-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did God Create Fossils?
- Thread starter homohabilis117
- Start date
Leviathan could be any large lizard/reptile, even a komdo dragon. Creationists are clutching at straws if they think that verse suggest that good old T-rex was alive and kicking in bible times.
Upvote
0
James Wilson
Newbie
- Aug 13, 2011
- 144
- 11
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The article I read on the AIG position said that only two eyewitnesses of the cast-iron-pot-in-coal wasn't rigorous enough. On the other hand, the Piltdown Man fraud (a human skull with a orangutan jaw attached with teeth filed down and artificially dyed to appear old) reigned for the first half of the Atomic Age, wherein no scientist could be found to uncover the fraud perpetrated by a single eye-witness. Shortly before Einstein's death, a scientist was bold enough to uncover the fraud.
Dr. Halton Arp discovered the size and age of the universe by solving a single equation with two unknowns: the distance to the red-shifted star and the speed that star receded from the earth. He had to assume the speed to be close to the speed of light in order to solve the equation. He became a world renowned hero until he realized he'd assumed the answer and therefor he disavowed it. He got fired. Obviously, he was competent enough to derive the age of the universe, but not competent enough to critique his own work.
You see, the double standard of evolution is all supporters of evolution are immediately competent and all naysayers are incompetent. In National Geographic, Leakey claimed that the potassium-argon age of the 1470 skull was so old that it "simply disproves everything we've ever taught on evolution and I have nothing to offer in its place". Abuse was rancorous for this "incompetent".
I've often read articles in the scientific magazines that hardly seemed worth publishing. Then I'd see this phrase at the end of the article: "And this proves evolution". Then I understood. In this day of publish-or-perish, it's pretty clear that the key to publishing is including the catch-phrase "and this proves evolution" and to avoid criticizing the sacred-cow of evolution.
Dr. Gentry was the world renowned expert in radio-haloes and published everywhere until he included this forbidden phrase in his latest article: "And this proves the Bible." His reputation was destroyed and I never saw another of his articles in mainline literature.
When we build a structure nowadays, the contractor must pay for an independent expert (a building inspector) to critique and sign off on the completed plans and structure. Yet, when an independent expert critiques any aspect of the structure of evolution, that expert is fired. If I were an evolutionist, it would bother me that this science is based upon a double-standard and the bodies of many fired whistle-blowers.
Upvote
0
Where does your truth come from? What is your authority? Why not go the whole way and reject Christ altogether? Many say he was just a crazy Jew.
Upvote
0
- Feb 22, 2016
- 126
- 26
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Most of these objects are objects that were crafted at some point in the past few hundred years. And it is within the past few hundred years that large scale extraction of coal has been taking place. So what is the most parsimonious or simple explanation? That human artifacts somehow got encased by natural processes after humans started mining coal, or that 17th, 18th and 19th century artifacts somehow got preserved by Noah's flood?I agree that focusing only on science causes people to miss the bigger picture. But I think that nature has unfolded in an understandable way, and that the simplest explanation will prove true.
Wiki has a good article with links about Ooparts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact
And this is a plausible rebuttal of objects in coal: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC131.html
The bottom line is: most out of place objects have not been ignored. They are either modern, were preserved by modern processes, or are ancient, and have sound explanations.
Upvote
0
Winter_Rose
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a dragon. Flames blaze from his mouth, and streams of sparks fly out. Smoke comes pouring out of his nose, like smoke from weeds burning under a pot. His breath starts fires burning; flames leap from his mouth.
Upvote
0
This pretty much debunks the young Earth theory.
Distant starlight: 13,700,000,000
The Hubble Deep Field, taken in 1996, showing light that has been in the cosmic vacuum of space for billions of years, not thousands.
See the main article on this topic: Starlight problem
The fact that distant starlight can be seen from Earth has always been a major problem for the young Earth idea. Because the speed of light is finite, what you are actually seeing when you look at an object is an image of that object from the past. "From the past" here has a few caveats regarding the relativity of our concept of the past, the future, and now. In the BBC Horizon program What Time Is It? physicist and former pop-synth player Brian Cox suggested that, as information cannot travel faster than light, and that time and space are relative, it can be considered that the stars actually are what they look like "now", in a manner of speaking. Either way, though, the bottom line is still the same; the light has travelled a certain distance, for a certain time, before arriving on Earth to be seen by our eyes or telescopes. We can use this data to put a minimum time on the existence of the universe, by looking at how long some light has been travelling for.
On Earth, the delay caused by the speed of light is incredibly minor — when you look at an object a mile away, the light has been travelling for five microseconds. When you look at the Sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. It's more noticeable with sound and distant objects, but only because the light from things such as distant explosions or jet fighters is so much faster. There's still a delay and transit time for the information that says whatever made the light/sound must have been around that long ago to produce it.
On the cosmic scale of things, this delay is far from minor and really is noticeable. When astronomers look at the closest star to Earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago from our perspective. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were overten billion years ago. Light we are receiving from these fields has been travelling for ten billion years, and the universe must have, therefore, existed long enough for that transit time to take place.
The furthest distance away that deep space telescopes can see is somewhere in the region of 13.7 billion years (approximately), this implies that light has taken around 13.7 billion years to travel across the universe to reach us. Thus, one concludes that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old.[59]
Therein lies the problem for young Earth creationism; if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how can objects billions of light years away — and therefore billions of years old — be seen?
There are a few creationist "zingers" to solve this problem, but are almost exclusively centred around pretending the problem doesn't exist. One is omphalism, which suggests the light was already in place and on its way 6,000 years ago, which is basically like saying that "6,000 years ago, the world was created 14 billion years ago", which is a form of Last Thursdayism. They also like time dilation fields and changing the speed of light, but this requires a lot of Goddidit to make it work, as there is zero evidence for why the speed of light should change. There are a lot of issues surrounding changing fundamental physical constants such as c, namely that according to E==mc2, increasing c to make the world 6,000 years old would lead to normal radioactive decay blowing the planet up. Qualified astrophysicist Jason Lisle came up with the "anisotropic synchrony convention", which exploits how to reliably measure of the speed of light, but suffers from special pleading in that it assumes a highly unlikely physical reality deriving from a mathematical quirk is literally true - and there is no additional evidence for such a thing.
Distant starlight: 13,700,000,000
The Hubble Deep Field, taken in 1996, showing light that has been in the cosmic vacuum of space for billions of years, not thousands.
See the main article on this topic: Starlight problem
The fact that distant starlight can be seen from Earth has always been a major problem for the young Earth idea. Because the speed of light is finite, what you are actually seeing when you look at an object is an image of that object from the past. "From the past" here has a few caveats regarding the relativity of our concept of the past, the future, and now. In the BBC Horizon program What Time Is It? physicist and former pop-synth player Brian Cox suggested that, as information cannot travel faster than light, and that time and space are relative, it can be considered that the stars actually are what they look like "now", in a manner of speaking. Either way, though, the bottom line is still the same; the light has travelled a certain distance, for a certain time, before arriving on Earth to be seen by our eyes or telescopes. We can use this data to put a minimum time on the existence of the universe, by looking at how long some light has been travelling for.
On Earth, the delay caused by the speed of light is incredibly minor — when you look at an object a mile away, the light has been travelling for five microseconds. When you look at the Sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. It's more noticeable with sound and distant objects, but only because the light from things such as distant explosions or jet fighters is so much faster. There's still a delay and transit time for the information that says whatever made the light/sound must have been around that long ago to produce it.
On the cosmic scale of things, this delay is far from minor and really is noticeable. When astronomers look at the closest star to Earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago from our perspective. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were overten billion years ago. Light we are receiving from these fields has been travelling for ten billion years, and the universe must have, therefore, existed long enough for that transit time to take place.
The furthest distance away that deep space telescopes can see is somewhere in the region of 13.7 billion years (approximately), this implies that light has taken around 13.7 billion years to travel across the universe to reach us. Thus, one concludes that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old.[59]
Therein lies the problem for young Earth creationism; if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how can objects billions of light years away — and therefore billions of years old — be seen?
There are a few creationist "zingers" to solve this problem, but are almost exclusively centred around pretending the problem doesn't exist. One is omphalism, which suggests the light was already in place and on its way 6,000 years ago, which is basically like saying that "6,000 years ago, the world was created 14 billion years ago", which is a form of Last Thursdayism. They also like time dilation fields and changing the speed of light, but this requires a lot of Goddidit to make it work, as there is zero evidence for why the speed of light should change. There are a lot of issues surrounding changing fundamental physical constants such as c, namely that according to E==mc2, increasing c to make the world 6,000 years old would lead to normal radioactive decay blowing the planet up. Qualified astrophysicist Jason Lisle came up with the "anisotropic synchrony convention", which exploits how to reliably measure of the speed of light, but suffers from special pleading in that it assumes a highly unlikely physical reality deriving from a mathematical quirk is literally true - and there is no additional evidence for such a thing.
Upvote
0
Dinosaurs did not breath fire.
A Lizard breathing fire. That rather implies something demonic rather than Dinosaur.
Upvote
0
Colter
Member
There is true science, the discovery of facts and speculation leading to theory.
There is science motivated by atheistic ideology which attempts to discredit religion by using the same facts.
This guy covers the issue pretty well.
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Upvote
0
Define Day?
The genesis account is flawed.I will point out nowhere in the bible does it suggest that it was six 24 hour days.
Each day likely refers to a period of several billion years.
Upvote
0
The book of Isaiah describes Leviathan as a snake. That pretty much confirms to me that Leviathan was Either Satan or demonic and not a Dinosaur.
Behemoth mentioned in Job was likely a hippo or Rhino.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Winter_Rose
Well-Known Member
I've looked up on Google and it mentions that Leviathan could be a sea monster or a whale. Can you catch Leviathan with a fish hook?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
