Spin off of "Young Earth"

[CookieMonster]

Again, not starting anything. I don't know very many religious people and I always wondered where the dinosaurs fit into history as far as creation goes. I have heard that some people don't believe in dinosaurs at all. Do most people believe dinosaurs were alive the same time humans were?

 

Jenstet, I know this thread has gone quite far from where you started it, but I'd like to address your original question with my own story.

 

When I first became a believer I don't remember what I thought about creation or evolution. I honestly don't think I thought about it one way or the other. Somewhere along the line I know I learned that what God said in his Word was true - all of it. Whenever it was that I learned about the creation of the world and Genesis and all of that I cannot say. It happened fairly early on, but when, I don't know. I put two-and-two together: God's Word is true and the creation account is in it, so it's true.

 

So after that I simply believed that God must have created the Earth, cuz the Bible said He did. I didn't know anything more about what the Bible had to say on the subject, nor did I know anything about how to refute evolution. Whenever I heard about evolution in school, I just quietly told myself that I didn't believe it. I didn't have any specific thing I believed, I just didn't believe in molecules-to-man, my-uncle-is-a-monkey evolution.

 

During this time in my life, I did not know what to do with dinosaurs. I think I was one of those people who said, when pressed, that dinosaurs must not have existed. I conveniently cannot remember. I had nothing to base this on, because all that creation/evolution stuff was too much for me to delve into.

 

Then sometime around a couple of years ago I was introduced to young earth creationist beliefs in their foundation and entirety. I can't even tell you how or when. But, over time I learned more and more. It's really hard to wrap your mind around a world that is only 6,000 years old when you've been taught otherwise for your entire life, let me tell ya. It was at this time in my life that I realized that - duh! - dinosaurs and people lived together from the beginning of time. Land dinos were created with land animals. Flying dinos with flying creatures. Sea dinos with the sea creatures. Dinosaurs were on the ark. Many dinosaurs and so-called prehistoric animals were killed out in the tumultuous ice-age that followed the flood. And other dinosaurs were killed out after the ice age, along with other troublesome, large creatures as man spread out over the earth.

 

That, I would say, is what most young earth creationists believe about dinosaurs. I hope that answers your question.

[CookieMonster]

I'm not certain I appreciate the implied sentiment that you *must* be a young-Earther in order to be a Christian. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general theme I see among some people.

 

:iagree:

[Phred]

Um...sorry...but this is not what we know. It's the best possible explanation available from current evolutionary science. There's a big difference between those two statements. Furthermore, these listed knowns have changed dramatically every year according to the latest research produced. "Know" is much too strong a word to use here.

No, "know" would be quite an accurate word to use here. Also, evolution is a theory of the sciences of biology. To say "evolutionary science" is incorrect. But, onward...

 

Actually, it's quite simple to make this mistake. All dating methods (i.e. radiometric dating) all begin with assumptions. The assumption evolutionary scientists make is that things are continuing on now as they always have (uniformitarinism). Using such dating methods as are used to create an evolutionary timescale on rocks whose ages are known (i.e. Mt. St. Helens) have given completely wrong date ranges. (For more on this see Does Radiometric Dating Prove the World is Old.)

Assumption is such a misleading word. You let go of a rock and you assume it's going to hit the ground. Why do you assume that each and every time you let go of that rock? Because gravity works the same way every time. When you use the wrong dating methods on rocks that you know the dates of then certainly you get the wrong dates. But when you use the technology correctly you get the right dates. For instance, carbon 14 dating is only good back to about 50,000 years. Beyond that it's useless. You have to use an isotope whose half life is appropriate for the span of time you're trying to date. If things did not continue now as they had previously then the world would have heated up to a temperature that neither you nor I would be here. I notice your sources don't mention that.

 

First of all, the beginning of Noah's Flood was, by it's very nature, supernatural. It was God's judgement on the Earth. That which is supernatural supercedes scientific laws, analysis, or observation.

No... If something supernatural were ever to occur it could be observed. Otherwise how could there be an account of it? It could also be analyzed. We would simply have an event that defied all natural laws and was obvious in its defiance. Something as large as Noah's flood would have left evidence. It did not. The water would have to have come from somewhere and gone to somewhere. Again, it did not. I know it's easy to be able to say, "supernatural" and be done with it... but you can't do that. Once something "supernatural" touches the natural then it is no longer just magic, it's real and it's leaving a trace that can be studied.

 

Secondly, a ripping open of the Atlantic ocean floor and the resulting tumult would most certainly explain the current placement of the continents. The fact that they currently move ever so slighty does not mean they have always moved in this fashion. (For more on this see: Plate Tectonics and Where Did All That Water Come From? .)

But there isn't any evidence that this happened.

 

It is absolutely concievable that the eight people who got off of the Ark had the genetic information in them to produce the myriad of variations we see in humankind today. This is something anyone versed in genetics would attest to, even if they loathe the Bible.

Find one. Especially since Noah and his sons were not of different genetic stock.

 

As for the diseases we see, many of them are genetic mutations. Mutations can happen at any time in a population and are by nature not present in the preceding generations. And even many that aren't mutations have come about through the expression of recessive genes. (For more information on this see Genetics: No Friend of Evolution and Noah Descendents .)

Oh, so now mutations and evolution can happen. You folks are amazing... one minute evolution doesn't happen the next it does.

 

You're right that proving someone else wrong does not prove you to be right. (But, it does prove that the other person is wrong.)

Which you are about the age of the earth, the flood and evolution.

 

And, creationists have spent $ doing research of their own. The Institute for Creation Research comes to mind.

Please then show us one paper or experiment or something they've produced. Just one would be sufficient.

 

Creationists have also spent quite a bit of time reviewing the factual evidence (fossils, rock layers, dating) and interpreting it through the lens of Scripture. They do write papers. They spend a lot of time and money trying to spread the truth to whomever will listen. The reason they seem to spend so much of their time disproving evolutionary science is because so many people come to them with questions about it. (See What is Science and Creation Where's the Proof? .)

They don't spread the truth. The spend money taking what is the truth and twisting it to fit their preconceived notions... ie, scripture. All you really need to know is contained in the statement they make their "researchers" sign which states that nothing shall be written that does not agree with scripture. So no matter what they find they'll ignore anything that doesn't agree with the already agreed-upon outcome. That's not research... it's whitewash.

[Phred]

Jenstet, I know this thread has gone quite far from where you started it, but I'd like to address your original question with my own story.

 

When I first became a believer I don't remember what I thought about creation or evolution. I honestly don't think I thought about it one way or the other. Somewhere along the line I know I learned that what God said in his Word was true - all of it. Whenever it was that I learned about the creation of the world and Genesis and all of that I cannot say. It happened fairly early on, but when, I don't know. I put two-and-two together: God's Word is true and the creation account is in it, so it's true.

 

So after that I simply believed that God must have created the Earth, cuz the Bible said He did. I didn't know anything more about what the Bible had to say on the subject, nor did I know anything about how to refute evolution. Whenever I heard about evolution in school, I just quietly told myself that I didn't believe it. I didn't have any specific thing I believed, I just didn't believe in molecules-to-man, my-uncle-is-a-monkey evolution.

 

During this time in my life, I did not know what to do with dinosaurs. I think I was one of those people who said, when pressed, that dinosaurs must not have existed. I conveniently cannot remember. I had nothing to base this on, because all that creation/evolution stuff was too much for me to delve into.

 

Then sometime around a couple of years ago I was introduced to young earth creationist beliefs in their foundation and entirety. I can't even tell you how or when. But, over time I learned more and more. It's really hard to wrap your mind around a world that is only 6,000 years old when you've been taught otherwise for your entire life, let me tell ya. It was at this time in my life that I realized that - duh! - dinosaurs and people lived together from the beginning of time. Land dinos were created with land animals. Flying dinos with flying creatures. Sea dinos with the sea creatures. Dinosaurs were on the ark. Many dinosaurs and so-called prehistoric animals were killed out in the tumultuous ice-age that followed the flood. And other dinosaurs were killed out after the ice age, along with other troublesome, large creatures as man spread out over the earth.

 

That, I would say, is what most young earth creationists believe about dinosaurs. I hope that answers your question.

 

Dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before mankind ever set foot on planet earth. There have been at least four major ice ages in earth's past. At no time did dinosaurs and people live together. The passages in Job refer to the hippopotamus.

 

And we wonder why Japan, China and India are overtaking our lead in science and technology. Our kids are being taught interpretations like this and then they are sent out into the world with an attitude that they have every right to believe whatever they wish even if it is against everything that we know based upon evidence. "The heck with this stuff. We don't need new computer chips based upon theory. Nobody believes that science stuff anyway. It's against God."

 

Way to go...

[Donna T.]

 

No... If something supernatural were ever to occur it could be observed. Otherwise how could there be an account of it?

 

The Deluge was observed and there is an account of it. In fact, there are many accounts of a global flood from a variety of sources.

[Peek a Boo]

The Bible is even more precise than that because it records that Adam sinned before the birth of Seth. I don't have my Bible right here in front of me right now (I'm at work), but I believe (could be wrong here, but should be close) Adam was a little over 100 years old when Seth was born.

 

 

And, please, I hope no one thinks I'm saying that you have to believe in a 6000 year old earth to be a "true" Christian. I do not think that. But, I do think that you have to believe that there was no death before Adam's sin because that is so clearly taught in Scripture. Adam brought death to the world, not just to mankind. It's just so clearly taught in Scripture that I don't really understand how anyone could say they believe the Bible but not believe that. I'm not talking about plants. I'm talking about things that have the breath of life in them... like dinosaurs.

 

==============

 

If I say I am a Christian but yet I teach that there was death before Adam, then I am double-minded. I hate conversations about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. But, here is the one place that I have to draw the line.... if one believes there was death before Adam than that one does not believe the Bible and if one does not believe the Bible, then on what are they basing their Christianity??

==============

 

so how many one-handed, one-eyed Christians are there?

Or are we to not take that literally?

 

The death spoken of in the Bible is the separation of man from God. A literal physical death is there also, but isn't the Biggest point. "On that day you will surely die" -- which day? die how?

 

"Romans 5:12 -

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

 

 

The death spoken of does NOT apply to animals who do not have a soul. The entire point of the Bible is to restore Man to God.

 

another note: how old was Adam when he was created? Was he created in an adult form? [similar to the discussion about creating the earth in a "mature" state] was he created appearing as age 20? 30?

If he was intended to live forever, would there be an accounting of how many years old he was before the Fall? Or does his lifespan in years begin after the Fall? I tend to take the Bible as God's Actual Word, but He's The Master at Language, using many literary devices to make known His will :) He sure does leave out a lot of details about this period.

 

another question I've been sincerely pondering:

was cain *the first* baby? or merely the first one mentioned by name?

They were told to go forth and multiply right after being created.

 

i tend to fall in the "God did it. That's the Point" camp.

I think we can absolutely have a literal 24-hour day or millions of year era SOMEwhere in creation.

 

 

"and here is another thought....not that I have an adequate answer...According to Genesis 1 God created plants on Day 3 and the Sun on Day 4...if there were large gaps of time instead of literal 24hr. days, what would happen to the plant's need for photosynthesis?"

 

....I have full Faith that if God can create plants w/o the sun He can sustain them w/o the sun :) Besides, you're assuming that the Light spoken of earlier in verse 3 was not conducive to photosynthesis.

 

 

oh --and Phred!

 

I agree that "know" is an accurate word. It's the accuracy of the knowledge that is in dispute.

 

"Oh, so now mutations and evolution can happen. You folks are amazing... one minute evolution doesn't happen the next it does."

 

i guess you missed the first several posts about the differences in Christian belief. :)

 

"All you really need to know is contained in the statement they make their "researchers" sign which states that nothing shall be written that does not agree with scripture."

really? I thought they hadn't written anything? {{Please then show us one paper or experiment or something they've produced. Just one would be sufficient.}} whitewash --like when a "scientific" theory is put forth [and dismissed] that doesn't agree w/ already understood scientific principles? whitewash. got it.

 

supernatural:

**If it's supernatural, then it's not necessarily going to leave "natural" traces, would it? You're assuming a supernatural event would leave natural traces and react in "natural" ways. Like when you mention "If things did not continue now as they had previously then the world would have heated up to a temperature that neither you nor I would be here. I notice your sources don't mention that. That's cuz the sources you're referencing are discussing a SUPERNATURAL creation. [[back to **]] .....Or have you observed a supernatural event and know your assumption to be true?

 

that we don't have evidence of a ripping open of the Atlantic ocean floor doesn't disprove the theory.

 

Especially since Noah and his sons were not of different genetic stock.

FALSE: earlier, The sons of God married the daughters of men.

There's a lot of discussion about who the wives were that were brought on the ark. Lots of room for diversity there.

 

 

======================================================

And like the abortion thread, yes, you can absolutely have a different understanding of Scripture or a misunderstanding of the nature of God and still be a Christian. A 'strong' Christian at that ;)

[Donna T.]

And we wonder why Japan, China and India are overtaking our lead in science and technology. Our kids are being taught interpretations like this and then they are sent out into the world with an attitude that they have every right to believe whatever they wish even if it is against everything that we know based upon evidence. "The heck with this stuff. We don't need new computer chips based upon theory. Nobody believes that science stuff anyway. It's against God."

 

Way to go...

 

OK... let me wrap my brain around this. You are saying that Japan, China and India are overtaking our lead in science and technology because... a little remnant of us who still believe that the Bible is literal truth and that science does not disprove the truth of the Biblical record are making such an impact?? Where are the kids who are being taught these "interpretations"? Certainly not in the government schools. And, as we have here shown that not all Christians agree on this, then not all Christian children are being taught these "interpretations". Yet, we have such an impact?

 

I don't think anyone here has said that science is against God. That's a stereotype.

[Peek a Boo]

And we wonder why Japan, China and India are overtaking our lead in science and technology. Our kids are being taught interpretations like this and then they are sent out into the world with an attitude that they have every right to believe whatever they wish even if it is against everything that we know based upon evidence. "The heck with this stuff. We don't need new computer chips based upon theory. Nobody believes that science stuff anyway. It's against God."

 

Way to go...

 

Yeah. It's a good thing they don't teach religious stuff in japan, china and India. :rolleyes: {{but I think Donna T nailed that one, lol.}}

 

Who said science is against God? [[besides you?]] I tend to see more scientists against God, but science itself is a wonderful exploration of God's Universe.

[CookieMonster]

Phred, I'm sorry I seem to have upset you. I certainly did not mean to.

 

If would allow me to, I'd like to make a few corrections, although I know it will have no bearing on what you believe.

 

No, "know" would be quite an accurate word to use here. Also, evolution is a theory of the sciences of biology. To say "evolutionary science" is incorrect. But, onward...

 

Hmmm...good point. Replace "science" in my statement with "theory" and I think I'll come out saying what it is I wish. So, I guess that should read: It's the best possible explanation available from current evolutionary theory.

 

If things did not continue now as they had previously then the world would have heated up to a temperature that neither you nor I would be here. I notice your sources don't mention that.

 

I must confess that I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about here. I'm sorry I can't answer you.

 

No... If something supernatural were ever to occur it could be observed. Otherwise how could there be an account of it? It could also be analyzed. We would simply have an event that defied all natural laws and was obvious in its defiance. Something as large as Noah's flood would have left evidence. It did not. The water would have to have come from somewhere and gone to somewhere. Again, it did not. I know it's easy to be able to say, "supernatural" and be done with it... but you can't do that. Once something "supernatural" touches the natural then it is no longer just magic, it's real and it's leaving a trace that can be studied.

 

Mia Culpa...you are quite correct. A supernatural event could very well be observed. I don't know what came over my faculties to have missed that error. And, you're right, it would have been observed. And it was. Dozens of ancient cultures have strikingly similar global flood stories. (See This and others.)

 

I would say that Noah's Flood did leave evidence, quite a bit of it. If there really was a worldwide flood you would expect to see billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. And we do.

 

I invite you to investigate the traces that Noah's Flood have left. ( See this and others)

 

Oh, so now mutations and evolution can happen. You folks are amazing... one minute evolution doesn't happen the next it does.

 

Of course mutations occur. Creationists use mutations to explain the origin of parasites and disease, the origin of hereditary defects, and the loss of traits. In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just what we normally expect: tear things down and make matters worse. Using mutations to explain the breakdown of existing genetic order (creation-corruption) is quite the opposite of using mutations to explain the build up of genetic order (evolution).

(Mutations)

[Mrs Mungo]

==============

 

If I say I am a Christian but yet I teach that there was death before Adam, then I am double-minded. I hate conversations about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. But, here is the one place that I have to draw the line.... if one believes there was death before Adam than that one does not believe the Bible and if one does not believe the Bible, then on what are they basing their Christianity??

==============

 

so how many one-handed, one-eyed Christians are there?

Or are we to not take that literally?

 

Have you read the book The Year of Living Biblically? it's by the same guy who wrote The Know-It-All. Basically, he spent a year trying to follow as many Old Testament rules as possible, to include not wearing mixed fibers, touching menstruating women and stoning people (which meant tossing very tiny stones at people and hoping they didn't notice). ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Have you read the book The Year of Living Biblically? it's by the same guy who wrote The Know-It-All. Basically, he spent a year trying to follow as many Old Testament rules as possible, to include not wearing mixed fibers, touching menstruating women and stoning people (which meant tossing very tiny stones at people and hoping they didn't notice). ;)

 

 

hee hee --i've heard about it, but not read it. Yet.

 

{{maybe he should have stoned them accurately to get a better feel..... :eek:}}

[Mrs Mungo]

hee hee --i've heard about it, but not read it. Yet.

 

{{maybe he should have stoned them accurately to get a better feel..... :eek:}}

 

I liked the Old Testament part. However, the author is of Jewish heritage and I think he felt a connection there. He clearly didn't feel a connection with or understand the New Testament as understood by most Christians.

[pixelroper]

It is unreasonable to promote theory as fact.

 

Just pointing out... Science is limited by what we can observe (using the senses we have) and test for repeatedly in a lab or elsewhere. Theory is theory. Many theories are being taught as fact, this is sloppy science. Also the amount of reverse engineering (in the evolutionary/anthropology/biology/geology) currently taking place is obscene. It has become standard practice to use theories in building more theories and then a scurry to find any applicable supporting "facts" and ignoring anything in their way or contrary to what they want to theorize about. We are in a theory whirlwind. Plus there is the little problem of some people wanting to 'leave their scientific history mark' and being unethical in order to achieve it.

 

As it doesn't really matter to me (the creation of the world) and I firmly believe man is not omniscient I have not bothered to remember all the little details that could illustrate what I'm saying right now. This is not my purpose, obviously. Sorry. I can recommend some books such as Bones of Contention.

 

We DO NOT KNOW many things:D. I am currently very unhappy [enraged] w/scientists right now b/c they are messing around w/primary needs such as food, playing w/immune systems and doing very questionable things to human embryos. I question all the do-goody science excuses as stocks in pharmaceuticals and genetic research keeps rising while plenty of live humans are still starving. Let us not forget all the damage done by well intentioned wacky science (look at US child birth practices in the early part of last century). In fact it seems the only sciences that go anywhere... w/any results... are the sciences involved w/war.

 

I will now place my hands over my ears, hum loudly and rock to and fro. Thank you for your time:)

[Mrs Mungo]

I saw this earlier and I couldn't NOT post it in this thread. It's just too hilarious.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I saw this earlier and I couldn't NOT post it in this thread. It's just too hilarious.

 

 

:lol:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Using mutations to explain the breakdown of existing genetic order (creation-corruption) is quite the opposite of using mutations to explain the build up of genetic order (evolution).

 

 

Evolution isn't a building up of genetic order. It's simply change over time. Good change, bad change, any change. The changes that benefit the organism usually remain, the ones that are neutral might remain or might not, the ones that are deleterious can "pressure" an organism out of existence. (Though "pressure" is an imprecise word because it implies intention, and that's wrong.) It's not simple to complex, bad to good, disorder to order. It just isn't. That's a basic misunderstanding. And it affects the whole argument.

 

Man isn't the pinnacle of evolution like you see in the erroneous textbooks, starting "down" at amoeba progressing "up" to homo sapiens. He's just a twig on the branch. Evolution doesn't imply increased order at all.

[pixelroper]

I saw this earlier and I couldn't NOT post it in this thread. It's just too hilarious.

 

Thank you for sharing :rofl:.