First off, are you really suggesting that the dove flew around the entire
planet earth and thus knew that it couldn't find a place to land? How long
would such a flight take a dove. Lets see. Doves fly at around 35-40 mph
and the earth has a 25,000 mile circumference (all approximate numbers). It
would take a bird about a month to encircle the planet in one direction.
But even then he couldn't KNOW that there was no land perpendicular to his
former flight path and would then need to fly off in other directions.
Obviously this is entirely ridiculous so the proper translation is 'whole
land' not 'whole earth'.
>When Jesus was referring to the prophets whose blood had been shed '
>...from the beginning of the world...' (Luke 11:50) one has no trouble
>understanding what Jesus meant. HE was not defining narrow boundaries, was
>HE? The context dictates the meaning, and applies just as well to the
>reference in II Peter. The context, based on other areas of the Bible,
>dictates the meaning. Peter meant "the whole world", nothing less.
>
The word translated as 'beginning' is 2602. katabole, kat-ab-ol-ay'; from
G2598; a deposition, i.e. founding; fig. conception:--conceive, foundation.
This may very well be a Calvinistic statement that the martyrs were planned
into the fabric of the universe.
>GM>>>>And as to men being wrong, what happened to the theologians who
>determined
>> from the Scripture that the sun revolved around the earth?<<<
>
>Do not disagree, but the leading thinkers of the time were also making
>pronouncements that the geocentric theory was correct. In fact, because of
>that, theologians came around to trying Galileo. the point I am making, to
>which your comment actually is irrelevant, is that man generically has been
>wrong so many times in the past. What is to keep him from making
>pronouncements now that might be wrong at some future time. Macroevolution
>is coming increasingly under attack by its own academia.
This simply isn't true. Macroevolutin is well regarded by almost all
academics. Can you cite a single, non-christian academic that says that
evolution did not occur? Denton is a Christian, Behe is a Christian.
There are so many
>other historical examples of error. Nebraska Man, Piltdown man, the
>recapitulation theory, Neanderthal man, to name just a few. I understand
>that these examples were later found to be fraudulent by other scientists,
>but at the time they were considered the last, most up-to-date word on the
>subject. As I am sure you are aware, Nebraska Man was used by Clarence
>Darrow to browbeat WJ Bryan in the Scopes Trial. It was later discovered
>to be a tooth of an extinct pig.
I am aware of these errors. But let me ask you: who was it that proved
what the error was? It wasn't young-earth Christians who were studying the
pig tooth, it wasn't the young-earthers who performed the fluorine test on
the jaw and skull of Piltdown. And in the case of Piltdown, there was much
controversy even from the first. Weidenreich publically and Gorjanovic
stated that they thought it was a fraud.
"Weidenreich, in fact, knew Piltdown was a fraud; he was one of the few
paleoanthropologists aware of it and willing to say so
(Gorjanovic-Kramberger, as we noted in Chapter 5, suspected the same but
would only publish his misgivings in Croatian)."~Milford Wolpoff and
Rachael Caspari, Race and Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1997), p. 203
"Weidenreich simply expressed his disbelief that the pieces used in the
Piltdown reconstruction were from a single specimen, or even a single
species. He (quite correctly) asserted, from his study of the anatomy,
that the skull was that of a modern human and the jaw was of an oragnutan.
he didn't know what to make of the canine and did not seem willing to
entertain the possibility that it was simply manufactured to look as it
did, as part of a fraud. But he was virtually alone in his opinion that
the fragments didn't go together, and more than a decade later his
conclusions were not yet accepted.
'I am only wondering why, if a human vault, a simian mandible, and an
anonymous 'canine' were combined into a new form, the other animal bones
and teeth found in the same spot were not added to the ... combination?...I
do not believe in miracles...the sooner the chimaera...is erased from the
list of human fossils, the better for science."~Franz Weidenreich, "The
Skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: A comparative study of a primitive
hominid skull," Palaeontologia Sinica, new Series D, Number 10 (wole series
No. 127), p. 220, cited by Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and
Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 204
Neanderthal was not a fraud and is with us today. There are various views
of his humanity but Neanderthal is very real.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm