How do YECs explain the dinosaurs?

[Job 33:6]

Hi again tiras,

Similarly, the OP has read certain evidences that dinosaurs wandered the earth 200 million years ago. However, my point is that there isn't any verifiable science that one can use to 'prove' that such a statement is true or not. It is generally accepted, but it has not been proven. It's still a working theory based on whether or not other working theories are true.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Everything we suggest as geologists, about the earth being old, is grounded in...really just simple logic.

For example, if dinosaur tracks are found in a location of mudstone, it tells us that at some point in time, time passed in which dinosaurs lived and walked a location of mud.

=====================

If we take those tracks and turn them on a vertical wall of rock. This tells us that time must have passed after the dinosaur walked through mud, in which the mud hardened and then was overturned by geologic mountain building processes.

///////////////////////////////////

If the rock that is turned on its side vertically, also has sandstone in a horizontal direction on top of it, this tells us that time must have passed after the dinosaur walked through mud, and after the mountains had risen, in which more deposition occurred.

=====================
/////////////////////////////////////

And if the younger sandstone rocks that were layed down horizontally, were then turned vertically, in which case the older mud layers were turned back to horizontal, this tells us that...

1. The dinosaur walked through mud
2. The mud hardened
3. The hardened mudstone was turned on its side by orogenesis
4. The sandstone was deposited on top
5. The sandstone hardened
6. The hardened sandstone and mudstone together were turned sideways again by orogenesis.

=======/////////////
=======/////////////



Simple logic tells us that these processes take time to occur. Continents move at the rate in which our fingernails grow. Rocks solidify under certain temperatures and pressures as well.

Granulite for example, is a rock that forms under high temperatures. So when we see these rocks in the environment, it tells us about nature of their origins.

This is why there is no such thing on earth as a phaneritic intrusive feature (if you dont understand, google it). Rocks form under particular conditions that are observable in todays world.

And so we can derive an old earth, really just by looking at the rocks and seeing the shape of them and what theyve gone through.

Hence this video

The location described in the video presents both compressional and extensional faulting side by side with hardened volcanic sils and dikes protruding at various depths.

These individual occurances are all things that take time. Time for strata to lithify, time for extension to occur, time for more deposition, time for volcanism, time for more cooling of magma, time for more deposition, time for compressional faulting, time for more deposition and volcanism, time for more cooling of magma and lithification, and so on... And time for dinosaurs and life to walk around and build nests and lay eggs and dig burrows and to do normal life things in each and every period of time. Throw in multiple layers of glacial till indicating multiple ice ages in the mesozoic and you have a good number of independently occuring events that each take time to unfold.

But lets say we smashed all of this down into say...what a 1 year long giant global flood? How could it all occur in a single year? How could it even occur in 100 or 1000? Logically, it just wouldnt make any sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is a prehistoric burrow of the cenozoic

We can find burrows and complex burrow networks

In every single geologic period and probably the vast majority of epochs as well.

And nests with eggs, and footprints. Animals were alive and living and doing things, normal things throughout the geologic record.

If continents were being flipped on their side by an apocolyptic global flood, not only does it not make sense for the rocks to exist themselves (as mentioned above in regards to rocks forming under specific temperatures and pressures), but life shouldnt give the appearance as though everything was fine and dandy.

 

[miamited]

Hi komatiite,

The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question.

Notice that in this definition it is allowed that one can make logical inferences. However, the logical inferences must then be tested. Unfortunately, the testing part of what happened billions, or even a few thousand, years ago to turn a rock on its head can be a bit difficult to discern. So, we have to assume that if we find a mudstone with dinosaur impressions that is turned on its side, that something happened to turn it on its side. Maybe, maybe not.

Further, you wrote that simple logic tells us that it takes time for continents to move. Understand that simple logic only tells us that 'if' the continents have always shifted at the same rate of speed as we see today. There isn't any proof that it has always been that way. We honestly have no idea what the physical consequences to the surface and underlying rock strata of the planet would really be like if the entire earth were flooded. We don't have the slightest inkling as to what was happening on the surface and underlying bedrock of the earth when all the fountains of the deep burst forth. So, it's really difficult to say, with any real assurance, that logic has always been the best way to form scientific truth.

Now I understand that many people believe all these findings and the assumed logical results that we might imagine would arise from such findings. I'm just not convinced in my spirit that we're right. As I've previously said, God lays out a pretty concise description of how and when He created all that there is and I'm inclined to go with His account because I know that He was there. Neither you or anyone alive today and in the last half century, as the scientific method began to be defined and accepted, was there.

I honestly don't expect to be in agreement with a lot of folks even here on a 'christian' board. As was written earlier, there appear to be some here who don't even agree that Adam was who God said he was. If we aren't in agreement with that, then we aren't in agreement with much of anything as regards the historical account of the creation.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Job 33:6]

"So, we have to assume that if we find a mudstone with dinosaur impressions that is turned on its side, that something happened to turn it on its side. Maybe, maybe not."

Well unless dinosaurs can walk upside down, yes, we know that mountain building processes turned rock on it's side.

 

[Job 33:6]

"We honestly have no idea what the physical consequences to the surface and underlying rock strata of the planet would really be like if the entire earth were flooded. We don't have the slightest inkling as to what was happening on the surface and underlying bedrock of the earth when all the fountains of the deep burst forth. "

We know enough about physical reality to state that if a continental such as Africa, were to float into South America at say...1 foot per hour, the amount of energy applied to any rock would utterly obliterate it.

Rocks melt under certain temperatures. So if a continental plate speeds up and runs into another continent under greater pressures, their melting point would lower and they would either turn to magma or they would explode into the atmosphere.

Unless of course we ignore physics and chemistry.

If we ignore everything we know about physical reality as it exists today, then yes I would agree that anything is possible, including a global flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi komatiite,

The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question.

Notice that in this definition it is allowed that one can make logical inferences. However, the logical inferences must then be tested. Unfortunately, the testing part of what happened billions, or even a few thousand, years ago to turn a rock on its head can be a bit difficult to discern. So, we have to assume that if we find a mudstone with dinosaur impressions that is turned on its side, that something happened to turn it on its side. Maybe, maybe not.

Further, you wrote that simple logic tells us that it takes time for continents to move. Understand that simple logic only tells us that 'if' the continents have always shifted at the same rate of speed as we see today. There isn't any proof that it has always been that way. We honestly have no idea what the physical consequences to the surface and underlying rock strata of the planet would really be like if the entire earth were flooded. We don't have the slightest inkling as to what was happening on the surface and underlying bedrock of the earth when all the fountains of the deep burst forth. So, it's really difficult to say, with any real assurance, that logic has always been the best way to form scientific truth.

Now I understand that many people believe all these findings and the assumed logical results that we might imagine would arise from such findings. I'm just not convinced in my spirit that we're right. As I've previously said, God lays out a pretty concise description of how and when He created all that there is and I'm inclined to go with His account because I know that He was there. Neither you or anyone alive today and in the last half century, as the scientific method began to be defined and accepted, was there.

I honestly don't expect to be in agreement with a lot of folks even here on a 'christian' board. As was written earlier, there appear to be some here who don't even agree that Adam was who God said he was. If we aren't in agreement with that, then we aren't in agreement with much of anything as regards the historical account of the creation.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

You remind me of a person I once met. She also lived her life with the idea that "well we just don't know anything about anything and logical conclusions such as the law of superposition, is something to be skeptical of".

I don't think I agree with such a world view. I think that utilizing logical deductions in geology has allowed us to uncover much about the world. For example, we have derived that multiple ice ages have occurred because there are multiple layers of glacial till.

It makes sense to conclude that multiple ice ages occured for this reason.

But what would it mean if we denied this conclusion? For what reason would independent layers of glacial till exist?

 

[Job 33:6]

"
I honestly don't expect to be in agreement with a lot of folks even here on a 'christian' board. "

That's ok. Nothing wrong with sharing ideas.

 

[miamited]

Hi komatiite,

Thanks for your reply. You posted:

You remind me of a person I once met. She also lived her life with the idea that "well we just don't know anything about anything and logical conclusions such as the law of superposition, is something to be skeptical of".

I wouldn't say that I'm in agreement with the 'we don't know anything about anything' crowd. There's a lot that we know. Where my skepticism comes in is when it's concerning things for which there is evidence that we may not be right about a conclusion because we don't have all the variables to test.

For example: It is claimed that the universe must be billions of years old because we can see the light of stars that are billions upon billions of miles away from us. However, I believe in a God who I know can work within His creation in ways that just seem absolutely impossible to us. Let's be real, who can understand or explain how a shadow cast by the sun can go backwards on a flight of steps? So, we are either of a mind that such an event really didn't happen and is just some teaching tool, which a lot of 'christians' do believe. Or, we can understand that the God that we love and serve and worship really does have the power to do that which is impossible for man. So, there is the possibility that when God created all the stars in the heavens, He miraculously caused all the light from those stars to be immediately visible upon the earth. After all, He said He made them that man might know times and seasons. If man weren't going to see them for several hundred years yet, referring to the closest stars, then the first generations would not have had those stars available to them to determine times and seasons.

We really don't have any way to test that possibility. All we can do, is say that we know that today, under natural and undisturbed circumstances, light travels at x speed and therefore our ability to see a particular light means that it must have been x number of years since that light was sent forth from its source. And I would absolutely agree that under normal and natural circumstances that would be the truth. But, what I know about the creation event is that it occurred under anything but normal and natural circumstances. The Creator of all that exists was there. His purpose was to build a home for man. He did so in a span of 6 days, according to His testimony, and everything from the very first day of the earth coming into existence until He testifies that He made the first man from the dust of the ground did not come about by normal and natural circumstances as we see around us today. I know that!!!! So, yes, I have a serious dose of skepticism when the science of man tries to tell me that what I'm reading in the Scriptures is doubtful, at best, to have happened as it claims.,, IF it occurred under normal and natural circumstances as we can measure today.

There wasn't any man that I know of that was there on the first day of the creation of all the stars that could have looked up into the heavens and given testimony that he didn't see anything out there for quite some time after God created all of the stars. All we have is what science tells us would be the truth 'if' the stars, and the light thereof, occurred under normal and natural circumstances. But, I know that none of it did!!!!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi komatiite,

Thanks for your reply. You posted:


I wouldn't say that I'm in agreement with the 'we don't know anything about anything' crowd. There's a lot that we know. Where my skepticism comes in is when it's concerning things for which there is evidence that we may not be right about a conclusion because we don't have all the variables to test.

For example: It is claimed that the universe must be billions of years old because we can see the light of stars that are billions upon billions of miles away from us. However, I believe in a God who I know can work within His creation in ways that just seem absolutely impossible to us. Let's be real, who can understand or explain how a shadow cast by the sun can go backwards on a flight of steps? So, we are either of a mind that such an event really didn't happen and is just some teaching tool, which a lot of 'christians' do believe. Or, we can understand that the God that we love and serve and worship really does have the power to do that which is impossible for man. So, there is the possibility that when God created all the stars in the heavens, He miraculously caused all the light from those stars to be immediately visible upon the earth. After all, He said He made them that man might know times and seasons. If man weren't going to see them for several hundred years yet, referring to the closest stars, then the first generations would not have had those stars available to them to determine times and seasons.

We really don't have any way to test that possibility. All we can do, is say that we know that today, under natural and undisturbed circumstances, light travels at x speed and therefore our ability to see a particular light means that it must have been x number of years since that light was sent forth from its source. And I would absolutely agree that under normal and natural circumstances that would be the truth. But, what I know about the creation event is that it occurred under anything but normal and natural circumstances. The Creator of all that exists was there. His purpose was to build a home for man. He did so in a span of 6 days, according to His testimony, and everything from the very first day of the earth coming into existence until He testifies that He made the first man from the dust of the ground did not come about by normal and natural circumstances as we see around us today. I know that!!!! So, yes, I have a serious dose of skepticism when the science of man tries to tell me that what I'm reading in the Scriptures is doubtful, at best, to have happened as it claims.,, IF it occurred under normal and natural circumstances as we can measure today.

There wasn't any man that I know of that was there on the first day of the creation of all the stars that could have looked up into the heavens and given testimony that he didn't see anything out there for quite some time after God created all of the stars. All we have is what science tells us would be the truth 'if' the stars, and the light thereof, occurred under normal and natural circumstances. But, I know that none of it did!!!!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

"Where my skepticism comes in is when it's concerning things for which there is evidence that we may not be right about a conclusion because we don't have all the variables to test."

I would say that this assumes, in the case of geology, that you are familiar enough with the science to cast judgement upon our conclusions. In which case, i am under the current assumption that you are not in such a position.

"We really don't have any way to test that possibility. "

The speed of light has actually been measured in space as it has moved from one object to another, in which case it has been measured to move at the speed at which we measure it here on earth as well.

Are you familiar with the study done on the speed of light as light moved from its source supernova (in deep space), through space, to debris around itself (also in deep space)? The speed of light in deep space moved just the same.
----------------------------------------------------------

Im a geologist, so most of my familiarity with deep time comes from the earth, in which case, i would say we are quite confident with our understanding that the earth is old, and have been for hundreds of years now.

And i think that, to suggest something such as..."God created things to look as if they are old" ie God created things like...dying stars for example, seems strange to me in opposition to believing that a star simply has existed for an extended period of time and is simply running out of fuel.

Same with on earth. It seems strange to suggest that the earth was created to simply look old, rather than it simply being truly old.

 

[Danielwright2311]

The scientific consensus is that the dinosaurs inhabited Earth over 200 million years ago. But there are creationists, particularly of the “Young Earth” variety, who believe our world is only 6,000 years old. How do young earth creationists explain the dinosaurs, then?

The devil is full of lies and the father of lies, first you have to belive they ever did exists, and I dont.

I belive larger animals did once co exist with us, but not the Hugh dinos that are protruded in movies and books.

Go to any museums and you will see all the big boned animals are fake bones and not real, they all claim the real bones are in the back some where but never show them.

 

[SeventyOne]

The scientific consensus is that the dinosaurs inhabited Earth over 200 million years ago. But there are creationists, particularly of the “Young Earth” variety, who believe our world is only 6,000 years old. How do young earth creationists explain the dinosaurs, then?

That the currently accepted time frame for their existence is completely inaccurate.

 

[NobleMouse]

The scientific consensus is that the dinosaurs inhabited Earth over 200 million years ago. But there are creationists, particularly of the “Young Earth” variety, who believe our world is only 6,000 years old. How do young earth creationists explain the dinosaurs, then?

The Bible states that God made the creatures of the sea and birds of the air on day 5 and the bests of the field on day 6. The Bible also indicates that God was sorry He made man and would destroy all flesh on the face of the earth.

Here's the definition of a 'scientific' theory:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Now if scientists believe dinosaurs inhabited the earth more than 200 million years ago, but cannot test this (let alone repeatably), cannot be verified, the scientific method cannot be applied, was not observed, etc... then is the scientific consensus really... "scientific"??

The real question should be: who's word should be the authority? Man's word or God's word. I think it's clear where I stand... though I will say I don't think an age of 6,000 years definitive--based upon what the Bible gives, an exact age cannot be determined. That said, the idea of millions or billions of years doesn't come from the Bible and if you hold to what the Bible says as being true then it definitely suggests a much younger creation than what scientists believe--just going off of the lineage from Adam to Christ, then add ~2,000 years.

 

[NobleMouse]

Similar question is: there are detail descriptions of dinosaur in the Book of Job. Should we ask how did Job know what to describe?

Good point. Sadly, the response you'll get is that God was showing Job a vision of a dinosaur instead of Job actually seeing a dinosaur. I don't believe that, but the scientists here can conjure up any twisting of scripture to continue supporting their view, even though in doing so it destroys the integrity of God's word.

Just remember, the Bible is God's word, it claims to be and God is true and so therefore His word is also true, and will stand when all else falls away. People believe what they want. Nobody here can imagine the idea that God isn't real but go to any atheist forum and they sing the same melodies as the naturalism-minded folks do here - they have an answer to support everything they believe in... but what they don't have to stand upon is the authority of God's word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The scientific consensus is that the dinosaurs inhabited Earth over 200 million years ago. But there are creationists, particularly of the “Young Earth” variety, who believe our world is only 6,000 years old. How do young earth creationists explain the dinosaurs, then?

What it comes down to is Observational Science vs. Historical Science.

The Bible is Observational Science. I can test to see that the Bible is true in the here and now and prove that it is divine in origin. Folks saying on what happened in the past is only at best a guess because they were not there (Unless they had a time machine). The Earth cannot be billions and or millions of years old because the genealogy of Jesus Christ to Adam is recorded in Luke 3. Then again, a person can say there are gaps in the genealogy (even though there is no gaps mentioned there). I just prefer to read and believe God's Word. I am not out to impress man. I am out to impress God. Evolution is the secular world's way of thinking to explain away God. They have just theories about what happened in the past and they do not have a time machine showing their trip to the past (Proving what they say). Basically, if you repeat a lie over and over enough, it becomes true to a person. If that is all a person has been fed their whole life, it must be true.

 

[The Barbarian]

Same with on earth. It seems strange to suggest that the earth was created to simply look old, rather than it simply being truly old.

I've always wondered how a Christian could believe that. It implies an appalling deviousness to God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've always wondered how a Christian could believe that. It implies an appalling deviousness to God.

I think this is just having a wrong mindset. There is no way for you to truly know that the Earth looks old. You can only guess as to the age of the Earth. Scientific instruments and tests are mere hypothesis because we cannot directly observe the events of the past. Observable Science of the past would be to have a time machine (And I do not believe that such a device could exist).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Basically folks have been told a lie long enough that they cannot accept anything else. It was told to them as a kid over and over and over and over, and so any idea contrary to what they are told is instantly rejected. The secular ungodly Scientists cannot be wrong. But why not just believe God's Word as your foundation? Why not just trust God's Word? I would say it is better to say we do not know the age of the Earth than to speak contrary to what is revealed in the Bible. For we have a genealogy of Christ to Adam in Luke 3. We have to basically say that such an account is not exactly true or accurate by the fact that there are gaps in the genealogy (When it does not say that).

 

[The Barbarian]

I think this is just having a wrong mindset. There is no way for you to truly know that the Earth looks old.

No, that's wrong. As you might realize now, evidence shows a very ancient Earth. The argument that we cannot know anything that was not directly witnessed, is absurd. That's just how it is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Basically folks have been told a lie long enough that they cannot accept anything else. It was told to them as a kid over and over and over and over, and so any idea contrary to what they are told is instantly rejected. The secular ungodly Scientists cannot be wrong. But why not just believe God's Word as your foundation? Why not just trust God's Word? I would say it is better to say we do not know the age of the Earth than to speak contrary to what is revealed in the Bible. For we have a genealogy of Christ to Adam in Luke 3.

We have two, contradictory genealogies for Christ in scripture, if you assume that they are literal genealogies.

We have to basically say that such an account is not exactly true or accurate by the fact that there...

...is a second and contradictory genealogy.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think this is just having a wrong mindset. There is no way for you to truly know that the Earth looks old. You can only guess as to the age of the Earth.

Either something looks ancient or it doesn't. And the earth looks extraordinarily old. And as an example, I'd simply share with you my example of an overturned angular unconformity.

In New York there is an unconformity in which superpositionally young layers are in a vertical position abutting superpositionally older layers in a horizontal position with an erosional surface of fault gouge between.

This formation being the result of two separate events of offset. First you have deposition and lithification of the older layer, then offset to vertical of the initial layer. Then you have an erosional surface atop The vertical layer, then deposition of the younger layer, then lithification of the younger (after associated trace fossils were formed by associated life) then more offset in which the younger moves vertically and the older abutting formation moves back to horizontal.

These types of formations display an incredible amount of time, for no such formation could feasibly form in a few hundred or even a few thousand years.