Dinosaurs and man.

[tumbleweed41]

Of course.

Is this based solely on Biblical faith?
Or do you have scientific empirical evidence that supports this conclusion?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Jesus was in much the same position as a time traveller... Looking in at the Dark ages...
He might well have known even more advanced scientific Ideas than we do today.
But he was wise enough not to introduce them out of context.
He would not have been believed any way, and it would have done his cause more harm than good.

Today, we have learned more about science and the universe, and should have sufficient understanding of the problems he faced, when he was confronted by, even for him, ancient myth.

The problems are well illustrated by the YE's in this thread.

 

[Eliot Wild]

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?

With all due respect, what in the world makes you capable of speaking for 'every' single Christian who accepts the Theory of Evolution? How can you possibly believe that you understand the intentions and motivations of any Christian other than yourself?

There is at least one Christian I know personally who doesn't seek to reconcile his faith and science. He doesn't believe he needs to do so. He doesn't believe science opposes his faith nor does he believe that science makes his faith impossible. On the contrary, when science turns up reasonable evidence or conclusive proof that his personally held beliefs need revisiting and reconsideration, then he dutifully does so. And he is thankful to science for revealing to him that he was wrong and/or misguided.

He doesn't rail against science or consider it in opposition to him and his faith. He views science as a tool provided by God to explore this wonderous creation. He views science as a medium for discovering the materials and processes which God used to create this amazing work of His. He knows that science is no 'silver bullet' but he respects the fact that science, more so than organanized religion, seems capable of admitting it's mistakes and revisiting its own long-standing convictions when newer findings reveal the old ones to be held in error.

And finally, this Christian I know doesn't consider the Bible to be the 'basis' of his beliefs, at least not those parts that are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. Or else he would call himself a 'Biblist' or 'Biblican' or something like that rather than 'Christian'. He recognizes and freely admits the Bible's inconsistencies and inaccuracies, its errors in fact and its impossible, downright absurd, depictions of God. He accepts what he finds therein that works and that makes sense, such as the teachings of Christ. And the content therein that fails his own tests of practicality and rationality, he rejects. For ultimately, he knows the Bible is just a book that was written by fallible humans just like himself.

 

[tumbleweed41]

With all due respect, what in the world makes you capable of speaking for 'every' single Christian who accepts the Theory of Evolution? How can you possibly believe that you understand the intentions and motivations of any Christian other than yourself?

There is at least one Christian I know personally who doesn't seek to reconcile his faith and science. He doesn't believe he needs to do so. He doesn't believe science opposes his faith nor does he believe that science makes his faith impossible. On the contrary, when science turns up reasonable evidence or conclusive proof that his personally held beliefs need revisiting and reconsideration, then he dutifully does so. And he is thankful to science for revealing to him that he was wrong and/or misguided.

He doesn't rail against science or consider it in opposition to him and his faith. He views science as a tool provided by God to explore this wonderous creation. He views science as a medium for discovering the materials and processes which God used to create this amazing work of His. He knows that science is no 'silver bullet' but he respects the fact that science, more so than organanized religion, seems capable of admitting it's mistakes and revisiting its own long-standing convictions when newer findings reveal the old ones to be held in error.

And finally, this Christian I know doesn't consider the Bible to be the 'basis' of his beliefs, at least not those parts that are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. Or else he would call himself a 'Biblist' or 'Biblican' or something like that rather than 'Christian'. He recognizes and freely admits the Bible's inconsistencies and inaccuracies, its errors in fact and its impossible, downright absurd, depictions of God. He accepts what he finds therein that works and that makes sense, such as the teachings of Christ. And the content therein that fails his own tests of practicality and rationality, he rejects. For ultimately, he knows the Bible is just a book that was written by fallible humans just like himself.

You friend sounds like a very reasonable and rational Christian. May his wisdom spread throughout Christianity.

 

[sniper762]

there is no way that the bible agrees with science. please explain.

the bible tells of the very first man being created in app. 4000bc (all theologians agree on this)

science adomantly disagrees with this.

 

[Tristesse]

there is no way that the bible agrees with science. please explain.

the bible tells of the very first man being created in app. 4000bc (all theologians agree on this)

science adomantly disagrees with this.

Ok, the bible never put a date on the creation of the first man, and not all theologians agree with that.

 

[sniper762]

name one that DOESNT.

furthermore, if you were to research the bible genealogies described in Genesis-chronicles and compare it to the historical dates (ie. david and solomon's date of reign), you would arrive at that date. ive done it. its not that difficult.

 

[Amill]

Man did live with dinosaurs, and we still do

 

[sniper762]

please tell us about the present dinosaurs. or the ones that man lived with.

 

[Misty]

Man did live with dinosaurs, and we still do

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! Oh heck there is a Tyrannosaurus coming towards me!

 

[Willamena]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! Oh heck there is a Tyrannosaurus coming towards me!

And it's flying.

 

[Autodidact]

Let me start by saying that I believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallable 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 original life forms were created in one week and that includes mankind and the dinosaurs. Which means man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Any questions?

Yes, thanks.
Now, you also believe that the Theory of Evolution correctly describes how we get new species, correct?

Do you also believe that God destroyed all land-based life in a worldwide flood, except for one family and whatever animals they could load on to a wooden boat, and all living things on land are descendants of those creatures?

If so, about when did that happen?

 

[tumbleweed41]

name one that DOESNT.

Not just one, but all the Biblical Scholars who date the earliest versions of the Torah to the mid-1st millennium BC. Thereby calling into doubt the accuracy of Biblical records stating events for the previous 3500 years.

(Yes, you can count the genealogies, but only the most conservative of theologians would deem them accurate.)

 

[Tristesse]

name one that DOESNT.

furthermore, if you were to research the bible genealogies described in Genesis-chronicles and compare it to the historical dates (ie. david and solomon's date of reign), you would arrive at that date. ive done it. its not that difficult.

The famous C.S. lewis didn't believe the earth was only 6-10,000 years old. There are actually quite a lot of theologians who don't believe that the earth is absurdly young.

 

[Alceste]

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?

Not all Christians are idolators of the bible. Most are guided by what they feel is a personal relationship with Christ and accept his guidance in their hearts - without complete dependence middle men and man-made instruction manuals.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Why do you think they get the same results from radiometric dating, varves, ice cores, tree rings and coral rings?

 

[Alceste]

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

This is offered as proof you are wrong, not proof science is right. You might wonder though, if the evidence show the Bible is wrong about the age of the earth, why not trust our best and brightest empirical investigators to discover the truth?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Well, let's take tree rings. What assumptions do we use to determine the age of a tree? Have those assumptions ever been tested? Which ones do you disagree with?

Do you even know what a varve is?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Now follow along closely here. They count the tree rings, and figure out how old the tree is. Separately, and without disclosing the results, they test the material using radiometric dating, and get the same results. What does that tell you about radiometric dating?

Do you know what varves are? Ice cores?

 

[Autodidact]

They all make the same assumptions?

The other methods do not rely on any of the assumptions you listed. They all rest on the assumptions that all scientists use, and that make science possible. Do you reject science?