Vorpal Rabbit-o-Saurus

guacamolefoo writes "CNN reports that a rabbit-o-saurus fossil was discovered in China. Apparently it lived about 128 million years ago and was related to the T-rex. It had feathers and large, buck teeth. Paleontologists are finding more and more bizarre things. Some seem so strange that they must appear to some to be made up. When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus, they'll put it right next to their moon landing hoax books and their creationism propaganda."

Comments

uhhh....

[RedWolves2]

What's up doc?

Re:Why the jab at Creationism?

[gi-tux]

How do you explain Native American tribes (from both North and South America) that have a story of the great flood and placing the animals in a great canoe? According to people that don't believe in the Biblical creation, the Native Americans would have already have been in the Americas by that time. If I remember correctly, there are African tribes that also have stories of a great flood. There are Asian and European stories as well that predate christianity. There are even stories from Australia and other South Pacific islands.

I will agree that it was passed by oral tradition as Moses wrote the book of Genesis many years after the occurence. I also agree that it should appear in religions other than Judaism, after all Judaism is a rather recent religion. The Hebrew religion of the Bible would have appeared most likely around 1200 B.C. and Judaism would have been many years after that when the nation of Israel split and the 10 northern tribes taken into captivity, etc. After all the word Jew comes from the tribal name of Judah which was one of the two surviving tribes. Since the flood occurred before Moses, it would obviously have been before Judaism. It would even have been before the Hebrew nation came into being as the first Hebrews were Abraham, Issac, Jacob (Israel), and then his 12 sons.

And again, when only 8 people survived in the entire world, there would obviously be a common story. You claim that there was a regional flood, because you can see evidence that it happened. I claim that the flood covered the entire earth because I have faith. There is evidence in the stories and evidence in the earth (flood of the Black Sea area, flooded plains of North America, etc), it just needs to be connected with faith.

Re:Why the jab at Creationism?

[gi-tux]

So what if the original King James Bible had the apocryphal texts, it is only a translation of the Bible. And the Church of England (for which the King James Bible was translated) was a recent spin-off of the Roman Catholic Church (King Henry VIII started it less than 100 years earlier) which includes the apocryphal books in their Bible. Study a little history and you will find that the books that make up the current Bible without the aprocryphal books were all listed and used in the writings of the leaders of the second century church (the first century is when the books were written and the apostles were still alive). By studying the history you can determine which books belong to the true Bible and which were added later.

The Bible was written by men with the guidance of God in the Old Testament and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. The words are not the words of men, but the words of God. It takes some faith to believe, but there is evidence as I have stated in earlier posts. I am truly sorry that you were apparently disappointed in your early religious experience. I do agree that the Bible has no magical powers and cannot fight vampires. But it is the word of God and it can save you from eternal damnation, if you will only believe and follow it.

To each his own though....... I could be wrong.

You do realize that if you are wrong, that you are sentencing yourself to eternal damnation? Is that something that you are willing to live with for eternity? I don't want an answer to this question, I simply want you to think about it and make sure that you have an answer for yourself.

Re:Why the jab at Creationism?

[gi-tux]

Without fail?! LOLOL, that is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. You seem to have conviently forgotten about the geocentric theory, the global flood (see my reasons above for discounting it), evolution (we *have* observed evolution many many times, the only question is how it happens), and the myriad armageddon predictions. The only reason you think no evidence contrary to the bible exists is because you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" whenever it pops up.

My Bible doesn't mention geocentric theory, that was a scientific theory. The global flood happened whether you believe it or not. As I have stated other places in this thread, there are stories in almost every culture of a great flood and a boat with a surviving family and animals (please explain this away). We have seen adaptation and try to make it look like evolution. And my Bible says that "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Matthew 24:36). Men can attempt to predict the end of the world, but only God knows when it will come. The only standing prophesy of the Bible is that the world will end and therefore there are no predictions in the Bible that can be proven that haven't already happened.

As for the "finger in your ears" part, the same could be said of scientist. If they uncover something that proves something in the Bible, they immediate start looking for ways to disprove that it really happened or attempt to explain it away in some way. The prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the coming of Christ should be enough to prove scientifically that the Bible is correct. And if you really want to get down to it the Bible proves many scientific things itself. Look at Job 36:27-28 and learn about rain. Now there is question as to when this book was actually written, but it was written before 1000 B.C. and it tells how rain comes from water vapour. There are others but I won't go into all the detail here. Just do a google search.