What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

Doulos Iesou said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have posted my opinion of some members' not any individual member - twinc
 
twinc said:
I have posted my opinion of some members' not any individual member - twinc
Click to expand...
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.

"or groups in general"

Hmm.. it seems like "some members." No where does it say, just make sure to not name the person you are passing judgment against..

Not that I actually care what you think about me or others, but just thought you should know.
 
Knotical said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted, and I find looking at various forms of evidence fruitful as I think the universe is intelligible and can be objectively verified. I also don't embrace the kind of literalism you do when it comes to your interpretation.

Thanks for sharing your opinion about how I should believe though, I'll just go about doing what I think is best for myself.
 
Doulos Iesou said:
Your opinion is noted, and I find looking at various forms of evidence fruitful as I think the universe is intelligible and can be objectively verified. I also don't embrace the kind of literalism you do when it comes to your interpretation.

Thanks for sharing your opinion about how I should believe though, I'll just go about doing what I think is best for myself.
Click to expand...
But is what you think is best for yourself the same as what God knows is best?
 
Doulos Iesou said:
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.

"or groups in general"

Hmm.. it seems like "some members." No where does it say, just make sure to not name the person you are passing judgment against..

Not that I actually care what you think about me or others, but just thought you should know.
Click to expand...
Doulos Iesou said:
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.

"or groups in general"

it is not a collective belief/s of Christians or any other group imho - in fact some groups etc would distance themselves imho from the very idea of a belief - sorry about that if any unintended offence caused - twinc
..

Not that I actually care what you think about me or others, but just thought you should know.
Click to expand...
Doulos Iesou said:
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.

"or groups in general"

Hmm.. it seems like "some members." No where does it say, just make sure to not name the person you are passing judgment against..

Not that I actually care what you think about me or others, but just thought you should know.
Click to expand...
 
Doulos Iesou said:
I'm not completely sure, I don't suppose to know everything about God and what he thinks and how he works. I'm just doing my best.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? It sounds like you are searching for answers to questions that have already been answered.
 
The burden is on those who use this kind of dating method (carbon dating) to prove it works.
Click to expand...

Doulos is quite right. Carbon dating is never used for fossils unless they are very recent. The half-life is too short. However, by using lake varves (which are laid down annually, on dark layer and one light layer, each year) C-14 has been accurately calibrated out to tens of thousands of years.

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
Click to expand...

Actually, there are two genealogies offered in the Bible for Christ, and if you take them as literal genealogies, they don't agree.
 
Barbarian said:
Doulos is quite right. Carbon dating is never used for fossils unless they are very recent. The half-life is too short. However, by using lake varves (which are laid down annually, on dark layer and one light layer, each year) C-14 has been accurately calibrated out to tens of thousands of years.



Actually, there are two genealogies offered in the Bible for Christ, and if you take them as literal genealogies, they don't agree.
Click to expand...

Varves are just as uncertain or unreliable for dating if not more so - the two genealogies are one for Joseph back to Abraham and the other back to Adam - twinc
 
twinc said:
Varves are just as uncertain or unreliable for dating if not more so - the two genealogies are one for Joseph back to Abraham and the other back to Adam - twinc
Click to expand...
Since you know all the ins and outs of Radiometric Dating and can contradict Geologists with extensive educations, can you please enlighten us on how Radiometric Dating works and why it is unreliable?
 
Varves are just as uncertain or unreliable for dating if not more so
Click to expand...

Nope. They always form two per year, one dark, one light. And we can confirm this by the pollen content of the varves. So we know it's right.

- the two genealogies are one for Joseph back to Abraham and the other back to Adam - twinc
Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. They both say they are from Adam to Jesus. Learn about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
 
Since you know all the ins and outs of Radiometric Dating and can contradict Geologists with extensive educations,
Click to expand...

Most geologists don't have the level of education I have. And since they rarely, if ever, use Carbon 14 dating, it wouldn't be surprising if they weren't as well acquainted with it as a graduate biologist. I do have a good friend who has a PhD in geology, and specializes in radiometric dating, so I've had occasion to learn about it from one of the masters of the science.

can you please enlighten us on how Radiometric Dating works and why it is unreliable?
Click to expand...

Sure. The method depends on the fact that all isotopes used by geologists have a known rate of radioactive decay. Which means that sufficiently closed rocks have a mixture of parent isotopes and daughter isotopes that have been produced by radioactive decay. The use of whole-rock isochrons makes the process very reliable. Take a look here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/radiometric4.html

There is also the fact that very different radioistope tests agree closely.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

There is also the fact that argon/argon testing precisely dated the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii:
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html
 
TOG said:
I believe there is some evidence they did. In fact, there have even been found shod footprints in the same rock as fossil trilobites.

the TOG​
Click to expand...
Strange, then, that we don't find human remains fossilised in the same strata as dinosaur remains.
 
lordkalvan said:
Strange, then, that we don't find human remains fossilised in the same strata as dinosaur remains.
Click to expand...

not at all strange but cumbersome because supposedly humans were not around or even up the really high trees as their family tree - dinosaurs and ducks were buried together as sitting ducks - twinc
 
twinc said:
not at all strange but cumbersome because supposedly humans were not around or even up the really high trees as their family tree - twinc
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point. If 'humans were not around' this argues against the claim that 'shod footprints' have been found together with 'trilobite fossils'.
 
TOG said:
No stranger than all the missing transitional forms we don't find either.

The TOG​
Click to expand...
What 'missing transitional forms'? How does this supposed absence reflect on the complete failure to find fossil human remains in the same strata as fossil dinosaur remains? After all, there is ample evidence of other mammal remains found not only in the same strata as, but in the same locality as dinosaur remains. Curiously, none of these fossilised mammals are of any current species.
 
Doulos Iesou said:
You mean that ever increasing number of transitional fossils that we are finding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

This is an ever shrinking argument, as the evidence keeps piling up.
Click to expand...
Don't forget, every time a 'transitional fossil' is found it creates a gap on either side which is required to be filled by two 'transitional fossils'. Thus, as more 'transitional fossils' are found, this means that even more 'transitional forms' haven't been found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top