If you read throught Genisis good enough, the whole Dinosaur thing is...... [Archive]

View Full Version : If you read throught Genisis good enough, the whole Dinosaur thing is......

darthjedi123

9th April 2005, 08:49 PM

....explained. I have learned a whole bunch of stuff in Genisis the last couple weeks. You know how the atmosphere of the earth was different before the flood. That's why people lived longer, the world was all tropical, and large animals like Dinosaurs could live. After the flood the world was a completely different place. The dinosaurs, and other large animals died out, and people lived like 800 less years. I also have found that the Garden Of Eden was located somewhere by the Euphrates river in Iraq. It's not tropical now, because of that climate change during the flood.

Belle0985

11th April 2005, 09:17 AM

:: shrugs :: makes sense to me :)

chickenfriedfish

15th April 2005, 01:55 PM

wow thats pretty intresting =D

Crusader05

15th April 2005, 11:44 PM

Rossi

16th April 2005, 06:13 PM

in the book of Job a dinasaur is described

GrahamVR

17th April 2005, 02:56 AM

I think the theory of evolution actually could be possible:

lets get one thing straight - if there is a thing as evolution, its inspired by God.
in Genesis: God made the world in 7 days - how long is one day for God, the time between day 1 and day 2 may have been 50 000 years.
Is Genesis a literal account - or is it an explaination - a king of parable or story as to the manner in which humans came about

First there was creation - then God inspired Evolution? Christianity can work with science i'm sure.

what does everyone else think?

God Bless,
Graham

Biliskner

17th April 2005, 10:31 AM

I take Genesis (that is, all of chapters 1-50) as literal. There is no other alternative - however, I only came to this conclusion when I investigated the concepts of evolution and its mechanism (ie: natural selection). I'll just say that evolution is nothing but a farce, a wolf in sheep's clothing, the wool over your eyes. It is dressed like a scientific-theory, but their dogma is anything BUT science... I can expound more if you want, but here is a good start: www . answersingenesis . org ; cheers (lol sorry about the link i can't post links and/or change sig/avatars yet so i've improvised) :D (this is an awesome forum.. hope to spend some time here, it's a good change from always being on a paygan forum where you're flamed for anything you say, even when you say that evolution is true - not that'd i'd do such a thing ;)

~Mrs. A2J~

17th April 2005, 02:14 PM

Could you provide some kind of evidence for any of this?

"You know how the atmosphere of the earth was different before the flood. That's why people lived longer"

No I dont know, could you explain exactly how the atmosphere changed and how you know this? And could you explain how this different atmosphere increased the human life span.

I believe darthjedi123 is referring to these scriptures when he talks about the atmosphere being different before the flood.

Genesis 1:6-10

The Bible clearly says there was a layer of water above the earth. This to me could account for people living longer before the flood as I’m sure this layer of water acted as a barrier to block things like harmful rays thus causing us to live longer. The reason people didn’t live as long after the flood is because this layer of water came down during the flood to provide the rains. To me that’s the only logical conclusion as we know that it didn’t rain before this according to Genesis 2:5-6

Genesis 2:5-6

Genesis 7:11-12 also corroborates that the waters that were above the earth came down through the heavens to flood the earth.

Genesis 7:11-12

Here are some examples of the age people lived to before the flood:

Genesis 5:5

Genesis 5:8

Genesis 5:11

Here are some examples of the age people lived to after the flood:

Genesis 23:1

Genesis 25:7

Genesis 25:17

As you can see, there was a drastic change in the life expectancy before and after the flood. I believe this is due to, as I said above, the removal of the waters above the heavens which formed a barrier to harmful rays, etc.

"I also have found that the Garden Of Eden was located somewhere by the Euphrates river in Iraq."

Wow, quite a discovery, could you please provide some evidence of this too, maybe some photos or a link to a website perhaphs? Thank you.

The Bible says that a river ran through Eden and then parted into four. One of these four rivers is the Euphrates.

Genesis 2:10-14

Rossi

17th April 2005, 05:21 PM

the atmosphere changed because God gave us the animals to eat.Before the flood we were all vegitarians!!!!!!!!!And yes that includes the dinasaurs.

Check out Genesis 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you.Just as i gave you the green plants.I now give you everything."

Verses 1 to 2 go on to explain that the animals also become to fear us.So this is how the atmosphere changed after the flood.

As for evolution its the biggest lie that Satan has thrown at us.Peter tells us that in the last days there will be lies spread that will mislead people.Evolution is one of these lies.We must take Genesis literal as we must do with the rest of the Bible because if we dont then the Bible becomes falible and that cannot happen.It is Gods own word from his very own mouth

Yours in faith
Dave

Singing Bush

18th April 2005, 01:22 PM

Rossi

18th April 2005, 05:23 PM

Singing Bush if you are a Christian then why would you believe the Bible to be falible?

Our God is a God of turning the impossible to the possible.This is how the Sun changed its course in Joshua and how Jesus saw all the nations.Your argument about how the Bible says the earth is flat is a weak argument.the four courners is a phrase.People talk abut America having four courners but does this mean America is a square?Of course not.Also Who wrote the laws of nature? God did.So why couldnt he change them?

Also could you back your arguments with scripture.

Highland Watchman

18th April 2005, 07:07 PM

While I was hesitant at first to respond to this post initially letting creationists talk creationism amongst themselves, now that we're spreading misinformation I feel inclined to say something.

To Biliskner: your comments about evolution being "dogma" and a "farce" are completely wrong. Unless of course you'd like to share w/ me otherwise in your own words? I've already seen AIG by the way...

To Rossi: So how does some animals going from vegetarian to carnivorous, or what have you, affect the atmosphere? And, assuming it somehow does, how did the former atmosphere allow for life spans hundreds of years long?

And you say we must take the whole Bible literal right? So you believe the sun revolves around the Earth because after all God clearly changed the sun's path in the sky in Joshua? You believe that the Earth is flat because the Bible consistently tells of people coming from the "four corners of the Earth" and because Christ was taken to a high mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the Earth (something possible not from a spherical Earth but a flat one?)

To Jon 316: I guess you disagree w/ Rossi then? The atmosphere changed not at the fall, but at the flood when the vapor canopy fell? Or perhaps the changes started at the fall finally culminated in the disastrous collapse of the canopy during the flood? Could you explain to me how such a canopy is feasible and how it would have allowed people to live hundreds of years (yes blocking UV radiation is nice, but a life without cancer does not a 300 year life span make.) And as an interesting aside, answersingenesis (referenced before by Biliskner) specifically states that the vapor canopy theory is "doubtful" and therefore "inadvisable to use."

Anyways, I do not mean to start an angry debate here. Just a discussion. Enjoy.

Your brother in Christ.

Singing Bush,

You have made some good points here. I do agree that the canopy theory is not feasible, and also that atmospheric changes are not enough to bring about the changes in life span, and neither is the changing of diet a direct correlation of changing weather patterns.

However, if I may... there were a few points that you did bring up which are good for further discussion, even though I disagree with them, and I will illustrate why below...

First of all, considering your denial of calling the evolutionist dogma to be dogma... Your statement, first of all, is a mere assertion... you haven't really backed it up yourself. Not that I blame you for this. The majority of those in the evolutionist camp are this way... notice how evolution is taught unquestionably within the public school system, fallacies and falsehoods included, but never giving the entire picture of what is said (like not admitting that the fallacies actually ARE fallacies). If anyone represents another viewpoint, they are quickly shut down, shut up, and shut out of the discussion, and quickly dismissed as "backward, simple-minded, religious quacks". Meanwhile, if you'd consider the actual purpose of science, it actually encourages discussion and exploration for the sake of discovering the truth. If evolution is science and not dogma, why is it that the champions of this conjecture discourage all discussion?

Second, we have issues with the use of the term "literal" when discussing figures of speech in the Biblical literature, or any literature for that matter. You mentioned the "four corners of the earth" image that is used, usually in poetic, apocalyptic and prophetic literature in Scripture... Yet notice that it is not used in narrative or legal passages. It would be like me looking at the poem "My love is like a red, red rose" and thus deducing that I must only love roses, or that when someone says "I love you", it simply means "I want to smell you" because a rose smells sweet. On the other hand, if I were to look at a narrative piece, like Genesis for instance, the rules are completely different. If it says that the sun is bright, then it means that the sun is bright.

The other passage you are referring to is also narrative, and it is like a story told from Joshua's point of view. He looked up and noticed that the sun wasn't moving... And what good writer will go into scientific details that the point of view character may or may not know and probably wasn't thinking about at the time? For instance, in Star Trek, we do not see them explaining the exact composition of the Enterprise every time it's shown flying through the stars, yet it does...

Singing Bush if you are a Christian then why would you believe the Bible to be falible?

Our God is a God of turning the impossible to the possible.This is how the Sun changed its course in Joshua and how Jesus saw all the nations.Your argument about how the Bible says the earth is flat is a weak argument.the four courners is a phrase.People talk abut America having four courners but does this mean America is a square?Of course not.Also Who wrote the laws of nature? God did.So why couldnt he change them?

Also could you back your arguments with scripture.

I think I see what you are trying to do here... yet your argument here is rather weak itself. You are right, the four corners argument is merely a phrase, as I already stated above. And God did create the laws of the universe... And thus, HE doesn't change them, because that would break the covenant that HE made with creation. All of creation was brought about by the Word of God. If God were to contradict HIMSELF, that would make HIS word untrustworthy... and not only that, but what would that make him but similar to the pagan gods of the rest of the world, who were both capricious and unpredictable.

What would be a better argument with Jesus seeing all of the nations while on the mountain would be to ascribe this as a visionary experience, where he was shown in a vision the various nations... The text does not suggest flatness at all. That's just bad hermeneutics.

I think the theory of evolution actually could be possible:

lets get one thing straight - if there is a thing as evolution, its inspired by God.
in Genesis: God made the world in 7 days - how long is one day for God, the time between day 1 and day 2 may have been 50 000 years.
Is Genesis a literal account - or is it an explaination - a king of parable or story as to the manner in which humans came about

First there was creation - then God inspired Evolution? Christianity can work with science i'm sure.

what does everyone else think?

God Bless,
Graham

Hm... I don't know... how long can flowering plants survive without the bees and the other animals to help with their reproduction? Given the order of creation and the theory that each day is X amount of time, you would have to carry the same rule of thumb with every day... so if there are 50000 years between day 1 and day 2, there would also be 50000 years between day 4 and 5... which does not add up.

I do agree with one point that you did make, however. Christianity can work alongside science... just not the "science" that we call science but is really the religious dogma of closed-minded individuals who, out of pride, want to find a way to avoid the presence of God.

The Bible clearly says there was a layer of water above the earth. This to me could account for people living longer before the flood as I’m sure this layer of water acted as a barrier to block things like harmful rays thus causing us to live longer. The reason people didn’t live as long after the flood is because this layer of water came down during the flood to provide the rains. To me that’s the only logical conclusion as we know that it didn’t rain before this according to Genesis 2:5-6

...

The Bible says that a river ran through Eden and then parted into four. One of these four rivers is the Euphrates.

A few things here...

The layer of water / firmament theory... I did already mention that it is not one that holds much weight in an argument. As I read the text, I consider the layer of water above to be the clouds, and I don't really think about it much more beyond that... The idea of a water world, where there is a layer of water surrounding and protecting the atmosphere is a cool idea, though. Anyone up for sky diving? ;) Seriously, though... if you want a place like that, look to our sister planet, Venus, and you will see an example of such a world... (which is why the firmament theory does not hold up if the earth were to support any form of life)...

Also, by stating that the river that ran by Eden was the Euphrates that we know today is like me saying that I am going to declare a personal war against the town of York... yet which York am I referring to, as I can think of at least 5 cities named York? It's sort of the same principle. Also, remember that Eden was pre-flood... and so if the entire world was flooded, the river patterns would change after the flood because of the relationship of changed terrain and water movement... and the fact that a lot of water is being re-evaporated.

Leimeng

18th April 2005, 08:36 PM

~In many ways, what is most interesting about Genesis is what it does not say. We dont know exactly what was going on outside of the garden. We dont know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they fell. In fact, there is reason to think there could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the Bible. There is no way to know for sure what exactly happened in these questions. We can guess and hypothesis, but there is no scripture that states exactly in these areas.
~ The issue is less what exact method that GOD used to create the world and more that GOD created it and that you are a significant part of creation that He interveined in time to offer up His Son as a sacrifice for your sins.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)

~Mrs. A2J~

18th April 2005, 11:19 PM

The layer of water / firmament theory... I did already mention that it is not one that holds much weight in an argument. As I read the text, I consider the layer of water above to be the clouds, and I don't really think about it much more beyond that... The idea of a water world, where there is a layer of water surrounding and protecting the atmosphere is a cool idea, though. Anyone up for sky diving? ;) Seriously, though... if you want a place like that, look to our sister planet, Venus, and you will see an example of such a world... (which is why the firmament theory does not hold up if the earth were to support any form of life)...

I don't think that the layer of water above was in the form of clouds just because if we already had clouds (which are not mentioned until after the flood) it would mean that there would have been rain (which is only mentioned before the flood to say that God had NOT sent rain yet) and thus already had the ability to create rainbows. If rainbows had already appeared before the flood I think it cheapens the promise of God when he says He will never again send waters to destroy all life. Why would God choose a symbol that had already been around for hundres of years?
Genesis 9:13-17
It sounds to me like God had just made the rainbow and that it was not around before. But that's just my opinion :).

Biliskner

19th April 2005, 04:51 AM

To Biliskner: your comments about evolution being "dogma" and a "farce" are completely wrong. Unless of course you'd like to share w/ me otherwise in your own words? I've already seen AIG by the way...

dogma definitions:

a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
"The fossil is dated by the rock layer it is in. The rock layer is dated by the fossil that is in it." "Evolution was assumed when the column was built. Now the column supports evolution!"

metaphysically, we call that "circular reasoning".

farce definition:

a comedy characterized by broad satire and improbable situations
forcemeat: mixture of ground raw chicken and mushrooms with pistachios and truffles and onions and parsley and lots of butter and bound with eggs

if a fish can become a fly, then a bicycle can become a motorbike.

can a bicycle become a motorbike? with the natural selection mechanism? of mutations only?
if you think that it is completely absurd that a bicycle can become a motorbike, then know that living organisms are about 1 MILLION times more complex than synthetic matter.

the mitocondria factory is infinitely MORE complex than your US$40,000 Tablet PC with Microsoft XP SP2 (the number of zeros is correct.)

If PDAs cannot become laptops, then don't tell me that single celled organisms can become multicellular organisms; don't preach to me that ameobas can become elephants. if that is not farce, i don't know what is.

You've seen my cards, now play your hand, explain to me how i am wrong.

Biliskner

19th April 2005, 04:53 AM

Yes canopy theory might be flawed (*might*) but what is the TEs alternative?
A flawed theory is better than sitting on the fence, esp. so when someone asks you what you, as a Christian, think about pre-Fallen Creation.

cbk

19th April 2005, 10:49 AM

I've been saying it since '86, the answer may be in the research of COSMIC rays.

Cosmic Rays

Cosmic Rays

Aging and ionization and C14 and ozone protection

lismore

19th April 2005, 11:34 AM

Rossi

19th April 2005, 03:52 PM

My point though is that God turns the impossible to the possible.

The argument about the gap between Adam and the rest of the Bible is a bit flawed also because if you look at the doxology of Jesus in the Gospels then the numbers dont add up

Br0k3n

19th April 2005, 04:00 PM

Great post...I have felt the same way, and it was nice to see someone with the same thoughts.

Highland Watchman

19th April 2005, 08:24 PM

I don't think that the layer of water above was in the form of clouds just because if we already had clouds (which are not mentioned until after the flood) it would mean that there would have been rain (which is only mentioned before the flood to say that God had NOT sent rain yet) and thus already had the ability to create rainbows. If rainbows had already appeared before the flood I think it cheapens the promise of God when he says He will never again send waters to destroy all life. Why would God choose a symbol that had already been around for hundres of years?
Genesis 9:13-17
It sounds to me like God had just made the rainbow and that it was not around before. But that's just my opinion :).

Why would God choose a sign that is already around? Hm... I don't know. I guess it's like circumcision... It was around before Abraham (as in, Israel is not the first nation to practice circumcision), and yet God chose to use circumcision as the sign of God's covenant with Abraham (and later, with all of Israel when they reaffirmed the covenant before entering the Promised Land)...

For another example, the sacraments of the Christian church, even though they are a sign of our being the covenant people of today, have also been around for longer than the church. There were sects who practiced ritual baptism before Jesus' time (among the Jews, look up the Essenes and the Qumran community of the 1st and 2nd century BC), and the Communion/Eucharist has long been practiced as the Passover meal in Israel, pretty much since the Exodus... If you also adopt the additional sacraments that the Catholics believe in, there is more here also... :priest:

Also, if you want to get into the semantics of the text itself, it mentions in the same passage that you quoted before (in Genesis 2) that there was also no humans around to till the soil... And in this verse, God said that He put the rainbow ino the clouds... had Noah never encountered clouds before, he would have been curious about what those clouds were. Yet, this is only my own thoughts here...

lismore

20th April 2005, 04:31 AM

: God made the world in 7 days - how long is one day for God, the time between day 1 and day 2 may have been 50 000 years.

The Hebrew word used for day in Genesis is 'Yom'

If you go to Israel today you will find that 'Yom Kippur'- the Day of Atonement does not last 50 000 years. :D

Biliskner

20th April 2005, 10:29 AM

The Hebrew word used for day in Genesis is 'Yom'

If you go to Israel today you will find that 'Yom Kippur'- the Day of Atonement does not last 50 000 years. :D

Not only that, but in Hebrew when one utilizes ordinal numbering (first day... second day... third day...) they mean it exactly like how a narrative is supposed to read, in literalism.

w w w . grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

i have to bump this 'cos Yom Kippur is cool :thumbsup:

cbk

20th April 2005, 11:27 AM

Before Noah.

1.Flatter world. Mountains were lower. Oceans depths not as deep. Less water required than today.
2. More oxygen in atmosphere.
3. Thicker ozone layer.
4. Less c14
5. No cosmic radiation.

Cosmic rays hit earth.

Cosmic rays hit ozone.

This, in turn,
1)depletes some of ozone
2)creates more c14.
3)Accelerates aging process.
4)creates more hydrogen
5)ionizes the atmosphere
6)creates world-wide rain, which in turn

1)covers the flatter land
2)floats a boat
3)puts much pressure on the crust
4)dents the crust in our Atlantic and Pacific areas
5)raises mountains in other areas (ie, Rockies, Himalayans)
6)takes with it dead fish
7)washes away many areas (ie, deserts)
8)recedes into deeper Atlantic and Pacific basins.

Singing Bush

20th April 2005, 01:19 PM

Singing Bush if you are a Christian then why would you believe the Bible to be falible?I don't and I never said that. I was simply calling into question your assertion that we must "take Genesis literal as we do with the rest of the Bible." If you were to truly take the whole Bible literally then you should likely believe geocentricism and a flat earth because, as I explained, a very plain, literal meaning of the Biblical passages dictates exactly that.

Our God is a God of turning the impossible to the possible.This is how the Sun changed its course in Joshua and how Jesus saw all the nations.But if you were to take the Bible literally, God said in Josh 10:12-13 for the sun to stand still and it stood still. A literal interpretation would best make sense then that the sun moves about the Earth. And why take Jesus up top a high mountain to show him all the nations of the Earth if the actual act of taking him up a high mountain is completely unnecessary to showing him the kingdoms and would only imply to the readers that by going up an exceedingly high mountain you could?

Your argument about how the Bible says the earth is flat is a weak argument.the four courners is a phrase.People talk abut America having four courners but does this mean America is a square?Of course not.Hmm... a phrase you say? Would that not mean then that you do not take the whole Bible literally? That you interpret collections of words to be phrases and that they thus have a different meaning than if they were taken at face value? And as an aside, just because we may use that phrase today in the United States does not mean at all that it was used or understood as such in ancient Israel.

Also Who wrote the laws of nature? God did.So why couldnt he change them?Oh He certainly could if He wanted to, but there should be evidence that He did. If you perpetrate a world wide miracle there should be evidence of that miracle left once it's done. Unless He also for some reason felt inclined to cover up His tracks afterwards.

Also could you back your arguments with scripture.Unfortunately I cannot, but that does not necessarily mean anything as the Bible was never intended to be used as a scientific textbook. Even in 2 Tim 3:16 it states that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." The pursuit of science is a fine thing, but hardly can be confused I think with righteousness. This partly leads into why I even brought up the whole literal vs non-literal business in the first place. First I wanted to point out that everyone to some extent interprets the Bible. No one truly takes a completely literal translation. That said, and taking 2 Tim 3:16 into account, if we develop an interpretation of Scripture that is in conflict with what we know of reality it does not mean that the Bible is wrong or that it is fallible as you imply it would therefor be above, but simply that our interpretation of it is wrong. The proper solution then isn't to abandon the Bible or Christianity, or to hold all the more tenaciously onto our own particular interpretation despite of what is known to be true, but to adjust our understanding accordingly. Our faith is based on our relationship with Christ after all, not a specific reading of a specific passage.

Anyways, unfortunately I only have time to respond to your post right now so sorry if it may be a little while before I get back to the others. Thank you for your patience.

Imageek

20th April 2005, 03:47 PM

I don't and I never said that. I was simply calling into question your assertion that we must "take Genesis literal as we do with the rest of the Bible." If you were to truly take the whole Bible literally then you should likely believe geocentricism and a flat earth because, as I explained, a very plain, literal meaning of the Biblical passages dictates exactly that.

But if you were to take the Bible literally, God said in Josh 10:12-13 for the sun to stand still and it stood still. A literal interpretation would best make sense then that the sun moves about the Earth. And why take Jesus up top a high mountain to show him all the nations of the Earth if the actual act of taking him up a high mountain is completely unnecessary to showing him the kingdoms and would only imply to the readers that by going up an exceedingly high mountain you could?

Hmm... a phrase you say? Would that not mean then that you do not take the whole Bible literally? That you interpret collections of words to be phrases and that they thus have a different meaning than if they were taken at face value? And as an aside, just because we may use that phrase today in the United States does not mean at all that it was used or understood as such in ancient Israel.

Oh He certainly could if He wanted to, but there should be evidence that He did. If you perpetrate a world wide miracle there should be evidence of that miracle left once it's done. Unless He also for some reason felt inclined to cover up His tracks afterwards.

Unfortunately I cannot, but that does not necessarily mean anything as the Bible was never intended to be used as a scientific textbook. Even in 2 Tim 3:16 it states that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." The pursuit of science is a fine thing, but hardly can be confused I think with righteousness. This partly leads into why I even brought up the whole literal vs non-literal business in the first place. First I wanted to point out that everyone to some extent interprets the Bible. No one truly takes a completely literal translation. That said, and taking 2 Tim 3:16 into account, if we develop an interpretation of Scripture that is in conflict with what we know of reality it does not mean that the Bible is wrong or that it is fallible as you imply it would therefor be above, but simply that our interpretation of it is wrong. The proper solution then isn't to abandon the Bible or Christianity, or to hold all the more tenaciously onto our own particular interpretation despite of what is known to be true, but to adjust our understanding accordingly. Our faith is based on our relationship with Christ after all, not a specific reading of a specific passage.

Anyways, unfortunately I only have time to respond to your post right now so sorry if it may be a little while before I get back to the others. Thank you for your patience.

Hi all,

I haven't figured out the mechanics of this site yet. I thought I had set of text marked as a quote.

Singing Bush wrote:
"Our faith is based on our relationship with Christ after all, not a specific reading of a specific passage."

A good summary in context with the whole statement.

As a scientist, and well versed in scripture, I will say the scriptures do hold great clues to science. And sometimes greatly more than clues. However, I believe scripture was meant primarily to point us to a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. A relationship that benefits not only ourselves, but the people around us. Certainly a faith first issue.

I am sure within myself that God wants to have an intelligent faith also. Science is necessary to human function, but not a final solution to the human condition. Seeking answers to the things around us is part of the way we are made. Faith allows us to accept the unexplainable with peace until the answer is given (or not in this age).

More than 2 cents,

Imageek

Rossi

20th April 2005, 04:14 PM

Imageek

20th April 2005, 06:53 PM

Hey Rossi,

Keep reading. You are on the right track. Seeking God and answers to questions is not stupid. Wisdom and age sometimes go hand in hand. Not always. Many of my friends are much younger than I, but often they are not doing what you are doing; reading the scripture regularly. However they do read it. When they do lean on me for an answer I ask them how know if I am telling them the truth or not without the personal scriptural knowledge base. I break out the book and read it to them. They still hang out with me even though I'm a dinosaur and a geek.

Press on,

Imageek

darthjedi123

22nd April 2005, 12:55 AM

Thanks guys, I have learned a lot, by reading your guy's posts. I hope to learn more in the coming days, weeks, months, and years. I can't wait to be with God someday, and actually know everything about the earth, the creation, and everything. God owns! :amen:

Biliskner

22nd April 2005, 09:17 AM

Ok lets get this straight.

When i said to take Genisis literally i meant the whole day thing to be taken literally and not to go implying extra years.Yeah the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years to God.But it also says a thousand years is like a day to God.

Maybe im making stupid posts but thats proberbly because you guys seem to be a bit older than me and you have age on your side.Im only 17 and have only recently have got stuck into reading my Bible

good to hear the younger generation take God's Word seriously. When the Bible says "a day is like a thousand years to God" it ALSO says that "a thousand years is like a day to God"

2Pe. 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

remember the context of the Scriptures. Peter is talking about patience, and for the Christians under persecution to endure and persevere in patience. it's not talking about Creation :thumbsup:

Biliskner

22nd April 2005, 09:20 AM

But if you were to take the Bible literally, God said in Josh 10:12-13 for the sun to stand still and it stood still. A literal interpretation would best make sense then that the sun moves about the Earth. And why take Jesus up top a high mountain to show him all the nations of the Earth if the actual act of taking him up a high mountain is completely unnecessary to showing him the kingdoms and would only imply to the readers that by going up an exceedingly high mountain you could?

no it is not.
if you were Joshua and you looked up, the Sun would ACTUALLY be "stopped" in the sky. whether the sun is going around the moon or the moon going around the sun or the earth going around mars does not matter. the Sun actually stopped from Josh's perspective, and that's the perspective we're reading the Scriptures from. ;) - the point is the Sun stopped IN THE SKY - a miracle in itself :amen:

Singing Bush

25th April 2005, 10:51 PM

However, if I may...No you may not. No one may question me.

there were a few points that you did bring up which are good for further discussion, even though I disagree with them, and I will illustrate why below...Hey! What'd I just say?! :)

First of all, considering your denial of calling the evolutionist dogma to be dogma... Your statement, first of all, is a mere assertion... you haven't really backed it up yourself.Heh, this is of course true, but mostly because at the time I did not want to flood my original post with too much stuff about too many different things. But, since you bring it up... (actually I think Biliskner went into more detail on this so I answer the question in a reply to his post later if you don't mind...)

Not that I blame you for this. The majority of those in the evolutionist camp are this way... notice how evolution is taught unquestionably within the public school system, fallacies and falsehoods included, but never giving the entire picture of what is said (like not admitting that the fallacies actually ARE fallacies). If anyone represents another viewpoint, they are quickly shut down, shut up, and shut out of the discussion, and quickly dismissed as "backward, simple-minded, religious quacks". Meanwhile, if you'd consider the actual purpose of science, it actually encourages discussion and exploration for the sake of discovering the truth. If evolution is science and not dogma, why is it that the champions of this conjecture discourage all discussion?Ahh but they do not Highland Watchman my friend. Sure some scientists like Richard Dawkins are rabidly atheistic and will reject outright most anything coming from the mouth of those disagreeing w/ evolution and the bundle of ideas often associated with it, but the vast majority are truly open minded if there is something to discuss. Unfortunately, there is not. If there is an alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution or the theory of common descent or what have you, scientists, Christian or otherwise, are more than free to submit their ideas to peer reviewed journals where all scientific debate takes place. You'll probably suggest then that prejudice or perhaps conspiracy prevents creationists from presenting their theories in said journals, well then feel free to share w/ me what these ideas are. Or for that matter post it on the Internet. There's no censorship there yet. It's been my experience, however, that if there is a scientific theory behind creationism it is locked up in a tightly sealed vault somewhere reserved for the select few. And so if they can't present a theory, how can there be a discussion?

Second, we have issues with the use of the term "literal" when discussing figures of speech in the Biblical literature, or any literature for that matter. You mentioned the "four corners of the earth" image that is used, usually in poetic, apocalyptic and prophetic literature in Scripture... Yet notice that it is not used in narrative or legal passages. My point wasn't to nitpick about an interpretation of Scripture. I am inclined to agree w/ you anyway. My original point in bringing it up was, as I stated in another post, to point out that no one literally reads the Bible literally and thus when creationists say, "well I just believe what the Bible says" they don't really mean that, but rather mean "well I just believe my own particular interpretation of what the Bible says." That interpretation may be more valid than another from an exegesis point of view yes, but it's not right that some creationists should make it seem as if by accepting evolution you are somehow throwing the Bible out the window.

I do agree with one point that you did make, however. Christianity can work alongside science... just not the "science" that we call science but is really the religious dogma of closed-minded individuals who, out of pride, want to find a way to avoid the presence of God.Interesting that you should say this brother. So are all Christians who accept evolution close-minded out of pride and trying to avoid the presence of God? Even the pope?

Singing Bush

25th April 2005, 11:17 PM

dogma definitions:

a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
Okey dokey. So you want proof ofevolution? Fine, I can provide for you 50 references to scientific journals recording macroevolution, and I'm sure you could find some more if you'd only do a search of the web. Would you like me to post them? This alone shows that evolution is not "dogma" because, as you have so generously shown, "dogma" is a doctrine proclaimed as truth "without proof."

"The fossil is dated by the rock layer it is in. The rock layer is dated by the fossil that is in it." "Evolution was assumed when the column was built. Now the column supports evolution!"

metaphysically, we call that "circular reasoning".Well it's a good thing that isn't how evolution is "proved" in any of the 50 journal articles I can provide for you. Nor is the statement even fully accurate for that matter. The column was devised, though of course not as extensively as today, before Darwin even came up with his theory of evolution. Moreover, there are numerous other ways which rock layers can be dated. It is because the geological column WAS so consistently accurate in it's association with certain rock ages that by finding a certain fossil you can NOW relatively guess the age of a rock layer and vice versa. If you don't agree or are skeptical, there're always the other methods to double check. When done correctly and without unacknowledged factors interfering, they will agree. As I said, though, neither evolution nor evolutionary theory, nor the evolutionary theory of common descent are dependent on the geological column any way.

farce definition:

a comedy characterized by broad satire and improbable situations
forcemeat: mixture of ground raw chicken and mushrooms with pistachios and truffles and onions and parsley and lots of butter and bound with eggs

<SNIP>

If PDAs cannot become laptops, then don't tell me that single celled organisms can become multicellular organisms; don't preach to me that ameobas can become elephants. if that is not farce, i don't know what is.No that is a farce, and it is a good thing that evolutionary theory does not propose such things. In fact, if an amoeba became an elephant that would seriously undermine evolutionary theory.

Perhaps you do not understand what evolution is? Or even that there is a difference between the fact of evolution, evolutionary theory, and the theory of common descent? Would you care to share w/ me your definitions? Maybe that is why you believe evolution to be a farce? Hopefully together we can clear up any misunderstandings.

You've seen my cards, now play your hand, explain to me how i am wrong.This help at all? If not, would you care to share where I need to clarify? Enjoy brother.

Singing Bush

25th April 2005, 11:26 PM

Maybe im making stupid posts but thats proberbly because you guys seem to be a bit older than me and you have age on your side.Im only 17 and have only recently have got stuck into reading my BibleHeh, I hope I did not offend any with my posts as that was surely not my intention. I simply felt that what you were stating was not fully accurate and should be corrected. And it's great that you're 17 and do have such a desire to know God more. Just be wary of what others tell you, including myself, and just because someone has the Christian stamp on their head does not make them an authority on something.

Singing Bush

25th April 2005, 11:47 PM

no it is not.
if you were Joshua and you looked up, the Sun would ACTUALLY be "stopped" in the sky. whether the sun is going around the moon or the moon going around the sun or the earth going around mars does not matter. the Sun actually stopped from Josh's perspective, and that's the perspective we're reading the Scriptures from. ;) - the point is the Sun stopped IN THE SKY - a miracle in itself :amen:At the risk of prolonging an only slightly relevant tangent, God said for the sun to stop. This implies that it would otherwise be moving. Perhaps, as you say, this is only from Joshua's perspective and God only said for the sun to stop because Joshua would have been confused if God had instead told the Earth to stop in its rotation. (If this is true, though, and God communicated in such a way so as to best communicate an idea and not scientific concepts, then why could this not also be true about the creation account? Why could God not have used it to detail man's spiritual situation?) But perhaps on the other hand, as the more simplistic and straightforward interpretation would suggest, God means what He says. If He says "sun, stop" the sun wont just stop appearing to move relative to another's view point, but will surely stop moving physically. This is what the Catholic church so rigorously defended for quite some time, though perhaps they just had a vested interest in maintaining the geocentrist status-quo?

Biliskner

26th April 2005, 08:23 AM

At the risk of prolonging an only slightly relevant tangent, God said for the sun to stop. This implies that it would otherwise be moving. Perhaps, as you say, this is only from Joshua's perspective and God only said for the sun to stop because Joshua would have been confused if God had instead told the Earth to stop in its rotation. (If this is true, though, and God communicated in such a way so as to best communicate an idea and not scientific concepts, then why could this not also be true about the creation account? Why could God not have used it to detail man's spiritual situation?) But perhaps on the other hand, as the more simplistic and straightforward interpretation would suggest, God means what He says. If He says "sun, stop" the sun wont just stop appearing to move relative to another's view point, but will surely stop moving physically. This is what the Catholic church so rigorously defended for quite some time, though perhaps they just had a vested interest in maintaining the geocentrist status-quo?

the sun does move. why is it dark now when it was light only 2 hours ago?

lmao. good argument.

:doh:

Biliskner

26th April 2005, 08:26 AM

Singing Bush

26th April 2005, 12:41 PM

the sun does move. why is it dark now when it was light only 2 hours ago?

lmao. good argument.

:doh:The sun moves only relative to our vantage point. In reality it does not. Do you not agree? As I stated before, if God said for the sun to stop and he meant only relative to Joshua's perspective that means He was communicating only to convey an idea and not science. Thus His words are not to be taken literally in this piece of Scripture and the claim "I take the Bible literally" is not fully correct, and, moreover, just because a piece of Scripture seems to convey a piece of data about scientific reality, this does not necessarily mean that it is doing so as God may simply have used that piece of text to convey an idea at the cost of scientific accuracy.

day2day

26th April 2005, 12:54 PM

in the book of Job a dinasaur is describedWow! I got to read job again . I thought there were no dinosaurs mention in the bible. tell me s more:confused:

Singing Bush

26th April 2005, 12:55 PM

evolution:

1. amoeba
+
2. 1 allele mutate
+
3. another allele mutate
+
repeat 2+3 for several billion years
...
= human.

i saw a princess kiss a frog the other day. the princess turned into a fly and the frog ate it/her.

don't believe me? oh you have to fit a few billions years in there (where ever) to make it true.My aren't we getting sassy? :) Before I begin, however, let me start with pointing out what you did not include in your post. Although I had asked, you did not include any definition of the evolution either as a fact or as theory nor did you provide a definition of the theory of common descent. You did not reply in any way to my offer to provide you direct evidence of 50 recorded instances of macroevolution. You did not reply in any manner to show that my claim that evolution is not dogma is in fact false. You did not counter my clarification of the geological column. Does this mean you have accepted everything I just stated? Or do you just have nothing to say?

Moving on now to your most recent post. Would you care to share w/ me how mutation and natural selection over time cannot lead to the development of new species? Your scenario, though written to sound comical, is perfectly plausible and indeed the evidence (such as the twin-nested heirarchy [which I can explain to you if you do not know what that is]) suggests exactly that. Or is this simply an argument of, "it sounds funny to me and I don't comprehend it so I don't believe it?" If you have any questions I am more than willing to provide clarification, brother, or get the information from another as I of course by no means have all the answers. Just ask. It seems so far, however, that you do not possess a real appreciation of what evolution is nor a desire to understand it.

day2day

26th April 2005, 01:12 PM

cbk

26th April 2005, 01:34 PM

Good question! I to wondered about this :scratch: Where in bible does it mention dinosaurs:confused: If not why do they find dinosaur bones ? Is it a hoax:scratch:

Where does it mention squid or sharks? Where does it mention the whale?

Could be that prior to Noah's flood, the accounts of those in the Bible were of those who lived in areas that were dino-free, so to speak.

Of course, there is the Bohemoth -- unless it is an elephant with a very big tail.

Rossi

26th April 2005, 04:00 PM

Wow! I got to read job again . I thought there were no dinosaurs mention in the bible. tell me s more:confused:

Yeah in Job God describes a dino.He called it Bohemoth.Some people believe it was an elephant or a hippo but God says it has a tail like a ceeder tree which doesnt add up if you look at the tail of a hippo or elephant.

Check out Job 40:15-24

day2day

26th April 2005, 07:29 PM

Yeah in Job God describes a dino.He called it Bohemoth.Some people believe it was an elephant or a hippo but God says it has a tail like a ceeder tree which doesnt add up if you look at the tail of a hippo or elephant.

Check out Job 40:15-24Hey thanks for the info:thumbsup:

Slammer

26th April 2005, 07:51 PM

I'd like to know the IQs of the creationists here, just out of curiosity.. thx.

michaeldimmickjr

26th April 2005, 08:18 PM

I'd like to know the IQs of the creationists here, just out of curiosity.. thx.

What are IQs but numbers? Can you measure your salvation by a number? When your standing befire Jesus at the judgement throne, do you think He will say, "Well, even though you died a sinner, you did have a really high IQ?"

Your Brother in Christ,

Michael

InnerPhyre

26th April 2005, 08:26 PM

Slammer

26th April 2005, 08:54 PM

What are IQs but numbers?

The IQ is not just a number, it's a number that measures intelligence.

There are units of temperature, units of time, units of energy, and.. units of intelligence.

michaeldimmickjr

26th April 2005, 09:59 PM

The IQ is not just a number, it's a number that measures intelligence.

There are units of temperature, units of time, units of energy, and.. units of intelligence.

When the earth is no longer here, and it will not be someday, what will these "units" measure up to then?

Your Brother in Christ,

Michael

Starcrystal

26th April 2005, 10:06 PM

I'd like to know the IQs of the creationists here, just out of curiosity.. thx.

I bet (though I don't gamble) that you think they hover around 100 or even less?
First of all IQs really don't measure much - and they don't measure learning capacity, only "general" intelligence of how someone interprets certain information....and that comes from one of my sociology professors.

Try 135, is that satisfactory ?

Slammer

26th April 2005, 10:11 PM

What test did you pass to get that 135 figure?

Do you swear on Jesus that it's true?

Starcrystal

26th April 2005, 10:12 PM

So T-Rex, Dionychus, Allosaurus and all the rest had those really sharp teeth to dig through really tough plants? :)

Sure, why not? Ever try to tear into a raw root??
I have two theories on this, since it's shown that dinos did in fact prey on other dinos.
#1 This happened between Adams fall and the flood, but not before the fall, or,
it happened after the fall when a few dinos still survived. We must consider Noah took 2 or 7 of every creature on the ark, so that would include dinos. (most likeley hatchlings) But due to climactic changes they were never able to get established as they were before. Not only that, man hunted and killed them, thus we get our dragonslaying legends. About the only (large) living dinos today are found in the water.

Slammer

26th April 2005, 10:14 PM

Lol

Tiger Lily

26th April 2005, 10:20 PM

Yeah the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years to God.But it also says a thousand years is like a day to God.

That's exactly what I was wondering too, maybe God only took one of our hours (or even a minute or two?) to create the Heavens and Earth. He could have accelerated it to age it within a short time span. If you don't believe God could do that, then your (or my) idea of God is very confined. What I am saying is it could look like a great age, and not really be of a great age. I do not believe in evolution as it is currently written in the books, but it is possible we have a lot of diverse animals due to the above mention acceleration of age within the earth's creation. God could exist, and create something outside of our perception of time. Just an idea...take it or leave it. :)

Starcrystal

26th April 2005, 10:21 PM

What test did you pass to get that 135 figure?

Do you swear on Jesus that it's true?

How should I remember what test? The standard IQ test? Who pays attention to *what* test. There's several online tests too (some are garbage) - but I've taken some just out of curiosity and scored anywhere from 117 to 140 on those.

Anyways, I really don't want to redebate something I spent hours and hours on last year in the evolution & creation forum. I found that you cannot convince people with mere words, no matter how much evidence you place on the table.

Evolutionists present some compelling evidence but it can be explained away by creation evidence. Creationists presnt compelling evidence that appears to be explained away by evolution. So it just goes back and forth, back and forth, and no one wins.

But anyone who wants to argue about Dinos and humans living at the same time, try the Polluxy riverbed in Texas. Obvious human and other mammilian (sloth) tracks alongside dinosaurs, and some overlapping.
Now before you say it's a hoax - there were people who were chissling the tracks out of rocks to sell them, and so others carved fake footprints and sold those too. There are fakes and there are the real thing there. The fakes don't negate the real ones though...

Slammer

26th April 2005, 10:34 PM

AHAHAHAH Don't worry I don't feel like debating with a creationist..

And tests on the net mean NOTHING! Pass a real one you'll see for yourself the difference. Only 15% have more than 115, 2.7% have more than 130 and 0.14% have more than 145..

Singing Bush

27th April 2005, 12:26 AM

But anyone who wants to argue about Dinos and humans living at the same time, try the Polluxy riverbed in Texas. Obvious human and other mammilian (sloth) tracks alongside dinosaurs, and some overlapping.
Now before you say it's a hoax - there were people who were chissling the tracks out of rocks to sell them, and so others carved fake footprints and sold those too. There are fakes and there are the real thing there. The fakes don't negate the real ones though...Not sure who this Slammer character is you're having a spat with, but I'm gonna butt in anyway because that's what I like to do :) . You bring up the Paluxy tracks. Interesting. I can provide evidence to why these tracks are of dubious nature and few scientists believe them to be anything of the sort, but I am sure you do not wish to hear about the objections of "evolutionists". So instead I'll just point out that two major creationist organizations, Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), cite the paluxy prints as either frauds or artefacts from erosion of tracks. Neither recommend creationists cite them as an evidence for creation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-151.htm

WesWoodell

27th April 2005, 01:02 AM

So what if God buried dinosaur bones all around the earth as a joke just so humans would later find them and rack their brains over them?

He does have a sense of humor you know. :P

Biliskner

27th April 2005, 10:26 AM

So what if God buried dinosaur bones all around the earth as a joke just so humans would later find them and rack their brains over them?

He does have a sense of humor you know. :P

:thumbsup:

Rossi

27th April 2005, 12:22 PM

So T-Rex, Dionychus, Allosaurus and all the rest had those really sharp teeth to dig through really tough plants? :)

Yeah.Is that so hard to believe.There is a type of monkey in Africa with huge teeth.He is prety scary actually.But he is a vegitaian.

I would also like to throw a new topic into debate.

Here it is.We havent discovered all our planet yet.Taking this into account is it plausable that dinos still live on the earth?A while ago a few explorers wre travelling through Africa.They came accross a tribe and started to educate them and learn some of their cultures.They showed the natives a picture of a t-rex and one of the young boys said oh that is matungalook(im sure he said somthing different but i dont know what he said!!!).Anyway the young boy then said "me and my uncle cought one of them a month ago and we have been eating his meat since then".The explorers then were brought to the carcus of the animal and they found it was a t-rex!!!!!!!

star_crystal

27th April 2005, 12:41 PM

Not sure who this Slammer character is you're having a spat with, but I'm gonna butt in anyway because that's what I like to do :) . You bring up the Paluxy tracks. Interesting. I can provide evidence to why these tracks are of dubious nature and few scientists believe them to be anything of the sort, but I am sure you do not wish to hear about the objections of "evolutionists". So instead I'll just point out that two major creationist organizations, Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), cite the paluxy prints as either frauds or artefacts from erosion of tracks. Neither recommend creationists cite them as an evidence for creation.

This is the same Starcrystal, but my other account got closed for a day because some spammers got access to it and spammed CF...
Anyways, I'll try to find the link, but it explains the fraud vs. real tracks at Polluxy.

Oh, and as far as Slammer's request yesterday "would you swear on Jesus this is true" NO I WON'T simply because I do not swear by Christ or by God, but let my yes be yes and no be no. Anything beyond that is evilness. Besides the issue brought up about IQs is off topic. I only responded to it to show creationists have as high an IQ as anyone else.
Also, IQs have absolutely nothing to do with FAITH!:)

Singing Bush

28th April 2005, 12:19 AM

This is the same Starcrystal, but my other account got closed for a day because some spammers got access to it and spammed CF...I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully everything gets under control.

Anyways, I'll try to find the link, but it explains the fraud vs. real tracks at Polluxy.And I shall wait patiently for it. Or you could explain it in your own words if you're feeling up to it. And of course Biliskner and Highland Watchman, you're both free to respond to my posts/questions whenever you're ready. :)

Oh, and as far as Slammer's request yesterday "would you swear on Jesus this is true" NO I WON'T simply because I do not swear by Christ or by God, but let my yes be yes and no be no. Anything beyond that is evilness. Besides the issue brought up about IQs is off topic. I only responded to it to show creationists have as high an IQ as anyone else.
Also, IQs have absolutely nothing to do with FAITH!:) Well the whole "swearing" issue is certainly acceptable, I applaud you on that. And you are right, both faith and the whole creation "science" issue have nothing to do w/ IQ. The facts are the same whether you're a certified card-caring genius or a complete numbskull.

Starcrystal

28th April 2005, 01:29 PM

I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully everything gets under control.

And I shall wait patiently for it. Or you could explain it in your own words if you're feeling up to it. And of course Biliskner and Highland Watchman, you're both free to respond to my posts/questions whenever you're ready.

I already briefly explained it. I'll have to hunt around for it. A friend of mine posted the link on some forum or group and so I'll have to look around when I have time since I don't remember what group it was!

Biliskner

1st May 2005, 03:00 AM

That's exactly what I was wondering too, maybe God only took one of our hours (or even a minute or two?) to create the Heavens and Earth. He could have accelerated it to age it within a short time span. If you don't believe God could do that, then your (or my) idea of God is very confined. What I am saying is it could look like a great age, and not really be of a great age. I do not believe in evolution as it is currently written in the books, but it is possible we have a lot of diverse animals due to the above mention acceleration of age within the earth's creation. God could exist, and create something outside of our perception of time. Just an idea...take it or leave it. :)

guys, read the Bible in context. Peter is talking about PATIENCE when he makes that statement.

2Pe. 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
2Pe. 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
2Pe. 3:7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2Pe. 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
2Pe. 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
2Pe. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

you want day usage in Genesis, follow here: http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

Starcrystal

1st May 2005, 04:19 PM

guys, read the Bible in context. Peter is talking about PATIENCE when he makes that statement.

2Pe. 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
2Pe. 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
2Pe. 3:7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2Pe. 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
2Pe. 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
2Pe. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

you want day usage in Genesis, follow here: http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

This is speculation only. It has been the argument used by old earth creationists for a long time. It really has nothing to do with the days of creation, although many *assume* that it *could* mean the days were 1,000 years and then somehow change them to millions of years (which has absolutely no Biblical backing)

What most people fail to realize is that God exists outside of linear time and what was created was birthed into linear time. A certain portion of creation occured outside of time, hence the appearance of age because things were made in the eternal (timeless) realm and then brought into the linear time frame and physical 3 D cosmos. So actually the reason scientists find evidence for both an old and a young earth is because in physical linear time it's young, but it's components were made from eternal things which give it the appearance of age!

Singing Bush

1st May 2005, 09:10 PM

guys, read the Bible in context. So you have time to respond to statements not specifically directed to you; how about getting around to some that are? :)

Biliskner

3rd May 2005, 09:07 AM

This is speculation only. It has been the argument used by old earth creationists for a long time. It really has nothing to do with the days of creation, although many *assume* that it *could* mean the days were 1,000 years and then somehow change them to millions of years (which has absolutely no Biblical backing)

What most people fail to realize is that God exists outside of linear time and what was created was birthed into linear time. A certain portion of creation occured outside of time, hence the appearance of age because things were made in the eternal (timeless) realm and then brought into the linear time frame and physical 3 D cosmos. So actually the reason scientists find evidence for both an old and a young earth is because in physical linear time it's young, but it's components were made from eternal things which give it the appearance of age!

And your second paragraph is not speculation?

oh gg. :thumbsup:

Biliskner

3rd May 2005, 09:08 AM

So you have time to respond to statements not specifically directed to you; how about getting around to some that are? :)

wow, you've got BETTER things to do with YOUR time don't you? :)

Starcrystal

3rd May 2005, 04:12 PM

And your second paragraph is not speculation?

oh gg. :thumbsup:

When you consider the conflicting hypothesis between creation evidence and evolution evidence, it is the only thing that makes any sense whatsoever!
- seriously.

Singing Bush

4th May 2005, 12:01 AM

wow, you've got BETTER things to do with YOUR time don't you? :)Oh I suppose I do. I suppose we all do, but to be honest I enjoy the creation/evolution "debate" and so become understandably sad when no one wants to play w/ me. :) But let's try an easier question. You haven't answered my question. Is that because you don't want to or simply can't? Be honest, we're all brothers here (well and sisters too I guess).

Oh and Highland Watchman, I've noticed you have become active again too. Care to reply to your questions? Please?

Biliskner

4th May 2005, 09:58 AM

Oh I suppose I do. I suppose we all do, but to be honest I enjoy the creation/evolution "debate" and so become understandably sad when no one wants to play w/ me. :) But let's try an easier question. You haven't answered my question. Is that because you don't want to or simply can't? Be honest, we're all brothers here (well and sisters too I guess).

Oh and Highland Watchman, I've noticed you have become active again too. Care to reply to your questions? Please?

DINOSAURS, is this thread. come over to the evolution debates thread to play (oh, i'm tired of playing, you can read all 100 pages of the evolution thread(s) i've been in) :)

Biliskner

4th May 2005, 09:58 AM

When you consider the conflicting hypothesis between creation evidence and evolution evidence, it is the only thing that makes any sense whatsoever!
- seriously.

not sure what you mean,

*edit: creation makes sense? ;)

Singing Bush

5th May 2005, 12:30 AM

DINOSAURS, is this thread. come over to the evolution debates thread to play (oh, i'm tired of playing, you can read all 100 pages of the evolution thread(s) i've been in) :)Dinosaurs is indeed what this thread is about, which is why I didn't first post in it. Eventually, however, it evolved :) into a discussion about evolution after numerous people, including yourself, brought the subject up and then continued to respond to my initial post. And I'll pass on entering the evolution/creationism forum as its overloaded with people, many of whom get way too emotional about it all, thus making a reasonable discussion rather difficult. But if you wish to conclude our discussion here, so be it. Perhaps Highlander will tell me whether or not he really believes that all Christians who believe evolution do so out of pride and a desire to avoid the presence of God, even the pope, as implied in his post?

Highland Watchman

5th May 2005, 06:28 PM

And I shall wait patiently for it. Or you could explain it in your own words if you're feeling up to it. And of course Biliskner and Highland Watchman, you're both free to respond to my posts/questions whenever you're ready.

I'll respond. I've just been rather busy lately and I haven't had much time to come on here. I will post when I get more time and a chance to write, though.

Starcrystal

5th May 2005, 07:41 PM

not sure what you mean,

*edit: creation makes sense? ;)

Well, considering this thread is about DINOSAURS and not evolution vs. creation, maybe I should refrain.

I'll only say that both evolution and creation science present convincing arguments in favor of both, and both also have pitfalls that can be explained by the opposing theory. Hence, we need to look for an alternative theory that can explain how the cosmos can be both young and have the appearance of age at the same time. This can only be done by considering the eternal non-material realm and the concept of cyclic time and time loops.

As for dinosaurs - they existed, and some of them, if not all of them were contemporaries with ancient humans. The flood explains the mass extinctions. The ice age(s) of the post flood world explain further extinctions. The fact that the only "living" dinosaurs and/or primitive life are found in water or are at least capable of surviving in water show that the flood hypothesis is most credible of all theories.

Highland Watchman

5th May 2005, 07:58 PM

Heh, this is of course true, but mostly because at the time I did not want to flood my original post with too much stuff about too many different things. But, since you bring it up... (actually I think Biliskner went into more detail on this so I answer the question in a reply to his post later if you don't mind...)

I will respond to this (your response to Biliskner) in my next post. I can not do it here because it's too many messages back...

Ahh but they do not Highland Watchman my friend. Sure some scientists like Richard Dawkins are rabidly atheistic and will reject outright most anything coming from the mouth of those disagreeing w/ evolution and the bundle of ideas often associated with it, but the vast majority are truly open minded if there is something to discuss. Unfortunately, there is not. If there is an alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution or the theory of common descent or what have you, scientists, Christian or otherwise, are more than free to submit their ideas to peer reviewed journals where all scientific debate takes place. You'll probably suggest then that prejudice or perhaps conspiracy prevents creationists from presenting their theories in said journals, well then feel free to share w/ me what these ideas are. Or for that matter post it on the Internet. There's no censorship there yet. It's been my experience, however, that if there is a scientific theory behind creationism it is locked up in a tightly sealed vault somewhere reserved for the select few. And so if they can't present a theory, how can there be a discussion?

It's not just about Atheism, my good Bushy friend...See, the problem that most scientists have is not God's existance, but in HIS being involved in an empirically detectible way. Some try to suggest that mountains of evidence are needed before possibly believing it, and others pretend to be "open minded", but will reject the idea... kind of like the "open minded" gay-pride interest party up here in Canada...

See, Evolutionists are only looking for a certain kind of theory. They need one that is mechanistic, ie. works by laws and chance. Any theory of Creation will work based on design, not on chance, and thus is quickly rejected.

I think your statement about Creationists not publishing articles in Peer review journals to be hilarious. In fact, they do this. There are many articles that do not explicitly question evolution but are using the proofs presented as proofs against it. There are others who publish in Creation journals and state explicitly why evolution is false. For instance, you can take a look at William Dembski's The Design Inference, which was published by the Cambridge University Press... And, to the best of my knowledge, it is not locked up in a vault somewhere, but is within easy access of any who would wish to aquire it. Also, check this link out: http://www.uncommondescent.com

I also find it fascinating that you, yourself have not provided evidence for your theory yet...

My point wasn't to nitpick about an interpretation of Scripture. I am inclined to agree w/ you anyway. My original point in bringing it up was, as I stated in another post, to point out that no one literally reads the Bible literally and thus when creationists say, "well I just believe what the Bible says" they don't really mean that, but rather mean "well I just believe my own particular interpretation of what the Bible says." That interpretation may be more valid than another from an exegesis point of view yes, but it's not right that some creationists should make it seem as if by accepting evolution you are somehow throwing the Bible out the window.

Um... when the Bible is really clear about something, though, that is an acceptible argument to use... Granted, in discussing with those who do not believe in the Bible's authority, you must find other arguments, or somehow proove first the Bible's authority, which is no small task in itself.

Interesting that you should say this brother. So are all Christians who accept evolution close-minded out of pride and trying to avoid the presence of God? Even the pope?

A few things here.

First, unless you are talking about a different Pope than John Paul II or Ratzinger, I do not think your statement that the Pope is an Evolutionist is a true one. Take a look at Ratzinger's Inaugural Mass or the Catholic Catechism for another source on this.

Second, I did not say or imply that Christian Evolutionists were a bunch of closed minded, prideful people trying to avoid God. A little misinformed, maybe... What I was more directing my statement toward was the media moguls, and those who are in control over our public school system in our respective nations, and the champions of the Evolutionist ideals...

However, I can not speak for every Christian Evolutionist. Perhaps you are right in calling me on my one statement... and in which case, I apologize for the slight on your character... But if I may ask, why DO you hold to the contradictory beliefs of Christianity and Evolution? Not to imply anything here, but perhaps there are some professing "Christians" who do fit the statement that I made earlier on...

Highland Watchman

5th May 2005, 08:18 PM

Okey dokey. So you want proof ofevolution? Fine, I can provide for you 50 references to scientific journals recording macroevolution, and I'm sure you could find some more if you'd only do a search of the web. Would you like me to post them? This alone shows that evolution is not "dogma" because, as you have so generously shown, "dogma" is a doctrine proclaimed as truth "without proof."

I can post the Communist Manifesto and General Mao's little red book as proof that Communism is true... do you want me to do that? ;) ... "this alone shows that [Communism] is not "dogma" because, as you have so generously shown, "dogma" is a doctrine proclaimed as truth "without proof"."

Please do supply these references, as well as proof that positive change and addition (I mean specifically information generation here) has happened at one period of time and history... Hm... I'm more inclined to believe that information is never really added without an intelligent agent actually adding that information... Instead, we find decay, degeneration and entropy happening. My room does not become clean unless I clean it up. Instead, it becomes messier and messier...

Well it's a good thing that isn't how evolution is "proved" in any of the 50 journal articles I can provide for you. Nor is the statement even fully accurate for that matter. The column was devised, though of course not as extensively as today, before Darwin even came up with his theory of evolution. Moreover, there are numerous other ways which rock layers can be dated. It is because the geological column WAS so consistently accurate in it's association with certain rock ages that by finding a certain fossil you can NOW relatively guess the age of a rock layer and vice versa. If you don't agree or are skeptical, there're always the other methods to double check. When done correctly and without unacknowledged factors interfering, they will agree. As I said, though, neither evolution nor evolutionary theory, nor the evolutionary theory of common descent are dependent on the geological column any way.

Wow. Lots to chew on here.... but consider this...

Before Darwin's time, what was the evidence given of the earth's old age? And also, please define what you mean by "unacknowledged factors"...

No that is a farce, and it is a good thing that evolutionary theory does not propose such things. In fact, if an amoeba became an elephant that would seriously undermine evolutionary theory.

Perhaps you do not understand what evolution is? Or even that there is a difference between the fact of evolution, evolutionary theory, and the theory of common descent? Would you care to share w/ me your definitions? Maybe that is why you believe evolution to be a farce? Hopefully together we can clear up any misunderstandings.

This help at all? If not, would you care to share where I need to clarify? Enjoy brother.

Common descent means that any two species of living matter share a common ancestor.

Evolution is not a fact. But when they refer to the "fact" of evolution, they are referring to the belief that evolution has actually occurred in history... Note, BELIEVE, not KNOW...

The theory of evolution refers to an explanation of a set of facts, ie. common features, geological data, climate, etc.

Robert the Pilegrim

5th May 2005, 10:22 PM

As for dinosaurs - they existed, and some of them, if not all of them were contemporaries with ancient humans. The flood explains the mass extinctions. The ice age(s) of the post flood world explain further extinctions. The fact that the only "living" dinosaurs and/or primitive life are found in water or are at least capable of surviving in water show that the flood hypothesis is most credible of all theories.
Mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs (among others) were sea going air breathing reptiles who are found in strata of the same age as the dinosaurs. They are never found in the same layer as whales or dolphins, current or ancient.

Only the fossils of a very limited number of species of mammals are found in strata of the same age as dinosaurs, and no mammals are found in the same rock strata as early dinosaurs.

The footprints that were alleged to have been human in the same strata as dinosaur footprints were interpreted as such by wishful thinking and ignoring evidence that disagreed. See post 49 in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15315798&postcount=49
for more details if you were thinking about bringing that up.

Fossils from the ice ages show no signs of dinosaurs.

A flood would not cause a layer of iridium to be deposited around the world, nor would it cause tektites or a 180 km diameter crater.

A wide variety of mammal fossils are found in the same strata as crocodiles and other large reptiles (some now extinct)... but only a limited number with dinosaurs.

Humans don't show up until much later than dinosaurs and sea going reptiles in the fossil record.

A few hundred feet from the top of the Grand Canyon you can see a trackway made by a spider.

Robert the Pilegrim

5th May 2005, 11:00 PM

I can post the Communist Manifesto and General Mao's little red book as proof that Communism is true... do you want me to do that? ;) ... "this alone shows that [Communism] is not "dogma" because, as you have so generously shown, "dogma" is a doctrine proclaimed as truth "without proof"."
Were you under the impression that you could get a journal article published without carefully examined physical evidence?
Please do supply these references, as well as proof that positive change and addition (I mean specifically information generation here)
define information.

Before Darwin's time, what was the evidence given of the earth's old age?
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/geohist.html
gives a good summary of the dating of the earth's age from the 1600s on.
By the early 1800's it was generally accepted that the Earth had a long history. It's age, however, was scarcely settled. The uniformatarians (Hutton 1788, Lyell 1830) pictured the Earth as being indefinitely old.

The catastrophists (Cuvier 1812, de Beaumont 1852, Buckland 1836) accepted that the Earth was old; they disagreed with the kind of change and the rate of change that had occurred over that long history.

There was no single estimate of the Earth's age in the mid 1800's and no good way to arrive at one. There were various attempts to estimate the Earth's age, working back from sedimentation rates and other geophysical phenomena. The attempts produced estimates from about 100 million years up to several billion years. There were two major problems with such efforts. The first is that the geological history was still being reconstructed. The second is that the rates of the physical processes in question are variable and knowledge of them was incomplete.
Since Darwin's time we have various radiometric dating methods, and for the "recent" past we have varves, tree rings, ice cores and others that all agree that the world is significantly older than 10,000 years old.
Evolution is not a fact. But when they refer to the "fact" of evolution, they are referring to the belief that evolution has actually occurred in history... Note, BELIEVE, not KNOW...
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

The fact is that if you accept that layers of dirt and rock don't magically appear underneath other layers of dirt and rock then, lacking signs of disturbance, you have to accept that fossils in deeper layers came before fossils in shallower layers.

Invertibrets show up much earlier/deeper than fish. Amphibians only show up shallower than the first fish. Reptiles show up deeper than the branch of reptiles known as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs share strata with only a few varieties of early mammals.

Whales are always found in much younger deposits than the sea going reptiles of the dinosaur age.

The fact is that going through the fossil records first we find invertebrates then primative fish then animals with features between primative fish and bony fish, then bony fish then animals with features between bony fish and amphibians then ...
(see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)

Neither dolphins nor sea going reptiles nor amphibians are ever found in strata below where fish are first found. And birds are never found below the strata where reptiles are first found.

The fact is that over time some species came into being and others disappeared. You want to call it progressive creation and ignore the odd way God created transition fossils so that it looks like evolution was going on... I guess that is your outlook.

Add in the twin nested hierarchies and well, perhaps it isn't a fact on the level of "the sky is blue", but it is pretty close.

Singing Bush

5th May 2005, 11:04 PM

So nice to hear from you. :D
See, Evolutionists are only looking for a certain kind of theory. They need one that is mechanistic, ie. works by laws and chance. Any theory of Creation will work based on design, not on chance, and thus is quickly rejected.Hmm... forgive me if I find your statement to be a wee bit squirrelly. Would you care to clarify?

I think your statement about Creationists not publishing articles in Peer review journals to be hilarious. In fact, they do this.Oh really? Care to cite a few for me?

For instance, you can take a look at William Dembski's The Design Inference, which was published by the Cambridge University Press... And, to the best of my knowledge, it is not locked up in a vault somewhere, but is within easy access of any who would wish to acquire it.No offense, but I'd hardly call a book a peer reviewed scientific journal. I can write a book on unicorns and as long as a publisher thinks he can make some cash on it, it'll get made. Perhaps Dembski has some scientific journal articles you can share w/ me?

Also, check this link out: http://www.uncommondescent.com (http://www.uncommondescent.com/)Ehh, already seen it. Nothing much but Dembski's preaching box. Surely if you are a student of Dembski and thus are educated enough on the subject to discredit evolution then you can share this knowledge with us in your own words right?

I also find it fascinating that you, yourself have not provided evidence for your theory yet...You are of course correct, although I can assure you this is more from it not being particularly pertinent or beneficial to the specific point I was commenting on in my previous posts rather than it being a not so crafty attempt by myself to hide things. Since you bring it up, though, which would you like evidence for: evolution or common descent?

Um... when the Bible is really clear about something, though, that is an acceptable argument to use...Unless of course it's poetry. Unless of course it's prophesy. Unless of course it's allegory. But this debate can go on forever without really accomplishing anything and I don't think it's really where the meat of the discussion is so I'll leave it at that.

First, unless you are talking about a different Pope than John Paul II or Ratzinger, I do not think your statement that the Pope is an Evolutionist is a true one. Take a look at Ratzinger's Inaugural Mass or the Catholic Catechism for another source on this.Hmm... you didn't get this from Dembski's site? He seems fairly convinced the new pope will bring conservative changes into Catholicism. And actually now that I reconsider my words, I did overstep a little bit. No I cannot say either Pope John Paul II or any pope for that matter has acknowledged the veracity of evolution as I am not aware of any specific recorded statements that would provide irrefutable evidence either way. What I was in fact referring to was that the Catholic Church, and thus the pope as he essentially is required to believe everything the Roman Catholic Church does, has officially stated that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible. We're definitely getting off topic here, but I felt I should clarify as your point was valid.

Second, I did not say or imply that Christian Evolutionists were a bunch of closed minded, prideful people trying to avoid God. A little misinformed, maybe... What I was more directing my statement toward was the media moguls, and those who are in control over our public school system in our respective nations, and the champions of the Evolutionist ideals...Ahh well then. None of those people/institutions were mentioned anywhere in your post, but if that's what you were in fact referring to then I cannot say what motivates the media moguls and masters of our public schools systems. 'Course I doubt you can say much on the subject either, but let us get back to the topic of evolution itself... (which will come in the following post since it I don't want to get too repetitive here.)

However, I can not speak for every Christian Evolutionist. Perhaps you are right in calling me on my one statement... and in which case, I apologize for the slight on your character... But if I may ask, why DO you hold to the contradictory beliefs of Christianity and Evolution?Heh, who said they were contradictory? As I mentioned before, even the Roman Catholic Church does not believe them to be contradictory. Many Protestant denominations do not believe them to be contradictory. Personally I see them as not really having much to do with each other aside from maybe evolution perhaps displaying God's ingenious creative abilities.

Hmm... going over your subsequent post I don't think I'll likely have time to write an adequate response with the time I have now so I'll have to get back to it. I'll be gone most the next couple of days so it'll have to wait till next week. Sorry. But this makes it more suspensful right?!

Singing Bush

9th May 2005, 11:22 PM

Ok, I'm back. How's life been? Miss me? :)
I can post the Communist Manifesto and General Mao's little red book as proof that Communism is true... do you want me to do that? ... "this alone shows that [Communism] is not "dogma" because, as you have so generously shown, "dogma" is a doctrine proclaimed as truth "without proof"."I honestly hope you were making a bad attempt at sophistry here, and do not truly believe scientific journal articles showing the evolution of one species into another are comparable to a political manifesto. They are worlds apart my friend. For one thing communism/maoism are abstract ideas and not tangible facts or laws governing reality that can be analyzed. Moreover, being such, they are thus untestable as even if we could somehow create a vacuum in which to build the perfect communist government and see what happens, one could always claim that that's not truly what communism is and thus the experiment is invalid. Evolution, however, is perfectly verifiable as it describes a theoretical phenomenon that, if it were to exist, could be easily evaluated. Evolution claims the allele frequency of a specific gene in a specific species changes with time and lo and behold, upon examination it turns out it does. If you cannot see how these two concepts are entirely different, I fear you have a serious misunderstanding of science and there really isn't much more we can discuss. I do not say this to come across as pretentious and arrogant here, brother, (though I know that is probably what I sound like) but truly if we can not get the fundamentals of the scientific process straight we cannot tackle the various theories dependent on it.

Please do supply these references, as well as proof that positive change and addition (I mean specifically information generation here) has happened at one period of time and history...Don't mind if I do.

Here are the citations. It turned out I actually had stored reference to 100 various articles so I can provide more if you'd like, but I figured that would be unnecessary:

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in
a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to
speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture.
EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated
with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two
insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal
organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in
phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-
1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J.
31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a
Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th
edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American
Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the
cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies
on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and
autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute
Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical
consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding
patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A.
Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993.
Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis.
Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in
agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering
plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Hm... I'm more inclined to believe that information is never really added without an intelligent agent actually adding that information...Well you can of course believe whatever you want, but if you cannot provide evidence for it it is nothing more than a belief.

Instead, we find decay, degeneration and entropy happening. My room does not become clean unless I clean it up. Instead, it becomes messier and messier...Yes we do find decay, degeneration, and entropy happening everywhere. What is your point? If you are referring to evolution then your point is irrelevant as the second law of thermodynamics truly has no baring on the allele frequency within a population (Unless I'm missing something, in which case I'd be very appreciative if you would point it out to me). If you are addressing abiogenesis, as I imagine you are, then your point is just off base. The fact is we also find the very opposite of decay, degeneration, and entropy happening everywhere, otherwise how could we have life? A single cell zygote through the course of a few years becomes a multi-trillion celled individual; this would not be possible if chemistry could not work against entropy sometimes. Entropy is the unavoidable conclusion only in closed systems without an influx of energy. Fortunately the world has never been a closed system. Energy is constantly coming in from the sun and providing the power for chemical reactions all around us. Even the vitamin D your skin generates is through the power of UV radiation. This is not great miracle, simply the laws of chemistry.

Before Darwin's time, what was the evidence given of the earth's old age?Well there was not nearly as much evidence as there is now, but one specific piece of information frequently cited was the rate of sediment build up in many major rivers in relation to the amount of sediment already deposited.

And also, please define what you mean by "unacknowledged factors"...Yeah I was being vague, but I didn't want to detract from the point I was trying to make. By unacknowledged factors I was referring to various variables that can affect radiometric dating that sometimes make it a much more complicated procedure than people would sometimes like to make it out to be. For example, many of the instances of radiometric dating gone bad that creationists like to cite in order to show that it is somehow defective are instances where the dating technique was used in a way it was never intended to. In one case in particular it was claimed that lava flows known to be recent were dated to be millions of years old. This does not show that K-Ar dating is somehow deficient, however, because K-Ar dating cannot be used in samples with excess Ar such as some lava flows. Radiometric dating, as with most all things in life, only works under certain circumstances and I only made the reference to "unacknowledged factors" to forestall any critiques you may make concerning its veracity (such as the one I just referenced.)

Common descent means that any two species of living matter share a common ancestor.True. To be a little bit more specific the theory of common descent essentially states that this process can go back to the point till all organisms share one common ancestor, but I'll give you a point for that. ;)

Evolution is not a fact. But when they refer to the "fact" of evolution, they are referring to the belief that evolution has actually occurred in history... Note, BELIEVE, not KNOW...This is simply not true. The definition of evolution, as I have stated more or less above, is that the allele frequency in a population will change with time. We have seen this numerous times as the articles I also provided above clearly indicate. Thus evolution, in this regard, is a fact.

The theory of evolution refers to an explanation of a set of facts, ie. common features, geological data, climate, etc.I must apologize that once again I do not exactly know what you meant there. The theory of evolution, however, is the explanation for WHY allele frequency changes with time (i.e. through mutation and natural selection.)

To speed things up a bit, I'll also provide for you now the rational behind the theory of common descent (as I already provided above examples of evolution.) First off, we know from observation that within any population the frequency of any particular allele changes with time. We also know that through mutation it is possible for new information to enter the genome library of a species so that the species as a whole has a greater possibility of surviving in any particular environment. Combined with natural selection, a species is constantly fine tuned to survive in its locale and combined with evolution a species can beget a new species if the circumstances are right. Thus, common descent is at least theoretically possible. To verify if it in fact is likely to have occurred we should look at nature's record of history. Luckily we have not one, but two records: the fossil record and the DNA record. Together these form the twin-nested heirarchy, which is simply a fancy sounding term meaning that both of these two records corroborate each other. Not only does the fossil record suggest a continous evolution of species from one to another, but analysis of DNA shows the exact same progression. Organisms thought to be closely related through the fossil record in fact have many DNA similarities. Organisms thought to be distant in fact have few DNA similarities.

Some like to point out that if two organisms have similar features they are then likely to have similar DNA as DNA is simply the blueprints for these various traits, and this claim iscertainly possible. If, however, a certain trait were thought to have evolved twice in two rather unrelated organisms, such a flight in certain bats and birds, we should not see such close similarities because the amount of evolutionary divergence between the two animals is rather significant even though they have somewhat similar flight mechanisms. And, in fact, this is exactly the case. The genes which encode the wings of a bat are more related to its nonflying ancestors than the genes encoding the wings of a bird.

I realize this is all a rather cursory explanation, and if you do not have a somewhat coherent understanding of biochemistry and biology it may be a little difficult to understand, but for most people it should suffice. And of course if you have any questions or need any explanation I am more than willing to provide them. I am not trying to win a debate with you, or anyone, here brother. I just wish to provide discussion that may enlighten some and bring others just one step closer to Christ through the shedding of discredited doctrine. God bless.

Ziwei

9th May 2005, 11:30 PM

Singing Bush

9th May 2005, 11:43 PM

note, I haven't read all the posts to here.Thanks for noting that as it helps us understand where you're coming from in the conversation.

I used to think that God designed evolution, but my parents scolded me for that, saying evolution is evil, and threatened to make me talk to the pastor to correct my false doctrines. So that made me more conservative. but still I think a good part of the numbers in genesis are figurative.I'm truly sorry to hear that brother. :sigh:

Bush, most people believe microevolution, is that what your talking about?Well ignoring the vague definitions generally put forth by many creationist organizations, the definition of microevolution recognized by most biologists is simply evolution within a species. This has been observed and I don't think anyone really would disagree with it. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is the evolution of one species into another, though this too has been observed as I have hopefully made evident with the numerous citations I provided. When I use the less specific term "evolution", though, I generally mean "macroevolution" as that is how it is commonly used in biology. I hope this clears some things up for you and if you have any other questions feel more than free to ask. :D

Starcrystal

10th May 2005, 09:21 PM

note, I haven't read all the posts to here.

I used to think that God designed evolution, but my parents scolded me for that, saying evolution is evil, and threatened to make me talk to the pastor to correct my false doctrines. So that made me more conservative. but still I think a good part of the numbers in genesis are figurative.

That's a little harsh. I don't believe in evolution but sending someone to the pastor to "straiten them out" sometimes backfires. We most often get our teachings from school, textbooks, TV and/or certain Christians who do teach God designed evolution and evolution is Gods way of creating. We have to sift through all that conflicting garbage. That's one reason there are so many theories/opinions on this...