On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[MilesAbbott81]

So no proof at all (that you care to share) that Dinos' lived a few thousand years ago ?

You asked for reason, not proof. And actually, I'd say that the extant tissue of dinosaurs is proof enough. No one knows how it survived millions of years; do you?

Even Job is referring to a mythical beast,  doesn't the bible also mention Unicorns, Locusts (like Horses) , The Leviathan  (Creature with multiple heads that Yahweh battled for control of the sea), A lion with eagle wings,  leopard-like creature with four wings and four heads.. we could of course go on.
But surely T-rex and the enormous Dino's would at least deserve a mention, especially as remains are found all over the earth.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it would be best if you not comment at all. Leviathan and Behemoth are simply names of creatures that seem to resemble dinosaurs. They are not treated as mythical creatures in the story. Neither did Yahweh battle Leviathan for control of the sea. Where did you come up with this stuff? Ever actually read the Bible? If you had, you'd understand that the creatures with mixed features appeared in visions, obviously intended as metaphorical and not to represent actual animals.

As for unicorns, seems to be an incorrect translation of the original Hebrew word. Could mean many things, I'm not claiming to know but you're obviously not a source that can be trusted.

That is not the only way things are dated though, something you would know if you actually decided to educate yourself. Can you show me where the claim that it is not considered accurate by leaders in the field is ?

Who are you to determine who "leaders in the field" are? Are you a geologist? What is your expertise? And sure, I can point to people at the Institute for Creation Research who are experts in all kinds of disciplines, doctorates and all. How do you know they're not leaders in their fields?

The truth is that creation scientists are maligned and ridiculed constantly, and it actually takes a lot of courage to stand up and speak against the status quo. They do it because they have good reason, and at the very least you should be able to acknowledge that their claims have credibility.

You mean the site that has this in it's 'what we believe' section..

Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Yes then clearly a great site to go to to be educated on science

That is why it's a statement of belief. They're actually speaking from a point of humility that you and others here would do well to try and emulate. We know very little, have proven time and time again how little we know, and therefore it makes much sense to trust the Word of God above specious theories like evolution.

Even your article is just a news story about a find, and does not make the same claims as you.

The find speaks for itself.

You mentioned it first there is absolutely no mention of 'flesh on the bone'

Semantics. By flesh I mean "tissue." You're being deliberately, or at least very obviously, obtuse.

I'm not claiming i do know, you are, I'm saying they have no way of knowing, but that the common though by leading archaeologists, is that Yahweh was at best a subordinate god to El.  And I even offered scripture to you, but of course you simply ignored it, which by the way I approve of scripture clearly is not the place for truth.

No, that's what I was saying. Here is what you said: "You really need to get out of your head that you can simply assert things, all evidence points to the Yahweh myth being a minor god and a subordinate to El."

To which I replied: "I didn't assert anything, I'm actually pointing out that your assertions are unfounded because there is no definitive proof that one came before the other."

Honestly, how damned stupid can you get? You don't even know what your own argument is!

And, to differ is good, but either way does not lead to your clear assertion that Yahweh was the first god mentioned in archaeology, and it is evidence that people disagree in black and white, you just said so yourself.  Therefore to make the assertion you are in your own words is clearly silly.

I never asserted anything of the sort. Show me where I did.