Dinosaurs and Humans

[April_Rose]

I already got some different views on this but I was curious what everybody else on here thought as to whether or not science is wrong and they coexisted with one another due to the fact that the creation of the world took place in six days. So far I'm liking the theory that days back then weren't an actual twenty-four hours period.

 

[Brightmoon]

The only dinosaurs that humans ever co existed with are the theropods we call birds. Non avian dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago long before primates even evolved monkeys let alone the great ape lineage humans evolved from.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Science is wrong and anti-Christian. Humans and Dinosaurs existed together. We have known this for a long time.




Dinosaurs working with humans




Dinosaurs on the Ark.




Dinosaurs on the Ark.

 

[Brightmoon]

There are no human or protohuman fossils in any geological layer that has non avian dinosaurs. Which we would see if they co existed at any time . The only lineages even close to human at that time were now extinct morganucodontids

 

[eleos1954]

I already got some different views on this but I was curious what everybody else on here thought as to whether or not science is wrong and they coexisted with one another due to the fact that the creation of the world took place in six days. So far I'm liking the theory that days back then weren't an actual twenty-four hours period.

According to the theory of evolution and the scientists that promote that theory ... they say no.

According to the bible and creation scientists .... we say yes ... and that they were destroyed and there remains scattered all over the earth by the cataclysmic flood.

Interesting they have found soft tissue in some dinosaur bones ... how does soft tissue survive after 65 million years????? Well .. of course... they have another theory that "could" or "suggest" how that might have happened.

 

[eleos1954]

duplicate post ... sorry

 

[April_Rose]

duplicate post ... sorry

That's okay, understandable.

 

[Paulos23]

I already got some different views on this but I was curious what everybody else on here thought as to whether or not science is wrong and they coexisted with one another due to the fact that the creation of the world took place in six days. So far I'm liking the theory that days back then weren't an actual twenty-four hours period.

Even if the days where not twenty-four hours (which has its own problems) there is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. No fossil or historical evidence that this is the case. And we would expect that there would have been lots of dinosaurs mentioned even in cave paintings!

 

[Halbhh]

I already got some different views on this but I was curious what everybody else on here thought as to whether or not science is wrong and they coexisted with one another due to the fact that the creation of the world took place in six days. So far I'm liking the theory that days back then weren't an actual twenty-four hours period.

To understand more of the broad brush but deeply wonderful Genesis chapter 1 in that kind of 'what-about?' way takes reading a lot more scripture.

Scriptures open up to be understood far better after one reads fully through many entire books, really listening and absorbing the wordings and meanings. Things start to come together.

For instance, we read in a much later book, 1rst Samuel, a kind of confirmation of something seen throughout scripture: God communicates in visions:

1 Samuel 3:1 Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD in the presence of Eli. And the word of the LORD was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision.

Communication/Word from God was rare in those days -- there weren't many visions.

There are many famous visions from God in scripture, but not all have also spoken words from God in them!

Both vision and Words. Together.

Consider the famous vision Peter received in Acts chapter 10:

If you read starting at verse 9, you see how in Peter's vision, there is both what is seen, and also direct words from God --
Acts 10:13 Then a voice said to him: "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
Acts 10 NIV

Now, with more of the rest-of-scripture aid, we can look at Genesis chapter 1, and we can notice it has vision like places.

Read the wondrous verse 2 where no human was present (just like in the rest of the chapter until near the end) --

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The person writing down this could have seen a vision or heard a narrative...but...very soon in the chapter we see God actually speaking words, just like in Peter's vision! --

Genesis 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters."

Now, suddenly, we realize we are seeing words that picture scenes for us and also hearing direct narrative from God, actual spoken words. Both.

Now, as anyone that reads through the bible realizes, generally visions give representative scenes that communicate meanings.

Seeing now the way Genesis chapter 1 reads, with both scenes no human was around to see, and also spoken words from God, we no longer should insist on our simplistic interpretations ahead of time, as if there are no profound things, as if it's only a mere history detail....which it very clearly is deeper than...but instead we all should truly listen, to hear. We are no longer reading in order to support our own theory, but instead reading to hear the Word, and have it be the teacher, us silent, the word doing the talking.

The way to read this chapter, like all of scripture, is to lay aside the preconceptions, and truly listen, and then the Word can do to us what is here to do: to change us.

Then the last thing anyone will truly care much about is arguing about mere time duration, where already in the movement from verse 1 to verse 2, no time duration for the time before the moment of verse 2 is even given. Time duration is not the meaning!

 

[April_Rose]

To understand more of the broad brush but deeply wonderful Genesis chapter 1 in that kind of 'what-about?' way takes reading a lot more scripture.

Scriptures open up to be understood far better after one reads fully through many entire books, really listening and absorbing the wordings and meanings. Things start to come together.

For instance, we read in a much later book, 1rst Samuel, a kind of confirmation of something seen throughout scripture: God communicates in visions:

1 Samuel 3:1 Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD in the presence of Eli. And the word of the LORD was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision.

Communication/Word from God was rare in those days -- there weren't many visions.

There are many famous visions from God in scripture, but not all have also spoken words from God in them!

Both vision and Words. Together.

Consider the famous vision Peter received in Acts chapter 10:

If you read starting at verse 9, you see how in Peter's vision, there is both what is seen, and also direct words from God --
Acts 10:13 Then a voice said to him: "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
Acts 10 NIV

Now, with more of the rest-of-scripture aid, we can look at Genesis chapter 1, and we can notice it has vision like places.

Read the wondrous verse 2 where no human was present (just like in the rest of the chapter until near the end) --

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The person writing down this could have seen a vision or heard a narrative...but...very soon in the chapter we see God actually speaking words, just like in Peter's vision! --

Genesis 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters."

Now, suddenly, we realize we are seeing words that picture scenes for us and also hearing direct narrative from God, actual spoken words. Both.

Now, as anyone that reads through the bible realizes, generally visions give representative scenes that communicate meanings.

Seeing now the way Genesis chapter 1 reads, with both scenes no human was around to see, and also spoken words from God, we no longer should insist on our simplistic interpretations ahead of time, as if there are no profound things, as if it's only a mere history detail....which it very clearly is deeper than...but instead we all should truly listen, to hear. We are no longer reading in order to support our own theory, but instead reading to hear the Word, and have it be the teacher, us silent, the word doing the talking.

The way to read this chapter, like all of scripture, is to lay aside the preconceptions, and truly listen, and then the Word can do to us what is here to do: to change us.

Then the last thing anyone will truly care much about is arguing about mere time duration, where already in the movement from verse 1 to verse 2, no time duration for the time before the moment of verse 2 is even given. Time duration is not the meaning!

Just so you know I have special needs and I'm afraid that I honestly didn't get a word of that. :/

 

[Halbhh]

Just so you know I have special needs and I'm afraid that I honestly didn't get a word of that. :/

Simply, we don't know with total certainty the small details of how God created, and He wisely chose not to tell us small details like chemistry and geology. Something far more meaningful is being said to us in the wonderful wording....

So, therefore, put aside all the ideas and questions, and just read with real listening. Try to be totally silent, and just hear the words. God tells us about the wonderful creation He made for us, and that it is "very good".

But when you just really listen, pure listening, you get more -- you get changed by the words. By listening.

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolution is a theory , old earth is a theory. Scientific theories are based on facts that support that theory. Creation theory is more properly called an unverifiable hypothesis. It cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed. Things like the Flood or the separate creation of organisms are natural phenomena that should leave evidence that they had occurred. There is no evidence of those.

 

[April_Rose]

Evolution is a theory , old earth is a theory. Scientific theories are based on facts that support that theory. Creation theory is more properly called an unverifiable hypothesis. It cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed. Things like the Flood or the separate creation of organisms are natural phenomena that should leave evidence that they had occurred. There is no evidence of those.

I'm sorry but what do you mean earth is a theory if it physically exists?

 

[Brightmoon]

The theory that the earth is very very old is supported by the many many facts from chemistry, geology astronomy, taphonomy ,biology ,paleontology physics etc . None of the various facts contradict each other unlike with creationist ideas

 

[Brightmoon]

Scientific theories aren’t speculations or guesses. They are based on verified facts . The everyday meaning of theory is speculation. But scientists never use theory in that sense when speaking about science. There are a lot of everyday words that have different meanings in a scientific context . For example, Salts and sugars are whole classes of chemical compounds to a chemist, not just the white stuff that you put on your food

 

[Brightmoon]

According to the theory of evolution and the scientists that promote that theory ... they say no.

According to the bible and creation scientists .... we say yes ... and that they were destroyed and there remains scattered all over the earth by the cataclysmic flood.

Interesting they have found soft tissue in some dinosaur bones ... how does soft tissue survive after 65 million years????? Well .. of course... they have another theory that "could" or "suggest" how that might have happened.

. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is caused by iron ions coming from dinosaur blood which preserved the tissue proteins . This then mineralized which preserved it over the millions of years . Dr Schweitzer removed the minerals and was left with the preserved soft tissue . It’s not evidence of a young earth . The so called controversy is evidence of creationists willing to lie about and distort scientific findings .

 

[JackRT]

Interesting they have found soft tissue in some dinosaur bones ... how does soft tissue survive after 65 million years????? Well .. of course... they have another theory that "could" or "suggest" how that might have happened.

Since the discovery of soft tissue our understanding of the fossilization process has been improved considerably. It is strange that creationists try to use this to discredit science when it demonstrates so well how and why science works so well. No attempt was made to cover up this accidental discovery, rather it stimulated further research resulting in improved understanding. In science no understanding and no theory is written in stone; they are all provisional. BTW it is an interesting story how the discovery was made. A paleontologist was studying dinosaur bones for another purpose entirely. She took a thin cross section of a T-Rex bone and placed it in a solution overnight. The following day she was surprised to see that the inner tissue (formerly bone marrow) had softened. It seems that it had become rehydrated overnight in the solution. This had never been observed before and prompted a great deal of further research.

 

[pitabread]

According to the bible and creation scientists .... we say yes ... and that they were destroyed and there remains scattered all over the earth by the cataclysmic flood.

Which makes YECs the biggest evolutionists around.

Ironic, that.

 

[eleos1954]

. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is caused by iron ions coming from dinosaur blood which preserved the tissue proteins . This then mineralized which preserved it over the millions of years . Dr Schweitzer removed the minerals and was left with the preserved soft tissue . It’s not evidence of a young earth . The so called controversy is evidence of creationists willing to lie about and distort scientific findings .

please provide some links where this has been determined to be absolute fact.

 

[Brightmoon]

Here

please provide some links where this has been determined to be absolute fact.

here’s the info for the original paper and a photo of the soft tissue.

T. rex as a species didn’t exist after the bolide that wiped out t the rest of the non avian dinosaurs 65 million years ago, so soft tissue from one is very very old. Science is a professional magazine. Scientists publish real papers here. The paper is old so it might be online