Dinosaurs and man.

[sniper762]

this thread is about yec's and quotes (usually biblical) made by them in support of their belief.
also scientific quotes that are intended to substanciate opposition.

my statement presents my view of either.

 

[jmvizanko]

Which is what, exactly?

 

[sniper762]

im sorry, i cant make it any simpler. im sorry that i dont have "sense" enough to make you comprehend.

 

[jmvizanko]

Its just your wording. Are you saying that nobody is making any points other than referencing outside sources? Are you saying you think its unapplicable to you who what etc and gyerefore could be anything? Just say what you mean.

 

[sniper762]

im saying that answering those five questions (btw, why is sometimes substituded with how) are the basis for investigating the validity of a statement or event (that which is being debated here)

 

[jmvizanko]

And I ask once again, that means you think what exactly about the current topic?

 

[sniper762]

the current topic is Dinosaurs and man.
I know some people believe we co-existed. Still yet others believe that the earth is only about 5000 years old.

PLEASE let there be someone here who believes this!

I don't, but I seriously have yet to discuss this with anyone who believes it: I have only discussed it with people who think it's silly.

Please and thank you.

~Bill

my statement addresses the validity of the statements made within this thread. as for the question, "did dinosaurs and man co-exist", science says "no", debaters quote biblical scripture interpreted as "yes". using my investigative method, science wins

 

[tumbleweed41]

as for the question, "did dinosaurs and man co-exist", science says "no", debaters quote biblical scripture interpreted as "yes". using my investigative method, science wins

That wasn't so hard...

 

[Shredmeister]

example: my mother told me that i was born unto her

She talks like that? You don't find that odd?

 

[sniper762]

just an "example" statement used to explain.

 

[Dezzie]

I think some of the oldest rocks ever found were billions of years old. I really don't think there is any way of the Earth only being 5,000 years old. That's just crazy talk.

The best explanation I've heard was that God created the evidence to appear that way, ie, much older than it is.

God is one sneaky individual if this was true. lol

 

[Shredmeister]

just an "example" statement used to explain.

But it's untrue.

 

[Man of Faith]

Fine then.
IF what you claim Jesus meant is what he actually meant, then yes, Jesus is a liar.

Of course, there are several Christians who have no problem with what science actually says.
How do you explain them away in your little world?

Every Christian that accepts the ToE is wanting to reconcile their faith with mainstream science. The same mainstream science that doesn't take into consideration the God that they believe in. They want to believe that the science is bullet proof which it isn't. They want to be considered "rational". They are misguided. How can it be rational to say that the Bible is wrong when that is the basis for their belief?

 

[Man of Faith]

I can show you one that is 330 million years old. It sits quite nicely outside the Natural History Museum in London.

Then count the tree rings to show that it is 330 millions years old.

 

[sniper762]

give me a statement relating to this subject and we'll test it.

 

[Man of Faith]

Are you going to claim light has changed speed, and that the reason we see other galaxies is because it went much, much faster 6000 years ago? Unless there is a reason to believe that it has, then you cannot make that assumption. Just as you cannot assume radioactive decay rate has changed (ok, I did found a link that pointed to that radioactive decay rate is not constant, but it is deterministic, so you can still use it to calculate age of stuff... not sure if I trust the link I found, though). To my knowledge it has never been observed to do that.

Whether it has changed or not, it is an assumption, which means the science is based on assumptions that could be wrong.

 

[Man of Faith]

If any one of these, let alone multiple, were mistakes we are making, then why do all of the methods arrive at the same age for whatever they are testing? Explain why you think that is mathematically possible.

They all make the same assumptions?

 

[Man of Faith]

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.

Ten thousand years is a lot closer than billions, you are getting there, slowly.

 

[Man of Faith]

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

Of course.

 

[Misty]

Of course.

We know enough to know that just isn't credible!