Where are all the bones?

[RickG]

Actually no. In my post which you responded to, I saw no contradiction in what I said and he said.

Generally it would be something like volcanic ash or a lava flow. Something that can be directly tied to the event as closely as possible.

 

[W2L]

Generally it would be something like volcanic ash or a lava flow. Something that can be directly tied to the event as closely as possible.

Semantics perhaps.

 

[RickG]

Semantics perhaps.

Well, you can't just pick up any rock. There has to be no question that it is connected to the site, and of course, the professionals in that area know how know that.

 

[W2L]

Well, you can't just pick up any rock. There has to be no question that it is connected to the site, and of course, the professionals in that area know how know that.

Of course.

 

[Radrook]

I challenge the young earth concept as described in the "creation science" literature. I do not challenge ones' literal belief of Genesis so long as those beliefs stay biblical. Conversely, "creation science" attempts to justify some scripture through what they term as science. In fact it is not science, but generally a misrepresentation of science, which is bearing false witness. One way they describe it is a different interpretation of the mainstream scientific literature. I have yet to see any creation science literature claiming a different interpretation to provide any original scientific data and/or research supporting what they claim; rather, it is nothing more than their opinion. There are also cases where "quote mines" are used. A quote mine is taking something someone has said, written, or published and turned it around completely out of context to mean something completely different. For example, Henry Gee, a paleontologist wrote a book titled In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. In the book, he uses one chapter to approach evolution from a denial point of view. Within that chapter he utilizes several reasons describing why evolution is false. After doing that, he then goes back and shows how each of those reasons are invalid. Numerous creation science citations have taken those arguments and presented them as a paleontologist who doesn't believe in evolution. The point is not whether one accepts or denies evolution, the point is that the creation science literature that claims Gee doesn't accept evolution is a deliberate, hugely distorted lie.

Now, look at your claim of dinosaurs not being million of years old. What do your sources say, or at least imply? Probably pretty much like they broke open a dinosaur bone and there was soft tissue and blood. That is an outright lie, no such thing happened. And even if they did, it still doesn't have, nullify evolution.

But enough of evolution. I wish to understand why you reject the age of the dinosaur fossil. What prevents if from being millions of years old?

I can't recall ever personally claiming that I believe it is impossible for any fossil to be that age. Can you please quote where I said that. What I recall having said is that certain creationists scientists take the latest evidence as proof that Evolutionists were wrong in their time estimates concerning dinosaurs.

Actually, my belief in a creator doesn't hinge on whether or not dino bones are really millions of year old or not. So in terms of affecting my conviction in that area, dino bones are totally irrelevant. However, since the thread is about fossils and certain ideas about the Devil being involved in some grand deception schema via manufacturing dino bones and placing them in certain strata and impishly mineralizing them to apper as if millions of years old, I provided the example of the recent discovery of dino bones which seems to indicate otherwise and jokingly proposed that Satan threw atheist evolutionist a curve ball with that one or else he was dozing off at the job and demonically fumbled.

 

[RickG]

I can't recall ever personally claiming that I believe it is impossible for any fossil to be that age. Can you please quote where I said that. What I recall having said is that certain creationists scientists take the latest evidence as proof that Evolutionists were wrong in their time estimates concerning dinosaurs.

Actually, my belief in a creator doesn't hinge on whether or not dino bones are really millions of year old or not. So in terms of affecting my conviction in that area, dino bones are totally irrelevant. However, since the thread is about fossils and certain ideas about the Devil being involved in some grand deception schema via manufacturing dino bones and placing them in certain strata and mineralizing them to apper as if millions of years old, I provided the example of the recent discovery of dino bones which seem to indicate otherwise and jokingly proposed that Satan threw atheist evolutionist a curve ball with that one or else he was dozing off at the job.

Okay, thanks for the clarification, I believe I must have misunderstood what you were getting at.

 

[Alithis]

I've heard that about the six thousand years. Where does it say that? What chapter?

We have the geneolgy from adam to jesus..with recorded ages of adam through to noah ,through to abraham ,through to moses ,through to david..trhough to jesus..and the time frame through to today.
So the age of the rock dirt and mud... Undefined except by guess work,aside,
Things which pertain to man upon the earth cover 6000 yrs ..give or take.

Perhaps you didnt read the bible yet to find the verses..
Now you might say as the unbelivers do,that it does not mean the earth is only 6000 . but only that man is.
But for beleivers it is not indispute.it only rises as a dispute by unbelivers.andtheclaim to christianity is made by many a non believer. Which rathercomplicates the topic.
Which are you by the way ?

 

[RickG]

We have the geneolgy from adam to jesus..with recorded ages of adam through to noah ,through to abraham ,through to moses ,through to david..trhough to jesus..and the time frame through to today.

Yes we have the genealogies, and even Issac Newton came up with a similar age of the earth based on those genealogies. What is not being considered in the age evaluation though is the earth that scripture has God creating (Gen. 1:1). Today, with very specific methods and well understood science we can date numerous different and completely independent things in the earth and cosmos as well. These are not assumptions or best guesses, rather straight forward chemistry and physics. Thus, with this new information, can see that the creation story needs to be viewed in a non-literal aspect. Otherwise, it would show God to be a deceiver. Think about it.

 

[keith99]

We have the geneolgy from adam to jesus..with recorded ages of adam through to noah ,through to abraham ,through to moses ,through to david..trhough to jesus..and the time frame through to today.
So the age of the rock dirt and mud... Undefined except by guess work,aside,
Things which pertain to man upon the earth cover 6000 yrs ..give or take.

Perhaps you didnt read the bible yet to find the verses..
Now you might say as the unbelivers do,that it does not mean the earth is only 6000 . but only that man is.
But for beleivers it is not indispute.it only rises as a dispute by unbelivers.andtheclaim to christianity is made by many a non believer. Which rathercomplicates the topic.
Which are you by the way ?

Actually it is in dispute among believers. It seems only those who view the genealogies in a childish and non Jewish manner think there is no dispute.

 

[Blondepudding]

It doesn't say that at all.
The six thousand years is the time from the creation of man up to the present.

That was what I was asking about prior.
If it doesn't say that in the bible then how given the archaeological record of early man excavations that date to millions of years, is a six thousand year earth period arrived at?

 

[Blondepudding]

We have the geneolgy from adam to jesus..with recorded ages of adam through to noah ,through to abraham ,through to moses ,through to david..trhough to jesus..and the time frame through to today.
So the age of the rock dirt and mud... Undefined except by guess work,aside,
Things which pertain to man upon the earth cover 6000 yrs ..give or take.

Perhaps you didnt read the bible yet to find the verses..
Now you might say as the unbelivers do,that it does not mean the earth is only 6000 . but only that man is.
But for beleivers it is not indispute.it only rises as a dispute by unbelivers.andtheclaim to christianity is made by many a non believer. Which rathercomplicates the topic.
Which are you by the way ?

I'm the Ignostic in the bunch. Which would probably be defined by your criteria as unbeliever.
I didn't know there was no dispute about the 6000 years. I thought a young earth teaching was very controversial even among Christian peers.

How do you explain the dating systems science has invented in order to test bones and space rocks and whatnot?

 

[Alithis]

I'm the Ignostic in the bunch. Which would probably be defined by your criteria as unbeliever.
I didn't know there was no dispute about the 6000 years. I thought a young earth teaching was very controversial even among Christian peers.

How do you explain the dating systems science has invented in order to test bones and space rocks and whatnot?

Lol i dont... Niether do they. Its guess work .majorly flawed.
Its accurate to about 2000 years .beyond that it seems to lengthen in time based upon the belief of the person interpreting the data .
The ice core dating sytem has come under no end of fire due to the lost squadren saga.http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/
But not to get into that. Its just the same pattern over and over and over
The bible states one thing.science states another.
Then more science disproves sciences claim.
But the bible remains unchanged.
Then science boldly makes another clain againt the bible..then more new science refutes its own claim..
But the bible remains unchanged..
Then more science.... You get the picture..

 

[Radrook]

That was what I was asking about prior.
If it doesn't say that in the bible then how given the archaeological record of early man excavations that date to millions of years, is a six thousand year earth period arrived at?

Please note that fundamentalist Christians would never accept any supposed scientific statement as true if it blatantly contradicts what is considered the inspired Word of God. They view such claims as bogus and as very likely part of a grand Satanic scheme to denigrate the bible and weaken faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior since Jesus himself accepted that genealogical record of mankind.

Generation
Mat 1:16-2 Luk 3:23-38
1
Jesus Jesus
2
Joseph Joseph
3
Jacob Heli
4
Matthan Matthat
5
Eleazar Levi
6
Eliud Melchi
7
Achim Janna
8
Sadoc Joseph
9
Azor Mattathias
10
Eliakim Amos
11
Abiud Naum
12
Zorobabel Esli
13
Salathiel Nagge
14
Jechonias Maath
15
Josias Mattathias
16
Amon Semei
17
Manasses Joseph
18
Ezekias Juda
19
Achaz Joanna
20
Joatham Rhesa
21
Ozias Zorobabel
22
Joram Salathiel
23
Josaphat Neri
24
Asa Melchi
25
Abia Addi
26
Roboam Cosam
27
Solomon Elmodam
28
David Er
29
Jesse Jose
30
Obed Eliezer
31
Booz Jorim
32
Salmon Matthat
33
Naasson Levi
34
Aminadab Simeon
35
Aram Juda
36
Esrom Joseph
37
Phares Jonan
38
Judas Eliakim
39
Jacob Melea
40
Isaac Menan
41
Abraham Mattatha
42
Nathan
43
David
44
Jesse
45
Obed
46
Booz
47
Salmon
48
Naasson
49
Aminadab
50
Aram
51
Esrom
52
Phares
53
Juda
54
Jacob
55
Isaac
56
Abraham
57
Thara
58
Nachor
59
Saruch
60
Ragau
61
Phalec
62
Heber
63
Sala
64
Cainan
65
Arphaxad
66
Sem
67
Noe
68
Lamech
69
Mathusala
70
Enoch
71
Jared
72
Maleleel
73
Cainan
74
Enos
75
Seth
76
Adam
77
God

 

[RickG]

I didn't know there was no dispute about the 6000 years. I thought a young earth teaching was very controversial even among Christian peers.

The young earth group is extremely small.

How do you explain the dating systems science has invented in order to test bones and space rocks and whatnot?

They deliberately misrepresent them. Keep in mind that their target audience is the layman, not the scientific community.

 

[Radrook]

The young earth group is extremely small.


They deliberately misrepresent them. Keep in mind that their target audience is the layman, not the scientific community.

Target audience hasn't prevented atheist scientists from misrepresenting data in order to support their preconceptions as well.

Has it?

 

[RickG]

Target audience hasn't prevented atheist scientists from misrepresenting data in order to support their preconceptions as well.

Has it?

Mainstream science has nothing to do with anyone religious or non religious background or beliefs. Outside of archeology, it does not address anything in the bible. Frankly, your painting science as atheist is disrespectful and badgering. Grow up!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Target audience hasn't prevented atheist scientists from misrepresenting data in order to support their preconceptions as well.

Has it?

Can you even show that non-creationist scientists (since the scientists who study evolution are both religious and non-religious) have misrepresented data?

 

[Radrook]

Can you even show that non-creationist scientists (since the scientists who study evolution are both religious and non-religious) have misrepresented data?

Can you even show that non-creationist scientists are completely innocent of misrepresenting data? Actually, the whole atheistic concept and modus operandi is seriously flawed as pointed out in the article below.

Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance
http://www.deism.com/dogmaticatheism.htm

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can you even show that non-creationist scientists are completely innocent of misrepresenting data?

No, that's not how this works. You made the following claim:

Target audience hasn't prevented atheist scientists from misrepresenting data in order to support their preconceptions as well.

Can you present any evidence to back up this claim?

 

[RickG]

Can you even show that non-creationist scientists are completely innocent of misrepresenting data?

What data? Be specific.