|
Creation vs Evolution (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Seventil |
More on Bibles and dinosaurs - an article I find compelling and convincing:
Dragons in the Bible
For the Bible-believing creationist, of course, no time or evolutionary problems exist, and the facts of ancient literature and prehistoric art square very nicely with the Scriptural account. According to Genesis 1:21-23, water animals were created on the fifth day; according to Genesis 1:24-25, land animals, as well as man and woman, were created on the sixth day. Thus, according to the Bible all animals were created at approximately the same time. There were no long ages when man was not present and when dinosaurs ruled the earth. The Authorized Version utilizes the word "dragon" sixteen times, all in the Old Testament, rendering two Hebrew words which mean "sea or land monster."
But perhaps even more graphic are some Biblical references which use other names for the creatures but which clearly describe dinosaurs. In Job 40:15ff, for example, Behemoth is described: "Is strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly" (40:'16). Behemoth was a huge creature, and reading of it, one schooled in early literature can scarcely help but think of Fafnir, the dragon of early Danish fame. Behemoth, we read, moved his tail like a cedar. A tail as huge and powerful as a cedar tree? What animal can that possibly describe but a dinosaur? "His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron" we read (40:18), perhaps recalling Sigurd, trembling because of the strength of the dragon Fafnir. When the author of Job writes "he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him," can the writer mean that only God is normally able to bring about the death of such a powerful creature? Again, I mentally envision Sigurd hiding in the pit, waiting for just the right moment to strike at one of the few places the dragon was vulnerable. Behemoth is a water creature, for "he lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens...the willows of the brook compass him about" (40:22). This creature has a huge thirst, for "he drinketh up a river" (40:23). What animal other than a dinosaur can be described like this?
In the next chapter of Job, we read of another great creature, Leviathan. As with Behemoth, the record tells of God describing these creatures, and implies that Job was familiar with them. God is reminding Job of the great difficulty in catching a creature like Leviathan. God had created Leviathan, for He declares, "whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine" (41:11). Leviathan has terrible teeth and scales or a strong, protective covering, typical of many dinosaurs. Do you see Sigurd trembling before Fafnir when you read, "When he (Leviathan) raiseth himself up, the mighty are afraid" (41:25)? Job is usually considered to be one of the oldest of the Bible books, possibly written when ice covered large parts of Europe and North Anerica shortly after the Great Flood. Many Bible scholars feel that some dinosaurs may have survived the Flood, being water creatures, but that due to severe climactic changes, they died out within a few generations after the Flood. If these small-brained creatures were experiencing hardships to which they were unaccustomed and ill-adapted, one can easily understand why a tradition of monstrous, fearsome dragons is recorded in virtually all early western cultures, which would have developed during or shortly following the time of Job.
The Bible presents this time in history as a time of dispersion (Gen 10,11). People groups were moving out away from Ararat, where their fathers had landed after the Flood, out away from Babel, where they had congregated. They were venturing into the new lands that were to become their homes. The whole earth was unknown to them. At the same time, great climatic changes may have caused the dinosaurs to have been uncharacteristically hostile.
It is true that eastern traditions have not viewed the dragon as fearsom and evil, as have western cultures. We can only speculate as to the reason, but it is possible that the eastward migrating people groups simply did not have the gruesome encounters that their western contemporaries must have experienced. If so, these eastern peoples may have told their children stories of dinosaurs as they were handed down from before the Flood, when life was ideally adapted to their existence, food was plentiful, and perhaps animals and humans did not kill one another for food (Gen. 9:3).
http://www.rae.org/dragons.html |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
I, personally, see a big difference in a) assuming that the gravitation is always the same (as in now, when we aren't measuring it) - and assuming that decay rates have been the same throught Earth's history. Although I agree it's the best assumption to make, it's still that, an assumption.
|
What is the big difference? They're both constants derived from empirical evidence. Therefore they are both arguments derived from inductive logic. The conclusion of inductive arguments, by nature, are proven to be probable by premises. That does not make these concepts infallible however, since these theories do maintain abstract assumptions. Therefore, why can we not teach my version of the Earth being flat if we can teach creationism on the basis of evolution being based on "assumptions"? True I have no empirical evidence supporting my assertation that gravitational fields can deceptively portray the Earth to "look" round in space, however, there is no empirical evidence supporting the theory of non-constant decay rates. So if you believe that we should treat both creationism and evolution equally, than you should treat my flat earth theory equally with the round earth theory. One wouldn't wish to be selectively skeptical about what we choose to and choose not to believe ...
| quote: |
Now we're getting somewhere. What do we do? I say we teach both of my proposed theories equally. I could argue, through logic, that evolutionary theory based on Biblical assumptions should be taught as the "better theory" - because of an eyewitness account has taken place. I won't though, because I agree the Bible is taken on faith, and will respect those who choose not to believe in it.
Let me make it clear again that I do not think all of evolutionary theory makes assumptions. I agree that a lot of it is viable and would be exactly the same in the theory I am putting forth.
My question may be of a social matter; why is evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions not taught? |
Why the difference? Probably the credibility of the empirical evidence. |
|
|
| Ondrayce |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
The English word unicorn, which is derived from the Latin words meaning one horn, was used by the King James translators (and others) for the original Hebrew word of the Scriptures, pronounced reh-ame, which means a wild bull. The best-known "unicorn" of the animal world, at least in the modern era, is the rhinoceros - a very strong, single-horned animal that seems to fit the literal description of the Biblical unicorn (see below) as a powerful wild animal that was not easily domesticated (although it's quite likely that it was some other animal that existed at that time - the rhinoceros is used merely as an example to illustrate that powerful one-horned animals did, and do, exist). "Unicorn" is also used symbolically, the one "horn" of Joseph consisting of the two single, or independent, "horns" of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.
From http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040109.htm
And regarding Satyrs:
Satyr (in Greek pronounced satyros and in Latin satyrus) was the name given to a half-man and half-goat idol of the ancient Greeks (see Ancient Empires - Greece) and Romans (see Ancient Empires - Rome). The word is also sometimes used to translate the Hebrew word of the Scriptures pronounced saw-eer meaning a shaggy goat, which referred to an idol, in the form of a goat, that the Israelites foolishly involved themselves with. The original Hebrew word is variously translated in English-language Bibles as satyr, goat and devil.
From http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030526.htm
I believe, from the sources I mentioned above, your comments are way out of context. Do you agree? |
Absolutely! But so is the notion that the Dragons in the bible are in direct reference to dinosaurs. But if we're getting technical:
| quote: | The KJV uses the term "dragon" which comes from the Greek word drakon which means "serpent." It refers to a monster with a scaly snake like body. The Greek New Testament uses drakon 12 times only in the book of Revelation which the KJV translates as "dragon" (Rev. 12-13, 16:13, 20:2). The dragon in Revelation has seven heads similar to the leviathan in Ugaritic and Psalm 74:14 (Gibson, 50, 68; Walace, 290). Satan is called a "dragon" in Revelation 20:2.
In the Old Testament the KJV uses the term "dragon" for the Hebrew words tannim meaning "jackals" and tannin meaning "serpent, or sea monster" (BDB, 1072; Gesenius, 868-9). It seems the KJV mistranslated these two separate words. Tannim is from the root tan meaning "to howl" and tannin is from the root tanan "to smoke" (Ibid.). Jackels are known for their howling, and are associated with desolate areas. Tannin or "smokers" probably came from seeing the spouts of whales or the snorting of animals which looked like smoke coming from a fire inside. Our warm breathe in winter looks like smoke. This is probably how the idea of fire-breathing dragons started. The Hebrew is not referring to any dinosaurs.
In the LXX the story of Bel and the Dragon is added to the book of Daniel. Daniel exposes the priests who were eating the food offered to the god Bel. Cyrus has them killed. Daniel then feeds the living dragon pitch, fat and hair so that it dies. The Babylonians force the king to put Daniel into the lion’s den where he is delivered by God. Daniel’s enemies are cast into the den and immediately eaten.
The Greek word for "dragon" means "serpent" not dinosaur. In Babylon they worshipped the god Nina in the form of a serpent (IBSE, Vol.1, 428-9). A number of monsters in ancient times were the results of finding fossil bones. |
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm |
|
|
| Seventil |
That's not technical. Read my post above and then read yours. I'd say it's quite open for interpretation - wouldn't you? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
I'm starting to get the hang of this but I'm going to need some help because I've run into a few "problems".
If dinosaurs coexisted with people peacefully (even the carnivores ones like t-rex?) and I assume the great flood wiped them all out then I have a few questions.
1. Why didn't Noah take at least one species of dinosaur with him? Ok I know what you thinking, No room for brontosaurs but, what about a smaller species or a bunch of eggs from the larger ones?
2. Speaking of room on the boat. Since "we" don't believe in evolution that would mean every species of animals we see today would have to be gathered from around the globe. Were talking every species including deadly snake, spiders, and scorpions. Not to mention going to those hard to reach places like the North Pole to pickup those loveable polar bears. Also remember you would have to get both African and Indian elephants. Wow that's one crowded boat! What are there like a hundreds of thousands of species?
3. Now remember my first questions about dinosaurs. I know I get hung up on them a lot. I grant Noah was in a real rush (kind of like Santa clause during Christmas) and maybe he just forgot to pick up any dinosaurs. But what about dinosaurs the lived in the sea or the flying ones, you know teradactals? How is a little old flood going to hurt them? Now remember there are zero dinosaurs by the around the time of Christ. So what happened to them all? Sure I could imagine a few species going extinct but every single last one gone? Weird huh? Oh wait a second maybe the iceage did them in? But that's strange the bible makes no reference to the iceage. Why did the flood get so much coverage and an ice age that nearly wipes out all the animals on the planet isn't mention. Boy this just gets stranger and stranger. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What is the big difference? They're both constants derived from empirical evidence. Therefore they are both arguments derived from inductive logic. The conclusion of inductive arguments, by nature, are proven to be probable by premises. That does not make these concepts infallible however, since these theories do maintain abstract assumptions. Therefore, why can we not teach my version of the Earth being flat if we can teach creationism on the basis of evolution being based on "assumptions"? True I have no empirical evidence supporting my assertation that gravitational fields can deceptively portray the Earth to "look" round in space, however, there is no empirical evidence supporting the theory of non-constant decay rates. So if you believe that we should treat both creationism and evolution equally, than you should treat my flat earth theory equally with the round earth theory. One wouldn't wish to be selectively skeptical about what we choose to and choose not to believe ...
Why the difference? Probably the credibility of the empirical evidence. |
Quoting Opus... I feel like I am in repeat mode here. Let me try again be reordering the way I've worded things in previous posts.
Here is a picture:
Once again, I'm not saying the evolution timeline is incorrect from a scientific point of view. I'm saying it contrasts the Creation timeline - and since this is an eye witness event, that myself and ALOT of people believe in - I think it should be taken into consideration.
And again, I'm not saying abolish unBiblical scientific research.
What I am saying is that evolutionary theory from a Biblical point of view (Biblical assumptions like I've shown above in the picture) - should be taught along with normal evolutionary theory.
As for your relation to the flat-earth round-earth rubbish, I don't see how that is the same at all. An evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions, from a Biblical point of view, violates no observable law.
On a side note, I do agree that more testing should be done on the effects of worldwide catastrophes on scientific constants (such as isotope dating and such). Unfortunately, it is extremely hard to reproduce such environments. If you know of any testing of this kind, let me know, I'd like to look at it. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I'm starting to get the hang of this but I'm going to need some help because I've run into a few "problems".
If dinosaurs coexisted with people peacefully (even the carnivores ones like t-rex?) and I assume the great flood wiped them all out then I have a few questions.
1. Why didn't Noah take a least one species of dinosaur with him? Ok I know what you thinking. No room for brontosaurs. But what about a smaller species or a bunch of eggs from the larger ones?
|
He did. It states specifically in the Bible that Noah took two of every animal that walked on the ground. (Seven of some). We can only assume that Noah, being wise, and also inspired and "coached" along by God, used common sense in gathering said animals. (Getting the smallest one). More on "kind" below.
| quote: |
2. Speaking of room on the boat. Since "we" don't believe in evolution that would mean every species of animals we see today would have to be gathered from around the globe. Were talking every species including deadly of snake and spiders. Not to mention going to those hard to reach places like the North Pole to pickup those loveable polar bears. Also remember you would have to get both African and Indian elephants. Wow that's one crowded boat! What are there like a hundreds of thousands of species?
|
You're thinking backwards. The Flood was over 4,000 years ago. Noah needed only one of each "kind" - not species. Kind and species are not the same thing (although similiar). Although there is no clear definition of "kind" - think of it as the "base" animals in each group - example: two wolves, two elephants, two giraffes, two deer, two bears. Due to evolutionary theory (which has actually helped the case for Noah's ark) - it is completely plausible that a pair of generic "elephants", once off the boat wherever, would breed into different "species" that we see today. From this generic elephant you have gotten subspecies that have changed due to their environment, or whatever. Variation (also called micro-evolution) is a provable, empirical fact that both evolutionists and Creationists agree with.
| quote: |
3. Now remember my first questions about dinosaurs. I know I get hung up on them a lot. I grant Noah was in a real rush (kind of like Santa clause during Christmas) and maybe he just forgot to pick up any dinosaurs. But what about dinosaurs the lived in the sea or the flying ones, you know teradactals? How is a little old flood going to hurt them? Now remember there are zero dinosaurs by the around the time of Christ. So what happened to them all? Sure I could imagine a few species going extinct but every single last one gone? Weird huh. |
God commanded Noah to get only the land animals - ones that did not fly and drew breath into their lungs (no fish).
On the topic of why dinosaurs are extinct now - it is hypothesized that humans hunted what was left of them (after the Flood) to extinction, due to either needing food or for safety reasons. This also explains the reason for dragons and such being in stories everywhere around the world. (although I concede many stories are probably in fact mythology and such) It makes since from a Biblical point of view, however. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Bah. These are weak. Opus, where are you? ;)
I'll just post plaguerized replies to all of your "anti-Bible" assertions. If you want me to expound personally on them, I will.
Here are four explanations:
(a) How are star distances estimated and how far away actually are the furthest stars ? :
On what scientific or mathematical basis do evolutionists claim that certain galaxies and quasars are distances of up to “10 billion light years away” from the earth ? It is a proven fact of astronomy that distances in space beyond 300 current light years cannot be scientifically measured, estimated or even known. The idea that quasars and some galaxies are distances of up to 10 billion light years away from us is only an evolutionist assumption based on the flawed evolutionist interpretation of the redshift of starlight and not a fact of astronomy or science. But redshift of starlight is not an indicator of distance, speed or recessional velocity (see astronomer Halton Arp’s book Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies). |
Distances beyond 300 light years can not be measured by using the traditional paralax method, but they can be measured by comparing the different luminosity of different stars that possess the same wavelenght structure. Star surface luminosity is directly proportional to the wavelength of the light coming from a star. The hotter the star, the light will be stronger and more blueish. This is a phenomenon observed not only on stars but on any warm objects. All stars have pretty much the same composition (which can be measured by spikes produced by fusion of specific atoms). The temperature of the star surface is dependant upon the mass of the star. This means that two stars who have the exact surface temperature will produce the light of exactly the same wavelength, as well as that they are equally large. If we see two stars with the same wavelength but with different brightness, we can determine the distance between those stars knowing that F=L/4*pi*d^2 (F is apparent luminosity, L is intrinsic luminosity and d is distance). By using this, we can pretty accurately determine the distance of a star beyond 300 light years.
| quote: | Further, since light currently travels a distance of 9.46 trillion kilometres through space in one year, this would still give an immensely vast diameter of the universe of 114 million billion kilometres (i.e. 2 x 9.46 trillion km x 6,000 years) even if the other four scientific explanations are ignored. The universe is probably smaller in diameter than is popularly believed. It is unknown (and scientifically unknowable) whether stars, galaxies and quasars are all located within a distance of 6,000 current light years from the earth. [quote]
6000*6000*6000 light years big universe would not explain the amount of stars in it, nor would it explain the fact that more distant stars become smaller in diametar. There is a minimum mass that a stellar body needs to have to become a star. You can not have marble-sized stars, because they simply don't produce enough gravity to generate fusion and therefore light. Therefore, such a universe would make distant galaxies impossible. Andromeda is 2 million light years away, and it's the closest galaxy to us that there is (aside from little Magellan's clouds). The most distant galaxies are about 10-15 billion light years away. Now, if they would be only 6000 years away, it would mean that they 4*10^7 times closer and that their apparent size is 1.6*10^15 times smaller than by currently accepted measurements. That would mean that the average star size in it is like a basketball.
[quote](b) Riemannian or curved space :
Space could be curved allowing distant starlight to reach us quickly by taking a “short-cut” through space on a curved path. In other words, space may be curved or Riemannian instead of being straight-line or Euclidean. Evolutionist Albert Einstein used this theoretical mathematical concept of Riemannian or curved space in his relativity theories. |
If the universe would be curved enough that it's diameter would be 6000 light years, it is true that there would seem to be objects billions of light years away, but they would always be a reflection of our local neighbourhood. Try putting a mirror in front of you and another one behind you. You'll see several pictures of yourself, each one seeming to be further away. Yet you will easily notice that it's always the same picture. The observed universe does not show that sort of repetitiveness.
| quote: | (c) An instantly mature creation :
The entire universe was certainly and very logically created as partly or fully mature and therefore was created with some appearance of age. However, this fact does not by itself explain how we can see supernova explosions that are at a supposed distance of more than 6,000 current light-years from the earth. The question to be asked is how does an evolutionist scientifically know a supernova’s distance from the earth ? As metioned above, it is scientifically impossible to estimate the distance of any object in space that is more than 300 light years away from the earth. |
Theoretically, a god could have created a universe that seemed like an old one, in other words it could have created an already old universe. Theoretically, everything around you is a product of your imagination and you can't prove me otherwise.
| quote: | (d) The speed of light has decreased enormously over the past 6,000 years :
Observations in astronomy over the past 325 years have shown a definite measured statistical decrease in the speed of light. Contrary to popular false belief, there is no scientific law that requires the speed of light to be constant. Even Einstein did not claim that the speed of light itself is constant but that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, or that the speed of light is constant with regard to all observers. And evolutionists themselves are now claiming that the speed of light was billions of times faster at their “time zero” to try to resuscitate their big bang theory. The observed historic decrease in the speed of light has been graphed mathematically and forms a logarithmic curve. Extrapolating this mathematical logarithmic curve back 6,000 years results in an almost infinite speed of light during the creation week 6,000 years ago. An initial almost infinite speed of light would easily allow all starlight, even in an almost infinitely large universe, to reach us within 6,000 years. If the speed of light has decreased substantially, this would make all radiometric dating methods produce artificially old billion-year “dates” for objects that are in reality only no more than a few thousand years old. |
If the speed of light has suddenly decreased, that would mean that we would experience a sudden period of blackness from anything further away than several hundred lightyears, if not less. For example, if there is an object 20 million light years away, and the speed of light has been 4*10^7 times greater (to fit with the most distant galaxy observation thing), that would mean that the light from the object would come towards us in about half a year. A sudden drop in light speed, say 500 years ago would result in old lightwawes coming towards us in half a year, while the new ones spread out merely 500 light years away from their source. That would mean that any object further away than 500 light years would suddenly be blacked out, and we would have to wait for another 19 999 500 light years for a 20 million light year away object to shine on us again.
| quote: | (e) A rapid initial stretching out of space itself :
The Bible indicates at least twelve different times that God rapidly stretched out or spread out the heavens, which probably refers to the very fabric of space itself, most likely during the creation week of 6,000 years ago. This would also account for the observed redshift of most starlight. The question is therefore not how far away are the very distant stars, but how close to us were they when their starlight that we currently see first started out on its journey to us. |
This pretty much falls into line with big bang/inflation theory, except that there is a god involved. Still, such a sudden spreading of space would cause a much much greater red shift, infact every single star would be invisible as its light would be deeply into the radiowave frequency, probably around 1Hz or less.
| quote: | | What? What path? How is C related to radioactive decay time? |
Hmm, carbon dating? Here's a short introduction. X-ray radiation causes the appearance of C-14 in the atmosphere. Living things breathe in C-14. Once they die, the amount of C-14 in their bodies starts to decay as no more air is entering their cells. From that on we can conclude the age when an organism died. Unless, of course, if there wasn't a much smaller amount of x-ray radiation 5000 years ago (which is contrary to the young universe theory, since if the stars and galaxies were closer together 5000 yeras ago, there could have only been a greater amount of radiation)
| quote: | | This is assuming your flawed "Pangaea" model is correct. Take into the account a Biblical Flood, and your argument is completely invalid. |
Why is it flawed? Are the continents not moving? America is moving towards Asia at about 40cm/year. It has been measured and observed. By extrapolating the current continent movements, we can conclude that Pangea probably did exist. Although I can't see how Pangea had anything to do with this. Whether it existed or not, continent movements are factual. Look at how nicely South America fits into Africa. A biblical flood wouldn't leave glacial paths in central Africa. It could perhaps move some rocks there, but not the paths themselves. Besides, where did all the water from the flood go?
| quote: | | That's one of the stupidest things I've heard. No creationist or creation scientist has ever said this to my knowledge. Give me some references. |
Well, if we assume that the Earth is 6500 years old, then we must assume that any fossile evidence older than 6500 years is fake, must we not? How can there exist fossile findings older than the Earth itself?
| quote: | | You've topped the absurdity of your last post. Who said this, what planet are they from, and who let them out of their cage? Once again, no creationist or creation scientist has ever said this to my knowledge. Post some references. Actually, don't even bother, because I think we can all agree that saying every fossile and early hominid bones are calcium formations is just plan stupid. |
Of course it is stupid. Therefore they are not random calcium formations, they are traces of ancient living organisms. What's odd about them is that the more primitive ones are burried deeper than the more modern ones. Infact, if you would compare the depth of fossils to the rock age, (estimated both by radiometric dating and approximated sediment layer surface growth which somehow miraculously support each other) you would see that they show a pretty obvious path of development. This means that
a) The standard evolution theory is true
b) It is true and it also happened in the last 6500 years. If we are to accept that, then the changes would be so rapid that we would already see a great genetic difference between us and people living 500 years ago.
c) The world was populated with 100 times more species than it is now, then god created a great extinction (unrelated to Noah's flood, as Noah did save all the animals) which caused a death of all those species. They would normally all be mixed up, but he burried them and arranged the depths of each individual creature to make it seem like the evolution theory is possible.
| quote: | | Umm, why? Are you talking about the pre-flood world? Explain. |
Yes, it says there is a solid firmament created by god on 3rd or 4th day I believe.
| quote: | | I'm assuming you're using some wacked Noah's Ark refuting. Explain this, and I'll be sure to set the record straight. |
Perhaps if you would add up the weight of every single pair of living plant and animal, as well as their required food, you would see that a 400m long ship cannot possibly hold that much cargo.
| quote: | | Try lowering global water levels a little bit and see how the landmasses connect. |
Oh, so Noah did it on foot? He must have been a damn fine walker. I'm also wondering, since the estimated number of species on Earth is between 1.4 and 6 million (excluding the fossile ones), how he managed to put them all into the boat in time. God told him about the flood, what, a year in advance. That would mean Noah put somewhere around 10000 species/day on his boat.
| quote: | | You're reading a bit too in to it. I trust the judgement of God to not send good people to hell for simply calling him by a different name. While it is true the Bible says you must accept Jesus to get to heaven, I leave this matter up to the divine Judge, not myself. |
Well, the divine judge clearly stated his opinion on the subject.
| quote: | | Yep. However, every man will have a chance to accept Jesus, either in life or after life. Read the New Testament. |
Except the ones who already died. Besides, there is only place for 144 000 people in heaven, as said in Revalation, is there not? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
gotten subspecies that have changed due to their environment, or whatever. Variation (also called micro-evolution) is a provable, empirical fact that both evolutionists and Creationists agree with. |
Now that's really bizarre you believe in evolution for animals but not humans (even though humans are animals).
| quote: | | God commanded Noah to get only the land animals - ones that did not fly and drew breath into their lungs (no fish). |
No my point is all dinosaurs are extinct even sea ones.
| quote: | | On the topic of why dinosaurs are extinct now - it is hypothesized that humans hunted what was left of them (after the Flood) to extinction, due to either needing food or for safety reasons. This also explains the reason for dragons and such being in stories everywhere around the world. (although I concede many stories are probably in fact mythology and such) It makes since from a Biblical point of view, however. |
So are you saying that noah did take dinosaurs? If he didn't how could they survive the great flood? They hunted every species to extinction, land, air, and sea? They even killed off all the t-rexs with just spears?
Oh yeah what about that little thing called the ice age? I know we deserved the flood but what did we do to get an ice age? Why no mention in the bible? I bet those dam editors took it out they always remove the best parts. |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
On the topic of why dinosaurs are extinct now - it is hypothesized that humans hunted what was left of them (after the Flood) to extinction, due to either needing food or for safety reasons. This also explains the reason for dragons and such being in stories everywhere around the world. (although I concede many stories are probably in fact mythology and such) It makes since from a Biblical point of view, however. |
or... maybe gravity worked in reverse for a while, and since dinosaurs are the biggest and heaviest, the reverse-gravity flung them from the centre of the universe (a.k.a. earth) into outer space. that seems reasonable to believe, and who can prove gravity didn't work in reverse, temporarily, a few thousand years ago? |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Now that's really bizarre you believe in evolution for animals but not humans (even though humans are animals).
No my point is all dinosaurs are extinct even sea ones.
So are you saying that noah did take dinosaurs? If he didn't how could they survive the great flood? They hunted every species to extinction, land, air, and sea? They even killed off all the t-rexs with just spears?
Oh yeah what about that little thing called the ice age? I know we deserved the flood but what did we do to get an ice age? Why no mention in the bible? I bet those dam editors took it out they always remove the best parts. |
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.trueorigins.org
If you have any questions not covered by the two sites, let me know. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
None of those links explain why such a catastrophic event such as the ice age was omitted from the bible. Better yet why would god unleash another apocalypse on heels of the great flood? Was this to keep man on his toes?
I'm still curious how Noah was able to catch, keep, and feed ferocious t-rexs and velociraptors. The links sight that teenage dinosaurs were used, but even a teenage t-rex would be more than a handful. Teenage t-rexs have a quite an appetite gain 5 lbs/day. How in the heck could you feed two hungry t-rexes and keep them contained in a boat full of animals? T-rex's are carnivores so you have to stock the boat not only with two animals of each but animals enough to feed all the other carnivores and plants for the herbivores. Its more than a stretch of the imagination envision such scenario as possible given man's technology around 2000 bc.
On rexamination of Noah having only two animals of each essential base species. That would mean if an animal killed another or got sick and died, that species would cease to exist. Its doubtful that a majority animals would mangage to survive even after they got off the boat to procreate and hope that their young would be able to survive procreate again. Imagine you killed all the panda bears in the world except for two and then released them into the wild they wouldn't stand a chance.
That micro evolution thing doesn't even make sense because if you don't take all species on to the boat then they need to re-evolve with in less then 2000 years. It says creationist also believe that the flood was followed directly after by the ice age. So even less time for animals to evolve because ice has to travel down, stay for a while, retreat, then the animals need time to recover then re-evolve. Then for the next 2000 years evolution has to put on the brakes and screeched to a crawl.
Oh I didn’t see any mention of why evolution works only on animals and not on humans? My head is starting to hurt reading all that convoluted reasoning how the laws of nature contort themselves to fit the stories of the bible. |
|
|
|
|
