What of the dinosaurs?

[GodIsSalvation]

So you agree Ussher's dates should have never been in the Bible, it appears.

Who do you think is the one person most responsible for the dogma that the world began around 6,000 years ago?

Yes I would agree such revisionist commentaries should not be in the Bible. I believe that to understand the Bible, or any book for that matter one should simply read it as it is written. To be frank I have never even heard of Ussher.

The 6,000 year date is not on any one person in my opinion. Dating anything past 100 BC becomes very murky business due to the fact the Julian calendar which forms the basis of the Gregorian calendar was non-existent. Literally everything prior to 100 BC is merely an arbitrary guess. Nevertheless it would seem to me the 6,000 year guess is based off the facts that written history itself is only between 4000-6000 years old and also considerring the genealogies in the Bible (Matthew 1). Then figuring in the pre-Flood Age which of course would be prehistoric, but which the Bible lists as lasting over 1,000 years, we come to a figure between 5000-7000 years. My guess is that 6,000 is cited frequently as it is somewhat the median.

 

[bordenken]

Dinosaurs and man did exist together ,before 1841 or so when word dinosaur was coined meaning terrible lizard. They were refer to as dragons ,if look at a 1942 dictionary you find them defined. (You tube) Did you see that on creation in 21st century has allot of proof they existed with man. Inca burial stones where 1/3 of them have dinosaurs craved on them. Craving on ancient Hindu temple in Cambodia, eta, etc, etc. The proof goes on but proving dinosaurs and man existed together after the flood. Climate change after the flood and man probably killed them off. Look all animals on verge of extinction today because of man. Also how about viable soft tissue found in at least 6 dinosaur bones so far. Such tissue could stay that way for 65 million years. There where many side rabbit trails people brought up, like age of earth and prior ages of earth and other floods. That need to have separate disscussion topic posted.?

 

[bordenken]

Blain in the beginning all creatures where vegetarian. I think someone has been watching to many movies. T-rex could have been a scavenger, do it's short front and large nostrils not a predator.as depicted by Hollywood.

 

[bordenken]

Blain there is a multitude of information out there to help you. ICR(institute for creation research); You tube: Creation in 21st century; Origins (also on you tube); Answers in genesis: excellent DVD's also; there is one call Evolution the grand experiment ( where Dr. Carl Werner goes out to find out if evolution is true but the finding are startling)

 

[JackH]

Yes I would agree such revisionist commentaries should not be in the Bible. I believe that to understand the Bible, or any book for that matter one should simply read it as it is written. To be frank I have never even heard of Ussher.

The 6,000 year date is not on any one person in my opinion. Dating anything past 100 BC becomes very murky business due to the fact the Julian calendar which forms the basis of the Gregorian calendar was non-existent. Literally everything prior to 100 BC is merely an arbitrary guess. Nevertheless it would seem to me the 6,000 year guess is based off the facts that written history itself is only between 4000-6000 years old and also considerring the genealogies in the Bible (Matthew 1). Then figuring in the pre-Flood Age which of course would be prehistoric, but which the Bible lists as lasting over 1,000 years, we come to a figure between 5000-7000 years. My guess is that 6,000 is cited frequently as it is somewhat the median.

So, you Young Earth Creationists out there, do you agree with this explanation?

Is this how you arrive at the conclusion that the world is around 6,000 years old?

 

[JackH]

Blain in the beginning all creatures where vegetarian. I think someone has been watching to many movies. T-rex could have been a scavenger, do it's short front and large nostrils not a predator.as depicted by Hollywood.

Does being a scavenger as opposed to a predator mean that the animal was vegetarian?

What do you suppose T. rex scavenged? Lettuce?

T. rex ate meat but T. rex didn't eat humans. Not because of the taste of humans. Because T. rex was extinct millions of years before humans arrived on the scene.

You just joined this site. I would suggest at the very least you read all of the posts on this thread. Many of the issues you raise have already been discussed.

 

[Timeline]

I don't know that I disagree with your above statements.

But what is your definition of evolution, expressed in a similar fashion to how you defined science?

Sorry for the delayed response, I went on a school retreat with my son from Wed-Fri.

I think that we both know that I did not define science, but copied and pasted from a online dictionary.

I don't have a problem with evolution on a small scale - meaning that I realize that living things do make small adaptions. But, even if it were possible for a crocodile to "evolve" into a duck (or whatever), I don't believe that the desired time frame is/was in play.

As I said before, I don't know how long the earth has existed, but I do believe that God created all known life about 6,000 years ago (or at least the animals that produced the animals through relatively small adaptions and cross breeding).

The bible seems to suggest that the entire earth was covered in water 1656 years before the flood. I say that because the bible says that God divided the waters on day three - exposing dry land. I do realize the possibility that the creation story could be more symbolic than realistic, but I think it is both.

So, the most I can give y'all is about 6,230 years for your evolution to progress. Hardly enough time for their suggested evolution to take place.

Either way, we are missing billions of fossils of the intermediary animals between known species. I am also aware than most of the intermediary fossils would have been lost (had they ever existed), but there would be more than enough to prove Evolution. And I mean really prove it, not just push it because they don't want to believe in God.

 

[Timeline]

I will look up and post a definition for evolution if you want, but it seemed pointless. I have to go because we are going to a Halloween party. Yeah, I know, but that's another subject. We are having a meal with other Church members.

 

[Cycel]

Blain in the beginning all creatures where vegetarian. I think someone has been watching to many movies. T-rex could have been a scavenger, do it's short front and large nostrils not a predator.as depicted by Hollywood.

I take issue. If T-rex, or lions, had been herbivores, then their dentition from those early times would back up the claim. I have never heard of any fossil predator turning up with a jaw full of cow or sheep teeth. Have you? Think about it.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

So, you Young Earth Creationists out there, do you agree with this explanation?

Is this how you arrive at the conclusion that the world is around 6,000 years old?

Lol what is young and what is old? It's hard to put an exact date on the age because at a certain point the ages of the line or when so and so begat so and so are unknown and thus of course variable. Ironically this is not during some of the most questioned eras like early Genesis which is actually quite clear and ironically in this time era of all time eras more provable than since those events happened given how we have so much access to knowledge of the ancient cultures and even our contemporary cultures and their histories.

Rather the hardest era to date in both biblical and secular history is during sometime after the Jews return to Israel during Medo-Persian rule through tp Jesus. Though again history shows the surrounding events and the Bible sets parameters at least.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I take issue. If T-rex, or lions, had been herbivores, then their dentition from those early times would back up the claim. I have never heard of any fossil predator turning up with a jaw full of cow or sheep teeth. Have you? Think about it.

Lol in a weird way I partially agree with you here Cycel, at least on the part of such beasts as lions for instance being herbivores.

Forget the teeth and all that even. If there was no such thing as death, there's no need for the animals to eat.

 

[Cycel]

Lol in a weird way I partially agree with you here Cycel, at least on the part of such beasts as lions for instance being herbivores.

It is not only the dentition that would have to change on all predatory animals but their intestinal tracts as well. Bone structure would have to be redesigned to support the changes (carnivores have much different intestinal tracts than do herbivores). We should also see a change in the DNA after the Fall of Man.

Forget the teeth and all that even. If there was no such thing as death, there's no need for the animals to eat.

What purpose then was the Garden of Eden? If animals didn't eat then neither did humans, yet that is not what Genesis says. Of course the animals ate. To think otherwise is absurd.

 

[ColinCat]

Cycel, aren't you familiar with prides of lions hunting plants together? Or hunting nothing together if they didn't eat at all?

You also must have heard about the cheetah that God made. The cheetah that was given the ability to run so fast to chase those fast moving plants?

 

[Cycel]

Cycel, aren't you familiar with prides of lions hunting plants together? Or hunting nothing together if they didn't eat at all?

You also must have heard about the cheetah that God made. The cheetah that was given the ability to run so fast to chase those fast moving plants?

LOL! Thank you. I had forgotten.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

I take issue. If T-rex, or lions, had been herbivores, then their dentition from those early times would back up the claim. I have never heard of any fossil predator turning up with a jaw full of cow or sheep teeth. Have you? Think about it.

I just want to put a little twist in that thought. How about a herbivore possessing canine teeth, like heterdontosaurus?

The diets of many dinosaurs are doubtless based often on types of teeth unless there is evidence of fossil remains of food to aid in the determination whether a fossil dinosaur was entirely herbivorous, omnivorous, or entirely carnivorous. Might it be that insufficient fossil evidence leaves a lot of room for "best guess" classification of each species? Fossil dinosaur evidence in sufficient entirety is actually quite rare. Will you rule out a claimed carnivorous dinosaur being entirely predatory if it has a matching set of molars in addition sharp canines? What do you think about herbivores with long sharp canines for ripping bark off trees? Did all carnivores only rip meat off bones and swallow it whole without grinding it, or did they use claws to enable them to do without molars, ripping with the canines and shredding with claws that also held prey down?

Did you know t. rex is considered both predator and scavenger? Might the combination of dentition and powerful bipedal claws put it into the scavenger class?

My aim is to get some folks looking all this stuff up instead of going along with some chat site opinions. There are plenty of science sites that discuss the facts. It's all fascinating if one deals with true facts.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Only thing I see arguing here... Is what they ate, I would say biting off the fruit changed things... But hey, not a expert... But sin is accounted for one way or another.. Bringing fear of death, and death as well.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Only thing I see arguing here... Is what they ate, I would say biting off the fruit changed things... But hey, not a expert... But sin is accounted for one way or another.. Bringing fear of death, and death as well.

That came out wrong, I sound like a arrogant jerk, not how I meant it one bit... Just saying I don't know it all, but biting of the fruit gave us death, we know good and evil, and everyone will know death because of it. We have to overcome, that we don't die the second death... The "carnal" nature came along with being of evil, "biting the fruit" .. We have to overcome this carnal nature now because of it.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

I'm quite familiar with all the federal decisions on these issues.

The last SCOTUS decision was 27 years ago, Edwards v. Aguilland. By a 7-2 vote, the SC struck down teaching creation science in public schools.

Since then there have been several major cases at the federal level with the same result. The chances appear to be slim and none that this issue will make it back to the Supreme Court any time soon. Oh sure, somebody will get a bill introduced in a state legislature, but it won't likely go far.

Wrong! They struck down a state act that required public schools to teach both views of origins.

I think your comment reflects what atheists promote of that ruling, ignoring the parts that allow teaching of alternative theories to evolution as long as the emphasis is not on religion. Please read it for yourself, and while at it read the earlier SCOTUS case of Lemon v. Kurtzasin 1971, which has not been rescended.

Creation science at its best doesn't involve the Bible at all anyway. It shows evidence disputing secular evolution and demonstrates design in obedience to the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution sets those aside. The only logical name for that handling of the same data available to all sides is "creation" science, which is a valid name for a real science perspective which is competitive by name with the naturalistic tenets of evolution. There's no point in dragging this out piecemeal. I recommend actually reading the two SCOTUS cases that are in agreement allowing the teaching of alternative origins theories under some rules. Louisiana lost their desire to require 50-50 evolution/creation theories. What is on record is summarized in particular listed under Guidelines for Teachers near the end of the following copy/paste article from ICR.org. Look it up at Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or search it at http://www.supremecourt.gov/. That link is very lenghty. That issue was the state of Pennsylvania legislating that private schools must only use public teaching materials and public school textbooks. That was ruled unconstitutional and remains so. You will find atheists have deceived us all with partial truth and lies about Edwards v. Aguillan, too. In addition, I mentioned another matter, that of student rights, speech rights, and didn't yet mention US Constitutional guaranteee of no government prohibition of religion. As long as there is no intent from school employees to promote a religion by unfairly representing the creation science viewpoint over the evolution viewpoint, legal challenges against CS won't get far these days. You see many public schools cower to threats of expensive litigation, when that is unnecessary unless a teacher makes a science course more a religion course. Relatively few public school teachers know enough about creation science to threaten evolution anyway, until thusands of non-public educated well-rounded graduates eventually become public school teachers themselves.
[h=1]Teachers Can Teach Creation Science in the Classroom[/h] [h=2]by Robert L. Simonds, Th.D.[/h]

Today, many in public education are attempting to use the government to censor scientific evidence that refutes evolution and advances the concept of special creation. It is widely believed that scientific creationism cannot be taught in a public school science classroom. This is not true.​

The U.S. Supreme Court developed a three-prong test in Lemon v. Kurtzas to when government involvement in religious activity does not violate the establishment clause: (1) The activity must have a secular purpose; (2) its primary effect must be neither to advance nor inhibit religion; (3) it must not constitute excessive entanglement of government with religion.

​

THE BATTLEGROUND​

One would think that rational men of science would want to test, evaluate, and discuss any reasonable scientific theory on any given subject, to ascertain probable, testable data to move the theory to the level of a scientific law.​

However, the established scientific community has built an entire system around a straw house. The irrationality of this position has created a scientific "house divided," as Dr. Henry Morris has thoroughly documented.[SUP]1[/SUP]​

Not only does the theory of evolution not conform to the criteria for science, it is also the foundation of many religions, and it totally fails the Supreme Court test of government non-involvement in religion.​

This is nothing less than a spiritual battle for the minds of all America's children. Evolution, consistently applied, denies God's existence and His creative acts. It is the central theme of all humanist theory. Without evolution, the entire atheist religion of humanism would fall.​

HOW ABOUT THE CHURCH AND STATE ISSUE?​

Dr. John Moore, Professor of Natural Science at Michigan State University for over 30 years, pointed out that in creation science:​

No new laws are necessary, there is no possible violation of so-called separation of church and state, since no religious teaching is involved.[SUP]2[/SUP] But would the United States Supreme Court buy that? Yes. In Edwards vs. Aguiliard, 482 U.S. 96 (1987), they said:
​

... teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.​

That ruling also sustained the finding of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as follows:​

No court of which we are aware had prohibited voluntary instruction concerning purely scientific evidence that happens, incidentally, to be consistent with a religious doctrine or tenet.​

Therefore, the teaching of creation science is solidly supported by law—as long as the court's rules are followed.​

HOW ABOUT ACADEMIC CREDIBILITY?​

The main argument of the ACLU in the Scopes Trial in 1925 was that "it is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins (creation)." The argument was against "censorship" of evolution. Now the tables have turned.​

A liberal educaton, by definition, requires all sides of every issue to be aired. Truth from any source should not be feared. That is another academic reason to teach "creation science." Academic freedom permits a teacher to present whatever views he or she deems necessary to clarify a subject.​

Censoring out creation science in favor of a religious view of evolution would violate academia's rules against censorship. Not to allow another valid theorv would also violate the academic idea of a liberal education, and to suppress a teacher's right to freedom in learning would violate the concept of academic freedom.​

HOW ABOUT SCHOOL OR STATE POLICIES?​

The ACLU and NEA (National Education Association) have spent millions on giving school boards, administrators, and teachers the false perception that Creation Science is a religious doctrine, not science. However, the Institute for Creation Research has strongly challenged that perception and has started the decay of the evolutionary death grip on science. The constituents of ICR are privileged to support and participate in possibly the greatest single movement in American church history in this century.​

Until 1989, no state, to my knowledge, ever put in writing that it was permissible to teach "creation science," "divine creation," "ultimate purposes," or "ultimate causes" in a public-school classroom. However, the proposed new "California State Board of Education Policy Statement on the Teaching of Natural Sciences" says:​

Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and of life (the "how") are appropriate to the scientific curriculum. Discussions of diuine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the "why") are appropriate to the history/social science and English/language arts curricula: (emphasis mine).​

The first sentence affirms that any valid scientific fact ' theory, or hypothesis can be taught. That policy should qualify the theories of creation science. Evolution is no more "testable" or "faisifiable" than creation.​

The second sentence opens up the legitimate teaching of Biblical divine creation, ultimate purposes, and ultimate causes, not in only one major discipline, but four (history, social sciences, English, and English literature).​

The recent Texas "Proclamation 66" requires all textbooks to:​

1. Present more than one theory of evolution (this shows up the internal divisions on evolution dogma);
2. Examine alternative scientific evidence and ideas on origins (this forces the discussion of scientific creationism both as an idea and a theory);
3. Present evidence to test, verify, modify, or refute each theory of evolution discussed;
4. Present any other reliable scientific theories of origins.

It does seem that the educational pendulum could be swinging back to center. However, the battle is not over, by any means.​

SUPPORTING THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE​

Public school curricula should stay within the true realm of science: the observable, the testable, and the predictable. However, this would preclude the dogmatic teaching of evolution. All Christians should insist on this in their public schools.​

Science involves methods, procedures, and practices limited by specific principles of investigation. These principles are often violated by evolutionists. You should be kept well informed on evolution's weaknesses. For example, Dr. Moore writes:​

The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle ....​

The concept of survival of the fittest itself does not necessarily imply any evolution. Would not the fittest survive, whether they evolved or were created?"[SUP]3[/SUP]​

Science functions in the realm of the testable, i.e., the falsifiable. Any proposed scientific explanation must be amenable to a testing process.​

GUIDELINES FOR TEACHERS​

If you are a teacher, you should take a step-by-step approach to maintaining the integrity of science in your classroom.​

1. Realize that many school administrators, school board members, and teachers are closet creationists. In their hearts they believe in a Creator and many want to support such views but feel their hands are tied. Your task is to show them that both evolution and scientific creationism should be presented in the classroom.
2. Provide solid secular information on scientific creationism such as What is Creation Science? (published by the Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021).
3. Document the legality of teaching scientific creationism. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard (Case No. 85-1513) that a Louisiana law demanding a "balance" of evolution and creationism be taught, had an unconstitutional purpose of advancing a religious opinion. However, the Court also clarified that:
   Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction (p. 14) (previously cited).
   The Supreme Court noted that teachers "already possess" the flexibility to supplement the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life (p. 8), and are "free to teach any and all facets of this subject" of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind" (p. 9).
   This is clearly a "green light" for scientific creationism to be taught, even though its teaching cannot be mandated, and even though it prohibits the teaching of Biblical Creationism.
4. Sponsor a lecture series at a local public library or auditorium (not a church) on scientific creationism. Invite teachers, administrators, and school board members. Organize the local churches for support of this event.

As a teacher, you are a unique minister of "light." Your work will "salt" the education process. ICR materials have helped our CEE parents' groups win scores of creation/evolution-policy battles across America. Those same materials will strengthen every teacher's resolve and technical abilities.​

The creation/evolution war is for the soul of our nation. Every person will be affected by its outcome.​

The Humanist Manifesto I (1933), promulgated by the American Humanist Association, describes the basis for its atheism in its very first Tenet, as follows: "(we) regard the Universe as self-existing and not created."​

The Christian Bible supports scientific creation evidence when it says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).​

What message will America's children hear? It all depends on you.​

REFERENCES​

1. Morris, Henry M., "Evolution—A House Divided," Impact 149, Acts & Facts, vol. 18, August 1989), 4 pp.
2. Moore, John N., How to Teach Origins, Milford, Michigan, Mott Media, 1983, p. 1.
3. Moore, p. 46.​

*Dr. Simonds is President and Founder of the National Association of Christian Educators and Citizens for Excellence in Education, P.O. Box 3200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628. ​

Cite this article: Robert L. Simonds, Th.D. 1989. Teachers Can Teach Creation Science in the Classroom. Acts & Facts. 18 (10).

 

[Word_Swordsman]

That came out wrong, I sound like a arrogant jerk, not how I meant it one bit... Just saying I don't know it all, but biting of the fruit gave us death, we know good and evil, and everyone will know death because of it. We have to overcome, that we don't die the second death... The "carnal" nature came along with being of evil, "biting the fruit" .. We have to overcome this carnal nature now because of it.

What you wrote in #356 is true. God called His creation "good", then man messed it up through sin. That introduced death and mutations that amplified death not only among people, but all life and even distorted the solid earth itself.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

It is not only the dentition that would have to change on all predatory animals but their intestinal tracts as well. Bone structure would have to be redesigned to support the changes (carnivores have much different intestinal tracts than do herbivores). We should also see a change in the DNA after the Fall of Man.


What purpose then was the Garden of Eden? If animals didn't eat then neither did humans, yet that is not what Genesis says. Of course the animals ate. To think otherwise is absurd.

I would like to view those transitional fossils showing changes in intestines. Where are they?

Are you saying no carnivorous dinosaur could have consumed fruits and other plant parts for hydration and even sustain them nutritionally indefinitely? Where can you prove that? In the sudden absence or adequate vegetation (droughts) could an animal possibly benefit from a limited genetic adaptability to develop canine teeth that gradually grow longer and sharper to aid in predation, as its environment worsens? If not, please cite your proof. I think it is intelligent to take an actual look at science facts like those of "Darwin's" finches in the Galapagos Islands that rapidly adapt to droughts alternating with adequate rain and growth. The finches have been exhibiting a wide variety of beaks all along, not showing evidence of evolution from small beaks to large beaks. Evolutionist like to claim those changes support them, but they often justlook at the data wrong by bias.