DINOSAURS! Noah's Flood & other awesome questions.

[Speedwell]

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.

Not really. It shows both, and it present us with evidence that flood geology is unable to account for. It is telling that the early geologists were Christians, many of them clergymen, who didn't much like what they were finding but were compelled to accept it because of the strength of the evidence. It is also telling that professional geologists--who have to find minerals to get paid--shun the young Earth models because they don't work. Even Christian geologists.

But that's not the point, which is that the old Earth came first, and evolution after.

 

[Speedwell]

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?

It isn't. And the Bible doctrines you favor--literal inerrancy, self-interpretation, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration are unknown in Christian history until the Reformation, and both Luther and Calvin spoke against plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

That's not what the geologists tell us.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

Dragons nearly always have wings. This rules them out from resembling dinosaurs. Nor do they at all resemble pterodactyls . . . lets face it, dragons are merely fabulous beasts. However, it is possible some dragons were invented by men who saw dinosaur fossil skeletons.

 

[ElxDalto]

Not really. It shows both, and it present us with evidence that flood geology is unable to account for. It is telling that the early geologists were Christians, many of them clergymen, who didn't much like what they were finding but were compelled to accept it because of the strength of the evidence. It is also telling that professional geologists--who have to find minerals to get paid--shun the young Earth models because they don't work. Even Christian geologists.

But that's not the point, which is that the old Earth came first, and evolution after.

Scripture says it, therefore it is. Rapid fossilization, trace fossils before the organism "supposedly existed". This seems to me that this evidence will most likely be thrown out because it doesn't fit the old Earth view.

can I ask you a personal question? Do you think you are lukewarm? Because I'm boiling, the Bible is upheld by scientific evidence and even astronomy, there really isn't a good reason not to believe in Scripture. Unless of course you can get around the old Earth view.

 

[ElxDalto]

That's not what the geologists tell us.

Most if not all have their old Earth views set in the stone.... Pun.. Intended.

 

[ElxDalto]

It isn't. And the Bible doctrines you favor--literal inerrancy, self-interpretation, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration are unknown in Christian history until the Reformation, and both Luther and Calvin spoke against plenary verbal inspiration.

Would you have an article or 2 about that? I'd enjoy the read.

 

[Speedwell]

Would you have an article or 2 about that? I'd enjoy the read.

Waste of time. You obviously don't trust any source but a Creationist propaganda mill. Not if you think scientifc evidence is "thrown out" that doesn't fit an old Earth. You won't believe a non-YEC source about Christian history, either.

 

[RickG]

Most if not all have their old Earth views set in the stone.... Pun.. Intended.

Then you can produce a source from the creation science literature where they describe a specific paper from the mainstream earth science literature and show where it is incorrect with data to back their claim up?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Most if not all have their old Earth views set in the stone.... Pun.. Intended.

Which is exactly where they should be finding their views.

 

[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.

Didn't James Hutton make complete guesses on the age of each strata? Guesses that are still being used today?

 

[Speedwell]

Didn't James Hutton make complete guesses on the age of each strata? Guesses that are still being used today?

No, that's just more Creationist propaganda.

 

[ElxDalto]

Then you can produce a source from the creation science literature where they describe a specific paper from the mainstream earth science literature and show where it is incorrect with data to back their claim up?

Answer two questions please. Why don't we see a level of strata forming today? And if it takes a millions of years for a level of strata to form, how can we know for sure thats how it happens?

 

[ElxDalto]

No, that's just more Creationist propaganda.

Then tell me how he came up with those educated guesses. What was his process?

 

[ElxDalto]

Waste of time. You obviously don't trust any source but a Creationist propaganda mill. Not if you think scientifc evidence is "thrown out" that doesn't fit an old Earth. You won't believe a non-YEC source about Christian history, either.

Not at all, do not presume what I will think. It may seem far fetched but I do use critical thinking with these types of subjects. It is why I think the way I do.

 

[Speedwell]

Not at all, do not presume what I will think. It may seem far fetched but I do use critical thinking with these types of subjects. It is why I think the way I do.

I wasn't commenting on your intellectual ability, but your sources of information.

 

[ElxDalto]

I wasn't commenting on your intellectual ability, but your sources of information.

Then please, inform me with what you know. I'm really interested. I may have my invalid sources according to you, so I think it would be only right for you to share what you think is better evidence in your eyes. I am asking.

 

[Speedwell]

Then please, inform me with what you know. I'm really interested. I may have my invalid sources according to you, so I think it would be only right for you to share what you think is better evidence in your eyes. I am asking.

So what do you think is happening? Do you suppose that the evolutionary biologists are putting out a plausible but false theory, fabricated to use as a cover for their real, secret but unworkable theory which only they and the Creationist ministries know about?

My recommendation is What Evolution Is by the late Ernst Mayr. Mayr was one of the leading evolutionary scientists of his day, and he wrote the book specifically to counter the blatant misinformation put out by the Creationist propaganda mills. Alas, it is a bit dated now, and does not address the egregious nonsense about Information Theory broadcast by the likes of John Safarti and Werner Gitt. Still, it's a good read.

Find out about it. You won't like the theory of evolution any better, but at least you would be arguing against the real thing, and that would be more interesting for all of us.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Answer two questions please. Why don't we see a level of strata forming today? And if it takes a millions of years for a level of strata to form, how can we know for sure thats how it happens?

Of course we see strata being formed today. Volcanic rock spewing out of volcanoes, making layers of new rock all around . . . dust & dirt settling down in places . . . .

And we can just look at the strata and see how it came to be, you know. It shows if it came out of a volcano or was blown in by the wind or settled from a flood.

Or if it was uplifted by plate tectonics.

 

[ElxDalto]

So what do you think is happening? Do you suppose that the evolutionary biologists are putting out a plausible but false theory, fabricated to use as a cover for their real, secret but unworkable theory which only they and the Creationist ministries know about?

I think simply that there is and has been a narrative that has evidence for but is not necessarily 100% proven. There is not a missing link for any animal or human in my opinion. We share DNA with all life, sure a majority of ape DNA is very darn close to human DNA, but we share 50% of DNA with a banana for crying out loud. We don't share a common ancestor with banana trees. The theory of evolution is a good theory, but thats all. It is not proven, what is proven is natural selection and the evolutionary changes within species determined on their diet and environment. I just do not appreciate the notion that it is true before it has been proven fact.

My recommendation is What Evolution Is by the late Ernst Mayr. Mayr was one of the leading evolutionary scientists of his day, and he wrote the book specifically to counter the blatant misinformation put out by the Creationist propaganda mills. Alas, it is a bit dated now, and does not address the egregious nonsense about Information Theory broadcast by the likes of John Safarti and Werner Gitt. Still, it's a good read.

Thank you I will look into it online, I do not like buying books and would rather read it on a screen for free. (I know Im a cheap person lol)