Dinosaurs

[Vanguard PCD]

We have been conditioned that man didn't live dinosaurs, but that is not true.

For every book that you can find with evidence that supports a young earth, there are just as many that refute it.

As I already stated...

If you feel more comfortable believing in a literal Genesis, by all means go for it. Just know that others will disagree with you. Belief in certain events/theories is an individual choice.

 

[Tamh]

For every book that you can find with evidence that supports a young earth, there are just as many that refute it.

As I already stated...

If you feel more comfortable believing in a literal Genesis, by all means go for it. Just know that others will disagree with you. Belief in certain events/theories is an individual choice.

The young Earth theory has a multiple problems, I agree with you. However, don't confuse that theory (which is what it is, a priest counting up ages and making a guess) with being the foundation of a literal Genesis. I take Genesis more or less literally, I believe it tells an account of our solar system being made rather than the universe, and have severe issues with a 6-7k old Earth.

Firstly, we have written records and calendar systems of cultures that date 8 to 10k years. That alone makes it unlikely.

 

[dragongunner]

The young Earth theory has a multiple problems, I agree with you. However, don't confuse that theory (which is what it is, a priest counting up ages and making a guess) with being the foundation of a literal Genesis. I take Genesis more or less literally, I believe it tells an account of our solar system being made rather than the universe, and have severe issues with a 6-7k old Earth.

Firstly, we have written records and calendar systems of cultures that date 8 to 10k years. That alone makes it unlikely.

The key word here is "dates"...and who and how did they date it. I would not put much faith in that. I've seen to many times something gets dated, then years later....ooops....its not that old.

 

[Frenchfrye]

I know as Christians most of us regard the bible as the inspired word of God. On this forum I've seen many opinions which is why I say most...but that's for another thread.

My question is, where do dinosaurs fit in biblical times?

My thought would be that:
I believe pre-flood Earth was very smart, and were using that smart to do wicked, I was always taught that dinosaurs were created by humans for work, Carnivores were military like monsters on the battle field the bigger herbivores could pull massive amounts of stuff around and when God brought the flood he did not allow for dinosaurs to be saved because they were an "unnatural" creation and used only for wicked deeds.

 

[dragongunner]

My thought would be that:
I believe pre-flood Earth was very smart, and were using that smart to do wicked, I was always taught that dinosaurs were created by humans for work, Carnivores were military like monsters on the battle field the bigger herbivores could pull massive amounts of stuff around and when God brought the flood he did not allow for dinosaurs to be saved because they were an "unnatural" creation and used only for wicked deeds.

I'm speechless.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Tried to post link but I need 50 posts to do so. Please youtube search kent hovind dinosaurs

Primi... carbon dating is not accurate to 50,000 years. They carbon date living things that give results of X amount of thousands of years old.... please explain that.. Don't unwillingly mislead people. Genesis is accurate, praise God. Keep searching for the truth, if you think the earth is over 50,000 years old you need to keep searching.

You might want to wiki Kent Hovind before referencing him again...

 

[Tamh]

The key word here is "dates"...and who and how did they date it. I would not put much faith in that. I've seen to many times something gets dated, then years later....ooops....its not that old.

Multiple times across an expanse of cultures? And it's not "dated" as in carbon dating but, as I mentioned, oral and written accords passed down as well. Unless you can find adequate evidence that Asian, Indian, Scandinavian accounts are "oops" ?

 

[Alithis]

Multiple times across an expanse of cultures? And it's not "dated" as in carbon dating but, as I mentioned, oral and written accords passed down as well. Unless you can find adequate evidence that Asian, Indian, Scandinavian accounts are "oops" ?

it would be of no surprise to find they are an oops .
science seems to be consistent only in disproving itself .

what dates going back 10000 years are you referring to ?

 

[Tamh]

it would be of no surprise to find they are an oops .
science seems to be consistent only in disproving itself .

what dates going back 10000 years are you referring to ?

All of them? Is this consistency in proving itself wrong evident in dating the Dead Sea Scrolls or the ruins of Babylon and Jericho? Honestly curious here. Should Christian archaeologists and paleontologists just give up in their fields?

In particular, for India it is the Vedic. Scandinavia, the Nordic Bronze age and Asia, China, just as examples. As surely as we can date the Hanging Gardens of Babylon or the pyramids of Egypt. Seems like the only difference is one has the Bible affirming that they even existed, and the other runs counter to an educated guess a brother did centuries ago.

As someone else mentioned, carbon dating is pretty accurate on the thousands of years scale.

 

[Alithis]

All of them? Is this consistency in proving itself wrong evident in dating the Dead Sea Scrolls or the ruins of Babylon and Jericho? Honestly curious here. Should Christian archaeologists and paleontologists just give up in their fields?

In particular, for India it is the Vedic. Scandinavia, the Nordic Bronze age and Asia, China, just as examples. As surely as we can date the Hanging Gardens of Babylon or the pyramids of Egypt. Seems like the only difference is one has the Bible affirming that they even existed, and the other runs counter to an educated guess a brother did centuries ago.

As someone else mentioned, carbon dating is pretty accurate on the thousands of years scale.

a "couple of thousand years" -and beyond that ..is educated conjecture subject to what "the scientist" wants you to believe based on his/her own preference of belief.
but-
the age of the scriptures is of no consequence to me .
for having read them and applied by faith what is therein i have received that which is promised and so testify of it as a matter of experiential knowledge not doctrinal theory .and the Holy Spirit bears witness to my Spirit that these things are so .
and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit Paul writes that the carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of the Spirit ,but rather it ,being flesh minded,wars against the truth of the Lord Jesus .
thus science is well and ok .. but what is presented in "the name of science" is about as honest as the unbelievers presenting it . ( the few true believers involved do little to abate this tide of carnal reasoning in fighting flesh with flesh .-though they are interesting to listen to at times and share some valid and interesting information)

since they( the scientists which preach their theories from the basis of "there is no God" are declared by the Spirit of God to be fools and twist everything to match their carnal thinking .We cannot ever put our trust in the ever changing and untrustworthy face of science or its presentation .. one would have to be a fool to do so.

 

[Tamh]

a "couple of thousand years" -and beyond that ..is educated conjecture subject to what "the scientist" wants you to believe based on his/her own preference of belief.
but-
the age of the scriptures is of no consequence to me .
for having read them and applied by faith what is therein i have received that which is promised and so testify of it as a matter of experiential knowledge not doctrinal theory .and the Holy Spirit bears witness to my Spirit that these things are so .
and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit Paul writes that the carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of the Spirit ,but rather it ,being flesh minded,wars against the truth of the Lord Jesus .
thus science is well and ok .. but what is presented in "the name of science" is about as honest as the unbelievers presenting it . ( the few true believers involved do little to abate this tide of carnal reasoning in fighting flesh with flesh .-though they are interesting to listen to at times and share some valid and interesting information)

since they( the scientists which preach their theories from the basis of "there is no God" are declared by the Spirit of God to be fools and twist everything to match their carnal thinking .We cannot ever put our trust in the ever changing and untrustworthy face of science or its presentation .. one would have to be a fool to do so.

Considering I specifically mentioned Christian scientists (they do exist), I am forced to conclude that you have entirely bought into your own anti-science conspiracy theory and have gone off on some weird, inexplicable tangent.

There is a thing called "burden of proof." Which is, if you present a counter claim for an existing position, for it to be taken seriously, you must have reasonable evidence supporting said claim. At this moment, you do not have any. So I cannot take you seriously.

You have built a house on sand. And telling me I should believe your claims of it being sound, just because, apparently.

I would recommend that before you start calling anyone a fool, that you present a referenced, concise and educated response.

This is a disturbing trend I am seeing on these forums being a newcomer. People on this Christian forum seem very quick and even eager to personally attack the character, belief or intelligence of other members. Simply for disagreeing.

I hope it is only because I haven't been here long, but it's a bit distressing.

 

[classicalhero]

The young Earth theory has a multiple problems, I agree with you. However, don't confuse that theory (which is what it is, a priest counting up ages and making a guess) with being the foundation of a literal Genesis. I take Genesis more or less literally, I believe it tells an account of our solar system being made rather than the universe, and have severe issues with a 6-7k old Earth.

Firstly, we have written records and calendar systems of cultures that date 8 to 10k years. That alone makes it unlikely.

So you are taking Man's word over God's word. The very first verse said that God created the heavens and the earth. That is the whole universe and Paul states that the whole creation is under bondage as a result of Adam's sin.

@PR, I wasn't talking about a young earth, but that man having contact with dinosaurs. There is plenty of evidence to back that up.

 

[dragongunner]

Considering I specifically mentioned Christian scientists (they do exist), I am forced to conclude that you have entirely bought into your own anti-science conspiracy theory and have gone off on some weird, inexplicable tangent.

There is a thing called "burden of proof." Which is, if you present a counter claim for an existing position, for it to be taken seriously, you must have reasonable evidence supporting said claim. At this moment, you do not have any. So I cannot take you seriously.

You have built a house on sand. And telling me I should believe your claims of it being sound, just because, apparently.

I would recommend that before you start calling anyone a fool, that you present a referenced, concise and educated response.

This is a disturbing trend I am seeing on these forums being a newcomer. People on this Christian forum seem very quick and even eager to personally attack the character, belief or intelligence of other members. Simply for disagreeing.

I hope it is only because I haven't been here long, but it's a bit distressing.

But sir, your existing position is not proof at all. All dating is pretty much on theory. You take the word of man and say thats proof....someone else takes the word of God and says thats proof. I don't think anyone is attacking you or me for disagreeing, but some take it too personal at times because really none of us like being wrong. God Bless

 

[Tamh]

So you are taking Man's word over God's word. The very first verse said that God created the heavens and the earth. That is the whole universe and Paul states that the whole creation is under bondage as a result of Adam's sin.

@PR, I wasn't talking about a young earth, but that man having contact with dinosaurs. There is plenty of evidence to back that up.

Um, what? I am explicitly referring to the fact that the 6 thousand years is an educated guess made by a monk several centuries after the Bible. How long was Adam in the Garden? I have much less of an issue with the oldest date given within the theory than with 6 thousand years commonly spouted by modern Christians, as that comes with problems.

But sir, your existing position is not proof at all. All dating is pretty much on theory. You take the word of man and say thats proof....someone else takes the word of God and says thats proof. I don't think anyone is attacking you or me for disagreeing, but some take it too personal at times because really none of us like being wrong. God Bless

How is it not proof at all? We are able to accurately date other things, things that are in the Bible and have been dated to that time. But because it conflicts with another man made theory, it's not accurate all of the sudden?

That's what I mean by proof. It has been proven correct by the Bible itself. Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, Babylon, Jericho. Accurately. I wasn't mentioning those things for my own health

There are only so many ways to take "you would be a fool to do so." None of them particularly positive, never mind neutral.

 

[Alithis]

Considering I specifically mentioned Christian scientists (they do exist), I am forced to conclude that you have entirely bought into your own anti-science conspiracy theory and have gone off on some weird, inexplicable tangent.

There is a thing called "burden of proof." Which is, if you present a counter claim for an existing position, for it to be taken seriously, you must have reasonable evidence supporting said claim. At this moment, you do not have any. So I cannot take you seriously.

You have built a house on sand. And telling me I should believe your claims of it being sound, just because, apparently.

I would recommend that before you start calling anyone a fool, that you present a referenced, concise and educated response.

This is a disturbing trend I am seeing on these forums being a newcomer. People on this Christian forum seem very quick and even eager to personally attack the character, belief or intelligence of other members. Simply for disagreeing.

I hope it is only because I haven't been here long, but it's a bit distressing.

sure ,seems that way is not intended that way .
but i am not having a scientific argument ..you misread me . my point is ..if one has a choice between having faith in science and having faith in GOD ..i advocate the latter -- strongly.

thus i state it is foolishness to put faith in science and wise to put faith in God . if you thought i was implying "you" are a fool then im sorry , you misread me .i did not intend that .So no need to be distressed .
if you are new here then you will find after a little while you become accustomed to different ways folks present their views and you learn to see past our imperfect idiosyncrasies and see the points folks are making from a more generalized stance .
again I am sorry if you thought i was calling you or any one directly .. a fool.

the only time i would do so directly is to agree with the psalms in the presence of a so called atheist .

 

[Tamh]

sure ,seems that way is not intended that way .
but i am not having a scientific argument ..you misread me . my point is ..if one has a choice between having faith in science and having faith in GOD ..i advocate the latter -- strongly.

thus i state it is foolishness to put faith in science and wise to put faith in God . if you thought i was implying "you" are a fool then im sorry , you misread me .i did not intend that .So no need to be distressed .
if you are new here then you will find after a little while you become accustomed to different ways folks present their views and you learn to see past our imperfect idiosyncrasies and see the points folks are making from a more generalized stance .
again I am sorry if you thought i was calling you or any one directly .. a fool.

the only time i would do so directly is to agree with the psalms in the presence of a so called atheist .

And it's not a scientific argument. It's any argument. There is nothing to argue if your stance is "because I said so." And you can't even tell me "because God said so" as the actual age of the Earth isn't in the Bible. We have a genealogy of dubious direct line (ancestors or literal fathers?) and the skipping of multiple generations (we don't know how many). We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in Eden. Our dating system is based on a guess, just plunked a date down, called it "The Year of Our Lord" and thought it was good when in reality, we have no idea.

Science can give us a good guess, based on our dating of records of the reign of King Herod. But you would tell me that science is probably wrong regardless, right?

If I was advocating a complete faith in everything said in the name of science, I would be on board with the millions - billions of years, wouldn't I? I know what is good substantiated science and what isn't. Even before I considered myself Christian, I was disgusted with bad science.

So you are saying because members don't watch their words or care enough about the impact of them, I should just accept it as a quirk of theirs? Interesting view. I can see your general point, its just that you are equating Biblical truth with a Man. Made Theory. And telling me to have faith in one over the other.

It's not a Biblical truth. If you want to argue it is, I need something to back up your claims.

 

[Alithis]

And it's not a scientific argument. It's any argument. There is nothing to argue if your stance is "because I said so." And you can't even tell me "because God said so" as the actual age of the Earth isn't in the Bible. We have a genealogy of dubious direct line (ancestors or literal fathers?) and the skipping of multiple generations (we don't know how many). We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in Eden. Our dating system is based on a guess, just plunked a date down, called it "The Year of Our Lord" and thought it was good when in reality, we have no idea.

Science can give us a good guess, based on our dating of records of the reign of King Herod. But you would tell me that science is probably wrong regardless, right?

If I was advocating a complete faith in everything said in the name of science, I would be on board with the millions - billions of years, wouldn't I? I know what is good substantiated science and what isn't. Even before I considered myself Christian, I was disgusted with bad science.

So you are saying because members don't watch their words or care enough about the impact of them, I should just accept it as a quirk of theirs? Interesting view. I can see your general point, its just that you are equating Biblical truth with a Man. Made Theory. And telling me to have faith in one over the other.

It's not a Biblical truth. If you want to argue it is, I need something to back up your claims.

what part of ..put your faith in GOD ..is not biblical truth ?and the age of Adam is given .. by GOD to the one who penned Genesis .
so all thing to do with man(adam) until today are measurable by date .beyond that .. i could not care less ,as neither one of many theories (carnal minded at that) will make a bean of difference to my salvation nor the need of salvation by all ,as offered in the good news (gospel ) of JESUS

 

[Tamh]

what part of ..put your faith in GOD ..is not biblical truth ?and the age of Adam is given .. by GOD to the one who penned Genesis .
so all thing to do with man(adam) until today are measurable by date .beyond that .. i could not care less ,as neither one of many theories (carnal minded at that) will make a bean of difference to my salvation nor the need of salvation by all ,as offered in the good news (gospel ) of JESUS

So, what exactly were you arguing for or about then? You have lost me entirely.

 

[Alithis]

So, what exactly were you arguing for or about then? You have lost me entirely.

lol im not arguing ..im saying ..,advocating .. you cant put any faith in science .
put your faith in God
science is only based on the little unverifiable knowledge of men .
God knows all things from eternity to eternity .. he is trust worthy

 

[trentlogain2]

Kent Hovind's seminar on dinosaurs should answer all your questions, he also covers the Garden of Eden, the flood, Noahs ark, fallen angels.... all from a scientific viewpoint. The main point is science works with the bible not against it. Will post links when I get home.

kent hovind is a name i haven't heard in a long time. i wonder if he is still incarcerated.