Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Another confusing dilemma in the Bible (there sure are a lot of them, or maybe I'm just being dumb).
This is a very convenient, shallow and cheap view.
I dont have a big problem with the dinosaur bones "test" as such.
Today it is raining. Is God testing me to see if I will thank Him for the rain and praise Him for His victory over the flood if it starts to rain too much? I think so. Is He sifting us to see how we fit ordinary or extraordinay rain within His Word? Yes. And so the dinosaur.
Dinosaur bones needn't be seen as a "special" test. If our limited knowledge makes thems seem anomalous, that is really not all that pertinent to the fundamental question God asks us about how we see natural phenomena.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
I can understand the way people feel a need to 'defend the bible' and claim it only means the smallest seed cultivated in the region, but God's word does not need defending, instead we should let issues like this challenge the assumptions we bring to scripture, and learn how God actually speaks to us instead of how we think he should speak.
That approach is fine for mature Christians, like you and I, but for 'babes' that might find this parable troubling this simple explaination may allow them to move forward.
This topic can be confusing if you let it. To me I have no problem with what we call tere-firma being billions of years old. I do have a problem with saying life has been here and existing on it for billions of years. That does not jive with the Bible. BTW, The Bible does speak of what would be considered as a dinosaur when it speaks of the beehamoth ( ms ) having a tail as big as a tree.
The fossil evidence is not conclusive for slow evolution of the biota. What it is definitely evidence for is rapid burial and sequential deposition of stratified layers of sediments as a result of hydrology.
The fossil evidence is not conclusive for slow evolution of the biota.
As someone who works on fossils for a living, let me assure you that it is.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Oh Dear... No the bible does not say behemoth's tail is as big as a tree.
Here's the way the original language reads from the hebrew. I'll let the reader's decide:
" Behold please behemoth which I made with you grass as an ox he is eating, behold please vigor of him in waists of him and virility of him in navel/muscle of him belly of him he is inclining TAIL OF HIM LIKE A CEDAR sinews of him awesome part of him."
To say the least there is some things lost in translation wouldn't you agree?
As someone who works on fossils for a living, let me assure you that it is.
I'm sure you are convinced of that. However, your conclusions are based on a biased perspective. I used to see things that way too but there are other ways to see things and there are other ways to interpret the evidence than what the mainstream paradigm does.
I'm sure you are convinced of that. However, your conclusions are based on a biased perspective. I used to see things that way too but there are other ways to see things and there are other ways to interpret the evidence than what the mainstream paradigm does.
The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.
The GC is a great example of rapid erosion of the then fairly soft sediments laid down right after the flood. The GC was most likely formed very rapidly by a huge rush of water from a huge lake north of it's location. The fact that there are essentially no signs of erosional cuts in the sediments tells us this is true. Slow formation would show massive signs of erosion in the lateral layering but very little or no erosion is apparent. Ignoring this evidence is a prime example of the mainstream paradigms perspective.
The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.
Why do you want to say something outside of your field with such a confidence? I am a little tired on debating this triviality. Most mammillary coatings (what material?) only take a very short period of time to form.
And this sort of argument is not really adequate in this thread at all.
Linear Mode
