Neanderthals, Dinosaurs?

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, there is no need to believe that God needed any more than six literal days.

Can you tell me why He would need more time?

Do you think it is beyond His capabilities?

Do you think He has fed us a false sense of time?

Why do you think He explicitly stated "There was evening, there was morning, the first day" for each and every day?

Do you think that God knew that people would slander His six day creation and fabricate nonsense about His timeline?
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There have been human and dinosaur tracks found in the same rock bed. (How's that happen?)
Some people believe that the human like foot prints were from angels that were assigned to take care of the dinosaurs.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
God does not have a beginning. He is eternal. So if He says, "Let there be light," and then the light exists some physical creation must be that light. Therefore Genesis 1:3 would seem to be a verse that shouldn't be interpreted literally, just like any verse that uses the word "day" in the same chapter.
Light is a physical element of energy.. God did not need "light" that we perceive with our eyes...

Since light is part of our physical universe, it had to be created even before sources of it were created.
He also created space, time and matter.. all of which were unnecessary before, in His realm.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Sorry, there is no need to believe that God needed any more than six literal days.

Can you tell me why He would need more time?

Do you think it is beyond His capabilities?

Do you think He has fed us a false sense of time?

Why do you think He explicitly stated "There was evening, there was morning, the first day" for each and every day?

Do you think that God knew that people would slander His six day creation and fabricate nonsense about His timeline?

Can you explain why the fact that God was able to do all that in six literal days He actually did? That is no more logical than calling yourself a woman. Sure, He could have, but there is no reason to assume that is a guarantee He did it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Actually it is quite good to 40 - 50,000 years.

Actually it isn't. Because Carbon 14 is not a stable isotope and the more fossil fuels are burned on the planet the less stable / less accurate this measuring technique is.

The concept of Carbon 14 dating is only about 70 years old and the emission of fossil fuels on this planet has been going on for 1000's of years. Coal was the first fossil fuel man began to use back about 1000 BC. The ancient Chinese were burning natural gas to power things about 200 BC and the Industrial Revolution which began about 1750 really brought about the mass burning of fossil fuels.

So because of the mass amounts of fossil fuels burned around the globe since the beginning of the 20th century; scientists can see the acceleration of the isotope instability of carbon 14 and this is why things they know the age of (live plant or animal tissue) carbon 14 dates to being millions of years old.

So, if you were to carbon 14 date a fossil you found in a particular geographical area; you'd have to know how much burned fossil fuels that organism was exposed to before it died in order to adjust your carbon 14 dating results. And that is impossible to know!

So although humans have been burning fossil fuels for about 3000 years; that does not account for natural burning of fossil fuels that occurs from events like volcanic eruptions or earthquakes that "expend" pockets of natural gas.

Now, according to this article cited below; is the new isotope they are looking to use to try and date things come with its own set of problems? I guess in time (if we are here long enough) we'll find that out.

Thanks to Fossil Fuels, Carbon Dating Is in Jeopardy. One Scientist May Have an Easy Fix | Science | Smithsonian
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can you explain why the fact that God was able to do all that in six literal days He actually did? That is no more logical than calling yourself a woman.
The right translation is NOT "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations make the mistake of writing "a first day". There is a qualitative difference between "one" and "first."

You can not be first if there is no second. You can only be united together as one. Just as Adam and Eve were united together as one. The same word is used as day one. ’e·ḥāḏ Hebrew Concordance: ’e·ḥāḏ -- 471 Occurrences

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually it isn't. Because Carbon 14 is not a stable isotope and the more fossil fuels are burned on the planet the less stable / less accurate this measuring technique is.
The question is: How long did it take to create all of that carbon?

This is like the grand canyon. They argue over gradual vs rapid erosion. But I want to know how long did it take to create all of those layers so that they could erode? The canyon is a product of plate technotics more then whatever erosion took place.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
This post contains quite a bit of misinformation. These claims and a great many others are addressed in a huge data base to be found at
An Index to Creationist Claims

I will take one of your claims as an example. You said "There have been human bones found in coal seams. (How's that happen?)".

First off; implements made from iron have been around since at least 1200 BC. That was the "start" of the "Iron Age" in Europe. Or rather roughly the era that we come to see more iron implements appear "in bulk".

Had humans experimented back during the Bronze age to try and make iron / steel tools? Probably. The known Bronze Age in China (at least of what they've been able to find archeologically so far); goes back to about 3000 BC

So to say this iron cup example found in this coal seam could have only been from the 18th century on; would not have been accurate either. Now if the iron cup finding in this story is dubious; it's dubious either direction. Those who claim this cup could not have been buried at the time the coal seam was formed, can not prove that, any more than those who claim that it was.

The explanation they give for the cup not being part of the coal seam; just as easily proves that it could have been; simply by how we know coal reacts within the rocks surrounding it when it gets wet.

The truth of the matter is, we don't really know how long it takes coal to form. We know it's compressed plant material that is chemically changed; yet scientists who claim it takes millions of years to form can't prove that's true any more than ones who say it doesn't. Part of the mystery is are we really sure that we know how coal is formed?

Assuming we understand that an "extinction event" like a large enough meteor hitting the planet causes that extinction event to take place in a very short period of time (fossils are not being formed today); the fact that coal seams run through multiple layers of rock would lead one to reasonably conclude that they were formed in the same time frame as this mass extinction event. And since we know the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a catastrophic short lived event; would it not be reasonable to conclude that literal "continents" of rainforests buried in this same event would have created these coal seams?

The arguments used against creationists explanations can just as easily be used against their own explanations. So at that point; it's no longer an argument of fact (the fact is we have fossils and coal seams) but of what you choose to believe.

.
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,943
11,698
Neath
✟1,002,191.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Thousands upon thousands of dinosaur bones/fossils have been found and not one instance where any human bones/fossils have been found with them or in the same layer. Unless you look for photoshop pics and weird youtube videos by messed up people.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God does not have a beginning. He is eternal. So if He says, "Let there be light," and then the light exists some physical creation must be that light. Therefore Genesis 1:3 would seem to be a verse that shouldn't be interpreted literally, just like any verse that uses the word "day" in the same chapter.
God is eternal - good.
Light is multI-dimensional. He created the physical realm with the physical light spectrum of particles and waves.
BUT, HIS ETERNAL LIGHT transcended from the spiritual realm (another dimension) into this new physical realm He created. And btw, on day 4, He gave us light from the sun and the outer most distant stars (also created on that day) instantly - we didn't didn't have to wait billions of years to see them. Adam looked up and saw them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The canyon is a product of plate technotics more then whatever erosion took place.

Totally agree with you here!

The question is: How long did it take to create all of that carbon?

Do you mean carbon as far as the fossil fuels go; or carbon as far as it relates to being an element of life? All life is "carbon based" because the arrangement of atomic structures to make life comes from a specific process and that process creates what we call "carbon". We know life existed someplace when we find carbon.

So, in that sense; "How long did it take to create that carbon" becomes more of a life cycle question. Is there "less carbon" formation on Earth today because of less biodiversity / less organisms? I suppose one could argue that? A planet filled with "bumper crops" of rainforests could said to be "filled with more carbon" than one that's obviously barren. LOL.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
God is eternal - good.
Light is multI-dimensional. He created the physical realm with the physical light spectrum of particles and waves.
BUT, HIS ETERNAL LIGHT transcended from the spiritual realm (another dimension) into this new physical realm He created. And btw, on day 4, He gave us light from the sun and the outer most distant stars (also created on that day) instantly - we didn't didn't have to wait billions of years to see them. Adam looked up and saw them.

I did not say it took billions of years to create the other stars. I said because fossils and rocks that were made millions of years apart exist, there is no way you can claim God made everything in only 6 literal days.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Some people believe that the human like foot prints were from angels that were assigned to take care of the dinosaurs.

That's an interesting theory. First time I've ever heard that one.

In order for something to leave footprints like is found in these rock beds though, it would have to be a material entity that had mass of some sort. So thus I would conclude that if it looks like a human foot print; best guess is that it was left by a human. LOL
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Read your post. The long days as epochs of time is not so disturbing - its popular and I'm used to it. What was disturbing is that you think "the Fall of Man, man's first sin that affected the world, was an insignificant blip in the Genesis account! Wow!
The Fall of Man is not only significant to Genesis, but also to the history of mankind. The nature of sin _ that we are born with _ is due to Adam's original sin. We are born blind because of it. All of nature suffered from that curse, the animal kingdom became fearful and at times shows the same evil as man. The botanicals became imperfect, with mutations (defects), bacteria, viruses, illness affecting every living thing.
An insignificant blip? I think you need to reconsider what you've been taught. This is what happens when the Genesis story is misinterpreted/ distorted and turned into some symbolic allegory.
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,943
11,698
Neath
✟1,002,191.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Its says 6 days in Genesis. That is for our benefit.

I believe God started everything. He knew that for Him it would be instant Creation. For us, time is very different.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I did not say it took billions of years to create the other stars. I said because fossils and rocks that were made millions of years apart exist, there is no way you can claim God made everything in only 6 literal days.
I can make that claim, the Bible does, God does ... just many others have a problem with that because they have been indoctrinated with flawed dating methods and accept them. So it obviously bumps up against your 4.5 billion year earth.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Its says 6 days in Genesis. That is for our benefit.

I believe God started everything. He knew that for Him it would be instant Creation. For us, time is very different.
The Bible wasn't written for His recollection or understanding, like we write a journal. It was for us, OUR REALITY, OUR PHYSICAL REALM WITH OUR 24 HOUR DAY, 7 DAY WEEK, MONTHS AND YEARS, ETC. He is not confined to time, He operates outside of time, so the words in the Bible are for our literal understanding. They weren't meant to be some abstract puzzle that we were supposed to symbolically figure. "Let's see, since the early is billions of years old and man only has been on earth millions - (you know, since Lucy) ... Then a day can't mean a day ... Thank you men of scientific thought, for helping me to interpret God's word". Oh brother, that's a big mistake!
 
Upvote 0

RTP76

Active Member
Jul 21, 2019
108
36
47
Mid-West
✟18,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As I noted earlier, Neanderthals were a different species, not just another name for homo sapiens.
CC: @ilovejcsog
Hi ChristianForCats >^..^< Yes Neanderthals are considered by some scientists to be a separate species (homo neanderthalensis) from modern humans (homo sapiens); however, both are considered human. I tend to steer away from the 'species' label in particular because there is a good deal of ambiguity in [1] its use, and [2] its implications (the conclusions we draw from it).

In short, Neanderthals (and all humans for that matter) share common ancestral mtDNA (Eve)--so my view is that Neanderthals are human. In a NIH article, neanderthal DNA was claimed to be 99.7% identical with present-day human DNA (source: Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced). That said, I don't know how they arrived at this % and do find their other claim (that Neanderthal DNA is 98.8% identical with chimpanzees) is misleading - if we include DNA in chimps not in humans and DNA in humans not in chimps, we are never 99% identical with chimps--the true match is significantly lower. The often-claimed '99%' figure is based on isolated comparisons of specific blocks/regions of DNA as opposed to a true/holistic comparison.

Further support that Neanderthals were human is that many humans today have some Neanderthal DNA in their own DNA (an exception being that the majority of humans whose more recent ancestry are from Africa do not). Also, Neanderthals have left behind evidence showing the use of tools, jewelry, pottery, musical instruments, ceremonial burial, clothing, setting broken bones, etc... all characteristically human, so I find it reasonable to conclude they too are descendants from Adam & Eve.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I never said Neanderthas were not human. The children of homo neanderthalis/home sapiens coupls were like today's Bengal cats (a domestic breedAsian leopard hybrid). That is how we get people in Europe and Africa with Neanderthal blood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTP76
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Thousands upon thousands of dinosaur bones/fossils have been found and not one instance where any human bones/fossils have been found with them or in the same layer. Unless you look for photoshop pics and weird youtube videos by messed up people.

There are examples of human foot prints in the same layer as dinosaur foot prints. And most certainly fossilized human remains have been found.

If you take the "catastrophic extinction event" that forms fossils. To get fossils requires lots of water, lots of dirt and to be compacted in a very short span of time. (That the objects buried don't have time to decay as they normally would have if they had not been buried in such a matter.)

A washing of an ocean over a basically flat land mass, would leave scattered pockets of plants and animals "mixed together"; yet only from a generalized place of their "original location". And obviously those of largest mass would settle to the bottom first. The fossils are formed and then there are earthquakes and volcanos that rearrange some of these rock layers.

In some rock layers, fossils aren't found at all. Which could have been land uninhabited (a desert maybe) or deposits of silt and smaller sand particles that eventually settles out after the larger things have already been deposited.

So if you have dinosaurs in one bio environment and humans pretty much living in a different place (Noah's flood implies human populations having been congregated in "cities".) You would not necessarily see large quantities of the two "mixed together". Once the initial wave of water had passed, what ever from which ever individual environment is deposited together. And smaller portions from one bio environment to another may be deposited on top of ones that first settled. This is why they find deposits of sea life in unexpected places.

Imagine if you were looking at North America in 1400 AD. You'd have pockets of human settlement within swaths of expansive forest. If you were to throw a giant wave over North American, you'd find large deposits of forest life with very few humans because the bulk of human populations don't generally live "in the wild". And like wise, where you'd find human deposits would be greater percentage of human remains.

This does not mean though that there were not humans who lived in the wild. (Or in the case of the sets of tracks found - humans who hunted dinosaurs.) So looking in a fossil deposit; you could expect to find 10 thousand dinosaur fossils in copious layers before you found one human mixed in with them.

Now also we need to take into consideration the size of the human population as opposed to the size of the animal populations. If you believe Genesis; we start with two humans. Of the animals created though; there were multiple individuals of a "kind" to populate the earth. So, their population numbers are going to expand that much faster, because there are more of them to begin with.

So thus one explanation as to why there are that many more fossilized animals than humans.
 
Upvote 0