How do YECs explain the dinosaurs?

[miamited]

"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.

Hi komatiite,

Sorry to be so long in replying to your response to me. I think you missed the point. I wholeheartedly agree with all that you've written. Everything that we can test today and that we see operating in the creation today can be measured and dissected and studied and some conclusions can be drawn when the operational forces of the creation are working in their normal and regular conditions.

Now, let me ask you to explain some things to me. The Nile River; have you ever seen pictures of it? Have you perhaps maybe even stood by its waters? It enters Egypt near Abu Simbel and flows north through the great city Cairo to the Mediterranean Sea and discharges near Rasheed, Egypt. It is a great River in size and value to Egypt. It provides the greatest amount of water to the arid land of Egypt. It's discharge flow is app. 680,000 gallons/second.

The Scriptures record that there was a brief time that the entire river, as it flowed through the great city of Pharaoh, flowed with blood. We're likely not talking here that someone spilled a gallon of blood in the great river. The river flowed with blood and when the people attempted to find water from digging holes in the ground, all they found was also blood. Do you believe that happened? In real life and real time that during a certain time in Egypt all anyone could find in the river and in the ground was blood?

If you don't, then you believe that it is the account of some fable or myth recorded and copied for some several hundred years after the event that didn't happen to make some sort of spiritual point or to be applied as some sort of spiritual truth. If you do, then I'd like you to offer up some explanation as to how it happened, but the single rule of offering up your explanation is that it can't include the work of an all powerful God.

You see, this is what science is trying to convince us of. That the operational forces of nature have only and always been all that has caused things to happen. Therefore, because we know that the normal operational forces of nature allow light to only move at 'x' speed, then all the stars and the universe must be 'x' number of years old. However, my position is that the basic premise which says that the operational forces of nature have only and always been all that has caused things to happen, is flawed and basically totally incorrect. My position, because I believe that there was a brief time that the Nile River flowed with real blood, is that the same God who caused the great and expansive Nile River to flow with blood and all the holes dug in the area only produced real blood, is that He can also create a myriad of stars in the universe and cause the light of each and everyone to be visible to the human eye upon the earth the very instant that He created them all.

I can't explain it and I certainly find it near impossible to understand as to the mechanics of how the Nile River flowed with blood and how the stars in the heavens might have been immediately visible upon the earth even though they were billions and billions of light years distant, but I do believe it! I believe that one single night in Egypt every household awoke with thousands of dead people and when checking the deceased's family record, that they were the firstborn of that family. That there were also hundreds of homes where blood had been swept upon the doorposts and lentils and not a single person was found dead in those homes.

I believe that there was a day that a man named Isaiah was speaking to the King of Israel, Hezekiah. I believe that on that day there was a discussion between the two men that got around to God proving Himself to the King. I believe that Isaiah looked at the King and asked him what he would accept as proof of God's promise and Hezekiah, when given the choice of a shadow moving forward or backwards, asked that it go backwards. He full well knew that going forward wouldn't be any particular trick because the shadow was going to go forward anyway. It was just a matter of waiting for that to happen. However, Hezekiah, in his wisdom and knowledge of the operation of the sun and shadows cast by the sun, knew that a shadow going backwards would be an impossible feat. So that is what he asked of God. Do the impossible!!! I believe that God did!

Just as science cannot possibly explain any of these other events in which God's hand was at work in His created realm, neither can science answer any question regarding the 'how' of the creation event. They can only look at how things operate in the natural world today under nothing more than the natural forces that do usually control such operations and say that the account in the Scriptures isn't true. The real answer is...

They prove it to us by showing us how they have determined the speed of light or the age of trees or core samples of ice and earth. They impress us by saying, "Look, the natural processes of the earth would mean thus..." Never once giving any weight to the possibility that there could be something or someone who can work outside of what we know that the natural processes of the creation are. There could be a being that can make the sun go backwards and still sustain the life of every single person upon the earth and most not even aware that something miraculous has just happened. There could be a being who can send an angel of death into a singular city of the entire earth causing the death of thousands in a particularly miraculous way, while the rest of the entire globe lives on without a clue. There could be a God, who can make a broad river run red with real blood cells in a particular area of that river, while the other 4,000 or so miles runs just as muddy or clear in front of all the cities and tribes also along that very same river. Only in one reasonably small length of the River Nile do we know that the river ran red with blood. Do you suppose that it also dumped into the Mediterranean these hundreds of thousands of gallons of blood? Or, for those standing at the mouth of the river on that day, did they see anything different?

So please understand, I'm not doubting what science is proving to us in the here and now. I'm doubting its ability to confirm for us that such is the way things have always and forever been. Especially at the time of these particular events coming to pass. Because I believe, I in fact know, that when God's hand is at work, there really is no explaining or understanding in man as to how He does the things that He does.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[NobleMouse]

My point is twofold:
1. The Bible was not given word for word in the same form you have in your Bible today.
2. Your way of thinking (a global planetary perspective with continents and oceans) does not correspond with ancient way of thinking.

---
And another minor point - not everything Moses said was dictated by God. And not everything what is in "Books of Moses" is written by Moses.

Ah okay, so the 0.01% was conjecture after all.

Also, the Hebrew language used then (3000 years ago) is still available and expert Hebraists don't see the message of the original text as being different than was commonly used for narrative (separate and distinct from poetry/allegory). You're just going in circles now because we've been down this path before. None of the evidence is stacking in favor of your view - whether we look at what scripture actually says, to how Hebraists and Lexicographers view the text, to what observational science actually observes, etc..

Also, Exodus 34:27, "And the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words..."", so while you speculate it was not dictated by God to Moses, unfortunately it sounds very much like God DID tell Moses what to write. Go read it instead of making up what you think happened.

Sorry, your attempts to dismantle the integrity of scripture still doesn't fly. Who is it you think you're glorifying by trying to twist, manipulate, and redefine what God's word clearly says? I can tell you who you're not.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi komatiite,

Sorry to be so long in replying to your response to me. I think you missed the point. I wholeheartedly agree with all that you've written. Everything that we can test today and that we see operating in the creation today can be measured and dissected and studied and some conclusions can be drawn when the operational forces of the creation are working in their normal and regular conditions.

Now, let me ask you to explain some things to me. The Nile River; have you ever seen pictures of it? Have you perhaps maybe even stood by its waters? It enters Egypt near Abu Simbel and flows north through the great city Cairo to the Mediterranean Sea and discharges near Rasheed, Egypt. It is a great River in size and value to Egypt. It provides the greatest amount of water to the arid land of Egypt. It's discharge flow is app. 680,000 gallons/second.

The Scriptures record that there was a brief time that the entire river, as it flowed through the great city of Pharaoh, flowed with blood. We're likely not talking here that someone spilled a gallon of blood in the great river. The river flowed with blood and when the people attempted to find water from digging holes in the ground, all they found was also blood. Do you believe that happened? In real life and real time that during a certain time in Egypt all anyone could find in the river and in the ground was blood?

If you don't, then you believe that it is the account of some fable or myth recorded and copied for some several hundred years after the event that didn't happen to make some sort of spiritual point or to be applied as some sort of spiritual truth. If you do, then I'd like you to offer up some explanation as to how it happened, but the single rule of offering up your explanation is that it can't include the work of an all powerful God.

You see, this is what science is trying to convince us of. That the operational forces of nature have only and always been all that has caused things to happen. Therefore, because we know that the normal operational forces of nature allow light to only move at 'x' speed, then all the stars and the universe must be 'x' number of years old. However, my position is that the basic premise which says that the operational forces of nature have only and always been all that has caused things to happen, is flawed and basically totally incorrect. My position, because I believe that there was a brief time that the Nile River flowed with real blood, is that the same God who caused the great and expansive Nile River to flow with blood and all the holes dug in the area only produced real blood, is that He can also create a myriad of stars in the universe and cause the light of each and everyone to be visible to the human eye upon the earth the very instant that He created them all.

I can't explain it and I certainly find it near impossible to understand as to the mechanics of how the Nile River flowed with blood and how the stars in the heavens might have been immediately visible upon the earth even though they were billions and billions of light years distant, but I do believe it! I believe that one single night in Egypt every household awoke with thousands of dead people and when checking the deceased's family record, that they were the firstborn of that family. That there were also hundreds of homes where blood had been swept upon the doorposts and lentils and not a single person was found dead in those homes.

I believe that there was a day that a man named Isaiah was speaking to the King of Israel, Hezekiah. I believe that on that day there was a discussion between the two men that got around to God proving Himself to the King. I believe that Isaiah looked at the King and asked him what he would accept as proof of God's promise and Hezekiah, when given the choice of a shadow moving forward or backwards, asked that it go backwards. He full well knew that going forward wouldn't be any particular trick because the shadow was going to go forward anyway. It was just a matter of waiting for that to happen. However, Hezekiah, in his wisdom and knowledge of the operation of the sun and shadows cast by the sun, knew that a shadow going backwards would be an impossible feat. So that is what he asked of God. Do the impossible!!! I believe that God did!

Just as science cannot possibly explain any of these other events in which God's hand was at work in His created realm, neither can science answer any question regarding the 'how' of the creation event. They can only look at how things operate in the natural world today under nothing more than the natural forces that do usually control such operations and say that the account in the Scriptures isn't true. The real answer is...

They prove it to us by showing us how they have determined the speed of light or the age of trees or core samples of ice and earth. They impress us by saying, "Look, the natural processes of the earth would mean thus..." Never once giving any weight to the possibility that there could be something or someone who can work outside of what we know that the natural processes of the creation are. There could be a being that can make the sun go backwards and still sustain the life of every single person upon the earth and most not even aware that something miraculous has just happened. There could be a being who can send an angel of death into a singular city of the entire earth causing the death of thousands in a particularly miraculous way, while the rest of the entire globe lives on without a clue. There could be a God, who can make a broad river run red with real blood cells in a particular area of that river, while the other 4,000 or so miles runs just as muddy or clear in front of all the cities and tribes also along that very same river. Only in one reasonably small length of the River Nile do we know that the river ran red with blood. Do you suppose that it also dumped into the Mediterranean these hundreds of thousands of gallons of blood? Or, for those standing at the mouth of the river on that day, did they see anything different?

So please understand, I'm not doubting what science is proving to us in the here and now. I'm doubting its ability to confirm for us that such is the way things have always and forever been. Especially at the time of these particular events coming to pass. Because I believe, I in fact know, that when God's hand is at work, there really is no explaining or understanding in man as to how He does the things that He does.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

"The Scriptures record that there was a brief time that the entire river, as it flowed through the great city of Pharaoh, flowed with blood. We're likely not talking here that someone spilled a gallon of blood in the great river. The river flowed with blood and when the people attempted to find water from digging holes in the ground, all they found was also blood. Do you believe that happened? In real life and real time that during a certain time in Egypt all anyone could find in the river and in the ground was blood?

If you don't, then you believe that it is the account of some fable or myth recorded and copied for some several hundred years after the event that didn't happen to make some sort of spiritual point or to be applied as some sort of spiritual truth.".

I would fall into the camp that works with the idea that "it is the account of some fable or myth recorded and copied for some several hundred years after the event that didn't happen to make some sort of spiritual point or to be applied as some sort of spiritual truth.".

And with this^, there is no need for me to ponder possible explanations for it's literal occurance as it's literal occurance doesn't appear to have occurred at all.

But therein resides the challenge in Christianity today. You have some Christian's who will believe what scripture appears to say, such as a river running red with blood to the extent that even the underlying aquifer has also been filled with blood.

And these beliefs are not substantiated by anything in physical reality. For example, we don't find blood stained soil from the event.

So the question comes down to...what someone is willing to believe without any form of observed reality in support of such ideas. And where we draw the line of what we are willing to believe, even in circumstances where physical reality appears to demonstrate otherwise.

And beyond that, it's not only what we are willing to believe without physical realities conformance to our views, but it also comes down to what we are willing to believe, even in situations where reality appears to depict the opposite of our ideas.


Why would God create stars, but then rather than letting light travel from those stars, to us, God would create light that depicts that star, without the light ever having actually been emitted from the star?

It's like a reflection in the mirror. Rather than letting light from my body, bounce off of the mirror and move back into my eye, why would God create a reflection of my body in mid air, without the light ever actually having interacted with my body in the first place? How could it be that my reflection isn't actually a reflection at all?

The same question can be posed for the stars. Light comes from the stars, so to suggest that God instantly created light from those stars, already shining on earth, is to suggest that the light particles we see, never actually interacted with the stars from which they came. They were simply created, instantly, in contact with us.

----------------------------
Aside from physical reality suggesting that the speed of light is the same in space as it is here on earth, I don't think these ideas of instantaneous creation make any sense.

Not only are they evidentially false, but they defy logic.

There's another young earther who suggested that rock layers in the earth all formed instantaneously. But if rock layer A has footprints spanning it, then obviously time passed before it hardened and before it was buried by other layers (rock layers B and C) with their respective footprints.

To suggest that things instantly were created as they are, is not supported by physical reality, just as the river of blood is not, but also, these concepts defy logic, as one has to ignore the idea that foot tracks take time to develop.

And it returns us to the question of why God would make the world in a way in which it appears as though time has passed, even though time has not passed. Or why did God fill a river and it's underlying aquifer with blood, but simultaneously not leave any physically real evidence, for this events occurance? As if it never occurred at all.

 

[trophy33]

Ah okay, so the 0.01% was conjecture after all.

Also, the Hebrew language used then (3000 years ago) is still available and expert Hebraists don't see the message of the original text as being different than was commonly used for narrative (separate and distinct from poetry/allegory). You're just going in circles now because we've been down this path before. None of the evidence is stacking in favor of your view - whether we look at what scripture actually says, to how Hebraists and Lexicographers view the text, to what observational science actually observes, etc..

Also, Exodus 34:27, "And the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words..."", so while you speculate it was not dictated by God to Moses, unfortunately it sounds very much like God DID tell Moses what to write. Go read it instead of making up what you think happened.

Sorry, your attempts to dismantle the integrity of scripture still doesn't fly. Who is it you think you're glorifying by trying to twist, manipulate, and redefine what God's word clearly says? I can tell you who you're not.

Oh mine, 0.01 was obviously just an example, 10 commandments is like 15 rows, how many rows do 5 books of Moses have? Do your math, but Decalog will be still nothing in comparison. Its obvious that you have nothing to say, just to dance around such things.

Genesis does not support the YEC and reality is also against it. Not sure what you can do in such a situtation. Probably just live in some isolated cubicle and watch/read only YEC sources...

 

[Prepper Pete]

For those who believe that the Bible is literal and that science is right, I would suggest a book by Gerald Schroeder called the Science of God. You can listen to the author explain the book in hos own words on YouTube here:

 

[Job 33:6]

This is just my opinion but, I think as Christians, and as people, we should be more willing to accept the physical and literal idea of a blood filled Nile river after something about physical reality supports it. As opposed to accepting the belief of its literal occurance before anything about physical reality, indicates that it's true.

The default position on something in which reality does not support, should be a position of innocent until proven guilty, as opposed to guilty without evidence before consideration of innocence.

 

[JackRT]

How do YECs explain the dinosaurs?

Fiction.

 

[The Barbarian]

There's another young earther who suggested that rock layers in the earth all formed instantaneously. But if rock layer A has footprints spanning it, then obviously time passed before it hardened and before it was buried by other layers (rock layers B and C) with their respective footprints.

In one case, a YE creationist identified granite as primordial rock instantly created when the Earth was created. However, it is intrusive into sedimentary rock, which makes the whole idea absurd. It could only be intrusive if the sedimentary rock had formed before the granite.

 

[miamited]

Hi komatiite,

Thanks for your response:

So the question comes down to...what someone is willing to believe without any form of observed reality in support of such ideas. And where we draw the line of what we are willing to believe, even in circumstances where physical reality appears to demonstrate otherwise.

So, if we accept that your logical conclusion in understanding events portrayed in the Scriptures as likely being questionable unless there is some verifiable physical evidence to support it...

There is no evidence to support that the sea parted for the Israelites. Didn't happen?
There is no evidence that proves a shadow cast by the sun can go backward. Didn't happen?
There is no evidence that an oxen or donkey can speak a human language. Didn't happen?
There is no evidence that a woman can become pregnant without human sperm introduced into her womb. Didn't happen?

For me, it's all about faith. From the understanding and belief in the parting of the sea to the birth of my Lord and Savior. There is no verifiable physical proof that Jesus is the Son of God, other than God's word. Didn't happen?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi komatiite,

Thanks for your response:


So, if we accept that your logical conclusion in understanding events portrayed in the Scriptures as likely being questionable unless there is some verifiable physical evidence to support it...

There is no evidence to support that the sea parted for the Israelites. Didn't happen?
There is no evidence that proves a shadow cast by the sun can go backward. Didn't happen?
There is no evidence that an oxen or donkey can speak a human language. Didn't happen?
There is no evidence that a woman can become pregnant without human sperm introduced into her womb. Didn't happen?

For me, it's all about faith. From the understanding and belief in the parting of the sea to the birth of my Lord and Savior. There is no verifiable physical proof that Jesus is the Son of God, other than God's word. Didn't happen?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

In each of your line items, I would say that it is possible that each literally happened, or are true but it is ultimately unknown.

Indeed, if there was verifiable proof that Jesus literally did walk on water, all of humanity would already be Christian. Or at least more than just the western world. Faith wouldn't even matter if we had concrete proof.

If there were verifiable proof, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

And I don't think any Christian should ever suggest that any one of these items is absolute certainty, simply on the basis that it is printed in the Bible (or at least appears to be suggested in the Bible according to our interpretation of written words).

 

[miamited]

Morning komatiite,

Thanks for your response.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[NobleMouse]

Oh mine, 0.01 was obviously just an example, 10 commandments is like 15 rows, how many rows do 5 books of Moses have? Do your math, but Decalog will be still nothing in comparison. Its obvious that you have nothing to say, just to dance around such things.

Genesis does not support the YEC and reality is also against it. Not sure what you can do in such a situtation. Probably just live in some isolated cubicle and watch/read only YEC sources...

Yes, I know the 0.01 was rhetorical... but so is most of what you write. Genesis supports that God created everything in 6 days, that's what it says and it is affirmed everywhere in scripture - you will never present a passage that refutes it. Sorry you wish to disagree - please don't feel you owe me an explanation, it's not my word, it's God's.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, I know the 0.01 was rhetorical... but so is most of what you write. Genesis supports that God created everything in 6 days,

Even ancient Christians like Augustine knew that the "yom" (which can mean all sorts of things) didn't indicate literal days. A few Christians have always thought so, but they were never a majority; a literal Genesis is contradicted by the text itself.

that's what it says and it is affirmed everywhere in scripture

In fact, scripture never says they were literal days. That is just a story YE creationists tell.

it's not my word, it's God's.

It's your word. Not God's.

 

[JackRT]

Even ancient Christians like Augustine knew that the "yom" (which can mean all sorts of things) didn't indicate literal days. A few Christians have always thought so, but they were never a majority; a literal Genesis is contradicted by the text itself.

In fact, scripture never says they were literal days. That is just a story YE creationists tell.

It's your word. Not God's.

It would seem that some Christians are unable to discern between God's word and their word.

 

[Hieronymus]

Genesis 6 could be an part of the explanation.
More on that in the 1st Book of Enoch.
Bare in mind that dragons (as they were called in not even that ancient history) always have to do with embodied evil and / or divine beings.