RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

DanJames -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/19/2008 3:41:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops

It's been found out that the Ica Stones apparently are frauds. According to AnswersinGenesis, a Peruvian surgeon bought the stones from a local artist who paints such things for tourists. The artist himself never claimed the stones were ancient artifacts.
See website http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bishop.asp, in the citations at the bottom of the page.
I hate to break any Creationist bubbles, since I am a YEC myself, but I think you would better spend your time discussing evidence that is genuine.


And so it goes.... No matter how many of these "evidences" are shown to be frauds, forgeries or misinterpretations, YECs will still cling to their beliefs: "But this OTHER case is genuine!" All the while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence on the other side.


Sigh....

Yeah, we creationists did the same thing with Haeckel's embryo drawings and Nebraska man/pig. Seems like we'll hold on to any evidence to promote our theory. [8|]



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/19/2008 4:15:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
Every reputable scientist on the planet will tell you this.


Oh yes, the No true Scotsman fallacy.



DaveW -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/20/2008 2:40:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

And so it goes.... No matter how many of these "evidences" are shown to be frauds, forgeries or misinterpretations, YECs will still cling to their beliefs: "But this OTHER case is genuine!" All the while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence on the other side.
YEC cannot be proved. Sure the evidence is toward an old earth.

However, this is a theology issue. Is the bible true or not? If one part can be 'proved' false it throws the whole rest of it in question. The opening of Genesis would seem to indicate that creation happened about 4000 bc. How does that square with dinosaurs that are millions of years old and stars that are billions? I don't know and as one prominant politician said recenty: "That is above my pay grade."

But one thing is clear: that the bible is written from a relational rather than a technical viewpoint. Many technical things may happen between the lines. I leave that open.



unclemonkey -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/20/2008 10:35:29 PM)

ORIGINAL:DaveW
quote:

Sure the evidence is toward an old earth.

That is actually an incorrect statement. Most may interpret the evidence as favoring an old earth, but that is only because they start from an old earth perspective. When the evidence is interpreted from the perspective that Genesis is an accurate history book the evidence fits with an earth of about 6,000 years old.
Whether the evidence better fits an old earth or a young earth depends on one’s a priori assumptions. My a priori assumption is that the book of Genesis is an accurate history book; therefore, from my point of view, any INTERPRETATION of evidence that suggests millions/billions of years is in error.



catfighter -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/21/2008 12:57:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:DaveW
quote:

Sure the evidence is toward an old earth.

That is actually an incorrect statement. Most may interpret the evidence as favoring an old earth, but that is only because they start from an old earth perspective. When the evidence is interpreted from the perspective that Genesis is an accurate history book the evidence fits with an earth of about 6,000 years old.
Whether the evidence better fits an old earth or a young earth depends on one’s a priori assumptions. My a priori assumption is that the book of Genesis is an accurate history book; therefore, from my point of view, any INTERPRETATION of evidence that suggests millions/billions of years is in error.


Based on your priory assumptions, what evidence can you provide that would indicate it is possible for a human to live in the stomach of a whale or large fish for 3 days?



DaveW -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/21/2008 6:47:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: catfighter

Based on your priory assumptions, what evidence can you provide that would indicate it is possible for a human to live in the stomach of a whale or large fish for 3 days?
My world view is not at all limited to just the physical realm. Living in the belly of a fish or whale, donkeys speaking, dead bodies coming back to life after being thrown on top of Elisha's bones, the Red Sea parting, columns of fire and cloud, localized areas of time dilation like the long day of Josh 10; none of these can be explained by purely natural forces. My world view includes God (and occasionally the other guy) making supernatural incursions into our time/space existance.

i.e.: a miracle.



robto -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/22/2008 7:35:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW
YEC cannot be proved. Sure the evidence is toward an old earth.

Agreed.
quote:


However, this is a theology issue. Is the bible true or not? If one part can be 'proved' false it throws the whole rest of it in question. The opening of Genesis would seem to indicate that creation happened about 4000 bc. How does that square with dinosaurs that are millions of years old and stars that are billions? I don't know and as one prominant politician said recenty: "That is above my pay grade."

It seems to me this is only an issue if you view the bible as a magical book that is utterly different in nature from anything else that has ever been written. If, on the other hand, you view the bible as a collection of actual historical documents that (naturally) reflect the worldviews of their various authors and the cultural contexts in which they were written, the problem disappears. Genesis reflects the world view of Jews who lived 3000 years ago and who didn't have the scientific knowledge that we have now. Why should we be surprised if their view of the age of the earth differs from the modern, scientific one?

quote:


But one thing is clear: that the bible is written from a relational rather than a technical viewpoint. Many technical things may happen between the lines. I leave that open.


Not sure what you mean exactly, but if you're saying, "The bible is not, and was never intended to be, a science textbook," I agree with you.



Death_Venom -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/23/2008 2:37:14 PM)

Here is a interesting idea that relates to carbon dating. Maybe the earth is not as X millions years. But when god create the earth he did not creat the earth in a state of infancy-but when it was created it created as a mature planet?

I don't think that is too far outside the box.........



Heavendweller -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/23/2008 3:19:31 PM)

Why the age of the earth is so controversial among Christians is puzzling to me. I see no conflict within my Christian faith if I support an old earth view. The conflict comes in if I doubt that the Author of all that is visible and invisible is God, the Lord. And the conflict would come in should I believe that humans evolved from the ape-man. Scripture makes it clear that we are descended from Adam and Eve. Scripture also makes it clear that the "prime mover" is God, the Creator of Heaven and earth.

As to the age of the earth, how various species evolved, the age of the dinosaurs...I leave the scientists to haggle over such things.

HD



robto -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/23/2008 6:59:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Venom

Here is a interesting idea that relates to carbon dating. Maybe the earth is not as X millions years. But when god create the earth he did not creat the earth in a state of infancy-but when it was created it created as a mature planet?

I don't think that is too far outside the box.........


A couple problems with that idea:

- If he created the earth to SEEM 4 billion years old when it's NOT 4 billion years old, isn't that deceptive?

- We can look through a telescope and see exploding stars, pulsating stars, and so forth, that are more than a million light years away. So, if the earth is only 6000 years old, NONE OF THAT STUFF REALLY HAPPENED! It's like a video created by God to fool us into thinking we're looking at exploding starts, etc, that are millions of light-years away. That's DEFINITELY deceptive.



Death_Venom -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/24/2008 1:12:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Venom

Here is a interesting idea that relates to carbon dating. Maybe the earth is not as X millions years. But when god create the earth he did not creat the earth in a state of infancy-but when it was created it created as a mature planet?

I don't think that is too far outside the box.........


A couple problems with that idea:

- If he created the earth to SEEM 4 billion years old when it's NOT 4 billion years old, isn't that deceptive?

- We can look through a telescope and see exploding stars, pulsating stars, and so forth, that are more than a million light years away. So, if the earth is only 6000 years old, NONE OF THAT STUFF REALLY HAPPENED! It's like a video created by God to fool us into thinking we're looking at exploding starts, etc, that are millions of light-years away. That's DEFINITELY deceptive.


I do not understand how that would be decpetive. Quite possibly a planet in its early stages of development (eq: Venus or Mecury) could not sustain life. Therefore creating a mature planet that is prepared to support life makes complete sense.



DanJames -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/24/2008 5:25:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Venom

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Venom

Here is a interesting idea that relates to carbon dating. Maybe the earth is not as X millions years. But when god create the earth he did not creat the earth in a state of infancy-but when it was created it created as a mature planet?

I don't think that is too far outside the box.........


A couple problems with that idea:

- If he created the earth to SEEM 4 billion years old when it's NOT 4 billion years old, isn't that deceptive?

- We can look through a telescope and see exploding stars, pulsating stars, and so forth, that are more than a million light years away. So, if the earth is only 6000 years old, NONE OF THAT STUFF REALLY HAPPENED! It's like a video created by God to fool us into thinking we're looking at exploding starts, etc, that are millions of light-years away. That's DEFINITELY deceptive.


I do not understand how that would be decpetive. Quite possibly a planet in its early stages of development (eq: Venus or Mecury) could not sustain life. Therefore creating a mature planet that is prepared to support life makes complete sense.


My what a twisted web we weave. Perhaps the earth doesn't actually look any older than it actually does, any more than a toddler "looks" 10 years old based on the fact that he's 30 inches tall and growing 3 inches per year. Look guys, we can take the Bible at its word. We don't need to "think outside the box" by reinterpreting the Bible, and we don't need to believe that the earth was created to look old.



Death_Venom -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/24/2008 6:10:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Venom

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Venom

Here is a interesting idea that relates to carbon dating. Maybe the earth is not as X millions years. But when god create the earth he did not creat the earth in a state of infancy-but when it was created it created as a mature planet?

I don't think that is too far outside the box.........


A couple problems with that idea:

- If he created the earth to SEEM 4 billion years old when it's NOT 4 billion years old, isn't that deceptive?

- We can look through a telescope and see exploding stars, pulsating stars, and so forth, that are more than a million light years away. So, if the earth is only 6000 years old, NONE OF THAT STUFF REALLY HAPPENED! It's like a video created by God to fool us into thinking we're looking at exploding starts, etc, that are millions of light-years away. That's DEFINITELY deceptive.


I do not understand how that would be decpetive. Quite possibly a planet in its early stages of development (eq: Venus or Mecury) could not sustain life. Therefore creating a mature planet that is prepared to support life makes complete sense.


My what a twisted web we weave. Perhaps the earth doesn't actually look any older than it actually does, any more than a toddler "looks" 10 years old based on the fact that he's 30 inches tall and growing 3 inches per year. Look guys, we can take the Bible at its word. We don't need to "think outside the box" by reinterpreting the Bible, and we don't need to believe that the earth was created to look old.


There is no re-interpreting the Bible. Apparently you missed the entire point of my point. The 6,000 year old earth does not make a whole lot of sense since it is based on counting the generations listed. Many Pastors (and Bible scholars) agree that when they counted the generations they counted only those that were pertinate to eatablishing certain lineages. Same thing goes for when the Bible states "and they counted 500 people" (no particular verse reference there-merely giving an example)-they did not count women or children and often times rounded up or down.



DanJames -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/25/2008 6:43:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Venom
There is no re-interpreting the Bible. Apparently you missed the entire point of my point. The 6,000 year old earth does not make a whole lot of sense since it is based on counting the generations listed. Many Pastors (and Bible scholars) agree that when they counted the generations they counted only those that were pertinate to eatablishing certain lineages. Same thing goes for when the Bible states "and they counted 500 people" (no particular verse reference there-merely giving an example)-they did not count women or children and often times rounded up or down.

Perhaps the reason that I missed the point is because none of the stuff you just said had anything to do with the stuff that we've been talking about. We're talking about God creating a planet that looks old. This being the way that we explain a "4.8 billion year old" earth that was created 6,000 (or 10,000 or 50,000, whatever you want to say) years ago. I said that the earth does not look old because the things that are used to explain that the earth is old can and should be reinterpreted, not the Bible.



iluvatar -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/25/2008 7:37:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Venom
I do not understand how that would be decpetive. Quite possibly a planet in its early stages of development (eq: Venus or Mecury) could not sustain life. Therefore creating a mature planet that is prepared to support life makes complete sense.


Were that the only issue, I could see your point. I used to hold that view myself - after all, Adam & Eve were created as adults, weren't they? The problem is that there is evidence of past events - things that have no bearing on the planet's recent inhabitability or the course of recent human history - which can't all be crammed into 6000 years of history w/o some pretty dire consequences.

For example, there are a number of very large meteor craters located around the earth that are enough or almost enough to cause extinction-level events on their own. Since none of those have happened in recorded human history, they would all have had to have happened within 2000 years of each other - which would leave the earth a lifeless hunk of rock. And that's only the impact craters we've found - because of earth's geological activity (tectonic movements, erosion, etc), craters can disappear.

For example, we can look at the Hawaii-Emperor seamount chain and follow the progression of the pacific plate as it floats on the earth's mantle. Most of the "islands" in this chain are older and have eroded to below sea level.

We can look in the sky and see supernovae occurring great distances away. However, for that light to have arrived here now, the original event must have occurred much more than 6000 years ago.

This isn't just a case of a mature earth being required to support life. This earth has a history of events that took place. The analogy isn't that Adam & Eve were created as adults. It's that Adam was created with an appendectomy scar, Eve created with a C-section scar, and both with memories of childhoods that never occurred. That's what we're saying is deceptive.

-Dan.



steve7150 -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/25/2008 8:23:38 PM)

[quote]In public school we were taught the 'big bang theory' dinosaurs and homosapiens. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God created Adam and Eve. But Dinosaurs were believed to be on earth before man 230 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs so why does the bible not talk about this? Where does this fit in?


I'm a bible believer but i believe the creation days were epochs not 24 hr days therefore dinosaurs existing 230 mill yrs ago does not contradict the bible. Dinosaurs may be mentioned by the bible with terms like "leviathan" or perhaps "nephilim" but dinosaurs are not part of God's redemptive plan for mankind so there is no reason the bible should talk about dinosaurs anymore then kangaroos.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/26/2008 5:12:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:DaveW
quote:

Sure the evidence is toward an old earth.

That is actually an incorrect statement. Most may interpret the evidence as favoring an old earth, but that is only because they start from an old earth perspective. When the evidence is interpreted from the perspective that Genesis is an accurate history book the evidence fits with an earth of about 6,000 years old.
Whether the evidence better fits an old earth or a young earth depends on one’s a priori assumptions. My a priori assumption is that the book of Genesis is an accurate history book; therefore, from my point of view, any INTERPRETATION of evidence that suggests millions/billions of years is in error.


I would contest this. The scientists who first determined that the Earth is quite old were must have come from cultures that assumed a young age for the Earth. How could they not have? All previous notions of the Earth's age had come from religious texts, most of which suggest a very young age. Only by breaking away from the a priori assumptions of those religious texts allowed them to take a more objective look at the evidence.
If the evidence had supported a young age, this probably wouldn't have surprised them much, as the popular consensus was that of a young Earth. The evidence, however, does not seem to coincide with a young Earth.



Consecrated2God -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/27/2008 9:49:51 AM)

Please take the young earth/old earth discussion to the appropriate thread.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Moderator

Do not reply to this warning in the community or send me PM's about it. If you have questions or comments, please e-mail community@salemwebnetwork.com.



atruefaith -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/30/2008 3:31:10 PM)

quote:

And so it goes.... No matter how many of these "evidences" are shown to be frauds, forgeries or misinterpretations, YECs will still cling to their beliefs: "But this OTHER case is genuine!" All the while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence on the other side.


I know what you mean. I see the same thing all the time when Atheists cling to the notion that the universe spontaneously generated itself out of ex nihlo. It's terribly frustrating.



atruefaith -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/30/2008 3:35:50 PM)

quote:

The opening of Genesis would seem to indicate that creation happened about 4000 bc.


Only if you assume that the period between the end of the seventh day of Creation and Adam's expulsion from the garden was but a few days, weeks, months, etc. The time, however, is left open in Genesis and for all we know could have been epochs worth of modern time in this pre-fallen world.



flyboy2610 -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/30/2008 6:51:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: atruefaith

quote:

And so it goes.... No matter how many of these "evidences" are shown to be frauds, forgeries or misinterpretations, YECs will still cling to their beliefs: "But this OTHER case is genuine!" All the while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence on the other side.


I know what you mean. I see the same thing all the time when Atheists cling to the notion that the universe spontaneously generated itself out of ex nihlo. It's terribly frustrating.


Atheists and evolutionists also believe that people evolved from rocks.



robto -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/31/2008 8:50:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: atruefaith

quote:

And so it goes.... No matter how many of these "evidences" are shown to be frauds, forgeries or misinterpretations, YECs will still cling to their beliefs: "But this OTHER case is genuine!" All the while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence on the other side.


I know what you mean. I see the same thing all the time when Atheists cling to the notion that the universe spontaneously generated itself out of ex nihlo. It's terribly frustrating.


Hold on there - it's CHRISTIANS who claim that the universe was created ex nihilo. ATHEISTS, AFAIK, don't have any fixed beliefs about the origin of the universe, but most of the ones I know would say "I don't know how, or if, the universe originated." Thus showing a degree of humility that certain religionists would do well to imitate.

Some COSMOLOGISTS have speculated about the causes of the Big Bang, but these speculations don't require the denial (or existence) of a deity. And all will admit that these theories are highly conjectural at this stage.



flyboy2610 -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (10/31/2008 6:03:38 PM)

The difference is that Christians believe in a Creator who is able to create something out of nothing.
Atheists are left with two choices: the eternality of matter, or spontaneous creation of matter from nothing without a creator. Belief in the Big Bang doesn't solve the problem. One is still faced with the question of where the tiny ball of matter came from. It was either there eternally, or it created itself from nothing. Some physicists have estimated that the initial ball of matter, perhaps smaller than a period on this page, weighed no more than 25 pounds. Even granting the eternality of THAT ball of mass, one is still faced with the question of where the rest of the mass in the universe came from.



Heavendweller -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (11/1/2008 12:20:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flyboy2610

The difference is that Christians believe in a Creator who is able to create something out of nothing.
Atheists are left with two choices: the eternality of matter, or spontaneous creation of matter from nothing without a creator. Belief in the Big Bang doesn't solve the problem. One is still faced with the question of where the tiny ball of matter came from. It was either there eternally, or it created itself from nothing. Some physicists have estimated that the initial ball of matter, perhaps smaller than a period on this page, weighed no more than 25 pounds. Even granting the eternality of THAT ball of mass, one is still faced with the question of where the rest of the mass in the universe came from.

Great post, Flyboy.

HD



iluvatar -> RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men (11/1/2008 5:19:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flyboy2610

Some physicists have estimated that the initial ball of matter, perhaps smaller than a period on this page, weighed no more than 25 pounds.


Do you have a source for that? I've never heard that.

-Dan.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI