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

[Tree of Life]

I hold to biblical inerrancy and don't have to cling to RDV. it is not cogent to hold to the RDV due to the nature of the bible and humans.

i'm just saying, your assumption is RDV. what does your assumption look like without RDV?

Which view do you take in regards to Genesis 1?

If one does not hold to the RDV then they don't have to go down either troublesome road that I've described in the OP. But they will have other exegetical problems which I think are worse.

 

[sfs]

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

That's explained in the next paragraph. Any variation from them would have started out at a minimum frequency of 25% (one copy out of four, two/parent), and would never get to low frequency.

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

Because we acquire less than 50 new mutations per genome copy per generation. That means each genome copy I carry has acquired about 10,000 mutations over the last 400 generations (~10,000 years). But I actually have millions of genetic variants.

 

[Tree of Life]

Then perhaps you should drop your "biblical inerrancy" beliefs.

Nah.

 

[Tree of Life]

That's explained in the next paragraph. Any variation from them would have started out at a minimum frequency of 25% (one copy out of four, two/parent), and would never get to low frequency.

Because we acquire less than 50 new mutations per genome copy per generation. That means each genome copy I carry has acquired about 10,000 mutations over the last 400 generations (~10,000 years). But I actually have millions of genetic variants.

I think I'm out of my league at this point. Is it possible that you're wrong?

 

[Hank77]

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.

God has not spoken clearly that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that man walked on the earth with dinosaurs. You don't believe that man walked on the earth with dinosaurs so your conclusion is that God planted evidence for dinosaurs but they didn't really exist.
You are certainly welcome to that view but I don't share it with you.
I believe God created the universe and everything in it. I don't claim to know how He did it.

 

[Tree of Life]

God has not spoken clearly that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that man walked on the earth with dinosaurs. You don't believe that man walked on the earth with dinosaurs so your conclusion is that God planted evidence for dinosaurs but they didn't really exist.
You are certainly welcome to that view but I don't share it with you.
I believe God created the universe and everything in it. I don't claim to know how He did it.

Then how do you interpret Genesis 1?

 

[sfs]

I think I'm out of my league at this point. Is it possible that you're wrong?

Anything's possible, but it's not very likely. This is the sort of thing I do for a living, I'm reasonably good at it, and I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about scenarios and simulating them.

 

[sethrak]

Greetings AV++++VET, Good morning~I see the At'yeist horde gathered round you with malice~good to meet you standing in His light~I've need for a cupa~talk with you shortly```
seth

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah.

Then you are doomed to be wrong, since the Bible has countless errors in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That is a much more acceptable outlook than that of literalists. And I have a feeling that the literal Bible believers will disagree with you.

 

[Hank77]

Then how do you interpret Genesis 1?

God said that He created everything and not just in Genesis. I believe Him but I don't claim to know how He did it. Why, because the scriptures themselves are not clear.
Taking Genesis literally God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day. He didn't create the sun, moon, and stars until the 4th day.

Gen 1:14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,
Gen 1:15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so.
....
Gen 1:19 and there is an evening, and there is a morning--day fourth.

The verses above would be speaking of day/night, seasons, days and years, as we know them to be.
So what was God doing on the first day and night division, how long was it, were they actually years? I don't know but they are different than those on day 4.

 

[Hank77]

That is a much more acceptable outlook than that of literalists. And I have a feeling that the literal Bible believers will disagree with you.

I have asked many Christians that say they literally believe what the Bible says but when I ask them about Revelation they don't believe the scorpions and locust are literally scorpions and locust but represent war machines such as tanks and helicopters. So it depends on ones definition of literalist.
Now when it comes to Genesis that is a different story and I can understand where they are coming from, I used to be young earth even though I could see the geological and biological evidence against it. But when I read the six day account with an open mind I saw the difference in the days and realized I really couldn't account for the difference in the descriptions. But I never really believed that Eve was talking to a literal reptile either. I won't go into that because you are an atheist so it wouldn't matter to you, no offense intended just fact.
Oh and there are many Christians that believe in the Gap theory, too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have asked many Christians that say they literally believe what the Bible says but when I ask them about Revelation they don't believe the scorpions and locust are literally scorpions and locust but represent war machines such as tanks and helicopters. So it depends on ones definition of literalist.
Now when it comes to Genesis that is a different story and I can understand where they are coming from, I used to be young earth even though I could see the geological and biological evidence against it. But when I read the six day account with an open mind I saw the difference in the days and realized I really couldn't account for the difference in the descriptions. But I never really believed that Eve was talking to a literal reptile either. I won't go into that because you are an atheist so it wouldn't matter to you, no offense intended just fact.
Oh and there are many Christians that believe in the Gap theory, too.

To be a "literalist" I would take it that one would have to believe the Adam and Eve myths and the Noah's Ark myth at a minimum. And technically there is no "Gap theory", that is just pseudoscience by Christians. Need proof? What reasonable test would show the gap theory to be wrong if it was wrong?

 

[Job 33:6]

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

dinosaur bones in and of themselves are evidence for the existence of animals that once lived. For example, there may be a dinosaur nest with eggs in it. There may be dinosaur teeth marks in other bones of dinosaurs. Fossils found in the environments which they lived.There are fossilized eggs, fossilized feces. Things that indicate that these animals once lived and walked earth, just as we do now. As opposed to being created in the earth, with the appearance as if they once existed.

This idea that dinosaurs were created in the earth, but never really existed is strange. It is like proposing the idea that you were actually created today, and that you didnt actually exist yesterday, but that God created you with the perception that you were alive yesterday, but you actually were not.

Its very strange.

Ultimately, both position number 1 and number 2 are flawed. I would suggest proposing another solution.

Or how about footprints? If you were walking through your backyard and you saw footprints from an animal, would it not make sense to believe that an animal once walked through the yard? As opposed to God simply creating the footprints, but no animal actually walked to create them?

 

[Hank77]

To be a "literalist" I would take it that one would have to believe the Adam and Eve myths and the Noah's Ark myth at a minimum. And technically there is no "Gap theory", that is just pseudoscience by Christians. Need proof? What reasonable test would show the gap theory to be wrong if it was wrong?

I'm really not interested in the Gap theory.

 

[Hank77]

There are fossilized eggs, fossilized feces. Things that indicate that these animals once lived and walked earth, just as we do now. As opposed to being created in the earth, with the appearance as if they once existed.

Or how about footprints? If you were walking through your backyard and you saw footprints from an animal, would it not make sense to believe that an animal once walked through the yard? As opposed to God simply creating the footprints, but no animal actually walked to create them?

Very good, these are undeniable evidence that these creatures existed living on the earth.

 

[Tree of Life]

God said that He created everything and not just in Genesis. I believe Him but I don't claim to know how He did it. Why, because the scriptures themselves are not clear.
Taking Genesis literally God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day. He didn't create the sun, moon, and stars until the 4th day.

Gen 1:14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,
Gen 1:15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so.
....
Gen 1:19 and there is an evening, and there is a morning--day fourth.

The verses above would be speaking of day/night, seasons, days and years, as we know them to be.
So what was God doing on the first day and night division, how long was it, were they actually years? I don't know but they are different than those on day 4.

So you're saying that you simply don't interpret Genesis 1?

 

[Tree of Life]

Ultimately, both position number 1 and number 2 are flawed. I would suggest proposing another solution.

If you've got a third option for those who hold to the Regular Day View then I'm all ears.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you've got a third option for those who hold to the Regular Day View then I'm all ears.

Embedded Age creation.

 

[Noxot]

Which view do you take in regards to Genesis 1?

If one does not hold to the RDV then they don't have to go down either troublesome road that I've described in the OP. But they will have other exegetical problems which I think are worse.

the bible is a mythological book and it attempts to express through mans limitations what God inspired men to write down, Gods wisdom being supra-rational and thus making it appear to be irrational due to our lack of rationality in understanding what God expresses to the degree that we ought to receive of him.

I don't have to take the days as literal days or as thousands of years because the bible chiefly describes processes of the soul and spirit and thus is quite willing to alter historical or scientific accuracy in order to persevere certain kinds of spiritual wisdom. many christians and jews have a long standing tradition of contemplation and spiritual wisdom in regards to the bible and it's narratives.

there is no logical reason to assume that God was telling humans how he made the entire universe.