Oopart dinosaurs? ideas please..

[pgp_protector]

You are wrong.

If you do not believe it, then try to spell out a definition of transgression. I would like to see how to you put the factor of time in it.

Definition B works quite well for showing Transgression require time.

transgression

Main Entry: trans·gres·sion
Pronunciation: \-ˈgre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

: an act, process, or instance of transgressing: as a: infringement or violation of a law, command, or duty b: the spread of the sea over land areas and the consequent unconformable deposit of sediments on older rocks

 

[juvenissun]

Definition B works quite well for showing Transgression require time.

transgression

Main Entry: trans·gres·sion
Pronunciation: \-ˈgre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

: an act, process, or instance of transgressing: as a: infringement or violation of a law, command, or duty b: the spread of the sea over land areas and the consequent unconformable deposit of sediments on older rocks

How much should the time be according to the definition?

 

[Assyrian]

So when GOD said that by one man sin entered into the world HE meant more than one? And if that one was not Adam, who was that ONE? Tell me scientifically.

Sorry LittleNipper, you really aren't getting to grips with arguments we give you. How does this address the point I made that scripture is rich in metaphor and that you were using a metaphorical passage to try to prove Genesis is literal?

Even if Romans 5 taught a literal Adam, does that say the account of Adam and Eve in the garden is described literally? Even if those chapters are described literally, which you have not shown, how would that tell us the account of creation in chapter 1 is literal?

But read on in Romans 5. Look at verse 14 where Paul explains the comparison he is making between Adam and Christ. He tells us he is treating the account of Adam as a figure of Christ. Rom 5:15 ...Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Whether Adam was literal or metaphorical, Paul is treating the story as a metaphor telling us about Christ. It does not tell us the 'one man' was literal.

 

[Assyrian]

To say nothing of the fact that the Bible is not simply one book. It is a collection of different books, written by different people in different cultures, over thousands of years.
FSTDT.

I would highly suggest you read II Peter, and please take it as literal.

Like part where he tell God's days can't always be taken literally? 2Pet 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

[Molal]

How much should the time be according to the definition?

Why, what's the point. I know, for a fact that I am correct. I know that every geologist in the world agree's with me. I have wrote papers, research articles and given talks as to the veracity of transgression:regression.

Wiki has a good and accurate account of a sea transgression:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgression_(geology)

 

[Molal]

Here is a great link discussing deep water:shallow water sediments,

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=regression

Schlumberger is a great oil field services company!

 

[juvenissun]

Why, what's the point. I know, for a fact that I am correct. I know that every geologist in the world agree's with me. I have wrote papers, research articles and given talks as to the veracity of transgression:regression.

Wiki has a good and accurate account of a sea transgression:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgression_(geology)

The point is to pull you back to the challenge

Why should multiple cycles of transgression/regression be excluded in the event of global flood?

And I start to see you throwing junk argument into the debate of this issue. This is another skill of TE debate when get pushed to a corner (quoting irrelevant references).

 

[theFijian]

And I start to see you throwing junk argument into the debate of this issue. This is another skill of TE argument when get pushed to a corner (quoting irrelevant references).

I love it. Real world examples from people on the ground = Junk. Can't argue with that kind of (twisted) logic

 

[Molal]

The point is to pull you back to the challenge

Why should multiple cycles of transgression/regression be excluded in the event of global flood?

And I start to see you throwing junk argument into the debate of this issue. This is another skill of TE debate when get pushed to a corner (quoting irrelevant references).

J, the bible states, in a literal fashion there was one episode of flooding - no where does it talk about transgression:regression - fluctuating water levels, etc.

To call well researched science junk is too provide an insight into your thought process. Thank you.

 

[Molal]

And this:

I am going to push you on this one and see how far can you go without starting to throw junks into the argument:

How do you know there were no transgressions and regressions in the event of global flood?

Was answered here.

EDIT: And this should go without saying, there is NO evidence of a global flood. None whatsoever.

 

[Jadis40]

How many meteor/asteroid strikes have there been on earth? How do they fit into a 6000 year time-frame?

I've asked this question of YECs myself. They really seem to dance around the question.

It's pretty much accepted that the Vredefort crater, the largest verified crater on earth, was the result of a meteor strike. They can pretty much confirm any impact crater by analyzing the chemical makeup of the surrounding area, since a distinct chemical signature is left behind.
There are also other markers they can use as well to determine if a suspected crater is in fact a crater:

Quoted from the UNB link below, and I'm listing just the first three:

1. Presence of shatter cones that are in situ (macroscopic evidence).
   ​
2. Presence of multiple planar deformation features (PDFs) in minerals within in situ lithologies (microscopic evidence).
   ​
3. Presence of high pressure mineral polymorphs within in situ lithologies (microscopic evidence and requiring proof via X-ray diffraction, etc.).​

Here's a pretty good page, from South Africa, that details the crater and the local geology:

http://www.hartrao.ac.za/other/vredefort/vredefort.html

I'll reference these pages as well:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Communication/Brana/impact.html

A meteor strike of that magnitude within the past 6,000 years simply did not happen.

What's even more telling is the number of impacts that have occurred over the course of 4.6 billion years:

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/

Then you have the bombardment that took place within the solar system that is still clearly visible on the moon, as well as Mercury. No really satisfactory answer from YECs there either.

 

[Jadis40]

CHRIST fulfilled the WORD of GOD. How does one fulfill what is not literal history?

Ok, you're talking about John 1?

It's symbolic language, expressing the truth of who our Lord Jesus Christ is - part of the Triune God.
The word 'Word' in what John wrote, in this instance, doesn't refer to scripture.

John 1:1-3:
In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word (Christ) was with God, and the Word (Christ) was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If you read it as I have indicated, substituting Christ for the word 'Word', the thought that John was expressing becomes evident, given the rest of the chapter.

Jesus Himself confirms that He was with God at the beginning:

John 17:5:
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was.

 

[juvenissun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by theFijian
How many meteor/asteroid strikes have there been on earth? How do they fit into a 6000 year time-frame?

I've asked this question of YECs myself. They really seem to dance around the question.

Would 20 million years solve the problem?

If the earth were 20 million years old, is she still a young one?

 

[juvenissun]

But there are no flood facts - there is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. None, zip, zero.

Now, I am going to make my third strike on your geological ignorance: (and I am wondering when would you start to throw "junk argument" into this one. I don't expect it would be long. May be after, say, 5 exchanges?)

How about a world-wide unconformity? Would that serve as an evidence of a global flood? (the understanding curve might be steep to you. But we will see what happen)

 

[theFijian]

Would 20 million years solve the problem?

If the earth were 20 million years old, is she still a young one?

Well yes it would certainly help wouldn't you think? See these related (and rather old) threads:

Meteroite impacts: how do those fit in with YEC?
Massive Volcanic events and earth impact catastrophies falsify young earth creationism

Maybe you could provide the answers others couldn't?

 

[LittleNipper]

Like part where he tell God's days can't always be taken literally? 2Pet 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That is speaking of GOD and not HIS creation. One day is one day. To GOD one day is as nothing. To us one day counts as something.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have to disagree, it's a book of theology, a book about God, Christ, his love for us. It is not a book of history.

Can you provide evidence for it's historical veracity?

Luke Chapter 3 starting at verse 23 ---- view Mary's geneology. Geneology is a science. It is an historic rundown of real ancestors.

 

[Assyrian]

Like part where he tell God's days can't always be taken literally? 2Pet 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That is speaking of GOD and not HIS creation.

It seems a bit odd then that Peter tells us this is one fact we should not overlook, since according to your interpretation it has nothing to do with us or the world we live in.

One day is one day. To GOD one day is as nothing. To us one day counts as something.

But it was God who created the universe, and it was God who inspired the prophetic revelation that is Genesis 1. As the account wasn't recorded by any human being, but is God explaining what happened, we should not 'overlook that one fact', that God's timescale is not ours, and prophetic 'days' which speak of what God has done or will do (the day of the Lord) may not fit our literal 24 hour days.

 

[LittleNipper]

It seems a bit odd then that Peter tells us this is one fact we should not overlook, since according to your interpretation it has nothing to do with us or the world we live in.


But it was God who created the universe, and it was God who inspired the prophetic revelation that is Genesis 1. As the account wasn't recorded by any human being, but is God explaining what happened, we should not 'overlook that one fact', that God's timescale is not ours, and prophetic 'days' which speak of what God has done or will do (the day of the Lord) may not fit our literal 24 hour days.

So GOD doesn't need a billion years because HE can make one day equal that.

 

[Assyrian]

So GOD doesn't a billion years because HE can make one day equal that.

He doesn't need to, because a billion years is as a day to him. And when the bible tells you, in both the Old Testament and the New, and tells you not to forget this one thing, that a thousand years in God's sight is as a day, then I would suggest you don't overlook this and assume every day God tells us about has to be a day from our perspective.

I would suggest instead of trying to fit everything in to a literalist interpretation, you let the bible teach you how you should approach it, that we have a God who loves to teach in parables and metaphors and whose view of time is very different from our limited understanding, who tells us twice, not to get our idea of time mixed up with his.