Dinosaurs and Humans Coexisting! (My Thoughts on the Creation Museum)

[Kylie]

Claiming there is no evidence, when evidence is all around you, is intellectually dishonest.

You claim there is evidence, but the "evidence" you present has never withstood any rigorous scientific testing.

And claiming evidence, when you're actively fighting the evidence is worse yet.

Show me that it deserves to be counted as evidence and I'll consider it. Until then, it's a book of old fables, not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

Because all of the scientific evidence out there supports the theory of evolution. Either God purposefully misled everyone into believing the theory of evolution is correct or life evolved. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. The evidence tells us that we evolved. Since your God would have had to have made the evidence if it is not accurate that would make him a liar.

That is why scientists that are Christians tend to accept the theory of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Until then, it's a book of old fables, not evidence.

Book?

I'm talking about much more than the Book.

I'm talking about Christian edifices, holidays, iconography, martyrs, holidays, documentation, and other things.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My understanding is that #2 isn't a deception on the part of God, it implies that human beings have misunderstood the scientific data.

I still think its a stretch but I believe it reconciles better with science than #1, which says that science must be directly challenged in the interests of having a Christian faith.

If one believes that God created a mature universe, with an extensive back story embedded into it, it's akin to saying that God created Adam fully formed with a lifetime of memories, of being a child, having a mom and dad, friends, etc; false memories put there by God.

I don't think the intent is to say God is deceitful, but it's the inevitable conclusion one reaches if taken seriously and thought out. It's why the Omphalos Hypothesis should be considered not just bad science, but also bordering on heretical because of what it ultimately says about God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sfs]

1. The earth is young and God created it in 6 literal days. Modern science is not wrong. It's right. However, God created a mature world with apparent age. God created trees with rings. Adam appeared 30 years old when in reality he was only 1 day old. God created the earth with oil deposits in it. And God created the world with dinosaur bones in it. But dinosaurs did not actually walk the earth.

That idea still isn't consistent with what we observe -- assuming you mean that humans began as a single pair less than 10,000 years or so ago. Human genetic variation could not have come from a single couple. You will have to invoke one or more later miracles to explain the data, in addition to the original creation of a mature world.

 

[Hank77]

One can accept reality and still be a Christian. One does not have to read Genesis literally. It still fits the verse on being "profitable for instruction".

Inerrancy does not mean 'literally'. The Bible uses many forms of writing styles. Jesus didn't mean that the Jewish leaders were literal vipers. Revelation is not talking about literal scorpions, etc.
So one can still believe that the Bible is inerrant in it's original manuscripts while accepting that some of the scriptures use symbolism, poetry, etc. and other scriptures are literal historical facts exactly as they are written.

 

[Hank77]

I promise to go back and read fully the posts that have come before.

I think: A thousand years are as a day to the Lord~that man and the big animals called dinosaurs were here at the same time~ I believe they died because of man, weather, the flood and maybe because of a happening I've not though of or mentioned~that the earth is 12-20,000 years old, older of younger~not the millions, billions or trillions or older spouted by those we've taught in our schools. Annnnd I think the history in buried bone of everything from smallest to the largest animal shows that. And that God created all that is, that God always was, that there is Good which is God and Evil which has been described to us in and we have spoken of and sometimes written.

That Our God came here to us and He lived with us and gathered us in His Yegyegetsi Church that the Evil also has churches, tho they are maybe not called churches.

I believe in One God, The Father Almighty, The Son, The Holy Spirit as one~I don't plan to say the Creed here~

seth





Does the World’s Top Weed Killer Cause Cancer? Trump’s EPA Will Decide

The Lord owns all the cattle on 10,000 hills. Are there only 10,000 hills? Does the Lord own all cattle or just some?

 

[Hank77]

Why?

I don't see how.

You don't see how planting false evidence is deception? What would be the purpose, to cause confusion? You know God is not a god of confusion.

 

[TBDude65]

Both positions are equally absurd and equally devoid of evidence to back them up. The remaining option is that the earth is actually ~4.56 billion years old and that life has slowly evolved through time, with humans and non-avian dinosaurs separated by ~65 million years worth of time

 

[AV1611VET]

The remaining option is that the earth is actually ~4.56 billion years old and that life has slowly evolved through time, with humans and non-avian dinosaurs separated by ~65 million years worth of time

Either that, or God embedded age into His creation, giving it maturity without history.

 

[Hank77]

Because all of the scientific evidence out there supports the theory of evolution.

The OP has a particular subject matter, he does not mention the pros and cons of evolution, there are plenty of threads about that.
The subject matter here is about dinosaur bones found in the earth, the Bible, and God. Not the much larger subject of evolution.
You don't believe in God so how can you even help in this discussion?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You don't see how planting false evidence is deception? What would be the purpose, to cause confusion? You know God is not a god of confusion.

Maybe it's just there for us to exercise our God-given curiosity. You can get a very satisfying circular argument out of it: God plants false evidence to give our curiosity something to explore, and gives us curiosity so that we can explore the false evidence He's planted. No loose ends - except 'why?' which can be swept under the rug of theological ignorance by GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways)

ISTR someone here once suggesting that the skills we learn in this life are a form of practice for the 'next' life - how he knew this, or what use they'd be, he couldn't say...

 

[TBDude65]

The OP has a particular subject matter, he does not mention the pros and cons of evolution, there are plenty of threads about that.
The subject matter here is about dinosaur bones found in the earth, the Bible, and God. Not the much larger subject of evolution.
You don't believe in God so how can you even help in this discussion?

All of the scientific evidence also points to an old earth where no human ever coexisted with non-avian dinosaurs

 

[Tree of Life]

That idea still isn't consistent with what we observe -- assuming you mean that humans began as a single pair less than 10,000 years or so ago. Human genetic variation could not have come from a single couple. You will have to invoke one or more later miracles to explain the data, in addition to the original creation of a mature world.

Why is this?

 

[Tree of Life]

You don't see how planting false evidence is deception? What would be the purpose, to cause confusion? You know God is not a god of confusion.

I don't claim to know God's secret purposes. Why are dinosaur bones "false evidence"?

 

[Tree of Life]

If one believes that God created a mature universe, with an extensive back story embedded into it, it's akin to saying that God created Adam fully formed with a lifetime of memories, of being a child, having a mom and dad, friends, etc; false memories put there by God.

I don't think the intent is to say God is deceitful, but it's the inevitable conclusion one reaches if taken seriously and thought out. It's why the Omphalos Hypothesis should be considered not just bad science, but also bordering on heretical because of what it ultimately says about God.

-CryptoLutheran

If a tree in the garden would have been cut down a few days after creation, would it have had rings?

 

[sfs]

Why is this?

Because you're talking about a young population that started with a single pair and then expanded rapidly. In that kind of population, all genetic variation (that is, all genetic differences between individuals) either has to have been present in the original couple (e.g. Adam had a copy of a gene variant that causes blue eyes) or have occurred as new mutations since then.

The first kind of variant -- ones inherited from Adam and Eve -- will be found in a large fraction of the population. But there's lots of genetic variation in humans, and the bulk of it is at low frequency, e.g. it's found in 1% of the population, or 0.1%. So we don't get it from Adam and Eve. New mutations, on the other hand, couldn't have produced all the variation we see in a few hundred generations.

The argument can be made more precise and mathematical, but that's the gist of it. There are millions of genetic variants in the modern population at frequencies of less than 5%. How did they get there if the population is young?

 

[Hank77]

I don't claim to know God's secret purposes. Why are dinosaur bones "false evidence"?

They are real bones and now even real fossilized skin and tissue. If these animals were never living, as other bones, skin, and tissue are only from animals who were/are living and were just planted there what would be the purpose?
If someone were to plant biological evidence at a crime scene which leads the investigation in the wrong direction that would be 'false evidence'. It is not evidence that leads to the correct solution to the crime. That evidence is not credible.
So your conclusion is that God planted evidence of an animal that never really existed is saying that God planted evidence that would lead to a false conclusion. His evidence is not credible and cannot be trusted.

 

[Tree of Life]

Because you're talking about a young population that started with a single pair and then expanded rapidly. In that kind of population, all genetic variation (that is, all genetic differences between individuals) either has to have been present in the original couple (e.g. Adam had a copy of a gene variant that causes blue eyes) or have occurred as new mutations since then.

Why could not a large amount of variation have been present in our first parents?

The first kind of variant -- ones inherited from Adam and Eve -- will be found in a large fraction of the population. But there's lots of genetic variation in humans, and the bulk of it is at low frequency, e.g. it's found in 1% of the population, or 0.1%. So we don't get it from Adam and Eve. New mutations, on the other hand, couldn't have produced all the variation we see in a few hundred generations.

Why could not new mutations have produced all the variation we see in a few hundred generations?

The argument can be made more precise and mathematical, but that's the gist of it. There are millions of genetic variants in the modern population at frequencies of less than 5%. How did they get there if the population is young?

Thanks for giving me the nutshell.

 

[Tree of Life]

They are real bones and now even real fossilized skin and tissue. If these animals were never living, as other bones, skin, and tissue are only from animals who were/are living and were just planted there what would be the purpose?

I do not claim to know the secret purposes of God.

If someone were to plant biological evidence at a crime scene which leads the investigation in the wrong direction that would be 'false evidence'. It is not evidence that leads to the correct solution to the crime. That evidence is not credible.

Agreed. Especially if their intention was to deceive investigators. But creation is not a crime scene and God's intention is not to deceive.

So your conclusion is that God planted evidence of an animal that never really existed is saying that God planted evidence that would lead to a false conclusion. His evidence is not credible and cannot be trusted.

Just because human beings make wrong conclusions based on what they observe does not mean that God intended for them to draw these conclusions. General revelation is certainly obscured by sin and finitude. Furthermore, God has spoken clearly in his word in order to clear up any confusion. So I don't see this as deceitful.