Man and dinosaur coexisting

[fargonic]

2/ It takes infinitely more faith to believe that life spontaneously and suddenly with no explanation whatsoever and then miraculously ate, replicated, and given enough time we get all the living beings we have on this earth.

Actually it takes two things, both of which are not that hard to come by:

1. Chemistry
2. Statistics

Life is not chemically special in any way. It uses only naturally occurring elements and the chemical reactions that life undergoes are standard chemistry. Nothing mystical about it at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@-57, still waiting on you to say how all of the world's geologists, biologists, paleontologists, and archaeologists are wrong with their evidence.

 

[fargonic]

At a point in times past you became aware Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

The only need for "apparent age" is in order to make the literal words of Genesis match reality. Even then a literal reading of Genesis fails to account for many things. For instance, in Genesis plants appear before the sun, for example. Land plants before fish, etc.

There is more effort needed to explain away what is clearly written in the rocks than would be seemly.

We can all make mistakes by not being sensitive to the Holy Spirit, when reasoning, making decisions, and after incorrect decisions.

OR, and this is just a possibility, the book of Genesis is a beautiful allegory. Why make Genesis into the territory when it might just be the map?

 

[RickG]

OR, and this is just a possibility, the book of Genesis is a beautiful allegory. Why make Genesis into the territory when it might just be the map?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I think it's pretty obvious what is meant by evolution. The bible doesn't teach man evolved from lesser primates.

The Bible does not say one way or the other. According to Frances Collins DNA is the language of God. Most of the conflicts between science and religion have been resolved. Science is based on the natural record that God gives us and He gave us the Bible. So God can not contradict Himself. He has to be faithful and true to Himself and Who He is. We would not have fossils and skeletons and all of the natural evidence if God had not give it to us.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible does not say one way or the other. According to Frances Collins DNA is the language of God. Most of the conflicts between science and religion have been resolved. Science is based on the natural record that God gives us and He gave us the Bible. So God can not contradict Himself. He has to be faithful and true to Himself and Who He is. We would not have fossils and skeletons and all of the natural evidence if God had not give it to us.

Do you agree with Dr. Collins that humans are the product of evolution, and that we share a common ancestor with other apes?

 

[-57]

That isn't the case. What you are referring to is a case of creationists misrepresenting the data.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

But what I find most intriguing about this argument is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Creationists claim that radiometric dating is unreliable because the daughter product can move in and out of the rock. Of course, this isn't the case for things like U/Pb dating in zircons. So what do they do for their own method of dating? They pick helium, a gas known to move in and out of zircons.

Oh, "talk origins".....they can be trusted.

 

[-57]

How do explain how several different lines of study, and several different methodologies used, all being a misinterpretation of the data, yet all pointing to the same age? If all were wrong, the findings would be randomly scattered and all over the place, with no 2 in agreement, (let alone several). But that's not the case. How do you explain that?

A rock is brought in to be dated.
The guy doing the dating ask how old they think the rock is.
The dating happens.
Ages that disagree with the estamite are thrown out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@-57, still waiting on the reason why all of the world's scientists have misinterpreted their data that ends up telling them the Earth is old when it's really young.
Either give the answer or just admit that you were just blustering.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, "talk origins".....they can be trusted.

I see that you can't address any of it.

The other major problem is heat. If decay sped up to the levels YEC's need them to be at, it would produce enough heat to melt the earth into molten slag.

 

[Loudmouth]

A rock is brought in to be dated.
The guy doing the dating ask how old they think the rock is.
The dating happens.
Ages that disagree with the estamite are thrown out.

The same rock formations are still there. Why don't your YEC buddies go and see what the ratios of isotopes in those rocks really are, and see if they are being incorrectly reported. I think we all know why they don't do that. They know that the reported ages are accurate.

 

[-57]

Unfortunately in order to lay out all the earth's strata in one event makes it very hard if not completely impossible to explain most of geology that we see.

Take for instance this:

That's called an "Angular Unconformity". Note how the lower strata are tilted with respect to the upper strata. Unless you know of a way to deposit a lot of strata like that at an angle in one go it's going to be hard to explain geology without deep time.

It's pretty obvious the tilted rock was once level....and tilted later. We just disagree on the speed.
Recumbent folds where the strata didn't snap, crackle and pop when folded clearly indicate formations such as in the picture was still soft when bent can move quickly. Why couldn't the formationin the picture not have moved quickly?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Unfortunately in order to lay out all the earth's strata in one event makes it very hard if not completely impossible to explain most of geology that we see.
That's called an "Angular Unconformity". Note how the lower strata are tilted with respect to the upper strata. Unless you know of a way to deposit a lot of strata like that at an angle in one go it's going to be hard to explain geology without deep time.

The upper strata is red clay so you are looking at the great oxygen event 2.3 Billion years ago. The angle indicates plate tectonics subduction.

 

[-57]

The Bible does not say one way or the other. According to Frances Collins DNA is the language of God. Most of the conflicts between science and religion have been resolved. Science is based on the natural record that God gives us and He gave us the Bible. So God can not contradict Himself. He has to be faithful and true to Himself and Who He is. We would not have fossils and skeletons and all of the natural evidence if God had not give it to us.

Last time I read my bible it said Eve was formed from Adams rib. Doesn't your bible also say that?
It also says Eve was the mother of all and through one man sin and death spread to all mankind. This surely isn't evolutionism.

 

[-57]

The same rock formations are still there. Why don't your YEC buddies go and see what the ratios of isotopes in those rocks really are, and see if they are being incorrectly reported. I think we all know why they don't do that. They know that the reported ages are accurate.

Perhaps not that particular rock...but creationist have had blind radio dating testing done and the results came up with vastly different ages.

 

[Loudmouth]

Recumbent folds where the strata didn't snap, crackle and pop when folded clearly indicate formations such as in the picture was still soft when bent can move quickly.

Where is your evidence that solid rock will snap, crackle, and pop?

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps not that particular rock...but creationist have had blind radio dating testing done and the results came up with vastly different ages.

The formations are still there and contain the same minerals that others have tested.

Also, the rocks that have been "blind tested" were not rocks that geologists would use. For example, geologists would not use rocks that contain xenoliths to date an eruption like Snelling tried to do. The only blindness involved is their inability to use proper samples.

 

[-57]

Where is your evidence that solid rock will snap, crackle, and pop?

Go find a rock in your back yard...bend it.

 

[-57]

The formations are still there and contain the same minerals that others have tested.

Also, the rocks that have been "blind tested" were not rocks that geologists would use. For example, geologists would not use rocks that contain xenoliths to date an eruption like Snelling tried to do. The only blindness involved is their inability to use proper samples.

Can you prove that is what they did?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Go find a rock in your back yard...bend it.

Yeah. THAT's scientific.