[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

[Doulos Iesou]

As I have mentioned previously, I have no faith in what men use to "date" this planet.

Radiometric isn't about faith, it is about solid testable calculations about a radioactive isotope and it's given half life.

The bible clearly indicates when the flood occurred, and it is also used to show that bottleneck you mentioned. And even if there wasn't a bottleneck at that point, there would still be one pointing back to Adam.

Everyone on this planet is a direct descendant of Noah, who was a direct descendant of Adam. The flood occurred and wiped out every living thing that lived on land that was not in the ark. And this occurred prior to Egypt, or any other nation, came into existence.

Somehow at the same time as the flood, there was enough people to populate all of ancient Asia, ancient America, ancient Europe, ancient Africa, ancient Australia, etc. That just before and after that period, there was no catastrophic extinction event, nor was there much flux in the population as we can see from archaeological findings and relevant dating techniques (and I'm not talking about taking a girl out on the town).

Another example of how this is impossible. There are 200,000 thousand different species of Beetles, there would be no way to fit all such Beetles on an Ark, and in order to get the kind of diversity we have today one would need rapid speciation that would amount to 50 different species of Beetles evolving every year for the past 4,000 years. The list of impossible things goes on.

 

[lordkalvan]

Sir,
I know that Carbon 14 dating is sacred to the world of science but the truth is that it is so unreliable. My research into the matter predates the web but I'm willing to stand up and declare the information can be found by any information seeking person on the web because the information, good or bad, is available of the WWW today. The result after several studies was that Carbon 14 dating has, rather to often, a swing of millions and on occasion of billions of years.

Because of technical limitations on the equipment used, Carbon 14 dating is reliable to around 40-50,000 years. Certain methodologies can, in some circumstances, extend this up to 75,000 years. So I am not altogether clear what source you are getting 'a swing of millions and on occasion billions of years' from.

One of the source texts suggested to me by an individual I was discussing offered personal experience where an item of an item with a known age because of history and as I recall the swing was from a hundred years or so to a few million years old on a series of repeated tests.

I can only imagine that your source was not discussing Carbon 14 dating as it is physically impossible for this method to return dates older than those cited above.

The collective evidence I examined, books by scientists, demonstrated to me that what was going on was likely repeated Date Testing until a desirable result could be demonstrated. On the other hand, scripture has repeatedly been tried and, closely, examined for a few thousand years and has always been proven in a manor that has and does stand the test of time.

I would like you to support this accusation as it implies scientific fraud on a global scale.

God has date Egypt after the Flood and that has yet to fall. If I were not a completely devoted servant, I would still trust that which has been proven reliable over that which has not. Come to think of it, I recall that when I was still Lost I did just that.

I am not aware that God has dated anything, but rather that fallible men have come to conclusions about the age of Earth and human history based on an idiosyncratically literalist interpretation of pre-scientific myths and legends.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Leaving to one side for the moment the question of whether or not there was a global flood of biblical proportions and when it might have occurred, your statement suggests the co-existence of human beings with dinosaurs, a statement that appears to be at variance with the understanding of almost every palaeontologist I am aware of and also unsupported by any reliable evidence at all.

You come to a Christian centric forum to call the Bible a lie? When you state I am aware of and also unsupported by any reliable evidence at all, you have, by inference, done just that and if you will reread or read the TOS for the Forums and the lessor TOS for this specific Forum, you will find that you must be careful to never do as you has done here. The Bible has, repeatedly been tested, tried and , without failure, has been proven, not just reliable,it has been shown to be true. The Flood introduced the oceans to the world as they had never been here before.

I can say this with confidence because it is prophesied by the men of God that after the destruction of the World, it will be restored to be as it was at Creation so that a man might walk around the world without hindrance.

 

[lordkalvan]

You come to a Christian centric forum to call the Bible a lie?

No, I call particular literalist interpretations of the Bible by fallible human beings mistaken. There are many (probably the majority) of Christians who have no trouble at all reconciling their biblically-based faith with the scientific evidence that shows Earth to be old, human history to be ancient, the non-occurrence of a global flood less than 5000 years ago, and several other things that 'young' Earth creationists stand against. Why should I value their beliefs as less sincere and soundly-based than yours?

When you state I am aware of and also unsupported by any reliable evidence at all, you have, by inference, done just that and if you will reread or read the TOS for the Forums and the lessor TOS for this specific Forum, you will find that you must be careful to never do as you has done here. The Bible has, repeatedly been tested, tried and , without failure, has been proven, not just reliable,it has been shown to be true. The Flood introduced the oceans to the world as they had never been here before.

Easy enough to proclaim, but less easy to demonstrate evidentially. You confuse disagreement with a literalist interpretation of the Bible with an accusation that the Bible amounts to a lie. That would be akin to accusing Ptolemy of lying when he constructed a cosmological model of the heavens that has since been shown to be wrong.

I can say this with confidence because it is prophesied by the men of God that after the destruction of the World, it will be restored to be as it was at Creation so that a man might walk around the world without hindrance.

I am sure you can, but that confidence does not carry very much evidential weight. If you want to discuss these topics in a forum supposedly focussed on science, it at least behooves you to bring some science-based evidence and analysis to the table in order to provide some substance to your claims.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I go to the one source that has never and will never fail, the Word of God. Dinos, by a couple of different names were on the earth until about the time of the flood. I concede the use of the name dinosaur only because of the size. The truth is the dinosaurs are with us today and in the evening, here in Texas, they prowl my front porch and, driving the cats crazy, they stalk a bite to eat across the screen over my windows.

1) Dinosaurs are not with us today, perhaps some of their descendants are, but the Dinosaurs are extinct. If you want to assert they are still among us then you are welcome to prove that.
2) Many of us here have differing views on how the Word of God should be used and interpreted here. This site has endless evidence that this is the case amongst believing Christians.

Sorry, but you are dealing, here, with one of those hard headed old men that was educated before all of this, revisioist, dumbing down of the American Educational System.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I certainly don't think the educational system is perfect. However, I certainly don't think that things have been extremely dumbed down. Being a product of the modern educational system myself I would say it's a stretch to say I'm uneducated or an idiot. I do my best to learn as a lifestyle and remain unbiased.

A theory, used by anyone is a hypothesis of one or more peoples thought out but unproven explanation of an event, specific to this case. A theory only becomes scientific after and if it is proven.

#Please note: Your "Please learn" addition to this portion is possibly violating the terms of the use of this and likely all the other forms available for our free use. Thyere should never be anything personal about the discussions here.

This is incorrect. Words have a Semantic range of use.

For instance, if I use the word "run" it can mean different things in different situations. For instance, if I were to run for president, it would mean something totally different than if I were to say I am going for a run. Same word.. different meanings.

With the word Theory, I were to say, "I have a theory on what is going to happen on the next episode of the Walking Dead," this would mean that I have some kind of speculation or conjecture about what will happen. However, when we talk about theory as it is referencing the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory, this means something far stronger.

the·o·ry
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

This is the primary definition found in all modern dictionaries, so this isn't a matter of opinion. Hence I asked you to educate yourself, not in an offensive way, but to plainly state that this your definition is simply false and insufficient to describe how the word is used.

It is used as such:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can beused to make predictions about natural phenomena.

There you go again with the personalization, I am a Christian and I have been labeled, falsely a creationist but in reality I am a believer of and follower of the One Most High God. And I am not a liar, just wishing for intelligent conversation.

Yes you're a Christian who is also a Creationist.. or at least you believe the things necessary to be a Creationist. Just as I am a Christian who believes the things necessary to be deemed an Evolutionist. Not meant to be an ultimate label, just an accurate one.

And I didn't call you a liar, I just made the observation that many Creationists purport the entire scientific community to be a bunch of liars, and I find that alarming.

If you do that one more time, ad hominem remarks, I fear you will be punished, this forum is moderated. So how about intelligent discourse without the silly, childish personal attacks. When a person uses the Lawyer's Creedo, "When the facts are not on your side, attack and discredit the witness," it makes them come off as small. Please, let's try not to go there.

Not seeing where the ad hominem is within that statement. It was perhaps slightly sarcastic remark about the reliability of videos on the internet.

 

[Knotical]

Radiometric isn't about faith, it is about solid testable calculations about a radioactive isotope and it's given half life.


Somehow at the same time as the flood, there was enough people to populate all of ancient Asia, ancient America, ancient Europe, ancient Africa, ancient Australia, etc. That just before and after that period, there was no catastrophic extinction event, nor was there much flux in the population as we can see from archaeological findings and relevant dating techniques (and I'm not talking about taking a girl out on the town).

Another example of how this is impossible. There are 200,000 thousand different species of Beetles, there would be no way to fit all such Beetles on an Ark, and in order to get the kind of diversity we have today one would need rapid speciation that would amount to 50 different species of Beetles evolving every year for the past 4,000 years. The list of impossible things goes on.

You keep mentioning what is impossible, when the answer is right in front of you. God can make anything possible.

How is it that we have so many different varieties of insects when it is not mentioned in the account of the flood as to whether or not they were included on the ark? Ask God when you see him.

You seem so focused on finding our own answers for everything going on this world, when the answers have already been provided. You just need to look in the right places. If you are not finding it when you read the bible, then you need to ask God to reveal it to you. He will in His time, not yours.

 

[twinc]

You keep mentioning what is impossible, when the answer is right in front of you. God can make anything possible.

How is it that we have so many different varieties of insects when it is not mentioned in the account of the flood as to whether or not they were included on the ark? Ask God when you see him.

You seem so focused on finding our own answers for everything going on this world, when the answers have already been provided. You just need to look in the right places. If you are not finding it when you read the bible, then you need to ask God to reveal it to you. He will in His time, not yours.

You keep mentioning what is impossible, when the answer is right in front of you. God can make anything possible.

How is it that we have so many different varieties of insects when it is not mentioned in the account of the flood as to whether or not they were included on the ark? Ask God when you see him.

You seem so focused on finding our own answers for everything going on this world, when the answers have already been provided. You just need to look in the right places. If you are not finding it when you read the bible, then you need to ask God to reveal it to you. He will in His time, not yours.

furthermore let us just consider whether it rained all over the globe at one and the same time for here is the big mistake - it was the flood that was global and not the rain etc - birds still flew and insects still crawled and fish still swam and vast numbers were carried along and away on large knotted and intwined vegetable mats or rafts etc - twinc

 

[th1b.taylor]

Because of technical limitations on the equipment used, Carbon 14 dating is reliable to around 40-50,000 years. Certain methodologies can, in some circumstances, extend this up to 75,000 years. So I am not altogether clear what source you are getting 'a swing of millions and on occasion billions of years' from.

I can only imagine that your source was not discussing Carbon 14 dating as it is physically impossible for this method to return dates older than those cited above.

I would like you to support this accusation as it implies scientific fraud on a global scale.

I am not aware that God has dated anything, but rather that fallible men have come to conclusions about the age of Earth and human history based on an idiosyncratically literalist interpretation of pre-scientific myths and legends.

Okay, it has been better than fifty years since I studied these things in class and almost fifty years since I did any personal research into the matter but on the web I found:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

http://carm.org/carbon-dating

of about 619,000 results

and:
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


@ http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm

The idea of dating anything on strata assumes there in zero truth to the scriptures that have stood both the Time Test and centuries of attempted rebuking. The Word of God places the age of the Earth in the range of 6,000 years. One might ask how can this be in light of all this information the Secular Scientists insist is true? God has, clearly, promised to send a delusion and I am suggesting, He has.

 

[Knotical]

furthermore let us just consider whether it rained all over the globe at one and the same time for here is the big mistake - it was the flood that was global and not the rain etc - birds still flew and insects still crawled and fish still swam and vast numbers were carried along and away on large knotted and intwined vegetable mats or rafts etc - twinc

Actually, the account indicates that even all the creeping things died:

Genesis 7:17-24
17 Then the flood came upon the earth forforty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher,and the mountains were covered.21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

 

[th1b.taylor]

No, I call particular literalist interpretations of the Bible by fallible human beings mistaken. There are many (probably the majority) of Christians who have no trouble at all reconciling their biblically-based faith with the scientific evidence that shows Earth to be old, human history to be ancient, the non-occurrence of a global flood less than 5000 years ago, and several other things that 'young' Earth creationists stand against. Why should I value their beliefs as less sincere and soundly-based than yours?

Easy enough to proclaim, but less easy to demonstrate evidentially. You confuse disagreement with a literalist interpretation of the Bible with an accusation that the Bible amounts to a lie. That would be akin to accusing Ptolemy of lying when he constructed a cosmological model of the heavens that has since been shown to be wrong.

I am sure you can, but that confidence does not carry very much evidential weight. If you want to discuss these topics in a forum supposedly focussed on science, it at least behooves you to bring some science-based evidence and analysis to the table in order to provide some substance to your claims.

I was attempting to remind you of the TOS you agreed to and, immediately you move into ad homonym attacks?

I am neither Literalistic, Calvinist nor Armenian. I am a Biblicist Saved by the grace of the only God and instructed by the Word of God as proclaimed to me by the Holy Spirit that indwelt me 1/1/'90 and has been instructing me on and in the truths of God from then until now.

 

[lordkalvan]

Okay, it has been better than fifty years since I studied these things in class and almost fifty years since I did any personal research into the matter but on the web I found:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

http://carm.org/carbon-dating

of about 619,000 results

and:
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


@ http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm

The idea of dating anything on strata assumes there in zero truth to the scriptures that have stood both the Time Test and centuries of attempted rebuking. The Word of God places the age of the Earth in the range of 6,000 years. One might ask how can this be in light of all this information the Secular Scientists insist is true? God has, clearly, promised to send a delusion and I am suggesting, He has.

Thanks for those links. I will check them out and reply when I have time to consider them in detail.

 

[Edward]

Please provide sources to such evidence please.

Here is a source that disproves this claim, citing that the supposed print was merely a "geologic phenomena."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

Here's one

Though I doubt you will receive it or even seriously consider it as fact the way the tone of the thread is going so far, lol.
Plus I have seen pics and videos of archaeological carvings of a Stegosaurus. So that means that back then having no pictures, skeletons or stuff like that, that they would have had to see one to make a carving of it.

Plus there's always that scripture in the bible which describes one. The argument against that scripture is that it's a hippopotamus, but they do not have tails like a cedar tree, so there's that...

 

[lordkalvan]

I was attempting to remind you of the TOS you agreed to and, immediately you move into ad homonym attacks?

I am sorry you feel this way, but I have not made any ad hominem arguments in response to your posts.

I am neither Literalistic, Calvinist nor Armenian. I am a Biblicist Saved by the grace of the only God and instructed by the Word of God as proclaimed to me by the Holy Spirit that indwelt me 1/1/'90 and has been instructing me on and in the truths of God from then until now.

Okay, so how old do you think Earth is, do you think there was a global flood less than 5000 years ago, do you think evolution is a valid scientific theory?

 

[Edward]

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am sorry you feel this way, but I have not made any ad hominem arguments in response to your posts.

Okay, so how old do you think Earth is, do you think there was a global flood less than 5000 years ago, do you think evolution is a valid scientific theory?

The Holy Spirit teaches me that the Earth and the Universe are + or - 6,000 years old and in view of a news article I read last year no, Evolution is no longer a possible truth and in light of the one on one teaching of the Spirit of God, it absolutely cannot stand. the news article last year reported that a growing segment of the scientific community was busy postulating a new theory because the Theory of Evolution was losing favor because it was impossible to prove.

If a theory is not provable with empirical science methods, it can never be science and will, always, remain a theory. I understand that because the Theory of evolution is now taught as a fact that it is difficult to up root but it has not been taught as absolute truth for, all, that long. Most of my men in Vietnam and most of my Warrant Officers, all younger than myself, were taught that a theory was not science, merely scientific possibility. This teaching of Theory as Scientific truth has only prevailed in the last thirty-five years or so.

 

[TOG]

So which bats are 'variations within species' and which aren't?

I really wish people would read all of what I say before replying.

I don't know enough about it [i.e. bats] to be able to say with any certainty.

Like I said, I don't know much about specific types of bats. I was speaking in general terms. I can name other examples, though. For example, there are many "species" of larches. They grow naturally (i.e. not planted by man) in a range stretching from Japan, through Siberia and westward through all of western Europe. Although these different larches are named after the places they grow, such as the Japanese larch, for example, they are not limited to specific clearly defined borders. There are areas all along the aforementioned range, where the different types grow together naturally. When they do, they cross pollinate each other and produce fertile "offspring", which is the definition (or at least one of them ) of what a species is. When planted together in the same area, any larch can cross fertilize any other larch. My brother is a biophysicist, and his specialty is trees. He did his doctor's thesis on larches. He told me that the reason they are all considered different species is because they look sufficiently different to be considered different species. There is much less visible difference between the various larches than between different breeds of dog, or even between human beings. They should be considered variations, and not separate species.

What criteria do you apply to distinguish variations within a single species (aka related) from those that are not variations within a single species (aka unrelated)?

What I said above. If it is interfertile, then it is the same species.

You are aware that classifying all bats together, all mammals together and all fish together is done on the basis of biological relatedness?

You are aware that Linneaeus was a creationist?

The TOG​

 

[Edward]

The Holy Spirit teaches me that the Earth and the Universe are + or - 6,000 years old and in view of a news article I read last year no, Evolution is no longer a possible truth and in light of the one on one teaching of the Spirit of God, it absolutely cannot stand. the news article last year reported that a growing segment of the scientific community was busy postulating a new theory because the Theory of Evolution was losing favor because it was impossible to prove.

If a theory is not provable with empirical science methods, it can never be science and will, always, remain a theory. I understand that because the Theory of evolution is now taught as a fact that it is difficult to up root but it has not been taught as absolute truth for, all, that long. Most of my men in Vietnam and most of my Warrant Officers, all younger than myself, were taught that a theory was not science, merely scientific possibility. This teaching of Theory as Scientific truth has only prevailed in the last thirty-five years or so.

Agreed. I've been reading more and watching more vids lately (because of these threads lately) and from what one man who has a PHD in Physics, (who btw grew up in an atheist home and was a hard core atheist) said that he just happened to notice the lack of actual evidence for evolution and big bang and all that, that it is 98% theory being stated as facts. So he wanted to contribute and confirm some evidence of evolution to help science disprove creationism, so began to dig and study...and realized the terrible truth (LOL) that the bible is more plausible to be fact than the so-called science of evolution...he wrote a book debunking 14 of the "Facts" of evolution and old earth, became saved and gave his life to the Lord, and is now putting out vids. He didn't really want to be a creationist, but merely went where the truth and evidence led him, and was honest enough with himself to not cling to lies out of emotionalism or tradition.

Now he says his favorite thing to do is to back evolutionists into a corner scientifically until they have no choice but to state that they choose to put their trust into this or that man...but the way that our resident evolutionists here are, I hesitate to post this stuff because, as they have before...I know that would merely become emotional and remain steadfast in their position to the point of stupidity (sorry) and derail any honest scholastic points made with more scientific babble and inane questions which lead nowhere but away from the truth. ( I didn't mean to insult anyone here with my choice of word in that one statement but...it fit, sorry.) No one in particular there.

 

[Barbarian]

{ margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.

Fortunately, in many cases, we can date the ingeous rock above and below sedimentary rock. So we have a time scale on which we can place a fossil. This assumes not faulting or folding of the strata, something geologists must check before reliable dating can be done.

The idea of dating anything on strata assumes there in zero truth to the scriptures

No, that's a common misconception in some religious sects, but it's completely false. Some of the great paleontologists, like Walcott, were devout Christians.

The Word of God places the age of the Earth in the range of 6,000 years.

No, but some modern re-interpretations have done so.

Perhaps God sent those people a delusion.

 

[Barbarian]

Now he says his favorite thing to do is to back evolutionists into a corner scientifically until they have no choice but to state that they choose to put their trust into this or that man

I think you're making a mistake putting your trust in that man. I've debated guys who talk big like that, and often they come unglued when they realize that rhetoric won't suffice to overturn evidence.

...but the way that our resident evolutionists here are, I hesitate to post this stuff because, as they have before...

Probably wise. Some of us are pretty familiar with the common creationist stories. None of them are difficult to debunk. Feel free to present anything you think is especially compelling. I'm sure we all can tolerate a little emotional reaction.

 

[Edward]

...

...The Word of God places the age of the Earth in the range of 6,000 years...

No, but some modern re-interpretations have done so.

Perhaps God sent those people a delusion.

I've heard you say this before brother. Would you mind telling me how you came to this conclusion in scripture?
Thanks