PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Find Dinosaur Mummy, Muscles and All



Maestro
12-03-2007, 11:38 AM
uh-oh's!

I guess we can throw that "6000 year old earth theory" out the window.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/dino_mummy

IraHays
12-03-2007, 11:40 AM
Work of the Devil bro.

JUSA
12-03-2007, 11:41 AM
The people who think the earth is 6k years old aren't likely to be swayed by scientific evidence. I don't agree with them either, but at this debate is pretty much pointless and being smug about being right on this isn't helpful, anyway.

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 12:08 PM
Countdown to 'carbon dating is flawed' post.

JBDW
12-03-2007, 12:12 PM
Cool find. But I agree with JUSA.

Thy_Kingdom
12-03-2007, 12:21 PM
Any fundies want to comment on this? No?

cdme
12-03-2007, 12:33 PM
FYI - I believe in creation and I do think that dinasours did and still do roam the earth.

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 12:38 PM
FYI - I believe in creation and I do think that dinasours did and still do roam the earth.
In your opinion, how long ago was the earth created?

cdme
12-03-2007, 12:39 PM
In your opinion, how long ago was the earth created?

4,000 - 6,000 years

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 12:40 PM
4,000 - 6,000 years
This dinosaur lived 67 million years ago.

US_Ranger
12-03-2007, 12:43 PM
4,000 - 6,000 years

How did you get 4,000 years? That would put us at 2,000 BC. The Harappan civilization was already around at 3,000 BC. That alone is 5,000 years old and that's an entire civlization, not just tribes. Unless Adam, Eve and the kids were popping out kids every day of the year, that wouldn't be possible. Even 6,000 years is small compared to the amount of tribes all over the place.

cdme
12-03-2007, 12:45 PM
This dinosaur lived 67 million years ago.

I don't buy into their dating system. I know to many scientists that have explained it to me and the errors of it.

No I will not try to explain the errors because I am not a scientist and I don't remember every detail.

Plus I am not going to change your thinking no matter what I say.

iliketodoit
12-03-2007, 12:47 PM
I don't buy into their dating system. I know to many scientists that have explained it to me and the errors of it.

No I will not try to explain the errors because I am not a scientist and I don't remember every detail.

Plus I am not going to change your thinking no matter what I say.

Actually if what you were to say made sense then you'd probably stand a good chance at changing my mind. Most agnostics and atheists don't have their heads wrapped around a book and are more open to anything, just sayin.

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 12:47 PM
I don't buy into their dating system. I know to many scientists that have explained it to me and the errors of it.

No I will not try to explain the errors because I am not a scientist and I don't remember every detail.

Plus I am not going to change your thinking no matter what I say.
Yes, that's because I know more about it than you do.

Read this, it was written by a Christian nuclear physicist:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Here's a brief introduction:

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

First edition 1994; revised version 2002.

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

thinkalot
12-03-2007, 12:47 PM
agriculture started about 6000 years ago. Before that we were nomadic hunters. There is proof of that. there are monuments all over the world myuch older then 6000 years old. Drawings in caves; fossiles, petrol,...Lucy,... this is getting rediculous.

Sorry but I cannot believe that these people who claim the earth is about 6000 years old are serious. They must be pulling our leg. Seriously.

cdme
12-03-2007, 12:49 PM
Actually if what you were to say made sense then you'd probably stand a good chance at changing my mind. Most agnostics and atheists don't have their heads wrapped around a book and are more open to anything, just sayin.

I don't know how you are, but in MY EXPERIENCE, working with people for over fifteen years, most athiests are closed minded.

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 12:50 PM
agriculture started about 6000 years ago. Before that we were nomadic hunters. There is proof of that. there are monuments all over the world myuch older then 6000 years old. Drawings in caves; fossiles, petrol,...Lucy,... this is getting rediculous.

Sorry but I cannot believe that these people who claim the earth is about 6000 years old are serious. They must be pulling our leg. Seriously.
Yeah, besides, we can use dendrochronology (tree ring dating) to prove that the earth is over 6000 years old. We don't even have to rely on radiometric dating methods to prove young earth creationists wrong.

aLFKM886l4Q

iliketodoit
12-03-2007, 12:51 PM
I don't know how you are, but in MY EXPERIENCE, working with people for over fifteen years, most athiests are closed minded.

Would you say they are more close minded than christians? That's kind of the point I was trying to make.

cdme
12-03-2007, 12:52 PM
Yeah, besides, we can use dendrochronology (tree ring dating) to prove that the earth is over 6000 years old. We don't even have to rely on radiometric dating methods to prove young earth creationists wrong.

Two things.

1. Who said anything about radiometric dating?

2. Who said that my scientist friends were young?

hounds
12-03-2007, 12:52 PM
FYI - I believe in creation and I do think that dinasours did and still do roam the earth.

have any evidence of that very bold claim?

US_Ranger
12-03-2007, 12:54 PM
have any evidence of that very bold claim?

I think alligators and sharks were around during the dinosaur time. Also, the rhino is a direct descendent of a bigger pre-historic creature.

iliketodoit
12-03-2007, 12:55 PM
have any evidence of that very bold claim?

http://www.aboutaustralia.com/a2it_package/images/travel/Crocodile.jpg

Thy_Kingdom
12-03-2007, 12:55 PM
have any evidence of that very bold claim?
I think he's talking about ancient evangelical's who still have their own television shows.

5x10
12-03-2007, 12:56 PM
have any evidence of that very bold claim?

heres a pic of one walking through a town

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u22/johnsicotte/dinosaur.jpg

Dalamara
12-03-2007, 12:56 PM
I don't know how you are, but in MY EXPERIENCE, working with people for over fifteen years, most athiests are closed minded.

Just because atheists and agnostics don't buy into all of your religious rhetoric most certainly does not make us close minded.

Pleb
12-03-2007, 12:57 PM
heres a pic of one walking through a town

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u22/johnsicotte/dinosaur.jpg

lol

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 12:57 PM
Yeah, besides, we can use dendrochronology (tree ring dating) to prove that the earth is over 6000 years old. We don't even have to rely on radiometric dating methods to prove young earth creationists wrong.

Dendrochronology is not a very strong argument to use against the 6,000 yo earth theory. It's best to stick to carbon dating (flawed), or better yet the starry heavens (speed of light).

I personally believe every word of the Bible, which seems to teach that the age of the Earth is unknown, and that the "habitation" of Earth (life) is within 7,000 years old. Based on scientific findings and a gathering of articles from both sides (evolutionist/creationist), I see nothing to contradict this belief.

bamatank
12-03-2007, 12:57 PM
I think alligators and sharks were around during the dinosaur time. Also, the rhino is a direct descendent of a bigger pre-historic creature.

Direct descendants of dinosaurs are around thanks to evolution. The sharks and alligators and other reptiles that roamed earth then aren't quite the same as the ones around now. They have evolved to survive Ice Ages and vairous other environmental changes over the past several million years.

hounds
12-03-2007, 12:58 PM
I think alligators and sharks were around during the dinosaur time. Also, the rhino is a direct descendent of a bigger pre-historic creature.

but wouldnt that prove his argument wrong? Alligators and sharks being around for a couple thousand years isnt all that amazing, but versions of them being around for 60million years is.....

wait, why am i even trying to rationally argue with someone (not you) that thinks the earth is "4,000-6,000" years old. I must be bored :)

cdme
12-03-2007, 12:58 PM
have any evidence of that very bold claim?

Like I said in the past, I am not a scientist, so I rely on research just like most others in this forum.

From what I have read and been told by scientist, reptiles never stop growing. After the flood the earths climate and such changed. It did not allow things to live as long. Now dinasours live in remote parts of Africa and S. America but they do not live as long so they do not grow as large.

This is what I have found, if you don't believe that same thing good for you .

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 12:59 PM
Two things.

1. Who said anything about radiometric dating?
That's the method used to date fossils and the age of the earth.


2. Who said that my scientist friends were young?
That's a joke, right? lol

"Young earth creationists" refers to creationists who believe in a young earth, 4000-6000 years old. They are distinct from old earth creationists who accept the real age of the earth but still believe in creationism.

thinkalot
12-03-2007, 01:00 PM
Dendrochronology is not a very strong argument to use against the 6,000 yo earth theory. It's best to stick to carbon dating (flawed), or better yet the starry heavens (speed of light).

I personally believe every word of the Bible, which seems to teach that the age of the Earth is unknown, and that the "habitation" of Earth (life) is within 7,000 years old. Based on scientific findings and a gathering of articles from both sides (evolutionist/creationist), I see nothing to contradict this belief.


so you conti,nue to ignore the proof and evidence given. Are you hokiebird??

mntbikedude
12-03-2007, 01:01 PM
Just because you consider yourself a christian doesn't mean you have to accept everything as a literal truth.

I believe in the creation in the sense that God directed it. But I believe it took millions of years and that evolution was a part of it.

US_Ranger
12-03-2007, 01:01 PM
Like I said in the past, I am not a scientist, so I rely on research just like most others in this forum.

From what I have read and been told by scientist, reptiles never stop growing. After the flood the earths climate and such changed. It did not allow things to live as long. Now dinasours live in remote parts of Africa and S. America but they do not live as long so they do not grow as large.

This is what I have found, if you don't believe that same thing good for you .

Can you please answer this one. I'm curious : (it's from my earlier post)

How did you get 4,000 years? That would put us at 2,000 BC. The Harappan civilization was already around at 3,000 BC. That alone is 5,000 years old and that's an entire civlization, not just tribes. Unless Adam, Eve and the kids were popping out kids every day of the year, that wouldn't be possible. Even 6,000 years is small compared to the amount of tribes all over the place.

bamatank
12-03-2007, 01:01 PM
so you conti,nue to ignore the proof and evidence given. Are you hokiebird??

I disagree with ElderJefferson but he is more informed and can form a better arguement than hokie.

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:04 PM
so you conti,nue to ignore the proof and evidence given. Are you hokiebird??

Are you Weightaholic? Quit with all the alias-accusations, man. :(

"Ignore" proof, or weigh all the evidence? There is A LOT of scientific evidence to support an old Earth (it's not even unbiblical). There appears to be A LOT of evidence to support ancient life, yet for every article written in its support, one is written in its refutation. I truly have not seen any data to believe that life has existed on this Earth beyond 7,000 years.

KennyK
12-03-2007, 01:05 PM
Satan was really on point with this one.

The devil is stepping his game up.

Rune
12-03-2007, 01:06 PM
I personally believe every word of the Bible, which seems to teach that the age of the Earth is unknown, and that the "habitation" of Earth (life) is within 7,000 years old. Based on scientific findings and a gathering of articles from both sides (evolutionist/creationist), I see nothing to contradict this belief.

Wow. Is the Earth flat too?

Seriously, Christianity I got no problem with, but you literal bible people are just plain nuts.

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:06 PM
Some days it seems as if the R&P is just one or two posts away from becoming the new Misc.

How unfortunate. :confused:

joelz54_99
12-03-2007, 01:07 PM
Work of the Devil bro.

lol. best joke of the day. thanks.

Wasn't it the nigersaurus that they found?

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 01:07 PM
Are you Weightaholic? Quit with all the alias-accusations, man. :(

"Ignore" proof, or weigh all the evidence? There is A LOT of scientific evidence to support an old Earth (it's not even unbiblical). There appears to be A LOT of evidence to support ancient life, yet for every article written in its support, one is written in its refutation. I truly have not seen any data to believe that life has existed on this Earth beyond 7,000 years.
One for one? Prove it. (Hint: you can't because you're wrong; articles written by thebibleisinfallible.com don't count, let's keep things reputable and peer-reviewed)

Watch the video I posted on page 1.

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:07 PM
Wow. Is the Earth flat too?

Uh, we're discussing the age of the Earth, not your mother's build.

:cool:

Sorry, but you're smart-aleck remark was way off base.

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:09 PM
One for one? Prove it. (Hint: you can't because you're wrong)

Watch the video I posted on page 1.

What's with all these crazy posts recently?

No, I seriously doubt that the ratio of peer-reviewed work is 1:1, but I bet my house you knew what I meant.

It's not really a big house, though, but it keeps us warm.

Maestro
12-03-2007, 01:10 PM
Satan was really on point with this one.

The devil is stepping his game up.

:rolleyes:

Rune
12-03-2007, 01:12 PM
Uh, we're discussing the age of the Earth, not your mother's build.

:cool:

Sorry, but you're smart-aleck remark was way off base.

How so? It seems just like every other Evagellical I've ever talked to you refute pretty much all proven mainstream science with absolutely no basis.

cdme
12-03-2007, 01:13 PM
but wouldnt that prove his argument wrong? Alligators and sharks being around for a couple thousand years isnt all that amazing, but versions of them being around for 60million years is.....

wait, why am i even trying to rationally argue with someone (not you) that thinks the earth is "4,000-6,000" years old. I must be bored :)

Nothing agianst you personally, but I thank-you for living up to the sterotype of athiest that I have seen. If I don't believe the way that you do then I must be an idiot and irrational and stupid, well you get the point.

Maestro
12-03-2007, 01:15 PM
I don't buy into their dating system. I know to many scientists that have explained it to me and the errors of it.

No I will not try to explain the errors because I am not a scientist and I don't remember every detail.

Plus I am not going to change your thinking no matter what I say.

here, educate yourself:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

Maestro
12-03-2007, 01:16 PM
Nothing agianst you personally, but I thank-you for living up to the sterotype of athiest that I have seen. If I don't believe the way that you do then I must be an idiot and irrational and stupid, well you get the point.

it goes both ways buddy, I don't exactly see the christians walking around with halo's on their heads.

SVGQONqhGcY

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:17 PM
How so? It seems just like every other Evagellical I've ever talked to you refute pretty much all proven mainstream science with absolutely no basis.

I'm not so quick to jump on any science bandwagon. I even read a very compelling paper AGAINST the Big Bang theory. The jury's still out on that one as well.

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 01:17 PM
here, educate yourself:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
Carbon-14 isn't used in dating fossils or the age of the earth; it's only useful for organic material less than 60,000 years old. It's just one of about 40 different radiometric methods.

sk888
12-03-2007, 01:18 PM
Good read though it said muscle tissues had mineralized

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 01:18 PM
I'm not so quick to jump on any science bandwagon. I even read a very compelling paper AGAINST the Big Bang theory. The jury's still out on that one as well.
link

(not going to debate it in this thread, just want to read it)

basement iron
12-03-2007, 01:18 PM
Ironically the comments from religious people are almost as amazing as this discovery.

We get a two for one here.

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 01:21 PM
Good read though it said muscle tissues had mineralized
It's okay, the microscopic structures can still be studied. My research is on microscopic wear patterns on fossilized teeth and using them to learn about a species' diet. Fossilization actually preserves a lot of information.

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:21 PM
here, educate yourself:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

Yes, but as scientists will also tell you, the whole 14C / 12C ratio measurement has many factors involved, factors which greatly affect the results.

hounds
12-03-2007, 01:21 PM
Nothing agianst you personally, but I thank-you for living up to the sterotype of athiest that I have seen. If I don't believe the way that you do then I must be an idiot and irrational and stupid, well you get the point.

thanks for living up to the stereotype of a fundie...just because i know the earth is not 6,000 years old doesnt make me an atheist :rolleyes:

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 01:22 PM
Yes, but as scientists will also tell you, the whole 14C / 12C ratio measurement has many factors involved, factors which greatly affect the results.
Factors which they can control because they know how ratios have changed over time using ice cores from Greenland.

Maestro
12-03-2007, 01:22 PM
Ironically the comments from religious people are almost as amazing as this discovery.

We get a two for one here.

LOL!

:D

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:22 PM
link

(not going to debate it in this thread, just want to read it)

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=30

It's long and pretty heavy (much of it flew well over my head, comprehensively speaking).

Rune
12-03-2007, 01:23 PM
I'm not so quick to jump on any science bandwagon. I even read a very compelling paper AGAINST the Big Bang theory. The jury's still out on that one as well.

What does BBT have to do with the age of the Earth?

I'm not talking about jumping on bandwagons, I'm talking about trusting techniques that have been shown(to within reasonable standard deviations) to be accurate indicators of age.

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:23 PM
Factors which they can control because they know how ratios have changed over time using ice cores from Greenland.

There's no consensus on that (from what I've read).

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 01:24 PM
There's no consensus on that (from what I've read).
I don't know what you're reading, but I'm reading peer reviewed science journals and I do see consensus. Radiocarbon dating is pretty critical to archaeology and I have archaeological training and fieldwork experience.

Maestro
12-03-2007, 01:26 PM
ok people, Lets assume that carbon dating is in fact flawed and we had no choice but to rely on a thiests interpretation on how old the earth is.

What test and what means of evidence can you show us that will convince us that the earth is only 6kyears old?

is there anything you can show me that will make me say: "huh, look at that, I guess you're right"

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:26 PM
What does BBT have to do with the age of the Earth?

I'm not talking about jumping on bandwagons, I'm talking about trusting techniques that have been shown(to within reasonable standard deviations) to be accurate indicators of age.

That's my whole point. Why would there be any disagreement amongst scientists concerning ANY data?

Because most of what we're told is based on interpretation or erroneous conclusions. Something that seems as solid as the BBT is now under close scrutiny, so how could we take something even less reliable (14C dating) as being more evidential.

And the whole mother thing - it was a cheap remark. I'm sure you're mother is gorgeous by all standards.

:cool:

ElderJefferson
12-03-2007, 01:28 PM
I don't know what you're reading, but I'm reading peer reviewed science journals and I do see consensus. Radiocarbon dating is pretty critical to archaeology and I have archaeological training and fieldwork experience.

No argument here about it's importance, and perhaps our definition of consensus is not the same. I'm not talking about whack job scientists, but legitimate men/women who argue against the validity of 14C dating. Measuring life on Earth has proven rather difficult to date.

cdme
12-03-2007, 01:28 PM
it goes both ways buddy, I don't exactly see the christians walking around with halo's on their heads.

SVGQONqhGcY

This jousting match is fun but this is my last post on this topic.

I never said we are perfect. I can only speak for myself and that I try not to resort to name calling. If name calling is all you can do then your argument is very weak and in my opinion you are not totally convinced yourself.

thanks for living up to the stereotype of a fundie...just because i know the earth is not 6,000 years old doesnt mean i'm an atheist (quote)

I appologize I was wrong to assume.

Everyone from both sides can put up arguments from sceintists but it all comes down to who will you believe. As for me I chose to believe my personal friends that are scientist. One in fact has a Phd in physics and one in biology.

If you don't agree with my beliefs then I will pray for you.
Everyone has a right to be wrong, you are just abusing that right.

If you are offended by that statement, get a life.

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 01:30 PM
That's my whole point. Why would there be any disagreement amongst scientists concerning ANY data?

Because most of what we're told is based on interpretation or erroneous conclusions. Something that seems as solid as the BBT is now under close scrutiny, so how could we take something even less reliable (14C dating) as being more evidential.

And the whole mother thing - it was a cheap remark. I'm sure you're mother is gorgeous by all standards.

:cool:
Radiocarbon dating is perfectly reliable when proper methods are applied. Quit reaching.

It's amazing how people who are totally uninvolved in the scientific process pontificate on scientific matters, claiming that there's so much controversy over methods that have actually enjoyed consensus support for decades.

Maestro
12-03-2007, 01:31 PM
Something that seems as solid as the BBT is now under close scrutiny, so how could we take something even less reliable (14C dating) as being more evidential.

:cool:

who in the world thinks of the BBT as fact? Its called a Theory for a reason.

Rune
12-03-2007, 01:33 PM
That's my whole point. Why would there be any disagreement amongst scientists concerning ANY data?

There is very little disageement about dating techniques, and certianly not enough disageement for me to dismiss it all together.



Because most of what we're told is based on interpretation or erroneous conclusions. Something that seems as solid as the BBT is now under close scrutiny, so how could we take something even less reliable (14C dating) as being more evidential.

The first part is just plain dogmatic. BBT has never been a fully accepted scientific theory, nor is it even close to it right now, we simply don't have the knowlege of physics to do it. But hey proove me wrong, dig me up a physisist/cosmologist that will say 100% that BBT is correct.



And the whole mother thing - it was a cheap remark. I'm sure you're mother is gorgeous by all standards.


I never took offence, I can see how you would think I was attacking you, it was an off key remark, but thats honestly the way I see if, just as I'm sure you think I'm nuts for my beliefs.

Maestro
12-03-2007, 01:33 PM
If name calling is all you can do then your argument is very weak and in my opinion you are not totally convinced yourself.

I never called anyone a name.



If you don't agree with my beliefs then I will pray for you.

please. don't.

Fidelis
12-03-2007, 01:34 PM
No argument here about it's importance, and perhaps our definition of consensus is not the same. I'm not talking about whack job scientists, but legitimate men/women who argue against the validity of 14C dating. Measuring life on Earth has proven rather difficult to date.
Again, radiocarbon dating is not used to date fossils. It's used for organic material no older than 60,000 years.

If you insist that there is legitimate controversy in the scientific community about the legitimacy of radiocarbon dating as a whole, then cite some recent articles from peer-reviewed science journals that support your claim. Until then, forgive me for dismissing your claims entirely.

Absolute0
12-03-2007, 01:48 PM
Wow, what a fun thread

Let me say that previously, the most crazy fundies i've talked to online have claimed that dinosaurs lived up until the 16th century. Now, I've got a fundy here who thinks that dinosaurs are still roaming the Earth.

So that really made my day :)

cannonblaster5
12-03-2007, 01:54 PM
I don't buy into their dating system. I know to many scientists that have explained it to me and the errors of it.

No I will not try to explain the errors because I am not a scientist and I don't remember every detail.

Plus I am not going to change your thinking no matter what I say.
So you know for yourself that there are errors but you don't know what the errors are.. hmm. interesting. lol. This is why you fail science: you don't care about facts. It's too rigourous for you.

cannonblaster5
12-03-2007, 02:01 PM
"habitation" of Earth (life) is within 7,000 years old. Based on scientific findings and a gathering of articles from both sides (evolutionist/creationist), I see nothing to contradict this belief.

That's one mistake you're making. Aside from looking for contradictions, you need to also look for confirmations. What evidence says that all life is only 7k years old?

(None)

Belief without evidence (what you have) = faith = definition of ignorance = symptom of insanity

cannonblaster5
12-03-2007, 02:03 PM
\
I personally believe every word of the Bible, .

Mark 16:17-18

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

So, you'd have no problem drinking poison then? According to the Bible, poisons such as cyanide aren't harmful to believers.

JAGERBOY
12-03-2007, 02:03 PM
Dendrochronology is not a very strong argument to use against the 6,000 yo earth theory. It's best to stick to carbon dating (flawed), or better yet the starry heavens (speed of light).

I personally believe every word of the Bible, which seems to teach that the age of the Earth is unknown, and that the "habitation" of Earth (life) is within 7,000 years old. Based on scientific findings and a gathering of articles from both sides (evolutionist/creationist), I see nothing to contradict this belief.

:p

Yup, its better to believe the unsubstantiated claims in a book written by desert dwelling tent nomads, whom in most cases we don't even know specifically who they were....than to believe empirical evidence and modern scientists who we can actually talk to.

Very rational thought process.

:p

cannonblaster5
12-03-2007, 02:07 PM
Fedelis or someone more knowledgable than me, what is the possibility that genetic material could be extracted to make some dino-baby clones?

That would be frikkin' awesome. Too bad it's a ****ing duckosaurus though. T-Rex would be much cooler.

Rune
12-03-2007, 02:09 PM
Fedelis or someone more knowledgable than me, what is the possibility that genetic material could be extracted to make some dino-baby clones?

That would be frikkin' awesome. Too bad it's a ****ing duckosaurus though. T-Rex would be much cooler.

0%, DNA degrades pretty quickly.

cannonblaster5
12-03-2007, 02:10 PM
Just because you consider yourself a christian doesn't mean you have to accept everything as a literal truth.

ok.. i believe in the tooth fairy. sounds a bit quacky


I believe in the creation in the sense that God directed it.
evidence? scientific journals? about said "god"? about said "creation"?

give me some and ill give you some about said "tooth fairy"

But I believe it took millions of years and that evolution was a part of it.
try billions and
evidence said "god" (unproven entity) was a part of this joint "creation"/evolution process (completely unfounded and 0 evidence to support this claim)?

cannonblaster5
12-03-2007, 02:14 PM
Seriously, Christianity I got no problem with, but you literal bible people are just plain nuts.

They do have a problem and that's faith = no evidence = ignorance = insanity.

Even regular Christians are just as nuts as fundies; they're just nuts about different things and more conformed to less nutty ideas. They're all just as nuts as scientologists, raelians, suicide cults, etc.

thinkalot
12-03-2007, 02:22 PM
No argument here about it's importance, and perhaps our definition of consensus is not the same. I'm not talking about whack job scientists, but legitimate men/women who argue against the validity of 14C dating. Measuring life on Earth has proven rather difficult to date.


so adam and eve have created an off spring of almost 7000 000 000 people is 6000 years???
what about the supercontinent pangea, wich is about 260 000 000 years old?

http://geology.com/pangea.htm


But do keep believing an old book.

Violator009
12-03-2007, 02:47 PM
uh-oh's!

I guess we can throw that "6000 year old earth theory" out the window.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/dino_mummy

How many times will yall post this, enough with the 6000 yr old theory, not everyone believes that, besides in the book of job there is mention about dinosaurs.....

bamatank
12-03-2007, 02:56 PM
We saints know that the Bible is 100% true and accurate. The fact that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old is indisputable and supported by all the sciences, unlike your religion of Evolutionism. If you God-haters choose to believe the tripe that you are fed by liberal scientists then that is your right, but it does nothing to change the facts.

:)

LOL

TinyTex
12-03-2007, 03:08 PM
To all the people saying its the devil's work, correct my clearly improper memory.

The devil can not do anything physically on Earth, he can only influence. If the devil were able to create object like that, wouldn't that make him like god? (not saying the devil is god, so STFU before you take that out of context)

Rune
12-03-2007, 03:26 PM
Even regular Christians are just as nuts as fundies; they're just nuts about different things and more conformed to less nutty ideas. They're all just as nuts as scientologists, raelians, suicide cults, etc.

People like to believe their not gonna die, that they will be reunited with loved ones, etc, I can understand getting comfort from that. Unfortunately unlike them, all I've learned in my life doesn't allow me to convince myself of that.

jackal337
12-03-2007, 03:51 PM
We saints know that the Bible is 100% true and accurate. The fact that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old is indisputable and supported by all the sciences, unlike your religion of Evolutionism. If you God-haters choose to believe the tripe that you are fed by liberal scientists then that is your right, but it does nothing to change the facts.

:)

SilverSpork
12-03-2007, 04:01 PM
I don't buy into their dating system. I know to many scientists that have explained it to me and the errors of it.

No I will not try to explain the errors because I am not a scientist and I don't remember every detail.

Plus I am not going to change your thinking no matter what I say.


ok so screw carbon dating, forget about it. Every creationists loves to use the excuse that it is possibly flawed.

do you believe that radiometric dating of something like a rock to be accurate? If it isn't, it's pretty much a miracle that you can use dozens of different isotopic systems from a few minerals from a single rock and they all coincide with eachother. The chance that they would all just somehow match (with a small percent error, of course) is almost unimaginable.

edit: I am really curious about your response, and I encourage you to post up any article explaining how radiometric dating isn't accurate.

sikboy
12-03-2007, 04:03 PM
Lies!!!

:d

jmonty
12-03-2007, 04:09 PM
Any fundies want to comment on this? No?
are there seriously people around there that think the earth is only 6,000 years old?

SilverSpork
12-03-2007, 04:17 PM
Now dinasours live in remote parts of Africa and S. America but they do not live as long so they do not grow as large.



k, just gotta get throw this out there.

you are retarded.

how the hell people can turn such a blinde eye to science, yet believe everything written in an archaic book, word for word, is just beyond me. Beyond logic. I would rate a poodle as having higher intelligence than these people.

this is in no way a bash at christianity. I know plenty of people who are christians but do not totally disregard science or logic in their beliefs.

frankenstein
12-03-2007, 04:33 PM
To the fundamentalists- what is you belief about the age of the universe then?? Do you believe the universe was around for billions of years and that God simply created earth ~6000 years ago????

SilverSpork
12-03-2007, 04:47 PM
To the fundamentalists- what is you belief about the age of the universe then?? Do you believe the universe was around for billions of years and that God simply created earth ~6000 years ago????

the universe was created from gumdrop smiles and candycane wishes.

frankenstein
12-03-2007, 05:28 PM
the universe was created from gumdrop smiles and candycane wishes.

No fair. I just spit up my tea.

nonAtlas
12-03-2007, 06:03 PM
The people who think the earth is 6k years old aren't likely to be swayed by scientific evidence. I don't agree with them either, but at this debate is pretty much pointless and being smug about being right on this isn't helpful, anyway.

Actually the young earth is already thoroughly proven not only by the fossil record as a whole, but also by previous finds of dinosaurs frozen (with chewed plants in the gut) in Alaska, proving that the mild climate that the entire earth had prior to the Noahic Flood has radically changed since that event and the massive change in the physics of the earth.

Really nothing there that wasn't already known. :)

pantera02018
12-03-2007, 06:07 PM
Actually the young earth is already thoroughly proven not only by the fossil record as a whole, but also by previous finds of dinosaurs frozen (with chewed plants in the gut) in Alaska, proving that the mild climate that the entire earth had prior to the Noahic Flood has radically changed since that event and the massive change in the physics of the earth.

Really nothing there that wasn't already known. :)

the physics of the earth changed? o rly?

these debates are pointless. some people do not poses the capacity for logical thinking.

frankenstein
12-03-2007, 06:29 PM
Actually the young earth is already thoroughly proven not only by the fossil record as a whole, but also by previous finds of dinosaurs frozen (with chewed plants in the gut) in Alaska, proving that the mild climate that the entire earth had prior to the Noahic Flood has radically changed since that event and the massive change in the physics of the earth.

Really nothing there that wasn't already known. :)

I read stuff like this and I have to wonder, are you for real?? Or is your persona just one big trolling session?? It has to be. Please tell me I'm right with this suspicion. If you have to PM me and tell me you're really a troll, I promise I won't tell anyone.
Seriously. I won't tell if your postings are just the biggest troll con ever.

***Desperately hopes nonAtlas holds the record for trolling***

LatissimusDorsi
12-03-2007, 06:42 PM
LOL. Christianity et al. is factually dead anyway.

riptor
12-03-2007, 07:16 PM
FYI - I believe in creation and I do think that dinasours did and still do roam the earth.


have any evidence of that very bold claim?

Well, if you count birds as dinosaurs then yes they do. But I doubt that is what cdme is referring to. And besides, even if all the dinosaurs didn't die out 65 million years ago it would in no way prove a young earth or disprove evolution.

Also, and I think someone pointed this out, the dinosaur really isn't a mummy. It's just that much of its soft tissue fossilized. Though I'm waiting until some creationist site claims it was found wrapped up liked an Egyptian mummy or something.

DaCougarMech
12-03-2007, 07:17 PM
FYI - I believe in creation and I do think that dinasours did and still do roam the earth.

lol wut


Wow, what a fun thread

Let me say that previously, the most crazy fundies i've talked to online have claimed that dinosaurs lived up until the 16th century. Now, I've got a fundy here who thinks that dinosaurs are still roaming the Earth.

So that really made my day :)

i'm taking a breather from the R/P and getting work done instead


I read stuff like this and I have to wonder, are you for real?? Or is your persona just one big trolling session?? It has to be. Please tell me I'm right with this suspicion. If you have to PM me and tell me you're really a troll, I promise I won't tell anyone.
Seriously. I won't tell if your postings are just the biggest troll con ever.

***Desperately hopes nonAtlas holds the record for trolling***

i doubt he's a troll. if those funeral picketing a$$holes can exist, so can nonAtlas

wanaBsedated
12-03-2007, 07:19 PM
Countdown to 'carbon dating is flawed' post.

carbon dating IS flawed.

Funny tho.. I dont remember anywhere in the bible saying anything about 6k years.

Interesting fact: The hebrew word for day in genesis means a PERIOD of time.. not a DAY.. that day could literally have been 2 billion years long.

JAGERBOY
12-03-2007, 07:24 PM
carbon dating IS flawed.

Funny tho.. I dont remember anywhere in the bible saying anything about 6k years.

Interesting fact: The hebrew word for day in genesis means a PERIOD of time.. not a DAY.. that day could literally have been 2 billion years long.

Oh noesss, he brought teh Yomzzzzz!

RelentlessChaos
12-03-2007, 07:27 PM
can someone explain how tissue can live for 67 million years?

wanaBsedated
12-03-2007, 07:27 PM
Oh noesss, he brought teh Yomzzzzz!

Yomzzz?

I've seen plenty of things in my own time to note flawed results of carbon dating.

I actually want to go back to school for sciences. I am pretty much somewhere in the middle of everything... natural and philosophy. I haven't figured out anything much for myself that I am happy believing completely.

SYRIANKID
12-03-2007, 07:28 PM
So does this mean we can finally have a Jurassic Park now?

wanaBsedated
12-03-2007, 07:29 PM
can someone explain how tissue can live for 67 million years?

It is fossil tissue.

Like fossil poop.. corprolite

wanaBsedated
12-03-2007, 07:31 PM
So does this mean we can finally have a Jurassic Park now?

LOls no.

DNA doesnt survive intact for very long.. + its fossil

SYRIANKID
12-03-2007, 07:33 PM
LOls no.

DNA doesnt survive intact for very long..

Too bad. That would have made big money. We could put saddles on the herbivores and race them.

wanaBsedated
12-03-2007, 07:35 PM
Too bad. That would have made big money. We could put saddles on the herbivores and race them.

Id like to try dinosaur meat. Lol youd feel like a real man eating that. Just call me T rex

SYRIANKID
12-03-2007, 07:42 PM
Id like to try dinosaur meat. Lol youd feel like a real man eating that. Just call me T rex

It would probably taste like lizard.

But if we had that Jurassic Park going, Discovery Channel would be the most exciting channel ever.

Then you would have illegal underground raptor cage matches.

Maybe the wars of the future would be fought on the backs of lazer-mounted dinosaurs (with battle armour).

Chook Legs
12-03-2007, 07:45 PM
They have obtained portions of genome sequences in some dinosaur species.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307153009.htm
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/briefings/2007/06-genomes.asp

They have also discovered protein sequences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/science/24cnd-dino.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4559780

wanaBsedated
12-03-2007, 08:10 PM
They have obtained portions of genome sequences in some dinosaur species.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307153009.htm
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/briefings/2007/06-genomes.asp

They have also discovered protein sequences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/science/24cnd-dino.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4559780

non degraded is a key word in 20 years who knows what they will be able to do about splicing gene cods in.

DaCougarMech
12-03-2007, 08:21 PM
Too bad. That would have made big money. We could put saddles on the herbivores and race them.


It would probably taste like lizard.

But if we had that Jurassic Park going, Discovery Channel would be the most exciting channel ever.

Then you would have illegal underground raptor cage matches.

Maybe the wars of the future would be fought on the backs of lazer-mounted dinosaurs (with battle armour).

reminds me of that pic with the guys riding dinosaurs armed with lasers

toted as "most awesome picture ever"

wanaBsedated
12-03-2007, 08:22 PM
reminds me of that pic with the guys riding dinosaurs armed with lasers

toted as "most awesome picture ever"

They had a show like that when I was a kid. I had the walking bronto with armor :D

Fidelis
12-04-2007, 12:03 AM
carbon dating IS flawed.
Cool, useless unsupported assertion. I extended a challenge to ElderJefferson earlier, let's see if you can overcome it.

If you insist that there is legitimate controversy in the scientific community about the legitimacy of radiocarbon dating as a whole, then cite some recent articles from peer-reviewed science journals that support your claim. Until then, forgive me for dismissing your claims entirely.

thinkalot
12-04-2007, 04:41 AM
Interesting fact: The hebrew word for day in genesis means a PERIOD of time.. not a DAY.. that day could literally have been 2 billion years long.


Finally someone noticed it! Indeed, it talks about a period, not a day!!!!

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 05:06 AM
Wow, strong hating in this thread. I go home for the night and return to find this? I actually thought it was a decent thread at first, but there's no way I'm going to discuss anything with a mob. Too many questions flying around (and most of them aren't even remotely sensible, as the dude who tried to quote the Bible and provide his interpretation holds this truth to be self-evident).

Peace

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 05:07 AM
Yomzzz?

I've seen plenty of things in my own time to note flawed results of carbon dating.

I actually want to go back to school for sciences. I am pretty much somewhere in the middle of everything... natural and philosophy. I haven't figured out anything much for myself that I am happy believing completely.

Yes, do you even know what your own arguments are? If you did, the moment you saw yom you should have picked up on it, and furthermore known that my post had nothing to do with carbon dating.

Also, what things have you personally seen "in your own time" that shows flawed results for carbon dating?

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 05:07 AM
Finally someone noticed it! Indeed, it talks about a period, not a day!!!!

That is not correct. Yom has never referred to "a period", and the wording of "evening and morning" clears up all doubt.

Anyway, the Earth was in existence prior to God's remaking her surface, as the Bible never dates it.

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 05:10 AM
That is not correct. Yom has never referred to "a period", and the wording of "evening and morning" clears up all doubt.

Anyway, the Earth was in existence prior to God's remaking her surface, as the Bible never dates it.

It most certainly does. Its only when you perform some amazing grammatical gymnastics is one able to ignore what Genesis says.

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 05:25 AM
It most certainly does. Its only when you perform some amazing grammatical gymnastics is one able to ignore what Genesis says.

Show me where the Bible dates the Earth.

Now, rather than going through that exercise in futility, a careful reading of Genesis 1 shows that the Lord created the universe, THEN at some point later He began to shape the face of the Earth (Creation Week as we call it). The Earth was "void and without form" prior to that for x amount of years.

Thus, we really aren't sure how old the Earth is, but it must be ancient.

JonZ
12-04-2007, 07:01 AM
"I don't know how you are, but in MY EXPERIENCE, working with people for over fifteen years, most athiests are closed minded."

I think the opposite.

Many athiest, including myself were once religious.

Its the religious who are close minded. Most atheists are open to new ideas, because we receive new scientific information all the time.


While the religious ALWAYS use "because the bible says so" or "all things are possible from god" and thats that - as their arguments. Theyre never open to any possibilities that arent laid out in their faith.

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 07:35 AM
Show me where the Bible dates the Earth.

Now, rather than going through that exercise in futility, a careful reading of Genesis 1 shows that the Lord created the universe, THEN at some point later He began to shape the face of the Earth (Creation Week as we call it). The Earth was "void and without form" prior to that for x amount of years.

Thus, we really aren't sure how old the Earth is, but it must be ancient.
Genesis 1:
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So we see here that in the beginning god created the earth, which was dark and empty.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning?the first day. "

All of this is continuous, because we see that in the beginning Gods spirit was hovering over the waters. The verbage used here is "And God said". It does not say, "at some time in the future", it says "and God said"...which means that all of this is happening at the same time. So God creates the earth, his spirit flows over the water, he notices that its dark and empty so he says "let there be light". This is ALL HAPPENING IN THE SAME TIME FRAME.

If you perform grammatical gymnastics and ignore the "And god said" portion then yes, you can pretend that there is no defnitive point of creation of the earth.

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 08:24 AM
All of this is continuous

There's your error. You are assuming that the two verses are only minutes/seconds apart. Scholars would tend to disagree with you, and so do I. God created the universe, and then at some point later He reformed the Earth. He told Job that the "morning stars sang with joy" while He fashioned the Earth, and that Lucifer was "cast down to the Earth". You'll have a tough time explaining how angels (morning stars) were singing for joy and how Lucifer was able to start a rebellion and be cast to Earth all within a matter of seconds/minutes/hours (whatever).

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 08:28 AM
There's your error. You are assuming that the two verses are only minutes/seconds apart. Scholars would tend to disagree with you, and so do I. God created the universe, and then at some point later He formed the Earth. He told Job that the "morning stars sang with joy" while He fashioned the Earth, and that Lucifer was "cast down to the Earth". You'll have a tough time explaining how angels (morning stars) were singing for joy and how Lucifer was able to start a rebellion and be cast to Earth all within a matter of seconds/minutes/hours (whatever).

Nope. There is no lapse of time. In the beginning...the earth was dark...gods spirit hovered the waters...let there be light...and this was the fist day. It all happens at the same time. If you are VERY liberal with your interpretation of the English language then you can SOMEWHAT rationalize a way to go around that.

:)

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 09:18 AM
Nope. There is no lapse of time. In the beginning...the earth was dark...gods spirit hovered the waters...let there be light...and this was the fist day. It all happens at the same time. If you are VERY liberal with your interpretation of the English language then you can SOMEWHAT rationalize a way to go around that.

:)

Once again you are assuming that there is no time lapse between God creating the universe and His reforming the Earth (it's not continuous), and it conflicts with evidence found in other parts of the Bible. You must allow the Bible to interpret itself, else we may wind up with all sorts of crazy beliefs.

Gordon Bombay
12-04-2007, 09:22 AM
I don't buy into their dating system. I know to many scientists that have explained it to me and the errors of it.

No I will not try to explain the errors because I am not a scientist and I don't remember every detail.

Plus I am not going to change your thinking no matter what I say.

Those 'scientists' mentioned are not scientists at all.

Lemme guess, your fundy pastor brought in this so called scientist from the local Baptist college.

Gordon Bombay
12-04-2007, 09:25 AM
I don't know how you are, but in MY EXPERIENCE, working with people for over fifteen years, most athiests are closed minded.

You mean they fail to respect your backward beliefs? Hahaha yes then I see why.

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 09:26 AM
Once again you are assuming that there is no time lapse between God creating the universe and His reforming the Earth (it's not continuous), and it conflicts with evidence found in other parts of the Bible. You must allow the Bible to interpret itself, else we may wind up with all sorts of crazy beliefs.Actually, Jesus himself endorses it I believe. Other than that, it most certainly is continuous as it clearly illustrates. There is no verbage to indicate otherwise. Sorry.

Gordon Bombay
12-04-2007, 09:27 AM
Like I said in the past, I am not a scientist, so I rely on research just like most others in this forum.

From what I have read and been told by scientist, reptiles never stop growing. After the flood the earths climate and such changed. It did not allow things to live as long. Now dinasours live in remote parts of Africa and S. America but they do not live as long so they do not grow as large.

This is what I have found, if you don't believe that same thing good for you .


Or perhaps it's because prey got smaller after the Jurassic period...hmm

Gordon Bombay
12-04-2007, 09:29 AM
Ironically the comments from religious people are almost as amazing as this discovery.

We get a two for one here.

lol repped

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 09:32 AM
Actually, Jesus himself endorses it I believe. Other than that, it most certainly is continuous as it clearly illustrates. There is no verbage to indicate otherwise. Sorry.

I already shared two other verses which confirm the old earth belief. There's more than that if need be.

Also, any Bible scholar can confirm that verse 1 is not necessarily one continuous verse, as there is first a creation of everything, and then God moves. When He created the Earth is not mentioned in the Bible, only that it was "in the beginning".

Basically, unless one ignores all the Bible verses after Genesis, and they refute A LOT of scientific data concerning the age of the Earth (radiometric dating, stars in the sky, etc), it's hard not to believe in an old Earth. The Bible doesn't teach it either.

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 09:43 AM
I already shared two other verses which confirm the old earth belief. There's more than that if need be.

Also, any Bible scholar can confirm that verse 1 is not necessarily one continuous verse, as there is first a creation of everything, and then God moves. When He created the Earth is not mentioned in the Bible, only that it was "in the beginning".

Basically, unless one ignores all the Bible verses after Genesis, and they refute A LOT of scientific data concerning the age of the Earth (radiometric dating, stars in the sky, etc), it's hard not to believe in an old Earth. The Bible doesn't teach it either.

Jesus said that "from the beginning of the creation God created them male and female". So since the beginning of creation, living things were male and female, and we know that living things were created at most 5 days after he started. So since the beginning of creation, and making things male and female are all within a weeks time frame, we know that the initial creation of the earth is not some unknown amount of time, it was at the same time he made Adam and Eve, within a week at least.

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 09:56 AM
Jesus said that "from the beginning of the creation God created them male and female". So since the beginning of creation, living things were male and female, and we know that living things were created at most 5 days after he started. So since the beginning of creation, and making things male and female are all within a weeks time frame, we know that the initial creation of the earth is not some unknown amount of time, it was at the same time he made Adam and Eve, within a week at least.

Not based on that verse it isn't. Pleaze realize that the Bible never really tackles the origin of the rock beneath our feet (save for the leading verse in the Bible). God is more focused on our existence, and it is His creation of man that is memoralized as His crowning achievement.

We're going in circles here. You believe the Bible teaches something contrary to what I believe, so let's leave it at that, although you will be hard-pressed to find supporting evidence for your belief anywhere else (in or out of the Bible).

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 10:04 AM
Not based on that verse it isn't. Pleaze realize that the Bible never really tackles the origin of the rock beneath our feet (save for the leading verse in the Bible). God is more focused on our existence, and it is His creation of man that is memoralized as His crowning achievement.

We're going in circles here. You believe the Bible teaches something contrary to what I believe, so let's leave it at that, although you will be hard-pressed to find supporting evidence for your belief anywhere else (in or out of the Bible).

It does date the rock under our feet though. It clearly states that from the beginning of CREATION, meaning, the heavens and earth. And since from the beginning of creation he created male and females within a week, we can tell that EVERYTHING was created within a week. It clearly states this in Genesis 1 and is corroborated by Jesus himself. It all ties together pretty nicely.

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 10:52 AM
It does date the rock under our feet though. It clearly states that from the beginning of CREATION, meaning, the heavens and earth. And since from the beginning of creation he created male and females within a week, we can tell that EVERYTHING was created within a week. It clearly states this in Genesis 1 and is corroborated by Jesus himself. It all ties together pretty nicely.

:rolleyes:

Dude, we've already covered this ground. Your trying to extrapolate from the Bible too literally without taking the abundance of evidence found in both the language and the rest of Scripture.

Besides, why are you trying to tell me what I should believe from the Bible? It doesn't teach what you are implying, as we have every reason to believe that the Earth is extremely old. Life upon this rock, however, is another story.

:D

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 11:01 AM
:rolleyes:

Dude, we've already covered this ground. Your trying to extrapolate from the Bible too literally without taking the abundance of evidence found in both the language and the rest of Scripture.

Besides, why are you trying to tell me what I should believe from the Bible? It doesn't teach what you are implying, as we have every reason to believe that the Earth is extremely old. Life upon this rock, however, is another story.

:D

Yes I agree, we have every reason to beleive that the earth is extremele old...which is why you shouldn't invest your beliefs in the Bible since it claims otherwise...my entire point.

:)


I do find it odd however, that based on scientific evidence and theory you will believe the earth is billions of years old, yet you don't believe in evolution and the age of life?

:confused:

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 11:24 AM
Yes I agree, we have every reason to beleive that the earth is extremele old...which is why you shouldn't invest your beliefs in the Bible since it claims otherwise...my entire point.

:)


I do find it odd however, that based on scientific evidence and theory you will believe the earth is billions of years old, yet you don't believe in evolution and the age of life?

:confused:

Well, first of all the Bible doesn't teach that the Earth is young (enough already). I do admit that I am in the minute minority that doesn't believe in the "great" theory, and I would be lying if I said that my beliefs were not affected by the teachings of the Bible, but I can honestly say that I am in no way convinced that the data confirms the theory of evolution. A lot of what many scientists use to support the theory of evolution is the exact same evidence that many Creationists use in defense of Genesis (fossils, geology, etc).

cannonblaster5
12-04-2007, 11:36 AM
You must allow the Bible to interpret itself, else we may wind up with all sorts of crazy beliefs.

lol you already got them

you believe in god for one

think jesus was some reincarnated ghost zombie for 2

think a guy turned water into wine, seperated an entire river, etc. its nuts

hokiebird
12-04-2007, 11:36 AM
Genesis 1:
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So we see here that in the beginning god created the earth, which was dark and empty.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning?the first day. "

All of this is continuous, because we see that in the beginning Gods spirit was hovering over the waters. The verbage used here is "And God said". It does not say, "at some time in the future", it says "and God said"...which means that all of this is happening at the same time. So God creates the earth, his spirit flows over the water, he notices that its dark and empty so he says "let there be light". This is ALL HAPPENING IN THE SAME TIME FRAME.

If you perform grammatical gymnastics and ignore the "And god said" portion then yes, you can pretend that there is no defnitive point of creation of the earth.


Day one-- he did this
Day 2 he did this and so on.. get it??

cannonblaster5
12-04-2007, 11:38 AM
From what I have read and been told by scientist, reptiles never stop growing. After the flood the earths climate and such changed. It did not allow things to live as long. Now dinasours live in remote parts of Africa and S. America but they do not live as long so they do not grow as large.
lol dinosaurs weren't reptiles man.

they had feathers

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 11:41 AM
lol you already got them

you believe in god for one

think jesus was some reincarnated ghost zombie for 2

think a guy turned water into wine, seperated an entire river, etc. its nuts

Way to screw up a good conversation

JAGERBOY
12-04-2007, 11:42 AM
Well, first of all the Bible doesn't teach that the Earth is young (enough already).Yes it does, enough already.

I do admit that I am in the minute minority that doesn't believe in the "great" theory, and I would be lying if I said that my beliefs were not affected by the teachings of the Bible, but I can honestly say that I am in no way convinced that the data confirms the theory of evolution. A lot of what many scientists use to support the theory of evolution is the exact same evidence that many Creationists use in defense of Genesis (fossils, geology, etc).So what about fossils and geology do creationists use that refutes evolution? The fossil record shows us transitional forms. The fossil record shows life going from more complex to less complex the deeper we dig in the strata. The fossil record allows us to test the age of said fossils using various methods. What more do you need to see?

hokiebird
12-04-2007, 11:50 AM
Jesus said that "from the beginning of the creation God created them male and female". So since the beginning of creation, living things were male and female, and we know that living things were created at most 5 days after he started. So since the beginning of creation, and making things male and female are all within a weeks time frame, we know that the initial creation of the earth is not some unknown amount of time, it was at the same time he made Adam and Eve, within a week at least.


One day unto the Lord is a thousand years..... study and find that in the Bible.

ElderJefferson
12-04-2007, 11:53 AM
Yes it does, enough already.

:rolleyes:


So what about fossils and geology do creationists use that refutes evolution? The fossil record shows us transitional forms. The fossil record shows life going from more complex to less complex the deeper we dig in the strata. The fossil record allows us to test the age of said fossils using various methods. What more do you need to see?

Definitely not a field in which I am well educated, but I have read many articles concerning the fossil record that were used to REFUTE the theory of evolution. It's a source of some of the bigger "holes" in the theory.

Edit: Many Creationists point to the giant fossils in support of Genesis (when men and animals were "giant"). Others us the scattered fossil layers to show that the species lived during the same time period, and that the layers confirm the flood, etc.

By geology I meant the surface of the Earth, as I read one article which pointed out how the face of the Earth bears marks of being covered completely underwater at some point in her past.

Lucky Greens
12-04-2007, 11:57 AM
lol dinosaurs weren't reptiles man.

they had feathers

Not all 'em. This one didn't.