How old is the world?

[mikeynov]

The Bible was written by fallible men, but under divine inspiration. Moreover some of these men had indeed seen dinosaurs, since dinosaurs and men did indeed co-exist, both before and after the flood. They describe dinosaurs and talk about them as being as commonplace as whales and camels.

Out of morbid curiosity, I'll ask for substantiation of these claims

 

[Floodnut]

For the last time, Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys.

Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin. Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones. Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends. They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals. They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles

 

[Elduran]

Out of morbid curiosity, I'll ask for substantiation of these claims

He'll mention behemoth....

 

[Elduran]

Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin. Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones. Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends. They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals. They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles

And...?

 

[mikeynov]

Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin. Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones. Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends. They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals. They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles

Yes, you are a (old world) monkey, a primate, a mammal, a (synapsid) reptile, an amphibian and a (stegocephalian) fish, simultaneously.

Disconcerting, perhaps, but you might want to get over it

 

[DJ_Ghost]

He'll mention behemoth....

Yep I would put money on it.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Yes, you are a (old world) monkey, a primate, a mammal, a (synapsid) reptile, an amphibian and a (stegocephalian) fish, simultaneously.

Disconcerting, perhaps, but you might want to get over it

It does explain the vague feeling of multiple personality disorder I have sometimes.

Ghost

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

This statement was made with respect to a prior statement: "You are assuming that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist."

Nobody has to assume anything in science. That is the modus operandi of the YEC. Dinosaurs and humans co-existing is not sustained by anything more than conjecture and forged “evidence”. It is nothing more than utter foolishness and is more of an argument against the YEC than it is for it.

Now the Agnostic, who is unsure of the existence of God, this agnostic is sure that the scholars of Berkeley are correct in there assesment that dinos and humans did not co-exist.

Firstly, as your gross ignorance of everything you speak of abounds, I’ll have to correct you on what agnostic means.

ag·nos·tic ( g-n s t k) n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Secondly, I’ll take the assertions of highly educated professionals over unsubstantiated faith all day any day.

There are other authorities that have a moral foundation, who assert that in fact they did co-exist.

As if to say all science and scientists are amoral. This is idiocy at it’s finest. Next time you get sick think about why you are seeking consultation from your amoral medical scientist instead of getting healed by your faith.

The information posted on this Christian Forum which rejects the dino pottery is like proving that Star Trek is falsehood, or that alley oop is fiction. It still does not deal with the very many legitimate evidences of dino/human co-existence.

Please share your so called “legitimate evidences”. I’m sure everyone here has refuted them a thousand times, but we haven’t had a good PRATT in awhile. Pony up.

There are clear forgeries. But there are actual ones as well. But on top of the disputable evidences in the natural world, for the Christian who might be visiting this "CHRISTIAN" forum, the Bible states clearly that dinos and humans co-existed. Other "evidences" must be evaluated in the light of that authoritative truth.

Aside from the bible being proof of nothing, what else do you have that’s not some obviously fictitious tired old PRATT?

He can't find the refutation. I am a YEC, and I have seen the refute. So what? I have read the Bibe and it clearly teaches the co-existence of dinos and humans, with or without archaeological evidence.

In other words you’re just like every YEC I’ve ever seen stroll through here leaving behind their woefully ignorant brain droppings. You’ll hold fast to your baseless assertions and dismiss scientific findings out of sheer ignorance. Your only refuge is falling back on the circular reasoning of your precious fairytale.

But the Ica depictions are not the only ones. They are also found in Europe, Britain, Asia, Scandinavia, Central America, North America, Africa, the Andes of Peru, not just among the Ica, but the Incas also.

This is it? This is all the substantiation you can muster for your argument? Where are the fossil evidence? Where is Abraham’s skeleton all mangled up inside a t-rex skeleton? You’re going to dismiss the Theory of evolution with all its scientific backing and believe in some whacko idea based on a few child-like scribbles? Even while some have been admitted to as forgery? What is it about a YEC that has allowed them to denigrate to this level of ineptness? If you want to actually contribute something worthwhile to this forum why don’t you go to the quiet thread and take a stab at the many posts directed at the YEC specifically? What’s preventing you from actually taking on serious evidence in lieu of this meaningless excrement you pass off as participation. Show me YEC isn’t some mindless, baseless, unsubstantiated, fairytale. Go grab any of the geological threads ripping your global flood apart and dazzle us with your insight.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin.

Wrong, they have a common primate origin, it probably wasn't a monkey.

Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones.

There are no monkeys in our direct ancestral lines and, furthermore, we're still primates. However, modern monkeys and us do share a common ancestor.

Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends.

Maybe if you understood the semantics of evolutionary theory they wouldn't seem like gymnastics.

They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals.

Evolution!=abiogenesis. I guess that when God made adam out of dust the dust was living.

They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles

Both modern mammals (us included) and reptiles evolved from amphibians.

Horray for plethora of creationist errors! Hay guyz watch out while I proceed to refute the cornerstone of modern biology without having an iota of understanding as to what the theory entails!

 

[revolutio]

Such a lie. good grief. All simians, all primates according to Darwinianism, have a common monkey origin. Evolutioin doesn't say we came from CURRENT monkeys, but it certainly asserts that we came from monkeys and primates, albeit now extinct ones.

Basically correct good job, seriously you wouldn't believe how many people would already have said that evolution says humans sprung fully evolved from rocks or something.

Evolutionists love to dance around with this semantic gymnastics to evade their legends.

Last part aside they just love semantic debates because they are filthy pedants.

They also say that we came from non-life, from non-biological chemicals

While many do believe this, this the domain of the theory of abiogenesis. Once there is one cell (however it may have gotten there), then evolution kicks in. Make sure not to confuse these two, it is a common mistake and demonstrating understanding of this will increase people's respect in what you have to say.

They also say that we came from fish, and then from reptiles

Basically yeah, methinks there were a few steps in between though.

 

[revolutio]

Wrong, they have a common primate origin, it probably wasn't a monkey.
There are no monkeys in our direct ancestral lines and, furthermore, we're still primates. However, modern monkeys and us do share a common ancestor.

I was under the imrpession that apes and monkeys were the two classes of primates and that others weren't known of. Do you have some info on primates that existed prior to the monkey-ape split?

 

[Floodnut]

Science at school, religion at home.

That's the way it is, and the way it should remain.

Of course for you this means Evolution at School. But evolution is a matter of Faith. It is a religion, so leave it at home, stay with observational and experiemental science at School. I would love to see some experiments with fruitflies, to try to change them into gnats with radiation induced mutations. Oops, I guess thats already been attemtped and it didn't work.

 

[RoboMastodon]

I was under the imrpession that apes and monkeys were the two classes of primates and that others weren't known of. Do you have some info on primates that existed prior to the monkey-ape split?

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure lemurs are also considered primates. So the monkey-ape common ancestor mike look something like a lemur. Doing some research now.

Edit

The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced, evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch. They were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance. The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (mostly from North Africa) suggests that they were adapted to an arboreal way of life in warm, moist climates. They probably were equipped with relatively good eyesight as well as hands and feet with pads and claws for climbing. These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data becomes available.
...
Monkeys evolved from prosimians during the Oligocene or slightly earlier. They were the first species of our suborder--the Anthropoidea click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced. Several genera of these early monkeys have been identified--Apidium click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced and Aegyptopithecus click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced are the most well known. The former was about the size of a fat squirrel (2-3 pounds), while the latter was the size of a large domestic cat (13-20 pounds). Both were probably fruit and seed eating forest tree-dwellers. Compared to the prosimians, these early monkeys had fewer teeth, less fox-like snouts, larger brains, and increasingly more forward-looking eyes.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htm
It appears the earliest primates came about during the Paleocene epoch in the form of promisians, which eventually lead to the monkey-ape split by the first anthropoideans during the Oligocene (possibly with monkeys coming first during the Miocene).

 

[Praxiteles]

God denying atheists and promotors of evolution have no prohibition against lying so they can make up falsehoods like this with no moral compunctionl.

And there's a 9.6 on the Irrelevancy Scale.

I was talking about creationists lying - creationists, who are Christians, apparently hold themselves to a higher standard than non-Christians. It would seem that the standard against lying is waived if faith is at stake.

As for non-believers having no prohibition against lying, well... Everyone is different, but my Mum brung me up proper, and cursed me with a very strong conscience.

Or are you suggesting that if you were not a believer you'd feel quite comfortable about immoral behaviour?

 

[Valkhorn]

Of course for you this means Evolution at School. But evolution is a matter of Faith. It is a religion, so leave it at home, stay with observational and experiemental science at School. I would love to see some experiments with fruitflies, to try to change them into gnats with radiation induced mutations. Oops, I guess thats already been attemtped and it didn't work.

What???? Let's break this down...

Of course for you this means Evolution at School.

Well at least in science because it is a valid scientific theory.

But evolution is a matter of Faith. It is a religion, so leave it at home, stay with observational and experiemental science at School.

Maybe your idea of evolution is faith, but what evolution actually is - a change in gene frequencies over time in a population of animals - isn't. Its observable, it's a fact, it happens, so get over it.

I would love to see some experiments with fruitflies, to try to change them into gnats with radiation induced mutations. Oops, I guess thats already been attemtped and it didn't work.

Could you cite a source? You do realize that populations evolve and not individuals right? You do realize that you will not be able to change fruitflies into something that isn't directly related like gnats in one generation right?

Funny how you try to demolish evolution when you don't even know what it really is. It's like John Wilkes Booth shooting before he knew what Abraham Lincoln looked like.

 

[Praxiteles]

Of course for you this means Evolution at School. But evolution is a matter of Faith.

Lying for God.

It is a religion, so leave it at home,

Lying for God.

stay with observational and experiemental science at School. I would love to see some experiments with fruitflies, to try to change them into gnats with radiation induced mutations. Oops, I guess thats already been attemtped and it didn't work.

Lying for God. Geez, the Father of Lies must love you!

How you can, in all seriousness, post stuff like this is of great concern. Not only is there plenty of experimentation and observation involved in the foundation of ToE, but there's a great deal of it always underway that further supports and clarifies the process.

However, the major factor that undermines your bizarre claim that the ToE is a religion is the vast numbers of theists (of all stripes) who continue to work in the field. I'd bet they'd be amazed to discover that they have two religions!!

Edited to add: Having read Valk's post above, I'd like to echo what he said: mutating fruitflies into some other variety of extant insect would disprove evolution. Doesn't it make you nervous to loudly declaim something about which you know nothing?

 

[Floodnut]

Thank you for all your responses. However, I am still curious about dinosaurs being in exsistence billions of years ago. How is it we still find thier remains? Wouldn't they have disenegrated by now? Also I have read many articles saying life could not exsist at that time because of the postion of the sun and moon. I just don't know what to believe.

Seeker, even evolutionists don't believe they existed BILLIONS of years ago, but rather, MILLIONS, and that they became extinct about 65 million years ago.

There is a group of scientists and Christians who are called YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS (YECs). Of course Evolutionists MOCK the idea that any legitimate scientist could be a creationist, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many degreed creationists.

The remains of dinosaurs are largely bones that have been mineralized and some mineralized eggs as well. This is what fossils are. There have also been many dinosaur footprints found as well as skin impressions. But YECs do not believe that dinosaurs lived so long in the past, but rather they believe that dinosaurs and humans were both created on the sixth day of the creation week and that they lived at the same time.

There are a number of websites that show from the Bible the evidences that they co-existed, and these websites point to observational science that supports this view. Creationists also have at their web sites arguments that point to the idea that historical records --written, oral, and pictorial-- that show that dinos were alive at the same time as humans.

In this forum and others, people will only trade jabs back and forth and make brief comments in an effort to make others look bad, and themselves look good. You have heard and heard and heard in all of your schooling the idea that the earth is very old, in the billions of years. This idea is echoed in movies, in literature, in science programs on TV, in advertizing, and in popular magazines. For once you might consider going to a Creationist source, like Answers in Genesis, and honestly looking over their presentation of the YEC position.

 

[Floodnut]

Nobody has suggested dinosaurs existed billions of years ago. The animals commonly known as dinosaurs existed in what is known as the Mesozoic Era (a period of time between 250 million years ago and 65 million years ago). Their remains have been fossilized, a process whereby bone is essentially transformed into stone. Fossilization is a very rare process, but we find fossils all the time. Additionally, the positions of the sun and the moon haven't changed much in the last 4 billion years or so.

Don't worry about knowing "what to believe" so much as going out and researching it for yourself. This isn't something that is easily undertaken, either. Don't take anyone's word for it but rather look at the evidence. Read the peer-reviewed scientific papers. There are people here that are more than willing to help.

It is good to read "peer-reviewed" scientific papers, but there is a bit of a problem if all the peers believe the same thing and pat each other on the back. If you are coming to a Christian Forum seeking Christian Wisdom you should be aware that many of the people who post here are NOT Christians, and they will be the first to make that claim of themselves.

While peer review is of value, if you seek Christian Wisdom, then try to find people who are Christians, who believe that the Bible is true, who listen to the Spirit of Truth. READ Bible Believing Material. There are many godly men and women here who are more than willing to help.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Seeker, even evolutionists don't believe they existed BILLIONS of years ago, but rather, MILLIONS, and that they became extinct about 65 million years ago.

There is a group of scientists and Christians who are called YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS (YECs). Of course Evolutionists MOCK the idea that any legitimate scientist could be a creationist, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many degreed creationists.

The remains of dinosaurs are largely bones that have been mineralized and some mineralized eggs as well. This is what fossils are. There have also been many dinosaur footprints found as well as skin impressions. But YECs do not believe that dinosaurs lived so long in the past, but rather they believe that dinosaurs and humans were both created on the sixth day of the creation week and that they lived at the same time.

There are a number of websites that show from the Bible the evidences that they co-existed, and these websites point to observational science that supports this view. Creationists also have at their web sites arguments that point to the idea that historical records --written, oral, and pictorial-- that show that dinos were alive at the same time as humans.

In this forum and others, people will only trade jabs back and forth and make brief comments in an effort to make others look bad, and themselves look good. You have heard and heard and heard in all of your schooling the idea that the earth is very old, in the billions of years. This idea is echoed in movies, in literature, in science programs on TV, in advertizing, and in popular magazines. For once you might consider going to a Creationist source, like Answers in Genesis, and honestly looking over their presentation of the YEC position.

AiG has a statement of faith that says that any evidence that contradicts scripture must, by definition, be false. This is not science, this is dogma. Creationists aren't scientists especially considering that creationism violates basic tenets of not only biology, but geology, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, archeology, history, and linguistics. Lastly, the entire body of scientific knowledge (which includes all of the evidence and falsifications of YEC) is supported by a wealth of scientists from all different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds--Christian and non-Christian. How come there aren't any non-Christian creationists (the few muslims and jews notwithstanding)? I'll go ahead and answer it for you: it's because creationists distort the evidence because they have a religious agenda.

 

[ForeRunner]

It is good to read "peer-reviewed" scientific papers, but there is a bit of a problem if all the peers believe the same thing and pat each other on the back.

This is absolutely NOT how the peer review proccess works. Peer review is about scrutinizing the methodology and data that a person presents and attempting to discredit and refute the paper as much as possible.

Scientists do not pat eachother on the back, they try to tear each other to shreds.

If you are coming to a Christian Forum seeking Christian Wisdom you should be aware that many of the people who post here are NOT Christians, and they will be the first to make that claim of themselves.

Just because some of us are not Christian does not mean we do not posses knowledge or wisdom, or even Christian wisdom.

While peer review is of value, if you seek Christian Wisdom, then try to find people who are Christians, who believe that the Bible is true, who listen to the Spirit of Truth. READ Bible Believing Material. There are many godly men and women here who are more than willing to help.

Yes there are, and the majority of American Scientists are Christian, and the VAST majority accept evolution. Are you saying they are no Bible believing?