Dinosaurs...and Noah's Ark....

bkane · Sep 14, 2003

Having the "years" all add up from Scripture is likened to the "Bible Code Theory"...which ventures to be some form of prophecy by using each 12th letter in consecutive order to spell out things we already know happened in History. Genesis isn't a detailed account of time. No intelligent person can deny that. It's purpose is to tell Who created and Why...not so exact as to When and how. God created Ex-Nehilo (out of nothing) and sustains all that is...which pretty much nixes Theistic Evolution...which is only an attempt to marry Big Bang or some other Origin sludge theory, by adding an impersonal God at the beginning....

Ark Guy · Sep 14, 2003

bkane...you might have a point concerning YOM if it wasn't bracketed with evening and morning which all but demonstrate this instance of YOM meant a 24 hour long period of time.

You point weekends even more when we read the 10 commandments where it assocaties the six days with a 24 hour long time frame.

Even Hebrews 4:2-3 refers to 24 hour long days and not some unknown epoch.

Just for the record, I have read where chicken bones have fossilized in just a few years buried in the mud on a farm.

Vance · Sep 15, 2003

Ark Guy said:
bkane...you might have a point concerning YOM if it wasn't bracketed with evening and morning which all but demonstrate this instance of YOM meant a 24 hour long period of time.

You point weekends even more when we read the 10 commandments where it assocaties the six days with a 24 hour long time frame.

Even Hebrews 4:2-3 refers to 24 hour long days and not some unknown epoch.

Just for the record, I have read where chicken bones have fossilized in just a few years buried in the mud on a farm.

A few points here:

1. bkane's concept is not novel, he is in very good company. The idea of an old earth, but a disbelief in evolution as the explanation for all diversity, is held by Dr. Hugh Ross (a real doctorate in astrophysics, not from a diploma mill), a Creationist who found Reasons to Believe. I have linked to his site many times.

2. I have also provided a link to an analysis if the "evening and morning" which looks at the actual Hebrew words. This shows that the phrase "evening and morning" very often means something very different than a literal morning and evening. And, of course, in this particular text it could *not* mean a literal morning and evening, since it is first used before the sun and moon are created.

3. The fact that later Scriptures take the 6-1 theme of Creation and then apply it to different time frames does not require the original use to be the same time frame. It is also used to mandate farmers rotate their crop in the seventh YEAR. It is the 6-1 theme that was being presented by God as a model, not six 24-hour periods and one 24-hour period.

4. I am not dogmatic about evolution, I just believe it is how God created. I readily accept that other Christians can believe differently and when I discuss this issue with non-Christians, I point out that there are different beliefs on this and suggest the person look into it closely. That is not dogmatism.

5. YOu are right that the atheist position is at odds with Christianity. Any belief which states that God had nothing to do with creation is anathema, and I don't believe it.

6. God did not deceive us in His book, since He never told us he did NOT create through evolution.

7. bkane, the reason I say there are people in Hell today is because they lost their faith due to being presented with the doctrine of YEC'ism (if you don't believe in a young earth, you really don't believe the bible). They took this to heart and assumed that they must suspect everything in the Bible is false. I have seen it happen and it is a great tragedy.

Alessandro · Sep 16, 2003

Why do we complicate and deny what is already there.

Vance · Sep 16, 2003

Alessandro said:
Why do we complicate and deny what is already there.

You know, that is a good question: Why do YEC's deny the clear evidence for an old earth (setting aside evolution for the moment)? Why do the create complicated and convoluted "work-around" type theories for how things happened when it is set out very clearly in the evidence all around us?

Alessandro · Sep 16, 2003

You are obviously in denial my friend, God's word is clear, it provides all that is needed.

Vance · Sep 16, 2003

If it is crystal clear, then why are there hundreds if not thousands of different Christian groups who believe various Scriptures say different things?

Alessandro · Sep 16, 2003

Choices.

Vance · Sep 16, 2003

Exactly.

And the fact that so many groups make so many different choices is proof that the correct interpretation is not always crystal clear.

Alessandro · Sep 16, 2003

No, that is the exact opposite.

Vance · Sep 16, 2003

So, you really *are* saying that only you and those who interpret the Scripture the way you do are getting it right?!

Every other Christian on the planet is simply not as in touch with God as you and those who believe the same interpretation as you on all doctrinal issues?

Which group is that, by the way, since I would like to know who finally got the divine answer clearing up 2,000 years of doctrinal disputes on hundreds of issues.

This will make big news.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Vance: God creating through evolution would be just as much a miracle as if He did it all through special creation. It is as much a miracle whether He did it over billions of years or six 24-hour days or with a wave of His hand.

This concept fails when you realize that there are atheist who will claim that evolution is a completely random, by chance happening with absolutly no divine intervention. The atheist view is in complete contradiction to the biblical view presented in Genesis

Why does it fail simply because atheists refuse to acknowledge God and that evolution is God's way of creating? You mean you can't believe in God unless atheists agree??

When atheists claim " that evolution is a completely random, by chance happening with absolutly no divine intervention" , how do they know? What in evolution will tell them that? NOTHING! They are stating their belief, not evolution.

If God used evolution, then he deceived us by telling us otherwise in his book. So if God deceived us once by using evolution....was there really a resurrection or will some sort of scientific explaination be presented?

ArkGuy, I've dealt with your misconceptions about science and the resurrection. You never address them, but just keep repeating this as tho you still have a valid point. It's not.

The Jews of the time already have presented an alternative explanation: the disciples stole the body. So, was there really a resurrection or did the disciples steal the body? You don't have to go to science to find arguments against the resurrection.

The only deception about the Bible is yours that you have deluded yourself that the correct interpretation is a literal one. In fact, the deception goes even further in that you deceive yourself that there is only one creation story when there are clearly 2.

There are many who believe that the scientific evidence demonstrates a young earth. You can visit this site to see what I mean.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

There are two problems here:
1. Evidence for can be found for any theory, including young earth. That's why it is the evidence that falsifies a theory that really counts. And young earth has been falsified.
2. All the arguments here have been shown to be either a) bad data, b) invalid extrapolations or c) misrepresentation.

Scientists have taken the time to look at the arguments seriously and found answers to the issues raised. YECers have never been able to answer even the evidence that falsified a young earth by 1831, much less any of the data since.

Alessandro · Sep 16, 2003

Nice.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

bkane said:
All living Creatures do not evolve from other species...no Intermediatory fossil links do prove this....

Bkane, the intermediary fossil links are there. Below are just a few series of transitional individuals going from species to species and linking higher taxa.

Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.
Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/science/12FOSSIL.html?tntemail1
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm
Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.
Reptiles to mammals
1. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
Whale transition:
1. http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
2. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413277a0_fs.html
3. http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
4. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/struthers.html
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html
Transitional websites:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
9. Horse evolution: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
10. Transitional fossils: http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html
11. Human transitionals http://www.jestercourt.com/~capella/aguide/transfos.htm
12. Dino to bird transitionals http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
13. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/ transitionals for quite a few transitions, mostly evolution of tetrapods.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

bkane said:
God doesn't need to be bound by large gaps of time necessary to change species into other species...(of course He could if He wanted to do it that way...but I don't think He did). ... I think this position is quite appealing as far as the fossil records represent...no missing links found , yet old old fossils.

There are profound theological problems with this idea, also propounded by Phillip Johnson. You are proposing that species were created individually over the ages. Forget the transitional series that falsify your view. Look at the theology that falsifies your view.

"The first is to suggest that the record is genuine, but that new species, as they appear, are the products of "intelligent design."
This suggestion seems interesting until we consider what it implies about a "designer."

It would mean, for an example, that the designer created four or five species many millions of years ago, all somewhat similar. All of those species became extinct. He then created a few more species, each only slightly different from those that had preceded them. They went extinct, too, and then he repeated the process again and again and again until he finally designed the modern horse less than 2 million years ago. Curiously, two things characterize this "designer's" work. First lack of competence. More than 99% of the creatures he has designed have become extinct, and nearly all of them went to extinction in only a few million years. Second a determination to mimic what we now call "evolution." Every time the designer produces a new species to replace one of his failed creations, the new species looks like a slight-modified version of the one that had just died out. In other words, the designer was determined to create in a way that would imply descent with modification. Such a designer would be both deceptive and incompetent,"
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/kennethmiller.shtml

[/quote] The lack of cross or intermediatory species today would be testimony to this.[/quote]
What are you talking about? Ever hear of ring species? Ever read the literature on speciation, with the observed cases of it?

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

bkane said:
Genesis isn't a detailed account of time. No intelligent person can deny that. It's purpose is to tell Who created and Why...not so exact as to When and how. God created Ex-Nehilo (out of nothing) and sustains all that is...which pretty much nixes Theistic Evolution...which is only an attempt to marry Big Bang or some other Origin sludge theory, by adding an impersonal God at the beginning....

bkane, theistic evolution is the exact when and how God created! See the second quote in my signature. That God sustains all that is is a central part of theistic evolution; it doesn't nix it.

Deism is what adds an impersonal God at the beginning. Theistic evolution has an immament, personal God omnipresent in the process.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

Ark Guy said:
bkane...you need to explain that a bit more.

The whole concept of an old earth theistic point of view is to allow evolution.

The earth was decided to be old by 1800, before Darwin was even born. And the scientists who decided it were all Christians or deists and all were creationists. The last nail in the coffin of a young earth came in 1831 by Rev. Adam Sedgwick, President of the Royal Geological Society. Sedgwick was a creationist and outspoken critic of Darwin.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

Alessandro said:
No, that is the exact opposite.

Alessandro, you have very dedicated and devout Christians who take different interpretations of nearly every part of the Bible. That is why you have over 20,000 denominations of Christians. You get different interpretations of what was meant by "this is my body ... this is my blood". You get different interpretations of "son of God". The Jerusalem disciples and Paul differed on whether scripture and Jesus' preachings required converting Gentiles to Judaism before they could become Christians.

So, interpretation is not clear, and the evidence it is not clear is that you have so many Christians with so many interpretations of nearly everything, including Genesis 1-8.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

Vance said:
So, you really *are* saying that only you and those who interpret the Scripture the way you do are getting it right?!

Every other Christian on the planet is simply not as in touch with God as you and those who believe the same interpretation as you on all doctrinal issues?

Which group is that, by the way, since I would like to know who finally got the divine answer clearing up 2,000 years of doctrinal disputes on hundreds of issues.

This will make big news.

Nice! I wonder if Alessandro will answer.

Alessandro · Sep 16, 2003

No problem there. But there is still only one way.

Dinosaurs...and Noah's Ark....

Active Member

Ark Guy

Guest

Contributor

Alive In God

Contributor

Alive In God

Contributor

Alive In God

Contributor

Alive In God

Contributor

Legend

Alive In God

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Alive In God

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency