DINOSAURS! Noah's Flood & other awesome questions.

[Commander]

Why is it distorted then?
Do you deny that many dating methods are unreliable and built on assumed premises?Why would i believe in naturalistic models full of gaps and ambiguous evidence?

See post #508.

 

[RickG]

Sandstone forms where sand is laid down and buried. It wasn't already sandstone.

Well, there is quite a bit more to it than that ElxDalto. Particle composition is a chief property used in its classification. Particle composition also significant in interpreting the provenance history of siliciclastic deposits. For example, Detrital constituents, those derived by mechanical-chemical disintegration of the parent rock, most of which are terrigenous siliciclastic particles that are generated through the process of weathering, explosive volcanism, and sediment transport from parent rocks located outside the depositional basin. Of course that's just a general overview, if you wish more detail just let me know, we can get into stratification, bedforms, lamina, and other particulars if you like.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Many people say dinosaurs were wiped by the flood but, I'm not so sure. While dinosaurs themselves were enormous and never would have fit onto the ark with all of the other animals Noah placed on there, Noah could have easily taken dinosaur eggs onto the ark. The average dinosaur egg wasn't very big back then.

It's strange though that people would call someone crazy to say that humans coexisted with the dinosaurs. I mean, there were dragons in the Bible and many of the "dragon" paintings people have found over the years bear a huge striking resemblance to dinosaurs. Now if they never saw a dinosaur or "dragon" in their lives how would they know what one looked like to paint one? Explain that one to me.

 

[RickG]

Many people say dinosaurs were wiped by the flood but, I'm not so sure. While dinosaurs themselves were enormous and never would have fit onto the ark with all of the other animals Noah placed on there, Noah could have easily taken dinosaur eggs onto the ark. The average dinosaur egg wasn't very big back then.

There were many small dinosaurs as well, not to mention an extremely different timeline. Also consider that all the geologic evidence contradicts a global flood.

It's strange though that people would call someone crazy to say that humans coexisted with the dinosaurs.

I wouldn't call them crazy, just ignorant of all the facts contrary to the idea.

 

[pat34lee]

God is neither forgetful nor did he ever regret his creation. The flood story is a human creation, no other culture on earth remembers being related to the Jews.

That's because the tribe of Israel didn't exist until many years later.
Abram, the patriarch, wasn't even born until about 350 years after the flood.

 

[ElxDalto]

Well, there is quite a bit more to it than that ElxDalto. Particle composition is a chief property used in its classification. Particle composition also significant in interpreting the provenance history of siliciclastic deposits. For example, Detrital constituents, those derived by mechanical-chemical disintegration of the parent rock, most of which are terrigenous siliciclastic particles that are generated through the process of weathering, explosive volcanism, and sediment transport from parent rocks located outside the depositional basin. Of course that's just a general overview, if you wish more detail just let me know, we can get into stratification, bedforms, lamina, and other particulars if you like.

Yes, that is one view from the old earth side of things. If you'd like for me to read some articles on the subject i'd more than happy to read those too.

 

[ElxDalto]

There were many small dinosaurs as well, not to mention an extremely different timeline. Also consider that all the geologic evidence contradicts a global flood.


I wouldn't call them crazy, just ignorant of all the facts contrary to the idea.

All evidence does not contradict the global flood. Calling someone ignorant because they believe one side of the 2 sided argument is ignorant in and of itself. There is evidence to support your claim, but there is evidence to support ours too. To say otherwise is presumptuous.

 

[ElxDalto]

Commander, do you wish to discuss science or just mouth off about something you know absolutely nothing about. I provided a diagram of the timeline of known genera of fossils that science actually has. It is not a make believe world, I am providing physical evidence to support what I am saying. Would you also like me to include citations from the scientific literature that you may review yourself? Just ask.

A general search in a scientific search engine provided 3,620 hits. Here's a few to get you started:

http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/bits...dfSource/nov/N2866.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...J_Mol_Evol/links/00b49520de924349d1000000.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ted_States/links/555bf82708aec5ac223290b4.pdf

Here's my issue with this. Where is the evidence showing (actual factual evidence not assumptions on what happened) of single celled organisms changing into complex life?

 

[Speedwell]

Here's my issue with this. Where is the evidence showing (actual factual evidence not assumptions on what happened) of single celled organisms changing into complex life?

Right now there isn't any. But what has that to do with the theory of evolution itself (which does not treat of the subject) the age of the Earth or the question of whether the terrestrial globe was completely covered with water in 2400 BC?

 

[ElxDalto]

I do believe in Jesus, I just don't believe in the self important stories written by the ancestors of those who rejected and killed Jesus.

Jesus believed the OT...

 

[ElxDalto]

Right now there isn't any. But what has that to do with the theory of evolution itself (which does not treat of the subject) the age of the Earth or the question of whether the terrestrial globe was completely covered with water in 2400 BC?

Umm... that was the subject of my question. It was evolution, the age of the Earth goes with that because evolution requires millions of years to pass for it to work. The global flood was not the subject of my question.

More importantly, you're right, there is none right now. How long are we going to keep looking at the evidence with an old Earth view? As of now all the evidence can support both sides. We know that life can evolve according to its environment. But all we have is evidence supporting that life can change from simple to complex. There are missing links all over the theory of evolution. Maybe the evidence is out there waiting to be discovered, maybe it's not out there at all.

 

[Speedwell]

Umm... that was the subject of my question. It was evolution, the age of the Earth goes with that because evolution requires millions of years to pass for it to work. The global flood was not the subject of my question.

More importantly, you're right, there is none right now. How long are we going to keep looking at the evidence with an old Earth view?

Well, no. The scientific theories about the age of the Earth have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. In fact, the 'biblical' age was pretty thoroughly refuted well before Darwin, and if the theory of evolution was overturned, the scientifically determined age of the Earth would still stand.

 

[ElxDalto]

So you believe in very fast evolution. An odd stance for someone who denies evolution.

I deny simple organisms changing over time into complex organisms. I believe in natural selection. Within the time of creation this is a very plausible theory.

 

[ElxDalto]

For the last time:
We all have the same evidence to work with, but there are different views on it.
You have condemned yourself to naturalism, people like me believe God can do great things.
So you assume the natural is all there is to explain itself (which is potentially a logical fallacy), whereas people like me believe in causes beyond the natural, in this case God of the Bible, who makes this claim and has a strong case and the explanatory power for our reality.
So indeed, we draw different conclusions.
This has little to do with backgrounds and understanding, but with the glasses through which the evidence is looked at.

Heck. Freaking. Yes.

 

[ElxDalto]

Well, no. The scientific theories about the age of the Earth have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. In fact, the 'biblical' age was pretty thoroughly refuted well before Darwin, and if the theory of evolution was overturned, the scientifically determined age of the Earth would still stand.

When exactly was the Biblical age refuted, and on what grounds?

 

[Speedwell]

When exactly was the Biblical age refuted, and on what grounds?

With the foundation of the modern science of geology by James Hutton, Charles Lyell and others in the early 19th century.

 

[ElxDalto]

Jesus didn't endorse all of the scripture as inerrant just because he extrapolated truths from it. Jesus quoting from a prophet doesn't make ridiculous claims true.

The why did the Lord say it? Why didn't the Lord let us know that some of the OT Scriptures were fallacy?

 

[Speedwell]

The why did the Lord say it? Why didn't the Lord let us know that some of the OT Scriptures were fallacy?

Because most of us don't see them as "fallacy" just because they are not the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[ElxDalto]

With the foundation of the modern science of geology by James Hutton, Charles Lyell and others in the early 19th century.

Oh so you mean they're opinions as the ground? The evidence given to us by God, swings both ways. The geologic column shows rapid catastrophic erosion mostly.

 

[ElxDalto]

Because most of us don't see them as "fallacy" just because they are not the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

Then why does the Bible make it sound like this is what happened? If it was not meant to be literal, why is it so literally written? Why is there even genealogies of certain individuals?