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.
So by your quote you called your brother a liar first and foremost....
Second, I don't recall one time saying the earth was 6000 years old....I have slept a few times since this thread started, but still don't recall saying that so show me......
Third, my lips have not moved once during our discourse although my fingers have so your point about lips is another farce....!
Second, I don't recall one time saying the earth was 6000 years old....I have slept a few times since this thread started, but still don't recall saying that so show me......
Third, my lips have not moved once during our discourse although my fingers have so your point about lips is another farce....!
Actually, the Tyrannosaurs didn't apparently leave survivors. The birds has already separated.
The hummingbirds are one of the most successful in terms of diversity, and range of all the birds. But their size and predominant distribution in tropical forests makes finding fossils very improbable. Most studies of their evolution are done with DNA analysis.
There is one interesting fossil recently reported;
Mayr, Gerald. "Old World fossil record of modern-type hummingbirds." Science 304.5672 (2004): 861-864.
The article also reviews related groups. It is a very good example of how a newly discovered species is described in science.
The hummingbirds are one of the most successful in terms of diversity, and range of all the birds. But their size and predominant distribution in tropical forests makes finding fossils very improbable. Most studies of their evolution are done with DNA analysis.
There is one interesting fossil recently reported;
Mayr, Gerald. "Old World fossil record of modern-type hummingbirds." Science 304.5672 (2004): 861-864.
The article also reviews related groups. It is a very good example of how a newly discovered species is described in science.
May I again suggest that those of you who are YEC Christians, please take the time to prepare for the position that you are defending. Study your opponent's position and how he has arrived at it. All the ranting, raving, and downright disrespect for your opponent makes you look nuts. I refuse to debate the issue because YEC is a no win argument.
I will tell my Christian brothers that God included this brief story in the scriptures, not as a study of the creation, but as an introduction to study of sin in the life of his people.
I will tell my Christian brothers that God included this brief story in the scriptures, not as a study of the creation, but as an introduction to study of sin in the life of his people.
Actually this is another popular mistake promoted by creationists. The recognition that different rock layers, strata, were deposited at different times was made by John Hutton in the late 1700s. His most important discovery, Hutton's Unconformity, was made in 1787.
This greatly influenced Charles Lyell who is famous for his series of books, Principles of Geology, published between 1830–33. Lyell realized that the simple organization of rock strata, one on top of another could be extended by Hutton's proof of great time between depositions. By combining mineral, chemical and fossil data, strata not in direct contact could be placed into a proper sequence. This was the origin of the "index fossil" idea.
Since radioactivity was not discovered until the late 1800s, and atomic isotopes not until 1913, there was no way to accurately date any of the geological ages. What geologists did have was a well established sequence of events, and that was about all. It was not until the "Atomic Age" starting in the 1940s that we could reasonably measure the amount of radioactive isotopes in a rock, and use that data to calculate the age of the sample. It took another 30 years before the many methods were standardized, and calibrated. This made direct dating practical for the first time.
So today we see in publications a Ur/Pb, or Ar/Ar date from a volcanic ash layer, or a magnetic polarity stage as giving a direct dating of the deposit. But, what if there is no appropriate ash layer? Then you will see a "biostratagraphic" date based on the nearest location to the study project that had 1) directly dated material, and 2) the same fossils. It isn't as good, but we cannot edit mountains the way people change books.
This is where the creationists twist the facts- the direct age of the fossils is always determined by independent physical methods.
This greatly influenced Charles Lyell who is famous for his series of books, Principles of Geology, published between 1830–33. Lyell realized that the simple organization of rock strata, one on top of another could be extended by Hutton's proof of great time between depositions. By combining mineral, chemical and fossil data, strata not in direct contact could be placed into a proper sequence. This was the origin of the "index fossil" idea.
Since radioactivity was not discovered until the late 1800s, and atomic isotopes not until 1913, there was no way to accurately date any of the geological ages. What geologists did have was a well established sequence of events, and that was about all. It was not until the "Atomic Age" starting in the 1940s that we could reasonably measure the amount of radioactive isotopes in a rock, and use that data to calculate the age of the sample. It took another 30 years before the many methods were standardized, and calibrated. This made direct dating practical for the first time.
So today we see in publications a Ur/Pb, or Ar/Ar date from a volcanic ash layer, or a magnetic polarity stage as giving a direct dating of the deposit. But, what if there is no appropriate ash layer? Then you will see a "biostratagraphic" date based on the nearest location to the study project that had 1) directly dated material, and 2) the same fossils. It isn't as good, but we cannot edit mountains the way people change books.
This is where the creationists twist the facts- the direct age of the fossils is always determined by independent physical methods.
P
Dr Hurd and JackH did either of you notice my mention of the book In Six Days? Surely the opinions of over 50 scientists would be of interest would it not or worthy of your review? Do we not seek to inform ourselves before a decision as to the veracity of a theory? Certainly scientists familiar with empirical evidense would want as much information on all points of view from a variety of sources.........
P
The Bible contains the laws of Physics, in Job there is a reference to the Belt of Orion and the Pleides (my spelling is only close)
asking how they are held together. Astronomists discovered that these 2 constellations are the only 2 that have a gravitational pull. God's wisdom displayed in the book of Job-waiting for someone to discover it. The Bible is a science book to those who seek.
asking how they are held together. Astronomists discovered that these 2 constellations are the only 2 that have a gravitational pull. God's wisdom displayed in the book of Job-waiting for someone to discover it. The Bible is a science book to those who seek.
While you are patting yourself on the back, I must point out that you ignored my reply the other day. http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/101391-what-dinosaurs-48.html#post1775241 And, if you have a copy, you might note that the publisher opted to use all lower case for the title, "in six days." (It bothered me too). As I mentioned the other day, I have not only read the book, but I have met some of the contributors. Some of the creationists on this site have already denied photographic evidence, but here is a photo of creationist John Baumgardner and I. He is to my left, I am the grey beard.
Last edited:
C
There's certainly nothing in scripture that would deny any fact the Bible puts forth. When most people say, "the Bible is not a science book," what they really mean is, the Bible is not accurate in its descriptions of the world. When they ways "the Bible is not a history book" they mean, the Bible is not accurate about history. To me it just seems to be a sophistic way to say they don't believe everything in the Bible.
You, Calminian, do not believe everything in the Bible. For example, should a rape victim be forced to marry her rapist? Can killing a bird cure leprosy? Do you shower every time you defecate? Have you ever eaten pork, or worn fabric of mixed thread?
What is your stand on cheeseburgers, or shrimp cocktail?
What is your stand on cheeseburgers, or shrimp cocktail?
