dragons are real and they were dinosaurs

[Alyeska]

Do I have the blog post for you...Jesus, Dinosaur Rider

 

:svengo:

 

The first thing I thought of when I saw this was this song, "Here comes Jesus riding on a ...dinosaur... hosanna, hosanna, hosanna to the King!"

Edited September 29, 2011 by Alyeska

[Daisy]

I don't find the idea that dinosaurs and dragons were possibly one and the same any crazier than saying dinosaurs and birds share a common link.

 

Anyway, the idea has been around for a while. It isn't anything new.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Dragons or Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution

 

It used to be available on netflix streaming. Now it is only available on DVD.

 

Here it is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dinosaurs-Artist-Not-Provided/dp/B0033HKDX6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317335560&sr=8-1

 

or in book format: http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dinosaurs-Darek-Isaacs/dp/088270477X/ref=pd_bxgy_mov_img_b

 

Another popular book related to this topic--Dragons of the Deep

 

http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Deep-Ocean-Monsters-Present/dp/0890514240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317335398&sr=8-1

 

I offer no comment-I'm just aware of them because they were included in a curriculum package I once considered.

[WishboneDawn]

Agreed. It also saddens me that people mock YE ideas so much here. I realize there are different schools of thought on whether the Bible is true and also literal. I do not mock the other ideas (but I do strongly disagree with them). I keep my opinions on those ideas to myself. I find that to be respectful.

 

I spent a lot of time on an atheist board once upon a time. I was mocked mercilessly by some being one of the few Christians there. And yet...A lot of those same people respected me and I felt the same way towards them. I think it's why we kept at each other...We could trust the other person to examine our posts with a fine-toothed comb and point out the fatal flaws we hadn't even realized were there.

 

The people there I didn't respect were the ones I never engaged with.

 

(And frankly, whatever side of the divide you're on, Jesus riding one of the largest carnivores to have walked the earth IS a pretty ridiculous image. :D)

Edited September 29, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[swainsonshawk]

This is one of the many reasons why YE material scares me.

 

I suppose I should qualify my statement and apologize for being too snarky.

 

I'm sorry.

 

I am actually a religious person, but I do not typically like young earth material because it seems to me like there is too much "creationist fact" mixed with "commonly accepted scientific minds fact." I am probably the first person to doubt what science tells me as the ABSOLUTE truth, but I still want to know what is commonly thought of as true and come to my own decisions about truth for me. I do not want to read another creationist's version of truth interpreted for me.

 

I could probably believe that the dragon myth came from dinosaur bones. I would have a hard time believing that the dragon myth came from people seeing ACTUAL dinosaurs, as that is not a version of scientific history that I believe in.

 

FOR ME, the dinosaurs were not on the ark, see?

 

Not to mention, Jesus on the dinosaur was kind of a crazy, impossible and strangely disturbing thought.

[twoxcell]

Not to mention, Jesus on the dinosaur was kind of a crazy, impossible and strangely disturbing thought.

:iagree:

I agree with you on that. The thought of Jesus on a Dino never crossed my mind.:001_huh: I just didn't see why the thought of humans having seen dinosaurs and passed down stories of such creatures that were exaggerated over time would scare you.

[swainsonshawk]

:iagree:

I agree with you on that. The thought of Jesus on a Dino never crossed my mind.:001_huh: I just didn't see why the thought of humans having seen dinosaurs and passed down stories of such creatures that were exaggerated over time would scare you.

 

It disturbs me only because science says that the dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago, while the first humans appeared only 200,000 years ago. Now I know that the KJV bible says something including the possibility of "dragons" being around the time of man, and I'm not ignoring that fact, but I need to see both pictures (scientific and religious) and make up my own mind. That is why I usually don't chose YE materials.

[Mergath]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how it could even have been possible for the human race to survive co-existing with dinosaurs. If that had happened at any point, it wouldn't have been the dinos that died off.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Mergath

[justamouse]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how it could even have possible for the human race to srvive co-existing with dinosaurs. If that had happened at any point, it wouldn't have been the dinos that died off.

 

 

See, I just can't answer that without offending. Every answer running through my brain is one that shouldn't come out the keyboard.

[Free]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how it could even have been possible for the human race to survive co-existing with dinosaurs. If that had happened at any point, it wouldn't have been the dinos that died off.

 

There is evidence of early men co-existing with mammoths and having hunted them (to extinction?). There is however absolutely no evidence to show that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time period.

[PeacefulChaos]

Do I have the blog post for you...Jesus, Dinosaur Rider

 

This, by far, was one of the most ridiculous things I've EVER seen!!! :lol:

Actually I didn't know anyone thought this could be real but it is something that has long made sense to me. I have often thought is it a very real possibility that dragons & dinosaurs are one in the same. I can't think of any reason why they couldn't be. I don't believe that they were magical creatures, just that depending on the time period of people observing them, they may have come across that way. I don't believe that dinosaurs and dragons are the same. I just believe there is a strong possibility that they are. Oh and as far as fire breathing... there are weirder things in nature...

 

:iagree:

 

The legends of dragons came from people seeing dinosaurs. Sure. Why not? Most stories have their basis in some sort of fact after all. Wouldn't you be frightened if there was a huge dinosaur near your fields?

 

I see the point of this one, too.

I suppose I should qualify my statement and apologize for being too snarky.

 

I'm sorry.

 

I am actually a religious person, but I do not typically like young earth material because it seems to me like there is too much "creationist fact" mixed with "commonly accepted scientific minds fact." I am probably the first person to doubt what science tells me as the ABSOLUTE truth, but I still want to know what is commonly thought of as true and come to my own decisions about truth for me. I do not want to read another creationist's version of truth interpreted for me.

 

I could probably believe that the dragon myth came from dinosaur bones. I would have a hard time believing that the dragon myth came from people seeing ACTUAL dinosaurs, as that is not a version of scientific history that I believe in.

 

FOR ME, the dinosaurs were not on the ark, see?

Not to mention, Jesus on the dinosaur was kind of a crazy, impossible and strangely disturbing thought.

 

The bolded is one thing that has always made me lean toward the dinosaurs being gone before the flood. Why would there be two of everything else but dinosaurs? It puzzles me a little - idk, the dinosaur thing is such a weird thing for me, I really don't know where I stand on it sometimes! :)

It disturbs me only because science says that the dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago, while the first humans appeared only 200,000 years ago. Now I know that the KJV bible says something including the possibility of "dragons" being around the time of man, and I'm not ignoring that fact, but I need to see both pictures (scientific and religious) and make up my own mind. That is why I usually don't chose YE materials.

 

This, to an extent. Well, the bolded part. But I'm YE, so some of it not so much. But again, this is where the whole dinosaur/dragon thing gets fuzzy for me...

Someone is going to have to explain to me how it could even have been possible for the human race to survive co-existing with dinosaurs. If that had happened at any point, it wouldn't have been the dinos that died off.

 

And then this, too.

Overall, the dino/dragon thing is a great big mess for me! :lol: Nah, I really don't think about it. But it's fun to puzzle over it once in awhile...

:lol: Jesus on that dinosaur thing... :lol:

[JenniferB]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how it could even have been possible for the human race to survive co-existing with dinosaurs. If that had happened at any point, it wouldn't have been the dinos that died off.

 

Land of the Lost? That is all I have to say about that.

[WishboneDawn]

This, by far, was one of the most ridiculous things I've EVER seen!!! :lol:

 

 

I'm glad you could see the humour in it. I sort of thought it was one of those image that could cross the great evolution/creation divide. :D

[Bula Mama]

I've got to say that I have really enjoyed parts of this thread! Love to hear different viewpoints.

 

The Jesus on a dinosaur picture is a bit, well, bizarre to me. This is the first that I've heard of any YE people (I am one) considering that dinosaurs made it past the flood if they even existed until then. I've never heard that before!!!!!

[Michele B]

Land of the Lost? That is all I have to say about that.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

I used to love that show!!

[vonfirmath]

I've got to say that I have really enjoyed parts of this thread! Love to hear different viewpoints.

 

The Jesus on a dinosaur picture is a bit, well, bizarre to me. This is the first that I've heard of any YE people (I am one) considering that dinosaurs made it past the flood if they even existed until then. I've never heard that before!!!!!

 

2 of every land creature was on the ark. So if the dinosaurs made it to the time of the flood, they were on the ark.

 

Did Job live before or after the time of the flood? Job 40:15-24 has a description of an animal called a "behemoth" in the KJV that sounds like a dinosaur to me. And is described as if he coexists -- ie Job would be familiar with this animal.

[Bula Mama]

2 of every land creature was on the ark. So if the dinosaurs made it to the time of the flood, they were on the ark.

 

Did Job live before or after the time of the flood? Job 40:15-24 has a description of an animal called a "behemoth" in the KJV that sounds like a dinosaur to me. And is described as if he coexists -- ie Job would be familiar with this animal.

 

Yes, I've always thought the Job reference is an interesting creature, for sure, whatever it was. Who knows?! Does sound a bit like a dinosaur. The Job 41 description is about a creature that has smoke and flame coming out of its mouth! Could be just figurative speech but I've always thought that would be quite cool!

 

And you're right. Job would be after the flood. I think around the time of the patriarchs but after the flood.

 

I think I've always assumed that if dinosaurs made it to the flood that they were too big to get on the ark! :001_smile: The references to creatures that don't exist to day are pretty ancient, though, and not in the time of Jesus as far as I know.

[sarahli]

If dinosaurs were recent (within the last several thousand or even hundred thousand years), we would be able to extract their DNA and do a complete genomic sequence just like we have with the Neanderthals. The fossils are too old and so far only small bits of DNA are available.

 

The question about dragons and dinosaurs is more of a cultural one than a scientific one. I am in the "they found dinosaur fossils and tried to explain them" camp.

 

ETA- except for Chinese dragons, I think that there is a large "water dragon" fish that these are based on.

Edited September 30, 2011 by sarahli

[vonfirmath]

 

I think I've always assumed that if dinosaurs made it to the flood that they were too big to get on the ark! :001_smile:

 

Not all dinosaurs are gigantic. Plus, an interesting tidbit I learned at one point is that reptiles never stop growing. So perhaps God sent juvenile specimens of the large dinosaurs on the ark :) And the others would not have been any harder to fit than elephants, rams, etc.

 

Some pictures and other ideas:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dino_ark.html

[jewel7123]

So perhaps God sent juvenile specimens of the large dinosaurs on the ark :) And the others would not have been any harder to fit than elephants, rams, etc.

 

 

Perhaps God sent ALL juvenile animals to the ark. After all, it would make such more sense for him to put younger animals on the ark......animals that would live longer and have more time to re-populate the earth.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Perhaps God sent ALL juvenile animals to the ark. After all, it would make such more sense for him to put younger animals on the ark......animals that would live longer and have more time to re-populate the earth.

 

:iagree:

 

That's what I've always thought. The drawings with the giraffes sticking their heads out the top never sat right with me :)

[In2why]

Not all dinosaurs are gigantic. Plus, an interesting tidbit I learned at one point is that reptiles never stop growing. So perhaps God sent juvenile specimens of the large dinosaurs on the ark :) And the others would not have been any harder to fit than elephants, rams, etc.

 

Some pictures and other ideas:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dino_ark.html

 

 

Since we are having a respectful discussion, I have always had a question when it comes to YE. How does it explain carbon dating? My understanding is that carbon dating isn't a theory, but a concrete way to measure age; and as a result time. If a fossil is carbon dated as millions of years old, how can that fit into an understanding of an earth that is only thousands of years old?

[NorCalMom]

Great thread! We just covered this in our MFW studies this week. I treated it as another "theory", rather than fact. I told my kids that this is what some (but not all) creationists believe, and that I couldn't decide whether to agree/disagree (I'm YE). I told them that they could read more about it as they grow and decide for themselves.

[Bula Mama]

My understanding is that carbon dating isn't a theory, but a concrete way to measure age; and as a result time.

 

Is it really, though? I'm no scientist but just googled 'how do they know that carbon dating is accurate' and found some interesting stuff both pro and con.

[justamouse]

Since we are having a respectful discussion, I have always had a question when it comes to YE. How does it explain carbon dating? My understanding is that carbon dating isn't a theory, but a concrete way to measure age; and as a result time. If a fossil is carbon dated as millions of years old, how can that fit into an understanding of an earth that is only thousands of years old?

:iagree:

 

Carbon dating is not a 'theory'. A scientific theory is not an unproven idea. It's not a 'theory' in the meaning that we use in every day conversation.

 

 

 

• 1 Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary

 

 

 

It's puttering along because we've all done this before and those who are OE are staying out of the conversation.

 

And, many posters are new. They haven't been in those threads before, plus, I'm too tired to engage.

[twoxcell]

First of all if you go by the measurements in the Bible the ark was huge, no need for any animal to stick its head out the top. Also most dinos were no bigger than any animal today, and they could have been juveniles.

[acurtis75]

A simplified explanation for how carbon dating is explained by scientists who tend toward the YE side of things is that while carbon dating methods utilize some repeatable testable methods for establishing dates those methods and the results depend on things always being the same in the past. There is a technical term for this which is escaping me right now but basically the idea is that if we observe that something happens at a rate of x per year now it has always happened at the same rate in the past. For a scientist who believe there was a great flood, or a creator there is the possibility that there was a starting point or catastrophic event at some point that changed or altered the rate at which changes occur. That is way oversimplified and I'm kind of in a hurry but you get the idea.

 

Also, someone made the point about the science being light on the YE side at times and the theories not being fully fleshed out. I don't think that is necessarily true of all YE materials. I do think scientists who believe in YE are very cautious about presenting theory as fact. They are very careful to distinguish between what is a theory and what can or has been proven. There is a difference between observational science and origins science. Because of this, YE scientists incorporate language in articles and papers that reflects their understanding that they can't state as fact things that can't be proven with testing. I don't see the same caution or humility in the writings of some secular scientists. Theories change regularly in the scientific community and one of the challenges I have with secular science materials is that often things that are theory are presented as fact. When those same theories are later proven wrong new theories are presented with the same level of authority as if there's no change they could be wrong.

[Beth in SW WA]

Dinos. On the ark. That is a physical impossibility, imho. I'm an old-earth creationist. God created the world. When & how is not my concern. The Bible is not a science textbook. I do respect those who think otherwise.

 

We teach our kids all theories: young earth, old earth, evolution. But we don't teach them that dinos were on the ark.

Old Earth Creation Homeschool blog has a clever timeline. I'm not a scientist. Just a curious mom. I don't have a firm verdict on the timeline. How could I? I do find it a fascinating topic.

 

The pic of Jesus on the dino has me in stitches. :lol: Thanks, Wishbone, for the chuckle. :)

[sarahli]

Theories change regularly in the scientific community and one of the challenges I have with secular science materials is that often things that are theory are presented as fact. When those same theories are later proven wrong new theories are presented with the same level of authority as if there's no change they could be wrong.

 

 

The Theory of Evolution by natural selection has never been proven wrong. By definition, the details adapt to explain the process by new evidence.

 

Gravitational Theory

Germ Theory

Evolution Theory

 

Evolution, Germs, and Gravity are all facts. HOW they work, and WHY, are the theory part. The details and processes are explained by the theory.

 

YE is NOT a theory. It is a belief system. I have nothing against someone else having different beliefs, but it is NOT a scientific theory.

 

Really, that's what bugs me the most. Our country is so behind the rest of the world in science, and so many people haven't a clue about what a Theory even is.

[vonfirmath]

The Theory of Evolution by natural selection has never been proven wrong. By definition, the details adapt to explain the process by new evidence.

 

Gravitational Theory

Germ Theory

Evolution Theory

 

Evolution, Germs, and Gravity are all facts. HOW they work, and WHY, are the theory part. The details and processes are explained by the theory.

 

When you say Evolution is a fact -- you mean microevolution. Black moths changing into white moths changing into black moths.

 

NOT one species changing into another. Correct?

Because one species changing into another is NOT a fact. It's a belief system. As you state it.

[sarahli]

When you say Evolution is a fact -- you mean microevolution. Black moths changing into white moths changing into black moths.

 

NOT one species changing into another. Correct?

Because one species changing into another is NOT a fact. It's a belief system. As you state it.

 

Macroevolution is the same thing as microevolution, just over a longer time period. Speciation is a real thing, even among current populations (for example, populations separated geographically will adapt and at some point no longer be able to mate with each other, becoming a separate species). It IS a fact, and it is supported by evidence.

[sarahli]

As a starting place for reading (most Biology texts will do, but Wikipedia is convenient) look up both microevolution and macroevolution, specifically "Misuse" under macroevolution explains common misunderstandings.

 

 

The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past

[Critterfixer]

I do think it intersting that if ancient people were finding dinosaur bones and inventing dragons out of them that it showed decent comparative anatomy skills to see a reptilian look to them.

When I talk about carbon dating and the newer dating methods I refer to them as diagnostic tools, or methods, not theory.

[WishboneDawn]

:iagree:

 

Carbon dating is not a 'theory'. A scientific theory is not an unproven idea. It's not a 'theory' in the meaning that we use in every day conversation.

 

 

 

• 1 Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary

 

 

 

It's puttering along because we've all done this before and those who are OE are staying out of the conversation.

 

And, many posters are new. They haven't been in those threads before, plus, I'm too tired to engage.

 

Further, there's no theory with carbon dating. Carbon decays at a measurable rate. It's not an idea about how it decays, it's measurable fact. Carbon dating simply measures that decay.

 

We can date in a similar manner with other isotopes as well.

[WishboneDawn]

When you say Evolution is a fact -- you mean microevolution. Black moths changing into white moths changing into black moths.

 

NOT one species changing into another. Correct?

Because one species changing into another is NOT a fact. It's a belief system. As you state it.

 

No, it's a scientific theory.

 

Read this for clarification about what a scientific theory is. Don't miss the comments, they're the best thing about that post)

 

Laws and facts are generalizations made from observable data. Hold an apple, let go and watch it drop. Voila, you've just demonstrated the law, the fact, of gravity. Theories explain the laws. Theories do not exist independent of laws and evidence to support them. You can't come up with a theory with no evidence. You can come up with a hypothesis, but that's not a system of belief either, that's simply a statement you then have to test by seeking out evidence.

 

A belief system has no need of evidence. It's not reliant on data or experimentation. It simply is. Folks might question a theory's strength but to call it a belief system is misguided and misleading.

Edited September 30, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[T'smom]

God created the world. When & how is not my concern.

 

:)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I sooooo agree with you!

[TracieT]

Dinosaurs were birds now? Crap....I guess I need to start doing some reading before we get into dinosaurs around here.

[WishboneDawn]

Dinosaurs were birds now? Crap....I guess I need to start doing some reading before we get into dinosaurs around here.

 

No more then humans evolved from apes.

 

Birds evolved from dinosaurs and dinosaurs had some proto-bird features but they were not birds.

 

Whether birds are dinosaurs though...We've had both meat and laying hens this summer and there's something cold and supremeyl predatory about the way they eye a slug before they snatch it, tear it apart and gulp it down.

 

I am SO glad chickens are much smaller then me. :D

[Geo]

I have always found this topic intriguing.

 

There are a number of varied, interesting accounts of man encountering dinosaur/dragon-like creatures in the past. Chapter 10 of, "After The Flood" by Bill Cooper, recounts some of those examples. Chapter 11 covers Beowulf and the creatures of Denmark. Includes extensive footnotes and bibliography.

Anyone interested in reading such accounts can find his book here:

 

http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html

Edited October 1, 2011 by Geo

[Free]

When you say Evolution is a fact -- you mean microevolution. Black moths changing into white moths changing into black moths.

 

NOT one species changing into another. Correct?

Because one species changing into another is NOT a fact. It's a belief system. As you state it.

Speciation has been observed in nature. For example the underground subway mosquito found in many European cities such as London has evolved recently after construction of the subway.

 

There is also evidence of speciation underway among malarial mosquitoes in Africa.

 

The reason why evolution is considered a fact is because there are several lines of study (bio-geography, DNA and molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy and paleontology) each providing overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution.

[justamouse]

Further, there's no theory with carbon dating. Carbon decays at a measurable rate. It's not an idea about how it decays, it's measurable fact. Carbon dating simply measures that decay.

 

We can date in a similar manner with other isotopes as well.

 

I know, honestly, but the stuff in my head reading this thread is NOT--

 

 

Jesus on a Dinosaur? Young dinos in the ark? Who slipped the acid in my coffee?

 

:banghead:

[Free]

Since we are having a respectful discussion, I have always had a question when it comes to YE. How does it explain carbon dating? My understanding is that carbon dating isn't a theory, but a concrete way to measure age; and as a result time. If a fossil is carbon dated as millions of years old, how can that fit into an understanding of an earth that is only thousands of years old?

 

Radiometric dating is a method of dating which measures the proportion of radio isotope present in a material. Since the rate of decay is known it is possible to calculate how old a sample is by measuring the amount of isotope still present.

 

There are different elements that can be used for this such as carbon, potassium, etc., each with a different rate of decay. Carbon by the way cannot be used to date samples older than 50,000 years or so. Other isotopes are used for this.

[ravinlunachick]

I saw this today and thought of this thread.

 

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/10/03/and-on-the-fifth-and-sixth-days-god-created-dragons/#entry

[WishboneDawn]

I saw this today and thought of this thread.

 

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/10/03/and-on-the-fifth-and-sixth-days-god-created-dragons/#entry

 

That was such a WTM review! :D

 

Oh, the science is kind of weak, too. And the history. And the authors’ grasp on mythology, folklore, theology, logic and literature is pretty shaky. But, my God, the grammar!

 

It's all about the grammar. :lol:

[PeacefulChaos]

I saw this today and thought of this thread.

 

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/10/03/and-on-the-fifth-and-sixth-days-god-created-dragons/#entry

 

Aw, and I actually thought that the book looked kinda cool...hmm, I wonder if we could just treat it as a fiction book and buy it for Christmas anyway? Even being YEC, I'm not sure how I feel about the dragons/dinosaurs thing...

[WishboneDawn]

Aw, and I actually thought that the book looked kinda cool...hmm, I wonder if we could just treat it as a fiction book and buy it for Christmas anyway? Even being YEC, I'm not sure how I feel about the dragons/dinosaurs thing...

 

You could handle the controversy the book tackles - bad grammar?:D

[staceyobu]

A question for old earth creationists... If death is the punishment for sin, then why would animals die before the fall of Adam and Eve? I can't figure that one out.

 

Also, I read A Short History of Nearly Everything over the summer and the author mentioned a lot of difficulties with carbon dating. He is an atheist, so I assumed he had no alterior motive for his claims.

[Spy Car]

A question for old earth creationists... If death is the punishment for sin, then why would animals die before the fall of Adam and Eve? I can't figure that one out.

 

The question for you is why would animals start dying because human beings gained the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong (becoming more like God in this respect) and thereby becoming fully-human creatures with a moral sense?

 

Bill

[WishboneDawn]

A question for old earth creationists... If death is the punishment for sin, then why would animals die before the fall of Adam and Eve? I can't figure that one out.

 

Also, I read A Short History of Nearly Everything over the summer and the author mentioned a lot of difficulties with carbon dating. He is an atheist, so I assumed he had no alterior motive for his claims.

 

I've have to look that up (chapter?) but I really suspect he mentioned the difficulties in terms of relating the limitations of carbon dating, not dismissing it. One of those difficulties has been mentioned here, the fact that you can't date anything older then 50,000 years, but if we know the difficulties we can control for them or find alternate methods of dating.

 

Good science isn't limited by difficulties. Good science finds ways to address and overcome them.

Edited October 6, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Fwiw I recall sincere Christians explaining to me that there were no dinosaurs, but only misidentified whale and elephant bones. The Flintstones were off limits in these families because it featured dinosaurs.

 

Common understanding changes in faith circles too.