[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[Barbarian]

So the question stands. How did the dinosaurs die off before Death entered into the world because of the fall? They didn't and they are still here. The most obvious are the American Alligators, the African Crocs, the Australian Croc known as the Salties that also stretch across Indian Ocean or, I don't recall sea. The easiest for us to see in America are the Camillians found in the south that crawl across m window screens and drive my cats nuts. From Florida and Georgia across to California and well into South America the Dinosaurs are here.

They are more distantly related to dinosaurs than we are to bears.

The Dinos were giant lizards

Lizards are even more distantly related to dinosaurs.

and I will postulate that Noah had 7 Female and 7 Males on board, what they would have considered, babies.

More non-scriptural beliefs, um?

 

[Barbarian]

Even most creationists now admit that many dinosaurs had feathers. At least some dinosaurs also had bird lungs. Would you like to see some examples?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Ok, for the sake of discussion, I'll consider what you're saying Doulos. Allright, so they evolved feathers, I'm with you on that...but...what hasn't been answered yet (we're both Christians and believe scripture even if we have disagreed on some points) and so I ask you again now brother... I don't get it how dinosaurs died off before men were created...before sin or death entered into the world.

I don't get it brother. Can you explain that one to me?

Certainly, I can help with that though this is an area of Scripture I have studied less so please forgive me in using a couple different links here.

I am not certain on a particular view at this time, but I think these statements reflect my personal views to a pretty good degree.

In Regards to Animal Death before the Fall:

"The Bible passages that teach about sin and death are clearly referring to the death of humans. Do these passages also refer to animals? Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) didn’t think so. He believed that God’s original creation included animals that killed each other, writing that “the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin.”1 Pastor Daniel Harrell makes a logical argument for animal death, writing that “there had to be death in the Garden, otherwise Adam would have been overrun by bugs and bacteria long before he took that forbidden bite of fruit.”2 Animal death is also necessary to maintain population levels in a balanced ecosystem (see below for more). Some Bible passages portray predatory animals as part of God’s original plan for creation (Job 38:39-41, 39:29-30, Psalm 104:21,29). Other passages speak of the “wolf laying down with the lamb” instead of killing the lamb (Isaiah 11:6-7, Isaiah 65:25), but these verses refer to the future kingdom of God, not the original creation. While animal death and suffering raises other theological questions (see Sidebar), it does not contradict Biblical teaching about death as a consequence of sin."
Source: http://biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall

In Regards to Physical versus Spiritual Death:

"This corresponds to the picture we get from Genesis. The sin of Adam and Eve fractures their relationship with one another and with nature. Cain kills Abel and violence pervades the world. Genesis 1-11 is not an historical narrative but does describe the human condition. We inherit selfish tendencies and are also born and nurtured in cultures estranged from God, taking in idolatrous views and values with our first breaths. Augustine was right about the seriousness of this sinful state, one in which people cannot cooperate with God because they are spiritually dead.

Unregenerate sinners are spiritually dead, but biological death can’t be attributed to sin. The fossil record shows that creatures were dying long before humans came on the scene. There is no scriptural reason to argue otherwise, for texts connecting sin and death have only humanity in view. The notion that God had to create a world with no suffering or death fails to appreciate a theology of the cross. Since God shared in the dying of creatures to bring about his purpose for creation, it shouldn’t surprise us that he created a world in which death plays a role.

What about human death? Paul did say that “all die in Adam” (I Corinthians 15:22). How can we understand this if the earliest humans were mortal?

Genesis doesn’t say whether Adam and Eve would have died if they hadn’t sinned. However, the later Judaism in which Paul was educated had come to see sin as the cause of physical death. When Paul says that death came through Adam he meant biological as well as spiritual death.

But biological death has powerful affects. Suffering, loss, uncertainty about an afterlife, the horror of rotting corpses and regret for unfinished work may all be present. The most serious threat is separation from God. It is finally sin that makes death terrible. Those who live biologically but without God partake of death in an important sense.

Perhaps biological death didn’t have to have all those affects. If humans had not sinned, they might have seen death purely as a transition to a future life. But we look back over history as people who have lived our whole lives in a sinful atmosphere, and see all earth’s dying as something more and worse than physical death. We can’t think of it as a purely biological phenomenon. Sin did not cause death but gives it new meaning.

Paul too saw death as a biological-spiritual whole. He may have been wrong about biological death originating with Adam, just as the writer of Genesis was wrong about the dome of the sky, and the Holy Spirit accommodated revelation to Paul’s culturally conditioned idea. But Paul was right that sin makes death “the last enemy” that can be defeated only by God."
Source: http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-sin-and-death

Are these infallible interpretations? No, but they are efforts to reconcile all the knowledge we have on the matter and I think do a pretty good job. The second answer in particular might be unsatisfactory to you, and you may not be accustomed to reading Scripture from a standpoint of reading it as from the perspective of ancient men, but this is additional knowledge we have gleaned from the Historical Critical tradition.

 

[Edward]

Doulos:..Are these infallible interpretations? No, but they are efforts to reconcile all the knowledge we have on the matter and I think do a pretty good job. The second answer in particular might be unsatisfactory to you, and you may not be accustomed to reading Scripture from a standpoint of reading it as from the perspective of ancient men, but this is additional knowledge we have gleaned from the Historical Critical tradition..

Yeah, you see it too, don't you? It doesn't agree with scripture. I do see a fine effort by them to twist the scripture into being able to reconcile the knowledge of evolution into it, but it does fall short so ultimately must be rejected and does nothing to convince me that evolution is anything more than a fable that Darwin made up. If Darwin would've had an illustrator, he could've made a fine comic book for those days.

Even in the first part, the bit about bugs and bacteria would have taken over is a huge assumption and clearly portrays God as less than perfect and a liar in that, if the world would have continued without sin, then the world would have gone down the tube anyway? I don't buy that either. Scripture says that looked at His creation and behold it was very good...not behold it will be good for awhile until bugs take over and the animals over-populate the place, lol.

We just don't know how the mechanics of the eco-system would have worked out without sin because...sin happened, and man has a feeble mind so can't really comprehend it. So we have no clue. Nice try brother. Care to try again?

 

[lordkalvan]

I wasn't speaking with you but I will say that you have an example of a feather of completely unknown origin so now that you have tried to assist Kalvan to stand up, let's see if he can connect it to a dinosaur. I will state now that during my education endeavors, none were able to do such a thing though it was much discussed.

Actually, Post #123 in which you asked to be shown dinosaur feathers was, indeed, directed towards Doulos lesou. That small point aside, recent research into the details of feather ultrastructure, together with further discoveries of feathered and proto-feathered dinosaurs (especially in China) leave little doubt that dinosaurs were feathered and that the hypothesis concerning their relationship to birds is strengthened. Even as early as 1863 Thomas Huxley recognised that Archaeopteryx - undoubtedly a feathered animal - had legs, arms, and a head that were very like those of the theropod dinosaur Compsognathus.

There are basic types of feathers (from quite simple thread-like appendages, then down feathers, leading in to pennaceous contour and flight feathers) that have long been identified and recognised and if the theropods are looked at as a whole, the earlier species such asSinosauropteryx have filamentous appendages, similar to The thread-like features referred to above, while later species have true pennaceous feathers. Examples of these are found in the Jehol theropods discovered in China.

A more detailed discussion of this research can be found at http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/melanosomes/origins.html.

ETA Also see Doulos lesou's excellent reply to you above.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yeah, you see it too, don't you? It doesn't agree with scripture. I do see a fine effort by them to twist the scripture into being able to reconcile the knowledge of evolution into it, but it does fall short so ultimately must be rejected and does nothing to convince me that evolution is anything more than a fable that Darwin made up. If Darwin would've had an illustrator, he could've made a fine comic book for those days.

If I saw what you see then I wouldn't have my own views. You see they call them different perspectives for a reason.

I ultimately lean towards a more Jewish Centric understanding of Genesis 1-3, but the elements of Spiritual Death are in agreement with what I believe.

We also disagree in regards to how we use Scripture. I don't view Scripture as some kind of scientific text book. I look to the natural world to obtain that information.

Even in the first part, the bit about bugs and bacteria would have taken over is a huge assumption and clearly portrays God as less than perfect and a liar in that, if the world would have continued without sin, then the world would have gone down the tube anyway? I don't buy that either. Scripture says that looked at His creation and behold it was very good...not behold it will be good for awhile until bugs take over and the animals over-populate the place, lol.

Perhaps you assume this to be the case, but in reality God made it so that things developed naturally. Much like they do today, and seem to have always done.

Can you imagine if all the Bacteria in your body and in the world were not to die what would happen? Not to mention bugs and other critters that currently exist. This resembles much of the Noah's Ark arguments, where logical inconsistencies and indeed impossibilites are pointed out and people just appeal to miracles.

Such arguments are unfalsifiable and are simply taken as matters of faith, such grounds for belief is not justifiable as knowledge and this person cannot be convinced otherwise.

We just don't know how the mechanics of the eco-system would have worked out without sin because...sin happened, and man has a feeble mind so can't really comprehend it. So we have no clue. Nice try brother. Care to try again?

Wait a second, are you actually expecting me to believe that I can present something that will convince you?

I presented an alternative perspective to your own and you disagree with it. That's fine, but Christian brothers such as myself believe it. Agreed to disagree.

 

[Drew]

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the danger of reading Scripture through 21st century (post-enlightenment) western eyes rather than through the eyes of those who wrote the texts (and who were embedded in an entirely different culture). It is entirely possible, and I would expect scholars would suggest even likely, that the Hebrew culture in which Scripture was written used "story" to make important statements about God, humankind, and the broader creation. I suggest that many 21st century western Christians think the Scriptures are intended to be "history". Well, that cannot simply be assumed given the many literary forms that humans have used in different times and places.

So if the creation account is intended to communicate the general idea that humanity has become estranged from God through sin, there really is no need to worry about "how could animals have died before mankind appeared". The point is simply that mankind's sin has resulted in estrangement from God and damage to all creation.

By the way, I am not sure this "spiritual death" vs "physical death" is a legitimate distinction. Again, I am suspicious that this model that splits the world up into "spiritual" and "physical" domains is really a Greek idea, not a Hebrew one.

While I am not a biologist, nor have I ever studied biology, it's very difficult to believe that, given the nature of scientific inquiry - and in particular the commitment to always appeal to evidence - that there is somehow either a massive conspiracy among scientists to suppress the truth, or that they are all so philosophically inclined to deny God His place that they distort and misrepresent.

It's really too much to believe, frankly.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Here is an up close image of a fossilized Dinosaur feather.

Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...feathers-found-in-ancient-amber/#.VGKxV_nF_Lk

This is an image of Dinosaur feathers preserved in ancient amber.

I have a very honest question, how has it been determined to belong to a dinosaur?

 

[th1b.taylor]

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the danger of reading Scripture through 21st century (post-enlightenment) western eyes rather than through the eyes of those who wrote the texts (and who were embedded in an entirely different culture). It is entirely possible, and I would expect scholars would suggest even likely, that the Hebrew culture in which Scripture was written used "story" to make important statements about God, humankind, and the broader creation. I suggest that many 21st century western Christians think the Scriptures are intended to be "history". Well, that cannot simply be assumed given the many literary forms that humans have used in different times and places.

So if the creation account is intended to communicate the general idea that humanity has become estranged from God through sin, there really is no need to worry about "how could animals have died before mankind appeared". The point is simply that mankind's sin has resulted in estrangement from God and damage to all creation.

By the way, I am not sure this "spiritual death" vs "physical death" is a legitimate distinction. Again, I am suspicious that this model that splits the world up into "spiritual" and "physical" domains is really a Greek idea, not a Hebrew one.

While I am not a biologist, nor have I ever studied biology, it's very difficult to believe that, given the nature of scientific inquiry - and in particular the commitment to always appeal to evidence - that there is somehow either a massive conspiracy among scientists to suppress the truth, or that they are all so philosophically inclined to deny God His place that they distort and misrepresent.

It's really too much to believe, frankly.

Drew,
I know the danger of assumptions, this string is re pleat with them but if there is Spiritual Life there must be Spiritual Life. Now, based on Life Experience, I have known them both in my natural life times for as it is spoken, often, I once was dead but now am alive.

Then, with a thorough reading and exam of the printed Word of God there stand proclamations in the text that the Bible was and is the Inspired Word of God. And it can clearly be discerned that 40 men plus or minus one or two (man type argument), some of which never knew nor had the opportunity to read the other's work, recorded the same things.

Then there is the proven age or the Dead Sea Scrolls and coupled with events that occurred well after that point, such as the over three hundred Prophecies Jesus is recored to have fulfilled.

For Jesus to have fulfilled just 8 prophecies, I read a Prof., in the Case for Christ, worked the probability to be better than in the trillions to one, as I recall it. If it were only one chance in a hundred thousand it would stand as irrefutable.

I hate to inform you but Jesus taught us, except you believe you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Christian Faith is just that, it is faith and has nothing to do with attendance in Sunday School or in Worship Service. We attend those that we might grow in faith and might learn to worship more.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I have a very honest question, how has it been determined to belong to a dinosaur?

I am not a Paleontologist, but from what I have learned about this particular study and why they consider it to be belonging to a Dinosaur is for the following reasons.

1. Many of the protofeathers are not found on any known bird fossils, and even in some cases resemble a kind of "fuzz."
2. The filament structures observed on the fossilized protofeathers are very distinct and resemble those of non-avian Dinosaur fossils.
3. This sample is dated to be around 80 million years ago around the late Cretaceous Period, which fits in that Feathered Dinosaurs were plentiful at the time.

You have to remember that these aren't the first Dinosaur feathers we have found, and others have been found buried with the Dinosaurs when discovered. This particular case we can't analyze the DNA, nor can we find anything else in the amber besides the protofeathers.

From Paleontologist's understanding of the differences in structures between avian and non-avian animals, these particular protofeathers are agreed upon to have come from Dinosaurs.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am not a Paleontologist, but from what I have learned about this particular study and why they consider it to be belonging to a Dinosaur is for the following reasons.

1. Many of the protofeathers are not found on any known bird fossils, and even in some cases resemble a kind of "fuzz."
2. The filament structures observed on the fossilized protofeathers are very distinct and resemble those of non-avian Dinosaur fossils.
3. This sample is dated to be around 80 million years ago around the late Cretaceous Period, which fits in that Feathered Dinosaurs were plentiful at the time.

You have to remember that these aren't the first Dinosaur feathers we have found, and others have been found buried with the Dinosaurs when discovered. This particular case we can't analyze the DNA, nor can we find anything else in the amber besides the protofeathers.

From Paleontologist's understanding of the differences in structures between avian and non-avian animals, these particular protofeathers are agreed upon to have come from Dinosaurs.

Where is the fossil record that demonstrates proto feathers come from dinos? I've seen assumptive proclamations but no evidence, can you present some here or links to it? And please, not some Paleontologist's understanding, please, that is not evidence.

 

[lordkalvan]

Where is the fossil record that demonstrates proto feathers come from dinos? I've seen assumptive proclamations but no evidence, can you present some here or links to it? And please, not some Paleontologist's understanding, please, that is not evidence.

Palaeontologists have found a variety of feathered dinosaurs in China that display a diversity of primitive feathers. These feathers are not as fully-developed as those of the earliest known bits fossil, Archaeopteryx lithographica, dating to the Late Jurassic with feathers virtually indistinguishable from those of 'modern' birds. Furthermore, they provide strong evidence that feathers originated and diversified in the the theropod dinosaurs before either birds or flight developed.

Feathers are similar to nails, scales and hair, forming by the controlled proliferation of epidermal cells responsible for producing keratin. All feathers are a variation of what is essentially a tube produced by these cells, growing from a follicle just like a hair. Amongst 'modern' birds there is a range of feathers that reflect every range of the hierarchical nature of the structures, from unbranched, hollow cylinders to the asymmetrical vanes of flight feathers.

The Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation in Liaoning Province has yielded dinosaur fossils showing both fully 'modern' feathers and a range of more primitive structures, Sinosauropteryx being an example of the latter, Caudipteryx of the latter. Phylogenetic analysis clearly places the latter amongst the oviraptoran theropods. So far fossil feathers have been found in more than a dozen different types of nonavian theropods. The evidence from these fossil feathers clearly shows that feathers did not originate for the purpose of flight, but for a different use which was later exploited for flight. Such earlier uses proposed (which are not necessarily exclusive) include insulation, protection against water, defence, camouflage and courtship.

Source: Dinosaurs, Scientific American, New York 2014

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Where is the fossil record that demonstrates proto feathers come from dinos? I've seen assumptive proclamations but no evidence, can you present some here or links to it? And please, not some Paleontologist's understanding, please, that is not evidence.

I've already presented fossil evidence, but I have no problem demonstrating further.

Here below is a Sinosauropteryx fossil which was the first Dinosaur we discovered with these protofeathers.

These filaments arising from the back of the Sinosauropteryx are extremely similar to those found encapsulated in amber in my previous example as these are almost thread like with a down sort of quality. They certainly classify as a protofeather and not some kind of fur, which is particular to mammals.

I also find it interesting that experts conclusions and observations of the evidence are not considered evidence in your book. Paleontologists are the ones who make these discoveries and are the ones who make the closer observations from which we all glean our understanding of fossils. This particular example above speaks for itself in a way.

Do you happen to have any evidence that feathers didn't come from Dinosaurs, because all the evidence we have points to the fact that it did.

 

[twinc]

were the feathers suitable as flying feathers or just feather dusters or fans to keep free from flies and fleas and dust and cool as fans - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

were the feathers suitable as flying feathers or just feather dusters or fans to keep free from flies and fleas and dust and cool as fans - twinc

These were not flying feathers, but seem to have been for insulation as the region in which these feathered Dinosaurs was rather cold at the time.

 

[twinc]

These were not flying feathers, but seem to have been for insulation as the region in which these feathered Dinosaurs was rather cold at the time.

strange - I thought millions and billions of years ago with a larger and closer sun and moon it would be scalding and hot in the dry spots - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

strange - I thought millions and billions of years ago with a larger and closer sun and moon it would be scalding and hot in the dry spots - twinc

The earth moves away from the sun at approximately 15cm per year. This means that 65 million years ago when Dinosaurs last roamed the earth, the sun was approximately 6,000 miles away. 92,960,000 miles is how far away the sun is from the earth today. So if you factor that about 6,000 to 10,000 miles is a huge difference at that scale then I would like to know how you calculate that.

As for why it was cold, that is because of Northern China's location during the Cretaceous Period.

View attachment 5329

As you can see, Norhern China was much higher during this time than it is today and due to the higher latitude it had an average temperature of around 50 degrees Fahrenheit, with cold winters. Volcanic Activity in the area lead to conditions that were conducive to leaving more fossil remains.

 

[th1b.taylor]

In your presentation, from the structuring and the dialog I understood you to indicate that there is no proven connection between the unexamined feather in the Amber and proto feathers other that assumed connection and still you drive the conversation to something the scientist believes (assumes) to be connected to the dinos. I wish to know the connection of this feather.

 

[th1b.taylor]

In your presentation, from the structuring and the dialog I understood you to indicate that there is no proven connection between the unexamined feather in the Amber and proto feathers other that assumed connection and still you drive the conversation to something the scientist believes (assumes) to be connected to the dinos. I wish to know the connection of this feather.

 

[th1b.taylor]

In your presentation, from the structuring and the dialog I understood you to indicate that there is no proven connection between the unexamined feather in the Amber and proto feathers other that assumed connection and still you drive the conversation to something the scientist believes (assumes) to be connected to the dinos. I wish to know the connection of this feather.