Evidence for a Young Earth & that Man lived with Dinosaurs

[pat34lee]

The same way you tell the difference - context, genre, form, other scripture, etc.

I had an answer written out, but just noticed how far we've strayed from the OP.
Sorry.
Suffice it to say I believe it all is history or prophecy.
All literal except where it uses literary devices to describe
real events, places and people. And angels.

 

[Papias]

I had an answer written out, but just noticed how far we've strayed from the OP.
Sorry.
Suffice it to say I believe it all is history or prophecy.
All literal except where it uses literary devices to describe
real events, places and people. And angels.

OK. There are plenty of literary devices (alliteration, name symbols, and widely recognized poetic elements, etc.) in Genesis. It describes the creation, emphasizing that God is the creator. In fact, we already agree there is symbolism in Genesis, right?

So do you think that the good samaritan is literal history, or is there a deeper meaning besides a day in the life of an actual Samaritan?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Dig4truth]

Symbolism in Genesis? Which scholar do you cite for that?
As I recall the experts claim that Genesis is literal history.

 

[Dig4truth]

If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.


Should Genesis be taken literally - creation.com

 

[Papias]

Symbolism in Genesis? Which scholar do you cite for that?

Just read Genesis.

So, when exactly (what verse) do you cite to say where a literal snake bit Jesus' heel? How about this - is this just a snake, or a symbol for Satan? Because it *never* literally says it's Satan. So unless you think this is just a talking snake, it's symbolism.

As I recall the experts claim that Genesis is literal history.

You recall wrong. Glover, Gordon J. (2007). Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation. And many more.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[JackRT]

Symbolism in Genesis? Which scholar do you cite for that?
As I recall the experts claim that Genesis is literal history.

I would say that the first four words (in English) are literal --- "In the beginning God ..." All the rest seems very symbolic to me.

 

[Dig4truth]

Just read Genesis.

So, when exactly (what verse) do you cite to say where a literal snake bit Jesus' heel? How about this - is this just a snake, or a symbol for Satan? Because it *never* literally says it's Satan. So unless you think this is just a talking snake, it's symbolism.

You recall wrong. Glover, Gordon J. (2007). Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation. And many more.

In Christ-
Papias

 

[Dig4truth]

Gordon Glover is pretty much an evolutionist. Need I say more?

Do you have any doubts that there was a literal snake in Genesis? Do you have any doubts that Yeshua was wounded on His heal? Where is the non-literal reading of Genesis? Please be specific.

Gordon's achievements are ;
Gordon J. Glover holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Ocean Engineering

No biblical or theological studies.

 

[Dig4truth]

I would say that the first four words (in English) are literal --- "In the beginning God ..." All the rest seems very symbolic to me.

Like "created the heaven and the earth"?

If that is symbolic who or what really did create the heaven and the earth, in your opinion?

 

[pat34lee]

OK. There are plenty of literary devices (alliteration, name symbols, and widely recognized poetic elements, etc.) in Genesis. It describes the creation, emphasizing that God is the creator. In fact, we already agree there is symbolism in Genesis, right?

So do you think that the good samaritan is literal history, or is there a deeper meaning besides a day in the life of an actual Samaritan?

In Christ-

Papias

In Genesis, as you showed, there is imagery. That is separate from
the historical event, though.

Since Jesus never named the Samaritan, I believe it was a parable.
But then, he taught mainly in parables, which was prophesied.
Psalms 78:2
Isaiah 6:9-10

The one that gets me is Lazarus and the rich man. I think the name
Lazarus was probably added later, instead of just using a poor man,
because of the miracle involving Lazarus. Most likely early Christians.

 

[Papias]

In Genesis, as you showed, there is imagery. That is separate from

It's not just "imagery". As I listed, Genesis shows (alliteration, name symbols, and widely recognized poetic elements, etc.), all of which are indicative of more than just historical text.

Others as well as myself have explained those in detail several times - but that's long and we are already off topic for the thread. The bottom line is the answer to your question already given - that we both use the presence of literary devices to decide that verses such as Ex 19:4 aren't meant literally, and that many of these same devices are present in the first chapters of Genesis.

Since Jesus never named the Samaritan, I believe it was a parable.

That's also true of many sections of the OT, including Genesis, which include people and don't give their names. By your own measure then, Gen 5:4 and other similar verses that don't name people show that Genesis is a parable.

But then, he taught mainly in parables, which was prophesied.
Psalms 78:2
Isaiah 6:9-10

And because Jesus is God, he's also ultimately the author of Genesis, so it's no surprise that Genesis is much deeper than just literal text.

The one that gets me is Lazarus and the rich man. I think the name
Lazarus was probably added later, instead of just using a poor man,
because of the miracle involving Lazarus. Most likely early Christians.

That's a good point. I think you are right.

In Christ -

Papias

 

[Zach Olson]

Dinosaurs rules the earth 100-200 million years ago, roughly. They were here long long before people, and went extinct roughly 65 million years ago, also long long before any person and before Noah.

How could dinosaurs have died off 65-75 million years ago when we have found preserved tissue in some dinosaur bones?

'Blood cells' found in dino fossils

There are a lot of missing clues when it comes to the origin and extinction of dinosaurs as well as the origin of man. The Bible is really about the creation of the line of Christ through Adam and the preservation of a lineage that would eventually lead to the salvation of mankind. I don't think we can turn to current limited science or purely the Bible to figure out these subjects. Genetics and Mitochondrial DNA are "revelations" of sort that will help us better understand our origins. I'm excited to see what flat earth type of beliefs we have today are proven wrong in the next decade.

 

[Job 33:6]

How could dinosaurs have died off 65-75 million years ago when we have found preserved tissue in some dinosaur bones?

'Blood cells' found in dino fossils

There are a lot of missing clues when it comes to the origin and extinction of dinosaurs as well as the origin of man. The Bible is really about the creation of the line of Christ through Adam and the preservation of a lineage that would eventually lead to the salvation of mankind. I don't think we can turn to current limited science or purely the Bible to figure out these subjects. Genetics and Mitochondrial DNA are "revelations" of sort that will help us better understand our origins. I'm excited to see what flat earth type of beliefs we have today are proven wrong in the next decade.

I don't recognize your name. If you're new, welcome to Christian Forums!

To respond:

There is no research suggesting that preserved tissue remnants cannot last millions of years.

Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last?

To reverse the question, if dinosaurs were just a few thousand years old, then all fossils ought to still contain dna, and we should be living in Jurassic Park. But of course every fossil we've ever found (which amounts to millions of bones) has long since been permineralized and has lost qualities of fresh bone material. With the exception of things like frozen mammoths and others of the like.

Also, in the article, there is consistent use of the word "remnants".

"Researchers have discovered what appear to be the remnants of red blood cells and connective tissue in 75 million-year-old dinosaur fossils."

"in another fossil fragment, they found fibrous features with a banded structure similar to that seen in modern-day collagen"

"The structures appear to be genuine remnants of soft tissue; they are not fossilised."

Etc.

They're taking an ancient bone and doing their best to characterize it's qualities, despite it's old age.

If fossils were really just a few thousand years old, such a discussion wouldn't even be occuring as we would have long since sequenced dinosaur DNA and identified dinosaur proteins and really we would have a much better understanding of their cladistic relationships with one another (just as we have with other more recently extinct animals such as whooly mammoths, sabertooth tigers, neanderthals and things of the like).

Even at a half life of 521 years, if a fossil were 4000 years old, the fossils DNA would still only have undergone 7 half lives. As a common rule of thumb, if there are less than 10 half lives of an element, the material is still quantifiable. And of course detection levels are lower than levels of quantitation.

All this aside, the research suggests that dna can last millions of years. But of course, no young earthers can accept such common sense.

Also, most laymen have trouble distinguishing dinosaur bone from rocks. Often they're exceptionally brittle as well, and can crumble in your hand like rotting wood. Whereas something like an egyption mummy from thousands of years ago sometimes still has things like dried skin and hair and is still largely articulated and complete. Which cannot be said for 99% of dinosaur finds.

So there is a pretty clear distinction between bones of the past 10,000 years, and dinosaur fossils or even fossils that are older than dinosaurs as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, realistically, there are countless means of recognizing the extraordinary age of dinosaurs through study of geology as well.

For example, the green River formation, for which there was a post made right here in these forums, has over 4 million varves. These varves further have foot tracks throughout.

View attachment 259039

The logical implication is that said formation is millions of years old (one varve per year as observed in current day environments). Alternative ideas from young earthers would have us believe that thousands of varves we're deposited per year for thousands of years (1000 per year for 4000 years), or that tens of thousands of varves we're deposited per day for a single year in a flood (11,000 per day for 365 days). Of course then one would have to wonder how life casually walked around in this environment with 11,000 repeating layers being deposited per day.

And of course, logically speaking, a flood just can't produce millions of repeating strata. Such an idea defies all known physics and simple reason.

And this is just one of many examples, but the point is that features of the earth indicate extraordinary age, and in this case, dinosaurs are superpositionally older, far older than even the above described green River formation. As this formation really only accounts for a small percentage of an overall much more lengthy geologic column. It is confined to the eocene, whereas dinosaurs span mesozoic strata containing even more features demonstrating the further expanse of time. I digress.

And though they may deny all this, saying that a flood could deposit such a formation, they fail to actually provide an explanation for how it could have occurred. And rather than providing an explanation, they just speak as if all scientists have no idea what we are talking about and suggest that we are making baseless assumptions.

 

[Job 33:6]

So in one hand, old earth science is challenged by the idea that remnants of tissue can last millions of years. And yet, it isn't really a challenge no more than it is a discovery of the extent In which material can be preserved, given ideal scenarios of preservation. It is something that is accepted and welcomed. It improves our understanding.

Whereas young earth ideas are riddled with many logical complications, such as the ones noted above. Things that aren't going to change, that simply have to be ignored or disregarded in order for them not to clash with young earth views.

Here is more fun reading, if interested:
Old Earth Geology

 

[-57]

I don't recognize your name. If you're new, welcome to Christian Forums!

To respond:

There is no research suggesting that preserved tissue remnants cannot last millions of years.

Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last?

To reverse the question, if dinosaurs were just a few thousand years old, then all fossils ought to still contain dna, and we should be living in Jurassic Park. But of course every fossil we've ever found (which amounts to millions of bones) has long since been permineralized and has lost qualities of fresh bone material. With the exception of things like frozen mammoths and others of the like.

Also, in the article, there is consistent use of the word "remnants".

"Researchers have discovered what appear to be the remnants of red blood cells and connective tissue in 75 million-year-old dinosaur fossils."

"in another fossil fragment, they found fibrous features with a banded structure similar to that seen in modern-day collagen"

"The structures appear to be genuine remnants of soft tissue; they are not fossilised."

Etc.

They're taking an ancient bone and doing their best to characterize it's qualities, despite it's old age.

If fossils were really just a few thousand years old, such a discussion wouldn't even be occuring as we would have long since sequenced dinosaur DNA and identified dinosaur proteins and really we would have a much better understanding of their cladistic relationships with one another.

Also, most laymen have trouble distinguishing dinosaur bone from rocks. Often they're exceptionally brittle as well, and can crumble in your hand like rotting wood. Whereas something like an egyption mummy from thousands of years ago sometimes still has things like dried skin and hair and is still largely articulated and complete. Which cannot be said for 99% of dinosaur finds.

So there is a pretty clear distinction between bones of the past 10,000 years, and dinosaur fossils or even fossils that are older than dinosaurs as well.

Do you know what the half life of DNA is said to be? And that's left alone without nature beating against it? I think 521 years is the answer. Yet , your argument is that we should have been able to sequence a dinosaur from that. Really? The biomaterial barely survives and in many cases doesn't.

 

[-57]

And of course, logically speaking, a flood just can't produce millions of repeating strata. Such an idea defies all known physics and simple reason.

You're assuming the effect of the flood, the increasing and decreasing flood waters occurred in the same fashion all over the globe. You're assuming all stages of the flood were the same.

 

[-57]

So in one hand, old earth science is challenged by the idea that remnants of tissue can last millions of years. And yet, it isn't really a challenge no more than it is a discovery of the extent In which material can be preserved, given ideal scenarios of preservation. It is something that is accepted and welcomed. It improves our understanding.

Whereas young earth ideas are riddled with many logical complications, such as the ones noted above. Things that aren't going to change, that simply have to be ignored or disregarded in order for them not to clash with young earth views.

Here is more fun reading, if interested:
Old Earth Geology

Biomaterial found in dinosaur fossils is just one of many....and you present a post suggesting it is the only objection? Sheeze, Should we bring up C14 found in coal that is supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old? How about helium in zircon crystals?
Not to mention the stresses evolutionism and Old Earth place on the Bible.

 

[FaithT]

Here’s an amazing video (8 min.) Showing how they found soft tissue in a T-Rex long bone. Yes, you read that right, soft tissue!
But how can this be? T-Rex’s are millions of years old right? Soft tissue can’t possibly last that long can it?

The last minute of her talk is mind blowing. But she stops short of acknowledging the actual implications of this discovery because a Young Earth just can’t be the reason for fresh tissue can it? The earth has to be millions of years old right? They say so, so it must be!

Didn’t scientists discover a reason for soft tissue in dinosaur bones? Like iron that preserved it or something else?

 

[JackRT]

The fossilization process involves the replacement over long periods of time of organic material by minerals. Scientists did not expect that the organic tissue in large thick bones would persist as long as it did. The discovering scientist took a cross section of bone that appeared to be completely fossilized and soaked it in a chemical solution to do some testing on it. She was astonished to find that what she thought was completely fossilized was not --- the bone marrow had softened slightly due to the chemical treatment. Thanks to further research the process is now much better understood. This is how science works.