Were Dinosaur bones planted there by satan?

[ebia]

Sure, as soon as the scientists revise the article that I posted. (I didn't write it.)

As I made clear, the article you posted refutes something I never said. (At least judging by what you have posted about it - your links to the article don't work for me).

I never claimed there were currently living trees predating the supposed date of the flood, so posting an article that (presumably) says there aren't any hardly proves me a liar.

Now either show something that refutes something I actually said or withdraw your insinuation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

science doesn't do proof.
it does evidence.

my point?
there is lots of evidence that there was not a global flood, these living plants are part of that evidence.

But you accept it as proof.


inaccurate information. it is not the oldest living plant but rather the oldest tree.
but the record of tree rings goes back about 12K years.

But that isn't what the scientific article stated.


I took the liberty to highlight your 'evidence' below:

Quote

1997; King's Holly (Lomatia tasmanica) - found in the rainforests of Tasmania. Scientists estimated the age of the plant using a nearby fossil of an identical plant. It was found to be over 43,000 years old! The plants appear to be sterile - incapable of producing flowers and viable seeds. Lomatia is triploid, that is, it has three sets of chromosomes instead of two. Because of this it is unable to sexually reproduce. The clonal thickets reproduce vegetatively by root suckering. Fossil leaves found in a late Pleistocene deposit may be genetically identical to present-day plants. The plant is a rare freak of nature whose origins and age are as yet unknown.

August, 1999; Box Huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera) - researchers in Pennsylvania have discovered a living plant that is a remnant of the last Ice Age. Using the known rate of growth if this self-sterile plant, they estimated that this 1/4-acre colony is over 13,000 years old. Researchers are still trying to verify the growth rate to determine is that age is an accurate measure.

March, 2004; Eucalyptus recurva. Also known as "Mongarlowe Mallee" or "Ice Age Gum" it is the rarest Eucalypt in Australia or the world, and is known from only 5 individual specimens. Scientists in Australia are undertaking analyses to determine the exact age of one specimen that is estimated to be 13,000 years old. This aging method also relies on determining the plant's growth rate. Scientists are stilly verifying the growth and performing genetic analyses of neighboring specimens to determine if they are from the same organism.

April, 1980; Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata). Scientists discovered a giant, and very ancient clone of the creosote bush in the Mojave Desert in California they estimated to be between 11,000 and 12,000 years old.

This hardly qualifies as 'evidence'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As I made clear, the article you posted refutes something I never said. (At least judging by what you have posted about it - your links to the article don't work for me).

I never claimed there were currently living trees predating the supposed date of the flood, so posting an article that (presumably) says there aren't any hardly proves me a liar.

Now either show something that refutes something I actually said or withdraw your insinuation.

Not quite. As a 'truth detector' I brought in what I believed to be the truth, regarding the oldest living organism, and depended on the Bristlecone pine to be my evidence. Evidence I have known about for thirty years.

I did not come as a 'lie detector' as you infer.

Reread your original response to Kind Guardian, it is confusing. At least I was confused. After reading it again I must admit that I was wrong. But I called no one a liar. I was charging in on my white horse with the real evidence that I thought was needed. If I offended you, I'm sorry.

 

[ebia]

Edited in response to previous post:
Apology accepted.

Whether or not the Bristlecone pines are the oldest living individuals depends on exactly what you mean by the question. The Kings Holly, for example, is a 43,000 year old clone. The individual living plants are not 43,000 years old, but the plant is a triploid - intrinsically sterile, so new plants can only come from "bits of the old plant sticking in the ground and starting to grow". We know with reasonable reliability that it is at least 43,000 years old because carbon 14 datable fossilised leaf fragments identical to those of the living plant have been found close by. So it could be older than that, but it is unlikely that it is younger. Therefore whether you consider the Kings Holly to represent an older plant than the oldest Bristlecone Pine depends on what you mean by "individual plant".

 

[Pats]

And he wrote how He did it into creation itself. Then, in Genesis, he inspired some people to write about why he did it.

In your opinion? Or according to the Scriptures?

How can you be convinced or unconvinced about something you don't understand?

You may see it that way, that doesn't make it so.

 

[The Lady Kate]

In your opinion? Or according to the Scriptures?

Do you think it's only "opinion" that Scripture tells us why God did what He has done?

Or is it only opinion that ine can look at God's own handiwork and learn how He did it?

Where exactly is the opinion?

 

[ebia]

And he wrote how He did it into creation itself. Then, in Genesis, he inspired some people to write about why he did it.

In your opinion? Or according to the Scriptures?

Which bit did you disagree with

You may see it that way, that doesn't make it so.

Then explain it to me - how can you say you find something convincing or unconvincing if you don't understand it?

 

[Pats]

Do you think it's only "opinion" that Scripture tells us why God did what He has done?

No, and I didn't say that, either. Sometimes God tells us "why" and sometimes He doesn't.

Or is it only opinion that ine can look at God's own handiwork and learn how He did it?

No. I don't see how it could be possible for man to look at creation and decide exactly, all the details, of "how" it was done.

For instance, some people fight against Salvation for years and suddenly accept Christ. I don't know how the Holy Spirit changed their heart. I can only see the evidence that He did.

Where exactly is the opinion?

I was responding to the inference that the Scriptures don't tell us "how" God created us, but only expain "why."
Since Genesis is not presented in an allegorical style, such as a parable or a dream, it is only "opinion" that it is not telling us the true creation story.

 

[Pats]

Which bit did you disagree with

I took your post to be saying that the Creation accounts in the Bible only tell us "why" God created us, but that they're not giving a literal account of creation.

At least the TE view gives an option to those who want to accept Christ, but must accept the theory of evolution.

Then explain it to me - how can you say you find something convincing or unconvincing if you don't understand it?

I understand it, and I still find it flawed. I could be wrong. But, at this time, I'd rather trust in God's wisdom. The New Testiment contains many historically backed factual accounts of Christ. It also blends, in several places, teachings of Adam's first sin and Jesus' salvation. So... no matter what some men's understanding may be, it seems God is telling us something else.

I have been studying this in my spare time for the last two years. I continue studying, as I am a seeker of truth. If I change my mind, I'll admit my mistake.

 

[The Lady Kate]

No. I don't see how it could be possible for man to look at creation and decide exactly, all the details, of "how" it was done.

Of course we may never get all the details, but it's not unreasonable to get a pretty good idea of how He did it.

For instance, some people fight against Salvation for years and suddenly accept Christ. I don't know how the Holy Spirit changed their heart. I can only see the evidence that He did.

We're not talking about salvation... we're talking about people who have already accepted Christ, and have alreaqdy acknowledged that God is the Creator of all... now, how did He do it?

I was responding to the inference that the Scriptures don't tell us "how" God created us, but only expain "why."

Since Genesis is not presented in an allegorical style, such as a parable or a dream, it is only "opinion" that it is not telling us the true creation story.

What, in your opinion, is an allegorical style, and how is Genesis not presented in it?

Because in my opinion, it seems rather allegorical to me.

 

[Dannager]

Since Genesis is not presented in an allegorical style, such as a parable or a dream, it is only "opinion" that it is not telling us the true creation story.

I think what you mean is that the Genesis account isn't presented in a textually obvious allgeory. It must be inferred from the meaning of the story that it is intended as allegory, if such is to be the case.

But the answer to the next question is important: do you accept that one could view Genesis as allegorical given its presentation? I'm not asking whether or not you think it is allegorical, but rather if you think an allegorical interpretation is one of the valid interpretations given the context?

I won't pretend to lead you falsely. The follow-up question, if you answer the previous one in the affirmative, is: Given the different interpretations of the text, should the one supported by evidence outside the text be the one given credibility?

 

[Pats]

I think what you mean is that the Genesis account isn't presented in a textually obvious allgeory. It must be inferred from the meaning of the story that it is intended as allegory, if such is to be the case.

Admitedly, there's a lot I don't understand about Theistic Evolution's theology. I'd like to get the opportunity to dig around and learn and revisit these discussions then.

But the answer to the next question is important: do you accept that one could view Genesis as allegorical given its presentation? I'm not asking whether or not you think it is allegorical, but rather if you think an allegorical interpretation is one of the valid interpretations given the context?

You have to understand, you're talking to a gal who went to private Southern Baptist school from the 4th grad to the 9th grade, they are staunch literalists.

My willingness to even dare to read about why you think Genesis could be allegorical is a big step away from everything I was raised to believe.

I won't pretend to lead you falsely. The follow-up question, if you answer the previous one in the affirmative, is: Given the different interpretations of the text, should the one supported by evidence outside the text be the one given credibility?

At this point, I want to learn more about how Genesis is being taken as allegorical. I don't know enough about the arguement.

Lady Kate, I'm not ignoring you. I just figured my answeres here sufficed to answer your responses as well.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Admitedly, there's a lot I don't understand about Theistic Evolution's theology. I'd like to get the opportunity to dig around and learn and revisit these discussions then.

I think you'll find that Theistic Evolutionist's theology can be pretty complicated... mostly because there really is no one single Theistic evolution doctrine... our individual beliefs are all over the map.

You have to understand, you're talking to a gal who went to private Southern Baptist school from the 4th grad to the 9th grade, they are staunch literalists.

My willingness to even dare to read about why you think Genesis could be allegorical is a big step away from everything I was raised to believe.

And I, for one, admire your willingness. To accept the possibility that what a person believes just might be mistaken, and to set out to see for oneself, can be frightening.

Lady Kate, I'm not ignoring you. I just figured my answeres here sufficed to answer your responses as well.

You've figured correctly.

 

[Willtor]

Hey Pats. If you're interested in how people have interpreted Genesis in the past, you might read some of the Church's great theologians. I was quite taken by Athanasius' study of Creation. The first 5 or 6 chapters give an interpretation. It is interesting that, rather than referring to Adam and Eve by name, or even of 2 people, he argues that God fashioned a "race of men," and his discussion revolves around that.

 

[Dannager]

You have to understand, you're talking to a gal who went to private Southern Baptist school from the 4th grad to the 9th grade, they are staunch literalists.

Yikes. Well, credit to you for having an open mind at this point. There are a lot of people who, after six years of that, wouldn't be able to consider more than one viewpoint.

My willingness to even dare to read about why you think Genesis could be allegorical is a big step away from everything I was raised to believe.

I agree.

At this point, I want to learn more about how Genesis is being taken as allegorical. I don't know enough about the arguement.

I think a decent place to start would be taking a look at http://www.christianforums.com/t2716598-genesis-at-story-oxford-nrsv-commentary.html. This was just posted by chaoschristian this morning, and I think it does a good job of explaining the interpretation used by most biblical scholars. I'm not sure what version of the Bible you use.

 

[Pats]

Thanks, Wiltor and Dannager.

Um, I'm not hung up on a particular version of the Bible. There are some that are better than others, but most are good. Comparing them only helps with understand sometimes. I enjoy reading the literal translations, sometimes, but one of my favorites is NASB. This is in stron contradiction to how I was raised that the KJV is the only real Bible. So, as you can see, I have been able on many issue to research for myself and not just take what I've been taught for granted.

That's part of what I'm interested in doing now.

The other part of it is, as I've talked about in a few other posts around here, I'm whitnessing to a pagan evolutionist friend who takes a strong interest in studying the Bible. One of the big hang ups for him is that he cannot accept the Creation account, says the Bible is flawed because of it, and therefore can't accept the teaching of salvation in Jesus.

I am wondering if the Holy Spirit uses various theolagies such as TE in these cases. Since I think faith in Jesus is the most important concept in the Bible. The rest of these debates will be settled when we all get to Heaven.

 

[Dannager]

Thanks, Wiltor and Dannager.

Um, I'm not hung up on a particular version of the Bible. There are some that are better than others, but most are good. Comparing them only helps with understand sometimes. I enjoy reading the literal translations, sometimes, but one of my favorites is NASB. This is in stron contradiction to how I was raised that the KJV is the only real Bible. So, as you can see, I have been able on many issue to research for myself and not just take what I've been taught for granted.

That's part of what I'm interested in doing now.

The other part of it is, as I've talked about in a few other posts around here, I'm whitnessing to a pagan evolutionist friend who takes a strong interest in studying the Bible. One of the big hang ups for him is that he cannot accept the Creation account, says the Bible is flawed because of it, and therefore can't accept the teaching of salvation in Jesus.

I am wondering if the Holy Spirit uses various theolagies such as TE in these cases. Since I think faith in Jesus is the most important concept in the Bible. The rest of these debates will be settled when we all get to Heaven.

The only advice I can offer you here then is in dealing with your pagan friend. Saint Thomas Aquinas is quoted as having once said "The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false." (credit to whoever currently has this quotation in their signature here) You are going to have a great deal of difficulty persuading someone with the denial of something he or she has already observed to be true. Your pagan friend likely has a good grasp of scientific discovery as it relates to the age of the earth and evolution. Telling them that your belief contradicts these known facts will do nothing but alienate them and make you appear ignorant in their eyes - the appearance of ignorance is not something you want in this situation. Rather, you need the appearance of authority. Keep looking into evolutionary theory and the theistic evolution standpoint, and should you find merit in it, adopt it and tell your pagan friend of it. That's pretty much the best I can offer you.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The other part of it is, as I've talked about in a few other posts around here, I'm whitnessing to a pagan evolutionist friend who takes a strong interest in studying the Bible. One of the big hang ups for him is that he cannot accept the Creation account, says the Bible is flawed because of it, and therefore can't accept the teaching of salvation in Jesus.

I've often said that this is the stumbling block of Creationism... People are told that unless they accept everything in the Bible as 100% literally true (and in so doing, forsake everything that science, education, reason, and common sense tell them), then they cannot be saved. People don't react well to ultimatums.

If, OTOH, Genesis is not literal, but rather what God inspired His people 5000 years agoto write, then it's easier to understand...

think of it this way: A parent would have difficulty explaining something complicated like death to a six-year-old... "You see, Timmy, Grandma's gone away..."

A lie? No. More like a simplification. When the child is old enough to understand the truth, he'll get it.

In the same way, I believe that we are the children of God.... in the beginning, we weren't ready to understand the whole story... Can you imagine trying to explain DNA, natural selection, the geologic column, etc., to the ancient Hebrews?

Of course, God could have explained it to us back then... but then Genesis probably would've been 10 times longer and 1000 times more difficult to understand.And I doubt that was a high priority for God at the time He inspired it to be written... Salvation first, science lesson later.

We were young and primative then, and weren't ready for the whole story... so God simplified it for us, knowing in His wisdom that we'd get it in time... and that's what we're doing now.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the whole thing.

I am wondering if the Holy Spirit uses various theolagies such as TE in these cases. Since I think faith in Jesus is the most important concept in the Bible. The rest of these debates will be settled when we all get to Heaven.

Exactly what I think... after all, the worst that can happen is that when we get to heaven, we find out that either the TEs or the YECs were completely wrong about origins theology. So what if we are?

If I'm wrong, I will find out that I have made a mistake. And God has already forgiven me for all my mistakes... what's one more?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thanks, Wiltor and Dannager.

Um, I'm not hung up on a particular version of the Bible. There are some that are better than others, but most are good. Comparing them only helps with understand sometimes. I enjoy reading the literal translations, sometimes, but one of my favorites is NASB. This is in stron contradiction to how I was raised that the KJV is the only real Bible. So, as you can see, I have been able on many issue to research for myself and not just take what I've been taught for granted.

That's part of what I'm interested in doing now.

The other part of it is, as I've talked about in a few other posts around here, I'm whitnessing to a pagan evolutionist friend who takes a strong interest in studying the Bible. One of the big hang ups for him is that he cannot accept the Creation account, says the Bible is flawed because of it, and therefore can't accept the teaching of salvation in Jesus.

I am wondering if the Holy Spirit uses various theolagies such as TE in these cases. Since I think faith in Jesus is the most important concept in the Bible. The rest of these debates will be settled when we all get to Heaven.

Witnessing to others is an intellectual excercise. It only becomes spiritual if God gets involved. You'll know if this happens because God will take over and direct the process. And you'll know that by the sudden intense interest by the proselite in all things biblical! ( Touchstone of the faith.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Does anyone go along with this theology? this was taught at our Sunday School, not necessarily my belief but just curious what you think?.

Dinosaur bones are the remains of animals that were created by God for use by earthbound demons, Satan included. In successive destructions over billions of years, usually by great flooding, God destroyed them.

Science misinterprets these incarnations of punishment, calling them evolution.

God still allows demons to influence animal behavior, as is evident by the horrible, bloody carnage taking place in all levels of the animal world.


Thus God hisself buried dem bones.