Dinosaurs and man.

[DeitySlayer]

Hey, I give the man credit for posting his opinion knowing the hornet's nest he was sending it to. Can't blame a man for that kind of courage.

There is a line between courage and ignorance.

 

[jmvizanko]

I guess you are right, it takes a lot of courage to hold that POV!

I really don't know that "courage" is the best word for that spot in your sentence. I think delusion works much more nicely. After all, what part of "a persistent false belief that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary," is not met by thinking the earth is 5,000 years old? Do physics and geology mean nothing?

 

[Misty]

I really don't know that "courage" is the best word for that spot in your sentence. I think delusion works much more nicely. After all, what part of "a persistent false belief that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary," is not met by thinking the earth is 5,000 years old? Do physics and geology mean nothing?

Obviously not, in fact there some who think science is positively evil!

 

[jmvizanko]

Obviously not, in fact there some who think science is positively evil!

Do these same people go to doctors and use computers and cell phones?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There is a line between courage and ignorance.

You've inserted a line where there should be none.

 

[Misty]

Do these same people go to doctors and use computers and cell phones?

Of course, they wouldn't be posting here otherwise!

 

[Revoltingest]

Neither of us are Americans or Democrats, Revoltingest. We come by our contempt for Palin honestly, and our sentiments are shared pretty much unanimously outside your borders regardless of our party affiliations at home. She's an idiot, a nut and a clown. Her popularity in the US is completely mystifying to the rest of us.

I don't argue that. I just cannot fathom why some clowns are reviled, while others are elected.
People is stupid...voters especially so.

 

[Man of Faith]

So then what is your opinion about radiometric dating? Do you think god set up the laws of physics to trick us?

When gathering the data from radiometric dating testing, scientists must make assumptions about the past that cannot be verified. The biggest assumptions are below.

Assumption 1: Conditions at time zero.
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes.
Assumption 2: No contamination
The radioactivity in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes.
Assumption 3: Constant decay rate
The radioactive decay rates have been found to be essentially constant so geologists assume they have been constant for billions of years. However this is an enormous assumption through spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof.

 

[Man of Faith]

The story of creation in Genesis is the beginning of (human) time. The beginning is before the first day of creation...not time. This means the earth was flooded, desolate, and in darkness. The wordage "was formless" can be translated "became"...the earth had "become" that way at some point in the time it was first created (whenever) prior to these 6 mentioned 'remodeling' days. These verses shows that there was a previous world before God allowed Jesus to created this present world of modern man. I believe the dinosaurs were on that prior earth....

You have a problem then, you are calling Jesus a liar. Jesus was YEC. In Mark 10:6 Jesus says that God made male and female at the beginning of creation. When one tries to reconcile the Bible story of creation with man's ideas, one will always run into problems. It is best to let God tell the story in the Bible and believe it. Mankind will never get it right because mainstream scientists always start with the assumption that the earth is billions of years old and evolution is a fact.

 

[Tristesse]

When gathering the data from radiometric dating testing, scientists must make assumptions about the past that cannot be verified. The biggest assumptions are below.

Assumption 1: Conditions at time zero.
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes.
Assumption 2: No contamination
The radioactivity in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes.
Assumption 3: Constant decay rate
The radioactive decay rates have been found to be essentially constant so geologists assume they have been constant for billions of years. However this is an enormous assumption through spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof.

The above might be a valid objection if scientists only used radiometric dating when determining the age of rocks or whatever. But they use many methods for determining the age, and all of the methods point towards billions of years, not thousands. And the dating methods are fairly consistent.

 

[Man of Faith]

The above might be a valid objection if scientists only used radiometric dating when determining the age of rocks or whatever. But they use many methods for determining the age, and all of the methods point towards billions of years, not thousands. And the dating methods are fairly consistent.

The same assumptions are used whether it is rocks or whatever.

 

[Misty]

You have a problem then, you are calling Jesus a liar. Jesus was YEC. In Mark 10:6 Jesus says that God made male and female at the beginning of creation. When one tries to reconcile the Bible story of creation with man's ideas, one will always run into problems. It is best to let God tell the story in the Bible and believe it. Mankind will never get it right because mainstream scientists always start with the assumption that the earth is billions of years old and evolution is a fact.

Jesus had no more idea of the topic than his peers!

 

[Alceste]

The same assumptions are used whether it is rocks or whatever.

But that still leaves tree ring data and annual sedimentary layering in flood plains, and numerous other lines of empirical evidence which all concur the earth is far older than you think.

 

[Tristesse]

The same assumptions are used whether it is rocks or whatever.

You obviously didn't read my post. So, read it again. And reply.

 

[Dunemeister]

Mankind will never get it right because mainstream scientists always start with the assumption that the earth is billions of years old and evolution is a fact.

They start with those assumptions because they are hard-won CONCLUSIONS of DECADES of research by MULTIPLE people pursuing VARIOUS lines of inquiry, and all of them, without collusion and quite contrary to their expectations, arriving at a CONSENSUS. That consensus having been reached, it is perfectly acceptable to use those conclusions as assumptions going forward.

I invite you to participate in discussions at the following blog:

www.biologos.org/

 

[Dunemeister]

You have a problem then, you are calling Jesus a liar. Jesus was YEC. In Mark 10:6 Jesus says that God made male and female at the beginning of creation.

This does not mean Jesus was YEC. It means that Jesus shared certain assumptions about the biblical text with his contemporaries. The important point for Jesus in his citation of Genesis was not the cosmogony but the theology.

 

[Man of Faith]

They start with those assumptions because they are hard-won CONCLUSIONS of DECADES of research by MULTIPLE people pursuing VARIOUS lines of inquiry, and all of them, without collusion and quite contrary to their expectations, arriving at a CONSENSUS. That consensus having been reached, it is perfectly acceptable to use those conclusions as assumptions going forward.

I invite you to participate in discussions at the following blog:

www.biologos.org/

Thanks but no thanks. I don't want to read writings from theistic evolutionists every day. That stuff gets me mad and I don't want to get mad every day.

For example, this statment in the "About Us" section. "We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation." I believe that the Bible best describes God's work of creation and don't see how a Christian can say the maschinations of man best describes something that is described differently in the Bible which they believe to be the inspired word of God.

All they are doing is trying to reconcile science with the Bible. That will happen but not the way they are doing it, which is throwing the Bible out. The way that science will reconcile with the Bible is by the self-correction feature of science. Science isn't at odds with the Bible, whenever we interpret science from the perspective that the Bible is true, the science fits and makes sense. It is philosophy that is at odds with the Bible. Darwinism is a philosophy which is married to the change in allele frquencies which is science.

 

[Man of Faith]

But that still leaves tree ring data and annual sedimentary layering in flood plains, and numerous other lines of empirical evidence which all concur the earth is far older than you think.

Can you show me a tree that is billions of years old?

 

[Alceste]

Can you show me a tree that is billions of years old?

I can direct you to a series of trees dating back much further than 5000 years. This is because each ring in each tree differs slightly from one year to the next due to changes in atmospheric concentrations of different gases. The rings show the same type of variation for the same year in every tree. You can match these up to take you back much farther than the life span of any given species of tree, which in many cases is several hundred years. We have an uninterrupted tree-ring and fossilized wood record dating back over ten thousand years in several regions. See dendrochronology.

That's just ONE line of evidence that shows your myth-based belief about the age of the earth is incorrect. There's no end to them, really, and they all agree with each other. If you can dig up something on Ken Ham's website to explain away the entire field of dendrochronology there are still literally hundreds of other scientific disciplines that all agree with each other the earth is ancient and no scientific disciplines at all that assert otherwise.

 

[Shredmeister]

Let me start by saying that I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I know, you are getting tired of hearing that but it is important to why I believe what I believe about this subject. The Bible says that all life owes its existence to the Creator and that includes mankind and the dinosaurs. Which means absolutely nothing about whether man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Any questions?

Yes. What do YOU believe??? Do YOU believe dinosaurs and man coexisted?