Dinosaurs and Man

[Hupomone10]

I just didn't want to derail the thread with an unrelated topic. I thought that might have been appreciated, but apparently not.

I thought your posts deserved an answer, that when someone posts something that it means others have an equal right to post rebuttal, but apparently not.

Everyone would like what they say to be the final word on a subject. That's part of our fallen sinful nature. But we're all here as equals and that's what dialogue is all about. This thread for pages and pages has been about evolution as well as dinosaurs. Here is one statement from the OP: "People want to think that everything came into existence from some chemical accident.Things are too complex for that to just happen."

Yes, you are always allowed to remind us of the OP, and I am as well, as I have just done.

 

[Hupomone10]

Will link much more after class but what are you calling those? Do they look like fully formed legs? And to clarify you are looking for fossils of stuff like this?

Yes, and thanks. I was in a hurry the other day, and apologize. This is a good example, someone finally gets it!

This does it for me. I am on a quest for truth, not for defense of my already formed opinions. Fossils of stuff like this, and especially of intermediate developments of such animals during the stages that led up to this stage in the picture.

Any info on this picture will help, what it's name is, the history of it, is it natural or hybrid.

So, do you believe this creature is a snake evolving into a creature with legs, or a creature with legs evolving into a snake. Or a survivor of way back when they evolved from the snake to the legged creature?

And then, this is like finding one one-armed man. Finding one proves an anomaly. But (it's only an example ) if the one-armed man evolved into the two-armed man, we wouldn't expect to find one or only a few one-armed men fossils, but a multitude of both one-armed men and two-armed men.


Thanks,
H.

 

[new_wine]

You bring up another point that the technology used could not defend against dinosaurs. Even ones that would not be predatory, grazing ones, could reach huge weights and heights and easily destroy a settlement without doing so on purpose.

There is also no evidence of tools being used on the remains of these creatures. It was common place until the last century for man to make use of even the marrow of an animal. There are no bones from digs that show signs of cooking being done on them to extract marrow, holes being drilled to make bones easier to break or chisel with impact marks than denote bone breaking to scoop out the marrow.

This is unlike man to have huge sources of protein handy and not eat them.

There is no art that shows dinosaurs. But there sure are lots of it for pretty near every animal in their habitat. The evidence is simply not there. Why every other creature is well documented and the dinosaurs are not can only mean that man did not exist with them. Because man documents everything in some form or another. As well as creating things that are not real to explain what they cannot understand.

Common sense should tell you predatory dinosaurs could not have coexisted with man. Bronze age man would not have the ability to defend them selfs enough to form settlements. Also what do you guys have against the hundreds of dating methods that place the earth at being billions of years old. If for w/e reason you dismiss (lol why i have no idea) then the many many impact craters covering the earth at least prove that the 6k year thing is IMPOSSIBLE. These would have also made it impossible for humans to survive if ANY of them hit in the last 6k years.

 

[joshua41]

This does it for me. I am on a quest for truth, not for defense of my already formed opinions.

Your arguments lead me to believe otherwise.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

EDIT: I've decided to change my post because I feel that the original was unnecessarily hostile, because of my own emotions about the matter. I'm trying to stay away from this topic because I feel that it's best for me to focus on the more important, main aspects of faith right now, because my reasons for posting here were more to assure myself of my own opinions and fallible interpretations than to do anything that would glorify God, and because I can very easily get sidetracked onto issues like this. Thank you for understanding.

 

[new_wine]

A young earth is not required for being a Christian or believing in the Bible.

We have to remind ourselves that we Christians have had the Old and New Testaments for a long time. During that time we believed in many false things of the world around us. Some of them make us wonder how did we ever got this far.

It is reason that allows us to learn from the mistakes of the past and grow better from it. But the overall message of the whole of The Bible is that God is with us and we can rely upon him and have faith in him as he has faith in us.

We will continue to assume things are one way and not know until we develop enough knowledge and methods to understand things are not what we currently believe. That is part of the process of becoming perfect as Jesus said we should be as God is.

I believe that you could make an exegetical argument that a Young Earth is unnecessary, although I don't know enough about Hebrew or Greek to sort the truth from bias (either my own or someone else's) whenever I read about it, honestly.

Scientifically, it's extremely difficult to hold to Young Earth Creationism. I think that there is enough evidence from nature to ask serious questions about whether a young Earth is a required doctrine of the Christian faith or not.

 

[leothelioness]

I thought your posts deserved an answer, that when someone posts something that it means others have an equal right to post rebuttal, but apparently not.

Everyone would like what they say to be the final word on a subject. That's part of our fallen sinful nature. But we're all here as equals and that's what dialogue is all about. This thread for pages and pages has been about evolution as well as dinosaurs. Here is one statement from the OP: "People want to think that everything came into existence from some chemical accident.Things are too complex for that to just happen."

Yes, you are always allowed to remind us of the OP, and I am as well, as I have just done.

Chill out, old man. Don't want your blood pressure get too high, now.

 

[Hupomone10]

Your arguments lead me to believe otherwise.

I'm sure they do. I didn't realize I need to go back and more completely answer your previous post, but I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're asking.

Anyway, as to my arguments; as i just related to Leo, this is not something I've not already been on both sides of, and also not something I've just started looking into. However, I have to admit that I've done no reading or study on it in many years, other than to read occasional articles and such.

Sometimes when someone appears not to be open to other ideas it's because they've already considered them, or else they know something that precludes the possibility of the other anyway. An example of the latter, relating to my field, would be if someone were to want to debate wind-turbines totally replacing fossil-fueled or nuclear generation today. I already know why they can't. Why try to be open to the argument that they can, just because you happen up on someone who hasn't done the research or doesn't know what you know?

 

[Hupomone10]

Chill out, old man. Don't want your blood pressure get too high, now.

hmm. That's a first
My father's old, but he's 83. You don't raise my blood pressure little girl . I'm very used to discussion; it's impossible most of the time to convey a settled manner in posts.

But that old man thing might not be a bad thing to remember at your age, the age when you still know more than your parents and prior to when you discover the wisdom they actually had. This topic I was discussing as an intelligent adult before you were born.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

A young earth is not required for being a Christian or believing in the Bible.

We have to remind ourselves that we Christians have had the Old and New Testaments for a long time. During that time we believed in many false things of the world around us. Some of them make us wonder how did we ever got this far.

It is reason that allows us to learn from the mistakes of the past and grow better from it. But the overall message of the whole of The Bible is that God is with us and we can rely upon him and have faith in him as he has faith in us.

We will continue to assume things are one way and not know until we develop enough knowledge and methods to understand things are not what we currently believe. That is part of the process of becoming perfect as Jesus said we should be as God is.

I'm with you on the fact that a young earth belief is not necessary, nor is belief in an old earth or in evolution, and that none of us will know until we see the Lord.

I also entertain the possibility that man will develop enough knowledge and methods to understand things are not in accordance with macro-evolution the way they currently believe, and they will then distance themselves from this belief, and it is a belief.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, but maybe making a qualification. I believe the way to determine truth and discover false beliefs, at least when it relates to spiritual things, isn't just or primarily a matter of knowledge and methods, but of learning to walk in the Spirit and learn to hear his voice in our spirit and discern the difference between my faulty thinking and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I would like to think that if I changed my views to adopt evolution and other theories relating to it that I could honestly say I had prayed much on it, and the best I can tell, the Holy Spirit is telling me that Genesis doesn't mean what it says. I would hope I wouldn't change such a radical approach to the Bible without at least feeling I had the Lord's complete endorsement in it.

On the other hand, my entire pilgrimage with Him and that of most saints I have known and read about lead me to believe that if I take the holy scriptures literally except for when they make it clear that they are figurative or symbollic, I will be on safe ground. Will I be liked or respected by the intellectual elite and those who think of themselves so? No. But of one thing I'm sure: God has always been please with and rewarded those who trusted in His Word.

Blessings,
H.

 

[David Pratt]

Dinosaurs: The bible predates that 19th century word. Those abominations were only described, not given a name.

The fusion of different species of animals by the power of the evil guardian angels.

[Possible example: Crocodiles & birds = possible pterodactyl]



The main reasons for the flood.

This is why scientists believe how "dinos" evolved/de-evolved from other species of animals.

Scientists are correct in this... men & "dinosaurs" could never live in peace.

It is also a main reason why the Lord hates witchcraft/sorcery.



Genesis Chapter 6

11. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

[corrupt = altered, changed, re-designed in a wrongful way.]

17. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

 

[LantanaAnna]

I hope ya'll don't make me look this up, but heres my 2 cents. The earth was not made in 6 of our days, for one day of God is 1000 years. Dinosaurs were used to prepare the earth while it was being made, you see we don't understand the natural laws of God nor how he accomplishes anything, because we don't have the ability here in mortality. Adam was not a cave man, but a man made in the image of God. Is that clear as mud?

 

[David Pratt]

Are you basing that on this scripture below?


2 Peter Chapter 3

8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I hope ya'll don't make me look this up, but heres my 2 cents. The earth was not made in 6 of our days, for one day of God is 1000 years.

Peter makes this comparison, but we're not dealing with God's concept of time, which is infinite, in the creation story, but in man's concept of time. And the word used for "day" throughout Genesis 1 and 2 is yowm, meaning a literal 24-hour day. Therefore, the creation did occur in six literal days, and dinosaurs were around until The Flood.

 

[LantanaAnna]

Win, I looked this up last night, and I am wrong. But to explain it would take me more than several paragraphs and probably cause more questions than answers. So although I don't agree with the six days creation for the temporal earth I can't explain it.

The earth was carefully prepared for us. I should have checked before I answered, it had been several years since I read up on this. I am your humble servant.

 

[01tj]

I didn't read through the entire thread but in case it hasn't been mentioned yet Ken Ham does an excellent job explaining dinosaurs.


The main problems I see in some of the posts in this thread are some of the Christians trying to explain how we can fit the Bible in what scientist try to make us believe. Remember most of what science tells you is only based on theories. I can't think of any scientist who were alive back when Adam, Eve AND the T-Rex walked the earth but God was here and inspired authors to tell us about it.



Take the Bible as literal. If you tell a non believer that the only way to heaven is through Christ because the Bible says so but a year=1000 and the earth is a billion years old what do you think they will believe.

I have some links and a video to go with my post but I don't have enough posts yet

 

[freezerman2000]

I didn't read through the entire thread but in case it hasn't been mentioned yet Ken Ham does an excellent job explaining dinosaurs.


The main problems I see in some of the posts in this thread are some of the Christians trying to explain how we can fit the Bible in what scientist try to make us believe. Remember most of what science tells you is only based on theories. I can't think of any scientist who were alive back when Adam, Eve AND the T-Rex walked the earth but God was here and inspired authors to tell us about it.



Take the Bible as literal. If you tell a non believer that the only way to heaven is through Christ because the Bible says so but a year=1000 and the earth is a billion years old what do you think they will believe.

I have some links and a video to go with my post but I don't have enough posts yet

Thing is, Genesis tells me that God did it...Science helps me understand the processes...I am not wearing either side's blinders and walk in lockstep to neither.

I do not even attempt to tell a non believer about how the earth was made and how we got here...
I tell them of God's love and Christ's ultimate sacrifice.THAT is the key to salvation, not the creation account, is it not?

 

[01tj]

Thing is, Genesis tells me that God did it...Science helps me understand the processes...I am not wearing either side's blinders and walk in lockstep to neither.

I do not even attempt to tell a non believer about how the earth was made and how we got here...
I tell them of God's love and Christ's ultimate sacrifice.THAT is the key to salvation, not the creation account, is it not?

No argument here, but my statement is directed towards what the scientist are tying to do. If we agree with them that the earth is billions of years old and not thousands like the Bible tells us then we agree with them that the Bible is not 100% true. If the age of the earth is not true the why would we believe that the origin of man is as the Bible describes? If we came from monkeys why would we have to answer to God. If we don't have to answer to God we can do what ever we please.

 

[freezerman2000]

Just because a man called Ussher said it was so, does not make it "cast in stone"..
Speaking of stone, ever heard of radiometric dating? Here's a link for you if you want to see the Ussher method refuted.
Geologic Time: Radiometric Time Scale

 

[freezerman2000]

BTW, I am a Christian, just not a part of your group of "we".