I disagree that the two are the same thing. It may very well be a worthwhile endeavor to gain an understanding of your favorite ancient text. I'm just pointing out that usually one's understanding of the text may not be what the writer's intent was (and this is true, by the way, even for texts where the author is still living).Also, I should think that it is obvious that in the case of texts that are or may be poetic, metaphoric, and heavily redacted over the course of several centuries and where the writers and redactors are long dead, their intents might be difficult or impossible to discern. Is that really so controversial?That doesn't mean that it's impossible in each and every case, or that you can't come to your own understanding of the texts, or that such an endeavor is not worthwhile.

---

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

so true.I get misread on here on a daily basis.

Ok, so it has nothing to do with the age of the text, except more age means maybe more opportunities for it to be changed. But you need to have evidence that it has been change, just because it's old doesn't mean it was changed, or if the author is still alive.I agree with your position here, but I feel you changed the goalpost a bit on this one.