[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

[Edward]

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.



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.

See? You've already debunked and denounced the man and don't even know his name or listened to his material.

Proverbs 18:13
13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him..(KJV)

Meditate on that one brother. :wink

 

[lordkalvan]

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

If every time you are presented with evidence that you can't refute other than by invoking ad hoc miracles, then you are not addressing that evidence from a scientific point of view.

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.

Or we could look at the evidence from habitat, behaviour and palaeontology.

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.

This seems a formula for promoting ignorance.

 

[lordkalvan]

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...

The Paluxy tracks have been so widely and effectively debunked that even AiG recommends that they not be cited by creationists. Equally, the Ica Stones have been shown to be predominantly modern artefacts manufactured locally.

 

[lordkalvan]

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.

The only thing I am aware of in respect of 'the scientific community' and the ToE is that it is widely regarded as one of the most robust theories around and has effectively resisted all theologically-inspired efforts to disprove it over the last 160 years. Indeed, as evidence accrues from multidisciplinary research, the only reasonable conclusion is that as an explanation for the diversity of life it remains unchallenged in its brian arguments and conclusions.

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.

I think you confuse the meaning of 'theory' in scientific usage with the word as used popularly to refer to something that is mostly an unproven idea. For example, both the germ theory of disease and atomic theory use the word in the former sense of an overarching, well-substantiated explanation that is robustly supported and confirmed by observation, experiment and testing.

 

[TOG]

I think you confuse the meaning of 'theory' in scientific usage with the word as used popularly to refer to something that is mostly an unproven idea. For example, both the germ theory of disease and atomic theory use the word in the former sense of an overarching, well-substantiated explanation that is robustly supported and confirmed by observation, experiment and testing.

Don't forget other well established and proven theories, such as the theory of gravity, the theories of thermodynamics, Hubble's theory and many others. The list is practically endless

The TOG​

 

[lordkalvan]

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

I can assure you that I do.

Like I said, I don't know much about specific types of bats. I was speaking in general terms.

But apparently you know enough 'in general terms' to conclude that some bat species are 'variations' within a species, while others are completely unrelated to other bats at all. On what evidential basis - other than a disbelief in evolution - do you come to these conclusions?

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.

I am not altogether clear what relevance this has, given that no biologist I am aware of considers that either different breeds of dogs or different ethnic groups of human beings are different species.

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

And if the offspring of the union is infertile, what does this tell you about the relationship and how it might have developed?

You are aware that Linneaeus was a creationist?

The TOG​

I am also aware that he based his system of classification on traits that he understood indicated degrees of relatedness amongst the organisms he was classifying. He understood the controversial implications of his work sufficiently to avoid including Homo Sapiens in his earliest classifications as this would unequivocally place us amongst the great apes. Somewhat analogously, several of the founders of modern geology were 19th Century creationist clergymen who went looking for geological evidence of a recent Noachian Deluge and, after much endeavour and vigorous debate, came to the conclusion that there was none.

 

[Barbarian]

See? You've already debunked and denounced the man and don't even know his name or listened to his material.

Feel free to discuss it here. Or just tell us what you think is the most compelling argument. You'll find that I was exactly right. Those guys are very predictable.

 

[TOG]

But apparently you know enough 'in general terms' to conclude that some bat species are 'variations' within a species, while others are completely unrelated to other bats at all.

My exact words were "I believe that some of what people call species are actually just variations within a single species". Can you please point out the word "bats" in that sentence.

On what evidential basis - other than a disbelief in evolution - do you come to these conclusions?

I have already answered this and given you one example, which you can easily verify if you wish. Like I said before, read all of what I said before replying.

I am not altogether clear what relevance this has, given that no biologist I am aware of considers that either different breeds of dogs or different ethnic groups of human beings are different species.

My point exactly. A minor difference is enough to classify some animals as different species, in spite of the fact that they regularly interbreed in nature, while a much greater difference doesn't seem to matter at all in other cases. If the definition of the term "species" is so subjective that scientists can't even agree on living species (or sub-species or variations, depending on whom you ask), how can we trust what they say about species that no living person has ever seen? This is the reason why I try to avoid most discussions about evolution. If something isn't objective, then it's an opinion. It may be the opinion of many, but it's still an opinion, and evolutionists claim that their opinion on what should be a species or what should be accepted as evidence is somehow better and more right than the opinions of those who disagree. I have provided support for my views and you have totally ignored it. I will not be discussing this with you further.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

The Paluxy tracks have been so widely and effectively debunked that even AiG recommends that they not be cited by creationists. Equally, the Ica Stones have been shown to be predominantly modern artefacts manufactured locally.

In fact, they were debunked by a group of YE creationists. For good reason. The last thing YE creationists need is humans walking around in the middle of "Flood Sediments." No one really puts any faith in the story. I've visited the site; it turns out there was a cottage industry during the Depression, making "man tracks" out of the rock to sell to tourists. I visited a "creation museum" there. My wife got embarrassed and walked out because my daughter and I couldn't stop snickering.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

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

I don't think God can lie, which is what he would have had to do if evolution wasn't true. He would have had to of made a world that had all the appearances that evolution was true, when in fact he had planted evidence.

It's akin to framing.

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 realize that this is a completely unsatisfactory answer from a scientific perspective. Whenever there is something that needs explaining you throw your hands up and say, "ask God when you see him!"

These are the kinds of statements that attempt to stop people from digging further and questioning more. I don't think anything should be afraid of deeper investigation.

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.

I don't think the Bible is an "answer book," that you should expect to find all the answers to life's many questions. The Bible is a theological book, that tells about who God is, and how he relates to mankind, and it is given through an ancient perspective that doesn't necessarily deal with many modern issues.

Basically with your suggestion, there wouldn't be any science done by anyone, it would just be people asking in prayer without making any observations about the universe and world we live in. The universe can be rationally understood and I think that is because of God, therefore I think he meant us to search and discover as much as we can about it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

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.

Wait a minute. So you're saying that God actually has made things to be really old. That he buried Trilobites and Dinosaurs in order to delude people?

This isn't just a delusion, it is utter falsehood, and God cannot lie.

This is the kind of argument from people of Creationist-like beliefs that really troubles me, as it ultimately goes this path once people cannot end up successfully disputing the findings of modern science.

 

[Knotical]

It is true God cannot lie (which is against His nature), but don't start attributing a man-made theory to God's creation and saying that if it isn't true, then God is a liar. The idea of evolution has only been around for about 150 years. To assume that an idea that was developed by the secular scientific community should be applied to God's creation is an absolute fallacy.

Let's not mistake foolishness for wisdom.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It is true God cannot lie (which is against His nature), but don't start attributing a man-made theory to God's creation and saying that if it isn't true, then God is a liar.

Do you deny that there is also Natural Revelation in addition to Special Revelation? Science is simply the combination of all our observations of God's creation to understand how it works.

Also if evolution was wrong, then God wouldn't be a liar. If he purposefully planted evidence to make people believe it was true, then he would be. That is what I was ultimately objecting to.

The idea of evolution has only been around for about 150 years.

Evolution has only been understood to be true for the past 150 years. Our knowledge of something being true, does change the fact that it is an ancient mechanism that we merely discovered.

You can have really old ideas that are totally false, and you can have really new ideas that are totally true. The question is.. what does the evidence say.

To assume that an idea that was developed by the secular scientific community should be applied to God's creation is an absolute fallacy.

You mean an objective observation of the universe by a community made up of all kinds of different beliefs cannot be applied to God's creation?

And what logical fallacy does this actually commit? People throw around the charge of fallacy far too often without substantiating what fallacy has been committed.

Let's not mistake foolishness for wisdom.

Indeed, we should objectively appreciate all that evidence that has to bear on the matter and not just take the opinions of men on faith, whether they be evolutionists or creationists. This I believe is the wise course of action, when it comes to matters of science such as this.

 

[Knotical]

We should not be blinded by what we think is the truth, just because some academics state it to be so. God's Truth outweighs any truth we might put together.

Just because the scientific community accepts something to be true because they have not found any independent "evidence" to prove otherwise, does not mean we, as Christians, should look to it rather than God's word.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

We should not be blinded by what we think is the truth, just because some academics state it to be so.

I am not blind thank you very much. Nor do I accept things such as evolution simply because an academic states that it is so.

As I just said:

Indeed, we should objectively appreciate all that evidence that has to bear on the matter and not just take the opinions of men on faith, whether they be evolutionists or creationists. This I believe is the wise course of action, when it comes to matters of science such as this.

God's Truth outweighs any truth we might put together.

There is only one truth, not one that weighs out the others. I don't see how God's truth is incompatible with evolution, you can disagree, but there are loads of Christians such as myself who feel this way.

This is what I call a non-essential issue. Notice how there is nothing stated in any historic creed or even this site's statement of faith that requires this to be an essential issue, or of course the Bible that states such.

Just because the scientific community accepts something to be true because they have not found any independent "evidence" to prove otherwise, does not mean we, as Christians, should look to it rather than God's word.

It's not just because the scientific community accepts it, that I accept it. I have personally investigated the matter and have come to my own opinion regarding the evidence, and it is that evolution is true. I cannot be honest with myself and disregard this knowledge and just exercise "double think" like I'm in the novel 1984. I can look to Scripture and Natural Revelation for truth, as Scripture itself warrants.

If you want to deny evolution and not look deeply into the evidence, then that's fine with me. Just don't bring bad science into a classroom.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Wait a minute. So you're saying that God actually has made things to be really old. That he buried Trilobites and Dinosaurs in order to delude people?

This isn't just a delusion, it is utter falsehood, and God cannot lie.

This is the kind of argument from people of Creationist-like beliefs that really troubles me, as it ultimately goes this path once people cannot end up successfully disputing the findings of modern science.

Silly statement, God did not lie, scientists have resisted the truth. The power of God is without limit and it is very clearly told, by God, that the delusion is there. You have failed to either read or you've failed to read.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Silly statement, God did not lie, scientists have resisted the truth.

Many of these scientists are also believers, even some that post here. You must make broad generalizations and assert the character of a large group of people of different backgrounds and religious beliefs in order to substantiate this statement. If God planted false evidence, then he lied. If scientists are resisting the truth, then show us another model that fits better than evolution.

The power of God is without limit and it is very clearly told, by God, that the delusion is there.

You assume that this is the delusion, which doesn't even fit the context given that it couples with some kind of end of the age figure. Not only that, but this particular delusion would require God to lie in order to accomplish, which he cannot do.

You have failed to either read or you've failed to read.

What?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Many of these scientists are also believers, even some that post here. You must make broad generalizations and assert the character of a large group of people of different backgrounds and religious beliefs in order to substantiate this statement. If God planted false evidence, then he lied. If scientists are resisting the truth, then show us another model that fits better than evolution.

One more time, God did not plant false evidence, the scientist, any scientist, that seeks to refute the truth has not believed. There is, exactly, one requirement for God to begin a good work, Salvation, in man, belief. Just as there are two types Christian, Believers and Pretenders, there are two types Scientists, Creationists and Evolutionists. The Evolutionist has rejected or is in the process of rejecting God.

You mention Religious Belief, Christianity, the Christianity, whose membership role is not found on this Earth, has nothing to do with Religion. That is why better than 98% of the Church Membership is not saved, they have a Religion and have not the relationship that is the true Christianity. That is the reason they scoff at people like myself when we speak of our one on one instruction from the Holy Spirit. This problem is so prevalent that even one Pastor/Seminary Professor when asking where I got my instruction, told me not to give him that Holy Spirit manure (only he used the more vulgar word).

You have asked for a better model when you have already rejected it. Only about 10% of the evidence can be used to promote an Evolution Model while about 90% are evidence for a creed world. (see the vids listed here; http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=evidence+for+a+young+world)

What?

You have failed to either read or you've failed to comprehend and to believe. Sin Loi but you know, old age.

 

[Edward]

Feel free to discuss it here. Or just tell us what you think is the most compelling argument. You'll find that I was exactly right. Those guys are very predictable.

Why? You've already made up your mind to say everything but what you believe is false. First you guys ask for statements and talk from reputable educated people and when that's posted, then well they're all liars. Even though you guys have little to no evidence of evolution, you continue to parrot theory as facts, and go off into long winded diatribes of details with scientific babble design to derail and confuse.

If every time you are presented with evidence that you can't refute other than by invoking ad hoc miracles, then you are not addressing that evidence from a scientific point of view.

Or we could look at the evidence from habitat, behaviour and palaeontology.

This seems a formula for promoting ignorance.

No miracles of God allowed eh? As if God and miracles of His are somehow an established fact to not be real? Good one. But the thing is, the goal of the discussion is to answer the question of did the earth come about so called naturally, a big bang out of nothing (which would be miraculous in itself), or if not, that God is real and created the earth, universe and man & animals. So let's keep God out of it right? When God is a primary ingredient to the discussion.

So there's evidence within the behavior or habitat of animals that will prove evolution. Ok, I'll bite. What is it?

What exactly is this formula which promotes ignorance? You sound a little like you're become a little frustrated with the discussion.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Why? You've already made up your mind to say everything but what you believe is false.

This might surprise you, but this is true for everyone on this board. We're all convinced of our own beliefs, does that mean the discussion should end?

I personally do my best to have an open mind on these issues, but of course I come to the table with the set of knowledge I already have, so I naturally have an aversion to people presenting those kinds of arguments against evolution. Is it because I'm biased? No, I don't think so, it's because I simply know better than to accept the strawman arguments.

First you guys ask for statements and talk from reputable educated people and when that's posted, then well they're all liars.

I don't know of any reputable sources that are Creationists, none of them are peer reviewed. And these judgment of these men in this context is based on the quality of their findings and evidence, which has been found wanting.

Even though you guys have little to no evidence of evolution, you continue to parrot theory as facts, and go off into long winded diatribes of details with scientific babble design to derail and confuse.

We actually have loads of evidence, and characterizing our posts as "long winded diatribes of details with scientific babble designed* to derail and confuse," is very disingenuous of you to say and frankly offensive.

We attempt to instruct and provide information and answer the objections that are posted here. You don't have to read them, and you can keep your opinion to yourself concerning the manner in which the information is conveyed as you just insulted all of us.

No miracles of God allowed eh? As if God and miracles of His are somehow an established fact to not be real? Good one.

When there is a viable natural explanation for something, no miracle has to be asserted. Clearly God works through Natural Events, or do you think just goes around zapping things causing miracles. The planets aren't in their orbit because God wills them to move that way, rather he setup laws on how matter and gravity operate. This is just what I believe to be true.

But the thing is, the goal of the discussion is to answer the question of did the earth come about so called naturally, a big bang out of nothing (which would be miraculous in itself), or if not, that God is real and created the earth, universe and man & animals. So let's keep God out of it right? When God is a primary ingredient to the discussion.

All scientists practice methodological naturalism, which is a pragmatic approach to assume something has a natural explanation and thus should be observed and tested to see if we can figure it out. If we just assumed everything was done miraculously then science wouldn't exist.

Also the Big Bang Theory does not invalidate God in any way.

So there's evidence within the behavior or habitat of animals that will prove evolution. Ok, I'll bite. What is it?

We've been sharing it with you all long, but you just blow it off as long winded scientific babble.

Convince us you're actually going to objectively listen respectfully to what we have to say and we will make the investment.