Is it true that dinosaur fossils are only found in 1 strata?

[RichardT]

http://www.answersincreation.org/poop.htm

Is it true that dinosaur fossils are only found in 1 strata? That would completely disproves YEC.....

 

[rmwilliamsll]

First, i appreciate the passion with which you originally asked the question at the YECist only forum. It is a big problem for thinking YECists and i don't ever want to minimize the pain and anguish that ought to come from cognitive dissonance.

Second, God created the heavens and the earth. Whatever we find there is His work, we don't need to fear anything created separating us from the Love of God in Christ. certainly not science or knowledge of the physical world, it belongs to God and can only speak of His glory. if people aren't listening and don't hear it, that is not the fault of the stones shouting hosanna, but of the ears listening.

Lastly, the science is clear, the earth is immensely old, dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years, their bones and footprints and eggs litter thousands of feet of strata testifying both to this great age of the earth and of the long age of the dinosaurs.

 

[RichardT]

A YEC response would be helpfull..

 

[Mallon]

To be honest, I don't think there are any well-thought-out creationist answers. At least, none that I have heard that stand up to scrutiny. You will hear that the layering of fossils observed in the fossil record follow differential sorting during the Flood, organisms having been deposited according to mass, buoyancy, density, etc. But such appologetics do not explain, for expample, the appearance of fish throughout virtually the entire fossil record, and dinosaurs only within Mesozoic strata.
In any case, you're still young, RichardT, and I pray that you keep the faith regardless of which camp you fall in.
And for what it's worth, dinosaurs aren't the only creatures relegated to specific strata. The same holds for trilobites, pterosaurs, humans, mosasaurs, rugose corals, etc.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Dinosaur fossils are only found in strata layers from mid Triassic until the end of the Cretaceous worldwide

 

[FallingWaters]

I am a YEC. I read the article you provided a link for. It seemed to be written by an old-earth creationist.

The Mesozoic time period covers the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods- supposedly from 245 million to 65 million years ago. There is a little bit of circular reasoning concerning this since it's called Mesozoic rock because dinosaurs are found in it.

I have not ever studied this is any detail and cannot further illumine you. I am perfectly comfortable admitting that I don't know everything, and neither does anybody else. I choose to believe the Bible is true.

 

[random_guy]

I am a YEC. I read the article you provided a link for. It seemed to be written by an old-earth creationist.

The Mesozoic time period covers the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods- supposedly from 245 million to 65 million years ago. There is a little bit of circular reasoning concerning this since it's called Mesozoic rock because dinosaurs are found in it.

I have not ever studied this is any detail and cannot further illumine you. I am perfectly comfortable admitting that I don't know everything, and neither does anybody else. I choose to believe the Bible is true.

Just want to point out that both TEists and YECists take the Bible to be true. Just because we accept an old Earth based on scientific evidence doesn't mean that we believe the Bible is false. A more correct statement would be, "I choose to believe my interpretation of the Bible to be true."

 

[RichardT]

Just want to point out that both TEists and YECists take the Bible to be true. Just because we accept an old Earth based on scientific evidence doesn't mean that we believe the Bible is false. A more correct statement would be, "I choose to believe my interpretation of the Bible to be true."

how about "I choose to believe in the most NATURAL interpretation of the bible?

 

[FallingWaters]

Just want to point out that both TEists and YECists take the Bible to be true. Just because we accept an old Earth based on scientific evidence doesn't mean that we believe the Bible is false. A more correct statement would be, "I choose to believe my interpretation of the Bible to be true."

Technically, EVERYONE believes THEIR interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Melethiel]

how about "I choose to believe in the most NATURAL interpretation of the bible?

Some of us don't take the literal interpretation to be the most natural one.

 

[imind]

how about "I choose to believe in the most NATURAL interpretation of the bible?

that begs the question, "what does a 'natural interpretation' mean"?

 

[jereth]

that begs the question, "what does a 'natural interpretation' mean"?

There's no such thing as a "natural" interpretation; to claim "I hold the natural interpretation" is very presumptuous.

We all come to the Bible with preconceptions, we are all shaped by the culture in which we were raised. None of us lived 2-3 thousand years ago, when the Bible was actually written. Humility requires that we all recognise this.

It is ok to say: "the most natural interpretation for me", but it is inappropriate to say "the most natural interpretation".

I could easily claim that the most natural interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is mythical, and I sincerely believe that, but I recognise that that is just my point of view.

 

[random_guy]

how about "I choose to believe in the most NATURAL interpretation of the bible?

Like others have said, what does natural interpretation mean? If we were born in the 1200's, we would've accepted geocentrism as a natural interpretation of the Bible. Some still do despite all the advances in cosmology. If we were born in the 1400's, we would've accepted the Global Flood as literal despite the fact that Christian geologists would falsify a Global Flood a few centuries later. If we were born in modern times in Texas in a Christian household, then we might think that evolution was false and that special Creation is correct, even though nearly every single scientific organization, university biology program, and biologists support evolution and reject special Creation.

To say that there is a most natural interpretation is incorrect. But we're getting very off topic. We should focus on your original question at hand.