What date, approximately, do you associate with this flood?
Do you believe it was global?
Do you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?
What of the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What date, approximately, do you associate with this flood?
Do you believe it was global?
Do you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?
If you require an interpretation of the Bible, that indicates you are not letting the Spirit guide you in the reading of it. Apart from His help the tendency of man is to demand the Bible says what he wants it to say. I take it literally, as the Bible is well equipped to take those words literally throughout the great majority of it. The only times to take it figuratively or otherwise is when the text clearly indicates typology, analogy, etc. None of it is frivolous or useless rhetoric, words to fill pages for that sake.
On this track I am satisfied Noah took aboard samples of air-breathing animals only in existence a few thousand years since the Genesis creation week, genealogies going back to that man Adam. With only a few thousand years since the flood there certainly wouldn't be time to accomplish the bogus beliefs of naturalism through evolution. Jesus and most everyone else of importance referred o the literal accounts of creation, the fall, the flood, etc., making those reports central to His gospel. From that perspective I know beyond any doubt Satan has the naturalists wrapped around his pinkie through great deception. Men maintain that relationship with the Devil by occasionally moving science "goal posts" in order to refute emerging evidences they are wrong. I will believe God for His holy word, and let men be liars if they insist.
You need to be more critical of your sources. I require evidence that this carving is actually part of the temple. Can you show it to me in an archeological publication? Why are these images to be found only on creationist websites? Here's a point of criticism. The depiction of stegosaurus in this 'carving' resembles antiquated reconstructions from the 1800s to the late 1960s. Why is that?
Notice in the image above that the whole block containing the stegosaurus is a different colour than the other blocks of the temple. Somewhere there is another image of this fellow standing beside an unaltered view of the actual facade. The creationist website tries to argue the the photographer cleaned that one block prior to taking the image. Yeah, right! Why doesn't the creation website source the photo?
[video=youtube_share;5lM4uJ12cDk]http://youtu.be/5lM4uJ12cDk[/video]
You can get the exact same results with volcanic stone and a dentists drill.
How can no one date these stones?
How come the guy who was buying them off the locals had no interest in visiting the cave where most of them were apparently found?
And how come these stones only appear on creationist websites and are only reported by biblical archaeologists?
The Genesis flood occurred over the span of one typical earth year, between the Proterozoic and Cenozoic/Tertiary in terms of geologic time. None of that spans millions of years. The vast sedimentary rock layers came from the Flood. Some thin layers doubtless originated from local floods here and there, and erosion in general. All the fossil record indicates an unimaginably great catastrophe without breaks that indicate some layers hosted normal lifespans covering millions of years.
It was global because of the matching strata continent to continent. Fossil deposits show populations that can't be supported per square foot of stratum, indicating extreme accumulations of organisms into spots in the sediments. The same conditions for lithification of that huge series of flood layers to the wonderous preservation of impressions and actual remains of fossilized animals and plants , doesn't usually show evidence of sustainable populations. We see evidence of populations washed together in pools of plant sand or animals. The strata also often contain very different rock components that can't be shown to have come from local sources like eroding mountains. There are many examples of inconsistencies with naturalism. The evidence is pouring in for catastrophic creation of the sometimes miles thick sedimentary rocks.
Dinosaurs had to have lived with humans, else again a person must argue with God about it. Not accepting the global flood account leaves a person having to accept the naturalism tenet of long ages and evolution. No doubt men ate dinosaurs that didn't eat them. Most were vegetarian anyway, not a lot more threatening to crops than misbehaving elephants eating crops. The T. Rex probably wasn't witnessed by men to do with the Bible, which detailed history in the Levant, not N. America, China, or Australia.
As for earliest migration of people to America, some mineralized dung (coprolite) attributed to humans was supposedly dated to 14,000 years ago by C14 testing. I have great doubt about that. They needed to find some paleofaeces which would provide a less altered sample of carbon14. It is far more intelligent to give them 1,000 years after the Ice Age to reach the tip of S. America. That event of course happened immediately after the Genesis flood. It didn't take 12,000 years for N. American glaciers to melt to present position. See how quickly a few years can alter arctic ice.
Atheists will not win declaring everything that happened to be in terms of millions of years. It is all based on assumptions based on beliefs based on atheism, a spiritual catastrophe of the human soul. Carnal men refuse to be accountable to God, especially His judgment. Atheism has now so contaminated good science that is taking inspired Christian scientists to devote much resource into sorting out the intellectual damage they have done.
Again, the stones are fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5kckGxwJr4
Skip to about 14:30 on the segment discussing these particular stones.
The video contains somewhat mildly-strong language. It's not really offensive but it's still worth a warning.
Last edited:
It is because that they doesn't want to date them or accept the dates that were given to them. It must fit their own theology about the creation of the world, not God's truth. It is so funny that we can only carbon date things back so many thousands of years, but for some reason, we has dated things back a billion years ago. I doesn't see how come no one doesn't see the lies that is being spread. Love is blind and those that love to keep the words of science theologies are blind, as it says, that we can't serve two, or else, you'll love one over the other.
If there was a global flood, we would find a single stratum depicting the flood. We don't have that. Instead, we have numerous layers of strata that creationists argue were laid out by the flood. But a single flood wouldn't lay out different strata. It would all be contained within a single stratum.
Furthermore, if a giant flood wiped out almost every animal on earth, we would see all the fossils mixed together. We don't see this.
This is an admission that evidence doesn't matter. If God is right, then the evidence supporting evolution must automatically be considered wrong and somehow interpreted to support a flood. This isn't science.
We don't rely on carbon dating for everything. There are numerous dating methods out there. If you looked into carbon dating and gave it some thought, you would know this. But you clearly haven't.
Today the frozen Antarctic ice sheet borders the Southern Ocean. But tropical palm trees once flourished there. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/02/antarctica-once-covered-in-palm-trees-scientists-discover/
Cuban underwater city refers to a site thought by some to be a submerged granite complex structures off the coast of theGuanahacabibes peninsula in the Pinar del Río Province of Cuba.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
Sonar images interpreted as being symmetrical and geometric stone structures resembling an urban complex were first recorded in early 2001 covering an area of 2 square kilometres (200 ha) at depths of between 600 metres (2,000 ft) and 750 metres (2,460 ft).[SUP][1][/SUP] The discovery was reported by Pauline Zalitzki, a marine engineer, and her husband Paul Weinzweig, owners of aCanadian company called Advanced Digital Communications,[SUP][4][/SUP] working on an exploration and survey mission in conjunction with the Cuban government. The team returned to the site a second time with an underwater video robot that filmed sonar images interpreted as various pyramids and circular structures made out of massive, smooth blocks of stone that resembled hewn granite. Zalitzki said "It's a really wonderful structure which really looks like it could have been a large urban centre, However, it would be totally irresponsible to say what it was before we have evidence." [SUP][1][/SUP]
After studying the images, National Geographic senior editor John Echave said "They are interesting anomalies, but that's as much as anyone can say right now, but I'm no expert on sonar and until we are able to actually go down there and see, it will difficult to characterize them." Professor of Oceanography Robert Ballard was quoted as saying "That's too deep, I'd be surprised if it was human. You have to ask yourself, how did it get there? I've looked at a lot of sonar images in my life, and it can be sort of like looking at an ink blot -- people can sometimes see what they want to see. I'll just wait for a bit more data."[SUP][5] Cuban underwater city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SUP]
Honestly, I'd like for us to go back to the stones you posted. Have you looked into any of the criticisms against your argument? I'll gladly name other dating methods and how far they date back - but I want to make sure we actually get somewhere with the subject of dinosaurs depicted in art first.
Also, the post about Antarctica and the palm trees doesn't depict a global flood. So I'm not sure what you're going on about.
It will always be impossible to fill these posts with sufficient sensible background citation. I get a lot of information from The Institute for Creation Research and look forward to the monthly Acts & Facts magazine, and reading their great books. Last month I would recommend concerning a little education about radioactive dating in laymen's terms. It's a series article in the mag beginning with
[h=1] Clocks in Rocks? Radioactive Dating, Part 1 by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. (nuclear physics)[/h]I just got the latest mag containing the very interesting exposure of temptations by naturalists (scientism advocates) to love dating methods that guarantee old ages. It is titled The Iconic Isochron, Radioactive Dating Part 2by the same distinguished author.
In such articles the casual inquirer will learn the secrets evolutionists don't want known. They want to be the ones telling mankind all about life on earth, why we don't need the Bible. Keep in mind almost all are atheists who wouldn't want God to affect their thinking.
Over the last few years Christians who are scientists and other professionals have begun the task of undoing naturalism/scientism/evolution which is Satanic in origin, open rebellion against God. They are reclaiming true science over a wide variety of science fields. There are also many articles just concerning themes to learn more about the Bible.
Study! Know the Bible and get good knowledge from many sources, gaining for you understanding and wisdom in giving a reason for the hope that is in us, through Christ.
[h=1] Clocks in Rocks? Radioactive Dating, Part 1 by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. (nuclear physics)[/h]I just got the latest mag containing the very interesting exposure of temptations by naturalists (scientism advocates) to love dating methods that guarantee old ages. It is titled The Iconic Isochron, Radioactive Dating Part 2by the same distinguished author.
In such articles the casual inquirer will learn the secrets evolutionists don't want known. They want to be the ones telling mankind all about life on earth, why we don't need the Bible. Keep in mind almost all are atheists who wouldn't want God to affect their thinking.
Over the last few years Christians who are scientists and other professionals have begun the task of undoing naturalism/scientism/evolution which is Satanic in origin, open rebellion against God. They are reclaiming true science over a wide variety of science fields. There are also many articles just concerning themes to learn more about the Bible.
Study! Know the Bible and get good knowledge from many sources, gaining for you understanding and wisdom in giving a reason for the hope that is in us, through Christ.
Hi everyone 
This is my first reply, since this topic show's as recent activity, so I just thought to add; that being one in Christ is so awesome, that such topics as this are quite insignificant to me. The eternal new creation is where my heart is. This old material creation I understand has been around billions of years without doubt, as it isn't the old "creation" that contains the beginning spiritual meaning of the true week of Creation of Eternal Life. Only this week is of importance. All other assertions are just a diversion. Such things are more discernible with Bible study of course. But importantly, never feel bad about knowing geology and archeology and paleontology and the dating sciences are reliable, if a proper understanding is present. They are good things to know about first hand because they prove an old earth, and disprove all notions of evolution. This is where I am at peace with Jesus on this subject Hello and blessings to all
This is my first reply, since this topic show's as recent activity, so I just thought to add; that being one in Christ is so awesome, that such topics as this are quite insignificant to me. The eternal new creation is where my heart is. This old material creation I understand has been around billions of years without doubt, as it isn't the old "creation" that contains the beginning spiritual meaning of the true week of Creation of Eternal Life. Only this week is of importance. All other assertions are just a diversion. Such things are more discernible with Bible study of course. But importantly, never feel bad about knowing geology and archeology and paleontology and the dating sciences are reliable, if a proper understanding is present. They are good things to know about first hand because they prove an old earth, and disprove all notions of evolution. This is where I am at peace with Jesus on this subject Hello and blessings to all
If you read the article underneath it says in 1993 a newspaper published that a priest from Spain in the 1500 acquired about the stones, that would date back before anyone knew about Dino bones..
You missed the detail of the Genesis account. The flooding was global, the water standing above mountains in the middle east that indicate a local flood couldn't have risen that high for a year without that "local" water reaching across the planet anyway. Take a mid sized mountain like Mt. Ararat over there. Imagine a flood standing over it by 31 feet. Show me geological proof there was some land structure that kept those waters that high for a year. It is impossible. There is no evidence there were no high mountains then, but if you believe that then you can't supply the source of sediments that supplied all that sedimentary strata world-wide.
As for all fossils mixed together, rather we see populations of a kind among neighboring kinds expected in close proximity that would have been exposed to each succeeding wave of flooding that covered them suddenly and sufficiently as not to allow bacterial decomposition before the rock lithified adequately. The last organisms to be buried wouldbe those occupying the highest land elevations, far removed from marine populations.
The flood began with 40 days of world-wide flooding, the oceans splitting down their middles, relentless torrent of rain washing softest materials on the surface first, providing burial mud. Local flooding tends to be very limited to river basins and short-lived. All local floods show sedimentation, sometimes extreme movement of mud and boulders over a day or two. For so many dinosaur remains to have retained skin and hair, even last meals in stomachs and feces with organic components and apparently DNA, the amount of sediment and the sudden pressure required is staggering to have preserved them so well.
Different adjoining strata of great variety frequently shows same radioactive dating, the naturalists supplying their own interpretations claiming successive geologic ages, but the science is skewed by assumptions about the true age of any of it. It is unreasonable to assign a supposed erosion/sedimentation rate being consistent over millions of years when there is ample evidence a global flood makes as much sense if not better sense. There was no normal rate of anything during that flood. What happens today can't possibly indicate conditions in such a huge event around 2000 BC.
If you had an open mind God would show you what real science is about.
Current sea level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), "this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years", and the rate may be increasing.[SUP][2][/SUP] Sea level rises can considerably influence human populations in coastal and island regions[SUP][3][/SUP] and natural environments like marine ecosystems.[SUP][4] [/SUP]Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if the Antarctic was once a tropical paradise, then that means that there were an atmospheric changes which causes things on earth to change or mutate and or to have died off become extinct because of this change. So if a T-rex was once a tropical dweller, and if it started dwelling in higher altitude, wouldn't be able to survive; and if it was able to migrate to a warmer climate, its development most likely will stunt in size.
Nothing you said is scientifically verified. It's all "It sounds right. It supports the flood story. It's right."
Also, we never found dinosaurs with actual bits of hair or organic food in their systems. Just... nothing you said is right at all and it's giving me a headache just trying to figure out where to start!
Lastly, you're subscribed to an anti-scientific journal that misconstrues reality and intentionally lies. If you stop reading creationist bunk and study evolution, while opening your mind that Genesis isn't literal, you'll have a much better understanding of what evolution ACTUALLY is and might even find it making sense.
Sea levels fluctuate. At the moment, they're rising. There are moments in history in which they lowered.
Last edited:
The guy who was promoting the stones was buying them from a local farmer. When the laws on grave robbing were cracking down the farmer was arrested and admitted that he himself was creating the stones because the guy kept on buying them from him.
The cave where the stones apparently came from is at a secret location apparently lol
The oldest most complete genetically intact human skeleton discovered in the Americas has been dated to be 12,000 to 13,000 years old. It was dated by direct radiocarbon dating and indirect dating by the uranium-thorium dating method. DNA was extracted from the teeth. Sea levels also support the dating.
Here is an article about it from National Geographic:
Oldest Most Complete, Genetically Intact Human Skeleton in the New World Indicates Shared Ancestry – National Geographic Society Press Room
I consider National Geographic to be a rather credible source, as compared to say Institute for Creation Research.
This is a short article, only two pages, and not written in scientific lingo that is sometimes difficult to comprehend.
Do you dispute the age of this skeleton?
Do you dispute anything else in this article?
Anybody else?