T. rex meets Noah

arkdino

I’m stealing this from my friend Leighton. I’m not sure where he stole it from. But, knowing Leighton, I’m sure he stole it from somewhere. (He’s from Florida.)

I like it because it reminds me of this old thread of ours about pterodactyls carrying olive branches.

This entry was posted in Other and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

33 Comments

  1. Brackinald Achery
    Posted April 30, 2010 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    How the hell did T-rex start the fire?

  2. makuavalley
    Posted May 1, 2010 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    That ark was also a BPoff shore drilling platform built by Halliburton. Spontaneous combustion.

  3. Peter Larson
    Posted May 1, 2010 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    He breathed fire. Remember, it was on those ancient cave paintings?

  4. Knox
    Posted May 1, 2010 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    I believe they’d argue that Noah didn’t take the T. rex, and that’s why they became extinct. They were drowned in the flood. Of course, it does say in the Bible that he took two of “every” animal. But the fundies choose to disregard a lot of what the Bible says, like the part where it tells you that you can sell people into slavery, and the part where it says you can’t eat shrimp.

  5. Peter Larson
    Posted May 1, 2010 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    They were on the ark, but their children were so inbred that they didn’t have much success in repopulating.

    I think the more important find is that humans rode flying dinosaurs:

    http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0605/flyingdinos.html

  6. EOS
    Posted May 1, 2010 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Knox,
    If you haven’t read and studied the Bible and don’t attend a fundie church, please don’t speak on their behalf. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. Noah took two of every kind of animal aboard the Ark. Lots of the animals evolved into different breeds and subspecies subsequent to the flood. The part where it tells you that you can sell people into slavery, and the part where it says you can’t eat shrimp are historically accurate, but don’t apply today. If you read the whole book you would know that. But there are an awful lot of people who take isolated scriptures and misinterpret them, and so you are certainly not alone.

  7. Dirtgrain
    Posted May 1, 2010 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    EOS, if only you would just read the Bible!

  8. The Purple Shield
    Posted May 1, 2010 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    EOS, if you haven’t personally spoken to God, Then don’t speak on his behalf. He spoke to me once, and it saved my life…so when jerks like you twist his message, it makes me sad. I forgive you, and I hope he does too. One simple phrase that says it all…”God Is Love”…after that, nothing else is needed.

  9. EOS
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Sure Purple,

    When you stand in front of God in judgment, just keep repeating your mantra, “God is Love” and see how far that gets you. Unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior you won’t be spending eternity in a good place.

    I personally speak to God everyday through prayer. God speaks to me everyday through His written word, the Bible, and I encourage everyone to read it.

  10. Posted May 2, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    I’ve got to bookmark this comment of yours, EOS, so I can link back to it for the rest of my life.

    “The part where it tells you that you can sell people into slavery, and the part where it says you can’t eat shrimp are historically accurate, but don’t apply today.”

    So, that’s the secret. The book is the “inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God,” but you can disregard the parts that “don’t apply today.” Brilliant… So, let’s say that the Bible included a prohibition against gay marriage (which I don’t think that it does) – couldn’t I just say that it should be disregarded due to the fact that it doesn’t apply? Or are you the only one that can decide which of the inspired, inerrant, infallible Words of God no longer apply.

    With all due respect, this is laughable.

  11. The Purple Shield
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    I repeat it everyday, EOS. God is love. By you going through the bible, taking the parts you want, and leaving the others, proves you are full of it. What you say means nothing to me. I know where I am going. Warm your heart, but don’t go too far, or you’ll burn your soul.

  12. Peter Larson
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    The New Testament actually regards slavery quite positively.

  13. Brackinald Achery
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Mark, EOS is right. That’s been pretty basic Christian doctrine since the beginning of Christianity — ie, the fulfillment of OT law by Christ so Christians aren’t obligated to live by it. It’s not like splitting hairs over serving wine or grape juice, that’s straight-up gospel basics. I thought you said once that you were a Christian.

  14. Peter Larson
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    It doesn’t change the fact that the NT looks favorably on slavery so Mark is partly correct in calling EOS out.

  15. Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    I consider myself a Christian, and I think the Bible is a pretty great book, for the most part. It’s got some great stories in it. And I think Jesus was great revolutionary. I just have a problem with Biblical literalists, especially ones who pick and choose what parts of God’s “inspired, inerrant, infallible” teachings that they feel should be honored. It’s bewildering to me that they expect to be taken seriously.

  16. Brackinald Achery
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    I just have a problem with Biblical literalists, especially ones who pick and choose what parts of God’s “inspired, inerrant, infallible” teachings that they feel should be honored.

    I’m not sure EOS is doing that, is my point.

    Peter, I’m not sure the NT approves of slavery anymore than it approves of someone striking a Christian on the right cheek, if you take my meaning.

  17. EOS
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 4:08 am | Permalink

    Galatians 3

    21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

    23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

    26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    Every word in the Bible is there for a purpose. You cannot pick and choose any part and disregard others. But don’t take my word for it, read it yourselves. It takes only 15 minutes a day to read it entirely in a year. At a minimum, you would at least be more knowledgeable in your criticisms.

  18. Peter Larson
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 4:56 am | Permalink

    Jesus and his ilk had every opportunity to speak against slavery, but didn’t. This is, to me, the great failing of Christianity (in addition to all the magical nonsense), regardless of cultural context. It is clear that they didn’t think that the buying, selling, ownership and beating of slaves was a completely acceptable activity.

    It is important to note that there were Christians (and still are) who use the Bible to justify the oppression and enslavement of others. EOS is on his high horse now, but given his bigoted views on homosexuals, one can only assume that he would espouse the same encouraging the continuation of slavery had he lived in the 19th century south.

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

  19. Peter Larson
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 4:57 am | Permalink

    Correction:

    “It is clear that they thought that the buying, selling, ownership and beating of slaves was a completely acceptable activity.”

  20. EOS
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Peter,
    Many of the Jewish people at the time Jesus walked the earth erroneously thought that he came to overthrow the Roman oppression and establish His Kingdom on earth. Jesus told them that His Kingdom had not yet come. But in His Kingdom, there will be no more sorrow, no more pain, no more sickness, no more death. Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself; treat others as you would want to be treated.

    This world is broken and sin-filled and full of misery. Were it perfect, who would recognize the need for a Savior? However, it was Christians who led the abolitionist movement that eradicated slaves in this country. And it is Christians today who are working to eradicate human trafficking worldwide.

    I would be proud to be considered among Jesus’ ilk. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. I have never advocated slavery or racism. My views on homosexuality are fueled by my desire that they hear the gospel and break free of the culture that enslaves them to sin.

  21. Posted May 3, 2010 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    BA: “Mark, EOS is right. That’s been pretty basic Christian doctrine since the beginning of Christianity — ie, the fulfillment of OT law by Christ so Christians aren’t obligated to live by it.”

    Actually, that was a huge item of disagreement after Jesus’s death. It was Paul, not Jesus, who said that Gentile converts did not need to be circumcised, become Jews, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise obey OT law. Jesus was, in likelihood, a fully observant Jew throughout his lifetime, and his early followers were also; they were only differentiated from other Jews by a belief that Jesus was the Messiah. The idea that Gentiles could be followers of Jesus without converting to Judaism didn’t really become established until several decades after Jesus’s death.

    EOS has cited Galatians above, but again, that is Paul, who claimed almost total independance from Jesus’s followers in Jerusalem, and who almost certainly never met the living Jesus – he would have mentioned it in his many writings if he had. Keep in mind also that Paul claimed to have recieved personal revalation directly from Jesus, approximately 3-6 years after the crucifixion.

  22. EOS
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    Cmadler,

    You bring up some good points. The requirement to follow the law was not abolished until Jesus’ death on the cross. Yet, Jesus and his followers did not fully obey the law and were condemned by the Jewish leaders for it. He worked on the Sabbath, his followers didn’t fast, and they did not always engage in ritual cleansing before meals.

    Paul was not independent of the followers in Jerusalem. He met with them, according to the Book of Acts, and they confirmed the Gospel he was preaching and extended the hand of friendship. Paul met the living Jesus while on the road to Damascus, also detailed in the Book of Acts. There were Gentile converts to Christianity during Jesus’ life, and many thousands shortly after his death, not decades later. Paul’s writings have always been included as part of the Cannon of the New Testament.

    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
    2 Timothy 3:15-17

  23. Knox
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    So, what’s the takeaway here, that God sometimes changes his mind as to what his inerrant, infallible laws are? Sounds fishy to me.

  24. EOS
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    My bad. The passage I quoted from Timothy was written by Paul, so that’s a circular argument.

  25. Posted May 3, 2010 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Certainly there were Gentile converts during Jesus’s life, but what did they convert to? Judaism. They became converted Jews who followed Jesus as the Messiah.

    As for Paul meeting “the living Jesus” on the road to Damascus, this happenned 3-6 years after the crucifixion. So we can argue about the resurrection and corporality versus spirituality, but let’s not pretend that Paul’s “meeting” with Jesus was normal in any sense; Jesus was killed years earlier.

  26. EOS
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    It is my understanding that the Sanhedrin and Jewish leaders of the time rejected Christ’s identity as the Messiah. Messianic Jews were persecuted and many are still persecuted to this day.

    Christians believe that Jesus’ body rose from the grave. The tomb was empty. He showed the apostles the wounds on his hands and side shortly after the resurrection. He shared food with them unlike a spiritual being. And He still lives today.

  27. Kevin Phillips
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    EOS, earlier in this thread, you mention that dinosaurs evolved from that time period. If dinosaurs evolved to be chickens and birds in a mere 6,000 years, did humans evolve as well? And, if not, why not?

  28. EOS
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    I believe that the scientific evidence is strong for micro-evolution, but absent for macro-evolution. I believe that God created organisms with the ability to adapt within a small range of variation, to become better suited to a changing environment, but I don’t believe that all species present today evolved from a common ancestor. I believe Darwin’s studies showed how Finch beaks in a population change, but that they always remained beaks and all the Finches remained birds. I don’t believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, just different varieties of dinosaurs. I believe the fossil evidence and the Biblical account of creation both support the hypothesis that a large variety of species were created at the same time, and that one did not evolve from the other. I believe the population of humans does evolve into individuals who are better adapted to their environment, but that we were created as humans in God’s image and we remain human. I don’t believe that it is scientifically possible for a living organism to arise spontaneously out of a pool of chemicals. We were designed for a purpose that is beyond ourselves.

  29. Peter Larson
    Posted May 4, 2010 at 5:34 am | Permalink

    No, EOS, you are a bigot, plain and simple.

  30. EOS
    Posted May 4, 2010 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    Peter,

    Is that your expression of tolerance?

  31. Lauren
    Posted October 17, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    If you only have two of a species, no matter how you look at it, the gene pool and genetic diversity will be so pitiful, you might as well give up. Even if they produced enough offspring to overrun the planet in one go, their genetic diversity will still be non-existent.

    Guess what happens when a species gets to that stage?
    Extinction.
    They couldn’t have evolved into new species – if almost all of their genes had a fitness of almost 0, there would be no room for change – or adapted to environments or stand a chance against any kind of environmental disturbance – you need genetic diversity to be resilient. If you aren’t, you can’t expect to survive for very long.

    Also, what about species that only survive in deserts or the poles? Were there saunas and air cons on the Ark? And afterwards – every plant would be dead, and there would be rotting material covering the earth, polluting the air. Their breathing would be hindered. They would be screwed. Never mind the fact that the length of that wooden boat would have been great enough to cause it to snap in half.

    Eos, hate to break it to you, but “macro” evolution is literally just the result of micro evolution building up over time – if you have lots of little changes, they add up, until eventually the overall thing will be changed. There is an insanely large amount of evidence for ‘macro’ evolution, you just have to look. Whether you believe it is there or not does not change the fact that it exists. Heck, we humans still have the remains of a TAIL, the remains of a third eyelid – a characteristic of reptiles – and the remains of that internal second nostril pair that allowed for fish to start breathing air. The fossil evidence most certainly does NOT support the idea that a lot of species were all created at once. I’m sorry, but that’s the basic fact of it. Nothing will change that. And nobody has ever said living organisms spontaneously arose from a pool of chemicals – in fact, evolution doesn’t say a single thing about the origin of life, only how it got to where it is today.

    Even the Catholic Church itself accepts evolution. They understand that science can only explain the physical and that faith can only explain the spiritual, thus trying to overlap the two is foolish. They understand that in the 21st century we have the knowledge to understand these sorts of things, and that simply ignoring every known fact in biology, human biology, genetics, archeology, geology, ecology, paleontology, and a hell of a lot of other sciences is a tad ridiculous. It’s a waste of our intelligence, frankly. And regarding the design bit…we as a species have such a BAD design, I frankly refuse to believe that God would purposefully screw us up so much – He is infallible, which means he would have had to do it on purpose, which is just cruel. Seriously, our physiology and our bodies are incredibly flawed. I don’t enjoy the notion that God is that cruel. God and the Bible cannot and should not be used to explain the physical world – that is the domain of science. But the spiritual world, the faith of people – THAT is for God.
    Evolution can only explain how a species came about; it cannot explain how a species has morals and compassion (many have actually demonstrated this), love, etc. That can be left in God’s hands. Faith and God can be a beautiful thing; but the moment you try and use it to explain scientific facts, it gets iffy.

  32. EOS
    Posted October 17, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    http://evolutionvsgod.com/

  33. EOS
    Posted October 19, 2013 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/how-could-animals-fit-on-ark

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative The Prisoner