Man and dinosaur coexisting

[JacksBratt]

Yeah. The 19th century was 200 years ago.

1815 was 200 years ago and in the 19th century.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1815 was 200 years ago and in the 19th century.

Aaaand?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not God being deceptive. It's mans interpretation of the evidence. Like with the strata layers for example; evolutionist see billions of years on top of billions of years.

We see that when zircons form, they include U but exclude Pb.

We see that U decays into Pb at a steady rate.

We see that zircons do contain Pb, which means that the only source for that Pb is the decay of U.

We see that the amount of Pb as a decay product of U would require billions of years of decay.

Notice that you refuse to interpret any of this evidence.

In the creationists view, the earth looks old because their was a catastrophic world wide flood.

How would a flood produce zircons with large amounts of Pb in them?

 

[dougangel]

It is true, Dougangel, that Genesis has been interpreted allegorically and then given more than one interpretation. My approach is to stay with the plain meaning or reading f the text, so that we do not turn it into a nose of was that can be twisted any way we want, which was the Reformers critic of the symbolic or allegorical method. Therefore, I believe Genesis is a totally inadequate account of creation . I find it offers two contradictory chronologies of creation written by two different authors from very different periods of history. And I am not alone here. That is the standard understanding of Genesis as found in contemporary biblical scholarship.

The Genesis author was simply writing in the ‘politically-correct’ Cosmo genic and prose-narrative style of that day. Thus, the Genesis 1 text was not meant to represent a sequential order of creation or one that needs to fit with modern science. It was simply the literary way that writers of that day wrote down their narrative thoughts. In other words, God gave the revelation to the people mentioned in Genesis, but then the biblical authors wrote this revelation down in their own literary style.""

The snake story. The woman coming from mans ribs are parables. There stories to make a point but they didn't happen. There not scientific

 

[JacksBratt]

I have some major issues with your comments, Jascksbratt. No matter how you may personally feel about evolution, the fact remains that if you are going to launch outlandish attacks against science, then you need to have some big,big credentials and some big, big evidence to back you up. In your case, I find these big guns you need to be sadly lacking. For example, if you want to take Genesis literally as true, that is your prerogative. However, it does not provide others with a very convincing argument or attack on evolution. I have studied the Genesis account in detail and I find it offers but two contradictory chronologies written by two different authors and two different time periods. I can go into further detail here if you want. I am also well aware that some online self-styled apologists have tried to fuse these accounts into one. And I am also aware their attempts do not work. I can go into more detail here, if you want. I am also aware that there are many other cases where the Bible proves to be an inadequate geophysical witness, such as the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, etc. These inaccuracies have been noted for centuries and recognized by believers, who still give the Bible a place of honor, recognizing that it is not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness. I hold the same counts for Genesis. Next, you seem to want to run some kind of contest to see what takes the most faith and then go with the one that does. That is no way to judge the validity of anything. Also, your results can be easily challenged. I find many who reject evolution do so on the basis that it just seems too fantastic that God could create a man out of a monkey. It makes more sense to them to stick with Scripture. Yes, evolution does have miraculous quality to it. If God could make a man out of a monkey, just think what he could do with a jackass like you. You go on to argue that it seems to you unlikely that God would create a universe and then just sit back and watch the evolutionary process. I disagree, I find this a false assumption on your part. I and many other contemporary Christian thinkers hold that God works through evolution and that this requires a continual interaction between God an creation. In short, evolution occurs because God is continually providing new creative possibilities. No God, no evolution. The reason why the process seems to take long is simply that God has a huge creative agenda in mind. God's aim is to maximize beauty, and all aspect's of creation manifest some real degree of beauty. God just doesn't let it roll on; God enjoys the beauty exhibited in the world. Since some options for beauty are incompatible with others, not all can be actualized at once. Also, god does not create out of nothing. Not even Genesis actually claims that. God did not create man out of nothing, but out of dust. That is an interesting implication of evolution, as we are all made out of star dust. Since God always cerates out of something preexistent, certain forms must be in place before God can move on to others. Next, you argue that humans are the very epitome of God's creation. That sure seems arrogant to me. I view all creatures as deeply important to God, but that doesn't any particular ones should claim to be the highest God is going to go. Who can say what higher forms of being God may evolve us into? Who says humans are the best God can do? Who says humans are the center of God's attention and enjoyment, that he organizes his whole day just around us? It's a big, big universe, which makes it plain God's creativity is on a far larger scale that just old planet earth. Then you say that theistic evolution claims God creates by speaking. Where did you get that notion? My position is that God works at a deeper level than that represented by thought, sense, or the more specialized forms of conscious knowing. God works at a deeper, preverbal level of experience. There is a direct and immediate flow of feeling between God and creatures. God moves us along because we empathically experience God's aim for the occasion. I hope all this will lead you to more carefully study evolution, God, and the Bible.

Well That is a lot to chew through. I don't have the time right now but I will comment on what you said here:

Next, you argue that humans are the very epitome of God's creation. That sure seems arrogant to me. I view all creatures as deeply important to God, but that doesn't any particular ones should claim to be the highest God is going to go. Who can say what higher forms of being God may evolve us into? Who says humans are the best God can do? Who says humans are the center of God's attention and enjoyment, that he organizes his whole day just around us?

To that I remind you of the fact that:

Matthew 10:29-31New International Version (NIV)
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

John 3:16 ESV / 68 helpful votes
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Christ died for us. He is God and he took on human form and then was tortured and died for US not the animals, the plants or anything else. Even the Angels are to be commanded by us in glory. This is why Satan hates us so much.

Proof of that is here:

Luke 15:10King James Version (KJV)
10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Satan hates you because every time he sees you, he sees God. WE are made in His image.

Satan hates you because you have stolen his job, and you’re better at it than he was!

Satan hates you so much because God loves you so much.


1 Corinthians 6:3King James Version (KJV)
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

 

[-57]

@-57 , I will ask this the third and final time, and I do hope you'll answer: what have all of the world's scientists missed, if they misinterpret the data that tells them the Earth is old but in actually it should tell them it's a young Earth?

Soft dino tissue.

 

[-57]

They're all working for the devil.

Soft dino tissue.

 

[-57]

All we can do is offer a possible explanation with what we have to work with. As Science comes up with more data then we will have more to work with and then we can explain more. But for now we can only work with what little Science is able to provide us with. Science has population genetics and there are genealogies in the Bible. There is no conflict between science and the Bible, there are no contradictions.

Scientist say if you're dead...on day 3 you stay dead.
Scientist say you can't walk on water.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Soft dino tissue.

That does not answer my question in any way whatsoever.

 

[Loudmouth]

Soft dino tissue.

What about it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientist say if you're dead...on day 3 you stay dead.
Scientist say you can't walk on water.

Scientists say that people can write fictitious stories in books.

 

[USincognito]

You see what your saying there? You identify the Cretaceous strata by the animal you find in it and then identify the age of the animal by the strata it's in. This is circular reasoning.
"How do you know the fossils are old?"
Because it was in old rock!
"But how do you know the rock is old?"
Because it had old fossils!

You went full Hovind. Don't ever go full Hovind.

Cretaceous strata are identified by the fossils found within it.
Cretaceous strata are dated by radiometric dating methods on igneous layers.

 

[USincognito]

Soft dino tissue.

Fun fact - if we found a T-Rex that died 150 years ago, it wouldn't effect evolutionary theory as much as finding a T-Rex fossil in Triassic strata.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Soft dino tissue.

"Dino Blood and the Young Earth"

 

[joshua 1 9]

Scientist say if you're dead...on day 3 you stay dead.
Scientist say you can't walk on water.

Ice is not water?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have studied the Genesis account in detail and I find it offers but two contradictory chronologies written by two different authors and two different time periods.

They have a computer program now that can confirm what you are saying. For example that Genesis ch 1 & Genesis ch 2 are written by different people. Moses just copied them from Clay tablets onto the Papyrus they were using at that time in Egypt.

the Bible proves to be an inadequate geophysical witness, such as the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth

You do not really believe the Bible says that do you?

If God could make a man out of a monkey

So are you saying if God can make man out of a monkey then there is still hope for us and what God can do in our lifes?

Who can say what higher forms of being God may evolve us into? Who says humans are the best God can do?

The main thing is that humans are central to God's plan of redemption. He is working through us for the restoration and redemption of all creation. Perhaps that is what He created us for in the first place.

Plastic surgery understands what beauty is. There is a mathematical formula that it follows. They call this the golden ratio. This has to do with the DNA being switched on and off at just the right time so everything is perfectly balanced. We live in a fallen world in need of restoration so things do not always go the way they are suppose to.

 

[USincognito]

Assumption 1. The rate of decay has always been the same.

We actually have a number of indications that decay rats have remained consistent for extremely long times. The natural nuclear reactor at Oklo, Gabon shows they have been the same for 1.8 billion years.

Also another problem. different radiometric methods often drastically disagree with one another. Some rocks in Hawaii that were known to only be around 200 years old rendered a date of 160 million to 3 billion when dated. ( Funkhouser and Naughton, page 4601)

Creationist dishonesty from Henry Morris.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Radiometric dating just like much of the evidence that supports evolution has too many assumptions.

Assumptions! POOF!

 

[USincognito]

Yes, all fossils are transitional fossils.

I really hate this phrase without context.

Taung child is a transitional fossil because Au. africanus is a transitional species.

Taung child is not a transitional fossil because his descendants never transitioned into anything... because they didn't exist.

 

[USincognito]

In your eyes. And on paper or pixels. But not in rock record sequences that show transition from one creature to the next, part by part that shows evidence of Evolution. That is too odd, Sir. Too remarkable. So you resort that all fossils are transitional. In your eyes you game what is missing. Like others before you it requires faith to accept Evolution.

Is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human"?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I really hate this phrase without context.

Taung child is a transitional fossil because Au. africanus is a transitional species.

Taung child is not a transitional fossil because his descendants never transitioned into anything... because they didn't exist.

What???

Obviously the Taung child died before sexual maturity. Is that your point?