What of the dinosaurs?

[JackH]

I would like to propose that any direct refutation of the Bible account of beginnings ought to not be allowed once the Bible account is presented.

Lol.

So anybody who doesn't agree with YOUR "Bible account of beginnings ought to not be allowed" you say?

It would appear you are desperately seeking affirmation and not information.

There are already websites where people like you can read nothing but YEC propaganda. These websites are frequently copy and pasted from and linked to in these forums.

And for an even better frontal lobotomy, you can watch Kent Hovind videos.

 

[Calminian]

So what...Paul was imprisoned and wrote almost half of the N.T.
Peter was Imprisoned and both he and Paul were executed by Rome
Jesus was arrested, tried and put to death as a common criminal....

So your point is moot Jack-I-poo!

Exactly. And Paul was likely guilty of the charges he was imprisoned for in most cases. Christian abolitionists were also imprisoned at times. Sometimes God smiles on civil disobedience, which is what Hovind believed he was doing.

Then contrast that with Jack who sits back and brags about his arrest record. I doubt Jack would ever stand up for anything that put him in harms way. He's content being a coward and taking pot shots on the internet. LOL.

 

[Calminian]

Folks read it again.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth this is before the 6 day creation comes into account....

Nothing in the text indicates this. Check the hebrew yourself. All of day one consists of statements separated by vav links (the word for and or then).

And the hebrew word for beginning, re'shiyth, can be a summary of a beginning period rather that just a beginning point. Thus the first statement in this account is actually referring directly to the 6 days that follow it.

You'll see the elsewhere in the text where the beginning of king's reigns are mentioned. The text will then go back and describe events within that beginning period.

Take a close look. In the beginning God created the land and sky. Then what follows are detailed descriptions of the process in which God created the land and sky. We're also told the land was initially unformed and unfilled (formless and void). If the land was formless, then it couldn't have supported land animals that require a hard dry formed land. And of course the text expressly tells us the land was not filled either, so it's specifically telling us there were no hosts on the land yet.

The account is crystal clear. On day 1 God created the unformed land and unexpanded heavens and light (the angels of light were probably created then also). On day 2 God expanded the heavens (likely the entire cosmos). On day 3 he made the dry land and plant-food system.

This completed the formation process. Then comes the filling. On day 4 he filled the expanded heavens with the great lights (different hebrew word), sun moon and stars. Then on day 5 & 6 he created animals and man.

These events are all tied to v. 1-2. Moses understood it this way for sure when he says,

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....

 

[Calminian]

BTW, have Jack or Cycel backtracked on their hollywood view of dinosaurs yet? I've showed them where secular scientists have debunked their claims. But mysteriously they've now dropped the subject. Are you guys going to step up and defend your views, or just fall back on your faith and plug your ears? Do you guys really draw your views from hollywood rather than science?

 

[christianperson91]

Science over God's Word, right? Right?

No

Science over your interpretation of God's word......

Yes

YEC is not the only interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Calminian]

...YEC is not the only interpretation of the Bible.

You are correct. Bishop Spong (John Shelby Spong) is a very influential "christian" leader who interprets the entire Bible as, essentially, allegory. He allegorizes all the miracles in the Bible, including the Resurrection and all of Christ's miracles. He doesn't take any of it literally, and all for the sake of science. For science rules out miracle and men rising from the dead in 3 days. Thus, just as you are doing, he is reinterpreting scripture where in conflicts with modern scientific ideas. I'm sure you guys would get along great.

 

[christianperson91]

You are correct. Bishop Spong (John Shelby Spong) is a very influential "christian" leader who interprets the entire Bible as, essentially, allegory. He allegorizes all the miracles in the Bible, including the Resurrection and all of Christ's miracles. He doesn't take any of it literally, and all for the sake of science. For science rules out miracle and men rising from the dead in 3 days. Thus, just as you are doing, he is reinterpreting scripture where in conflicts with modern scientific ideas. I'm sure you guys would get along great.

Yes because all Christians who do not interpret the book of genesis as intending to be historically accurate also do not believe in the actual resurrection and deny anything supernatural. Makes SO much sense. Though I wonder why there are many Christians out there that accept the age of the earth for what it is and GASP still accept what is found in the New Testament. By the way please don't say I would get along with those who deny what happened to
Jesus, that is offensive and unchristian like.

 

[Calminian]

Yes because all Christians who do not interpret the book of genesis as intending to be historically accurate also do not believe in the actual resurrection and deny anything supernatural. Makes SO much sense. Though I wonder why there are many Christians out there that accept the age of the earth for what it is and GASP still accept what is found in the New Testament. By the way please don't say I would get along with those who deny what happened to
Jesus, that is offensive and unchristian like.

Yes, but Bishop Spong is using the same hermeneutic you are, he's just applying in more consistently. You pick and chose when to believe science and reinterpret scripture, whereas, he consistently reinterprets scripture where it conflicts with science. And the sad part is, you can't tell him he's doing anything wrong for you do the very same thing. You just isolate it to fewer books.

But other than the number of books you apply this hermeneutic to, your hermeneutical approach is identical to Spongs. If you disagree, explain how?

 

[JackH]

And Paul was likely guilty of the charges he was imprisoned for in most cases. Christian abolitionists were also imprisoned at times. Sometimes God smiles on civil disobedience, which is what Hovind believed he was doing.

No doubt many of those who are serving a 10-year prison sentence for 58 felonies believe they were merely guilty of civil obedience ordained by God.

And you attempt to rationalize Dr. Dino's criminal record by comparing him to Paul (and Peter and Jesus)?

That's so pathetic I don't even feel like laughing out loud. A snicker will do.

 

[JackH]

I doubt Jack would ever stand up for anything that put him in harms way. He's content being a coward

You must have served in the military in a combat zone to have the intestinal fortitude (on the internet) to make such an ad hominem attack. Right?

 

[JackH]

BTW, have Jack or Cycel backtracked on their hollywood view of dinosaurs yet? I've showed them where secular scientists have debunked their claims. But mysteriously they've now dropped the subject. Are you guys going to step up and defend your views, or just fall back on your faith and plug your ears? Do you guys really draw your views from hollywood rather than science?

I can't speak for Cycel, but I get my info from places like the dinosaur exhibit at the Carnegie Museum of National History. It's not far from where I live, and I have been there almost as many times as Heinz Field and PNC Park.

Now you, you get your dinosaur view from places like Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land and Ken Ham's Creation Museum, right?

Why, you can probably sit in T. rex's mouth in places like that, right?

Is that where you got the idea that humans ate T. rex and not vice-versa?

 

[Calminian]

I can't speak for Cycel, but I get my info from places like the dinosaur exhibit at the Carnegie Museum of National History. It's not far from where I live, and I have been there almost as many times as Heinz Field and PNC Park.

Now you, you get your dinosaur view from places like Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land and Ken Ham's Creation Museum, right?

No I was actually quoting secular evolutionary scientist who agree with you on your basic ideas of evolution and millions of years (and what does "national history" have to do with dinosaurs anyway?? Were there T-Rex around during the founding of our country??). None of the information I'm coming across supports your invincible T-Rex theory. Man you go after everyone who challenges your religious dogmas—even fellow evolutionists. LOL. This is a great learning experience for anyone tuning in on how you guys think. Your'e a prime example of hyper religious reasoning.

Again, if you'd rather come across the path of a highly intelligent Grizzly who can explode to a 25mph sprint, with claws that can you cut you in half with one swipe, rather than a dumb slow T-Rex who could barley reach a top speed of 10mph, more power to you. I'll try my odds with tiny 2 fingers.

Honestly, considering the science of biomechanics and all we are learning about T-Rex, I'm amazed people still form their opinions from Hollywood. Jack your the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Calminian]

You must have served in the military in a combat zone to have the intestinal fortitude (on the internet) to make such an ad hominem attack. Right?

LOL. While you obsess and throw insults continually at a guy behind bars, while you hide behind your screen. Yes you're the epitome of courage.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Well this got derailed real fast.

Let's get back on track. Forget Kent Hovind and revisionist atheists and OJ Simpson. Let us examine some evidence.

Here is a link to a picture of the famous Palestrina Mosaic a 1st Century AD Roman artwork, and one of the oldest paintings still in existence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Nile_Mosaic.jpg

If you click on the picture you can zoom into various parts of this artwork. To the mid-right of the picture is a depiction of a dinosaur in some water surrounded by people. Now many atheist revisionists attempt to beguile the public and say that "This is a crocodile." This explanation would seem plausible on the surface, however, if you look in the lowermost lefthand corner you can clearly see crocodiles depicted in the same picture and they are not the same as the dinosaur depicted in the picture. This is a fact atheist revisionists tend to omit. Thus we can tell by comparison the dinosaur/dragon in the Palestrina Mosaic is not at all a crocodile. Some might weakly attempt to say this creature is a snake, but again in the mosaic, to the top left corner you can clearly see a snake. It is simple to conclude the dinosaur in the mosaic is its own type of creature.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

(To note on the Palestrina Mosaic, I forgot to mention several animals are alleged by some to be from the fictional Ice Age are also depicted therein.)

Here is another ancient roman mosaic depicting dinosaurs:

http://s8int.com/images4/pompeii-5-large.jpg

Called the Hunt Mosaic it comes from the city of Pompeii which was famously destroyed in about 79 AD. So we do not know when this picture was made, but we know it had to have been before 79 AD. Now the creature to the right is clearly a dinosaur. The creature to the far left could plausibly be a crocodile I suppose, though it seems unlikely. This one is a funny picture as it shows mankind may have even tamed dinosaurs to ride and thus the funny "dino rodeo" CC inside joke on here may actually be more than a joke.

Also a little historical note, the scribe and ancient naturalist Pliny the Elder, whom also wrote of dragons, is said to have died at Pompeii trying to save stranded victims according to his nephew, the roman scribe Pliny the Younger whom also witnessed the Vesuvius eruption and provides most of the direct knowledge we have of the destruction of Pompeii.

 

[Percepi]

Well this got derailed real fast.

Let's get back on track. Forget Kent Hovind and revisionist atheists and OJ Simpson. Let us examine some evidence.

Here is a link to a picture of the famous Palestrina Mosaic a 1st Century AD Roman artwork, and one of the oldest paintings still in existence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Nile_Mosaic.jpg

If you click on the picture you can zoom into various parts of this artwork. To the mid-right of the picture is a depiction of a dinosaur in some water surrounded by people. Now many atheist revisionists attempt to beguile the public and say that "This is a crocodile." This explanation would seem plausible on the surface, however, if you look in the lowermost lefthand corner you can clearly see crocodiles depicted in the same picture and they are not the same as the dinosaur depicted in the picture. This is a fact atheist revisionists tend to omit. Thus we can tell by comparison the dinosaur/dragon in the Palestrina Mosaic is not at all a crocodile. Some might weakly attempt to say this creature is a snake, but again in the mosaic, to the top left corner you can clearly see a snake. It is simple to conclude the dinosaur in the mosaic is its own type of creature.

First of all, what you're looking at is on it's belly with it's legs close to its sides. Those are not characteristics of dinosaurs.

Second, I've spotted quite a few animals with human faces. I guess the sphinx was real too!

Often, ancient artists would attempt to recreate images of animals they have never seen before. They would use other artist's renditions of the animal as their source material. It's like a game of telephone in which they begin to change into an entirely different animals. Look at the crocodile, it has sharp spikes coming out of its back.

If you want to prove dinosaurs existed in Egypt, one would expect dinosaur remains within ancient Egyptian dig sites.

 

[Percepi]

(To note on the Palestrina Mosaic, I forgot to mention several animals are alleged by some to be from the fictional Ice Age are also depicted therein.)

Here is another ancient roman mosaic depicting dinosaurs:

http://s8int.com/images4/pompeii-5-large.jpg

Called the Hunt Mosaic it comes from the city of Pompeii which was famously destroyed in about 79 AD. So we do not know when this picture was made, but we know it had to have been before 79 AD. Now the creature to the right is clearly a dinosaur. The creature to the far left could plausibly be a crocodile I suppose, though it seems unlikely. This one is a funny picture as it shows mankind may have even tamed dinosaurs to ride and thus the funny "dino rodeo" CC inside joke on here may actually be more than a joke.

Also a little historical note, the scribe and ancient naturalist Pliny the Elder, whom also wrote of dragons, is said to have died at Pompeii trying to save stranded victims according to his nephew, the roman scribe Pliny the Younger whom also witnessed the Vesuvius eruption and provides most of the direct knowledge we have of the destruction of Pompeii.

Again, none of those creatures are dinosaurs - but I guess that's because I'm being technical. Not all ancient animals were dinosaurs.

I have no idea what creatures those are. Maybe they existed, or maybe they didn't. If you want to make a strong case for those creatures, you need to find the fossils that correlate with the animals presented. I explained before that artists often redrew other artist's renditions of animals - so it's easy for them to get distorted.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

First of all, what you're looking at is on it's belly with it's legs close to its sides. Those are not characteristics of dinosaurs.

Second, I've spotted quite a few animals with human faces. I guess the sphinx was real too!

Often, ancient artists would attempt to recreate images of animals they have never seen before. They would use other artist's renditions of the animal as their source material. It's like a game of telephone in which they begin to change into an entirely different animals. Look at the crocodile, it has sharp spikes coming out of its back.

If you want to prove dinosaurs existed in Egypt, one would expect dinosaur remains within ancient Egyptian dig sites.

There are several paleontological discoveries in Egypt, as there are all over the world. This itself does not prove dinosaurs existed alongside man, it only proves something's bones are in the ground.

To prove dinosaurs coexisted with man after the Flood we must prove the universality of dinosaur depictions or historical mentions contemporary to the known age of man.

Speaking of Ancient Egypt (pre-Ptolmey and pre-Rome):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Narmer_Palette_serpopard_side.jpg

Here is the famous Narmer Palette named after the egyptian king Narmer (some argue he is in fact Menes, and some argue Menes and Narmer are the same person). Narmer/Menes supposedly united Upper and Lower Egypt sometime between 2000-4000 BC. We can see that for some reason, they are depicting sauropods (this side of the palette is literally called the Serpopard Side) which is actually one of the most common ancient dinosaur depictions.

 

[Percepi]

There are several paleontological discoveries in Egypt, as there are all over the world. This itself does not prove dinosaurs existed alongside man, it only proves something's bones are in the ground.

Oh right, because you deny stratigraphy and accept the idea that multiple strata were planted by a universal flood. Of course, a universal flood wouldn't result in several different strata, it would result in a single stratum.

To prove dinosaurs coexisted with man after the Flood we must prove the universality of dinosaur depictions or historical mentions contemporary to the known age of man.

So far, you've only proven that you have no idea what a dinosaur is.

Speaking of Ancient Egypt (pre-Ptolmey and pre-Rome):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...opard_side.jpg

For example, the creatures depicted on this slab have long necks like sauropods. That's one similarity.

They also have curly tails, like saur...felines. Hmmm.

Well, the face is clearly that of a... feline. . . Huh.

Ah! The outer ears clearly proves it's... oh. Dinosaurs didn't have outer ears did they? They're sort of round like the ears of fe. . .

Well! It has a long neck. And if it has a long neck, then it must be a sauropod!

DOH!

Obviously, the Egyptian slab doesn't depict a giraffe. But if you're going to argue that it's a sauropod, then you'll be just as wrong as if you were to argue that it's a giraffe.

 

[Cycel]

BTW, have Jack or Cycel backtracked on their hollywood view of dinosaurs yet? I've showed them where secular scientists have debunked their claims. But mysteriously they've now dropped the subject. Are you guys going to step up and defend your views, or just fall back on your faith and plug your ears? Do you guys really draw your views from hollywood rather than science?

Hollywood? What are you talking about?

I'll be honest I don't have the inclination to examine a Creationist website. They typically come across as supremely unimpressive. Also, through the week I usually just don't have the time, but if you wouldn't mind taking one of the points it expounds, one that you think is particularly valid, I'll gladly have a look at it.