Dinosaurs and Man

[PrincetonGuy]

So by this reasoning, when Islam becomes the most prevalent religion, sheer numbers make it the correct and true religion......I'm afriad whether I was the last bible believing Christian on the planet, outnumbered by multitudes of scientist, somehow God always makes the wisedom of man appear foolish, It just always been that way, I'm a fool for God and His word! what can I say?

Muslims base their beliefs upon the Qur’an; a religious book; scientists, at least the real ones, base their beliefs upon the massive amounts of data gleaned from scientific research. Christians should, and many of them do, base their views of science upon science, and their views of religion upon the Bible—and that is what I do. Real scientists, regardless of their religious convictions, should and do base their views of science upon the massive amounts of data gleaned from scientific research—they do not base their views of science upon an academically indefensible interpretation of Genesis that ignores the fact that the first eleven chapters are written in a genre of literature that is unique to those eleven chapters and NOT in the genre of literature known as the historical narrative. Moreover, real scientists do NOT base their views of science upon miscellaneous tidbits of anomalous data and manipulate that date to force it to lend support to their religious beliefs.

Before my career change, I was an evolutionary biologist, and when I became a conservative, evangelical pastor, I learned and understood the difference between religion and science. I also learned and understood that both science and the Christian faith have very much to offer those who partake of both of them but do not confuse them.

 

[sublime911]

I seen my dog try to mate with a stuffed animal, what does that tell you, and dogs are alot smarter than mice, then again put some men in prison long enough and that fine featured young man starts to look appealing, It doesn't mean a thing

Um, ok. But they COMPLETELY changed the sexual preference of mice by removing a gene. I'm confused on what comparison you are trying to draw. Do you think that by altering his genes your dog would only mate with male stuffed animals or that it is a coincidence that the mice all decided to go gay?

 

[Hupomone10]

Ya, Compare a lion and a spinosaurs. Did you look at the Size comparison picture I posted? One weighs 500 pounds the other weighs 21 tons. If they or any other predatory dinosaur lived during the bronze age humans would have been wiped out. Imagine 2 wolfs in a chicken coup with basically endless chickens.

So they would have eaten more people than the lions, tigers, and bears. (oh my)

Did you read the article? They changed what the mouse wanted to mate with.

I don't care.

I can't even measure how little I personally care about man saying that he has been able to make mice into homosexuals. Why is this coming up in a dinosaur and lets-trust-in-science thread? Man has proven that he can make homosexuals. As the other guy said, all it takes is prison. And all it takes is perversion, or abuse. The fact that man has shown he can make homosexual mice doesn't change what God's Word says about it being an abomination in His sight, and a stronghold that the work of the Cross and power of the Holy Spirit are able to conquer.

I'm glad my weakness was alcohol and not homosexuality, for once you admit you're an alcoholic, they usher you into steps to get past the obsession and live with the allergy and remain abstinent. Yet with homosexuality, the secular world and now many in the church try their best to "enable" them, sending them on to spiritual and possibly physical death.

Those who condone it are enablers; and I have no use for enablers. I had my share of them.

H.

 

[Hupomone10]

Regarding macro-evolution, there is plenty of evidence for creation to throw theories or hypotheses of science into doubt, not the least of which is the fact that there are no fossils of transitional forms; and what I'm referring to is fossils of animals in transition, with appendages partly formed. Every fossil is of an animal or plant with fully complete features. That should be enough to cause every Christian who doubts God's Word in favor of scientists a moment of pause.

But aside from that and whether one will accept it or not, God is sovereign and I believe He is the God who inspired the first 11 chapters just as surely as He inspired the rest.

The fact that it is a different genre, if it is, doesn't change the fact that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the holy Scriptures, could have inspired a different format and certainly different words than these if they contained false statements. He certainly didn't have to use days, and yet He did. Either God inspired the Scriptures or He didn't. That's good enough for me.

It is enough for me personally to know I am on solid ground if I read the Word as it is written, allowing clearly figurative sections to be figurative, and literal ones to be literal. I listen and try to learn from science, but when science and scripture are in conflict, I trust scripture, for I've seen scientists be wrong before. I have yet to find God's Word wrong.

This is where I stand, tho none stand with me, and I believe I am on solid ground, with thousands of saints throughout the centuries there with me. God's word taken literally has been my strength and has delivered me from certain death. I will not second-guess him now.

 

[leothelioness]

where do you find that written in the bible? or is this another personal speculation, .....speculation is fine, as long as the one speculating doesn't deliver it as truth.....big difference!.......personally I love to speculate, but I usually start my sentance with "I surmise" or I speculate that" or I'm guessing that......but thats just me

Read Genesis and read Revelation. It's pretty simple.

I don't have a problem with believing what you think the Bible says. We all do. However, to twist Scripture in order to accomodate your own personal beliefs is intellectually dishonest. And there is nothing in the Genesis account that infers that the days of creation were literal.

 

[leothelioness]

Regarding macro-evolution, there is plenty of evidence for creation to throw theories or hypotheses of science into doubt, not the least of which is the fact that there are no fossils of transitional forms; and what I'm referring to is fossils of animals in transition, with appendages partly formed. Every fossil is of an animal or plant with fully complete features. That should be enough to cause every Christian who doubts God's Word in favor of scientists a moment of pause.

Not to get into an evolution debate (that's not what this thread is about), but just to throw this out there; apparently snakes have within their skeletal structure four small appendages, placed exactly where lizards would have their limbs, that suggests that snakes might have had legs at one time. Which, interestingly enough does correlate to the cursing of the serpent by way of taking away his limbs so that he would have to slither upon his belly. Just sayin'.

 

[sublime911]

So they would have eaten more people than the lions, tigers, and bears. (oh my)

I don't care.

I can't even measure how little I personally care about man saying that he has been able to make mice into homosexuals. Why is this coming up in a dinosaur and lets-trust-in-science thread? Man has proven that he can make homosexuals. As the other guy said, all it takes is prison. And all it takes is perversion, or abuse. The fact that man has shown he can make homosexual mice doesn't change what God's Word says about it being an abomination in His sight, and a stronghold that the work of the Cross and power of the Holy Spirit are able to conquer.

I'm glad my weakness was alcohol and not homosexuality, for once you admit you're an alcoholic, they usher you into steps to get past the obsession and live with the allergy and remain abstinent. Yet with homosexuality, the secular world and now many in the church try their best to "enable" them, sending them on to spiritual and possibly physical death.

Those who condone it are enablers; and I have no use for enablers. I had my share of them.

H.

No they would have made it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to survive. Humans could not have existed at the same time as dinosaurs. I dont see how anyone can think other wise. Please help me understand why you think that humans could stay in one place and form cities if these things were alive at the time.

Also its not PC but homosexuality is a genetic disorder. From what you are saying you dont seem to understand genetics at all, If you can alter genes to create the trait then it is not a choice. The mice did not choose to be gay, they were turned gay by humans messing with there genes. And comparing alcoholism to homosexuality makes you look really ignorant. Is sickle cell also like alcoholism lol?

 

[sublime911]

Regarding macro-evolution, there is plenty of evidence for creation to throw theories or hypotheses of science into doubt, not the least of which is the fact that there are no fossils of transitional forms; and what I'm referring to is fossils of animals in transition, with appendages partly formed. Every fossil is of an animal or plant with fully complete features. That should be enough to cause every Christian who doubts God's Word in favor of scientists a moment of pause.

But aside from that and whether one will accept it or not, God is sovereign and I believe He is the God who inspired the first 11 chapters just as surely as He inspired the rest.

The fact that it is a different genre, if it is, doesn't change the fact that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the holy Scriptures, could have inspired a different format and certainly different words than these if they contained false statements. He certainly didn't have to use days, and yet He did. Either God inspired the Scriptures or He didn't. That's good enough for me.

It is enough for me personally to know I am on solid ground if I read the Word as it is written, allowing clearly figurative sections to be figurative, and literal ones to be literal. I listen and try to learn from science, but when science and scripture are in conflict, I trust scripture, for I've seen scientists be wrong before. I have yet to find God's Word wrong.

This is where I stand, tho none stand with me, and I believe I am on solid ground, with thousands of saints throughout the centuries there with me. God's word taken literally has been my strength and has delivered me from certain death. I will not second-guess him now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
THe Tiktaalik just to name one. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
I can list 100s and 100s more if you want, tons of transitional have been found. Any other points against evolution you want to bring up? I will be more then happy to point out why they are wrong. Contrary to what you believe there is a VERY VERY good reason why the entire scientific community rejects YECism and embraces evolution. Honestly I dont see how you can believe in an old world and not believe in evolution. Would you just believe that humans were on the earth for billions of years?

 

[Hupomone10]

[/size][/font]
Not to get into an evolution debate (that's not what this thread is about), but just to throw this out there; apparently snakes have within their skeletal structure four small appendages, placed exactly where lizards would have their limbs, that suggests that snakes might have had legs at one time. Which, interestingly enough does correlate to the cursing of the serpent by way of taking away his limbs so that he would have to slither upon his belly. Just sayin'.

Yes, I agree. That would be evidence for the creation story's literalness in Genesis, not evolution; unless we are to believe the snakes are evolving legs, in which case fossils of snakes over the last million years should show progressive growth of these small appendages. Or, if they are devolving these legs, fossils of these appendages decreasing over time.

I didn't realize this thread was only about the time factor of dinosaurs and man rather than evolution being a part of it.

I guess I'll have to come down on the side of the concurrent presence of dinosaurs and man, since "by man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rom 5:12). Unless Paul was writing in prose.

 

[realtruth101]

Ahhh! finally! a various dating method specialist, where have you been for the last 65 billion years

 

[sublime911]

Yes, I agree. That would be evidence for the creation story's literalness in Genesis, not evolution; unless we are to believe the snakes are evolving legs, in which case fossils of snakes over the last million years should show progressive growth of these small appendages. Or, if they are devolving these legs, fossils of these appendages decreasing over time.

I didn't realize this thread was only about the time factor of dinosaurs and man rather than evolution being a part of it.

I guess I'll have to come down on the side of the concurrent presence of dinosaurs and man, since "by man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rom 5:12). Unless Paul was writing in prose.

If you want I can link fossils evidence to if for some reason this isnt enough. Anything else you want to be wrong about?

 

[joshua41]

This is where I stand, tho none stand with me, and I believe I am on solid ground, with thousands of saints throughout the centuries there with me. God's word taken literally has been my strength and has delivered me from certain death. I will not second-guess him now.

Don't you believe that it is important to unbiasedly scrutinize your religious beliefs? How do you believe that all these radical sets of Christianity and Islam get started? I understand that faith is blind;faith is believing without seeing, but it not is device that lets you willfully deny items as you see fit.

Don't get me wrong; I admire your beliefs, and I also recognize that you do not have to explain yourself to me. However, realize that just as you have seen scientists make mistakes, at somepoint in time both of us have made a mistake in interpreting a part of the Bible. Preachers will even make inaccurate comments (quite often in my opinion).

Is it him you would be second guessing or it would it be your interpretation that you would be second guessing?

 

[Hupomone10]

(pictures of snakes with fully-formed complete limbs)
If you want I can link fossils evidence to if for some reason this isnt enough. Anything else you want to be wrong about?

You still don't get it do you?

I see fully formed toes, legs. Appendages. If evolution actually occurred, there will not just be fossils with fully-formed limbs/features; but many also, if not more, fossils from all stages in the development of these limbs.

You think you have provided something here, but again you have totally missed the question I am asking. You have shown a picture of an animal who, although having fully-formed features of a snake and a creature with legs, still one with fully-developed limbs.

This is as much evidence of evolution as a Leatherman is evidence that knives evolved by nature into screwdrivers. Knives have a blade, screwdriver has a head, the Leatherman has both. Obviously the Leatherman is a transitional form, having evolved by matter/energy shaped by pure chance.

Please show what I am asking for - fossils of animals/plants with features in transition. If animals without eyes evolved into animals with eyes, if animals without feathers evolved into animals with fully formed feathers, please show me animal fossils with the in-between formation stages. Any stages.

And if you can't, I would appreciate it if you would admit that there is no evidence of this, and that you have believed a lie without any evidence. You can believe such a concept against the lack of evidence for it if you wish, but I choose not to.

Thanks,
H.

 

[sublime911]

You still don't get it do you?

I see fully formed toes, legs. Appendages. If evolution actually occurred, there will not just be fossils with fully-formed limbs/features; but many also, if not more, fossils from all stages in the development of these limbs.

You think you have provided something here, but again you have totally missed the question I am asking. You have shown a picture of an animal who, although having fully-formed features of a snake and a creature with legs, still one with fully-developed limbs.

This is as much evidence of evolution as a Leatherman is evidence that knives evolved by nature into screwdrivers. Knives have a blade, screwdriver has a head, the Leatherman has both. Obviously the Leatherman is a transitional form, having evolved by matter/energy shaped by pure chance.

Please show what I am asking for - fossils of animals/plants with features in transition. If animals without eyes evolved into animals with eyes, if animals without feathers evolved into animals with fully formed feathers, please show me animal fossils with the in-between formation stages. Any stages.

And if you can't, I would appreciate it if you would admit that there is no evidence of this, and that you have believed a lie without any evidence. You can believe such a concept against the lack of evidence for it if you wish, but I choose not to.

Thanks,
H.

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?

 

[If Not For Grace]

Well crocodiles move along the ground...most dinosaurs did not.

well how did the "big lizzards" get around then?

 

[sublime911]

Will go more in depth after my last two classes but nylon eating bacteria, the tiktaalik and reptile live birth. Google them if you dont want to wait for me.

 

[new_wine]

Let's just say for a moment that dinosaurs did exist with mankind before and after the flood.

Here are my questions then.

First, we have mosaics, reliefs, paintings, tablets, pottery and other articles of art that show clearly creatures like bears, lions, tigers, jackals, wolves, elephants, leopards and bulls. In these pieces of art they are depicted as being slain for sport and protection.

We have from digs samples of masks used for rituals that use the heads or a depiction of a head of these powerful and dangerous beasts. They were often used by men to teach how to approach and kill said beasts or to wear their image as a sign of strength, courage or to ward off any injury or death from these creatures.

Where then are the images in antiquity of dinosaurs being hunted by man? Where are the masks of them?

Second, if man hunted the dinosaur into extinction for food, why then are none of the bones from digs showing signs of scrapes, incisions or other tool markings for the removal of meat or marrow from bones as they do in other animals of the region when used for food?

 

[MichaelKelley]

Let's just say for a moment that dinosaurs did exist with mankind before and after the flood.

Here are my questions then.

First, we have mosaics, reliefs, paintings, tablets, pottery and other articles of art that show clearly creatures like bears, lions, tigers, jackals, wolves, elephants, leopards and bulls. In these pieces of art they are depicted as being slain for sport and protection.

We have from digs samples of masks used for rituals that use the heads or a depiction of a head of these powerful and dangerous beasts. They were often used by men to teach how to approach and kill said beasts or to wear their image as a sign of strength, courage or to ward off any injury or death from these creatures.

Where then are the images in antiquity of dinosaurs being hunted by man? Where are the masks of them?

Second, if man hunted the dinosaur into extinction for food, why then are none of the bones from digs showing signs of scrapes, incisions or other tool markings for the removal of meat or marrow from bones as they do in other animals of the region when used for food?

There are ancient records of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and man did live together. If dinosaurs lived billions of years before man, that places death and suffering before man, and thus, before sin. That is a blatant heresy. Not saying that you are a heretic, but that thinking like that ultimately leads to heresy. I posted a page from my website that answers all the questions you asked in your post. Try actually going to that page and looking at the material instead of posting questions that have already been answered on this board.
http://biblestudynow.webs.com/creationthedinosaurs.htm

 

[leothelioness]

I didn't realize this thread was only about the time factor of dinosaurs and man rather than evolution being a part of it.

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

 

[sublime911]

There are ancient records of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and man did live together. If dinosaurs lived billions of years before man, that places death and suffering before man, and thus, before sin. That is a blatant heresy. Not saying that you are a heretic, but that thinking like that ultimately leads to heresy. I posted a page from my website that answers all the questions you asked in your post. Try actually going to that page and looking at the material instead of posting questions that have already been answered on this board.
http://biblestudynow.webs.com/creationthedinosaurs.htm

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.