Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[SelfSim]

.. This also compliments the lack of evidence of in situ human and dinosaur remains in the same geological deposition layer.

Of interest, perhaps, is this thread about resequenced mammoth DNA and its revised theoretical longevity limits. (Its interesting how they managed to so this).

 

[sjastro]

Of interest, perhaps, is this thread about resequenced mammoth DNA and its revised theoretical longevity limits. (Its interesting how they managed to so this).

The Nature article I linked to is dated from 2012.
While the oldest authentic DNA has now been pushed back to 1.2 million years ago it is still well short of the theoretical limit.

 

[Job 33:6]

There's a lot of missing information that modern science hasn't been able to accurately figure out. They once said that the "Neanderthals" left Africa before modern humans, but they recently found through new data that modern African populations have Neanderthal DNA. Their explanation was that a migrant group from Europe returned and intermixed with modern Africans. The data is always updating, never conclusive.

I think that a lot of everyday Christians just aren't familiar with the large scope of evidence that exists for evolution and an ancient earth.

I've been trying to think of a good analogy for posts like this. It's like poking a full grown grizzly bear with a twig and thinking that the poke is doing something to the bear. Or it's like an ant moving a pebble, thinking that it is making progress, unaware that it has an entire mountain left remaining to move.

What you're describing is such a fine detail. And while interesting and worth looking into, it doesn't even remotely begin to draw into question the conclusions of an ancient earth or evolution. You're riding on a hot air balloon while these theories are in deep space at alpha centauri.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't believe dinosaurs ever entered the ark, but were destroyed by the Flood. I watched an insightful video that explained that most fossil records were primarily found in North and South America. However, there is an absence of such fossil records in Mesopotamia, suggesting that man never made contact with these creatures. The rest of the world at that time was largely unpopulated until the Tower of Babel, which transpired many generations after the Flood, also suggesting that in Noah's time there would have been no contact. They lived and died long before we ever knew it.

Who told you that most fossils were found in north and south America?

The only reason that more fossils might be found in north America or south america versus a place like the middle east or africa is due to political turmoil or just by the nature of having more scientists in the americas. Otherwise, this claim simply isn't true.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Truth - I didn't read the article.

I barely know what it's about.

How do others learn?

For example, given the article above, I would;
1) Experience a discomfort - like a rejection welling up within me before I've even heard what's being said.
2) Recognise that this is an opportunity to learn something new.
3) Listen to and understand what is being said (don't judge it yet - just understand it).
4) Think about it. Drop my quick judgement and see if they have a point - if so, why? If not, why? This might include gathering counter arguments and other explanations.
5) Try to explain what I think and why I think it.

In this case:
1) Immediately I think I'm about to read something written by a quack talking rubbish.
2) Hold my horses for a moment - this could be worthwhile.
3) Read the article and understand the claim.
4) Assess - does author have a point in the article that makes sense? Is author incorrect and if so...
5) Explain why (to myself usually).
If I can't explain it - I file it under "opinion" where I just "believe" it's (in)correct. I consider this a personal belief which is a) Not necessarily persuasive to others and, b) I might be wrong. Or, I just file it under "I don't know".

Does anyone else do this?

 

[Frank Robert]

No, creationists don't diminish science.

I agree, creationist do not diminish science but apologists at Answers in Genesis, The Institute for Creation and Discovery Institute try pretty darn hard to do so.

And you tie yourself in knots trying to tell us science knows things it can't know.

Be specific. What exactly have I claimed that science knows that it can not know?

I constantly get bashed for stating the obvious, science can't prove anything.

Who, specifically has claimed differently? I think everyone here agrees that scientific hypothesis and theories are not proof. I have stated at least 3 times that "science is not about proof, science is about evidence." Perhaps you thought a I meant something different.

You all act like it's fact based while saying it isn't. It's really pretty funny.

Do you know and understand what a scientific fact is?

A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means) Wikipedia...​

 

[MIDutch]

I think that a lot of everyday Christians just aren't familiar with the large scope of evidence that exists for evolution and an ancient earth.

If they are creationists my guess is that they don't want to be.

Over the years, I've been involved in creation vs. evolution threads on various "debate" boards where posters who were actual biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc., who had way more patience than I, tried very hard to explain the evidence available in support of evolution and the theory that explains it. Obviously, an intenet "debate" board is a horrible medium for presenting immense volumes of data, but to their immense credit, they tried.

All to no avail. The creationists simply would not look at it, acknowledge it, accept it. No matter how much evidence was presented the creationists would ignore it all and continue lying about it all, claiming it doesn't exist.

It gets to the point where you don't even attempt to convince the hard core creationists anymore. The place you finally get to is the need to present the evidence to the casual readers, lurkers, passers-by who may have stumbled onto the thread, hoping that one or two of them who may still be on the fence will discover that despite what the creationists say, there is a vast amount of evidence in support of evolution.

Creationism IS slowly dying off, but not because the hard core creationists are changing their minds. It's because their children are seeing through the lies.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree, creationist do not diminish science but apologists at Answers in Genesis, The Institute for Creation and Discovery Institute try pretty darn hard to do so.

Science made monkeys out of us.

 

[Frank Robert]

Job, Moses, David, Asaph, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, and Malachi all mention dragons.

Ken Ham has an awesome replication of Archaeopteryx at the Ark Encounter

 

[AV1611VET]

Ken Ham has an awesome replication of Archaeopteryx at the Ark Encounter

As opposed to this picture of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii:

Complete with: long hair, goofy expression, animals in the background, clouds in the sky, and flowing river?

 

[Frank Robert]

Science made monkeys out of us.

Some of the folk here try pretty darn hard to prove that, but in reality we are distantly related to monkeys, our closest ape relatives are chimps and bonobos.

 

[Frank Robert]

As opposed to this picture of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii:

Complete with: long hair, goofy expression, animals in the background, clouds in the sky, and flowing river?

I bet he looks pretty darn sexy to a female haroldcookii.

 

[Frank Robert]

There's a lot of missing information that modern science hasn't been able to accurately figure out. They once said that the "Neanderthals" left Africa before modern humans, but they recently found through new data that modern African populations have Neanderthal DNA. Their explanation was that a migrant group from Europe returned and intermixed with modern Africans. The data is always updating, never conclusive.

When science corrects itself ​

 

[MIDutch]

As opposed to this picture of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii:

Complete with: long hair, goofy expression, animals in the background, clouds in the sky, and flowing river?

Yes, a visit to the neighborhood barber should have been in order before the photograph was taken.

Oh, ... wait.

 

[coffee4u]

We already discussed the Isaiah verse. That does describe the Earth as being flat like or not. There is no justification in your statement that the Earth looks like a circle from the text.

No verse in Isaiah says the earth is flat. I am not even sure which verse you are referring to. Isaiah 40:22?
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
It says nothing in there about the earth being flat simply that it is round.
Looks circular to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some of the folk here try pretty darn hard to prove that,

Not really. It was all over the news.

 

[AV1611VET]

I bet he looks pretty darn sexy to a female haroldcookii.

Until the tooth comes out.

 

[Job 33:6]

If they are creationists my guess is that they don't want to be.

Over the years, I've been involved in creation vs. evolution threads on various "debate" boards where posters who were actual biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc., who had way more patience than I, tried very hard to explain the evidence available in support of evolution and the theory that explains it. Obviously, an intenet "debate" board is a horrible medium for presenting immense volumes of data, but to their immense credit, they tried.

All to no avail. The creationists simply would not look at it, acknowledge it, accept it. No matter how much evidence was presented the creationists would ignore it all and continue lying about it all, claiming it doesn't exist.

It gets to the point where you don't even attempt to convince the hard core creationists anymore. The place you finally get to is the need to present the evidence to the casual readers, lurkers, passers-by who may have stumbled onto the thread, hoping that one or two of them who may still be on the fence will discover that despite what the creationists say, there is a vast amount of evidence in support of evolution.

Creationism IS slowly dying off, but not because the hard core creationists are changing their minds. It's because their children are seeing through the lies.

Yea, I think we all are aware of the "characters" who roam forums that just sit in a position of indefinite denial.

I don't think internet forums accurately depict the larger picture of who makes up creationists today. The internet might be like 95% in denial (the usual characters), and 5% on the fence, but I'd say in the real world that's probably reversed where maybe 95% of creationists either don't know or potentially don't really even care about the origin of species, whereas a much smaller percentage actually are at odds with science . As odd as it sounds.

So I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt if they are new or if I don't recognize them.

But like you said, it can be difficult disseminating large amounts of information, particularly complex scientific information, over an internet forum.

The guy above is talking about DNA of hominid species out of Africa and it's like watching Christopher Columbus sail the ocean, knowing that he's just a spec in the ocean that likely isn't aware of just how vast the earth is around him. I find that many creationists, in real life, just aren't even remotely aware of what we know. Not that they should be unless they themselves are scientists. But to be fair, most people in society at large are not scientists, let alone Christians who might have some kind of stigma or reservations about science. So why should we expect Christians at large to understand? Im not a theologian, why should anyone expect me to be aware of theology? I'm not a farmer or a house builder? Why would I know how to build houses? And the same applies for science. If they aren't scientists, I don't think we should come out the gate expecting them to be aware.

And I remember many years ago when I first started studying science in college. Geology in particular. And I was once asked what the big bang theory stated. And I responded by saying "well, it's when a supernova exploded".

And that's the only thing that I can guage non-scientists to. Where was I before studying geology? That's probably where most of them are now or today. And that is a "dark" place. But they can't see that, only we can. Little did I know that after 15-20 years later of endless study in geology that my world view would be far far different than it was back then. I had no idea about the vastness of what I didn't know.

And the usual "characters", they create a facade. Like using a sharpie marker to paint muscles on a 10-year-old, to make it look as if the 10-year-old could beat mike tyson in a boxing match. But people truly familiar with boxing know that the match was long over before it even started.

I digress.

 

[renniks]

As opposed to this picture of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii:

Complete with: long hair, goofy expression, animals in the background, clouds in the sky, and flowing river?

That's pretty impressive when all you have to go on is a pig tooth! No imagination or assumptions involved at all there!

 

[renniks]

Some of the folk here try pretty darn hard to prove that, but in reality we are distantly related to monkeys, our closest ape relatives are chimps and bonobos.

Is that Joe Biden? And whose the guy on the right?