# What about the dinosaurs? When were they?



## 1BigBuckDown (Jan 6, 2009)

I am confused on this one...?  Since God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th and Adam and Eve were created then....  When were the dinosaurs? If a scientist finds a fossil that is 100 million years old....  doesnt that prove that there had to be some kind of "age" (created by God of course) prior to the "age" of Adam and Eve?  How can the earth be only 6000 years old when there are so many things on the earth that are older?? Do we have any archaeologists here? Any Biblical proof on dinosaurs?


----------



## Banjo (Jan 6, 2009)

Dinosaurs were made the same day land that God created the land animals...A great website is www.answersingenesis.org.  It has a lot of good information.


----------



## PWalls (Jan 6, 2009)

My question would be:

How do we know "fossils" are "Millions" of years old?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

The first thing to understand about this subject is that wherever someone's belief is, everyone begins with a worldview "a priori" 

I choose to begin with the Scriptures. The atheist/evolutionists begins with a materialistic worldview. 

So, to answer your question from a biblical perspective, the dinosaurs were made along with man. God made everything in six days. Exodus 20:11. Land animals were created on the sixth day alongside Adam and Eve. Genesis 1:24-31. 

The evolutionary based impression on dinosaurs is not true from the beginning. All animal-based creatures were vegetarians. Genesis 1:29-30. It was only after the flood that animals became predators and people were permitted to kill and eat animals for food. 

The Bible mentions and descibes dinosaurs AFTER the flood. Job 40:15-24. "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."

Some commentaries on this passage say it is describing an elephant or hippo. Last I checked, the tail of an elephant or hippo didn't quite move like a cedar tree. lol 

To get into the dating methods of fossils and rocks would make my reply far too long. Suffice it to say for now that there is nothing so absolute in the modern dating methods to "force" one to believe anything is millions of years old. Many of the dating methods, including carbon dating, are extremely irregular and require basic assumptions for the dates to work. One must operate under the assumption of uniformitarianism for such methods to even be logical. 

There is no scientific reason why a Bible-believing Christian must accept materialsitic and evolutionary theory. The Scriptures and science are perfectly consistent with each other for a "young" earth/universe worldview. 

Of course, such a view is not popular and often met with ridicule and derision rather than any amount of rational discussion. There are several groups sharing and educating on this subject that challenge modern darwinian theory as a mechanism for origins. Many may be familiar with the Intelligent Design movement. This movement is by no means a friend to the Christian, nor do they advocate a biblical worldview, but there is a lot of interesting information to found there. 

My favorite CHRISTIAN ministry that supports the biblical view is Answers in Genesis. You can visit them here http://www.answersingenesis.org/ 

I hope this helps and encourages you that you do not need (or should) compromise the foundations of Christianity found in Genesis 1-3. 

-five


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 6, 2009)

PWalls said:


> My question would be:
> 
> How do we know "fossils" are "Millions" of years old?



 I agree, science likes to use time for proof...for example if they find something that can't explain, this had to be 20 million years ago...add a whole bunch of time with a theory and now we have ''proof''...
      They can find a bones of a person in the woods from a murder scene and they don't know how long they have been their, but they can dig up a foot print of Fred Flintstone and its millions of years old....  
    What about this theory? They died in the flood, most of the animals we have today that ''date'' back to prehistoric times are things like the crocodile, alligators, and turtles so they didn't need the ark....


----------



## 1BigBuckDown (Jan 6, 2009)

PWalls said:


> My question would be:
> 
> How do we know "fossils" are "Millions" of years old?



well you have thousands of scientists and archaeologists discovering rocks, plants, dinosaurs, fossils, etc and they all say that those things are very old, 100's of thousands or even millions of years old....  are they all lying?  can their aging methods be so far off base...?  i realize that most scientists are "devilutionists", but still... how can they all be lying or so far off base on their againg methods? I could understand if a scientist says that a rock is 8,000 years old but 100 million??? how can that be? btw, this topic does not "sway" my beliefs in the Bible or creation. I dont doubt and it does not hinder me.... I just dont see how these 2 things can be so opposite? the 6 day creation and the aging of these fossils... i know that there is an answer to this, its just my pea brain cant comprehend God's magnificance...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2009)

Do a search for:"dinosaurs and the bible"

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=256076&highlight=dinosaurs+bible

I was hoping for more discussion but it fell by the wayside.


----------



## 1BigBuckDown (Jan 6, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Dinosaurs were made the same day land that God created the land animals...A great website is www.answersingenesis.org.  It has a lot of good information.



did your hair just grow?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

> well you have thousands of scientists and archaeologists discovering rocks, plants, dinosaurs, fossils, etc and they all say that those things are very old, 100's of thousands or even millions of years old.... are they all lying? can their aging methods be so far off base...?



Simply, yes. They are both liars and way off base. 

Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness..." 

It is the nature of the ungodly to suppress the truth. 

2 Peter 3
1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 

 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 

 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 

 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 

 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 

 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 

 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 


Notice that the mockers/scoffers/ungodly/wicked are "willingly ignorant" and specifically as it relates to the flood. Why? because it screams the judgment of God. 

-five


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I agree, science likes to use time for proof...for example if they find something that can't explain, this had to be 20 million years ago...add a whole bunch of time with a theory and now we have ''proof''...
> _They can find a bones of a person in the woods from a murder scene and they don't know how long they have been their_,
> 
> _But they can.  They realized that certain things will happen to matter under certain conditions.  Like: a dead body in an arid climate will decay a certain way as will a body in a swamp decay in a certain way.  Certain flies will appear on a dead body at a certain time and bones will fossilize in a certain amount of time given certain conditions.
> ...





1BigBuckDown said:


> well you have thousands of scientists and archaeologists discovering rocks, plants, dinosaurs, fossils, etc and they all say that those things are very old, 100's of thousands or even millions of years old....  are they all lying?  can their aging methods be so far off base...?  i realize that most scientists are "devilutionists", but still... how can they all be lying or so far off base on their againg methods? I could understand if a scientist says that a rock is 8,000 years old but 100 million??? how can that be? btw, this topic does not "sway" my beliefs in the Bible or creation. I dont doubt and it does not hinder me.... I just dont see how these 2 things can be so opposite? the 6 day creation and the aging of these fossils... i know that there is an answer to this, its just my pea brain cant comprehend God's magnificance...



_What does your gut tell you about how old the Earth is?  You live in the physical world.  You've seen enough evidence to give you and idea how matter behaves.   Here's an article that tells how chiles (hot peppers) were domesticated 6000 years ago:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/chilies-domesticated-6-000-years-ago-in-the-americas

Take it or leave it._


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> _What does your gut tell you about how old the Earth is?  You live in the physical world.  You've seen enough evidence to give you and idea how matter behaves.   Here's an article that tells how chiles (hot peppers) were domesticated 6000 years ago:
> 
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/chilies-domesticated-6-000-years-ago-in-the-americas
> 
> Take it or leave it._





> Some prehistoric people in the Americas were cooking up spicy meals even before they could make the pottery to serve them in.



Blaaahahahahaha! 

Amazing how "prehistoric" people keep getting smarter than the ungodly think they were. lol They could make spicy food, but were still too "ape-ish" to know how to make a bowl. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Blaaahahahahaha!
> 
> Amazing how "prehistoric" people keep getting smarter than the ungodly think they were. lol They could make spicy food, but were still too "ape-ish" to know how to make a bowl. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA



I think current evidence points to agriculture having been started around 10,000 years ago.    People were Homo Sapien Sapien (our current specie) by then.   But your right in one respect,  we do keep finding out stuff about the history of nature and the physical world.  I imagine because of technological advances and because some people keep looking.  

If you want to stop looking, are you ever going to learn anything else?  I imagine you are "just fine" where your at, though.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I think current evidence points to agriculture having been started around 10,000 years ago.    People were Homo Sapien Sapien (our current specie) by then.   But your right in one respect,  we do keep finding out stuff about the history of nature and the physical world.  I imagine because of technological advances and because some people keep looking.
> 
> If you want to stop looking, are you ever going to learn anything else?  I imagine you are "just fine" where your at, though.



Nice pot shot. There would be no science without Christians. lol 

If you want to believe your nothing more than an advanced animal, go ahead. But you believe it, even despite the evidence contrary to darwinian theory. 

Evolutionists are become quite the religious zealots these days. lol


----------



## Wild Turkey (Jan 6, 2009)

Mixing science and religion without an open mind is suicidal.
You can believe in god and also understand the theory of natural selection. The use of the word evolution has been butchered to mean a lot of things, most of which are not true.


----------



## Bitteroot (Jan 6, 2009)

Here's a link that I have found useful and very interesting on the age of the earth and many other items. 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/

In the great global warming theory, there are two camps of scientists. Those that except it and those that refute it.  The "consensus" of a large majority of scientists say its real. "Consensus" is not science, only a preposed theory. There are also real scientists that oppose the theory of evolution and the Billion year old dinos as well. So if your a scientist, does your consensus stand with the norm just because thats where "most" scientists view it? Most being non-believers of the Doctrine of God.  Or are you "right" standing with the majority of the Global warming crowd,  most again, being non-believers? Before you jump on that, remember that most people in the middle ages thought vastly different about the earths movement around the sun, and the earths shape as well. I know what I believe and there is a scientific community that believes that as well.  In the end it will matter very little the complexity of all that has come before us, only that we fight the fight, finish the race, and obey the commandments of Christ on how to become and live as christians.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 6, 2009)

*something to consider...*



1BigBuckDown said:


> well you have thousands of scientists and archaeologists discovering rocks, plants, dinosaurs, fossils, etc and they all say that those things are very old, 100's of thousands or even millions of years old....  are they all lying?  can their aging methods be so far off base...?  i realize that most scientists are "devilutionists", but still... how can they all be lying or so far off base on their againg methods? I could understand if a scientist says that a rock is 8,000 years old but 100 million??? how can that be? btw, this topic does not "sway" my beliefs in the Bible or creation. I dont doubt and it does not hinder me.... I just dont see how these 2 things can be so opposite? the 6 day creation and the aging of these fossils... i know that there is an answer to this, its just my pea brain cant comprehend God's magnificance...



God created a mature earth...

Adam was created grown and capable of procreating,as was Eve.In todays time,a new child is born and takes 14-15 years to reach sexual maturiy...If you had looked at Adam with todays methods of measurement,you might have determined him to be in his teens or twenties,however he was less than a week old

So it is with the "rocks" and mountains...It WOULD take eons to recreate the world as we know it naturally.Consider volcanoes,geo-thermal upheaval,then erosion etc to establish fertile ground and the land masses being seperated into river channel and upland....

A mature earth was created as was a mature man...

The chicken did come before the egg


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 6, 2009)

He who actually believes we have the ability to accurately date fossils back hundreds of millions of years ago has every bit the amount of faith that a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ has.  He is only placing it in the wrong things.


----------



## LKennamer (Jan 6, 2009)

*Not even sure I should say anything, but...*

I kind of take a bit of offense to being called a nincompoop because I believe in natural selection (or evolution, take your pick), and still profess to be a Christian.  I once had to write a paper in college about how I could believe in both, my professor didn't like it too much (he was an agnostic).  I know some will disagree, and I refuse to argue matters of faith, which I think is pointless, but my personal relationship with God has nothing to do with whether the guys who put the Bible down on paper knew anything about dinosaurs or not.  As men, we are imperfect to begin with.  Divinely inspired or not, the Bible was written by men.  Its tenets are true and guide us in our lives, but if you choose to dissect it word for word and relish in the details of the each verse as if they could stand on their own, rather than the message as a whole.....well that's kind of like reading one page of the book and claiming to know what the ending is.  No intent to offend, but to claim that the earth is not millions of years old just because it's not in the Bible is like claiming the sky is not blue.  I don't think that's what God had in mind when he put us here.  Guess I'm just an evolution zealot.  You guys have at it, as I said, I won't argue faith, every man has his beliefs and is entitled to them.  You won't change mine, I don't care to change yours, just felt the need to say my peace.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 6, 2009)

How do we know that when earth was created that a 7 day week was 10,080 minutes/168 hours in a 7 day period. There were no watches back in that time. How do we know that what we call a year today was not considered a day back then. When ever they were created we know that they were created by God. It seems some folks tend to be to worried as to when this/that happened instead of keeping focus on who created it


----------



## footjunior (Jan 6, 2009)

I think this comes down to what they were saying on the other thread. If you want to believe, all you have to do is use the faith card. However, if that is not enough, and if you require some amount of evidence in order to believe one thing or the other, I don't see how you could believe that dinosaurs and humans walked alongside each other.

Radiocarbon, -potassium, -uranium, etc. dating are all very accurate. Scientists use radioactive dating to provide evidence for Biblical scripture.

A scenario to consider: A team of scientists takes bone samples from different parts of a dinosaur's skeleton. They take samples from other objects that were found near the skeleton. Now they do radioactive dating on all the objects and bone samples separately. All tests come back to say that the dinosaur lived around 85 million years ago. Then, a separate independent lab conducts the same experiments on all the samples and they come up with the same results. After all this, geologists use relative dating on the rocks around where the skeleton was found and the results of their tests confirm the date of around 85 million years ago.

What do you think? Did God manipulate ALL of the results as a test of your faith? Did all of these scientists from both labs and the geologists make mistakes?

I think not. It takes a very different type of person to say that we don't have enough evidence to say that the Earth is much older than 6 thousand years old.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 6, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> He who actually believes we have the ability to accurately date fossils back hundreds of millions of years ago has every bit the amount of faith that a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ has.  He is only placing it in the wrong things.



The amount of evidence we have that the world is older than 6 thousand years is much more abundant than the evidence we have that Jesus even existed. I have no faith that we can calculate the age of a bone or rock because I have a mountain of evidence.

There is evidence that Jesus existed and there's evidence that the earth is older than 6 thousand years old, but to say that the amounts are comparable is simply delusional.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 6, 2009)

j_seph said:


> How do we know that when earth was created that a 7 day week was 10,080 minutes/168 hours in a 7 day period. There were no watches back in that time. How do we know that what we call a year today was not considered a day back then. When ever they were created we know that they were created by God. It seems some folks tend to be to worried as to when this/that happened instead of keeping focus on who created it



i guess we assume that since God gave a commandment for the Jews to work 6 days then rest the 7th, He means that He created the universe in 6 24 hour days also... b/c people cannot work 6000 days and rest for a 1000 years...


----------



## j_seph (Jan 6, 2009)

something to think about
In Psalms 90:10 , "In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years, Yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things; For it must quickly pass by, and away we fly."

Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. [Genesis 5:5]

Seth lived 912 years, and then he died. [Genesis 5:8]

Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died. [Genesis 5:11]

Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died. [Genesis 5:14]

Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died. [Genesis 5:17]

Jared lived 962 years, and then he died. [Genesis 5:20]

Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died. [Genesis 5:27]

Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died. [Genesis 5:31]


----------



## j_seph (Jan 6, 2009)

Big10point said:


> i guess we assume that since God gave a commandment for the Jews to work 6 days then rest the 7th, He means that He created the universe in 6 24 hour days also... b/c people cannot work 6000 days and rest for a 1000 years...


 
Would you also say that Jonah and the whale was a false story?
Would you say that Jesus could not have walked on water?
Would you say that Jesus could not turn water into wine?
These could not/cannot could go on in on.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 6, 2009)

j_seph said:


> Would you also say that Jonah and the whale was a false story?   NO
> Would you say that Jesus could not have walked on water? YES
> Would you say that Jesus could not turn water into wine? NO
> These could not/cannot could go on in on.



Not sure where you're going with that...? I am a Christian and believe the Word of God.... i am just not sure how the dinosaures could have been in the same time period as the last 6000 years...?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 6, 2009)

I like dinosaurs


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 7, 2009)

j_seph said:


> How do we know that when earth was created that a 7 day week was 10,080 minutes/168 hours in a 7 day period. There were no watches back in that time. How do we know that what we call a year today was not considered a day back then. When ever they were created we know that they were created by God. It seems some folks tend to be to worried as to when this/that happened instead of keeping focus on who created it



The Bible. See, that was easy wasn't it.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 7, 2009)

Big10point said:


> Not sure where you're going with that...? I am a Christian and believe the Word of God.... i am just not sure how the dinosaures could have been in the same time period as the last 6000 years...?



Perhaps its just a paradigm shift....ok, here come the crazy icons from others toward me, lol...but...why does everyone just assume all "dinosaurs" are extinct?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> ok, here come the crazy icons from others toward me, lol...but...why does everyone just assume all "dinosaurs" are extinct?



Good question. I believe it's because we have no evidence supporting the idea that dinosaurs are still around. If someone found evidence that dinosaurs are still around, then the scientific community would like to hear about it. Therefore, unless new evidence comes up, I think that it is safe to assume that all dinosaurs are extinct.

I think a better question is why would anyone think that dinosaurs are _not_ extinct?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 7, 2009)

balvarik said:


> There would be no science without Christians. lol
> 
> Pray tell then which peoples invented gunpowder then?
> 
> Mike



Why Christians of course.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 7, 2009)

Here's what I'd like to know.  How do they test those instruments that decide if something is 1 million or 500,000 years old?


----------



## ToLog (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I think a better question is why would anyone think that dinosaurs are _not_ extinct?



tongue-in-cheek here, Al Gore probably thinks the dinasour has been unleased anew on the earth. 

ya know, we drill down and bring up the dinasour remains (oil) and burn them in our cars. they are then unleashed into the atmosphere, to live again.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

Absolutely GREAT topic....since I am in Afghanistan, fighting these guys we call the Taliban, it has taken me a couple days to chime in on this....Great study by Ken Hamm out there on this topic....he is the Auzzie that built the Museum in Kentucky devoted to Creation....I really want to go and take my family...He may not agree with what I am fixing to say, but would love to hear his response and yours!

First biblical example of anything being Satanic--the serpent, a reptile...right?

What if Satin attempted to destroy or defile God's animal creation by "infecting/defiling" some of the reptiles....much the way fallen demons did with humans....remember the Nephilum??  I believe Satin may very well have attempted this in both humans (in an attempt to defile human kind to prevent Christ from coming) and animals....and the result in animals were the dinasours.  These reptiles were such a departure in structure, form and function I believe it is possible.  And what about the clean animals, 7 of these entered the ark, and the unclean animals, 2 of these entered the ark.  Think what is required for good genetic mixing....and what scientists have discovered about basic genetic code, from what I read there are 7 basic genetic codes in humans....wow, 7 clean animals entered the ark....God knew and knows exactly what he is doing....I am so glad he does and I have placed my eternal destiny in his very capable hands!  

We know reptiles continue to grow for their entire lives...there would have been near perfect conditions for these reptiles to continue growing in the (at least) one thousand years between the creation and the flood, resulting in some large, terrible lizards....someof the eating a lot of flesh...possibly trying to gobble up God's animal kingdom.  The flood righted the wrongs in the animal kingdom as well as in humans....I am not attempting to add to the scriptures, just reasoning how the dinasours may have come into being and my attempt to find a reasonable explanation of what these critters where here for way back then.     
I have not listed the scripture to support my hypothesis, but it is in there, check it out!!!


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

> Think what is required for good genetic mixing....and what scientists have discovered about basic genetic code, from what I read there are 7 basic genetic codes in humans....wow, 7 clean animals entered the ark....God knew and knows exactly what he is doing....I am so glad he does and I have placed my eternal destiny in his very capable hands!



??? I'm confused. How are the two related?



> We know reptiles continue to grow for their entire lives...there would have been near perfect conditions for these reptiles to continue growing in the (at least) one thousand years between the creation and the flood, resulting in some large, terrible lizards



So you're saying the dinosaurs lived for one thousand years? That's why they're so big? What makes you think that so many dinosaurs (some carnivorous to boot) were capable of living for upwards of 1000 years?


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> ??? I'm confused. How are the two related?
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the dinosaurs lived for one thousand years? That's why they're so big? What makes you think that so many dinosaurs (some carnivorous to boot) were capable of living for upwards of 1000 years?



I was getting a little carried away with the ark stuff....and did not really organize that thought very well....I was trying to state that God may have only called two of the "unclean animals" possibly "Kinds" of dinasours into the ark because even though in his plan he called them, He may not have had it in his plan that the unclean animals would survive long-term after the flood.  Also just pointing out that good genetic mixing of 7 genetic codes may have occured in both humans and animals after the flood.  Noah, his wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law, would have represented enough genetic code to carry on human kind after the flood, and the 7 "clean animals" for the animal kingdom would have provided enough genetic code for the animals.  

Not saying every reptile lived for a thousand years, but had ample time and probably very good habitat to get very large prior to the flood.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Blaaahahahahaha!
> 
> Amazing how "prehistoric" people keep getting smarter than the ungodly think they were. lol They could make spicy food, but were still too "ape-ish" to know how to make a bowl. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA



I don't think many consider 6k BC South American people to be too ape-ish to make pottery. Pottery was developed around 7th millennium BC in South America and therefore was being developed around the same time as chilies were being domesticated. Could you explain what is so funny? I need a good laugh.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Jan 7, 2009)

LKennamer said:


> I kind of take a bit of offense to being called a nincompoop because I believe in natural selection (or evolution, take your pick), and still profess to be a Christian.  I once had to write a paper in college about how I could believe in both, my professor didn't like it too much (he was an agnostic).  I know some will disagree, and I refuse to argue matters of faith, which I think is pointless, but my personal relationship with God has nothing to do with whether the guys who put the Bible down on paper knew anything about dinosaurs or not.  As men, we are imperfect to begin with.  Divinely inspired or not, the Bible was written by men.  Its tenets are true and guide us in our lives, but if you choose to dissect it word for word and relish in the details of the each verse as if they could stand on their own, rather than the message as a whole.....well that's kind of like reading one page of the book and claiming to know what the ending is.  No intent to offend, but to claim that the earth is not millions of years old just because it's not in the Bible is like claiming the sky is not blue.  I don't think that's what God had in mind when he put us here.  Guess I'm just an evolution zealot.  You guys have at it, as I said, I won't argue faith, every man has his beliefs and is entitled to them.  You won't change mine, I don't care to change yours, just felt the need to say my peace.



Well said


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> I was getting a little carried away with the ark stuff....and did not really organize that thought very well....I was trying to state that God may have only called two of the "unclean animals" possibly "Kinds" of dinasours into the ark because even though in his plan he called them, He may not have had it in his plan that the unclean animals would survive long-term after the flood.  Also just pointing out that good genetic mixing of 7 genetic codes may have occured in both humans and animals after the flood.  Noah, his wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law, would have represented enough genetic code to carry on human kind after the flood, and the 7 "clean animals" for the animal kingdom would have provided enough genetic code for the animals.
> 
> Not saying every reptile lived for a thousand years, but had ample time and probably very good habitat to get very large prior to the flood.



Thanks for clarifying for me. I don't have much knowledge of genetics, but it seems to me that more than 8 people would have been required to carry on the human race.

I'm still somewhat confused on the dinosaurs getting very big part. Are you saying that they were just normal reptiles (and not separate species) which back then were in the right kind of environment to get very large? If so, why wouldn't today's reptiles (those that live in captivity and are well fed) get very large?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 7, 2009)

> Thanks for clarifying for me. I don't have much knowledge of genetics, but it seems to me that more than 8 people would have been required to carry on the human race.



Methinks it takes just two to tango..


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Methinks it takes just two to tango..



This answers the genetic problems how?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> This answers the genetic problems how?



Noah brought his sons and his son's wives. Do we need to privately discuss the birds and the bees? lol


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

There is sooo much genetic information in just one person it is almost unbelievable.  Think this through a little, seven continents, seven sets of genetic code, seven clean animals, since Noah and his wife already had children, some gene mixing had already taken place between Noah and his wife....then there were six more people's genes to mix....seven days in a week...the potential for the biblical version to be correct his there....       

Reptiles need time and habitat to get very large...they are always growing.  Some reptiles in captivity do get very large, but not to the extent of reptiles in their natural habitat.  Captivity in itself should give you a little clue.  No animal will thrive in captivity (long term)  as well as it does in its natural habitat.  Just think of a 23 foot gator, well crocidile...that is awesome and reported in Africa today  even with the elavated polution levels and population levels.  I can clearly imagine a newly created world, very good (perfect) as defined by its Creator, as the perfect place having perfect habitat for animals to florish, yes the dinosaurs too.  Make no mistake, I do believe the reptiles grew from natural causes and demonic causes....read Genesis with an careful eye for this info...same thing happend to some humans....there were giants in the land, the Nephilim, men of renown.  Fascinating reading!!!  You think all those geneologies are there just to bore you, think again....they give a very crucial timetable for past and future events.  This awesome God knows you by name!!!


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Noah brought his sons and his son's wives. Do we need to privately discuss the birds and the bees? lol



lol no. I'm just saying that its not genetically possible to sustain a species like homo sapiens with only 8 people. There has to be some sort of divine intervention.

Take a look at this excerpt located here:

http://ncseweb.org/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark



> Creationists still cling to obsolete stereotypes concerning the "three distinct families of man" descended from Noah's three sons (Custance, p. 204) and even talk candidly of the Afro-Asian "Hamites" being "possessed of a racial character concerned mainly with mundane matters" and subject to displacement by "the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites" (Henry Morris, 1977, p. 130).
> 
> In reality the ethnic complexity found throughout the world cannot be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that time. The human genetic pool was reduced to five individuals—Mr. and Mrs. Noah and their daughters-in-law (the three sons don't count because they only carry combinations of the genes present in Mr. and Mrs. Noah, unless creationists are willing to admit to beneficial gene mutations). And even if, by some freak coincidence, the five people never had a variant in common, there would still be far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity. Nearly a third of human genes are polymorphic (Bodner and Cavalli-Sforzi, p. 589), and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with thirty varieties (p. 589), would require substantially more people than Genesis makes available.
> 
> ...



These are the genetic problems which I'm speaking of.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jan 7, 2009)

All things are possible with God.

Take God out of the equation and you just have the ramblings of man...

DB BB


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> There is sooo much genetic information in just one person it is almost unbelievable.  Think this through a little, seven continents, seven sets of genetic code, seven clean animals, since Noah and his wife already had children, some gene mixing had already taken place between Noah and his wife....then there were six more people's genes to mix....seven days in a week...the potential for the biblical version to be correct his there....



Ya there's tons of information in each strand of DNA, but that doesn't change the fact that if all that's left of each species is 2 specimens, then that species will go extinct.       



> Reptiles need time and habitat to get very large...they are always growing.  Some reptiles in captivity do get very large, but not to the extent of reptiles in their natural habitat.  Captivity in itself should give you a little clue.  No animal will thrive in captivity (long term)  as well as it does in its natural habitat.  Just think of a 23 foot gator, well crocidile...that is awesome and reported in Africa today  even with the elavated polution levels and population levels.  I can clearly imagine a newly created world, very good (perfect) as defined by its Creator, as the perfect place having perfect habitat for animals to florish, yes the dinosaurs too.  Make no mistake, I do believe the reptiles grew from natural causes and demonic causes....read Genesis with an careful eye for this info...same thing happend to some humans....there were giants in the land, the Nephilim, men of renown.  Fascinating reading!!!  You think all those geneologies are there just to bore you, think again....they give a very crucial timetable for past and future events.  This awesome God knows you by name!!!



So dinosaurs are the result of demonic experiments on reptiles?


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

So fj....evolutionists say we all came from "0" people....and that's possible?  But coming from 8 is not???  Come on man, someone's logic chain is not adding up in this instance???


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 7, 2009)

LKennamer said:


> I kind of take a bit of offense to being called a nincompoop because I believe in natural selection (or evolution, take your pick), and still profess to be a Christian.  I once had to write a paper in college about how I could believe in both, my professor didn't like it too much (he was an agnostic).  I know some will disagree, and I refuse to argue matters of faith, which I think is pointless, but my personal relationship with God has nothing to do with whether the guys who put the Bible down on paper knew anything about dinosaurs or not.  As men, we are imperfect to begin with.  Divinely inspired or not, the Bible was written by men.  Its tenets are true and guide us in our lives, but if you choose to dissect it word for word and relish in the details of the each verse as if they could stand on their own, rather than the message as a whole.....well that's kind of like reading one page of the book and claiming to know what the ending is.  No intent to offend, but to claim that the earth is not millions of years old just because it's not in the Bible is like claiming the sky is not blue.  I don't think that's what God had in mind when he put us here.  Guess I'm just an evolution zealot.  You guys have at it, as I said, I won't argue faith, every man has his beliefs and is entitled to them.  You won't change mine, I don't care to change yours, just felt the need to say my peace.



I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in natural selection and adaptation and also believing in the Bible's account of the origin of the universe.  God made the Earth, perhaps with the appearance of age, like I believe he made Adam and Eve.  It is obvious that God allowed some species to inter-reproduce (mules and mule deer for instance.)  It is also ok to think that God possibly only created one type of bear and because of their migration and habits they adapted into the species we see now.  For instance, polar bears might have been just like black bears at one time but due to the fact that they migrated into colder, snow-covered climates, the ones that were lighter in color were more succesful at surviving and the species, as a hole, became lighter and lighter due to the reproduction of the lightest bears.

However, thinking that some cosmic event created the Earth and that a single-celled organism evolved into what are now every species on the planet is not what the Bible teaches.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Ya there's tons of information in each strand of DNA, but that doesn't change the fact that if all that's left of each species is 2 specimens, then that species will go extinct.
> 
> 
> So dinosaurs are the result of demonic experiments on reptiles?




Not sure what you are saying here?  I think you are disputing the fact that if only 2 of the unclean animals were left after the flood, that this would ensure they do not propagate as a species?  More clues about this are in Genesis....if you will read it.  God put the "wildness" back in the animals (as an example) to help them propagate and increase in numbers.  Habitat and environmental changes after the flood would make it very diffucult for a species or Kind of only two to survive....I am only looking for possibilities to be true....is it possible??  I cannot prove it to myself or anyone else, but is it possible?  I say it is. 

I am saying this theory is consistent with the biblical position that Satin is first documented by entering a snake to beguile Eve....and also is consistent in my view with what is recorded in Genesis with respect to humans being defiled by Satanic forms as well, yes.  Look at a T-Rex and tell me it doesn't look demonic to you....How many lizards walk around, upright on two feet, and can survive with tiny little arms so out of porportion with the rest of their bodies.

Read Genesis looking for these possibilities and let me know what you think.  Like I said, I am not re-writing the gospel or adding to it, just looking at possibilities....and in my humble opinion, they are possible and consistent with applicable parts of scripture.


----------



## doenightmare (Jan 7, 2009)

Check Job Chapter 40. I believe dinosaurs are described there as the "behemoth".


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

doenightmare said:


> Check Job Chapter 40. I believe dinosaurs are described there as the "behemoth".



Yep...so more than likely at least a few may have survived after their "Kind" was released off the ark, at least for a relatively short amount of time...unless Job is referring to a past historical account of the behemoth in Chapter 40...have to check that one out again...it has been a while!!


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> The amount of evidence we have that the world is older than 6 thousand years is much more abundant than the evidence we have that Jesus even existed. I have no faith that we can calculate the age of a bone or rock because I have a mountain of evidence.
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus existed and there's evidence that the earth is older than 6 thousand years old, but to say that the amounts are comparable is simply delusional.



I have plenty of evidence in my life and in others' that Jesus existed, is the Son of God, and he died on a cross to save me from my sins.  It might not be evidence you understand, but it is evidence.

As far as dating, most of the time scientists will say "we believe this is anywhere from 85 to 150 million years old."

That's a 65 million year margin of error!!!  They do it all of the time.  

There are many assumptions that we have to make to calculate things based on radioactive dating.  Mainly, we have to assume that one material still digresses into another material at the same rate it always has, which is not proven.  Climate change, pressure change, etc. could affect the decay rate of all radioactive materials.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> So fj....evolutionists say we all came from "0" people....and that's possible?  But coming from 8 is not???  Come on man, someone's logic chain is not adding up in this instance???



Please quote one, just one, evolutionist saying that we all came from 0 people. This shows a lack of understanding when it comes to evolution. A chimpanzee did not just suddenly give birth to a human one day.



> Look at a T-Rex and tell me it doesn't look demonic to you....How many lizards walk around, upright on two feet, and can survive with tiny little arms so out of porportion with the rest of their bodies?



The T-Rex is a killing machine. If he wasn't a killing machine, there would be no T-Rex fossils. The T-Rex is perfectly adapted to kill and eat other dinosaurs. There are plenty of things which look crazy, but that does not necessarily mean that Satan had his hand in it. Do you really believe that Satan decided (for what reason?) to do "experiments" on reptiles? Now do you think that explanation is more probable than the explanation provided by scientists?



> I think you are disputing the fact that if only 2 of the unclean animals were left after the flood, that this would ensure they do not propagate as a species? More clues about this are in Genesis....if you will read it. God put the "wildness" back in the animals (as an example) to help them propagate and increase in numbers. Habitat and environmental changes after the flood would make it very diffucult for a species or Kind of only two to survive....I am only looking for possibilities to be true....is it possible?? I cannot prove it to myself or anyone else, but is it possible? I say it is.



Could you explain how this "wildness" allows 2 specimens to evolve into hundreds of different creatures over the short course of 5,000 years? It simply is not possible for 1 male and 1 female to be able to reproduce offspring with DNA that is different enough to propagate into a large population.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> As far as dating, most of the time scientists will say "we believe this is anywhere from 85 to 150 million years old."
> 
> That's a 65 million year margin of error!!!  They do it all of the time.



The margin of error is mathematical. I fail to see why accepting the fact that the measurements have a margin of error is such a bad thing. Whether it's 85 million years ago or 150 million years ago, it's much longer than 6,000 years ago. Don't you agree?



> There are many assumptions that we have to make to calculate things based on radioactive dating.  Mainly, we have to assume that one material still digresses into another material at the same rate it always has, which is not proven.  Climate change, pressure change, etc. could affect the decay rate of all radioactive materials.



These "assumptions" that you list are what generate the margins of error which you gave an example of above. They are well documented and scientists use calibration curves to approximate the various effects they can cause. If you know of any other confounding variables which can increase the margin of error so much that it includes time periods of around 6,000 years ago, then please share it. The young earth creationism movement would love to hear it.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> lol no. I'm just saying that its not genetically possible to sustain a species like homo sapiens with only 8 people. There has to be some sort of divine intervention.
> 
> Take a look at this excerpt located here:
> 
> ...



Interesting counter points. I would have to see how scientists who disagree respond. Honestly, the science being discussed in that excerpt is beyond my knowlege. I have a degree in Communication, not biology. 

I would encourage you to read some of the work of the scientists who believe the Scriptures and look at their answers to these things. 

Your questions are technical, I assume you possess some advanced degree in science?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Ya there's tons of information in each strand of DNA, but that doesn't change the fact that if all that's left of each species is 2 specimens, then that species will go extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> So dinosaurs are the result of demonic experiments on reptiles?



Where did the information come from?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> I have plenty of evidence in my life and in others' that Jesus existed, is the Son of God, and he died on a cross to save me from my sins.  It might not be evidence you understand, but it is evidence.



Could you give an example of the evidence which you speak of?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Where did the information come from?



If you're speaking about abiogenesis, there is currently no consensus among scientists about the origin of DNA. There are many theories which could work, but none have been studied adequately enough. The Miller experiment proved that amino acids can be formed by introducing a spark into a gas cylinder filled with gases that were around billions of years ago. Although this experiment is a step forward, scientists still have a ways to go in proving how these amino acids formed into DNA strands.

About the article I linked: It is somewhat technical, but it's fairly easy to look up individual subject matter which you don't understand and learn about it. I'm a CS major, I just study real science for fun.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 7, 2009)

There's that word "THEORIES"


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

j_seph said:


> There's that word "THEORIES"





The word theory has a different meaning in science. The common usage of theory and the scientific use of theory are often confused.


----------



## christianhunter (Jan 7, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The first thing to understand about this subject is that wherever someone's belief is, everyone begins with a worldview "a priori"
> 
> I choose to begin with the Scriptures. The atheist/evolutionists begins with a materialistic worldview.
> 
> ...



Only one word will describe this post,EXCELLENT.I couldn't add anything else.Great testimony,and lesson.


----------



## christianhunter (Jan 7, 2009)

j_seph said:


> How do we know that when earth was created that a 7 day week was 10,080 minutes/168 hours in a 7 day period. There were no watches back in that time. How do we know that what we call a year today was not considered a day back then. When ever they were created we know that they were created by God. It seems some folks tend to be to worried as to when this/that happened instead of keeping focus on who created it



A day is as 1,000 years to the LORD,we are in the 6th day.In the Hebrew calender we are in 5768 or 5769!
I know someone will say,"GOD rested on the 7th day",and HE will in the new millenium.


----------



## MolenaPapa (Jan 7, 2009)

*Dinosaurs*

Just read and study your scriptures.  They will reveal what age dinosaurs were from.   
There are three worlds acording to scripture: 
   The world that was: (preadamic era before creation as      you and I know it . Time of the first flood (ice age etc.) before God established man's time (days, years, etc.).  Most likely the age of the dinosaurs.) Remember in Genesis 1:2 before creation began it states "the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the waters". 
   The world that is (now): began on the first day of (2nd) creation and also begins man's time (years as you and I know it ) A day to the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is accounted as a day.  This world continues until the Lord comes back and His thousand year reign (man's days 7 thousand years, time as you and I know it ) ends.
    The world to come: Eternity .  Which begins at the end of the world that is and continues forever, the world without end, no know measurable quantity.

In mho the dinosaurs and other "prehistoric" findings existed in the time of the world that was as scripture describes.  There was no measurable time (as you and I know it) during that era just as there will be no measurable time in the world to come era.  To me this explains the controversy in dating the age of dinosaurs, etc. in relation to man's time.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 8, 2009)

fj--

Somebody had to be the first human....you don't get 6 billion + people on the earth without someone being first.  I understand very well the theory behind evolution...and it has many flaws....if you agree with it, it comes down to the same belief structure I have in Creation, just in a different form.

Again, I am not saying two specimens would provide sufficient genetic code after the flood....it would have taken 7 just as scripture states....BTW, Adam and Eve are in a different category in mho because scripture indicated they were created before sin entered the world, and they were therefore perfect and had not been defiled by sin until becoming beguiled by Satin, who was allowed to take the form of the serpent...yes a reptile!

The Wildness would have been required after release from the ark....to help ensure their opportunity to propagate because now man and other animals would be utilizing them for food and clothing as ordained now by God.  Scripture indicates that animals were not originally created to eat one another....that was the result of sin....I believe the vast departure in function, form and purpose (as you stated, flesh rippers) is linked to God's curse upon the serpent (reptile) that beguilded Adam and Eve and very possibly defiled other reptiles as well...what do you make of human foot prints within dino footprints??  They lived at the same time....BTW, do you really believe all the billions of barrels of petroleum we have used came from dinos--fossile fuel....I say no way...in mho!!!!


----------



## footjunior (Jan 8, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> Somebody had to be the first human....you don't get 6 billion + people on the earth without someone being first.  I understand very well the theory behind evolution...and it has many flaws....if you agree with it, it comes down to the same belief structure I have in Creation, just in a different form.



You are correct, there was a first human, but he would not look like the humans that we are today.

Evolution occurs on a gradual slope. The idea of separate species is a man-made concept. It's somewhat hard for me to explain in words what I'm trying to get at. I'll try this: Lets take the transformation from homo erectus to homo sapiens. There are clear distinctions between the two if you ask taxonomists for details. However, if you compare specimens that are separated by just 1000 years, they would be practically identical. At some point, homo erectus became homo sapiens and therefore _technically_ there was a "first" human. but if you compared a specimen from right before that happened to a specimen from after that point in time, they are basically identical. I don't know why I'm explaining it like that... it's getting late. 

I would REALLY like to hear some of the "many flaws" of evolution.



> The Wildness would have been required after release from the ark....to help ensure their opportunity to propagate because now man and other animals would be utilizing them for food and clothing as ordained now by God.



Can you describe the "wildness" please? It seems rather abstract.



> what do you make of human foot prints within dino footprints??



That was proved to be a hoax. Again, this is the same kind of pseudo-scientific stuff that's on answersingenesis.com. Please provide published literature which states that dinosaurs walked alongside humans.



> They lived at the same time....BTW, do you really believe all the billions of barrels of petroleum we have used came from dinos--fossile fuel....I say no way...in mho!!!!



I say no way too.  If I remember correctly it's mostly from vegetation.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Here's what I'd like to know.  How do they test those instruments that decide if something is 1 million or 500,000 years old?



Yeah me, too. What do they compare it to that we know was a million years ago.....

Ya know I guess it really doesn't matter to me to provide proof.  Believing in how  many years or days or minutes anything existed is beside the point to me. I'll find out sooner or later. It doesn't effect me in any way nor does it effect my salvation....thank you God for that...your Son that makes it irrelevent. Don't worry, be happy.

I wouldn't waste my time providing anything....we need to be witnessing and spreading the gospel.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 8, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> defiled by sin until becoming beguiled by Satin,



Yes, that wretched Satin... the fabric of sin... it has beguiled many a man... who can resist it's temptations?!?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 8, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Yeah me, too. What do they compare it to that we know was a million years ago.....



It's mathematical. Half-lives were discussed in your high school chem class. Radioactive dating is fairly easy to understand, but only if you attempt to understand it. Wikipedia provides a good article on it, located here:

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


----------



## raymrt (Jun 29, 2010)

Just a thought...has anyone considered what the length of a day was "In The Beginning"???  Just how long was day 1, 2, or any other day of creation?  Could not the days have been much much longer in the precess of creation. Could a "day" have been a hundred, a thousand, a million of our current days or years? If so, wouldn't this time allow for the creation of many species of land beast?  If you can accept this possibility it can explain away many many of the time line questions belivers struggle with.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jun 29, 2010)

raymrt said:


> Just a thought...has anyone considered what the length of a day was "In The Beginning"???  Just how long was day 1, 2, or any other day of creation?  Could not the days have been much much longer in the precess of creation. Could a "day" have been a hundred, a thousand, a million of our current days or years? If so, wouldn't this time allow for the creation of many species of land beast?  If you can accept this possibility it can explain away many many of the time line questions belivers struggle with.



I Heard some one speak on this the other day, Thier take on it was that the word used "day" in genesis was the same word used for a literal 24 hour day elsewhere in the Bible. I have looked it up for my self so I am not sure on this...


Hey LowJack, Can you shed some light on this??


----------



## possum steak (Jun 29, 2010)

Genesis 2
 1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 

 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 

 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 

 4These are the *generations* of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 


Contrast Generations in 2:4 vs a literal 7 days.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 1, 2010)

The Bible does not age the earth, the 6 thousand year old theory Is A Christian only belief, anyones who read the Torah in Hebrew will understand that earth was created in a time that was referred to as "in the beginning"When God said let there be light" there was no time line yet, the earth might have being around a zillion years for all we know, the Genesis only says the earth was Void and shapeless and under hard water,who knows how long it was between in the beginning and let there be light"?
Actually there was no time line until the 4th day when God made the Sun the moon and the stars and created the seasons.
How long were the first 4 days ? who knows.
We know that in hebrew weeks are measured in 7 days, 7 years or 7 Million years is still a week to God.and 1 day for God is a Thousand Years and 1000 years like a day.
That is where we get the math in Daniel concerning the 70 weeks they are not weeks of days but of years.
We also know that the word Barah in Hebrew is not what is translated in most languages as "Created"But rather Barah means to Inflate or grow out of what already exists.
it is very hard to understand creation from the languages which are not the original of the Bible.

The 6 thousand year creation is a misunderstanding of Christians of the hebrew teachings of the Jewish Calendar which determines that since Adam to today 5677 years have passed, that's how long man has being on this earth, not that the earth was created at the same time as man.
It doesn't matter to me if it was 7 days or 7 billion years the fact is we are here.


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2010)

raymrt said:


> Just a thought...has anyone considered what the length of a day was "In The Beginning"???  Just how long was day 1, 2, or any other day of creation?  Could not the days have been much much longer in the precess of creation. Could a "day" have been a hundred, a thousand, a million of our current days or years? If so, wouldn't this time allow for the creation of many species of land beast?  If you can accept this possibility it can explain away many many of the time line questions belivers struggle with.



The original readers of Genesis were not scholars or scientists; they were mostly slaves on their way to the Promised Land.
So the language in Genesis 1 needed to be very clear.
If we look at Genesis 1 I believe it is clear that God created everything in 6 literal days (24 hrs / day).  First He created the earth in darkness and then he created the light.  He called the darkness night and the light day.  He then said “and there was evening and morning, one day.”  Everywhere else in the Old Testament when the Hebrew word for day appears with morning and evening or is modified by a number it always means a 24 hr. day. 
On day four God also showed that these were literal days by telling us the reason for  the creation of the sun, moon , stars etc.  So that we could tell time, days, years, seasons.
There is no reason to believe that the earth is billions of years old and there is no reason to be ashamed for believing in a literal 6 days of creation and a “young” earth.
If God would lie to me in Genesis he would lie to me in Matthew.


----------



## Randy (Jul 1, 2010)

I don't think God lied.  He just simplified things for a quick understanding.  Can you imagine if He ahd told the writer of Genesis "Well you see there is this thing called Big Bang and DNA and ............."  That guy would have had to know as much about science as our present day scientists to even begin to understadn all this.  The bottom line is it is not really all that important how we got here.  What is important is what we do while we are here and that is what most of the Bible focuses on.


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2010)

Randy said:


> I don't think God lied.  He just simplified things for a quick understanding.  Can you imagine if He ahd told the writer of Genesis "Well you see there is this thing called Big Bang and DNA and ............."  That guy would have had to know as much about science as our present day scientists to even begin to understadn all this.  The bottom line is it is not really all that important how we got here.  What is important is what we do while we are here and that is what most of the Bible focuses on.



For you it is not important.  For others it is.  I  saw a young agnostic come to Christ after he was able to settle this issue.  

God tells us exactly how we got here.

We were "spoken" into existance and according to the language He chose to use, it was in a literal 24 hr period of time.


----------



## Randy (Jul 1, 2010)

Madman said:


> For you it is not important.  For others it is.  I  saw a young agnostic come to Christ after he was able to settle this issue.
> 
> God tells us exactly how we got here.
> 
> We were "spoken" into existance and according to the language He chose to use, it was in a literal 24 hr period of time.



I also see a lot of people who do not believe because of some scientific evidence that does not agree with what "we" believe Genesis says/means.


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2010)

Randy said:


> I also see a lot of people who do not believe because of some scientific evidence that does not agree with what "we" believe Genesis says/means.



The "scientific" evidence agrees perfectly with the Scriptures.  “We” just need to understand what “we” are looking at and how to explain it.   Instead most Christians are afraid they will be thought of as ignorant or stupid therefore they yield to the secular view and in doing so the complete message of the Gospel is lost.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 1, 2010)

Madman said:


> The original readers of Genesis were not scholars or scientists; they were mostly slaves on their way to the Promised Land.
> So the language in Genesis 1 needed to be very clear.
> If we look at Genesis 1 I believe it is clear that God created everything in 6 literal days (24 hrs / day).  First He created the earth in darkness and then he created the light.  He called the darkness night and the light day.  He then said “and there was evening and morning, one day.”  Everywhere else in the Old Testament when the Hebrew word for day appears with morning and evening or is modified by a number it always means a 24 hr. day.
> On day four God also showed that these were literal days by telling us the reason for  the creation of the sun, moon , stars etc.  So that we could tell time, days, years, seasons.
> ...



God did not create in a day as we know of 24 hours period, The Hebrew day is when the sun rises and when it falls so literaly God created things in 12 hour periods not 24 hour periods, but those periods could be according to his time clock not ours.
Read Genesis again and you will see how it says and "it was the morning and the evening" of the first day and he saw that it was good.


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> God did not create in a day as we know of 24 hours period, The Hebrew day is when the sun rises and when it falls so literaly God created things in 12 hour periods not 24 hour periods, but those periods could be according to his time clock not ours.
> Read Genesis again and you will see how it says and "it was the morning and the evening" of the first day and he saw that it was good.



You'll get no argument out of me.  I am just going on what two Hebrew Scholars and linguists that I know say. 

So you are saying God created everything in 6 - 12 hour days not 6 - 24 hour days?


----------



## Nerf Warrior (Jul 4, 2010)

I watched a couple of interesting documentaries several weeks ago dealing with this same issue.  It was very well explained (by scientist) and backed by scripture.  Because Ive never been able to quote what Ive heard or read an hour ago without messing it up I wont even try to offer any insight on this.  I do have one question though,  How can scientist create ways to date things back millions of years ago and they cant make a voting machine to accurately count votes.  You would also think someone would be able to stop an oil leak.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 6, 2010)

LKennamer said:


> I kind of take a bit of offense to being called a nincompoop because I believe in natural selection (or evolution, take your pick), and still profess to be a Christian.  I once had to write a paper in college about how I could believe in both, my professor didn't like it too much (he was an agnostic).  I know some will disagree, and I refuse to argue matters of faith, which I think is pointless, but my personal relationship with God has nothing to do with whether the guys who put the Bible down on paper knew anything about dinosaurs or not.  As men, we are imperfect to begin with.  Divinely inspired or not, the Bible was written by men.  Its tenets are true and guide us in our lives, but if you choose to dissect it word for word and relish in the details of the each verse as if they could stand on their own, rather than the message as a whole.....well that's kind of like reading one page of the book and claiming to know what the ending is.  No intent to offend, but to claim that the earth is not millions of years old just because it's not in the Bible is like claiming the sky is not blue.  I don't think that's what God had in mind when he put us here.  Guess I'm just an evolution zealot.  You guys have at it, as I said, I won't argue faith, every man has his beliefs and is entitled to them.  You won't change mine, I don't care to change yours, just felt the need to say my peace.



The sky is not blue.  It is a trick of refracted light.
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
So you AGREE that the earth is not millions of years old?
Personally, I don't really care how old it is.  I am OK not knowing.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 6, 2010)

Madman said:


> The "scientific" evidence agrees perfectly with the Scriptures.  “We” just need to understand what “we” are looking at and how to explain it.   Instead most Christians are afraid they will be thought of as ignorant or stupid therefore they yield to the secular view and in doing so the complete message of the Gospel is lost.



Evidence is not scientific in nature.  Science is a language used to describe things.  Evidence is evidence.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 6, 2010)

footjunior said:


> It's mathematical. Half-lives were discussed in your high school chem class. Radioactive dating is fairly easy to understand, but only if you attempt to understand it. Wikipedia provides a good article on it, located here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating



The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1.The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2.Decay rates have always been constant.

3.Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Bad things happen when science trys to prove itself.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 6, 2010)

footjunior said:


> The word theory has a different meaning in science. The common usage of theory and the scientific use of theory are often confused.



Please define them both.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 6, 2010)

footjunior said:


> If you're speaking about abiogenesis, there is currently no consensus among scientists about the origin of DNA. There are many theories which could work, but none have been studied adequately enough. The Miller experiment proved that amino acids can be formed by introducing a spark into a gas cylinder filled with gases that were around billions of years ago. Although this experiment is a step forward, scientists still have a ways to go in proving how these amino acids formed into DNA strands.
> 
> About the article I linked: It is somewhat technical, but it's fairly easy to look up individual subject matter which you don't understand and learn about it. I'm a CS major, I just study real science for fun.



Science doesn't prove anything.  The Miller experiment supported a hypothesis.  The scientific method makes no mention of proof.


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 6, 2010)

Proof of anything requires faith to believe the proof is true.


----------



## Madman (Jul 6, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> Evidence is not scientific in nature.  Science is a language used to describe things.  Evidence is evidence.



Notice "Scientific" is in Quotes.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 6, 2010)

Madman said:


> Notice "Scientific" is in Quotes.



Agreed.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 6, 2010)

“There is no scientific reason why a Bible-believing Christian must accept materialsitic and evolutionary theory.”

Indeed.  But, by that same token, any ‘Bible-believing Christian’ must then accept His Bible as a Science book.  

And if that is the sole explanation, then there is no reason why the rest of us must accept pure nonsense as a theory.  As one small example, and believe me, I can trot out thousands, the extant fact is that our planet is about two thirds water.  And not only can’t we live in that water, but the fact is that nearly all of it is toxic if we drink it.  That doesn’t seem very sporting, does it?

Of the roughly one-thirds of the planet left over, well over half of it is uninhabitable by that Creation you theorize was Created in God’s Image.  And that small portion is also rife with things like carnivorous animals, flesh-eating insects, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, random lightning strikes, parasites, toxic bacteria, poisonous plants, floods, landslides, droughts, and an exhaustive catalog of other things that conspire to kill us at every turn.  The fact is, nearly all of ‘God’s Children,’ if you adhere to the Creation Theory, cannot survive for more than a few days when exposed to the ‘elements’ of this planet that you must admit, by your theory, were presumably also ‘Created’ at the same time.

How can that be?

Nearly all of the WATER is toxic to humans?  What is the clever interpretation of that part?

And, C’mon Ronnie – “How do they test those instruments that decide if something is 1 million or 500,000 years old?”  You know better than to think that there is an ‘instrument,’ like some sort of thermometer,  that somebody invented just to confound your own thoughts.  Particle physics has advanced to the point that the decay rate of certain elements can be calculated within a very, very small range.  Certainly not exact, but pretty darned close.  If exacting precision is your only standard of proof, then, first, don’t stand too close to your microwave oven, since the ‘theory’ is that the length of the wave is too long to allow it to escape from the mesh screen that allows you to watch the food cook inside – but, in theory, a few do escape since the radiation is also random . . .

 And second, if exacting precision among those who doubt Biblical certainty  is the only argument in favor of Biblical theories, then it is certainly fair to ask the Biblical believers to stand up to the same measure.  Hand out some exact, unquestionable, testable, and undoubtedly true examples of the ‘Facts’ that are offered.  Especially a few examples of the Scientific Truth of the Bible that directly refutes the actual scientific progress that has been made in the many, many years since that writing and today.  

And yada, yada, yada, without a lick of support – a day may not have been a day, a year may not have been a year, we didn’t do our homework and the teacher is an idiot, and Michael Jackson was really Diana Ross in disguise . . .  the decay of isotopes is open to ‘interpretations,’ and Matthew 34 – 37 doesn’t say what it says.  We know.  Y’all have a way to twist everything, but nothing whatsoever to support yer twist . . . 

That must be where the whole ‘faith’ thing comes in . . . “I’m right because I say so, and heck, you guys don’t know EVERYTHING, so I must be right, and I Do KNOW EVERYTHING!  Says so, right here . . . . ”   

I mean, Really?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 6, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “There is no scientific reason why a Bible-believing Christian must accept materialsitic and evolutionary theory.”
> 
> Indeed.  But, by that same token, any ‘Bible-believing Christian’ must then accept His Bible as a Science book.
> 
> ...



Scientific progress does not exist.  The language used to describe things has just gotten more complicated. You have to have faith in Science to draw conclusions about absolute truth from it, just like from religious beliefs.

Yes, ABSOLUTE TRUTH. I do not claim to KNOW it, but it is out there.

The majority of the vast universe seems uninhabitable to humans, so this tiny rock we live on with 1/8th or so of habitable space, and with mostly toxic water seems a little like a miracle.  I am thankful this little garden of Eden can support human life at all.

Faith can help you realize that the glass is half full.


----------

