Galilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 730 times:
O.K. In response to a number of posts that sprang up in another thread, I thought that the subject desrved it's own place in our forum.
Basically, what I want to do is have you ask me specific questions about this subject, and hopefully myself and others will be able to answer them. Now, i know that many of you who will reply to this topic know that I am a believer in the scriptures, therefore, I forewarn you that all of my answers will be based off my belief in God. So I am not trying to set any "traps" or anything like that, but I just want to explain how I came to believe what I do.
Let's see if we can do this without it turning into a pissing match, o.k.
Galilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 661 times:
In the "In Defense of Atheism" thread, VonRichtofen asks: "How does the bible explain Dinosaurs? Neanderthals? What about the strange mammals that roamed the earth between the dinosaurs and the ice age? Some of these which MAN used to hunt. These are not theories, this has been proven by fossil records and actual sites."
Well, he's right. These are not theories but rather poven by the fossile record to exist. Also, these very things tie directly into the Biblical account of the Flood. They by no means disprove the Bible, quite the reverse actually, as they really act as a scientifical foundation to the Bible.
First, let me explain how the Bible deals with dinosaurs.
The term "dinosaur" was coined in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen, a famous palaeontologist. The word means "terrible lizard" and technically refers to those that lived on land rather than in the water. Evolutionists believe that dinosaurs died out about 65 million years before man appeared on earth. Evolutionists are particularly vague about why they died out. Many theories have been put forth, such as an astroid strike, disease, climate, and even starvation, but none can claim absolute trueth as to the exact cause.
How does the Bible deal with dinosaurs? Well first, you are not going to find the term "dinosaur" in the Bible. But it does give some supporting evidence.
After creation, like all other animals present, dinosaurs began to multiply and increase in numbers. But because the world became full of wickedness, the Lord instructed Noah to build an ark, and on it carry two of every kind of land-dwelling animal (and seven of some). That must mean at least two of every kind of dinosaur. Many people don't think that they could all fit onto the ark, but really there were only a few large species, most of the dinosaurs were quite small (no bigger than an ostrich). It is also realistic to assume that God sent only young adults to the ark because they were responsible for re-populating the earth.
So, how did man and dinosaur live together on one great ship? Well, according to the Bible, after creation, all the animals and man were vegetarians. That would explain why Noah did not fear Tyrranosaurus rex. After the Flood, God told Noah that from then on the animals would fear him, and from then on man could eat their meat.
Then what happened to the dinosaurs? Well, the ones that were not on the ark, would have most certainly drowned. Many of these were buried quickly thus preserved. The Flood would also explain why fossils tend to show up in massive grave yards, and why they are so wide spread. Those that came off of the ark would have done so to a dramatically changed eviroment. Much less land surface would have been available, the climate would have been completely different, and there would have been much less vegetaion to eat. Therefore, to get essential protiens once found in vegetation, man and beast would be in competition and soon start to eat each other. They would have begun to re-produce and migrate to areas where they could have time to addapt to the ever-changing eviroment. Some of these animals did not make it. Most of them did, and as so they multiplied and addapted to their eviroment.
All of this means that man and dinosaurs lived together, perhaps for only briefly (maybe for only a few hundred years), after the flood. Is there any record of this? Well just as nearly every culture of the world has stories about a flood similar to that of Genesis, many different cultures also have dragon legends. It has been suggested that these are in fact legends of dinosaurs.
There is a Sumarian story that dates back to 3000 bc that tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew the head off and kept it as a trophey. Alexander the Great and his army marched into India and found that the worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves. England has its story of St. George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several animals, which to us are dinosaurs, as still alive. There are many, many more stories such as these, that show the evidence for the existence of dinosaurs during recorded human history as being strong.
We also have two beast listed in the Bible which could well have been great reptilian creatures still living in Job's day. In Job 40:15, the text records that God was showing Job how great He was as Creator, in causing him to observe some of the most powerful of the creatures He had made. We see that God tells Job to look at behemoth which has a tail like a cedar. What kind of creature known to man today, has a tail like a cedar tree? Also, in Job 41:1 we see mention of Leviathan that was some form of fire-breathing dragon. If you wonder about this, remember that the bombardier beetle can shoot out super-heated gasses in its own defense. Why not Leviathan?
There have also been reported sightings in modern times. In Science Digest, June, 1981 and as late as 1983, explorers and natives in Africa have reported sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
Sorry for the long post. There is just sooo much info on this subject. If you've read it all, then I thank you.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7673 posts, RR: 18 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 654 times:
I didn't read all of your post, but I understand your argument, and I am also going to only post once and probably won't be back to check this for at least a day.
I think there is more than ample evidence that a major asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. The K-T layer is clear and consistent across the globe. It indicates that a major impact event happened, which has a high probability that it killed most of the life on Earth, including Dinosaurs. I don't think there is much doubt in the community of legitamate scientists about that.
Now if I make statements that are wrong about your previous post, then please politely correct me. But what bugs me about those who attempt to use scripture to dispute science is that I wonder about the condition of your faith. We cannot be sure that all of the events in the Bible actually occured, especially the early stories in Genesis. But whether or not they are scientifically provable, it should not dilute the value of the message. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark all serve as important messages to people. The value of the message is there, regardless of whether or not it is true. Just accept it, take a leap of faith, and don't attempt to dispute science with the Bible.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
Galilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 647 times:
Hey there now DesertJets, first, I can't believe you have the nerve to come on hear, say you didn't read my whole post, then say you understand my arguments, post this thing, expect me to respond politely, then say your only going to post once!! How ridiculous!!
Now, what is this "legitament" scientist crap? That only those who believe that an asteroid kill off the dinosaurs are legit. Give me a break.
Scipture does not dispute science. It disputes evolution. Period.
You can sit there and wander about MY faith. Who are you to do this!
I can be sure that ALL the stories in the Bible are true and accourate. MY faith allows me to do so.
I agree that even though some of them are not scientifically provable, it should not dilute the value of the message. And it does not, for me. But you are wrong when you say that the value of the message is there, regardless if they are true or not. What kind of value would the Bible have if it were full of lies?!
Now, tell me anywhere in my post where I told you to just accept it, take a leap of faith, and disregard your science. I DID NOT!!!. Yet, you have the nerve to come on here and suggest that I do this?! The Bible does not dispute science. Rather science tends to try and dispute the Bible. Those who study this stuff, use science to peice together those parts of the Bible that God was not specific about. That's it! You better go and find a deffinition for science and religion before you come back here with those kind of remarks!
VonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4621 posts, RR: 40 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 638 times:
First off- I did read your whole post.
So you mean to tell me that Noah managed to get every single species of insect, lizard, mammal, bird, primate, ape, aracnid, AND dinosaur? From EVERY continent on the planet? You surely must see that this is impossible.
Your arguments have no scientific evidence, most of it's based on what the bible says God said. The bible says that Man and Dinosaur existed together, yet there are no fossil records of man that date back far enough that it could be possible for them to exist together and vice versa. Yet there's evidence of man existing with say for example the Wooly Mammoth. They've found sites that are similar to the Buffalo Jump sites of North America. Proving that Man indeed hunted The mammoth. Several early human settlements have be found with remains of the animals they hunted and NONE contain dinosaur remains. There is NO evidence whatsoever that supports the idea that humans and dinosaurs existed at even remotely the same time.
Another argument you used was that Sumerian legend told of a hero who slayed a dragon (dinosaur). Exactly....LEGEND. We all know how stories are told that are actually BS. Did you ever think that maybe these dragon legends from around the world originated from the finding of fossilized dinosaur remains? Imagine what people must have though back then when they stumble apon on a fossilized T-rex skeleton.
According to "God" the dinosaurs were all vegetarians....come on. T-rex sure has a big set of teeth for a herbivore... And what about velociraptor? Why does it have such lethal claws? To help it take down those big ferns? One may attempt to argue that they had the claws for self defense. Well what would they need to defend themselves from....maybe carnivores??? Why would a triceratops have massive skull plating and horns if there was no threat from carnivores? Why would stegasaurus have the spikes on the tail? Incase the trees decide to fight back? It's obvious why they have these defenses and why T-rex and velociraptor etc are built the way they are. Just like today, how carnivores such as the lion or wolf have large claws (not on the wolf), and teeth.
As Desertjets said, the bible has many good messages and if following it makes you a happier and better person then go for it. But the bible in NOT earth history.
Toadpipe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 632 times:
I ain't going to debate you on this issue, I will however state that on at least one issue I think you are in error. Namely that no fossil evidence exits that man and dinosaur coexisted. Paluxy River, at Glen Rose, Texas, April 1979. On the very same stratum their are a 3 toed dinosaur track of unknown species, a brontosaurus ( or whatever they are calling it now) track, a T-Rex track, and human footprints. A fallen tree branch was also engulfed in the limey surface which dates back only 12,800 yrs + or - 200 yrs. Could be an anomaly, I don't know, but I do know that it is evidence and it exists.
The rest of your disproofs all rely on a prior belief that there is no God. One if he is God, He is all powerful so getting the animals on the ark shouldn't be a problem and if you look at the dimensions of the Ark their was adequate room. Secondly if there is a God, then he is also omniscient, so he would know if dinosaurs would need the proper equipment on down the line.
But we each have our own opinions on these things don't we? There is yet to be any evidence for macro-evolution of the amoeba to man variety, but you believe it.
Lastly, Jesus claimed the Bible was true. he also claimed to be the son of God. So he was either a very deranged man, an evil person, or what he said he was. So if he was what he said he was, then he would be correct in his assertion of the validity of the Bible. If the bible is false, why listen to a lunatic or an evil man? Eat drink and be marry for tomorrow you might die, and that is exactly what I would be doing if the Bible is false. I think Paul used this very same point in regards to the ressurection, so even the bible would tell you to do that in this case.
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 628 times:
Note from the Editor (Paul S. Taylor)
Due to a popular Hollywood movie released in theaters in 1976 ("In Search of Noah's Ark"), many people remain under the impression that Noah's Ark has definitely been found. Particularly memorable to many people was a fuzzy telephoto photograph of what some thought might be the Ark. Later expeditions proved that the object was simply a large rock formation.
In the 1980s and 90s, many were misled by network news stories and newspaper articles that claimed the Ark had been found at a completely different location. Reports were of a ship-shaped structure 15 miles from Mt. Ararat. Unfortunately, various exaggerated claims about this site were spread. This location is often referred to as the Durupinar Site. It was internationally promoted by an American nurse anesthetist named Ron Wyatt. However, extensive geologic surveys, subsurface radar and core-drilling data later confirmed beyond any doubt that this odd formation is a geologic feature common throughout the Ararat region. It is not Noah's Ark. [More Information]
I don't really think any of these stories are true, but each one teaches a lesson. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that the Bible is a book of fables, but rather, that an untrue story can still have value and I think that's what DesertJets meant.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 617 times:
I would just like to say that while there are probably a number of people who may believe the account provided by Galilee, particularly Christian fundementalists in the U.S., it is NOT the position of any major Church. Most organized churches teach that creation is symbolic.
Toadpipe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 610 times:
Cfalk you are right in some respects, there is a huge number of "christiains" who don't believe Christ rose from the dead, The bible is the Word of God, etc.. Unfortunatley, these beleifs are germane to Chrisitianity, take them away and you end up with faith in faith, not exactly a coherent concept. While there are a large number of liberal churches, their numbers in the academic commmunity are very few. I wonder why? Maybe because anyone one with a 3rd grade education can see that beleif in something you know to be false is an irrational concept. It is Peter Pan Theology just add faery dust.
LoneStarMike,I guess you wold be right, if people were attributing less then they do to the Bible. However, people are basing their entire lives and afterlives on the validity of the message.Aesop's fables are taken from the outest as fables and they profess to be just that. The Bible states in no uncertain terms that it is the Word of God, and infallible. So if a book lied to me about it's very nature right from the beginning, I see know reason to follow any of it's advice.
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 598 times:
Cfalk you are right in some respects, there is a huge number of "christiains" who don't believe Christ rose from the dead,
reminds me of the saying "saved by the bell". The burying of the non dead is well documented all through history. *IF* jesus actually existed and *IF* he was hung on a cross, then it is more likely that he wasn't actually dead in the first place, merely unconsious when placed in his tomb.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 595 times:
That Jesus lived, had quite a following, and whose crucifiction was surrounded by bizzare happenings, is a fact, confirmed by historians of the time, the most authoritive of which was the Roman historian, Josephus.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 594 times:
"there is a huge number of "christiains" who don't believe Christ rose from the dead"
Then they are not Christians. That is one of the foundations of the Christian faith - that Christ defeated death. The Nicean Creed, written around 325 AD, is about the best statement of Christian belief in a nutshell, and as you see, the resurection is a main point.
We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets:
In one holy catholic and apostolic church:
We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins. We look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.
Galilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 590 times:
ADG: Your assumptions that "if" Jesus was crucified is not a widely held belief among historians and theologians. In other words, there is no debate in the historical community that Jesus was in fact crucified. There is ample evidence from most cultural history that he was. As well as in Roman history it is even documented that before he was taken from the cross, that he was puctured in the side with a spear. Also, there is no debate that he was in fact dead. Now, that leaves the resurrection, which is still debatable.
Galilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 583 times:
"So you mean to tell me that Noah managed to get every single species of insect, lizard, mammal, bird, primate, ape, aracnid, AND dinosaur? From EVERY continent on the planet? You surely must see that this is impossible."
Well actually, if I saw this as impossible, then I wouldn't believe that God was all powerfull. Where would that put my faith then?
But just to clearify, Noah did not gather the animals himself. Rather God sent them to him, the ones that were to be on the ark. Also, not every living creature was on that ark. Only the ones with the breath of life in them. That means that insects were not chosen to go, and spiders were not chosen but that does not mean that some did not "stow" away on the ship. It is not as if Noah fumigated the ark before he set off. Not every mammal needed to be on the ark either. Some mammals live in the water, like whales, dolphins, etc. Also, fish need not be on board. So, that leaves the rest.
What needed to be on the ark, in order that we have all present history of animal life? Well, God told Noah that he take two of every kind of "unclean" land creature that has the breath of life, and seven of every "clean" land creature that has the breath of life. That means one pair of unlean and three pairs plus one extra of every clean animal. The one extra clean animal is suggested to be for offerings after Noah dissembarks from the ark.
I grant you that by todays taxonomy, that would be a large number indeed. Even so, the ark would still be able to carry all of them. The question here is is the number of species in Genesis the same as we have today. Well, no, it does not need to be. it is unwarranted to insist that all the present species, not to mention all the varieties and sub-species of animals in the world today, were represented in the ark. At the outset, the ark needed only carry 35,000 individual vertabrate. Assuming that most of the animals were no bigger than sheep, (there are only a few species larger, but even then we must assume that they were only young adults), then the size of the ark was more than enough for Noah and his family and the animals and all the supplies the needed to sustain them for one year.
The size of the ark is as follows: In Hebrew there are two lenghts for the cubit. The long cubit is equal to 20.4 inches and a common cubit of 17.5 inches. Even assuming the shorter, the ark was 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. It had a volume of 1,396,000 cubic feet. That is equal to 8 frieght trains with 65 stock cars each. 240 sheep can be carried in one two deck stock car. In fact the shear size of the ark indicates that it was not only built to carry the occupents, but mad to withstand the force of the storm brought upon it.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 581 times:
Assuming that most of the animals were no bigger than sheep, (there are only a few species larger, but even then we must assume that they were only young adults)
Here's where you sunk me. There are NOT only "a few" species of animal larger than a sheep, as you have stated. Unless by a few you mean tens of thousands.
I'm not sure why I'm typing this...you can simply tell me everything from Great Danes to Clydesdales were invented when the water receeded. There's always a creative answer to a hard question where the Bible is
Toadpipe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 566 times:
At the present time there are 290 main species of land animals larger than a sheep, 757 more species ranging in size from sheep to rats, and 1358 more species smaller than rats. Hardly tens of thousands. Great danes are a breed and are actually infertile, btw. Breeds always result in a loss of genetic information, they don't gain any.