[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

[twinc]

What are your thoughts about the question you posed, twinc ?

it seems only Moderators are quest driven, like me, and really seek to know and must know and so you shall for the greater good - that is provided I don't get banned - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

There is no evidence to prove that this planet is any older than the bible suggests. There are only theories, based on assumptions.

There is loads of evidence that the earth is very ancient. Would you like to learn about some of it?

This view of the earth being young is one of the easiest view to refute as it is extremely falsifiable.

 

[Knotical]

There is loads of evidence that the earth is very ancient.

The methods used to "prove" of an ancient earth are suspect at best. Carbon dating is flawed and extremely unreliable.

As a Christian, are you suggesting that God is not able to create a world that appears much older than it is?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The methods used to "prove" of an ancient earth are suspect at best. Carbon dating is flawed and extremely unreliable.

Carbon Dating has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Why do creationists always cite the "unreliability" of Carbon Dating?

Are you a geologist, equipped with the expertise to explain Radiometric dating technicians and definitively prove they are unreliable dating techniques?

The radiometric dating used was on Uranium samples obtained from meteorites. The reason they used meteorites was because they unlike the earth have remained the same throughout their duration, and can be all accurately dated around 4.5 billion years old, as can the moon.

The very fact that you cite the "unreliability" of Carbon Dating as the reason why an ancient earth is a suspect hypothesis, reveals just how unequipped you are to speak on the matter of the age of the earth. No offense, just stating the simple fact that you are no expert geologist.

As a Christian, are you suggesting that God is not able to create a world that appears much older than it is?

That he would create rocks that are billions of years old, and fossils that are millions of years old when in actuality they were only created a few thousands years ago? It's certainly possible, but it would mean that God was extremely deceitful and is purposefully leading people astray.

I view it to not only be a bankrupt hypothesis, but even if we grant that it could be true it creates bigger issues for the Christian.

 

[twinc]

Carbon Dating has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Why do creationists always cite the "unreliability" of Carbon Dating?

Are you a geologist, equipped with the expertise to explain Radiometric dating technicians and definitively prove they are unreliable dating techniques?

The radiometric dating used was on Uranium samples obtained from meteorites. The reason they used meteorites was because they unlike the earth have remained the same throughout their duration, and can be all accurately dated around 4.5 billion years old, as can the moon.

The very fact that you cite the "unreliability" of Carbon Dating as the reason why an ancient earth is a suspect hypothesis, reveals just how unequipped you are to speak on the matter of the age of the earth. No offense, just stating the simple fact that you are no expert geologist.


That he would create rocks that are billions of years old, and fossils that are millions of years old when in actuality they were only created a few thousands years ago? It's certainly possible, but it would mean that God was extremely deceitful and is purposefully leading people astray.

I view it to not only be a bankrupt hypothesis, but even if we grant that it could be true it creates bigger issues for the Christian.

 

[twinc]

especially because of individual and opposite conjectures and conclusions, extensive research was undertaken and done by the RATE research team and the conclusion was "Thousands not Millions" - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

especially because of individual and opposite conjectures and conclusions, extensive research was undertaken and done by the RATE research team and the conclusion was "Thousands not Millions" - twinc

The RATE research team set about to establish their dogmatic beliefs in fictional science, I think they succeeded. haha

Perhaps instead of appealing to your opinion about the nature of their findings, how about you share some particular conclusions they reached so that we can address the so called evidence for a young earth.

 

[twinc]

The RATE research team set about to establish their dogmatic beliefs in fictional science, I think they succeeded. haha

Perhaps instead of appealing to your opinion about the nature of their findings, how about you share some particular conclusions they reached so that we can address the so called evidence for a young earth.

at an age of 85 and one finger tying too much too much too old and too busy - search it out yourself

 

[Doulos Iesou]

at an age of 85 and one finger tying too much too much too old and too busy - search it out yourself

I have searched it out myself, a while ago now and found it to be completely unsatisfactory, as have actual scientists who refuted their claims.

Since you are unwilling to provide any evidence to support your claims, I guess we will just move on.

 

[Knotical]

The burden is on those who use this kind of dating method (carbon dating) to prove it works. We use the best method available, the bible, to determine the age of this planet, as well as the universe. Using the bible we know that Adam was created during the creation of the world, and we have an accurate genealogy of his descendants all the way down to Christ, couple that with the fact that it has been over 2,000 years since His birth we can pretty accurately surmise that this planet is less than 10,000 years old. Therefore, it is quite possible, since men have been walking on this planet since God created it, dinosaurs, whether they are depicted accurately or not, had to have lived within this time frame, thus were walking around on this planet at the same time as man.

 

[twinc]

I have searched it out myself, a while ago now and found it to be completely unsatisfactory, as have actual scientists who refuted their claims.

Since you are unwilling to provide any evidence to support your claims, I guess we will just move on.

re searching it out sounds to me a bit like "two men looked out of prison bars, of their own making,and one saw muck and the other stars" - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The burden is on those who use this kind of dating method (carbon dating) to prove it works.

The half life of a certain element is defined by hard science, we can through this method measure the ratio of daughter to parent isotopes to measure the age of a given sample based on the projected deterioration rate. This gives us a definitive date range for the sample, and hence we can date the age of the earth. Creationists will cite instances where the sample was contaminated to disprove this method, but it is proven reliable time and again and it's findings are continually substantiated within the scientific community.

This further supports common sense evidence that the earth is clearly ancient.

You can choose to commit a logical fallacy by claiming you have no burden of proof, and I have it all, but that doesn't change the fact that the physical evidence is not in your favor.

We use the best method available, the bible, to determine the age of this planet, as well as the universe.

This would be valid if there was a consistent interpretation of this information, which is clearly not the case as many who believe the Bible to be true and indeed infallible date the earth and universe to be billions of years old. If you want to debate the interpretation of the passage that can be done elsewhere, perhaps in the theology forum. What we are debating here is the science behind the age of the earth, which thus far you've offered none.

Using the bible we know that Adam was created during the creation of the world, and we have an accurate genealogy of his descendants all the way down to Christ, couple that with the fact that it has been over 2,000 years since His birth we can pretty accurately surmise that this planet is less than 10,000 years old. Therefore, it is quite possible, since men have been walking on this planet since God created it, dinosaurs, whether they are depicted accurately or not, had to have lived within this time frame, thus were walking around on this planet at the same time as man.

This is an excellent hypothesis, if one lived in 400 AD.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

re searching it out sounds to me a bit like "two men looked out of prison bars, of their own making,and one saw muck and the other stars" - twinc

If their findings had any warrant I would have gladly taken them seriously. I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel good about my present beliefs.

 

[Knotical]

In which truth are you more interested? One that relies on having faith in an ultimately flawed theory developed by a bunch of sinners, or the one that relies on having faith in what we have been told by the One who created everything?

 

[twinc]

In which truth are you more interested? One that relies on having faith in an ultimately flawed theory developed by a bunch of sinners, or the one that relies on having faith in what we have been told by the One who created everything?

exactly - it is hard to imagine this is a Christian forum - but then again we are told "that a Christian's enemies shall be of their own household - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In which truth are you more interested? One that relies on having faith in an ultimately flawed theory developed by a bunch of sinners, or the one that relies on having faith in what we have been told by the One who created everything?

I am more interested in objective truth which can be verified and justified by evidence of various kinds, regardless of whether it fits my subjective belief system which can be swayed by my fickle and flawed emotions. It's not as if I simply take scientist's opinions on faith, as I have personally researched these matters and have come to my own opinions. Do I have complete knowledge of everything? Not even close. Yet that does not mean I have good reasons for believing what I believe and those aren't just dogmatically determined from an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible, I seek to harmoniously align everything within my world view to be consistent.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

exactly - it is hard to imagine this is a Christian forum - but then again we are told "that a Christian's enemies shall be of their own household - twinc

That's fine that you think that, but stating your beliefs about other member's claim of Christian faith is between them and the Lord and is against the ToS to state your opinion on this board. See below:

7) Do not post opinions of another member's claim of Christian faith. (ToS 2.4)
Publicly judging someone as not being a Christian and/or not following Christ unless they themselves claim not be a Christian is disallowed. That's between them and the Lord. This includes judgments against collective beliefs or groups in general.

Now, if you want to talk about the issues then that's fine, but otherwise it's none of your business.

 

[Knotical]

I am more interested in objective truth which can be verified and justified by evidence of various kinds, regardless of whether it fits my subjective belief system which can be swayed by my fickle and flawed emotions. It's not as if I simply take scientist's opinions on faith, as I have personally researched these matters and have come to my own opinions. Do I have complete knowledge of everything? Not even close. Yet that does not mean I have good reasons for believing what I believe and those aren't just dogmatically determined from an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible, I seek to harmoniously align everything within my world view to be consistent.

Jousting at windmills then, are we?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Jousting at windmills then, are we?

Searching for objective truth and a harmonious worldview is Jousting at windmills?

Your opinion is noted.

 

[Knotical]

Searching for objective truth and a harmonious worldview is Jousting at windmills?

Your opinion is noted.

Trying to marry up a flawed worldview with what is clearly laid out in the bible is jousting at windmills. It is a fools errand. I would suggest putting more effort into understanding God's world rather than man's interpretation of what they find in it.