DINOSAURS! Noah's Flood & other awesome questions.

[Hieronymus]

That means that fundies like him believe that fossils in fact debunk evolution.

It's fundies like you that deny this (or don't know this).

 

[Hieronymus]

Exodus refers back to the six day narrative of Genesis 1. Yes.

It confirms it.
It is frequently confirmed throughout Scripture.
Now you could ask: Are those days God's days?
I don't know, i wasn't there, but "it was evening and it was morning" strongly suggests it just means what it says.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think it means that he thinks fossils TALK!

No it means that evolution is a belief without proof and weak evidence.
It's a bankrupt 19th century theosophically inspired conjecture.
But hey, they didn't know how complex living nature is, but we do now.

 

[JackRT]

Of all the scientific theories developed in the past 500 years, two of the most powerful and best evidence are the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Speedwell]

No it means that evolution is a belief without proof and weak evidence.
It's a bankrupt 19th century theosophically inspired conjecture.
But hey, they didn't know how complex living nature is, but we do now.

How would you know? You don't know anything at all, it appears, about the real theory of evolution.

 

[Vicomte13]

BTW, "red shift" does not represent a change in the speed of light. It occurs because the speed of light does not change, so the frequency of the light has to change instead--per Einstein's theory.

Now imagine what the sky would look like if the speed of light DID slow as a function of time. So, all the light you are looking at is coming at the same speed, but when it was emitted, it was moving at a higher speed.

It reminds me of something a famous astronomer once said at a party in response to a woman who has remarked at how foolish people had once been for believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth. He said "Yes, but I wonder what it would have looked like if it did."

 

[Colter]

This has always fascinated me, dinosaurs that is. Many christians have told me satan put those (fossils) there to confuse us. I disagree, I believe satan is only at fault for the doubt of the timeline and of the divine existence of the Lord in general. I also believe the Dino's walked among us and must've been one awesome sight to see.

The global flood, many skeptics say to me "Where did the waters go?" and "Why did God kill all humanity except Noah's family?" and "That can't be what caused all the millions of years of erosion and what created the strata layers." I myself believe there is scientific evidence that supports the global flood, but the scientific community doesn't even consider this evidence at all. Why is that I ask, isn't this a big hypocritical mess? Why is the Theory of Evolution assumed as fact (when its just not, it may have supporting evidence, but that doesn't make it fact) and taught in our school system polluting our youth into thinking in one direction?

Because we have the evidence of many layers of life forms laid down over many millions of years. Many fossils were preserved by many floods.

The flood story was a creation of the Hebrew priest.

 

[Speedwell]

Because we have the evidence of many layers of life forms laid down over many millions of years. Many fossils were preserved by many floods.

The flood story was a creation of the Hebrew priest.

The difficulty with that theory is that the Bible presents us with two versions of the flood account redacted together, which argues for a story which derives from oral tradition in various forms.

 

[JackRT]

The difficulty with that theory is that the Bible presents us with two versions of the flood account redacted together, which argues for a story which derives from oral tradition in various forms.

Excellent point!

In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. It seems that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. What we are reading are very human documents.

 

[Colter]

The difficulty with that theory is that the Bible presents us with two versions of the flood account redacted together, which argues for a story which derives from oral tradition in various forms.

Evolution isn't a theory, we have the bones, we have the geological records, we have radiometric dating techniques.

The speculative, fragmented oral traditions are very young and edited by the same kind of bias holy men who killed Jesus.'

 

[Colter]

Aside from the absurdity of the flood myth, one important thing to realize is that drowning the whole earth didn't work, it's still just as wicked as ever! The story was a human invention.

 

[Colter]

The fragments that we have in the bible work better with the idea that Adam and Eve "materialized" aka "incarnated" as full grown adults, the worlds new spiritual rulers, on a world that was already populated, a world that evolved from a preveous life implantation, a world that was already fallen, betrayed by its celestial administrator.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

@ElxDalto - Apparently, Satan as the "red dragon" was one of the fossils at one point or another.

 

[dqhall]

The Sumerians had a flood legend before the Bible was written. Atrahasis was a man who pleased God. He was warned to build a boat in advance of a flood. He built the boat. As the waters rose, he and his family put their livestock into the boat and were saved from the flood. There were periodic spring floods on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers before Turkey embarked on a plan to build numerous dams that reduced the flow of water downstream in Iraq. These annual inundations were recorded during the 19th century. As snow melted in the mountains as far as Mt. Ararat, the rivers swelled and entire regions downstream near the river deltas were flooded causing loss of livestock and loss of life. Today there are numerous dams along these rivers reducing the potential for catastrophic flooding.

There are supposed to be over 8 million species in the world. One article stated it would take 1000 years to catalog them all. Some are indigenous to small habitats such as isolated islands. You do not find kangaroos, giraffes, armadillos, sloths, rhinos, hippos, Galapagos tortoises or polar bears at the base of Mt. Ararat.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No it means that evolution is a belief without proof and weak evidence.
It's a bankrupt 19th century theosophically inspired conjecture.
But hey, they didn't know how complex living nature is, but we do now.

And yet you have a coccyx, for some strange reason.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Now imagine what the sky would look like if the speed of light DID slow as a function of time. So, all the light you are looking at is coming at the same speed, but when it was emitted, it was moving at a higher speed.

It reminds me of something a famous astronomer once said at a party in response to a woman who has remarked at how foolish people had once been for believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth. He said "Yes, but I wonder what it would have looked like if it did."

Simple observational evidence disproves such "once it was faster" light theories. Because if light were emitted at one speed and then viewed at a slower speed, later, objects viewed in motion would seem to have that motion slowed down. This includes the rotation speed of the distant galaxies. Their rotation would seem as if slowed by exactly the percentage of the slowing of the light. And no matter how distant, galaxies appear to be rotating in similar speeds. The concept of light slowing over time from the creation of the universe is disproved.

There are other time dependent observations, of course, such as the waxing and waning of variable stars.

 

[jeager016]

I don't care how mankind got here. Mankind IS here so get a life.
Arguing over the origin of the species at this point is like
driving down the highway looking only at the rear view mirror.
Soon you loose sight of what's happening in the here and now.
It's there here and now we need pay attention to.
Who really knows God's method of bringing human life to this
rock?
The Creation story is just that. A story written for the audience
of the time. The people of ancient times had NO concept of
science in any shape or form.
When things couldn't be explained then a "god" of some
sort caused it.
As for me, two science degrees and all, I CHOOSE to believe
in a God of my understanding and Jesus as my redeemer.
Think of how mankind tends to conceptualize everything
according to a current frame of reference.
Noah's ark for instance. Pictures of the Ark always show a
BOAT with a stern, bow, rudder, etc.
Why?
God said built it X cubits, by X cubits, by X cubits.
THAT is a rectangle.
The arc was only supposed to float. NOT sail off someplace.

 

[RickG]

Evolution isn't a theory, we have the bones, we have the geological records, we have radiometric dating techniques.

Yes evolution is a theory, a scientific theory.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

[RickG]

Do you realize that potassium argon dating (or any radioactive dating methods) are dependent on multiple assumptions, such as knowing the amount of radioactive material at the start,

The amount of radioactive material at the start is neither assumed, nor does it need to be known, as with the Isochron or ATTA methods.

it being a closed system (how can you guarantee that?),

Besides just naming two methods where that is completely irrelevant whether it was or wasn't, scientists in the fields of geochemistry and geochronology are quite capable of identifying whether or not it was closed or not. Its not guess work.

and that the rate of decay is constant?

Now talk about assumptions, that one is a real doozie. No, they are not assumed. To begin with it is straight forward physics. Things don't change on their own. Furthermore, not only are decay rates tested and retested ad nausium, decay rates have been measured originating in supernovae hundreds of thousands to millions of light years distant. That is light just now being observed here on earth originated that long ago. Those measured decay rates are the same as we measure on earth today.

Oh! And lets not overlook all the numerous non-radiometic dating methods as well, that when cross-referenced provide the same dates as radiometric. I think what needs to be asked is, "why are your sources deliberately misrepresenting the science"?

 

[Colter]

Yes evolution is a theory, a scientific theory.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Did you even read what you linked???


"It is both."

"Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."