What of the dinosaurs?

[Timeline]

Then why try to address any of it scientifically?

The true laws and nature of science do apply. God put all the laws into play that the human race is still trying to figure out.

You propose that we cannot seek true science because mainstream science is so flawed?!! Christians can study the natural world and we don't need to believe everything that's thrown at us. And, as I have said before, it is my opinion that both sides (creationists and evolutionists) are absolutely certain of conclusions that are not true...making it more difficult to form our own conclusions. There are many claims of being unbiased, but, as humans we all find it difficult to overcome preconceived ideas.

I do not consider myself "Old Earth" or "New Earth" because I don't think I can make a claim either way as far as scripture is concerned. But I am fairly confident that the Bible tells us enough to disagree with evolution (to the degree which modern scientists claim).

 

[Human]

The true laws and nature of science do apply. God put all the laws into play that the human race is still trying to figure out.

You propose that we cannot seek true science because mainstream science is so flawed?!! Christians can study the natural world and we don't need to believe everything that's thrown at us. And, as I have said before, it is my opinion that both sides (creationists and evolutionists) are absolutely certain of conclusions that are not true...making it more difficult to form our own conclusions. There are many claims of being unbiased, but, as humans we all find it difficult to overcome preconceived ideas.

I do not consider myself "Old Earth" or "New Earth" because I don't think I can make a claim either way as far as scripture is concerned. But I am fairly confident that the Bible tells us enough to disagree with evolution (to the degree which modern scientists claim).

No, I don't propose that. I think that you contributing to scientific discussion (you being a man who believes all the wondrous happenings you describe happen outside the scope of any scientific rationale)is pointless. So I'm asking, if you believe God and his work is outside the scope of science (''experimentation and observation of the natural physical world and use and application of the base of knowledge gleaned thereof'') then why bother addressing any of it scientifically?

Be definition, if what you believe about the progression of life depends on METAPHYSICAL interpretations, then they CANNOT, by definition, be scientific. They fall outside the scope of the physical (not metaphysical) world, which is what science is about.

 

[Timeline]

No, I don't propose that. I think that you contributing to scientific discussion (you being a man who believes all the wondrous happenings you describe happen outside the scope of any scientific rationale)is pointless. So I'm asking, if you believe God and his work is outside the scope of science (''experimentation and observation of the natural physical world and use and application of the base of knowledge gleaned thereof'') then why bother addressing any of it scientifically?

Be definition, if what you believe about the progression of life depends on METAPHYSICAL interpretations, then they CANNOT, by definition, be scientific. They fall outside the scope of the physical (not metaphysical) world, which is what science is about.

Well, as I said before, God created LAWS, physical laws that can be observed, studied, and understood. True science is the study of the natural world. Science has been intertwined with illogical thinking and poor assumptions - on both sides. So Science, in itself, is not the problem, but what is being proclaimed to be science is the problem. I should have made that more clear in my comment directed to Percepi, but I think that he understands where I am coming from - even though we strongly disagree with one another.

As for the topic of this thread, I don't believe that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, but I do believe that they existed. As a Christian, I would like to know more about them and how they fit into God's Creation. My faith is not weakened by their existence, but I am still curious how they (dinosaurs) fit into the picture. Did Adam and Eve cross paths with dinosaurs? Are they from a previous earth cycle (before ours) - and, if so, why? Where they something else altogether (than what we currently believe)?

In a more direct response to your question - I am among those who proclaim God (though others are better equipped) regardless of what modern science claims.

 

[Straightshot]

The dinos were made extinct before humans were created about 6000 years ago

The Lord's judgment against Satan and his fallen angels destroyed them along with all other animal life forms in the universe

.... and He did not replace them

What the bone peddlers find is their fossil remains of extreme aging

 

[SarahM777]

There is no scientific evidence that the Earth was poofed into existence. Even if you could disprove our current theories about how the Earth was formed, it wouldn't account for the fact that there's no evidence that the Earth was created in 6 days.

There's proof contrary to the 6,000 year model. And everyone likes to talk about how dating methods aren't perfect or how dating methods are misconstrued to conclude billions of years, but that simply isn't the case and you would know this if you actually looked into the dating methods used to determine the age of the earth, how we concluded the measurements, etc.

We also have the great flood.... There is so much wrong with the Noah's Ark story that it's impossibility is on par with that of a chubby old man going down the chimney of every house all around the world within 24 hours. We have different strata that disproves the great flood. We have an understanding of how evolution works which proves the animals loaded into the ark wouldnt have been able to evolve so quickly to produce the variety we see today - nor would the ark be able to fit such a wide variety of animals to begin with. The vessel's massive size also comes into question since such a vessel would have instantly sunk. The amount of water needed to cover the entire Earth simply doesn't exist on this planet - and even if it did we would still be flooded. All of this you can conclude happened through miracles, in which case it's not science since miracles are things that happen contrary to what is physically possible (and science is the study of what is physically possible).

We also have the claim that dinosaurs and people co-existed - which this thread is about. Obviously the claim has been debunked time and time again.

We have a plethora of evidence linking humans to ancient ape.

All of the above I am willing to discuss in more detail but I won't bother wasting my time unless you're willing to do two things:

1. You have to admit that it's possible that evolution is true and that your understanding of the Bible is flawed.
2. You have to be willing to change your mind about creation and evolution in the presence of evidence.

If you're not willing to question your understanding of the Bible, or change your views about the Bible, no matter what evidence is presented, then there's no point going on since obviously you'll automatically reject all evidence by default and look for excuses just to confirm your own bias.

I'm willing to admit that creation might be true and I'm willing to accept it if there's legitimate evidence. But there isn't legitimate evidence, so I reject creationism.

You do realize the biggest problem with the dating methods is that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE how much radioactive material was in the sample to BEGIN WITH. That makes it an INVALID TEST. If one does NOT have any control test sample to compare the results with it is an INVALID TEST. All of the samples may been ALTERED over the years. And secondly has any one PROVED that radioactive decay is or is NOT A CONSTANT variable over even 1,000 years? How does solar radiation affect the decay rate? How about time and temperature? Until ALL POSSIBLE variables are dealt with the tests are INVALID.

 

[Tintin]

The dinos were made extinct before humans were created about 6000 years ago

The Lord's judgment against Satan and his fallen angels destroyed them along with all other animal life forms in the universe

.... and He did not replace them

What the bone peddlers find is their fossil remains of extreme aging

No. This is just silly.

 

[dcontroversal]

There are only three possibilities for what we see in the record of nature:

1) No designer
2) Many designers
3) One designer


The fact that we share much of the same genetic material as animals is because we share the same Creator.

No designer, and many designers would produce life completely dis-similar from each other....however, that is NOT what we find.

No doubt and I agree......truth be known history proves the validity of the word od God and what it teaches in this essence....

Since the word of God began to come on line men have rejected it, denied it, tried to kill it out, burn it out, mock it, teach against it etc. for the last few thousand years and guess what...? Were are the dissenters? They are ALL DEAD and gone yet the Bible, the Word of God marches on.....All that needs to be done is wait and the generation of evolutionists with their worldly wisdom, evolutionary theories and bible rejecting rants will die off as well and the Word of God will still be here......Funny as the Word predicts the demise and death of men while promising it's own perpetuity.........! Still the number one best seller of all time and exactly how high on the sale chart is Darwin's book? I might buy a case to stash in case I run out of (loo) paper when crap hits the fan!

 

[Timeline]

No doubt and I agree......truth be known history proves the validity of the word od God and what it teaches in this essence....

Since the word of God began to come on line men have rejected it, denied it, tried to kill it out, burn it out, mock it, teach against it etc. for the last few thousand years and guess what...? Were are the dissenters? They are ALL DEAD and gone yet the Bible, the Word of God marches on.....All that needs to be done is wait and the generation of evolutionists with their worldly wisdom, evolutionary theories and bible rejecting rants will die off as well and the Word of God will still be here......Funny as the Word predicts the demise and death of men while promising it's own perpetuity.........! Still the number one best seller of all time and exactly how high on the sale chart is Darwin's book? I might buy a case to stash in case I run out of (loo) paper when crap hits the fan!

Nonsense...Don't buy a case. Just go to a used book store where you can get different varieties of (loo) paper for a fraction of the cost

 

[Straightshot]

I read "silly and nonsense" .... I see that we two expert opinions

Seems fitting doesn't it?

Juvenile responses ...... who would believe?

Some people buy books on how to debate a Bible issue on a forum message board

Something about a debate tactics for dummies

 

[Bowman]

Yes, there is a reason. To keep people up to date with where we're at with scientific studies.

A dead-end, as you already acknowledged.

You're the one who claimed it was outdated, so it's up to you to find the outdated article.

Stall.

You're the one who made the claim that DNA testing disproves common decent. You made the claim, back it up.

No.

'Common descent' was YOUR claim, not mine.

Since you're insisting, I'll dig up what material I can to back up my claim that there is proof hopefully tomorrow.

Start googling...

You asked what parts of creation science I disagree with. I don't recall agreeing to naming scripture I disagree with. But if I must, I'll list those segments. But I want you to copy and past, screenshot, or type word for word, the segment of the linked article that states humans aren't related to any other species first.

You have selective memory.

My initial engagement with you was as a request for YOU to bring forth SCRIPTURE with which you disagree with.

You have repeatedly glazed-over this request (which is FIRST in queue!) apparently because you lack confidence as to why you even reject scripture.

Deal with it...

 

[SoulWeaver]

http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/103177-proof-god-12-stones-revelation.html

 

[JackH]

You do realize the biggest problem with the dating methods is that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE how much radioactive material was in the sample to BEGIN WITH. That makes it an INVALID TEST. If one does NOT have any control test sample to compare the results with it is an INVALID TEST. All of the samples may been ALTERED over the years. And secondly has any one PROVED that radioactive decay is or is NOT A CONSTANT variable over even 1,000 years? How does solar radiation affect the decay rate? How about time and temperature? Until ALL POSSIBLE variables are dealt with the tests are INVALID.

And I should believe what you say because why, exactly?

Because dccontroversal and Tintin liked your post? We all know they both are big critical thinkers, because they said so recently on this thread.

Evidence has been furnished on this thread regarding the reliability of dating methods, particularly by Dr. Hurd, which nobody has refuted.

If you are going to convince me, you need to refute information such as from this article entitled "Radiometric Dating Does Work" from the National Center for Science Education:

"The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems."

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

In view of overwhelming credible information like this, I believe that dinosaur fossils are much closer to over 65 million years old than less than 6,000 years old as many have said on this thread.

 

[SarahM777]

And I should believe what you say because why, exactly?

Because dccontroversal and Tintin liked your post? We all know they both are big critical thinkers, because they said so recently on this thread.

Evidence has been furnished on this thread regarding the reliability of dating methods, particularly by Dr. Hurd, which nobody has refuted.

If you are going to convince me, you need to refute information such as from this article entitled "Radiometric Dating Does Work" from the National Center for Science Education:

"The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems."

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

In view of overwhelming credible information like this, I believe that dinosaur fossils are much closer to over 65 million years old than less than 6,000 years old as many have said on this thread.

Not one thing in that paper REFUTES what I said the problem is to begin with.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

You do realize the biggest problem with the dating methods is that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE how much radioactive material was in the sample to BEGIN WITH. That makes it an INVALID TEST.

There are several ways that we can accommodate this. One is to select proper mineral samples to begin with. Another is to simultaneously use different isotope pairs with different chemical properties. If they don't match up, then we use caution before interpreting. Another is add up all the products, and the remaining "parent." If they don't match, then you know to be cautious. There are more math intensive methods, concordia-discordia isochrons for example ( http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~rallen/teaching/F04_GEO302_PhysChemEarth/Lectures/lec7.pdf ).

If one does NOT have any control test sample to compare the results with it is an INVALID TEST. All of the samples may been ALTERED over the years.

We can use a mix of radiometric, and non-radiometric methods (if we want to spend the money). For validation studies, we do spend the time and money. For example, Reimer, Paula J., et al. "IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 yeats cal BP." (2009).
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/3622/Hogg Intcal09 and Marine09.pdf

or, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al
2012 "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kyr B.P." Science 19 October 2012:Vol. 338 no. 6105 pp. 370-374 DOI: 10.1126/science.1226660

And secondly has any one PROVED that radioactive decay is or is NOT A CONSTANT variable over even 1,000 years? How does solar radiation affect the decay rate? How about time and temperature? Until ALL POSSIBLE variables are dealt with the tests are INVALID.

Yes, we have proven that radioactive decay is constant, and has been constant for over 6 billion years. See: Stones and Bones: Are Constants Constant?

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

By the way, the excellent short article posted by JackH, Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE was written by G. Brent Dalrymple.

Dr. Dalrymple was a key scientist in the development of Argon/Argon dating over 40 years ago.

He is also the author of an very good book for non-specialists, "Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The age of the earth and its cosmic surroundings" (2005 Berkley: University of California Press).

 

[SarahM777]

There are several ways that we can accommodate this. One is to select proper mineral samples to begin with. Another is to simultaneously use different isotope pairs with different chemical properties. If they don't match up, then we use caution before interpreting. Another is add up all the products, and the remaining "parent." If they don't match, then you know to be cautious. There are more math intensive methods, concordia-discordia isochrons for example ( http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~rallen/teaching/F04_GEO302_PhysChemEarth/Lectures/lec7.pdf ).



We can use a mix of radiometric, and non-radiometric methods (if we want to spend the money). For validation studies, we do spend the time and money. For example, Reimer, Paula J., et al. "IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 yeats cal BP." (2009).
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/3622/Hogg%20Intcal09%20and%20Marine09.pdf

or, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al
2012 "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kyr B.P." Science 19 October 2012:Vol. 338 no. 6105 pp. 370-374 DOI: 10.1126/science.1226660




Yes, we have proven that radioactive decay is constant, and has been constant for over 6 billion years. See: Stones and Bones: Are Constants Constant?

Did you or any other scientist actually TEST the sample when it was laid down to KNOW how much radioactive material was in the SAMPLE TO BEGIN WITH? The obvious answer is NO. The amount of radioactive material in the sample that it started with is an ASSUMPTION not FACT. You have no way of PROVING how much radioactive material that the sample had when it was laid down.

That article has NOTHING to do with whether or NOT radioactive material can or can not break down faster or slower under certain CONDITIONS.

 

[SarahM777]

By the way, the excellent short article posted by JackH, Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE was written by G. Brent Dalrymple.

Dr. Dalrymple was a key scientist in the development of Argon/Argon dating over 40 years ago.

He is also the author of an very good book for non-specialists, "Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The age of the earth and its cosmic surroundings" (2005 Berkley: University of California Press).

I do not disagree that the dating can show a specific age for something,what the tests CAN NOT DO is show HOW MUCH RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL was in the sample to BEGIN WITH. The amount radioactive material is BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION NOT FACT. THAT IS THE FLAW IN THE TESTS.

 

[Percepi]

A dead-end, as you already acknowledged.

Whatever you call it, it has no bearing on the validity of evolution what-so-ever.

You're also making claims and when I ask for proof, you're telling me I have to find those claims. That's not how debate works. If you make a claim, you have to provide the evidence.

You have selective memory.

My initial engagement with you was as a request for YOU to bring forth SCRIPTURE with which you disagree with.

Your original post:

What specific part(s) of the Biblical Creation description do you disagree with...?

I remembered it being worded as Creation Science, probably because TinTin was originally talking about how evolutionists don't understand creation science.

Even though I didn't specify which verses, I did explain what parts I disagreed with. However, this was when I thought you were referring to young earth creationism.

All of Genesis 1 I disagree with.

Now, can we please address the Smithsonian article? I still can't find the segment that states modern humans aren't related to any other animals.

 

[Percepi]

You do realize the biggest problem with the dating methods is that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE how much radioactive material was in the sample to BEGIN WITH. That makes it an INVALID TEST. If one does NOT have any control test sample to compare the results with it is an INVALID TEST. All of the samples may been ALTERED over the years. And secondly has any one PROVED that radioactive decay is or is NOT A CONSTANT variable over even 1,000 years? How does solar radiation affect the decay rate? How about time and temperature? Until ALL POSSIBLE variables are dealt with the tests are INVALID.

First of all, there are numerous dating methods that are tested and used to determine the age of fossils, earth, different strata, etc.

Second, your response to me doesn't actually address any of my criticisms.

As much as I'd love to discuss dating methods with you, why should I bother addressing your arguments if you aren't even going to address mine?

 

[SarahM777]

First of all, there are numerous dating methods that are tested and used to determine the age of fossils, earth, different strata, etc.

Second, your response to me doesn't actually address any of my criticisms.

As much as I'd love to discuss dating methods with you, why should I bother addressing your arguments if you aren't even going to address mine?

Did anyone ACTUALLY TEST the samples 6 billion year ago to see if they had X amount of radioactive material? If no one did then the starting amount is based on an ASSUMPTION. You can't get around it. If the samples only had 50 % of the radioactive material when it was laid down it will throw the tests off.